07-04-2004 11:48									#31
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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?

	07-04-2004 12:15									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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.

	07-04-2004 12:38									#33
	Support Apolyton

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.

	07-04-2004 12:46									#34
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Does locking up "unlawful combatants" indefinitely count as gross human rights violations?

No.

	07-04-2004 12:59									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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

	07-04-2004 13:00									#36
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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.

	07-04-2004 13:03									#37
	Tired of ads?

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.

	07-04-2004 17:35									#38
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: 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.

	07-04-2004 17:41									#39
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

	07-04-2004 17:42									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	07-04-2004 17:48									#41
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: This was not a war.

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

	07-04-2004 17:49									#42
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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.

	07-04-2004 17:51									#43
	Got spare money?

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?

	07-04-2004 18:26									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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.

	07-04-2004 18:38									#45
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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.

	07-04-2004 18:41									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Consider the examples of Cuba and NK.

Neither of which are unpopular regimes. On the contrary, both enjoy considerable support from their people, especially NK, where the fanatical devotion to their dictator is a religious experience.

	07-04-2004 18:43									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc A statement that applies to so many countries as to be laughably meaningless. Unless of course you'd care to spearhead the invasion into China or North Korea.

Genocide is a specific crime-different from general repression of people seen as current political enemies.

A campaing to wipe out a specific group of people is genocide, with the categories set out- "political enemies" not one of them.

Hence all the toher regimes here mentioned have diddly to do with genocide-and again, international law states all members of the UN have to intervene in the case of genocide. The previous genocide to rwanda that the world did nothing about was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rougue.

If we decided to label Saddam's campaign against the Kurds as genocide, feel free to ask Mssrs. Reagan and Bush senior why they did squat. By 2003 Saddam was NOT "committing genocide", which again, is different from old fashioned despotism.

So lets stop the annoying, and more importantly, INCORRECT, comparisons, OK?

	07-04-2004 18:48									#48
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

EST: According to Rummel's figures, WWII cost about 30 million combat dead (that includes civilians killed in battle, but not ones killed in strategic bombing), while the Nazis various genocides and mass murders killed about 20 million (incl artificial famines in East Europe), and the Soviets 13 million. Add millions more by the Japanese and various Chinese factions

That is, what Rummel calls 'democide' (genocide + mass murder by government) killed more people than fighting did during the bloodiest war in human history. Look at the 20th century as a whole, and democide is much greater killer than war.

Couple of relevant links:

http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_totals.html
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/rummel/20th.htm

	07-04-2004 18:53									#49
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Oh God, that dmeocide crap!

Whatever. Genocide has a definition-though of course, sadly it is not iron clad, so people can ***** and get out of it. And when something is defined as Genocide, the world is supposed to act.

And Rwanda most definitelly was Genocide-which made the games to avoid that definition disgusting.

	07-04-2004 18:53									#50
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Iran, Nicaragua, Indonesia.

I'm not familiar with the Nicaraguan case, and have my doubts that foreing pressure was instrumental in the fall of the Suharto regime.

What really surprises me, however, is seeing Iran on the list. The Shah regime wasn't isolated, and the Islamic regime has as yet not fallen. Just what are you refering to?

	07-04-2004 18:55									#51
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap Oh God, that dmeocide crap!

Would you please expand in this remark?

	07-04-2004 19:02									#52
	Got spare money?

Categorisiing those who die while a war rages has no relevance to my point, Last Conformist. Whether a person dies in combat or dies when war sweeps over his home or from the disease which war brings in its wake they are still all dead.

The numbers who died in the second world war on the eastern front alone were huge.

And as weapons grow ever more powerful the number of deaths goes up exponentially. The deaths in a major war fought to-day do not bear thinking about. Assuming any life survives at all.

	07-04-2004 19:09									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist Would you please expand in this remark?

This term has no standing. Fine, people are free to use it, but the fact is the law divides these types of killings-

Democide is like syaing all murder 1st degree, murder 2nd degree, manslaughter 1st degree, 2nd degree and any other distinct level fo killing are all the same, blah, blah, blah. Well, there are distinctions, even if most people don't care for them, and it is the distinctions that lead to policy.

	07-04-2004 19:13									#54
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Neither of which are unpopular regimes. On the contrary, both enjoy considerable support from their people, especially NK, where the fanatical devotion to their dictator is a religious experience.

Its pretty hard to judge the popularity of totalitarian regimes. Saddam Hussein took 99.9% of the vote. We do have continuous evidence though that people want to leave Cuba bad enough that they are willing to risk their lives to do so. As for NK, I doubt that the hundreds of thousands of people in the concentrations camps support the government. As for the rest - who knows?

	07-04-2004 19:21									#55
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader Categorisiing those who die while a war rages has no relevance to my point, Last Conformist. Whether a person dies in combat or dies when war sweeps over his home or from the disease which war brings in its wake they are still all dead.

Then you have to millions and millions of people who died of high age to the death toll of WWII.

I, however, disagree. If we're to appraise the benefits of eliminating war, we must have some idea how many of the deaths would have occured without the war.

Following Rummel again, the Soviets killed 9 million '36-'40, 13 million '41-'45, and 16 million '46-'53. It does seem like a reasonable assumption that the death toll for the middle period would not have been extremely much lower without the Great Patriotic War.

quote: And as weapons grow ever more powerful the number of deaths goes up exponentially. The deaths in a major war fought to-day do not bear thinking about. Assuming any life survives at all.

I assume you're talking about nuclear war. That could indeed swiftly make the death toll of all wars, democides and homicides of the 20th century seem insignificant. However, avoiding nuclear war is not necessarily incompatible with using non-nuclear war as a tool for stopping genocide or mass murder. That war is the killer with the greatest capacity for causing death is not the same as it being the killer likely to take the highest toll.

	07-04-2004 19:24									#56
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GePap So lets stop the annoying, and more importantly, INCORRECT, comparisons, OK?

Why not? If we are talking about invading countries who pose little or no threat to us over such BS reasons, why should we not carry it out to the logical conclusion esp when we have a long running genocide going on a few countries above Rawanda that no one seems intent on invading the territory to stop.

	07-04-2004 19:30									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap This term has no standing. Fine, people are free to use it, but the fact is the law divides these types of killings- Democide is like syaing all murder 1st degree, murder 2nd degree, manslaughter 1st degree, 2nd degree and any other distinct level fo killing are all the same, blah, blah, blah. Well, there are distinctions, even if most people don't care for them, and it is the distinctions that lead to policy.

If it were the distinctions that led to policy, Rwanda would have been invaded, and Iraq not.

The point of my post was that governmental killings not directly related to war cost more lives during the last century than did actual war, which ought to cast some doubt on the proposition that war is the greatest threat to human life. Do you disagree with that?

	07-04-2004 20:30									#58
	Put an end to popups!

I see, according to the UN you cannot invade a country whatever the reason may be, oil, weapons of mass distruction, people dying

But you can invade and bomb Serbia because someone said 300,000 albanians were killed, although only 600 were

The United Nations

	07-04-2004 20:35									#59
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Why not? If we are talking about invading countries who pose little or no threat to us over such BS reasons, why should we not carry it out to the logical conclusion esp when we have a long running genocide going on a few countries above Rawanda that no one seems intent on invading the territory to stop.

"BS" reasons?

Are you having problems understanding?

The US signed the UN Charter and has agreed to abide by UN rules. One of these rules is that all members MUST act to stop genocide. Genocide has a specific definition-not all killing is genocide-just like shooting you would not be regicide, cause you are not a king. To be commiting genocide, you intent must be to wipe out a "people", with this defined as certain possible categories (killing all Buddhists in X state would be genocide, killing all members of X political party, not).

What went on in Rwanda was demonstrably a genocide-textbook case in fact. BUt the world community found ways to ignore its responsibility, which is the second great outrage of Rwanda, after the killing itself.

	07-04-2004 20:37									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist If it were the distinctions that led to policy, Rwanda would have been invaded, and Iraq not.

That crimes happen does not mean the law is meaingless.

quote: The point of my post was that governmental killings not directly related to war cost more lives during the last century than did actual war, which ought to cast some doubt on the proposition that war is the greatest threat to human life. Do you disagree with that?

The rwanda killing was not war related. The government of rwanda used the ongoing war as a excuse for a planned, premaditated campaing of mass killing-they distributed weapons, they told the killers were to go find victims-this is plain and simple genocide.