Dog tags glorify war (?)

Yes that certainly would have been ideal. But as I said, about hindsight. If we had never had interfered the war would have dragged on for years in Europe, and may have never ended in Asia.

We didn't exactly let the Soviets have Europe, they took east Europe, and nuclear weapons made war a more devestating possibilty then letting the Soviets keep their teritorial conquest.

Both your arguments here were esentially, "uh-huh!"

And what's your real world experience with African politics that gives you a better insight about the situation the reading about it?

Sending in an international peacekeeping force to protect civilians was my solution to the first acts of genocide in '94. That doesn't mean it was the first thing to consider.

I'm not, I'm advocating sending in soldiers to protect civilians in internationally controlled camps where refugees are provided with medical care why a solution is tried to be made, which attacking in your mind.

If thats how you define attacking, then your definition is wrong, but for your sake, I've said, let's attack. Because that's what we should do.

 

If we send in a peacekeeping force, then the atrocities can be mitigated by careful observation, and any war crimes that are commitied Should be punished by military tribunals.

You're right, atrocities probably will happen anyway, but if the number is much lower then what would happen by us twiddling our thumbs in Washington, then sending in a peacekeeping force is the right thing to do whether you want to patronise it or not.

 

it's a viable argument against "huh-huh"

actually there is much to say about book learning.Been there done that.Still trying to keep up.Never will completely.my inability to spout off facts from the past is not due to my never reviewing them,just from not refreshing myself.The problem in absorbing oneself in total book knowledge is that one only ends up knowing what the auther intended the reader to know.Like asking a child for a political opinion.They will only repeat what their parents or other peers have told them.The only answer you know is what you've read.You're stuck there.You need to get past that and meditate on what life is and how these facts can actually fit together in sequence without the need for further violence.

 

I said you said ''uh-huh''. I provided a stament of why genocide wasn't a military strategy, one of which being that it's a war crime.

I also provided somewhat of a plan to the current situation and you're argument was 'yeah that's war'.

That's not war under UN law. which is the basis to my asserting that sending in soldiers is legitimate. You just said no.

you don't seem to be too aware of the current situation in Darfur, Chad or the DRC, and if you are keenly aware, you have yet to suggest an alternative.

You're the one who's been spouting off moral homilies about the very basic tenant of killings bad.

I've read political commentary saying we should increase funding to the AU, send in an international peacekeeping force,continue negotiations, and do nothing for the Darfur crisis. After reading I've decided that I support the first two, as I have decided that doing nothing makes us ambivelent to genocide.

You can call me a mouthpeice if you want, I don't really care. I have determined that there is a solution and these people need help.

If you're solution is nothing besides imposing moral homolies on the debate, then it's not a solution.

This is the last thing I'm going to say unless you or someone else has something dynamic to add to the debate.

For many many years, through criminal trade practices and racism, we have allowed African and other governments to disolve and be left with nothing left for law aside from rural gangs.

Our continued ignoring of these situations has led to some of these gangs becoming involved in the most revolting crimes aginst humanity the world has ever witnessed, all the while we've been enjoying peace and prosperity.

But no longer should we allow Africa to be enslaved in darkness, involved in purging ethnic wars. Doing this will be a difficult process, It will involve diplomacy, trading issues, and occasionally military to protect civilians.

These people are desperate for help. If it takes a military to help them, then it's worth it. If we get blood on our hands, it's worth it. If the rest of the world publishes articles coling us colonialists it's still worth it.

However, we should look for situations where infantry isn't needed. If that isn't possible, we should form an international mission to aid the AU with peacekeeping efforts.

We should mitigate the damage and the use of military as much as possible, but there are situations in which people hiding in camps which are subject to daily incursions by genocidal gangs, that the only way to protect them is with peacekeeping forces.

But no matter what, we should use every avilable resource to protect the people who can't protect themselves. We must rid the curse of genocide from the Earth. Our humanity is at stake, as long with millions of lives. We can't fail these people.

 

Why do i need to argue what is.Prove to me that good is good and bad is bad.You can't. police actions,peaceful as they may be deemed are anything but.The violence is not contained.They are never limited to police actions.Joining the military with the false notion that you're gonna stop genecide and doing everything else instead is too ignorant to be considered stupid.One has to know better..there's better ways to get your frustrations out.If war ended genecide there would be no genecide by now.Thousands of years have proved that.

 

i've taken physical poundings for people whose names i will never know. i've stood up for people who will never know me. i've never raised an angry hand to another being on this planet, because i care for them. i'm willing to suffer for the protection of other people knowing it won't ever be reciprocated. if you are unable to see beyond the immediate, that's fine. that's you. i will never vote for or condone harming someone to take what they have and i want. but i will NOT stand idly by while a whole people are slaughtered for their inconvenient existance. if you think this means something much less than it is, you're either short sighted or merely arguing from a vantagepoint of rage. if the latter is the case, i forgive you, because you don't know who i am and what i stand for. but if you're responding merely from rage, you're no better than any war-hawk on the face of the planet.

 

Excuse me your holiness....did you actually read both of these guys before you started comparing gate68 to a warhawk? Have you been following this thread from the beginning?
I didn't think so. Can you get off of that cross? We need the wood. It's getting cold in here.

 

yeah, whatever, man.some jerk claims claims you support wanton violence and war because you say stopping genocide is a GOOD idea, you stay calm cool & collected.

 

DO you not speak or read sarcasm?

 

He's been arguing against "justified genocide" for days now. He's just doing it in a sarcastic fashion. Incidently, I don't support wanton violence or war in any form, for any reason.

 

i can only speak for myself (a lesson hard learned, i never said i was quick) & what he's said to me. i say wading in to stop a real bastard from pummeling some poor fucker is just as important as not being the real bastard, he says i'm a supporter of war & violence. seriously, now, would you not take at least some offense? i apply the same level of morals to my voting personae as i do to my personal life. being called a war-supporter (in that very nearly snarky tone) is an affront to what i'm trying to become & to the idealist i once was. i'm not trying to get on you about this, okie, it's hard to walk in in the middle & eel what other's felt, but that was like a roundhouse kick to the gut.

 

I didn't want to beat you up either. I've been bouncing in and out of this post since the beginning wanting to break these two lions up. Sorry about the cross remark....You gotta admit, it sounded like you think you're some kind of martyr. That's not meant as a jab.

 

I hate war....my family has been way too affected by it. I really hate it when we show up in someone elses yard and start one. I don't want to hear a justification for it. I just want it to stop....period. This thread started with a stupid, insensitive question.(related to war somewhat) it has degenerated into a war of it's own. Look and see how that happened, and you'll know why I got mad.

 

heh. i have had the martyr complex thing, so i understand. my high horse is a high-stepper. i get remote when attacked. anyway, while i've learned the ugly truth that sometimes you absolutely have to fight, truth be told, i'd much rather not.

 

I hear you... I really suck at it. I just start swinging at everything that moves.(on here)

 

I act like a real prick sometimes on here. I'm actually pretty mellow in real life. I guess wandering_okie is my alter ego

 

heh. damned hypothalimus (sp? and, is that the hind brain?)

 

ya' see..it worked. this thing cooled down a bit. Thanks for assisting with the diversion.

Have a good one.

w_o

 

Impulse control would be hippocampus. Associated memory is in the Amygdala
I'm a geek

well gotta go to work again here in a while. you people need a break from me anyway.

 

hippocampus...i'll remember that. my impulse control is typically okay. though i have my martyr moments....hmmm. that sounds like an herbal tea for constipation....martyr moments: for when you just can't let it go....