When does it become time for another country to intervene?

[Sun Aut Ex]

Thought of this when reading the "Why are we still in Afghanistan?" thread. At what point does a regime's domestic policy become so horrible that another country has to intervene with military force to stop said regime? If Hitler had kept the Final Solution program within Germany and not started any wars, would it have been wrong for another country to step in? Would it have been wrong to invade Afghanistan purely to end the Taliban's draconian rule?

[Rotting Corpse]

It is time when we define it as time.

[Callisdrun]

It is time when we define it as time.

"Insert vague pointless answer here."

I'm seeing a pattern...

[Pope Joan]

If another nation's vital (as in, not just oil!) interests (and lives) are threatened, then I would expect them to intervene.

In other words, the troubles in Kosovo (and Rwanda) would not justify US intervention.

If there is a humanitarian crisis, or a threat of spreading regional war, let the UN sort it out.

[Alsatian Knights]

any time I feel like adding a new province to my nation...oh you mean real life.

In dire circumstances only and only as a last resort.

[Sun Aut Ex]

In other words, the troubles in Kosovo (and Rwanda) would not justify US intervention.

If there is a humanitarian crisis, or a threat of spreading regional war, let the UN sort it out.

So if the regime is killing millions of people, you wouldn't intervene?

[Cubic kms]

In other words, the troubles in Kosovo (and Rwanda) would not justify US intervention.

If there is a humanitarian crisis, or a threat of spreading regional war, let the UN sort it out.

So if the regime is killing millions of people, you wouldn't intervene?

Nope, as long as i'm on the winning side

Also depends on whether it affects me or not, if it doesn't then i don't see any logical purpose to intervene. People shouldn't be so nosy.

[Non Aligned States]

So if the regime is killing millions of people, you wouldn't intervene?

If it wasn't their people the regime was killing, no one with the capability would care. In the world of politics, you look out for yourself first, and then your political friends, followed by your citizens. The poor schmucks in the boonies getting slaughtered by the truckload are a distant fourth.

Why would they commit to it anyway? There's nothing to gain, for significant expenditure in resources and manpower fighting a war on moral reasons. And unless there's something to gain that's worth it, no one would. And when you are being the oppressed/genocided, you rarely have anything that's worth the time and effort of a nation powerful enough to see off your oppressors.

Unless of course, they want your oppressors destabilized in a game of international dickwaving and resource grabs. Then they are willing to send a few guns and bombs with the occasional special ops team.

[Cameroi]

perhaps not until we are ready to admit such a time could come for our own.

until we can mentally put ourselves in the place of those we flatter ourselves to be helping, the odds of doing as much good as harm, are not particularly great.

[West Failure]

Only when the UN decides to...though the UN does not always get it right.

[ChengISao]

I say when, and only when, another country is fighting a foreign entity, asks for help and we believe in it as a majority.

[Cubic kms]

Only when the UN decides to...though the UN does not always get it right.

The five permanent members of the UN security council are five of the top ten largest arms dealing countries in the world... so yeah

[Peepelonia]

Only when the UN decides to...though the UN does not always get it right.

The five permanent members of the UN security council are five of the top ten largest arms dealing countries in the world... so yeah

That doesn't even matter. If we have a case like ohh I don't know lets just say the Iraq war. If the UN does not sanction it then it is not only illigeal but moraly wrong. That is the remit of the UN, now of course you can disagree as much as you like, but it makes as much sense and as much differance as procliaming that the law againts stabbing people is wrong.

Ther are laws and we must work within there confines, thats just the way things are.

[Vault 10]

If another nation's vital (as in, not just oil!) interests (and lives) are threatened, then I would expect them to intervene.

Oil is a vital interest.

So I'd say there are two options:
a) When they refuse to sell oil for a reasonable price
b) Never

[Greed and Death]

When the US says so.

[Wilgrove]

Only if said country attacks us. I believe our military is to be used for defense only. We've tried preemptive strikes and look where it got us.

[Greed and Death]

Only if said country attacks us. I believe our military is to be used for defense only. We've tried preemptive strikes and look where it got us.

oh this was philosophical, I thought this was just a discussion of how it was.

[Risottia]

History suggests that most countries would answer "when we get to have a positive economical turnout".

[Wilgrove]

History suggests that most countries would answer "when we get to have a positive economical turnout".

Is Bush the exception that proves the rule? Because we didn't get a positive economical turnout with Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Thought of this when reading the "Why are we still in Afghanistan?" thread. At what point does a regime's domestic policy become so horrible that another country has to intervene with military force to stop said regime? If Hitler had kept the Final Solution program within Germany and not started any wars, would it have been wrong for another country to step in? Would it have been wrong to invade Afghanistan purely to end the Taliban's draconian rule?

No it is never wrong to end human rights violations anywhere.

[Sun Aut Ex]

Thought of this when reading the "Why are we still in Afghanistan?" thread. At what point does a regime's domestic policy become so horrible that another country has to intervene with military force to stop said regime? If Hitler had kept the Final Solution program within Germany and not started any wars, would it have been wrong for another country to step in? Would it have been wrong to invade Afghanistan purely to end the Taliban's draconian rule?

No it is never wrong to end human rights violations anywhere.

I can't believe it took twenty posts to get that response.

[Ashmoria]

Thought of this when reading the "Why are we still in Afghanistan?" thread. At what point does a regime's domestic policy become so horrible that another country has to intervene with military force to stop said regime? If Hitler had kept the Final Solution program within Germany and not started any wars, would it have been wrong for another country to step in? Would it have been wrong to invade Afghanistan purely to end the Taliban's draconian rule?

in a place like afghanistan, should we have had no other reason to go in, we could only justify it if we were supporting a strong afghan insurgency that had the support of a majority of the population AND had a reasonable chance to win (and be an improvement over the taliban)

without the internal will to overthrow the government outside intervention is doomed to failure.

unless your plan is to take over the country completely and run it yourself forever.

[Tokos]

No it is never wrong to end human rights violations anywhere.

Who defines human rights? The UN? Where did they get their ideas from? As far as I can see, human rights are just another set of laws, made by fallible people, which it is generally agreed are a good idea to have as a sort of back-up "bill of rights". Nothing wrong with that, but you can't just go "well we decided these are human rights based on appeal to authority, so we're going to invade you for not sticking to them". There is no difference at all between that, and invading a country because they don't stick to Sharia or what have you.

[Risottia]

History suggests that most countries would answer "when we get to have a positive economical turnout".

Is Bush the exception that proves the rule? Because we didn't get a positive economical turnout with Iraq or Afghanistan.

It really depends on the definition of "we".
Cheney, the Shrubs, and a lot of other people (either in the Bush cabinet, or in the Parliament etc) had quite positive economical turnouts.
Do you remember "L'Etat, ç'est moi" ?

[Yootopia]

Only if said country attacks us. I believe our military is to be used for defense only. We've tried preemptive strikes and look where it got us.

I dunno, man, the Barbary Wars were pretty safe.