Chad: send mercenaries

well considering how the Chadian rebels were pushed around the last couple of time they tried to overcome D�by's regime, I happen not to think much of their military prowesses

Originally posted by Brian By the way, Omar, I'm very surprised that you find a policy of non-interventionism to be more defensible than one of responding to urgent human rights abuses. Is it then better to do nothing than to do something imperfectly?

Depends on the situation.

In many cases, I think its better to leave it be if it doesn't affect your country. For example if the government in Chad is corrupt and weak it deserves to be overthrown. While this may cause pain suffering and refugees in the short term. Long term it will solve more problems than not. Continuing to prop-up a disfunctional government does more harm than good.

Most interventions serve the purpose of the interveners, ie, imperialism passed off as humanitarianism. Save the poor refugees by supporting the "legitimate" government/rebels which just-so happens to be pro-[intervener].

I am against these forms of interventions, which includes Darfur, Somalia, Soloman Islands, East Timor etc.
I feel that interventions are flavoured with imperialism and 'white mans burden' politics.

On the other hand there are cases where one side has gone too far such as Rwanda, Bosnia, or Cambodia*. In these case I support an intervention, but one with teeth that punishes the offender.

Originally posted by Cezar My opinion is that forces from the states of the EU that have no history in Africa can do a better job, especially if financial and logistic support will come frome the whole EU.

I'm not sure how many Africans are going to distinguish between the Europeans who invaded them before (France) and the Europeans who invade them now (EU). Do you have a preference as to whether Niger or Sudan provided troops to support a rival group (say the former Communists) in Romainia?

*When Vietnam stopped Pol Pot.