How do we handle genocide?

[socialize_me]

I just got done watching Hotel Rwanda, a fantastic movie, and I was wondering how exactly genocides should be handled by the United States. By saying we can't or shouldn't do anything is rather, well, irrational. I suppose if the time were to ever come where your family had a machete to their throat you would be saying it's not right for some foreign country to end the madness.

So how should or would Ron Paul deal with genocide? I mean by not intervening claiming its not our business or suggesting state sovereignty is rather inhumane considering those two apparently trump human life with that argument.

[AbolishTheGovt]

I just withdrew $300 from your bank account to help me combat a serial killer that's been prowling around my state. Hope you don't mind. It was the only rational course of action for me to take.

[socialize_me]

I just withdrew $300 from your bank account to help me combat a serial killer that's been prowling around my state. Hope you don't mind. It was the only rational course of action for me to take.

LOL your argument doesn't make any sense because we do that already! Serial killers get caught and prosecuted and we use taxpayer dollars to do it! You're not going to win many, if any, hearts with that logic my friend. You're not a realist--you're a theorist. I'm a realist. You put money over human life and are appalled of being taxed rather than saving human life. For someone so against the "Establishment", you sure seem to buy into the Establishment's bullshit. I mean look at you! You're afraid they'll take MONEY from you. What the hell? What's money? Something THEY declare to be a means to an end. You're so worried they'll take fucking paper from you that you're willing to let others die instead. You're nothing more than a fraud. You say "Fuck the Establishment" and "Abolish the Government" yet you use their money and are appalled that they should take it from you. Yeah, you're part of the game my friend. If you were truly a revolutionary, you'd reject all instruments of the Establishment--but you don't. You place artificial items like money created by the Establishment above human life. Very nice indeed. So you take the approach of defending principles over life, which is funny because the principles you're defending is that you don't want Establishment money taken from you by the Establishment. You're fighting the wrong battles.

So you would prefer no government at all aka anarchy? Again, you anarchists never cease to amaze me. Look at Somalia. Two weeks ago a 14 year old girl was stoned to death because she was raped and due to Sharia, it's considered adultery. 1,000 people, ONE THOUSAND, watched this happen in a "free" society. War lords run rampant in anarchy states. Somalia is a shithole.

So you do have a problem with police stopping serial killers? Or is it up to individuals to take them out? So you would then prefer to have a United States of the 1690's when we had the Salem Witch Trials where innocent people were killed without due process and just protection under the law?

Sometimes I just don't get you people.

[AbolishTheGovt]

There are a lot of tragedies going on in the world.

What gives one person or group of people the right to forcibly take money from another person or group of people and use it to "fix" these foreign problems?

[LibertyEagle]

BTW I dislike the UN, but as Ron Paul said about UNICEF, some UN is okay :/

No, "some UN" is not ok. Just like some Communism is not ok. The UN was started to become a world governing body by a bunch of traitors and staying involved with it is most certainly not something good for our national sovereignty or individual liberty.

[Josh_LA]

we shouldn't deal with genocide, or any type of murder, it's none of our business.

[LibertyEagle]

LOL your argument doesn't make any sense because we do that already! Serial killers get caught and prosecuted! So you would prefer no government at all aka anarchy? Again, you anarchists never cease to amaze me. Look at Somalia. Two weeks ago a 14 year old girl was stoned to death because she was raped and due to Sharia, it's considered adultery. 1,000 people, ONE THOUSAND, watched this happen in a "free" society. War lords run rampant in anarchy states. Somalia is a shithole.

So you do have a problem with police stopping serial killers? Or is it up to individuals to take them out? So you would then prefer to have a United States of the 1690's when we had the Salem Witch Trials where innocent people were killed without due process and just protection under the law?

Sometimes I just don't get you people.

I'm most certainly not an anarchist, but the thing you also need to remember is that the biggest mass murderers in history have always been governments.

We can't fix the world's problems. We simply cannot. We do not have the money, even if we had the will. Our best bet is to stay neutral and set a good example for other countries to follow. If we let ourselves go under, what good is that going to do? We used to be the beacon for liberty. So sad.

And remember, our intervening in other countries' affairs is what helped to get us into a lot of the mess we are now in. You however shouldn't be stopped from sending your own money or even your own self over there to help.

[Jeremy]

Volunteer funded military not owned by a government? Americans were helping in WWI before the US got involved.

[Jeremy]

we shouldn't deal with genocide, or any type of murder, it's none of our business.

you should never repeat that :rolleyes:

[socialize_me]

There are a lot of tragedies going on in the world.

What gives one person or group of people the right to forcibly take money from another person or group of people and use it to "fix" these foreign problems?

Again, you're so paranoid that Government will "forcefully" take money from you yet you never look at what the fuck the money in your pocket is! It's PAPER! The Government said it's money! So you rage against the machine, your name implies nothing less than abolition of the machine, yet you accept the machine's money! So you're all talk when it comes to this, but you never want to inconvenience yourself. You want government abolished, but if that meant you had no money, well then it might not be such a good idea. If it is a good idea, why the hell do you bother worrying about taxation? Don't use their money!

You people SERIOUSLY have a twisted view on what the Constitution says and its precedent set by the Founders. They fought a Revolutionary War because they had zero say in the policies instituted. Had the colonies a say in such policies, history would have been extremely different! Yet the Founders created the Constitution which gave birth to the federal government. In the Constitution, it clearly states Congress has the power to levy taxes. In the Articles of Confederation you could even levy taxes! Taxation has existed for thousands of years! You must accept taxes if you are to accept some form of government. If you feel it's stealing, then move the fuck out of the country and into Somalia. If you favor anarchy, go live in an anarchist state for a change. Walk the damn walk instead of snobbishly sitting behind a computer screen too tuned in to inconvenience yourself.

If you favor anarchy, then go to Somalia. Tell me how long you live or if you enjoyed it. If you favor no anarchy, then you need some government. Even Thomas Paine understood this and all the Founders did as well. You fund government through taxation which you claim is theft. So you're in intellectual limbo here, bud, and it seems to me you would live in a utopia where human beings magically come together and make peace with one another. We're not Native Americans, we don't understand nature, we're too involved and wrapped up in trying to predict the future and worrying about what the fuck to wear in the morning or how to impress your boss in a job interview that we create a system unsustainable and unattainable without a government to prevent fraud and crime in a society.

[socialize_me]

I'm most certainly not an anarchist, but the thing you also need to remember is that the biggest mass murderers in history have always been governments.

We can't fix the world's problems. We simply cannot. We do not have the money, even if we had the will. Our best bet is to stay neutral and set a good example for other countries to follow. If we let ourselves go under, what good is that going to do? We used to be the beacon for liberty. So sad.

And remember, our intervening in other countries' affairs is what helped to get us into a lot of the mess we are now in. You however shouldn't be stopped from sending your own money or even your own self over there to help.

Set a good example? How old are you? Apparently you're oblivious to the fact there are bad people out there who don't give a shit about "examples". They have no role models, they only seek to have power and control.

[tropicangela]

And remember, our intervening in other countries' affairs is what helped to get us into a lot of the mess we are now in. You however shouldn't be stopped from sending your own money or even your own self over there to help.

My thoughts too.

[Jeremy]

sm, did you ignore my post? it's very simple. you don't have to do nothing. you can volunteer or raise money... it's your choice. but let's not force people or use violence to achieve something.

americans were involved in WWI before the US government was involved.

btw, i saw the movie for the first time about a week ago too =)

[RonPaulVolunteer]

How do we handle Genocide?

or

How do we handle the Iraq occupation?

[AbolishTheGovt]

Again, you're so paranoid that Government will "forcefully" take money from you yet you never look at what the fuck the money in your pocket is! It's PAPER! The Government said it's money! So you rage against the machine, your name implies nothing less than abolition of the machine, yet you accept the machine's money! So you're all talk when it comes to this, but you never want to inconvenience yourself. You want government abolished, but if that meant you had no money, well then it might not be such a good idea. If it is a good idea, why the hell do you bother worrying about taxation? Don't use their money!

You people SERIOUSLY have a twisted view on what the Constitution says and its precedent set by the Founders. They fought a Revolutionary War because they had zero say in the policies instituted. Had the colonies a say in such policies, history would have been extremely different! Yet the Founders created the Constitution which gave birth to the federal government. In the Constitution, it clearly states Congress has the power to levy taxes. In the Articles of Confederation you could even levy taxes! Taxation has existed for thousands of years! You must accept taxes if you are to accept some form of government. If you feel it's stealing, then move the fuck out of the country and into Somalia. If you favor anarchy, go live in an anarchist state for a change. Walk the damn walk instead of snobbishly sitting behind a computer screen too tuned in to inconvenience yourself.

If you favor anarchy, then go to Somalia. Tell me how long you live or if you enjoyed it. If you favor no anarchy, then you need some government. Even Thomas Paine understood this and all the Founders did as well. You fund government through taxation which you claim is theft. So you're in intellectual limbo here, bud, and it seems to me you would live in a utopia where human beings magically come together and make peace with one another. We're not Native Americans, we don't understand nature, we're too involved and wrapped up in trying to predict the future and worrying about what the fuck to wear in the morning or how to impress your boss in a job interview that we create a system unsustainable and unattainable without a government to prevent fraud and crime in a society.

What happens if you don't pay your taxes?

[rockandrollsouls]

Intervene by supporting the United Nations, If the UN doesn't want to go in, which I doubt.... Then it is Americans moral duty to stop it. I'm Sure many taxpayers would pay to end genocide. But I wouldn't force the taxpayers to pay it. Would be optional.



BTW I dislike the UN, but as Ron Paul said about UNICEF, some UN is okay :/

...I thought we were freedom lovers....that notion goes against our Constitution..we don't have any business in the affairs of foreign nations and we aren't subject to an international group.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Should we have ended the holocaust or just capture Berlin?

oh boy, you need a history lesson...

[socialize_me]

What happens if you don't pay your taxes?

If you don't handle money, then you don't pay taxes. C'mon, be a revolutionary. Let's abolish the government! Let's have your money actually be worth officially nothing. Let's see how great it'd be :cool:

[AbolishTheGovt]

If you don't handle money, then you don't pay taxes. C'mon, be a revolutionary. Let's abolish the government! Let's have your money actually be worth officially nothing. Let's see how great it'd be :cool:

You didn't answer the question.

[cien750hp]

We go to war if we feel it is necessary. but only with a declaration of war. If people are being killed and want our help, and the american people feel that going to war (like stopping the nazis) is the best action to take, then we should go. But we should be cautious when declaring war, and use it as a last resort and be sure it is what we want to do.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

That's exactly the sort of thing that Blackwater is for (and could probably do a damned awesome job at). This is the same issue as with charity, ignoring how much better the private sector gets the job done is to ignore reality.

However, if it were uncovered that Blackwater killed a village-full of women and children in Darfur, then the U.S. would be obligated to intervene, at least on behalf of any American members involved.

[AbolishTheGovt]

That's exactly the sort of thing that Blackwater is for (and could probably do a damned awesome job at). This is the same issue as with charity, ignoring how much better the private sector gets the job done is to ignore reality.

However, if it were uncovered that Blackwater killed a village-full of women and children in Darfur, then the U.S. would be obligated to intervene, at least on behalf of any American members involved.

Or, if it were uncovered that Blackwater killed a village-full of women and children in Darfur, those affected by the massacre could sue the crap out of Blackwater, and Blackwater would lose all its business, creating a market opportunity for other, more responsible and efficient firms, to make a profit.

[rockandrollsouls]

We go to war if we feel it is necessary. but only with a declaration of war. If people are being killed and want our help, and the american people feel that going to war (like stopping the nazis) is the best action to take, then we should go. But we should be cautious when declaring war, and use it as a last resort and be sure it is what we want to do.

we don't just go to war if we "feel" like it. There is only one purpose for war and that's if we are attacked and need to defend ourselves.

Where are some of you people coming from?! We don't just do things if we feel like they are necessary....we follow the Constitution. Good lord...we are in trouble.

[jkm1864]

Well if it isn't in the US I would either send a missile to kill the leader or just ignore it. On another note providing sanctions could also be a solution but in a shit hole like somalia it would more than likely make the problem worse. I have the opinion if We just leave africa alone and stop manipulating it that it would eventually fix its own problems.

[LibertyEagle]

we don't just go to war if we "feel" like it.
I think you maybe meant, we "shouldn't".


There is only one purpose for war and that's if we are attacked and need to defend ourselves.

Where are some of you people coming from?! We don't just do things if we feel like they are necessary....we follow the Constitution. Good lord...we are in trouble.

AMEN!

[LibertyEagle]

Set a good example?
Perhaps you should go listen to some of Ron's speeches. He mentions exactly that, or something close to it.

How old are you?
Probably a lot older than you, Sonny.

Apparently you're oblivious to the fact there are bad people out there who don't give a shit about "examples". They have no role models, they only seek to have power and control.
lol

Yes, we have quite a few of those in high places in our own government and beyond. The same people who use "bad people out there" as a need to increase the size and scope of government to keep us safe and free (what a laugh) and attacking foreign countries who have done us no harm; all while destroying the very thing here at home, that we are supposedly fighting for.

Go read George Washington's farewell address. You're somehow thinking that it is our job to police the world? It's not, you know. And far from helping those people being subjected to "bad people", it ends up creating even more of them and enables others like them.

[Truth Warrior]

Personally, I ALWAYS choose to not participate in genocide. But, that's just me. < shrug >

[pacelli]

I was wondering how long it would take socialize_me to post another apparently innocent question, not answer it himself, and then proceed to curse at and belittle people who attempt to respond to it. All non-emotional posts are ignored. This pattern has been followed in the past, is being followed now, and is likely to be followed in the future.

[RonPaulMania]

Socializeme,

I agree with a lot of your beliefs, but I think you were talking about setting an example, and how can you do that in a profanity laced tirade? That's contradictory in action.

Now to answer your question the answer is voluntary enlistment to the U.N or to a guerilla group in the country you want to fight in. You cannot and should not expect others to fight a war you want to fight without putting yourself on the line, or that of your children.

It's not fair to say, "Let's start wars I believe in and shut out wars you believe in" and force others to pay. Now I personally believe in the cause so much I'm willing to donate to those groups, but I cannot wish the good people of this country to fight any war without them voluntarily doing so under compulsion or court marshall.

[rockandrollsouls]

I think you maybe meant, we "shouldn't".



AMEN!

Well....I like to think I'm living in a parallel universe where my government hasn't overstepped its boundaries :p But, yes. We shouldn't.....I'd like to say we don't :(

[constituent]

this is one of the dumbest threads ever.

congratulations socialize_me, you're a total dolt.

[Epic]

getting back on topic - government does not have the right to interfere internationally. period. if we are attacked, then it's different.

if people want to help, they are free to donate money to any organization that helps overseas.

[LibertyEagle]

Oh geez, this is depressing. Our own folks don't even get it. :(

[heavenlyboy34]

i'm most certainly not an anarchist, but the thing you also need to remember is that the biggest mass murderers in history have always been governments.

We can't fix the world's problems. We simply cannot. We do not have the money, even if we had the will. Our best bet is to stay neutral and set a good example for other countries to follow. If we let ourselves go under, what good is that going to do? We used to be the beacon for liberty. So sad.

And remember, our intervening in other countries' affairs is what helped to get us into a lot of the mess we are now in. You however shouldn't be stopped from sending your own money or even your own self over there to help.

+1776 :)

[rockandrollsouls]

Oh geez, this is depressing. Our own folks don't even get it. :(

i know :(

[rockandrollsouls]

http://i38.tinypic.com/2002qdu.png

Someone should photoshop a picture of you behind a computer saying "Go help!" with a big screen TV and a nice bag of chips in the background, and you can use the right half of that pic. :rolleyes:

You can go over there or donate your money. Don't commit someone else's resources...or LIFE to fight for your cause.

[LibertyEagle]

It's not my cause, its humanity's cause, I know were not Canada, but lets just say there poll results are similar, 75% of Canadians support intervention in Darfur, the other 25% don't. How about those 75% pay extra taxes for supporting it, and the other 25% don't? Shouldn't the government LISTEN to its people? I would much have us fight in Darfur than in Iraq.

Well, that would mean our military is nothing more than mercenaries for hire. Actually, I think they have become that already, unfortunately, but I sure don't think we want to sanctify it.

Those 75% are free to send their own money to Darfur or go over there themselves. Our government should not. Otherwise, we as a country are intervening in a sovereign nation's affairs. Hamadeh, how would you like it if some other country invaded our own to supposedly right some wrong they believed was going on in our own country? Well, what gives our government the right to do that to someone else?

[tropicangela]

How about the number of people that mainstream medicine kills in this country? That is the cause of organizations in this country that you are also welcome to donate to and take action on.

There are endless problems and people dying HERE and elsewhere. Awake much?

[tremendoustie]

The u.s. military has a specific function -- to defend this country from attack. Its job is not to do whatever the people want it to, and not to go around invading countries because they might possibly have the capability to attack us someday.

If you want to help in darfur, go there, donate money, help people in need, and if you really think it would be the most effective thing to do, get some friends together, buy guns, and go defend people.

[Truth Warrior]

Yeah right, humanity has really shown it's concern over the millenia. :p :rolleyes:

[nbhadja]

Again, you're so paranoid that Government will "forcefully" take money from you yet you never look at what the fuck the money in your pocket is! It's PAPER! The Government said it's money! So you rage against the machine, your name implies nothing less than abolition of the machine, yet you accept the machine's money! So you're all talk when it comes to this, but you never want to inconvenience yourself. You want government abolished, but if that meant you had no money, well then it might not be such a good idea. If it is a good idea, why the hell do you bother worrying about taxation? Don't use their money!

WE ARE FORCED TO ACCEPT THE TRASH PAPER MONEY AS LEGAL TENDER! You obviously do not have a clue. Oh and many of us have gold silver bank accounts. Wtf are you talking about? If the gov got abolished we could use REAL money like GOLD AND SILVER!!

You people SERIOUSLY have a twisted view on what the Constitution says and its precedent set by the Founders. - You are a liberal who does not know anything about the constitution.

They fought a Revolutionary War because they had zero say in the policies instituted. Had the colonies a say in such policies, history would have been extremely different! Yet the Founders created the Constitution which gave birth to the federal government. In the Constitution, it clearly states Congress has the power to levy taxes. - Read the constitution for once. INCOME TAX is unconstitutional because it makes some people pay more taxes than others aka economic inequality and that is unconstitutional.

In the Articles of Confederation you could even levy taxes! Taxation has existed for thousands of years! You must accept taxes if you are to accept some form of government. If you feel it's stealing, then move the fuck out of the country and into Somalia. If you favor anarchy, go live in an anarchist state for a change. We favor limited government.

Walk the damn walk instead of snobbishly sitting behind a computer screen too tuned in to inconvenience yourself.

If you favor anarchy, then go to Somalia. Tell me how long you live or if you enjoyed it. If you favor no anarchy, then you need some government. Even Thomas Paine understood this and all the Founders did as well. You fund government through taxation which you claim is theft. So you're in intellectual limbo here, bud, and it seems to me you would live in a utopia where human beings magically come together and make peace with one another. We're not Native Americans, we don't understand nature, we're too involved and wrapped up in trying to predict the future and worrying about what the fuck to wear in the morning or how to impress your boss in a job interview that we create a system unsustainable and unattainable without a government to prevent fraud and crime in a society.


A limited government enforces against fraud. Why are you even a Ron Paul supporter? You disagree with him on the main principles,meaning you disagree with the principles of the constitution and freedom.

You enjoy the status quo don't you? You got your big government and it has failed yet AGAIN.

[nbhadja]

Do you guys have any clue??
We PROP up those viscous dictators who murder millions of innocent people.
People like Bush, Obama, Bernanke, Clinton, European central bankers and politicians etc are THE BIGGEST terrorists and mass murderers in the world.

[intelliot]

Personally, I ALWAYS choose to not participate in genocide. But, that's just me. < shrug >

lol, great reply.

[Josh_LA]

May I remind you, I can find just as many photos of happy Iraqi children thanking USA.

It's very dangerous to be sucked in by your emotions on helping people, because while one person dead is one too many, giving authority and trust to government and military to solve problems is no different than trusting the government to better our economy.

socialists know this damn well, they exploit your fear to fool you into supporting a cause, which is corruptable power that works both ways. It sounds very nice to help poor people, but it can be worse when people and governments abuse this trust to harm people and further other agendas in the name of spreading justice.

you cannot criticize what we are doing in Iraq if you believe genocide in a foreign country is our business.

[amy31416]

Well, that would mean our military is nothing more than mercenaries for hire. Actually, I think they have become that already, unfortunately, but I sure don't think we want to sanctify it.

Those 75% are free to send their own money to Darfur or go over there themselves. Our government should not. Otherwise, we as a country are intervening in a sovereign nation's affairs. Hamadeh, how would you like it if some other country invaded our own to supposedly right some wrong they believed was going on in our own country? Well, what gives our government the right to do that to someone else?

Fantastic response.

I'm biased towards South Africa because I lived there for a while, and if I were in some powerful position, I just might force every American to send their money to my South African of choice.

Does that mean I'm on the right side?

No.

Do I have the right to take money from another person without their consent because I'm backing a "good cause?"

No.

Just look at this mess between Israel and Palestine. Do I want someone to take my money and choose a side for me? HELL NO. What the heck?

I'm on the Palestinian's side for the most part, but not enough for me to support them, after all, a suicide bomber could kill innocent Israeli's, which I am completely against. But guess what? Americans are forced to support the Israelis at gunpoint. And very, very few of us complain.

The merit in philanthropy is entirely based in the fact that it is voluntary. Take that away and it's meaningless.

bleh.

[Anti Federalist]

Hello Amy.

Good to see you back again.

Merry merry and all that.:D

[DeadheadForPaul]

You know, it's funny how people feel about foreign aid and intervention in genocides

This will be no shock to anyone, but I've seen studies that show an individual is more likely to support intervention in a genocide if that person's family came from the country where the genocide is occurring.

I wonder how many people here oppose aid to African nations, Israel, etc. but would strongly support the U.S. ending the genocide of people in England, Germany, Ireland, etc.

If China/Russia invaded Western Europe and killed 12 million Brits, Swedes, Germans, Italians, Irish, etc. would you want intervention?

[DeadheadForPaul]

http://i38.tinypic.com/2002qdu.png

+1776

[Anti Federalist]

+1776

Wonder if the million dead Iraqis are giving us thumbs up?

Stopping genocide usually means committing another genocide to end it.

Thus is the nature of racial, ethnic, religious wars and genocides.

[ClayTrainor]

This is such a tough issue but,

I don't see why government has to get involved at all. Foreign Genocide has nothing to do with national security, especially places like Darfur.

If the American people truly want to do something, they would march into Darfur themselves, Armed to the hilt, and start wiping out the criminals.

The problem is we all expect someone else to do these things we "care" so much about.

There's simply too much craziness in the world for 1 nation to solve.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Wonder if the million dead Iraqis are giving us thumbs up?

Stopping genocide usually means committing another genocide to end it.

Thus is the nature of racial, ethnic, religious wars and genocides.

First of all, you are suggesting that a key reason for the current intervention in Iraq was the prevention of genocide. That is a false claim given that the main reason for the war was "national security". Americans supported the war because they falsely believed in a link b/w Saddam and 9/11. Additionally, they were told of his alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Second, the cost of many interventions in the name of genocide are not very "costly". The only NATO troop casualties in Kosovo were the result of a crashed helicopter

Third, I never suggested that the U.S. should be the ones to intervene. I support the U.N. doing such things without support of the U.S. government

[Anti Federalist]

First of all, you are suggesting that a key reason for the current intervention in Iraq was the prevention of genocide. That is a false claim given that the main reason for the war was "national security". Americans supported the war because they falsely believed in a link b/w Saddam and 9/11. Additionally, they were told of his alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The "Saddam gassed his own people" meme was well established as a valid reason for his deposing by military force.


Second, the cost of many interventions in the name of genocide are not very "costly". The only NATO troop casualties in Kosovo were the result of a crashed helicopter

NATO was chartered as a unified defense against a land-air-sea invasion of Western Europe by a Red Army attack.

We should not even be part of it anymore, let alone sanctioning Kosovo type missions.


Third, I never suggested that the U.S. should be the ones to intervene. I support the U.N. doing such things without support of the U.S. government

The UN proved to be a disaster in Rwanda. (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/13/sbm.dallaire.profile/)