liveforever, you were not really answering the question
I tried to. I apologize if it was not the response you were looking for. I assume that you want ones more that you agree with (the way you phrased the question shows that your mind was pre-made up on the answer you wanted), but I just did not agree with what you were wanting the answer to be.
i was not looking for a cut and dry responce, more of a discussion on where moral accontability would lie.
And, as I have tried to say a few different ways because you keep asking but not taking my answer as one you want to hear is that
some moral accountability (again, not all) lies with the US, but the moral accountability is to what follows their withdrawal as much as if they should withdraw or not. I think you are confusing where the moral accountability ends. You do not want any discussion of what happens afterward, but only if they should withdraw or not. I think that you can see in mine (and others) positions, that what happens afterwards can not be separated from the decision to withdraw or not. They are fused together, and even though you don't want us to answer about what happens after the decision to withdraw takes place, it is fundamental (in my mind at least) to the very choice of whether or not to withdraw. If there is no stable system (we keep saying UN, but it would be NATO or some new organization doing the peacekeeping) then the decision on whether or not to withdraw would be a different one. Therefore, no matter what kind of an answer you want people to give to your question, there are other considerations that influence that answer.
If you want a certain just "yes" or "no" answer, or a conversation just about what you want us to discuss (since you are obviously frustrated we didn't talk about what you wanted us to), then you have to set up the question with the appropriate preconditions. For instance, "Given that NATO forces will come take over in Taiwan when American forces withdraw, then is the US morally responsible for what happens afterwards", or alternatively "Given that there will be no one to take over when they leave, is the US morally responsible for what happens when they leave". You can't ask us to make a decision before we know what preconditions you are thinking of. If you do that, we will necessarily fill in and discuss our own preconditions and you can not fault us for doing so, because our answer to your question is predicated on those very preconditions.
Oh gosh, I am going to have to take these next ones point by point cause there are a lot of them. I apologize, but I can't allow for the mischaracterization of my views:
What you said was that we should discuss methods of pull out,
Yes, because as I stated in my previous answer, the method (or at least the overall implementation) is central to the moral responsibility issue. If you want us to only discuss the moral responsibility, then you have to pre-suppose for us the situation we are to analyze. The method of implementation directly correlates to the morality question.
that you didnt really care how each individual presedential candidate would deal with each situation (well its not what you were loooking for in a PC),
No, I said it was only one of many issues I was looking at. I think everyone would say that. There are a myriad of issues, and international troop withdrawals is only one of many. (there are lots of economic concerns, abortion rights, gun rights, trading rights, border security, science funding, etc. etc. etc. I could go on and on and on with issues)
theres more to Ron Paul,
There is much more to Ron Paul than the one issue. He has tons of issues. (not to mention that the way that his views were characterized weren't even his views at all; His overall approach has been articulated, but saying that will mean he supports one way or another for specific instances such as Taiwan is disingenuous)
you couldent see him pulling everyone out overnight,
Very true. I don't think anyone would pull out overnight. Besides the moral component, it is just technically not feasible.
you embellished on the analogy with out really stating a responce to it but concluding that the UN should probably take over.
I don't know what I embellished upon. (I would be grateful if you pointed it out) I don't necessarily think the UN specifically should take over (as I have stated previously) just that it should be an international force, and not the US specifically as it is now. I can reiterate my reasons yet again for this if you would like, but I fear it would begin to sound like a broken record, lol. (albeit one that has not been heard yet
))
now this can give a basis for a discussion - the UN should take over, but what if they cant?
Aaah, so finally we are getting more of a clear question. You are just begging us to give you your predetermined answer, aren't you? lol
)
currently, they really have no armed force to speak of.
Well, NATO's sole purpose is military application, and has been applied in quite a lot of places throughout the world. Whether it is specifically the UN or some other league or conglomeration of nations or whatever else is irrelevant, as the task of peacekeeping is better suited to a multinational force than to a single nation in most instances. (all the instances that have been brought up in this thread, certainly)
Im interested in knowing what people would think if the US left then Taiwan was taken over, DESPITE how they withdrew etc - if their withdrawal plan of letting the UN take over (its not a plan i have heard anywhere but on this forum, but say they went with that) didnt work, then where would moral accontability lie?
Aaah, ok. That is how you should have phrased the question in the beginning if you wanted a specific answer. So, you are asking, in the specific case of Taiwan (no where else), if the US withdrew, and the way that the US withdrew was to allow no other type of peacekeeping force (or at least no effective peacekeeping force), and this was done with the complete foreknowledge that their actions would lead to a takeover of Taiwan by China, then would the action of withdrawing place all moral accountability on US shoulders?
Well, seeing as how that is not a very real world example because of all of the restraints you put on the question, I would say that some moral accountability would then lie with the US, yes. (Is that the answer you were looking for, do I get a passing grade now if I was in your class? haha) Of course even in this very constrained and not very realistic situation, not all of the moral accountability would lie with the US. Some moral accountability would obviously have to lie with the invading country, and to a lesser extent, those other countries who chose not to help defend Taiwan, as well as the complex set of situations that led to the Taiwan situation in the first place. (which we could also talk about, but I don't want to get reprimanded again for not discussing the appropriate thing from the syllabus handed out at the beginning of class)
So, who or who is not responsible for these promises and the need for protection in Taiwan (as a case example)? and why?
Uh oh, you are inviting me to elaborate further upon what I just said, and you made it explicitly clear that I was not allowed to do that, or I would get a 0. Seeing as how I answered your very specific non-real world example very accurately and with little deviation, I will stay with the answer I gave unless you require further explanation. I fear if I go off on my own again explaining what really is the best course of action in the real world and what really would happen then I might get smited again. (although an occasional smiting isn't that bad, haha [wis])
