When do we have the right to interfere with other nations?

[Hasbeen]

If you want to discuss taking the moral high ground on any issue such as human rights, trade, imperialism, territorial expansion, or whatever, then great, I'm ready to discuss it. But, when it comes to the security of this country, I don't care what's fair. I don't care what's "right". Whatever it takes. The world will be a much worse place without the USA in it.

 

By the way, don't confuse occupying a country for it's oil with knocking out a nuclear enrichment site. Two different issues. We'll discuss the first, the second already has my stamp of approval whenever it becomes necessary.

[5wide]

I think it's naive to believe that when we begin to take it upon ourselves to launch "pre-emptive strikes" on soverign lands then we no longer have a moral leg to stand on.

 

What would be the difference between US and say:

 

1. The Japanese who attacked the US in Pearl Harbor because they needed access to the oil of SE Asia and needed to try and cripple our Navy so they could control the South Pacific. It was in their best interests.

 

2. The North Vietnamese who attacked South Vietnam with the intent of unifying their homeland (which had been seperated by post WW II treaties) and the fact that as long as South Vietnam existed the US could be there and a threat to their nation's existence.

 

 

The stakes have always been high. A nuclear device is catastrophic. But so is the moral responsibility of a nation to avoid Imperialism or risk the path of destruction that other such nations went down (Germany, Rome, Greece, Napoleonic France, the USSR).

 

Exactly, it was in their best interests...you do what's best for your own country first. At least, that's how I feel. Is it in the United State's best interests to sit back and wait for Iran to get nukes and then use them on us, or to try and prevent it from ever getting that far? I guess that's a matter of opinion.

[HHSDad]

If we were continuously threatening to destroy another nation's existence or using our military capabilities for genocide, then that would probably be a legitimate question.

You mean like Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc.?

[Hasbeen]

What about the right to protect their interests?

 

Are we discussing interests or survival?

[5wide]

What right do we have to do this? Do other countries have the right to prevent the U.S. from developing arms?

 

The same right you'd have to protect your family if you thought someone was a threat to them.

 

And again, if the US was funding terrorists and using it's military might to bring the whole world under the flag of Islam, this would be comparable. It's apples and oranges.

 

What right did we have to go to Europe and fight against Germany in WWII? We should have just left them alone and let the rest of Europe fend for themselves, right?

[5wide]

You mean like Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc.?

 

I wasn't aware that removing an evil dictator from power and trying to set up a democratic government was the same as holocaust...do explain.

[Habib]

What right do we have to do this? Do other countries have the right to prevent the U.S. from developing arms?

 

I'm not sure it would fall under any right; it would be more of an infringement on other states' rights. It would simply be in our interest of survival. Ideally, no state would have nuclear weapons, but that is illusory, the next best option is to not allow more states to have nuclear weapons. I think if acting internationally, through a body such as the U.N., ideally, rather than unilaterally, we would have some degree of principle.

[True blue (and gold)]

The same right you'd have to protect your family if you thought someone was a threat to them.

 

I don't have the right to keep the guy next door from me owning a gun...I don't know his intentions. Could he hurt my family with that gun? He seems mean.

 

The good thing is that he can't prevent me from owning a gun either.

[94 Camel]

What about the right to protect their interests?

Do they have the ability to protect their interest?

[HHSDad]

The same right you'd have to protect your family if you thought someone was a threat to them.

But I don't have the right to break down my neigbors door beat him up and steal his guns just because I feel threatened by him.

[HHSDad]

Do they have the ability to protect their interest?

They do if they have nukes.

[Hatz]

So you purpose to let Israel stand alone against Iran? Wow. We have pledged Israel as an ally many years ago. If they need our support, they deserve our support. Otherwise, you are guaranteeing that they will go nuclear if they are at risk to fall. And quite frankly, I don't blame them.

 

No, that wasn't my intent. The statement by 5Wide read as if we should pre-emptively strike Iran because of the threat they posed Israel. I don't think we should do that at all.

[HHSDad]

I wasn't aware that removing an evil dictator from power and trying to set up a democratic government was the same as holocaust...do explain.

Evil dictator is our perspective, not theirs. And we've seen many countries where Democracy just doesn't work.

[Hatz]

Since when has there been a MORAL responsibility to avoid IMPERIALISM in the world? I must have been unaware that the world has turned into a Utopia.

 

 

No, not a utopia. History shows what happens to those who become Imperialist. I let it speak up for itself. :thumb:

 

 

As for the moral end of it, yep, my Christian faith believes that is more important than even my country. Sorry, but that's how the Bible reads, IMHO.

[Hatz]

This post is a complete contradiction...you talk about losing allies immediately after you say "let Israel take care of Israel". That's what "allies" do...they help each other and Israel has been one of our closest allies. Leaving them to fend for themselves when the entire Middle East is out to get them would really make us a moral giant...right? Are you kidding me? What kind of message does that send to your other allies...? Fend for yourself, but can we still be friends.

 

It's got nothing to do with biblical mandate for 2007 or whatever you're talking about. I'm not even sure why you brought that up or how that applies.

 

 

Please see my other post #57. We stand with our allies but not as some pre-emptive mercanary that acts at the bidding of that ally.

 

If you don't believe that for some people the blind support of Israel is an agenda (political and religious) you need to reread Robertson, Hagee, LaHaye, Falwell and much of the Christian Right.