Enforcing Human Rights

[Stanislaw Sikorski]

Countries like North Korea have poor human rights records. There's nothing to gain though by invading these countries to remove the dictators from power. Charities like Amnesty International and several human rights activists are peacefully trying to improve conditions for people around the world but are they doing enough? Could we do more to enforce human rights than petitions?

[Wilhelm IV]

Countries like North Korea have poor human rights records. There's nothing to gain though by invading these countries to remove the dictators from power. Charities like Amnesty International and several human rights activists are peacefully trying to improve conditions for people around the world but are they doing enough? Could we do more to enforce human rights than petitions?

Define "We" here.

 

Because if EVERYBODY worked to ensure that everybody else was happy and to help them, the world would be a utopia. No poverty, no war, no crime, they would be things of the past.

 

But sadly for us, utopia is a dream, which I doubt will ever be achieved. I imagine the world will always be awful, it's just human nature to be as we are.

[Jerry LeRow]

1) wait until china collapses

2) install democracy

3) ally with them

4) force NK to stop behaving this way or roll them

[Stanislaw Sikorski]

Yes Wilhelm, you're right. By we, I mean the people that agree human rights violations can't continue and we should do something about it. This doesn't mean everyone, having an opinion is not enough. It requires devotion of time and resource to be part of "we." Seeing as I don't do much myself, "we" was the wrong word to use in this case. It would've been much better if I said "Amnesty International and the human rights activists around the world."

 

4) force NK to stop behaving this way or roll them

Who would do that though?

[Jerry LeRow]

Who would do that though?

the democratic china mentioned in my post

[Shellhound]

I think we've learned that modern countries are not prepared to pull things like that off due to domestic pressure. Going in there with force and rolling over their malnourished army will not help things, if anything they will make things worse; reunification cannot happen militarily because it will cause resentment by the North Koreans against the South Koreans. If we ever hope for reunification we're going to have to realize that we can't just roll people, force them into the country that helped kill their sons and expect things to be ok, because it won't be.

[Jerry LeRow]

I think we've learned that modern countries are not prepared to pull things like that off due to domestic pressure. Going in there with force and rolling over their malnourished army will not help things, if anything they will make things worse; reunification cannot happen militarily because it will cause resentment by the North Koreans against the South Koreans. If we ever hope for reunification we're going to have to realize that we can't just roll people, force them into the country that helped kill their sons and expect things to be ok, because it won't be.

it helped in europe. americans crushed germans, you bombed our cities and destroyed our nations..... but you had a long-term grand strategy for europe, far beyond the marshal plan, and rebuilt us. of course it's easy to get rid of a dictator, but, like in lybia, it's damn dangerous if you forget to take care of the country 

[WISD0MTREE]

I think we've learned that modern countries are not prepared to pull things like that off due to domestic pressure. Going in there with force and rolling over their malnourished army will not help things, if anything they will make things worse; reunification cannot happen militarily because it will cause resentment by the North Koreans against the South Koreans. If we ever hope for reunification we're going to have to realize that we can't just roll people, force them into the country that helped kill their sons and expect things to be ok, because it won't be.

It seemed to help with Germany. North Korea has only been passive aggressive. Vietnam didn't launch offensives against USA. Mexico didn't attack us after we got their capital.

[Alex]

I don't think you could just steamroll into North Korea for fear of what they might do. They're "nuclear capable" (I'm not 100% sure they have fully working bombs or w/e, but they've been researching it at least) and while they don't have a long range the risk of one being lobbed at Seoul is probably enough to keep us from sending troops in. Couple that with the fact that we'd likely face high casualties as they're going to be pretty built in, I think it's the sheer cost of doing something like this that prevents us from toppling the NK dictatorship. It's not for a lack of want, but a lack of practicality.

[Demon]

You are already toppled Iraq dictatorship and look what happened - Iraq became terrorist state next day americans pack their bags and leave.

 

[Stanislaw Sikorski]

If we planned out what to do with a nation after liberation then it wouldn't go into chaos like Iraq. I agree it's not as easy as it sounds as nuclear weapons make everything harder. However rather than steamrolling into North Korea, using necessary force and support from the people within NK would help. Very unlikely this could happen unless anyone else has an idea.

[WISD0MTREE]

You are already toppled Iraq dictatorship and look what happened - Iraq became terrorist state next day americans pack their bags and leave.

Iraq didn't become terrorists, people in Iraq became terrorists. Stop blaming a whole country for the doings of a group. 

[Demon]

Iraq didn't become terrorists, people in Iraq became terrorists. Stop blaming a whole country for the doings of a group. 

 

Right. Iraq rename itself to ISIL/ISIS

[Lucy Heartfilia]

The world would have been a much more peaceful place if: 
1)Stronger states and the world superpowers didn't poke their noses into other countries affairs.
USSR/Russia and US have directly/indirectly helped most of the early terrorist organization during 1950-70.

2)Islam would have been a more liberal religion

3)Communism,Maoism and Leninism never existed  

and most importantly,

4)IF HUMANS WERE NOT CRAZY FOR POWER!

[Stanislaw Sikorski]

The world would have been a much more peaceful place if: 

1)Stronger states and the world superpowers didn't poke their noses into other countries affairs.

USSR/Russia and US have directly/indirectly helped most of the early terrorist organization during 1950-70.

 

2)Islam would have been a more liberal religion

 

3)Communism,Maoism and Leninism never existed  

 

and most importantly,

 

4)IF HUMANS WERE NOT CRAZY FOR POWER!

Agreed with all of those, especially for the last one.

 

Right. Iraq rename itself to ISIL/ISIS

Iraq didn't rename themselves, a terrorist organisation called ISIS started to occupy territories in Iraq. Do some research on where what ISIS is and where they came from.

[Stanislaw Sikorski]

Back to the original debate, we all know that politicians being crazy for power won't go liberating if they don't gain anything from it. The citizens have to do something about their own freedom but they're prevented from promoting human rights by being imprisoned. I agree with the aim of Amnesty International, if politicians don't do anything, citizens from all around the world have to. I just don't think petitions is enough of an effort to change dictatorships such as the military junta in Thailand into a liberal government.

[Demon]

Iraq didn't rename themselves, a terrorist organisation called ISIS started to occupy territories in Iraq. Do some research on where what ISIS is and where they came from.

 

 

It seems that they came from nowhere... oh no, it is actually local population went crazy w/o opressing dictatorship.

[Ayayay]

2)Islam would have been a more liberal religion

It's already quite liberal. The failing here is assuming terrorists follow it, if they did they wouldn't be killing each other as Islam is pretty clear on the don't kill each other doctrine.

[Stanislaw Sikorski]

It's already quite liberal. The failing here is assuming terrorists follow it, if they did they wouldn't be killing each other as Islam is pretty clear on the don't kill each other doctrine.

You're right about that. I'd rather we didn't say anything that could be seen as offensive to Muslims, I don't want an admin ending this debate because we went into a controversial topic.

[Stanislaw Sikorski]

Let's have some discussion back to the original debate. Freedom fighters can make a change in their nation with the proper supplies needed for them. If there was an organisation that decided to do something about the oppression, it could work better than petitions for the countries with dictators who are unwilling to listen. Petitions can only go so far, a human rights lawyer in Iran was released from prison after a petition was signed, at the time the new president of Iran claimed he would improve the human rights record. If politicians are unwilling to listen, petitions won't work so violent force would be needed as a last resort.

[Ayayay]

You're right about that. I'd rather we didn't say anything that could be seen as offensive to Muslims, I don't want an admin ending this debate because we went into a controversial topic.

Sheepy only cares about Fascism 

 

The problem with helping freedom fighters is that you can't be sure they won't turn around and oppress the people they just fought against. There is also the problem of destabilizing a country and throwing it into anarchy, is living a life under fear and oppression worse than death in a civil war? That's not a question everyone can agree on. I personally believe that oppression is worse than death but people can't seem to agree with me on anything, no idea why. 

[WISD0MTREE]

It seems that they came from nowhere... oh no, it is actually local population went crazy w/o opressing dictatorship.

Yes, people are arguing who should take over after Mohammed (source being a world religion class, which could be wrong). 

 

And North Koreans are definitely not crazy or anything. 

[Ayayay]

Yes, people are arguing who should take over after Mohammed (source being a world religion class, which could be wrong).

That's the Sunni-Shia split. ISIS claims to be the "true" [sunni] Islam which most crazy groups tend to do. (Litterally any religion)

[Stanislaw Sikorski]

 

The problem with helping freedom fighters is that you can't be sure they won't turn around and oppress the people they just fought against. There is also the problem of destabilizing a country and throwing it into anarchy, is living a life under fear and oppression worse than death in a civil war? That's not a question everyone can agree on. I personally believe that oppression is worse than death but people can't seem to agree with me on anything, no idea why. 

Destabilizing a country is a problem although I don't think the problem is the conflict itself but rather what we do after the conflict that ruins everything in the nation. If it was planned how everything would run after civil war, then the nation wouldn't go into anarchy like in Iraq.

[WISD0MTREE]

That's the Sunni-Shia split. ISIS claims to be the "true" [sunni] Islam which most crazy groups tend to do. (Litterally any religion)

Just there are more of them.