War! What is it good for? Well, some things, when you get right down to it. I mean, take WW2 ....

[andrewducker]

You know what I'd like to see?

I'd like to see a set of criteria for deciding whether a country is considered a problem. Whether it's a set of human rights abuses they commit, ownership of certain proscribed devices, acts of war, being ruled by someone with a dodgy moustache. Whatever. I want to see a statement of intent consisting of "We hereby declare that we consider countries that fulfil the following to be dangerous and will do whatever it takes to neutralise that threat."

I then want to see a list of all countries in the world that fulfil those criteria, complete with breakdowns of why and how.

And I'd like to see some dedicated research into what makes a country change from being 'antisocial' to being 'a happy friendly country full of smiling people that we like'. Some actual social science looking at how we changed. Because goddamimit, 100 years ago we were all just as bad as they are now.

And then I'll be happy to start sorting things out, however the study shows is the best way (or multitude of ways).

Of course, should someone be gassing their population before then, by all means perform a quick humanitarian excercise to prevent it. Rwanda, the Balkans, the Kurds, etc. all needed fairly instant help. Sometimes they got it, sometimes they didn't.

But for the long term, I'd like to see some nice ground rules laid down.

Comments

[spaj.livejournal.com]

Nice thought. You should tell someone about it. :)

Adam

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

I'd like it to be made binding where people agreed "If we meet these criteria you can intervene"

Certainly I dont think a certain individual should be able to quickly follow accusing their enemy of "defying the international community" with a claim that if the Internation Community votes against a hostile invasion they will "go it alone"

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Excellent idea, but only if war is not the only solution. Wars to overthrow a government are messy and far more violent than simply conflicts about borders, leaders (especially problematic ones) tend to do rather extreme things when fighting for either their lives or their power. For me, the most moral solution is always one that minimizes death and suffering. Other less destructive options like bribery & assassination can work equally well and don't end up with piles of dead people. A distinction between a problematic country and a problematic government or leader is a very useful one to make and one that is too often forgotten.

A good case in point is North Korea - the leader is an insane nutcase, that government has has concentration camps and commits many atrocities on its populace, and any attempt to invade would result in the near complete destruction of Seoul South Korea, and the likely use of nukes on invaders, even if they were in North Korea.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

ROTFL

dear oh dear Andrew, in some ways you really don't change.

(shuffles off giggling in a manic, yet cynical way)