|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:09 pm
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.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:04 am
Yes, especially when there are thousands of civilians being murdered by a homicidal maniac.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:55 pm
End Crescendo Yes, especially when there are thousands of civilians being murdered by a homicidal maniac. *devil's advocate here: How do we know that civilians are being murdered? The reports are hard to prove. If you put 10 people in a room and something happens, they all will claim to see something different. That is why common law frowns upon eye witness and pefers something more solid like a photo of the crime or of someone at the sence fingerprint. For all we know that homicidial maniac could be doing nothing at all and we just interefered with country that did not need our help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:14 pm
Yeah, and not to be rude (seriously though), it's easier to say 'well, we don't have super solid proof, so let's just let them all die, just in case.' There are plenty of photos and videos of horrible s**t going down right now. Not to mention they won't let you into the city, unless you come in waving a flag, and confessing your love for Ghadafi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:48 am
End Crescendo Yeah, and not to be rude (seriously though), it's easier to say 'well, we don't have super solid proof, so let's just let them all die, just in case.' There are plenty of photos and videos of horrible s**t going down right now. Not to mention they won't let you into the city, unless you come in waving a flag, and confessing your love for Ghadafi. Ah you misunderstand my friend I wrote that for the sake of arguement and I was speaking in gennral terms. (Which means that I could have been speaking about the past as well as the present. ) Moving right along... So you believe we should interfere with other countries affairs with civilians are belived to be in danger correct? But where do we draw the line between protecting civilians and running the country for them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:11 am
It all depends if we are supposed to be Peace KEEPERS or peace MAKERS.
Peace Makers are more like the US*; they go in, guns waving, and demand peace, or else.
Peace Keepers are more like what Canada used to do**; they go in, provide mediation, live with the people and find out the real issues and try to solve everything diplomatically and without gunfire.
There are pros and cons to both sides, but in the end we cannot allow something like the Rawandan Homicide to ever happen again. The UN wouldn't allow interference with intra-country conflicts, and that's why so many people were killedf before NATO decided to disobey orders for the UN and help the people out. It was a terrirble tragedy and no one deserves that kind of devastation. It was a genocide, pure and simple, and still we didn't do anything until it was basically too late.
*(not just the US but it's a good example)
**(We're getting more like peace makers because a while ago we were in a country and they tried to kill most of the unarmed peace keepers in the country)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:30 am
WhiteWingtip It all depends if we are supposed to be Peace KEEPERS or peace MAKERS. Peace Makers are more like the US*; they go in, guns waving, and demand peace, or else. Peace Keepers are more like what Canada used to do**; they go in, provide mediation, live with the people and find out the real issues and try to solve everything diplomatically and without gunfire. There are pros and cons to both sides, but in the end we cannot allow something like the Rawandan Homicide to ever happen again. The UN wouldn't allow interference with intra-country conflicts, and that's why so many people were killedf before NATO decided to disobey orders for the UN and help the people out. It was a terrirble tragedy and no one deserves that kind of devastation. It was a genocide, pure and simple, and still we didn't do anything until it was basically too late. *(not just the US but it's a good example) **(We're getting more like peace makers because a while ago we were in a country and they tried to kill most of the unarmed peace keepers in the country) So do you believe at any cost the Rawandan Geneocide must be prevented from happening again and we(as the international community) should interfere with other countries affairs such as Civil wars? If by force or other means?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:46 am
I think that countries should interfere with something that could be classed as Civil War. The Rwanda civil war was more like a massacre, and someone should've intervened earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:50 am
Sanguine Lupis I think that countries should interfere with something that could be classed as Civil War. The Rwanda civil war was more like a massacre, and someone should've intervened earlier. But my question lingers, how much is to much? Where do we draw that fine line of helping and doing it for them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:53 am
An Honest M I A WhiteWingtip It all depends if we are supposed to be Peace KEEPERS or peace MAKERS. Peace Makers are more like the US*; they go in, guns waving, and demand peace, or else. Peace Keepers are more like what Canada used to do**; they go in, provide mediation, live with the people and find out the real issues and try to solve everything diplomatically and without gunfire. There are pros and cons to both sides, but in the end we cannot allow something like the Rawandan Homicide to ever happen again. The UN wouldn't allow interference with intra-country conflicts, and that's why so many people were killedf before NATO decided to disobey orders for the UN and help the people out. It was a terrirble tragedy and no one deserves that kind of devastation. It was a genocide, pure and simple, and still we didn't do anything until it was basically too late. *(not just the US but it's a good example) **(We're getting more like peace makers because a while ago we were in a country and they tried to kill most of the unarmed peace keepers in the country) So do you believe at any cost the Rawandan Geneocide must be prevented from happening again and we(as the international community) should interfere with other countries affairs such as Civil wars? If by force or other means? If you haven't noticed, other countries have been helping with other countries and aiding one side of their civil wars (and other major violent events) since the ancient times. Corinthians helping the Spartans defeat the Athenians. Even more than a thousand years later... French helping the Americans with their revolution. England trying to aid France against their revolution. Germany allying with Austria to take down a Serbian Terrorist that killed Archduke Ferdinand. (And ultimately leading to WWII) Even more recently... With the uprising in Libya, a nomadic group called the Tuareg have entered the fight for freedom, and regularly help out in civil war situations, no matter the country. Now does this mean that we SHOULD interfere with other countries? Absolutely not, but it does prove that humans have been doing this type of thing for a LONG time. We tend to pick sides and match up our values with another country to see if it matches our own. I don't think we should impose our culture on another culture. Even if we see their practices as "Barbaric," they have a right to practice their own beliefs in their own country and in their own culture. That being said, we should not allow Genocides. We should provide as much help as the country wants in the matter of National disasters. Remember Haiti? Of course you do, but do you remember Chile of the same year? That earthquake was larger than Haiti's, but Chile refused any aid from foreign countries. Should we force aid upon a country that doesn't want it? Or conversely, what about the Ukranian Famine under Stalin? The world didn't even hear about it until the late 1980's. That country didn't want aid, because it was starving its own people systematically. It was a genocide, but since it wasn't public information no one helped the Ukranians. No one knew about it. So is it not a crisis/genocide if no one knows about it? And if so, what is our obligation to make it right? IS it our obligation to make it right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:20 am
WhiteWingtip An Honest M I A WhiteWingtip It all depends if we are supposed to be Peace KEEPERS or peace MAKERS. Peace Makers are more like the US*; they go in, guns waving, and demand peace, or else. Peace Keepers are more like what Canada used to do**; they go in, provide mediation, live with the people and find out the real issues and try to solve everything diplomatically and without gunfire. There are pros and cons to both sides, but in the end we cannot allow something like the Rawandan Homicide to ever happen again. The UN wouldn't allow interference with intra-country conflicts, and that's why so many people were killedf before NATO decided to disobey orders for the UN and help the people out. It was a terrirble tragedy and no one deserves that kind of devastation. It was a genocide, pure and simple, and still we didn't do anything until it was basically too late. *(not just the US but it's a good example) **(We're getting more like peace makers because a while ago we were in a country and they tried to kill most of the unarmed peace keepers in the country) So do you believe at any cost the Rawandan Geneocide must be prevented from happening again and we(as the international community) should interfere with other countries affairs such as Civil wars? If by force or other means? If you haven't noticed, other countries have been helping with other countries and aiding one side of their civil wars (and other major violent events) since the ancient times. Corinthians helping the Spartans defeat the Athenians. Even more than a thousand years later... French helping the Americans with their revolution. England trying to aid France against their revolution. Germany allying with Austria to take down a Serbian Terrorist that killed Archduke Ferdinand. (And ultimately leading to WWII) Even more recently... With the uprising in Libya, a nomadic group called the Tuareg have entered the fight for freedom, and regularly help out in civil war situations, no matter the country. Now does this mean that we SHOULD interfere with other countries? Absolutely not, but it does prove that humans have been doing this type of thing for a LONG time. We tend to pick sides and match up our values with another country to see if it matches our own. I don't think we should impose our culture on another culture. Even if we see their practices as "Barbaric," they have a right to practice their own beliefs in their own country and in their own culture. That being said, we should not allow Genocides. We should provide as much help as the country wants in the matter of National disasters. Remember Haiti? Of course you do, but do you remember Chile of the same year? That earthquake was larger than Haiti's, but Chile refused any aid from foreign countries. Should we force aid upon a country that doesn't want it? Or conversely, what about the Ukranian Famine under Stalin? The world didn't even hear about it until the late 1980's. That country didn't want aid, because it was starving its own people systematically. It was a genocide, but since it wasn't public information no one helped the Ukranians. No one knew about it. So is it not a crisis/genocide if no one knows about it? And if so, what is our obligation to make it right? IS it our obligation to make it right? I believe that we should only help another country if and only If it requests the help of UN or other nations. Otherwise we should not intefere because if we interfere too much people will become depentent on our aid and they ( the country in question) will not be able to self-govern. And in aswer to your last question; We as humans tend to believe that it is our obligation to make it right. But then again if it weren't for events such as the ones you described we would have not moved forward towards a *"better" society. I believe we (as humans) do have a obligation to make things right, however that does not mean I believe in we should storm in gunning blazing. But then again I see the need for such events to happen without our interference, it is the only we seem to improve as humans. If was not for the Titanic sinking we would not have regulations that state that the must be enough lifejackets and lifeboats for everyone on board. If it were not for the Holocaust in WWII we would have not made advances in human rights. To put it simply as human I believe we do have an obligation, but as history major I see the need for such events to happen in order for the greater good of all. *I use the term loosely and I mean as a society we have made advancements in social and techogoical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:05 pm
An Honest M I A WhiteWingtip An Honest M I A WhiteWingtip It all depends if we are supposed to be Peace KEEPERS or peace MAKERS. Peace Makers are more like the US*; they go in, guns waving, and demand peace, or else. Peace Keepers are more like what Canada used to do**; they go in, provide mediation, live with the people and find out the real issues and try to solve everything diplomatically and without gunfire. There are pros and cons to both sides, but in the end we cannot allow something like the Rawandan Homicide to ever happen again. The UN wouldn't allow interference with intra-country conflicts, and that's why so many people were killedf before NATO decided to disobey orders for the UN and help the people out. It was a terrirble tragedy and no one deserves that kind of devastation. It was a genocide, pure and simple, and still we didn't do anything until it was basically too late. *(not just the US but it's a good example) **(We're getting more like peace makers because a while ago we were in a country and they tried to kill most of the unarmed peace keepers in the country) So do you believe at any cost the Rawandan Geneocide must be prevented from happening again and we(as the international community) should interfere with other countries affairs such as Civil wars? If by force or other means? If you haven't noticed, other countries have been helping with other countries and aiding one side of their civil wars (and other major violent events) since the ancient times. Corinthians helping the Spartans defeat the Athenians. Even more than a thousand years later... French helping the Americans with their revolution. England trying to aid France against their revolution. Germany allying with Austria to take down a Serbian Terrorist that killed Archduke Ferdinand. (And ultimately leading to WWII) Even more recently... With the uprising in Libya, a nomadic group called the Tuareg have entered the fight for freedom, and regularly help out in civil war situations, no matter the country. Now does this mean that we SHOULD interfere with other countries? Absolutely not, but it does prove that humans have been doing this type of thing for a LONG time. We tend to pick sides and match up our values with another country to see if it matches our own. I don't think we should impose our culture on another culture. Even if we see their practices as "Barbaric," they have a right to practice their own beliefs in their own country and in their own culture. That being said, we should not allow Genocides. We should provide as much help as the country wants in the matter of National disasters. Remember Haiti? Of course you do, but do you remember Chile of the same year? That earthquake was larger than Haiti's, but Chile refused any aid from foreign countries. Should we force aid upon a country that doesn't want it? Or conversely, what about the Ukranian Famine under Stalin? The world didn't even hear about it until the late 1980's. That country didn't want aid, because it was starving its own people systematically. It was a genocide, but since it wasn't public information no one helped the Ukranians. No one knew about it. So is it not a crisis/genocide if no one knows about it? And if so, what is our obligation to make it right? IS it our obligation to make it right? I believe that we should only help another country if and only If it requests the help of UN or other nations. Otherwise we should not intefere because if we interfere too much people will become depentent on our aid and they ( the country in question) will not be able to self-govern. And in aswer to your last question; We as humans tend to believe that it is our obligation to make it right. But then again if it weren't for events such as the ones you described we would have not moved forward towards a *"better" society. I believe we (as humans) do have a obligation to make things right, however that does not mean I believe in we should storm in gunning blazing. But then again I see the need for such events to happen without our interference, it is the only we seem to improve as humans. If was not for the Titanic sinking we would not have regulations that state that the must be enough lifejackets and lifeboats for everyone on board. If it were not for the Holocaust in WWII we would have not made advances in human rights. To put it simply as human I believe we do have an obligation, but as history major I see the need for such events to happen in order for the greater good of all. *I use the term loosely and I mean as a society we have made advancements in social and techogoical. According to that first comment, you see no problem with Britain, France, and America helping the rebels in Libya? What about the French entering the American revolution. Sometimes you need Peace Makers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:19 pm
nope everyone should just leave each other the ******** alone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:12 pm
End Crescendo An Honest M I A WhiteWingtip An Honest M I A WhiteWingtip It all depends if we are supposed to be Peace KEEPERS or peace MAKERS. Peace Makers are more like the US*; they go in, guns waving, and demand peace, or else. Peace Keepers are more like what Canada used to do**; they go in, provide mediation, live with the people and find out the real issues and try to solve everything diplomatically and without gunfire. There are pros and cons to both sides, but in the end we cannot allow something like the Rawandan Homicide to ever happen again. The UN wouldn't allow interference with intra-country conflicts, and that's why so many people were killedf before NATO decided to disobey orders for the UN and help the people out. It was a terrirble tragedy and no one deserves that kind of devastation. It was a genocide, pure and simple, and still we didn't do anything until it was basically too late. *(not just the US but it's a good example) **(We're getting more like peace makers because a while ago we were in a country and they tried to kill most of the unarmed peace keepers in the country) So do you believe at any cost the Rawandan Geneocide must be prevented from happening again and we(as the international community) should interfere with other countries affairs such as Civil wars? If by force or other means? If you haven't noticed, other countries have been helping with other countries and aiding one side of their civil wars (and other major violent events) since the ancient times. Corinthians helping the Spartans defeat the Athenians. Even more than a thousand years later... French helping the Americans with their revolution. England trying to aid France against their revolution. Germany allying with Austria to take down a Serbian Terrorist that killed Archduke Ferdinand. (And ultimately leading to WWII) Even more recently... With the uprising in Libya, a nomadic group called the Tuareg have entered the fight for freedom, and regularly help out in civil war situations, no matter the country. Now does this mean that we SHOULD interfere with other countries? Absolutely not, but it does prove that humans have been doing this type of thing for a LONG time. We tend to pick sides and match up our values with another country to see if it matches our own. I don't think we should impose our culture on another culture. Even if we see their practices as "Barbaric," they have a right to practice their own beliefs in their own country and in their own culture. That being said, we should not allow Genocides. We should provide as much help as the country wants in the matter of National disasters. Remember Haiti? Of course you do, but do you remember Chile of the same year? That earthquake was larger than Haiti's, but Chile refused any aid from foreign countries. Should we force aid upon a country that doesn't want it? Or conversely, what about the Ukranian Famine under Stalin? The world didn't even hear about it until the late 1980's. That country didn't want aid, because it was starving its own people systematically. It was a genocide, but since it wasn't public information no one helped the Ukranians. No one knew about it. So is it not a crisis/genocide if no one knows about it? And if so, what is our obligation to make it right? IS it our obligation to make it right? I believe that we should only help another country if and only If it requests the help of UN or other nations. Otherwise we should not intefere because if we interfere too much people will become depentent on our aid and they ( the country in question) will not be able to self-govern. And in aswer to your last question; We as humans tend to believe that it is our obligation to make it right. But then again if it weren't for events such as the ones you described we would have not moved forward towards a *"better" society. I believe we (as humans) do have a obligation to make things right, however that does not mean I believe in we should storm in gunning blazing. But then again I see the need for such events to happen without our interference, it is the only we seem to improve as humans. If was not for the Titanic sinking we would not have regulations that state that the must be enough lifejackets and lifeboats for everyone on board. If it were not for the Holocaust in WWII we would have not made advances in human rights. To put it simply as human I believe we do have an obligation, but as history major I see the need for such events to happen in order for the greater good of all. *I use the term loosely and I mean as a society we have made advancements in social and techogoical. According to that first comment, you see no problem with Britain, France, and America helping the rebels in Libya? What about the French entering the American revolution. Sometimes you need Peace Makers. *Sigh* They (the UN or Americans and co) are not helping the rebels directly . The Purpose of the UN in Libya and the no fly zone is to protect civilians from being bombed by the rebels AND the pro government forces. However indirectly that does help the rebels combat the pro government forces, because as far as we know the pro government forces are the ones with the planes. As for the french entering the American civil war I can't comment on that because I do not know that area of history and therefore would not be able to argure fairly. (I'm Canadian = P )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:13 pm
Cinna101 nope everyone should just leave each other the ******** alone Why? 3nodding Tell me your reasons for thinking that. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
