Genocide

[Revolution0918]

Im all for the noninterventionalist foreign policy, but there is something that has puzzled me for a while on this. Yes i know American troops should be used for the defense of our nation, but when another sect, or a government is trying to wipe out a certain group, genocide or ethnic clensing, can anyone really sit here and say that a nation that was founded on Christian principles should sit by and watch as hundreds of thousands are slaughtered, just for their beliefs?? This is puzzling to me because looking at Machiavelli and Mills and other writers, I can agree that a people will respect and cherish their freedom more if they fight for it and have their own countrymen die along side of them for this freedom, but when people have nothing to defend themselves with, and are being slaughtered without any defense, how can they accomplish this? Is it really that wrong to step in and stop these horrible things from happenening, while still not intervening in their countries?

[Dreamofunity]

I'm pretty sure you could find a nice cheap AK and a plane ticket for under 2 grand. Have fun.

[Revolution0918]

anddd that shows the reasoning power on this forum....thank u very much

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

We were founded on the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it allow for us to meddle in the affairs of another nation. Therefore, we have no obligation, right, or duty as a Government to intervene. If you would like to help, get with like minded individuals and head over there to try and help. Our men and women in the military in this country are to protect this country. Not be the world's policemen.

Moreover, Benjamin Harrison our 23rd President said this:

“We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.”

[Kludge]

A small portion of threads on the topic.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=169945
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=172084
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=181255

[Liberty Star]

Im all for the noninterventionalist foreign policy, but there is something that has puzzled me for a while on this. Yes i know American troops should be used for the defense of our nation, but when another sect, or a government is trying to wipe out a certain group, genocide or ethnic clensing, can anyone really sit here and say that a nation that was founded on Christian principles should sit by and watch as hundreds of thousands are slaughtered, just for their beliefs??

What " Christian principles" would those be? With blessing of our "Christians" our funds have been used for decades for ethnic cleansing in Palestine and our bombs were recently used by Israelis for genocide in Gaza.
Demographic that to this day has majority supporting bloodhsed in Iraq and use of torture is so called regular "Church going" demo.

[Revolution0918]

i see that Michael Scheuer's books are sellin like hot cakes to this forum also...yes i know what the constitution says, and thank you for repeating the same thing that previous posters have said. So your telling me, if you had the power to walk across the street and save a life, you wouldnt? Bcuz correct me if im wrong, but this country was also founded on the strong helping the weak, not bcuz a person is obligated to, or we have a duty to, but bcuz it is the right thing to do.

[Revolution0918]

the christian principles and religious freedoms that made our fore fathers sale across the ocean and start a new country. Yes you can argue that we have religious freedoms in this country, but you cannot honestly sit there and say that this is not a christian country, come on. O and to the next person that is going to say that our founding fathers had different religions and some were athiests yes I know this, please refrain from acting like your talking to some ignorant R or D. Thought that this forum was for people that could reason?? Im not arguing that we help out in this arena all the time, im saying, in a perfect world where we didnt have troops all over the world and we werent meddling in others affairs, could we as a country sit here and watch as a nation murders hundreds of thousands, if not millions of its own people, over religion or the sorts, when we have the power to stop that?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

i see that Michael Scheuer's books are sellin like hot cakes to this forum also...yes i know what the constitution says, and thank you for repeating the same thing that previous posters have said. So your telling me, if you had the power to walk across the street and save a life, you wouldnt? Bcuz correct me if im wrong, but this country was also founded on the strong helping the weak, not bcuz a person is obligated to, or we have a duty to, but bcuz it is the right thing to do.

Now you are conflating the Government with the people who reside in this geographical territory. No arm, vestige, part, or entity of the Government shall, or may intervene, interefere, or meddle in the internal affairs of other Nations. No where, in the Constitution does it allow for that to occur.

In your scenario, yes I would, and it also returns me to my first post where I said like-minded individuals could band together and help whoever they so choose who are being oppressed. How do you think the American Revolution was fought? We had volunteers come from over the world to assist.

We were founded on liberty, and the Constitution (Technically the AOC, which were superior....but let's not divert). Not on what you deem we were founded upon. In liberty, no man, can force another man, to die for another man. Nor shall any other man, steal from that man, to help another man. These were the principles of our founding. Liberty, was our motto, and our rallying cry. You have a lot to learn.

As a Christian, you should also believe in the aforementioned. Since when is it noble to force another man to die for another man? That is not something Jesus espoused.

Also for the record, I'm a Deist. Just so you don't go wild and call me an atheist and de-rail the topic...:p

[steve005]

So your telling me, if you had the power to walk across the street and save a life, you wouldnt? Bcuz correct me if im wrong, but this country was also founded on the strong helping the weak, not bcuz a person is obligated to,

more like walking across the street and risk creating enemies between your family and their family, when is it as easy as you make it sound?

[steve005]

Thought that this forum was for people that could reason??

yeah you don't fit in too well

[The Patriot]

the christian principles and religious freedoms that made our fore fathers sale across the ocean and start a new country. Yes you can argue that we have religious freedoms in this country, but you cannot honestly sit there and say that this is not a christian country, come on. O and to the next person that is going to say that our founding fathers had different religions and some were athiests yes I know this, please refrain from acting like your talking to some ignorant R or D. Thought that this forum was for people that could reason?? Im not arguing that we help out in this arena all the time, im saying, in a perfect world where we didnt have troops all over the world and we werent meddling in others affairs, could we as a country sit here and watch as a nation murders hundreds of thousands, if not millions of its own people, over religion or the sorts, when we have the power to stop that?

We are a majority Christian Nation, but our Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion. So Politically speaking, we are a not a Christian nation but a Secular Nation as we allow for the practice of all religions.

Do I think the American Government has an obligation to stop Genocides? No, not unless the government committing genocide declares war on us or attacks us. It isn't up to our government to solve the ethnic squabbles of other nations, it is up to our government to use the military only to protect the American people in the face of an attack or declaration of war

[Kludge]

Bcuz correct me if im wrong, but this country was also founded on the strong helping the weak, not bcuz a person is obligated to, or we have a duty to, but bcuz it is the right thing to do.

You´re apparently not familiar with the roots of US patriotism after the Townshend Acts wherein Loyalists and British tax collectors were tarred and feather for their beliefs. Unlike the cute pictures in history books, the acts were quite brutal and occasionally resulted in death. But sure, Christian principles...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You´re apparently not familiar with the roots of US patriotism after the Townshend Acts wherein Loyalists and British tax collectors were tarred and feather for their beliefs. Unlike the cute pictures in history books, the acts were quite brutal and occasionally resulted in death. But sure, Christian principles...

Let's not also forget the Sons of Liberty hanging tax collectors over the Stamp Act, unto which the term the Liberty Tree came to be. People are so pacified about our history. The 15 year run-up to the Revolution, was not peaceful. There were killings. They were justified. If someone tries to steal from me, damn sure I'm going to protect myself.

[Revolution0918]

Ah, besides 4 or 5 of the posts this is helpful....thank you to the few that attack the argument not the person

[axiomata]

Let's not also forget the Sons of Liberty hanging tax collectors over the Stamp Act, unto which the term the Liberty Tree came to be. People are so pacified about our history. The 15 year run-up to the Revolution, was not peaceful. There were killings. They were justified. If someone tries to steal from me, damn sure I'm going to protect myself.
I did not know that the hanging of effigies was considered killing. Good to know.

[TastyWheat]

I'm pretty sure you could find a nice cheap AK and a plane ticket for under 2 grand. Have fun.
That's pretty much the answer right there.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If there's some injustice happening across the globe then it's the people's responsibility to do something about it. Just like this situation in Haiti. The federal government isn't authorized to spend taxpayer dollars overseas as a humanitarian effort. It's up to the people (more specifically through non-profit organizations) to help the people in Haiti. If you got the money and time then fly over to Haiti and lend a hand.

On the issue of genocide specifically though, what's the solution to genocide? Some authoritarian government starts killing its citizens with little provocation so we just go over there and tear down their military and government? Do we stick around until they're stabilized? What if there's a possibility of relapse or civil war? Do we just stick around until things are nice and calm?

Feel free to reply. My questions aren't entirely rhetorical.

[Mini-Me]

This is going to sound harsh, but sometimes the truth deserves to be seen in all its ugliness:
If I say, "I want the government to help stop genocide," what it really means is, "I want to spend other people's money and risk other people's lives to stop genocide, while I sit in smug satisfaction on my couch watching American Idol, content that I 'did something.'"

Efforts requiring manpower do not happen automatically, once you've decided they should be done. Just because you've drawn a blueprint for a building and worked out all of the architectural issues doesn't mean it's been built yet. Yes, actually building it could be considered a "trivial" task from the designer's point of view, but it requires actual work. People will sweat and toil to get it done, and hopefully nobody will fall off a scaffolding and die. When you're a high-level planner, engineer, etc., it's sometimes easy to lose sight of these things from your ivory tower. "I've solved the interesting research problems. The rest is just business, which is easy, right?" (http://www.xkcd.com/678/)

The same concept applies to people like you and me, sitting comfortably at home in front of our computers, talking about how we want something to be done about a genocide that's going on. It's easy for you and me to yell, "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!" as we're sitting safely on an Internet forum, drinking Juicy-Juice, listening to music, watching Dancing with the Stars out of the corner of our eyes, checking thirty Firefox tabs, and otherwise doing things that do not include hopping on a plane to, say, a hellish warzone in Africa where bullets and blood are flying. The government is not some automatic problem-solving machine where you can tell it what to do and forget about it with zero consequences. It may have sounded ridiculous to you that dreamofunity said, "I'm pretty sure you could find a nice cheap AK and a plane ticket for under 2 grand. Have fun." However, when you tell the government to stop a genocide, this is exactly what you're demanding some US soldiers do (except you're demanding that the funds be extorted from the population at large rather than that particular soldier). Yes, they have training you don't, and they're not going alone, but they are not invincible. By going, they will risk - and in many cases sacrifice - their lives. Many will not come home. On top of that, they will have no personal say in the matter: Once a person has joined the military, generally to defend the US rather than anything else, it's not like they can opt out of some particular war or operation. Do you really think it's right for you to demand they go and stop someone else's genocide in your place, at their own risk?

Consider also that most "genocides" are really something more akin to a brutal two-sided civil war, where innocent people are being slaughtered on all sides by both "rebels" and the "legitimate" government of an area. In such a situation, who should our expendable little faceless soldiers be fighting? Should they just kill all of the murderers on both sides? Then what? What are the odds of us actually helping the situation (do we ever?) more the harming it through the law of unintended consequences? This gets into TastyWheat's questions about nation-building.

The important question here is, can you really demand that the government put soldiers in this horrible situation, very likely against their will? US soldiers are not our little playthings. They are not expendable plastic green army men, and they're not unfeeling, unthinking chess pawns. They have lives, and they have families, and they have their own reasons for joining the armed forces...which usually don't include throwing themselves head-first into someone else's civil war and nation-building afterwards.

If you REALLY want to stop a bonafide genocide, and you think the enemy is clearly-enough defined to potentially accomplish something, and you really think it's worth risking people's lives over, then dreamofunity is right: You should risk your own instead of someone else's. Granted, grabbing an AK-47 all by yourself and hopping on a plane as a lone individual isn't the way to go. Not only is it uneconomical; it's suicidal. Foreign interventions are huge efforts that require a lot of planning. However, on the "mainstream" side of things, what about joining the Red Cross (minus the AK-47 ;))? If you think an area needs "peacekeeping" forces, what about organizing a militia for this purpose with other like-minded people, including well-trained soldiers, well-to-do financiers, experts in logistics etc.? What about creating voluntary non-profit organizations that specialize in this kind of thing? The Red Cross has become a huge international organization; I see no reason - other from legalities - why a volunteer fighting force of "guardian angels" can't become similarly huge.

Of course, a private organization (or individual) taking matters into its own hands would be very, very illegal given current laws, due to a combination of factors. One, the US government doesn't want to deal with foreign powers getting pissed off about the actions of US citizens, and two, the US government currently goes to great lengths to bail people out when they get in serious trouble abroad. Getting rid of these legal problems entirely is a subject too big for this thread, but what about a compromise for the time being: What if the US government simply made exceptions to these legalities and gave people the green-light to help out in certain situations (Darfur for instance) at their own peril?

Anyway, the bottom line is:
We have no real right to force US soldiers to risk their lives in someone else's conflict
"Genocides" are usually stickier situations than they're made out to be anyway
We have no real right to extort money out of the populace for something like this, and it's usually an ill-fated idea anyway. I didn't mention that the US government is dead broke anyway, since that's specific to our current situation, but that's just a little something to keep in mind too. ;)
Legalities are an issue given current law, but for people who truly care enough to bear the risk and consequences of helping, there are voluntary ways to organize and save people from being butchered

[Dreamofunity]

If you REALLY want to stop a bonafide genocide, and you think the enemy is clearly-enough defined to potentially accomplish something, and you really think it's worth risking people's lives over, then dreamofunity is right: You should risk your own instead of someone else's. Granted, grabbing an AK-47 all by yourself and hopping on a plane as a lone individual isn't the way to go. Not only is it uneconomical; it's suicidal. Foreign interventions are huge efforts that require a lot of planning. However, on the "mainstream" side of things, what about joining the Red Cross (minus the AK-47 ;))? If you think an area needs "peacekeeping" forces, what about organizing a militia for this purpose with other like-minded people, including well-trained soldiers, well-to-do financiers, experts in logistics etc.? What about creating voluntary non-profit organizations that specialize in this kind of thing? The Red Cross has become a huge international organization; I see no reason - other from legalities - why a volunteer fighting force of "guardian angels" can't become similarly huge.


That's pretty much what I meant, only in a more thoughtful response.

If you care adamantly about an issue, don't restort to stealing from me and using my children to do your dirty work. Put you life and money where your mouth is. Want to stop genocide? Go do it. When you start using other peoples money and children for your issues, it's only a matter of time before yours die for someone elses pet issues.

That said, I'd personally be much more inclined to support a war based on what I perceive as a moral injustice such as genocide rather than the baseless ones we're in now.

[Toureg89]

anddd that shows the reasoning power on this forum....thank u very much
it actually does. its a no brainer. its almost a copy of the free market. right now, the ability to fight for your foreign political beliefs is a black market, since you will be branded as a terrorist by your home country.

if the government stopped taking positions on foreign political issues, it would give more leway for those who want to volunteer their lives to defend the innocent without being stabbed in the back by their home country.


I'm pretty sure you could find a nice cheap AK and a plane ticket for under 2 grand. Have fun.
+1


Therefore, we have no obligation, right, or duty as a Government to intervene.
the whole point exactly.

[Reason]

I'm pretty sure you could find a nice cheap AK and a plane ticket for under 2 grand. Have fun.

+1

[1000-points-of-fright]

Ah, besides 4 or 5 of the posts this is helpful....thank you to the few that attack the argument not the person

You were the first one to make it personal with this...


anddd that shows the reasoning power on this forum....thank u very much

[erowe1]

anddd that shows the reasoning power on this forum....thank u very much

But wasn't his response a fair one?

You have the right to contribute to the cause of helping those victims you described however you think you ought. But you don't have a right to steal your neighbor's money to fund your efforts, nor to conscript them to serve as soldiers on your behalf unwillingly, nor to enact various controls on their exchanges of goods with one another so as to manipulate the market in ways that redirect those goods to your efforts.