No terrorists here

[Larkinn]

Larkin doesn't want to get me started on Maori and their "treatment"

Oh, do go for it.

...He assumes that because they are an indigenous people that they are somehow automatically disadvantaged.

Not quite, dipshit. Try not to make asinine assumptions anymore.

Have bad things been done to the them in the past?

Wait, isn't this exactly what I said that you somehow had a problem with?

Alrighty then.

Sure. But if he likes to talk about proportion, their "treatment" doesn't even compare to Africans, Aborigines and North and South American Indians.

Oh, well cheers. I bet you treated them better than the Jews were treated in Auschwitz as well. Congratulations, heres a cookie.

I am well aware that, as far as indigenous peoples go, the Maori came off relatively well. However, it is a mistake to assume that just because they weren't all enslaved, beaten, and raped that they somehow weren't disadvantaged.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Did you honestly think the source you used - the Israeli Defense Ministry - would say anything different?

I think a more objective would approach would benefit the discussion.

Since the Israelis function based on what THEY believe, not some committee of totally neutral individuals who review everything there is to have on the subject for years before making a decision, I guess we'll have to go with what they believed. Right or wrong, the Israeli perception was they were attacked and they fought back.

And I can guarantee that they don't give a rat's ass what you or anyone else thought about it.

 

[jillian]

Did you honestly think the source you used - the Israeli Defense Ministry - would say anything different?

I think a more objective would approach would benefit the discussion.

But of course that isn't political... nah...

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Since the Israelis function based on what THEY believe, not some committee of totally neutral individuals who review everything there is to have on the subject for years before making a decision, I guess we'll have to go with what they believed. Right or wrong, the Israeli perception was they were attacked and they fought back.

And I can guarantee that they don't give a rat's ass what you or anyone else thought about it.

1. I guess "you will" go with what they believed, not we. But you're right, that is the Israeli perception. And that's all it is - a perception presented by the Israeli government as a moral justification for military action. One can believe it, if they so choose.

2. What does Israel not caring what "I think" have to do with anything?

Israel has a long documented record of ignoring or stifling international political will - that was the point, nothing more.

Whether Israel cares or not about openly flouting the international community or its resolutions, accords and treatise is beside the point.

Rather it remains a more important point to those who see the importance and integrity in not ignoring the international community and it's resolutions etc.

 

[Swamp Fox]

1. I guess "you will" go with what they believed, not we. But you're right, that is the Israeli perception. And that's all it is - a perception presented by the Israeli government as a moral justification for military action. One can believe it, if they so choose.

All I'm saying is they believe and that's what they act upon.

Rather it remains a more important point to those who see the importance and integrity in not ignoring the international community and it's resolutions etc.

You mean like the French following the sanctions against Saddam, or the Russians following the same sanctions? When are you going to wake up and realize that every country does what it feels is in ITS best interests? These same people then lead the charge to berate us for not following all of the international protocols? With hypocrisy like that, why should be see the international community as anything but a sick joke?

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

You mean like the French following the sanctions against Saddam, or the Russians following the same sanctions? When are you going to wake up and realize that every country does what it feels is in ITS best interests? These same people then lead the charge to berate us for not following all of the international protocols? With hypocrisy like that, why should be see the international community as anything but a sick joke?

Who said I never "realized" that every country does what they want anyway?

It is more than obvious it is a dog eat dog world.

However, might does not always make right. There exists precise differences in scale or scope in each and every case the interested amateur observes concerning global issues.

The best I can hope for personally is to read serious research into the issue while applying the same moral standards to all sides, regardless of their accompanying media reputation.

Otherwise, I am contributing to the same hypocrisy I lament others for.

And remember, no one berates you individually, Swampfox. I'm quite sure the criticism is meant for our leaders and representatives. Much like everyone else in the world, they only do whats in their best interest - even back home among their very own constituents.

Elliott Spitzer is just one but a great example of how hyopcrisy manifests itself domestically. Spitzer builds a political career by tossing people in cages for ten, 20 years for the very same crime he's been hiding from the public.

So it's no surprise our leaders (and vice versa) are criticized by others in the community for heavy-handedness, torture, aggressive war and allying with violent dictators.

My question to our leaders goes like this...why not try and take some personal responsibility rather than hiding behind "everyone does it" rationalizations?

 

[Dr Grump]

When talking about whether what Israel does is legal or not? Not quite, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maori#1840_to_1890:_The_marginalisation_of_M.C4.81ori

Read about it. Don't you even know your own history?

Legality depends on the law of the state in question. International law is not the law of the land..

I know my own history and it doesn't come from Wikipedia...:O)

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh, do go for it.

Not quite, dipshit. Try not to make asinine assumptions anymore.

Wait, isn't this exactly what I said that you somehow had a problem with?

Alrighty then.

Oh, well cheers. I bet you treated them better than the Jews were treated in Auschwitz as well. Congratulations, heres a cookie.

I am well aware that, as far as indigenous peoples go, the Maori came off relatively well. However, it is a mistake to assume that just because they weren't all enslaved, beaten, and raped that they somehow weren't disadvantaged.

Humour me. Are you the college student or the hippie. I have got that part right, right? You are so idealistic and naive it beggar's belief. Of course Maori were disadvantaged, but that was set right a long time ago. Europeans only ever signed one treaty with them, part of which made them British citizens. That treaty is still in force and they are getting huge amoutns of compensation, both land and money, for the confiscations of the 1860s.

That aside, yeah, let's all put 21st century morals and ideals on 1860s NZ...you know what a Monday morning quarterback is, right?

 

[Larkinn]

Legality depends on the law of the state in question. International law is not the law of the land..

Actually yes, int'l law is binding on states.

I know my own history and it doesn't come from Wikipedia...:O)

Nor does my knowledge of your history. I was just giving you a little bit of it since you seemed to be ignorant of it.

 

[Dr Grump]

Actually yes, int'l law is binding on states.



Nor does my knowledge of your history. I was just giving you a little bit of it since you seemed to be ignorant of it.

No, not ALL international law is not binding on states. Some are, some aren't. If it was binding I could think of several countries, and leaders of said countries, who would not be in charge of their current regimes.

Stick to wikipedia, your knowledge of our history is found wanting...

 

[Larkinn]

Humour me. Are you the college student or the hippie. I have got that part right, right?

I'm a law student.

You are so idealistic and naive it beggar's belief.

Say it enough times, perhaps someone will believe you, eh?

Of course Maori were disadvantaged, but that was set right a long time ago.

Ah, well that makes it A OK.

Europeans only ever signed one treaty with them, part of which made them British citizens. That treaty is still in force and they are getting huge amoutns of compensation, both land and money, for the confiscations of the 1860s.

And what exactly does that treaty say? Oh wait...its not quite clear is it?

That aside, yeah, let's all put 21st century morals and ideals on 1860s NZ...you know what a Monday morning quarterback is, right?

Sorry I would have criticised them in the 1860's, but I wasn't around then.

 

[Larkinn]

No, not ALL international law is not binding on states.

Correct, but hard law which we have been talking about here, is. I haven't referenced any soft law. Do you really want to get into a conversation about what exactly makes int'l law binding and exactly how binding it is?

If it was binding I could think of several countries, and leaders of said countries, who would not be in charge of their current regimes.

This is an asinine argument. Its binding. That doesn't mean its always enforced. Its often not. By the way, you are treating int'l law like domestic law. Its not, and it works in different ways.

Notice that many of those regimes currently have sanctions or other countermeasures taken against them? Those are the int'l way of making laws binding. Allowing states to punish them, generally by softer means but if they get too out of hand (Iraq invading Kuwait) allowing military action.

Stick to wikipedia, your knowledge of our history is found wanting...

By you? Who also seems to think that you know more about int'l law than I do? Good luck with that.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm a law student.

A cool. That explains a lot.

Say it enough times, perhaps someone will believe you, eh?

No, not at all. Just reading your posts prove it...:O)

Ah, well that makes it A OK.

Did I say that?

And what exactly does that treaty say? Oh wait...its not quite clear is it? .

Since you're the law expert and know all about New Zealand history, why don't you give me the benefit of your expertise.

Sorry I would have criticised them in the 1860's, but I wasn't around then.

Oh, right...course you would have. You really are an idealist wee fella aren't ya! I'm sure you'll change the world...

 

[Dr Grump]

Correct, but hard law which we have been talking about here, is. I haven't referenced any soft law. Do you really want to get into a conversation about what exactly makes int'l law binding and exactly how binding it is?

This is an asinine argument. Its binding. That doesn't mean its always enforced. Its often not. By the way, you are treating int'l law like domestic law. Its not, and it works in different ways.

Notice that many of those regimes currently have sanctions or other countermeasures taken against them? Those are the int'l way of making laws binding. Allowing states to punish them, generally by softer means but if they get too out of hand (Iraq invading Kuwait) allowing military action..

I am talking the practicalities, you're talking about idealism. Two different things..

By you? Who also seems to think that you know more about int'l law than I do? Good luck with that.

Point out where I said I know more about international law. And if you want to go head to head with regard to NZ's history, I'm game. Where do you want to start..

 

[Larkinn]

A cool. That explains a lot.

Right because generalizations are always right. There are upwards of 50,000 law students in this country, I'm sure we are all identical

No, not at all. Just reading your posts prove it...:O)

Wow...what an incredibly low standard of proof you have.

Did I say that?

Pretty much, yes. Not sure why else you would attack me for criticizing that.

Since you're the law expert and know all about New Zealand history, why don't you give me the benefit of your expertise.

About the treaty of Waitangi? I'm not an expert on it, I never claimed to be. And I know little about NZ law. If you want to talk about Int'l law, that I am an expert on (around here...with people who are scholars, not even close).

Oh, right...course you would have. You really are an idealist wee fella aren't ya! I'm sure you'll change the world...

Right, because I said my criticism would change the world. No, wait, actually I didn't.

*sigh*...there really should be a special kind of hell for people who mock those who want to help the world. Most people are selfish fucks who don't give a shit about anyone else. Why mock those who actually care? Oh, I know...because nobody ever cares past the age of 25. All those int'l lawyers retire at the age of 25. All those legal aid workers retire at the age of 25. All those public defenders retire at the age of 25. All those working for the public good retire at the age of 25. Because caring when your old is just so passe.

*shrug* if you want to be a cynical old fuckwit, go for it. But try not to taint those who actually want to attempt to do something useful with their lives.

Oh and NB...yes I am going to change the world. No I won't succeed. I'm a realist. You stupidly assumed that because I criticize someone for doing something I expect them to change. I don't. I am well aware of how the world works.

 

[Larkinn]

I am talking the practicalities, you're talking about idealism. Two different things..

No, I'm not. I am criticising countries when they don't live up to ideal standards, and they SHOULD be criticised for that. The world is Machiavellian, but that doesn't mean you get a by if you act like that.

And actually regarding international law, you were talking about binding as an idealist would. You absurdly expect if a law is binding that it will suddenly stop everyone from doing it. That is most definitely NOT a practical point of view.

Point out where I said I know more about international law. And if you want to go head to head with regard to NZ's history, I'm game. Where do you want to start..

Point out where I said I want to go head to head with regard to NZ's history.

Fun game, eh?

 

[Dr Grump]

Right because generalizations are always right. There are upwards of 50,000 law students in this country, I'm sure we are all identical

Well, not all generalisations are right. You think I just got lucky?

Wow...what an incredibly low standard of proof you have.

So you don't believe in your own posts? Why am I not surprised...

Pretty much, yes. Not sure why else you would attack me for criticizing that.

Because you are putting 21st century values on 19th century NZ, which is not only stupid, but intellectually dishonest.

About the treaty of Waitangi? I'm not an expert on it, I never claimed to be. And I know little about NZ law. If you want to talk about Int'l law, that I am an expert on (around here...with people who are scholars, not even close).

Don't oversell yourself. As far as I can see the only thing you are an expert on it your own self importance..

Right, because I said my criticism would change the world. No, wait, actually I didn't.

Then why bother with the criticisms at all!

*sigh*...there really should be a special kind of hell for people who mock those who want to help the world. Most people are selfish fucks who don't give a shit about anyone else. Why mock those who actually care? Oh, I know...because nobody ever cares past the age of 25. All those int'l lawyers retire at the age of 25. All those legal aid workers retire at the age of 25. All those public defenders retire at the age of 25. All those working for the public good retire at the age of 25. Because caring when your old is just so passe.

Who says I don't care? I'm just trying to find solutions to real problems instead of waxing lyrical on a messageboard. Anybody can do that...

*shrug* if you want to be a cynical old fuckwit, go for it. But try not to taint those who actually want to attempt to do something useful with their lives. Oh and NB...yes I am going to change the world. No I won't succeed. I'm a realist. You stupidly assumed that because I criticize someone for doing something I expect them to change. I don't. I am well aware of how the world works.

Then stop being an idealistic young tosser and give some real solutions to real problems instead of sitting on your moral high horse (and yes it is a moral issue you are talking about tied up with international law). We can all bitch and moan like you do, and demand the perfect solution to an imperfect problem. Stop being a fucking daydreamer and think of practical, doable solutions. You think the solutions you have or the practicalities you desire with regard to International law haven’t been tried before by people much more intelligent than you or I? Do you? Are you that fucking stupid AND arrogant?

 

[Dr Grump]

No, I'm not. I am criticising countries when they don't live up to ideal standards, and they SHOULD be criticised for that. The world is Machiavellian, but that doesn't mean you get a by if you act like that.

You have no right to criticise them unless you can provide PRACTICAL solutions. Not pie in the sky, warm fuzzies. As long as there are humans in the world, nobody will live up to ideal standards. What you have to do, is try your best to make them so. If you demand the world, all you'll get is the Rock of Gibraltor. Can you name one perfect society in all of human history? Take your time..

And actually regarding international law, you were talking about binding as an idealist would. You absurdly expect if a law is binding that it will suddenly stop everyone from doing it. That is most definitely NOT a practical point of view.

No, I don't expect anybody to stop doing something if a law is binding. That is MY point, not yours my naive young law clerk...

 

[Diuretic]

Larkin doesn't want to get me started on Maori and their "treatment"...He assumes that because they are an indigenous people that they are somehow automatically disadvantaged. Have bad things been done to the them in the past? Sure. But if he likes to talk about proportion, their "treatment" doesn't even compare to Africans, Aborigines and North and South American Indians.

In treatment of indigenous people and given the comparisons here I always think of Australia being like the US (to a degree) and NZ being like Canada regarding historical (not contemporary) treatment. It's not a perfect analogy but it works for me.

 

[Larkinn]

You have no right to criticise them unless you can provide PRACTICAL solutions.

Bullshit. Just because I can't provide exactly what someone should do doesn't mean I can't say what they shouldn't do. I have no idea how you should live your life, but you shouldn't live it by going around raping babies.

Not pie in the sky, warm fuzzies.

Right

As long as there are humans in the world, nobody will live up to ideal standards.

No shit.

What you have to do, is try your best to make them so.

But somehow without criticizing them.

If you demand the world, all you'll get is the Rock of Gibraltor. Can you name one perfect society in all of human history? Take your time..

There are none.

No, I don't expect anybody to stop doing something if a law is binding. That is MY point, not yours my naive young law clerk...

Umm, no, not quite. Again you stupidly assume my views based off of an incorrect generalization. Try thinking more and assuming less.

Well, not all generalisations are right. You think I just got lucky?

No, because you are incorrect.

So you don't believe in your own posts? Why am I not surprised...

No I don't believe in asinine interpretations (i.e. yours) of my posts.

Because you are putting 21st century values on 19th century NZ, which is not only stupid, but intellectually dishonest.

Not quite. I'm criticizing them from a 21st century standpoint. This isn't uncommon at all. We criticize the Nazi's from a 21st century standpoint. We criticize slavery from a 21st century standpoint. We criticize all sorts of things from a modern view.

Don't oversell yourself. As far as I can see the only thing you are an expert on it your own self importance..

As if you have the understanding to judge someone elses expertise on int'l law?

Then why bother with the criticisms at all!

Oh, sorry. I'll refrain from doing anything that doesn't help the world in the future. Because thats somehow the only point in doing anything, eh?

Who says I don't care? I'm just trying to find solutions to real problems instead of waxing lyrical on a messageboard. Anybody can do that..

I use this board as stress relief while I'm in law school. I AM trying to find real solutions and I'm being taught by some of the worlds best international lawyers. Oh I know...I should somehow be out there working out the worlds problems right now....but being all idealistic and shit I figured I should get a world class education to actually get an education so my work might be somewhat effective and anything I did advocate would have quite a bit of rigorous thought behind it.

Then stop being an idealistic young tosser and give some real solutions to real problems instead of sitting on your moral high horse (and yes it is a moral issue you are talking about tied up with international law).

Sure I'll write a political treatise on it.

We can all bitch and moan like you do, and demand the perfect solution to an imperfect problem. Stop being a fucking daydreamer and think of practical, doable solutions. You think the solutions you have or the practicalities you desire with regard to International law haven’t been tried before by people much more intelligent than you or I? Do you? Are you that fucking stupid AND arrogant?

Do try and stay consistent. First off you want me to think up practicalities, and then you assume any solutions I come up with will be terrible.

And pray tell, what perfect solution to an imperfect problem was I demanding?