andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-03-08 11:28 am
andrewducker) wrote2003-03-08 11:28 am
War! What is it good for? Well, some things, when you get right down to it. I mean, take WW2 ....
You know what I'd like to see?
I'd like to see a set of criteria for deciding whether a country is considered a problem. Whether it's a set of human rights abuses they commit, ownership of certain proscribed devices, acts of war, being ruled by someone with a dodgy moustache. Whatever. I want to see a statement of intent consisting of "We hereby declare that we consider countries that fulfil the following to be dangerous and will do whatever it takes to neutralise that threat."
I then want to see a list of all countries in the world that fulfil those criteria, complete with breakdowns of why and how.
And I'd like to see some dedicated research into what makes a country change from being 'antisocial' to being 'a happy friendly country full of smiling people that we like'. Some actual social science looking at how we changed. Because goddamimit, 100 years ago we were all just as bad as they are now.
And then I'll be happy to start sorting things out, however the study shows is the best way (or multitude of ways).
Of course, should someone be gassing their population before then, by all means perform a quick humanitarian excercise to prevent it. Rwanda, the Balkans, the Kurds, etc. all needed fairly instant help. Sometimes they got it, sometimes they didn't.
But for the long term, I'd like to see some nice ground rules laid down.
I'd like to see a set of criteria for deciding whether a country is considered a problem. Whether it's a set of human rights abuses they commit, ownership of certain proscribed devices, acts of war, being ruled by someone with a dodgy moustache. Whatever. I want to see a statement of intent consisting of "We hereby declare that we consider countries that fulfil the following to be dangerous and will do whatever it takes to neutralise that threat."
I then want to see a list of all countries in the world that fulfil those criteria, complete with breakdowns of why and how.
And I'd like to see some dedicated research into what makes a country change from being 'antisocial' to being 'a happy friendly country full of smiling people that we like'. Some actual social science looking at how we changed. Because goddamimit, 100 years ago we were all just as bad as they are now.
And then I'll be happy to start sorting things out, however the study shows is the best way (or multitude of ways).
Of course, should someone be gassing their population before then, by all means perform a quick humanitarian excercise to prevent it. Rwanda, the Balkans, the Kurds, etc. all needed fairly instant help. Sometimes they got it, sometimes they didn't.
But for the long term, I'd like to see some nice ground rules laid down.
no subject
That's what that was about. Sorry, should have been clearer.
no subject
1) Cultural changes to make a nation less xenophobic and aggressive. In the medium to long-term prosperity and trade are extremely helpful way to accomplish this task - Japan and Ireland are excellent recent examples and indicate that embargoes are likely exceedingly counterproductive. Reality bears out that assumption, embargoes most definitely seem to do no good at all.
2) How transform a brutal and tyrannical government into a more agreeable one. I many nations, this is a completely separate question from anything relating to culture, since many leaders have little popular support - fear & apathy work as well as love for keeping someone in power. Aggressive solutions might work, especially for unpopular leaders - if everyone cheers the assassins, then likely then next government will be better. However, non-aggressive solutions are likely to produce considerably less volatile results.