3 ms·

>"Total non-involvement is questionable and impossible" Really? I think it is quite possible. How actively the West was involved in preventing that horrible ge

by FpUser 4y ago

>"Total non-involvement is questionable and impossible" Really? I think it is quite possible. How actively the West was involved in preventing that horrible genocide / mass murder in Cambodia for example?

defrost 4y ago
That's a hell of a tangent, but for what it's worth it's absolutely the case that the US was involved (inextricably linked) to the genocide to some degree or another given that the relationship between the United States' massive bombing of Cambodia and the growth of the Khmer Rouge in recruitment and popular support has been a matter of interest to historians ever since. Fear of Red China and the Domino Theory cast a long shadow as the West's attempts to put the thumb on the scale in various geopolitical locations arguably did more harm than good.
- FpUser 4y ago
  I do not find it "a hell of a tangent". You said that not involvement is not really possible and I just brought an example where the West did not really get involved in rectifying one of the most horrible genocides. Whether it "helped" to cause it is a totally different issue. I was not talking about that part. I was not even aware of that particular aspect.
  - defrost 4y ago
    I'm a third party here, my comment above aside I've not said anything. You didn't bring an example where the West didn't get involved, you bought an example of an outcome arguably caused by the West (ie. involved from the get go). This reinforces the earlier point that "not involvement" is not really possible - global events are interconnected and penduluums swing both ways .. not giving a toss about the outcome of events someone had a large role in getting rolling is not an example of distance, just a lack of moral backbone.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"I've not said anything." My bad. Sorry. I did not look at the sig. You are a different person.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Non-involvement is a logically faulty/impossible position long term, you can find plenty of non-involvement very obviously, but I don't think you actually make an effort to understand what is written and by whom here so what does it matter.
throwaway290 4y ago
It's inevitable because of the dynamics of civilization once countries have the means to connect and travel and destroy each other IMO. And I think it's better if a freer country tries to enact a positive change than otherwise. But again the ends may not always justify, violence shouldn't be the first obvious choice if others are available
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"tries to enact a positive change than otherwise" Well there are whole bunch of countries ruined by your "enactment of a positive change" and millions of people killed. I do not see many opposite examples. As I already said you just advocate crime on a major scale.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Again the earlier point which you did not disagree with is that it's inevitable, and so you can wait for China to do it in a less peaceful way > millions of people killed This is not what we are discussing and you know it. Millions of people killed in waging war and mass murder is exactly what happens eventually if you let bad guys prosper. Sorry, positive change has to be enacted whether you like it or not, there is simply no noninvolvement in a shared world so the only alternative is a kleptodictator enacts their version of change and it will be positive to a much smaller number of people. You can choose if you want to enact positive change by way of violence or not, but calling for not enacting it is worse than calling for war, you would be leaving uncountable people and potentially your own descendants in future to suffer
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"Again the earlier point which you did not disagree with is that it's inevitable, and so you can wait for China to do it in a less peaceful way" China is busy harassing their own but it was not China that had invaded and fucked up scores of countries. >"This is not what we are discussing and you know it." Yes it is. Cut the bullshit. The millions I was talking about are the result of the "enactment of positive change" you are so fond of. Anyways I very much dislike your line of thinking an would prefer not to continue this lovely conversation.

by FpUser 4y ago

defrost 4y ago

That's a hell of a tangent, but for what it's worth it's absolutely the case that the US was involved (inextricably linked) to the genocide to some degree or another given that the relationship between the United States' massive bombing of Cambodia and the growth of the Khmer Rouge in recruitment and popular support has been a matter of interest to historians ever since. Fear of Red China and the Domino Theory cast a long shadow as the West's attempts to put the thumb on the scale in various geopolitical locations arguably did more harm than good.

FpUser 4y ago
I do not find it "a hell of a tangent". You said that not involvement is not really possible and I just brought an example where the West did not really get involved in rectifying one of the most horrible genocides. Whether it "helped" to cause it is a totally different issue. I was not talking about that part. I was not even aware of that particular aspect.
- defrost 4y ago
  I'm a third party here, my comment above aside I've not said anything. You didn't bring an example where the West didn't get involved, you bought an example of an outcome arguably caused by the West (ie. involved from the get go). This reinforces the earlier point that "not involvement" is not really possible - global events are interconnected and penduluums swing both ways .. not giving a toss about the outcome of events someone had a large role in getting rolling is not an example of distance, just a lack of moral backbone.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"I've not said anything." My bad. Sorry. I did not look at the sig. You are a different person.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  Non-involvement is a logically faulty/impossible position long term, you can find plenty of non-involvement very obviously, but I don't think you actually make an effort to understand what is written and by whom here so what does it matter.

throwaway290 4y ago

It's inevitable because of the dynamics of civilization once countries have the means to connect and travel and destroy each other IMO. And I think it's better if a freer country tries to enact a positive change than otherwise. But again the ends may not always justify, violence shouldn't be the first obvious choice if others are available

FpUser 4y ago
>"tries to enact a positive change than otherwise" Well there are whole bunch of countries ruined by your "enactment of a positive change" and millions of people killed. I do not see many opposite examples. As I already said you just advocate crime on a major scale.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  Again the earlier point which you did not disagree with is that it's inevitable, and so you can wait for China to do it in a less peaceful way > millions of people killed This is not what we are discussing and you know it. Millions of people killed in waging war and mass murder is exactly what happens eventually if you let bad guys prosper. Sorry, positive change has to be enacted whether you like it or not, there is simply no noninvolvement in a shared world so the only alternative is a kleptodictator enacts their version of change and it will be positive to a much smaller number of people. You can choose if you want to enact positive change by way of violence or not, but calling for not enacting it is worse than calling for war, you would be leaving uncountable people and potentially your own descendants in future to suffer
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"Again the earlier point which you did not disagree with is that it's inevitable, and so you can wait for China to do it in a less peaceful way" China is busy harassing their own but it was not China that had invaded and fucked up scores of countries. >"This is not what we are discussing and you know it." Yes it is. Cut the bullshit. The millions I was talking about are the result of the "enactment of positive change" you are so fond of. Anyways I very much dislike your line of thinking an would prefer not to continue this lovely conversation.