"Peace Keeping" with guns?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2012, 12:20 PM
RE: "Peace Keeping" with guns?
(03-02-2012 10:53 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  So the U.S. has over a hundred military bases outside of the U.S. They go on "peace keeping" missions. They "protect" the poor and the innocent with tanks and machine guns. I do get the theory behind it. But what about a better solution? Here's my idea of how the U.S., and all other first world countries can help our fellow humans on this planet.

I would propose, that as an experiment, the U.S. takes just one of these military bases and does the following: Remove all the weapons. Leave only buildings, with whatever they are furnished with. Then pull all military out of the area. Replace them with crews, made up mostly of local craftsmen, and convert those buildings into schools, hospitals, community centres, shelters, etc. Use only the money that was previously allotted to fund the former military presence. After one year, continue to contribute half of the budget, and use the other half to help the people in need within America.

This will accomplish several things. Primarily it will contribute to the welfare of the poeple in the country they had a military presence, instead of bringing fear and intimidation. Yes I understand that some countries also need help with regard to protecting it's citizens, but the money that is being contributed could go, in part, to helping the people help themselves in that respect. This would also benefit people in the U.S., because after only one year, there would be an increase (a dramatic one at that) in funds going to help the needy in the U.S. "Charity begins at home" and all that.

Secondly, this is how to truly keep peace. By helping your neighbor instead of trying to control them. Will a country really attack the U.S. if they are recieving help from them? I doubt it. It is at least less likely that a country would attack another if that other country is helping them instead of sending an army to control them. Can you imagine how many children you could feed with just half the budget spent on a military base?? That's a lot of full bellies.

Now imagine if most or all of those bases were treated the same way? That's a lot of good done, both abroad and at home. Now I do have a realistic bone or two. I am not suggesting eliminating military all together. It would never happen whether it's a good idea or not. But the idea is to help other countries by helping with food, shelter, and clothing, instead of guns, bombs, and jet fighters.

What do you guys think? Could this work?
(remember, it's a thought experiment, so although there's a lot of complexities, generally speaking, do you think it's possible to overcome those complexities and create a feasable model to aid others?)

Just want to mention one last thing. I use the U.S. as an example here, because of the strong and controversial military presence they have throughout the world. This model can also apply to any other country, including here in Canada.

I think there are two problems... First, any free help or care will be abused. You will have people trying to get more than their share, by whatever means they can. That leads to problem #2 - removing all weapons leads to possibility of attack. That will in turn either result in bringing the weapons back or leaving altogether.

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2012, 12:35 PM
RE: "Peace Keeping" with guns?
(05-02-2012 12:20 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  ..... leaving altogether.

That's good too! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2012, 02:58 PM
RE: "Peace Keeping" with guns?
(05-02-2012 12:20 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  I think there are two problems... First, any free help or care will be abused. You will have people trying to get more than their share, by whatever means they can. That leads to problem #2 - removing all weapons leads to possibility of attack. That will in turn either result in bringing the weapons back or leaving altogether.

I can see your point. I agree with Zat, that leaving all together could be a good solution, but failing that, can you think of a way to improve the idea to make it more feasable?

It was a spur of the moment type idea, so my purpose was to toss it out there for you guys to beat up, and possibly mold into a reasonable way to deal with the overwhelming and often unnessecary military presence throughout the world. So what could we change in the original model to solve some of the problems people have brought up?

You have just begun reading the sentence you have just finished reading.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2012, 10:22 PM
RE: "Peace Keeping" with guns?
Alright, sorry for all the name calling and playing the soldier card. I was in a bad mood and had to work all day. But back to the OP, you have to consider that it's not just people in need making up the population. There are also those people exploiting this need to gain power. The bad elements that control this need and maintain it to keep themselves wealthy and dominant. And no, I don't think that America is this power. My platoon alone gave at least 300,000 dollars to the various town leaders and sheikhs. That money usually got distributed among a select few for new cars and security and never made it the civilians. It's more than just giving and helping; you have to restructure the system that is making the people needy in the first place.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2012, 11:04 PM
RE: "Peace Keeping" with guns?
The problem with saying you have to restructure the system though, is that the US has a system that makes people needy and generally they are one of the main offenders of making other countries adopt needy systems. The western world has no interest in self sufficiency and plenty of self sufficient groups have been forced into need based economics throughout the exploration of the world.

What would make more sense would be if more of the money was spent within the US and the military bases held soup kitchens. Why give to foreign politicians if you know that half the time they'll be corrupt? The money you are giving those politicians is not what keeps the country agreeing with the US it's just a random excess sort of bribery. There is too much money changing hands. You can support growth in a foreign nation without funding their lives. There are plenty of actual services to provide.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
06-02-2012, 10:17 AM
RE: "Peace Keeping" with guns?
(05-02-2012 02:58 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  I agree with Zat, that leaving all together could be a good solution...

...an even better solution (for future consideration) is NOT TO GO THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Saves a lot of money, misery and lives, all around.

How about that? Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2012, 03:37 PM
RE: "Peace Keeping" with guns?
It's too late not to go "there". The US, and to a lesser extent Canada, are already everywhere. Britain and France, Spain and Portugal, Japan and China all have legacies and tentacles everywhere. You can't undo any of that. you can't - yet - radically change the economic structure.

So, turning the military to real peace-making and peace-keeping is a good idea; step by step, change for the better could come out of that. Of course, this entirely depends on good will and good intentions. Absent those, it's a pipe-dream (some good shit in the pipe, though).

So, health is number one. Fix the people you broke. Then fix the people somebody else broke under your financial and/or political protection. Then fix the people who just got in the way. Carry them back to their proper homes.
Leave clinics and schools as you take away the weapons.
Yes, it's imperative to take (and destroy, please; recycle into ploughshares, not sell on the streets of LA and Calgary) the weapons away from the guys you gave them to. Let 'em be irate - give them i-pads instead.
Take all your explosive crap out of the fields and orchards; remove all army vehicles.

Withdraw slowly, softly. Give nobody any more money; just medicine, tools and books.
Redraw the borders where the local people can agree they belong, not where the colonial powers willy-nilly decided.
If people still fight - well, that's people for you! Let the UN deal with it, according to general assembly guidelines, without an America gun or dollar bill held to its head.

It's not the mean god I have trouble with - it's the people who worship a mean god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peterkin's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: