Log in

View Full Version : Right to Protect (R2P) and our Current Situations



Kubehiz
18th October 2012, 22:17
Hello, comrades,

I'm coming in with a theoretical question today that has been dancing around in my brain. As leftists, we are usually against military and political intervention in various states across the globe, as commissioned by the UN. With the growing trend of R2P, the right to protect citizens from oppressive regimes, could our theories need redressing?

This is a question I ask seriously, because I have witnessed the oppression in Iran, the troubles of a theocratic state, and we have all seen the slaughters on the news in Syria. Whilst some argue that it is an imperialistic outcome to intervene militarily in these countries, is it not better in some circumstances to attempt to dethrone dictators?

Yes, I am familiar with the issues America has created with installing new, more brutal dictators and issues in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. However, this question is more posed for atrocities rather than economic motivation (such as oil). This is for the atrocities we have seen in Rwanda, mass genocide. The atrocities we have seen in Syria, Sudan, and many other third world countries.

I guess, to boil it down, would it not be better in the case of severe atrocities to at least attempt to install peace-keeping forces and breach State Sovereignty for the good of the people? Please, feel free to discuss and educate me, for I am not that familiar with leftist interventionist qualms.

LiberationTheologist
3rd November 2012, 14:23
Bomb and murder them all and ship them guns to foment civil war and call that liberation Kubehiz. We can call it capitalist socialism and get everybody on board.

What imperialist party owns your mind Kubehiz? Serious question.

Raúl Duke
3rd November 2012, 14:48
However, this question is more posed for atrocities rather than economic motivation (such as oil). This is for the atrocities we have seen in Rwanda, mass genocide. The atrocities we have seen in Syria, Sudan, and many other third world countries.


Has a nation ever militarily intervened to stop a genocide/atrocity? Rarely, I could only think of the Vietnamese putting an end to the Khmer Rouge.

The problem with what your suggesting is that it basically says that we should place ourselves in the same party/camp as the imperialists. It's not like we can "demand an intervention" that best suits "what we would like." Hell, seldom has an intervention actually improve things.

A social upheaval or even revolution however, much more preferable than a foreign intervention.

Rugged Collectivist
3rd November 2012, 14:56
Yes, I am familiar with the issues America has created with installing new, more brutal dictators

And there's your answer.