|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:40 am
It's a complicated issue. Taking it out of context, what about the entirety of the Arabian peninsula? Should we be callous, uncaring, and aloof about the endless suffering of the countess women who are treated as possessions (often at best) and do nothing about it, or shall we be ethnocentrist and force our views of women's rights and equality upon them.
Where is the line drawn? In a more extreme example, no one called the Allies ethnocentrist when they liberated the concentration camps. No one said that we should respect the culture of Nazi Germany and respect their right to conduct their affairs, within their borders however they wish. No one said that genocide was a part of their culture and should be respected as such (and rightly so. I would certainly not agree with that opinion if it had been voiced).
So as I said, where is the line drawn? When does oppression go from unacceptable to the point where another country (typically the US) feel that it has to step in? Sadly, this is all-to-often largely determined by how many resources that country has that the US has made itself dependent upon.
I guess I'm not really here to answer any questions. Just give you some food for thought.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:13 pm
Matasoga It's a complicated issue. Taking it out of context, what about the entirety of the Arabian peninsula? Should we be callous, uncaring, and aloof about the endless suffering of the countess women who are treated as possessions (often at best) and do nothing about it, or shall we be ethnocentrist and force our views of women's rights and equality upon them. Where is the line drawn? In a more extreme example, no one called the Allies ethnocentrist when they liberated the concentration camps. No one said that we should respect the culture of Nazi Germany and respect their right to conduct their affairs, within their borders however they wish. No one said that genocide was a part of their culture and should be respected as such (and rightly so. I would certainly not agree with that opinion if it had been voiced). So as I said, where is the line drawn? When does oppression go from unacceptable to the point where another country (typically the US) feel that it has to step in? Sadly, this is all-to-often largely determined by how many resources that country has that the US has made itself dependent upon. I guess I'm not really here to answer any questions. Just give you some food for thought. It seems that we will interefer if a large mass of people is in danger of dieing like genocide. BUT that is not always the case, Rwandan Genocide, is one rare times we have not intefered. But the strange thing about the whole matter is that the idea of infetering with other countries affairs when civilians are in danger, is a fairly new idea. Its only after WWII we (as the international commuinty) have the ideal of preventing mass murder. Infact the word Genocide was not even 'coined' until WWII and when mass murders were taking place. It combines the latin words of geno meaning race and cide meaning to kill or killing. So to sum up the matter, we as the international community only seem interfere with other countries affairs when civilians are in danger. HOWEVER: this is a fairly new idea in terms of world history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:56 pm
I wonder if anyone here realizes that over 90% of the time, the country in question was ASKED to be there.
Examples:
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Somalia
American Revolution
Haiti
Japan
Indonesia
Bosnia
Kosovo
Desert Storm
Need I go on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:38 am
Matasoga It's a complicated issue. Taking it out of context, what about the entirety of the Arabian peninsula? Should we be callous, uncaring, and aloof about the endless suffering of the countess women who are treated as possessions (often at best) and do nothing about it, or shall we be ethnocentrist and force our views of women's rights and equality upon them. Where is the line drawn? The line is drawn between help and policing. -Meaning lending assistance when requested to do so, allowing the group being helped to dictate priorities and wants, affording the group being helped autonomy and not seeking to impose your own value systems on them. It is not callous or uncaring for the American government not to intervene in the cultural affairs of the Arab states no matter how opposite they are in ideology. It would be different if there had been a plea for help, but as things stand there has not. Social changes have to come from within. Quote: In a more extreme example, no one called the Allies ethnocentrist when they liberated the concentration camps. No one said that we should respect the culture of Nazi Germany and respect their right to conduct their affairs, within their borders however they wish. No one said that genocide was a part of their culture and should be respected as such (and rightly so. I would certainly not agree with that opinion if it had been voiced). Germany invaded an allied country, directly engaging a state of war. There is no comparison between that and the ordinary internal workings of a country's cultural society. Quote: When does oppression go from unacceptable to the point where another country (typically the US) feel that it has to step in? Sadly, this is all-to-often largely determined by how many resources that country has that the US has made itself dependent upon. I think that is the reality of the peace-time situation. Both The USA and the UK only intervene in regimes which they deem 'opressive' if they stand to lose a valuable asset/trade link/strategic military position. Nobody did anything about Rwanda, nobody is doing or saying anything about Zimbabwe where right now the president is comitting genocide...they have no oil, they are not on a trade route, they don't harbour secret bank accounts for our governments and they are not geographically important so they will be left alone to go into total meltdown while we continue to stir up a world of trouble in the Middle East in a bid to hang on to the petrol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:19 pm
Lord Redtail Rathan I wonder if anyone here realizes that over 90% of the time, the country in question was ASKED to be there. Examples: Vietnam Afghanistan Somalia American Revolution Haiti Japan Indonesia Bosnia Kosovo Desert Storm Need I go on? Desert Storm was name of the operation, not a name of a counrty. sweatdrop And for the American Revolution that was the US helping itself, so therefore it shouldn't be on your list either. Afghanistan; We (Canada and 'her' allies) declared war and then after few years, started to help the country. Afghanistan never asked for our help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:52 pm
I was listing incidents, not countries. And just because I'm an American doesn't mean that was only American "interferences." The French joined in the American Revolution on re Colonists side. And the problem with your last statement is you're going by Canada. The people of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan asked the US to fix the situation we created by helping the Afghani warlords kick out the Soviets, then leaving. They asked us to our mess. We just didn't do anything until 9/11.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 8:28 pm
at what point are we helping other countries, and at what point are we babysitting other countries, saying 'don't do that' 'don't do that'? should we drain our resources to police the world? i think that while all this stuff is grabbing headlines and our attention, unless it jeopardizes our safety and freedom, we shouldn't be intervening with our military. if civilians want to help out, that's great. more power to them. but we shouldn't use our army as a force of moral monitoring
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 8:18 pm
An Honest M I A Simple enough question, should we (the international communinty) step in when a country is having a revolution? Or a distaer? And if so, how much is too much? Where should we draw the line? between helping and running the country for them. : / ? Tell me what you guys think. Yes, we should. A destabilized country poses a danger to either other countries or their citizens. The international community realized this through Nazi Germany where European countries chose to not act soon enough which resulted in imperial powers. If there is a real threat in another country, and that country refuse negotiate, it is in the interest of the interest community to take action. Too much is when the UN/NATO starts issuing threats in exchange for resources, and becomes imperialistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 12:25 pm
i think its ok as long as they asked for our help, and we aren't running their country, just helping them get back on their feet whether it be a natural disaster or something else
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:38 pm
If they ask for help, or our country you know, actually consults with these peoples and attempts to understand their belief system/culture/whatnot.
Because I'm fairly sure I could tell you exactly what response some Americans would have to other countries fiddling in our affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:12 pm
Supinelu If they ask for help, or our country you know, actually consults with these peoples and attempts to understand their belief system/culture/whatnot. Because I'm fairly sure I could tell you exactly what response some Americans would have to other countries fiddling in our affairs. The countries leaders understanding and the soldiers are two different things. I think people enlisting for any service where they might ever be deployed overseas should be made to pass a foreign affairs/world cultures class before they are authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:19 pm
Matasoga Supinelu If they ask for help, or our country you know, actually consults with these peoples and attempts to understand their belief system/culture/whatnot. Because I'm fairly sure I could tell you exactly what response some Americans would have to other countries fiddling in our affairs. The countries leaders understanding and the soldiers are two different things. I think people enlisting for any service where they might ever be deployed overseas should be made to pass a foreign affairs/world cultures class before they are authorized. You really need both, in my opinion. The countries leaders have to understand before they can authorize these foreign affairs cultures. They need to know what they're informing, after all. We all need to keep making improvements there - America, Britain, France, third world countries etc. etc. It shouldn't be so hard just to give a s**t about someone elses way of life. Also fully my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:23 pm
I think the UN should make collective decisions about this and be more active then have just 1 country go into the mess.
A country shouldn't interfere with others unless requested by the government of that country.
Boundaries are important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:38 pm
Supinelu Matasoga Supinelu If they ask for help, or our country you know, actually consults with these peoples and attempts to understand their belief system/culture/whatnot. Because I'm fairly sure I could tell you exactly what response some Americans would have to other countries fiddling in our affairs. The countries leaders understanding and the soldiers are two different things. I think people enlisting for any service where they might ever be deployed overseas should be made to pass a foreign affairs/world cultures class before they are authorized. You really need both, in my opinion. The countries leaders have to understand before they can authorize these foreign affairs cultures. They need to know what they're informing, after all. We all need to keep making improvements there - America, Britain, France, third world countries etc. etc. It shouldn't be so hard just to give a s**t about someone elses way of life. Also fully my opinion. Oh, I don't mean to say that they aren't both important. I guess I have no reason to assume that the leader being informed is a given... Not after Bush. No matter who is in charge though, if the soliders conduct themselves as uneducated, ethnocentric, ignorant, uncultured, bumpkin twits then the way that America is viewed by the rest of the world will never change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:55 pm
Matasoga Supinelu Matasoga Supinelu If they ask for help, or our country you know, actually consults with these peoples and attempts to understand their belief system/culture/whatnot. Because I'm fairly sure I could tell you exactly what response some Americans would have to other countries fiddling in our affairs. The countries leaders understanding and the soldiers are two different things. I think people enlisting for any service where they might ever be deployed overseas should be made to pass a foreign affairs/world cultures class before they are authorized. You really need both, in my opinion. The countries leaders have to understand before they can authorize these foreign affairs cultures. They need to know what they're informing, after all. We all need to keep making improvements there - America, Britain, France, third world countries etc. etc. It shouldn't be so hard just to give a s**t about someone elses way of life. Also fully my opinion. Oh, I don't mean to say that they aren't both important. I guess I have no reason to assume that the leader being informed is a given... Not after Bush. No matter who is in charge though, if the soliders conduct themselves as uneducated, ethnocentric, ignorant, uncultured, bumpkin twits then the way that America is viewed by the rest of the world will never change. I know what you meant :3 I just have a hard time placing full blame on a group of people thrust into a chaotic and difficult situation when society at home is putting all sorts of negative ideals/claims in their heads. Of course, this isn't the leaders of the nations entirely, so it was a bit of a misstep continuing down that line. And I don't mean to be overly critical of my own country either, though I personally believe that it could do some more serious looking into it's actions. With America being one of the bigger nations that it is, like it or not, we're role models. I'd like to see more positive stories or hell, even just less violent ones. But that's our media for you >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
