QUESTIONS NO ONE CAN ANSWER, OR CAN YOU?

[jimmoyer]

Is war illegal if used to stop the carnage in Ruwanda, or Yugoslavia, where no imminent danger to your own country is present?

Would war be illegal if the destruction of Dafur in the Sudan is stopped?

Is it possible to stop a government or military from committing slaughter, ethnic cleansing or genocide without the use of war?


Would war be illegal if it prevents a despot from becoming a Kim of North Korea?

Is imminent danger a matter that can even be proven in a court of law?

Will that court decide in a speedy course of time to avoid the great sin of exposing a great many people to danger if they don't strike first?

Is evidence ever complete enough where a decision can be automatic without the use of a judge?

And isn't that why we need a judge because the nature of evidence is never complete enough, yet the issue contains enough peril to require a proper decision?

Isn't it a fact that police can do nothing to protect you prior to the imminent crime, that the crime must be committed first and if you don't survive the case is moot?

Can we possibly weigh all of these questions in such a perfect balance that no mistakes can be made?

Can a government ever weigh properly the perfect balance of civil liberties and security, and do not both need each other in order to enjoy and survive?

Don't all of these questions contain a greater truth than any possible answer we can give, and yet we must try to answer them all the while honoring the ultimate authority these questions hold over us all ?

Is everyone too suspicious that everyone has some sort of secret agenda that they cannot decide to answer any one of these questions honestly and directly?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Still at it Jim? The truth is out there, you know. Mulder was right, as it turns out. Who woulda thunk it?

Anyway, since just doing the right thing doesn't satisfy you...

Is war illegal if used to stop the carnage in Ruwanda, or Yugoslavia, where no imminent danger to your own country is present?

Yes. The SC can make it so. In the case of Rwanda the US and France kept it from happening because they were protecting assets in the area. Yugoslavia was more just general apathy, although Russia was protecting their assets. That's why (extremely abreviated so I don't want to hear and crap) Yugoslavia got a tacit nod when NATO moved in, but nobody helped Rwanda.

Would war be illegal if the destruction of Dafur in the Sudan is stopped?

Not if the SC approves it. Right now the hold ups are the US and China.

Is it possible to stop a government or military from committing slaughter, ethnic cleansing or genocide without the use of war?

If you start early enough. The problem is that it isn't quantifiable. A lot of the people go after the UN for what it didn't do...the truth is that when the UN is most successful we never notice. By the time the guns come out, everything has already failed. How do you count how many times the guns didn't come out?

Would war be illegal if it prevents a despot from becoming a Kim of North Korea?

Not a real question. See above.

Is imminent danger a matter that can even be proven in a court of law?

When you claim an amassing of weapons that do not exist? Apparently not because the US got caught that little lie, didn't they? Now your leader is a known war criminal.

Yes, imminent danger is a matter that can be proven in most cases. The exceptions would be attacks by the USA, China, and Russia. Nobody else has the capability to strike without warning in any sense of conventional warfare. Nonconventional warfare generally depends on non-state actors, so a pre-emptive strike against another nation is not realisitic.

Will that court decide in a speedy course of time to avoid the great sin of exposing a great many people to danger if they don't strike first?

We hav no way of knowing.

Is evidence ever complete enough where a decision can be automatic without the use of a judge?

Not that we've seen so far, but if it involved an aggressor with the means...say the US...then the evidence could be complete enough.

And isn't that why we need a judge because the nature of evidence is never complete enough, yet the issue contains enough peril to require a proper decision?

After what your elected moron from South Dakota did today I wantr a proper definition of what you consider to be a judge.

Isn't it a fact that police can do nothing to protect you prior to the imminent crime, that the crime must be committed first and if you don't survive the case is moot?

No actually, that isn't a fact at all. Conspiracy to commit charges can be pressed, although the onus is rightfully hard to prove.

Can we possibly weigh all of these questions in such a perfect balance that no mistakes can be made?

No, but that is no excuse for apathy and excuse making.

Can a government ever weigh properly the perfect balance of civil liberties and security, and do not both need each other in order to enjoy and survive?

See above.

Don't all of these questions contain a greater truth than any possible answer we can give, and yet we must try to answer them all the while honoring the ultimate authority these questions hold over us all ?

No, they seek to avoid responsibility for the action of our society and to absolve us of the sins of our nations. That doesn't work. Our answers may be imperfect or wrong, but anybody who shirks the responsibility for that or tries to hide behind disingenuous charges of being persecuted becomes guily of a greater sin.

 

[jimmoyer]

Well done, Reverend Blair.

Thank you for the direct answers even if some of those answers are somewhat glib in their particulars.

Your last answer is the best.

But those questions were never designed to give anyone or any country a way to avoid responsibilty, but rather to point out the eternal riddle that will bedevil us all as we seek the right balance of security and civil liberties.

And anyone who is so cocksure of the answers to those questions should be the one we doubt the most.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: QUESTIONS NO ONE CAN

Your second paragraph is betrayed by your third paragraph. You ever think of hiring a speech writer? I've been working on my poli-speak.

 

[jimmoyer]

Not really, Reverend Blair. Your last paragraph talking about not evading responsibility is a good one. I did not betray the compliment at all. In fact I am re-affirming that point. Those questions are not designed to evade responsibility and that was what your concern was.

N'est pas?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: QUESTIONS NO ONE CAN

But not being sure of the answers quickly becomes an excuse to do nothing, or to leave it for somebody else. The proper answer to all of the questions is that we need to do the right thing without putting the financial wishes of major powers first.

Iraq is a perfect example of that. The country is in a mess because its history, especially since WWI, is one of the powerful nations putting their interests first...imperialism. Nobody has ever acted in the best interests of Iraq, or even taken the time to understand what those interests are.

 

[jimmoyer]

"Not being sure of the answers" DOES NOT "quickly become an excuse to do nothing."

It is not automatic.

Not being sure of the answers allows you to see the argument of security and civil liberties from both sides, and allows you NOT to err too far one way or the other and finally allows you to simply honor the complaints from both sides always.

Have you not noticed that the certainty dominating these debates often see little of the other side's complaint?

 

[Scape]

War of conquest must be made illegal. This means that if a nation invades another it can not profit from such action. Either through international sanctions, or limited use of force, such actions should have a harsh penalty so that the option of war is never seen as a reasonable risk.

This is the only reason the UN exists, the rest is fluff and for the most part since its inception it has been successful at making this precedent stick.

 

[jimmoyer]

War of conquest is illegal.

And the questions posed at the beginning of this thread should nag at your certainty and simplicity.

 

[Scape]

The UN is not a World cop. They will never be backed by a force to withhold a mandate. No nation should attempt enforcement, as this will legitimize war.

 

[Reverend Blair]

"Not being sure of the answers" DOES NOT "quickly become an excuse to do nothing."

It is not automatic.

It has been an excuse to do nothing for as long as I can remember.

 

[jimmoyer]

Yep, it's also an excuse to be too certain to hear the legitimate points for both sides of that balancing of security and civil liberties.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: QUESTIONS NO ONE CAN

That is the argument made by those that say it's okay for the US to torture people and break international law, but it is not okay for others to do the same. It is a dodge, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

What do people mean when they think /speak in absolutes like :doing "nothing". That sounds too much like something out of the bush bible of extremes. Is doing "something" defined as war now?? Is taking ones time to deal with such serious problems , diplomatically and strategically/carefully.....doing "nothing"?? Of course not. Doing something can mean a lot of things and measures. WAR is NOT THE SOLUTION. Cooperation, sound/reasonable THINKING /PLANNING Is.

 

[jimmoyer]

Sometimes doing nothing is a great evil, especially if you sit comfortably in your snug chair while seeing genocide or ethnic cleansing going on in the country next door.

No imminent danger for you. It's laissez faire school. Hands off.

By the same token it is a matter of legitimate debate if nothing less than war can stop a genocidal government.

Think nice words work? Ever see an embargo work?

 

[Reverend Blair]

What do people mean when they think /speak in absolutes like :doing "nothing". That sounds too much like something out of the bush bible of extremes. Is doing "something" defined as war now?? Is taking ones time to deal with such serious problems , diplomatically and strategically/carefully.....doing "nothing"?? Of course not. Doing something can mean a lot of things and measures. WAR is NOT THE SOLUTION. Cooperation, sound/reasonable THINKING /PLANNING Is.

I would say that 90% of wars are worse than doing nothing. I would define doing nothing as letting the wars happen without taking action to stop them or help those stuck in the middle of them. That action does not have to military in nature and, if it begins soon enough and is handled properly, the military option should not be neccessary at all.

 

[jimmoyer]

That last post of Reverend Blair actually has something there, but does exclude the probability and the facts that often the world drags its feet too long before it has no option but outright war to stop a festering situation, such as Yugoslavia or Ruwanda.

Otherwise just watch the slaughter. It will be over soon enough. And thus in a little while stability will reign in order to allow business contracts to resume.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: QUESTIONS NO ONE CAN ANSWER, OR CAN YOU?

That last post of Reverend Blair actually has something there, but does exclude the probability and the facts that often the world drags its feet too long before it has no option but outright war to stop a festering situation, such as Yugoslavia or Ruwanda.

Otherwise just watch the slaughter. It will be over soon enough. And thus in a little while stability will reign in order to allow business contracts to resume.

*******but we are not talking about Ruwanda , where strife, humitarian disasters have been building for some time.

The issue here is LYING in order to invade another far off nation that was NO threat to the US. Not once has this invasion held up to scrutiny under "humanitarian concerns".....and not once has that reason been given. WHY make Iraq the focus and not desperate places like Ruwanda??

One could , and with validity , argue, that the world is not doing anything as the US goes about invading nations that were no threat to it........only a stream of lies, manipulations, and have have added more death and destruction in a situation .....that was at least under some control.

If the US methods of "doing something" is better than doing other alternative approaches, that might take longer, more think tank strategy.......then the world is in one heap mess of trouble.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: QUESTIONS NO ONE CAN

The US did do something in Rwanda though...they actively opposed doing anything. Most experts agree that Dallaire's plan would have worked...that a small force with the proper mandate could have stopped the genocide before it started.

The US, with interests in neighbouring Uganda, and France, with interests in Rwanda, nixed that though.

 

[jimmoyer]

Actually a great many parallels exist between the wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

1. Both countries had their borders drawn by the victors of World War I.

2. Neither war was sanctioned by the UN.
The first Gulf War was sanctioned because the deal was made with Europe and neighboring Iraqi states that the coalition would not take down Saddam.

3. Neither country was an imminent danger, despite the lies that said it was so.

4. Ethnic cleansing, slaughter, genocide was sponsored by the state in both countries.

5. Both countries were comprised of ethnic and religious groups that never wanted to be in the same country together.

6. Not only did Ho Chi Minh come to President Woodrow Wilson begging for independent status from the French, but so did also the Kurds ask Woodrow Wilson, and so did also the Croats and Slovenians of former Yugoslavia ask for independent status.

7. Both were wars that had a festering nature where Milosovec and Saddam threatened further ethnic cleansing, promising more mass burials for the ethnic and religious groups in their country.

8. Leaving both in power is a problem for democracies whose main quality is an attention deficit dysfunction as exemplied by the annual budget battles.