Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
If it is in a position to do so and its the only way to stop him, yes.
If the UN is unable to protect the people of a nation from it's leaders then why shouldn't another nation take action to do so?
|
But I don't see any nation doing anything like that in any other case. Why aren't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Sure, in the real world nations don't intervene for a number of reasons; no personal gain, too much risk, lack of support at home etc.
|
Oh, that's why.
If the reason for not going in is there's nothing in it for us, they have big guns too or we'd lose the next election then it kinda tarnishes the whole altruism angle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Put it like this, if TB somehow manouvered himself into absolute power, tortured and murdered Britains, would you rather another nation came in and ousted New Labour, or would you prefer TB remained in power while the UN took their time and perhaps decided to do nothing because of TB's influence and promises to other nations?
|
In that scenario, I'd love for some other nation to ride in and save the day. Would it be too much to expect that they might have a post-conflict strategy and be able to keep their pilfering fingers off my natural resources?
And given that the UK doesn't really have a goldmine of natural resources under its soil, how long might I reasonably be expected to wait for such a knight in shining armour?
It's the hypocracy of it all that really twists my melon. I know you're championing the "Protector of the downtrodden" argument but that's not really got anything to do with it, in the real world of course.
