A minute of silence for Rwanda

Why must our foreign policy be so strictly practical? Is it that hard to see the need morality and idealism in world politics, especially when we have the power to enforce and be consistent with it? And Seleucus you still didn't answer my previous question.
 
It just seemed to me like something that is intuitively against America's ideals and interests. On the other hand, other people may have a different idea of what those are.

I can't believe I'm even debating this. Would we be talking this way about the Holocaust?
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
This would be even more tragic if this was the exception and not the rule for African states.

:( so sad, so true
 
Nevermind the US interest! This is a GENOCIDE we are talking about! Human beings killed with no mercy!
Why can't you understand why it's important that we know about this when it's happenning so we can help to stop it?
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
It just seemed to me like something that is intuitively against America's ideals and interests. On the other hand, other people may have a different idea of what those are.


This is about the third time you've brought up the word "interests" without elaborating on how exactly they are being threatened here.


I can't believe I'm even debating this. Would we be talking this way about the Holocaust?

The Holocaust is quite a different story. The people getting killed were citizens of US allies or, at the very least, the enemies of our enemy.
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
It just seemed to me like something that is intuitively against America's ideals and interests. On the other hand, other people may have a different idea of what those are.

I can't believe I'm even debating this. Would we be talking this way about the Holocaust?

He woud care if the Holocaust benefit an enemy (Third Reich).

He won't if the Third Reich would not be considered an enemy or if the Holocaust would not benefit the country.

He would perhaps support the Holocaust if it would result in a weaker nazi Germany.

Did I get you right SN?
 
Seleucus, I must warn you that this is a battle you cannot win, 1,000,000 is too strong a number. I would recommend getting out now before your name and reputation are further tarnished by the puppets of "international cooperationism".
 
Originally posted by SeleucusNicator


This is about the third time you've brought up the word "interests" without elaborating on how exactly they are being threatened here.



The Holocaust is quite a different story. The people getting killed were citizens of US allies or, at the very least, the enemies of our enemy. [/B]

Is it impossible for you to see people without their national identity defining them entirely in your eyes? Is it truly a tragedy for one american to die and an event which leaves you shrugging for one million "anyone else" to die? This callousness is difficult to understand and is further hurtful when it is justified as in the United States best interests.
 
Look, if genocide is not by definition unconscionable - which you seem to believe - then there must be a possible situation in which genocide is acceptable, indeed, one of the best courses available, given what you see as "US interests". Good logic so far? You seem to be placed in the uncomfortable position of defending genocide. Not too bright on the part of a Pole, if you'll excuse me for reflecting a little nationalism.
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Look, if genocide is not by definition unconscionable - which you seem to believe - then there must be a possible situation in which genocide is acceptable, indeed, one of the best courses available, given what you see as "US interests". Good logic so far? You seem to be placed in the uncomfortable position of defending genocide. Not too bright on the part of a Pole, if you'll excuse me for reflecting a little nationalism.

If somebody wishes to slaughter large numbers of my enemy, what is there to complain about?
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Exactly what Hoover said. You're going in circles Seleucus

On Manchuria? In that case I would condemn Hoover for foolish analysis of who the US enemy in that situation was.
 
(A lightning thread: off for a few minutes and a page and a half to catch up on).

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
Well, news on television is, sadly, a strange combination of entertainment and actual coverage of events. Because of the limited time and the need for ad revenue, only that news which there is demand for (or for which demand can be created) can be shown. Newspapers are only halfway better; they still have limits and commercial needs.

That's why I don't get my "news" from TV or papers. The internet is a far superior source; the costs are minimal and what news you recieve can be very easily customized. Hundreds of sources can be rolled into one front page.
Unfortunately from the narrow outlook of the "person in the street", the mainstream media still forms a major (more like only) source of information about the happenings in the world.

And what percentage of the population does it the SN way? I would still say that Google would bring up more mainstream material (much secondary sources and lower). One needs to be really alert and experienced to get impartial and reliable sources.
 
So far I'm really liking that you haven't responded to a point I've made Seleucus.
 
Originally posted by MoHiggins
So far I'm really liking that you haven't responded to a point I've made Seluceus.

I do not see any points you have raised that are necessarily worth responding to other than to state that we seem to have reached the fundamental divergence in our views on the matter.
 
How can you judge we have reached such a juncture when not a single post you have made has directly addressed me?
 
Originally posted by MoHiggins
How can you judge we have reached such a juncture when not a single post you have made has directly addressed me?

What I'm saying was that if I had replied to the below post of yours I would have stated that we have appeared to reach such a juncture.

Is it impossible for you to see people without their national identity defining them entirely in your eyes? Is it truly a tragedy for one american to die and an event which leaves you shrugging for one million "anyone else" to die? This callousness is difficult to understand and is further hurtful when it is justified as in the United States best interests.

If you have something you wish to submit to be that you believe I may have missed, by all means go ahead and restate it. Otherwise, it appears that we can argue no further: I see individuals defined by national indentity, you do not. Until that changes we will never agree.
 
Well then would you say that this way of defining people is just another way of devaluing human life? And if so, is this not a short-sighted, morally reprehensible way to view the world?
 
Originally posted by MoHiggins
Well then would you say that this way of defining people is just another way of devaluing human life? And if so, is this not a short-sighted, morally reprehensible way to view the world?

No, I wouldn't. National Identity is a part of human life, after all. I do not find human life absolutely "sacred", but I would argue this is a lack of overvaluing human life rather than a presence of its devaluation.
 
I would also like to say that I often times do find myself in fact agreeing with you. This is most likely why I am now so frustrated that you are willing to carry this method of thinking which I often subscribe to, to an end which seems like indifference toward human life to maintain the uniformity of this method of viewing foreign policy.
 
Top Bottom