Does a state have the right to attack or intervene in another country that has not attacked said state, if the country has committed grave injustices or crimes against humanity?
We should all behave in a human way. Countries are just invisible lines on the geographical and political landscape. If I saw someone attacking my neighbour I would without doubt go to his assistance.
No. Not unless it is brought before other nations and approved, and even then so it must be to protect lives. But in this day in age, the line between an act of humanity and an act of greed is very blurry.... True intention is hard to determine.
Crimes against humanity call for intervention. It's a moral, ethical issue to intervene and not ignore these. It's part of being in a global community to not turn a blind eye and say "it's someone else's problem"
I'm against intervention, no matter what, the people have to agree to be free before a foreign government wants them to.
I want to say yes - but I so seriously doubt the truth of information that we are given, I doubt we could ever (currently) make a truly informed and intelligent response
That depends. I believe in the idea of the global community, but on the other hand, I think "intervention" is resorted to a bit too often and for the wrong reasons much of the time.
Even from a Humanitarian perspective, the answer is No. It should be up to the people ~ Freedom Fighters of the said State to rise up and remove the Government with the aid (Financial and equipment but with NO Military involvement) of other countries.
Theoretically, yes. But it would be beter if UN had a strong working peace-keeping army which could enter any country, stop any fighting or killing and stay till the problem would be solved peacefully. I am strictly against one county changing regime in another to get an ally. I think the best way for a country to get an ally is to help with economy and education.
The World Wars I & II demonstrated that a country such as ours has to unite its citizens and as long as the security interests of the nation are not in jeopardy, and we possess the most potent arsenal in the world, we do not need to strike in anticipation of attack or by misuse of intelligence for that purpose.
Only if the intervention is nonviolent.
In situations such as Germany of the 1940's, Rwanda of the 1990's, and in several other more recent situations, we should have moved to prevent the slaughter of innocent men, women and children a heck of a lot faster than we did. I believe it is despicable for us to sit, doing nothing, while helpless people are massacred.
I would say yes, but since that position is so unevenly applied in the real world. I have to go with no. It is hypocritical in 2 ways The US used the Iraq gassing of Kurds as a sort of justifications of its actions in Iraq, but in waging the war on terror the US has employed many of the same devices our enemies deploy. Secondly, the US worries about human rights in Iraq but not so much in China. It all depends on what that country can do for US business interests.
If it's proven that this country has committed these injustices at the top of their power, yes. Sometimes those with the fiscal means must step up to stop greater harm to others who cant stop it themselves. However, I believe a) proof b) attempts at nonviolent moderation and c) fiscal means all must be factors.
Yes, as long as this state be carefful with the local population.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
<< PREVIOUS NEXT >>