Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Is military action to aid another country ever the right thing to do?

30 replies

Chil1234 · 09/03/2011 11:47

In the past, reluctance to commit militarily in the Bosnia/Serbia conflict meant huge loss of life and showed that 'UN peacekeeping' is next to useless. No international forces came to the aid of the Rwandans when they were being massacred. The motives behind operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were controversial, complex, and have shown yet more pitfalls of military action. And in other situations like Zimbabwe, or China we take a different approach entirely. Now it's Libya

Is it ever right to intervene militarily in another country's internal affairs? Does there have to be a direct threat against our own country? Is it a good enough rationale to prevent a human tragedy or does there have to be more before we commit troops and resources?

OP posts:
glasnost · 10/03/2011 16:15

Well a new democratically elected gov could look askance at the countries which propped up Ghedaffi by doing biz with him. Eg ours. The oil supply and potential stemming of it is the only reason military intervention is being mooted.

If the title of the thread had referred to aiding oil as opposed to countries then we could've had a whole different and more honest debate.

BaggedandTagged · 10/03/2011 13:31

Glasnost- I'd disagree. The UK dont fear democracy in Libya- they fear a long running civil war which would disrupt the oil supply. If there was a democracy, they'd carry on pumping the oil because why wouldn't they? A country that's a democracy is as likely (if not more so) to carry on producing/exporting oil as a totalitarian one.

On that basis, we should only intervene if we know that we can resolve things quickly in the favour of the rebels (pro-democracy). However, we don't seem to have a great track record in deciding when that will be the case (Iraq) so probably best to stay out of it IMO.

glasnost · 09/03/2011 13:48

Interventions are only ever to further the interests of the intervening country. Only reason Brits et al are hovering over Libya pontificating on whether to intervene is because they're afraid the revolution is going to be successful and the people will finally take over democratically. The UK/USA DO NOT want that. They'd much rather Ghedaffi or another tinpot dictator were in power to secure the oil supply etc.

meditrina · 09/03/2011 12:05

The underlying question here is about intervention: there are a whole range of ways in which one country can intervene in the affairs of another, from trade tariffs, aid policy, sanctions, peace-keeping, no-fly zones, and invasion. Only some of these are jobs for the military.

The role of the UN is (or should be) key in this, as it is a means to reach international consensus and then ensure implementation of measures to reach the desired end state. It failed dramatically in the Balkans as there was no peace to keep in the first place, nations did not contribute the troops required and the mandate was not sufficiently robust.

Niceguy2 · 09/03/2011 11:56

Difficult one. For conflicts close to our borders, I do think there can be situations where we need to intervene.

However in the case of Libya, because of the history and the whole area is deeply suspicious of westerners I honestly believe us intervening (with or without UN support) will backfire big time.

The only option would be for the Arab states to form a coalition and intervene.

For Iraq & Afghanistan, that was just the UK doing anything to please our US masters.

Swipe left for the next trending thread