In an earlier post:

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...724#post600704

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?