Genocide

C1: A Blurred LineA. What is a genocide? All of us know the literal definition, but then the line starts to blur. What is the difference between an genocide and a civil war, and are all wars inherently genocidal in today’s world?B. I will start by comparing a “genocide” to a “civil war”. There are massive similarities between Darfur and Iraq, but one is marked a horrible genocide, and the other a civil war. Both have resulted is the same approximate civilian deaths, and both are lead by paramilitary groups(1).C. Would the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki be considered genocides? The US was targeting japanese civilians, but it hasn’t been considered a genocide, why? Would the US mini-holocaust against japanese citizens during World War 2 also be considered a genocide? If these were considered genocides then the global community would have had to invade the US, which would have escalated.D. It may be horrible, but the result of this line may be that violence in the middle east is nothing new. But if all nations have a responsibility to intervene, then why is there no attention to Iraq. We want to stop genocide, but we have no clear cut way of define a genocide. And if we don't have this line do we have an excuse to enter any nation that is experienced violence? This leads nicely to my next contention, about state sovereignty.C2: State SovereigntyA. Do we have a right to invade a nation if they commit genocide, and if so would it just end at genocide? If we could a break a state's sovereignty because of genocide would it just end there? In Orwell’s book Animal Farm the 7 commandments of “animalism” kept on changing soon enough we are left with one “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”B. A state has a right to put down a rebellion in their nation, the US has already put down rebellion(Shays’ rebellion). We have never considered a civil war genocide. When a nation with a considerable military is dealing with a civil war it is always just a civil war, but the moment when a third world country is experiencing one it is mass genocide. C. The US has a thing for exaggerating events, I will remind you that we consider 5 people dying a “massacre”. If the global community sees a nation putting down a rebellion in a way that leads in just a few death a nation could leap and dub it a “Genocide”. Giving the “helper” nation a right to break a state’s sovereignty will escalate into giving a nation the right to invade another nation whenever they want.C3: EscalationA. North Korea is committing the worst violation of human rights right now, and what are we doing about it? We do nothing for a simple reason, North Korea has nukes. The global community has no intention of invading north korea because the invasion could escalate, and if the global community as a whole had a responsibility to invade North Korea a nuclear war could soon be on us.C4: ReconstructionA. The US invaded Libya under the rationale that we were going to stop a genocide, we might have stopped an initial one, but now Libya is in chaos. There is now a second civil war in Libya that is still going on. Reconstruction is no easy process, and more that not it ends in failure. After NATO intervened “for the good of Libya” casualties have multiplied by 1000%. If we were to intervene in every genocide then reconstruction would have to occur, and there has been no reconstruction that has been deemed successful(with the exclusion of Japan).For these reasons I urge you to vote Con, over to ProCitations1.http://www.lrb.co.uk...