Quote Originally Posted by eisenherz View Post
hi, i am trying to point out that you cannot just pronounce a set of rules to fit a particular argument; and on the next occasion have to make exceptions or amendments because the desired outcome would be in conflict of someones personal view. If someone want to judge one side on a set of rules, the same rules have to be applied to the other side.
I only referred to the Crimea to highlight this inconsistant application.
Set of rules is something that seems to be only used for depicting made up reasons in media. In reality there mostly exceptions and amendments.

as far as i know, the US attacked Afghanistan not to save Afghan woman, but in retaliation to the 9/11 attack and for the ruling Taliban refusing to stop housing and protecting Al Qaida. Unless you really believe it was all a conspiracy, it is hardly disputed that the twin-towers did come down, that Al-Qaida admitted to the attack, and that the Taliban were housing them. So I would say that for once the US had a valid point that was not directly related with oil.
having good excuse doesn't mean that that's the only reason. And if there was a real retaliation i can't understand why they attacked poor Afghanistan but not the SA.

From a philosophical point of view, the question arises of how to deal with brutal, torturous and dictatorial regimes. (Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein's Irak, the abusive Gaddafi regime, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, North Korea and many more). Personally I do not know the answer - but it is not as easy as saying; it is an internal affair, let them sort it out themselves. History might judge us harshly for just standing by watching the abuse next door and do nothing. Remember the millions slaughtered in Rwanda? Nobody helped them - surely you cannot want that?
You are right. Nobody helped them. Like nobody helps NK people, Somalian ppl (and many others in Africa). How much affort would it take to demolish those gangs of Somalian pirates who terrorize 1/6 of the coastal marine traffic? I think American army could easily do that instead of killing thousand of innocent ppl on fabricated evidence.
But instead of helping people who are really being slaughtered they kill people who live quiet and relatively prosperous.
That's the set of rules.

On the other hand you do not want a self-interested bully (the USA) that applies justice only as itself sees fit and for reasons beyond humitarian (eg oil etc). The ideal would be to really have a neutral / effective worldbody with a mandate to interfere, but interfere in a consistant manner. Unfortunately the UN with its five permanent members - each always seeking to protect their own interest - does not fit the demand any longer - they are obsolete as a world policing body. But doing something is still better then doing nothing.
World police just can't exist withut that set of rules. But any police is just a departament of government. Who want to be that world government now we know.


imho