Is there such a thing as a just war? And is it ever ok to do harm to prevent harm?

[DOB]

I dont like killing but its natural selection,stronger survive.... and sometimes in future there would be some living thing,at peace,that would be strong and healthy only thanks to killing in past

 

[hiphophippy]

I dont like killing but its natural selection,stronger survive.... and sometimes in future there would be some living thing,at peace,that would be strong and healthy only thanks to killing in past

A mentally retarded person can fire a hand gun, your argument is invalid.

 

[DeathDomokun]

No, it isn't. Think of NATURAL selection. Before we had our fancy guns and technology.
Killing is part of nature. If you couldn't kill your food, if you couldn't protect yourself, you'd die.
Psychedelics also played a massive role in which groups of men prevailed in my opinion, and evolved further.
Also, I doubt most of the people who go to the shop and buy a steak would be game to kill, and carve up a cow, although I don't know what relation that has to the discussion at hand.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I thought we were talking about the justice of warfare, not the naturalness. Just because a behavior comes naturally to someone doesn't mean it's the right choice here and now.

 

[paranoid android]

Pacifism just helps tyranny and often atrocities to be committed. There is nothing worse then a person who knows wrong is being done but refuses to do anything about it based on the grounds that they believe in peace. Despite the contradictions peace is something that has to be fought for as we have seen through history that some of the greatest crimes have been aloud to go on simply because people did not want to break with the status quo or take up arms. Countless lives could have been saved if we had killed fascism at birth but instead we ignored the threats and it led to the biggest genocide in history. If we had killed the first person to proclaim himself a fascist instead of just idly standing by we could have stopped the whole thing long before WW2 began. The west completely ignored what the fascists where doing in Spain (and it can be argued that Britain even helped by blockading Spain) and kept ignoring it until it was almost too late.

Some people only understand force and sometimes change can only be brought about by using force. Bullies are like that as well hence why if you stand up to them chances are you won't be bothered. The first time a bully tried to pick on me i made sure from then on in that anyone else would think twice before trying it that's for sure. It's better to stop a fight by terrorizing your enemy then to let them walk all over you and thus letting the situation get to the point where even more violence will be needed to stop the problem.

So i don't think harm or even killing are unjustified in certain circumstances.

 

[hiphophippy]

No, it isn't. Think of NATURAL selection. Before we had our fancy guns and technology.
Killing is part of nature. If you couldn't kill your food, if you couldn't protect yourself, you'd die.
Psychedelics also played a massive role in which groups of men prevailed in my opinion, and evolved further.
Also, I doubt most of the people who go to the shop and buy a steak would be game to kill, and carve up a cow, although I don't know what relation that has to the discussion at hand.

Yes humans have virtually graduated beyond natural selection by means of technology and some social politics. If you were trying to argue against my point you're doing a pretty shitty job.

 

[freddy47]

Pacifism just helps tyranny and often atrocities to be committed. There is nothing worse then a person who knows wrong is being done but refuses to do anything about it based on the grounds that they believe in peace. Despite the contradictions peace is something that has to be fought for as we have seen through history that some of the greatest crimes have been aloud to go on simply because people did not want to break with the status quo or take up arms. Countless lives could have been saved if we had killed fascism at birth but instead we ignored the threats and it led to the biggest genocide in history. If we had killed the first person to proclaim himself a fascist instead of just idly standing by we could have stopped the whole thing long before WW2 began. The west completely ignored what the fascists where doing in Spain (and it can be argued that Britain even helped by blockading Spain) and kept ignoring it until it was almost too late.

Some people only understand force and sometimes change can only be brought about by using force. Bullies are like that as well hence why if you stand up to them chances are you won't be bothered. The first time a bully tried to pick on me i made sure from then on in that anyone else would think twice before trying it that's for sure. It's better to stop a fight by terrorizing your enemy then to let them walk all over you and thus letting the situation get to the point where even more violence will be needed to stop the problem.

So i don't think harm or even killing are unjustified in certain circumstances.

OMG THANK YOU.

Finally someone who understands where I am coming from!

 

[freddy47]

@ Myfinalrest.

I agree just because something comes naturally does not mean it is right. Rage for example is considered to be the most primitive and therefore oldest emotion and is considered even more powerful than lust. So out of all emotions rage is the one that comes most naturally but it is not right.

Also on the topic of bullies. It is too true that some people only understand force. Therefore if you play the whole pacifist card you will undoubtedly get run over again and again.

Speaking from personal experience I had a bully in 10th grade that just would not leave me alone. He messed with me all the time. Being somewhat of a pacifist at the time I took it without complaint.

The next year we were assigned to the same weight training class together. At first he didn't bother me as much because there was usually a teacher supervising. One day the teacher stepped out for about twenty minutes and then came the taunts. I ignored it for the first 10 minutes and continued on my workout. Me and my spotter got on the bench press. I was trying to max out on the bench press so I had about 190 pounds on the bar and was in the middle of a rep when he came up and started messing with me.

Now if any of you know anything about the bench press is that you NEVER mess with someone when they are mid rep especially with that much weight. If my spotter wasn't there (she saved my life for sure) I would have dropped the bar right on my neck or something.

I got up in a rage and yelled at him. He didn't back down. So I challenged him to a fight in the locker room. All the guys heard me yell my challenge and there was a big gathering in the locker room after class to watch the fight. He was at the time way bigger than me so I was really nervous. But I knew I had to fight him or else he would just go on messing with me till we graduated.

So we squared up in the locker room. Everybody cheering us on and everything. In that moment I felt like I was a gladiator in ancient Rome. I felt every bodies blood lust and knew that they came to watch someone get hurt.

When he came at me with a punch I dodged it. This went on for a little bit with him trying to punch me and me avoiding him. I realized that although he was big I was faster and stronger. Finally he got tired. I then pinned him to a wall and gave him a couple knees to the stomach and a punch to the nose as a finisher.

People yelled at me to beat him up further but I didn't. I just picked up my bag and walked out. Because I knew I had beaten him. After that he still verbally bullied me. But he never touched me again. And some of the guys who saw the fight thought I chickened out. But in my mind I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had bested him. There was no need for further punishment. I gave him a lesson he would never forget. That day I decided to no longer believe in pacifism because I tried it and it simply didn't work.

 

[hiphophippy]

Haha, I'm a big guy, I don't have to didn't deal with bullying outside of verbal, which usually stopped once you tell them about how you like to sodomize bunny rabbits with pickles or make extremely lewd gestures at them.

I stared down a gang of like 5 Mexicans once that were about to jump me. It's tactics really. I just picked out the leader and gave him a look like, you as a group might beat me but you (mr.leader) you I will indefinitely fuck up.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I basically agree with Paranoid Android and freddy. I think that whenever possible, all of one's nonviolent approaches should be exhausted before resorting to brute force. Fortunately, in my experience, most people who cause others problems are not the types who'll only listen to threats and force.

I may not be a hardcore pacifist, but I am anything but a Machiavellian or a subscriber to Nietszche's master morality; I don't think there is any ethical justification for being preemptively menacing. I resent very much when someone feels the need to threaten me or rough me up on our very first meeting, just to make sure I won't try anything, or to establish my subordinate position. That to me is an act of aggression, plain and simple, and can't really be justified as rational self defense. I don't go around threatening people, or acting arrogant and taking liberties with people I don't know, and I expect the same from others (and for the most part get it). That way, if someone were to outright attack me, I'd flip on them and get primitive, because I'd have no doubt in my mind it was entirely their fault, and they were getting what they asked for.

On the other hand, if someone oversteps their bounds with me assuming I'll meekly take it, I find a firm but unruffled "fuck off" (or the equivalent) does the trick 95% of the time. No need to swing at them; most jerks will move on to a new target if you offer even the slightest resistance. The other day I was walking through a notoriously dangerous city at night to catch a train, eating a sandwich. This one teenage kid from a group comes up to me and loudly goes "Yo, can I get a SLICE?" I replied curtly, "No. This is my dinner," and kept walking. He tried to make fun of me with his friends for saying this, then asked, "Can I get a dollar?" "No." When he next asked me what time it was, I knew he just wanted to see if I had a watch he could mug me for, so I ignored him and kept walking. He and his buddies didn't follow me. If one of them had so much as laid a finger on my shoulder after that, they would have regretted it. But it never needed to get that far. The kids assumed I'd be easily intimidated because I was wearing a tie and had a different skin color from them, and I showed them I wasn't, and that's all it took. Most people don't want a fight.

 

[freddy47]

I basically agree with Paranoid Android and freddy. I think that whenever possible, all of one's nonviolent approaches should be exhausted before resorting to brute force.

I can agree with this. The trick is deciding when to make the leap from peaceful negotiation or whatever to taking violent action. Again as a for instance what if Nazism was violently stamped out in it beginning stages. What if Hitler was killed the moment he started thinking about the final solution? Would that be so wrong?

Again I bring up the hypothetical situation of soldiers preparing to execute innocent civilians. Does a foreign military force have the right to prevent this civil conflict from turning into mass genocide?

To further the preemptive argument. Lets say a rogue government (with highly intolerant rhetoric and genocidal beliefs) just came to power. Your country has in their hands from their intelligence service irrefutable intel that says they plan to commit genocide as soon as they can mobilize their armed forces. Your country has the military strength and ability to launch a preemptive strike to prevent this from happening. But this country is no threat to your country and can only harm its own civilians.

Is it wrong to launch an attack on the country to prevent the slaughter you know is coming?

Keep in mind this is a hypothetical situation. Almost no intel from intelligence services are 100 percent reliable. But lets just say for the sake of argument in this situation the intel is irrefutable.

 

[paranoid android]

I can agree with this. The trick is deciding when to make the leap from peaceful negotiation or whatever to taking violent action. Again as a for instance what if Nazism was violently stamped out in it beginning stages. What if Hitler was killed the moment he started thinking about the final solution? Would that be so wrong?

Again I bring up the hypothetical situation of soldiers preparing to execute innocent civilians. Does a foreign military force have the right to prevent this civil conflict from turning into mass genocide?

To further the preemptive argument. Lets say a rogue government (with highly intolerant rhetoric and genocidal beliefs) just came to power. Your country has in their hands from their intelligence service irrefutable intel that says they plan to commit genocide as soon as they can mobilize their armed forces. Your country has the military strength and ability to launch a preemptive strike to prevent this from happening. But this country is no threat to your country and can only harm its own civilians.

Is it wrong to launch an attack on the country to prevent the slaughter you know is coming?

Keep in mind this is a hypothetical situation. Almost no intel from intelligence services are 100 percent reliable. But lets just say for the sake of argument in this situation the intel is irrefutable.

Well let's say if a country had intel that a certain country was planning a genocide on a minority population. Wouldn't any decent country have to step in? Even if it was just in the form of well if you go to war with them your going to be going to war with us as well.

As long as oppression exists violence is a legitimate force to stop it or atleast that's how i see it. Take for instance if you saw a man beating a woman would you just stand there or would you go and stop it even if it meant permanently fucking up the cowardly bastard? It's the same thing really just on a smaller scale.

 

[hiphophippy]

Well let's say if a country had intel that a certain country was planning a genocide on a minority population. Wouldn't any decent country have to step in? Even if it was just in the form of well if you go to war with them your going to be going to war with us as well.

As long as oppression exists violence is a legitimate force to stop it or atleast that's how i see it. Take for instance if you saw a man beating a woman would you just stand there or would you go and stop it even if it meant permanently fucking up the cowardly bastard? It's the same thing really just on a smaller scale.

well, if you want to talk about what usually happens. 8(

 

[freddy47]

Well let's say if a country had intel that a certain country was planning a genocide on a minority population. Wouldn't any decent country have to step in? Even if it was just in the form of well if you go to war with them your going to be going to war with us as well.

As long as oppression exists violence is a legitimate force to stop it or atleast that's how i see it. Take for instance if you saw a man beating a woman would you just stand there or would you go and stop it even if it meant permanently fucking up the cowardly bastard? It's the same thing really just on a smaller scale.

My thoughts exactly.

well, if you want to talk about what usually happens.

What usually happens is that the world ignores what happens as they watch a country destroy itself on CNN and BBC.

When was the last time the US or UK or any UN country intervened to stop genocide? Kosovo? Somalia?

They completely ignored Rwanda with some people even refusing to call it genocide so the UN wouldn't be obliged to intervene.

 

[hiphophippy]

My thoughts exactly.



What usually happens is that the world ignores what happens as they watch a country destroy itself on CNN and BBC.

When was the last time the US or UK or any UN country intervened to stop genocide? Kosovo? Somalia?

They completely ignored Rwanda with some people even refusing to call it genocide so the UN wouldn't be obliged to intervene.

Um... yeah the statement was rhetorical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-20dURI9qA

 

[freddy47]

^I know.

I just felt like it deserved an answer regardless

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Well let's say if a country had intel that a certain country was planning a genocide on a minority population. Wouldn't any decent country have to step in? Even if it was just in the form of well if you go to war with them your going to be going to war with us as well.

There are other forms of "stepping in" besides declaring war. If I was a high-ranking government official in a militarily powerful country, and I had legitimate intel that a genocide was in the works in a weaker country, my first response would probably be to call a top secret meeting of all the influential people in the targeted population, tip them off, and if need be, stay there at the table as they formulated a plan to avert disaster.

Color me jaded when it comes to military intervention beyond one's own borders. The fact is that no nation is willing or able to act like a superhero, stamping out injustice in all corners of the globe, and I question whether any should be expected to. History shows that nations intervene militarily in other nations' business only when the intervener has a vested interest at stake in the conflict. When the intervening nation stands to gain nothing (save for a pat on the back) for breaking up a foreign war, it turns a blind eye and saves its resources.

A good argument I've heard for military noninterventionism / neutrality is that all policies of intervention, no matter their stated goals or rationale, are easily abusable as a disguise for aggressively pushing one's own interests militarily. "We're going to annex you and subdue your people because we need your resources" doesn't fly in today's world. But policies of "Defending [against] X" can easily be sold to any populace, and provide the perfect loophole for making any self-interested military aggression look ethically justified.

On the other hand, it could be argued that in a world as shrunken and interconnected as ours is now, any war anywhere has effects on all nations, and is in every nation's best interest to do what it can to stop. I just don't know how this could be enforced, though.

As long as oppression exists violence is a legitimate force to stop it or atleast that's how i see it. Take for instance if you saw a man beating a woman would you just stand there or would you go and stop it even if it meant permanently fucking up the cowardly bastard? It's the same thing really just on a smaller scale.

Funny you should use this example, because I once posted a thread about this very phenomenon in SL&R. (I'll post the link if it survived the latest prune.) Though not everyone agreed, the general consensus was that an intervening stranger, if he is male, usually stands to gain nothing (and lose much, possibly even his life) by confronting a man who is beating a woman. Typically the woman will not appreciate it as an act of heroism and instead defend her abusive man, because it's a case of the devil you know versus the devil you don't. For all she (and her man) knows, the intervener just wants to take her from him and treat her the same or worse. Plus she's probably with her abusive man because she's brainwashed into loving him dearly, in which case her defense of him needs no explanation. In the experiment I referenced in that post, only female interveners succeeded in confronting the man and convincing him to stop what he was doing. I'm not sure this has a direct analogy on the scale of nations, but I'm guessing that non-military sorts of interventions tend to work better than military ones, in most cases, at dispelling conflicts abroad.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

Geo-politics are highly affected by cultural variance. Idealism can take many forms.
Abhorrent to many for the loss of life (and rightly so), Jihad is a heartfelt cause for many extremists..
This presents many problems, and may even imply a sort of justification.
I'm not saying terrorists are the good guys, I'm just wondering out loud if maybe there are things happening bigger than what we understand perspectively. If we're all making up this super-consciousness, what if our ways have been a scourge or virus?
It would seem that many extreme hippies might jump to guns to protect Gaia and animals..
I don't know, maybe we're taking over Gaia with our collective Mind. Like freaking replicators haha..

Just thoughts..

 

[freddy47]

There are other forms of "stepping in" besides declaring war. If I was a high-ranking government official in a militarily powerful country, and I had legitimate intel that a genocide was in the works in a weaker country, my first response would probably be to call a top secret meeting of all the influential people in the targeted population, tip them off, and if need be, stay there at the table as they formulated a plan to avert disaster.

Might work if the targeted population had the means to leave the country or defend themselves. But lets just say for the sake of argument that these people have no means of escape or defense. Or for some reason didn't want to leave and could defend themselves but were hopelessly outmatched by the genocidal party. I'm saying that the military option is the only option that can save these people. IMO to stand back and watch is more morally reprehensible than say making a preemptive strike.

Color me jaded when it comes to military intervention beyond one's own borders. The fact is that no nation is willing or able to act like a superhero, stamping out injustice in all corners of the globe, and I question whether any should be expected to. History shows that nations intervene militarily in other nations' business only when the intervener has a vested interest at stake in the conflict. When the intervening nation stands to gain nothing (save for a pat on the back) for breaking up a foreign war, it turns a blind eye and saves its resources.

Mostly true but again I bring up the historical precedent of Somalia. The United States had really nothing to gain by going in there. We went there because something like 300,000 people had died from famine and war and more were being counted as the conflict drew on. We left because we underestimated their capabilities and lost about 20 men.

After that the United States refused to send any more troops to any African nation to intervene in Civil conflicts. Again I bring up Rwanda. I bring up Rwanda because it could be argued that because of Somalia and the loss of political capital by the Clinton administration they couldn't send troops to prevent the genocide. During the Rwanda genocide there was only 2,600 UN peacekeepers in the entire country obviously not enough to defend the populace. In some instances a handful of those UN peacekeepers standing guard around a group of refugees 10 times their size was enough to convince whole units of belligerent Hutus from carrying out their intended slaughter.

You should read about the Canadian general who was put in charge of that peacekeeping force. His name was Romeo Dallaire and he was completely traumatized by what he saw there. He felt incredibly guilty afterwords even though he defied UN orders to withdraw his force from Rwanda to protect as many people as he could. Here is a link about him if you're interested. The point is if he just had more troops the whole thing could have been less bloody or maybe even prevented. The man even came up with a plan to stop the genocide if he only had 5,000 well equipped troops which many military analysts say today was completely realistic. Such a small price to pay IMO to save the lives of so many people ignored because of bullshit.

Imagine if the United States had intervened then maybe 800,000 people wouldn't have died.

A good argument I've heard for military noninterventionism / neutrality is that all policies of intervention, no matter their stated goals or rationale, are easily abusable as a disguise for aggressively pushing one's own interests militarily. "We're going to annex you and subdue your people because we need your resources" doesn't fly in today's world. But policies of "Defending [against] X" can easily be sold to any populace, and provide the perfect loophole for making any self-interested military aggression look ethically justified.

Again a valid argument. But I guess I'm being overly idealistic here. IMO if you have the power to defend yourself and half the world (which the United States military does and then some) then you can use that military power to defend innocent people from slaughter. It's just me but I think when you have that type of power instead of going to war for material gain you should use it to defend those who cannot defend themselves. That is why I think they UN (if they weren't so bogged down by bureaucratic bullshit) is a great idea that fails because countries are often too selfish to concern themselves with a foreign country thousands of miles away.

On the other hand, it could be argued that in a world as shrunken and interconnected as ours is now, any war anywhere has effects on all nations, and is in every nation's best interest to do what it can to stop. I just don't know how this could be enforced, though.

Personally I have always thought that the UN should have more power in this regard. They should be given the permission to create a permanent military force made up of volunteers of course to be sent in only when genocide is being committed.

Funny you should use this example, because I once posted a thread about this very phenomenon in SL&R. (I'll post the link if it survived the latest prune.) Though not everyone agreed, the general consensus was that an intervening stranger, if he is male, usually stands to gain nothing (and lose much, possibly even his life) by confronting a man who is beating a woman. Typically the woman will not appreciate it as an act of heroism and instead defend her abusive man, because it's a case of the devil you know versus the devil you don't. For all she (and her man) knows, the intervener just wants to take her from him and treat her the same or worse. Plus she's probably with her abusive man because she's brainwashed into loving him dearly, in which case her defense of him needs no explanation. In the experiment I referenced in that post, only female interveners succeeded in confronting the man and convincing him to stop what he was doing. I'm not sure this has a direct analogy on the scale of nations, but I'm guessing that non-military sorts of interventions tend to work better than military ones, in most cases, at dispelling conflicts abroad.

Yeah my parents have always told me something similar. That I should never interfere when a man hits his wife or something because chances are she will be more pissed off at me than at her husband. I don't agree with this at all. But gotta say from personal experience, having seen this actually happen in a bar and seeing the guy who played hero getting slapped for his trouble, its hard to not see the validity of this argument.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Might work if the targeted population had the means to leave the country or defend themselves. But lets just say for the sake of argument that these people have no means of escape or defense. Or for some reason didn't want to leave and could defend themselves but were hopelessly outmatched by the genocidal party. I'm saying that the military option is the only option that can save these people. IMO to stand back and watch is more morally reprehensible than say making a preemptive strike.

I don't think there are usually cases where the targets of a genocide were utterly powerless to do anything, unless they were ambushed unaware, or disunified somehow, often by inside bickering egged on by the force that wants to exterminate them. Information is the best defense, and hiding information and misinforming are some of the best weapons known to man. If the targets of annihilation never saw it coming or were distracted from uniting and preparing adequately, the slaughter itself is just the endgame. I really think any group of people willing to unanimously trust an outside source saying their demise was in the works could come up with some way to dodge it.

Mostly true but again I bring up the historical precedent of Somalia. The United States had really nothing to gain by going in there. We went there because something like 300,000 people had died from famine and war and more were being counted as the conflict drew on. We left because we underestimated their capabilities and lost about 20 men.

I'll ask a couple of my family members who know their history a bit better than me about this. I'd always assumed the US intervention in Somalia was, in some roundabout way, a gambit for oil, or at the very least a firmer geopolitical foothold in a part of the world that has oil.

After that the United States refused to send any more troops to any African nation to intervene in Civil conflicts. Again I bring up Rwanda. I bring up Rwanda because it could be argued that because of Somalia and the loss of political capital by the Clinton administration they couldn't send troops to prevent the genocide. During the Rwanda genocide there was only 2,600 UN peacekeepers in the entire country obviously not enough to defend the populace. In some instances a handful of those UN peacekeepers standing guard around a group of refugees 10 times their size was enough to convince whole units of belligerent Hutus from carrying out their intended slaughter.

You should read about the Canadian general who was put in charge of that peacekeeping force. His name was Romeo Dallaire and he was completely traumatized by what he saw there. He felt incredibly guilty afterwords even though he defied UN orders to withdraw his force from Rwanda to protect as many people as he could. Here is a link about him if you're interested. The point is if he just had more troops the whole thing could have been less bloody or maybe even prevented. The man even came up with a plan to stop the genocide if he only had 5,000 well equipped troops which many military analysts say today was completely realistic. Such a small price to pay IMO to save the lives of so many people ignored because of bullshit.

It strikes me that maybe this mission was set up to fail, so that the major players in the UN could justify being cheapskates and giving up on Africa.

Again a valid argument. But I guess I'm being overly idealistic here. IMO if you have the power to defend yourself and half the world (which the United States military does and then some) then you can use that military power to defend innocent people from slaughter. It's just me but I think when you have that type of power instead of going to war for material gain you should use it to defend those who cannot defend themselves. That is why I think they UN (if they weren't so bogged down by bureaucratic bullshit) is a great idea that fails because countries are often too selfish to concern themselves with a foreign country thousands of miles away.

I also think the UN is a good idea, and would like to see its roles in keeping the world stable expanded. The challenge, of course, is keeping it a body that truly holds all nations of people (and all conflicts) to be on equal footing, and cannot easily be infiltrated or usurped by the selfish interests of one of more powerful participants. It's a "Who's going to watch the watcher?" kind of scenario.

Different nations exist because people fundamentally disagree on what matters in an individual's life, and what matters in society. Most people in any given country operate under the assumption that the world would just be a better place if everybody saw things their way. This fails to take into account, though, the fact that different people in different terrestrial environments have faced different challenges, and have needed to define themselves differently in order to survive. The reason I bring this up is because it calls into question the feasibility of nations answering to any higher authority like a world government.

I have a hard time imagining a real, functioning world government without a more or less complete cultural steamrolling of the world by one nation and its culture. For better or for worse, this could actually come to pass.

Personally I have always thought that the UN should have more power in this regard. They should be given the permission to create a permanent military force made up of volunteers of course to be sent in only when genocide is being committed.

I like the idea, and I'm not so jaded that I think there's no way to make this work (creating the incentives to join up, funding, management, the whole enchilada). However, since you'd need a politically complicated system of checks and balances to make sure this UN force was both truly effectual and relatively impervious to being usurped AND able to respond at a moment's notice, I bet it'd be one hell of an expensive and bureaucratic institution to maintain.

Yeah my parents have always told me something similar. That I should never interfere when a man hits his wife or something because chances are she will be more pissed off at me than at her husband. I don't agree with this at all. But gotta say from personal experience, having seen this actually happen in a bar and seeing the guy who played hero getting slapped for his trouble, its hard to not see the validity of this argument.

I think the best way to be a hero in a case like this is to restrain the guy, or if that's not possible, rally the help of security people or bouncers to restrain him.