Ron,
My further responses below...
Dear Starchild;
I take up key board to reply to your message.
Better man take up report on human rights abuses! 
First of all this sentence has me baffled : And since you are talking with someone who thinks that your views are colored by an unfortunate American nationalism, you certainly don't do your position any favors by using the United States as your example.
What do you mean by that? Or better yet what do you mean by nationalism? I am puzzled as you seem to very freely want the US military to intervene just about anywhere - Rwanda - Iraq - Afghanistan or countries where bad things are happening to good people like Sudan - Somalia - Ethiopia - Nigeria - Rwanda - Uganda - Zimbabwe - Eritrea - ummmm - did I miss any???
By nationalism I mean looking at the world primarily from an American point of view -- instead of, say, from a libertarian one. You do understand they are not the same thing, right?
I believe that America should not have its military in virtually every country around the world and definitely should not be bringing "democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan with bullets and bayonets.
I believe the military-industrial complex needs to be immediately dis-mantled and the money taken from taxpayers stopped from supporting this war-mongering cabal.
I believe any American should have free-trade rights with any person within any country without any government interference from any nation.
I believe we should defend our borders here from any attacking army or navy through a National Defense Militia.
Re: American point of view -- here you say "our borders," but in fact you are talking about the borders of the region known as the United States of America. You are identifying yourself with a nation, rather than as an individual. Our borders as individuals surround our personal property and the immediate space around our persons. From a *libertarian* (as opposed to American) point of view, those are the borders we should be considering, since libertarianism is based on *individual* rights, not national rights.
I believe we should not be taking money from taxpayers to send money to any foreign country under any circumstances.
I'm not taking money from taxpayers to send anywhere, and I doubt you are either -- not coercively, anyway. The U.S. government is doing this.
I believe Americans should be free to send money to any country they so choose for any reason they so choose at any time they so choose without government interference from any country.
If this makes me an American nationlist - so be it - deal with it!
Oh, I already believe you are an American nationalist, and I am dealing with it. That's what this message is about! 8)
Now to answer your other questions.
If a genocide is occuring who is defining the genocide and under what circumstances?
Good question. For the most part I agree with the definition established under international law in 1948 by the Genocide Convention (see http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm). Unlike say theft or murder, however, it is a little difficult to say exactly when something becomes genocide. For example, the Convention includes as genocide, "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group," "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." If a Catholic family adopts a Mormon kid with the intent to, in part, destroy Mormonism, is that genocide? I would say no.
Fortunately, the precise definitions of genocide don't really matter greatly for our purposes here. When lots of people are being killed by a repressive government, it's clearly bad from a libertarian point of view whether it amounts to genocide or not.
Why is it that you believe it is the responsibility of the US to intervene militarily in Rwanda or any other nation where a defined genocide is occuring?
I don't believe it is the responsibility of the U.S. government specifically. I believe that when genocide is occurring, those with the capacity to stop it should do so. I think if we first discuss and establish some general principles, it will be easier than if we immediately jump to talking about the role of the United States.
The UN intervened in Rwanda but the rules of engagement where so strick no one from the UN could do much of anything but stand by and watch and duck when bullets flew near them.
That's partly true, but there was more to it than that. UN troops actually had the legal authority to act to prevent "crimes against humanity," but in most cases they did not do so. Probably some of the blame can be attributed to cowardice, some to a political unwillingness to risk casualties, and some to the fact that there were not enough U.N. troops present to adequately deal with the situation.
To stop the slaughter in Rwanda would have very unfortunately have required killing the killers. But this would not be so clear cut as not all Hutus were killing Tutsi's. Some Hutus were also being killed because they did not side with the government making Tutsi's accomplises of the attacking RPF rebels.
Right. War is often confusing and messy.
So as as I said originally an e-mail or two back - use the UN to do whatever it wants to do to intervene wherever it so chooses using whatever forces voluntarily offered by whatever government offers > them.
How about this as a standard: In cases where rioting or looting breaks out and local police can't cope with it, use the federal government to do whatever it wants to do to intervene wherever it so chooses using whatever forces voluntarily offered by whatever government offers them. If rioting broke out in San Francisco and your life was endangered, would you consider that to be an adequate government policy?
Get the US out of the UN and stop using plundered taxpayer monmey to support the UN and the World Bank and The IMF and all other NGO's.
Why do you always talk about getting the United States out of the United Nations, when from a libertarian perspective it's arguably more important to get China out of the United Nations? Why's that? Well, more people are having their rights violated by China's participation, since there are many more Chinese taxpayers than American taxpayers.
Pure self-defense of America from an invading army means just that. The collateral damage to civilians and property from pure self-defense is totally removed from invading another country and killing innocent civilians who get in the way and destroying the proerty thereof - ala Israel in Lebanon..
Would you please define "pure self-defense?" Specifically, what do you mean by "self?" Self implies personhood, doesn't it?
Defense of another nation or another peoples is unacceptable - as that requires an invasion force to defend those people.
Not necessarily. It could, for example, include a Japanese-based satellite-based anti-missile system that shot down missiles launched at South Korea.
And has been shown in both Iraq and Afghanistan this were and are dismal flops costing the lives of countless tens of thousands and bankrupting the respective countries.
I disagree in several respects. As has been pointed out before on this list, the invasion of Iraq probably saved lives, since more Iraqis were dying under sanctions. It also removed a brutal, unrepresentative regime that was seeking to acquire WMDs. Invading Afghanistan removed an even more repressive regime, put the leaders of Al Qaeda on the run, and significantly disrupted that terrorist organization. As for "bankrupting the respective countries," I would like to see some statistics.
Iraq has been in a state of Civil War ever since dumb bunny moron Bush declared Mission Accomplished. And the only place Afghanistan has a government is in Kabul. The countryside is as it has always been going back as far as Alexander the Greats attempts to conquer Afghanistan - it didn't work then and it ain't gonna work now.
The Taliban have nevertheless been denied effective control over the country, and that means a great deal. If local warlords again hold primary sway over much of the countryside, they are still generally less repressive, and certainly less conducive to harboring Al Qaeda.
If like in the old days one army lined up and attcked another lined up army it would be a different matter. Todays battles are no longer the grand sweeping European battles but what is called 4GW. Like Israel against Hezbollah but Israel used European style methods against guerilla style methods and lost face big time. Although neither side won.
It is still possible to win wars against guerrilla forces. In Peru, for example, the government defeated the "Shining Path" Maoist rebels. In Nigeria, the government defeated the Biafran rebels. But you're right that it is certainly tougher for a superior force to win than it was in the days when both armies took to the field and lined up facing each other.
Why should I care about what the Pakistani government does with the money stolen from its citizens?
Because as a libertarian you care about peoples' rights being violated? Or are you saying that your nationalism trumps your libertarianism, and therefore you only care when Americans' rights are violated?
Right now I am far far far more concerned with the money stolen from Americans by the USA government. What Pakistan does with its stolen money is a non-sequitor.
Why is it a non-sequitor?
On the Hatian thing is this what you are referring to?
Taking your> >Haitian Revolution example and embellishing on history a bit, let's hypothetically say that rebelling slaves seized several sugar > >plantations in one valley and formed a local democratic tax-funded > >"government" in this area which achieved de facto independence > >significantly before the rest of Haiti was liberated, and say the > >colonial authorities credibly promised to leave them alone. Would it > >then have been right by libertarian principles for this government
> >to seek to liberate other plantations in Haiti outside its > >jurisdiction? How about for it to seek to liberate people on the
> >other side of the pre-existing border dividing the island of > >Hispaniola, in the Dominican Republic?
> >
> > Or, since this hypothetical government had already established its > >jurisdiction (the valley it controlled), would it have been > >un-libertarian "foreign intervention" for it to seek to liberate > >slaves outside this jurisdiction on other plantations in Haiti? Or > >would it have been libertarian so long as the slaves on those other > >plantations shared a common language, culture, geographical > >identity, ethnic background, etc., but un-libertarian if the other > >slaves did not have so much in common with the people in the valley? > >Where does one draw the line?
If the rebels formed an accepted government it wouild not be their "right" to free other plantations. That would have constituted an aggressive invasion and that is non-Libertarian - that is where the line is drawn.
So as long as their government is not accepted (accepted by whom?) they have the right to try to liberate other areas, but as soon as their government is accepted, they lose those rights? Something doesn't quite click there.
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
email ms_shiris@… 