Policy debate on military intervention in XYZ's

[Machjo]

I'd be curious to know what your views on foreign policy look like when expressed in symbols only without mentioning nations. That's the first and perhaps only rule in this thread. The main objective is to see how our foreign policy views pan out when applied on the principle that what applies to one nation applies to all.

Starting with me:

Country X may wage war with country Y under any of the following conditions:

-Country Y openly invades country X's or an ally of country X's territorial sovereignty, or

-The UN agrees that there is sufficient evidence to prove that Country Y has clandestinely invaded the territorial sovereignty of Country X or that of one of country X's allies, and approves a counter attack as the best remedy. or

-The UN requests country X to attack country Y for having violated international laws and that attacking it is the best remedy.

So what would your view of legitimate military intervention look like in X's and Y's?

 

[Cannuck]

I'd agree but waiting for the UN to agree on something is like waiting for pigs to fly. In order for it to work that way the UN would have no vetoes.

 

[Machjo]

I could agree with the UN takin veto power away from all nations that have it.

However, I still believe that no nation should everbe above the law. As such, if country Y enters country X's borders, that's fair game for country X to attack. As for discreet attacks, I still belive in innocent until proven guilty, even by nations. As such, if there is no obvious link, then country X cold wait until the evidence is in and then attack country Y, otherwise we end up with fiascos, not to mention injustices and fear among nations since no one is sure of the rules of engagement anymore. To have peace, we need justice in consistent rules of engagement abided by all sides, with none above the law.

 

[Machjo]

Also, I don't believe that it's appropriate for country X to criticize country Y exept through the proper UN channels as a matter of respect between nations. At the end o the day, it's up to the Un to decide whether international laws have been violated; it's not up to country X.

 

[darkbeaver]

We waste our breath in civilized debate about the rules of engagement, those have already been determined by the policy of preemptive strike. The nation state must endure, no single superanational body has thusfar avoided corruption as we have seen. War is the economy of the planet no diplomacy will change that.

 

[Machjo]

We waste our breath in civilized debate about the rules of engagement, those have already been determined by the policy of preemptive strike. The nation state must endure, no single superanational body has thusfar avoided corruption as we have seen. War is the economy of the planet no diplomacy will change that.

So much for optimism. Women didn't have the vote either at one point, and none could have imagined it happening. Giving women the vote was but a pipe dream... that came true in spite of all the odds.

 

[darkbeaver]

So much for optimism. Women didn't have the vote either at one point, and none could have imagined it happening. Giving women the vote was but a pipe dream... that came true in spite of all the odds.

Women ruled in the past, the matriarchal societys were and can be very stable. The women wern't given anything if you'll recall they had to work very hard to get the right to vote to work to reproductive rights. Thier suppression by pure patriarchys is a relativly new thing. It's was only ever common sence to include women fully, they have a long way to go yet. So what you tout as groundbreaking revolutionary change is not change at all but entirely natural and entirely right. I have a great deal of optimism that no single body will ever be allowed to rule this planet, for very obvious reasons, ask hitler ask Alexander ask the Romans the French the British the Spaniards they all advocated and persued world domination.
Good governance requires constant adaptation to change and constant diverse input what you suggest leads always in the opposite direction to empirialism. You are not obliged to take my word for it, look it up, every single time the same seemingly sound reasoning as you use was used to consolodate power in one place. Untill we have practicle democracy nothing will ever be different.

 

[Machjo]

I think you're confusing federation with empire. In an empire, yes, you're right, one country dominates the others. In a federation, all countries would be equal. Just like in a national federation like Canada or the US where each region gets equal representation either by region or by population, wihtout one domnating the others more than its population or region warrant. Hitler was not seeking federation but empire.