February 7th, 2003, 09:17 PM
In an earlier post:
Owls suggests that a ruler like saddam should not be allowed to rule because of the way he treats ‘his’ people. Im not disagreeing with nor am I coming down on owls in any way. This just raises a question as to what body has jurisdiction over the people on earth in general. Government or humanity.
We seem to think that government must be of and by the people. If this is really how we here all feel then we may indeed be looking at a world war over ideologies. A holy war if you will. Strict religious dictum Vs. free thought. For in saying that it’s wrong for a government to enforce religious beliefs such as requiring veils in public or executing those found guilty of infidelity we are saying that religion can not dictate law.
When has a government out stepped its rights as a sovereign rule. What can the rulers of a nation, any nation, get away with or do to its subjects before humanity as a whole stands up and says, "That’s enough"? Is it really humanity as a whole that’s offended or just the Western ethic that objects?
Is it anyone’s business what happens to citizens of other nations or is it everyone’s business what happens to any part of humanity.
What’s the difference between righteousness and tyranny. Tolerance and indifference. Do we really have the right to judge this at all?
Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”
February 7th, 2003, 09:31 PM
It is all a matter of opinions and feelings. You can say: "yes, i care what happens to any other person" or you can say: "no, i don't worry about nothing, it's just me and my familiy, there's no space, money and/or time in my life to worry about the problems of others". Unfortunatelly, if you care or you don't, anyway you won't be able to help others, this kind of world we all live in doesn't allow us to do such miraculous move.
Is it anyone’s business what happens to citizens of other nations or is it everyone’s business what happens to any part of humanity...
February 7th, 2003, 09:37 PM
Damn Ted0b1, that is deep.
In my opinion, I think we do a have right as a race (humans) to look out for all people, not just people that are in your nation/state, whatever, but ALL people.
All humans should be provided the basic human rights. It should not be up to their government/religion to hold these rights from them.
I also think that these people that have been denied the basic rights and been under a control that limits their ability to learn, work, teach, or practice religions or ways of life that they feel more comfortable with for so long, that they don't really know what they want.
They "want" what their government tells them they want... brainwashed if you will.
My answer, HUMANITY!
This just raises a question as to what body has jurisdiction over the people on earth in general. Government or humanity.
Again, all in my opinion.
is a firefox extension that gives you stats on how long you have quit smoking, how much money you\'ve saved, how much you haven\'t smoked and recent milestones. Very helpful for people who quit smoking and used to smoke at their computers... Helps out with the urges.
February 7th, 2003, 10:04 PM
It is not just our right, as members of humanity, to look out for our fellow man; it is our duty. If a group of people is being oppressed by their government, we, as humans, owe it to those people to do our best to help them break free of the tyranny that binds them.
Ideally, we could do that without government, but that is not often the case. Governments are an institution created by humans to serve the greater good of humanity. What is the reason to have a government in the first place? It provides protection, good, and services which would be difficult to provide for ourselves. For that reason, I don't think that a government intervening in order to help members of the group that created it (in this case, all of humanity) is a bad thing.
Government has overstepped its bounds, and becomes tyrannical and overbearing when it ceases to serve the needs of the people it encompasses. When this happens, it is the intrinsic right of the people to take the power away from the government just as they gave it in the first place.
All too often, however, the people being oppressed are unable to stand up for themselves. It is times like this when other governments must intervene. That is when it is right for government to step in. You asked the question "government of humanity" but I think most people miss is the fact that government only has power, and only exists because of humanity. Humans give power to and make up the government. Therefore, government is not exclusive from humanity, but, rather, is a subset of it. Government is meant to serve the will of humanity, and if human beings are living in fear, and with a poor standard of living, then it is the duty of government, and all of humanity, to step forward to help the oppressed.
February 7th, 2003, 10:04 PM
Hey Hey... Here comes a Peace Loving Canadian!
I don't think it's anyone's business how other countries act. Sure it'd be nice if it was the same everywhere, but it isn't going to happen, there's too many people and too many problems. As far as current events go, Bush needs to grow up. He's nothing more than a kid who wants to play "cops and robbers" - "Look at my shiny new gun, i want to shoot someone." Bush wants to make war, which is why all of this is happening. If the United States government really cared about other people in the world, they would be working on ending Third World Hunger. They would focus on those who are dying on large levels, rather than those who are oppressed. War is good for the economy, always has been, always will be. And let's face it, right now, North America, as a whole, has a pretty sh*tty economy. The US could very easy stay out of everyone else's business, but that'd be too easy.
Anyways that's the opinion of a Peace Loving Canadian.
PS... I Highly recommend anyone who hasn't seen Bowling for Columbine sees it as soon as possible.
February 7th, 2003, 10:07 PM
This is not really in answer to one of your questions, Tedob1, but more of an additional thought. My undergraduate degree was in military history (tactics and strategy) and I remember a particular question/dilemma came up early in my studies regarding the delegates of the Second Continental Congress. They were struggling with the 'real meaning' of their elected position when deciding to vote for or against independence.
The dilemma some of the delegates struggled with was this: being elected by the people.....does this imply that the constituents have entrusted the elected official to directly carry out their wishes, wants, and interests? Or, does it rather imply that the people have put their trust in, and empowered the elected official to carry out what he thinks is best?
This does not apply to monarchies, dictatorships, and tyrannists.....it's just something to think about. Especially in situations like Tedob1's question.
February 7th, 2003, 10:59 PM
 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
Ultimately, there is one who has jurisdiction over all of us, even over rulers
kings, and tyrants. Our western concept of freedom is based on the idea
that, since we must answer only to our creator, we must sometimes
engage in civil disobedience, in order to maintain a clear conscience.
Among nations, no government can claim absolute soveriegnty, telling
others that "what I do in my country is none of your business".
National sovereignty is not sacred. If one nation is sufficiently
offended at the way another government treats its "own" citizens,
it is justified to resort to force..
I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.
February 8th, 2003, 06:52 AM
Now I`m going to play Devil`s advcate some of you are making very good reasons why Saddam should go but then what about the homeless and the children who are suffering in the States, if you use the same logic Mr Bush should be disposed as a leader.
There are many different views and who`s to say who`s right or wrong. Mr Bush is telling Saddam and North Korea that they have no right to have weapons to defend their country against attack but the States can blow up the earth "How many time over".
People are grossing out about the injustices in other countries what about in your own back yard. How many children starve to death because there is no money to feed them or give them medical treatment that they need. Mr Bush should address these problems at home first before going into someone elses backyard and telling them what to do. Also a lot of the problems that Iraq and North Korea are having is because the States put in all kinds of embargos against the people. These embargos do not hurt the governments they hurt the poor person on the street.The governments have no problem getting what ever they want but the person on the street can not buy enought food to feed his kids, do you really think that they are thanking Mr Bush for putting in the embargos, no they are blaming him when their children die. They do not blame Saddam or who ever they blame the people who placed the embargos against them and even if you dont want to hear this they are blaming the American people.
No good deed goes unpunished.
February 8th, 2003, 02:43 PM
The only reason the Unites States, and many other countries feel that Iraq should not have those weapons is because they signed a treaty saying they would be disposed. We are only enforcing a contract that was mutually agreed upon by Iraq and the United Nations. Saddam does not have those weapons to keep from being attacked. He has them to attack. He attacked Iran, he attacked Kuwait, he has also attacked Israel.
If the United Nations fails to enforce the treaties that are in existance due to past conflicts, than what good does it do? We will not be going to war over Saddams policy, or the state of his country. If we go to war, it will be because the UN believes that Saddam has violated the terms of the treaty signed after the Gulf War.
To put this into perspective, the conditions in East Germany after WWII were not much better than what Irag is dealing with. They had more money, but the government was still very much in control of everything. What you said, what you did, what you were able to read, everything. And we never attacked them, why? Because they agreed to the treaty that was signed after the war ended, and the abided by it. The allies demanded that they disarm, and the East Germans did, for the most part.
I personnally don't feel however, that one government has the right to tell another government how to run it's country. There is a long standing debate, that has been covered from all angles by great philosophers over whether human beings are by nature savage creatures that require the strong rule of government to stay in line. Or if we are good natured beings that only need a government to better ourselves. It's all just a matter of opinion as to what is best.