# If there are atrocities on their own people- is an Invasion OK? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 26, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-are-atrocities-on-their-own-people-is-an-invasion-ok/261676 "2004-08-26T20:59:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-are-atrocities-on-their-own-people-is-an-invasion-ok/261676/21 "2004-08-27T05:31:38Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Are the people in these countries where atrocities occur so morally bankrupt that they cannot rise to their own feet and throw off their shackles? > > Why should the US be obligated to provide as a gift the blessings of freedom and democracy to people who don’t have the gumption to work towards it themselves? Is it even possible to impose our values from without, or would we end up with some sort of worldwide welfare system where US troops continually pay for the freedoms of people who don’t really care about our version of liberty anyway? But, **Squink** , the question raised by the OP is not whether the US (or any other state) is _morally obliged_ to defend the human rights of the citizens of another state, but whether it is _entitled_ to do so. I grant you, if you conclude that the US has a _right_ to do this, then then question of whether it has an _obligation_ to do so arises. But not _until_ you conclude that. The OP mentioned Nazi Germany. Is it your contention that, because the Jews of Nazi Germany failed to “rise to their own feet and throw off their shackles”, other states could have neither the right nor the obligation to come to their assistance? Cases in which a government terrorises an _entire_ population are egregious; cases in which a minority is abused with the support, or the assent, or at least the indifference, of the majority population are much more common. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-are-atrocities-on-their-own-people-is-an-invasion-ok/261676/22 "2004-08-27T14:01:08Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > … and besides, the UK supported the slave side. In 1859? Not a chance. I’m appalled that a citizen of the UK is completely unaware of the admirable history of his country in the 19th century with respect to the slave trade and slavery as an institution. 1807…Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was passed by the British Parliament of Parliament on 25th March . 1827…Slave trading declared piracy and thus punishable by death. 1834… > [@](#): > > The[Slavery Abolition Act](http://website.lineone.net/~stkittsnevis/slavery.htm) was passed by the British Parliament on 24th August 1833. The Act did not become law until 1st August 1834 when all slaves in the British colonies were to become emancipated, and slavery was to be abolished throughout the British possessions abroad. I should also add that the UK was instrumental in enlisting France and Spain in opposition to the trade. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-are-atrocities-on-their-own-people-is-an-invasion-ok/261676/23 "2004-08-27T18:38:30Z")
Again- Slavery in the USA in the 1800 is NOT a part of this thread/debate. It is a hijack. Let’s keep this on track, please. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-are-atrocities-on-their-own-people-is-an-invasion-ok/261676/24 "2004-08-27T19:03:58Z")
I didn’t mean the UK supported the promotion of slavery, but more the support of the Southern states in order to weaken the USA on a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-are-atrocities-on-their-own-people-is-an-invasion-ok/261676/25 "2004-08-27T19:07:47Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > The US does these things to and we are beloved by all nations… Was this a tongue in cheek comment? I hate to inject a bit of reality here, but humanitarian intervention was simply not a realistic option before the latter half of the 20th century. It was pretty damn hard to move an army halfway around the world in a reasonable amount of time. Further, with a few notable exceptions, I think people’s standards of what constitutes a gross violation of human rights has changed remarkably over the years. As much as it’s a interesting hypothetical to toss around, I simply doubt that the practice of slavery was as big of an outrage in England in 1859 than it would be today. Perhaps more light would be shed on the discussion if we talked about South Africa in the 70s and 80s, or Zimbabwe today. All that being said, major nations DO have the capability to rush in and stop the most grave human rights abuses. For all intents and purposes, big powers are now faced with two decisions: whether to intervene, and whether NOT to intervene. However, intervene at what cost? I see a profound need for nations (probably other than the US, for political reasons discussed in another thread) to step in and prevent up to a million people being murdered in Sudan. However, I would think it absurd to invade North Korea to stop the abuses there, because wider was would inevitably spread misery to South Korea, perhaps Japan, and create a huge toll in lives that cannot possibly support a humanitarian ideal. So, my answer to the OP is, it depends. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-are-atrocities-on-their-own-people-is-an-invasion-ok/261676/26 "2004-08-27T21:15:39Z")
> [@kniz](#): > > Please cite any such comparison, not just a personal blanket statement. I don’t understand what you’re asking for a cite for. For the notion that slavery was an atrocity outstripping Saddam’s Iraq? If so, are you joking? The United States by 1860 had about 4,000,000 black people in chains ([source: 1860 census](http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm)) and that was just at that point in time. I’m afraid exact numbers of those murdered and tortured are hard to find, since the U.S. at the time treated these people like animals, but I’ll work on it. No, DrDeth, this really is not a hijack at all. The OP asked a simple question; is it acceptable to invade another country to prevent that country from committing atrocities against its own people? If someone is going to say that’s okay, it’s prefectly on topic to point out that that would have allowed the invasion of their own country. If we’re to debate a hypothetical question, bringing up real life examples that DIRECTLY relate to the question is on topic. Hey, I know it’s tricky to deal with the OP’s question in terms of why it might apply to your country. That’s why I brought it up. It’s easy to agree with invasions and bombings when it’s your country doing it to others. An honest approach is to consider examples where things might have gone the other way. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-are-atrocities-on-their-own-people-is-an-invasion-ok/261676/27 "2004-08-29T21:39:54Z")
I AM the Op, dude. And my thread was about Atrocities commited by a Dictator of a Govenment on his own citizens. As my previous post said- slavery may have been evil, and _legal_ in the Early USA, but the atrocities from it were not commited directly by the Dictator or his agents. Just like the slaves in just about every other nation on earth, note- the USA was hardly alone in having legal slavery. Even Great Britian did, and also note many natiosn had serfs. But that’s a hijack, and it has nothing to do wit this thread. The question was- if we have a despotic leader commiting atrocities upon his own people- woudl it be right to vanvade to stap them? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2004, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-are-atrocities-on-their-own-people-is-an-invasion-ok/261676/28 "2004-08-29T21:57:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > . The question was- if we have a despotic leader commiting atrocities upon his own people- woudl it be right to vanvade to stap them? Are you thinking about us Canadians invading jAmerica to relieve you of Bush? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-are-atrocities-on-their-own-people-is-an-invasion-ok/261676.md?page=1)