Zimbabwe

[Serah]

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.

I'm going to agree with Angelus here. This whole debate thread is getting just a tad ridiculous. It would be nice to see you debate properly without having to go the limits of insulting one another.

While I understand you guys are passionate about this kind of stuff, it does nothing for your maturity when you're getting snappy and sarcastic with one another. Let's try and cool it and calm down, please. I'd really hate to close this thread because of the current goings on in here.

 

[Megalo]

Mugabe's opression of his country and political rivals is inexcusable, he has already been rumoured to have killed several of his rivals and/or their close family. But then again who is there to oppose him? The US probably does not see it as a fruitful idea to go over their and have a revolution of their own.

BTW in politics, there are no evil and good people, just powerful ones with intentions.

 

[Soul Saver]

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.

Thing is, when particular moral values reach high regard, they become triumphant, and laws change to fit in with the moral views of the ages.

We can act with a certain moral conviction. That our views are inherently superior and more coherent than other views. That our views require us to intervene on the behalf of others.
Is it wrong to act on one's beliefs? The world is full of conflicting beliefs, and progress has been achieved through the conflict and victory of particular social constructs over others. Time and the actions of groups and individuals decide which are superior in following, integrity, logic, and reason, and so on. Actions often speak louder than words.

Agree to disagree, ha! That still, in a subtle way, suggests that the individual's view is superior in their own mind. Irony.
The conflict between ideas drives humanity forward. It is ok to have faith in one's beliefs. If you can't accept that they could be "wrong", though, you are being delusional. I know that I might be proved completely wrong by fate, but at least I tried to do something even in the inevitable futility of existence. That's what matters.

 

[Deleted member 176]

I have to disagree there, If doing something is what matters, then, by that token, doesn't that mean hitler done the right thing?

Your arguement says basically that acting on majority opinion is the right thing to do, and thats what Hitler done with Germany... So... he was justified?

 

[Soul Saver]

He was justified in his own mind, but history has defeated him, so far. People try to justify their own actions. Time and the actions of others brought about the demise of Nazi Germany, and such views are considered despicable by most of the western world now. The institution of nazism was severely weakened. Thus, Hitler was defeated.
Nice try at world domination, but his whole system collapsed. Maybe his ideas will return to the limelight again, in a different incarnation, of course. That is not a problem at the moment, thankfully.

Same goes for Mugabe. He might justify the oppression by his regime, but in the minds of others, he is not. Why do we not act to stop him? Are we not confident that human rights abuses are to be punished? Let us assert that they are foul abuses, condemned by the international community, and depose him and his government.

 

[Donald Trump]

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!

I'm assuming it is because it has something that is pro-abortion? I cba looking it up so a source plox?
However, more on the get rid of Bush thing, did you know Reagan refused to ratify UNCLOS(United Nations Convention on the Laws Of the Seas)? Therefore military intervention should have occured then?
Surely we can differentiate between not ratifying a bill, and systematic murder? That is common sense is it not?

Also Dalmatia wasn't just about Milosevic. As we well know it is an ethnically diverse place. Serbs, Croats, Muslims etc. They went around trying to kill each other, the Mujahadeen came over. It was chaos.

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.

You seem to have an apathetic view towards life. Lulz at it solving itself. Do you really believe that? What normally happens is that one group of people dies, or vast quantities of people die.
One of the worst know wars of the last century was the Iran-Iraq war, where over one million people died. The UN or perhaps the USA or the USSR could have helped to negotiate a ceasefire, which would have saved a million lives.

You and Angelus both seem to be implying that by intervening we are being hypocritcal, by forcing our will on others. Whilst the non hypocritical side of it appeals to me, it is stupid and flawed. Taking the supposedly 'higher' moral viewpoint is infact no more than selfish. To avoid hypocracy you are condemning thousands, possibly houndreds of thousands to death.
Whilst we can all be pseudo-intellectuals and argue over the morals intervening and talk about how our own countries have done the same. The fact remains that people are dying, and that a military intervention would remedy that.

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...

Iraq is different, Sunnis ans Shias don't get along to well. What happened was inevitable, we removed a secular leader who only kept these tensions in check with despotic powers.
Vietnam was a US invasion, to fight an enemy, not to liberate. Rather the opposite.
I could give you a detailed history on Afgahnistan, but I'll keep it short. The moderates had the power taken from the extremists and hate all western powers. It has no bearing on the fact that the US supported them, except the fact that they use US weapons. Which in this discussion is irrelevant.

BTW in politics, there are no evil and good people, just powerful ones with intentions.

Firstly it is debatable. Secondly intentions can be good or bad.

I have to disagree there, If doing something is what matters, then, by that token, doesn't that mean hitler done the right thing?

Your arguement says basically that acting on majority opinion is the right thing to do, and thats what Hitler done with Germany... So... he was justified?

I won't give you a history lesson, but.
Yes Hitler was voted into power. Yet he seized it in an undemocratic way. The burning of the Reichstag allows him to pass the enabling act. Which gives Adolf despotic powers.
Secondly Hitler eliminates all competition in the night of long Knives.
Also Germans didn't know about the Holocaust. Nor did they know about any of Hitler's, shall we say, nastier practises.
So he wasn't doing what the majority of people wanted.

 

[Deleted member 176]

Also Germans didn't know about the Holocaust. Nor did they know about any of Hitler's, shall we say, nastier practises.

Umm, Hitler made his feelings aobut the jews VERY clear to the german people. They may not have konwn they were being murdered, but they sure knew they were being stripped of their assessts and rights.

Hitler done PLENTY of things wrong the germans were aware of. Invading other countries. Subjugating minorities.

I think that proves the majority point, no?

The other point wasnt that he was popular, that point was that "doing anything is better than doing nothing". Hitler done plenty, im pretty sure no one would say that was better than if he had done nothing...

The UN or perhaps the USA or the USSR could have helped to negotiate a ceasefire, which would have saved a million lives.

If elvis had married queen elizabeth france would be orange. See, i can make ridiculous assumptions about "what if" without any evidence as well. It proves nothing other than you are good at making things up (see next paragraph for more)
As to your first post: Ratifying a bill on CHILDRENS RIGHTS is pretty fucking important, and no, it has nothing to do with abortion. Try not to assume things please, check up on them instead of basing your arguements on your incorrect assumptions, it would make your debate seem much less... well, poorly researched

I love how instead of explaining why zimbabwe would work, you just explained why the others didnt work... Thats just saying, oh zimbabwe will work! Look over there, unrealted information!

Groups of people and millions of people die every day. Sending the army into zimbabwe will result in the exact same fucking thing, What, you think the army marches in and all the bad guys go oh well, we're beat,we give up? When has that ever happened?

You call us naive, yet you seem to think you can solve zimbabwes problems by what, sending in more people with guns? Very good ...

 

[Donald Trump]

Umm, Hitler made his feelings aobut the jews VERY clear to the german people. They may not have konwn they were being murdered, but they sure knew they were being stripped of their assessts and rights.

Lulz, can you speak english?
If you can then you would know that being stripped of there assets is hugely different from being sent to concentration camps and murdered.
You have already displayed a conspicuous lack of knowledge regarding the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. So take my advice, and drop the subject, because I really don't want to make you look more stupid.

Besides which the point wasnt that he was popular, the point i was debating was that "doing anything is better than doing nothing

Which was taken out of context.
Either that or you naturally associate 'doing something' with genocide.

If elvis had married queen elizabeth france would be orange. See, i can make ridiculous assumptions about "what if" without any evidence as well. It proves nothing other than you are good at making things up (see next paragraph for more)
As to your first post: Ratifying a bill on CHILDRENS RIGHTS is pretty fucking important, and no, it has nothing to do with abortion. Try not to assume things please, check up on them instead of basing your arguements on your incorrect assumptions, it would make your debate seem much less... well, poorly researched

Firstly negotiating a ceasefire in the middle east is relevant to Elvis marrying QE?
Do the USSR and the US have a history of negotiating in the middle east? Yes.
So really all you have done is taken a relevant point and contrasted it to a non relevant one.
You can't base your arguements on facts as you don't know any. So you make stupid statements. Nice try.
Lulz the irony of you saying that my posts are poorly researched is just overwhelming. Clearly you have nothing againsy hypocracy.
Also you have failed to explain why the US didn't ratify the bill. Also you have ignored the fact that not ratifying a bill and genocide are not in the least similar. Therefore you know that your claims and arguements are bullshit. Which raises the question the question why you continue. You clearly have no knowledge of this and your claims are specious at best(did u see what i did thar?)

I love how instead of explaining why zimbabwe would work, you just explained why the others didnt work... Thats just saying, oh zimbabwe will work! Look over there, unrealted information!

I'm not saying it will work, but it is better than the current situation.
The irony of your statements again is obvious, I was proving that your examples were irrelevant.
Try to keep up.

Groups of people and millions of people die every day. Sending the army into zimbabwe will result in the exact same fucking thing, What, you think the army marches in and all the bad guys go oh well, we're beat,we give up? When has that ever happened?

This really is too easy.
One example is the Ugandan-Tanzanian war.
Another example is with Noriega.

 

[der Astronom]

Thing is, when particular moral values reach high regard, they become triumphant, and laws change to fit in with the moral views of the ages.

High regard to whose mind? Your own? That's rather selfish. Not everyone would willingly agree that these are necessarily "triumphant" nor are they necessarily agreed upon by a majority--even if they were, other people who think differently aren't necessarily wrong, nor can you necessarily impose what you believe upon others if they do not oblige.

We can act with a certain moral conviction. That our views are inherently superior and more coherent than other views. That our views require us to intervene on the behalf of others.

Technically, everybody believes they are more superior in their own views, but this fact is not equivalent with intervention on others--just because you believe your views are more superior than others does not mean you must make other people believe in your "superior" views, nor is it an adequate justification--otherwise you are no better than any Christian crusader or missionary forcing their religion on others and torturing those who do not agree.
I do not believe in intervention, not only because it is none of our business, but because we do not have control over what people choose and what people think. It is futile to change such things.

Is it wrong to act on one's beliefs? The world is full of conflicting beliefs, and progress has been achieved through the conflict and victory of particular social constructs over others. Time and the actions of groups and individuals decide which are superior in following, integrity, logic, and reason, and so on. Actions often speak louder than words.

I don't consider that "progress"; that's just one country or group viciously imposing their will upon others, stripping them of their own freedoms and ways of lives, surrendering only so that they could live another day--but within their minds, they may remain unchanged. Strength does not equate justice nor superiority of morality; it is just a barbaric and selfish act to impose and force others against their wills to be something they do not wish to be, and possibly do not understand. They say that the victors write history, and how true that is; how much we have missed and misunderstood. And how much reasoning and logic might just have been lost that way too.

It is pointless to change what you do not understand. It breeds ignorance.

Agree to disagree, ha! That still, in a subtle way, suggests that the individual's view is superior in their own mind. Irony.

I did not say that no one thought their views were superior to others; only that if you do, you can separate the fact that your views are superior from the desire to impose them upon others. Agreeing to disagree simply means that you won't force other people to believe the things you believe, and acknowledge that it's entirely possible you don't understand why people choose to believe or accept certain things that you don't. It's the same way people who believe in religion might show tolerance and not force others to believe in their religion--such people do exist. The matter of a fact is, if you did not believe your religion (or lackthereof) to be superior, you would not have chosen it. Your statement says nothing new to me.

The conflict between ideas drives humanity forward. It is ok to have faith in one's beliefs. If you can't accept that they could be "wrong", though, you are being delusional. I know that I might be proved completely wrong by fate, but at least I tried to do something even in the inevitable futility of existence. That's what matters.

Actually, I accept the converse to be true; to have acted on something that you knew perfectly well that could have been wrong is far worse than to have not acted on something for which you knew could have been wrong. There is such a blindness in faith that to act without doing your research is akin to leaping before looking. In the case of subjective morals, in which neither the value of "right" or "wrong" can be ascribed, no act that you make changes anyone of their minds necessarily. However, it must be conceded that nothing you do changes the things you cannot control in any given situation--there is absolutely nothing you can do about the things you cannot control, and to attempt such things will either be futile or make things worse.

 

[Deleted member 176]

Placebo, you spent your whole post going "Oh your so wrong, im gunna make you look SO dumb!" And didn't *actually* answer any of my questions...

Now, to answer yours:

The US refuses to ratify the bill because it would give children the right to choose their own religion, and the Christian lobby (which has a stranglehold over US politics) Doesn't want that.

Secondly it would stop the US recruiting kids into its military like it does now.

Stripping kids of their rights, and stopping a country from sending kids off to war... I dunno, but i'd say thats a pretty important law. Of course, i must bow to your judgement, because you are he who decides which laws matter and which don't...

If the subject of "They aren't following international law and so must be punished" Is brought up, you cant then turn around and argue "Oh THAT law isn't as important as this one, so it's okay if we break it!" It doesn't work like that. Rape isn't as bad as murder, you think it's still okay to rape people?

One example is the Ugandan-Tanzanian war.
Another example is with Noriega.

First one was NOT a civil war, and i cannot find ANYTHING on a place called Noriega. You sure you didn't just make it up? Can you provide more info? Links maybe?

Unless you are talking about panama. Where, if you knew anything, you would be aware that after US forces moved in there was escalating voilence and firefights. They didn't just lay down and give up.

Secondly, the ugana tanzania war was one nation invading another, and getting its ass kicked... uh... how is that relevant to this? No external bodies stepped in and stopped it, and there was plenty of bloodshed. I'm REALLY not seeing your point. Did you just name the first two conflicts that came to mind and hope that no one would call you on the examples being complete horseshit?

Wow, you're real good at proving yourself wrong here, aren't you?


Oh and please don't replay with "lulz you clearly know nothing about panama, you will be so embarassed when i prove you wrong..um..later!"

Firstly negotiating a ceasefire in the middle east is relevant to Elvis marrying QE?
Do the USSR and the US have a history of negotiating in the middle east?

The point i was making (Which evidently i should have done slower and in caps) Was that you cannot base an arguement on ASSUMPTIONS. You seem to enjoy doing just that. Assuming you knew about the bill of rights, Assuming you knew what would happen if X occured, Sorry, but you can base an arguement on what IS happening, or what HAS happened, but not "Well IF this had happened then your argument.,." Doesn't work that way, friend. Next time i'll try to use an example that won't get you all confused though, k?

I'm not saying it will work, but it is better than the current situation.

please PLEASE stop stating your opinion as fact. If you're going to make statements like "well my way is better than your way!" PROVIDE EVIDENCE. Thank you.

Lulz the irony of you saying that my posts are poorly researched is just overwhelming.

What i find ironic is that i clearly proved you wrong in my post. You just spent yours going "lulz you are wrong and im not telling you where!"

You have already displayed a conspicuous lack of knowledge regarding the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany

I'm going to use one of those unrelated examples again in order to make my point clear, i'm explaining this so you know what is happening, and don't get confused by it like last time, k?


All you done right there, was say "Oh you don't know what you're talking about" Then didn't expand. Anyone can do that, watch this.


Lulz, your knowledge of africa is crap, stop before you look even more stupid.


See, accomplishes absolutely nothing, just makes you look like the only way you can back up your arguements is by making statements about your opponent being wrong, and not backing them up.



AAAAAAAND FINALLY:


The point of my post about the jews wasn't ABOUT THE GENOCIDE. If you had been reading the thread you would know that. The point was that hitler done some very bad things with public support, making him, according to pieds statements, justified in his actions. Of course, that makes it difficult for you to follow your debating tact of "Lulz you is wrong about something irrelevant" So i understand why you done it.

Still, try not to. Your entire post didnt contain one single piece of evidence, one single backed-up arguement, or one point other than you going "lulz your wrong and im not telling you where" Very poor post sir. Very poor.


I reiterate what i have said before. History has shown that more often than not, countries solving their own problems works out much better over a long period of time than interventions from others.

In order to "help" them, we have to be putting ourselves above them. In order to say "oh if we do this it will be better" We have to be arrogant enough to actually think we can predict the future of an *entire* country. Personally, i know for a fact i can't do that. Unless you honestly believe you can predict the future of a whole country, Learn from the past. Learn from history. Ask any of the worlds greatest strategists or philosophers, and they'll tell you thats a damn good idea.

Ignoring that the majority of the time the west steps in things go wrong is the path of the ignorant and the arrogant. You are ignoring evidence just because, in your mind, you know best, despite having exactly NO experience in making those decisions. Try to bear that in mind.

 

[Donald Trump]

The US refuses to ratify the bill because it would give children the right to choose their own religion, and the Christian lobby (which has a stranglehold over US politics) Doesn't want that.

Secondly it would stop the US recruiting kids into its military like it does now.

Stripping kids of their rights, and stopping a country from sending kids off to war... I dunno, but i'd say thats a pretty important law. Of course, i must bow to your judgement, because you are he who decides which laws matter and which don't...

If the subject of "They aren't following international law and so must be punished" Is brought up, you cant then turn around and argue "Oh THAT law isn't as important as this one, so it's okay if we break it!" It doesn't work like that. Rape isn't as bad as murder, you think it's still okay to rape people?

Really now, letting children not choose their own religion and having children join the military. They are so similar to rape and murder are they not?
They aren't even comparable.
So really the US refusing to ratify that is irrelevant. Unless of course you view them as the same. What's happening in Zimbabwe is rape and murder.

First one was NOT a civil war

Give yourself a pat on the back. zOMG there is no civil war in Zimbabwe. Is there a dictator committing genocide?
Yes Uganada invaded first and their attack failed. Normally they would sign a treaty and it is end of story.
However they decided to go into Uganda and depose him. So we have foreign intereference and may lives saved.

As for Panama and Noriega. The UN official death toll for the total war was only 500. Significantly less than the amount Noriega would have killed.

So the armies didn't run away Bawwing, but the amount of deaths was very low.
You'll probably say that we can't tell how many would have died if the interventions didn't happen. This is true, but one would have to be stupid to believe that the intervention caused more deaths than the amount of deaths the dictators would have caused.

The point i was making (Which evidently i should have done slower and in caps) Was that you cannot base an arguement on ASSUMPTIONS. You seem to enjoy doing just that. Assuming you knew about the bill of rights, Assuming you knew what would happen if X occured, Sorry, but you can base an arguement on what IS happening, or what HAS happened, but not "Well IF this had happened then your argument.,." Doesn't work that way, friend. Next time i'll try to use an example that won't get you all confused though, k?

Condescending, would perhaps be slightly insulting. However your ignorance and general stupidity void any possibilty of insult.
You may just be slow or just thick if you can't see the parallels between not interfering in the Iran-Iraq war and in Zimbabwe. I'll grant you that the conflicts aren't the same. However it leads to death. So why not intervene when genocide is happening?
We have covered the fact that it may or may not lead to high death tolls. Now for arguement's sake. Let us assume they will be low. What other reasons are there for doing nothing?

As for the rest of your post, it is nothing more than personal attacks. However I have been guilty of that too. So, I'm going to ignore it, just this once. In the hope that this can be amicable. However if you choose to continue then so will I. It's up to you really.

 

[Soul Saver]

Actually, I accept the converse to be true; to have acted on something that you knew perfectly well that could have been wrong is far worse than to have not acted on something for which you knew could have been wrong. There is such a blindness in faith that to act without doing your research is akin to leaping before looking. In the case of subjective morals, in which neither the value of "right" or "wrong" can be ascribed, no act that you make changes anyone of their minds necessarily. However, it must be conceded that nothing you do changes the things you cannot control in any given situation--there is absolutely nothing you can do about the things you cannot control, and to attempt such things will either be futile or make things worse.

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

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.
"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.

I reiterate what i have said before. History has shown that more often than not, countries solving their own problems works out much better over a long period of time than interventions from others.

In order to "help" them, we have to be putting ourselves above them. In order to say "oh if we do this it will be better" We have to be arrogant enough to actually think we can predict the future of an *entire* country. Personally, i know for a fact i can't do that. Unless you honestly believe you can predict the future of a whole country, Learn from the past. Learn from history. Ask any of the worlds greatest strategists or philosophers, and they'll tell you thats a damn good idea.

Ignoring that the majority of the time the west steps in things go wrong is the path of the ignorant and the arrogant. You are ignoring evidence just because, in your mind, you know best, despite having exactly NO experience in making those decisions. Try to bear that in mind.

Uh huh. Let's see... Nazi Germany? Would that have solved itself? After invading the whole European continent? What if we had not acted to stop it? You think appeasement would have worked any more? It was an aggressive threat to humanity.

What if countries yearn for help? What if their leaders violate international law on a wide scale, every day? If we act in Zimabawe, many lives will be saved. We can't predict the exact future, but we can make accurate estimates as to the predisposition, will, and power of groups, and so on. We can have cultural understanding. In this case, we understand that murder and oppression is not what the majority of Zimbabweans want.
Oh, and look at the Roman empire. What if it had not invaded other countries and imposed its superior, more successful culture upon countless nations? We would likely only just be getting out of the middle ages. You can say that countless people were killed and enslaved, but all in the name of progress. They were in the dark, whilst the Roman empire was centuries ahead of them!

Yeah right, as if anyone here knows what the world's greatest strategists and philosophers would say. Real smooth. I know enough about strategy to know that morality has nothing to do with it. You make a plan to achieve particular aims and objectives, analyse and plan based on what you know, what you need to know, what you want from the situation, and so on.

So, what if the UN didn't aid South Korea in 1950? It would have fallen to North Korea, unless the South Koreans executed a strong rebellion. That is clear. Whilst that would not neccessarily be good or bad, it's what would have happened, as an example. If we didn't intervene, all Korea would be DPRK. If the Chinese didn't intervene, it would most likely be the ROK.

History is all about asking "what?", "how?", and "why?" It's not about deciding whether something was "right" or "wrong". There are many instances in history where intervention has worked, and vice-versa.

 

[Deleted member 176]

If the subject of "They aren't following international law and so must be punished" Is brought up, you cant then turn around and argue "Oh THAT law isn't as important as this one, so it's okay if we break it!"

I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to counter that placebo, instead of just saying "oh its not the same" over and over. Thanks.

So the armies didn't run away Bawwing

Since you posted those conflicts as evidence of times when armies marched in and the opponents just gave up, that sentence means you admit you flat out made that up. Good. One country invading another, then the other country invading it back is called war. Not foreign interference. Two countries fighting over land = WAR. Clear enough for you?


Now, since i disproved your two points of "evidence" Will you please submit more to support your view, since those two are falsified? Thanks.

I'll grant you that the conflicts aren't the same.

Exactly. Not the same, thus different, thus irrelevant.

Now, since i disporved your earlier evidence, that means your posts have had exactly ZERO pieces of usable evidence to support your view. PLEASE submit evidence, (Like i keep asking you) Otherwise, what you think we should do is just that. The unbacked opinion of someone who has never been involved in any of this, and who doesnt have any evidence whatsoever to back up his point of view.

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

Wrong. If EVERYONE acted that way there would be no such thing as progress. Magellans first mate wouldn't have made it around the world. The first settlers on america wouldnt have been able to communicate with the natives, Rome would never have brought its culture and technology to Britain... Do you need more examples of times when stopping peopel doing something "bad" would have stopped progress?

See thats the problem. If you interfere you have to KNOW the results of that interference. Show me one place, please, where interference liek this HASN'T led to problems in the long term. Please PLEASE show evidence. I repeat again, and again, and no one seems to listen.

saying, I SAY THIS WILL HAPPEN is *not* evidence. Just because you, with your total and utter lack of experience in that field THINK that is what will happen, does not mean it WILL. You MUST provide evidence to accompany statements such as that!

 

[Donald Trump]

I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to counter that placebo, instead of just saying "oh its not the same" over and over. Thanks.

But that is a counter to your rather irrelevant point.

Since you posted those conflicts as evidence of times when armies marched in and the opponents just gave up, that sentence means you admit you flat out made that up. Good. One country invading another, then the other country invading it back is called war. Not foreign interference. Two countries fighting over land = WAR. Clear enough for you?

I've just realised you take eveything literally, which explains your dismal reading comprehension.

Now, since i disproved your two points of "evidence" Will you please submit more to support your view, since those two are falsified? Thanks

Disproved. Do it again, as you didn't in this thread. You talked about war. Disproved my evidence? No.
Please do try though.
Actually you'll probably just go off on a tangent, probably talk about oranges or perhaps something more on your intellectual level, hmmm pins perhaps?
Regardless, you fail.

Exactly. Not the same, thus different, thus irrelevant.

Now, since i disporved your earlier evidence, that means your posts have had exactly ZERO pieces of usable evidence to support your view. PLEASE submit evidence, (Like i keep asking you) Otherwise, what you think we should do is just that. The unbacked opinion of someone who has never been involved in any of this, and who doesnt have any evidence whatsoever to back up his point of view

They aren't the same, did you use all of your intelligence to reach that conclusion. No doubt you did, but hey I already worked it out for you.
I'm know repeating me makes you look smarter, but hey you need the help right. However please try to contribute. It would be nice to see something else then a short (incorrect) summary of other people's answers. And the say your evidence is shit because I say so. However you are the master of shit, so perhaps I should bow to greater judgement on that particular topic?
Whilst you are at it, try and prove your own point without doing what you normally do.

If you can't then gtfokthnxbai.

 

[Soul Saver]

Was there anyone to stop the Roman Empire? Was it not a superior entity, just as the European cultures were technologically superior to the native Americans? That is exactly what we would be doing in this instance, if you put it that way. We would be using our force to assert the will of the global community, and of international law.

History is dominated by groups imposing their superior will upon others. Is that wrong? Only time will tell who is victorious.

Wrong. If EVERYONE acted that way there would be no such thing as progress. Magellans first mate wouldn't have made it around the world. The first settlers on america wouldnt have been able to communicate with the natives, Rome would never have brought its culture and technology to Britain... Do you need more examples of times when stopping peopel doing something "bad" would have stopped progress?

See thats the problem. If you interfere you have to KNOW the results of that interference. Show me one place, please, where interference liek this HASN'T led to problems in the long term. Please PLEASE show evidence. I repeat again, and again, and no one seems to listen.

saying, I SAY THIS WILL HAPPEN is *not* evidence. Just because you, with your total and utter lack of experience in that field THINK that is what will happen, does not mean it WILL. You MUST provide evidence to accompany statements such as that!

Quite the contrary. I am a historian-in-training.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

Depends on the sort of interference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort

If we hadn't acted against the Kurdish genocide, many more Kurds would have died. It was beneficial to the Kurds, obviously.

If we didn't act to protect refugees in such places as The Congo, many more would have died. Even if many UN missions are restricted by overly tight rules of engagement, it's still doing something to protect people from
harm.

No humanitarian peacekeeping mission is perfect, but good is still done by protecting refugees. The same would be true if we took action in Zimbabwe, only to depose the government this time. The problem with many UN peacekeeping missions of times past was that they didn't stop the source of the atrocities.

Yes, we can ask "what if?". It is a perfectly valid question to ask, so long as you know of the factors involved. What if Franz Ferdinand had not been assassinated? What if the Soviet Union never acted in Afghanistan?

 

[Deleted member 176]

First of all Placebo, your entire post was just "no, i wont provide evidence because i can't!" Good, you've made your point clear - you can't back up your opinions, now just stay out of the thread instead of making comments like

However you are the master of shit

How witty and urbane.

gtfokthnxbai.

Do i even need to comment on that?

perhaps something more on your intellectual level, hmmm pins perhaps?
Regardless, you fail.

Saying it out loud doesn't make it true, friend.

which explains your dismal reading comprehension

My dismal reading comprehension that, apparently, none of my college professors noticed when they gave me an A in english. Still, i am sure they would bow to your superior knowledge on the subject.

It just exposes you as immature and incapable of holding a decent debate. If you cannot provide evidence to back up points, and wil lresort to "Oh you weren't meant to take my evidence LITERALLY!" and trying to personally insult people, then please just stay out of the debate

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

 

[Donald Trump]

First of all Placebo, your entire post was just "no, i wont provide evidence because i can't!" Good, you've made your point clear - you can't back up your opinions, now just stay out of the thread instead of making comments like

Perhaps you should stay out of my thread instead.
I've backed up my opinions, you haven't backed up yours. Your entire arguement seems to be " Intervening won't make things better".

Firstly, you naively expect that an intervention will result in a positive change soon. It can't.
Let us examine what dictators do.
They kill people, normally smart people as they are the ones that resist.
They opress and intimidate the citizens.
They ruin the land, destroy the infrastructure etc.
Make many homeless.
And build up huge debts.
You say that the people should fight back, but they can't. They don't have weapons. South Africa, the regional power, doesn't really care, and tbh it is pretty much an one party state.
So the people can't fight back and they are being killed.
Either the countries with the power to stop this do so. And lets be realistic here, the only way to do that is by using force.
We either wash our hands of the affair and do nothing. Which is sentencing people to death by proxy. Or we intervene.
Worst case scenario is; lots of fighting and death. This unlikely as the army aren't 100% behind Mugabe. They even withdrew support from him for awhile.
However, even if that does occur, the country can progress. The genocide will end.

None of us can honestly know what will happen if we intervene. Yet we do know what will happen if we don't.
It seems like a risk worth taking.

 

[Deleted member 176]

All you done there was reiterate a whole load of opinion without ANY evidence. PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE. Thank you.

None of us can honestly know what will happen if we intervene. Yet we do know what will happen if we don't.

Uh thats the thing, NO YOU DON'T. Just saying you know doesn't actually mean you DO.

Seriously, thats what, 4 posts in a row you have provided NO evidence. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE provide some evidence for your views!

 

[Erythritol]

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!

Like I've said before, the United Nations does not have a real means of enforcing international law. But you were accusing me of applying a western standard of morality to other countries as some sort of excuse to interfere, which I am not. This is not exclusively my personal view, it is an international law that exists. Quite frankly, I have no idea what UN Bill of Children's Rights you're talking about. I do know, however, that since the beginning of 2000, the United Nations is moving more and more towards the idea of protecting human security. Protecting people from genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity is slowly becoming a major priority for the Security Council. This is obvious from the establishment, in 2006, of a UN Human Rights Council. The concept of human security, and the slow move towards the protection of it, is relatively new. It's still in it's infancy, so no, it is FAR from perfect. But I would argue that it is a major step up from national security, and being concerned with only the security of states.

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!"

Yes. That was the reason there was fighting and genocide. The problems in Yugoslavia started in the early 1990s, as did the fighting and slaughter for the reasons I have already mentioned. You want specifics? Okay. the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was established in 1993 after the Security Council adopted a resolution in the midst of a series of CIVIL WARS within Yugoslavia-- note: had nothing to do with Milosevic not giving up power-- after the dissolution of the USSR. This was what the problem was in the former Yugoslavia. You want to know why Milosevic didn't want to give up power? Because he knew that the UN was looking to prosecute him. Like I said, I don't think international criminal justice is enough to stop atrocities. It obviously wasn't in Yugoslavia, as the fighting did not stop once the tribunal was established. When NATO got involved, the fighting died down a bit.

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.

Uh.....what? But you ARE wrong. Like, you clearly don't understand what happened in the former Yugoslavia. You also don't understand the difference between national and human security, which I explained. You don't understand the difference between unilateral and collective action either. These are CORE concepts in international relations that you need to understand to be able to effectively argue about this.

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.

I did, and you've been ignoring them. All of the "evidence" you've supplied has been-- as I've said about five times-- cases of unilateral and politically motivated interferences. This, let me repeat myself, falls under the category of national security. These interferences that you have been referencing-- Afghanistan, Iran, etc-- were due to the United States acting in what was in its best political interests. It was concern over national security, not human security. The interferences were unilateral and not through the United Nations. And fine, you want specific examples, let me give you some.

The former Yugoslavia: International Criminal Tribunal established in 1993 due to a series of civils wars brought about by the dissolution of the USSR and ethnic tensions. A majority of deaths were civilians. All sides committed war crimes; the Serbs were ethnically cleansed. By 1996, 75 war criminals were indicted. Milsovich was, eventually, pulled from power and brought to justice (this is somewhat debatable, as he died before he really finished his trial). However, the wars DID continue after the court was established, and this was a major flaw. As mentioned before, without NATO military intervention, the court would have had some difficulty functioning. This court was, quite frankly, heavily flawed. This is because it was the first big post Cold War human security crisis. Never before had something like this been done since the Tokyo and Nuremberg trials. What did the court do? It promoted reconciliation amongst the nations involved. Many critics argue that if the leaders responsible had been brought to justice sooner, the second round of wars could have been avoided.

Rwanda: Between April and December of 1994, there was an ethnically fueled genocide between the Hutus and the Tutsis that left over 800,000 dead. During this genocide, the United Nations withdrew a majority of their peace keeping forces, and it was only after the Tutsis militarily overpowered the Hutus that the killings of the Tutsis stopped. It is important to note that the KILLINGS did not stop, as there were revenge killings by the Tutsis of the Hutus. As many as 200,000 Hutu refugees in the Congo were slaughtered by Tutsis. An International Criminal Tribunal was established, and for the first time, the Tribunal used the Convention of 1948 against those who commit genocide. The United Nations was not significantly involved with this tribunal, however, and as a result it was a case of victor's justice. However, those who were most guilty of the genocide in 1994 were put to justice. In 1998, the Prime Minister of Rwanda was sentenced to life in prison.

East Timor: From 1975 to 1999, Indonesia occupied what is now East Timor. It is estimated that they slaughtered from 100,000 to 250,000. Many people were starved to death as the Indonesian forces took over the economy. There was almost no UN intervention, and the situation is, arguably, still not solved.

The first two, the UN intervened, albeit VERY late, and now the areas are more stable and reconciliation is slowly occurring. Those who were most guilty of the atrocities (read: the leaders) were brought to justice. In the latter case, the UN did not intervene and the situation is still relatively unresolved. It is arguable that no reconciliation or justice occurred.

Unfortunately, I cannot give you an example of the United Nations jumping in BEFORE the atrocities started because it has never happened. What the United Nations has done thus far, however, is set up Tribunals and Criminal Courts that help to promote justice and reconciliation amongst the people. It also promotes peace building. Many also argue that if the UN HAD intervened sooner in both (and many other) situations, the problems could have been solved sooner and many deaths could have been avoided (examples: Rwanda, Yugoslavia).

And here is an example of a VERY successful intervention in South America: both Nicaragua and El Salvador were plagued with civil wars in the 1980s. NGOs and local governmental organizations worked in cooperation with the United Nations to negotiate peace, which was eventually achieved. Here are some quotes: "Ad Hoc mechanisms...led the way diplomatically while the UN was the logical choice for operations." and "While formal and ad hoc intergovernmental bodies were prominent in addressing political issues relating to conflict settlement, nongovernmental organizations played crucial roles in addressing other aspects of human security, particarly in the realm of human rights and refugees." Clearly, UN intervention in both Nicaragua and El Salvador were EXTREMELY successful. It's worth noting that more and more, the United Nations is working in cooperation with region government organizations (ASEAN, EU, OAS, etc) and NGOs to promote human security and peace. This is definitely a step in the right direction. UN is finally realizing the importance of NGOs and have granted them observer status in the UN. If the United Nations truly wants to promote human security-- which they do-- I think they need to work together with regional governmental organizations and NGOs. This formula has clearly been empirically proven.

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

See above.

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

 

[Deleted member 176]

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

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?

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?

Also, civil was is STILL going on in rwanda

EDIT - After checking up on this some more, my previous source was as of 2006, from what i have read, the rebel activity has died down since then. I will leave my original comment in so people can make fun of, shock horror, me making a temporary error based on slightly out of date information. Also, see the bottom of the page for reasons why this doesn't matter anyone (hint: The new president is guilty of Genocide as well) /END EDIT

the UN involvement clearly HAS NOT resolved the conflict. Where on earth did you get the idea it had?

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.)

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?


EDIT: Reading up more on the Rwana situation... Um, the current president also commited genocide? Installing ANOTHER genocidal persident is your idea of a successful intervention?

Many claim that memorialisation of the genocide without admission of the crimes by the Tutsi-RDF are one sided, and is part of ongoing propaganda by the Tutsi-led Rwandan government, which is essentially a one-party government at this time.[20] The author of Hotel Rwanda, Paul Rusesabagina, has demanded that Paul Kagame, the current Rwandan president, be tried as a war criminal.[21] Kagame's invasion of Rwanda in 1990 and of Zaire / Congo in the First and Second Congo Wars was responsible for the death of more than 4 million people during those conflicts.[22]

So lets see, UN intervention replaced one genocidal ruler with another, and it didnt happen long enough ago for us to see the LONG TERM EFFECTS which is what i asked for evidence of... so... your evidence of long term stability due to intervention is... where darling?