|
On August 18 2009 09:04 citi.zen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 06:32 arsonist wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 18 2009 05:13 citi.zen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 04:56 arsonist wrote:
As far as I can tell, the only justification in this post for giving no merit to the aforementioned people's ideas is bolded, and I find it hilarious when debates like this crop up and labels like Socialist and Fascist are tossed around as scare tactics to trick people into thinking they're inherently evil or something.
He studied under a Marxist economist?! Oh god, here comes Stalin.
Noam Chomsky is a libertarian!? RUN.
My only point is this: the merit of an argument is weakened when you cite obscure and biased sources. Chomsky is very well known and respected, but mainly for his linguistic studies. + Show Spoiler +I am not saying either of them is the next Stalin. Every source in economics is going to be biased toward the individual's school of thought. When people throw out buzz words like, "He's a Socialist!" or "He's a Fascist!", usually the implication is that whatever they do, it's going to be detrimental. There's still a lot of indoctrinated RED FEAR out there. It's like calling people unAmerican simply as a means of attacking and dismissing them without actually looking at the substance of their ideas. I'll try one more time, with an analogy that should be appropriate for this forum: trying to have an argument with a Bisu fanboy over the best Protoss player of all times will not be a very satisfying exercise for me. + Show Spoiler +Alternate version, since I am sure it will come up: it is no fun arguing with someone who HATES Jaedong about who is the best zerg player of all-time either. Edit: for all your complaining about term dropping, you keep mentioning "fascism" a whole lot, even though I never did! What gives?
Good analogy, because dismissing someone as a fanboy instead of listening to whatever valid reasons they have explaining their favoured player's predominance is just like dismissing a Socialist's ideas without looking at their merit.
You mentioned Socialism, I simply brought up Fascism because it's used in the exact same context, i.e. "Obama is a Fascist!" sign on CNN. Seemed pertinent - wasn't meant to be accusatory.
Anyway, this has devolved from healthcare far enough, so I'm done. 
|
I would like to point out that universal healthcare is not the moral high ground of this debate. The moral high ground is charity. Government is not voluntary, it is force. It is a mafia that if 51% of the people tell them to steal money for "x" cause, they will go and steal from everyone for "x"; they don't give a shit what "x" is, they'll just exercise as much power people let them, as inefficiently as possible too. That is not moral. It can only be moral if everyone, 100% agreed to it. But from a voluntary standpoint, it would be unnecessary to even reach that level, as the 51% themselves should be able to raise money for their own cause while leaving the 49% alone.
My point is, if you care about the poor, go ahead and donate $$$ or time to help them. Using a gun, force, government, to make other people do it for you or with you, is wrong, if you believe in private property at least. Private property means that you own what you own and no one can make you give it away for "x". The moral high ground, starting from that premise, is not use government for anything...
So I don't care if you're enough of a fool to believe that the mafia will make the best use of your money and "fix" everything for you, just don't say it's moral, it offends my anarchist brain  ty.
|
On August 18 2009 16:24 Kwark wrote:
The difference between car insurance and health insurance though is that if you don't have car insurance and get into a huge crash the Government isn't obliged to spend however much it takes to buy you a new car. They'll say you fucked up, walk. Such an approach regarding health is less likely in these times and thus it makes much more sense to perform free maintainance on all cars, regardless of whether they're insured. The cost of checking the tread on someones tyres and then replacing them if needed is less than the cost of repairing a smashed up car after the crash.
Car insurance isn't to pay for yourself, it's to pay for the other person (if you are at fault). Health insurance is for yourself. If you don't have a big screen t.v. I guess you don't get to watch that football game. That sucks. If you don't buy food, you don't get to eat. If you don't buy healthcare, you get to walk into an emergency room and they can't deny you treatment (sounds similar to universal healthcare).
If things that are for yourself are a "right" then the government should feed us, cloth us, choose our marriages, our car, our job, our education... which is absolutely retarded.
Car insurance != health insurance.
|
United States43187 Posts
On August 19 2009 11:35 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 16:24 Kwark wrote:
The difference between car insurance and health insurance though is that if you don't have car insurance and get into a huge crash the Government isn't obliged to spend however much it takes to buy you a new car. They'll say you fucked up, walk. Such an approach regarding health is less likely in these times and thus it makes much more sense to perform free maintainance on all cars, regardless of whether they're insured. The cost of checking the tread on someones tyres and then replacing them if needed is less than the cost of repairing a smashed up car after the crash. Car insurance isn't to pay for yourself, it's to pay for the other person (if you are at fault). Health insurance is for yourself. If you don't have a big screen t.v. I guess you don't get to watch that football game. That sucks. If you don't buy food, you don't get to eat. If you don't buy healthcare, you get to walk into an emergency room and they can't deny you treatment (sounds similar to universal healthcare). If things that are for yourself are a "right" then the government should feed us, cloth us, choose our marriages, our car, our job, our education... which is absolutely retarded. Car insurance != health insurance.
That they aren't the same thing was kinda my point. Savio was saying car insurance works therefore there's no reason health insurance shouldn't. I was pointing out that there will always be an obligation to provide critical care in the health insurance market and therefore the market has a 3rd party waving a blank cheque. That changes the economics of it.
|
United States43187 Posts
On August 19 2009 11:13 Yurebis wrote:I would like to point out that universal healthcare is not the moral high ground of this debate. The moral high ground is charity. Government is not voluntary, it is force. It is a mafia that if 51% of the people tell them to steal money for "x" cause, they will go and steal from everyone for "x"; they don't give a shit what "x" is, they'll just exercise as much power people let them, as inefficiently as possible too. That is not moral. It can only be moral if everyone, 100% agreed to it. But from a voluntary standpoint, it would be unnecessary to even reach that level, as the 51% themselves should be able to raise money for their own cause while leaving the 49% alone. My point is, if you care about the poor, go ahead and donate $$$ or time to help them. Using a gun, force, government, to make other people do it for you or with you, is wrong, if you believe in private property at least. Private property means that you own what you own and no one can make you give it away for "x". The moral high ground, starting from that premise, is not use government for anything... So I don't care if you're enough of a fool to believe that the mafia will make the best use of your money and "fix" everything for you, just don't say it's moral, it offends my anarchist brain ty.
The system you are describing is called Anarchy, in which each individual is the highest power in his own world and answerable to no-one. The system that we have in place is called Democracy, in which each individual has the right to a vote but with that the obligation to obey the collective mandate. When you agree to cast a vote in a democratic society you agree to follow the outcome, regardless of what it is, as you would wish your opponents to do should your candidate win.
You're an anarchist. Good for you. You live in a democracy. Your point is utterly irrelevant. Don't like it? Move to Somalia.
|
On August 19 2009 11:39 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 11:35 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On August 18 2009 16:24 Kwark wrote:
The difference between car insurance and health insurance though is that if you don't have car insurance and get into a huge crash the Government isn't obliged to spend however much it takes to buy you a new car. They'll say you fucked up, walk. Such an approach regarding health is less likely in these times and thus it makes much more sense to perform free maintainance on all cars, regardless of whether they're insured. The cost of checking the tread on someones tyres and then replacing them if needed is less than the cost of repairing a smashed up car after the crash. Car insurance isn't to pay for yourself, it's to pay for the other person (if you are at fault). Health insurance is for yourself. If you don't have a big screen t.v. I guess you don't get to watch that football game. That sucks. If you don't buy food, you don't get to eat. If you don't buy healthcare, you get to walk into an emergency room and they can't deny you treatment (sounds similar to universal healthcare). If things that are for yourself are a "right" then the government should feed us, cloth us, choose our marriages, our car, our job, our education... which is absolutely retarded. Car insurance != health insurance. That they aren't the same thing was kinda my point. Savio was saying car insurance works therefore there's no reason health insurance shouldn't. I was pointing out that there will always be an obligation to provide critical care in the health insurance market and therefore the market has a 3rd party waving a blank cheque. That changes the economics of it.
the point of the matter is that the government being in the picture doesn't minimize costs. Lawmakers are people too, and power corrupts: its quite obvious that there's a reason why this takeover is occuring and yet doesn't actually cut costs.
What is seen and not seen: while I'm not an Austrian, Bastiat's text is so well established and yet so ignored that it's quite tempting to imagine delusions of an actual anarchy, not the pseudo anarchical civil war that is Somalia.
In any case, Somalia actually has some of the highest technical infrastructure in Africa-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats.
edit: whoops, quoted wrong post
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 19 2009 11:51 Caller wrote:
-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats.
Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group.
|
On August 19 2009 11:57 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 11:51 Caller wrote:
-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats. Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/ US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group.
that's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.
It was the Ethiopians Transitional Central Government or w/e vs. the Islamic Courts Councils or something like that
|
United States43187 Posts
On August 19 2009 11:57 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 11:51 Caller wrote:
-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats. Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/ US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group.
In fairness the Courts were committing widespread human rights abuses. Stable doesn't mean good. I believe that the US intervention in Somalia was one of the noblest acts of American foreign policy, a sign that after Rwanda the world was finally going to take responsibility for preventing this kind of thing. But after a few photos of dead Americans hit the media it became untenable.
The censorship on those photos was the most deplorable thing about it. It's fine to show an American corpse stripped naked and dragged through the street but you can't show his penis. Wtf priorities?!
|
On August 19 2009 12:15 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 11:57 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:51 Caller wrote:
-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats. Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/ US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group. In fairness the Courts were committing widespread human rights abuses. Stable doesn't mean good. I believe that the US intervention in Somalia was one of the noblest acts of American foreign policy, a sign that after Rwanda the world was finally going to take responsibility for preventing this kind of thing. But after a few photos of dead Americans hit the media it became untenable. The censorship on those photos was the most deplorable thing about it. It's fine to show an American corpse stripped naked and dragged through the street but you can't show his penis. Wtf priorities?!
yay south park ninja episode
|
Read De Tocqueville. There are reasons why one system can be successful in one country yet the same system is not in another country. He contrasted the American Revolution vs the French Revolution and the consequences of each.
In theory Anarcho-Capitalism is workable, however I look at it like Communism, in practice disastrous. A more practical position and one in which most Libertarians take is, that Government has certain functions those of which consist of Adjudication, Contractual obligations upheld, and a measure to recompense externalities in voluntary arrangements. They also believe in decentralization anti-federalist Jeffersonian ideals. This has been show to be extremely fruitful both in wealth prosperity, economic freedom, political freedom, and in line with natural law.
Libertarians as a rule are extremely firmly against any use of initiation of force, which we see as immoral. Either Ayn Rand Libertarianism which is more to the anarchic side, and there is consequential Libertarianism. I'm in between both.
In any case, history shows time and time again any expansion of Government directly means a reduction of personal liberty and freedom. That is the role of Government. As such that is why we seek to limit it as much as possible. UHC is a perverse notion of "increasing morality", etc.
If you are for freedom and liberty then you must become a Libertarian. Jefferson, Madison, Adams, etc. If you are for any expansion of Government you therefore intrude on natural and civil rights. If that is not Tyranny, I don't know what is.
Choose your side.
|
On August 19 2009 12:15 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 11:57 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:51 Caller wrote:
-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats. Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/ US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group. In fairness the Courts were committing widespread human rights abuses. Stable doesn't mean good. I believe that the US intervention in Somalia was one of the noblest acts of American foreign policy, a sign that after Rwanda the world was finally going to take responsibility for preventing this kind of thing. But after a few photos of dead Americans hit the media it became untenable. The censorship on those photos was the most deplorable thing about it. It's fine to show an American corpse stripped naked and dragged through the street but you can't show his penis. Wtf priorities?!
Yet you are against the Iraq War I presume? In which you made the case that stability doesn't mean good, and you do know Saddam massacred his people. If you follow this logic you give creed to interventionist pre-emptive aggression into any State that has Human Rights violations whatever the severity (subjective). This is abhorrable. You basically give jurisprudence to intervene militarily in such countries currently as China, Darfur, and Egypt.
There is only one prudent foreign policy and that is Non-interventionism. Free trade is key to regional and world peace. America should not be a police state, and is what is exactly the opposite of our founding. Do not engage in foreign entanglements, alliances, etc. No republic can endure such indominable stresses and survive. This is the cause for the destruction of Rome and every other great country.
I am actually surprised to hear this from you.
|
United States43187 Posts
A true anarchist would call you a tyrant for wanting a Government to enforce contracts. You breach the freedom of a man to lie, holding him accountable to bits of paper. I put it to you that you are in favour of tyranny because you want a some Government control in partnership with other personal freedoms.
Same argument you're using. I believe in the roles of a Government alongside some personal freedoms and more control than that approaches tyranny. You believe less Government, more personal freedom and more control than that approaches tyranny. A true anarchist believes in no Government, total personal freedom and more control than that approaches tyranny.
Does it occur to you that it is not black and white? That there is no magical tyrant line which we're on one side of and you're on the other?
|
United States43187 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:37 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:15 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:57 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:51 Caller wrote:
-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats. Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/ US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group. In fairness the Courts were committing widespread human rights abuses. Stable doesn't mean good. I believe that the US intervention in Somalia was one of the noblest acts of American foreign policy, a sign that after Rwanda the world was finally going to take responsibility for preventing this kind of thing. But after a few photos of dead Americans hit the media it became untenable. The censorship on those photos was the most deplorable thing about it. It's fine to show an American corpse stripped naked and dragged through the street but you can't show his penis. Wtf priorities?! Yet you are against the Iraq War I presume? In which you made the case that stability doesn't mean good, and you do know Saddam massacred his people. If you follow this logic you give creed to interventionist pre-emptive aggression into any State that has Human Rights violations whatever the severity (subjective). This is abhorrable. You basically give jurisprudence to intervene militarily in such countries currently as China, Darfur, and Egypt. There is only one prudent foreign policy and that is Non-interventionism. Free trade is key to regional and world peace. America should not be a police state, and is what is exactly the opposite of our founding. Do not engage in foreign entanglements, alliances, etc. No republic can endure such indominable stresses and survive. This is the cause for the destruction of Rome and every other great country. I am actually surprised to hear this from you.
So if you were the President of the United States a few decades ago and your CIA advisor warned you of the likely genocide of millions in Rwanda you would accept that as unfortunate and unavoidable and go on selling weapons?
|
United States43187 Posts
I'm not against the Iraq war on principle, no.
|
On August 19 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:37 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:15 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:57 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:51 Caller wrote:
-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats. Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/ US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group. In fairness the Courts were committing widespread human rights abuses. Stable doesn't mean good. I believe that the US intervention in Somalia was one of the noblest acts of American foreign policy, a sign that after Rwanda the world was finally going to take responsibility for preventing this kind of thing. But after a few photos of dead Americans hit the media it became untenable. The censorship on those photos was the most deplorable thing about it. It's fine to show an American corpse stripped naked and dragged through the street but you can't show his penis. Wtf priorities?! Yet you are against the Iraq War I presume? In which you made the case that stability doesn't mean good, and you do know Saddam massacred his people. If you follow this logic you give creed to interventionist pre-emptive aggression into any State that has Human Rights violations whatever the severity (subjective). This is abhorrable. You basically give jurisprudence to intervene militarily in such countries currently as China, Darfur, and Egypt. There is only one prudent foreign policy and that is Non-interventionism. Free trade is key to regional and world peace. America should not be a police state, and is what is exactly the opposite of our founding. Do not engage in foreign entanglements, alliances, etc. No republic can endure such indominable stresses and survive. This is the cause for the destruction of Rome and every other great country. I am actually surprised to hear this from you. So if you were the President of the United States a few decades ago and your CIA advisor warned you of the likely genocide of millions in Rwanda you would accept that as unfortunate and unavoidable and go on selling weapons?
I would not be a willing accomplice and therefore stop selling weapons to the aggressor however, I would continue trade in other goods and services. I would not intervene in any way in the affairs of their country. I believe if you have to use military force then you must have Congress Declare an act of War.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:15 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 11:57 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:51 Caller wrote:
-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats. Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/ US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group. In fairness the Courts were committing widespread human rights abuses. Stable doesn't mean good. I believe that the US intervention in Somalia was one of the noblest acts of American foreign policy, a sign that after Rwanda the world was finally going to take responsibility for preventing this kind of thing. But after a few photos of dead Americans hit the media it became untenable. The censorship on those photos was the most deplorable thing about it. It's fine to show an American corpse stripped naked and dragged through the street but you can't show his penis. Wtf priorities?! It could've been, but the pull out was absolutely disastrous and I will never understand it. Of course what happened was terrible, but in context 17 soldiers dying doesn't validate an entire withdrawal. We did the same thing in Haiti too. It's even more perplexing to me than us doing nothing when out embassy was blown up in Lebanon. If there was a time and place for American muscle, those situations were it.
|
On August 19 2009 12:37 Kwark wrote:
A true anarchist would call you a tyrant for wanting a Government to enforce contracts. You breach the freedom of a man to lie, holding him accountable to bits of paper. I put it to you that you are in favour of tyranny because you want a some Government control in partnership with other personal freedoms.
Same argument you're using. I believe in the roles of a Government alongside some personal freedoms and more control than that approaches tyranny. You believe less Government, more personal freedom and more control than that approaches tyranny. A true anarchist believes in no Government, total personal freedom and more control than that approaches tyranny.
Does it occur to you that it is not black and white? That there is no magical tyrant line which we're on one side of and you're on the other?
The "magical" line is having a more tyrannous Government than what is absolutely necessary. When you past the absolutely necessary line then you cross into a hard tyranny. You advocate a hard tyranny.
|
United States43187 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:43 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:37 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:15 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:57 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:51 Caller wrote:
-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats. Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/ US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group. In fairness the Courts were committing widespread human rights abuses. Stable doesn't mean good. I believe that the US intervention in Somalia was one of the noblest acts of American foreign policy, a sign that after Rwanda the world was finally going to take responsibility for preventing this kind of thing. But after a few photos of dead Americans hit the media it became untenable. The censorship on those photos was the most deplorable thing about it. It's fine to show an American corpse stripped naked and dragged through the street but you can't show his penis. Wtf priorities?! Yet you are against the Iraq War I presume? In which you made the case that stability doesn't mean good, and you do know Saddam massacred his people. If you follow this logic you give creed to interventionist pre-emptive aggression into any State that has Human Rights violations whatever the severity (subjective). This is abhorrable. You basically give jurisprudence to intervene militarily in such countries currently as China, Darfur, and Egypt. There is only one prudent foreign policy and that is Non-interventionism. Free trade is key to regional and world peace. America should not be a police state, and is what is exactly the opposite of our founding. Do not engage in foreign entanglements, alliances, etc. No republic can endure such indominable stresses and survive. This is the cause for the destruction of Rome and every other great country. I am actually surprised to hear this from you. So if you were the President of the United States a few decades ago and your CIA advisor warned you of the likely genocide of millions in Rwanda you would accept that as unfortunate and unavoidable and go on selling weapons? I would not be a willing accomplice and therefore stop selling weapons to the aggressor however, I would continue trade in other goods and services. I would not intervene in any way in the affairs of their country. I believe if you have to use military force then you must have Congress Declare an act of War.
It is my belief that if someone with power stands by and does nothing while their neighbour commits atrocities they are, through their inaction, consenting to it. The United States is like a young man in the prime of his life with a large collection of handguns. When his old weak neighbour starts murdering his young children he ought to step in to prevent it.
This is of course limited by pragmatism, as is everything in life. But in the case of Rwanda, the means were there and the scale of the genocide that would eventually be committed more than justified intervention.
|
On August 19 2009 12:55 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:43 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:37 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 12:15 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:57 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:51 Caller wrote:
-well it did, until the civil war resumed with an Ethiopean-backed and Islamic-backed government shoved down the people's throats. Here's another derail, but the Ethiopoean/ US backed regime is the one that ousted the Islamic regime, which had actually kept the country stabilized. They're not the same group. In fairness the Courts were committing widespread human rights abuses. Stable doesn't mean good. I believe that the US intervention in Somalia was one of the noblest acts of American foreign policy, a sign that after Rwanda the world was finally going to take responsibility for preventing this kind of thing. But after a few photos of dead Americans hit the media it became untenable. The censorship on those photos was the most deplorable thing about it. It's fine to show an American corpse stripped naked and dragged through the street but you can't show his penis. Wtf priorities?! Yet you are against the Iraq War I presume? In which you made the case that stability doesn't mean good, and you do know Saddam massacred his people. If you follow this logic you give creed to interventionist pre-emptive aggression into any State that has Human Rights violations whatever the severity (subjective). This is abhorrable. You basically give jurisprudence to intervene militarily in such countries currently as China, Darfur, and Egypt. There is only one prudent foreign policy and that is Non-interventionism. Free trade is key to regional and world peace. America should not be a police state, and is what is exactly the opposite of our founding. Do not engage in foreign entanglements, alliances, etc. No republic can endure such indominable stresses and survive. This is the cause for the destruction of Rome and every other great country. I am actually surprised to hear this from you. So if you were the President of the United States a few decades ago and your CIA advisor warned you of the likely genocide of millions in Rwanda you would accept that as unfortunate and unavoidable and go on selling weapons? I would not be a willing accomplice and therefore stop selling weapons to the aggressor however, I would continue trade in other goods and services. I would not intervene in any way in the affairs of their country. I believe if you have to use military force then you must have Congress Declare an act of War. It is my belief that if someone with power stands by and does nothing while their neighbour commits atrocities they are, through their inaction, consenting to it. The United States is like a young man in the prime of his life with a large collection of handguns. When his old weak neighbour starts murdering his young children he ought to step in to prevent it. This is of course limited by pragmatism, as is everything in life. But in the case of Rwanda, the means were there and the scale of the genocide that would eventually be committed more than justified intervention.
Rwanda is not a neighbor to the US. Your analagy fails. You don't want to start precedent where we intervene in another countries affairs based on subjective notions of the severity of atrocities. As President of course I would be harshly condemning the actions of the Government, but ultimately it is up to the people to throw off the shackles of oppression. If they wish to do so; which most would, then I am not opposed in sending aid in the form of monetary and material goods, however never sending military forces. We threw off the tyranny of our oppressors with limited help until the very end from the French. I would do no more no less for any other peoples. It sets too dangerous a precedent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
