As invader and occupier the chances are high that any foreign force will be seen as a common enemy. Presuming that the nations of Europe will only be fighting "non worthwhile people" is not only wrong, it is extremely arrogant.Turquoise wrote:
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was suggesting that some group like the EU come in and take over, but some death will inevitably occur. You'd have to kill the ones that resisted you, but you spare the ones who surrender. Besides, most of the resistance would come either from their corrupt government and various gangs of militants and warlords -- not exactly worthwhile people.Kmarion wrote:
A bunch of mostly Europeans. Are you suggesting that the EU turn Zimbabwe into a bunch of mostly Europeans? The idea is to focus on the people you are claiming to help.Turquoise wrote:
What we did to the Native Americans was pretty awful, but again, look at the country we are today.
Revoking sovereignty? There is no such thing without war. You can support the fight against infectious disease without advocating invasion.Of course, but it's in our best interests to end something as serious as a cholera outbreak whatever it takes. You can't let something like that spread. With our immigration as open as it is, cholera could even make it over here. Highly infectious diseases like cholera must be stopped, even if it means killing those infected.Kmarion wrote:
This isn't much of an excuse for the irresponsibility of colonial America. The carnage we dealt to the natives was not driven by chance. It was a land grab never before seen in the history of mankind (I think you know this.). My point is that foreign powers rarely act in the best interest of the locals. More importantly it is the locals destiny. Only they can truly decide their fate.Given the discrepancies in technology and immunities between Europeans and Native Americans, they would have likely died one way or another without us having conquered them. It didn't take much contact with them to spread lots of nasty diseases to them that they had no immunity to, and this was before we even understood much about microorganisms.
The good news is that cholera is relatively easy to contain if a few simple sanitation practices are followed. However, if Mugabe is neglecting to help his people at all (like now), he has essentially revoked his sovereignty -- at least he has in my opinion.
I fully understand your reasoning but the results often end up backfiring. The risk of "blowback" far exceeds the risk of spreading cholera to our shores. Citing a collapsed empire and the multiple near extermination of an entire native races only helps to make my case. There is no right or wrong answer. This is a debate of hypotheticals. It is not the right thing to do in my opinion.We forced the process here. The Roman Empire forced the process to the lands they conquered. Spain and Portugal did the same to what would become South America.Kmarion wrote:
An invasion will not solve Zimbawes's problems. Civilizations do change, some just take a little longer to come around. Look at Europe over the last four hundred years. We can't force the process. I've got history on my side.I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that, sometimes, really horrible imperialistic shit happens that is virtually inevitable.
Technology may change, but people will always be the same. What we're seeing in Zimbabwe is just a precursor for another force invading them. Mugabe's government is shit, but they have neighbors that might be interested in invading them soon. There's always several factions going to war in sub-Saharan Africa, and as long as we let a country like Zimbabwe attempt a pathetic mockery of self-rule, they'll just be a bastion of poverty and disease.
So yes, I would have to say that I prefer imperialism over letting something like this fester.
Again, I'm not saying it's necessarily the right thing to do, but I can say that letting Zimbabwe fester like this is going to cause problems for a lot of the world.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
