Proclaiming Liberalism, and What It Now Means - Page 4

TheMercenary · 06-08-2007, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Yes, they are my opinions but it goes deeper than what we've said. I never said we should go to other countries without that country's consent (I'll go more into that later). If two countries think they need help keeping peace then we should go help them because they can help us later on. You scratch their back and they will scratch ours. The biggest problem is that these "peacekeeping" missions are used much more frequently then needed. Peacekeeping missions should only be used when both groups will work and sacrifice to begin and keep peace. These situations are rare but they do show up.

The second situation is true one-sided genocide, when one group takes complete control of another and starts methodically murdering them. The oppressed group wants help but there is nothing they can do to stop it. Even though this is obviously opinion, I think it is the UN's responsibility (note I didn't say US) to step in and put an end to it.

You don't have to have a higher authority to do either of those. Both times an outside source is asking for help, not where we say they need help.

Please tell me of a historical situation, esp one in the case where the world knows that there is a genocide, and both sides want us to come in and keep peace by force?

"If two countries think they need help keeping peace then we should go help them because they can help us later on." In fact the opposit is more true. One side wants our help and we believe that we should help them because we have current or future interests in the region. This is one aspect of power projection used by every government in the world.

piercehawkeye45 · 06-09-2007, 08:06 AM

You can't have both sides wanting to stop a genocide. I said that the opressed side is asking for help, not the opressors.

If it is a true peacekeeping mission then there is no room for bias because there will already be an agreed peace that we can not alter. We are just there to keep order (not control both countries) while they settle down. The peacekeeping of what I am saying is much different the peacekeeping that actually occurs today.

TheMercenary · 06-09-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You can't have both sides wanting to stop a genocide. I said that the opressed side is asking for help, not the opressors.

If it is a true peacekeeping mission then there is no room for bias because there will already be an agreed peace that we can not alter. We are just there to keep order (not control both countries) while they settle down. The peacekeeping of what I am saying is much different the peacekeeping that actually occurs today.

I understand your desires... peace keeping of that kind results in a resurgence of the genocide when the peacekeepers leave. It would never happen in a real world situation.

piercehawkeye45 · 06-09-2007, 04:59 PM

Yeah it can, economic sanctions and all of those can prevent further genocide.

TheMercenary · 06-09-2007, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Yeah it can, economic sanctions and all of those can prevent further genocide.

Oh really, would that have worked in Rawanda. They killed about 800,000 people in 4 months as Madam Albright and Senor' Clinton did fucking nothing. The same for the cocksuckers in the UN. Read "Shake Hands with the Devil" or "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families" then give me a hollar... Your ideas are great, just not based on reality or how the world currently functions.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...12243357&itm=1

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...86715107&itm=1

piercehawkeye45 · 06-09-2007, 05:16 PM

I'll give one of them a read hopefully by the end of the summer, my list is decently long right now. Thanks.

I understand what you are saying and I can see how you are right. If someone really wants to kill another group there is nothing we can do to stop them but not every genocide is on the same level. I can see perfectly how we can not stop it but if a group is as intensive in the genocide, it could possibly be stopped through economic means, but that obviously isn't a guarantee.

TheMercenary · 06-10-2007, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I'll give one of them a read hopefully by the end of the summer, my list is decently long right now. Thanks.

I understand what you are saying and I can see how you are right. If someone really wants to kill another group there is nothing we can do to stop them but not every genocide is on the same level. I can see perfectly how we can not stop it but if a group is as intensive in the genocide, it could possibly be stopped through economic means, but that obviously isn't a guarantee.

I guess the point I am getting at is that unless we throw our military might completely into the fray and force peace we really can't do anything about it. Either way we end up choosing sides to stop the killing. If we do not choose sides we sit in the middle and get blown up by IED's. There is a point of diminishing returns. We, Americans, cannot police or fix the ills of the world and years of hatered through force, and mostly because the people of the US do not have the stomach to take the fight to evil people the way it needs to be done. Sure, we are great at the quick kill, but our society has no stomach for the long haul, socially or economically. I am ok with that, but lets stop putting ourselves into these situations and accept the fact that there are people out there who hate each other and sometimes it is better to let Darwinism work things out and figure out how we are going to deal with the left overs.

Problems in Africa are things that Africans should deal with, problems in the Balkans should be delt with by Europe. Same for the ME. The fact remains that our economy is globally interconnected to many nations and the stability of those countries affects us at home, some tangible, some not so tangible. We have enough problems here at home. Imagine if we spent all the money we have pissed away in Iraq on the immigration issue and sealing up our pourous borders? But guess what? To late for that. Now we have to deal with it.

piercehawkeye45 · 06-10-2007, 08:24 AM

I would always be in favor for the UN to take care of genocide and peacekeeping over any specific country. That has a different set of problems though.

Quote:

Imagine if we spent all the money we have pissed away in Iraq on the immigration issue and sealing up our pourous borders? But guess what? To late for that. Now we have to deal with it.

Yeah, we have internal issues we have to worry about now and they are only getting worse so we should concentrate more of our attention and money on those instead of external affairs that will most likely have the same result. I don't really think this matters anyways since there is no candidate that has a chance of getting elected that I can seriously see pulling us out of Iraq. All of the republicans are pro-war (except Paul but he doesn't have a chance) and for the democrats....Obama I can see but I will not trust him until he proves me wrong. Edwards the same as Obama. Clinton is a joke.

TheMercenary · 06-10-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I would always be in favor for the UN to take care of genocide and peacekeeping over any specific country. That has a different set of problems though.

Yeah, we have internal issues we have to worry about now and they are only getting worse so we should concentrate more of our attention and money on those instead of external affairs that will most likely have the same result. I don't really think this matters anyways since there is no candidate that has a chance of getting elected that I can seriously see pulling us out of Iraq. All of the republicans are pro-war (except Paul but he doesn't have a chance) and for the democrats....Obama I can see but I will not trust him until he proves me wrong. Edwards the same as Obama. Clinton is a joke.

I find that this run for the White House will be similar to 2000 and 2004 in the sense that it will be either a vote for the best of two evils or a "no" vote against one canidate or another. "Out of Iraq" will be the inevitable mantra of the Dems and they will more than likely win on that. The larger question is will who ever eventually pulls us out of Iraq accept responsibility for the eventual genocide.

TheMercenary · 06-10-2007, 08:51 AM

Get involved! Don't get involved! Invade and fix the problems of the third world! Stay out of other countries business! Save the world! Fuck the World, fix our problems at home! Save the poor, stop the violence! Feed our poor, stop the gang wars! We can't have it both ways...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wgeight109.xml

piercehawkeye45 · 06-10-2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The larger question is will who ever eventually pulls us out of Iraq accept responsibility for the eventual genocide.

It will be blamed on Bush no matter the outcome...

Quote:

I find that this run for the White House will be similar to 2000 and 2004 in the sense that it will be either a vote for the best of two evils or a "no" vote against one canidate or another.

I agree, but there are some republicans that I really don't trust and are way too delusional about the terrorist threat.

xoxoxoBruce · 06-10-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

snip~ I am ok with that, but lets stop putting ourselves into these situations and accept the fact that there are people out there who hate each other and sometimes it is better to let Darwinism work things out and figure out how we are going to deal with the left overs. ~snip

Whistle, stomp, clap, cheer, applause.....

Urbane Guerrilla · 06-27-2007, 04:11 AM

Genocide is a crime by a state. Any reason not to punish it by the extirpation of that state? Who weeps if the Khartoum government is seized and hanged en masse?

Urbane Guerrilla · 07-11-2007, 02:16 AM

I see no one has raised his hand.

07-15-2007, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Genocide is a crime by a state. Any reason not to punish it by the extirpation of that state? Who weeps if the Khartoum government is seized and hanged en masse?

I will not weep but will still say it is wrong unless done during the war/movement, but after, as retrobution... wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45
Yeah it can, economic sanctions and all of those can prevent further genocide.

Can I have some of what you smoke?

06-10-2007, 08:51 AM	#55
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Get involved! Don't get involved! Invade and fix the problems of the third world! Stay out of other countries business! Save the world! Fuck the World, fix our problems at home! Save the poor, stop the violence! Feed our poor, stop the gang wars! We can't have it both ways... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wgeight109.xml __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

06-27-2007, 04:11 AM	#58
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	Genocide is a crime by a state. Any reason not to punish it by the extirpation of that state? Who weeps if the Khartoum government is seized and hanged en masse? __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

06-09-2007, 08:06 AM	#47
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	You can't have both sides wanting to stop a genocide. I said that the opressed side is asking for help, not the opressors. If it is a true peacekeeping mission then there is no room for bias because there will already be an agreed peace that we can not alter. We are just there to keep order (not control both countries) while they settle down. The peacekeeping of what I am saying is much different the peacekeeping that actually occurs today.

06-09-2007, 04:59 PM	#49
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	Yeah it can, economic sanctions and all of those can prevent further genocide.

06-09-2007, 05:16 PM	#51
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	I'll give one of them a read hopefully by the end of the summer, my list is decently long right now. Thanks. I understand what you are saying and I can see how you are right. If someone really wants to kill another group there is nothing we can do to stop them but not every genocide is on the same level. I can see perfectly how we can not stop it but if a group is as intensive in the genocide, it could possibly be stopped through economic means, but that obviously isn't a guarantee.

07-11-2007, 02:16 AM	#59
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	I see no one has raised his hand.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)