NationStates Jolt Archive

Which Nation is the most in need of an international intervention and why?

I am interesed in the thinking behind people here and this is not supposed to be combative.

I have based the list on the outposts of tyranny because it is something that the greatest number of people will be able to identify with, I did not add such countries as Equitorial Guine or Western Sahara for example because there may be people on this forum who, for whatever reason, know little or nothing about them.

When looking at who is interveneing I suppose I meant the western Liberal democracies, as frankly one can hardly expect totalitarian administrations (say China) to intervene in removing dictatorships.

By intervention I mean political, economic, social or military intervention.

I think we need to intervine in the Sudan, both humanitarian aid and to punish those who have been commiting the genocides.

As for straightforward military intervention, we need to watch North Korea carefully.

Iran? It's not a threat to us currently unless they've made leadway in their nuclear program, but I'd support some...US Backed Revolution...

Where do you start? There are so many that need intervention. How about most of the African states for humanitarian reasons.

North Korea- My preferred choice. They are a threat to America, Japan, China, and South Korea.
Iran- Bad idea. Should Iran be attacked, they're going to incite the Shia religious community in Iraq to stop telling the Shia to be calm. Iraq would get worse, and that with a neighboring country in turmoil.
Belarus- Not much to be done. It needs a revolution from within, and should that be crushed in a bloody manner, intervention is necessary. I hope the Russians won't feel personally attacked by it, though Putin might not like seeing a fellow autocrat ousted...
Cuba- Why?
Burma- Worse situation than Cuba. Why?
Zimbabwe- That is something for the African community to deal with. They don't like us Westerners enough to let us do more than fly planes in Sudan, so I doubt ousting Mugabe would be a good idea.

The best thing for Americans to do would be to stop supplying white farmers in zimbabwe with their special technology that stops rain and causes droughts.


At least thats what the Zim govt tells their people. Seriously.

Which Nation is the most in need of an international intervention and why?

I am interesed in the thinking behind people here and this is not supposed to be combative.
What kind of intervention are we talking here? Diplomatic pressure, terminate food aid, trade embargo, all-out military ivasion?

I mean the full spectrum, from sanctions to paratroopers, you explain how you feel!

I mean the full spectrum, from sanctions to paratroopers, you explain how you feel!
Well, if i spoused international intervention in military terms(which i don´t) i´d have to say north korea

How about the United States? They are more of a threat to the world than all the other nations combined!

How about the United States? They are more of a threat to the world than all the other nations combined!
Yeah but we're not dismissing western civilization as an evil that needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

Though we kind of are with our reality shows. But that's a whole new debate.

I think the poll results say a lot, no votes for Burma, yet votes for Iran, at least Iran feads their people! Seriously, in the light of Iraq, how can people think these 'interventions' are helpful, you cant stop the spread of WMD, you can only piss off people, and destroy the states which will atleast refrain from using them if you can make it in their interest.

I would say the most important country to intervene in that is a realistic goal is Iran. The majority there wants democracy, so an intervention would likely be much more successful than in a country where the people did not like the idea of changing. They are also trying to become active in terms of nuclear technology, which cannot be allowed to happen, as such a radical government could not be trusted with nuclear capabilities. North Korea would have been a good pick ten years ago, but they can no longer be attacked as they are now something of a nuclear power, so that's out. Sudan would be nice, but a direct Iranian threat seems more imminent.

I'd love to see most of the nations on that list either wholly invaded or assisted by Special Forces in removing the governments. They all need to get off their asses and make use of their nations resources through modernized industrialization but as things stand, the administrations benefit from the status quo of poverty and oppression. As such they prevent any economic or social progress among their people… they need to be removed. If their own people aren’t willing to do the removing themselves then I fully support foreign intervention.

I would say the most important country to intervene in that is a realistic goal is Iran. The majority there wants democracy, so an intervention would likely be much more successful than in a country where the people did not like the idea of changing. They are also trying to become active in terms of nuclear technology, which cannot be allowed to happen, as such a radical government could not be trusted with nuclear capabilities. North Korea would have been a good pick ten years ago, but they can no longer be attacked as they are now something of a nuclear power, so that's out. Sudan would be nice, but a direct Iranian threat seems more imminent.
Iran would be the worst idea possible... Rumsfeld´s "they will greet the conquering heroes with roses and songs" turned out to be a scham in Iraq and it would prove nutty to say the least in Iran...in the latter there´s a much more profound sense of national unity that crosses the progressive/consevative divide...one can see this in the issue of Iran getting back on nuclear research...the whole of the country is strongly behind it, inclunding the progressive elements...

I would like to see more international pressure on many countries (Burma, Cuba, Belarus, hey what the heck, all former USSR countries exluding only Baltic states and Ukraine, Turkey, China, France (! damn those farmers ;) ) but intervention? Sudan and maybe some other African countries. I can't even remember where the latest coup happened. (I should, but I haven't read too much newspapers/sites lately)

I would say the most important country to intervene in that is a realistic goal is Iran. The majority there wants democracy, so an intervention would likely be much more successful than in a country where the people did not like the idea of changing.
They just had elections and surprise surprise they didn't vote the "liberal" candidates. Under American pressure they feel more threatened and stick with old traditions.

Zimbabwe. I reckon the biggest difference could be made there. There would also be support from within the country.

I would have to go with Sudan on this one. They've been in a harsh conflict for decades now, which a lot consider it to be an ignored genocide, and I think that the world needs to do a little more for that country.

Your mom :eek:

Burma needs much more pressure. The situation in there is unacceptable, but I don't know enough to decide on intervention. AFAIK, the French have some very dodgy business links over there.
Sudan needs, and should have had, a full blown, bling bling intervention to stop the genocide. Send in the grunts.
Zimbabwe should be isolated diplomatically by the SADC region and China. Props to EU and the US for their actions so far, but the way South Africa and China cosy up to the regime is ruining their efforts.
Cuba...I don't really understand what the problem is here. Someone explain, please?
China should receive more pressure, but no one wants to upset 1 billion potential customers.

I would say the most important country to intervene in that is a realistic goal is Iran. The majority there wants democracy, so an intervention would likely be much more successful than in a country where the people did not like the idea of changing.Oh... whom did you ask? The people that live there or the people that left because they wanted more democracy?

How about the United States? They are more of a threat to the world than all the other nations combined!

Yeah but that wouldnt be fair on the 49% of people who voted for the good guys.

I see no reason for the US to intervene in any nation unless we are attacked by it, and only then to neuter them militarily.

Any number of those African countries.

I think we should be stopping the Russian mafia because they hold allot of power and allot of W.M.D'S (allot suitcase nukes have been missing for some time and are feared to be in terrorist hands there is also scientists and bio/chemical weapons that just go missing)

we should also increase Russian aid and help to rebuild there economy so that soldiers won't be so desperate for money

(looks like I will be trying the concrete shoes tonight :( )

Sudan should be taken over.

Yeah but that wouldnt be fair on the 49% of people who voted for the good guys.
The Democrats are almost the same as the Republicans.

The Democrats are almost the same as the Republicans.
But not everyone that voted Democrat actually is one... and the Dems Abroad are actually quite different from Republicans... ;)

I hope a lot of you are taking this less than seriously, the countries offered -with the possible exception of Belarus- are a wish list of American regime changes (not that I don't see the value in change for all of these governments). What about Saudi Arabia (pet dictator), China (too powerful), Russia (a little of both), Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Afghanistan.... The list goes on....

There are many corrupt, dictatorial, and dangerous regimes, and military action has a very poor recent record of dealing with them, those who advocate it have, in my opinion, given very little thought to how the people of that country will react, which is ironic, given that I usually hear the loudest clamour for war from 'patriots', who would never embrace someone ‘liberating’ their country.

I concede, reluctantly, that there is, sometimes a case for ‘intervention’, but the threat of it is the justification for the nuclear arsenals of Iran and North Korea, which are highly threatened countries, the threat that America, and it’s allies represent keeps these same governments in power, Cuba, Iran, it’s their excuse, and the worst of it is, it’s true!

However, failed states, or states already at war, or in civil war, are a different matter, Afghanistan, for example, at the time of the last war, I thought the invasion was a bloody terrible idea, I was proved at least partial wrong, a bloody and protracted war was ended, hopefully not to be rekindled.

I also see someone has voted for Cuba, I would suggest that you know very little about the world. Whilst I'm no expert, Cuba is possably the least worst of the many dictatorships in the world, and people there enjoy a much better life than those in some of the less functional democracies, if you can explain to me how anyone would benifit though I would be highly appreciative.

Iran would be the worst idea possible... Rumsfeld´s "they will greet the conquering heroes with roses and songs" turned out to be a scham in Iraq and it would prove nutty to say the least in Iran...in the latter there´s a much more profound sense of national unity that crosses the progressive/consevative divide...one can see this in the issue of Iran getting back on nuclear research...the whole of the country is strongly behind it, inclunding the progressive elements...

Actually polls are showing that the Iranians like us a lot more than they ever showed the Iraqis to like us. But, either way, stopping them from becoming a nuclear power could prove to be vital. If we wait like we did with North Korea it could screw us over.

But not everyone that voted Democrat actually is one... and the Dems Abroad are actually quite different from Republicans... ;)
Not everybody that voted Republican is Republican.
Actually polls are showing that the Iranians like us a lot more than they ever showed the Iraqis to like us.
That’s probably only because we defeated their hated enemy, Saddam. I guarantee they would stop liking us if we dropped bombs on them. Just a hunch, though.

That’s probably only because we defeated their hated enemy, Saddam. I guarantee they would stop liking us if we dropped bombs on them. Just a hunch, though.

You guarantee a hunch? Either way, with so many Iranians hopeful for democracy (there's been talk that they'll bring it about on their own, from what I understand) we'd surely get much more support from them than we got from the Iraqi people, and it still doesn't diminish the importance of stopping any nuclear programs that the Iranian government is trying to start.

I voted none. It is true I supported the invasion of Afganistan. I should paraphrase none with 'unless they attack my country'. But asabeleiver in national sovereignty I am against intervening for any other reason. Yes to the neocons I don't support trumped up charges for national or economic reason. Yes to the liberals the next time the UN or NATO asks for troops we should tell them to take a flying f**k at a rolling donut. I am a bipartisan isolationist.

You guarantee a hunch? Either way, with so many Iranians hopeful for democracy (there's been talk that they'll bring it about on their own, from what I understand) we'd surely get much more support from them than we got from the Iraqi people, and it still doesn't diminish the importance of stopping any nuclear programs that the Iranian government is trying to start.
Ok, even if that were true (which I highly doubt), why would you want to intervene? So they don’t get nukes? It will be years, possibly decades, until they have a significant arsenal. It would be best, in the long run, to establish better diplomatic and economic (especially economic) ties, so they have no incentive to blow us up. In the end, it will cause less deaths and yield a much higher profit for US businesses and the Iranian people. With cultural exposure to the West from our products, they will likely be able to pick up on the whole “democracy” (the US is a Democratic Republic, by the way) thing on their own.

I have based the list on the outposts of tyranny because it is something that the greatest number of people will be able to identify with, I did not add such countries as Equitorial Guine or Western Sahara for example because there may be people on this forum who, for whatever reason, know little or nothing about them.

When looking at who is interveneing I suppose I meant the western Liberal democracies, as frankly one can hardly expect totalitarian administrations (say China) to intervene in removing dictatorships.

By intervention I mean political, economic, social or military intervention.

You guarantee a hunch? Either way, with so many Iranians hopeful for democracy (there's been talk that they'll bring it about on their own, from what I understand) we'd surely get much more support from them than we got from the Iraqi people, and it still doesn't diminish the importance of stopping any nuclear programs that the Iranian government is trying to start.
Ever talked to an Iranian? A colleague of mine is originally from Iran and he hopes very much that the current regime will dissappear soon. However, he thinks that this has to come from within and that any kind of military intervention will be counter-productive.

And what about the idea that each country has the government they deserve? Then, intervention would only be justified, if they are a threat to other countries.

Ever talked to an Iranian? A colleague of mine is originally from Iran and he hopes very much that the current regime will dissappear soon. However, he thinks that this has to come from within and that any kind of military intervention will be counter-productive.

And what about the idea that each country has the government they deserve? Then, intervention would only be justified, if they are a threat to other countries.

Since when did we Zimbabweans DESERVE Mugabe?

Since when did we Zimbabweans DESERVE Mugabe?
You didn't. A lot of people don't deserve the governments they have. This idea is the logical conclusion to the thought that countries as a whole are a threat, responsible for attrocities etc..
The sad fact is that no matter how bad a government is, as long as enough people profit from it, the rest of the population suffers. Only when the great majority of citizens is so fed up that everything is better than the current status quo (even dying in the attempt to change it), will there be change.

Imagine for a moment that a foreign nation attacked your nation. They bombed several cities to the ground, killed hundred of thousands of your soldiers and arrested and in some cases killed your leaders. Now imagine if these same invaders then began rebuilding and improving what they destroyed:
 They set up a public transportation system that is faster and cheaper than cars.
 They revamp health care so that everyone man, woman, and child is cared for.
 They transform the schools into places where all children succeed and are actually happy to be there.
 Their soldiers patrol every street 24/7 so no street is unsafe.
 They provide everyone with a job that pays a decent wage.
 Civil rights have been expanded beyond the confines of standard morality.

They still have soldiers everywhere. People are routinely searched and often times detained. There is constant fighting from people who are loyal to the former government.

How would you feel? How would you respond? My guess is that most people would resist the invaders, even if they were making things better. That is what is happening in these nations. (or will be if they are invaded) People resent outsiders controlling them and making changes. Even if those changes are improvements.

You didn't. A lot of people don't deserve the governments they have. This idea is the logical conclusion to the thought that countries as a whole are a threat, responsible for attrocities etc..
The sad fact is that no matter how bad a government is, as long as enough people profit from it, the rest of the population suffers. Only when the great majority of citizens is so fed up that everything is better than the current status quo (even dying in the attempt to change it), will there be change.

The great majority in many countries are fed up; Zim, Burma, Britain, France possibly even the States. Without outside influence revolution only happenes when there is the perception of weakness of the ruling eleits, thats why coups tend to happen when the head of state is out of the country as in Mauritania or dying as in DRC. Portugese style revolutions only happen when the ruling eleits (in this case the military) devide on principle. The velvet revolutions took place because the governments either over extended themselves and it was recognised by the people that they were weekened (Serbia) or liberalised in order to stem dissent and therefore opened the floodgates themselves (Ukrain/Georgia) or as in the end or Tzarist Russia a combination of the two (Failure to defeat the Japanese and then the Germans and ending serfdom)

Imagine for a moment that a foreign nation attacked your nation. They bombed several cities to the ground, killed hundred of thousands of your soldiers and arrested and in some cases killed your leaders. Now imagine if these same invaders then began rebuilding and improving what they destroyed:
 They set up a public transportation system that is faster and cheaper than cars.
 They revamp health care so that everyone man, woman, and child is cared for.
 They transform the schools into places where all children succeed and are actually happy to be there.
 Their soldiers patrol every street 24/7 so no street is unsafe.
 They provide everyone with a job that pays a decent wage.
 Civil rights have been expanded beyond the confines of standard morality.

They still have soldiers everywhere. People are routinely searched and often times detained. There is constant fighting from people who are loyal to the former government.

How would you feel? How would you respond? My guess is that most people would resist the invaders, even if they were making things better. That is what is happening in these nations. (or will be if they are invaded) People resent outsiders controlling them and making changes. Even if those changes are improvements.

Here is the counter arguement.

Imagine that the leader of your country, respected and inteligent, some may even say loved, refused to stand down after his disasterous foreign policy wrecked the economy. Imagine he tried to make himself president for life and failed to convince the people through democratic means.

Imagine this leader then called the troops out on to the streets, recruited criminals and the unemplyable into violent malitia and persured a long dead political issue. Imagine he purged the courts of liberals and princilped conservatives and filled it with semi-litterate right wing nutters. Imagine he purged the regions best trained and equiped army and police, prison service and respectable airforce (we have no navy) of anyone not from his own tribal subgroup. Imagine all those of diferent ethnic or political background within the civil service were forced to go into early retirement at less than half pensions.

Imagine this leader changed the electoral laws, making it maditory for you to prove your residance and employment status and cultural heritage before you could register. Imagine this leader then closed all the farms to stop farm workers voting against him because they could no longer prove their place of residence or employment. Imagine This leader filled the electoral register with long dead people who all would convieniently vote for him.

Imagine this leader then sold your embassies in Europe to Muhaned Ghidaffi and your natural resourses to China in exchange for two months petrol and jamming devices to block the BBC and Radio Nederlander. Imagine he made all journalists join a register like sex offenders in Britain, and closed down newspapers with laws that he had fought a war against twenty years earlier. Imagine this Leader forced all the children to enrole in youth regiments where they were systimatically raped and tramatised and "re-educated in the revoultiuonary ideals of the party".

Imagine this leader intered teachers and headmasters in crude prison camps and made them denouce each other as traitors. Imagine this leader set about systimatically steralising all women of a particular ethnic background and actively promoted the spread of AIDS by forcing the poor to donate blood - which is never screaned for desease. Imagine he levied a 5% AIDS Tax that was spent on his wifes shopping trips to the middle east.

Imagine a country with 30% in exile, 85% of those that remain living on or below the poverty line, 60% of the population suffering from malnutrition, less than 25% of children able to go to school. Imagine this country has no oil. Imagine this country is a conservative Christian country.

Imagine how the first troops into the capital to liberate it will feel. Imagine those troops know they are only there for a year at most because there are governments and opposition parties in exile and constitution already written and the will to rebuild. Not every country will be another Iraq!

Here is the counter arguement.

Imagine that the leader of your country, respected and inteligent, some may even say loved, refused to stand down after his disasterous foreign policy wrecked the economy. Imagine he tried to make himself president for life and failed to convince the people through democratic means.

Imagine this leader then called the troops out on to the streets, recruited criminals and the unemplyable into violent malitia and persured a long dead political issue. Imagine he purged the courts of liberals and princilped conservatives and filled it with semi-litterate right wing nutters. Imagine he purged the regions best trained and equiped army and police, prison service and respectable airforce (we have no navy) of anyone not from his own tribal subgroup. Imagine all those of diferent ethnic or political background within the civil service were forced to go into early retirement at less than half pensions.

Imagine this leader changed the electoral laws, making it maditory for you to prove your residance and employment status and cultural heritage before you could register. Imagine this leader then closed all the farms to stop farm workers voting against him because they could no longer prove their place of residence or employment. Imagine This leader filled the electoral register with long dead people who all would convieniently vote for him.

Imagine this leader then sold your embassies in Europe to Muhaned Ghidaffi and your natural resourses to China in exchange for two months petrol and jamming devices to block the BBC and Radio Nederlander. Imagine he made all journalists join a register like sex offenders in Britain, and closed down newspapers with laws that he had fought a war against twenty years earlier. Imagine this Leader forced all the children to enrole in youth regiments where they were systimatically raped and tramatised and "re-educated in the revoultiuonary ideals of the party".

Imagine this leader intered teachers and headmasters in crude prison camps and made them denouce each other as traitors. Imagine this leader set about systimatically steralising all women of a particular ethnic background and actively promoted the spread of AIDS by forcing the poor to donate blood - which is never screaned for desease. Imagine he levied a 5% AIDS Tax that was spent on his wifes shopping trips to the middle east.

Imagine a country with 30% in exile, 85% of those that remain living on or below the poverty line, 60% of the population suffering from malnutrition, less than 25% of children able to go to school. Imagine this country has no oil. Imagine this country is a conservative Christian country.

Imagine how the first troops into the capital to liberate it will feel. Imagine those troops know they are only there for a year at most because there are governments and opposition parties in exile and constitution already written and the will to rebuild. Not every country will be another Iraq!

I'm not arguing about justification, I'm aruging about how welcome foriegn invaders and occupiers are in any situation. I think there's a certain amount of natural resentment. Far better to aid the people in revolting and retaking their nation than to invade and then attempt to give it back.

I'm not arguing about justification, I'm aruging about how welcome foriegn invaders and occupiers are in any situation. I think there's a certain amount of natural resentment. Far better to aid the people in revolting and retaking their nation than to invade and then attempt to give it back.

The resentment, when it happens is not about being liberated, it is about when liberators 1) overstay their welcome, 2) don't really know what the hell they are doing and 3) try to impose their agendas onto the newly liberated country. Also there is this less than subtle racism towards non Americans that pervades their institutions.

No normal Iraqi would have been pissed with the Americans in Iraq if they had created a viable medium term government in waiting BEFORE invading and if they had had realistic reconstruction plans, and if they had been simpathetic to the Iraqi streets concerns about law and order, esential services and their cultural norms (secular Islam). If Iraqi's had been playing a larger role in their own reconstruction from the start and the army been reconstitutied rather than disolved, and if the Americans had supported social distractions such as football there would have been a less dangerous enmvironment.

We should intervene in America and get rid of all those social discriminations and corrupt officials, not to mention those Sinophobic zealots.

What? A infringement upon your state integrity? Funny. You didn't think that when you were intervening in other states' affairs. :rolleyes:

What of economic intervention?

Here's a point. If the western world has the power to provide humanitarian intervention, then surley (spelling is never great) it has a duty to do so. Some problems in the world, terrorism, flu-epidemics etc. cannot be solved by a world of allied nation-states if rogue nations are failing to help.

Sudan to save lives, Iran to prevent a nuclear war in the middle east, and N. Korea to prevent the sale of nuclear weapons and technology.

Iran has a good recent record for not starting wars, I don't think invading would prevent one, it will tell every tinpot dictatior that he(!) is not safe without a nuclear arsnal. The country has some elements of democracy, I thing it is reasonable to hope that they will (slowly) get more. Anything the outside world can do to help that process is progress, bombing Tehran is not very constructive.

We in the west are not better by some devine unchanging virtue, if our methods are better, if we are less corrupt, violent, and oppressive: we should prove ouselves so.

To hell with all of them.