Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Is Civil War A Necessary Evil? Options · View
Rembacher
Posted: Monday, May 02, 2011 4:45:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
With all the unrest in the world lately, my friend and I were discussing the unrest, and what the world's powers should do, if anything, to intervene. There are many theories about why Libya deserves help fighting for freedom and democracy, and not Sudan (Darfur).

Here's a scenerio: A developing country gains its independence after war, and slowly develops that independence, but there are many competing ideas as to what that country should look like. Ethnic tensions are at the heart of the debate. Claims of cruelty, rape, and even murder of a particular ethnicity are public. With one side seeming to gain political power, the other side, concentrated in a geographic area, decides to declare independence from the rest of the country. The action is not taken lightly, and through a series of events, a war is started between two sides.

Should the world powers intervene?

Today's world would seem to say yes. But if they would have in the situation I outlined, they would have stopped the US civil war, an action which is credited with being instrumental in making the US what it is today.

It may seem barbaric, and there's definitely some truth to that; but might the developing world be better off if we let the conflicts happen, rather than try to control the outcome, and force a solution on people who may not fully support it?

Guest
Posted: Monday, May 02, 2011 6:46:57 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,624
its a little bit like the prime directive...

i for one tend to want to let countries sort out their own differences but there are of course always exceptions. first, if one side is clobbering the hell out of the other to the point of genocide and refuse to stop of their own accord. and secondly, we must think about our global health. if one party of a civil war is a known psycho, like a Hitler, lets say. then yes, im all for getting into the fray.
Juicyme
Posted: Monday, May 02, 2011 8:54:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/7/2011
Posts: 177
Location: between a rock and grad school applications, Unite
If only it was this simple. The reason the US refuses to get involved in Darfur is because of Sudan's relations with China and Iran. The difference between the US civil war and most others is that it wasn't an ethnic cleansing. If the US and other western powers intervened sooner then Rwanda wouldn't have been as atrocious. By not stepping in in theses other countries we are setting our selves up for hell in the future. Stepping in can be saying you support the protesters.
Rembacher
Posted: Monday, May 02, 2011 9:15:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
Juicyme wrote:
The difference between the US civil war and most others is that it wasn't an ethnic cleansing.


It wasn't an ethnic cleansing, though it was about the status of a particular ethnic group. One of the key causes of the US civil war was slavery. So, it could be argued that if the civil war had taken place in today's times, the European powers would have aided the north, and I think that would have made it harder for the south to accept the outcome. They would feel that it is not the countries decision, but that of some foreign power.

It is definitely a complicated issue, and I am by no means encouraging standing by and allowing ethnic cleansing, but I do wonder if by saving people we also force them to live with that conflict simmering below the surface because it never really gets resolved by the actual parties involved. I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe it's something like what eventually happened with Yugoslavia, where you divide the country into smaller countries because co-existing peacefully is just not an option.
Juicyme
Posted: Monday, May 02, 2011 11:04:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/7/2011
Posts: 177
Location: between a rock and grad school applications, Unite
or it could be that the nationals have no other options and are waiting for outside help. It comes to a point where there has to be intervention. Btw the entire civil war was not about slavery.
latinfoxy
Posted: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:58:08 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 816
Location: Here
I live in a country were sooner rather than latter Civil War is going to happen, i see very few possibilities to resolve the issues we are going thru and sadly i dont see us getting rid of Chavez without some blood been spread around, its a very sad situation but i still have hopes that theres some other way.

About if i think a country should get outside help or not it depends if you are just gonna help end up the madness on a country and brothers killing brothers and then leave yes i support it, if you are gonna take advantage of a country that is going thru a rough time and stay there because of the monetary gain you can receive from it then hell no.
Rembacher
Posted: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 7:45:15 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
latinfoxy wrote:
I live in a country were sooner rather than latter Civil War is going to happen, i see very few possibilities to resolve the issues we are going thru and sadly i dont see us getting rid of Chavez without some blood been spread around, its a very sad situation but i still have hopes that theres some other way.

About if i think a country should get outside help or not it depends if you are just gonna help end up the madness on a country and brothers killing brothers and then leave yes i support it, if you are gonna take advantage of a country that is going thru a rough time and stay there because of the monetary gain you can receive from it then hell no.


Gracias para la respuesta! My Spanish is horrible, but I'm learning. Being as you are in a country where civil war has a realistic chance of happening, I would like your take on this aspect of it: If Chavez is run out by a group aided by foreign support would he be more likely to come back again, and try and regain power, feeling that his people still want him in power, and it was just the outside influence? I think he would be more likely to admit defeat, and not try to regain power if the force that overthrew him was completely local. ¿Que Piensas?
Juicyme
Posted: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 8:19:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/7/2011
Posts: 177
Location: between a rock and grad school applications, Unite
LatinFoxy you raise a great point about the monetary gains that can come from civil war. I think because foreign (outside help) comes because of the natural resources whether real or perceived. The US has gotten involved in Libya but has refused to do so in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen. These three do not have a natural resource that's profitable. If this were a perfect world when outside help came during a civil war they would only help the cause and then leave. I think that's really what Jebru is getting at here *correct me if I'm wrong...which I'm sure you will :) *

Now the Chavez question is a tricky one....
latinfoxy
Posted: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 8:46:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 816
Location: Here
Jebru wrote:
latinfoxy wrote:
I live in a country were sooner rather than latter Civil War is going to happen, i see very few possibilities to resolve the issues we are going thru and sadly i dont see us getting rid of Chavez without some blood been spread around, its a very sad situation but i still have hopes that theres some other way.

About if i think a country should get outside help or not it depends if you are just gonna help end up the madness on a country and brothers killing brothers and then leave yes i support it, if you are gonna take advantage of a country that is going thru a rough time and stay there because of the monetary gain you can receive from it then hell no.


Gracias para la respuesta! My Spanish is horrible, but I'm learning. Being as you are in a country where civil war has a realistic chance of happening, I would like your take on this aspect of it: If Chavez is run out by a group aided by foreign support would he be more likely to come back again, and try and regain power, feeling that his people still want him in power, and it was just the outside influence? I think he would be more likely to admit defeat, and not try to regain power if the force that overthrew him was completely local. ¿Que Piensas?


Well Chavez is a really weird specimen of all the "dictators" out there. He is very manipulative and knows how to talk to poor people and because we have right now about 75% of poor population he does have a large group of supporters, at the same time he is a scare cat and a coward i can give you two examples:

1. In 1992 there was an attempt to a Coup d'etat (i think thats the proper word) Chavez was one of the liders of this, in the five biggest cities of Venezuela some militars took the command of the Goverment, the only one that couldnt complete their task was Chavez he back off when other parts of the militars act against him.

2. In 2002 there was another Coup d'etat this time was against Chavez, this time it was actually not an attempt he did leave and he did signed a resignation, it happened because ppl took the streets and wouldnt leave for three days a lot of ppl died. The problem was that the guy that took the presidency was a very right win kind of guy you might say as the equal of the tea party on the USA, so he tried to change to much in to little time for ppl to process the changes and the same militars that took Chavez brought him back on (all this happen in a 24 hour period). The Urban Legend (wich i believe its totally truth) says that Chavez was already in Cuba and he was so afraid to comeback that he begged them to let him stay in Cuba.

Sorry for the long history lesson but it was to prove my point he is a coward so yes no matter what happened im sure he would admit defeat but im not so sure how much blood there would have to be for him to leave after all Venezuela is full of oil and he uses it as his pocket money.

Rembacher
Posted: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 9:30:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
Thanks for the response Foxy. It will be interesting to see what happens in Venezuela. And yes Juicy, that was sort of what I was getting at. That the outside help generally has its own interests at heart, so will generally back the side it thinks benefits it the best. Which can create resentment and distrust from the side that wasn't backed, and I wonder if that draws out the situation longer, than if we just left the situations to be solved by the countries themselves.
latinfoxy
Posted: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 9:48:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 816
Location: Here
Jebru wrote:
Thanks for the response Foxy. It will be interesting to see what happens in Venezuela. And yes Juicy, that was sort of what I was getting at. That the outside help generally has its own interests at heart, so will generally back the side it thinks benefits it the best. Which can create resentment and distrust from the side that wasn't backed, and I wonder if that draws out the situation longer, than if we just left the situations to be solved by the countries themselves.


Well interesting wouldnt be my words to describe it but i guess it all depends on the eye of the beholder.

I do think it creates resentment from the side that wasnt backed, if you think about it its normal that this happen, in most to not say all of this countries that civil wars have started because of extreme left wings dictators the common point to them is that they hate capitalism = USA, and to most to not say all of the times that countries do act to stop the war USA is the leader or the only one on the mission.

If your whole life or a big part of it you have been told how awful, destructive and horrible people Americans are, when you see them attacking your beloved president/dictator how do you think you would feel?
Eastlin
Posted: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:15:47 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 2/18/2011
Posts: 13
i agree, he was a coward. i mean is.
civil wars and coup d'etat are necesary. we need them to prove points and to determine distbutes that "politics" cant decide. and as long as we have stubborn people, we will have civil wars.
oh, and americans are destructive. we continue to destroy in order to expand our beliefs because we think we are the best. go to any little girl or boy today and ask who is the best. more than likely they will point to themselves and say "i am the best". that is american mentality. to be the best. and the best has the most stuff, the most people following them. man, i'm all over the place with that paragraph...

<a href=""><img src="" style="border-width: 0" alt="Adopt one today!"/></a>
Juicyme
Posted: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 1:14:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/7/2011
Posts: 177
Location: between a rock and grad school applications, Unite
Democracy isn't always the answer. The sooner western countries understand that then I think that foreign policy will actually help the people of the warring countries. I think so many times that everyone is so hell bent on ousting the leader that they forget about the citizens of that country. Prime example look at the Ivory Coast or even Venezuela or Cuba. The people are the ones that are left out and forgotten about. Since they're left out that's where the resentment grows.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:40:40 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,624
latinfoxy wrote:
[quote=Jebru]

If your whole life or a big part of it you have been told how awful, destructive and horrible people Americans are, when you see them attacking your beloved president/dictator how do you think you would feel?


I guess it would depend on how many family members that "beloved dictator" has killed this week, eh?

Personally, I think the US should keep to her borders and quit playing policeman for the world. It doesn't help, and ends only with more problems.
Juicyme
Posted: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 5:58:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/7/2011
Posts: 177
Location: between a rock and grad school applications, Unite
ghost_writer wrote:


Personally, I think the US should keep to her borders and quit playing policeman for the world. It doesn't help, and ends only with more problems.


There is absolutely no country in this world that keeps only to itself. By the US or any country pulling and keeping to their "own borders" that creates more problems. Foreign policy is a huge tangled mess but there is a need for countries to have interdependent relationships.

Besides it's not about playing policeman to the world its about making sure that our allies are protected along with our assets. Not saying I fully agree with all of our foreign policy...
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 7:37:30 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,624
ROFL. I knew coming into this conversation that I shouldn't come into this conversation. I guess I didn't think my comment through...if my neighbour needed help, I would. Countries are no different. (Backing out now) lol

"Even a fool is considered wise until he opens his mouth" :-)
latinfoxy
Posted: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 11:17:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 816
Location: Here
Juicyme wrote:
Democracy isn't always the answer. The sooner western countries understand that then I think that foreign policy will actually help the people of the warring countries. I think so many times that everyone is so hell bent on ousting the leader that they forget about the citizens of that country. Prime example look at the Ivory Coast or even Venezuela or Cuba. The people are the ones that are left out and forgotten about. Since they're left out that's where the resentment grows.


i think you really didnt think thru this post, name ONE country where a dictature ship worked out.

Our country (Venezuela) has the third more dangerous capital of the world because of our so called "leader" when you harvest hatred dont expect to pic roses! with Cuba the same example take fidel out of the equation and you would have a very different country!

You cant take out or leave out the citizens of the country and just include the leader, its really a package deal. Hate him or love him he is part of you and you are part of him because we do affect each others lives.
latinfoxy
Posted: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 11:20:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 816
Location: Here
ghost_writer wrote:
latinfoxy wrote:
[quote=Jebru]

If your whole life or a big part of it you have been told how awful, destructive and horrible people Americans are, when you see them attacking your beloved president/dictator how do you think you would feel?


I guess it would depend on how many family members that "beloved dictator" has killed this week, eh?

Personally, I think the US should keep to her borders and quit playing policeman for the world. It doesn't help, and ends only with more problems.


Yes and no! you do see little boys being rubber mouths (sorry cant think of another way to put it in english) about there mom and dad building a little boat to escape Cuba, so my point was that when all you hear about and all you know about is how great the dictator is, reality and fiction gets blurry.
Juicyme
Posted: Thursday, May 05, 2011 8:13:33 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/7/2011
Posts: 177
Location: between a rock and grad school applications, Unite
latinfoxy wrote:
Juicyme wrote:
Democracy isn't always the answer. The sooner western countries understand that then I think that foreign policy will actually help the people of the warring countries. I think so many times that everyone is so hell bent on ousting the leader that they forget about the citizens of that country. Prime example look at the Ivory Coast or even Venezuela or Cuba. The people are the ones that are left out and forgotten about. Since they're left out that's where the resentment grows.


i think you really didnt think thru this post, name ONE country where a dictature ship worked out.


You're misunderstanding the point I was trying to make. My point about democracy isn't the answer means that the democracy of the US or UK or France maay not be what that country needs. I'm not saying that a dictator is better, not at all. What I am sayiing is that the system we use in the US might not be ideal for Venezuela. No country is a true democracy anyway.

Furthermore when you say "worked out" do you mean effective on the part of stabilizing the country's economy and ethnic violence, pulling as many people out of poverty as possible or engaging in more foreign policy?

If that is what you mean by a "dictatorship that worked out" here's a list of dictators or dictator like leaders who fufilled the aforementioned things...if only for a short while:

Pervez Musharraf-Pakistan
Vladmir Putin-Russia
Deng Xiaoping -China
Robert Mugabe-Zimbabwe
José Figueres Ferrer -Costa Rica
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.