Archon said:
So you would let the dictator run out of people...and then, after (but only after) he began to turn his attentions to other countries, you would intercede militarily? Explain your logic, because I really can't see how this is the better way.
If he ran out of people he wouldn't be able to intercede militarily. (That wasn't really a serious comment. Obviously that's not really going to happen)
There is enough historical evidence to show that brutal regimes can last a long time. Observe the Soviet Union, especially under Stalin. As you yourself said later in your post, he was able to trick most of his people into believing that he was a good leader.
And yet, for all of their crimes. War would not have helped the least. You know what the difference is between invading the USSR and invading Iran? If you invaded the USSR you would be hurt too. This is a very important, it's easy to say "Let's invade
their homes to help
them out because look at how horrible it is now!" but what if it was your land that was suddenly being subject to Shock and Awe and an unprecedented death rate? It's not that black and white.
First, I'd like you to explain why military action is impossible to justify, no matter how horrible the conditions in the offending country.
Because military action will never improve the regime. Not only because generally the worse a regime's human rights violations the more powerfull or capable of defending it's self it is, but also because military action, more often than not, will only create more strife in the area.
Then, explain to me why you value the sovereignty of nations over the rights of the humans being abused by these nations
What kind of a precedent do you think it would be setting, even if Iraq wasn't the mess it was now and people weren't still fighting in Afghanistan? Do you think Iran would be sitting around saying "Wow, look at the good job the US did in iraq. Well, let's scrap our nuke program because they're obviously the good guys!" I don't.
(as your willingness to allow the dictator to kill millions of people seems to indicate).
Show me a regime that kills "millions" of people that would have been helped by military action. USSR? Nope. Nazi Germany? Total death toll of WW2 was more than Germany's entire population at the time. Simply accepting Jewish immigrants in the 30s would have done more good. I doubt Saddam's toll goes into the millions.
Also, I'd like to know what you think of rebellions and internal revolutions. When is it justifiable for a rebellious element of society to fight (that is, kill) for its rights?
Always, so long as it's not "stupid" (i.e. We demand casual fridays! *stab*)
Would an armed uprising, which, for the sake of argument, fired the first shots, be justifiable if the people saw themselves as oppressed?
The people always have a right to overthrow a government when it becomes oppressive. It's when the organization that's rebelling starts violating human rights themselves that they leave the 'Insurgency' class and enter 'warlords fighting for power'.
The ratio was completely arbitrary. Of course you can't have that sort of ration of soldiers to civilians, but that wasn't the point. The point is that even a civilian uprising with an enormous numerical advantage is going to have a hard time fighting against tanks, planes, advanced weaponry, etc.
An insurgency is beating up the most technologically advanced government
right now, and with 0 to little support from other developed nations.
And the millions of people whose neighbors, friends, and family members disappeared thought what?
I imagine many of them didn't know what to think, but were probably just as shocked as everyone else when Krushchev came out about Stalin in '54.
The point is that even though they wanted to be free, many people in Eastern Europe were unable to free themselves from Soviet domination. Yes, they might have succeeded earlier with help from the West. But how many people died under Stalin: it's not reasonable to say that Western aid would have allowed Soviet satellite countries to free themselves within a few years, right? Millions of people died during Stalin's reign alone. How would Western assistance have helped lower this number in any significant way?
Yes, I think if the US had adopted a much more passive policy towards the USSR it may not have been willing to hold on to it for quite so long simply because it would not view it as a necessary buffer against NATO. But now we're making big changes to history again, this is difficult to predict.
The fact remains that this happened almost 50 years after these countries were first placed within the Soviet sphere of influence/domination. How many people died in the interim?
I don't think nearly as many as you would like to believe. The worst aspect of Stalin's reign for which he is famed, the great purge, did not involve Eastern Europe. The Communist Bloc was not the death camp that Hitler had set up, most people who were killed were because they were a political figures or because they died in direct conflict with soviet troops during periods of strife.
I assumed you were referring to civilian casualties. How many Iraqi soldiers actually fought?
Doesn't matter, Iraqi's real combatants are still fighting and number much more.
Okay.
Diplomacy: Usually won't work with dictators who are already bent on killing millions of people. What would you have offered Hitler in return for his cessation of his murderous campaign against Jews and other minorities?
Hitler was already proceeding in a policy of foreign aggression. War was inevitable because Hitler wanted war.
Economic Sanctions: Why should the dictator care?
Because if used properly they can be very effective in creating unrest.
Anyway, economic sanctions tend to have a *slightly* detrimental effect on the health and prosperity of the general population. The dictator himself, of course, continues to live in luxury.
Unfortunately, yes. However, the dictator's lifestyle is irrelevant.
I don't think we should use military action first: we can try diplomacy and perhaps even sanctions. But I'm opposed to the statement that military action is never justified. Sometimes, it's the only reasonable path
I disagree.
(that is, when you're concerned about human rights over the rights of sovereign nations).
My concern for Soverignty rights is purely as a tool for human rights.
and how do you justify that claim?
