By not supporting people who will continue the war and future wars. By voting those people all out and replacing them with a government that better represents our ideals.
Do you not believe in democracy?
has democracy stopped the americans from invading and occupying iraq for the last 5 years?
the german people didnt stop hitler?
my point is what do you do to stop someone that WONT stop
has democracy stopped the americans from invading and occupying iraq for the last 5 years?
the german people didnt stop hitler?
my point is what do you do to stop someone that WONT stop
You keep on pressing them to stop until they no longer have the means necessary to do what we are against. If people all stood up and demanded more from their government they would get it.
You don't murder someone in order to keep them from murdering. That makes you a murderer.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You keep on pressing them to stop until they no longer have the means necessary to do what we are against.
sorry, but that is extremely naive
so just pressing the sudanese govt and the janjaweed until they no longer have the means to slaughter people? basicly letting them slaughter everyone until there is no one left to kill...
so you would just let hitler go unchecked, allow him to take over europe and slaughter tens of millions... while you "pressed" him?
absolutely incredible how far some people will take thier rigid ideals, at the expense of others
so just pressing the sudanese govt and the janjaweed until they no longer have the means to slaughter people? basicly letting them slaughter everyone until there is no one left to kill...
so you would just let hitler go unchecked, allow him to take over europe and slaughter tens of millions... while you "pressed" him?
absolutely incredible how far some people will take thier rigid ideals, at the expense of others
If people stood up to these leaders and refused to buy into and support their goals of death and destruction then how would they accomplish them? This includes Nazi Germany, Iraq, the US or anyone group of leaders who are convincing people to get behind them and join in in the 'necessary' destruction.
All wars have to be sold to the people. And it looks like you're fine with buying some of them up, so don't act surprised that other people also have bought into rationalizations for war just like the people of Germany did under Hitler. Your mindset here is what keeps wars going and capable of gaining support. You bought their marketing and thusly help to continue the cycle.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It still sounds to me like you want other people to put their lives on the line for your personal beliefs. Are you willing to die or not?
This is an unfair question. So, because my2hands wants to stop innocent people from being killed by the use of military intervention, he has to join up and go on the front lines? Come on. That's like if a serial killer is on the loose killing people in my neighborhood, I shouldn't rely on the police to stop him, but instead I should put on the flak jacket and pack my nine. Ridiculous. He's not suggesting that we start a war. He's simply saying that we, as one of the worlds' super powers, have a moral obligation to help stop a million innocent people from genocide, with all options on the table.
Just like a cop will try (or should) to quell violence by peaceful means, but if that fails, you can't just stand by and let innocent people die.
This is an unfair question. So, because my2hands wants to stop innocent people from being killed by the use of military intervention, he has to join up and go on the front lines? Come on. That's like if a serial killer is on the loose killing people in my neighborhood, I shouldn't rely on the police to stop him, but instead I should put on the flak jacket and pack my nine. Ridiculous. He's not suggesting that we start a war. He's simply saying that we, as one of the worlds' super powers, have a moral obligation to help stop a million innocent people from genocide, with all options on the table.
Just like a cop will try (or should) to quell violence by peaceful means, but if that fails, you can't just stand by and let innocent people die.
This is an unfair question. So, because my2hands wants to stop innocent people from being killed by the use of military intervention, he has to join up and go on the front lines? Come on. That's like if a serial killer is on the loose killing people in my neighborhood, I shouldn't rely on the police to stop him, but instead I should put on the flak jacket and pack my nine. Ridiculous. He's not suggesting that we start a war. He's simply saying that we, as one of the worlds' super powers, have a moral obligation to help stop a million innocent people from genocide, with all options on the table.
Just like a cop will try (or should) to quell violence by peaceful means, but if that fails, you can't just stand by and let innocent people die.
But the cop doesn't start a killing spree of his own, either.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This is an unfair question. So, because my2hands wants to stop innocent people from being killed by the use of military intervention, he has to join up and go on the front lines? Come on. That's like if a serial killer is on the loose killing people in my neighborhood, I shouldn't rely on the police to stop him, but instead I should put on the flak jacket and pack my nine. Ridiculous. He's not suggesting that we start a war. He's simply saying that we, as one of the worlds' super powers, have a moral obligation to help stop a million innocent people from genocide, with all options on the table.
Just like a cop will try (or should) to quell violence by peaceful means, but if that fails, you can't just stand by and let innocent people die.
You and my2hands are saying "we" like you will be participating. That's not fair to those who will actually die when you impose your morals upon them. If you want to help, then go help.
Angelica, peace isnt my ultimate goal. a peaceful life as a slave is not desirable for me. the protection of the innocent should be the goal. liberty should be the goal.
as i've already said a million times, i feel that the vast majority of the time these goals are best attained through peaceful means, but on rare occasions these goals can only be accomplished through the use of force. That is why i dont compromise anything when making the decision that force is the only option, because the unyielding determination for peace at all costs is not the ultimate goal. Peace at the expense of continued suffering of the weak or great loss of freedom is simply not worth the price.
You may disagree with me and believe that peaceful means to prevent suffering are always possible, but i've already given plenty of examples where i believe that is false, and i certainly dont have to compromise any ideals by making the decision to use force in the rare situation that warrants it..
Respectfuly,
i believe the OP has missed the true issue at hand.
Debating the validity of intervention as a policy is fine and dandy, but to offer up this theoretical discussion while at the same time admitting the war in Iraq was an "immoral clusterfuck" seems a bit -- well, you already used the term -- "naive" to me.
What am i getting at?
If the United States is so eager to hop in to a war... and by the admisison of those here offended by our lack of response to Rwanda, that is any war ... Iraq, Vietnam, Latin America ... take your pick.
So, instead of arguing over the policy of intervention with eachother, why not ask a real tough question?
"If the United States is so eager to fuel its economy and secure its global hegemony through the engines of war, WHY did it not jump head over heals at the chance to engage in Rwanda?"
If one sits on that question long enough, they might come to the logical conclusion that NOT stopping the genocide was in the best strategic interest of the United States.
Taking that one step farther, you could actualy instigate an instability in the region!
Think i'm full of crap?
" Next in line when it comes to responsiblitiy are France, [...] and the U.S. government, which actively worked against an effective UNAMIR and only got involved to aid the same Hutu refugee population and the genocidaires, leaving the genocide survivors to flounder and suffer. The failings of the UN and Belgium were not in the same league. (p.515)"
-source
So,
why would that be in the USA's best interest?
Well, ask old Henry Kissinger:
"The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interests in the political, economic and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the "economic interests of the United States."
- National Security Memorandum 200
Now.
You could sit here and say that Kissinger is not saying what I say he is saying, but for you to say that would require an even more naive mode of thought.
The bottom line is, the United States did not intervene because it was in the best financial interests of those who pull the global strings for the genocide to occur.
Perhaps that means we should be having an entirely different discussion.
???
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If people stood up to these leaders and refused to buy into and support their goals of death and destruction then how would they accomplish them? This includes Nazi Germany, Iraq, the US or anyone group of leaders who are convincing people to get behind them and join in in the 'necessary' destruction.
All wars have tom be sold to the people. And it looks like you're fine with buying some of them up, so don't act surprised that other people also have bought into rationalizations for war just like the people of Germany did under Hitler. Your mindset here is what keeps wars going and capable of gaining support. You bought their marketing and thusly help to continue the cycle.
Precisely. Wars are started by politicians not people. And the sickest irony of all is the politician don't fight the wars....the people do.
"The founders were so wise in their mistrust of themselves to govern themselves. This was their genius. Limiting the power of the government was intended to keep government from doing harm. "
This entire argument was over before it even started.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
THERE IS NOT ALWAYS A PEACEFUL SOLUTION WHEN SUFFERING IS IMMINENT OR CURRENTLY ONGOING.
a man walks into a room where a woman is being raped. what does he do? what is the peaceful solution? should he plead with the rapist to stop? call the cops and wait? wish that someone had acted previously to prevent this poor soul from becoming the rapist and feel guilty for not doing more sooner? or should he just grab a bat and cave his head in, thus stopping the IMMINENT AND ONGOING SUFFERING OF THE INNOCENT?
now of course you wont answer that but at least read it and ask yourself what the moral choice is in that situation.
of course nations lie about it all the time. war isnt usually necessary when they say it is. but that doesnt negate the fact that in rare occasions violence is the only option, and in that case pacifism is no different than inaction.
This in an unfair analogy. Are you suggesting that the immediacy of the situation you're describing is akin to any of the atrocities you've mentioned? Do these atrocities happen overnight, with no foreknowledge of rising tensions or conditions that preceed the violence? If the hero in your fable knew the woman was in danger well in advance and failed to do anything to stop the attack peacefully, but showed up just in time to crack some skulls, is he still a hero?
I agree with the thread title, but not the premise that these atrocities were unavoidable, and military action was/is the only answer.
The Bosnian and Rwandan situations were reaching critical mass while the world focused on bombing the shit out of Iraq the first time. Darfur was the Gulf War II equivalent. Imagine if, in the early days leading up to those genocides, the effort and resources being used to wage war had been used toward a diplomatic solution to those situations? The same can be said about almost any war...it's a cycle that won't be broken until we stop being reactive and get proactive. Reaction seems to be the theme with some here.
America has the immoraly and wrongly invaded Iraq, i think we all agree on that one... how did diplomacy work in stopping that? how did massive protest and world outrage work out stopping the invasion? it didnt work and we are still there... how do you propose the world should force america out of iraq? how do you force the commnader-in-chief to withdraw? our "leader" is a great example of a person that dipolomacy and public/world outrage does not influence one bit... the government will not cut off funding... and we will not leave under this current leader... so after all diplomatic efforts have failed... after public opinion has clearly stated we want out... we are still there occuying a country...
how do you propose the world stop the aggresive american occupation?
I think if the world started bombing the US and you saw average citizens die in the street or when your neighbours or you loose family members everyday. I don't think you'd agree that military intervention is a good idea. Because that is the reality of war today. This is what has happened time and time again.
If people stood up to these leaders and refused to buy into and support their goals of death and destruction then how would they accomplish them? This includes Nazi Germany, Iraq, the US or anyone group of leaders who are convincing people to get behind them and join in in the 'necessary' destruction.
All wars have tom be sold to the people. And it looks like you're fine with buying some of them up, so don't act surprised that other people also have bought into rationalizations for war just like the people of Germany did under Hitler. Your mindset here is what keeps wars going and capable of gaining support. You bought their marketing and thusly help to continue the cycle.
Precisely. Wars are started by politicians not people. And the sickest irony of all is the politician don't fight the wars....the people do.
"The founders were so wise in their mistrust of themselves to govern themselves. This was their genius. Limiting the power of the government was intended to keep government from doing harm. "
This entire argument was over before it even started.
so your fine just sitting back watching hundreds of thousands getting slaughtered in a genocide?
these are not hypothetical situations... they are real, and still happening right this very second
But the cop doesn't start a killing spree of his own, either.
no one is advocating for a "killing spree"... i am advocating for military intervention to protect innocents and to stop a threat... not carpet bombing...
why dont you guys stop taking an inch and making it a mile to fit your agenda
you know the funny thing... even fucking noam chomsky agrees with me... even he considers WW2 to have been justifiable for us to engage in
so your fine just sitting back watching hundreds of thousands getting slaughtered in a genocide?
these are not hypothetical situations... they are real, and still happening right this very second
damn, maybe you should put down the latte, close the laptop, get off the couch and go help
if you believe in something so strongly you should do something about it. i don't think more killing is an answer
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no one is advocating for a "killing spree"... i am advocating for military intervention to protect innocents and to stop a threat... not carpet bombing...
why dont you guys stop taking an inch and making it a mile to fit your agenda
you know the funny thing... even fucking noam chomsky agrees with me... even he considers WW2 to have been justifiable for us to engage in
that's not how he views either gulf wars or afghanistan (2 of which your man thinks are 'most excellent, dude' and the other he is against b/c we weren't done w/ afghanistan)....you seem to be advocating war, how far is that from 'military intervention'?
what, to you, is military intervention? what would be ok?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
damn, maybe you should put down the latte, close the laptop, get off the couch and go help
if you believe in something so strongly you should do something about it. i don't think more killing is an answer
if our military only involved itself in causes such as stopping the Rwanda and darfur genocide i may sign up...
your weak answer shows me you are starting to realize how ridiculous some of these answers are
you guys are good at posting quotes and platitiudes, "i am anti war"
yeah, thats great... so is everyone else... but you guys cannot answer the tough questions
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE SHOULD BE DONE TO STOP THE DARFUR GENOCIDE, OR THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE, OR THE NAZI GERMANY DOMINATION OF EUROPE?
come on big guy, you have all the answers, so what is the anser to that... and it better be a little stronger answer then "put pressure on them until they stop" :rolleyes:
some of you guys assume i LIKE the fact that the WORLD has to intervene militarily sometimes, or that they SHOULD... wrong... i am just grounded enough and willing to question my own beliefs enough that i understand that the world intervening on the behalf of innocents is justifiable
or perhaops you dont give a shit because they are africans?
if 1 milliom mexicans were being slaughtered in california bases strictly on their ethnicity what do you propose should be done? it would HAVE to be stopped, right? you would want law enforcement to step into to stop it right? the guys wiot hthe guns right? and if they could not stop it or were overwhelmed by force and could not handle the threat, what do you propose then? hold up signs and "pressure" them? of course you do not murder them all in a "killing spree" (why do people on here deal with such absolutes constantly?) but you do what is needed to stop the killing and protect the innocents and the people
so your fine just sitting back watching hundreds of thousands getting slaughtered in a genocide?
these are not hypothetical situations... they are real, and still happening right this very second
You're cart before the horse. You're reverse engineering an outcome in order to justify the means. As a philosophy it's backwards.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
if our military only involved itself in causes such as stopping the Rwanda and darfur genocide i may sign up...
your weak answer shows me you are starting to realize how ridiculous some of these answers are
you guys are good at posting quotes and platitiudes, "i am anti war"
yeah, thats great... so is everyone else... but you guys cannot answer the tough questions
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE SHOUL;D BE DONE TO STOP THE DARFURE GENOCIDE, OR THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE, OR THE NAZI GERMANY DOMINATION OF EUROPE?
come on big guy, you have all the answers, so what is the anser to that... and it better be a little stronger answer then "put pressure on them until they stop" :rolleyes:
certainly not murdering their civillians, devastating their homeland, poisoning their land....and certainly not support them w/ aid or businesses
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
If people stood up to these leaders and refused to buy into and support their goals of death and destruction then how would they accomplish them? This includes Nazi Germany, Iraq, the US or anyone group of leaders who are convincing people to get behind them and join in in the 'necessary' destruction.
All wars have to be sold to the people. And it looks like you're fine with buying some of them up, so don't act surprised that other people also have bought into rationalizations for war just like the people of Germany did under Hitler. Your mindset here is what keeps wars going and capable of gaining support. You bought their marketing and thusly help to continue the cycle.
this statement proves you live in a free society. all wars do NOT have to be sold to the people. are the people of darfur supporting their own extermination? did the people of iraq support saddam's invasion of kuwait or all the internal killing? i'm sure there are plenty more examples of strongmen who took control of their countries by coup or other military force, and then used their positions to make war on their neighbors. dictators don't need the approval of their populace, only their fear. and if their own people can't stop them, shouldn't somebody else try?
this statement proves you live in a free society. all wars do NOT have to be sold to the people. are the people of darfur supporting their own extermination? did the people of iraq support saddam's invasion of kuwait or all the internal killing? i'm sure there are plenty more examples of strongmen who took control of their countries by coup or other military force, and then used their positions to make war on their neighbors. dictators don't need the approval of their populace, only their fear. and if their own people can't stop them, shouldn't somebody else try?
Not by methods of war which create the same crimes over....that's not a solution to anything, it's only creating more of the problem.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
if our military only involved itself in causes such as stopping the Rwanda and darfur genocide i may sign up...
your weak answer shows me you are starting to realize how ridiculous some of these answers are
you guys are good at posting quotes and platitiudes, "i am anti war"
yeah, thats great... so is everyone else... but you guys cannot answer the tough questions
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE SHOULD BE DONE TO STOP THE DARFUR GENOCIDE, OR THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE, OR THE NAZI GERMANY DOMINATION OF EUROPE?
come on big guy, you have all the answers, so what is the anser to that... and it better be a little stronger answer then "put pressure on them until they stop" :rolleyes:
some of you guys assume i LIKE the fact that the WORLD has to intervene militarily sometimes, or that they SHOULD... wrong... i am just grounded enough and willing to question my own beliefs enough that i understand that the world intervening on the behalf of innocents is justifiable
or perhaops you dont give a shit because they are africans?
if 1 milliom mexicans were being slaughtered in california bases strictly on their ethnicity what do you propose should be done? it would HAVE to be stopped, right? you would want law enforcement to step into to stop it right? the guys wiot hthe guns right? and if they could not stop it or were overwhelmed by force and could not handle the threat, what do you propose then? hold up signs and "pressure" them? of course you do not murder them all in a "killing spree" (why do people on here deal with such absolutes constantly?) but you do what is needed to stop the killing and protect the innocents and the people
should=justifiable
Would you somehow understand something is justifiable but not think we should do it? That makes no sense.
and we don't care because they're Africans? Have you lost it?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
In all fairness to M2H... I suppose the question should be how do you enable another nation of people to stand up for themselves against oppression?
edit:: oops ...Peacefully that is.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
has democracy stopped the americans from invading and occupying iraq for the last 5 years?
the german people didnt stop hitler?
my point is what do you do to stop someone that WONT stop
You keep on pressing them to stop until they no longer have the means necessary to do what we are against. If people all stood up and demanded more from their government they would get it.
You don't murder someone in order to keep them from murdering. That makes you a murderer.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
sorry, but that is extremely naive
so just pressing the sudanese govt and the janjaweed until they no longer have the means to slaughter people? basicly letting them slaughter everyone until there is no one left to kill...
so you would just let hitler go unchecked, allow him to take over europe and slaughter tens of millions... while you "pressed" him?
absolutely incredible how far some people will take thier rigid ideals, at the expense of others
If people stood up to these leaders and refused to buy into and support their goals of death and destruction then how would they accomplish them? This includes Nazi Germany, Iraq, the US or anyone group of leaders who are convincing people to get behind them and join in in the 'necessary' destruction.
All wars have to be sold to the people. And it looks like you're fine with buying some of them up, so don't act surprised that other people also have bought into rationalizations for war just like the people of Germany did under Hitler. Your mindset here is what keeps wars going and capable of gaining support. You bought their marketing and thusly help to continue the cycle.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It still sounds to me like you want other people to put their lives on the line for your personal beliefs. Are you willing to die or not?
This is an unfair question. So, because my2hands wants to stop innocent people from being killed by the use of military intervention, he has to join up and go on the front lines? Come on. That's like if a serial killer is on the loose killing people in my neighborhood, I shouldn't rely on the police to stop him, but instead I should put on the flak jacket and pack my nine. Ridiculous. He's not suggesting that we start a war. He's simply saying that we, as one of the worlds' super powers, have a moral obligation to help stop a million innocent people from genocide, with all options on the table.
Just like a cop will try (or should) to quell violence by peaceful means, but if that fails, you can't just stand by and let innocent people die.
right on...
But the cop doesn't start a killing spree of his own, either.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You and my2hands are saying "we" like you will be participating. That's not fair to those who will actually die when you impose your morals upon them. If you want to help, then go help.
as i've already said a million times, i feel that the vast majority of the time these goals are best attained through peaceful means, but on rare occasions these goals can only be accomplished through the use of force. That is why i dont compromise anything when making the decision that force is the only option, because the unyielding determination for peace at all costs is not the ultimate goal. Peace at the expense of continued suffering of the weak or great loss of freedom is simply not worth the price.
You may disagree with me and believe that peaceful means to prevent suffering are always possible, but i've already given plenty of examples where i believe that is false, and i certainly dont have to compromise any ideals by making the decision to use force in the rare situation that warrants it..
i believe the OP has missed the true issue at hand.
Debating the validity of intervention as a policy is fine and dandy, but to offer up this theoretical discussion while at the same time admitting the war in Iraq was an "immoral clusterfuck" seems a bit -- well, you already used the term -- "naive" to me.
What am i getting at?
If the United States is so eager to hop in to a war... and by the admisison of those here offended by our lack of response to Rwanda, that is any war ... Iraq, Vietnam, Latin America ... take your pick.
So, instead of arguing over the policy of intervention with eachother, why not ask a real tough question?
"If the United States is so eager to fuel its economy and secure its global hegemony through the engines of war, WHY did it not jump head over heals at the chance to engage in Rwanda?"
If one sits on that question long enough, they might come to the logical conclusion that NOT stopping the genocide was in the best strategic interest of the United States.
Taking that one step farther, you could actualy instigate an instability in the region!
Think i'm full of crap?
" Next in line when it comes to responsiblitiy are France, [...] and the U.S. government, which actively worked against an effective UNAMIR and only got involved to aid the same Hutu refugee population and the genocidaires, leaving the genocide survivors to flounder and suffer. The failings of the UN and Belgium were not in the same league. (p.515)"
-source
So,
why would that be in the USA's best interest?
Well, ask old Henry Kissinger:
"The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interests in the political, economic and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the "economic interests of the United States."
- National Security Memorandum 200
Now.
You could sit here and say that Kissinger is not saying what I say he is saying, but for you to say that would require an even more naive mode of thought.
The bottom line is, the United States did not intervene because it was in the best financial interests of those who pull the global strings for the genocide to occur.
Perhaps that means we should be having an entirely different discussion.
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Precisely. Wars are started by politicians not people. And the sickest irony of all is the politician don't fight the wars....the people do.
"The founders were so wise in their mistrust of themselves to govern themselves. This was their genius. Limiting the power of the government was intended to keep government from doing harm. "
This entire argument was over before it even started.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I agree with the thread title, but not the premise that these atrocities were unavoidable, and military action was/is the only answer.
The Bosnian and Rwandan situations were reaching critical mass while the world focused on bombing the shit out of Iraq the first time. Darfur was the Gulf War II equivalent. Imagine if, in the early days leading up to those genocides, the effort and resources being used to wage war had been used toward a diplomatic solution to those situations? The same can be said about almost any war...it's a cycle that won't be broken until we stop being reactive and get proactive. Reaction seems to be the theme with some here.
I think if the world started bombing the US and you saw average citizens die in the street or when your neighbours or you loose family members everyday. I don't think you'd agree that military intervention is a good idea. Because that is the reality of war today. This is what has happened time and time again.
naděje umírá poslední
so your fine just sitting back watching hundreds of thousands getting slaughtered in a genocide?
these are not hypothetical situations... they are real, and still happening right this very second
no one is advocating for a "killing spree"... i am advocating for military intervention to protect innocents and to stop a threat... not carpet bombing...
why dont you guys stop taking an inch and making it a mile to fit your agenda
you know the funny thing... even fucking noam chomsky agrees with me... even he considers WW2 to have been justifiable for us to engage in
damn, maybe you should put down the latte, close the laptop, get off the couch and go help
if you believe in something so strongly you should do something about it. i don't think more killing is an answer
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
that's not how he views either gulf wars or afghanistan (2 of which your man thinks are 'most excellent, dude' and the other he is against b/c we weren't done w/ afghanistan)....you seem to be advocating war, how far is that from 'military intervention'?
what, to you, is military intervention? what would be ok?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
if our military only involved itself in causes such as stopping the Rwanda and darfur genocide i may sign up...
your weak answer shows me you are starting to realize how ridiculous some of these answers are
you guys are good at posting quotes and platitiudes, "i am anti war"
yeah, thats great... so is everyone else... but you guys cannot answer the tough questions
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE SHOULD BE DONE TO STOP THE DARFUR GENOCIDE, OR THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE, OR THE NAZI GERMANY DOMINATION OF EUROPE?
come on big guy, you have all the answers, so what is the anser to that... and it better be a little stronger answer then "put pressure on them until they stop" :rolleyes:
some of you guys assume i LIKE the fact that the WORLD has to intervene militarily sometimes, or that they SHOULD... wrong... i am just grounded enough and willing to question my own beliefs enough that i understand that the world intervening on the behalf of innocents is justifiable
or perhaops you dont give a shit because they are africans?
if 1 milliom mexicans were being slaughtered in california bases strictly on their ethnicity what do you propose should be done? it would HAVE to be stopped, right? you would want law enforcement to step into to stop it right? the guys wiot hthe guns right? and if they could not stop it or were overwhelmed by force and could not handle the threat, what do you propose then? hold up signs and "pressure" them? of course you do not murder them all in a "killing spree" (why do people on here deal with such absolutes constantly?) but you do what is needed to stop the killing and protect the innocents and the people
You're cart before the horse. You're reverse engineering an outcome in order to justify the means. As a philosophy it's backwards.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
certainly not murdering their civillians, devastating their homeland, poisoning their land....and certainly not support them w/ aid or businesses
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
this statement proves you live in a free society. all wars do NOT have to be sold to the people. are the people of darfur supporting their own extermination? did the people of iraq support saddam's invasion of kuwait or all the internal killing? i'm sure there are plenty more examples of strongmen who took control of their countries by coup or other military force, and then used their positions to make war on their neighbors. dictators don't need the approval of their populace, only their fear. and if their own people can't stop them, shouldn't somebody else try?
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
Not by methods of war which create the same crimes over....that's not a solution to anything, it's only creating more of the problem.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
so stopping someone from murdering an innocent child with a machete is a crime?
amazing
so what methods should be used to stop the darfur genocide?
you tell me...
you're the one saying how inaction is wrong...so tell me what your 'action' includes and I'll tell you whether or not I'd support it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You can stop someone without killing them.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
should=justifiable
Would you somehow understand something is justifiable but not think we should do it? That makes no sense.
and we don't care because they're Africans? Have you lost it?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
edit:: oops ...Peacefully that is.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")