Dale 2.0 (Or the Revenge of Robert?)

[dannubis]

Potential? There is already a long body count. What makes you think it is going to suddenly stop?

I know I was extrapolating to the extreme. However, this is where Plomps line of tought gets you in the end.

I still think it is not our place to meddle in these affairs. If we disapprove of something then stop trading with the bastards and stop trading with the bastards who trade with the bastards. But I think it shows that active interference doesn't get the problem solved unless you are willing to spend decades cleaning up the mess other people made.

[dannubis]

Not making a decision is making a decision as well.
If you see that a man on the street is stabbed with a knife and you are capable to stop the stabbing but won't intervene, then you have decided to accept the stabbing to continue.

I acknowledge that it is a difficult decision though and you raise a good question, and politicians should ask themselves that question everytime. But not everytime the answer should be 'no'.

I don't agree. The situation here is that when you react you are almost certain to run over a couple of children playing in that street. Their family is going to be so pissed at you they will put everything at work to make your life miserable.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

A better analogy would be what to do if you know that your fictional knifeman is the main enforcer holding together a neighbourhood filled with extremly violent racial tensions. A knifeman who already has his every move strictly monitored and restricted by an international police force. You also know that stopping him stabbing this victim is likely to result in the victim's death and a power vacuum that means that you'll have to spend a trillion dollars and the lives of many of your countrymen trying to maintain order in his neighbourhood once he's gone.

Not to mention the fact that there are many other equally horrible knifemen nearby, some of whom have guns as well as knives who aren't as well restricted as this guy.

the issue with Saddam is not that the international community "should not" interfere when there is a clear case of local terror/threat/civil war but the issue is that with Saddam, there was no threat, there was no evidence, there was no case.

In order to make the case UN was "walked over" by US, and ignored by UK, Iraq was liberated, and subsequently let to self-destruct by "liberators" ineptitude. It was clear that there was no case before the war (unlike Afghanistan, and there US got the support of virtually whole world), and to top it off the invasion was botched up, 100k people unnecessarily dead, as most of them surely would not have died have Saddam stayed on.

Saddam in principle quenched the local "overthrowers", but once there was no danger he did not act, in any case not much more, than the allies in Abu Ghraib etc...

End result is 100k+ people dead, shabby democracy, and if anything, a win for Iran who could never had pulled something like this on it's own.

[Wezil]

I know I was extrapolating to the extreme. However, this is where Plomps line of tought gets you in the end.

They have a proven record. NYE and Plomp are asking you consider the NK victims (past and future) in your humanitarian considerations. Their lives count too.

I still think it is not our place to meddle in these affairs. If we disapprove of something then stop trading with the bastards and stop trading with the bastards who trade with the bastards. But I think it shows that active interference doesn't get the problem solved unless you are willing to spend decades cleaning up the mess other people made.

That should get you a war anyway.

[notyoueither]

I know I was extrapolating to the extreme. However, this is where Plomps line of tought gets you in the end.

I still think it is not our place to meddle in these affairs. If we disapprove of something then stop trading with the bastards and stop trading with the bastards who trade with the bastards. But I think it shows that active interference doesn't get the problem solved unless you are willing to spend decades cleaning up the mess other people made.

By stopping trade you are making things worse for the victims of the regime. The regime in NK hoovers up what they need to feed the army and their own, then what's left is available for the general population. The same happened in Iraq under sanctions.

I do not think that it is necessary to screw up the occupation as badly as Bush's administration did in Iraq. I am sure that even the PLA could manage a regime change in NK better than Rumsfeld and friends did in Iraq.

[Robert]

So, in principle, you agree with killing people before they even have the chance to commit a crime, to save their potential victims ?

Please note you don't have a prescient twin in reality...

That is a very difficult one.
Fortunately it's not a realistic scenario and thus nothing I have to break my head about.

[giblets]

How many wars is it going to take before neocons stop saying things will go better next time?

[Robert]

A better analogy would be what to do if you know that your fictional knifeman is the main enforcer holding together a neighbourhood filled with extremly violent racial tensions. A knifeman who already has his every move strictly monitored and restricted by an international police force. You also know that stopping him stabbing this victim is likely to result in the victim's death and a power vacuum that means that you'll have to spend a trillion dollars and the lives of many of your countrymen trying to maintain order in his neighbourhood once he's gone.

Not to mention the fact that there are many other equally horrible knifemen nearby, some of whom have guns as well as knives who aren't as well restricted as this guy.

No, the victim is not going to die, he's going to be wounded, especially if you do not set him free in a good way. And he may need some time to recover. But on the long term he'll be recovered earlier then he would be let free by the knifeman.
The policeforce however that is restricting the knifeman is causing other dangerous knifeman to also attack the policeman. The rest of the police forces of the world doesn't bother and is even trading with the knifeman.
Another problem is that the victim will be severely wounded anyway when he'll ever be let go by the knifeman. Either if the knifeman dies or if the son of the knifeman continues to hold him for a while, one day he'll be free and wound himself b/c he's suffering from multiple personality syndrome and the multple persons hate each other anyway. So the wounding will happen one day or another day.

So the real question is: will we set the knifeman free and let the bad stuff happen today, or will we delay it all, let the bad stuff happen in the future, and let in the meanwhile more and more anti-police sentiment grow....

[Robert]

I don't agree. The situation here is that when you react you are almost certain to run over a couple of children playing in that street. Their family is going to be so pissed at you they will put everything at work to make your life miserable.

uh, you're not really following the analogy.
The children analogy is part of the victim already.
And yes, the knifeman is already killing children at random.

Oh, and we know that the children will start to kill eachother anyway when released by the madman. (or were you thinking that the current sunni/shiite/kurd problem would not have errupted one day or another day?)

[Robert]

the issue with Saddam is not that the international community "should not" interfere when there is a clear case of local terror/threat/civil war but the issue is that with Saddam, there was no threat, there was no evidence, there was no case.

In order to make the case UN was "walked over" by US, and ignored by UK, Iraq was liberated, and subsequently let to self-destruct by "liberators" ineptitude. It was clear that there was no case before the war (unlike Afghanistan, and there US got the support of virtually whole world), and to top it off the invasion was botched up, 100k people unnecessarily dead, as most of them surely would not have died have Saddam stayed on.

Saddam in principle quenched the local "overthrowers", but once there was no danger he did not act, in any case not much more, than the allies in Abu Ghraib etc...

End result is 100k+ people dead, shabby democracy, and if anything, a win for Iran who could never had pulled something like this on it's own.

UK/USA were enforcing the UN resolutions by maintaining the no fly zones. Factually the Iraq/America/UK war never ended. There were ongoing battles in the no fly zones.

These UK/USA presence caused more and more troubles among the muslim population, and caused in the end 9/11, b/c american troops in Saudi Arabia (holy country for the muslims)

Since the UK/USA were the only ones caring for the UN to uphold it (while France and Russia violated the resolutions already) I do not think that it makes sense at all that the UK/USA are now accused of ignoring the UN.
SH ignored the UN for 12 years and so did the rest of the world since nobody cared to uphold it, except for the US and the UK.

[Wezil]

How many wars is it going to take before neocons stop saying things will go better next time?

I give up. How many?