Zimbabwe

[Donald Trump]

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

This is what Mugabe is doing.

South Africa and in particular Mbeki (who is a lame duck president) are negotiating power-sharing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=a8UXSaVGiR5U&refer=africa
But nothing is happening. It is not resolving the situation.

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

The president of Sudan has been charged with genocide, he has all ready killed over 200,000 people.
China, which is part of the security council has been supplying the Sudanese government.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jTIYU9imizSITKi43iNy67wJ1fxg
Which shows that sanctions don't work.

 

[Deleted member 176]

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Soul Saver]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Erythritol]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh. my. god. What the HELL are you talking about? It is NOT still going on. Maybe you're thinking of Darfur or something? Rwanda is now a relatively stable African country. You really are embarrassing yourself. And since I know you won't believe me, here, just for you, copied from wikipedia: "Rwanda today struggles to heal and rebuild, but shows signs of rapid development. Some Rwandans continue to grapple with the legacy of almost 60 years of intermittent war. One agent in Rwanda's rebuilding effort is the Benebikira Sisters, a Catholic order of nuns whose ministry is dedicated to education and healthcare. Since the genocide, the Sisters have housed and supported hundreds of orphans, and created and staffed schools to educate the next generation of Rwandans." IT IS NOT STILL GOING ON. How can you even ARGUE about this if you don't know ANY of your facts? Holy god.

So lets sum this up shall we.

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

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

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

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

There. Happy? NATO intervention helped end some fighting.

 

[Deleted member 176]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[der Astronom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Soul Saver]

*makes a delayed reply*

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



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

 

[der Astronom]

*makes a delayed reply*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Soul Saver]

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

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

The US breaks international law to deal with terrorists and militants generally, not to oppress its own people and torture those who vote the wrong way. I'm sorry, but the comparison is invalid.
That, and we're not talking about the US, but the UN, which should protect human rights on an international scale.

Do we always know why a murderer does what they do? Does our lack of understanding of their exact motives stop the police from taking action, and stop them from being prosecuted? No. They are locked up or executed if found guilty, regardless of any motives except direct self-defence.

Oh, and it isn't selfish. Not only is it enforcing the law, but it is liberating the Zimbabwean people from an oppressive regime. Regardless of motives, the ZANU-PF militias are raping, murdering, mutilating, etc, in broad daylight, under the direct orders of the party.
Some people's minds cannot be changed, and some people are total scum who should be wiped from the face of the Earth. Some people actively revel in pain, suffering, and death. They should be destroyed or imprisoned, for the sake of everyone else. It should apply to anyone who commits such inhumanities.

The people are generally too afraid to speak their minds because of what will happen. Do they want that sort of oppression? Though the masses of refugees who have fled from Zimbabwe paint a big, ugly picture of what they think of Mugabe's regime. The brave people who do say something speak for the rest of Zimbabwe. We can see the daily suffering of the Zimbabwean people.

 

[Deleted member 176]

Piedmon - The US is one of two countries which refuses to sign/ratify the Bill of Childrens Rights. Thats nothing to do with terrorists

The other country, for the curious, is Somalia. This is becaus Somalia has no recognised leader, and so is physically incapable of signing it.

They also haven't ratified the Bill of Womens Rights.

Again... nothing to do with military.

Just felt i should point out that the US breaks more international laws than just the "Guantanamo" situation.

 

[der Astronom]

The US breaks international law to deal with terrorists and militants generally, not to oppress its own people and torture those who vote the wrong way. I'm sorry, but the comparison is invalid.

This means you admit that you know the reason behind why they break international law, and that also means you admit that if they have a "good" reason to break international law, then they might be excused from such an act. But because "good" is subjective, anyone can say they had a "good" reason to break international law and get away with it. I'm sorry, but that's just bullcrappy.

That, and we're not talking about the US, but the UN, which should protect human rights on an international scale.

Do we always know why a murderer does what they do? Does our lack of understanding of their exact motives stop the police from taking action, and stop them from being prosecuted? No. They are locked up or executed if found guilty, regardless of any motives except direct self-defence.

No, that's according to the laws and customs in your country that you are accustomed to, but this is not necessarily universal to any other country, or you need not assume this to be the case. I'd prefer to have the murder made clear and the motives understood before doing anything about it. To do otherwise and jail people just because they killed someone is ignorance.

Although before you go on, what exactly does "we" imply when you say "we must do something about..."? Are you speaking of people from other countries, people from your country or what?

Oh, and it isn't selfish. Not only is it enforcing the law, but it is liberating the Zimbabwean people from an oppressive regime. Regardless of motives, the ZANU-PF militias are raping, murdering, mutilating, etc, in broad daylight, under the direct orders of the party.

But there is no such thing as "the" law; there are different laws for different countries, and not all of them are shared. To enforce your own ideals of your own laws upon others who maintain different laws is selfish. You may not agree with them, but they might not agree with yours or necessarily understand your own. What if the converse were true? How would you feel then?

Some people's minds cannot be changed, and some people are total scum who should be wiped from the face of the Earth. Some people actively revel in pain, suffering, and death. They should be destroyed or imprisoned, for the sake of everyone else. It should apply to anyone who commits such inhumanities.

I know their minds cannot be changed, but while this is fact, it is still opinion that you view certain people as total scum, and it is also opinion that you believe they should be destroyed. But your opinion is not a fact necessarily, and is a problem best dealt with the kind of people who do understand these people's minds best; not people who like to point fingers.

A side note: This opinion does sound a bit like that of Light's from Deathnote, in that he wanted to destroy all the criminals in the world and believed them unworthy of living the same way your opinion is stated.

The people are generally too afraid to speak their minds because of what will happen. Do they want that sort of oppression? Though the masses of refugees who have fled from Zimbabwe paint a big, ugly picture of what they think of Mugabe's regime. The brave people who do say something speak for the rest of Zimbabwe. We can see the daily suffering of the Zimbabwean people.

Well of course; they wouldn't say anything nice about it, wouldn't they? If they liked their country, they wouldn't have any reason to leave it--so how do you know which one it is? You simply jumped to the conclusion they didn't like it simply because you see them as "suffering". Well, there are people, regardless of what country they're from, who will remain in their country, no matter how bad it becomes. They simply love their land so much that they would not leave it, no matter what happens. And since such people exist, you can't suppose that everyone in Zimbabwe would want to leave. Humanity is too complex for that.

Another consideration: if these refugees voiced support for Mugabe, they wouldn't receive aid. The international opinion of Mugabe is already low enough that they wouldn't help anyone who supports him.

 

[Erythritol]

Okay, now that the drama has died down, I'm going to jump back in to this thread.

This means you admit that you know the reason behind why they break international law, and that also means you admit that if they have a "good" reason to break international law, then they might be excused from such an act. But because "good" is subjective, anyone can say they had a "good" reason to break international law and get away with it. I'm sorry, but that's just bullcrappy.

Actually, whether the United States breaks international law for a "good" reason or not, those responsible SHOULD be prosecuted. Unfortunately, the United States is part of the P5 in the UN security council, and thus holds a considerable amount of power. That means that any international laws that they do happen to break go largely "unnoticed" and thus unpunished. I think this system is largely flawed and should change. However, I would be very loath to accept the comparison of the United States to any of the recent perpetrators of international law, Zimbabwe included. Is the United States guilty of war crimes? I would say yes-- Abu Ghraib being an example. Was such an action ordered by George Bush? No. All of the atrocities that are happening in Zimbabwe can be linked to Mugabe. There should be no excuses for breaking international law-- ESPECIALLY when it comes to war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I do think that things are changing. There was an absolute international outcry over Abu Ghraib, and those who were responsible were prosecuted. Hopefully, we will one day reach a point in time when breaking international law is unacceptable, whether the offender is a world power or a small third world nation. Regardless, while justice in this field is not applied evenly, does that mean that the UN should stand back and do NOTHING while others suffer? I think that's an insufficient argument, quite frankly.

No, that's according to the laws and customs in your country that you are accustomed to, but this is not necessarily universal to any other country, or you need not assume this to be the case. I'd prefer to have the murder made clear and the motives understood before doing anything about it. To do otherwise and jail people just because they killed someone is ignorance.

Um, no. You'll find that what Mugabe is doing is abhorrent in every culture. Oh, and quite illegal under international law. When it comes to crimes against humanity, which Mugabe is guilty of, it IS universal because it is a threat to human security.

Although before you go on, what exactly does "we" imply when you say "we must do something about..."? Are you speaking of people from other countries, people from your country or what?

It's called the United Nations, comprised of 192 nations.

But there is no such thing as "the" law; there are different laws for different countries, and not all of them are shared. To enforce your own ideals of your own laws upon others who maintain different laws is selfish. You may not agree with them, but they might not agree with yours or necessarily understand your own. What if the converse were true? How would you feel then?

Um. No. Again, while it is a relatively new concept, international law is quite real. This isn't a case of western imposition on a different culture because we don't agree with their politics. The United Nations is not a play-thing of America's. To think of it as such is, quite frankly, ignorant and insulting. The United Nations is interested in promoting and protecting human security from various threats. When such threats materialize, the United Nations uses whatever means they can to ensure that people-- no matter what their nationality-- are not harmed. I've said this many times before, but genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are NOT acceptable in ANY culture. The government exists to protect its people, not to threaten their security.

I know their minds cannot be changed, but while this is fact, it is still opinion that you view certain people as total scum, and it is also opinion that you believe they should be destroyed. But your opinion is not a fact necessarily, and is a problem best dealt with the kind of people who do understand these people's minds best; not people who like to point fingers.

A side note: This opinion does sound a bit like that of Light's from Deathnote, in that he wanted to destroy all the criminals in the world and believed them unworthy of living the same way your opinion is stated.

Okay, when a leader of a country is committing crimes against his own citizens, he is violating international law, and sooner or later, it is safe to say that the United Nations will seek to remove him from power and prosecute him. It's not a matter of "he's scum and he needs to be destroyed." It goes beyond that. He is threatening the well-being of his citizens, causing civil strife, and lowering the standard of living for his citizens. No one profits when a dictator is in power-- except for the dictator, of course. Here's a TERRIFIC example right out of the headlines: "Zimbabwe: Inflation 'highest in the world'" Mugabe is DESTROYING Zimbabwe.

Well of course; they wouldn't say anything nice about it, wouldn't they? If they liked their country, they wouldn't have any reason to leave it--so how do you know which one it is? You simply jumped to the conclusion they didn't like it simply because you see them as "suffering". Well, there are people, regardless of what country they're from, who will remain in their country, no matter how bad it becomes. They simply love their land so much that they would not leave it, no matter what happens. And since such people exist, you can't suppose that everyone in Zimbabwe would want to leave. Humanity is too complex for that.

Another consideration: if these refugees voiced support for Mugabe, they wouldn't receive aid. The international opinion of Mugabe is already low enough that they wouldn't help anyone who supports him.

Um, or it could be that fleeing a country is not as easy as you'd like to imagine. When the Rwandan genocide was occurring, you think that the Tutsis WANTED to stay in Rwanda and get slaughtered because they were just such great patriots? Hell no. They simply couldn't finds means to flee into surrounding countries. I'd also like to point out that many of these people are so impoverished that they cannot afford to eat. Where are they going to magically get the money to flee the country? You think people like Mugabe? Really? The unemployment rate is over 80% and, as you can see from above, their inflation rate is currently the highest in the world. He blocks aid (read: FOOD) from reaching those in need, and only gives it to those who can prove that they will vote for him. He has his cronies kidnap, beat, rape, torture, and murder his own civilians. Yeah, under his guiding hand, Zimbabwe is just doing so well

It has been empirically proven that when the UN intervenes, conditions improve. Look at Rwanda: it is now one of the more stable countries in Africa. The countries that once composed Yugoslavia are also doing much better (Bosnia and Herzegovina are up for membership in both NATO and the EU). El Salvador and Nicuragua no longer suffer from civil war. Whom does this benefit? THE CITIZENS of these countries. Their security is no longer threatened, and their countries are much more stable.

 

[Deleted member 176]

The question, in my mind, comes down to this.

Do we have the right to interfere?

If we interfered to protect "Human safety" throughout history, the world wouldn't be where it is at. We would have prosecuted the founding fathers of the US, China wouldn't be the industrial power it is today. Britain would never have had an empire. The romans could never have tamed the Germanic region...

What makes some people think they are SO intelligent and SO special, that they can see into the future, and know that invading another country will turn out for the best?

If they took their same morals and applied it throughout history, their country would no longer exist.

Sorry to say it, but civil war is NOT "abhorrent to every culture" And anyone who thinks it is clearly has NO grasp of history *at all*.

Power struggles are a part of life in many countries, from tribal warfare all the way up to rebel armies and guerilla fighting. To suggest that just because you don't like that, it's suddenly wrong, is incredibly arrogant.

How can we trust an organisation, whose biggest supporter here ADMITS is corrupt enough not to do what it should do against its members, to make decisions about what to do about countries which are NOT it's members.

Quite clearly this proves that the members of the UN will twist "international law" To meet their own needs, so how can we trust it to uphold ANY law, if the very nations which comprise it don't follow those laws itself?

So I ask again, Should we have prosecuted the founding fathers? If you answer no to that, but yes to mugabe, then you are a hypocrite. If you answer YES to that, and yes to mugabe, then you clearly have no understanding of the effects your chosen course of action would have.

So the question remains, Who is arrogant enough to believe that they are intelligent enough, and know enough about zimbabwe, to decide on the correct plan of action? Hands up who has lived in ximbabwe, who has personally spoken to large portions of the zimbabwean people, hands up who has studied ximbabwean culture for years. If your hand isn't up, what makes you think you know best for those people besides arrogance?

That is all.

 

[Soul Saver]

So I ask again, Should we have prosecuted the founding fathers? If you answer no to that, but yes to mugabe, then you are a hypocrite. If you answer YES to that, and yes to mugabe, then you clearly have no understanding of the effects your chosen course of action would have.

So the question remains, Who is arrogant enough to believe that they are intelligent enough, and know enough about zimbabwe, to decide on the correct plan of action? Hands up who has lived in ximbabwe, who has personally spoken to large portions of the zimbabwean people, hands up who has studied ximbabwean culture for years. If your hand isn't up, what makes you think you know best for those people besides arrogance?

That is all.

I'll answer this first. You say that war is not necessary, and yet you justify civil war and rebellion, seemingly.

No, maybe YOU should take history into context. Britain DID intervene, to protect its interests.

There was no UN, or human rights legislation(as far as I know) in ages past, and people believed that slaves were sub-human. Now we know better. Today, slavery is considered an abomination by the global community. Slave traders are prosecuted under national and international law.
I think that we DO have enough knowledge and understanding to see what is going on in Zimbabwe. It's not arrogant to have confidence in that which is supported by evidence. We have strong evidence that Zimbabwe is in a sorry, sorry state thanks to Mugabe.

Also, how can we prosecute the founding fathers? Who would prosecute them? It's history, not the present! Long past history. Cultural perceptions of morality and what is considered acceptable change with time.

With all respects, law is LAW. You cannot simply say "we have no right to prosecute this murderer, because there are corrupt individuals in our establishment! We would be hypocrites!" No, those individuals would be hypocrites. That's not how law works, I'm afraid.

 

[Erythritol]

I'm going to build on the lovely post by Piedmon

The question, in my mind, comes down to this.

Do we have the right to interfere?

Yes, and in this post, I will argue why. I'd also like you to keep in mind the "we" that I refer to is the United Nations, not the United States. I am not advocating unilateral action. Instead, I advocate a collection action against a human rights aggressor.

If we interfered to protect "Human safety" throughout history, the world wouldn't be where it is at. We would have prosecuted the founding fathers of the US, China wouldn't be the industrial power it is today. Britain would never have had an empire. The romans could never have tamed the Germanic region...

To be honest, this point is irrelevant. No one can say what the outcome would have been had a UN-like organization existed and interfered on behalf of human rights. You do not know for a fact-- or have any proof-- that things would have turned out worse. At the same time, we do not have any proof that they would have turned out better. In any case, it is ludicrous to make this argument because it is inherently an argument against progress. I would also point out that the violence of which we speak is not tied in any way to economic progress. In Zimbabwe, it is politically, and to some extent, ethnically fueled. In other countries, it was generally ethnically fueled as well.

What makes some people think they are SO intelligent and SO special, that they can see into the future, and know that invading another country will turn out for the best?

It is NOT an invasion of the country. The United Nations does NOT invade countries. Invasions are fueled by state interests. The United Nations is not a state. Its primary interest is human security, and when human security is threatened by leaders, the UN gets involved to protect civilians.

If they took their same morals and applied it throughout history, their country would no longer exist.

Your history argument is, again, invalid for the reasons previously stated. We cannot definitively know what the outcome would have been had the UN existed centuries ago. I would also like to point out that humans have the wonderful ability to evolve and make progress as time goes on. Recently, we have seen a great deal of this. Take Europe for example. For centuries, European nations were constantly warring with each other-- now they have formed one of the most powerful political and economic alliances in the world. For centuries, monarchs held complete power over a nation. This, in almost every nation, is no longer the case. Thus, to argue that because it did not have a place in history, it is not legitimate in the present is wrong.

Sorry to say it, but civil war is NOT "abhorrent to every culture" And anyone who thinks it is clearly has NO grasp of history *at all*.

I didn't say civil war. I said crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes. Have they happened in almost every culture? Yes, I would say so. But that doesn't make them any less abhorrent. Do you think the cultures that have experienced these atrocities look back at the period in which they occurred with fondness? They certainly do not. They occur because those who commit them have the power to do so. That does not mean they are not abhorrent.

Power struggles are a part of life in many countries, from tribal warfare all the way up to rebel armies and guerilla fighting. To suggest that just because you don't like that, it's suddenly wrong, is incredibly arrogant.

Power struggles are one thing, crimes against humanity decidedly another. When civilians are kidnapped, beaten, tortured, or murdered by their own government, it's beyond power struggles. And to help such people is arrogant? I would really beg to differ.

How can we trust an organisation, whose biggest supporter here ADMITS is corrupt enough not to do what it should do against its members, to make decisions about what to do about countries which are NOT it's members.

You may want to check your facts. Zimbabwe IS a member country of the United Nations. And since you constantly ask for sources:

http://www.un.org/members/missions.shtml#z

Why would you not trust the UN? I'm confused about that. What do you fear they would do? The United Nations is not the United States. They aren't interested in putting a military base in Zimbabwe, nor are they interested in playing the imperialist. The United Nations is interested in protecting human security. Yes, I do know that the UN is flawed. But because they don't interfere with citizens of the members of the P5, does that mean they shouldn't interfere at all? Quite frankly, I think that's a weak argument. While I am CERTAINLY not saying that the United States is completely innocent of any crimes, I do not think any crimes committed since the establishment of the UN are on the same level as what has occurred in Zimbabwe, or any of the other nations I have mentioned in previous posts. As I said in my previous post, many nations in which the UN has intervened have since prospered. This is empirical evidence to support intervention. I don't think that anyone needs to be wary of the UN except for Mugabe-- and only because he has committed crimes.

Quite clearly this proves that the members of the UN will twist "international law" To meet their own needs, so how can we trust it to uphold ANY law, if the very nations which comprise it don't follow those laws itself?

They cannot twist something that is written down for all to see. I also want to make clear that I'm only concerned with the human security aspect of international law in this thread. That said, the P5 DO follow those international laws. While I would say they are not punished as harshly, those who break these laws do not escape punishment completely. Example: Abu Ghraib. The army personnel responsible were prosecuted. The recent case of the soldier who raped and murdered a young girl in Iraq: he was prosecuted. The case of My Lai during Vietnam: they were prosecuted. While I am critical of the current system, do not think that citizens of the nations belonging to the P5 can do whatever they please without consequence. And though I know some would definitely argue, I'd say that the leaders of any of the nations of the P5 are not dictators who commit crimes against their own civilians.

So I ask again, Should we have prosecuted the founding fathers? If you answer no to that, but yes to mugabe, then you are a hypocrite. If you answer YES to that, and yes to mugabe, then you clearly have no understanding of the effects your chosen course of action would have.

Again, I'd state that this type of argument is irrelevant. We cannot apply today's morals to crimes that occured centuries ago. Why? Because the human race is constantly progressing and morals change with the times. In the 1700s, slavery was socially and morally accepted (by many, not by all). Today, it is certainly not socially or morally accepted. And maybe what Mugabe is doing would have been acceptable several centuries ago. The simple fact is that at present times, it is not acceptable. The laws that exist reflect this. Just as someone cannot be tried for something they did that was not a crime at the time that they did it, to try to apply modern laws to a crime that occurred several centuries ago by way of argument is misguided. The fact is that the concept of human security did not exist, nor did any sort of organization that remotely resembled the United Nations.

So the question remains, Who is arrogant enough to believe that they are intelligent enough, and know enough about zimbabwe, to decide on the correct plan of action? Hands up who has lived in ximbabwe, who has personally spoken to large portions of the zimbabwean people, hands up who has studied ximbabwean culture for years. If your hand isn't up, what makes you think you know best for those people besides arrogance?

That is all.

This is not a question of culture or language. That's an extremely valid argument against the invasion of Iraq, but not here. You want to talk about what is best for these people? Let's talk about how these people VOTED for Morgan Tsvangirai. He won by a landslide, but Mugabe used the power and connections he already has to assure that he retains power. CLEARLY these people do not want Mugabe in power. That much is reflected in the voting results. The United Nations doesn't want to enter Zimbabwe, pull down a statue of Mugabe, and then wait for democracy to suddenly materialize. I think that's a misconception you have. What the United Nations wants, ideally, is for Mugabe to step out of power and for the man whom the Zimbabwe citizens RIGHTFULLY elected to take power. Or would you also argue that Zimbabwe citizens don't know what they want for their country either?

 

[Donald Trump]

You said yourself that morals change, so what makes you think that yours are any different? You said "oh you can't apply todays morals back then" In case you hadn't noticed, different countries haven't "evolved" their morals as far as the west has, yet you want to apply your morals to THOSE people via the UN, but not to your own leaders when their morals were similar? I smell hypocrisy

But we western countries supply them with; aid, medicine, weapons, industrial material. The west has created most of the problems in Africa.
We caused a 30+ year long Angolan Civil war.
If we are going to trade with them, and treat them as our equals, why not apply our morals.
People are being murdered and tortured, perhaps if this was a ruthless dictator who was doing good for the country, it would be a little more acceptable(many African authors have said that a dictator wouldn't be a bad thing, as for sources, they are in books, I'll name one Anthills of the Savanna by Chinua Achebe) but obviously Mugabe isn't.
Zimbabwe/Rhodesia was once one of the richest countries in Africa now that a $100bn note.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7515823.stm

And THOSE are the people you trust to make the decision... You can sit and say "oh but the US isn't making the decision" No, all 5 of those countries are, and they're pretty much all as bad as the other. It's not unilateral. It's what those 5 an agree on. The other countries don't even matter. If those 5 say yes, it's yes. If one of them says no, it's no.

That is a criticism of the security council, but the US and Russia don't get along all that well. With the US installing its missile shield in E.Europe and Russia threatening Georgia, they are unlikely to just agree without serious consideration.

Also the general assembly does have power. They do vote for The Secretary-General(true the choice can be vetoed, but that didn't work with Boutros-Boutros Ghali). They also decide on the budget, and America pays for over 20% of that, so they aren't powerless.

 

[Erythritol]

You're neglecting to mention one vital fat though eryth.

The UN isn't just one nation, it's not just the US. But if the US says no, the answer is no. All it takes is one of the 5 "veto" nations to say no, and it doesn't happen. Which makes your arguement insanely pointless, because anything the UN does has to be AGREED upon by those countries you are saying "oh it's not just them"

Yeah, it has to be agreed upon by all members of the P5. And? What's your point? That just means that the United States isn't free to do whatever is in their best political interest, because it has to be agreed upon by China, Russia, France, and the UK. In a way, that makes it MORE secure, because it means that no one power (be it the US, the UK, China, etc) can do whatever they please. So that protects other countries from unilateral action by a P5 country through the guise of the UN. The only potential problem that I can see coming from this argument is if an atrocity were to occur in either China, the US, the UK, France, or Russia. And while I do admit, China certainly does not have the best human rights record, it's still not comparable to what is occurring in Zimbabwe. And I've stated before that UN justice is not even. I do not proclaim the UN to be a perfect organization by any means. But I think it's preferable to no action at all, quite frankly.

You see the problem with your argument? Those countries are still the countries that make the decision. The US still breaks international law, and the US DOES decide what happens in Zimbabwe, in that if it doesn't like the idea, it just says no to it.

These countries do make the decisions, yes. But they are not all western countries. And yes, US citizens have broken international law. And? Like I said in my previous post, they were PUNISHED. And yes, the United States does have a say in what happens in Zimbabwe, I never claimed otherwise. But I do stress the fact that it is not unilateral. And as I said above, the only time any of the P5 countries are likely to be defensive about involvement when atrocities are being committed is when their own country is in question. So your argument is pretty weak. We've already established, many times in fact, that no one here believes that the UN is perfect. But we've also established that none of the governments of the P5 nations are guilty of crimes of the same magnitude that are occurring in Zimbabwe. So really, it would be far more dangerous if all it took was just one vote from a P5 nation to take action. Your point just kind of adds to the validity of my argument.

So lets drop all the "UN" stuff, and just examine the moral implications etc of assassinating Mugabe, or invading zimbabwe etc, shall we? Since none of the countries who would make the decision on zimbabwe (and yes, it will be COUNTRIES which make that decision) are free of skeletons in the closet. Russia and China have fucked up human rights records. Britain was the biggest slave trading empire ever, The french are... well... french. The US still hasn't ratified rights for women and children.

Um....let's NOT drop all of the UN stuff. That's what we're discussing in this thread, because that's the type of international intervention-- if any is going to occur-- that will occur. The United Nations does not assassinate leaders, nor does it invade countries. Whether the countries belonging to the P5 are free of "skeletons in their closet" is irrelevant. To borrow a phrase from the little rules of debating sticky, you're beating the straw man. This thread isn't about the atrocities committed by the UK or the US or France or China or Russia. This is about what should be done in the PRESENT TIMES about atrocities occurring in Zimbabwe. And really, arguing against UN intervention to alleviate the dire situation in Zimbabwe on the grounds that some of the P5 members committed atrocities centuries ago...is weak and irrelevant.

And THOSE are the people you trust to make the decision... You can sit and say "oh but the US isn't making the decision" No, all 5 of those countries are, and they're pretty much all as bad as the other. It's not unilateral. It's what those 5 an agree on. The other countries don't even matter. If those 5 say yes, it's yes. If one of them says no, it's no.

Yes...we all understand how the security council works. Regardless of their histories which are, as I've stated above, quite irrelevant, you'll find that the only real trouble with the P5 is that they are extremely loath to criticize their own countries. That is the MAIN problem. But we are not talking about any of the P5 countries, unless Zimbabwe somehow slipped into the P5 without my knowledge. It is extremely easy to be impartial when your own country is not in question. So I wouldn't really question their impartiality on this matter.

You said yourself that morals change, so what makes you think that yours are any different? You said "oh you can't apply todays morals back then" In case you hadn't noticed, different countries haven't "evolved" their morals as far as the west has, yet you want to apply your morals to THOSE people via the UN, but not to your own leaders when their morals were similar? I smell hypocrisy

And I smell racism! I assure you that Africa is not a bunch of bushmen who live by the laws of nature. While morals of other countries may differ from ours, I would not really label any culture more "evolved" in terms of morals. However, on a few key issues, I believe it is quite safe to conclude that some morals are universally shared, such as the atrocities I have mentioned many times. And maybe you didn't see it in my previous post, but to drag myself away from your vague generalities about differing cultural morals, Zimbabwean citizens voted democratically for the opposition-- Morgan Tsvangirai. The United Nations is not trying to be the big imperialist and force a handpicked-by-Bush leader onto the people of Zimbabwe. Let's talk specifically about this case, since it IS the thread's subject. I'd like you to explain exactly how the United Nations is forcing western morals onto the people of Zimbabwe when they are clearly just trying to enforce the election results. Y'know, the results that the citizens of Zimbabwe decided for themselves. Do explain the hypocrisy in that

 

[Onusha]

My view on this is that WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERFERE.

What system of ethics are you using?

Regardless of the reasons behind it, because it's just a matter of time before "oh they're killing people" to "oh they're enslaving people" to "oh they're not giving women rights" to "oh, they aren't giving free speech" Next thing you know, we're forcing people to follow our rules or else.

That's like using the Christian/Religious mentality "Oh, if you allow homosexual marriage, soon incest will be accepted as a social norm".

The way i see it, none of us should have the right to tell other people what to do.

If a mother or father abuses their children do you think the state should be allowed to punish them for such unethical actions?

If people want to change things in their country, they can do what everyone else has done throughout history, and force that change.

I agree.

If the ruling party does something wrong, then the people should rise up, or move out. Giving other people the right to interfere will jsut lead to them abusing that right.

You do know Hitler and Milosovic were elected democratically right?

Oh and um. Bush didn't win his first term in office either remember? Should the UN have taken military action because he refused to give the seat over after the count proved he lost?

Yes.

 

[Onusha]

The state they chose to live in, and the laws they chose to be governed by? Yes.

Do i believe 5 OTHER countries should be allowed to say "we think what you're doing is wrong, and so we get to decide how you shall be punished"?

No.

Hope that clarifies.

Not really, because you're being hypocritical.

just because the thought of kids being mistreated makes *me* feel bad and uncomfortable, doesn't mean i suddenly think i have the right to make those decisions for other people. Hope that makes sense.

I'm not saying you should. I'm saying people who are educated in child psychology, should decide whether the parents are punished, because an educated group of individuals knows better than some random backward hick parents, on how to raise children.

My point is, a moral evil justifies outside intervention.

But nevertheless, you didn't answer my other question.
What system of ethics are you using in deciding that it was morally wrong to intervene on a foreign nation's situation, if said nation were committing an abhorrent moral evil?

 

[Onusha]

I'm a firm believer that everyone should come to their own decisions on morals and ethics. My decisions about this is based on evidence, not on any ethics i may follow.

So you think people should choose whether pedophilia/child pornography is a moral evil or not?

Just because someone is educated, doesn't make them correct.

You're kidding right?

There are things which educated people knew for a thousand years, that it turns out were wrong.

So you think circumcising women, hanging homosexuals and disallowing women an education will possibly one day be morally right?

Especially with something like raising a child, which is *never* an exact science, and always carries a heavy dose of opinion.

Yes, but there are accepted truths, decided on by consensus within psychology.

Even at the top of the child psychology field there is no universal agreement on the correct way to raise a child

No, but there is educated majority opinion.

My decision is based on history, and on my belief that if you solve a persons problems for them, they won't learn to solve their own problems.

Yeah, we should have let the Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, Jehova's Witnesses, political opponents and Slavs (like myself) all fight off those Nazi's themselves, otherwise they'll just never learn... oh them...

Interference from the outside is open to abuse

Duh, doesn't make it an absolute though.

much better for people, and nations, to learn how to take care of their own problems. Throughout history that is what has happened, and historically speaking, interference doesn't usually end well.

20th century. WW1, WW2, Korean War, UN/EU interference in Serbian genocides in the Balkans.

I said that if someone chooses to live in a place and be governed by those rules, then they have to follow them,

I agree with that, but some people just can't pack up and leave, it's not that easy.

but they shouldn't have to follow the rules of 5 other rulers whose nation they *DIDN'T* choose to live in. Clear enough now?

Yes, it is clear, doesn't mean I agree with you though.

I feel the need to point to Karl's posts here; moral evils are completely subjective.

I don't agree, but let's say they are, because they're subjective, again, we should just allow people to decide whether pedophilia is a moral evil.

I remove any possibility of that subjectivity affecting my decisions by sticking to a very simple policy: Don't interefere, period.

A German/Italian National-Socialist Europe would have been interesting.

I don't think i have the right to decide what is and is not correct.

You do, and If you're educated in a certain field, you have the right to action regarding that field.

I've studied history enough to know opinions change on everything over time (Yes, even on things like genocide - Check a bible, when people thought that in certain situations, Genocide was justifiable) I am not arrogant enough to assume that i know best, that i am the supreme judge on all that is right and wrong.

You've studied history, congratulations. And opinions do change over time (I feel like you're repeating yourself here) but there are objective moral evils whether you like it or not.

I think people who take it upon themselves to decide which nations or rulers are being "evil" enough to warrant actions, are being rather arrogant,

Yeah, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were all arrogant shits for thinking National-Socialism was a "bad idea" (Well Stalin sure was anyway).

they must have extremely large opinions of their own intelligence to think that they know better than everyone else who has ever lived.

No, there's a large difference between ignorance and educated belief or Epistemology.

It's important to remember that some of the most intelligent people who ever lived had some very different morals to us

Yeah, but in what way were they intelligent? Intelligence isn't just some bar on the side of the screen you need to fill up, there are endless fields of intelligence, a person educated in economics has more right to claim truth over some random protester on the street for example, because he has been educated in that field.

by declaring that your opinion on right or wrong is the "correct" opinion, you are entering dangerous territory

Oh no! I claim that female circumcision is an objective moral evil! Somebody bring out the gallows quick!