Do all countries have a moral right to intervene in foreign tyrannies?

[Fearless™]

this is a formal debate, so you're either for or against the motion...no in betweens...

Anyhow...for those of you who aren't sure about the topic...basically, it just means that if a country has a humanitarian crises, etc...do you think other countries are allowed to intervene? Eventhough it is an internal matter, and all countries have a right to sovereignty...

Note: this debate is about moral intervention...and not military intervention...so please stay on topic

[LifeMaker]

Originally Posted by Fearless#2

this is a formal debate, so you're either for or against the motion...no in betweens...

Anyhow...for those of you who aren't sure about the topic...basically, it just means that if a country has a humanitarian crises, etc...do you think other countries are allowed to intervene? Eventhough it is an internal matter, and all countries have a right to sovereignty...

Note: this debate is about moral intervention...and not military intervention...so please stay on topic

I think that many poor countries need help from the richer ones when they're in crisis. the problem is that we can't be sure what those people who come to help, are going to do. infact some of them might work for the intellignce of other countries. others help ppl in need but also they convert them to their religion.

[Western_Samurai]

No country has the right to intervene in the matters of another country. Individuals from various countries may intervene but not the foreign government itself. If countries did have the right to intervene then what's the point of having government in the first place as another on may just come in and supercede the decisions of the government in power?

Now, I didn't say they shouldn't intervene in some cases. I just said they don't have the right to do so. An example of this principle at work would be if someone is going to be murdered by another person, I don't have a right to kill people, but in this case I should intervene and do all in my power, including using deadly force, to stop the person attempting murder.

Of course, I'm not sure if i understand what you mean by moral right and how that might be different from rights in general so maybe you could illuminate the difference if there is one.

[Brom]

I think that unless a country asks for help we should not intervene. But that has many problems in that not all country's can ask for help. I give the example of Sudan. That country has been at war for a long time and there is no standing government to formally ask for help. But the people of that country suffer daily so I believe that intervention is necessary but it will have to be military intervention until a stable government can be put in place.

[Dismantle_The_Machine]

I've noticed how the US automatically seems to get involved with every crisis everywhere, and stay there for years at a time. I feel that a foreign country should only get involved if it is asked to, and then leave in the same fashion.

[The Voice]

Since Fearless stated that there are "no in-betweens" ...

I will lean toward "yes."

Is there really such a thing as a sovereign country anymore? All nations are assisted by the greater military powers.

Therefore, the greater powers of the world have an obligation to get involved with what's going on with other countries, because they already are involved, and often are partly responsible for the very crises we speak of, even if indirectly so.

Any "problem" these days goes far beyond the immediacy of the crisis:

The countries which battle each other today are mere "puppets," dependent countries, positioning themselves for the ultimate struggle that we all fear: global annihilation. These countries serve as a temporary substitute, teetering all the time so that the greater powers can cling to the illusion of peace.

The world is a chessboard, and the powers-that-be have been putting the pieces in place since before we were born. This doesn't mean that the next war will be the last. It just means that those are the preparations being made. Crises will come and go. But whenever they come, you can bet that the world will be the prize. After all, we possess the power to destroy the planet--there is no turning back.

Why are we so slow to respond to humanitarian issues in Africa? Black people would like to think the problem is racial. Non-Christians see the slow response as a kind of "Christian superiority." But these are distractions. We stay away from places like this because they have little strategic value.

So do the greater powers have a duty to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign nations? I would say yes, because the greater nations are usually responsible for the crises to begin with. What we see when smaller countries battle amongst themselves is a prelude to what must eventually come.

Try this: Look at a globe. Decide which side each country would be on if a global war broke out today.

When it becomes easy to pick the teams, that's when you know the pieces are nearly in place.

[chrisconlin]

Originally Posted by The Voice

Since Fearless stated that there are "no in-betweens" ...

I will lean toward "yes."

Is there really such a thing as a sovereign country anymore? All nations are assisted by the greater military powers.

Therefore, the greater powers of the world have an obligation to get involved with what's going on with other countries, because they already are involved, and often are partly responsible for the very crises we speak of, even if indirectly so.

- please clearify, how are the 'greater powers' partly responsible for a crises in any given nation?

Any "problem" these days goes far beyond the immediacy of the crisis:

The countries which battle each other today are mere "puppets," dependent countries, positioning themselves for the ultimate struggle that we all fear: global annihilation. These countries serve as a temporary substitute, teetering all the time so that the greater powers can cling to the illusion of peace.

The world is a chessboard, and the powers-that-be have been putting the pieces in place since before we were born. This doesn't mean that the next war will be the last. It just means that those are the preparations being made. Crises will come and go. But whenever they come, you can bet that the world will be the prize.

- Are you saying that a crises in a given country will be used as an opportunity to gain more power and control over a given nation and thus the world?

After all, we possess the power to destroy the planet--there is no turning back.

- just because one has the power to do something does not mean that the something will occur.

Why are we so slow to respond to humanitarian issues in Africa? Black people would like to think the problem is racial. Non-Christians see the slow response as a kind of "Christian superiority." But these are distractions. We stay away from places like this because they have little strategic value.

- I lean toward agreeing with you on this point, if by "we" you mean the government or those in political power.

So do the greater powers have a duty to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign nations? I would say yes, because the greater nations are usually responsible for the crises to begin with.

Again, what exactly does this mean? How are the greater nations responsible for a given crises in a less developed nation? More importantly though is that this statement seems to contain a contradiction. On the one hand you claim that these greater powers are responsible for the crises in one way or another in a given country (in other words, there is some type of intervention on the part of the greater powers going on to contribute or even start the crises to begin with) and on the other hand, you claim that these powers should intervene further in the country with the crises. But based upon this reasoning, why would we expect that the intervention by the greater powers would result in a better end in a given country?

What we see when smaller countries battle amongst themselves is a prelude to what must eventually come.

Try this: Look at a globe. Decide which side each country would be on if a global war broke out today.

When it becomes easy to pick the teams, that's when you know the pieces are nearly in place.

- Has anyone's opionion changed on this topic in light of what has recently taken place in Burma because of the hurricane and all that has taken place afterward?

[The Voice]

Holy fuck, dude. You're quoting a post I made two years ago?

I may get back to you on this, then again I may not. Trying to explain something to you is often an excercise in frustration and I'm just not in the mood right now.

[chrisconlin]

Originally Posted by The Voice

Holy fuck, dude. You're quoting a post I made two years ago?

I may get back to you on this, then again I may not. Trying to explain something to you is often an excercise in frustration and I'm just not in the mood right now.

_______________________________

Yes, it was made 2 years ago, but I was not aware that there was a statue of limitations placed on any topics. I mainly brought it up again, because it is a good topic to bring up again, in light of recent events in Burma and that nations refusal to allow international aid in to help the victims of the devastating hurricane that struck the nation.

[Anesidora]

Id have to say yes I think other more powerful countries shud intervene shud it be the case that a country needs help. There r a few examples today of countries that wud greatly benefit by intervention. Of course we'd have to hope that the intervening Governments dont have some hidden agenda as well.