Least Deserving Case for Major International Military Intervention

[duke o' york]

Where did they get attack helicopters from?

[Drogue]

Re: Least Deserving Case for Major International Military Intervention

Originally posted by MOBIUS
From a purely humanitarian POV...

For a purely humantiarian POV, Iraq easily. All the others the only reason would be humanitarian, to try and stop the disaster occuring. Iraq is about safety and defence first, and humanitarian reasons second.

[monolith94]

Waterloo.

[Richelieu]

Re: Re: Least Deserving Case for Major International Military Intervention

Originally posted by Drogue
Iraq is about safety and defence first, and humanitarian reasons second.

[Dr Strangelove]

Your question is not clear. Are you asking if someone should have intervened in Cambodia 30 years ago or Rwanda 10 years ago or are you asking if someone should intervene in those areas now?

Someone did intervene in Cambodia - the Vietnamese acting as proxy for the Comintern. Someone did intervene in Rwanda - the militia of Burundi.

[Chemical Ollie]

Banana Republic option


Someone did intervene in Congo - the Guerilla. 3 million died. That's the "Democratic Republic of Congo" for you

[DanS]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Much of Africa is a disgrace upon the UN.

Or rather, a disgrace on HRM of B and NI, among others.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So, they kill, rape, and torture. But the INTENTION may be to expel, rather than to completely eliminate the group. And MOST deaths have been due to starvation and disease. So I guess one could say its not genocide, if one wished.

So starving the American Indians to death by eliminating the buffalo wasn't genocide?

I say, give Darfur to Chad.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Someone did intervene in Congo - the Guerilla. 3 million died. That's the "Democratic Republic of Congo" for you

The Democratic Republic of Congo is neither democratic nor a republic. It would be rather more to correct to say there is no state in the Congo. The genocidaires from the Rift Valley states are the ones responsibile for the deaths, though, not the government in Kinsasha or it's allies trying to drive the genocidaires out.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Someone did intervene in Cambodia - the Vietnamese acting as proxy for the Comintern.

The Comintern was officially abolished during WWII, though it had ceased to exist for all practical purposes in 1935. Vietnam invaded Cambodia because the Khmer Rouge were massacring Vietnamese border villages.

Someone did intervene in Rwanda - the militia of Burundi.

No, they were busy slaughtering their own people before being thrown out.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
HRW calls it ethnic cleansing. Though it seems that the means to encourage flight have included rape, among other things.

Rape is a dispicable and yet common weapon of war.

Ethnic Cleansing sounds about right. And yes, its intentions that matter, just like its intention that means an individual gets either the death penalty for first degree murder, or 25 to life for second degree murder.

[Ted Striker]

Darfur SHOULD have been where intervention occured, not Iraq

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Least Deserving Case for Major International Military Intervention

Originally posted by MOBIUS
From a purely humanitarian POV...

I think a humanitarian disaster would be something like the millions of people that will die from malaria this year. And next year. And the year after it, ad infinitum.

What about millions more that will die from a lack of clean water? And next year, and the year after it, etc.

Why aren't people paying more attention to these, than those puny human conflicts? 180,000 lives? What's that?

[Ming]

Poll fixed... and I didn't add a banana option