United States role in International Community

No, there are 1000 Russian militia. Russians are pretty passionate about defending "their" land, but it's not like Putin is pulling a Hitler here and saying "this great former Russian empire should all be ours - occupy it!" Russia is still only formally occupying the Crimea.

I'm going to be VERY disappointed if this doesn't result in a massive exposition from Csareo!

In 1995 the USA promised aid to Nicaragua but made a point of suspending it because they weren't a democracy. Nicaragua became a democracy and the aid came back. That's a nice benign example.
False history. Nicaragua was a democracy since Sandinista came to power. The problem was that he nationalized US corporations, so we suspended trade in retaliation. The economy was hurt and it was enough to result in a new president.

And a more sinister example. The two biggest recipients of US aid just so happen to be the 2 countries where the US has the most foreign military interests: Egypt and Israel. Israel, which gets many billions of dollars each year, receives almost all its aid in so-called "military credits", which can only be used to buy weapons from the US.
Military aid is a different story. It was sent to groups to root out the Muslim brotherhood after the army launched their coup de'at.
I also don't think that is a bad thing. Millitaries and economies should be funded WITH obligations, as that is capitalism.

I don't deny that. I'm just saying the political economy of Korea would be different from how it is today, and as a result, the country would be different too. Like I said, it would be a marginally wealthier Laos. Better than modern North Korea, not as great as modern South Korea.
Laos has a HDI of 4.3. low human rights, and very much in poverty.

You've got this the wrong way around. At the time of the bombings under Operation Freedom Deal, the Khmer Rouge had not yet seized power. It was because of the bombings that they could do that and began their genocide in their wake. It is my sincere belief that Pol Pot would not have been so enraged if the country he inherited was not blown to pieces. Nor did the US at any point end the occupation of the Khmer Rouge - that was pretty clearly almost all Vietnam with a bit of European backing, in the 80s-90s.
The bombings that started in 1969, or in 1796? Nuon Chea and Pol Pot started the genocide while no bombings or actions were being taken against them. The real threat in their eye's were the Vietnamese, so they chose to kill vietnamese citizens, leading to later retaliation from Vietnam. The army was shattered to the point where Ho Chi Mihn was both able to take South Vietnam and sack Cambodia.


No, there are 1000 Russian militia. Russians are pretty passionate about defending "their" land, but it's not like Putin is pulling a Hitler here and saying "this great former Russian empire should all be ours - occupy it!" Russia is still only formally occupying the Crimea.
The soldiers made their way through the donbass river, far away from Crimea. Petro Poroshenko warned to Europe that this is the beginning of a full invasion of the country. Read all about it in your local newspaper.

And the war didn't stop him. He was still in power until 2003 when he voluntarily exiled himself to Nigeria. And let's be fair - the rebels who opposed him in the countryside weren't necessarily saints either. Today Liberia is still torn apart by armed conflict and crippling povert
Here we go with more false history. Please don't tell me you're skimming wikipedia?
Charles Taylor lost power in this war, following US entry in 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Liberian_Civil_War

Right. So what level of provocation is enough to justify murdering just one person?
It is only murder if it is illegal. Spare the charged rhetoric please.

No hang on. Vilbrun Sam didn't kill just anyone, he just killed a few prisoners as soon as he heard the US was invading. Had the US not taken his land by force he would not have killed anybody.
*facepalm* I was referring to Papa Doc's son


Not under any circumstances. Bloodshed has always led to more bloodshed in the long run, if not the complete annihilation of a people.
Intervention in the circumstances mentioned minimized civilian deaths, but increased solider deaths. Although these short wars were generally quick show of forces, they did what they were intended to do. The question is whether the death of the solider is of equal value to the death of the citizen.

Also taking into account WHY they fight. Maybe all those soliders who died on the footlands of Seoul wanted to live in a prosperous nation, where there sons could vote, and speak freely. Maybe that was more valuable to them than their life?

Blackflag: In response to all your aid stuff: thank you for agreeing that the US imposes political conditions on aid.

Laos has a HDI of 4.3. low human rights, and very much in poverty.
And I'm saying Korea would have been very slightly better than that (by, say, a third of a point or so) had the Korean War not taken place. As I said before: Better than modern North Korea, not as great as modern South Korea.

Nuon Chea and Pol Pot started the genocide while no bombings or actions were being taken against them.
This is only true because the US had already blown the country up when Pol Pot came to power several times over. Again, my case is not that they genocided more because they were being bombed, but because they had been bombed. US did practically nothing to stop him.

The soldiers made their way through the donbass river, far away from Crimea.
Again you call them soldiers. They are militia. Soldiers are officially sanctioned by a government, and militia are unofficially sanctioned. It's not an official seizure of land, and any further claims as to Russia's plans is at this point just speculation.

Charles Taylor lost power in this war, following US entry in 2003.
He didn't lose power, he gave up his power while fighting the war. Everything I said was accurate.

It is only murder if it is illegal.
Stop avoiding the question. What level of provocation is enough to justify KILLING just one person?

Side note. It's only illegal because countries say so. Countries never make themselves responsible for anything and then wonder why they all act so irresponsibly. To my mind, killing somebody else is what murder is, regardless of who ordered that killing.

I was referring to Papa Doc's son
In that case your argument's even worse because that wasn't a military intervention. Literally all you did was politely ask him to leave. Well, you also killed all the pigs, but that was justifiable because eating those pigs would probably have killed more people. Remember I'm not opposed to foreign intervention, only to military intervention.

The question is whether the death of the solider is of equal value to the death of the citizen.
Death has no value at all. What we should be measuring is the value of life. Death is a loss and it hurts people. Talking about the value of death is everything that's wrong with your argument in one phrase. It implies death is valuable, when in truth there is nothing more sacred than life.

Maybe that was more valuable to them than their life?
Almost every killer in history has had a motivation - one they clearly decided was more important than somebody else's life, and in many cases, their own life also. This logic can be used to defend any tragedy as righteous.

Death has no value at all. What we should be measuring is the value of life. Death is a loss and it hurts people. Talking about the value of death is everything that's wrong with your argument in one phrase. It implies death is valuable, when in truth there is nothing more sacred than life.
Death is not bad. There are actually some thoughts I would like to run by in a debate.

Almost every killer in history has had a motivation - one they clearly decided was more important than somebody else's life, and in many cases, their own life also. This logic can be used to defend any tragedy as righteous.
This is true for any moral judgement. If we are to reason along the path of Epiecrius, that would be equivalent to "Don't do anything because you don't know the result/correctness"

Killing is natural, and an integral part in the development of society.
As is death. Trying to break nature is the only wrong thing with your stance, which is actually rooted in wrong intentions.
Maybe you'll find this crazy, but I actually agreed with you at one point.

That ALL war and death was bad. Then I growed a little in the philosophical field.

Blackflag: Your quote structure is weird. Looks like you got confused by the new auto-quote-tagging feature.

Blackflag: Maybe this can move to religion/philosophy?

admin: Don't you have the power to do that, like many other administrators before you?

Blackflag: I don't mean move this thread, but move this discussion.

admin: oh, okay