Foreign Policy.

[Distruzio]

Are you one of those people who believes concern for the welfare of a child involves murdering their parents?

What alternatives do you propose, Dis?

Perhaps ostracism, abuse in kind, etc etc.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that I "sanction" the offending parents as the US sanctions Best Korea. That does nothing but starve the children/citizens being abused. Perhaps I place signs in my yard identifying the parents as abusers? Perhaps I place posters around town identifying the adults living at their address as abusers? Perhaps I tell anyone and everyone that those people are reprehensible? This is called "political pressure" and it'd do quite well at ostracizing an offensive party.

Should that not work, however, perhaps throwing pies at their car as they drive (without the children) or perhaps shouting insults at them will work?
Internationally this would include the removal of official recognition of the offending government as the sovereign representative of the nation. If they don't recognize the rights of their people, then they have no rights internationally themselves.

[Distruzio]

Are you one of those people who believes concern for the welfare of a child involves murdering their parents?

You're the one who's big on "community justice" last time I checked.

No response, then.

[Blasveck]

Are you one of those people who believes concern for the welfare of a child involves murdering their parents?

You're the one who's big on "community justice" last time I checked.

I don't think you can compare child abuse to genocide, Parkus.

There are other ways to topple a nation than to kill everybody.

[The Parkus Empire]

You're the one who's big on "community justice" last time I checked.

I don't think you can compare child abuse to genocide, Parkus.

There are other ways to topple a nation than to kill everybody.

>implying I was saying you should kill the child abuser
>implying I said you should KILL EVERYONE
>implying I was saying anything other than "not my problem" is a disgusting attitude

[Distruzio]

I don't think you can compare child abuse to genocide, Parkus.

There are other ways to topple a nation than to kill everybody.

>implying I was saying you should kill the child abuser
>implying I said you should KILL EVERYONE
>implying I was saying anything other than "not my problem" is a disgusting attitude

>implying that he isn't responsible for the comments he made and seeks to shift that responsibility.

[Blasveck]

I don't think you can compare child abuse to genocide, Parkus.

There are other ways to topple a nation than to kill everybody.

>implying I was saying you should kill the child abuser
>implying I said you should KILL EVERYONE
>implying I was saying anything other than "not my problem" is a disgusting attitude

My apologies then.

Your original reply implied an appeal to intervention, and I assume you meant militarily.

Again, apologies.

What solutions do you propose then?

[The Parkus Empire]

You're the one who's big on "community justice" last time I checked.

No response, then.

You can remove the child from the custody of the abuser. You can threaten the abuser with force. You can use less than lethal force. You can jail the abuser. If the abuser pulls a gun on you when you try to intervene, then killing them is justified.

[Distruzio]

>implying I was saying you should kill the child abuser
>implying I said you should KILL EVERYONE
>implying I was saying anything other than "not my problem" is a disgusting attitude

My apologies then.

Your original reply implied an appeal to intervention, and I assume you meant militarily.

He did. Or perhaps he didn't read the commentary context at all. Because that comment was posted in response to you asking about genocidal acts. Violent acts. Parkus responded to that comment implies that he was speaking with full knowledge that violence was intoned in the commentary to which he responded.

[The Parkus Empire]

Just to be clear, if the neighbor is gassing children in their basement, then I think killing them is a fairly reasonable option.

[Distruzio]

No response, then.

You can remove the child from the custody of the abuser. You can threaten the abuser with force. You can use less than lethal force. You can jail the abuser. If the abuser pulls a gun on you when you try to intervene, then killing them is justified.

Very good. Now relate it to foreign policy, please?

[Distruzio]

Just to be clear, if the neighbor is gassing children in their basement, then I think killing them is a fairly reasonable option.

It isn't. And that's an appeal to emotion, once more.

>killing people is bad.
>neighbor kills people.
>kill neighbor.
>killing people is good.

How does this make sense?

[Blasveck]

Just to be clear, if the neighbor is gassing children in their basement, then I think killing them is a fairly reasonable option.

And you become the very thing you hate.

Congrats.

Killing because someone else is killing is, in my opinion, wholly unjustifiable.

You stoop to their level by killing people that you don't like.

[The Parkus Empire]

Just to be clear, if the neighbor is gassing children in their basement, then I think killing them is a fairly reasonable option.

And you become the very thing you hate.

Congrats.

Killing because someone else is killing is, in my opinion, wholly unjustifiable.

You stoop to their level by killing people that you don't like.

If it stops them form gassing children, that's pretty reasonable. The monster/complete-and-total-pacifist dichotomy isn't helping your case.

[Blasveck]

And you become the very thing you hate.

Congrats.

Killing because someone else is killing is, in my opinion, wholly unjustifiable.

You stoop to their level by killing people that you don't like.

If it stops them form gassing children, that's pretty reasonable. The monster/complete-and-total-pacifist dichotomy isn't helping your case.

Do you advocate killing them?

Or do you support other means? You haven't answered this question in relation to foreign policy.

Do you support going into a state and toppling a government that is committing genocide against its own citizens?
Or do you support other means, like economic sanctions or international political pressure?

[The Parkus Empire]

If it stops them form gassing children, that's pretty reasonable. The monster/complete-and-total-pacifist dichotomy isn't helping your case.

Do you advocate killing them?

Or do you support other means? You haven't answered this question in relation to foreign policy.

Do you support going into a state and toppling a government that is committing genocide against its own citizens?
Or do you support other means, like economic sanctions or international political pressure?

If other methods are ineffective, I support toppling a government in cases of genocide.

[Distruzio]

Do you advocate killing them?

Or do you support other means? You haven't answered this question in relation to foreign policy.

Do you support going into a state and toppling a government that is committing genocide against its own citizens?
Or do you support other means, like economic sanctions or international political pressure?

If other methods are ineffective, I support toppling a government in cases of genocide.

What other methods.

[The Parkus Empire]

If other methods are ineffective, I support toppling a government in cases of genocide.

What other methods.

Pressure, threats, ect.

[Divair]

If other methods are ineffective, I support toppling a government in cases of genocide.

What other methods.

Nukes.

[Distruzio]

What other methods.

Nukes.

Perfect!

[Divair]

Nukes.

Perfect!

I am a master of international relations.

[Seleucas]

What if one state commits genocide against its own people?

Non-intervention, bubba. Every time.

Not to say that a nation should prohibit itself from trying to sway a government or intermediate in discussions to prevent/end bloodshed. If the US were to bring about a ceasefire in a country (say, Syria) while respecting said nation's sovereignty, then I would not complain.

[Olivaero]

I support International law and a requirement to obey it if the country in question wants to take part in international associations. Take the UN, if a country does not respect the Declaration of human rights I don't believe it should be invited to take part in the UN. The exclusion should however only apply to the administration which the violations against human rights take place under. There's a lot of talk that engaging various human rights abusers in the UN is required to maintain a dialogue, however looking back throughout the 20th century it seems change nearly always comes from within countries not without. So I question the very Ideal of international interventionism and whether it ever really fixes the problems a country has.

[Yorkopolis]

Non-interventionist armed neutrality. Basically, maintain a large army that's ready to strike and a civil paramilitary, but don't intervene around the globe in the name of "FREEDOME". Unless there's genocide, of course, in which case first try diplomatic means, and if that doesn't work, then still don't intervene.

So basically, stop sticking our dicks in other people's noses with "DEMOKRUSY" and "FREEDOME" and let these people decide themselves, and only intervene diplomatically and not militarily unless our own territorial sovereignty and integrity is threatened.

Country: The Netherlands.

[The Truth and Light]

An interventionist I am not. America's interventionist policy amounts to imperialism, and nothing more.

[Volvika]

Relative isolation. The United States is hated worldwide for getting involved too much. Of course, we should honour our current treaties and defend our allies, but we shouldn't be world police unless directly asked for help.

You're right, foreign intervention should not be forced, and the use of intervention should only be used on a country if it has requested it. However I think that request of intervention should come from the country's legitamite government. That way no rogue groups declaring themselves the government of a foreign territory, will use foreign intervention the wrong way.