Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2008-05-18 00:21:19
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6828|North Carolina

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Why?

(Also, as a side note: the Korean War was for self-defence)
The Korean War was only self-defense for the Koreans themselves.  Our involvement was for defending an ally.

But to answer your first question, it comes down to the fact that, no matter how much we may choose to support sovereignty, others may not.

During the Cold War, we intervened in many conflicts and countries to subvert the influence of the Soviets and Chinese.  Some of these interventions made sense and mostly benefitted us.  Others didn't and were often for the wrong reasons (like screwing over Mossadegh in Iran and aiding extremists in Afghanistan against the Soviets).

Nowadays, we have a few major humanitarian crises to consider getting involved with (but probably won't because of Iraq's burden).  If we weren't in Iraq, we could put our military to much better use aiding those suffering in Sudan and Burma, and if we did that, I don't see how that's a bad thing -- even in principle.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-05-18 00:22:10)

2008-05-18 00:27:43
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250

Turquoise wrote:

The Korean War was only self-defense for the Koreans themselves.  Our involvement was for defending an ally.
But the reason you chose to is that you felt that otherwise the world would become Communist and attack you.

Turquoise wrote:

But to answer your first question, it comes down to the fact that, no matter how much we may choose to support sovereignty, others may not.
At which point it becomes an international war and you can step in.

Turquoise wrote:

Nowadays, we have a few major humanitarian crises to consider getting involved with (but probably won't because of Iraq's burden).  If we weren't in Iraq, we could put our military to much better use aiding those suffering in Sudan and Burma, and if we did that, I don't see how that's a bad thing -- even in principle.
There were plenty of places as bad as, or worse than, them when you weren't in Iraq.  But, for the most part, you stayed uninvolved.  The US only intervenes when it's politically or strategically useful (which is the same as pretty much everyone else, to be fair).
2008-05-18 00:33:02
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6828|North Carolina

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The Korean War was only self-defense for the Koreans themselves.  Our involvement was for defending an ally.
But the reason you chose to is that you felt that otherwise the world would become Communist and attack you.

Turquoise wrote:

But to answer your first question, it comes down to the fact that, no matter how much we may choose to support sovereignty, others may not.
At which point it becomes an international war and you can step in.
Define international.  For example, the "Coalition of the Willing" was international in helping us invade Iraq, but the war was still condemned by the U.N.  If you mean that it's ok to invade countries with an international force (being at least 2 countries involved in your forces), then I appreciate the leniency.  Although, I get the impression that you mean something different.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Nowadays, we have a few major humanitarian crises to consider getting involved with (but probably won't because of Iraq's burden).  If we weren't in Iraq, we could put our military to much better use aiding those suffering in Sudan and Burma, and if we did that, I don't see how that's a bad thing -- even in principle.
There were plenty of places as bad as, or worse than, them when you weren't in Iraq.  But, for the most part, you stayed uninvolved.  The US only intervenes when it's politically or strategically useful (which is the same as pretty much everyone else, to be fair).
Well yeah...  I mean, we should've gotten involved in Rwanda too.  A lot of Africa is pretty much always in conflict.  We all pick our battles, but I guess what concerns me is that the U.N. seems to act like they don't have to do anything unless America gets involved.  Then, when we do get involved without them, they resent it.
2008-05-18 01:00:01
mikkel
Member
+383|7024
As always, I've never believed in strategic military interventionism. Humanitarian interventionism, however, is wholly acceptable to me when you're dealing with catastrophes of this magnitude. The lives of all of these people are more important than the stability of a corrupt government. You just can't sit by and watch this many people die. Neither here nor in Sudan.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-05-18 01:01:08)

2008-05-18 01:06:29
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250

Turquoise wrote:

Define international.  For example, the "Coalition of the Willing" was international in helping us invade Iraq, but the war was still condemned by the U.N.  If you mean that it's ok to invade countries with an international force (being at least 2 countries involved in your forces), then I appreciate the leniency.  Although, I get the impression that you mean something different.
Read what I said carefully.

Intervening in a local matter is a bad thing.

As soon as another nation invades, however, it is no longer local.  How many countries ally to invade doesn't matter.

Turquoise wrote:

Well yeah...  I mean, we should've gotten involved in Rwanda too.  A lot of Africa is pretty much always in conflict.  We all pick our battles, but I guess what concerns me is that the U.N. seems to act like they don't have to do anything unless America gets involved.  Then, when we do get involved without them, they resent it.
1)  The UN was never supposed to intervene in local matters (that mandate was added later, and perhaps shouldn't have been)

2)  As the country most influential in creating the UN, and a Security Council permanent member, the US has a responsibility to ensure it's measures are carried out

3)  Getting involved without UN is intervening in a local matter, and a breach of sovereignty, why are you surprised that member nations get upset when you do it?

mikkel wrote:

The lives of all of these people are more important than the stability of a corrupt government.
How about the stability of world order?  Because weakening sovereignty affects that, and if you screw with it too much you'll end up with another World War (which, IMHO, will arrive sooner or later).
2008-05-18 01:26:14
mikkel
Member
+383|7024

ZombieVampire! wrote:

mikkel wrote:

The lives of all of these people are more important than the stability of a corrupt government.
How about the stability of world order?  Because weakening sovereignty affects that, and if you screw with it too much you'll end up with another World War (which, IMHO, will arrive sooner or later).
That's a really, really far-fetched argument. No degree of sovereignty allows a government to put the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilian people at risk. If ousting a corrupt government of a poor nation to save the lives of hundreds and thousands is detrimental to the political stability of the entire world, then the entire world needs to change. Fortunately, we're not at that point yet, and claiming that a military intervention in Burma or Sudan would be significantly detrimental to the stability of the world is absurd.
2008-05-18 01:29:38
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250
No, it isn't.  Wars are fought over sovereignty.  The whole of the Cold War consisted of the US and USSR acting (in their view) defensively and their opponnent viewing it as a threat to them.  As soon as a nation starts ignoring sovereignty, other people get scared.

And what degree of risk is a population allowed to be put to?  Most nations view the death penalty as inhumane, should they invade the US?  What about after Hurrican Katrina?
2008-05-18 01:51:30
mikkel
Member
+383|7024

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No, it isn't.  Wars are fought over sovereignty.  The whole of the Cold War consisted of the US and USSR acting (in their view) defensively and their opponnent viewing it as a threat to them.  As soon as a nation starts ignoring sovereignty, other people get scared.

And what degree of risk is a population allowed to be put to?  Most nations view the death penalty as inhumane, should they invade the US?  What about after Hurrican Katrina?
You're really reaching here by comparing the imminent danger to hundreds of thousands of people to capital punishment or Hurricane Katrina.

The concept of capital punishment itself is a prerogative granted by sovereignty. Hurricane Katrina was dealt with, and the US accepted aid from over a hundred foreign nations. If you can give me even one reason to justify a comparison between these two, and humanitarian disasters where governments actively deny their subjects critical relief, then I'll be happy to debate it with you.

Comparing a united humanitarian relief effort through military intervention with broad acceptance to the cold war is again fully absurd.

A equalling B does not mean that C equals B, too.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-05-18 01:53:48)

2008-05-18 02:42:18
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250
Okay, so where is the point at which you're allowed to go in?
2008-05-18 03:16:30
mikkel
Member
+383|7024

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Okay, so where is the point at which you're allowed to go in?
.. humanitarian disasters where governments actively deny their subjects critical relief..
2008-05-18 06:17:57
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6646|Escea

Spearhead wrote:

The USS Essex


I reckon their should be some sort of law that overules leading bodies that refuse to supply aid to their people, go in and get it to them by force cos frankly thats the only way they're really gonna get what they need.
2008-05-18 06:20:30
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250
Define humanitarien disaster.

Define actively deny.

Define critical relief.
2008-05-18 07:05:13
mikkel
Member
+383|7024

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Define humanitarien disaster.

Define actively deny.

Define critical relief.
It isn't illegal to use your own judgement. While you sit there and squabble with yourself about definitions and ambiguity, others could be saving hundreds of thousands of people. You can't create a uniform standard for disasters of this magnitude. If you had to eliminate all ambiguity while addressing all conceivable scenarios, nothing would ever be done.
2008-05-18 07:34:46
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6384|Washington DC

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Define humanitarien disaster.

Define actively deny.

Define critical relief.
Humanitarian disaster: When thousands of people have been struck by a natural disaster or a genocide or whatever

Actively deny: In this case, the junta rejecting foreign aid for... who knows what reasons... preventing medicine and food from getting to people who are starving and dying

Critical relief: Medicine, food, water, basic things needed for people to survive.

I find it very odd that you found the Korean war justified when it was really just a proxy war out of fear for the ridiculous 'domino effect', yet you wouldn't support an intervention in a country whose people are being left for dead by their government.
2008-05-18 07:59:24
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7024|132 and Bush

Articles of interest.
http://www.startribune.com/world/190458 … efer=World
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … ction.html
You should also take note that China would be the ones vetoing humanitarian intervention. Big surprise coming from the champion of human rights isn't it .
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/world … l?ref=asia

I know they have let some Americans in for relief, have they let any others?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-05-18 09:38:33
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7113|Tampa Bay Florida

mikkel wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Okay, so where is the point at which you're allowed to go in?
.. humanitarian disasters where governments actively deny their subjects critical relief..
2008-05-18 09:56:07
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6828|North Carolina

ZombieVampire! wrote:

1)  The UN was never supposed to intervene in local matters (that mandate was added later, and perhaps shouldn't have been)

2)  As the country most influential in creating the UN, and a Security Council permanent member, the US has a responsibility to ensure it's measures are carried out

3)  Getting involved without UN is intervening in a local matter, and a breach of sovereignty, why are you surprised that member nations get upset when you do it?
I know what you're saying, but to be honest, I wouldn't mind it if we left the U.N.  They're pretty useless most of the time.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

mikkel wrote:

The lives of all of these people are more important than the stability of a corrupt government.
How about the stability of world order?  Because weakening sovereignty affects that, and if you screw with it too much you'll end up with another World War (which, IMHO, will arrive sooner or later).
Um... I don't think intervening in Sudan or Burma would do that.  There are times when intervention just makes sense.  Sovereignty should be a secondary concern to human suffering.
2008-05-18 11:02:59
Ayumiz
J-10 whore
+103|7157|Singapore
Wtf their govt really sucks, taking food away from their people.
2008-05-18 11:21:23
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6646|Escea

Kmarion wrote:

Articles of interest.
http://www.startribune.com/world/190458 … efer=World
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … ction.html
You should also take note that China would be the ones vetoing humanitarian intervention. Big surprise coming from the champion of human rights isn't it .
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/world … l?ref=asia

I know they have let some Americans in for relief, have they let any others?
A Russian cargo plane brought in some supplies but I'm not sure if it was impounded or anything.
2008-05-18 11:57:24
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6747|New Haven, CT
You forfeit your right to sovereignty when you kill your own people.
2008-05-18 17:34:54
liquix
Member
+51|6877|Peoples Republic of Portland

chittydog wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

They are starving at the moment, and you want them to over throw the Govt, which is in fact the military?
I think he's suggesting that we do it. These assholes are way more deserving of it than Sodom Hussein was. Kim Jong Il needs a good spanking too. Unfortunately for those oppressed people, their governments never tried to assassinate Bush's dad.
we already tried in Iraq, not being very easy.
2008-05-19 01:07:41
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250

mikkel wrote:

It isn't illegal to use your own judgement. While you sit there and squabble with yourself about definitions and ambiguity, others could be saving hundreds of thousands of people. You can't create a uniform standard for disasters of this magnitude. If you had to eliminate all ambiguity while addressing all conceivable scenarios, nothing would ever be done.
So whose judgement do we use?
2008-05-19 01:10:23
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250

Turquoise wrote:

I know what you're saying, but to be honest, I wouldn't mind it if we left the U.N.  They're pretty useless most of the time.
Largely because of the US' actions.

Turquoise wrote:

Um... I don't think intervening in Sudan or Burma would do that.  There are times when intervention just makes sense.  Sovereignty should be a secondary concern to human suffering.
But you start down the slippery slope.

nukchebi0 wrote:

You forfeit your right to sovereignty when you kill your own people.
How many people are on death row at the moment?
2008-05-19 01:34:29
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7264|Cologne, Germany

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I know what you're saying, but to be honest, I wouldn't mind it if we left the U.N.  They're pretty useless most of the time.
Largely because of the US' actions.

Turquoise wrote:

Um... I don't think intervening in Sudan or Burma would do that.  There are times when intervention just makes sense.  Sovereignty should be a secondary concern to human suffering.
But you start down the slippery slope.

nukchebi0 wrote:

You forfeit your right to sovereignty when you kill your own people.
How many people are on death row at the moment?
I see your point, but the difference between the situation in Myanmar and the death penalty in the US is that the people in Myanmar are actively denied their rights by their own government, while the death penalty in the US is the result of a democratic process, and can easily be reversed through that exact same process, if the electorate should decide so.

You know I am a strong supporter of sovereignity myself, and I am usually the last to suggest intervention, but a combined effort by the UN would clearly benefit the suffering people of Myanmar.
Not necessarily through a regime change. That is something that the local population must get done themselves.

But forcing the Burmese government to accept foreign aid surely is possible.

Unfortunately, Myanmar has little to offer that is of importance to western superpowers. No oil, specifically. Also, China is the regional superpower, and it is to be expected that the west is much more reluctant to start shit in China's backyard, as opposed to the middle east, were we call the shots...
2008-05-19 02:04:23
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250

B.Schuss wrote:

I see your point, but the difference between the situation in Myanmar and the death penalty in the US is that the people in Myanmar are actively denied their rights by their own government, while the death penalty in the US is the result of a democratic process, and can easily be reversed through that exact same process, if the electorate should decide so.
Who decides what their rights are?

B.Schuss wrote:

You know I am a strong supporter of sovereignity myself, and I am usually the last to suggest intervention, but a combined effort by the UN would clearly benefit the suffering people of Myanmar.
Not necessarily through a regime change. That is something that the local population must get done themselves.
How can they achieve it without regime change?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard