Syria Chemical Attack

Originally posted by dadudemon
It shouldn't be there.

Basically, I'm for Humanitarian Interventionism but not Military. I also would not oppose human rights groups trying to intervene. My beef is when the governments do the military intervening.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Most South Koreans seem to disagree according to recent polls.

These conversations go like this:

Why would what the South Koreans want, regarding our military, be a deciding factor?

Because we want to keep relations open with them.

Having a military presence in their country is not necessary to have trade relations with them.

But the North Koreans will destroy them if we leave.

Nice crystal ball, you have there. Now tell me which stocks I need to buy.

Now you're just being cold hearted and belligerent.

And you would rather our nation continue to sink into debt and police the world on an unproven whim of protection.

Yeah, you're clearly an *sshole and have no idea how global politics work.

And you're clearly ignorant of how nation-states are supposed to work. Why don't you go live with the Koreans if their affairs concern you so much? I'll stay here and worry about my own country.

See, you're an *sshole.

They are never fruitful. I'd just prefer we spend less money and try our best to keep trade relations (and diplomatic relations) open as best as we can without having a military presence in other countries.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I actually heard a report on NPR a few weeks back where they were looking at examples of direct money aid to poor people in Kenya and the program was netting better results than the usual "send some rice" strategy. Of course some people "wasted" the money on buying dowries for marriage and that sort of thing, but then there were also many stories of people who invested in metal roofs for their houses, which are both better for keeping the rain out and are cheaper in the long run than thatched roofs because they don't need to be replaced a few times a year (and the hay for roof thatching is a rare kind that's kind of expensive), and the most successful story was of a man who used his money to buy a motorcycle with which he's started a taxi service, giving him a more reliable source of income (and less hardship) than his previous job as a manual laborer.

I hear and read about many more examples of tangible aid doing far better, in humanitarian efforts, than just throwing money at problems.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. I don't want to misrepresent or misunderstand your point, but it seems like you're suggesting that interventions should be carried out by militarized human rights groups (and if they're not militarized, I don't see how they can do any good in a situation like Syria.)

That's one possible interpretation. Another interpretation is the humanitarian efforts of many different groups that currently exist/happen, now. As long as it is not the state doing the work.

I don't want to get onto a topic about third party military actions getting out of control (I would want more accountability from the international community and to the individuals from their own countries of citizenship). My point was more about the tangible humanitarian efforts being undertaken independent and sometimes, in spite of governments.

Originally posted by dadudemon
These conversations go like this:

[b]Why would what the South Koreans want, regarding our military, be a deciding factor?

Because we want to keep relations open with them.

Having a military presence in their country is not necessary to have trade relations with them.

But the North Koreans will destroy them if we leave.

Nice crystal ball, you have there. Now tell me which stocks I need to buy.

Now you're just being cold hearted and belligerent.

And you would rather our nation continue to sink into debt and police the world on an unproven whim of protection.

Yeah, you're clearly an *sshole and have no idea how global politics work.

And you're clearly ignorant of how nation-states are supposed to work. Why don't you go live with the Koreans if their affairs concern you so much? I'll stay here and worry about my own country.

See, you're an *sshole.

They are never fruitful. I'd just prefer we spend less money and try our best to keep trade relations (and diplomatic relations) open as best as we can without having a military presence in other countries.

I hear and read about many more examples of tangible aid doing far better, in humanitarian efforts, than just throwing money at problems.

That's one possible interpretation. Another interpretation is the humanitarian efforts of many different groups that currently exist/happen, now. As long as it is not the state doing the work.

You also have to consider the possibility of monetary investment. What's going to feed a small African country better? A few hundred thousand tons of rice, or a direct monetary investment that will allow them to create more farmland?

I'm not totally against tangible aid--medicine and contraceptives should still be sent in aid packages, but I think at this point sending food in is too stopgap a measure to address crippling poverty. Food doesn't grow African economies, money does.

I don't want to get onto a topic about third party military actions getting out of control (I would want more accountability from the international community and to the individuals from their own countries of citizenship). My point was more about the tangible humanitarian efforts being undertaken independent and sometimes, in spite of governments. [/B]

Originally posted by Omega Vision

It's dead-on regarding Thailand

Europe: http://www.theblogismine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Mapping-Stereotypes-by-Yanko-Tsvetkov-2.jpg

South America: http://cdn.hiconsumption.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/The-World-According-To-Americans-6.jpg

And here's one of Europe according to Russians:

http://alphadesigner.com/wp-content/uploads/europe-according-to-russia.png

And according to Switzerland: http://www.bulkka.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/The-World-According-to-Switzerland-bulkka.jpg

The Swiss one is great.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You are to be congratulated sir, for I have never seen so glorious a preemptive strawman.

Nah, it is just a conversation that I've seen play out too many times in one form or another. I figured I would pick apart my own position rather than you and I going back and forth with confusing conversations where we each ask for clarification.

I don't have the patience that I used to have so I prefer to go ahead and show the weaknesses in my arguments so you don't have to waste your time doing so.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
In many cases, sending food aid amounts to throwing rice at the problem.

You can eat rice, you can't eat money. That's the difference.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Cash transfers do more than just feed people, they give them the opportunity to actually improve their lives by spending the money wisely.

That doesn't work too well when the money is taken and spent but corrupt government officials, spent unwisely but the recipients (which they may or may not have done so on purpose) which continues to happen and is one of the major criticisms of throwing money at humanitarian efforts.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It also more or less bypasses the often fatally corrupt African governments and saves money that would be used on the shipment and distribution of tangible aid.

That last part seems confusing. All that does is shift the burden of the spending onto the people who probably do not have the education and connections to make those things happen.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You also have to consider the possibility of monetary investment. What's going to feed a small African country better? A few hundred thousand tons of rice, or a direct monetary investment that will allow them to create more farmland?

How about something better? Feeding them, buying tools, paying teachers to educate them, and paying for doctors to help them? Those are better solutions than just giving money away or putting a bag of rice at their feet. Those are the types of solutions I am talking about.

Giving the money to them to pay for their doctors, teachers, and tools has proven quite often that is a bad idea.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not totally against tangible aid--medicine and contraceptives should still be sent in aid packages, but I think at this point sending food in is too stopgap a measure to address crippling poverty. Food doesn't grow African economies, money does.

Well, I think this is a chicken and egg problem for you, then. I propose we teach and feed a man to fish. You propose we give the man money to go buy a fish which may or may not be possible for that man (lack of connections to get access to fish, does not know how to buy fish, or simply cannot make the journey to buy the fish(ties into the first reason)).

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I guess I assumed you were dreaming of good old honest 'Murican gun owners shipping off to Syria and setting things right. 😛

Only if they want to and within UN Laws and US Laws. If they break some local laws, American Laws, or International Laws (like slaughtering a village of people), they should be held accountable. It gets pretty murky when the local government (which may or may not be corrupt and may or may not be legitimate) may have sanctioned the slaughter.

This is why I prefer to avoid that particular discussion (which you appear to have wanted to get into) and instead focus on the existing, non-violent, systems of foreign aid.