30 replies to this topic

[Shahenshah]

 

Foreign intervention for economical reasons never helps

 

fixxed that for you. Or do you think any humanitarian action was a waste?

 

Trying to think of a humanitarian intervention, sure there are many disguised as humanitarian actions, but they almost always have overarching political goals, wrapped in humanitarian aid packages to calm down the populace. If humanitarian interventions were in prime, we'd have major interventions in Africa already. 

 

I vividly recall the champions of humanity wreck havoc in Iraq while white farmers were being subjected to xenophobic attacks from Mugabe resulting in massive food shortage and price inflation in the country causing immeasurable suffering for the people.

 

At the same time, I'm not discounting at all other humanitarian interventions, in form of aid, im just specifically talking about armed intervention.  

[Ali bin Turban]

Just noticed this topic today. Thanks Shah for a good read.

[onbekende]

 

 

Foreign intervention for economical reasons never helps

 

fixxed that for you. Or do you think any humanitarian action was a waste?

 

Trying to think of a humanitarian intervention, sure there are many disguised as humanitarian actions, but they almost always have overarching political goals, wrapped in humanitarian aid packages to calm down the populace. If humanitarian interventions were in prime, we'd have major interventions in Africa already. 

 

I vividly recall the champions of humanity wreck havoc in Iraq while white farmers were being subjected to xenophobic attacks from Mugabe resulting in massive food shortage and price inflation in the country causing immeasurable suffering for the people.

 

At the same time, I'm not discounting at all other humanitarian interventions, in form of aid, im just specifically talking about armed intervention.  

 

ooo sure, hence I would scrutinize any humanitarian intervention made by a nation instead of a NGO

 

or the UN, nobody can claim the UN has alternative motives, seeing as nobody can pinpoint what there primairy motives are

[Fermion]

Well the security council isn't exactly fair. Permanent nations try to use UN to further their interests all the time

[onbekende]

Permanent members use the security council (or aka their veto) to stop harm to them. Trying to harm another nation while profitting from it usually makes another veto-member push the red button

 

basically it is either non-intervention or non-negative, anything else gets a boot of the stage

[Fermion]

For most, the veto still comes at a cost. When US and allies voted to attack India in 1971, Soviet Union (India's friend at the time) intervened, but India still had to give it preference in major deals for years later.

Interventions only work, imo, when they're well supported by a clear majority of the local populace and there is a large involvement of local forces (preferibly police after there is relative peace). Militaries aren't exactly meant to be population friendly and as we've learnt from CN, having a large armed force in your nation causes unrest among the civilians.

[Shahenshah]

Well the security council isn't exactly fair. Permanent nations try to use UN to further their interests all the time

 

Permanent members of security council are the biggest exporters of arms in the world, think about it. 

[ccabal86]

 

 

 

Foreign intervention for economical reasons never helps

 

fixxed that for you. Or do you think any humanitarian action was a waste?

 

Trying to think of a humanitarian intervention, sure there are many disguised as humanitarian actions, but they almost always have overarching political goals, wrapped in humanitarian aid packages to calm down the populace. If humanitarian interventions were in prime, we'd have major interventions in Africa already. 

 

I vividly recall the champions of humanity wreck havoc in Iraq while white farmers were being subjected to xenophobic attacks from Mugabe resulting in massive food shortage and price inflation in the country causing immeasurable suffering for the people.

 

At the same time, I'm not discounting at all other humanitarian interventions, in form of aid, im just specifically talking about armed intervention.  

 

ooo sure, hence I would scrutinize any humanitarian intervention made by a nation instead of a NGO

 

or the UN, nobody can claim the UN has alternative motives, seeing as nobody can pinpoint what there primairy motives are

 

 

BTW, armed NGOs = Terror groups most of the time. Can't think of any NGO that I'd like to see make an armed intervention anywhere.

 

The UN, NATO etc. are IGOs

[onbekende]

to me humanitarian intervention is ALWAYS without guns. The other kind just drops the "humanitarian" part, cause nobody can be so selective and precise to only strike the enemy.

[ccabal86]

I think you're confusing nomenclature. There is humanitarian law and human rights law, which are two very different things. Humanitarian law is by definition, always connected to armed conflict.

 

But either way, a humanitarian intervention always includes armed/violent solutions, even if you take the broad approach. Humanitarian aid is what NGOs (like the ICRC) can provide in general.

Edited by ccabal86, 10 March 2016 - 10:32 PM.

[onbekende]

yeahyeah, whoever said I was using the Encyclopidea Brittanica for my defination?

 

I just extend the usage of the word "humane" to exclude any violence apart from personal defensive/protective purposes. Doesn't mean I am against intervention as a concept alltogether.