05-30-2010, 04:53 PM
Hi,
I'm sorry, but who says we have to? I can see going to war to defend ourselves (and I don't mean preemptive retaliation). I can, to a lesser extent, see going to war to defend our allies if they've been attacked. But to go to war to give some country a government that its population neither earned nor can support is not only wrong, it is stupid. "Every nation has the government it deserves." -- Joseph de Maistre 1811. Change must come from the inside.
When I said a mixture of SWAT and Andy Jackson Taylor, I didn't mean separate people or groups. Perhaps I should have said a cross between Dirty Harry and Andy Jackson Taylor to make it clear that I was speaking of individuals and not of groups. I can see how my reference to SWAT could lead to your conclusion.
Extending it to administrative and judicial makes sense. A complete package to rule and control a country until the country is ready to rule itself. Unfortunately, the preparation for self rule (of the type we would accept) will take at least three generation. The problem with waiting that long is that that is the path to colonialism.
Right. The UN might be a solution if it weren't the UN.
First, the UN is saddled with its historic origin. Being the child of the allied victory in WW II, its structure reflects the powers of that time (plus France). It is that very structure that makes it "irrelevant and ineffective." Second, the UN has no source of income that it can enforce. Without that, it can hardly recruit and train the forces needed for the 'pacification' of all the trouble spots of the world. And, third, the UN has, other than a couple of blocks in NYC, no territory of its own. Not an insurmountable problem, but just where are these troops to be trained and garrisoned without becoming part of the country they are stationed in?
No, much like the old joke of jacking up the hood ornament and putting a new car under it, the best thing to do with the UN is to throw away everything but the name and rebuild it from the ground up. And I see no real probability of that happening for a long time to come.
(Disclaimer: there are organizations sponsored by the UN which do a lot of good worldwide. It is my feeling that these organizations largely work in spite of rather than because of the UN. The only significant thing the UN contributes to these organizations is neutrality beyond what any country based organization can project.)
--Pete
(05-30-2010, 03:53 PM)kandrathe Wrote: Perhaps, the inhumane part is having to destroy a nation . . . to change the countries leadership . . .
I'm sorry, but who says we have to? I can see going to war to defend ourselves (and I don't mean preemptive retaliation). I can, to a lesser extent, see going to war to defend our allies if they've been attacked. But to go to war to give some country a government that its population neither earned nor can support is not only wrong, it is stupid. "Every nation has the government it deserves." -- Joseph de Maistre 1811. Change must come from the inside.
Quote:As long as this is not a US organization, I would support the police portion (along with an occupational administrative and court system). However, the next best suggestion would be for it to be a division in the corrupted, and badly mismanaged United Nations. The SWAT portion should be a coordination between the UN police with the occupying army.
When I said a mixture of SWAT and Andy Jackson Taylor, I didn't mean separate people or groups. Perhaps I should have said a cross between Dirty Harry and Andy Jackson Taylor to make it clear that I was speaking of individuals and not of groups. I can see how my reference to SWAT could lead to your conclusion.
Extending it to administrative and judicial makes sense. A complete package to rule and control a country until the country is ready to rule itself. Unfortunately, the preparation for self rule (of the type we would accept) will take at least three generation. The problem with waiting that long is that that is the path to colonialism.
Quote:The UN might be a solution if they put in some oversight, checks and balances, as well as streamline away some of the bureaucratic crap that makes them irrelevant and ineffective.
Right. The UN might be a solution if it weren't the UN.
First, the UN is saddled with its historic origin. Being the child of the allied victory in WW II, its structure reflects the powers of that time (plus France). It is that very structure that makes it "irrelevant and ineffective." Second, the UN has no source of income that it can enforce. Without that, it can hardly recruit and train the forces needed for the 'pacification' of all the trouble spots of the world. And, third, the UN has, other than a couple of blocks in NYC, no territory of its own. Not an insurmountable problem, but just where are these troops to be trained and garrisoned without becoming part of the country they are stationed in?
No, much like the old joke of jacking up the hood ornament and putting a new car under it, the best thing to do with the UN is to throw away everything but the name and rebuild it from the ground up. And I see no real probability of that happening for a long time to come.
(Disclaimer: there are organizations sponsored by the UN which do a lot of good worldwide. It is my feeling that these organizations largely work in spite of rather than because of the UN. The only significant thing the UN contributes to these organizations is neutrality beyond what any country based organization can project.)
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?