Wow, what a highly developed sense of right and wrong you have there. Might makes right, you say.
Who has authority over a country from beyond its borders?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Wow, what a highly developed sense of right and wrong you have there. Might makes right, you say.
Let's just take another example here. I believe abortion is essentially murder, but the law says otherwise. So do I have the right to take the law into my own hands and punish the abortionist by killing him on his way home one evening because I think it's the right thing to do?
If we way any country can invade another because it thinks it's the right thing to do, then killing the abortionist is the right thing to do too.
If, however, you believe that Canada should let the UN deal with international issue regardless of our own opinions, then it's like saying that while I can vote or start a petition, until the law is changed I ought to abide by the current decision that abortion is legal.
So, should I go out and kill the abortionist and take the law into my own hands, or should I respect the law of the land and simply try to change it by legal means?
If we way any country can invade another because it thinks it's the right thing to do, then killing the abortionist is the right thing to do too.
If, however, you believe that Canada should let the UN deal with international issue regardless of our own opinions, then it's like saying that while I can vote or start a petition, until the law is changed I ought to abide by the current decision that abortion is legal.
So, should I go out and kill the abortionist and take the law into my own hands, or should I respect the law of the land and simply try to change it by legal means?
Sure, but I say I don't like abortion anytime I want in legal channels or not. It's called feedom of speech. If other countires like china don't like it they can just ignore it or counter attack. China dosen't like it because free speech is astill a bit taboo there.
Do I like it when someone from another nation critises Canada....no, but I honor the right to say it....in jeans, suits or naked.
Do I like it when someone from another nation critises Canada....no, but I honor the right to say it....in jeans, suits or naked.
Fine. Fair enough. Though I don't agree with it on diplomatic grounds, I suppose as long as that country respects international law, then it's still not too bad. Certainly, Harper's public criticisms of China, while still not necessarily wise, will cause limited damage at worse.
I would still stand by the principle of at least respecting international laws though. This would mean, for example, not going into Iraq after the international community said no. I assume you agree with that at least?
I voted UN or other equivalent international group. I almost picked other, because sometimes the UN gets ignored
On Iraq:
The UN didn't agree but many states did sign on to it.
If the UN had supported it I would feel the same way I do now, the war was wrong based on the main reasons presented for invasion.
I supported the war in Afghanistan but soon after realised I was wrong in doing so. I was duped by flag waving patritism like most of us.
The statement is borne out in the History books it doesn't nesecssarily mean "that might is right" it just means those who have the power to wield will make the decisions good, bad or indifferent.
Until the UN gets its own act together and does something about those states within its membership that perform less than a decent standard, countries should mind their own business unless what other countries do harms them or humanity in general.
Sure fire way to ensure that lots of money and time gets spent doing exactly nothing.
And countries sticking their noses into other countries' business whether it's needed or not is another waste of money and a cause for hard feelings to top the problem.
When I started reading through this thread, I thought it was about Iran. I heard rumors this morning that the US is gearing up, so I assumed that once again, the US is poking their nose where it doesn't belong. The propaganda demonizing the leadership of Iran is the same as that which has preceded every other act of aggression by the US so I assume that it is inevitable. When I mentioned this to the person who was telling me this this morning at the coffee shop, he got up and moved to another table. "Another victim of propaganda", I thought. People are nuts.
Every independent country has the right to its own sovereignty and that is the way it
should be. Any government that goes beyond what the people will stand for is
overthrown by its own people as it should be. Think that doesn't happen? Russia
is a prime example, and the Eastern Block Countries, once they decided the
dictators had to go the went quickly. Any nation that invades another is in fact
committing a criminal act as set down in the Nuremberg Trials after World War
Two. Its called waging aggressive war. I for one don't believe in even getting
involved in civil wars. People have to let countries sort out their own problems
or the solutions come back to haunt everyone later on.
should be. Any government that goes beyond what the people will stand for is
overthrown by its own people as it should be. Think that doesn't happen? Russia
is a prime example, and the Eastern Block Countries, once they decided the
dictators had to go the went quickly. Any nation that invades another is in fact
committing a criminal act as set down in the Nuremberg Trials after World War
Two. Its called waging aggressive war. I for one don't believe in even getting
involved in civil wars. People have to let countries sort out their own problems
or the solutions come back to haunt everyone later on.
How much money has the US spent in Iraq, just to get rid of Sodam Insane? How much money have we spent in Afghanistan, just to enable women to be educated, get healthcare, and it'll probably turn right back around to the old days as soon as the UN forces leave?
Countryboy and hubby discovered that Christianity and a couple other religions decided that women were possessions, not humans. lol I can't remember which thread they were chuckling about it in, though. And actually, I think gods are its (genderless) to begin with.
:idea:Considering the lack of progress for women under the UN banner I'm not surprised. If I could vote for who is in the UN, WHO, or WTO I wouldn't feel like I'm being lied to about freedom.
In 59 almost everyone old enough was married whether they liked it or not.
. Back then getting a Hoover and only backhanded once was a good day. Now a women has to work for her own Hoover, emotional backhands herself all day long because she has to live within reality and can't be a crack ***** like the women on TV who the men think she should look and act like.
Yuuuup. Progress.
In 59 almost everyone old enough was married whether they liked it or not.
. Back then getting a Hoover and only backhanded once was a good day. Now a women has to work for her own Hoover, emotional backhands herself all day long because she has to live within reality and can't be a crack ***** like the women on TV who the men think she should look and act like.
Yuuuup. Progress.
That’s an interesting question.
It is without debate that there must be some sort of global [or at least international] organisation to exercise some degree of power on the world stage. Left to their own devices, our planet’s history has proven that we cannot trust nations to respect one another’s sovereignty, nevermind fundamental rights and freedoms of national populations. I have my doubts, though, as to whether the United Nations, in its present form, is really the correct organisation to perform such a function. The mechanics of the present United Nations make the opinions of all nations other than the Security Council’s permanent members effectively irrelevent, which means that the United Nations is not really a global organisation at all, but rather a five-nation government with an implicit dominion over all others.
As a world administration, I would much prefer an enhanced version of the Commonwealth of Nations; united under a non-partisan head of the Commonwealth (presently Her Majesty The Queen), members could be equal partners in this voluntary association. Additional responsibilities could be delegated to the sixteen Realms of the Commonwealth, with other nations given the opportunity to become Realms from time to time. Pushing for nations to move toward similar systems of Government would, in time, ease the inevitable transition toward associations of admninistratively-similar, yet sovereign, nations.
It is without debate that there must be some sort of global [or at least international] organisation to exercise some degree of power on the world stage. Left to their own devices, our planet’s history has proven that we cannot trust nations to respect one another’s sovereignty, nevermind fundamental rights and freedoms of national populations. I have my doubts, though, as to whether the United Nations, in its present form, is really the correct organisation to perform such a function. The mechanics of the present United Nations make the opinions of all nations other than the Security Council’s permanent members effectively irrelevent, which means that the United Nations is not really a global organisation at all, but rather a five-nation government with an implicit dominion over all others.
As a world administration, I would much prefer an enhanced version of the Commonwealth of Nations; united under a non-partisan head of the Commonwealth (presently Her Majesty The Queen), members could be equal partners in this voluntary association. Additional responsibilities could be delegated to the sixteen Realms of the Commonwealth, with other nations given the opportunity to become Realms from time to time. Pushing for nations to move toward similar systems of Government would, in time, ease the inevitable transition toward associations of admninistratively-similar, yet sovereign, nations.