Zimbabwe

[Donald Trump]

Nasty little country with a nasty leader. We all know what Bobby has been doing to his citizens and that he has been doing it a long time now. He is now forcing people to drink fertiliser, which basically burns all their organs and they die an excruciatingly painful death. But enough about that.
What do you think should be done?
Military intervention, and please no pathetic jokes about oil,
Economic sanctions,
Let Mbeki/Zuma negotiate,
or nothing.
Anyway say what you think could and should happen in Zimbabwe.

 

[Zelpa]

I say they hire a few "Private Government Contractors" aka Mercenaries to get in there and get the job done. That should take care of the problem, in and out.

 

[Soul Saver]

Quite frankly, this genocide has gone far enough. Mugabe and his party are scum. No matter what the consequences are in South Africa, the cost and aftermath of taking military action would be much lower than those of allowing Mugabe to stand testament to a victory of tyranny over peace and freedom.
However, the biggest concern is how such action could be conducted. Some politicians at home might not care, but there is sufficient reason to care about such. Zimbabwe's neighbour states should be pushed to take action, and be supplied with the the hardware and funds neccessary for a successful toppling of Mugabe. A direct western intervention would confirm the ZANU-PF's message, and thus local nations are the only nations which can do something about it. Rebellion from inside the regime, I don't know.
Mugabe is a brutal, cheating bastard who needs to be shot ASAP. If he were to die in office, that would be an ultimate victory for him.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Nasty little country with a nasty leader. We all know what Bobby has been doing to his citizens and that he has been doing it a long time now. He is now forcing people to drink fertiliser, which basically burns all their organs and they die an excruciatingly painful death. But enough about that.
What do you think should be done?
Military intervention, and please no pathetic jokes about oil,
Economic sanctions,
Let Mbeki/Zuma negotiate,
or nothing.
Anyway say what you think could and should happen in Zimbabwe.

I think you and me(and Piedmon if he wants) should all dress up as Rambo and wreck havoc on that bastard. .

Honestly I don't know what should be done. An assassination and quick installment of democracy perhaps?

- Kuja

 

[Deleted member 176]

Nothing.

You can't save people, they have to save themselves.

This sort of thing has happened throughout history, all that happens is one dictator is replaced by another. Look at iran in '59, where the US deposed the democratically elected leader because his policies didn't agree with theirs... see how that turned out?

The fact of the matter is that if people get involved, everyones own agenda comes up. Let countries rule themselves. By the token of you guys, europe should have assassinated the founding fathers for their silent permission of the slave trade for years. If we go around judging everyone and killing those who don't fit with our standards, we run the risk of becoming just like them.

Unless they start threatening other countries, we should stay well out of it, and trust the people to rebel if its neccessary.

Democracy doesn't work anyway. It just comes down to who can brainwash the idiots the best. (since 50% of the country, statistically, are idiots)

 

[Erythritol]

Nothing.

You can't save people, they have to save themselves.

This sort of thing has happened throughout history, all that happens is one dictator is replaced by another. Look at iran in '59, where the US deposed the democratically elected leader because his policies didn't agree with theirs... see how that turned out?

The fact of the matter is that if people get involved, everyones own agenda comes up. Let countries rule themselves. By the token of you guys, europe should have assassinated the founding fathers for their silent permission of the slave trade for years. If we go around judging everyone and killing those who don't fit with our standards, we run the risk of becoming just like them.

Unless they start threatening other countries, we should stay well out of it, and trust the people to rebel if its neccessary.

Democracy doesn't work anyway. It just comes down to who can brainwash the idiots the best. (since 50% of the country, statistically, are idiots)

Okay, what I think you're missing here is that war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are all international crimes. This means that, yes, other countries CAN legally get involved. Other countries have the duty to get involved and end those crimes. The real problem is that the UN, the organization through which countries are supposed to stop these crimes, is largely powerless. The only viable options are threats and sanctions. The UN doesn't really have an army of its own, and the forces that they DO send to other nations aren't allowed to fire upon others unless they are attacked. The P5 recently voted to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, but Russia voted against it, claiming it would be meddling. This isn't about democracy. Mugabe was NOT democratically elected. He is guilty of crimes against humanity. I personally think that the UN doesn't get involved enough. They sat back and allowed Rwanda happen, they let Cambodia happen, they let East Timor happen, and they recently let Darfur happen. When are they going to actually get their act together and DO something? I think they need to get involved in Zimbabwe before the situation gets worse.

 

[Deleted member 176]

I'm not talking about the legality of it here, i'm talking about our predeliction for trying to change the course of things.

Go read any history book, it's absolutely full of genocide and war crimes, go read how often a knight in shining armour came to save people then. Didn't happen.

Fact is that the people either learned to fight, they learned to run, or they learned to overthrow by subterfuge.

Whenever we try to "help" it backfires. Take a look at afgahnistan. Oh noes, the evil russians are going to wipe out the poor afgahsn, lets give them weapons.
Forward 20 years
Oh shit, the afgahns are killing us with our own weapons.

Seriously, this platform of "They're doing something wrong, lets get them!" Cannot work. Where do we stop deciding who is doing something wrong? It starts out with war crimes. Then someone points out hey, racism is bad too. Next thing you know, its sexism. Suddenly the entire world is expected to share the values of the west and anyone who doesnt gets blown up to "protect that countries citizens"

It's not a sustainable solution, and it's not one we should be looking at.

Go look at any empire in history. Look far enough back and you'll find genocide, you'll find war crimes, they didn't last. They never do.

Sure it sucks for people born in zimbabwe, but fuck, more people die of TB, of starvation, or water-born diseases every month than the entire fucking population of zimbabwe, and we don't need to kill anyone to fix them! We just need to take some of the money that we use to fly around in lear jets and stayin 5 star hotels, and give it to some people to grow crops and dig wells.

If you're going to pull the "oh poor them" card, you need to get your priorities straight. People are very good at getting blindsided.

Oh look, theres a bad guy we can hate! Lets get him and forget all about the millions of people dying over there! Quick! KILL THE BAD GUY!

Thats not a dig at anyone personally, thats just how our minds work, and unless it's something you absolutely know, it's how you'll think.

 

[Erythritol]

I'm not talking about the legality of it here, i'm talking about our predeliction for trying to change the course of things.

Go read any history book, it's absolutely full of genocide and war crimes, go read how often a knight in shining armour came to save people then. Didn't happen.

Interesting. I also don't remember reading about any sort of giant organization comprised of 192 independent nations. You know, kind of like the United Nations. Do you remember such a thing? Well, regardless, such an organization exists now. Interestingly enough, one of their main objectives is to prevent things such as genocides, war crimes, and crimes against humanity from occurring.

Fact is that the people either learned to fight, they learned to run, or they learned to overthrow by subterfuge.

Learned to fight or run, huh? You mean like in Rwanda when the Hutus set up roadblocks everywhere and slaughtered men, women, and children with machetes because of their ethnic background? You know, the genocide that the world completely ignored, the one where when all was said and done, close to a million people were dead? Should the women and children who were raped and hacked to death have learned to fight more efficiently? Run away from the mobs of Hutus? Get real.

Whenever we try to "help" it backfires. Take a look at afgahnistan. Oh noes, the evil russians are going to wipe out the poor afgahsn, lets give them weapons.
Forward 20 years
Oh shit, the afgahns are killing us with our own weapons.

Oh god, your grasp of politics makes me lol so hard. So, there was this thing went on from the 1950s to about 1989...it was called the COLD WAR. Maybe you've heard of it? See the funny thing is, the two countries involved-- the United States and USSR-- never directly fought. Instead, it was done through different international 'stages'. Afghanistan is a good example. The United States didn't give a shit about the Afghani people. We were more concerned about the USSR gaining power there, which would be a threat to America. America was extremely paranoid during the entire Cold War-- who can blame them? For a good forty years, the threat of a nuclear war hung over everyone's heads. Thus, any territory gained by the USSR was a setback for America. And you know what they say, hindsight really IS 100% isn't it? Well, sadly for America, their magical crystal ball wasn't working, so they didn't know their actions in the 1970s would come back and bite them in the ass. Okay, let's also realize that the interference by America was UNILATERAL-- read: ONLY AMERICA-- and it was for purely political reasons. What we are discussing in this thread is collective action by all nations to punish those who are violating SERIOUS international laws and committing serious crimes against humanity. The two political situations are completely different, and thus not comparable. Thank you for trying, but fail.

Seriously, this platform of "They're doing something wrong, lets get them!" Cannot work. Where do we stop deciding who is doing something wrong? It starts out with war crimes. Then someone points out hey, racism is bad too. Next thing you know, its sexism. Suddenly the entire world is expected to share the values of the west and anyone who doesnt gets blown up to "protect that countries citizens"

It's not a sustainable solution, and it's not one we should be looking at.

Go look at any empire in history. Look far enough back and you'll find genocide, you'll find war crimes, they didn't last. They never do.

Actually, it's very simple. The narrow approach to international law lays it out quite nicely: anything that is a direct physical threat to human security is a war crime/crime against humanity. This includes murder, rape, torture, etc. Genocide is any large scale forced murder or forced migration of a group of people with the intent to cause their annihilation. That's kind of the watered down version, but there you have it. This was decided after the Tokyo and Nuremberg trials. Hey, and last time I checked, Germany was part of the "west." We aren't talking about controversial crimes here. We're talking about genocide, rape, and slaughter of civilians-- including children. Yes, I'm aware that the United States-- among other western nations-- is guilty of crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, the system is somewhat flawed, and oftentimes countries find that they are being subjected to victor's justice. The system is flawed, I realize. Does this mean we should sit back on our asses while people are needlessly slaughtered? Um...how about no? And wow, that's a GREAT argument! "Well, these things in history happened...and they didn't last, so we should just sit and watch." Or, hey, I have a better idea....maybe, if the United Nations actually interferes, they can PREVENT the needless slaughter of millions of people.

Sure it sucks for people born in zimbabwe, but fuck, more people die of TB, of starvation, or water-born diseases every month than the entire fucking population of zimbabwe, and we don't need to kill anyone to fix them! We just need to take some of the money that we use to fly around in lear jets and stayin 5 star hotels, and give it to some people to grow crops and dig wells.

If you're going to pull the "oh poor them" card, you need to get your priorities straight. People are very good at getting blindsided.

Oh look, theres a bad guy we can hate! Lets get him and forget all about the millions of people dying over there! Quick! KILL THE BAD GUY!

Thats not a dig at anyone personally, thats just how our minds work, and unless it's something you absolutely know, it's how you'll think.

Ohhhh nice try, but no. Yes, it's true that millions die of preventable diseases. There are programs dedicated to that sort of thing. A lot of them. Oh but a fun fact: you know what displacement camps are a breeding ground for? Starvation and those diseases you mentioned. You know what causes displaced persons? BAD GUYS! You know what is often the cause of really shitty conditions in a country? A SHITTY GOVERNMENT! Notice how diseases and food shortages increase during turbulent times-- such as civil wars? Whoa, see how it totally relates? Anyway, we are discussing United Nations intervention in the case of international law breaking. Not diseases. So diseases are irrelevent in this discussion. Though if you think that the millions of dollars poured into International Criminal Tribunals or International Criminal Courts would magically be given to organizations that deal with preventable diseases in third world nations, you're cute, but no. That's not how the world works. So whether the UN chases after men who are guilty of genocide, the same amount of attention/money will be given to people who die of preventable diseases. And well, if we're thinking logically, we want to maximize the amount of people saved from preventable deaths, right? So LOGICALLY, we would encourage the United Nations to stop genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Unless, y'know, you're okay with millions of civilians dying. Then you're just kind of a shit human being, imo

 

[Deleted member 176]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Soul Saver]

Should we just sit back and do nothing when we realistically can? It makes those in power almost as bad as the dictators themselves. True, there is no universal standard of "right" or "wrong". However, there is law.
Would you just walk by if a helpless, innocent person was being raped and murdered right in front of your eyes by a gang of thugs? Would the police do that? Take that to the international scale. There might be some nations which are under the protective shield of major powers, or are going to put up a tough fight in their own defence, but for those which CAN be stopped easily, such as Zimbabwe, what's stopping us? A lack of will to do so? The government doesn't care? I mean, in Afghanistan, the USA acted in the interests of its own half of the global community. Same for most Cold War confrontations.

I'm not saying that we should go and act in every country, but when there are clear, sustained, widespread human rights abuses, perpetrated by the government and those subordinate to it, military intervention should be considered more often. To say that such things are acceptable, ha. That would be anti-human.

Sometimes intervention doesn't work because it's not supposed to be humanitarian intervention. Take Iraq as an example. Or Vietnam, or Korea, etc.

 

[Erythritol]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Deleted member 176]

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

 

[Misty]

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.

 

[Erythritol]

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.....

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.

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

 

[Deleted member 176]

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!!!!!

 

[Erythritol]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Deleted member 176]

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

 

[Soul Saver]

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.

 

[der Astronom]

So, we shouldn't impose our morality and ideals upon others? I don't suscribe 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?

The reason we shouldn't is because morality is subjective. There is no such thing as right or wrong; we believe in such things, but nobody can say that my ideal of "right" and "wrong" is the same as yours, or anybody else, regardless of where you live, who you are, and what you think, much less if they are actually correct. By interfering with other people's ideals, and telling them how they should act, then we are no different from the Christians on their religious crusades, the same people who also tortured others for being heretics and having different morals--they did believe they were right. We are just people with selfish ideals of the world and believe everyone else must uphold them, and fear being wrong. But I do not desire that everyone agrees with me; only that people can accept that we are all different and think differently, and in the end, agree to disagree. I know this won't happen because other people won't agree with me about this, but I wouldn't seek to change others, so long as they're not interfering with the way I think or live.

And I'd also appreciate if this argument went on without accusing each other of being evil--it really doesn't do much for your maturity or your arguments.

 

[Deleted member 176]

So, we shouldn't impose our morality and ideals upon others? I don't suscribe 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?

Better question is if you DO who are you. Answer: Robert Mugabe.

Are our morals not evidently superior to those exhibited by tyrannical regimes?

Obvious to you maybe, but you're not the judge of the world, friend.

Isn't giving aid imposing our morals upon other people?

Only if you put conditions on that aid.

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

Progress also was never made by people intervening. What if someone had tried to stop the romans subjugating the brits? Stopped the Americans using slaves? Progress is stopped by people who try to STOP it for their own moral compass. Kinda like what you are suggesting

The reason that certain humanitarian interventions didn't work, was because they weren't planned and executed properly.

Cool, didn't realise you were an international politics expert with a speciality in aid distribution planning. The UN should defininetly hire you instead of whoever they have just now. send in your CV sir, and save the world!

It is clear that Zimbabwe has violated its people's rights countless times.

So has pretty much every other country in the world at some point or another. Including yours, sir. Should we have overthrown your leaders?

The mission would be to liberate Zimbabwe from its oppressive government

Like how you liberated iran from its leader in 59? or how you liberated iraq?

Propaganda, aid, gradual shifts in power, and a purely defensive military presence would then be used to gain the trust and support of the Zimbabwean public.

Like how we got the support of the iraqi public? Oops no wait, they're still killing our troops every day, my bad, you must be referring to the other time that worked, like, vietnam?.. oh no hang on... um... Afgahnistan...hmm nope...

poor arguement sir, very poor.