Comments on: Privatised humanitarian interventions?

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:35:29 +0000

“And what IS their [Human Rights Watch] criteria for regime change?” See the following article: The War in Iraq: Justified as Humanitarian Intervention? Kenneth Roth Executive Director, Human Rights Watch http://www.nd.edu/%7Ekrocinst/ocpapers/op_25_1.pdf

By: Kristjan Wager

Kristjan Wager — Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:14:21 +0000

Hmmmm… nnyhav, do I know you from R’ville? r are there two people with that monicer around?

By: nnyhav

nnyhav — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:12:04 +0000

Another privatised humanitarian intervention.

By: Kristjan Wager

Kristjan Wager — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:08:14 +0000

Mr. Thatcher might have been able to get away with it on the grounds mentioned, if he hadn’t been living in South Africa. Because of the major problems caused all over Africa by South African mercenaries after the end of the Apartheit, the SA goverment made laws that very clearly made it illigal for South Africans or people living in SA to be involved in these kinds of things. Of course, all the mercenaries have now changed their nationalities.

By: Abiola Lapite

Abiola Lapite — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:56:01 +0000

——-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE——- Hash: SHA1 “If you’re prepared to overlook stupidity, dishonesty and disingenuousness” But then even the old Che couldn’t have been the new Che, as all those attributes applied equally well to him. ——-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE——- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) – GPGshell v3.10 Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL: Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt iD8DBQFBM3gwOgWD1ZKzuwkRAjclAJ0WJOePDkmWXT/66JjGTHoDj3B73wCcDUXa 1PJrKI+kA//QezeHtPn3ED0= =1AuS——-END PGP SIGNATURE——-

By: HP

HP — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:29:05 +0000

I can’t believe a thread on private citizens overthrowing foreign countries went more than three posts without mentioning William Walker. There. That’s out of the way.

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:12:58 +0000

Time for a world government, and a strong one. Or else it’s back to various “coalitions of the willing” raiding various “axes of evil”. There is no such thing as “humanitarian intervention” without the rule of law; it’s vigilantism – in the best case – or, most likely, a clumsy pretext for garden variety armed robbery.

By: Gil

Gil — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:00:10 +0000

Maynard, the Israelis are too smart to commit mass murder. They get away with a lot, but nowadays exterminating masses of people at a stroke is hard to keep hidden. So they intend to slowly squeeze the palestinians until they succumb or disappear. And, there are bonuses: they can shrug their shoulders when asked and say, The Palestinians? Oh, they left of their own free will. Plus, they don’t have to get rid of the bodies.

By: Scott Martens

Scott Martens — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:32:01 +0000

And Che looks better on a T-shirt.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:18:16 +0000

So are you suggesting that Mark Thatcher is the new Che? If you’re prepared to overlook stupidity, dishonesty and disingenuousness (and I suppose you are), then yes, I suppose he is.

By: Anthony C

Anthony C — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:26:58 +0000

Executive Outcomes ceased operating a few years ago.

By: Scott Martens

Scott Martens — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:16:34 +0000

The US also forbids conducting a private foreign policy, although, back in 1954 in Guatemala, United Fruit tested exactly where the line between private and public foreign policy is. Still, I imagine hiring a mercenary force to overthrow a foreign nation must be a crime in the US, although your odds of prosecution are almost certainly contingent on how many friends you have in DC, whether or not you tried to overthrow a regime with more friends in DC than you have, and whether or not you got away with it. As for the notion of private humanitarianism, I should note that countries controlled through the use of mercenaries have a long history of being the worst of the worst human rights violators. I should think that the whole history of the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1483 might count as an argument for leaving bad regimes in place rather than replacing them with states that depend on mercenaries. There are things worse than neglect and foreign occupation, and one of them is taking over a country on credit and then squeezing it to pay off your debts.

By: Harry (of the Place)

Harry (of the Place) — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:57:41 +0000

Great idea. So are you suggesting that Mark Thatcher is the new Che?

By: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad

Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:23:14 +0000

I invite Maynard to recruit others and go after the Israeli democracy, which has press freedom and allows others to express their opposition to those acts; and has elections, allowing Israelis to vote for other behavior. Unlike Arafat’s PA thugs who sponsor terrorism. The world needs a Human Rights Enforcement Group (policeman); ain’t nobody going after China no matter what their cruel gov’t does to other Chinese. Nor America; though I deny America violates HR as does China—and every Arab dictatorship. The hypocritical UN hatred for Israel de-legitimizes it as an institution. States are fictional—only people sign things, fire guns, kill, die, and kill innocents. The justice question is what good folk should do to stop evil from succeeding. (“Nothing” doesn’t cut it…) See The Moral Superiority War: http://tomgrey.motime.com/1093544824#329796 How many will be murdered in Sudan before HRW calls it Genocide? And what IS their criteria for regime change?

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:05:44 +0000

D2 doesn’t mention Ingrams’ most outrageously antisemitic utterance: that whenever he sees a letter or article on Israel written by someone with Jewish name, he refuses to read it on principle. Nice!