On ethics, morals, and human 'rights'

[freako104]

I think that if there is a country where the leader is killing or starving millions or even thousands of his own people, it is not just a right for another country to step in and do something, it is a responsibility.

that goes for me too. it wont change for me though. i feel we should help all those in need this includes anyone who dies because of some sick fuck dictator or live in poverty as well but not dying.

 

[MrBishop]

In that case...let's invade the USA....there are poor people there thanks to the political decisions of Bush. Hell...74.8billion$ would go far towards fixing that, no?

 

[freako104]

In that case...let's invade the USA....there are poor people there thanks to the political decisions of Bush. Hell...74.8billion$ would go far towards fixing that, no

why not? id like to see it ended although id rather gov'ts that can such as ours do something like use money for things other than weapons.

 

[Gonz]

What 'right' does one people/country/organization/etc. have to affect changes in another?

The rights of the soverign nation end when they attack another nation for gain, whether it be land or goods, or control. Killing foreign citizens, in country may well also be forfeiting those rights. Killing foreign citizens, out of country is unquestionably a forfeiture.

When the victims are solely citizens of that country is where it gets real sticky. As an example, had saddam followed through on the UN resolutions, would we (US or UN) have the right to invade? Probably not. Same holds true with NK, right now. His citizenry is on the brink of starvation. He has not, however, invaded another country or, to our current knowledge, caused or allowed cause, another to harm or kill others. At some point, the rights of citizens overrides that of soverignty, but where?