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

[freddy47]

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.

First I think this is an unrealistic assumption. In Nazi Germany there was about 500,000 Jews. About half left the country before things got really bad. The other half either couldn't afford to leave or stubbornly wanted to stay for whatever reason. Maybe to continue to resist or because they didn't want to leave their home.

In Rwanda the Tutsi population had the means to defend themselves and even formed a militia that eventually overthrew the genocidal Hutu government. But not before 800,000 people were killed.

Second if your argument were valid than most genocides could have been avoided easily. Intelligence communities do not usually share their information. They either get their government to act on the intel or ignore it. Sharing information is pretty much a no no when it comes to spies unless they too have something to gain from sharing.

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.

I think your being a little cynical here which is understandable given the United States recent track record involving the military. Yes most of the time this is true America goes into a country to "help" but also to further their goals in the region. But let me ask you this if indeed the humanitarian mission to Somalia was some kind of guise for a secret geopolitical power grab in the region. You really think the United States would pull out its military force after only losing 2 helicopters and 20 men? 2 helicopters and 20 soldiers is a small geopolitical price to pay for control of a strategically valued area. Just look at how many men we have lost in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think what happened was the top brass during the Clinton administration thought they were losing men while not gaining anything of strategic value and decided that saving lives was less important than conserving military resources for future conflicts. Also remember the biggest force sent to Somalia after the American force was Pakistani.

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.

It was. Again read about Romeo Dallaire. Not only did he only have 2,600 troops but his force was further cut (when the genocide was just starting to pick up steam) to about 260 poorly trained and poorly equipped soldiers. But even with less than 300 men he managed to save 20,000 people! 20,000! Imagine if he had the 5,000 troops he requested in the first place. I trust you can do the math?

The world doesn't give a flying fuck about Africa and Romeo Dallaire has said as much. He believed and I agree with him that the world collectively decided to ignore Rwanda because of racism. For example Romeo Dallaire asked the United States military to jam a radio signal coming from the Hutus that was giving details on where to find Tutsi people to kill. It was estimated that it would have only cost the United States air force about 8,500 dollars per flight hour to send one signal jamming plane to stop this information from being sent out. Information that killed countless people. And the US ignored it saying that it had no reason to intervene because it wasn't a genocide yet! They actively avoided the term genocide! Because once that word was used in the UN the UN would have to step in because of their mandate.

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.

This is why I think the UN security council needs to be completely overhauled and if need be replaced. The fact that the five permanent seats on the council are also 5 of the biggest arms producers in the world and also maintains economic and military rivalries with each other means nothing will ever be accomplished via this council.

As for the one world one government idea? I personally wouldn't mind it although I can see the obvious problems with such a government. Too many conflicting interests. But on a selfish note as a person who travels a whole bunch for business and pleasure it would be nice not to have to go through customs ever again. Imagine a world without borders where you get off the plane and go straight to your hotel after picking up your baggage. No customs officer drilling you on what you're bringing into their country. Ahh that would be impossibly awesome. A man can dream though I suppose.

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.

Of course a vast system would need to be set up to make sure that this force is not misused. But no matter how expensive I think it will be worth it. The soldiers would also need special training because they will be peacekeepers not an invading force. Also more than anything I think the officers of such a force must be completely free of attachments to their home country and must be 100% committed to this force. Any conflicting loyalties to their home military would conflict with the interests of peacekeeping. They must be entirely neutral in politics and must always question orders that don't seem to line up with their ultimate goal of protecting human life.

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.

The problem with restraining the guy is that the guy will probably end up hitting you as well. I think rallying the bouncers is the best idea IMO.

 

[hiphophippy]

First I think this is an unrealistic assumption. In Nazi Germany there was about 500,000 Jews. About half left the country before things got really bad. The other half either couldn't afford to leave or stubbornly wanted to stay for whatever reason. Maybe to continue to resist or because they didn't want to leave their home.

In Rwanda the Tutsi population had the means to defend themselves and even formed a militia that eventually overthrew the genocidal Hutu government. But not before 800,000 people were killed.

remember that this whole conflict was setup by the Belgians, whom also had people subject to the holocaust.

top brass during the Clinton administration thought they were losing men while not gaining anything of strategic value and decided that saving lives was less important than conserving military resources for future conflicts. Also remember the biggest force sent to Somalia after the American force was Pakistani.

you've got this one down pat.

The world doesn't give a flying fuck about Africa

yup.

This is why I think the UN security council needs to be completely overhauled and if need be replaced. The fact that the five permanent seats on the council are also 5 of the biggest arms producers in the world and also maintains economic and military rivalries with each other means nothing will ever be accomplished via this council.

I didn't know this, that is definitely interesting, do you have a source?

As for the one world one government idea? I personally wouldn't mind it although I can see the obvious problems with such a government. Too many conflicting interests. But on a selfish note as a person who travels a whole bunch for business and pleasure it would be nice not to have to go through customs ever again. Imagine a world without borders where you get off the plane and go straight to your hotel after picking up your baggage. No customs officer drilling you on what you're bringing into their country. Ahh that would be impossibly awesome. A man can dream though I suppose.

Well, some of that has a legitimate point. like not introducing aggressiveness invasive species, packing hookers in travle bags ect.

Of course a vast system would need to be set up to make sure that this force is not misused. But no matter how expensive I think it will be worth it. The soldiers would also need special training because they will be peacekeepers not an invading force. Also more than anything I think the officers of such a force must be completely free of attachments to their home country and must be 100% committed to this force. Any conflicting loyalties to their home military would conflict with the interests of peacekeeping. They must be entirely neutral in politics and must always question orders that don't seem to line up with their ultimate goal of protecting human life.

Israel and the US two countries with huge military budgets. We'll call this Check2's theory of military politics, the higher the military budget is inversely proportional to the amount of special task forces (IE soldiers actually trained to a level where they can effectively fight)

also
one gurkah fought off 30 taliban fighters
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/02/soldier-cited-for-holding-off-up-to-30-taliban-by-himself/

The problem with restraining the guy is that the guy will probably end up hitting you as well. I think rallying the bouncers is the best idea IMO.

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.

Or you can run up with a knife drawn and tell the mother fucker to step off or you'll slit his throat and while he's gurgling on his blood you'll cut open his abdomen and stew his guts across the floor.

alternate is just skipping to the slitting and strewing of inards.

 

[freddy47]

remember that this whole conflict was setup by the Belgians, whom also had people subject to the holocaust.

I'm aware. I also found it funny that the Belgians were the first to pull their troops from the UN peacekeeping force because of the loss of ten of their paratroopers during a rescue of some Rwandans. Considering the atrocities the Belgians have committed in the Congo during their colonization (read Heart of Darkness) I think this was one of the most reprehensible acts a western country has ever done. Sure they couldn't change history. But at least make up for all that heinous shit by staying and keeping the peace!

I didn't know this, that is definitely interesting, do you have a source?

Sure. The top five countries that spend the most on their defense budgets are United States, China, France, United Kingdom, and Mother Russia in that order. The top five exporters of arms are the United States, Russia, Germany, France, United Kingdom, and China coming in a close sixth.

The first five countries the ones that spend the most on their defense budgets all have permanent seats on the UN security council because they were the original allies during WWII. These five countries all happen to be nuclear powers as well. Read the bit labeled criticisms. The United States and Russia (obviously) have a military rivalry even after the cold war ended. The United States and China have an ongoing economic rivalry. Obviously Britain and France and the United States are allied. But France and Britain has always been wary of Russia militarily and economically. For example Russia pretty much controls Europe's oil supply. Add to that the fact that all five permanent security council members have veto power. And all it takes is one veto to completely stop a UN security resolution. These five countries have consistently vetoed resolutions to block progress and also to stop resolutions that could potentially mess with their plans.

A further example would be Kuwait. The UN rallied like hornets to aid this oil rich country when it was invaded. Nobody gave two shits when Rwanda a resource poor country destroyed itself in front of us. There needs to be a drastic change in the UN so that this type of shit doesn't happen again. Somalia was a good start people just needed to be more committed. The problem is their is just a general racist element in the higher ups. Again Romeo Dallaire said it best. The jist of which is "Apparently some people are more human than other humans." He was of course referring to Yugoslavians and how the world quickly helped them but ignored Rwanda. Even though more people were killed in Rwanda than ever in Kosovo or anywhere else in Yugoslavia.

Well, some of that has a legitimate point. like not introducing aggressiveness invasive species, packing hookers in travle bags ect.

Well I've always thought that that type of security could be done before you board the plane not after.

Israel and the US two countries with huge military budgets. We'll call this Check2's theory of military politics, the higher the military budget is inversely proportional to the amount of special task forces (IE soldiers actually trained to a level where they can effectively fight)

Well these two armies aren't especially known for peacekeeping are they. They tend to be more aggressive. IMO peacekeeping troops don't just need to be trained to fight. They also need to be trained in conflict resolution. I posted this link about the Canadian General in charge of the Rwanda UN task force above in case you missed it. In it he raises some interesting questions about how peacekeeping forces should act from his personal experiences while in Rwanda.

also
one gurkah fought off 30 taliban fighters
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/02...an-by-himself/

That guy is bad ass. I'm surprised he didn't get the Victoria Cross for that. Never mess with a fucking Gurkha those guys are fucking tough as nails.

Or you can run up with a knife drawn and tell the mother fucker to step off or you'll slit his throat and while he's gurgling on his blood you'll cut open his abdomen and stew his guts across the floor.

alternate is just skipping to the slitting and strewing of inards.

yeah sure if you want to go to jail for being a tad bit overly aggressive.

 

[freddy47]

The concept of "humanitarian war", perfected during the break-up of Yugoslavia, is often used as a pretext for a war of aggression, as was done in Yugoslavia; the large scale massacres we spoke of as the pretext for the bombing and subsequent invasion? Never actually happened; there were some war crimes committed by all sides, yes, but nothing serious enough to justify our response, which was to essentially act as the KLA's air-force.

What the world pretty much said at that point is that Yugoslavians matter. Africans do not. Why? Because Slavs are white. Rwandans are black and therefore not worth the resources. It is absolutely sickening. I have stated many times already. The fact that the United Nations did not react with military force in Rwanda was a completely and utterly racist decision.

Yes, I believe it is absolutely permissable to do harm to prevent harm in a number of specific scenarios, but this is on a personal level; if one were to attempt to reproduce this on a larger scale, it often gets messy and is no longer as clear-cut. If there is anyone else in the location with me and a visibly armed intruder attempts to breach the perimeter security, I'm going to do everything I can to keep myself and whoever is with me safe. This perp poses a threat, and we do what is necessary to stop the threat; whether he lives or dies is immaterial- the only thing that really matters is that the threat is stopped before they can do harm to myself or those depending upon me. If I'm by myself that changes things a bit, simplifies them, and opens up the option of retreat, and depending upon a whole slew of factors, including what state I was in and how the circumstances could be presented to a judge/jury, I might just slip out a window and ghost- I'm pretty good at that. If for some reason some idiot wants to open fire on me while I'm E&E'ing, well then, all bets are off; as we say, that fool is bought and paid for.

Sure agreed.

Property is important, yes, and I can completely understand why people need the right to employ lethal force to defend their property, but at the end of the day, most of that stuff is easily replaceable. Or, let me phrase it this way- which is more expensive, your HDTV or everything you need to beat a murder trial (bail, competent lawyer, etc?) Yes, there are some theoretical scenarios in which I can see myself using lethal force to protect property, but they are few and far between (perhaps if I had more property to protect I would feel differently).

Mainly my question was is it all right to hurt someone who is going to hurt someone else. Self defense is easy to justify. Use of deadly force to defend someone else while you yourself is in no immediate danger becomes a gray area for a lot of people for some reason.