If Tiananmen Square Happened Today, What Should We Do?

[David Floyd]

Does that not represent a rather fundamental shift for you?

No, not a fundamental shift in belief, just a shift in the application of belief to a consistent conclusion.

Note, though, that I don't think "callous indifference" should be legally punishable in MOST cases.

[Lefty Scaevola]

"If Tiananmen Square Happened Today, What Should We Do?"

Invade Iraq.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

What about: nothing...

sit and watch on TV - OK we are not watching the Zimbabve or Congo massacres as it doesn't hapen every day just or is not captured live, you just get an article in the papers now and than, or we are barely aware what goes on in Burma or Sudan... but this is what we do -- watch when someone breaks the "old" news on TV ....

what should we do?

Well I guess this is why we have the UN.... or should have, for the more controllable targets such as Congo or Zimbabve - China,,,, well only if we want to start WWIII, which is probably not even in the interest of those who died...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
"If Tiananmen Square Happened Today, What Should We Do?"

Invade Iraq.

[VetLegion]

David, were you against bombing of Serbia?

And I agree with you about voluntary boycots, but I also think that if there was massive outcry for action, government(s) should act. But before that there would need to exist democratic channels that can be utilised to express popular opinion (internet ), because current system (of lobbies, street demonstrations and rigged polls) is not good.

[David Floyd]

David, were you against bombing of Serbia?

Oh absolutely. To give you an idea of my feelings about military action, I'm against US involvement in WW2.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I'd say on the national level, do nothing. If individuals want to do something, let them.

[Dr. Nick]

El Awrence - is it murder to shoot someone who is trying to shoot you, or another innocent?

Yes.

[VetLegion]

To give you an idea of my feelings about military action, I'm against US involvement in WW2.

I see. You have probably explained the reasoning behind that in other threads so I won't pull you into a threadjack by asking why. It is a bit extreme position in my opinion though. Good thing you weren't the US presiden't back then or half of us would be posting from the Reich now

[Velociryx]

The problem is...voluntarily driven actions won't do anything to FIX or CHANGE the problem at hand. About all that accomplishes is that it allows you to say "There. I tried." And give yourself a nice pat on the back for "getting involved."

Will it stop the blood from flowing? Will DF's refusal to buy a Chinese-made VCR stop it from happening again?

Don't kid yourself.

The difference in the examples given is this:

If you intercede on behalf of an elderly lady who is being mugged, you are implicitly saying "I'd give my life for you," because you might. You don't just go waltzing into a situation like that wily nilly, my friend. In the blink of an eye, the stakes could change dramatically. The mugger robbing the old lady at knifepoint might not have needed to pull the .45 out from beneath his shirt for the old lady, but when you step up to the plate, you change the equation and the stakes. So...the mugger pulls his piece, and points it at your head. Whatchagonna do now? No time to think about it.....you only have half a second to make your choice, and if it's the wrong one, you're sporting a lovely, large-calibre hole in the back of your noggin.

So you'll use force to take him down, or you'll put your hands up like a good boy and let him carry on about his business. Either might get you killed.

Contrast that with not buying the VCR. Note the difference?

Once you commit yourself to involvement, you're in. If you back out half way thru then you a) lack the courage of your convictions, or b) weren't serious about your concern to begin with.

Hate to say it, but you can't run a country of 290million people on the basis of voluntary consent, involvement, and participation. That's why we ELECT representatives.

If your proposed course of action is any indication, you'd downright suck at brinkmanship....no offense.

-=Vel=-

[Bosh]

But the poor innocent tax payer who would be coerced into paying for Chinese-killing assassins, you would support their mugging DF?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wait, you don't care about getting caught?! You do realize that'll start a war that will result in many people being killed, and most likely conscription!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by El Awrence

Quote:

El Awrence - is it murder to shoot someone who is trying to shoot you, or another innocent?

Yes.

Waaaaa? Killing in self-defense constitutes murder?

Are you basing this off of the laws of any particular nation? I'm just wondering if there's really a nation that's still so backwards that its laws don't even account for intent...

[Imran Siddiqui]

loinburger: I believe it is justified murder. It's an excuse to the crime of murder... though I'm not sure that El Awrence meant that.

[loinburger]

But there's no such thing as "justified murder." Murder means "unjustified killing," so "justified unjustified killing" is just wrong on so many levels.

Though you're right, El Awrence might have been thinking along the lines of justified murder. One could hope so, at any rate... Otherwise, the dizzy smilie still applies.

[Vandal-1]

If Tainemmen Square happened today we would offically do nothing,but unofficially we would contact opposition groups if they were large enough to be valid and see what we could do to help out.I think events such as this are happening but they are not all reported.

[Q Classic]

tiananmen wouldn't happen again, not like that. why?

24 hour news networks-- in 1989, there was CNN, and not much else... these days, in america alone we have three or four news networks, and several more throughout the western and east/northeast asian world.

internet-- even with the great firewall, it probably would be fairly easy to organize moving demonstrations and increasing support both nationally and internationally. i wouldn't be surprised if one saw more demonstrations not just in beijing, but in shanghai, etc.

public relations-- because of the first two things, any massacre or demonstration of brawn would result in a pr disaster for china; even if they did manage to clamp down on the news networks, and the internet, the silence would lead to many a question from the world at large, as well as creating severe economic repercussions.

economic fallout-- maybe no sanctions, officially. but boycotts, possibly, or exclusionary tactics... and i have a hard time believing some hackers would stand by and do nothing.

now, all of that specifically refers to china, a place we americans, even though it's exotic, and oriental, and what not, we like them.

if it was in some country like, say, togo, or uzbekistan, or tonga, or moldova, i don't think we'd give as much of a damn, unless there was some reason to go in.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Murder means "unjustified killing,"

I thought it meant unlawful killing?

Anyway, I believe the question now is was El Awrence thinking of 'justified' murder. Every crime has a defense, and that can either be a justification (I was right, so I shouldn't be guilty) or an excuse (I was wrong, but i still shouldn't be guily... for example hitting someone with a chair that was mugging someone else, only to find out they both were performing a play would result in excused battery). Perhaps that is what he was going after.

[MRT144]

Id kill all the libertarians

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I thought it meant unlawful killing?

I've seen that definition applied as well (as well as a third, "killing with premeditated malice," though this one doesn't really cover 2nd degree murder), but going by that definition El Awrence's claim that killing in self-defense constitutes murder would be factually wrong, since killing in self-defense isn't against the law (unless he's basing his claim off of the laws in the Republic of Bum**** or something).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, we could always go with Door #2... that he thought it was murder, but justifiable. It puts him in a better light (though a bit confused). It's better than him thinking that you should go to jail for self-defense .

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If the Tiananmen Square Massacre happened today - or a similar event - in any country, what should our response be? Should we go to war? Economic sanctions? Nothing?

My answer is that we should voluntarily boycott products from that country, and use the CIA or other means to assassinate those responsible, on the reasoning that defense of another is perfectly moral (provided, of course, that it's not a massive operation costing tons of taxpayer money). That would have been my likely answer to actual Tiananmen Square, too, by the way.

Master Floyd, please fix DRC first. Rwanda is an excellent second choice.

[David Floyd]

Master Floyd, please fix DRC first. Rwanda is an excellent second choice.

I wasn't referring specifically to the PRC, but in general. If the leaders of DRC conducted a Tiananmen-like massacre, I'd support their assassination as well, although the DRC probably doesn't export anything worth boycotting. Well, they have diamond mines, right? That's besides the point, of course...

[MRT144]

yup, id go after all the libertarians

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I wasn't referring specifically to the PRC, but in general. If the leaders of DRC conducted a Tiananmen-like massacre, I'd support their assassination as well, although the DRC probably doesn't export anything worth boycotting. Well, they have diamond mines, right? That's besides the point, of course...

David, sh!t is happening in DRC right now, real massacres. Ethnic cleansing. Nasty stuff. If you want to talk about human rights violations, that's your country. That's probably where US forces would do most humanitarian good.

[David Floyd]

UR, that's nice. The bottom line is this: I support the assassination of murderers who are in power around the world, in order to protect the natural rights of the citizens in those countries. This applies to the DRC just as much as it does the PRC - the PRC is just one of the more flagrant examples in recent history.

However, I don't support using tax money for these assassinations, because I don't support taxes, and user-fees collected for other services can't properly be used for extra-territorial action, because it isn't providing a service to those who are paying for, say, the police.

Hence, if enough people want to support this policy, they will donate money for the express purpose of wiping out dictators from the DRC to the PRC, where practical.

Now, do I think this policy is particularly wise in every case? Certainly not. Extending the mugger analogy, I wouldn't go after a mugger if he had the means to not only kill me, but also my whole family. Likewise, I wouldn't go after the dictator of a country armed with a likely to use nuclear weapons to keep the dictatorship alive, nor would I assassinate a dictator of a country that could conventionally harm the US.

Of course, let's say I'd come to power in 1989. The PRC couldn't have done jack **** to the US conventionally at that time (and the same applies to today). The PRC could certainly have used ICBMs against the Western US - but not very many (even fewer when the US knocked out the Xia class sub), and only at the cost of total annihilation. Hence, I'm sure we can both agree that the PRC wouldn't have nuked San Francisco if the US popped Deng.

On the other hand, I wouldn't advocate trying to assassinate someone such as Brezhnev, who had both the means and probably the mindset to start a nuclear war.

So yes, this means I would go after those who were unable to stop me, and leave those alone would could harm me (me referring to the US). However, this is no different than anyone would do in the mugger situation - if the mugger had the means and mindset to kill you and your family if you stopped him from robbing an old lady, you probably wouldn't stop him. You wouldn't be committing an immoral act, nor would you be allowing an immoral act - you would simply not be intervening.

To sum up:
Go after any dictator who massacres people, provided:
1)People will voluntarily pay for it
2)The dictator can't harm the US or US citizens who haven't volunteered to go into harm's way in this SPECIFIC instance.

Is that somewhat coherent?

[Ben Kenobi]

To give you an idea of my feelings about military action, I'm against US involvement in WW2.

And yet you support an assassination?

Seems monkie and I are the only pacifists left on the boards.

/me sulks in the corner.

[David Floyd]

Seems monkie and I are the only pacifists left on the boards.

I've never been a pacifist.

However, are you saying that if you saw someone hitting an old lady over the head in a dark alley, and you had a gun, you wouldn't try to stop the mugger?

[Ben Kenobi]

Stopping the mugger entails a range of force short of lethal.

[Giancarlo]

If it happened today, all apolytoners have to get suited up in combat uniform and invade the country that did it. Of course I will be in the battle room drawing out battle plans so I can't join you all.

Just a little humor.