PDA

View Full Version : Right we have an excuse!


jonathan7
06-05-2008, 02:32 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4074033.ece

So lets get Mugabe out, send in the SAS and put an end to this fools rule.

He's in Italy, so lets arrest him for human rights abuses!

I think our wrong invasion of Iraq has seriously hindered decision making in places where we SHOULD intervene.

Thoughts?

Corinthian
06-05-2008, 03:44 PM
Cruise Missile meets Capital Building. But this is coming from the guy who also wouldn't mind if we turned 95% of the Middle-East into a featureless plain of Trinitite. I don't like the idea of sending in the SAS or any other Spec-Ops team when we've got perfectly good weapons that can hit from more than a safe distance. No sense losing perfectly good Brits.

SilentScope001
06-05-2008, 10:54 PM
I think our wrong invasion of Iraq has seriously hindered decision making in places where we SHOULD intervene.

Have you forgotten Somaila and (currently) Afghanistan? I don't think running troops in the middle of nowhere fighting for 'human rights' would be a very good idea, wasting money and time. And all the time we have to focus on, studying factions carefully, making sure each faction live up to our 'human rights' standards, etc., etc. What if American forces end up propping up an anti-Mugabe's regime which is just as ineffective as Mugabe's regime? Not to mention, well, this sort of intervention will only tell Mugabe that he is right: That the Western world wants to re-establish control over his country...moral issues or not.

Whatever. I'm just glad such idle calls for action has not been acted upon...yet.

I'm more venting about the ICC arresting the former Vice-President of Congo, Bemba (http://allafrica.com/stories/200805301084.html) on charges that his troops may have committed war crimes during their stint defending the former Central African Republic President, Ange-Felix Patasse. This Vice-President was leader of the largest opposition group in Congo (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL27385005), and his removal basically means that Congo can now be run by President Joseph Kabila Kabange unhindered (somewhat, Congo is still pretty much a warzone). Keep in mind that I strongly wonder about irregularities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo_general_election% 2C_2006) in his 2006 election, and also keep in mind that Kablia's bodyguards tried to murder off (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo_general_election% 2C_2006#Clashes_in_Kinshasa) Bemba. And that Kablia's father was partly responsible for the whole Second Congoese War, blah, blah, blah.

The fact is, I think that Western intervention on only one party leaves the other guilty party stronger for it, which I feel is not only unfair, but plain stupid if your goal is to promote morality. It will just turn the 'Western intervention' into a tool to be used by tinpot dictators and tinpot rebels alike.

jonathan7
06-06-2008, 08:09 AM
Have you forgotten Somaila and (currently) Afghanistan? I don't think running troops in the middle of nowhere fighting for 'human rights' would be a very good idea, wasting money and time. And all the time we have to focus on, studying factions carefully, making sure each faction live up to our 'human rights' standards, etc., etc. What if American forces end up propping up an anti-Mugabe's regime which is just as ineffective as Mugabe's regime? Not to mention, well, this sort of intervention will only tell Mugabe that he is right: That the Western world wants to re-establish control over his country...moral issues or not.

Bad Foreign Policy decisions have been made in the past, and neither was I calling for outright war, what I was suggesting, was the assignations or kidnap/arrests of key personal to Mugabe's regime. With him in Italy, we know exactly where he is, and sod international protocol, we should just arrest him.

Whatever. I'm just glad such idle calls for action has not been acted upon...yet.

Whatever you may think of me SS, do not think this is an ideal call to action, I'm well aware of the great many foreign policy mistakes made in the past; not going into Rwanda was one, going into Iraq for a second time another.

I'm more venting about the ICC arresting the former Vice-President of Congo, Bemba (http://allafrica.com/stories/200805301084.html) on charges that his troops may have committed war crimes during their stint defending the former Central African Republic President, Ange-Felix Patasse. This Vice-President was leader of the largest opposition group in Congo (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL27385005), and his removal basically means that Congo can now be run by President Joseph Kabila Kabange unhindered (somewhat, Congo is still pretty much a warzone). Keep in mind that I strongly wonder about irregularities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo_general_election% 2C_2006) in his 2006 election, and also keep in mind that Kablia's bodyguards tried to murder off (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo_general_election% 2C_2006#Clashes_in_Kinshasa) Bemba. And that Kablia's father was partly responsible for the whole Second Congoese War, blah, blah, blah.

I can't comment to far on the Congo situation, as I'm not too versed in it.

The fact is, I think that Western intervention on only one party leaves the other guilty party stronger for it, which I feel is not only unfair, but plain stupid if your goal is to promote morality. It will just turn the 'Western intervention' into a tool to be used by tinpot dictators and tinpot rebels alike.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Morgan Tsvangirai is a saint, something has to be done about Mugabe.

SilentScope001
06-06-2008, 01:29 PM
Bad Foreign Policy decisions have been made in the past, and neither was I calling for outright war, what I was suggesting, was the assignations or kidnap/arrests of key personal to Mugabe's regime. With him in Italy, we know exactly where he is, and sod international protocol, we should just arrest him.

And again, you're playing into the hands of Mugabe, with him alledging imperialism. You'd be proving him right all this time.

Plus, you can't just go out and try to arrest or kill off people just because you hate them, isn't that exactly the same thing that Mugabe has done in his excuse?

Whatever you may think of me SS, do not think this is an ideal call to action, I'm well aware of the great many foreign policy mistakes made in the past; not going into Rwanda was one, going into Iraq for a second time another.

Um, hm.

I'd say that intervening in Rwanda would have been a bad idea too. You'd be aiding the Rwandan rebels, the Tutsi-RDF, who was able to take over the government after the Hutu rebellions. It is very likely the RDF has committed counter-genocide against the Hutu during their takeover of Rwanda and the invasion of Congo...but I don't know the extent, and I'll admit it is 'less'. But if your goal is to stop genocide, helping another group commit a lesser form of genocide doesn't exactly count as success. They also fought in the First and Second Congo Wars too, with many people accusing the Tutsis of fighting for natural resources.

And the RDF isn't exactly the model for democracy too. The RDF can ban or severly limit political parties it hates, and will limit the power of many "non-governmental organizations" if they believe they promote "genocide ideology". Their election in 2003 has been compared to, well, Mugabe's elections, and their trial system may be considered unfair. According to Freedom House, they have the Political Liberty score of 6, and the Civil Liberties Score of 5. Yes, I know, I shouldn't rely on Freedom House, but the point remain that if even a pro-American think tank hates the RDF, then something must be wrong.

So, yes, I'll call it an ideal call to action, because you only paid attention to the Hutu genocide, and not of the crimes the RDF has done, which possibly include counter-genocide. If the UN has intervened in Rwanda, then the blood and the crimes that the RDF has done...will be on their hands as well.

I can't comment to far on the Congo situation, as I'm not too versed in it.

I understand, but people do need to know this sort of stuff instead of having tunnel vision. Devoting yourself only to one 'disaster' while not realizing that other people in other countries nearby are also suffering 'disasters'...well...I don't really see it as wise.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Morgan Tsvangirai is a saint, something has to be done about Mugabe.

Does it? Must something be done to solve every problem or situation in the world, spending all our resources in order to try and fix it into something that you are happy with, and then turning a blind eye when we realize the problems with our choices? Do you know how much time, energy, and resources must be spent to 'fix' just one problem? And how much time, energy, and resources must be devoted into trying to make sure that country does not fall off track? What about the cynicism that will eventually rise when it turns out that the new government will not meet the high expectations you set for it?

The more time you spend trying interventions to 'fix' one regime, then to do other interventions to 'fix' other regimes, the less time you would have to actually devote to other, far more pressing, problems...at home.

mur'phon
06-06-2008, 06:56 PM
To be honest, I don't think aresting mugabe is the best way, the "big men" would just find a new guy. However, to be rid of Mugabe(and his cronies) some armed observateurs (AKA troops), with the right label (preferably A.U) would be one way to do it. Besides, having him felled in an election would do wonders for stability. Alternatively, Tsvangirai could be granted enough cash to outbid him on the vote market, and defend "their" voters.

So, yes, I'll call it an ideal call to action, because you only paid attention to the Hutu genocide, and not of the crimes the RDF has done, which possibly include counter-genocide. If the UN has intervened in Rwanda, then the blood and the crimes that the RDF has done...will be on their hands as well

I'd still say it would be worth it, it's not where the blood is that matters, but how much it is.

As for Congo, I agree with you, too bad Congos "Mandela" was killed early.

The more time you spend trying interventions to 'fix' one regime, then to do other interventions to 'fix' other regimes, the less time you would have to actually devote to other, far more pressing, problems...at home.

But if my problem is that people suffer, helping abroad can often provide more value for the money spent.

jonathan7
06-11-2008, 07:56 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4116638.ece

SS; I don't give a monkeys if Mugabe alleges imperialism or not, as I frankly don't care what the man thinks. I'm not too bothered what most African governments including the South African thought if we went in; as they should have done something long ago...

I'd say that intervening in Rwanda would have been a bad idea too. You'd be aiding the Rwandan rebels, the Tutsi-RDF, who was able to take over the government after the Hutu rebellions. It is very likely the RDF has committed counter-genocide against the Hutu during their takeover of Rwanda and the invasion of Congo...but I don't know the extent, and I'll admit it is 'less'. But if your goal is to stop genocide, helping another group commit a lesser form of genocide doesn't exactly count as success. They also fought in the First and Second Congo Wars too, with many people accusing the Tutsis of fighting for natural resources.

And the RDF isn't exactly the model for democracy too. The RDF can ban or severly limit political parties it hates, and will limit the power of many "non-governmental organizations" if they believe they promote "genocide ideology". Their election in 2003 has been compared to, well, Mugabe's elections, and their trial system may be considered unfair. According to Freedom House, they have the Political Liberty score of 6, and the Civil Liberties Score of 5. Yes, I know, I shouldn't rely on Freedom House, but the point remain that if even a pro-American think tank hates the RDF, then something must be wrong.

So, yes, I'll call it an ideal call to action, because you only paid attention to the Hutu genocide, and not of the crimes the RDF has done, which possibly include counter-genocide. If the UN has intervened in Rwanda, then the blood and the crimes that the RDF has done...will be on their hands as well.

Its not about aiding either side, you leave UN troops in with a mandate to maintain the peace, in the same way they did in Serbia; you stop the genocide and stop a revenge genocide too.

JediMaster12
06-11-2008, 09:39 PM
SS; I don't give a monkeys if Mugabe alleges imperialism or not, as I frankly don't care what the man thinks. I'm not too bothered what most African governments including the South African thought if we went in; as they should have done something long ago...
You probably should care since history has shown time and again that the US engages in neo imperialism. Heck this current situation with Iraq is illegal in the aspect that a) it violates the UN Chater and b) it violates our constitution. The history of US policy has been economically based, done to forward US interests. Heck we financed Osama before we decided on a man hunt.
In the eyes of the world, we are essentially bullies and butting our noses into everyone else's business for the sake of our own.

jonathan7
06-11-2008, 09:44 PM
You probably should care since history has shown time and again that the US engages in neo imperialism.

You will get a rather irate post from me, considering some how you have decided I'm American - I don't know how but I'm decidedly not amused...

For the last time... I'm NOT American - REMEMBER THIS JONATHAN7 *IS NOT AMERICAN*, I'm technically British - specifically Welsh, but aside from Sports I classify myself as a Citizen of the World, as I don't actually lend my allegiance to any country; I think all governments are self serving!

Heck this current situation with Iraq is illegal in the aspect that a) it violates the UN Chater and b) it violates our constitution. The history of US policy has been economically based, done to forward US interests. Heck we financed Osama before we decided on a man hunt.
In the eyes of the world, we are essentially bullies and butting our noses into everyone else's business for the sake of our own.

Also I petitioned and protested about the fact we shouldn't have gone into Iraq.

So in conclusion, sir, your post was utterely irrelevant to me - which is amusing considering you started it with a quote with me, perhaps you may wish before posting getting facts correct, before making assertions of members. [/END MOOD]

As for Zimbabwe, given it is a former colony of the British, I do think there is a reason as to why 'we' have concerns about the situation.

Jae Onasi
06-12-2008, 10:52 AM
Let's all tone it down a bit please, folks. :)

You probably should care since history has shown time and again that the US engages in neo imperialism.

Except jonathan7 wasn't talking about the US--he's from the UK. ;) He also talked about UN intervention, not American neo-imperialism.

Let's face it--the UN moves at such a crawl that snail-racing moves at warp 9 in comparison. There are easily grounds for Mugabe's arrest if the UN chooses to get off its butt and actually do something.

The UN should have intervened in Rwanda in a much greater way and didn't. It should be intervening in Sudan and it's not. The UN actually had a right to intervene in Iraq, too, since Iraq had violated UN resolutions. It chose not to take the lead when it should have. People like Mugabe can thumb their noses at the UN because they know it's full of a bunch of bureaucrats who are going to sit around and pass resolutions that are for the most part completely worthless.

If the UN is going to be the world body that promotes human rights and international security, it needs to put its money where its mouth is or risk becoming irrelevant. Sometimes that means sending in troops to stop genocide, even if it doesn't want to resort to military means. Its job shouldn't be removing one dictator and replacing it with another. However, if one dictator is responsible for wholesale slaughter, that dictator needs to be stopped, and the UN has not been living up to its responsibilities in that arena.

ForeverNight
06-12-2008, 11:07 AM
Let's face it--the UN moves at such a crawl that snail-racing moves at warp 9 in comparison.

Are we talking the Warp Scale from the Original Series, or from Next Generation? :xp:

However, if one dictator is responsible for wholesale slaughter, that dictator needs to be stopped, and the UN has not been living up to its responsibilities in that arena.

When has the UN done something correctly in the past 20 years? I honestly can't think of a time that the UN actually did something that they didn't manage to screw up?


But, as somebody said earlier, about arresting Mugabe (Jonathan7, I think). Heck, he can cry imperialism all he wants, but if he thinks that that's going to save him... well, he should have another thing coming...

Corinthian
06-12-2008, 11:52 AM
That depends, Forever Night. If they get up to Warp Ten, do they turn into salamanders?

The U.N. has done a pretty good job posturing, looking good, and making sure that their hands area always clean when the Secretary-General or his family start sticking their fingers into economic pies.

SilentScope001
06-12-2008, 05:34 PM
SS; I don't give a monkeys if Mugabe alleges imperialism or not, as I frankly don't care what the man thinks. I'm not too bothered what most African governments including the South African thought if we went in; as they should have done something long ago...

Really now? If you really want to ensure Zimbawe is alright after you get your way and overthrow Mugabe, you're going to need to continue having political dominance over Zimbawae. And if another Mugabe-like figure rises again, you are going to have to go in and stop them, etc., etc.

You are not an American citizen, but you do live in the Western world. If you approve of more and more interventions in order to make sure the world behaves in a way you believe to be the correct way, rightly or wrongly, you're going to be perceived as imperialistic, wanting to ensure political dominanation over a nation so as to ensure that nation behave in a certain manner, promoting human rights, democracy, good governence, etc. Mugabe's ouster will only provide evidence that you do desire to impose your will, rightly or wrongly.

I also dislike you dismissing the beliefs of the leaders of most African governments. I do care what most African governments believe. They're the ones who have to deal with this situation, not you. They're the ones having to live there. You're not. They're the ones having to deal with refugees if the government collaspes. You're not. If you do something wrong, if you make a mistake, you personally will not suffer the consquences. They will.

Its not about aiding either side, you leave UN troops in with a mandate to maintain the peace, in the same way they did in Serbia; you stop the genocide and stop a revenge genocide too.

Except, um, the UN cannot truly be netrual if they are fighting for human rights.

And they cannot truly be netrual if the UN goes out and start striking against the Hutus, battling the Hutus, and weakening them. Why would the Tustis counter-genocide, mind you? The UN would be doing their work for them, taking out the Hutu forces and ensuring the Tustis are able to prevail in the conflict.

The UN are going to be 'preceived' as taking a side, even if the UN itself claim not to, because of the UN peacekeepers' actions which will actually help or hinder one side. I'll need the resident Serbian here, igyman, to see his views on the UN intervention in Serbia, but from what I read, many Serbians see the UN as anti-Serb, usually becuase the UN intervention was seen as taking away the land that belong to Serbs.

If the UN is going to be the world body that promotes human rights and international security, it needs to put its money where its mouth is or risk becoming irrelevant.

The UN is a world body composing of different nations, many of which have different views, especially on the major issue of 'self-determination', where the major powers of the US government and the Chinese government both differs, to put it midly. The UN has a bent on helping the world people, true, but it exist because it provides a framework by which different nations can talk, instead of having to resort to violence or an unstable balance-of-power like in the 1910's.

If you want to promote human rights and international security, you need to create a new 'League of Democracy', like McCain supports, and do it yourself. And you're going to have to deal with accusations of bias, possible (armed) resistance in international politics, and you are going to have to deal with the fact that you're going to spend lots of time and resources to ensure the nation behaves correctly. The venture may be futile.

But the UN still matters, and will always matter, because Russia and China are still going to be major powers, and the US will have to deal with them anyway if the US want to really get anything done. They might as well talk to them within the confines of the UN.

When has the UN done something correctly in the past 20 years?
*United Nations Children's Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Children%27s_Fund)
*International Criminal Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court), ratified in 2002, which has the ability to investiage any violation of international law, and is currently holding war crime tribunals. These people issued indictments in many places, like in Rwanda, Congo, and Sudan.
*UN Peacekeeping Missions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_peacekeeping_missions)
*World Food Programme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Food_Programme)

The UN has done something. That doesn't mean its repuation isn't illdeserved though.