Military Intervention - Yay or Nay?

[Lightworker]

Hiya folks! Well lately I have been getting my teeth into loads of reading about genocide, a subject I am passionate about and was wondering what y'all thoughts on this are.

Currently, the Genocide Convention (I won't get technical) obligates its signatories to "act accordingly" in the event of genocide. Over the past decades, the mighty powers have time and again failed to act effectively to stop genocide and in the times they have acted, it has been too little to late.

I was reading A Problem from Hell by Samantha Power, where she described the US failures to intervene, and the driving forces behind these failures. For alot of the cases, such as the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Iraq (in the 80's) etc public opinion has played a big part and the powers that be did not want to act for fear of losing their public supporters.

Anyway, I guess what I am asking is, as a member of the public, do you support the idea of intervening militarily at the first sight of genocide? I have to add that in the past I was completely opposed to the armed forces and the use of arms to resolve conflicts, but sometimes it is a case of saving lives and I believe it has to be done.

 

[Blah11]

Yes, i do. Everyone should have human rights, not just those in our country.

 

[PepsiChic]

no, because it is never done correctly.

 

[Lightworker]

no, because it is never done correctly.

In what way? How do you think they could improve?

 

[PepsiChic]

no, because it is never done correctly.

In what way? How do you think they could improve?

well if they were going to proactive they should first try peace talks, negotiation and compromise. instead the US seems to just jump straight to confrontation. oh im sure a bit more goes into it then that...but if it does they dont try hard enough and they certainly dont inform the public enough about the situation at hand.

it also annoys me how whenever the US goes to war the UK *HAS* to join them as allies when the majority of the population in the UK dont want to.

as for preparation, multiple times it was pointed out that when the UK army went to Iraq, they werent supplied properly and crucial Apache helicopters were left behind and not shipped out to Iraq till incredibly too late into the war as well as a lot of armored vehicles which could of helped saved lifes form roadside bombs.

better surveillance before hand and during and after the war to keep an eye on critical people involved. as well as well-though out rules with delegated roles given to strong people with good leadership qualities to deal with the aftermath instead of everyone standing around saying "i though you guys were going to take control..."

 

[Lightworker]

Yeah I agree with most of what you're saying especially with regard to preparation and the rickety equipment lol. I know in some of the countries they have intervened (especially as part of the UN) peacekeepers were taking preventable risks with their lives because they had shoddy vehicles etc.
But I do believe the US does negotiation and in fact goes to far in their diplomacy because in alot of their interventions people have been like "what took you so long, everyones already dead!"