Zimbabwe's government has indefinitely suspended all field work by aid groups and non-governmental organisations.
He should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
He should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
From a rocket launcher delivered straight to his face?
If any country needs to be invaded... it would be a tie between Zimbabwe and Burma.
When are we going to get involved in this? Surely this falls under the doctrine of spreading democracy??
Not enough oil.BN wrote:
When are we going to get involved in this? Surely this falls under the doctrine of spreading democracy??
...or at least the doctrine of promoting human rights. I'm not so sure if continuing "democracy" is such a good idea with Zimbabwe, since their own democracy seems to have fallen apart.BN wrote:
When are we going to get involved in this? Surely this falls under the doctrine of spreading democracy??
Whatever the case, they definitely need a new government with leadership that isn't so oppressive.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yes, because invading nations with dictatorships has worked so well in the past
If the people don't sort out their own political situation, it'll only lead to more problems.
If the people don't sort out their own political situation, it'll only lead to more problems.
You have a limited memory of history.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Yes, because invading nations with dictatorships has worked so well in the past
If the people don't sort out their own political situation, it'll only lead to more problems.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
WWII.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Yes, because invading nations with dictatorships has worked so well in the past
If the people don't sort out their own political situation, it'll only lead to more problems.
Such as?Kmarion wrote:
You have a limited memory of history.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Yes, because invading nations with dictatorships has worked so well in the past
If the people don't sort out their own political situation, it'll only lead to more problems.
Was an international incident which garnered an international response.sergeriver wrote:
WWII.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Yes, because invading nations with dictatorships has worked so well in the past
If the people don't sort out their own political situation, it'll only lead to more problems.
Assume that Hitler didn't invade Poland, but he committed the Holocaust, in your opinion the world should have let Germans solve their problems?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Such as?Kmarion wrote:
You have a limited memory of history.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Yes, because invading nations with dictatorships has worked so well in the past
If the people don't sort out their own political situation, it'll only lead to more problems.Was an international incident which garnered an international response.sergeriver wrote:
WWII.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Yes, because invading nations with dictatorships has worked so well in the past
If the people don't sort out their own political situation, it'll only lead to more problems.
Assume the soviet union committed a holocaust against christians, should the world have let the soviets get away with it? ... oh wait...sergeriver wrote:
Assume that Hitler didn't invade Poland, but he committed the Holocaust, in your opinion the world should have let Germans solve their problems?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Such as?Kmarion wrote:
You have a limited memory of history.Was an international incident which garnered an international response.sergeriver wrote:
WWII.
Last edited by killcommies (2008-06-07 05:26:59)
Yes. Just the same as they let Stalin kill all sorts of people.sergeriver wrote:
Assume that Hitler didn't invade Poland, but he committed the Holocaust, in your opinion the world should have let Germans solve their problems?
So, Human Rights are a matter of boundaries.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Yes. Just the same as they let Stalin kill all sorts of people.sergeriver wrote:
Assume that Hitler didn't invade Poland, but he committed the Holocaust, in your opinion the world should have let Germans solve their problems?
No, but sovereignty is vital to world stability.
Besides which, where do you draw the line? How bad does it have to be before you step in?
Besides which, where do you draw the line? How bad does it have to be before you step in?
IMO the Holocaust was bad enough. And so is Zimbabwe.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, but sovereignty is vital to world stability.
Besides which, where do you draw the line? How bad does it have to be before you step in?
You didn't answer the question.
At what point does it become reasonable to invade?
At what point does it become reasonable to invade?
Stalin killed far more than the holocaust did, far, far more - and apparently the holocaust was enough? were the lives of those killed by the soviets worthless? Apparently so, since people can flaunt their hammers and sickles on this forum but I cannot have a signature that says "fascism above all".sergeriver wrote:
IMO the Holocaust was bad enough. And so is Zimbabwe.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, but sovereignty is vital to world stability.
Besides which, where do you draw the line? How bad does it have to be before you step in?
Perhaps that's because those showing hammers and sickles aren't Stalinists.
Not that I agree with the decision.
Not that I agree with the decision.
Where did I say that what Stalin did wasn't bad?killcommies wrote:
Stalin killed far more than the holocaust did, far, far more - and apparently the holocaust was enough? were the lives of those killed by the soviets worthless? Apparently so, since people can flaunt their hammers and sickles on this forum but I cannot have a signature that says "fascism above all".sergeriver wrote:
IMO the Holocaust was bad enough. And so is Zimbabwe.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, but sovereignty is vital to world stability.
Besides which, where do you draw the line? How bad does it have to be before you step in?
The second you referred to the holocaust instead of stalins massacre's as the first argument.sergeriver wrote:
Where did I say that what Stalin did wasn't bad?killcommies wrote:
Stalin killed far more than the holocaust did, far, far more - and apparently the holocaust was enough? were the lives of those killed by the soviets worthless? Apparently so, since people can flaunt their hammers and sickles on this forum but I cannot have a signature that says "fascism above all".sergeriver wrote:
IMO the Holocaust was bad enough. And so is Zimbabwe.
also, who the hell is jord?
Last edited by killcommies (2008-06-07 06:05:00)
I see, well you must be ok with the Genocide in Rwanda since you didn't refer to it.killcommies wrote:
The second you referred to the holocaust instead of stalins massacre's as the first argument.sergeriver wrote:
Where did I say that what Stalin did wasn't bad?killcommies wrote:
Stalin killed far more than the holocaust did, far, far more - and apparently the holocaust was enough? were the lives of those killed by the soviets worthless? Apparently so, since people can flaunt their hammers and sickles on this forum but I cannot have a signature that says "fascism above all".
also, who the hell is jord?