Policing The World
Dread
Join Date: 2002-07-24 Member: 993Members
Join Date: 2002-07-24 Member: 993Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">alone</div> [Disclaimer]This thread is NOT about a country defending it self or about pre-emptive attacks, but on how world nations interfere with other nations inside issues and foreign policies, and should it happen[Disclaimer]
I could write a long essay on this but because I'm lazy I'll just start off with simple 1st grade aplphabetical example:
Countries <b>A</b> and <b>B</b> think that there is one particular way how a nation should work. They are absolutely sure it's the best way and right way. Country <b>C</b> works differently. Countries <b>A</b> and <b>B</b> don't like how <b>C</b> works and <b>A</b> attacks <b>C</b> in order to change it to work the right way. Even though <b>B</b> didn't give <b>A</b> its agreement to do so.
Do you think <b>A</b> has a right to attack alone? Do you think <b>A</b> would have right to attack with green light from <b>B</b>? Do you think <b>C</b> should find the best way to work on its own?
My simple example didn't become so simple after all but I hope you get it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Discuss.
I could write a long essay on this but because I'm lazy I'll just start off with simple 1st grade aplphabetical example:
Countries <b>A</b> and <b>B</b> think that there is one particular way how a nation should work. They are absolutely sure it's the best way and right way. Country <b>C</b> works differently. Countries <b>A</b> and <b>B</b> don't like how <b>C</b> works and <b>A</b> attacks <b>C</b> in order to change it to work the right way. Even though <b>B</b> didn't give <b>A</b> its agreement to do so.
Do you think <b>A</b> has a right to attack alone? Do you think <b>A</b> would have right to attack with green light from <b>B</b>? Do you think <b>C</b> should find the best way to work on its own?
My simple example didn't become so simple after all but I hope you get it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Discuss.
Comments
If it was purely your situation, no. But.... it ain't ever that simple bro, sorry.
If a warlord from C is slaughtering its own people in a bloody ethnic clensing, or doing something to undermine the citizens of C for their own gain while they suffer and the leader blames it on A or B, and A has the power to make a difference, then yes.
If it was purely your situation, no. But.... it ain't ever that simple bro, sorry.
If a warlord from C is slaughtering its own people in a bloody ethnic clensing, or doing something to undermine the citizens of C for their own gain while they suffer and the leader blames it on A or B, and A has the power to make a difference, then yes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But how can you be sure that A is right without asking from B? If A just goes in and does what he thinks is right, how is he better than C, who also thought that he was doing the right thing. Shouldn't A negotiate with B to know for sure and getting a democratic majority for its cause? Isn't the right thing always what the majority thinks is right?
unfortunately, A (and C...) are etnocentric and don't like giving up power to make D work.
The UN was supposed to deal with these rouge states but it failed because Europeans like to enforce the law with a citation, not a gun (How can an organization that has un-democtratic members like China enforce democracy? It can't, it is a big flaw). I think we should create a more refined world power that can tell nations what they can and can't do.
The UN was supposed to deal with these rouge states but it failed because Europeans like to enforce the law with a citation, not a gun (How can an organization that has un-democtratic members like China enforce democracy? It can't, it is a big flaw). I think we should create a more refined world power that can tell nations what they can and can't do. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Before we can decide that we MUST enforce democracy, we should somehow determine if its actually the BEST and only right way.
And if you want to really enforce democracy, you should ask all 6 billion people on the earth to vote for the best governing type <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Or how about a government that lets 5 girls burn to death, rather than having them run outside the burning building without the proper headgear?
Careful if you give 6 billion people a vote. Many of them are not used to having one.
Or how about a government that lets 5 girls burn to death, rather than having them run outside the burning building without the proper headgear?
Careful if you give 6 billion people a vote. Many of them are not used to having one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't like what the leaders of your government are doing then don't vote for them in the next election, simple as that. Also, I was under the impression that Saudi Arabia isn't a democratic state.
I was replying to dread.
I don't see how he can consider some of these other forms of government as better, especially since many times the citizens DON'T get a choice.
lets all just agree to disagree
problem solved
a and b dont like what c is doing? who cares? its C's country. he can run it how he wants
If it was purely your situation, no. But.... it ain't ever that simple bro, sorry.
If a warlord from C is slaughtering its own people in a bloody ethnic clensing, or doing something to undermine the citizens of C for their own gain while they suffer and the leader blames it on A or B, and A has the power to make a difference, then yes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But how can you be sure that A is right without asking from B? If A just goes in and does what he thinks is right, how is he better than C, who also thought that he was doing the right thing. Shouldn't A negotiate with B to know for sure and getting a democratic majority for its cause? Isn't the right thing always what the majority thinks is right? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, in the past, majority's thought that appeasing Hitler would be the best move, look what happened there.
lets all just agree to disagree
problem solved
a and b dont like what c is doing? who cares? its C's country. he can run it how he wants <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Countries aren't some possessions. A leader doesn't own his country, his country owns him. If a leader isn't respresenting his country, then he/she should stop being the leader or get an **** kicking.
if the nations could actually control thier leaders ans leaders would actually care about thier nations everything would be perfect.
the solutions to this:
all polititions make minimum wage, so its a financial burden instead of a get rich job. that way working class people who know what working class people want go and serve a term or two in office.
wasnt a polititions pay originally supposed to be compensation for time taken off work?
Turn to Russia and ask the people there and many of them will tell you that they want the old days back. That they want the communists back. For Americans, this sounds like crazy talk. But for the Russians, who had previously been ruled for 1,000 years by despotic rulers and got by just fine, the old ways sound a lot better than what capitalism has given them: poverty, unemployment, starvation and drugs. These people yearn for the control despotic governments gave them. And who are we to say that's wrong?
Not everyone wants capitalist democracy. America lives in such a system and likes it, so the people there think the rest of the world should work the same way. But not everyone likes the idea of voting for your governments. A lot of people like the idea of not having to worry about big decisions, being given a role in life that is defined. That's human nature, and there's nothing in human nature that makes democracy or despotism more desirable.
However, if B, while agreeing with A that an objective natural law does exist, warns A that in this particular case there are better and more proportionate means available to discipline C, then A is well advised to listen to B.
I was replying to dread.
I don't see how he can consider some of these other forms of government as better, especially since many times the citizens DON'T get a choice. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you would read my posts you would understand that I'm not saying that in my opinion dictatorship is better than democracy for example. My opinion doesn't matter but what matters is that you can't say what's best for some other country. You don't have the right to say "I'm right, you are wrong and that's why we can kick your ****" Even if you think the other nations government is obviously ridiculous, you can't say that your way of doing this is absolutely better that how they do it in N-Korea or China or used to do in Iraq.
Also read Ryo-Ohkis reply. We seem to share the same view on this.
My opinion:
Even if we were to come to a consensus about the absolute superiority of a certain governmental system, a single country could still not be an effective policeman. Every police officer has to be neutral in the case he or she is tackling. One might later take sides, but nobody would allow, say, the husband of a murdered woman to do the research on her death, because it is plainly obvious that the fact he'd produce would be strongly biased.
No country strong enough to police the world can be sufficiently neutral, however.
Let's take the most obvious example: Iraq. Now, assume for a second that there had been <i>no</i> controversy about the war, that <i>everyone</i> agreed that a regieme change was necessary, and that the American administration had only the best intentions.
Let's assume that the war goes off without a hitch. Hussein is found dead with his pants down in a toilet of a bombed palace, the WMD are found, the Iraqians are dancing in the streets, thanking their liberators.
One day later, the question of the reconstruction of the war-torn country, and with it the question about the use of the Iraqi oil would arise, and this is where Bush would inevitably fail to either be a good policeman or a good president:
As the president of the US, it'd be his obligation to support the American economy in every way possible.
As policeman in Iraq, it'd be his obligation to help the Iraqian economy by searching for the ultimately best way of reconstruction with none but Iraqs interest in mind.
No matter what he'd do, he'd let one role down: Either, he's opening the Iraqi market to the American economy by granting it a big portion of the reconstruction deals financed out of oil sold to American energy firms, thus allowing the economic equivalent of sharks into a goldfish tank, or he tries to help Iraq do the best possible deals, thus often shunning his own country.
One might argue that these issues are by far outweighted by the removal of a terrible dictator, but as mean as it sounds, no dictator has ever brought more misery over his people than a good economic disaster followed by a famine.
In addition to the problems I already described, there's also the issue of practicability. The 'policemen' often lack a certain in-depth knowledge of the social situation and ethnic issues within a certain country. This can lead to one taking sides in ethinc conflicts where one should've stayed the neutral third, it can lead to alliances with the wrong people (Afghanistan is a good example for that); it can lead to a multitude of situations where the policeman who tried to be the solution becomes part of the problem.
The UN, a child of the early Cold War, was never intended for this kind of situation. It lacks an independent army, a strong, base-democratically founded executive arm, and most importantly, it lacks the funding necessary to do policing missions. Thus, there is as of now no, <i>no</i> power on Earth that could even hope to carry such missions out with a chance of success.
However, if B, while agreeing with A that an objective natural law does exist, warns A that in this particular case there are better and more proportionate means available to discipline C, then A is well advised to listen to B. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's hypocritical enough. For example. US says U CANT HAVE WMD....Iraq allegedly has them. GO KILL NOW.....Iraq's alleged WMD's not found . U.S=Hypocrites from that cold slap in the face. Like during the cold war. DIE COMMUNISTS DIE! DONT SPREAD THAT STUFF! Now look. "You all should become a democracy...because if you don't...."
That you're now defending North Korea's right to let its citizens starve should somehow give you a hint on why your and Ryo-Ohki's <a href='http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_18_4.html' target='_blank'>cultural relativism is a logical error</a>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Given cultural relativism's many failings, why is it so popular? Part of the answer is that many people believe that it promotes tolerance. Anthropologist Ruth Benedict, for example, claims that, by accepting cultural relativism, "we shall arrive at a more realistic social faith, accepting as grounds of hope and as new bases for tolerance the coexisting and equally valid patterns of life which mankind has created for itself from the raw materials of existence." [1] But to explicitly advocate cultural relativism on the grounds that it promotes tolerance is to implicitly assume that tolerance is an absolute value. If there are any absolute values, however, cultural relativism is false.
The most a cultural relativist can consistently claim is that her culture values tolerance. But other cultures may not. In fact, fundamentalists of almost every stripe do not tolerate those who disagree with them. From a cultural relativist point of view, then, their intolerance is perfectly justified. Thus any attempt to justify cultural relativism by an appeal to tolerance is bound to fail.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its exactly that, what drives conflicts in general: selfishness
We want more for ourselves then for others, thats whats happening for the last millenia starting from stones to military aircraft and WMDs.
The problem is, if A doesnt like Z, Z would probably also not like A.
And now, the power of death spreading A has over Z, or Z over A, will determine the "political" course.
There are many other Nations like B,C,...,Y who see A or Z wrong. But looking at their own interests and the power of A or Z "politics" will calculate which side they choose.
Dont be foolish and think a Country would go ahead and spend millions in dollars or soldier lives for the sake of people in another continent, whithout having more billions in mind.
So, what would happen if A disliked Z and Z disliked A? War? And the "winner" would do what? This is a crime just like genocide is. If the only thing a country can do to persuade is getting a gun and occupy a country thats not like it "should be"... this is pathetic.
And if A is a superpower, having 10000s of WMDs and says to Z you have 10, then this is rediculous.
Let people alone, "helping" them just makes things worse, and in the end... all empires fall...
*Sigh* Our ways of doing things, be they how a government treats it's citizens or how a husband treats his wife are going to be differant to how other cultures and governments do things. Neither side has the correct way of doing things. As soon as we start saying "This type of government is superior" there will always be someone who says that their type of government is better. Neither person is right.
We also take the view that everyone who doesn't live in a capitalist democratic country yearns to live in one. This is not so. What has been demonstrated over the years of the 20th century is that nations have tried and discarded democracy in many occrances (China (1949), Russia (1917), Germany (1933) are a few examples). The fact that despotic regimes remain in today's world, indeed they almost florish, is proof that many of the world's people are fine with despotic governments, and they will fight to protect them. Now we can call this stupid, or claim they're indoctrinated, or say that they're only defending it because they fear death but the fact remains that these people are content to exist under these governments. History shows that when people are truely dissatisfied with a regime, they can and will overthrow it.
It's not our job to go into a country and remove a government when the people themselves havn't risen up and taken it down. If the government remains, then it is by de facto consent of the people. Let people in each country decide things on their own. If they decide they want American style democracy, let them do it for themselves. Barging in and forcing it on them is one of the best ways to see it not accepted into their society and culture.
So what are we to do?
You correctly assert that the global situation resembles lawless anarchy. Will we succumb to this anarchy in fatalism, grabbing loot where we can, or will we put our trust in an actor whose motives are, although imperfect and somewhat selfish, at least not totally corrupted and destructive?
Of course a lawful and strong world government would be the ideal solution. But as long as none is in sight, we have to participate in a somewhat shady vigilantism, because letting the criminals rule is even <i>less</i> desirable.
The USA are no policeman, but they're no common thug either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do we really have to get into an arguement that is essentially the same as as debating whether sexism or racism is correct?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, are they? I'll say that sexism and racism are universally wrong, no matter which country they occur in. Will you defend a foreign culture's right to disagree with me and endorse sexism, racism and slavery? Be warned: Ultimately logic will require you to defend the right of Nazi Germany to gas Jews, if that's what their "culture" considers the right thing to do.
The controversy is not about democracy vs. despotism. Sometimes (although seldomly) despots are benevolent. The question is whether objective standards are available to judge the actions of governments or "cultures", and who, in absence of a lawful policeman, may fight crime.
That all depends on your viewpoint. Many nations do regard the US as common thugs, and given that the US has undertaken invasions on questionable grounds and poked it's nose into the affairs of virtually every nation on earth they're not entirely unjustified. Hence I don't see any contenders for the title of world policeman that would not abuse the position in order to further the affairs of their own nation. That's what nations do: they act in their national interest, not in anyone elses.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, are they? I'll say that sexism and racism are universally wrong, no matter which country they occur in. Will you defend a foreign culture's right to disagree with me and endorse sexism, racism and slavery? Be warned: Ultimately logic will require you to defend the right of Nazi Germany to gas Jews, if that's what their "culture" considers the right thing to do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mmm, playing Devil's Advocate. I got a high score yesterday.
Sexism is viewed unfavourably in many cultures, but the definitions differ. In Islamic culture, the idea is that the man and woman both have defined roles that they should not step out of. Because this clashes with Western ideas of equality, Islamic culture is regarded as sexist. Is it? Well from their perspective no. A culture in Africa may view women as less important than men. Are they being sexist? By our defenition yes. Do we have the right to stop them? No.
Racism remains prevelant all across the world. Now I do not view it in a favorable light. Many of my countrymen do, and so do many Americans. If someone wishes to hold such views, that their race is "higher" than another, if they do not break any of that nation's laws then they can hold such views if they please. Their cultures will regard them as incorrect but it's still their choice. If a culture or society or nation holds another race in contempt, that is their privilage as long as they don't undertake actions such as genocide. Asking all the people of another race to leave for example, may not be viewed favorably by the world community. Actively persecuting them may alse be seen in a poor light. Bear in mind that opinions change: 100 years ago, persecuting Jews was not seen in such dim light as it is now. A nation can act how they wish with regard to questions of race, but these views may bring them into a clash with the rest of the world.
The Nazism question is interesting. If the Nazi party had taken it upon itself to simply critizise Jews and hold them back from government positions then there would have been little wrong with this. Jewish people would either have moved out of Germany or knuckled under. Undertaking genocide however is something that the modern world does not look favourably upon. Hence the Nazis came into a direct clash with the international community after their treatment of Jews was uncovered. If the Nazis had tried such a thing in 1500 or 1600, they not only would have gotten away with it; they would have been praised! Thus how one sees these things is based very much upon perception.
Now the world didn't declare war on the Nazis over what happened to the Jews. The world only declared war on Germany when Germany attacked them. Jews were not treated very well in Europe either; anti-semitism was not limited to Germany. Even if it had become apparent that Germany was slaughtering their Jewish population, it remains questionable that other nations would have invaded Germany for that reason.
However, it was not German culture that ordered the gassing of the Jews. Most Germans reacted with horror when they learned that their government had committed such an act. Now it is not considered just today for genocide to occur. Hence the world community does not approve of genocidal acts. Not approving and actively invading are differant things though. The US for example doesn't really care about Kurds, but the Kurdish people's persecution is useful political fodder. By the same token, the US doesn't involve itself heavily because that puts them at odds with Turkey.
Should a government be desposed because it is undertaking genocidal acts? Yes, because genocidal acts by todays standards cannot be justified. Should a government be removed because it is persecuting it's own people? No, because that's an internal matter. Should a government be removed because it's views are racist or sexist? No, because those views affect only it's own people. If the government was killing all people of a certain race inside it's borders, that is a genocidal act and thus the government should be desposed.
I'll pass thanks.
Let it be known, though, that its not due to lack of ammo. This topic can get really messy.
Excellent post twex. Cultural relativism is crap.
If it was purely your situation, no. But.... it ain't ever that simple bro, sorry.
If a warlord from C is slaughtering its own people in a bloody ethnic clensing, or doing something to undermine the citizens of C for their own gain while they suffer and the leader blames it on A or B, and A has the power to make a difference, then yes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But how can you be sure that A is right without asking from B? If A just goes in and does what he thinks is right, how is he better than C, who also thought that he was doing the right thing. Shouldn't A negotiate with B to know for sure and getting a democratic majority for its cause? Isn't the right thing always what the majority thinks is right? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the contrary, should A sit around and have such diplomatic woggling, all the while giving C more time to massacre X people? Should A with the ability resources and ability sit around and try arguing with B, who may have vested unknown interests in C to start an inevitable war anyway? What if all talking would accomplish is a null result, with B not agreeing to anything in the end. If A relies on B for permission, and B doesn't let them then all A can do is watch C continue to butcher its citizens.
And then, in the whole process we get no result. C remains, B does whatever and D does something to get upset about. Perhaps in that case B is upset with D and in spite, A does what B did earlier with C. So again no result occurs and nothing is solved. The countries doing the wrong, C and D end up carrying on doing bad things, because the backwards morals of A and B allow it.
The countries with the power sit idly by and watch, all because they are too busy arguing with eachother. The tin pot dictators continue to amass weapons, butcher their people and ethnically cleanse other nations. Nothing changes.
If A, B, C and D are the only four nations, and have interlocking trading deals and agreements, is there really going to ever be a right majority? What if there are more, but E, F and G simply don't give a stuff.
How can you get a fair moral majority for example, when none of the countries has any fair morals to begin with?
Ryo-Ohki
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What has been demonstrated over the years of the 20th century is that nations have tried and discarded democracy in many occrances (China (1949), Russia (1917), Germany (1933) are a few examples). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't it ironic how you named two regimes, which over their little run in history butchered millions of people. That in itself should give you a hint as to the logical fallacy your argument is based on.
[Incidently, I don't know much about China after 1949]
But when the citizens of that other country cannot speak for themselves to say their form is bad, what are they to do?