human rights?

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
..and I was wondering what people think we should be doing worldwide in regards to humanitarian intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's make sure we get our terms right. I don't think the government should do anything in regard to humanitarian intervention, but i think that there is plenty that private citizens and organizations could and should do.


[ QUOTE ]
As much as I like to think that we have the responsibility to intervene into horrific and unimaginable human rights abuses...how can anyone possibly intervene successfully?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard, and governments sure do suck at it. I had a fun idea with Darfur that I think is pretty cross-applicable to other areas - set up a charity to bring buses/DC-10's into wartorn areas and evacuate anyone who wants to leave.

[ QUOTE ]
I hear it all the time, that someone should stop it? Who pays the bill to arm, equip, feed, etc. the intervening force? Also...how do you really win a fight like this? LIt is not a peacekeeping mission, it is certainly an invasion. Then you have to deal with the internal politics of racial hatred. We cannot forget the debacle in Somalia and Iraq where the goal is to stop the atrocity. So I think that we should not be intervening (unilaterallly) at all. If we are to be the "world police" as we are apt to believe, we should be acting mulitlatterally with the cooperation and will of other nations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think multilateralism is overrated. I don't see too much difference between our government doing something stupid and counterproductive on its own or stupid and counterproductive in concert with other nations. All the other points you bring up are very solid - interventionism sucks.

[ QUOTE ]
But again how can you quell the racial hatred amongst peoples that have been at war for centuries? you cant walk in and hand them a ballot box and say everything will be alright.

[/ QUOTE ]

True that.

[Feekee]

"I think multilateralism is overrated. I don't see too much difference between our government doing something stupid and counterproductive on its own or stupid and counterproductive in concert with other nations. All the other points you bring up are very solid - interventionism sucks."

yea, but with the current pace of globalization and rapid spread of the internet, i dont that that unilateral policy will get us very far in making friends. we are the sole superpower for now... but it changes fast, lest we forget history [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Bobbo539]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think multilateralism is overrated. I don't see too much difference between our government doing something stupid and counterproductive on its own or stupid and counterproductive in concert with other nations. All the other points you bring up are very solid - interventionism sucks."

yea, but with the current pace of globalization and rapid spread of the internet, i dont that that unilateral policy will get us very far in making friends. we are the sole superpower for now... but it changes fast, lest we forget history [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

By that logic, the rest of the world isnt doing a very good job of making friends with us. Most Europe is at odds with our country fundamentally; they view government as providers, we view (benificially) government as protectors of oppertunity. People who constantly talk about making friends and acting multilateral ususally just do so becuase their fundamental beliefs of government are at odds with the US system.

[Mickey Brausch]

The United States is responsible for the weakening of the authority of world organisations, such as the United Nations or war crimes' courts. The reason is simple and obvious: US power is so great, as things stand, that the country is able to assert its authority over the globe without fear of military retaliation from anyone; accordingly, the U.S. does not want those organisations to be anything more than instruments for legitimizing American actions.

To answer your question, interventionism based on moral principles is indeed a noble idea -- but it must be applied with consistency, i.e. the same principles must be held for one and all. Otherwise, the invocation of those principles is phony and becomes again purely legitimizing. In other words, whatever we must do for Rwanda or Somalia, we must do for Israel or the Palestinians.

Trust me on this, everybody knows what we mean when we talk about human right and civil rights; we won't disagree when it comes to define them.

So the moral course, if the U.S. were to follow one, is to (a) use military power with restraint (look up the statistics of how many times on average per decade the U.S. engages in military actions abroad), and (b) strengthen the authority of world organisations (you can hear from afar the neo-cons' screams about "surrendering national sovereignty to third-wodl bureacrats").

More diplomacy, co-ordination, dialogue, and common sense; less militarism.

Mickey Brausch

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
interventionism based on moral principles is indeed a noble idea

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to disagree with you here. I don't think the government has any place to intervine where moral principles are concerned for the simple reason that they are then forcing the morality of one group onto another. I don't find that justifiable.

Even CS Lewis said that "those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Now I will grant that this is a slightly different situation from most where morality is concerned so I may be off track, but I still believe each country should be able to run itself the way it sees fit whereas it does not interfere with the US.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
interventionism based on moral principles is indeed a noble idea

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to disagree with you here. I don't think the government has any place to intervine where moral principles are concerned for the simple reason that they are then forcing the morality of one group onto another. I don't find that justifiable.

Even CS Lewis said that "those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Now I will grant that this is a slightly different situation from most where morality is concerned so I may be off track, but I still believe each country should be able to run itself the way it sees fit whereas it does not interfere with the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any arguments in favor of your belief? On the one hand, we have millions of innocent people brutally and preventably murdered, and on the other, we have a quote from CS Lewis, and you don't feel it's justified. I don't feel persuaded.

[She]

It is merely my opinion... But could you explain why our government is morally obligated to risk the capital of our citizens and the lives of our soldiers to interfere with another countries policy when it has nothing to do with us? You may change my mind. (yes, really)

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
It is merely my opinion... But could you explain why our government is morally obligated to risk the capital of our citizens and the lives of our soldiers to interfere with another countries policy when it has nothing to do with us? You may change my mind. (yes, really)

[/ QUOTE ]

It isnt, but i havent seen any instance where our government has done that.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
It is merely my opinion... But could you explain why our government is morally obligated to risk the capital of our citizens and the lives of our soldiers to interfere with another countries policy when it has nothing to do with us? You may change my mind. (yes, really)

[/ QUOTE ]

She,

I actually don't think the government has any moral obligations except to carry out its duties under the constitution, laws, and treaties. But I do think that we as citizens have a moral obligation to make our government deal with some of the grossest abuses out there. Obviously, we can't fix every problem, and most of the time people won't agree about whether there is a problem or not, but there are clear and outrageous cases where a small amount of expense and bloodshed could prevent enormous humanitarian calamities.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any arguments in favor of your belief? On the one hand, we have millions of innocent people brutally and preventably murdered, and on the other, we have a quote from CS Lewis, and you don't feel it's justified. I don't feel persuaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the one hand, you have innocent foreigners murdered. On the other you have the lives of your own countrymen (who volunteered to protect you, not them) traded for said foreigners. Doesn't sound moral to me.