A strange question about war

[Traianvs]

With that in mind, I would like to ask whether anyone on these boards believes that the murder of millions of civilians, or hundreds of thousands, or what have you, by a government is reason enough to invade it. If you do not think so, please state why.

I agree with what UR said, but also: If a country is being invaded to stop genocides or similar reasons, it shouldn't be done by one or several countries ("the coalition") but by some institution like NATO, with all members having equal power, instead of a few privileged permanent members.

If the USA invade Iraq, then China should be allowed to invade Taiwan as well,... China even has more legit reasons as they see it as a revolting province. The USA is creating dangerous precedents for future nations intent on waging war

[Az]

Yes and Yes.

@ boring slippery slope and moral relativist arguments.

[germanos]

Re: A strange question about war

Originally posted by Zevico
I was thinking back to 2 years ago when America decided to invade Iraq. At the time I supported that action, not so much from 'weapons of mass destruction' as the belief that a genocidal dictator should not remain in power.

I'm sorry, but your question is way to vague to give a comprehensive answer

Ours is a society that is ostensibly opposed to genocide. We have been educated by World War 2, where not only the Nazis, but the ideology of isolationism, caused the deaths of millions.

I suppose you only speak for yourself, or perhaps for Austalia as a whole, but for Europe I wouldn't be so sure. The war in Yugoslavia has shown (to me) how thin the layer of civilasation is, and looking at the social/racial tensions in the Netherlands, I don't think the Dutch are immune to genocidal tendencies. Our WW2 record isn't that great either.

With that in mind, I would like to ask whether anyone on these boards believes that the murder of millions of civilians, or hundreds of thousands, or what have you, by a government is reason enough to invade it.

Excactly, what have you? Where would you draw the line? By every country that has the death penalty? A country that allows abortion? 10% of a minority?

I did not support the war against Iraq. But I couldn't bring myself to protest to loudly, as Saddam was such an ass.
But so far the war there has solved little, if anything. People are still being killed indiscriminately, and I seriously doubt life is better there nowadays then before the invasion.

There are few, if any, examples when an invasion on the grounds you propose have brought significant progress to the suffering populace.
Two cases I can think of where progress was made have been the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, and the Tanzanian invasion of Idi Amin's Uganda. But I know too little of these two conflicts to be sure.

In my view, the US/UK invasion of Iraq still has to prove its effectiveness, and I seriously doubt that at the current point in time there is still any positive result to be had.

[VetLegion]

@ boring slippery slope and moral relativist arguments.

So, you support Palestinian right of return?

[BeBMan]

In some cases there could have been done a lot more without making a full scale war plus regime change. Just take Sebrenica, a so-called UN safe-zone. I think with more political will and much less ignorance we could have prevented the massaker easily without having a full war. IMO in such cases a serious threat, or a moderate use of force could have been enough to get some results if done early enough. But usually we ignore such things until they become really extreme so that media and following our public notice them, and then still nobody is really willing to do something, unless someone sees its interests seriously touched by the problem.

[Az]

So, you support Palestinian right of return?

No, because it's unethical. What's the connection with the topic?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az

So, you support Palestinian right of return?

No, because it's unethical. What's the connection with the topic?

Unethical? Interesting point. Not that I understand the logic behind it.

its nice to know you already know what is and is not ethical already. Care to tell us what magic book you got all the answers from?

That being a big part of the point of the thread.

[Patroklos]

HOnestly, who cares what the military thinks? Its their job to carry out the government policy as long as it is in line with the ruling body of laws

Oh, I don;t know maybe becasue they constitute millions of voting citizens?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az

So, you support Palestinian right of return?

No, because it's unethical. What's the connection with the topic?

It's unethical for Palestinians to have the right to move back to where they and their families came from 50 years ago but ethical for Jews to have the right to move back to where some of their distant ancestors might have come from 2000 years ago?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Traianvs


I agree with what UR said, but also: If a country is being invaded to stop genocides or similar reasons, it shouldn't be done by one or several countries ("the coalition") but by some institution like NATO, with all members having equal power, instead of a few privileged permanent members.

That doesn't make sense - do you mean UN ?

If the USA invade Iraq, then China should be allowed to invade Taiwan as well,... China even has more legit reasons as they see it as a revolting province. The USA is creating dangerous precedents for future nations intent on waging war

Doesn't neither make sense - Taiwan isn't starting wars with it's neighbours, doesn't use WMD's on it's own population and isn't a dictatorship.

If the Iraq war should make any precedence, it should allow Taiwan to invade China - wich of course is pretty rediciously

[Zkribbler]

Go to war to put an end to a evil regime bent on aggression??

Not only was that Bush's excuse, it was also the rationale used by Osama bin Laden.

The Treaty of Westphalia not only put an end to the 30 years' war, but established the right of governments to handle their internal affairs without having to worry about outside invasion.

I think the UN, because of its broad need for concensus, and serve as a needed exception to the Treaty of Westphalia, but individual nations need to respect it.

I'm sure China can characterize Taiwan as an evil regime which needs to be replaced, justifying invasion. However, such a self-serving definition is not sufficient to plunge countries into war.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The Treaty of Westphalia not only put an end to the 30 years' war, but established the right of governments to handle their internal affairs without having to worry about outside invasion.

I think the UN, because of its broad need for concensus, and serve as a needed exception to the Treaty of Westphalia, but individual nations need to respect it.

I thought we shreaded that during Kosovo?

[Zkribbler]

Agreed.

...and Grenada, and Panama.

[DanS]

Re: Re: A strange question about war

Originally posted by DinoDoc
In and of itself, no it isn't a valid reason to invade. (I was also opossed to the Kosovo intervention) Idealist crusades like that only serve to lead a nation into unecessary conflicts and weaken its hand should real threats come up.

What did you think of Gulf War I?

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: A strange question about war

Originally posted by DanS


What did you think of Gulf War I?

The justification for that war was very simple, given that Iraq had invaded another member of the UN, meaning that the international community had every right to force Iraq out of Kuwait. That is what the Coolition did.

Not thought how the Coolition DID NOT change the regime in Iraq.