Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Merkava_4, May 13, 2011.
Or shall we just mind our own business and respect their sovereignty?
Mind your own business. This is why I don't understand why the United States thinks they can control everything.
Any link so that others can get on the same brain wave?
Historically speaking, we've been pretty fine with letting one country kill off its own citizens, so long as they don't try to expand to the next country over.
Precisely. Eddie Izzard brings that point up in his stand-up:
We should stay out.
Thats the way its done in star trek
But basicaly you guys really thing that if Hitler wanted to kill off all of the jews in his country he should be allowed to do it?
or a present day example
(this would never happen, this is only an example)
So if Obama all of a suddent decided to kill off say..all the white people in the country becuase blacks are supreme England shouldnt come to the aid of all us white people?
There is no blanket answer that covers this question adequately. There have been times when a country (USA or pick one, historically USA) or worldwide organization (UN) sees fit to intervene. However each country has to consider their ability to contribute meaningfully to any such effort. I would argue with multiple never ending wars, that because the U.S. appears to be teetering on the edge of financial ruin, we can't afford billions more for good deeds. We've all ready shot our wad. Now it is someone else's turn. And before someone calls me on it, good deeds are rarely done just to be good. Usually there are other benefits to be realized.
Nobody went to war for the Jews in 1939 (or even when you lot finally chose sides).
England might come to very accommodating relationship with your new overlords. Such is the way of the world.
Well its not as if Obama would be allowed to do that sort of thing . I believe it would be cause for bloody revolution.
So any leader massacring its own citizens should probably revolt right? And if they revolt an then ask for our assistance, well then maybe we should get involved.
This is much easier to understand in countries where citizens are even able to revolt (without getting massacred).
There are a lot of countries where this is not even a real, feasible option.
Libya being a prime example.
They seem to be doing a pretty good job to me.
That was my ironic sub-text : it was a comment on the unpredictability of events.
Well except for the fact that in Star Trek that doctrine only applies when the other race is not at the same technical level (aka having warp drive). In the modern world all societies have access to the same general level of technology (even if not everyone can afford it).
Well we ignored Rwanda, Sudan, Armenia, Nanking, and ourselves (what we did to native Americans from 1783 onwards).
So historically at least, we sure don't seem to care about genocidal governments (whether or not they are led by dictators).
It's probably unrealistic to think that a majority would be targeted in American society.
Let's say that Obama decided to target all native Americans. Should the UK be obligated to intervene? Do you think they realistically would, even if they had the military capability?
Do they have strategic oil reserves?
Wasn't part of the deal in forming the UN to step in to stop mass murder of citizens by evil dictators? Granted, the main thrust spoke to invasion, such as that of South Korea by North Korea.
At any rate, basically, only the US had the military power to do much in the way of stepping in, which led to the GloboRoboCop behavior. Evolution, not original intent. Looks to me as if "National Interest" has pushed way beyond true interest; the Balkans, e.g. And now, Libya.
The short-lived Russian empire, the USSR, essentially was formed from paranoia and distrust. But, given the number of invasions through some hundreds of years, somewhat understandable as to cause, if not to methodology. She ripped off her colonies (Iron Curtain countries) which were operated as satrapies--until there was little left to rip. Then came economic failure.
The US empire was more of a trading deal for many decades. It morphed into direct intervention with Vietnam as part of the Cold War, and in the last twenty or so years has been more of an effort to project power to maintain order--not peace, really--in the "world of oil". Oil = lifeblood of any modern society, so the national interest should be obvious. Survival outweighs compassion in any and every country on earth...
Dunno about "should" do policing around the world, regardless of "who". But if there's no oil, there is little interest on the part of most governments. Some UN efforts, which are mostly not efficacious.
Libya? US involvement is just more of the ongoing stupidity in US foreign policy. Libya's oil is sold primarily into the European market. For all that the world supply of oil is a common pool, there is a direct interest for Europe which does not exist for the US. Worse, the "mission creep" from "no fly" to "bomb 'em back into the stone age" is turning into a giant fuster cluck.
Damfino. Back to morning coffee...
Mind your own business while innocent people are being murdered?
Should the world allow dictators to kill their own people?
How is the second statement an "or"??
They are both sides of the same coin.
You wouldn't be trying to pull one on MR peeps, would you?
What makes a sovereign nation? Power to create same.
That does not mean that the rest of the developing World should allow massive killing to continue, just to facilitate a tyrant's continued position in power.
I say you stay in your own country. While I do think that what you said is wrong and something should be done I don't think that it is another country's obligation to step in. If they do then they accept the consequences.
The most recent example I can think of. Entering the middle east for weapons of mass destruction. The United States should not have done that, not only because none were found and that's not what I am bringing up here. If the United States says they are able to have weapons then why not other countries. The United States doesn't get to decided what other people have and don't have.
Sure they do.
"Might Is Right" has been their motto, almost since their inception.
You're correct, they shouldn't have that right. But that's two separate issues. Once a government starts murdering people, how can you just sit back and not anything?
Apparently not, nothing of the sort appears in their charter.
Other things notwithstanding, the hype morphed from wmd to bringing democracy to Iraq (but not nation-building, oh no, not that). And look at how viciously dissenters were being treated in Saddam's Iraq, we have gotten rid of the oppression, now it is just non-discriminating ieds.
Which raises the key question: what is the threshold of oppression? If 1000 Saudis stand up against their king, in a country of 27 million, does that not sound insignificant? (Especially considering that the Saudis are our friends.) But how can we tell? How do we know how many Saudi citizens are sitting on their hands, afraid of the government? And what if the rebels are wealthy and very well armed? (Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.)
Personally, I think these ongoing hereditary/peerage/crony power structures, in every country, are wrong and ought to be upended as often as practical. The US itself looks due for some intramural violence, as the ranks of the frustrated people with little left to lose rapidly swell. We shall see what foreign power steps in that breech.
That's a good question for Rumsfeld.
We certainly didn't have a problem with Saddam Hussein when he killed residents of Dujail in 1982 or when he gassed Iraqis in Halabja in 1988.
It wasn't until he started killing his neighbors in Kuwait that the world got involved (30-some odd nations).