Zimbabwe - Page 2

July 13, 2008, 6:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decado

We're NOT discussing the UN though, thats the problem. We're discussing zimbabwe.

YOU are discussing the UN, because you're studying it. Very good, go study it over there.

Reading comprehension really isn't your thing, is it? Maybe read the opening post a little more carefully there. We ARE talking about the UN when we start discussing interventions with other countries and sanctions.

Quote:

As for your (really nor very smart) when has there been an organisation fo XXX countries?

British Empire. Persian Empire. Macedonian Empire. They all contained (or controlled/were allied with) about the same %age of the world population as the UN does

(granted you may have to disclude one country - china- from the figures, since it accounted for about 25% of the worlds population on its own for a long time)

Still nice try though.

Lulz, you can't differentiate between military alliances, conquered nations, and the United Nations. Fail goes go you, sir.

The United Nations is NOT a military alliance. All of the "empires" you have just mentioned were just countries that were conquered by another larger country. The United Nations is NOTHING like that. That you even compare the two makes you look really ignorant of politics.

Quote:

All i have seen you do is sit there and talk about how the UN should do this and the UN should do that since thats what the UN is for. I didn't see you explain to me, beyond your "omg if you want peoples to die you're evil!" shit, why that interference now will be any different from the FAILED interference of it, and other countries before. Fuck, the UN has tried to do this kind of things before. it SUCKS at it. If thats your big solution, then sorry, but you're blind

OMG bad things are happening, we must fix quick!

Sounds good as a soundbite, makes you seem like a nice person. Totally unworkable though, and doesn't take ANY evidence into account.

I gave plenty of examples of interference not working, where your example of interference leading to a utopia? Beyond your "I know better than you because i study this at college" shit?

Okay, to set something straight: you didn't actually give ANY examples of interference not working. All of the examples you gave were unilateral interferences for political reasons. That is not what the United Nations does. Please understand that. Yes, The United Nations is deeply flawed unfortunately, which I did mention in a previous post. They don't have an army of their own, they don't have a means of enforcing their threats, etc. The most they are doing now is setting up Criminal Courts/Tribunals to try war criminals, which really isn't enough. Personally, I'm not sure how to solve this problem. If I did, I would be at the United Nations right now, wouldn't I? I don't think ANYONE knows how to solve this problem, to be honest. Economic sanctions don't work very well and neither do threats. To be quite honest, I think their best bet is sending in forces that are actually ALLOWED to fire on people. Sadly, sometimes the only thing these dictators understand is force. I can't really give too much of an example of the United Nations interfering because, well, they haven't really. They tend to stay out of it, and then once things have died down, they step in and set up courts or tribunals. It's really unfortunate, but hopefully things will change. Also, I'd like to point out that I've been talking about the UN in generalities somewhat because I'm arguing it's better than just sitting back and doing nothing, which is what you're suggesting. Darling, if you're going to be arrogant, at least have some sort of intelligence or knowledge to back it up. Okay?

July 13, 2008, 6:25 PM

Clear sustained abuses? You mean like, for instance, slavery?

If we were to follow that through to the logical conclusion, the founding fathers should have been thrown out of power, destroying the american economy.

Unlike some other people in here i am not arrogant enough to assume i know how to solve another countries problem, so yes, my solution is not to impose my idea of a good idea onto them.

By all means though guys, feel free to go around screaming about how we must do this and how you know best.

Theres a reason there are no "international police" Every country has its own laws and customs. Some still force women to marry certain men, some make interracial marriage illegal etc etc. The fact is, until about 100 years ago, some things we now consider terrible, were NORMAL even in the west, so that "Oh but we KNOW this is wrong" shit, doesn't really fly. Morals change with every generation, and instead of forcing ours on other people, we should let them take care of it themselves.

Go read the bible. Go read the history of war. Everything you KNOW is bad, has been happening for thousands of years, at time being perfectly acceptable. New king comes into power? Kill everyone who is against him. Mugabe is doing the same thing.

I'm NOT saying its right, im just saying who the fuck are we to judge other people as wrong? I'm not the king of the world here to determine everyone's fate, what makes you guys feel like you are? "Oh, i dont like that, so we should stop it" Isn't a good arguement.

Eryth, i love how instead of providing the evidence i asked for you just went "NO U!" very mature dear

July 13, 2008, 6:31 PM

Lol pure lollage.

Anyway, someone should go in there and assassinate him for crying out loud. Only worry would be if the whole thing would turn out like Iraq has. Urk.

July 13, 2008, 6:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decado

Clear sustained abuses? You mean like, for instance, slavery?

If we were to follow that through to the logical conclusion, the founding fathers should have been thrown out of power, destroying the american economy.

Well, I have GREAT news for you and the American economy: it's not the early 1800s, and the United Nations didn't exist back then, so fear not! The American economy is safe! But yeah, that's a bad example. Mainly because it's so highly irrelevent. You make a good point though. If the United Nations steps in and stops those genocides, they might throw those prosperous African economies into peril. Right? Uhhhh.....

Quote:

Unlike some other people in here i am not arrogant enough to assume i know how to solve another countries problem, so yes, my solution is not to impose my idea of a good idea onto them.

By all means though guys, feel free to go around screaming about how we must do this and how you know best.

Theres a reason there are no "international police" Every country has its own laws and customs. Some still force women to marry certain men, some make interracial marriage illegal etc etc. The fact is, until about 100 years ago, some things we now consider terrible, were NORMAL even in the west, so that "Oh but we KNOW this is wrong" shit, doesn't really fly. Morals change with every generation, and instead of forcing ours on other people, we should let them take care of it themselves.

Okay, I actually don't expect you to know this, because it's not really common knowledge, but there are different views of the international system. What you have in mind is called national security. National security is mainly concerned with, well, national issues such as the nation's security. What the United Nations protects is human security. Human security is NOT national security. Human security does not have national boundaries; unlike national security, the focus is not the security of the state, but security of people. The two are completely separate. Why? Because in some nations, the governments are the ones who threaten the security of their civilians. This means it is no longer a national security issue. It is a human security issue, and due to recent international law, the United Nations can get involved. Understand: the United Nations is not interested in national issues in these sorts of cases. This transcends the issue of national borders. The United Nations is only interested in protecting human security. Also, have you even been paying ATTENTION to this? This isn't a boohoo, their culture is slightly different, so we're going to slap a sanction on their ass deal. I'm sorry, but last time I checked, the slaughter, torture, wrongful imprisonment, rape, and maiming of civilians isn't a part of ANYONE'S culture, nor should it be tolerated ANYWHERE. This isn't some sort of grey area issue we're dealing with. It's incredible that you would even suggest that we're holding our western standards to it. I'm not ethnocentric by any means, so just...wow.

Quote:

Go read the bible. Go read the history of war. Everything you KNOW is bad, has been happening for thousands of years, at time being perfectly acceptable. New king comes into power? Kill everyone who is against him. Mugabe is doing the same thing.

I'm NOT saying its right, im just saying who the fuck are we to judge other people as wrong? I'm not the king of the world here to determine everyone's fate, what makes you guys feel like you are? "Oh, i dont like that, so we should stop it" Isn't a good arguement.

Eryth, i love how instead of providing the evidence i asked for you just went "NO U!" very mature dear

How about the law? Is that good enough for you? If not, how about common human morals? While cultures are different, there are some things that tend to be wrong in every culture. For instance, murder. You think the Zimbabweans are cool with all of this? You honestly think they're like, "well this is totally part of our culture, so this is fine." Um, hell no. PS, you're kind of coming off as a racist. African countries aren't completely chaotic and lawless places, you know. Mugabe was initially democratically elected. It isn't like it's part of Zimbabwe's culture to decide their leader in a fight to the death in the ring of fire. But do go on, any other hideous misconceptions of other cultures you'd like to share?

I don't really have substantial evidence that interference before atrocities happen works because...well, it hasn't really happened yet. The criminal courts afterwards, however, have been fairly successful. And the United Nations IS getting better. While in the past, it's mostly been cases of victor's justice, the court for Sierra Leone indicted war criminals from BOTH sides. It wasn't just picking and choosing. However, I'd argue that international criminal justice just isn't enough to promote human security. That's why I believe in the UN should have an army that is allowed to fire upon people. Just look at what happened when NATO used military force in the former Yugoslavia. Fighting stopped. The UN and global community has a LONG way to go, yes, but attempting to stop atrocities or at least promote justice and reconciliation after they've occurred is a better idea than sitting there and doing nothing. You're probably going to want to know why, so I won't keep you in suspense: revenge killings. For more on this, see Rwanda

July 13, 2008, 7:08 PM

LMAO i'm the racist? You're the one sitting here like "Dumb africans can't help themselves, we need to go fix their fuck ups!"

I'm the one saying they can solve their own issues, and im the racist? Awesome, you're not mccarthyist at all eryth.

Way to try to twist my point. The point i was making is that this kind of thing has happened THROUGHOUT HISTORY without it requiring any world fucking police to be formed and step in. It sorted itself out WITHOUT the UN. Imagine that. Fuck, the way you're talking if the UN wasn't there, humaity itself would EEEEEEND!

And eh, i suggest you check your facts a bit better. It was the yugoslav security forces who overthrew milosevic. The UN were sticking, more or less, to kosovo

Guess what happened there. Asshole ruler claims he won the elections, country goes "eh what?" And overthrows him without people like you calling them useless shit who can't do anything for themselves

Now onto your "common laws" shit. Lets see.

Rulers have the power to decide what a crime is? Check.
Rulers have the power to punish criminals? Check.

There you go, two common laws Mugabe is using. the problem YOU have is the laws he is punishing eople for breaking aren't laws YOU agree with.

Otherwise, you should be campaigning for amewrica to be invaded by the UN. The US has the death penalty, therfor bush ordered those death. By your token thats murder, so eh, why aren't we assassinating any country whose leader condones the death penalty?

Oh and keep the "OMG YOU WANTS TO MURDER BABIES!" shit out of your post, argue the points please, dont try to make this degenerate into OMG YOU WANTS PEOPLES TO DIEZ!!!!!

July 13, 2008, 7:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decado

LMAO i'm the racist? You're the one sitting here like "Dumb africans can't help themselves, we need to go fix their fuck ups!"

I'm the one saying they can solve their own issues, and im the racist? Awesome, you're not mccarthyist at all eryth.

Wow, I almost don't recall saying that. It's amazing. It's almost as if you a) don't read what I say or b) read it and retain absolutely no knowledge. I didn't say Africans need our help. When human security is threatened-- which it has been in Africa, South Asia, and Eastern Europe-- the United Nations (which is, gasp, comprised of a VARIETY of countries) should step in and do something. You're talking as if this sort of behavior-- the crimes I've been talking about-- is common practice in these cultures. Which it is not.

Quote:

Way to try to twist my point. The point i was making is that this kind of thing has happened THROUGHOUT HISTORY without it requiring any world fucking police to be formed and step in. It sorted itself out WITHOUT the UN. Imagine that. Fuck, the way you're talking if the UN wasn't there, humaity itself would EEEEEEND!

No, life as we know it would not end, but excuse me if I want to prevent millions of deaths. I never said, nor did I imply, that the United Nations is inherent to humanity's survival. But I believe that when human security is threatened, the UN should respond accordingly. People throughout history also didn't have toilets. Should we go back to shitting in the woods?

Quote:

And eh, i suggest you check your facts a bit better. It was the yugoslav security forces who overthrew milosevic. The UN were sticking, more or less, to kosovo

NATO is not the United Nations, fyi. And my facts are just fine. I don't mean to say that NATO came in, used military force, and suddenly everyone laid down their weapons and braided flowers into each other's hair. But it certainly stopped some fighting, especially compared with what the United Nations was doing.

Quote:

Guess what happened there. Asshole ruler claims he won the elections, country goes "eh what?" And overthrows him without people like you calling them useless shit who can't do anything for themselves

Okay, I really hope you aren't talking about the former Yugoslavia here. If so, you're sadly misinformed. Yugoslavia was a racially and religiously fueled problem between the Serbs, the Croats, Albanians, Muslims, Christians, etc. Remember that Cold War I mentioned? When the USSR broke up, everything went all to hell. I could go into details, but honestly, I think it would be a waste of time.

Quote:

Now onto your "common laws" shit. Lets see.

Rulers have the power to decide what a crime is? Check.
Rulers have the power to punish criminals? Check.

There you go, two common laws Mugabe is using. the problem YOU have is the laws he is punishing eople for breaking aren't laws YOU agree with.

NO. Oh my god, what do I have to do to make you understand this? There are INTERNATIONAL laws. They are WRITTEN DOWN. They were formed after the Tokyo and Nuremberg trials. This isn't about what *I* agree with, this is a case of international LAW that actually exists. And before you start bawwing about western nations applying their standards to other nations, one of the nations that brought this law into existence WAS western-- GERMANY. International law EXISTS. WHY does it exist? I bring back the idea of human security versus national security. Some nations CLEARLY do not protect their own civilians-- in fact they sometimes do just the opposite-- and so INTERNATIONAL LAW (which exists, I ASSURE you) must protect human security.

Quote:

Otherwise, you should be campaigning for amewrica to be invaded by the UN. The US has the death penalty, therfor bush ordered those death. By your token thats murder, so eh, why aren't we assassinating any country whose leader condones the death penalty?

Oh and keep the "OMG YOU WANTS TO MURDER BABIES!" shit out of your post, argue the points please, dont try to make this degenerate into OMG YOU WANTS PEOPLES TO DIEZ!!!!!

...No. The death penalty does not count as a war crime, a crime against humanity, or genocide. Criminals who have committed a crime and are put to death are different from civilians (KEYWORD HERE) who are murdered. Abu Ghraib? That's a legitimate example of a war crime. Should the members of army who carried it out be prosecuted? Yes. They were, as far as I understand, but the sentences were pathetic. That is a definite example of victor's justice, and I really have a problem with it. I do think that the United Nations is hypocritical and far from perfect. But, as I've said a million times before, it is preferable to nothing.

This is the last time I'm going to respond to this thread tonight. I'm not trying to be condescending here, but I wouldn't suggest replying. You're just coming off as completely ignorant. You don't understand international law, the United Nations, or even what constitutes a war crime/crime against humanity/genocide. You're just kind of flailing around, using hyperbole in a desperate attempt to get your non-existent point across. I know, you really want to prove me wrong, or whatever, but just...stop. It's just kind of embarrassing for you x_x

July 13, 2008, 7:55 PM

Quote:

INTERNATIONAL LAW (which exists, I ASSURE you) must protect human security.

You mean like the UN bill of childrens rights that the UNITED STATES refuses to ratify? International laws like that?

Those laws that everyone is meant to follow laws? Why isn't the US doing it then? Why aren't you advocating the assassination of dubya? He's not following international law either. QUICK, GET HIM!

Now, onto yugoslav:

Milošević's rejection of claims of a first-round opposition victory in new elections for the Federal presidency in September 2000 led to mass demonstrations in Belgrade on October 5 and the collapse of the regime's authority. The opposition's candidate, Vojislav Koštunica took office as Yugoslav president on October 6, 2000. On Saturday, March 31, 2001, Milošević surrendered to Yugoslav security forces from his home in Belgrade, following a recent warrant for his arrest on charges of abuse of power and corruption.

There you go, thats what happened in yugoslavia that im talking about. I love how your repsone to it was "LOL YOU IS WRONG, BUT IM NOT TELLING YOU HOW, LOL U IS EMBARASSING SELF!"

Very mature. I asked for eivdence, you provided that, i countered it, and your reply is "LOLS i hope you dont mean that cuz you wrong lols" and I'M the one flailing around with hyperbole? Very good.

Just because you say something over and over doesn't make it right.

I've provided evidence of this shit happening throught history and solving itself, i also provided evidence of occasions where other countries involvement only served to make the long term problem worse.

Your response to this is what "They didnt have toilets"? Fuck sake, please PLEASE provide proper arguements and stop your "LOL I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU SO I DONT HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE!" crap.

If you know your way is best PROVIDE EVIDENCE. If not, you DON'T know your way is best, you just THINK it is, and sorry, but your opinion isn't fact, as much as you think it is darling

July 13, 2008, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decado

Unlike some other people in here i am not arrogant enough to assume i know how to solve another countries problem, so yes, my solution is not to impose my idea of a good idea onto them.

By all means though guys, feel free to go around screaming about how we must do this and how you know best.

Theres a reason there are no "international police" Every country has its own laws and customs. Some still force women to marry certain men, some make interracial marriage illegal etc etc. The fact is, until about 100 years ago, some things we now consider terrible, were NORMAL even in the west, so that "Oh but we KNOW this is wrong" shit, doesn't really fly. Morals change with every generation, and instead of forcing ours on other people, we should let them take care of it themselves.

Go read the bible. Go read the history of war. Everything you KNOW is bad, has been happening for thousands of years, at time being perfectly acceptable. New king comes into power? Kill everyone who is against him. Mugabe is doing the same thing.

I'm NOT saying its right, im just saying who the fuck are we to judge other people as wrong? I'm not the king of the world here to determine everyone's fate, what makes you guys feel like you are? "Oh, I don't like that, so we should stop it" Isn't a good argument.

So, we shouldn't impose our morality and ideals upon others? I don't subscribe to that. When it comes to some things, we should try to do what we think is right. If we don't, then who are we?
Living conditions in the developed world are superior to those in the developing world, obviously. Are our morals not evidently superior to those exhibited by tyrannical regimes? Should we not ACT upon our morals? To show Africa that we care? Because we can?

History has been forged by nations and ideologies triumphing over others. And so it should continue to be so. To think that we are in no place to judge what goes on in Africa, hah. We are. It is obvious that people are suffering in many countries, against their own will. Isn't giving aid imposing our morals upon other people?

It's called progress. Progress was never made by sitting back and doing nothing.

The reason that certain humanitarian interventions didn't work, was because they weren't planned and executed properly. Naturally, those of the old ZANU-PF regime would condemn any foreign intervention as "nu-imperialism". There is, of course, a majority in Zimbabwe opposed to the current government. It is clear that Zimbabwe has violated its people's rights countless times. The mission would be to liberate Zimbabwe from its oppressive government. Propaganda; aid; gradual shifts in power; and a minimal military presence would then be used to gain the trust and support of the Zimbabwean population. Problem in Iraq is that the population is highly sectarian and religious, and large groups of its population hate each other. If this is to be solved without any side gaining domination and oppressing the other, a negotiation of territory will probably be neccessary.