Anniversary

[Walsingham]

Well, to be honest I am taking advocatus diaboli because I do like to argue. Win or lose is irrlevant, it is the argument that matters to me. I think we have taken this argument far enough however, and it has taught me a few things I didn't know before which I am grateful.

 

CHEERS!

 

There is taking the role of devil's advocate, and taking the role of cretin's advocate. I leave it to you to ponder which is more appropriate to your behaviour on this particular topic. I must admit I believe it has been the latter, and that you have been wating good debating space. You might as well argue that since the Iraqis are elephants we should concentrate on saving the African elephants first because they were in danger before the Iraqi ones.

[Sand]

Iraqi elephants? Do they have their car bombs in their trunks?

 

In all joking aside I do think that we need to get out of Iraq because we did invade on a false premise and we shouldn't involve ourself in another country's civil war. Sure we should help their government, but we can't and shouldn't spoon feed them. There is a point in which a people must choose their own fate.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

Iraqi elephants? Do they have their car bombs in their trunks?

 

I must say that I find that in very poor taste. If we can respect the deaths of 33 Americans in senseless brutality I thin we should give more respect to the hundreds dying monthly in Iraq due to senseless brutality.

[Sand]

Hey, you are the one who brought up elephants, not I.

[metadigital]

Did someone say guide horses?

[Walsingham]

How appropriate:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230.stm

[Sand]

Because the Belgians interfered with the two groups the whole thing snowballed. If the Belgians didn't interfere between the two tribes to begin with maybe the genocide wouldn't have happened.

[theslug]

We should just rename Africa to reflect what it really is. If you don't get murdered or raped by some gang of black people, you'll get aids or malaria or any number of horribly deadly diseases. Not to mention it's hot as hell and there are plenty of animals to kill you and the people in power are all corrupt and stuff. Pretty much hell on earth. Can't really think of a place that is anywhere near the degradation Africa presents other than maybe Tijuana, Mexico.

[Walsingham]

Because the Belgians interfered with the two groups the whole thing snowballed. If the Belgians didn't interfere between the two tribes to begin with maybe the genocide wouldn't have happened.

 

*gasp* You'd better tell the ICC. They're under the mistaken impression it was down to the unscrupulous greed for power, and simple minded bigotry of the people who actually committed the genocide. Quick! Lock up Belgium!

[Sand]

Think how the two cultures would have developed if Belgium colonists didn't show up and imposed their beliefs on them.

[Walsingham]

Think how the two cultures would have developed if Belgium colonists didn't show up and imposed their beliefs on them.

 

That's perfectly true. But that doesn't mean the total absence of action by the international community, _plus the actual genocide_, had something to do with it.

[Sand]

Of course not. The Belgian colonists was the catalyst that led the events that ended in the genocide. While they had good, or maybe not so good, intentions and couldn't possibly foresee the genocidal aspect of that society decades down the road. They stuck their nose in where it did not belong and the genocide was the end result. Of course the majority of the blame goes to those who acted on killing, but the Belgians cannot say they are totally innocent in this affair.

 

This should be a lesson to those nations who seek to interfere in other societies and nations. While the immediate goal may be positive, the chain of events may lead to something much much much worse than what may have happen if there was no interference to begin with.

[metadigital]

No.

[Sand]

Yes.

[Walsingham]

Gentlemen, please! There's no call for those gestures.

[Sand]

Maybe.

[Walsingham]

Maybe.

 

Seriously though, how much have you actually sat down and learned about the Rwandan conflict? Because it feels to me as if you are tinhammering every example to fit your theory.

[Gorth]

I think he is advocating the principle of Westphalian Sovereignty

[Walsingham]

I think he is advocating the principle of Westphalian Sovereignty

 

I could look that up, but I'm assuming you can inform us in a more entertaining fashion.

[Gorth]

I think he is advocating the principle of Westphalian Sovereignty

 

I could look that up, but I'm assuming you can inform us in a more entertaining fashion.

Lazy bugger...

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/westphalian-sovereignty

 

Short version:

 

Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on two principles: territoriality and the exclusion of external actors from domestic authority structures.

 

I.e. countries should mind their own business. It was all the rage in 1648

[Walsingham]

I notice that the article you link to states that intervention in other countries was less common in the period 1850-1900. Assuming this is taking a fashionably eurocentric view, I might point out that period was accompanied by a massive growth in intervention by colonialism and subsequently by the most bloody war in history.

[Gorth]

Colonialism doesn't really count, as many of the territories weren't considered "sovereign countries" (assumption on my part: not populated by Europeans). You have to be a properly acknowledged sovereign nation state to qualify

 

Edit: If the colonial powers couldn't argue that the territory wasn't sovereign, they could always try plan B, subversion of neighbours and/or destabilisation which would justify a takeover.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Gorth

[Walsingham]

I reckon you're right, Gorth. Sadly, coloured gentlemen were not considered capable of doing many things at the time: having countries, playing cricket, and whomping the British Army. All of which we now know are perfectly possible.

[metadigital]

Of course not. The Belgian colonists was the catalyst that led the events that ended in the genocide. While they had good, or maybe not so good, intentions and couldn't possibly foresee the genocidal aspect of that society decades down the road. They stuck their nose in where it did not belong and the genocide was the end result. Of course the majority of the blame goes to those who acted on killing, but the Belgians cannot say they are totally innocent in this affair.

 

This should be a lesson to those nations who seek to interfere in other societies and nations. While the immediate goal may be positive, the chain of events may lead to something much much much worse than what may have happen if there was no interference to begin with.

Appeals to the umpire for an appalling strawman-before-wicket.

[Walsingham]

Of course not. The Belgian colonists was the catalyst that led the events that ended in the genocide. While they had good, or maybe not so good, intentions and couldn't possibly foresee the genocidal aspect of that society decades down the road. They stuck their nose in where it did not belong and the genocide was the end result. Of course the majority of the blame goes to those who acted on killing, but the Belgians cannot say they are totally innocent in this affair.

 

This should be a lesson to those nations who seek to interfere in other societies and nations. While the immediate goal may be positive, the chain of events may lead to something much much much worse than what may have happen if there was no interference to begin with.

Appeals to the umpire for an appalling strawman-before-wicket.

 

Please explain.