We know what's best for you

[ViolentPanda]

I mean military action in a foreign country

That's not really a very good definition of "war", to be fair.

For example, the Iraq "war" isn't actually a war at all, it's an invasion.

"Military action in another country" also embraces a whole host of sub-war actions such as policing actions, support actions and covert actions, none of which constitute "war".

 

[ViolentPanda]

OK, so my earlier question: If a country was committing genocide, would you support military intervention if that was the sole reason for intervening?

It's an interesting dilemma, that one. What usually happens (and indeed happened in Rwanda, the DRC, Kampuchea, Laos etc) is that if internal brakes on such behaviour aren't applied, other local states are expected to apply diplomatic and military pressure before "the international community" will involve itself. Unfortunately this often means that by the time said community is bestirred to "do something" the ethnicity-based murder, rape and theft that constitute genocide have usually taken place.

 

[coccinelle]

I think a basic principle should be that each country should mind its own business unless it is being directly threatened.

As countries, we should see ourselves as if we were a person. We have the right to harm ourselves as we fulfil our individual destiny. No other person has the right to impose their will on us. We all have different standards because we all have different histories and are the products of different cultural influences.

If we adopt the judaeo-xtian stance that our way is the only true way and if we feel that we have the right to impose our standards on others, then we are being interfering, self-righteous and arrogant. We would not accept such attitudes from other people to us as individuals, so why should we think other people should accept it from us.

In the case of countries involved in outrageous self-abuse where large sections of their population are being harmed or put at risk, then we should leave that to the U.N. because that is what it is for.

 

[camouflage]

I think a basic principle should be that each country should mind its own business unless it is being directly threatened.

As countries, we should see ourselves as if we were a person. We have the right to harm ourselves as we fulfil our individual destiny. No other person has the right to impose their will on us. We all have different standards because we all have different histories and are the products of different cultural influences.

If we adopt the judaeo-xtian stance that our way is the only true way and if we feel that we have the right to impose our standards on others, then we are being interfering, self-righteous and arrogant. We would not accept such attitudes from other people to us as individuals, so why should we think other people should accept it from us.

In the case of countries involved in outrageous self-abuse where large sections of their population are being harmed or put at risk, then we should leave that to the U.N. because that is what it is for.

Actually I reckon the UN is there for the US and Isreal to veto and ignore, but I generaly agree with you.

 

[CyberRose]

That's not really a very good definition of "war", to be fair

"To be fair" I wasn't trying to define "war"!

You asked me what I meant when I originally said "war", and I replied - military action

 

[CyberRose]

No. There are other ways to oppose genocide. Even nazi Germany didn't get started with the genocide until after war was underway. In Yugoslavia the ethnic shock treatment only really got underway once NATO started it's bombing campaign. In Darfur a civil war is raging, and foreign powers toy with the idea of involving themselves because perhaps there are spoils to be gained.

Show me one time when genocide was being commited and another nation declared war (or didn't declare it) and intervened militarily to stop the genocide.

I don't need to show you "one time" because it is a hypothetical situation. If this has never happened in the past then that's irrelevent because I can show you "one time" where there should have been military action to prevent genocide, so the question is perfectly valid...

 

[CyberRose]

I think a basic principle should be that each country should mind its own business unless it is being directly threatened.

As countries, we should see ourselves as if we were a person. We have the right to harm ourselves as we fulfil our individual destiny. No other person has the right to impose their will on us. We all have different standards because we all have different histories and are the products of different cultural influences.

If we adopt the judaeo-xtian stance that our way is the only true way and if we feel that we have the right to impose our standards on others, then we are being interfering, self-righteous and arrogant. We would not accept such attitudes from other people to us as individuals, so why should we think other people should accept it from us.

In the case of countries involved in outrageous self-abuse where large sections of their population are being harmed or put at risk, then we should leave that to the U.N. because that is what it is for.

That's all very well but the UN is powerless to act when one of the big 5 don't want it to act. That means the UN can take no action against Israel (American veto), no action against Darfur (Chinese veto) and could not give their bessing for action against Serbia (Russian veto).

The "UN" isn't a country and can only act when its members decide to act, either politically or practically.

I also disagree with what you say about the sovereignty of countries being the most important factor in the world. What about the rights of the people of those countries? What about if a country is invaded by another country? If the UN is powerless to protect weaker countries or populations from oppression, what is your answer? Fuck them because if they can't look after themselves it's nothing to do with us?

 

[camouflage]

I don't need to show you "one time" because it is a hypothetical situation. If this has never happened in the past then that's irrelevent because I can show you "one time" where there should have been military action to prevent genocide, so the question is perfectly valid...

Ok. And which time was that?

 

[CyberRose]

Ok. And which time was that?

Pick a genocide, any genocide...

 

[camouflage]

Pick a genocide, any genocide...

What, from the ones that started during wars already underway or from ones backed by super-powers/great powers for their own malicious ends?

 

[CyberRose]

What, from the ones that started during wars already underway or from ones backed by super-powers/great powers for their own malicious ends?

Any!

 

[camouflage]

Any!

So, the Armenian genocide would have been improved if Russia or Britain or someone had waded in to flatten a few Anatolian towns as well, the Guatamalan massacre of over a million indians or whatever it was would have been improved by Russia invading and over-throwing the American backed fascist dictator, and East Timor would have been aided if Australia had turned up in the heartland of their Javan allies with whome they agreed to share the spoils bearing marines on gunships.

In fact, things usually only get called genocide by the winners when a war is over, at the time it's usually called 'pacification' or 'police action' or 'war on terror' or something by the perpatrators. So the genocide argument alwasy seems like a good idea because it's designed to work in hindsight.

 

[CyberRose]

So, the Armenian genocide would have been improved if Russia or Britain or someone had waded in to flatten a few Anatolian towns as well, the Guatamalan massacre of over a million indians or whatever it was would have been improved by Russia invading and over-throwing the American backed fascist dictator, and East Timor would have been aided if Australia had turned up in the heartland of their Javan allies with whome they agreed to share the spoils bearing marines on gunships.

In fact, things usually only get called genocide by the winners when a war is over, at the time it's usually called 'pacification' or 'police action' or 'war on terror' or something by the perpatrators. So the genocide argument alwasy seems like a good idea because it's designed to work in hindsight.

Your analogies don't work because to give your argument the weight it simply does not have, you equate "intervention" with like-for-like retaliatory punishments by those that intervene.

You could have saved yourself the time and effort by missing the first paragraph out and jumping straight to the part where you justify every genocide in history by stating nobody has a right to help the people targeted and that most of them probably weren't even genocides anyway

 

[camouflage]

Your analogies don't work because to give your argument the weight it simply does not have, you equate "intervention" with like-for-like retaliatory punishments by those that intervene.

You could have saved yourself the time and effort by missing the first paragraph out and jumping straight to the part where you justify every genocide in history by stating nobody has a right to help the people targeted and that most of them probably weren't even genocides anyway

That's what any real 'war' is, a like for like exchange. Even if it's a 'police action' genuine humanitarian interventions never involve assualts.

I wasn't justifying every genocide in history, most of them really were loads of people being slaughtered, but it's only the triumphant history writers that get to say this was a rebellion and that was a genocide and this was a fight for freedom and that was apolice action. For instance what Germany did was obviously genocide, but wehat Britain did in India that led to the deaths of 80 million people, that wasn't genocide. Why? Because it was for profit? 400 million Africans that made it to the Americas to be slaves, who knows how many times more than that didn't make it in the ships, that wasn't genocide, again why? Because it was in the name of capitalism instead of national socialism?

What is genocide and what is not, when do the kind of people that can raise armies and pay for their operation decide to do so to save the lives of those too weak to save themselves? When do wolves save sheep and for what purpose? Two empires go at it, one has hundreds of millions of bones in it's closet and the others only just started with thirty million or so, when all the dust is settled the empire or alliance of former empires and wanna-be empires and neo-hegemonies that won declare "we have stopped a genocide". That may be so, but to beleive that was their purpose in the first place is bollocks.

What I'm trying to say is that no military intervention has ever been launched to stop a genocide or topple a tyrant because stopping genocide and toppling tyrants is not what the kind of people who militarily intervene are ever interested in. Maybe things should be different but they aren't.

 

[camouflage]

Your analogies don't work because to give your argument the weight it simply does not have, you equate "intervention" with like-for-like retaliatory punishments by those that intervene.

You could have saved yourself the time and effort by missing the first paragraph out and jumping straight to the part where you justify every genocide in history by stating nobody has a right to help the people targeted and that most of them probably weren't even genocides anyway

That's what any real 'war' is, a like for like exchange. Even if it's a 'police action' genuine humanitarian interventions never involve assualts.

I wasn't justifying every genocide in history, most of them really were loads of people being slaughtered, but it's only the triumphant history writers that get to say this was a rebellion and that was a genocide and this was a fight for freedom and that was a police action against taliban. For instance what Germany did was obviously genocide, but what Britain did in India that led to the deaths of 80 million people, that wasn't genocide. Why, because it was done in the name of market fundamentalism? 400 million Africans that made it to the Americas to be slaves, who knows how many times more than that didn't make it in the ships, that wasn't genocide, again why? Because it was in the name of capitalism instead of national socialism?

What is genocide and what is not, when do the kind of people that can raise armies and pay for their operation decide to save the lives of those too weak to save themselves? When do wolves save sheep and for what purpose? Two empires go at it, one has hundreds of millions of bones in it's closet and the other's only just getting started with it's first thirty million or so, when all the dust is settled the empire or alliance of former empires and wanna-be empires and neo-hegemonies that won declare "we have stopped a genocide". That may be so, but to beleive that was their purpose in the first place is bollocks.

What I'm trying to say is that no genocide has ever been stopped by military intervention because stopping genocide is not what the kind of people who militarily intervene are ever interested in. Maybe things should be different but they aren't.

 

[coccinelle]

That's all very well but the UN is powerless to act when one of the big 5 don't want it to act.
I also disagree with what you say about the sovereignty of countries being the most important factor in the world. What about the rights of the people of those countries?

There's no one answer (there rarely is).

The UN has been totally corrupted by the US/Israeli axis IMO but, if the balance of power in the world shifted just a little, the thing might yet begin to work again.

I know it sounds fanciful but I think countries have a destiny to follow: they are growing and changing just like us humans. Look at South Africa. A decade or so ago, it was rich and successful and yet poor and desperate. Now it is a bit of a semi-egalitarian mess. But in a decade or two, it will work its way into a new shape.

The world is shrinking and, in a way, we are becoming citizens of the world. But not yet. At the moment, we are all citizens of discrete countries and we can't assume the personal or national right to force those countries to be as we would like them. That's the mentality of the evangelist, the crusader, the political missionary.

We have to try and do what we can if large numbers of people suffer in another country but we do not have the right to impose our personal will by force of arms.

 

[CyberRose]

That's what any real 'war' is, a like for like exchange. Even if it's a 'police action' genuine humanitarian interventions never involve assualts.

While I agree that when military conflicts occur, it is inevitable that casualties will happen, but I don't think it has to be anywhere near the scale you are trying to portray. If there is a situation where a good majority of the population actually want foreign military intervention (as was the case with Bosnian Muslims), and the oppressors enjoy little popular support, then I would argue that a mere presence of peaceenforcers, of a good number, could resolve a conflict with minimum civilian casualties.

I wasn't justifying every genocide in history, most of them really were loads of people being slaughtered, but it's only the triumphant history writers that get to say this was a rebellion and that was a genocide and this was a fight for freedom and that was a police action against taliban. For instance what Germany did was obviously genocide, but what Britain did in India that led to the deaths of 80 million people, that wasn't genocide. Why, because it was done in the name of market fundamentalism? 400 million Africans that made it to the Americas to be slaves, who knows how many times more than that didn't make it in the ships, that wasn't genocide, again why? Because it was in the name of capitalism instead of national socialism?

Nobody is arguing about the definition of genocide. And what is and what is not considered genocide isn't really relevant to this debate. What is telling tho, is that you yourself have identified certain events you consider wrong. If there were the option to use a military intervention to prevent the slave trade, or to prevent British activities in India, would you not support those measures?

What I'm trying to say is that no genocide has ever been stopped by military intervention because stopping genocide is not what the kind of people who militarily intervene are ever interested in. Maybe things should be different but they aren't.

That's not true. The more powerful countries have "better" things to worry about sure, but look at the usual suspects who volunteer their forces for UN missions. Look at those in Chad now. They'll achieve fuck all because they simply lack the might of the more powerful militaries. Altho thankfully, to me anyway, this is something the EU is hoping to rectify with ESDP. Currently, pretty much the only military forces capable of undertaking large scale military actions with a hope of winning are America and NATO (combined). ESDP, I hope, and probably so do others in the Europeanist (as opposed to Atlanticist) half of the EU, will reproduce NATO but for effective peacekeeping (altho IMO only peaceenforcing will work) missions.

There ARE countries out there willing to send their forces to resolve conflicts that have no benefit to themselves whatsoever, just out of a sense of "right"...

I would be more than happy if British forces were used in this respect, not least because their efforts will be a hell of a lot more effective with the British military on site

 

[CyberRose]

We have to try and do what we can if large numbers of people suffer in another country but we do not have the right to impose our personal will by force of arms.

Nobody has the right to "impose their will" on other nations, and that is what I don't like about neoconservatism. Its not about spreading democracy but about spreading liberal democracy and is therefore about pushing an ideology on nations.

However, like countries should not have the right to impose their will on other countries, governments should not have the right to deny their citizens the most basic of human rights. Where this escalates into a humanitarian crisis I think we are well within our rights to make interventions in that country, reserving as a last resort the option of military intervention

(I also think that countries have the right to military action for genuine security threats to themselves - but talking about that here is pretty pointless, again, its entirely hypothetical so I don't need a long list of conflicts fought on the false pretences of supposed security threats!)

 

[camouflage]

While I agree that when military conflicts occur, it is inevitable that casualties will happen, but I don't think it has to be anywhere near the scale you are trying to portray. If there is a situation where a good majority of the population actually want foreign military intervention (as was the case with Bosnian Muslims), and the oppressors enjoy little popular support, then I would argue that a mere presence of peaceenforcers, of a good number, could resolve a conflict with minimum civilian casualties.


Nobody is arguing about the definition of genocide. And what is and what is not considered genocide isn't really relevant to this debate. What is telling tho, is that you yourself have identified certain events you consider wrong. If there were the option to use a military intervention to prevent the slave trade, or to prevent British activities in India, would you not support those measures?


That's not true. The more powerful countries have "better" things to worry about sure, but look at the usual suspects who volunteer their forces for UN missions. Look at those in Chad now. They'll achieve fuck all because they simply lack the might of the more powerful militaries. Altho thankfully, to me anyway, this is something the EU is hoping to rectify with ESDP. Currently, pretty much the only military forces capable of undertaking large scale military actions with a hope of winning are America and NATO (combined). ESDP, I hope, and probably so do others in the Europeanist (as opposed to Atlanticist) half of the EU, will reproduce NATO but for effective peacekeeping (altho IMO only peaceenforcing will work) missions.

There ARE countries out there willing to send their forces to resolve conflicts that have no benefit to themselves whatsoever, just out of a sense of "right"...

I would be more than happy if British forces were used in this respect, not least because their efforts will be a hell of a lot more effective with the British military on site

 

[CyberRose]

Hey, I'd like to see a little protection for those in the world that are powerless to defend themselves, you're happy to see them rot, I guess we just have a difference of opinion

 

[coccinelle]

If we look at the invasion of Iraq, we see that the reasons given by the neocons and their allies were democracy and the removal of a tyrannical leader who had used WMD on his own people.

The real reasons, of course, were Israel and oil.

Democracy is a smoke-screen. The neo-cons use it against moslem states because Israel is (post ethnic-cleansing) democratic and many moslem states are not democratic (Gaza/Palestine is the 'wrong' sort of democratic). But most moslem states are stable and are well within the normally accepted bounds for civil rights. Some have (by western standards) a long way to go in respect of women but that's because those countries come from a different cultural background.

Julius Nyerere was feted as the father of Modern Africa when he died recently, having ruled Tanzania for more than quarter of a century. But he didn't have elections. You could say he was a 'tyrant' in the Classical sense of ancient Greece:

"The word "tyrant" then carried no ethical censure; it simply referred to anyone who illegally seized executive power in a polis to engage in autocratic, though perhaps benevolent, government, or leadership in a crisis. Support for the tyrants came from the growing class of business people and from the peasants who had no land or were in debt to the wealthy land owners. It is true that they had no legal right to rule, but the people preferred them over kings or the aristocracy. The Greek tyrants stayed in power by using mercenary soldiers from outside of their respective city state." (Wikipedia)

Saddam Hussein may have been a brute but he held together a strong, successful country (which is why Israel saw him as a danger) where most people lived peacefully in relative prosperity, despite the sanctions. He put down two US-inspired uprisings but he used no more force than (say) Putin with the Chechyens. And, if you go back a little in history, you can see how the British handled uprisings in India, Kenya and half a dozen other places.

All I'm saying is that there is no one perfect answer in the world. We in the West are not always right and we shouldn't stand in judgement too readily. Democracy is not always the answer. And people like David Miliband are potentially dangerous.

 

[yield]

Hey, I'd like to see a little protection for those in the world that are powerless to defend themselves, you're happy to see them rot, I guess we just have a difference of opinion

Do you really really believe that? The ethical foreign policy™ is a lie. Just look at Craig Murray. Politicians are only interested in feathering their own nest.

 

[CyberRose]

Do you really really believe that? The ethical foreign policy™ is a lie. Just look at Craig Murray. Politicians are only interested in feathering their own nest.

I'm not saying what IS, I'm saying would SHOULD be...(as, I assume, are you)

 

[Keyser]

If this shit keeps on, sooner or later a large number of other nations will form a "grand alliance" of some kind to halt US/UK global aggression. It'll either be another "cold war" of sorts, or - worse - WW3.

Who could blame them if other countries did form a defensive alliance against the regimes of the US and UK. To see the likes of a country like China in the future giving the USA a taste of it's own medicine (bombings, it's infastructure being reduced to rubble and it's society being blasted to the stone ages, just like the USA did to Iraq and many others) would be poetic justice. A future scenario like that would make the Americans think twice before they scar the world with their dirty hands again.

 

[CyberRose]

To see the likes of a country like China in the future giving the USA a taste of it's own medicine (bombings, it's infastructure being reduced to rubble and it's society being blasted to the stone ages, just like the USA did to Iraq and many others) would be poetic justice

Oh come on, you can't surely mean that?! I honestly don't understand people sometimes. They have strong opinions on the devestating effects wars have but then come out with crap like this. What do you think this is? Like supporting a fucking football team or somethin?!

 

[camouflage]

Hey, I'd like to see a little protection for those in the world that are powerless to defend themselves, you're happy to see them rot, I guess we just have a difference of opinion

You'll fall for the same tricks every goddam time, poor sucker, your own good intentions used for the same blatant crimes time and again...

Doh!

But they said we were fighting to remove a dangerous dictator.

Doh!

But they said we were fighting to deliver the people of <target nation> to democracy.

Doh!

But they said it was a humanitarian intervention.

Doh!

 

[CyberRose]

You'll fall for the same tricks every goddam time, poor sucker, your own good intentions used for the same blatant crimes time and again...

Yet I could make a judgement that even if Saddam was producing WMDs then that still would not constitute a security threat to the UK, so what you said above is blatantly wrong, innit?

 

[nino_savatte]

You'll fall for the same tricks every goddam time, poor sucker, your own good intentions used for the same blatant crimes time and again...

Doh!

But they said we were fighting to remove a dangerous dictator.

Doh!

But they said we were fighting to deliver the people of <target nation> to democracy.

Doh!

But they said it was a humanitarian intervention.

Doh!

I would imagine the same attitude is displayed with regards to crime and punishment. Any suggestion that the penal system should be reformed would be met by a curt "What about the victim"? Then, when you've given him your reply, he pretends not to have noticed it and repeats the question.

 

[SpookyFrank]

it's a bit of a stretch of the word "foster" when it includes tanks and guns. A bit like hitting your kids then.

More like hitting other people's kids. Or indeed just wandering around town twatting random people over the head with a baseball bat and expecting them to be thankful.

 

[poster342002]

I also disagree with what you say about the sovereignty of countries being the most important factor in the world. What about the rights of the people of those countries?

That was Hitler's justification for Sudetanland.