Why is there no International Security / Human Rights Group?

[medellinheel]

Originally Posted by stan4

How old are you?

If a country gives money to a force, they will want say over how said force is used.
That is political influence.
And how can the country being helped fund it if it is their own government perpetuating the crimes?

This is very naive and infantile thinking. I do admire the sentiment, though.

The organization would vote on issues thus everyone will have say. No that does not mean political influence. Merely means different approaches to dealing with crimes ie air strikes, ground forces, drones, timeline, budget, etc.

How can their government fund it? You seize their assets.

[medellinheel]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Look, you don't understand the problem. Most human-rights violations are the result of government. And the governments are supported by the people. Thus, arresting or killing the perpetrator solves nothing. Since it is a cultural/social problem, not a criminal one.

Huh? Do you understand cause and effect? If the next ruler saw the previous one killed or arrested, do you honestly think he would want the same for himself?

This isn't a matter of arresting a murderer in which no one defends. Rather, you simply make popular leaders into martyrs. Which is why assassinating absolutely anyone is almost always counterproductive. It just radicalizes these people even more. And the "new vacancies" you speak of, will almost always be people worse than what was there before.

Someone that is killing, oppressing, and committing crimes against their people will not be popular. New vancacies will be better from the reason I outlined in the first response above.

Why do you think we never assassinated Saddam Hussein? As the saying goes, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't".

There was many assassination attempts on Saddam. It is just hard to do such when security measures are taken.

Secondly, democracy solves absolutely nothing. You are assuming that these people are effectively the same people, and their disagreements are minimal. When in truth, in regards to the human-rights violations you speak of. The case is always one ethnic group against another. And in that sense, democracy becomes nothing more than an ethnic headcount.

Doesnt dissolve the fact you have crimes against humanity than should not be tolerated by leaders of government.

In many of the countries we are talking about, it is Muslims vs Christians, or Sunnis vs Shiites. The Muslims don't vote for Christians, and the Christians don't vote for Muslims. Neither are they willing to share power. Democracy in that sense, is "winner takes all". And the loser is left with no other option than to employ acts of terrorism to resist the greater force.

Let them hash it out. Who ever wins control will have to toe the line and work with the other group if they want to stay in power. Or if they are incapable of stabilizing their country, take it over and run it for them having elected members from each side at the table voting on issues. Show them how things work. When they finally understand hand over control to them. Split oil profits during this time.

Lastly, your conception of an international force is naive. What do you mean an international force? Are you talking about more troops? How many troops are you talking about?

Quite simple. Each member of the organization contributes troops and resources. How many would be dependent on the individual situations.

In the case of Iraq, the original plan called for about 350,000 troops. We ultimately sent about 170,000 troops during the surge, and kept them there nearly a decade(and look what is happening now that we left). And Iraq is a nation of only 30 million. How many troops would need to be sent to a much larger nation? And, how many troops would need to stay in those nations effectively "indefinitely" to continue policing them? For instance, America keeps 30,000 troops in Korea at all times.

Planning was terrible. Could have been done better. Many times you will not need to keep troops there. Only be for completely unstable countries in the ME. And hell most of them are stable with the exception of a select few.

To police the world like you imagine, you would need millions, or possibly tens of millions of troops stationed all around the world.

No you wouldnt. You dont need to have them stationed anywhere. When a major crisis happens or atrocity. Each country will assemble their troops and handle the problem.

And that is assuming you could even create some sort of "international" coalition to police the world anyway. Just take a look at the Israel/Gaza conflict. Many have argued that Israel is committing human-rights violations against Gaza. If that is true, are you going to send your international coalition to occupy Israel?

First you determine if any crimes are being committed by the Israeli government. Then you tell them to cease such actions or face death or arrest. Israel would not need occupation. Simply removing the said leader(s) would be sufficient imo.

I am not saying that I don't understand why you feel the way you do. But if your vision was remotely possible, we would already be doing it. It just isn't possible.

It is most def possible. Look at all the resources the US has put into fighting wars. Imagine if the US had lots of international help. Not talking about the individual wars and if they are justified. Additionally, like I said, once the world realizes this is no joke you will see a drop in crimes against humanity. Leaders of countries enjoy their status and lifestyle and most would not risk death and arrest. PEople do things because they know / think they can get away with it.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by medellinheel

Huh? Do you understand cause and effect? If the next ruler saw the previous one killed or arrested, do you honestly think he would want the same for himself?

Someone that is killing, oppressing, and committing crimes against their people will not be popular. New vancacies will be better from the reason I outlined in the first response above.

What you are misunderstanding is two things. First, dictatorships don't really have one leader as you might believe. In reality, a dictatorship is nothing more than an oligarchy, and both dictatorships as well as monarchies have always been oligarchies throughout all of time. The leaders may be unpopular in regards to the whole of the people, but they are popular in regards to the other people of power.

In the case of Saddam Hussein, he was a member of the Baath party. He may have been the leader of the party, but the country was effectively ruled by the party, not by Saddam. In much the same way that a Lenin or Stalin may have been the leader of the Soviet Union, but they were merely the heads of the communist party in the Soviet Union.


Now, to answer the question as to whether or not you can conquer a nation which is "abusing human-rights", kill their leader, and replace them with a new leader. All you really have to do is look at Afghanistan.

Obviously most people will recognize that Afghanistan was abusing human rights, and the invasion of Afghanistan was by the kind of international coalition that you seem to be advocating. But, we have been in Afghanistan for thirteen years. Our forces have never truly controlled the entirety of that country. And many people believe that once the international forces leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will again take control of that country. And if that be the case, the "human-rights" situation would probably end up even worse than it was before.

In which of these countries which are abusing human rights can you possibly "kill the leader" and suddenly the country is going to start acting nice? Iraq? Syria? Iran? Pakistan?

I mean, if we could have fixed Iraq simply by assassinating Saddam Hussein, why didn't we just do that either back in the 70's, 80's, or after the Gulf War?

Are foreign policy makers so much less intelligent than you that they can't even imagine this value of assassination? Or do they realize that in the majority of cases, assassinations are actually counterproductive?

In the case of Iraq after the Gulf War. Not only did we not kill Saddam even after fighting a war with him, in which we had all the men and machinery in the region to both invade and kill Saddam. But we even stood and watched as he killed tens of thousands of Shia and Kurds who were trying to rise up against his government. And in the case of the Kurds, he even used chemical weapons to suppress them.

Originally Posted by medellinheel

Let them hash it out. Who ever wins control will have to toe the line and work with the other group if they want to stay in power. Or if they are incapable of stabilizing their country, take it over and run it for them having elected members from each side at the table voting on issues. Show them how things work. When they finally understand hand over control to them. Split oil profits during this time.

Planning was terrible. Could have been done better. Many times you will not need to keep troops there. Only be for completely unstable countries in the ME. And hell most of them are stable with the exception of a select few.

First you determine if any crimes are being committed by the Israeli government. Then you tell them to cease such actions or face death or arrest. Israel would not need occupation. Simply removing the said leader(s) would be sufficient imo.

Look, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of democracy in a society which is effectively sectarian. If a country like Iraq, which is 60% Shia, has an election. The Shia just vote for all Shia candidates, and the Shia dominate the government at the sufferance of every other group. You imagine that the Shia would nicely "share power" with the other ethnic groups, but in reality, that isn't what would happen, and it isn't what did happen in Iraq. Most of the world really cannot be ruled by a Democracy, because Democracy is what it is a "tyranny of the majority". It is the wolves over the sheep.

You could argue of course that a tyranny of the majority is still preferable to a tyranny of the minority or a tyranny of the elite. Which, I could probably agree with you. But either way, the minority are going to be very very unhappy. And if you are a weaker force, and you can't win politically or militarily, you have only one avenue left, terrorism.


It is true that much of the Middle-East is relatively stable. But if you started overthrowing governments, do you think you would make them more stable or less stable? I mean, one of the most repressive regimes in the Middle-East is our ally Saudi Arabia. In fact, of the 19 terrorists involved in 9/11, 16 of them were from Saudi Arabia. Osama Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia. In Iraq right now, Isis is being bankrolled mostly by Saudi Arabia. If you decided to overthrow the "KING" in Saudi Arabia for supposedly abusing human rights, or women's rights, do you really believe you would make that country more stable?


As for Israel, how do you propose you would "remove the leaders"? Are you going to arrest him? Assassinate him? How do you propose you would do either without an invasion? And if you invade, you would have to wage war against Israel. How are you going to wage war against Israel since it has nuclear weapons? For that matter, China is one of the largest abusers of human rights, are we going to invade China? Don't be delusional.

Even if you could somehow "invade" Israel, how would you do it? The first thing you would do, is destroy "ALL" of their defensive systems. That includes radar stations, anti-aircraft stations, airstrips, aircraft, military bases, tank divisions, etc. Ultimately, you would turn that country into a pile of rubble. And even worse, they would become so militarily weak, they would become easy prey to their neighbors. Especially radical militant groups who would find it increasingly easy to attack their great enemy, Israel.


The truth is, your "plan" would be to advocate perpetual war and perpetual occupation of most of the countries of the world.


Which goes to the root of your fundamental misunderstanding of the world. You fail to recognize the fact, that all things which exist, are rational. You imagine the chaos of the world to simply be the workings of a madman. And that somehow, if you could eliminate the influences of that madman, that the world for all intents and purposes would become "perfect".


What you fail to see, is that the madman is neither mad, and that the madman is really just us.

Hegelianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


To solve the problems of the world, you must treat people, even those that you hate, as reasonable men. And you must appeal to their "reason". If you consider them to be madmen, then your only solution is the use of force. But the use of force against a rational man, is always irrational.

That isn't to say that there aren't madmen in the world, but truly mad men almost always work alone.

For instance, Hitler in all his faults, was not a madman. His beliefs and actions were the logical outcome of the events which preceded them.

As the saying goes, "Those to whom evil is done, do evil in return."

SEPTEMBER 1, 1939 W.H. Auden


You must break the cycle of hatred, tyranny, and death. And you aren't going to do it with more hatred, tyranny, and death. Please stop.