Zimbabwe - Page 5

July 14, 2008, 3:42 PM

I can't give you evidence about what would happen if there was an intervention. There hasn't really been a precedent.
However, he is a dictator.
Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Dictattors generally have to be removed by force.
An example of where this didn't happen, due to his anti-communist ways is 'Papa Doc' AKA Francois Duvalier. His son followed him into the Presidency He ruled the same way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Duvalier

This is what Mugabe is doing.

South Africa and in particular Mbeki (who is a lame duck president) are negotiating power-sharing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...U&refer=africa
But nothing is happening. It is not resolving the situation.

Quote:

On another happier note, anyone see how the Sudanese president was formerly charged with genocide today? Fuck yeah

The president of Sudan has been charged with genocide, he has all ready killed over 200,000 people.
China, which is part of the security council has been supplying the Sudanese government.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...i43iNy67wJ1fxg
Which shows that sanctions don't work.

July 14, 2008, 3:50 PM

Placebo, no one is saying dictators aren't bad people. But look at, for instance, Milosevic in yugoslav. The people removed him.

Unfortunately none of your examples of dictators being removed happened long enough ago for us to see the long-term issues.

An interesting exercise might be for you to look for dictators who were deposed by their people, and not the UN, and compare how those countries are doing compared to the countries you just named.

I'm genuinely interested in whether or not what you discover might change you mind. Clearly me presenting you with my evidence doesn't, hopefull you checking and finding it out for yourself will?

Anyways, i have busy work to be doing, so you guys can discuss things amongst yourselves - Remember, posting evidence = good. Saying things liek "You are the master of shit" = bad. Good luck with the debating ^.^

July 14, 2008, 3:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decado

Just to clarify though. If you provide two conflicts as evidence of nations laying down arms as soon as a foreign military force comes in, and someone else points out that wasn't what happened in those conflicts, that means your "evidence" Is inadmissable. Hope that clears things up.

Pied, i completely agree with what happened in Operation Provide Comfort, which was military protection of refugees, that however is NOT what you are suggesting. Can i ask that you provide evidence of the effectiveness of YOUR suggestion, and not an unrelated plan of action? Thanks

As i said in my earlier posts, people have the choice of running, fighting back, or subterfuge. I have no problems with a foreign power protecting those who choose to run from the situation, just to clarify

An unrelated plan of action? I was thinking of a related plan of action. Mostly local African forces, alongside fewer forces from other continents, launch an operation to depose Mugabe there, with UN funds(after some extra training, of course), or Mugabe is assassinated. Fresh elections would be held, a contingency of troops would remain to minimise politicial violence, etc, then pull out. Many people are saved from the oppressive ZANU-PF regime. Zimbabwe has peaceful, unrigged elections, and the population is assured that it is not under foreign occupation, but that democracy has been restored, and that Zimbabwean sovereignty has not been compromised. Long-term measures are taken to secure peace in the South African region. The main issue would be that many Zimabweans would see it as foreign imperialism. They would have to be shown otherwise. Thus the much higher ratio of African forces.
Perhaps whatever rebel groups there are in Zimbabwe could also be counted on.

Protecting refugees is still intervention. It still changes the course of history.

July 14, 2008, 4:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decado

Eyth can you provide me with links to your sources so i can check that stuff please?

I always get concerned when people just quote little bits instead of the whole thing

Unfortunately for you, I don't get my sources from wikipedia. The quotes I took are from an article called, "The United Nations, regional organisations and human security: building theroy in Central America" by S. Neil Mc Farlane and Thomas G Weiss. My other sources are, um, knowledge of history.

Quote:

Also from reading your post it looks like what you're saying is that, in the first two cases, the UN done a poor job?

They certainly didn't do the best job, but it was better than nothing. That much is clear.

Quote:

Also i'm pretty sure i just showed that the final resoluation to the yugoslav conflict was brought about by *themselves* WITHOUT any UN interaction?

I'm pretty sure you didn't. At all. It was the influence of the UN and NATO that helped end the fighting in the former Yugoslavia. If they hadn't intervened, it is more than likely that ethnic violence would have continued. Like I said, by 1996, 75 war criminals were indicted. The United Nations was looking to indict Milosevic, and finally, with the help of local authorities, got their hands on him. If you think that the UN and NATO's presence didn't help to alleviate tensions for civilians and quash a lot of violence, which made protests POSSIBLE, you're naive.

Quote:

Also, civil was is STILL going on in rwanda, UN involvement clearly HAS NOT resolved the conflict. Where on earth did you get the idea it had?

Oh. my. god.

What the HELL are you talking about? It is NOT still going on. Maybe you're thinking of Darfur or something? Rwanda is now a relatively stable African country. You really are embarrassing yourself.

And since I know you won't believe me, here, just for you, copied from wikipedia: "Rwanda today struggles to heal and rebuild, but shows signs of rapid development. Some Rwandans continue to grapple with the legacy of almost 60 years of intermittent war. One agent in Rwanda's rebuilding effort is the Benebikira Sisters, a Catholic order of nuns whose ministry is dedicated to education and healthcare. Since the genocide, the Sisters have housed and supported hundreds of orphans, and created and staffed schools to educate the next generation of Rwandans." IT IS NOT STILL GOING ON. How can you even ARGUE about this if you don't know ANY of your facts? Holy god.

Quote:

So lets sum this up shall we.

Rwanda is a hell hole even after UN involvement. The Yugoslavs solved their problem on their own and... your last example of east timor? I think if you check, you'll see that there are currently Australian troops in there... Doesnt that prove my point about interference not helping? (REGARDLESS OF ITS SOURCE the thread isn't "what should the UN do in zimbabwe", it's what should be done, period. If you want to discuss the effictiveness of the UN, start a new thread.)

No, it's actually not. It's doing very well given that it just came out of a horrible genocide. Were you paying attention at all? Yugoslavia did not solve their own problems. The UN got involved in 1993. Due to NATO and UN interference, the violence stopped. One could argue it was more due to NATO's interference. And East Timor does not WANT help so the UN didn't bother. Also, this ties in to Zimbabwe, because to see if something will be effective, you must look at empirical proof. I honestly don't think sanctions will work, but I think some sort of dialogue needs to be opened between him and the United Nations. Things cannot continue how they are.

Quote:

Anyway, can i see the sources where you got your quotes, and where you got the Idea that the rwana situation is fixed? Or can you show me where UN military intervention is what got milosevic out of office, because if you can't im pretty sure thats evidence for MY point, no?

Gave you the source. It wasn't UN military intervention, it was NATO military intervention. They are not the same organization. It's...kind of common knowledge, to be honest. But okay, here's something from wiki: "When NATO agreed Kosovo would be politically supervised by the United Nations, and that there would be no independence referendum for three years (the main objective of NATO was to have a vote on independence), the Yugoslav government agreed to withdraw its forces from Kosovo, under strong diplomatic initiative from Russia, and the bombing suspended on 10 June. The war ended June 11, and Russian paratroopers seized Slatina airport to become the first peacekeeping force in the war zone.[18] As British troops were still massed on the Macedonian border, planning to enter Kosovo at 5 am, the Serbs were hailing the Russian arrival as proof the war was a UN operation, not a NATO operation. After hostilities ended, on 12 June the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne, 2-505th Parachute Infantry Regiment entered war-torn Kosovo as part of Operation Joint Guardian. The outcome, as far as Air Power was concerned was less than successful. It seems that Serbian concerns of the regimes instability, and the threat of a possible NATO ground invasion, is ultimately what caused the Serbian withdrawal"

There. Happy? NATO intervention helped end some fighting.

July 14, 2008, 4:27 PM

Pied, going by your first post, you said you thought Mugabe should be assassinated? I was under the impression that was your plan of action.

If you just think that fleeing refugees should be protected and nothing more (no invasion, no assassinations etc) Then i agree with that plan of action. Giving people a safe haven doesnt strike me as intervention.

Eryth: I'm not saying that NATO didn't have a part in controlling the conflict, what i am saying is it was *ended* by thte yugoslavs themselves. Not to mention it's another one of those situations where we won't see the long term effects for years upon years.

Also your "knowledge of history" Is not a source. Sorry. I do plan on looking up that article you cited though, no doubt i'll make a post with some stuff on that later

EDIT: Can you confirm that http://scilib.univ.kiev.ua/doc.php?5859407 Is the correct source?

(seems intersting by the way. Slightly biased source since it just examines HOW this should be done, rather than WHETHER it should be done, even so, interesting read.)

Also, if you checked my previous post, i corrected my ererors on rwanda before you posted. Something i told you on MSN before you finished your post. I guess that would have made your post much less interesting though *shrugs*

Just thought i'd stop by and make those points, not long ass speech from me this time

July 14, 2008, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piedmon

In this situation, it would be acting upon which that we full well know is wrong. The torture and slaughter of millions of innocent civilians for not voting a particular way. We can either stop it now, or we can just sit on our backsides and not do what we believe is the "right" thing to do. It is political oppression, not some obscure part of Zimbabwean culture.

And I'm saying that what we believe to be right is not always the right thing--"right" and "wrong" do not exist--how can you act on something that has no such value? Do you go and convert people to Christianity because you believe it's the right thing to do because they'll go to hell if they don't? Do you act on that because you believe it's the "right" thing to do if you were Christian? You may believe it's right, but at the same time, you would be practicing intolerance. How other people choose to lead their lives is none of our business--in the case of other countries, it's not any of our business how they want to be run--if they want to have polygamy, and it's none of our business, since we don't have that here, then leave them alone; that's their business, not ours. Do you really think you'll be changing the world if you make people agree with your own selfish morals, who don't even understand them? It changes nothing; all it does is breed misunderstanding.

Quote:

If no-one acted in such a way, there would be no such thing as progress.

And yet, it is also true that progress cannot happen unless you have the patience to wait--there are things you can't do sometimes, and not doing anything sometimes is the best thing to do. It probably seems counter intuitive to you, but I've seen other things work much better than intuition.

Quote:

What we can control is damage, and count on the support of the oppressed Zimbabwean masses, so long as we gain their trust. You cannot control the laws of Physics(yet), but you can send rockets into space. You cannot control the minds of Mugabe's loyal ZANU-PF thugs, yet you can depose them from power, and destroy them if neccessary. You can liberate Zimbabwe from Mugabe. Some people's minds will not change no matter what, and some are so hell-bent on destroying the lives of others. Yet they are most often delusional, and blind to the truth. Kill murdering scumbags like that, and you save countless lives. I doubt anyone wants to be killed by a gang of thugs.

You can't gain their trust if their goals are different from yours--they might just as well not understand your morals, and why you choose to have control over the damages you choose to do in their country. You may believe you have "control" over how much damage you do, but you cannot control the outcome.

Quote:

"Oh, you can't change their way of thinking!" Still, you can stop them, through the legal process, vigilante action, or on the battlefield. See the logic there? Kill one, save countless others.

And you assume that these people would agree with it, or that you even know what they are thinking? You kill them, and the people who think the same way don't change what they think; they may fear you, but it changes nothing, and even worse, you don't know any of the people who think the same way, but don't react the same way. By killing those people, you have just upset some people in a country you don't even understand, possibly confused them, and made some new enemies. Congratulations.

For the rest of the people in this thread: Please, please, please try not to get too emotional. I know you might feel strongly about your arguments, but try to leave the insults out of them; it does little for the strength of your arguments. You may pick apart the arguments themselves, but refrain from picking at the debater himself.

July 18, 2008, 12:10 AM

*makes a delayed reply*

Would it be right not to act? We can act on what we know. We know that the Zimbabwean government is oppressing its people. We know that it's breaking international law. We can try to make a difference. We can plan to make it work. We can allow for operational flexibility if it is needed, to adjust to anything underestimated or that we were not even previously aware of. Hypothetically, it can work. We can come to an understanding of a particular nation, and in this case, we can understand that Zimbabwe's rulers are oppressive scum, who have screwed up their nation beyond belief.

No, there is no absolute "right" and "wrong", but there is relative morality, and there are different perspectives of such. We can assert the judgement of the global community, and try to do what we think is right, and act upon that which we feel strongly about. Even relatively, the actions of Mugabe's government and its supporters are anti-human, and in violation of international law. On both legal and moral grounds, we must act.
The Zimbabwean people will thank us, so long as we do it right. It is not saying that we are better than the Zimbabwean people, it is saying that such atrocities are unacceptable, and it is liberating them from the grip of tyranny. Most Zimbabweans are too scared to speak their minds, let alone vote the wrong way, for fear of being raped, mutilated, and killed by thugs. The Zimbabwean population does not want that.

July 18, 2008, 4:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piedmon

*makes a delayed reply*

Would it be right not to act? We can act on what we know. We know that the Zimbabwean government is oppressing its people. We know that it's breaking international law. We can try to make a difference. We can plan to make it work. We can allow for operational flexibility if it is needed, to adjust to anything underestimated or that we were not even previously aware of. Hypothetically, it can work. We can come to an understanding of a particular nation, and in this case, we can understand that Zimbabwe's rulers are oppressive scum, who have screwed up their nation beyond belief.

I did not say it was right not to act, only that I accept that as being my position. However, it's kind of pointless to justify an action based off of a subjective moral because it can never have the "right" or "wrong" value attached to it the same way an objective fact can.

It's hilarious though. Decado pointed out in the shoutbox that the US also breaks international law, and yet, it seems they're not in need of "fixing"--or am I wrong about that?

I digress though. You may know that a government is oppressing its people, just as you may see someone beating up someone else, but would you know why? Could it be that someone is being beaten up because they were shooting a film and you missed the cameramen or the sign, and not because there really was someone being beaten up? We often do not understand why people are the way they are, and why they accept morals different from our own. This difference is the reason why we are not obligated to act on other people who think and live differently from us--to do so is to assume that we know these things, when we do not. But your opinion is only based on what you know; not the reasons for what you know; saying the government is oppresing people and concluding that the government is scum are separate; one is an opinion, and the other is fact--you must concede that you are not acting on fact, but on your own opinion. You cannot come to an understanding if you will act before you see and act on an opinion that others either do not accept or do not share with you--it would be selfish.

Quote:

No, there is no absolute "right" and "wrong", but there is relative morality, and there are different perspectives of such. We can assert the judgement of the global community, and try to do what we think is right, and act upon that which we feel strongly about. Even relatively, the actions of Mugabe's government and its supporters are anti-human, and in violation of international law. On both legal and moral grounds, we must act.

And that is selfishness in and of itself because what you believe to be right is a belief not necessarily shared by others, and to assert what you believe to be right is to force others to think or pretend to think the same as you, and you strip others of what they believe and what they value. I appreciate that people think differently from me; I may not understand them, but I have no right to intrude on what they do, so long as they do not harm me. I do not think that there is ever a "moral ground" where we must act upon others if they do not share the same ones as we do.

Quote:

The Zimbabwean people will thank us, so long as we do it right. It is not saying that we are better than the Zimbabwean people, it is saying that such atrocities are unacceptable, and it is liberating them from the grip of tyranny. Most Zimbabweans are too scared to speak their minds, let alone vote the wrong way, for fear of being raped, mutilated, and killed by thugs. The Zimbabwean population does not want that.

What you say is an assumption that you know what these people are thinking, but you will have to concede that you do not. Just because you do what you believe to be right doesn't mean people will see it; it may be sad that there are people that refuse to see it, and maybe some that just don't understand it, but you cannot assume to know how others think, and then conclude that they must appreciate you for doing the "right" thing--otherwise you are treating people who have an entirely different way of thinking, living and who desire different things no different from the people that share the same morals and values as you--which is much a fallacy. Funny though. You admit that most of these people are too afraid to speak their minds, and yet you assume to know what they will do. But if they are too afraid to speak their minds, then no one knows what they are thinking, and you must admit you do not know what is in their minds. You cannot claim to know what the Zimbabwean population wants if they will not speak their minds.