Pages: 1 … 3 4 5

 

2006-07-14 07:21:39
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6987|MA, USA

Spumantiii wrote:

every action should be justified, and if there were principle reasons for inaction they must also be just.  Nobody can give a good enough reason for inaction during a genocide.  I agree that nobody should shoulder the brunt of that responsibility alone.  It's true that not alot was done in  Rwanda, even by Canada, who spend large amounts in international aid, and lives during peacekeeping.  It should be said that countries that chose inaction were unjustified in the act, and a coalition was required.  I say the UN failed on that one, I found a link that says the same, however, when propelry conducted with enthusiasm by all parties, it works.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm
Great, so if your principles tell you it is to the shame of the entire world that nothing was done in Rwanda, let's not focus on the US as if it were the only one to fail on the issue.

Spumantiii wrote:

Saddam had his crimes, as did and do many world leaders, Iraq just happens to be the spotlight of the last 20 years, not discounting the brew that Israel has been since 1948.  The important thing to remember is that no leader is above scrutiny for things like this, and that includes sorting by sub continent (middle east).  American Intelligence agencies are and have been responsible for some of the worst regimes and militant groups in modern history..  Iraq was a case of cleaning up old mess more than it was a quest to inspire the hearts and minds.  It's unfortunate that real human tragedies get ignored in favor of legal definitions, owning and making wmds (not neccessarily using them ), heresay etc.
Given that we cannot and should not deal with every problem in the world, I don't see the problem when one of the most powerful countries in the world focuses on dealing with those countries which are likely to cause the greatest damage.  It seems simple enough.  If other countries feel there are other places which need action, they are free to deal with them; but, please, hold your criticism if you are unwilling to act yourselves.

Also, how quickly we forget:  Within the past twenty years the US embarked upon a mission to aid the people of a country in which the US had no interests whatsoever.  International response was lukewarm.  International assistance was so minor, that it actually proved to be a hindrance rather than an asset, as it required support from US resources which could have been employed in other ways on the ground.  What did we get for our efforts?  Several dead soldiers.  Can you even remember?

Last edited by whittsend (2006-07-14 07:32:50)

2006-07-14 13:39:39
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7066

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

Bring it on.
Let's deal with them now before its too late.
Sadly I am almost inclined to agree, Fair, right and wrong have been so far left behind for so long its probebly to late to do anything else anyway.
2006-07-14 17:18:54
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6911|Canada

whittsend wrote:

Spumantiii wrote:

every action should be justified, and if there were principle reasons for inaction they must also be just.  Nobody can give a good enough reason for inaction during a genocide.  I agree that nobody should shoulder the brunt of that responsibility alone.  It's true that not alot was done in  Rwanda, even by Canada, who spend large amounts in international aid, and lives during peacekeeping.  It should be said that countries that chose inaction were unjustified in the act, and a coalition was required.  I say the UN failed on that one, I found a link that says the same, however, when propelry conducted with enthusiasm by all parties, it works.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm
Great, so if your principles tell you it is to the shame of the entire world that nothing was done in Rwanda, let's not focus on the US as if it were the only one to fail on the issue.

Spumantiii wrote:

Saddam had his crimes, as did and do many world leaders, Iraq just happens to be the spotlight of the last 20 years, not discounting the brew that Israel has been since 1948.  The important thing to remember is that no leader is above scrutiny for things like this, and that includes sorting by sub continent (middle east).  American Intelligence agencies are and have been responsible for some of the worst regimes and militant groups in modern history..  Iraq was a case of cleaning up old mess more than it was a quest to inspire the hearts and minds.  It's unfortunate that real human tragedies get ignored in favor of legal definitions, owning and making wmds (not neccessarily using them ), heresay etc.
Given that we cannot and should not deal with every problem in the world, I don't see the problem when one of the most powerful countries in the world focuses on dealing with those countries which are likely to cause the greatest damage.  It seems simple enough.  If other countries feel there are other places which need action, they are free to deal with them; but, please, hold your criticism if you are unwilling to act yourselves.

Also, how quickly we forget:  Within the past twenty years the US embarked upon a mission to aid the people of a country in which the US had no interests whatsoever.  International response was lukewarm.  International assistance was so minor, that it actually proved to be a hindrance rather than an asset, as it required support from US resources which could have been employed in other ways on the ground.  What did we get for our efforts?  Several dead soldiers.  Can you even remember?
Noone said anything about Canada being unwiling, we sent aid and troops.  What I am  saying is the same as some of what you've said, that America is the country that others look to to solve problems.  If it were the other way round, I'd expect concerned humans to voice when they believe something is wrong.  I have problems with Canada but I'm sure you'd be bored to hear about them.  America MUST set an example.  If you were to say 'fuck it, nuke em'  then the rest of the world will follow.  If US foreign policy was made with respect to the concerns of the international community, there would be more praise.  There will always be problems and people who will point them out, but if they didn't, who would, and would problems ever be addressed?

America is the most capable force in the world and it goes without saying that with more power comes greater expectations for restraint, legal process, self standardization, as well as respect for people's rights and a willingness to cooperate with other countries of varying stances.  Proof that you can treat two different countries the same way according to law, goes a long way to inspiring credibility, and even further to inform people that would be anti - American.  I fail to see the logic in this anti American label. 
If someone says
"fuck the states, fuck Bush, just because"    That's a hate statement. 
If someone has reason to believe that their fears are legitimately warranted, it goes without saying that they are doing the right thing by at least discussing it, if not trying to get others to see what they've seen.  I've said it before, I'm not anti-American.  I disagree with some of the country's current actions, and past actions, but the undelying principle that people should be free is something I feel strongly about.  I hope that doesn't make me anti American, because if it did, America is NOT what it once was.  If it was Clinton, I'd criticize him.
When you could say  "Bring it on.   Let's deal with them now before its too late."
you could also say  "imagine what that would do to my country"
or   "since it has become such a problem, and the problem was fighting, what alternatives are there"
or   "if that's ok then what was wrong with the (place tyrranical govt here) regime?"
or some would say  "what would Jesus do?  Love thy neighbor"

I would say, it's extremely important to the state of North America that our ways are just, and an example for others to follow.  The very thing fueling our understanding is having discussion like this.  That is the basis of civilization, and without it we'd all be back in Spartan Greece working for salt and grains fighting for a cause unknown to us and dying in the field against an enemy who speaks the same language.

'Anything less would be uncivilized' -Barkley

PS kill them with kindness has never worked because it's never been tried.

Never Mind, Gandhi did it, and look what he got for his people, freedom.
Imagine you had the will to not raise your hand against the enemy.  Ali brought down Foreman by taking slugs for over ten rounds and then waiting for him to topple.  Just a thought.
It takes a stronger will to restrain and be righteous in dignity in a moral battle, than to take the low ground and fight back.  If the fight is truly in the name of justice for ALL people, not just Iraqis  (Americans too) ie it's a fight with litle to no alterior motive, then by all means, go team America.  Africa needs help more now than ever.

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-14 17:28:27)

2006-07-17 07:53:15
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6987|MA, USA

Spumantiii wrote:

Noone said anything about Canada being unwiling, we sent aid and troops.
Great.  The US sent C 130s.  Neither of our countries solved the problem, so neither sent enough.

Spumantiii wrote:

What I am  saying is the same as some of what you've said, that America is the country that others look to to solve problems.
If you expect us to solve your problems, you should expect to have to suck it up when we solve a few you don't like.  You can't have it all your way all the time.

Furthermore, as many other people have said themselves; The EU is the economic equivalent of the US...possibly even a whisker larger and richer.  They also seem to share the opinions of many other countries on when action is necessary and when it is not.  Why then is the EU as incapable as a Country like Canada (which few could argue could have stopped Rwanda alone) of acting alone when necessary?  Why do they not get rebuked when they fail to act, as the US does?

Spumantiii wrote:

If it were the other way round, I'd expect concerned humans to voice when they believe something is wrong.  I have problems with Canada but I'm sure you'd be bored to hear about them.  America MUST set an example.
If it were the other way around, I would expect Canada to do what is in the interests of Canadians, as determined by Canada.  I don't pay taxes in Canada, how could I possibly justify telling Canada what to do if it doesn't have any bearing on my own country? 

Why must the US set the example?  More importantly, why does setting the example require doing what others wish us to do?

Spumantiii wrote:

If you were to say 'fuck it, nuke em'  then the rest of the world will follow.
That wouldn't be a problem, that would be criminal, and we all know the US isn't going to do that.

Spumantiii wrote:

If US foreign policy was made with respect to the concerns of the international community, there would be more praise.
US foreign policy is not about receiving praise from the international community.

Spumantiii wrote:

America is the most capable force in the world and it goes without saying that with more power comes greater expectations for restraint, legal process, self standardization, as well as respect for people's rights and a willingness to cooperate with other countries of varying stances.
It does not go without saying that a capable force comes expectations for a willingness to cooperate.  You are going to have to go into detail on that one.  I am also detecting in your post the implication that us forces act unjustly.  We all know that Soldiers are not social workers, and they are not entirely within the control of policy.  If some are bad or not entirely trustworthy, that is within the normal range of personalities within any society.  It doesn't make the rest of them, or the policy itself, bad.  Canadians should be intimately acquainted with the fact that some soldiers will do things they shouldn't.

Spumantiii wrote:

Proof that you can treat two different countries the same way according to law
What law?  No law requires action of the US.

Spumantiii wrote:

I would say, it's extremely important to the state of North America that our ways are just, and an example for others to follow.
It is important for us to be Just...it is not important for us to be an example.

Spumantiii wrote:

Imagine you had the will to not raise your hand against the enemy.  Ali brought down Foreman by taking slugs for over ten rounds and then waiting for him to topple.  Just a thought.
It takes a stronger will to restrain and be righteous in dignity in a moral battle, than to take the low ground and fight back.
Fighting back is not taking the 'low ground' if your opponant struck someone first.  And if we measure 'rounds' in years, the US waited ten of them, with the UN threatening action all the while, before acting.  Even Ali finally hit back...with a vengeance.  At some point comes the time for action.  To sit back and fail to act when that time comes is not a virtue.  Indecisiveness is not a virtue, and martyrdom anticipates inspiring others to act or an afterlife.  The US doesn't have the luxury of expecting either.

Spumantiii wrote:

If the fight is truly in the name of justice for ALL people, not just Iraqis  (Americans too) ie it's a fight with litle to no alterior motive, then by all means, go team America.  Africa needs help more now than ever.
I find myself in the unpleasant position of arguing (playing devils advocate really) in favor of a conflict for which I have only lukewarm support.  So, please understand, that I mean what I say in general terms - my point is that when we determine that the time has come to act, then we will.  The unpleasant fact is that the process determined that it was time, and I disagree (and so do you).  That doesn't make the fact that the US will act when it decides to, wrong.  I will never say that we should not act, or that we act too much, because we acted at a time when I disagreed.  In fact, even in the case of Iraq, there are positive reasons for action which are undenyable.

Here are a few:  Iraq, as a country, is in a geopolitical position to affect the entire world in ways that no African country can.  Why?  We all know why.  Oil.  Anyone saying we went in to take the Oil for ourselves is spouting bigoted nonsense.  The fact is, we don't need the oil for ourselves.  We need it for others.  The US is an economic entity more than anything else.  This is a fact.  We need the rest of the world to be both providers and consumers, and for that to happen, the rest of the world needs oil.  The action is altruistic and selfish at the same time, and this is the kind of action you can expect the US to see taking - the stakes must be worldwide or we will not act.  This is a lesson we have learned in Vietnam and...

You didn't attempt to answer the question about US actions which were purely altruistic.  Too bad.  If you had recalled the answer, you would have been able to deduce quite a bit.  The mystery country where the US acted on purely altruistic grounds was Somalia.  We got a couple of hundred dead soldiers for our trouble, and for the most part nobody else cared enough to provide more than token assistance.  You can thank Somalia for our lack of desire to helping the unfortunate (at risk of US lives) simply for the sake of helping.  You want to know why we didn't rush into Rwanda?  Now you know.

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard