Which one?

[Razor]

1)No country should ever have the right to tell another country what to do and how to do it, as long as that other country doesn't impede on the first countries rights.

2)A powerful country should be responsible for ensuring that peace and prosperity rule throughout the world without the fear of tyranny and torture.

Which statement do you all agree with then? Should America, Great Britain, France, Germany really be allowed to tell other nations how to run their countries when they don't in anyway effect America, Great Britiain, France, Germany, etc? or should those nations be allowed to police the world with their own standards of living?

 

[Sieg]

Agreed,America should shut up and stop telling Taiwan what to do.
China should let Taiwan be free,I don't think the goverments of China ever learned th history of US.

 

[pomegranate]

I don't agree with either, as such.
What I believe is that the whole of humanity has a responsibility to protect each other from their own governments and other countries. When there is a such a situation, I think unified, consensus-based efforts should be made to resolve them. I don't think single, or a minority of countries should be allowed to take action.

 

[CptStern]

No country should ever have the right to tell another country what to do and how to do it, as long as that other country doesnt invade the first country.


corrected for clarity

 

[Sieg]

US seems like a good example.

 

[KoreBolteR]

as long as that other country doesnt invade the first country.

so we are gonna wait for the other countries to invade us?

even if we had good evidence of thier tyrant terrorist actions? and we knew they were gonna attack us?

 

[The Monkey]

The first one obviously. After all, would you like it if the USSR would have tried to spread its "standard of living" to the west. Some people does just assume that the west's way of life is better than theirs, and that our countries have better human right's than theirs. Maybe they are, but as always, history will tell.

 

[KoreBolteR]

The first one obviously. After all, would you like it if the USSR would have tried to spread its "standard of living" to the west. Some people does just assume that the west's way of life is better than theirs, and that our countries have better human right's than theirs. Maybe they are, but as always, history will tell.

even the people of iraq hated saddam and his "standard of living".

now the Terrorists are in Iraq, with thier "standards of living", making the people fear them, and still the people of iraq dont like it. democracy is the only way, and they want it. it takes time.

 

[The Monkey]

even the people of iraq hated saddam and his "standard of living".

now the Terrorists are in Iraq, with thier "standards of living", making the people fear them, and still the people of iraq dont like it. democracy is the only way, and they want it. it takes time.

I'm not taliking about a singe country here. I'm talking about the fixation that our way of life is better that everyone else's

 

[Absinthe]

I don't agree with either, as such.
What I believe is that the whole of humanity has a responsibility to protect each other from their own governments and other countries. When there is a such a situation, I think unified, consensus-based efforts should be made to resolve them. I don't think single, or a minority of countries should be allowed to take action.

Pretty much my stance on this.

One or two superpower countries dictating policy to the rest of the world is unfair on everybody else and will only alienate others.

Total isolationism allows some leaders to abuse their power over their people and can result in serious human rights violations.

I think a balance is required, but where that balance lies is something I can't clearly define.

 

[Nofuture]

Unfortunately this approach (pomegrante, Absinthe) is not implemented in UN, as some countries there have more decision power than others.

 

[pomegranate]

so we are gonna wait for the other countries to invade us?

even if we had good evidence of thier tyrant terrorist actions? and we knew they were gonna attack us?

Are you talking about any particular example?

Unfortunately this approach (pomegrante, Absinthe) is not implemented in UN, as some countries there have more decision power than others.

Sure, I agree. UN needs to reformed, no question. But as it stands it's still closer to my preference than unilateralism/limited consensus.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Are you talking about any particular example?.

future possibilities.

 

[Razor]

In my opinion, the UN should be allowed to police member states. If a member state abuses their people and breaks UN laws, whoever the member state is, then it is up to the other member states to act accordingly. However, i do not agree that any single or a small number of countries should ever be allowed to police humanity due to the size of their military or the political views of their leaders.

 

[GhostFox]

I think the big question is where do you draw the line? Everyone knows Hitler could have sat back in Germany and wiped out every Jew in the country and no one would have said a damn thing. Can we as human beings sleep at night while people are being wiped out while we do nothing?

Could you sit back and watch genocide occur and not want to do anything about it simply because it is happening in a foreign country?

The UN should be reformed as a world policing body. The basic human rights charter should be redrawn up, and any nation seriously violating it should be subjected to millitary intervention and regime change.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I see my neighbor beating his kids I don't ignore it because he can do what he wants in his house. I call 911 to get an ambulance sent for him and then go get my bat.

 

[CptStern]

pre emptive strikes are illegal. It's against the UN charter which the US signed. It sets a very bad precedent: India for example could say that pakistan is a threat to national security and could use that as a justification to launch nukes

 

[Nofuture]

I agree that UN should be reformed.

That UN don´t work proper we can best see on the sample of Israel. All these vetoes etc.

Nevertheless that Israel seems to stand in violation of more UN resolutions than any other country on this planet, nothing happens. No sanctions or military intervention.

 

[CptStern]

because they have support rom the more powerful nations ...who veto any attempt at accountability en masse

 

[The Monkey]

The first thing that should be done in a reformision is to remove the veto. But that will never happen since all five veto countries will veto against it :|

 

[Steve]

No country should ever have the right to tell another country what to do and how to do it, as long as that other country doesnt invade the first country.


corrected for clarity

But, hypothetically speaking, say our embassies are attacked and any citizen who enters that country is immediately executed. Should we just leave them be simply because they haven't touched down on our soil?

 

[kirovman]

But, hypothetically speaking, say our embassies are attacked and any citizen who enters that country is immediately executed. Should we just leave them be simply because they haven't touched down on our soil?

Isn't attacking an embassy considering attacking the soil of that nation?

 

[Razor]

The attack on Iraq could definately have been called a pre-emptive strike, the main reason stated behind the war was because Iraq had Weapon's Of Mass Destruction, which still haven't been found. But then, because both America and Britain are 2 of the main bodies of the UN, would any sanctions or military implications be held against both countries? definately not.

The UN does need to be reformed, where one single country can not vetoe a vote, just like what is happening with Israel. Israel has broken lots of international laws which would have had any Arab nation sanctioned and overthrown years ago. So why is this so? Racism agaisnt Arabs and towards Jews, Israel buys lots of American hardware?

 

[Razor]

Isn't attacking an embassy considering attacking the soil of that nation?

An embassy is considered sovereign soil and any attacks on it could be construed as an attack on the owner of the embassy.

 

[Steve]

An embassy is considered sovereign soil and any attacks on it could be construed as an attack on the owner of the embassy.

However, I don't believe it's considered an INVASION of that country, which is what Cptstern said.

 

[Razor]

However, I don't believe it's considered an INVASION of that country, which is what Cptstern said.

Well, an attack and an invasion are different things. If i attacked an embassy, it would be to launch weapons at it. If i was to invade an embassy, it would be to barge through the door, guns blazing, and then stick up a nice Simon flag on the roof whilst burning the original flag and peeing on it before chucking it out the window.

 

[GhostFox]

I kind of get his point though. An embassy is considered soverign soil, yet I don't know if you overran an embassy if it would be considered an invasion. When the Iranains captured the US embassy I don't recall it being considered an invasion of the US. It was considered an attack on the US, but still a completely different thing then if the Iranians had invaded some town in West Virginia.

 

[Steve]

I kind of get his point though. An embassy is considered soverign soil, yet I don't know if you overran an embassy if it would be considered an invasion. When the Iranains captured the US embassy I don't recall it being considered an invsion of the US. It was considered an attack on the US, but still a completely different thing then if the Iranians had invaded some town in West Virginia.

Exactly my point. Thanks, GhostFox.

 

[Razor]

I kind of get his point though. An embassy is considered soverign soil, yet I don't know if you overran an embassy if it would be considered an invasion. When the Iranains captured the US embassy I don't recall it being considered an invsion of the US. It was considered an attack on the US, but still a completely different thing then if the Iranians had invaded some town in West Virginia.

I think it would be the way the invaded embassy's country thought about the attack, it could be constued as an invasion of sovereign soil, which it would be, but how serious that would be would depend on the owner of the embassy and the reasons behind the invasion and who invaded i.e. an army or a people.

 

[GhostFox]

Let's put it this way:

Syria invades and captures the US embassy in Damascus. Would you fully support an invasion of Syria in retaliation?

Probably not. How about this?

Syria invades and captures Washington DC. Would you fully support an invasion of Syria in retaliation?

Makes you think for a moment. I don't know what Steve's point was to begin with about embassies, but I get where he is coming from about invading them.

 

[Razor]

Let's put it this way:

Syria invades and captures the US embassy in Damascus. Would you fully support an invasion of Syria in retaliation?

Probably not. How about this?

Syria invades and captures Washington DC. Would you fully support an invasion of Syria in retaliation?

Makes you think for a moment. I don't know what Steve's point was to begin with about embassies, but I get where he is coming from about invading them.

What would your responce be to an invasion of your embassy in a foreign country?

 

[GhostFox]

What would your responce be to an invasion of your embassy in a foreign country?

I don't know. Realistically it probably should be the same as if your nation was actually invaded. All I am saying is I see where Steve is coming from, because no one ever seems to take an invasion of an Embassy nearly as seriously as they would a country.

 

[Razor]

I don't know. Realistically it probably should be the same as if your nation was actually invaded. All I am saying is I see where Steve is coming from, because no one ever seems to take an invasion of an Embassy nearly as seriously as they would a country.

I suppose that is a good thing .

edit: anyway, let's get the topic back on track please .

 

[K e r b e r o s]

No country should ever have the right to tell another country what to do and how to do it, as long as that other country doesn't impede on the first countries rights.

I agree -- if this Peace-Process between Palestine and Israel fails, lets humor all the radicals and watch Israel become the Information Age's Holocaust.

Maybe if we keep Spielberg alive long enough, he'll make a video called: Arafat's List.

 

[Pesmerga]

No country should ever have the right to tell another country what to do and how to do it, as long as that other country doesn't impede on the first countries rights.

A powerful country should be responsible for ensuring that peace and prosperity rule throughout the world without the fear of tyranny and torture.

Which statement do you all agree with then? Should America, Great Britain, France, Germany really be allowed to tell other nations how to run their countries when they don't in anyway effect America, Great Britiain, France, Germany, etc? or should those nations be allowed to police the world with their own standards of living?

It matters little what moral 'rights' you think people should have. You have no right to tell them they have no right. Who are you to complain about it? Did god endow you with the divine right to decree others that they have no business doing something?

What it boils down to are two things. The people, and the acheivement. If someone feels the need to interfere in someone else's problem, they can and will do it. Saying it's a good or bad thing matters little to what happens afterward.

 

[CptStern]

damn, 2 years of saying the same crap and no one was paying attention. the war in Iraq was NEVER about saving the people of iraq from tyranny (iraq water treatment plant assessments). the war in iraq was never about fighting terror (saddam NEVER attacked the US), the war in iraq had NOTHING to do with installing democracy (PM allawi is a murderer and a terrorist)

 

[seinfeldrules]

(PM allawi is a murderer and a terrorist)

Uhhh stern, have you heard about the elections? They occured about a month or two ago. PM Allawi isnt likely going to keep his post due to the way those elections panned out.

 

[GhostFox]

What was the war about Stern?

 

[Pesmerga]

apparently, strictly for oil. Not like we haven't been drilling the shit outa the middle east for about 20 years now, though ^_^

 

[CptStern]

Uhhh stern, have you heard about the elections? They occured about a month or two ago. PM Allawi isnt likely going to keep his post due to the way those elections panned out.

they'll just put in another puppet just as they did with Allawi ..do you think they're just going to hand it back after so much investment?

What was the war about Stern?

you tell me, the justifications change so often that I've lost track ...what is it this week?

apparently, strictly for oil. Not like we haven't been drilling the shit outa the middle east for about 20 years now

why do you people always assume the US wants to take iraqi oil ...control is far more lucrative.

 

[seinfeldrules]

they'll just put in another puppet just as they did with Allawi ..do you think they're just going to hand it back after so much investment?

ahhahaha come on stern, they had elections bud. The Iraqi people voted people into a Congress like system. Those people will nominate a PM and other similar type posistions of power, not the US.