sleepy jack

Do you even read my posts? I've stated several times my positions on Tibet and Darfur already and addressed basically that entire post in previous statements. I never said I was in favor of the United States going and invading Darfur and dealing with the problem themselves. In the same way I wouldn't be in favor of them going into North Korea or Iraq. I've already explained why I've made the comparison all you've said was "it's a terrible comparison." If you want to talk about arguing to score points or "snarkifying" look at your own methods.

What I find interesting here though is you try and make me out to be a hypocrite because you think I favor action in Darfur (which I don't - not United States action anyway) but that I'm against any action in Iraq or North Korea. Which has been my point I've been trying to make all along. The difference is I'm not the one with the hypocrisy issues.

Now as for your point about domestic abuse and it being the same philosophy. You're completely right. If I knew someone was beating his wife I wouldn't go in with a bat and start beating the shit out of him. I would call the police - the same can be said about my foreign policy seeing as I don't think the United States is the world police.

You expect me to answer a question when I disagree with the assumption the question makes? If you want a simple answer then yes I do believe a fresh start would be better than the status quo.

__________________

TheBig3

We shouldn't do anything because we're not the world police, but when we see preventable tragedies going on we should call the police who are...

__________________
I've moved to a new address

sleepy jack

The United Nations

__________________

Janszoon

No. These guys:

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

TheBig3

And they'd both do as much good.

What do you propose the U.N. do? In case you're wondering, I don't think this idea works. I haven't seen any case where the U.N. has done anything that stopped rogue states from doing whatever they want.

When it comes to Foreign Policy, nations operate within their best interests. in many ways its like a legislative body (the U.N. for example) but unlike the U.N. dealing with ech country individually prevents a security council rejection, and you can craft your pitch to appeal to the country at large.

The legislative body in this case, the U.N. is a set of rules preventing intervention when people need it most.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

The Unfan

Look harder.

TheBig3

I just did. nothing.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

sleepy jack

Ugh. I have to leave right now but when I get back I don't plan to give a history lesson. If you think that the United Nations has done nothing google "United Nations Security Council decisions" or something along those lines. They've done far more diplomatically and militarily then sit on the side lines and vote. I think the United Nations is fundamentally a good idea.

__________________

TheBig3

It is a good idea. In practice I don't think it cuts mustard and I guess that may have to do with what we see as the possible achievements.

And that might be the problem. But the U.N. has stopped short of calling Darfur a genocide and from my position thats ridiculous. In fact I think whats going on there is the exact definition of a genocide.

For the hell of it: (from wiki) Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

If we won't acknowledge something, we don't have any way to fix the issue. And the way I see it, the U.N. is not only not acknowledging it, their giving an excuse to those who would be happy to sweep it under the rug.

I think thats irresponsible and not helping the situation. I'm sure there are countries within the U.N. that don't agree, but we've got this world body now, who comes out with a statement and by proxy all these countries have to go along with a majority opinion.

The death of a people because they're different is wrong, and how its addressed should not be left up to countries with political interests demanding they vote another way. The U.N. should be doing a lot more, but the bureaucracy has killed a brilliant notion.

Edit: I googled what you wrote and I'm not seeing anything thats defending your point.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

IamAlejo

The United Nations is a good idea that is horribly executed. It's dealings with Hussein were pathetic. Not to mention the US pays a ton more than any other permanent member. Ugh, don't get me started on the UN.

__________________

a man, a plan, a canal, panama