|
Volkerball posted:My view has nothing to do with the US in particular. I just believe in the responsibility to protect. Sovereignty is conditional, and the condition is that a nation must protect its citizens. If it isn't doing that, then the burden of protecting its citizens falls upon the international community. And I advocate based along those lines as a citizen of a democratic nation with the strongest military on earth. Now whether or not a country is adequately protecting its citizens is subjective of course, but I do think at a certain extreme, there's not much debate to be had. I doubt anyone would say that it would have been violating Nazi Germany's sovereignty to attack it if the primary reason for the attack was based around the operation of concentration camps, because that position would be accurately described as pro-holocaust. So there's a line that everybody draws at a certain point. In my opinion, the Syrian government is on the wrong side of that line. That's the fundamental aspect that dictates that Assad's claim to rule Syria is no more legitimate than my own. That's not even close to saying the US should be allowed to act with impunity wherever it wants. Shouldn't there be a debate when the "policing country" has no idea or ability to adequately fix the state they just destroyed? How about the population of this "policing country" isn't supportive of a action? How about if the decisions of the "policing country" is quite arbitrary including ignoring the plight of civilians being harmed by their allies? What happens when the "policing country" fucks up and leaves the country even worse off when they found it...multiple times? Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Mar 14, 2016 |
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:I have to give you props. Hannity would be jealous of how dishonest these questions are. No one said anything about stifling debate, and a plan of action should obviously include discussion about what can realistically be accomplished, as well as the potential to provide a better situation relative to the status quo of non-intervention. I think all of those questions are perfectly fair considering what I was responding to. You didn't say stifling debate but rather "not much debate should be had" and then gave a presented a godwin. I actually don't have a problem with some forms of intervention, in particular, the US could have backed up UN operations in Bosnia and Rwanda if it wanted to, it didn't. The NFZ was defend able, but the sanctions of Iraq were ultimately not and if anything inflicted significant brutality on the Iraqi population. As far as Syria, I have no problem with US airstrikes against ISIS and/or cooperation with the Kurds. Ultimately, there are clear limits to what types of intervention work, and in particular regime change has a terrible track record, a track record bad enough that it should be openly be contested as a "goto" solution. The US has left a tremendous amount of wreckage behind in the name of regime change, and the public has rightfully soured on it. Your entire thesis is that the US is going to have a neutral hand in toppling regimes when it clearly doesn't and that the criticism of the international community is going to be enough to correct its eventual abuses on a occupied population when it very clearly isn't. Moreover, we have historical experience to point to and the US garnered a sizable rap sheet at this point. The burden of proof should be put on the side of interventionists that action is going to have a long term positive effect especially considering how often "things go wrong." Ardennes fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:No, I said there was not much debate that could be had in that one particular extreme, in the furtherance of the argument that almost everyone would support one extreme scenario of intervention. The point being it's not the concept of intervention that is the issue. It's where you draw the line. Which evidently, you agree with. How you contorted that into "if you don't support intervention in every case, you're wrong and dumb and nobody should talk about it, and answer me this smart guy, what happens when the intervening coalition nukes the country it's intervening in?" is something I'm trying really hard to wrap my head around and it's not working out for me. Probably because the entire dialogue has been about regime change in the first place? Yeah sure there is a sliding scale over intervention, but getting down to brass tacks it is about regime regime and its after effects. The ultimate issue is there is very broad differences in when intervention is called for and what extent a nation should be willing to go: supporting UN peacekeepers or banning armed sales is one thing but occupying a country for a decade is another. Most Americans (depends on which polls to a degree) now agree that we have pushed too far on more extreme end of intervention and hope for more of a isolationist position but nevertheless will probably support some intervention to a point but it is just to a far more limited degree than the past. Obama has sided for a relatively middle ground position all things considered on that spectrum, and certainly has moved into a more conciliatory position after Clinton left.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 03:13
|
|