[bambi_eyes]

"Military intervention by other countries is justified to protect that country's citizens' human rights"

It's an interesting notion, and one that I pesonally can't fully say yes or no. Well for your yes, there's the example of the second world war but these days military intervention by other countries always seems to have strings attached.

So, for or against?

(I know I'm posting a few of these sorts of threads but I want to practise for an upcoming debate and for those of you who are taking a break from revision, you can feel less guilty because this is 'intellectual stimulation' )

[Aj12]

I believe interventions should always be considered as an option but on a case by case basis. You can't have a rule or doctrine when t intervene or when not to.

[IdeasForLife]

Some countries just use military intervention for their own advantage.

[Suetonius]

For.

If Vietnam hadn't intervened in Cambodia in 1978, or if India hadn't intervened in East Pakistan/Bangladesh in 1971, then complete fiasco and genocide would've ensued. Remember also that Idi Amin was overthrown by Tanzanian forces. Consider how many lives could have been saved were anyone to have intervened in Rwanda in 1994 and consequently put stop to the most rapid systematic genocide of the twentieth century.

In fact, I find it hard to identify a case where revolution and salvation has occurred without the influence of external forces. The American Revolution was dependent on French support. The South Vietnamese revolution against American imperial subjugation was largely facilitated by the government in the North. The only reason the Russian Revolution could have occurred in the form it did was because of Germany's hope that Lenin would bring an end to Russia's involvement in the First World War. Of course there are different degrees to which outside intervention has been used, but in the recent cases of Kuwait, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya I think the U.S. has been spot on, despite the obvious failures that have accompanied the conduct of these conflicts.

[Snagprophet]

I really don't care about intervening in anything any more, unless it's actually in Europe mind you. Every time something happens people bitch about how it's our fault we don't stop it, yet when we do it's our fault that we hit someone seemingly on our side because they were too close to the other side and it wasn't known. Also the side we support becomes a piece of **** like in Libya. So whatever we do we'll always be regarded as 1000% worse than Stalin/Mao's genocides. I'd prefer to sit and watch them all burn and laugh at them. At least it's cathartic.

[rawkus]

(Original post by Suetonius)
For.

In fact, I find it hard to identify a case where revolution and salvation has occurred without the influence of external forces. The American Revolution was dependent on French support. The South Vietnamese revolution against American imperial subjugation was largely facilitated by the government in the North. The only reason the Russian Revolution could have occurred in the form it did was because of Germany's hope that Lenin would bring an end to Russia's involvement in the First World War. Of course there are different degrees to which outside intervention has been used, but in the recent cases of Kuwait, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya I think the U.S. has been spot on, despite the obvious failures that have accompanied the conduct of these conflicts.

How in any way was Kosovo "spot on"? Of course I don't agree with you on others on your list but at least there are some positives that can be drawn from them.

However, the justification of Kosovo was based on a tsunami of misinformation and lies which have since been disproved but continue to be peddled in the mainstream media with anything to the contrary being "Serbian propaganda."

Milosevic was not as complicit and involved with the Civil War in Bosnia as was made out. This was highlighted by the difficulty that we had pinning anything from these charges against him during his trial. There was not the one sided slaughter and genocide of hundred's of thousands, rather the end death count came to about 10,000 and was 60:40 Albanians and Serbians. Hardly the "Holocaust of Albanians" that was peddled in our papers. Our "attempt" if you can even call it that to negotiate peace was a shambles with the Ramboillet Agreement demanding that NATO forces have complete access to every part of Yugoslavia. Despite the fact that no sovereign state would ever agree to this, our media immediately took Serb rejection as evidence that they were determined to wage war on the Kosovo-Albanians. No doubt that Serbian security forces waged a brutal and unjustifiable response to a separatist insurgency yet some parallels can be drawn to our reaction of a republican insurgency in Northern Ireland, enthusiastic NATO member Turkey and her actions against the Kurdish separatists and the coalition's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Serbian massacres of village inhabitants on the basis of getting to several known militants in that village is comparable to the way in which we have blown up residential blocks in order to kill two militants in Iraq which we deem "collateral damage". The Turks destroyed entire Kurdish villages. Apart from the well documented and thankfully rare case of bloody sunday, our forces in Northern Ireland detained many with no role in the troubles with out trial.

[Suetonius]

(Original post by rawkus)
How in any way was Kosovo "spot on"? Of course I don't agree with you on others on your list but at least there are some positives that can be drawn from them.

However, the justification of Kosovo was based on a tsunami of misinformation and lies which have since been disproved but continue to be peddled in the mainstream media with anything to the contrary being "Serbian propaganda."

Milosevic was not as complicit and involved with the Civil War in Bosnia as was made out. This was highlighted by the difficulty that we had pinning anything from these charges against him during his trial. There was not the one sided slaughter and genocide of hundred's of thousands, rather the end death count came to about 10,000 and was 60:40 Albanians and Serbians. Hardly the "Holocaust of Albanians" that was peddled in our papers. Our "attempt" if you can even call it that to negotiate peace was a shambles with the Ramboillet Agreement demanding that NATO forces have complete access to every part of Yugoslavia. Despite the fact that no sovereign state would ever agree to this, our media immediately took Serb rejection as evidence that they were determined to wage war on the Kosovo-Albanians. No doubt that Serbian security forces waged a brutal and unjustifiable response to a separatist insurgency yet some parallels can be drawn to our reaction of a republican insurgency in Northern Ireland, enthusiastic NATO member Turkey and her actions against the Kurdish separatists and the coalition's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Serbian massacres of village inhabitants on the basis of getting to several known militants in that village is comparable to the way in which we have blown up residential blocks in order to kill two militants in Iraq which we deem "collateral damage". The Turks destroyed entire Kurdish villages. Apart from the well documented and thankfully rare case of bloody sunday, our forces in Northern Ireland detained many with no role in the troubles with out trial.

Have you not noticed that throughout this entire post you're justifying the Serbian "response" by saying it was like other things that you criticise and oppose? Don't you think you're a bit confused?

[RabbitCFH]

It's hard to fully agree or disagree with that statement. First of all, it's ambiguous. Can you only intervene after human rights have been violated or can you also do it if you believe that violations are inevitable (or maybe even if you only suspect that human rights might be violated).

Secondly, can you intervene in any case of HR violations or only if they're very severe, and how much would that be?

Then you have to consider how much you can sacrifice for such a mission, both domestically and in the country you're going to (civilian casualties etc.).

Also, you cannot possibly consider to intervene in countries like China or North Korea, even though they constantly violate human rights.

Often, like you said, there are other reasons why states intervene in countries where HR are being violated. For example, the US 'liberated' Iraq 15 years after Saddam had gassed the Kurds. They didn't do anything in 1988, in fact they aided Saddam during the war against Iran.
Most often than not UN interventions are failures, except for e.g. Kosovo. Somalia, Darfur, Kashmir and what not have been disasters.

Generally, it would be nice to end oppressive regimes in the world and spread democracy but usually it's just very unlikely.

[rawkus]

(Original post by Suetonius)
Have you not noticed that throughout this entire post you're justifying the Serbian "response" by saying it was like other things that you criticise and oppose? Don't you think you're a bit confused?

Where have I justified anything? You seem to be responding through the lazy method of trying to deduce my character from my points and replying to the stereotype that you have of those who generally oppose intervention amongst students.

I haven't justified anything anywhere. I put the Serb response to the Kosovan insurgency on the same level as the actions that we, the US and Turkey have taken in the examples I gave.

I asked you how was intervention in Kosovon "spot on" considering that it relied on so many lies and so much misniformation to justify it to the public and considering that many of those either supporting it or taking part were guilty in the recent past or even future of committing the same crimes that they were punishing the serbs for?

If you choose to respond to my challenge to your claim which I hope you do, please respond to what I have actually said rather then what, based on your own imagination, what you think I have said, mean or imply.

[Suetonius]

(Original post by rawkus)
Where have I justified anything? You seem to be responding through the lazy method of trying to deduce my character from my points and replying to the stereotype that you have of those who generally oppose intervention amongst students.

I haven't justified anything anywhere. I put the Serb response to the Kosovan insurgency on the same level as the actions that we, the US and Turkey have taken in the examples I gave.

I asked you how was intervention in Kosovon "spot on" considering that it relied on so many lies and so much misniformation to justify it to the public and considering that many of those either supporting it or taking part were guilty in the recent past or even future of committing the same crimes that they were punishing the serbs for?

If you choose to respond to my challenge to your claim which I hope you do, please respond to what I have actually said rather then what, based on your own imagination, what you think I have said, mean or imply.

You drew "parallels" to things which you assume I supported. I don't support the Turkish suppression of the Kurds, or "collective punishment" tactics that the U.S. may have wielded in Iraq, or British activity in the occupied six counties of Ireland. Serbian activity in Kosovo was abhorrent, expansionist and aggressive. It needed to be halted before another Bosnia unfolded. I'm no supporter of the KLA, but to use their actions as a justification for Serbian fascist imperialism (which the Kosovo conflict was) is absurd. Serbia neither had, nor has, any legal claim to Kosovo and any Milosevic military action there needed to be tamed.

P.S. "lies and misinformation" do not necessarily make an intervention immoral. There were "lies and misinformation" about Auschwitz (i.e. about prisoners' skins being used for lampshades, and so on). Would this have made bombing the Holocaust's infrastructure - or confronting the Nazis - immoral?

[rawkus]

(Original post by Suetonius)
You drew "parallels" to things which you assume I supported. I don't support the Turkish suppression of the Kurds, or "collective punishment" tactics that the U.S. may have wielded in Iraq, or British activity in the occupied six counties of Ireland. Serbian activity in Kosovo was abhorrent, expansionist and aggressive. It needed to be halted before another Bosnia unfolded. I'm no supporter of the KLA, but to use their actions as a justification for Serbian fascist imperialism (which the Kosovo conflict was) is absurd. Serbia neither had, nor has, any legal claim to Kosovo and any Milosevic military action there needed to be tamed.

P.S. "lies and misinformation" do not necessarily make an intervention immoral. There were "lies and misinformation" about Auschwitz (i.e. about prisoners' skins being used for lampshades, and so on). Would this have made bombing the Holocaust's infrastructure - or confronting the Nazis - immoral?

I'd like to give you a better response but I am in a bit of a rush. Still I feel the need to make a few corrections. Your history of the area is flawed.

Milosevic did not march into a sovereign nation and attack it. Kosovo has been a province of Serbia ever since the great powers included it within the borders of Serbia in 1912. It's status as part of Serbia was in effect our doing as part if the Treaty of London. Both ethnicities have separate claims to the province. Albanians claim that it was in ancient times the province of Dardania which they claim was closely linked to the Illyrian peoples of who they claim they are descended from. Serbia too claims that it was a part of their old empire, having lost it to the Ottomans during the Battle of Kosovo during the 14th century. Basing legitimacy on this is highly contentious due to both sides claiming that it belonged to them in a time before the dawn of states.

So again we must draw the legitimacy from the word of the International Community who during 1912 decided that it should be included in the borders of Serbia. Military action there as we have both acknowledged was a reaction to the separatist insurgency that had been started in 1996. It was not expansionist as it was part of their territory. Comparing Milosevic's actions in Kosovo to his actions in Bosnia is another one of the great victims of truth that comes with the onslaught of wartime propaganda. Milosevic had nothing to do with the civil war that followed Bosnian independence. The connections between Milosevic and Karadzic are highly debatable. The bosnian serbs unleashed their act of ethnic cleansing separate of Milosevic's organisation as they tried to separate from the new state and join Serbia proper out of their own accord. This is not my take on the issue nor something that I picked up from reading Serbian sympathetic books. If you look into Milosevic's trial, they had to change the direction of the prosecution as they found trying to attach himself to the Bosnian Civil War was proving to be extremely difficult as the evidence was very thin to the point of none existence.

You are right with the auschwitz example. However the allies used genuine intelligence in order to serve as propoganda. However in the Kosovo issue, all justifications for bombing Belgrade was based on misinformation such as the fact that Milosevic was responsible for the Bosnian Civil War and would unleash another episode on Kosovo, that hundreds of thousands of Kosovans had been slaughtered in concentration camps etc.

As I keep stating, there were many ways to achieve at least a high level of autonomy for an area that in the last 200 years had seen a large demographic change. However bombing a sovereign nation (by this I mean Serbia proper and not Kosovo) and destroying not just military installations but also crippling its infrastructure by bombing targets as far away from the disputed area as vojvodina was highly questionable.

[Suetonius]

(Original post by rawkus)
I'd like to give you a better response but I am in a bit of a rush. Still I feel the need to make a few corrections. Your history of the area is flawed.

Milosevic did not march into a sovereign nation and attack it. Kosovo has been a province of Serbia ever since the great powers included it within the borders of Serbia in 1912. It's status as part of Serbia was in effect our doing as part if the Treaty of London. Both ethnicities have separate claims to the province. Albanians claim that it was in ancient times the province of Dardania which they claim was closely linked to the Illyrian peoples of who they claim they are descended from. Serbia too claims that it was a part of their old empire, having lost it to the Ottomans during the Battle of Kosovo during the 14th century. Basing legitimacy on this is highly contentious due to both sides claiming that it belonged to them in a time before the dawn of states.

So again we must draw the legitimacy from the word of the International Community who during 1912 decided that it should be included in the borders of Serbia. Military action there as we have both acknowledged was a reaction to the separatist insurgency that had been started in 1996. It was not expansionist as it was part of their territory.

Kosovo was a separate entity within two Yugoslavias for seven decades following 1912 (which was not a legally-binding treaty anyway), as was Serbia. It should be obvious that once Serbia itself had ceased to be a "sovereign nation" (as you put it) that it no longer has a claim to any extra territory. I repeat, Serbia had no legal claim to Kosovo, and still doesn't.

Comparing Milosevic's actions in Kosovo to his actions in Bosnia is another one of the great victims of truth that comes with the onslaught of wartime propaganda. Milosevic had nothing to do with the civil war that followed Bosnian independence. The connections between Milosevic and Karadzic are highly debatable. The bosnian serbs unleashed their act of ethnic cleansing separate of Milosevic's organisation as they tried to separate from the new state and join Serbia proper out of their own accord. This is not my take on the issue nor something that I picked up from reading Serbian sympathetic books. If you look into Milosevic's trial, they had to change the direction of the prosecution as they found trying to attach himself to the Bosnian Civil War was proving to be extremely difficult as the evidence was very thin to the point of none existence.

"Milosevic had nothing to do with the civil war that followed Bosnian independence." Are you serious?

[rawkus]

(Original post by Suetonius)
Kosovo was a separate entity within two Yugoslavias for seven decades following 1912 (which was not a legally-binding treaty anyway), as was Serbia. It should be obvious that once Serbia itself had ceased to be a "sovereign nation" (as you put it) that it no longer has a claim to any extra territory. I repeat, Serbia had no legal claim to Kosovo, and still doesn't.



"Milosevic had nothing to do with the civil war that followed Bosnian independence." Are you serious?

Are you sure you want to continue down this road my friend? Yugoslavia was a federation of 6 republics, namely Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. Kosovo was one of three main provinces of Serbia along with Central Serbia and Vojvodina. Although Tito tinkered with the constitution and pressured the Serbian government to give Kosovo a greater level of autonomy whereby it became the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija within Serbia to appease the kosovan Albanians who complained of discrimination (which Milosevic later took away again). The only time that Kosovo, autonomous or not, ceased to be a part of Serbia was during Italian occupation when it was clumped within the Albanian protectorate. Just because you "repeat" something and have even convinced yourself that it is true, does not make it so. Please check your information again.

Please also check your information again please. As far as I am aware, the most credible evidence suggests that he may have given Karadzic his tacit support from breaking away with the now independent Bosnia much in the same way Tudman later gave his support to Croatian Bosnians in order to break away from Bosnia. However no mention is made of Croatian efforts of ethnic cleansing towards Bosniaks and Bosnian Serbs as it doesnt fit the nasty Serbian image that was projected to the world after the wars (granted however there was no massacre on the scale of Srebrenica by the abhorrent Mladic). After Bosnia separated the JNA sort of dissolved, having failed to prevent Slovenia and Croatia seceding. However if you want to ignore what is available in books and throughout the net please stick to the "Milosevic Balkan Butcher" narrative that people like Holbrooke and Clinton encouraged. Without sounding patronising, since you can't even be bothered to grasp a very basic understanding of 20th century Kosovan history, I see no reason why you cannot really be bothered to try and gain a greater insight into a conflict that is made even more complicated through layers of Nato, Serbian, Croatian, Albanian propaganda.

[cl_steele]

the only problem with intervention is i have yet to see an exaple of it done for purely selfless reasons ...
you cant meddle in one countries affairs, such as libya, then completely ignore other countries such as the numerous genocides that have been committed in africa ... the wars in asia etc. Other countries meddling in each others affairs sets a very fishy precedent in my opinion

[Snagprophet]

I think that if you can save a life you should save it but I am sick of any attempt to save people being seen as 'imperialism', whatever that is supposed to even mean in this context.