SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (84308)6/23/1999 3:38:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Upholding basic human rights for those being trampled upon would seem to be the most noble way armies should be used. If genocide does not qualify for military intervention, what does?

If one were to accept your premise that what was originally intended to be used only for the direct defense of the United States should instead be used as a world police force then your position is sound. But where do you draw the line? Do people actually have to die, or do we intervene when people are thrown out of their homes? Should we interfere with the Islamic countries based on their (what we consider) oppression of women, include ritualistic female circumcision, or because of their basic violation of the human rights of prisoners, such as amputation of the hand for theft or execution of woman for adultery? Do we have the right to invade another country because they grow or produce drugs there? Would an Islamic country have the right to invade the US because we grow tobacco and produce alcohol? If we have the responsibility, the obligation, to intervene in one of these matters, then what relieves us of the obligation for the others?

Once we lose sight of the reason our military exists in the first place we get sucked into everything that happens everywhere, because, how in the world can you be so heartless and do nothing when all those people need help?