So you’re suggesting that invasions in order to prevent genocide work differently than all other interventions? You invade, say “Hello, we’re here to prevent genocide”, everyone makes peace, situation stabilizes and you can leave? Because ‘normal’ invasions (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti…) tend to result in a shitshow and don’t improve the situation much. Even UN’s own research say that those only ‘sometimes’ work and domestic cooperation and consent is the most important factor in success [1]. So basically if you have a recognized government that asks for help intervention may be effective. Throwing more troops in the middle of an ongoing civil war most likely won’t.
Donine, T., Khan, M., Landau, A., Solomon, D., & Woocher, L. (2025). Using peace operations to help prevent mass atrocities: Results from interviews with experienced practitioners.
You’re just mixing two different topics and trying to make them fit your argument.
I’m citing report about prevention of mass atrocities in a topic about preventing genocide. What do you think doesn’t fit here?
You name examples of them never doing what they agreed they would do
What is that supposed to mean?
Iraq invasion was about regime change and did exactly that. Then it gave us ISIS.
Haiti was about stabilization and tried doing exactly that but turned out locals got angry about losing sovereignty, having their kids sexually exploited by peacekeepers and catching cholera from them.
Afghanistan was about removing the Taliban and tried doing this for 20 years without success.
Somalia was mostly stabilized but country is still one of the least developed in the world and in danger of massive famine.
The genocide convention obliges signatories to intervene to stop acts of genocide. Not to occupy and engage in war for decades to install a new regime of your liking and ensure your interests.
The US using rhetoric of Saddam being genocidal as one of many rhetorical reasons to invade Iraq for oil and securing Israel and to genocide Iraqis instead IS NOT what I’m suggesting. You naming it as a reason for genocide convention signatories to not act to prevent genocide is either really silly or really maliciously misleading.
So we’re going back to my first question you didn’t answer. Are you suggesting that invasions in order to prevent genocide work differently than all other interventions? You have a government, insurgency or some guerilla forces planning to commit genocide. How are you going to stop them if not by doing what was done in Iraq, Afghanistan or Haiti?
Saddam was genocidal. Haven’t you heard about gassing Kurds? How would you suggest signatories of the genocide convention intervene to stop him? Yes, US didn’t really care about it and attacked because of oil. You’re still suggesting UN should have attacked Iraq, only for a different reason. Or, asking again, do you think atrocities he committed should have been prevented in a different way? How?
How are you going to stop them if not by doing what was done in Iraq
The US did not invade Iraq to stop Saddam from committing acts of genocide. Why do you then insist that’s the only way to do it?
It’s an irrelevant example.
If while he was gassing Kurds, they came together as a collective of signatories and targeted military assets strictly to stop those acts, seizing to intervene when those acts were halted, that would resemble an appropriate response. Not long term occupation, not “regime change”, not inciting civil wars and arming opposing factions, not spreading democracy, simply end the active acts of genocide.
A more recent example of what they should have done: every genocide convention signatory should be economically boycotting and sanctioning Israel right now, in addition to deploying their troops to Gaza and the occupied west bank to protect Palestinians, that would be regarded as an “invasion”, and would be the correct response.
Don’t bring up the Iraq was again, because it’s irrelevant to this discussion. The US did not invade Iraq to stop him from genociding Kurds, they invaded under false pretenses that he’s in the possession of WMDs and plans to attack the US, they invaded with an explicit goal of regime change, they occupied and slaughtered civilians, and they screamed “Saddam is genocidal” among many other “evil man must be stopped” assertions to shut down any opposition.
deploying their troops to Gaza and the occupied west bank to protect Palestinians
Ok, sorry, I though we’re being serious here but I see we’re playing fantasy geopolitics. In that case I agree. Signatories of the convention should have sent the big bad wolf to huff and puff and blow the deadly gas away from the Kurds. And then the entire world should invade West Bank. Donald Trump should lead the charge himself, preferable mounting a unicorn.
Oh yes, because that worked so great in Somalia.
What exactly are you referring to?
Are you suggesting world nations intervened in Somalia to satisfy their obligations under the genocide conventions? Because that didn’t happen.
So you’re suggesting that invasions in order to prevent genocide work differently than all other interventions? You invade, say “Hello, we’re here to prevent genocide”, everyone makes peace, situation stabilizes and you can leave? Because ‘normal’ invasions (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti…) tend to result in a shitshow and don’t improve the situation much. Even UN’s own research say that those only ‘sometimes’ work and domestic cooperation and consent is the most important factor in success [1]. So basically if you have a recognized government that asks for help intervention may be effective. Throwing more troops in the middle of an ongoing civil war most likely won’t.
You’re just mixing two different topics and trying to make them fit your argument.
You name examples of them never doing what they agreed they would do as a reason to not do it…
I’m citing report about prevention of mass atrocities in a topic about preventing genocide. What do you think doesn’t fit here?
What is that supposed to mean?
Iraq invasion was about regime change and did exactly that. Then it gave us ISIS.
Haiti was about stabilization and tried doing exactly that but turned out locals got angry about losing sovereignty, having their kids sexually exploited by peacekeepers and catching cholera from them.
Afghanistan was about removing the Taliban and tried doing this for 20 years without success.
Somalia was mostly stabilized but country is still one of the least developed in the world and in danger of massive famine.
The genocide convention obliges signatories to intervene to stop acts of genocide. Not to occupy and engage in war for decades to install a new regime of your liking and ensure your interests.
The US using rhetoric of Saddam being genocidal as one of many rhetorical reasons to invade Iraq for oil and securing Israel and to genocide Iraqis instead IS NOT what I’m suggesting. You naming it as a reason for genocide convention signatories to not act to prevent genocide is either really silly or really maliciously misleading.
So we’re going back to my first question you didn’t answer. Are you suggesting that invasions in order to prevent genocide work differently than all other interventions? You have a government, insurgency or some guerilla forces planning to commit genocide. How are you going to stop them if not by doing what was done in Iraq, Afghanistan or Haiti?
Saddam was genocidal. Haven’t you heard about gassing Kurds? How would you suggest signatories of the genocide convention intervene to stop him? Yes, US didn’t really care about it and attacked because of oil. You’re still suggesting UN should have attacked Iraq, only for a different reason. Or, asking again, do you think atrocities he committed should have been prevented in a different way? How?
I don’t know how to be clearer.
The US did not invade Iraq to stop Saddam from committing acts of genocide. Why do you then insist that’s the only way to do it?
It’s an irrelevant example.
If while he was gassing Kurds, they came together as a collective of signatories and targeted military assets strictly to stop those acts, seizing to intervene when those acts were halted, that would resemble an appropriate response. Not long term occupation, not “regime change”, not inciting civil wars and arming opposing factions, not spreading democracy, simply end the active acts of genocide.
A more recent example of what they should have done: every genocide convention signatory should be economically boycotting and sanctioning Israel right now, in addition to deploying their troops to Gaza and the occupied west bank to protect Palestinians, that would be regarded as an “invasion”, and would be the correct response.
Don’t bring up the Iraq was again, because it’s irrelevant to this discussion. The US did not invade Iraq to stop him from genociding Kurds, they invaded under false pretenses that he’s in the possession of WMDs and plans to attack the US, they invaded with an explicit goal of regime change, they occupied and slaughtered civilians, and they screamed “Saddam is genocidal” among many other “evil man must be stopped” assertions to shut down any opposition.
Ok, sorry, I though we’re being serious here but I see we’re playing fantasy geopolitics. In that case I agree. Signatories of the convention should have sent the big bad wolf to huff and puff and blow the deadly gas away from the Kurds. And then the entire world should invade West Bank. Donald Trump should lead the charge himself, preferable mounting a unicorn.