Which would you believe in more?

[hanzrimer]

i never claimed one country's morals and standards are better, I just claimed mine were, now why do I this? Because their my morals and standards and I wouldn't believe them in the first place if I didn't feel it was the right way to think or be.

[BulgarianMenace]

Sure, and you can live by them. But you can't force someone else to anymore than they can force you.

[hanzrimer]

I can't force them, unfortunately.

[redwurd]

"All I'm saying is that no one country or peoples can claim that their morals are any more valid or true than anyone else's."

Again no one country has the right to dictate their morals on any other country, however a vast majority of countries with various ideological, religious, and race differences have pledged to support The Universal Declaration of Human Rights "whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." For the betterment of all mankind. After the Holocaust of WWII the world banded together and vowed Never Again (well some atrocities and genocides have slipped by....) and though flawed, it's what we have in place for now. UN Peace keeping units from countries as Canada (which is renowned and well respected for), enter troubled and unstable countries to lend support and instill some semblance of order from the chaos. Is that interfering?

[yash3ahuja]

Help isn't interfering. Like Haiti, that's not interfering. Interfering is messing with the morals of a country. Sometimes, you have to let history take it's natural course, unless that course is bad, such as Saddam Hussein's rule.

[redwurd]

um Yash, didn't you see my #118 reply posting & check out the caption below the picture? Who do you think supported Saddam Hussein all those years while he was such a lovely dictator?

[BulgarianMenace]

for those nations that voluntarily submit themselves those rules and standards by joining it's fine. But that's about as far as that goes.

[redwurd]

So if a country has not voluntarily submitted to the UN and to uphold The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, when that country commits atrocities and genocide upon their own people, the rest of the world and the UN should just let them 'go at it' and they can sort themselves out?
Oh wait we are doing that! In the Sudan the western region of Darfur has some 2.7 million refugees that have fled during the 7 year conflict. The UN estimates that 300 000 people have died from the combined effects of war, famine & disease. Women and young girls are repeatedly raped and held prisoners. Rebels are fighting a corrupt Government, but both sides in this conflict have committed atrocities upon their own people. The President has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity and an arrest warrant has been issued.
Peace talks have been underway and thousands of peacekeepers and aid workers are trying to staunch the blood flow. If and when the conflict ever gets resolved does the UN, the African Union. and the International Criminal Court have the right to prosecute the offenders of war crimes and crimes against humanity? Or is that infringing upon the warmongers rights?

[BulgarianMenace]

yup.

[yash3ahuja]

Well, if you did, you can't try them with OUR laws. Do it in their courts, their people, then yes, you can. However, I'm kind of with BM on this one, that we aren't allowed too. But humans are to arrogant about their own morals that they put them on others. Our morals aren't so great either, we dropped two fucking nukes on japan. That's quite possibly worse then genocide.

[BulgarianMenace]

That's a good point yash. Yes, you can try them under their laws.

[yash3ahuja]

Didn't they try Saddam Hussein in his own courts? I find nothing wrong with doing that.
Edit: After some research, I found they had done a tribunal. Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch both thought that the trial was unfair. I have to agree. No matter how much shit he has done, a fair trial is a fair trial. If your having tributary judges, yoy CANNOT deny someone a fair trial. It's funny, how people can't follow their own rules. And, don't judge my ethics on this. I'm trying to remain impartial to peoples rights, no matter who they are.

[redwurd]

the following is from The International Criminal Court website:

"The International Criminal Court is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.
The International community has long aspired to the creation of a permanent international court, and, in the 20th century, it reached consensus on definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Nuremberg & Tokyo trials addressed war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity committed during the Second World War.
The ICC is an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC is based on a treaty, joined by 110 countries.
The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedings were undertaken sole to shield a person from criminal responsibility. In addition the ICC only tries those accused of the gravest crimes.
In all of its activities, the ICC observes the highest standards o fairness and due process. The jurisdiction and functioning of the ICC are governed by the Rome Statute: "Conscious that all peoples are united by common bonds, their cultures pieced together in a shared heritage, and concerned that this delicate mosaic may be shattered at any time,
Mindful that during this century millions of children, women and men have been victim of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity,
Recognizing that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world,
Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be by enhancing international cooperation,
Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes,
Recalling that is is the duty of every State to exercises jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes,
Reaffirming the Purpose and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular that all States shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,
Emphasizing in this connection that nothing in this Statute shall be taken as authorizing and State Party to intervene in an armed conflict or in the internal affairs of any State,
Determined to these ends and for the sake of present and future generations, to establish an independent permanent International Criminal Court in relationship with the United Nations system, with jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole,
Emphasizing that the International Criminal Court established under this Statute shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions,
Resolved to guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice. "

Now after reading this are you of the opinion that the ICC should not even exist to prosecute if that country didn't sign up for it? I hardly think that any dictator would even begin to agree to the ICC Statute for fear of being held responsible for any evil deeds committed against their citizens.

[BulgarianMenace]

The point is that it doesn't matter what I think or what you think. I'll say it again, morality is relative. There is no absolute right or wrong.

It may seem counter intuitive, but try to wrap your head around that concept. All that you're trying to get at with your posts is what I think is right or wrong, when I'm saying that's irrelevant.


Suppose I think democracy is evil. Does that mean that, if I have the power to do it, I should destroy all democratic governments?

You may say, "but democracy ISN'T evil." But that's your perspective. Because good and evil are RELATIVE.

[yash3ahuja]

This reminds me of star wars... "The sith are evil!" "From my perspective, the Jedi are evil!" There is no absolute. Opinions differ. You think the morals between you and I, and that of a mass murderer are the same? Our opinions are irrelivant, we want things to be fair, not moralic. And trust me, me and bm both probably think Saddam Hussein is wrong.