The US likes the whole world to abide by international law with the exception of themselves.
Flight 655 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Fl鈥?/a>
My Lai - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_mass鈥?/a>
Operation Ranch Hand - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_R鈥?/a>
Napalm - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm
Haditha - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_kil鈥?/a>
Fallujah - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_T鈥?/a>
Hamdania - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdania_in鈥?/a>
Ishaqi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishaqi_inci鈥?/a>
Mahmudiyah - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_鈥?/a>
Mukaradeeb - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_par鈥?/a>
Azizabad - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azizabad_ai鈥?/a>
Granai - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granai_Inci鈥?/a>
Chenagai - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenagai_ai鈥?/a>
Mazar - http://www.fantompowa.org/massacre_mazar鈥?/a>
Guantanamo Bay - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_鈥?/a>
Hiroshima and Nagasaki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb鈥?/a>
US Soldiers WW2 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/鈥?/a>
US Eugenics Program -http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/feb/06鈥?/a>Should the United States intervene in cases of genocide out of humanitarian reasons?
';Should'; is a tough question, because morally most people feel that the answer should be yes. It's immoral to let a genocide occur when it's within our power to stop it.
But, from the point of view of a rational actor, we shouldn't automatically engage ourselves just because there's a genocide somewhere. Nations have to consider the political, military, and geographical consequences of doing something like that, and we also have to consider objectively just how much long-term good we can do. If we intervene one year and it falls apart the next, we haven't really helped much.
Unless the US can supply a lasting solution to genocide, has the political means to engage in an intevention, and has the domestic political will to see that intervention through to a useful conclusion, it should not intervene militarily in a genocide.
No. Nation building is a fool's game. Unfortunately and predictably, leftists think they can tell good nation building from bad. So you get such ridiculous outcomes as leftists claiming nation building in Iraq is bad, but nation building in Darfur/Sudan is good.
Again, all nation building is a fool's game.
The US, along with many other countries, signed the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Sadly, almost no-one has lived up to their obligations under that. Only case I can think of where it has been prevented was the bombing of Serbia to prevent genocide of the Kosovars.
At the time, some idiot asked me to sign a petition against the bombing. They seemed upset when I told them what I thought of them and their petition.
No, the United States needs to stop getting involved in other countries problems. It's not appreciated when we do, and the countries in need usually end up turning on us. Screw 'em!! Let them solve their own problems for a change maybe someday the world will realize we do alot more good than we are given credit for.
Friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.
She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
Tell China to deal with Darfur, why is it our problem.
Are you just noticing how ineffective the United Nations is? They are as worthless as the league of Nations was while Hitler was taking over country after country.
';Should'; is subjective.
In genocide cases the sitting government is not legitimate so we CAN if Congress so chooses.
Anywhere there is a commodity that the CFR deems important to their goals the u.s. will send it's military to do their bidding.
Not just us alone. Intervention should be from NATO forces and anybody else that would like to help.
We are not the world's policemen.
No comments:
Post a Comment