Forceful Regime Change?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Gavik, Apr 29, 2007.

  1. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    What do you think the morality of forceful regime change is? Here are some scenarios.

    A: A dictator rules over a nation where he is actively committing genocide. Would you give the order to invade that nation?

    B: A dictator rules over a nation where there are few civil liberties or freedoms, and a majority of the people are calling for international intervention to help them. Would you give the order to invade that nation?

    C: A dictator rules over a nation where there are few civil liberties or freedoms, but the people seem content with a very small radical wing calling for rebellion. Would you give the order to invade that nation?

    D: A country states that it is persuing a nuclear weapons and reactor program, but doesn't make any threats against other neighboring nations to use them. Would you give the order to invade that nation?

    E: A country states that it is persuing a nuclear weapons and reactor program, and makes threats against other neighboring nations to use them. Would you give the order to invade that nation?
     

  2. ChinUp

    ChinUp ¤ Breathe

    Because no nation can operate independently .. every nation is dependent on trade .. control trade, control enemies to humanitarian government ..

    There is no need for wars on tyrants .. the only reason we pursue them is because capitalism is given precedence over humanitarian priorities ..

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Does anybody else see conflict being treated like a money maker ?

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    [​IMG]


    If the world were a village of only 100 people, there would be :
    • 60 Asians
    • 14 Africans
    • 12 Europeans
    • 8 people from Central and South America, Mexico and the Caribbean
    • 5 from the U.S., Canada
    • 1 person from Australia or New Zealand
     
  3. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    That has what to do with all of this? So you're against capitalism prevailing over humanitarianism. What about the scenarios?
     
  4. Duke1985

    Duke1985 EatsApplePieShitsFreedom

    Yes, most certainly in this case. Ideally support from several other nations would be desired and wanted in this situation.


    Yes, but only with support from several other nations. If the people call for intervention I would hope the international community would all jump in. Now finding a replacement government afterwards is tricky, who do you put in charge? What kind of government do the people want? Do we push our own ideals on the people or leave them to their own devices after the invasion?
    Thats the tricky part I think.

    No, if the people are, for the most part, content thete is no reason for invasion, in this case it would be moraly wrong in my eyes.

    No, if there is no threats, there is little reason to invade. The presence of nuclear weapons alone isn't enough reason for an invasion. If this country were to launch a nuclear weapon the international repercussions would be tremendous, and then an invasion would occur most certainly, or worse yet, a retalitory nukeing.
    Nukes themselves seem to be the biggest deterent for using them.

    In this case only if a number of things were to happen. Threats alone wouldn't be enough, there would have to be an incident of some kind first, and the neighboring nations were calling for aid. Support from the international community would be very perfered but is not absolutly necessary, support from allied nations might be enough.

    In my mind thats how those things work.
     
  5. ChinUp

    ChinUp ¤ Breathe

    The scenarios are patches for symptoms rather than solutions .. would you not agree that when addressing an issue like Forceful Regime Change we should seek out solutions that are best for all involved .. rather than just the capitalists ? If you only address armed remedies only, the essential problem is compounded rather than solved ..

    So long as armed conflicts are used to address barbaric government behaviour, we have a snake biting its own tale .. like killing a killer for killing ..
     
  6. Duke1985

    Duke1985 EatsApplePieShitsFreedom

    For some reason I just assumed diplomacy had already occured, as the topic is Forceful Regime Change.

    In my mind the question of invasion only comes after diplomacy has broken down to complete and utter uselessness.
     
  7. ChinUp

    ChinUp ¤ Breathe

    The only time diplomacy fails is when free trade is given priority over diplomacy .. to prevent armed conflict we must be able to control trade .. remember politics is war without bloodshed .. Forceful Regime Change can be done without bloodshed via trade controls .. when the traders place a higher priority on moving their product, receiving their product than observing diplomatic controls in place to force a regime change .. armed conflict is the result ..
     
  8. Duke1985

    Duke1985 EatsApplePieShitsFreedom

    Do you think that would have worked during world war 2 against Hitler's war machine?
     
  9. ChinUp

    ChinUp ¤ Breathe

    Totally .. The Beer Hall Putsch created the void for Hitler (something the league of nations could have prevented ) & when The Reichstag burned the league of nations should have intervened with trade controls to prevent a dictatorship taking hold in Germany .. but as per usual greed took precedence over humanitarian goals & thus the actions that could have taken place early in the proceedings .. stifling the momentum of Hitler's regime in its infancy .. did not occur ..

    Think about what occurred in industry between 1921 & 1933 .. follow the money .. short term profits took precedence over long term stability in the market ..
     
  10. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    NO! WRONG! YOU LOSE! The scenarios arn't the patches, they're the illness! And the topic is about whether to use force or not, so just say no to all 5 if you think wars are for capitalists.

    No, it couldn't have. The League was an impotent tool that died before it even got started.
     

Share This Page