Euston Manifesto

[Bozo Erectus]

Bozo: so do you advocate an isolationist policy when it comes to foerign policy for western countries? Should we be even going on humanitarian missions?

I think the only time we should intervene in other countries is when genocide is occuring. When theres famine, we should be ready to provide immediate food aid, if its requested.

One day there might be a real United Nations, with one nation, one vote, and it wont be dominated by the richest nations with the biggest bombs (dont hold your breath though). If that day ever comes, intervention in the affairs of dysfunctional societies might become more legitimate.

 

[Che Guava]

I think the only time we should intervene in other countries is when genocide is occuring. When theres famine, we should be ready to provide immediate food aid, if its requested.

One day there might be a real United Nations, with one nation, one vote, and it wont be dominated by the richest nations with the biggest bombs (dont hold your breath though). If that day ever comes, intervention in the affairs of dysfunctional societies might become more legitimate.

I can see your point, although methinks there might be some grey area when something short of a genocide is occuring but still warrants intervention...

also, I don't look forward to a UN with 'one nation, one vote'. The day that China gets the same voting power as Sao Tome will not be a good day, IMO...

 

[Norseman2]

From what I viewed of it, it looks like the only significant and real change they propose is to have more wars. I completely agree that tyranical governments should be overthrown, but I think the overthrowing should be done by the citizens of the country. They should be supported, but ultimately any occupation, legal changes or anything of that sort should be done wholly by the people who live in the country. The only job we should be involved in is getting those people organized, trained, and prepared to take out their government, if they so desire.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Doesnt matter. Theres a spectre haunting Leftists: The Communist Manifesto.

Thats like saying that Mein Kampf haunts right-wingers.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I can see your point, although methinks there might be some grey area when something short of a genocide is occuring but still warrants intervention...

Alot of mischief can happen in that grey area. When it comes to violating the sovereignty of nations, there should be no fuzzy grey areas. It should be black and white, very clear cut, open and above board, or else any possible good that might have come of it will be erased.

also, I don't look forward to a UN with 'one nation, one vote'. The day that China gets the same voting power as Sao Tome will not be a good day, IMO...

Should a country with 10,000 nuclear missles have more votes than a country with 5000? Should the one with 5000 have more votes than a country with 500? One nation one vote would end the Colonial Era.

BTW, I loved Sao Tome in My Cousin Vinny.

Thats like saying that Mein Kampf haunts right-wingers.

In a way it does, doesnt it? Im sure youd advise a rightwing group to refrain from putting out a paper titled " Our Kampf", wouldnt you?

 

[ComradeDavo]

In a way it does, doesnt it? Im sure youd advise a rightwing group to refrain from putting out a paper titled " Our Kampf", wouldnt you?

True!

..

 

[Samson]

Alot of mischief can happen in that grey area. When it comes to violating the sovereignty of nations, there should be no fuzzy grey areas. It should be black and white, very clear cut, open and above board, or else any possible good that might have come of it will be erased.

The thing is that the sort of action you want to stop is not genocide until every one of the ethnic group targetted are dead. I would say that that is a bit late. I do not know what the right answer is though.

A stong and well respected UN would do the job, but I am not holding my breath.

 

[Che Guava]

Alot of mischief can happen in that grey area. When it comes to violating the sovereignty of nations, there should be no fuzzy grey areas. It should be black and white, very clear cut, open and above board, or else any possible good that might have come of it will be erased.

Yeah, but where does that line lie? Half the time we can't even really call something a 'genocide' until after the fighting has stopped and death tolls can be counted. Would you invade pre-emptively to prevent a massacre or wait until after its begun? What if someone else has already invaded? What if its a case like Haiti, where the government collapsed and the oly law was the rule of gangs?

Should a country with 10,000 nuclear missles have more votes than a country with 5000? Should the one with 5000 have more votes than a country with 500? One nation one vote would end the Colonial Era.

BTW, I loved Sao Tome in My Cousin Vinny.

Right now, I think general assembly counts every nation as a seperate vote, the oly kicker comes from the security council veto. If we didn't have that, i can imagine why countries like China or the US would even stick around. THe UN structure needs some revision, but I still think that one nation one vote wold be a complete disaster....

Never saw My Cousin Vinnie, but Sao Tome is funny enough on its own

 

[ThePhysicist]

B.E., I don't think you got my point. If I read correctly, you seem to believe that stopping genocide is, infact, a universal evil that should be stopped. Why then, are there no other universal values? Even just a few?

Certainly I understand that we must respect other cultures, and I know that our own culture has many faults. Some or even many aspects of cultural differences are relative, but to some extent we must realize that we are all humans, and at our base are all the same. Thus there are certain things that should be pushed forward everywhere. If that means we need to change certain aspects of our own culture as well, as I'm sure it does, so be it.

And if I wasn't clear, I do not believe in using military action to support these beliefs, as in most cases it would be hypocritical. However, there are many other methods- the best of which would be leading by example.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Ah, and I might want to add, that I probably came off as intolerant in my other post. That is not what I intended. I don't have any problems with other cultures in general. I never meant that our culture is superior and that others should become more like it. Our culture has as many problems with those values listed as any other culture, in my opinion. But that just means we have work to do on ourselves aswell.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

B.E., I don't think you got my point. If I read correctly, you seem to believe that stopping genocide is, infact, a universal evil that should be stopped. Why then, are there no other universal values? Even just a few?

Genocide is the common enemy of all cultures and ways of life.

Certainly I understand that we must respect other cultures, and I know that our own culture has many faults. Some or even many aspects of cultural differences are relative, but to some extent we must realize that we are all humans, and at our base are all the same. Thus there are certain things that should be pushed forward everywhere. If that means we need to change certain aspects of our own culture as well, as I'm sure it does, so be it.

Respecting other cultures, to me anyway, means that we have to come to grips with the fact that we live in a world of many cultures and viewpoints. We really like freedom of speech, equal rights for women, all of that stuff. That should be enough, but no, we believe that its so right, that we have to impose those ideas on everyone on the globe. And then, we're shocked when planes start crashing into buildings

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Yeah, but where does that line lie? Half the time we can't even really call something a 'genocide' until after the fighting has stopped and death tolls can be counted.

Absolutely true, but lets not mistake cowardice and incompitence for policy.

Would you invade pre-emptively to prevent a massacre or wait until after its begun?

If we didnt wait until theyd begun, then all we'd be doing is initiating massacres to prevent massacres. Doesnt make much sense does it?

What if someone else has already invaded? What if its a case like Haiti, where the government collapsed and the oly law was the rule of gangs?

Id add 'Failed States' to the list, alongside 'Genocide'. In a world with one nation, one vote, a future version of the UN would be able to send in troops, restore order and ensure the delivery of essential services to the people, without the stench of Colonialism or Imperialism.

Right now, I think general assembly counts every nation as a seperate vote, the oly kicker comes from the security council veto. If we didn't have that, i can imagine why countries like China or the US would even stick around. THe UN structure needs some revision, but I still think that one nation one vote wold be a complete disaster....

You believe it would be a disaster because youre a true blue, red blooded Westerner. A world where the will of the West isnt paramount is a disaster, whether the Westerner is of the Left, or the Right.

Never saw My Cousin Vinnie, but Sao Tome is funny enough on its own

It sure is. Never heard of the joint till this thread

 

[Che Guava]

You believe it would be a disaster because youre a true blue, red blooded Westerner. A world where the will of the West isnt paramount is a disaster, whether the Westerner is of the Left, or the Right.

That's not it at all! If anything I think that the security council keeps the west in check.

I just see it as this: in order for countries to participate in the UN, they need to feel like thier interests are being served. For a small country, just getting a vote in the general assembly is a huge advantage. For a country like the US, its a waste of time unless you can be assured that your own nation, with its giant economy, military force and cultured society, isn't out voted by a block of countries from the south pacific that has a total of 5000 people combined. Why would the US (or china, or india...) participate in such a process that doesn't take into account at all thier relative power and influence when they could make it just as well on thier own through military pacts like NATO?

If we don't acknowledge the major players, they'll take thier chips to another table...