Warpaint, on 06 September 2011 - 07:01 PM, said:
I suppose...if that's the kind of person you are. Personally, I try not to associate with that kind of person much. It's immature and juvenile to try and justify beating a buttwipe to within an inch of their life. It sounds cool, and it sometimes impresses people who really aren't your friends anyway, but outside of those hollywood action pictures, in real life, both parties get a ride to the hoosegow and pay their dues before a judge.
My point wasn't to justify either side's actions, but rather to say that yes, you can sit back and do nothing and be a perfectly good person.
And as I said, reasonable
force is acceptable. If one guy just talks trash and then sits there, and the other guy beats the snot out of him, well that wasn't reasonable force. However
, if you intervene, it will be you that the police take into custody, and depending on your jurisdiction you could very well be charged yourself for trying to intervene in a fight that was not your own.
Moving away from the "2 dudes in a fight" analogy and going to the idea of nations. If it's justifiable to intervene inside a nation's domestic policy, then who's to define what is and is not justifiable intervention? Could, for example, the Chinese start dictating domestic economic policy to the US because we are bankrupt? Could Saudia Arabia try to dictate we adhere to Sharia?
What gives the US the right to intervene in another country's domestic policy if we are not to expect similar attempts of intervention?
Foreign policy/international affairs are a whole different animal, and we're not talking about those in this discussion. We are talking solely about policies that concern exclusively what happens within the boundaries of a sovereign nation.
That's why there's so many laws against people settling their differences with violence. I'm not saying anyone has to take any crap off of anyone else, but that doesn't entitle you to beat the crap out of them either, regardless of where you are. There's a difference between self defense and presuming to teach someone a lesson.
Given that nobody was talking about teaching anyone a lesson, I see no relevance of this discussion point. You are, intentionally or not, taking my post and twisting what was said to infer that I endorse actively using violence to "teach someone a lesson." I made no such claim. I said that we, one sovereign nation, have no right to try and run another sovereign nation.
In the case of Libya, in a civil war (because let's be honest, it was not the poor peaceful protesters against the evil oppressive regime -- it was an armed conflict) we have no business trying to impact the outcome of the fight. Yes, people died. It's war, and that is an unfortunate aspect of war and the human experience as a whole. But who are we to try and intervene on the benefit of either side? Before you say we just gave the little guy a fighting chance, we did not. We crushed Qaddafi's military for the rebels, in essence doing their dirty work.
For the record, I think "giving one side a fighting chance" is also uncalled for, if it's not our war.
You quoted only part of my post, in an obvious attempt to make it sound like I'm supporting interfering in other nations's business or affairs, but you seem to have ignored the part where I plainly said there's a difference between intervention and interference. Again, I advocate intervention (not necessarily us, or just us), not interference. Maybe I should use smaller words.
You're trying to call out what my intentions are, and falsely doing so for the hopes of discrediting my argument which disagrees with yours. If you're going to try and discredit my argument, try and take something in my points and show where it is wrong.
I read your whole post. I quoted the part that was relevant to what I said. It was clear to me what you were trying to say, and I was saying that we had no business intervening and we had no business interfering. In both cases, my argument holds the same - one nation has no right to do either to another nation with regards to that nation's domestic policy.
Use whatever words you like. I don't care. You made an analogy, I ran with it. Then you decided to call me out as trying to misrepresent your statement and claim I advocated excessive force, when all I was saying is that we had no business being involved (in any capacity) with another country's domestic policy.