human rights?

[Feekee]

[ QUOTE ]
If you do the research, Rwanda is a good example of where the UN, and the Western members in particular, could have acted (with in place Canadien peacekeepers)to stop the genocide. But, failed to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one wants to go in and keep the peace at great expense to the occupying forces (UN...i.e US). Rwanda has nothing to offer the world in terms of natural resources(as far as I know). I think it was a strategic decision because intervention has no time-table and the cost will run up to billions of dollars, and what is truly accomplished? (in terms of international relations, I do realize that many human beings were killed)? Unfortunately, I think this is the main decision factor, and until the United States or any other 1st world country looks at these types of situations in terms of human cost instead of monetary cost, this way nothing will change. It's like they do an EV calculation of intervention. What is the expected value of saving this small 3rd world country. Usually is isn't +EV. Certainly a sad way to look at these types of situations.
A good example of why they will no longer intervene unilaterally is the movie "Black Hawk Down" where the U.S's botched humanitarian intervention in Somalia ended in the death of 19 U.S. soldiers and around 1000! somalis.

[Misfire]

I think the idea that lives are equally valuable is bunk. Sacrificing the lives of one's own countrymen (who volunteered to protect their home country) for the sake of those of other nations caught in their own conflicts is reprehensible.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no specific knowledge, but I cannot believe that it would take more than two weeks to create a sizeable presence in Rwanda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but it takes a lot longer than that for foreign governments and the international community to react to developments. And by the time they do, it's often too late for them to do anything but make the situation worse.