Pulling the Trigger

[General_Curtis_LeMay]

Honorable colleuges,
This thread is purposed for the disscussion and enlightenment of all who read it in regards to the theory of World Police. I ask one thing, don't bring your preconceved Ideas and thoughts Please come with an open mind, ready to teach, and to learn.
I was watching TV yesterday, and I saw an ad, it was for a society called "The voices of Darfur" Or something along those lines. I am in favor of the West doing something about this, but it remains a glaring symbol of the West's hypocracy, since The Sudan has absolutly nothing to offer in goods or rescources, no one cares. It is a dicotomy, that I heard disscussed a few months back, An advocate for western diplomacy (non interventionist) said that we have no right to police the World, like a giant and an Imperial Empire. While this argument carries some weight, here is a thought, If a hunter (who posses armmaments) idoly stands by and watches another human being killed in cold blood by a commerade agressor, Is he any better than the one who pulled the trigger?

[Shaun]

I am in favor of the West doing something about this, but it remains a glaring symbol of the West's hypocracy, since The Sudan has absolutly nothing to offer in goods or rescources, no one cares.

Exactly, the "world police" will only Liberate countries that dont have nukes and do have resources. Europe wont Liberate anyone without complaining, and the rest are too poor to do any Liberating.

If a hunter (who posses armmaments) idoly stands by and watches another human being killed in cold blood by a commerade agressor, Is he any better than the one who pulled the trigger?

I dont think he is any better if he could have prevented the death, but the fact that to prevent a death he would have to inadvertently cause another death makes it a tough question.

[Denny Crane!]

Well in effect you already have that forming. The UN though ineffective is a relatively young institution still trying to cope with cold war mentality but it stands to be a force for good in the future.

At the same time you have different countries and continents quite prepared to enforce peace within what they consider to be their territories or principalities. I am thinking of the considered creation of an EU rapid deployment force and the African Equivalent of the EU the AU which although not as well developed or as encompassing already has in action a force such as this.

If the AU and the EU were truly effective organisations then it would effectively halt any kind of war starting in its infancy, this in effect is almost world police.

A stable world is a nice dream and a possibility if an unlikely one. World police or at least continental organisations would be a part of that.

Peter

[General_Curtis_LeMay]

Commerades,
While the above is true to one extent or another, here is my thesis on the mater: That the stong have should protect the weak, feed the hungry and stand up for all that is right and good. If the US was to invade Sudan and stop this war, then we would be fulfilling that commission. We are strong for a reason, and we posses an ability to do things that the UN can't do. i.e. The UN had no power to stop the USSR, seeings as the USSR was a prominant menber of the assembly who bossed half the delagates around. When Reagan came to office, he called together his cabnet and said they were going to destroy the Soviet Union. Reagan effectavly did the ground work for this, by his refusal to let the Soviets continue down thier path of political dominatrion, coupled with the diplomacy of mass armies. He completed the work of JFK, who refused to let the Soviets put missiles in Cuba, and in doing that set an example to the west of how you stick it to the Soviets.
-Ben

[Tiwaz]

Commerades,
While the above is true to one extent or another, here is my thesis on the mater: That the stong have should protect the weak, feed the hungry and stand up for all that is right and good. If the US was to invade Sudan and stop this war, then we would be fulfilling that commission. We are strong for a reason, and we posses an ability to do things that the UN can't do.
-Ben

Old prayer "Lord, give us strength to change what we can, endurance to bear what we cannot and wisdom to tell these two apart" rings so true here.

UN cannot do anything because it's members are not willing to do anything.
Why members are not willing to do anything is because they have to pay for it. Nations in UN tend to take crisis at hand and weight benefits of intervention against cost of intervention. And take into balance also their estimate of possibility to succeed.

Most of the time the costs way overshadow the benefits. Nations are not exactly eager to waste money on nothing. Specially if situation is one which most likely cannot be solved. And Sudan is such situation. Problems there are far deeper then most people realise, much like ethnic tensions in Iraq, and solving them with outside intervention is going to be nearly impossible.

So indeed, strong should protect the weak. But you cannot protect someone/something from itself.

[Denny Crane!]

The US is actually feeling the strain not only militarily but politically and financially of Iraq.

Much more importantly they could be as effective in Sudan as they are in Iraq, they can't stop ethnic cleansing there and they couldn't stop it in sudan either. They may be able to slow the pace a little but in doing so would be again invading a country with a lot of muslims in it which would be a disaster politically and would help radicalise more muslims making the world that much more unstable. They shot themselves in the foot with Iraq and Afghanistan unfortunately.

Peter

[carl-the-conqueror]

liberate-steal steal-liberate

both found under the same words for thesaurus.

if we are to police the world, then who is to police them, and them, and them, and them and them, and them etc.

the league of nations is getting weaker and weaker, merely bending to the G8's will at a whim.

[Aristophanes]

liberate-steal steal-liberate

both found under the same words for thesaurus.

if we are to police the world, then who is to police them, and them, and them, and them and them, and them etc.

the league of nations is getting weaker and weaker, merely bending to the G8's will at a whim.

I suggest we turn it over to the Mugabes, the Kabilas, the Mubaraks, the Musharrefs of the world. That will bring much needed renewal and revitalization.

[Denny Crane!]

I suggest we turn it over to the Mugabes, the Kabilas, the Mubaraks, the Musharrefs of the world. That will bring much needed renewal and revitalization.

Because musharref is.....?

I've been longing to have the debate on musharref's character with someone who would have the polar view.

(not because I think he is right just think it would be interesting)

Peter

[Aristophanes]

Because musharref is.....?

I've been longing to have the debate on musharref's character with someone who would have the polar view.

(not because I think he is right just think it would be interesting)

Peter

The educated Pakistani people I know don't like him.

[Denny Crane!]

The educated Pakistani people I know don't like him.

I think he makes many decisions to keep his support in the government with the hardliners, or at least keep them from forming a coalition strong enough to oust him but has proved with many many decisions over the last decade that he is acting in Pakistans and humanist interests (like the repeal of the hardline islamist rape laws of 1979).

Peter

[stop-3]

There are too many admireres(spelling a bit knackered now) of 'full spectrum dominence' to ignore. What wonderful mind-sport to think of chopping off their heads and sticking therm on a pike to adorn the entrance to any old street where one could walk by and ask (in jest) to dead-heads: wherefore now your arrogence?



Please use the 'Edit' feature instead of triple posting. Thank you.

[boofhead]

World Police are a bad idea full stop.

Any foreign soldier or authority on my soil would be the subject of my trigger finger. Pulling the trigger is not always bad.

As for the victims in the Sudan - give them weapons and supplies. Let them take revenge on those sick Janjaweed mfckrs. A little (or preferably BIG) taste of their own medicine should give them pause for thought.

[Last Roman]

As for the victims in the Sudan - give them weapons and supplies. Let them take revenge on those sick Janjaweed mfckrs. A little (or preferably BIG) taste of their own medicine should give them pause for thought.

Yes, because revenge for ethnic cleansing has worked so well for Africa.

[boofhead]

Yes, because revenge for ethnic cleansing has worked so well for Africa.

What do you suggest they do while still under attack? Sit quietly and be murdered? The time for forgiveness/reconciliation will come after the killing has stopped. And the killing will only stop when some people with testicles start killing back. They have a right to self-defense, and they have a right to kill those who rape and murder their families.

I hope the Janjaweed are tortured and slaughtered to a man.

[Denny Crane!]

You hope they are tortured?

The watchers watch but who watchs the watchers?

Peter

[boofhead]

You hope they are tortured?

The watchers watch but who watchs the watchers?

Peter

Seneca I think in the West we are too sheltered, and our Western morals are totally unsuited to situations we cannot imagine experiencing. Those poor bastards in the Sudan need help - they must be brimming with rage and despair. If torturing and killing the Janjaweed would make them feel a little better, then I for one could not blame them, and would happily turn a blind eye.

Remember, the Janjaweed are a bunch of murderous armed MEN - I am not speaking of women or kids here. They deserve death, and at the end of the day, death is death no matter how it is suffered.

[Denny Crane!]

Seneca I think in the West we are too sheltered, and our Western morals are totally unsuited to situations we cannot imagine experiencing.

Well not quite true at all. I can within five minutes walk talk with someone and get points of view from a jew who experienced a death camp and was rescued. I can also talk with soldiers who fought to liberate just such people. So its not that far removed though you may be correct in twenty years (may be, possibly, could be)

Those poor bastards in the Sudan need help - they must be brimming with rage and despair. If torturing

Nah we didn't torture the Nazi's. Doesn't matter who, what, where, when torture is not acceptable under anything but the most unbelievable dire circumstances.

and killing the Janjaweed would make them feel a little better, then I for one could not blame them, and would happily turn a blind eye.

Self defence yes.

Remember, the Janjaweed are a bunch of murderous armed MEN - I am not speaking of women or kids here. They deserve death, and at the end of the day, death is death no matter how it is suffered.

Not torture no. If we are to be the guardians of the people then who protects the people from the guardians?

Peter

[boofhead]

"torture is not acceptable under anything but the most unbelievable dire circumstances"

Rampaging killers intent upon raping and murdering my own family: in my mind this would qualify as a "most unbelievable dire circumstance".

Look I am not generally in favour of torture, but these murderers deserve SEVERE punishment, even unto death. That was my point, friend.

[SbSdude]

Well not quite true at all. I can within five minutes walk talk with someone and get points of view from a jew who experienced a death camp and was rescued. I can also talk with soldiers who fought to liberate just such people. So its not that far removed though you may be correct in twenty years (may be, possibly, could be)

While what you say is more or less true of today, it is worth remembering that the world view on humanitarian intervention, self-determination and sovereignty is heavily based on an European/North American, white christian agenda. Being rather subscribed to the realist point of view you can do nothing to change this rather prevalent outlook within world politics.

Having said that, I agree that our concept of the good in the Western world shouldn't preclude us from intervening when we feel this is not being upheld by those that don't necessarily subscribe to our moral standing. If I take my realist view to see that humanitarian intervention would also be an oppurtunity worth taking in the long run politically & financially, then I have no problem with killing Janjaweed becausw they threaten to render unstable world security.

If the U.S, U.K et all are unwilling to take humanitarian action because of the fallout from Iraq (Like Rwanda after Somalia circa 1993), then perhaps arming the people is not such a bad move towards establishing a level ground.