They said "Never Again!" . . . but they lied

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
There are quite a few places that we should be invading if gross human rights violations justify an unprovoked attack.

Does locking up "unlawful combatants" indefinitely count as gross human rights violations?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by johncmcleod

If you want to spread democracy throughout the world, the best way to do it would be first to remove the dictators of countries that could support a democracy. But you wouldn't do it the US way and twist everything for your own interests. The thing to do is to cut off the dictator from any support and put pressure on him. If this is done any unpopular regime will fall.

While I would agree in principle, the example of Iraq would suggest that such a method is not foolproof.

[johncmcleod]

There is a difference. The US went into Iraq with guns blazing and took over the country. Now the fate of the Iraqi people is in the hands of people who are doing whatever is best for themselves and/or America's "interests." But by the method I listed above, the people themselves are building up the country, the US is not in control and cannot twist things to serve themselves.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Does locking up "unlawful combatants" indefinitely count as gross human rights violations?

No.

[Az]

Che, you act as if you were surprised. Please, tell me that you're not that naive.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
There is a difference. The US went into Iraq with guns blazing and took over the country.

Though there were 12 years of severe sanctioning beforehand, and it failed to destabilise the Ba'athists.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The problem is that too many vile regimes are left alone as they are convenient or profitable- take Burma and Indonesia as examples.

I would prefer to see a human-rights body formed that has the power to place blanket sanctions forbidding trade with such nations, binding on all UN states. However, I think the phrase "snowball's chance in hell" springs to mind.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Why "we" did nothing in Rwanda? Unwillingness to expose our boys in the line of fire*, the strategic unimportantness of the region, the Rwandan regime having unlikely friends in influential places, the fact that international politics are alot about realpolitik and not alot about humanistic ideals.

Spot on. Also African wars are considered par for the course in the West, mostly because of the geographical boundaries and thus many countries have a wait out the wars and see what happens attitute.

This was not a war.

This was armed bands going into villages and killing every man, woman and child with machetes, then proceeding to the next village. If you had $32, they would shoot you to save you the experience of being hacked to bits alive.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by johncmcleod

If you want to spread democracy throughout the world, the best way to do it would be first to remove the dictators of countries that could support a democracy.

Like who?

But you wouldn't do it the US way and twist everything for your own interests. The thing to do is to cut off the dictator from any support and put pressure on him. If this is done any unpopular regime will fall.

Consider the examples of Cuba and NK.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The problem is that too many vile regimes are left alone as they are convenient or profitable- take Burma and Indonesia as examples.

I would prefer to see a human-rights body formed that has the power to place blanket sanctions forbidding trade with such nations, binding on all UN states. However, I think the phrase "snowball's chance in hell" springs to mind.

I used to believe this.

I now think it is too short sighted and impatient.

Forbidding trade didn't stop Saddam from building new palaces.

I believe trade is one key way to help to advance nations towards democracy. It seems to be having that effect. It supports overall increase in standard of living, tends to increase the need and desire for education of the citizens, exposes more of their people to democratic ideals and processes, and builds communication infracstructure.

An enlightened population creates democracy. You need trade.

Generally, I believe governments evolve.
Fundamentalism/Royalty --> Dictatorship --> Democracy.

Iraq had better education and higher status for women than most ME countries, prior to Kuwait.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This was not a war.

By definition it was a war... it simply also included genocide.

[East Street Trader]

It looks as though the "we" in this thread is the USA.

In which case I would be against an invasion to prevent genocide.

Because the single greatest evil which the human race must eliminate is war between nation states.

And you cannot pick and choose bas regards war and the causes for war wars. If it remains at all legitimate for one nation state to impose its will by force on another then it is no good hoping that somehow this will only be done for good cause.

And even where there is good cause - to prevent genocide as suggested here - any war between two well matched nation states produces far more misery than even the Rwandan genocide.

Eliminating wars between nation states must take precedence to preventing genocide - or any other good.

Which does not mean that I support just ignoring genocide.

On the contrary, it seems to me that the time has come for each nation state to accept a set of laws which will bind its behaviour.

Not mere treaty obligations but rules of law with a force standing ready to uphold them.

And that means we need some new supra-national institutions, a world police force, a world legislature and a world court.

Some steps have been taken down this road. We have the United Nations, we have the UN convention on human rights, the Un convention on the rights of the child, the various Geneva Conventions, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the International Labour Organisation. Also some courts have been set up to preside over the resolution of particular disputes.

If the pace of these developments hastens then the "we" who can contempate intervening to prevent plain wrongdoing, such as the awful events in Rwanda, can be a rather larger "we" than just the USA or any other single nation state. Such action would be police action and intervention of that kind I would be very happy to support. Whether by way of the payment of a world tax or in any other way.

[Az]

So, what you're saying is that if Hitler wouldn't have invaded any nation, it would be ok to let him do whatever he wanted?

[East Street Trader]

WWII illustrates the point Azazel. Hitler led the German people to commit appalling atrocities and many millions died in the concentration camps. But many times as many people died in the war as died by reason of the atrocities.

Incidentally it is worth remembering that WWII was not fought to put a stop to the atrocities. It was fought for the same tired old reasons for which wars have been fought down the ages - the desire of one country or another (or more properly some few individuals within those countries) for territory and for influence/power over others.

Now had the world been more grown up at the time Germany under Adolf Hitler began its annexation of its neighbours' territory and had the world then developed a rule of law binding upon nations (with an effective police force to back it up) then it seems to me very likely that one of the laws would have outlawed annexing territory. So action would have been taken (by the whole world) to stop Hitler in his tracks a good deal earlier.

Indeed, because the existence of law and effective police deters criminal behaviour it would have been that much more difficult for Hitler to persuade the German people down the road he took them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why should that be the determining factor?

All nations that are signatories to the UN Charter have pledged to take action to end genocide-which is why back in 1994 the US and everyone else went through semantic hoops NOT to call it genocide.

So, if you ask why? Cause its the law.