Bryn Mawr;752632 wrote: That is not building a nation - it's destroying one for no better pretext than the Russians had.
It did not have consensus support and therefore comes under the heading of invasion - the aggressor nation is guilty.
You do not fight terrorists with the grand army - a tank battalion is of no use against people who can fade into the general population at will - all your tanks will achieve is killing large numbers of civilians and totally alienating large sections of the World's population.
How far towards peace has America's foreign policy brought us in the last six years? How many nations has it built?
Didn't mean to touch a nerve. I was asking if such action would be okay if it had international consensus under your global government.
If a fictional nation allowed a radical splinter group to base its headquarters, train terrorists, launch attacks, and move freely within her borders, could international consensus force the international police to invade that nation, even though technically she had not invaded or attacked anyone?
World Peace - could it ever happen?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
World Peace - could it ever happen?
Accountable;752677 wrote: Didn't mean to touch a nerve. I was asking if such action would be okay if it had international consensus under your global government.
If a fictional nation allowed a radical splinter group to base its headquarters, train terrorists, launch attacks, and move freely within her borders, could international consensus force the international police to invade that nation, even though technically she had not invaded or attacked anyone?
Hmm - did it come across that way? Not meant to
You again refer to a global government and I don't think that that is what I'm suggesting. Each nation would be sovereign and would have full authority over its own affairs. Intervention would only be involved if and when mutually agreed international law was broken. I would not see such international law extending beyond policing the use of force - certainly not into commercial law etc. No elected government, no taxes beyond a tithe for running and maintaining the judiciary and the police.
Now to your hypothetical situation.
If those terrorists could be shown to have acted illegally, either by making attacks in another country or, for example, by engaging in genocide within the home nation (just committing terrorist action within that nation would be an internal matter unless the country involved requested help) then police action would be taken against the terrorists.
If, and only if, it could be proven that the terrorists were actively aided and abetted by the government then they would be considered to be an extension of that government.
Remember, however, that without a national militia to control the sort of invasion we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq would not be required. Whether the terrorists are within the government or are independent they are still terrorists and the response should still be a police action and not a full scale invasion and lets destroy the country.
If what you're talking about involves both the government and the majority of the population and is violent (either against another nation or against those citizens who do not join the revolution) then the imposition of military rule would be appropriate and might be called an invasion but again, your not fighting an army and the level of violence required should be far less than is the case now.
If a fictional nation allowed a radical splinter group to base its headquarters, train terrorists, launch attacks, and move freely within her borders, could international consensus force the international police to invade that nation, even though technically she had not invaded or attacked anyone?
Hmm - did it come across that way? Not meant to
You again refer to a global government and I don't think that that is what I'm suggesting. Each nation would be sovereign and would have full authority over its own affairs. Intervention would only be involved if and when mutually agreed international law was broken. I would not see such international law extending beyond policing the use of force - certainly not into commercial law etc. No elected government, no taxes beyond a tithe for running and maintaining the judiciary and the police.
Now to your hypothetical situation.
If those terrorists could be shown to have acted illegally, either by making attacks in another country or, for example, by engaging in genocide within the home nation (just committing terrorist action within that nation would be an internal matter unless the country involved requested help) then police action would be taken against the terrorists.
If, and only if, it could be proven that the terrorists were actively aided and abetted by the government then they would be considered to be an extension of that government.
Remember, however, that without a national militia to control the sort of invasion we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq would not be required. Whether the terrorists are within the government or are independent they are still terrorists and the response should still be a police action and not a full scale invasion and lets destroy the country.
If what you're talking about involves both the government and the majority of the population and is violent (either against another nation or against those citizens who do not join the revolution) then the imposition of military rule would be appropriate and might be called an invasion but again, your not fighting an army and the level of violence required should be far less than is the case now.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
World Peace - could it ever happen?
Your way disarms the lawful and frees the unlawful. Thugs in developing nations (or virtually anywhere else) will be able to do as they please, so long as their activities don't meet the international definition of "genocide".
It's a nice ideal, but I prefer my rights of self-protection, self-determination et al intact. I prefer not to trade my freedom to a protector.
Warts and all, baby. Warts and all.
It's a nice ideal, but I prefer my rights of self-protection, self-determination et al intact. I prefer not to trade my freedom to a protector.
Warts and all, baby. Warts and all.
World Peace - could it ever happen?
Accountable;753458 wrote: Your way disarms the lawful and frees the unlawful. Thugs in developing nations (or virtually anywhere else) will be able to do as they please, so long as their activities don't meet the international definition of "genocide".
It's a nice ideal, but I prefer my rights of self-protection, self-determination et al intact. I prefer not to trade my freedom to a protector.
Warts and all, baby. Warts and all.
So you believe that, because the UK has an anti-gun law, that thugs here can do as they please?
There is the law and that is enforced by the police - not by the army.
It's a nice ideal, but I prefer my rights of self-protection, self-determination et al intact. I prefer not to trade my freedom to a protector.
Warts and all, baby. Warts and all.
So you believe that, because the UK has an anti-gun law, that thugs here can do as they please?
There is the law and that is enforced by the police - not by the army.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
World Peace - could it ever happen?
Bryn Mawr;753722 wrote: So you believe that, because the UK has an anti-gun law, that thugs here can do as they please?
There is the law and that is enforced by the police - not by the army.
Ah but we're talking worldwide, not just one medium-size island. And the military is there, whether currently in use or not, it's there.
It's been fun, but I have to get back in school mode. Could somebody carry on this convo, please? I'll see everybody now & then.
There is the law and that is enforced by the police - not by the army.
Ah but we're talking worldwide, not just one medium-size island. And the military is there, whether currently in use or not, it's there.
It's been fun, but I have to get back in school mode. Could somebody carry on this convo, please? I'll see everybody now & then.
World Peace - could it ever happen?
Accountable;753886 wrote: Ah but we're talking worldwide, not just one medium-size island. And the military is there, whether currently in use or not, it's there.
It's been fun, but I have to get back in school mode. Could somebody carry on this convo, please? I'll see everybody now & then.
Contrary to current belief the military is not patrolling the streets of the UK keeping the peace and hasn't been since the Peterloo massacre :wah:
Great fun :-6 Keep those kids in line and enjoy broadening their minds.
Hope you can get back here often but until the end of term, fair thee well.
It's been fun, but I have to get back in school mode. Could somebody carry on this convo, please? I'll see everybody now & then.
Contrary to current belief the military is not patrolling the streets of the UK keeping the peace and hasn't been since the Peterloo massacre :wah:
Great fun :-6 Keep those kids in line and enjoy broadening their minds.
Hope you can get back here often but until the end of term, fair thee well.