I hope most of you know about the recent stuff that happened in Zimbabwe. For those born underground, it's a land just above South Africa ruled by a sinister president called-wait for it.....Robert Mugabe.

The different governments of the world mostly diagree with what he is doing, but nobody can really stop him. He killed a lot of the white farmers a while back and gave their farms to black people who don't know how to farm, resulting in there being not enough food for his people and he is now ruling them under dictatorship.
My question is, should other countries of the world be able to go in their and take away his power and stop what he is doing or should he be left alone to deal with an almost certain civil war that will arise?

I am sorry but no one should meddle in other people's affairs, if any national conflict will be solved, it is the duty of UN... Since UN is formed by the world's biggest and manupilation masters, it will not do any good... That means if the head voting five nations disagree with what is going on in a country in need of help, they vote against it and their votes are more powerful then any attending nations, such as any of the five countries (USA, England, France, Russia and China? Sorry I can t remember them now) vote against it, the case is closed...

Further more, the UN is easily disregarded as the Iraq situation, Mr. Bush made a clear statement "If you are not helping us, you are against us" which means any nation disagrees with USA will be considered a potential enemy, since Turkey didnt help USA for invasion of Iraq (Yes it is an invasion not rescue) by closing down the US base in Adana, the relations with Turkey and USA got damaged... I will not even talk about the religious racism against the muslims, the suffering they have to endure in USA, looking at them as potential terrorrists...

And this "interfering" is a two sided blade, like the Iraq incident, the USA forces marched there supposedly toppling a dictator Saddam Husein, and it all ended with a civil war, the arabs and kurds there fighting eachother to gain the upperhand, in the meantime the very lands that would be cleansed of terrorists are still bases for terrorists...

The infamous terrorist Osama Bin Laden is acutally a CIA trained man, who based himself Afghanistan against the Russian invasion, Laden was trained to terror the land so the Russians would retreat and they did, now USA is after him casue the man trained is against them now...

As for the Iraq incident, there were some chemical weapons so to speak, but none was found, the only evidence was some 3d modeling of some trucks that were mobile labs... No picture was ever taken, no document was presented to the media, to UN or anyone... To fund that war USA disregarded the Katrina and many people still suffer, not to mention the misbehavior of USA troops in Iraq...

So, noone should meddle to any other country's affairs in any way possible... If there should be some interfering, UN should be the one do it... not any one else...

removed

So you say history is written by the victorious

If USA had succesed in Iraq it would be a glorious victory against a madman, now it is a civil war

removed

I've been thinking about that too, if another race from somewhere in the galaxy was to discover us now, what would they say if they saw us fighting ourselves and destroying our planet?

Anyway, the problem is that Zimbabwe can no longer really be called a land, that place is just hell, and almost everybody disagrees with what is happening there, but yet, the South-African president stands firmly behind Zimbabwe. The same president who says there isn't a crime problem in SOuth Africa and then directly afterwards buys a 90 million Rand (about $12 million) wall to enclose his home.

Well the Zimbabwe situation is bad, it is hell, very much like the Darfour incident, like the Sarajevo incident, like the Iraq incident, you can count many many more these are only the ones I remember...

The fact is there is a foundation in this world to stop these madmen, the United Nations... The only being to meddle in the affairs of national or international crisis is the UN... Other countries should not meddle, since you cant trust their agenda, very much like the Iraq incident, there is an international foundation to deal with this so we should try to make UN work...

removed

A nice dream, but that's not the way the world actually works (no matter how much we may want it to). Wars happen when alternatives exist. Genocides happen. Dictators protect themselves leaving their populations to suffer unspeakable horrors. Sad but true.

Should the world sit back and watch when crimes against humanity are being commited by a government against its citizens? No. The hard part is determining how to intervene and not make things worse. To this problem there is no easy answer.

Yea, nice words have no effect without influences that fit each situation. The worlds people have to decide how to agree enough to build some thing better I suppose.

I think part of the answer would be genuine words and actions when ever possible. Much of what has gone wrong seems to involve secrets and manipulations that may have seemed proper at the time.

removed

Well I guess UN should use its peace keeper force more desicively (The Blue Helmets?? )

The descisive votes of the five founder nations should be dissolved, every nation should have one vote...

The UN should act like UN...

Which reminds me of the song United Abominations

Since UN is an organisation above the nations, should act like one, maybe a more driven secretary would do the trick??

removed

Right of self-determination of nations. (if my translation is correct) After the abomination of the Iraq war this right has been forgotten, but it still exists.

Actually I believe the goal should be "right of self-determination for individual human beings", not nations. This is the problem: corrupt people who claim to speak for a nation, while ignoring the voices of their nation's citizens (all too often persecuting them). Zimbabwe, Burma... there are many examples past and present.

[aside]
Sativarg:
None of the books are called "Sword of Truth" (that's the name of the series). The quote (from its contents) sounds like it would be from the first one: Wizards First Rule.
[/aside]

I think a population has a responsibility towads the government they elect. And this responsibility involves the armed resistance if there is an extreme need. IF THEY WANT.

Other countries can decide what is better for a population or not? iraqis were better or worse before that barbaric war? Can you decide what girl is better for me, sexy and dumb or plain and smart? your advices are appreciated, but thanks, i can decide for myself.

Good points, but what about unelected governments? What about limited (one) choice "elections"? And how can people who struggle to eat daily mount any sort of effective resistance to an organized opressive government whose sole goal is retaining power? If people freely choose a government with viable alternatives, then let them live with it. If the people have absolutely no power over their goverment representation (through voting or potential revolt), and their government doesn't make the population's well-being a priority, then how is it right to sanction such a situation?

And as I mentioned earlier, seeing that something should be done is easy. Knowing what to do (so as to not make things worse) is hard.

Well yes I knew that. But the excerpt I uploaded was the part of the story that inspired me and it was the first description of the sword itself thus the title I gave the file. The description above is about the series and is misleading, As I had said it was a book I was listening to, so I am sorry for my ambiguity.

Do you know the wizards first rule? It might be considered a spoiler so I will not post it here. I am beginning to really enjoy this Book. I am also seeing in it some good words of wisdom. Listening is slow business. this book will take some time to finish then there is the next...

I heard a rumor that Disney will be releasing this soon on TV?

I replied in a new thread to prevent hijacking this one:
http://thenexusforums.com/index.php?showtopic=66464

Yea your right I should have respected that rule as well.
kudos

One more reason for the people (of that nation only) to organize a resistance. And, by the way, do you think there's difference from a tyrant elected by the people and one who takes power with violence? Most of the times, NO. The dictators elected by a cultural-controlled mass (our psychodwarf Silvio Berlusconi for example) are far more common than ones that use tanks and executions in order to take power. And these last ones NEVER act alone, (except some famous cases) but they receive an "extra help" from other countries... if you understand what i mean.

Yeah, malnourished people using sticks and stones to fight against a trained millitary force using automatic weapons... That has a chance of working.


If people vote for a tyrant when there is a viable alternative then that is their choice. Even a choice between the lesser of two evils would be better than no choice at all (because of the built-in motivation of leaders to win over 50%+1 of their voting population).

If you're seriously comparing Italian politics to the situation in Zimbabwe... get real.

Good point, (the first one) but there are several unarmed resistances that worked in humanity's history.
Beside that, If the harassed population can't get out of the situation because they are starved and unarmed, and you really care about their right to have a democracy, you can help them with secret services, not freaking cluster bombs.

For your second point i still believe there's not a lesser evil... at least not so marked as you seem to evaluate. The dictator that takes power with poulation's support is is far more hard to take it down! and no, i'm not comparing italian situation with Zimbabwe... (even if everyone understimate it) but i know a bit of my country's history, and i know that the dictator that led Italy to the ruins of wwII was the result of a slow process of distortion of minds and cultures with propaganda.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not once make any reference to the use of military force in the manner you suggest. I only incidated that the choice of how to intervene is not an easy thing to determine because the intervention may cause more harm than good. This thread's title after all is "should some lands meddle...", not "how should some lands meddle...".

remove