14 replies to this topic

[Zimbochick]

I think so, but it's very subjective and hard to sustain. I do prefer that reason to the ones fabricated for the last few invasions.

Zimbabwe has been on a downhill track for 30 years, and in dire straits for 20. Here the author Peter Godwin talks about the need for intervention. Sadly you could replace the country name with a few others too.

http://www.bing.com/...al-help/6n4vp26



Oops, just noticed my title error. Duh!

[PERM BANNED]

My problem is why should the military be the one's executing intervention. These humanitarian missions are surrounded with red tape and a million different chiefs trying to implement their vision. The military exists for defense only. That is its sole justification. As the military is funded by American tax dollars, if action is going to be taken, America should be compensated in someway. Why should Amercian men and women who signup to defend their nation, have to risk their life so that some stranger in a third world country can enjoy some notion of freedom? Those advocating humanitarian intervention aren't willing to make the personal sacrifice themself and deploy to a hostile area. That is my major grievance with it. People want someone else to fight for their moral cause. I'm sorry, but my oath is to the constiution and defending American citizens. I don't want to spend month of my life in a 3rd world country fighting for the abilities of people unwilling or unable to do so themself. Especially when nothing of any tangible gain is given back to my country for helping. I find it hard to distinguish between imperialism and humanitarianism where in either scenario, the US is exercising its collective will through force. All this talk about coalitions is garbage, because it's the US who is funding the majority of it. Even in Libya, people are saying NATO is now in charge. Well who is in charge of this NATO operation? Is is not a US Naval Admiral? It's semantics and feel good policy. In the end it's no different than the Neo-Cons who cried for blood while they stayed safely in their homes. Libya hasn't become a ground war yet, but no real change can ever happen without boots on the ground.

[cousin it]

^^^ Exactly!!! Hell, I'll go one further- why the hell should US taxpayers have to support other countries security???

[freedom78]

I think the guy in the video was right, that the international community doesn't intervene because they don't have oil and they don't export terrorism. I heard on one of the media outlets yesterday that our helping Libya was influence by Hillard Clinton telling Obama that not help Zimbabwe when he had the chance was his greatest shame while in office.

I don't know if that's true, but we can certainly all look back at Rwanda and ask "what if".

[freedom78]

I think the guy in the video was right, that the international community doesn't intervene because they don't have oil and they don't export terrorism. I heard on one of the media outlets yesterday that our helping Libya was influence by Hillard Clinton telling Obama that not help Zimbabwe when he had the chance was his greatest shame while in office.

I don't know if that's true, but we can certainly all look back at Rwanda and ask "what if".

Oops, I think that was suppose to be Rwanda in my post, not Zimbabwe. I don't know enough about the history of those countries to keep them straight.

Rwanda was in teh 90s, under Clinton. Genocide killed about half a million.

[wedjat]

My problem is why should the military be the one's executing intervention. These humanitarian missions are surrounded with red tape and a million different chiefs trying to implement their vision. The military exists for defense only. That is its sole justification. As the military is funded by American tax dollars, if action is going to be taken, America should be compensated in someway. Why should Amercian men and women who signup to defend their nation, have to risk their life so that some stranger in a third world country can enjoy some notion of freedom?

Those advocating humanitarian intervention aren't willing to make the personal sacrifice themself and deploy to a hostile area. That is my major grievance with it. People want someone else to fight for their moral cause. I'm sorry, but my oath is to the constiution and defending American citizens. I don't want to spend month of my life in a 3rd world country fighting for the abilities of people unwilling or unable to do so themself. Especially when nothing of any tangible gain is given back to my country for helping.

I find it hard to distinguish between imperialism and humanitarianism where in either scenario, the US is exercising its collective will through force. All this talk about coalitions is garbage, because it's the US who is funding the majority of it. Even in Libya, people are saying NATO is now in charge. Well who is in charge of this NATO operation? Is is not a US Naval Admiral? It's semantics and feel good policy. In the end it's no different than the Neo-Cons who cried for blood while they stayed safely in their homes. Libya hasn't become a ground war yet, but no real change can ever happen without boots on the ground.

Maybe because we're suppose to be a Christian nation with compassion for others?

Doesn't the U.S. only fund about 20% of NATO? And starting on Wednesday Canada will take over leadership of this operation.

I don't agree w/the christian nation thingie, I don't think religion should have anything to do w/compassion. But I do agree that we should help others because we can. Now, I should talk, I sit there saying this but have I done anything about it like volunteering or giving money? No, I should really put my money where my mouth is.

[TAP]

Maybe there should be a box on your tax return you can tick for extra donations to foreign military intervention, and make nation building/freedom creation something that members of the armed forces can do as overtime paid by this fund.

[PERM BANNED]

Maybe because we're suppose to be a Christian nation with compassion for others?

Doesn't the U.S. only fund about 20% of NATO? And starting on Wednesday Canada will take over leadership of this operation.

Source of moral justification aside, that is not the role of the military nor any other government organization I'm aware of. Maybe something like the Peace Corps can fill that role, but if armed intervention is required to meet goals, then let's not try to play semantics by call it a humanitarian mission. Humanitarian assistance was the role of the military in Hati. When we go in armed and ready to kill, that isn't very humanitarian. It's a play on words. What Libya really is, is a military police action no different than Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. We just haven't gotten to the point of boots on the ground yet. Vietnam and Iraq started with bombing missions first, then evolved to boots on the ground.

If we're interested in protecting civilians, are we going to protect the pro Gaddafi civilians taking fire from the rebels? How do they fit into this?

Again, all the risks and sacrifice are being incurred by a small minority of the population who didn't signup to fulfill that role. No where on US Army recruting posters does it mention "humanitarian" aide to 3rd world nations. No where in the constitution or war powers act does it specify use of the military for these purposes. We can't even use our own military domestically for humanitarian aide without bending and finding a loophole in the law. For the 82nd Airborne to assist during Katrina, a single National Guardsmen had to be installed in each unit to circumvent the military insurrection act.

If the United States is going to continue these so called humanitarian mission, where we intervene in other nation's internal disputes, i for one ask that the draft or mandatory service be required for all men and women upon their 18th birthday or graduating high school, which ever occurs later. Making such danger close and real to the average American would do a hell of a lot towards detering arbitrary use of a deadly force that is abstract, foreign and distant to 99% of the population. When people have to risk their own security or those immediately close to them for these so called moral reasons, I assume we'll be much more reserved in using them.

[Zimbochick]

I don't necessarily think US military intervention is appropriate, and agree with Flagg on this point. I always thought the UN should be more active in these instances, but I'm not quite sure what it is they do any more. Hilary Clinton has indeed been very actively involved in the Zimbabwe fiasco, but responsibility was placed with the Southern African Development Community under the leadership of Thabo Mbeki when he was President of South Africa. Mbeki could not have been more pathetic in that role. The US has imposed very strict sanctions against Zimbabwe, but South Africa, and many other African countries did not stick to the sanctions agreement. Makes no sense to me with well over 1 million Zimbabwean refugees now living in South Africa, and over half of them HIV+, I would have thought the impetus to make positive change in Zimbabwe would be at an all-time high.

[Mr. Roboto]

[quote=TAP]Maybe there should be a box on your tax return you can tick for extra donations to foreign military intervention, and make nation building/freedom creation something that members of the armed forces can do as overtime paid by this fund.

[Gomer Pyle]

I don't know if that's true, but we can certainly all look back at Rwanda and ask "what if".

I agree that the crisis certainly deserved U.S. intervention under certain conditions, but in hindsight can we really fault Clinton for not going in? I also felt it was a huge stain on his legacy to look the other way while evil thrived in that region, but he simply had a full plate already. The ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia was out of control and a potential flash point for WWIII. The previous year we almost had a second Korean war on our hands. Last but not least our presence in Iraq.

A Rwandan intervention could not have been air strikes. It would have required massive amounts of troops and we couldn't go balls deep into Africa with everything else going on.