Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

shamrock_uk · 04-30-2005, 08:23 PM

Well, I was pro-getting rid of Saddam because I didn't like the idea of someone giving the finger to the UN for all these years over WMD.

Now the full facts are known my opinion has shifted considerably.

The problem with 'moral' interventions in the world is inevitably practicality.

For instance, I feel that Britain has a particular responsibility for getting rid of Mugabe as we were heavily involved in getting rid of Smith's government in the first place to allow elections to be held.

But is sending in the troops an option here? Is getting rid of Mugabe worth the human suffering it would cause? Granted, many die and are tortured or raped under the current regime, but there is no denying that Mugabe has popular support in many areas of the country, especially the urban ones. Support for the MDC is certainly not universal and even the seats they allege fraud in are mainly in rural areas. How do we punish someone like Mugabe without committing crimes comparable to his? I'm not convinced its possible.

Consider North Korea - in my opinion the greatest threat to world peace at the moment. Now in an ideal world I would be launching strikes to destroy any fledgling nuclear capability they have. But again, how do you change the regime and the system that keeps millions in desparate poverty? Everyone in the country is raised from birth to blame America for everything - an invasion would be fought tooth and nail for every inch and be tremendously costly. With a million men under arms its probably not even possible.

Russia and Chechnya are another example - we're simply unable to do anything in practice, no matter how large the crimes are.

So, if we can only punish weak states who we think committed crimes, what kind of justice is this?

By what right do we intervene into an oppressive state, when there is often popular support for it? Are we really being the 'voice of the people'?

How can we administer a punishment that won't result in the deaths of civilians?(whether by bombings or sanctions).

I think in the current climate its easy to forget how radically new the idea of humanitarian intervention into another state is - violating a nations sovereignty because of how they treat their citizens has gone from being an unthinkable act to almost common-talk in 50 years.

I'm not sure its a question of cajones either Azred - was the British public wrong to oppose the Iraq war? Are the coalition troops who did have the cajones in the right when their action has killed at least tens of thousands of Iraqis?

There is a worrying trend I think to de-humanise casualties. Ever since over three million people were killed in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in an attempt to stop the advance of Communism, it has been all too common to simply brush over it. Three million! Do it once more and you've equalled Hitler and his holocaust. Did the pilots who carpet bombed those countries have "cajones"? Were they just "doing what needs to be done"? I can't help thinking "they weren't Communists, they were farmers.."

When any state intervenes believing they are on the side of right, there is hardly ever a winner and the losers are those civilians caught in the crossfire. Are we right to condemn those regimes? Absolutely. Do individual countries have the right to administer a punishment for their crimes? I'm definitely not convinced.

We've reached an age where we no longer live like savages and are in a position to acknowledge the true wealth of a human life. When considering the morality of an intervention, this human life must be weighed into the calculation. When it isn't, we see a result like Iraq.

[ 04-30-2005, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

04-30-2005, 08:23 PM	#7
shamrock_uk Dracolich Join Date: January 24, 2004 Location: UK Age: 42 Posts: 3,092	Well, I was pro-getting rid of Saddam because I didn't like the idea of someone giving the finger to the UN for all these years over WMD. Now the full facts are known my opinion has shifted considerably. The problem with 'moral' interventions in the world is inevitably practicality. For instance, I feel that Britain has a particular responsibility for getting rid of Mugabe as we were heavily involved in getting rid of Smith's government in the first place to allow elections to be held. But is sending in the troops an option here? Is getting rid of Mugabe worth the human suffering it would cause? Granted, many die and are tortured or raped under the current regime, but there is no denying that Mugabe has popular support in many areas of the country, especially the urban ones. Support for the MDC is certainly not universal and even the seats they allege fraud in are mainly in rural areas. How do we punish someone like Mugabe without committing crimes comparable to his? I'm not convinced its possible. Consider North Korea - in my opinion the greatest threat to world peace at the moment. Now in an ideal world I would be launching strikes to destroy any fledgling nuclear capability they have. But again, how do you change the regime and the system that keeps millions in desparate poverty? Everyone in the country is raised from birth to blame America for everything - an invasion would be fought tooth and nail for every inch and be tremendously costly. With a million men under arms its probably not even possible. Russia and Chechnya are another example - we're simply unable to do anything in practice, no matter how large the crimes are. So, if we can only punish weak states who we think committed crimes, what kind of justice is this? By what right do we intervene into an oppressive state, when there is often popular support for it? Are we really being the 'voice of the people'? How can we administer a punishment that won't result in the deaths of civilians?(whether by bombings or sanctions). I think in the current climate its easy to forget how radically new the idea of humanitarian intervention into another state is - violating a nations sovereignty because of how they treat their citizens has gone from being an unthinkable act to almost common-talk in 50 years. I'm not sure its a question of cajones either Azred - was the British public wrong to oppose the Iraq war? Are the coalition troops who did have the cajones in the right when their action has killed at least tens of thousands of Iraqis? There is a worrying trend I think to de-humanise casualties. Ever since over three million people were killed in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in an attempt to stop the advance of Communism, it has been all too common to simply brush over it. Three million! Do it once more and you've equalled Hitler and his holocaust. Did the pilots who carpet bombed those countries have "cajones"? Were they just "doing what needs to be done"? I can't help thinking "they weren't Communists, they were farmers.." When any state intervenes believing they are on the side of right, there is hardly ever a winner and the losers are those civilians caught in the crossfire. Are we right to condemn those regimes? Absolutely. Do individual countries have the right to administer a punishment for their crimes? I'm definitely not convinced. We've reached an age where we no longer live like savages and are in a position to acknowledge the true wealth of a human life. When considering the morality of an intervention, this human life must be weighed into the calculation. When it isn't, we see a result like Iraq. [ 04-30-2005, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]