Well, after our "humanitarian intervention" into Iraq, there are questions to be asked (sorry for the multiple questions, but they all seem necessary for the discussion of this topic):

1.) When is regime change justified?
2.) When is humanitarian intervention justified?
3.) Who should decide?
4.) Who should intervene?

When that regime has attacked us.



When the people of a society are suffering to the point of not being able to fulfill the basic human needs of food, water, clothing, and shelter.



The United Nations and/or any nation that recognizes the problem.



Any and all nations that are capable of doing so.

Yup. Can't say that I would disagree with NuMarx's response. Iraq noticably fails the regime change test. (In fact, arguably, so did Taliban Afghanistan.)

1: When we are threatened by that regime or the regime attacks us or is connected to terrorists (No i am not starting my go along about Saddam so chill )

2: When the people ask for our help or when the UN asks for us to intervene (liberia is a good example)

3: Whoever it may concern. If the Liberians, for example, want us to intervene in their civil war, then we shall do it because we were asked to. If the UN wants us to intervene in the civil war, we will. If NATO wants to bomb the crud out of the brutal side to stop it (Kosovo), then fine

4: Whoever wants to be involved. If Liberia asks just for the U.S., fine. Then the U.S. will be the only nation there. If they want NATO, NATO peacekeepers will be there


Julian:

But the taliban was allowing Al-Queda to stay, so they were accomplises to murder & aiding a fugitive (Osama & Co.)

Well, I did say arguably - meaning I could see how such a thing could be argued, not necessarily that I agreed with it, which I did.

But to play devil's advocate for a moment - the Saudis funded AQ and still, largely, do, with ruling regime publicly affecting wilful ignorance (if not tacit support).

Yet the USA treated the Saudi regime as an ally in the WOT (and still does), even though the support of Saudi citizens (and the nationalities of most of the 9-11 hijackers) was more critical to the terrible events of 11 September 2001 than anything the Taliban did or didn't do.

1. When a regeme is a threat to our security or our allies, or committing atrocious crimes against humanity.
2. When people of a country are suffering and their gov't can't help them out.
3. Any willing world leader [Yeah, the UN's done a bang up job so far].
4. Any willing country.

CP

I am in 100 percent agreement with NM on this. I think this might be a first....
Wait! I'd change #3 ...Who should decide? The wronged (attacked) party, the UN, or anyone who recognizes the problem
Otherwise, perfect.

So, when a humanitarian intervention calls for the removal of the regime in order to be effective, and the regime has not attacked us, what then?

I guess that would be the u.n vote or some other body to make that decision.

I was actually asking for response to the question of whether the regime change/humanitarian intervention in the scenario I suggested would be justified. A personal descision unrelated to Question #3 (Who should decide?). Sorry for not making that clear.

So where did we get off imposing regime change on the Nazis. They never attacked us.

Obviously, your grounds are not all-emcompassing.

If you change it to "When that regime OR THEIR ALLIES attack us" then you open the argument to whether the Taliban or Iraq were allies of Al Qaeda. A judgement call (as all matters of foreign relations all boil down to).

My answers would be:
1. When said regime becomes a threat to the international, breaks international peace treaties, and refuses to negotiate (or negotiates in bad faith).
2. When the suffering of the population of the country is being increased by the current government of that country.
3. Any country that sees a problem. The case should be made publically, but the decision is up to the individual country.
4. The country who spots the problem, and any allies which care to join them.

Go to the UN, present your human rights evidence and pray they accept a mandate.

Take the case to the United Nations. Work it out there.

NuMark,
Wonderful reply. Is that your way of not even trying to avoid a good argument while completely dodging any real answer??? I'm glad you were lucky enough to be born here.

You're doing the same thing - you haven't answered TLW's questions either.

Jaime,
I was trying not to answer a loaded question.

But in your last post you called it a "good argument." So either it's a loaded question or a good argument. Which is it?

Jaime,
I didn't know my sarcasm was so thick. I wasn't a good argument.

You're calling me a dodger? Check out the first post in this thread and answer TLW's four questions. Then everyone can see where you stand. Don't just interject yourself into a debate you're not even a part of while ignoring the initial topic questions that spurred the whole thing. Also, I'm glad I was born here, too, Johnlocke, thank you for your kind thoughts...

It seems that's what I've been doing as well...

To rectify the situation:

1.) When a regime change will end in a process to expand human rights to those under the regime and/or the regime has become a malevolent threat to regional/world security.

2.)When the basic human rights/needs of a group are threatened to an extent that only through intervention is there a reasonable chance to restore human rights or needs.

3.) Ideally the UN at this present stage, though if it is jugded by a number of countries that the UN has failed in their resposibility to the group in danger, smaller international groups or even a single country.

4.) Those with the ability to help restore human rights/security

I sure my answers could use refining, but that's basically my take on the situation.

Now to my earlier question:



I was not asking what body to consult, rather I was asking for the opinion of those participating in the debate like TLW was in his first two questions.