It's about time we all took our morally offensive and cynical stances on the issue. The UN is trying to prevent it from ever happening again, the US is ignoring it unless it directly affects them, and its just one big ineffective mess. So yeah, thoughts on how to stop it, what to do during it, or general outrage goes here. Try not to get too pissed at each other kthxbai.

It's impractical, expensive and rarely has a viable reason and even rarer has a profit in it.

I'm opposed. It's better to devastate the population and assume control over the education of children and all administrative duties. Then you can subvert their heritage and make them suitable members of your Empire.

Nice to see Verbseph is finally showing some morality.

It's not morality. It's practicality.

The only time I have any interest in genocide is if I'm in charge of doing it and when that happens, it's not the most practical way to go about what I'd be trying to accomplish. I'm not opposed to the idea - it's just inefficient.

cynical and bitter morality as it is.

I'm not sure what to do, at best people seem to adopt sayings of how bad things are but we need to keep on living our own lives, making sure we are fed, clothed, happy etc.

I'm not sure what we can do to be honest. I would like to hear suggestions though

You can't do anything, there will always be someone who comes to power who wants to kill people. The Turks are probably going to end up killing off the Kurds in the next few decades, and there's nothing the world can do to stop that.

Could kill the Turks.

It's a myth that there's nothing you can do to stop it. It's just that none of the countries with the power have the balls or the will to weaken themselves to expand their power and if one did none of the others would let them get away with it.

Isn't our system of global checks and balances wonderful? This utterly moral decision not to expand militaristically is what allows genocides to occur without interference. The UN is a useless little body designed to make the weaker nations feel important and hopefully keep peace but it has no way to enforce its rules. It's possible that might doesn't make right but without might you can't enforce shit.

Yes, killing to prevent more killing, "the end justifies the means".

basically what you said just there. Well done you have just repeated the adage of every dictator and pathetic millitary figure in history , well done

Personally I think it should be possible to stop genocide, But the only ideas I have are based around sensible people on both sides. That is never going to happen.

I enjoy your views and wish to subscribe to your newsletter......

And how many governments have sensible people in them, let alone the kind of will it takes to force people to be sensible?

Because that's a government's job. They force their people to obey the laws and people allow it because everyone obeying the laws is better than nobody. When that balance is broken, the people revolt and install a new government to do it instead.

I don't think the end justifies the means. I think that the means never needs justification. All that matters from a government is whether or not they keep their people safe and prosperous. When it comes to that, all that matters is what is efficient - what works best.

Ah, good to hear, the means never need justification. Just so long as it centres more power in the hands of "sensible" people.

Wow, your view of gov is like 1984 but without the big brother figure. Its quite startling.

Arghhh, I am not being good and trying to not be pissy. Sorry dave

It has nothing to do with "sensible" people being "right" for the job. They accumulate power because it's what a government does - they accumulate and consolidate power or it slides away from them and into the hands of people still accumulating.

A government's sole function is to protect and provide for its people. Any act it does that achieves this end is, therefore, a "good" act. Giving people back to the people is stupid because the whole point of government is to take power from the people (to an extent - past a point and they'll rise up and undo all the good work you've done) and protect them from each other as well as outsiders.

Two countries off somewhere in the world genociding all over the place has no business with your government. They have no obligation to take an interest. They don't have to do the "moral" thing and stop them unless it fulfills their ultimate aim. If, by stepping in, they can stop the genocide and increase their available land and power-base successfully, then it is a good move. Just like it's a good move to attack one of your prominent rivals if they attempt to do that very thing - hit them when they're weaker to reduce the threat they present to your people.

All governments walk the tightrope between being effective and being toppled by whining people who don't like the price on their freedoms. Sometimes that price is other freedoms. Sometimes it's morality. Sometimes it's actually money. Usually, it's all of those and more. But whatever the price is, your liberal hugfest is a view that only grows in a safe environment built off the work of an effective government.

Genocide is just another issue to be viewed in terms of practical risk versus reward. It's why nobody steps in over in Darfur. It's why the Kurds won't last out another century. The only means to stop those things comes with a price-tag most people don't want to pay.

Genocide is inevitable. Its a long and fruitful tradition that mankind employs regularly and enjoys taking part in. You cannot stop it without eliminating those who would commit it. Hence, the only way to stop genocide... is with genocide.

I'm not against nor am I for genocide, but if my word made the difference, I would try to avoid such extreme measures of force, unless there was no other means of reasoning with an opposing side. Now I don't know if governments always have the peoples best of interests in mind, nor do I believe they always know what's morally right. Morals are just guidelines an individual uses to base his/her decisions on. But when your moral code isn't the same as anybody else's it's hard to enforce your opinion on others who believe their ways are just as good as yours. A government is composed of a group of people, who are chosen by the people of a large majority to make decisions because of popularity and faith in their leadership skills and abilities, but this doesn't make these leaders perfect. Sometimes things get out of hand, morals, beliefs, and interests don't match, and people begin to panic because they don't know what to do with others who are different; and a course people when they panic tend to do stupid things. It's not something that can be controlled, it's human nature to fear what we don't understand. So the best thing to do is just go with the flow and ride the rapids till the end and be prepare for what comes next. Instead of labeling things right or wrong, I think its better to just do what's best for the moment, and hope it will solve the problem, and if not, you just keep doing your best. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

Genocide happens. One groups, ethnic, religious, or what have you, becomes a scapegoat for the problems the group with power faces. Germans facing inflation? It's the Jews fault, since nobody likes them. Christian Armenians trying to gain equal rights while the Muslim Ottomans are fighting in WWI? It's their fault they lost...

I'm not sure in detail how other government economies work outside of the U.S., but here they aren't allowed to have a surplus. If there are funds remaining, they're supposed to go towards paying off bonds or towards generally good causes. If this were peacetime in the U.S., we would have no good excuse not to divert humanitarian disasters. The developed world does shoulder some responsibility in allowing genocides to continue "until it affects them" and the citizens of these countries decide to take notice.

Not exactly.

Genocide happens again and again because nobody ever educates against it where it happens. It takes a hard view to make genocide palatable to the average punter and kids swallow what they're told. If parents say "kill them all" and school says different, you'll probably believe your parents but that view won't hold out with everyone and it won't be as strong.

A few generations of wearing it down and the genocide stops being a factor. You can see this a little bit in how Northern Ireland isn't as bad as it used to be between Catholics and Protestants.

People believe what they're told so long as they're told early enough and often enough.

My god's have people really become this cynical? "I am neither for or against genoicde". THAT is sitting on the fence taken to an extreme level.

How can people possibly claim that genocide is the people getting murdered fault.

Is this what civilization has come to? A mock regard for other people and no one even complaining. Its enough to make you want to turn to drink.

Hey, I have a reason for my "ambivalence". It's just impractical.

At least I acknowledge that a little bit of effort and a smattering of martial law would put a stop to it. And I'm supposed to be the bad guy in this discussion.

I understand what you're saying, though I'm not sure it will work as you say. I think you underestimate the capacity for a human to hate others, itself, and anything in existence. It doesn't always require sound flawless logic behind it. It doesn't even require an ounce of truth behind it.

Humans will always wish genocide on others when they see no other way to deal with them. That hate will begin a movement, that movement will grow to the point where they feel above the law, then finally they decide to act on their ambition and voilà, genocide.

Education hasn't put a stop or a real damper on murder, theft, or any other crimes really. It will take more than proper education to eliminate genocide. A truly heavy amount of fear, pressure, and weapon searches not only nation wide, but world wide would be required. If they do not fear the government, then there is really nothing to stop them besides the targets being willing to protect themselves and each other to the end by any means necessary.

While I acknowledge that genocide is inevitable, since we are human, I don't like it. The wiping out of a whole people, a whole culture, is, to my values and morals, wrong. You slowly lose the humanity of the world without separate cultures. Yes, I know that new cultures will pop up eventually, but really, new cultures come more slowly than others die.

Okay, for one thing dave, the rest of the world always seems to frown on us for sticking our noses into others business, so why should we do it if we dont stand to gain a little something. Im ean its economics, and nobody does anything for free, i mean nobody sensible unless they see some possibility of gain but dont admit to it.



Nah, i find it better to turn to the drink out of fun and enjoyment. I mean drunk times are suposed to be enjoyment times. No one likes a depressed drunk.

And really, people are most likely not against genocide, even though they say they arent for it. Either that or they dont realize that exterminating those that would most likely exterminate you if they had the chance is the only way to truly preserve your own way of life.

And thus how you can claim that its the murdered fault. They just werent quick enough of the line and thus are gone. It is a new spin off of survival of the fittest; kill or be killed.



Well now, that all depends on how you look at things. Did we not in fact start out life, as in the first humans as one culture. And since then it has exploded a branched out in hundreds of different ways. I dont see the collapse off all cultures into one happening at all, but rather a reverse of hundreds coming to the fore with every generation.

Ah, been a while since we had a decent thread here, i feel refreshed.

And you're underestimating the effect of education - which also doesn't need any truth or logic behind it. It's a case of warring indoctrination. In all countries where genocide is taking place actively, their home life and their education tells them to murder all of them. No conflict, no hesitation.

The places where long-standing fueds slow to a halt are where there is a conflict. Teachers tell you how wrong and terrible it is to kill and parents tell you that you have to? You listen to your parents but you're not as certain of it yourself. So you're less certain when you tell your kids to do it. They're even less certain. Eventually, it fades out.


And since when has the wish of humanity had any direct bearing on the state of the universe?

These things are never as short a process or as shallow a process as you've described. It's also not necessarily the case that any and all hate for a group means you want to eradicate them all. It's all about warring indoctrinations. You let the parents breed hate in without breeding an opposing belief and yeah, what you've described will happen eventually. But if your hypothetical was thoroughly accurate, the Ku Klux Klan would be plotting the systematic murder of all black people in America right now.


Oh, of course. Because the willful and systematic murder of an entire "race" is exactly the same as stealing!

You're equating genocide with selfish crimes that benefit an individual or sate a sudden urge (crimes of passion). I know a lot of thieves who wouldn't murder people. I know a couple of murderers who wouldn't want to be part of a genocide. You're assuming that putting a stop to genocide will be as impossible as putting an end to all crime but it's not the same thing at all.

Saddam Hussein put a stop to genocides in Iraq when he was in power. He basically wandered around and executed people if they didn't claim that they were Iraqi. He didn't let his people go around killing each other and it worked. If your views on genocide were accurate then genocide would never end without one side being eliminated and everyone would be dead already.


You do realise that genocide is an accepted facet of a lot of these cultures you want to protect, right?

Well, yeah, but now that the world has become a network of relations, new cultures aren't going to spring up as easily. Thus, collapse into one generic culture. Or a couple cultures. Depending.


Just because it's accepted, doesn't mean it has to happen.

How is that a new spin-off? That's the way it's been for like... Approximately a long time and a half.

Try eternity and a half.

Yeah, they frown when we do something, but they complain their asses off if we don't do anything. The entire world is a double-standard waiting to happen.

And you're welcome.

I've noticed the same about my brother.

I wouldn't worry too much about the deaths of thousands of people-- it was either that or a life of torture and the inevitable question of afterlife.

...Besides, someone had to do the decorating, right?

I'm just saying you don't get to value the parts of a culture you like and promote those while simultaneously deriding and preventing another aspect of the same culture.

Well, you do but you don't get to say that you lament the death of cultures while you do it because that is killing the culture that was.


Hey, you claim to be the greatest nation on the Earth. If you make that claim, you have to walk that talk. You say you're the best but you don't help much more than anybody else. That's not on.

*sigh*.

I am just wondering how people approach genocide if it happens in their own country.
America can't do anything at the moment because of a (sorry if this insults anyones family members or themselves serving in this conflict) stupid bastard of a war.
The USA intervened in Kosovo didn't it? It tried to stop a massacre? Failed but got there in the end.

The USA is a mercantile power, and considering the housing problems at the moment its not a very strong one. This will probably change, but there is always going to be nations that are behind you by only a small amount.

Sorry I am rabbiting on, trying to be a concious, I may as well pack up the little top hat and umberella they give me

Verbose, just donned on me that when you're speaking of 'education', you're talking about how the child is raised. Sorry.

As far as the US goes.

-Not all of us think it is the greatest nation, perhaps a half-way decent or tolerable one at best.
-We support our troops, not always the war they fight.
-Why is Bush still president? We've had bad experiences when we switch presidents mid-war. I think thats the only reason why he won the second election.

I loved the democrat slogan "don't change horseman mid apocalypse"

(i'll read everyone elses comments later)

Why cant we just mind our own bussiness?
America has gone to war
Plans to go to war again
And now ppl want us to help genocide in a country that noone cares about
History is doomed to repeat itself, like the jaint empires before us america will fall
War is not the answer, also going into another country to fight a war that has no affect to us is also none of our bussiness.
they'll stop the mexicans from coming over, but a black or african they wont say "shit"
Even though i hear the same ppl complain about immagrints and "blacks" as theives
They'll sure support a war they have nothing about.

The plans to go to war again have as much chance as a snowball in the depths of hell.
If you stop caring about the world in general people eventually stop caring about facts at home to.
If we all just look after our own we become xenophobic.
War is a bad idea. But ignoring problems in other countries when you can stop it is possibly worse.

You really cant stop it, Its all politics
They wont go after the leader, or should i say the wont cut off the head of the beast,
which is all it takes, So fine if you want a war because violence sounds more reasonable then by all means attack all the brainwashed 8 year olds holding a gun.

ALSO going to war in other countries makes us ignore our own
IS OUR COUNTRY SO GREAT RIGHT NOW WE CAN FIX OTHERS?
I'm not just talking about the increasin inflation thats going on but,
look at our welfare, socail security programs going on right now
not only that but the "ghettos" still need to be fixed.
Not to mention lots of money being spent on prision i mean
all this wasted money on our "bad part of society (cons and criminals)
yet we wish to spend more somewhere that wont benifit us?

America funds itself on war. When we go into a 'depression' we get back out of it by putting money toward a war. During the first four years or so, it makes a lucrative business-- but after that-- we begin to lose money because we're constantly funding through special taxes.

As for going to war 'again.' Sweetie, we'll be in a war for the next thirty years. While we're still technically in one-- this is the time for those countries that don't appriciate our nosey behavior to start protesting us (like they weren't before) and thereby creating a new set of problems.

I see America as a Rome. Eventually it will fall to corruption and greed; the sad part is that other countries follow us like sheep so they will be doomed as well. (That's not to say ALL other countries do, but you know the ones I'm talking about)

WAR is an answer, whether you like it or not. Without war, there is no sense of peace and vice versa.

Man is inherently an animal and with that comes a sense of territorialism. We see a space and claim it for our own unless something bigger and badder than us comes along and takes it from us. This goes for anything from land to a partner... to even a slice of pizza.

As for 'supporting a war,' you'd be supportive too if you were being bullied into it.

On a random note the first Genocide seems to have occured in Mesopotamia conducted on the orders of "Sargon the Great" king of Akkad upon the city of Kazalla where the city was destroyed to the extent that the birds could not perch above the ground.

Depends.

Who's getting 'cided? There's a couple of groups that annoy me enough to look the other way for a couple of years. Emos and goths, for two.


- Try talking to your media because all we get is a constant backwash of inspirational sewage that makes the rest of us sick.

- That's a bit like supporting the virus but opposing the symptoms when it happens in war-time, isn't it? No disrespect to any soldiers who are doing it for the pay (there's a good, clean, professional reason to go kill people) but too many of your soldiers are bred on patriotism and heroism and glory and they make messy occupiers. Factor in a lack of direction and you get an unpleasant event I'd hesitate to call a war.

- I don't know how much worse you could have done, really. He may not be as stupid as he seems but he monkeyed about badly enough when he thought he had a shot of re-election. Why would he get better if it's already been proved he ain't getting impeached and he isn't going to get another step in afterwards.


Firstly, I rather suspect that the people in the country having a light genocide might care about it. As well as people who care about humanity as a whole, especially since a majority of the weapons used in these genocides came about from the Cold War in which America had a fair hand.

Secondly, America is not - contrary to popular consensus - an Empire. Empires fall because countries under its banner strike out for freedom. Great Britain was an Empire. America is a country. Countries don't have a tradition of rising and falling because people seem to accept that a country changes while an Empire has to do something more grand, apparently. History proves nothing.

Thirdly, since the war you're in is against a country that had nothing to do with you and you had no business being there, you can forgive us for making the assumption. Further, war frequently gets countries out of all sorts of trouble. Violence is often the answer.

Fourthly, I'm sure there was a reason you got all racist and anti-immigration at the end there but it wasn't clear to me where it came in. A bit of a clumsy segway, you might say.


Once again, America is not an Empire.

Further, I don't know how many times I have to say this but the problem is not with Corruption and Greed but with incompetence in the Corrupt and Greedy. You think Caesar Augustus (often hailed as the greatest Caesar there was, even by the Romans) wasn't greedy? You think he was a beacon of purity? He was corrupt and greedy but he was competent. He made it work for him. Corruption and Greed work as excellent methods of controlling and expanding your country. You just need competence.

Finally, I'm pleased to note my country will be fine however much we've bent over to help the Americans. One of the unsung virtues of our previous government (the incumbents lost for those playing at home) was that we've been buying interests in small Asian nations between us and China and spent a lot of time mediating between China and America. We're everybody's favourite continental island.

America might not be an classic empire, but it has a history of imperialistic operations. Sure they might not have called it part of the USA afterwards, but they achieved the desired effect. Just plant(or aid in installing) a puppet regime somewhere which you can control from a distance or which has the same agenda as you (which is mostly getting favorable bussiness deals on national scale- greed).
Two of these countries are being waged a war upon at the moment because something backfired and they didn't keep doing what the USA wanted.
The USA aided in a coupe in Indonesia which cost an estimated 1 million to three million lives, mass graves are still being found. The UK, Australia and the Netherlands 'wisely' kept their mouths shut or even aided the americans, thus the people commiting one of the largest genocides after the 2nd WW.
Another simple example is Panama, when it wasn't going their way just invade the country and change the regime(with many innocent lives lost). If that doesn't work just Boycott the country, and as seeing that you're the most powerful country in the world, make others follow your example- cuba.
In short, every war or incursion is either led by Greed or Fear or even a nice combination. America may not be a classic empire, but it's tendencies are often imperical. oh, Genocide Am Bad!

Yes but despite all the similarities between America and an Empire, America is not an Empire on a lot of the most important issues. Namely, you don't officially own their countries and you don't have a military presence in all of the places you've set up. What America has done, mostly, is not much different than what most European countries have done. You have a skirmish, put down the leadership opposed to you and let friendlies in charge. Eventually they turn and you repeat the cycle.

That's international politics. Not Empire.

You could just as easily argue that America is an Empire because they control the regimes they installed or helped install. The fact that they don't officially own the country is only a front they put up for the international world so they(the international world) can just look away because it's the USA. I'm not saying that European countries are innocent because they're obviously not, but at least they're not so arogant about it and truth be told, the USA is the one country at this moment who is trying to expand in a way too imperialistic and obvious way.

This is an important point, how do you define empire? Is it a strong policy conducted against other people in order to acquire land or resources held together by a strong central authority? If it is then its an empire.

Theres a massive flaw in the arguement that what america has done is similar to what the european countries have done and is thus not an empire. This is that at the time the European countries were Empires, or at least thought themselves to be empires.

An empire is a state ruled by one ethnic-group or nationality that has control over a large area of land which is inhabited by other ethnic groups or nationalities. Or it was in my politics classes for the sake of arguement.

Thats odd, in my anceint history it was the definition I mentioned above.

-I stopped watching the news long long ago. We rarely get any information on the rest of the world, and the information we get is often to inspire fear. If its not car-jackings, murders, thefts, rapes, ect. Its the US's current war/skirmish/firefight (which is constant).

-I think we see it more like supporting the pawns in a chess game being led by a retarded king. Currently kids are joining the military because they seem to be unable to find a job elsewhere or be able to pay for college on their own. My friend joined the air force reserve not long ago to pay for college.

-I don't think anyone thought he'd get better. It was a choice of a man who constantly harped on the fact he had 3 purple hearts, or the retarded monkey king. We figured the 3 purple heart guy wouldn't be able to read the monkey's plans for Iraq and would most likely kill more people than necessary trying to get people out.

Either way, I'm all for pulling another Reagan out of our asses and scaring the living hell out of the other countries. Or, at the very least, those that are willing to kill themselves just to kill us. The good thing about Reagan was that he could pretend to understand international politics. Thank God someone had charisma.

I could just as easily argue that New Zealand is the next world super power. It wouldn't make it accurate.


If that's the definition it's not an empire. "Strong central authority" is not the American government.

But jokes aside, this definition is close to an empire as I mean it. I include the clause that the central authority needs to assume control of these places in an actual degree - not, "Yeah, we tell them to pay us and they do" but actual claims as in, "This land now belongs to us and anyone who says different gets an army up the delta". This pseudo-expansionist thing of America doesn't count because the simple truth is that eventually they will leave and not pay any attention to the place again. America is not annexing Iraq here. They're occupying it for very unclear reasons and their soldiers aren't trained for occupation (oddly enough, my nation's army is exceptionally good at policing war-torn states. Maybe we're the next super-power) so they're ballsing it up but they aren't going to become the fifty-whatever state.

You're not going to have a Governor of Iraq.

Since Iraq will not be a part of the United States or a part of some new Empire (and I would hope you'd start somewhere nicer if you were going to do that) then it's not Imperial expansion. It's just aggressive international politics.


Actually, not so much. The majority of countries never fashioned themselves an empire without good cause. The majority of European countries are very small and their history isn't taught in Western schools and most of them thought they had a kingdom. Europeans were okay with kingdoms warring with one another and conquering each others' outlying farms while still being kingdoms.


Holy shit I live in an empire.

All bow to the Australian Empire! We own a landmass bigger than all of Europe (sans a bit of European Russia) and we have millions of Asians and Africans and Europeans of all types! We also have natives!

This is a flawed definition, don't you think? Or does my whopping twenty million people (of a very multicultural background) make for an empire because we have a lot of land? I know we don't attack people and we don't aggressively annex surrounding areas for land and resources or any of that other imperial stuff but it's still good to know we're one of the biggest empires around.

Canada would be an empire too. We'd be the second largest empire (by land) on Earth. That would scare me. I like living in a country, and the word 'empire' alludes to ruthlessness.

I'm looking forward to that sort of ruthlessness. Our new government seems intent on bending over backwards on a lot of issues for no gain. It is vexing.

my boyfriend is more into politics and such then i am, but i've heard him talking about a free information act that was passed, which i believe means that we CAN (if we dig deep enough) find the truth on things such as the war and roswell to name a couple.

also we have to think, with the people we have in government, with the way it's being run, as much as i hate to say it how loud are our voices?? if they decide "Ok, these people did this so we're gonna go kill 'em all" and let's say over half the population of america disagrees and goes to petition and such . . . the government is so closed off, would what we say make any difference? if they REALLY wanted to do it, wouldn't they?

i'm not saying i approve of genocide mind you, i have my own issues here with old michigan laws that were never taken out of effect . . . . but still . . . whether we like it or not it's gonna keep happening. humans don't have the intelligence or the common sense to stop themselves.