If Tiananmen Square Happened Today, What Should We Do?

[David Floyd]

Does that not represent a rather fundamental shift for you?

No, not a fundamental shift in belief, just a shift in the application of belief to a consistent conclusion.

Note, though, that I don't think "callous indifference" should be legally punishable in MOST cases.

[Lefty Scaevola]

"If Tiananmen Square Happened Today, What Should We Do?"

Invade Iraq.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

What about: nothing...

sit and watch on TV - OK we are not watching the Zimbabve or Congo massacres as it doesn't hapen every day just or is not captured live, you just get an article in the papers now and than, or we are barely aware what goes on in Burma or Sudan... but this is what we do -- watch when someone breaks the "old" news on TV ....

what should we do?

Well I guess this is why we have the UN.... or should have, for the more controllable targets such as Congo or Zimbabve - China,,,, well only if we want to start WWIII, which is probably not even in the interest of those who died...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
"If Tiananmen Square Happened Today, What Should We Do?"

Invade Iraq.

[VetLegion]

David, were you against bombing of Serbia?

And I agree with you about voluntary boycots, but I also think that if there was massive outcry for action, government(s) should act. But before that there would need to exist democratic channels that can be utilised to express popular opinion (internet ), because current system (of lobbies, street demonstrations and rigged polls) is not good.

[David Floyd]

David, were you against bombing of Serbia?

Oh absolutely. To give you an idea of my feelings about military action, I'm against US involvement in WW2.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I'd say on the national level, do nothing. If individuals want to do something, let them.

[Dr. Nick]

El Awrence - is it murder to shoot someone who is trying to shoot you, or another innocent?

Yes.

[VetLegion]

To give you an idea of my feelings about military action, I'm against US involvement in WW2.

I see. You have probably explained the reasoning behind that in other threads so I won't pull you into a threadjack by asking why. It is a bit extreme position in my opinion though. Good thing you weren't the US presiden't back then or half of us would be posting from the Reich now

[Velociryx]

The problem is...voluntarily driven actions won't do anything to FIX or CHANGE the problem at hand. About all that accomplishes is that it allows you to say "There. I tried." And give yourself a nice pat on the back for "getting involved."

Will it stop the blood from flowing? Will DF's refusal to buy a Chinese-made VCR stop it from happening again?

Don't kid yourself.

The difference in the examples given is this:

If you intercede on behalf of an elderly lady who is being mugged, you are implicitly saying "I'd give my life for you," because you might. You don't just go waltzing into a situation like that wily nilly, my friend. In the blink of an eye, the stakes could change dramatically. The mugger robbing the old lady at knifepoint might not have needed to pull the .45 out from beneath his shirt for the old lady, but when you step up to the plate, you change the equation and the stakes. So...the mugger pulls his piece, and points it at your head. Whatchagonna do now? No time to think about it.....you only have half a second to make your choice, and if it's the wrong one, you're sporting a lovely, large-calibre hole in the back of your noggin.

So you'll use force to take him down, or you'll put your hands up like a good boy and let him carry on about his business. Either might get you killed.

Contrast that with not buying the VCR. Note the difference?

Once you commit yourself to involvement, you're in. If you back out half way thru then you a) lack the courage of your convictions, or b) weren't serious about your concern to begin with.

Hate to say it, but you can't run a country of 290million people on the basis of voluntary consent, involvement, and participation. That's why we ELECT representatives.

If your proposed course of action is any indication, you'd downright suck at brinkmanship....no offense.

-=Vel=-

[Bosh]

But the poor innocent tax payer who would be coerced into paying for Chinese-killing assassins, you would support their mugging DF?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wait, you don't care about getting caught?! You do realize that'll start a war that will result in many people being killed, and most likely conscription!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by El Awrence

El Awrence - is it murder to shoot someone who is trying to shoot you, or another innocent?

Yes.

Waaaaa? Killing in self-defense constitutes murder?

Are you basing this off of the laws of any particular nation? I'm just wondering if there's really a nation that's still so backwards that its laws don't even account for intent...

[Imran Siddiqui]

loinburger: I believe it is justified murder. It's an excuse to the crime of murder... though I'm not sure that El Awrence meant that.

[loinburger]

But there's no such thing as "justified murder." Murder means "unjustified killing," so "justified unjustified killing" is just wrong on so many levels.

Though you're right, El Awrence might have been thinking along the lines of justified murder. One could hope so, at any rate... Otherwise, the dizzy smilie still applies.