sethnintendo said:
Joelcool7 said:
This is key to my beliefs. I don't agree with violence for the sake of violence I believe in its use to stop violence and keep peace and prosperity. The key to that belief is "If a man sees someone commit a crime and has the power to stop it, but chooses not to they are as guilty as the man commiting the crime".
As such I believe countries should have weapons and troops to protect the civilians and lives of the people within their countries and abroad. If the Taliban start massacring people or Gaddafi starts killing innocent civilians etc...etc.. and we have the military capacity to stop them but do not. Then we may as well be commiting the atrocities ourselves.
This does not mean I think violence should be used in all cases. We can use economics as well such as sanctions. But the military plays a big role in protecting people's lives and rights. Keeping people safe from tyrants.
So you see , no I am not one to say violence is a good answer and that we should solve all our disputes with violence. However when violence is used or people are being treated horribly , and a military or act of violence can restore order and justice and stop those people from being harmed and mistreated. Then I believe their is a place for armed intervention.
In other words violence with the sole goal of stopping violence!
|
I have to comment on this... I am highly against the USA or any country being the international police force. Genocide, killings, etc.. happens all the time and you can't expect one country to step up each time and spend its' money to try and stop the violence with more violence. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan prove your insight is wrong. We have only made the region worse and killed far more innocent people when compared to the actual "bad" people.
I can list a few dozen countries that have killed many of their civilians that USA would never dream of going to war with at this point, yet you want USA or any other big enough military nation to go to constant war. Should we have gone and stopped Darfur? Probably so but we were so damn scared of Saddam and Iraq (threats that were never there). If the people of a country are being abused by their own government then let them rise up against it and stop it (happened in Egypt, Libya and now Syria). Being the world police force just causes more enemies and a never ending war state. You can take your ideas and go make a fascist warring nation. I want zero part in this bullshit police state.
|
I'm not in favour of country playing world police either. Hence my thread about how weaker countries should boost their own militaries to better protect not only their civilians but those around them. You'll note if you read many of my political threads I am highly opposed to the US's position as the world police.
Example, the whole world sits by and always waits for America to make a decision. Libya, Darfur , Rwanda , Syria. But what if other countries protected civilian lives as well. Would the US have needed to invade Afghanistan if Iran for example was worried about civilian lives, or Pakistan. Regional countries could broker peace and move to secure peoples freedom's. Assuming the countries involved are free themselves.
Also you mention many more Afghans have died fighting for freedom and with the US's involvement then if we had just stayed out and let the Taliban kill and torture them. Well many more died during the American Revolution so Blacks and other citizens would have their freedom's. it was a blood bath, now should the North just surrendered and allowed the abuses to continue?
In almost every democracy around the world their was a very bloody war to secure the people's freedom's and protect them from abuses. Whether the US or another country comes in to help or not does not change the fact that alot of people are going to die. So that future generations may live.
You yourself say you are for the people rising up themselves and over throwing their dictators. But that contradicts your comments about US or other countries causing more deaths. If the people rose up in say Libya and Nato did not give them air support how many thousands more would of been killed. It is estimated over 100,000 in Benghazi alone would have been killed, and if it hadn't been for Nato Gaddafi's troops would have succeeded.
Countries that can prevent a genocide and protect lives through military action should do so. If they don't then they are just as guilty as the countries commiting the atrocities.
Fact is to protect life and human rights, more often then not a military is needed or involved (From another country). Freedom isn't free it is bought with the blood of heroes. Whether they be civilians killed in cross fire or by dictators or the soldiers who fought to free them.
Any way you look at it, Violence to prevent violence is a good thing.
If you see a man raping a women, you can tell he has no weapon and that you can take him. But instead walk by and just allow the man to keep raping her. Do you really think you are innocent? Of course you should do something, in the same way if a country sees someone slaughtering their people and don't do anything when they could easily stop the bloodshed or prevent further bloodshed by lessoning it. Then they should.
P.S some will mention Darfur, Rwanda and Syria. Well I must admit military intervention should have been used in all three cases. Whether the military intervention was peace keepers being deployed to prevent a slaughter (Rwanda) or to stop the tyranny (Syria) armed intervention could save thousands to millions of lives!
