From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Holocaust II in Serbia: Why Isn't Anyone Doing Anything?
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:36:14 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <Bszoxw.71I@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
>glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
>>Who appointed the US the Global Policeman?  
>
>Granted, no one has.  But does that mean we ignore the horror?  Does the US
>ignore the atrocities because the US isn't a global policeman?

OK.  Now pick the regional imbroglio you want to get involved in (we want to
be fair about this, don't we?)  The Balkans?  How about Somalia?  How about
South Africa, or Angola?  Perhaps the Sikh situation in the Asian subcontinent?
What about the Kurds?  How about Tibet and the Chinese?  Then there's 
everybody's favorite: Israel/Palestine.  Why should we get involved with one 
and not the rest of these?

And do you, Mark Runyon, personally want to enlist in an armed force and get
yourself the privilege of being shot at when the interests of your homeland 
are not affected?

If we just settle on the nasty bit of business going on in the Balkans: you
are aware that this series of disputes has been going on for at least a 1000
years?  Vlad the Impaler could pick up the newspaper this morning and see some
familiar themes, I'm sure.
>
>>Why shouldn't the EC address the issue first?  
>
>They should.  But must the US standby simply because the EC haven't acted
>and allow what is beginning to appear to be genocide?

I figure the Europeans are well aware of just how entangled the situation is
in ex-Yugoslavia.  That's precisely why they don't wish to become involved,
or to put it better, see no effective outcome if they were to become involved.
The 'genocide' situation is under debate as to whether it actually exists or
not.

But to answer your question, yes, the US should standby until some attempt at
regional control of the situation is attempted.  The alternative is very 
ugly for our soldiers otherwise.  There are no US interests affected by this
civil war (unless there's a crying shortage of Yugo auto parts).
>
>>There is nothing inherent to the security of the USA
>>by getting bogged down in a centuries-long inter-tribal dispute in the
>>Balkans.  If there were, why not extend that globally to all such
>>disputes?  
>
>Ignoring what appears to be a distant event because one does not see
>the connection is not always the correct course of action.  Perhaps we
>should extend US force into any area where genocide appears to be going
>on, but only with proper qualifications.

Nope, I don't agree.  Perhaps the UN, but ONLY after member nations pay a 
fair share of the budget for that organization.  As it is, the UN is far too
heavily subsidized by the US.
>
>>And if we did, what gives us the right to intervene in the
>>affairs of other sovereign states?
>
>What gives the US the right to intervene?  Probably nothing.  If the
>security of the US is not endangered, then why should the US join a
>UN force in eliminating the horrors of war atrocities or upholding the
>right of the Red Cross to inspect prisoner of war camps?  Perhaps nothing.
>Perhaps duty?  

Duty to what?  Why, when the US supports Death Squads in Latin America,
does it suddenly have the moral decree to impose it's solution in other parts
of the world?  Where does the Constitution give the US the right to do this?

If the members of a regional conflict get their act together to ask for 
something along the lines of arbitration from some international body, and
they would abide by it's decisions, and the US was chosen to be that arbiter,
I would have no problem with that series of events.

But as you, and Clayton, who started this thread have correctly answered, the
US is NOT Global Policeman.  Let's keep it that way.

George Lambert
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40076 talk.abortion:32019 alt.politics.bush:1798