i'm not talking about responsibility, nor am i talking about how this compares to how we treat those in the third world, i'm talking about the right.

does the u.s. have the right to invade a country under the auspices of freeing its people from tyranny and providing them the most basic of freedoms?

The right under the authority of whom?

good question.

if you think thats the responsibility of the hegemon.

St. Augustine would be down with it if God said to, right?

It depends on whether you are talking about Augustine before or after his conversion.

I'm not sure what that has to do with ceebs question, though.

I wasn't really referring to God when i posted. Ceebs asked if we had the right to invade another country for our own wishes, even if was for altruistic reasons. Rights have to be given to us by an authority. If we have the right to do something, there is the implication that we DON'T have the right to do some things. I'm wondering what authority supplies America with the right to do anything. If we don't have the right to invade another country, by who's authority is this based on?

Wasn't his "Just War Theory" developed after his conversion?

Yeah. I'm sure it was. I'm really not familiar with it, to be honest with you. The only thing i've ever read by St. Augustine is Confessions.

But i'm sure you're right. I don't think any of his well known writings were done before his conversion.

no, i meant: do we have the right to invade other countries solely for humanitarian missions? for instance, darfur? in the event 9/11 and the iraq war never happened, would most people here think it's OK to invade darfur with mass force at this point? and regarding the war in iraq: do we have the right to invade countries in which it's obvious the society is not being provided the basic human rights, solely for the purposes of providing it to them? is the role of the world's giant unjustifiable?

Yeah. I would say we do have the right to do that.

But, what i was getting at is...who gives us that right? The U.N.? Obviously not. Who are we beholden to that could say that we do or do not have that right?

no
the US shouldnt do anything before discussing the subject with other countries

i thought that the Iraq War supposed to be for freedom?
ahem

do you think discussing this with, for instance, north korea, would yield any gains?

i wasnt thinking about NK, i was aiming a talk with allies, but yes, why dont talk with NK? it wont resolve anything probably, but try at least

and the UN(yes i know about all the fucked things), but i prefer the subject discussed with many countries before a real action, dont fuck it up again like you guys did on Iraq

why would u invade NK, for freedom also?
a threat? really?
i think that many countries think that the US is a threat, and i dont see any invading

'right' is an empty frase for US governments throughout the years. 'human rights', 'right' to attack 'in defence' ...
The same is happening with the word 'freedom'... hollow, just for speeches
They really don't care about the rest of the world (or their own citizens).

groetjes,
Mirella

Cuz we're getting all that oil right?

basic rights for citizens there in one hand. a threat is another track of thought on the issue. would you say we don't have the right to defend our countries against perceived threats?

also, point taken: i imagine other countries aren't invading the u.s. because no countries really have the capability.

Well if 9/11 happened i suppose a country could technically drop a bomb or 2. No government in the world is that stupid though.

the US isnt alone in the universe
if the US government has a problem with whats happening @ NK, he should organize a meeting and discuss the subject



so if a country has the capibility, and consider the US a threat, he should invade your country? thats it? so 9/11 is justified for me now

i realize the u.s. is not alone. but majority does not equal being right. the u.s. has had some productive talks regarding north korea. but there's still big, big problems. how will all of this be solved? through talks alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ ... orth_Korea


i did not say that. imagine a country full of rapists. imagine the rapists felt the u.s. was about to invade. imagine the rapists had the ability to attack the u.s. first. would their ability to attack speak to anything of whether or not their style of life is right or wrong, or if their attack is justified?

the country you are going after has to be a threat to the basic of human rights, right? what we have done in many places is try to provide people the basic human rights we all should be granted.