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.
I wrote a response preemptively to this argument then deleted it to give you the benefit of the doubt. Too predictable.
If your argument is that the world isn’t perfect and we can’t expect the world to abide by the genocide convention, then you must surely be able to acknowledge that it’s a scam.
Instead of shrugging and saying “what do you expect the world to do?”, as if we’re being unreasonable for asking the world to do something, you could express your anger that the society you’re a part of has decided to not do anything.
The premise of the article is that the world doesn’t care about genocides, and you decided to respond with a sarcastic dismissive “what do you want us to do?” Because you don’t care about entire people being registered, but you’re too proud to let someone confront you with that fact. You can’t just let it slide.
Yes, we don’t live in a perfect world because we don’t want to. We could all agree to stop fighting but we collectively decided that it would be too boring.
Such a simplistic take. Wrong as well. Of course people care about atrocities. People cared a lot about genocide in Gaza. Did it help? No, because everyone realizes Israel is backed by the most powerful military in the world so no one suggesting idiotic solutions like invading West Bank. Kamala lost elections partially because she didn’t oppose the genocide strongly enough. Americans didn’t for Trump because they don’t care about it. They are simply stupid.
UN tried to intervene in many different conflicts. I cited report about it. Did you read it? If you did you wouldn’t claim the convention is a scam. Countries do send troops trying to help. Most of the time it doesn’t work and things turn ugly. The treaty was signed when people believed you can send peacekeepers somewhere to stabilize the situation and protect people. Now we know it mostly doesn’t work. You don’t seem to have a better solution, you just complain we stopped doing the thing we know doesn’t work. You would still naively drop some troops in West Bank and Gaza to “protect civilians”. This is primary school level geopolitics. Fantasy land. The issues with this “solution” are so obvious I’m not even going to list them. We let genocides happen not because we don’t care but because we don’t know how to stop them. So far we only know bad solution. My comment was saying exactly that.
Get out of your arrogant bubble, a minority voted for Kamala despite disagreeing on her stance on Israel, and the majority of Republicans in fact support the genocide.
Those who plugged their noses and voted for Kamala are also part of the problem, like you, they shrug and say “what can we do”?
The most powerful military in the world didn’t defeat Gaza, can’t defeat the Houthis in Yemen, can’t defeat Hezballah, didn’t defeat the Taliban, and won’t defeat Iran either. Your life as an American (assuming you are) will only get worse as this stupid empire finally collapses, but at least the rest of the world will sigh of relief as your selfish society dies back.
If people cared, they would revolt. They would stop working and stop the economy funding the most genocidal military. They wouldn’t schedule “protests” behind police lines to dance peacefully a few times and then go home.
Very few are brave enough to do what it takes, and that’s not because the rest aren’t brave, it’s because they don’t give a shit. I can’t count how many times someone told me “at least we live on the side with the big guns”.
And just to spell it out for you, because you can’t comprehend anything beyond looking for an argument, I’m not suggesting you invade my Homeland, I’m suggesting the genocide convention is bullshit designed to pacify the few that care into believing the rest of you do.
If we don’t live in a perfect world where applying the genocide convention is realistic, why defend it? For your ego.
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.
I wrote a response preemptively to this argument then deleted it to give you the benefit of the doubt. Too predictable.
If your argument is that the world isn’t perfect and we can’t expect the world to abide by the genocide convention, then you must surely be able to acknowledge that it’s a scam.
Instead of shrugging and saying “what do you expect the world to do?”, as if we’re being unreasonable for asking the world to do something, you could express your anger that the society you’re a part of has decided to not do anything.
The premise of the article is that the world doesn’t care about genocides, and you decided to respond with a sarcastic dismissive “what do you want us to do?” Because you don’t care about entire people being registered, but you’re too proud to let someone confront you with that fact. You can’t just let it slide.
Yes, we don’t live in a perfect world because we don’t want to. We could all agree to stop fighting but we collectively decided that it would be too boring.
Such a simplistic take. Wrong as well. Of course people care about atrocities. People cared a lot about genocide in Gaza. Did it help? No, because everyone realizes Israel is backed by the most powerful military in the world so no one suggesting idiotic solutions like invading West Bank. Kamala lost elections partially because she didn’t oppose the genocide strongly enough. Americans didn’t for Trump because they don’t care about it. They are simply stupid.
UN tried to intervene in many different conflicts. I cited report about it. Did you read it? If you did you wouldn’t claim the convention is a scam. Countries do send troops trying to help. Most of the time it doesn’t work and things turn ugly. The treaty was signed when people believed you can send peacekeepers somewhere to stabilize the situation and protect people. Now we know it mostly doesn’t work. You don’t seem to have a better solution, you just complain we stopped doing the thing we know doesn’t work. You would still naively drop some troops in West Bank and Gaza to “protect civilians”. This is primary school level geopolitics. Fantasy land. The issues with this “solution” are so obvious I’m not even going to list them. We let genocides happen not because we don’t care but because we don’t know how to stop them. So far we only know bad solution. My comment was saying exactly that.
Get out of your arrogant bubble, a minority voted for Kamala despite disagreeing on her stance on Israel, and the majority of Republicans in fact support the genocide.
Those who plugged their noses and voted for Kamala are also part of the problem, like you, they shrug and say “what can we do”?
The most powerful military in the world didn’t defeat Gaza, can’t defeat the Houthis in Yemen, can’t defeat Hezballah, didn’t defeat the Taliban, and won’t defeat Iran either. Your life as an American (assuming you are) will only get worse as this stupid empire finally collapses, but at least the rest of the world will sigh of relief as your selfish society dies back.
If people cared, they would revolt. They would stop working and stop the economy funding the most genocidal military. They wouldn’t schedule “protests” behind police lines to dance peacefully a few times and then go home.
Very few are brave enough to do what it takes, and that’s not because the rest aren’t brave, it’s because they don’t give a shit. I can’t count how many times someone told me “at least we live on the side with the big guns”.
And just to spell it out for you, because you can’t comprehend anything beyond looking for an argument, I’m not suggesting you invade my Homeland, I’m suggesting the genocide convention is bullshit designed to pacify the few that care into believing the rest of you do.
If we don’t live in a perfect world where applying the genocide convention is realistic, why defend it? For your ego.
You sound like you’re 10. What are you doing to stop the genocide? Did you stop working already? Are you living in the streets in protests?