Export thread

GasBandit said:

In a nutshell:

Click to expand...

See, I have problems with this attitude from the perspective of history. Substitute "Germans" in there. Yes I'm Godwining, so sue me. But keep reading (if you can). With the substitution, you have the exact attitude pre-WWII. Was it right to NOT speak up then? Only caring when they actually invaded another country? What if it had been small an insignificant to other nations country (*cough*Austria*cough*) and people still didn't do anything? The number dead would have been SMALLER than the number dead via the entire of WWII. So should we have just let the Nazis "do their thing" because it would probably have been less deaths than actually doing something?

No, it was right to intervene, and should have done so even sooner.

But the number of deaths as a result of the war was higher than the numbers they were sending to the Gas Chambers, right? So what then?

When is intervening for a principal the right idea, even if it costs more lives? Most people "agree" WWII was just. So... when then?


I'm not saying that the situation in Syria is the same. It isn't. It may be the right thing to just "let it go" and let them sort it out themselves, but the attitude in the picture is what I find just horrid. It's about more than merely balance of lives. If it was only that, then many horrors should be allowed to keep going, as it's less lives lost than doing something about it.

WW2 was not a civil war. That's an important distinction. Moreover, no matter who wins this civil war, our interests will be worse off. The comparison doesn't work. The rebels are not pure and innocent fighters trying to free their homeland from oppression, they're terrorist organizations trying to topple a secular, if blood-drenched, government in favor of instituting their own oppressive doctrine.

GasBandit said:

WW2 was not a civil war. That's an important distinction. Moreover, no matter who wins this civil war, our interests will be worse off. The comparison doesn't work. The rebels are not pure and innocent fighters trying to free their homeland from oppression, they're terrorist organizations trying to topple a secular, if blood-drenched, government in favor of instituting their own oppressive doctrine.

Click to expand...

True, but everything in the media is about "saving lives" or "preventing bloodshed" or the like. My point is that it has to be about more than that. Sad that it NEEDS to be about more than that, but it IS true.

As for WWII, it was the THIRD country invaded that Britain & France (a few others, but those were the ones with force) said "no". Poland was the tipping point. You guys didn't go in until YOU were bombed by Japan, who was an ally of the Axis. Quite frankly, I'm surprised you got into the European conflict at all and didn't just concentrate on Japan only, but hey, ultimately I'm glad you did. Still, you can't make the excuse of "it's just a civil war" either, as obviously history is on the side of "it doesn't f'n matter who things are between, people go in or NOT as they see fit." Your "important distinction" doesn't mean shit in the real world Gas.

IIRC Roosevelt was itching for an excuse to get involved in Europe, hence the "he let pearl harbor happen" conspiracy theories.

Which is why we'll forever have conspiracy theories about syria chemical weapons were used or encouraged to be used by US gov't so we'd "have" to become involved.

Eriol said:

True, but everything in the media is about "saving lives" or "preventing bloodshed" or the like. My point is that it has to be about more than that. Sad that it NEEDS to be about more than that, but it IS true.

As for WWII, it was the THIRD country invaded that Britain & France (a few others, but those were the ones with force) said "no". Poland was the tipping point. You guys didn't go in until YOU were bombed by Japan, who was an ally of the Axis. Quite frankly, I'm surprised you got into the European conflict at all and didn't just concentrate on Japan only, but hey, ultimately I'm glad you did. Still, you can't make the excuse of "it's just a civil war" either, as obviously history is on the side of "it doesn't f'n matter who things are between, people go in or NOT as they see fit." Your "important distinction" doesn't mean shit in the real world Gas.

Click to expand...

And your counterproposal is, what, that the United States invade every single country who goes to war with someone else, or itself? There isn't enough treasure in the world to finance such an operation. We've already spent ourselves into the ground from just Iraq and Afghanistan. We can't be the world's police anymore, as unfortunately we can't afford to be. And really, the whole "saving lives and preventing bloodshed" business in the media is absolute baloney. Nobody in the media gave a tiny rat's hiney about the first hundred thousand syrians killed by conventional means, but this latest 1500 killed by chemical weapons suddenly commits us to Gulf War 5? For how long? And who gets to rule in Syria when we're done? And after that, are we expected to overturn every brutal regime from southern africa to north Korea? And at some point we'll piss off the Chinese and Russians enough that they'll feel desperate enough to do something really stupid.

Tell you what, Canada, if you're so hot to trot to fix the world's problems, maybe you can finance it yourself with your own money and the blood of your own kids, before you go lecturing the US about the "real world."

GasBandit said:

baloney.

Click to expand...

Bologna*

CrimsonSoul said:

Bologna*

Click to expand...

Bologna is lunch meat. Baloney is nonsense.

GasBandit said:

Bologna is lunch meat. Baloney is nonsense.

Click to expand...

What a bunch of hogwash.

Hogwash is....

sixpackshaker said:

Hogwash is....

Click to expand...

...a bunch of hooey.

Which is really just a bunch of malarkey.

I'm tired of all this folderol. This is the FUNNY thread, somebody (else for once) post some funny!

He's not you're buddy, pal!

Sorry about the uncreative thread name. My job has changed at work and I find I have almost 0 time to surf, so I popped in, moved it and popped out.

Dave said:

Sorry about the uncreative thread name. My job has changed at work and I find I have almost 0 time to surf, so I popped in, moved it and popped out.

Click to expand...

There was one more post in there I think.

Two more actually, first mine:

GasBandit said: ↑
Nope. Just take a simple line: If the UN says to go in, then the USA will. Or if an allied country ASKS for help with a conflict, then you can evaluate your alliance and help them (or not). Or if something of yours is directly assaulted (you're allowed to defend yourself) you retaliate. That's it unless the UN says "the UN is stepping in."

The (good) consequence of such is that people will finally see the UN for what it is: a dictator's club. It will lose all world respect from those that see it as having anything resembling moral authority (it doesn't have it, but people think it does). Shift the blame to them every time something bad happens that they vote to NOT intervene in. THEN things can change globally once they're cut out of anything resembling respect.


Then Gas's in entirety:


So ya, that's where we are with this.


I'd say that the UN isn't useful from a diplomatic perspective either. Countries meet directly with one another. They have embassies with one another, and quite frankly, representatives of both just pick up phones, and talk with each other. Or other forums (like the G8/G20) and do stuff. Or direct diplomatic missions. I doubt the UN has a whole hell of a lot to do with facilitating actual decision-making or policy between nations.
X

About the only thing the UN actually does well are it's humanitarian missions and that only works when their finances are under close supervision. If the UN is to endure as a global icon, it MUST make these missions the most important duty of their organization.

AshburnerX said:

About the only thing the UN actually does well are it's humanitarian missions and that only works when their finances are under close supervision. If the UN is to endure as a global icon, it MUST make these missions the most important duty of their organization.

Click to expand...

I think how well the UN performs in humanitarian missions (disaster relief and such, missions without any form of military or economic sanctions component) depends on several different factors.

One, the UN is required to operate with the consent and the co-operation of the host government. If the government says they'll handle it (whether or not they can or have the slightest intention to), there is nothing the UN can do. If the government says their own agencies will handle co-ordination and distribution of aid, with the UN just providing the money, it is anybody's guess as to what proportion of the money and relief supplies will actually reach those in need, and how much will simply disappear into the pockets of government officials. If the government allows the UN agencies to run the show, the UN will still usually be reliant on local partners to handle the aid distribution, as a situation where the UN will have the money and the manpower in place to set up their own networks in a timely fashion in some random cesspit of a country is possible pretty much only in cause célèbre cases where there is a lot of money available from foreign governments and other donors. Usually the budget of an operation does not permit this.

Two, while there have been widely publicised cases of financial corruption within the UN, mostly the staff are normal people who do their jobs. The organisation is monstrously inefficient, though, with a top-heavy structure where many of the higher positions are held in sinecure by retired diplomats, politicians, and friends-of-cousins. Many times it is mostly the lower ranks who do what actually gets done, with the massive higher echelons keeping themselves busy with needless meetings, internal politicking, and navigating the vast morass of administrative procedures. It is somewhat like a national government in this respect, with the main difference being that all the regional centers are sovereign actors in their own right.

Three, unless they have lots of money at their disposal (which they usually don't), or they are working with a properly functioning host government which can provide accurate information and is willing and able to properly distribute aid (which they often aren't), a UN humanitarian aid mission tends to come too late to help in the crucial early days of a disaster. If trusting the host government amounts to idiocy, then the UN needs to gather information, assess the situation, develop a plan, perform a bidding contest for the procurement of aid supplies (relief supplies in UN regional warehouses are available faster, but are usually a lot less cost-effective than what can be procured locally, an important consideration for a cash-strapped operation), and set up a distribution network. By the time aid starts reaching those in need, several weeks have often gone by.

My view is that things like these, rather than the limited amount of cases where there is actual corruption within the UN, that make the UN terribly inefficient and sometimes ineffective as a humanitarian relief organisation. But it's what we have and the best thing we are likely to have for a good long while. In my opinion, if you retain the UN as a humanitarian relief organisation, you don't do it because the UN is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You do it because, without the UN, millions of people would likely suffer and die in places that don't feature in the evening news and where their own governments simply don't give a shit.

If alleviating human suffering is not a concern, then most of what the UN does on the humanitarian side amounts to a waste of taxpayers' money for any single first-world nation.