Global justice?

[yerkyerk]

Since nobody starts a debate topic, I figured I might as well. Unlike what Brappa wants you to believe, arguing with a mod is not a *BAMF* worthy offense :)

So, my topic of choosing is global justice. As I'm sure everyone will agree, there's a lot of injustice going on in this world. Do you think you/your government should intervene? And who's to say that you/your government is doing the right thing?

Is extremely heavy and intentional bombing of civilian targets justified in wartimes? (Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII, causing 220.000 civilian casualties)
Should we idly stand by as one man supresses an entire nation? (North-Korea)
Can we force democracy on a nation? (Iraq)
Should we intervene if the ruling government is messing with the votes to stay in power? (Iran)
Should we just stay neutral? (Switzerland)

What are your thoughts... should we let every nation deal with its own issues or should there be such a thing as global intervention?

[ASYLUM101]

Do you think you/your government should intervene? And who's to say that you/your government is doing the right thing?

Sometimes, I do, but sometimes I don't. Something that has bothered me for a looong time. Health care. In the united states, it sucks, and it's not regulated by the government(too closely anyway). In canada, it sucks and it's regulated by the government too. From what I hear, since I don't live in Canada, it's just as bad, if not worse there than here. You get accidents during operations, long waiting periods that can lead to death in the waiting room, etc. Things like this need some other sort of alternative, but other things like theft, of course, the government or at least a police force should be there to defend your property. Most governments NEVER do the right thing, but most do seem to try their best to keep their civilians safe.



Is extremely heavy and intentional bombing of civilian targets justified in wartimes? (Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII, causing 220.000 civilian casualties)

Ok, I disagree with this. In no way is killing civilians ever "right", even in wartime. It just makes you look like a powerhungry tyrant determined to show your "display of power". Why, for example, was it necessary to bomb TWO cities? Don't you think they would've gotten the point after one? Just the Americans showing off their power.(coming from an American, so it's not racist right?) If you're gonna use a bomb like that, drop it on a base, drop it on a weapons facility, but leave the poor people out of it. Some of them, hell, most of them probably aren't even behind the **** war!


Should we idly stand by as one man supresses an entire nation? (North-Korea)

Eh... I think people have a right to live as PEOPLE, but if you let them go to wild, you end up with horrible people like here in Miami where everyone is rude, can't drive, and don't bother learning the language of the country. That guy, of course needs to be stopped, he's truly a psycho bent on proving something.


Can we force democracy on a nation? (Iraq)

I don't think so. You can try, but you will probably only convince children. Maybe a few people will be converted, but if you've been brought up your whole life that Sadam or whoever is your ruler and if he says what you're doing is wrong and you better listen to what he says or die, you can't really turn your head and say, hey, maybe it's better this way. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, hopefully. If they can't become democratic, hopefully they don't resent the US for what we've been doing in their country, lmao.


Should we intervene if the ruling government is messing with the votes to stay in power? (Iran)

I don't think anyone should intervene with another government unless it's harming the rest of the world. The threat of weapons of mass destruction wasn't even really there, we never found any did we? Who cares then?


Should we just stay neutral? (Switzerland)

Neutral-Pacifism is the way to go! IMO anyway. I'm a hippie at heart, sadly.


What are your thoughts... should we let every nation deal with its own issues or should there be such a thing as global intervention?

Tough question. Global Intervention could be helpful for some things, but I've ALWAYS been scared of a NWO, because of what I've seen in movies, video games, and conspiracy theories. I don't like the idea of being monitored 24/7 on everything I do, nor do I like getting overcharged on tiny little things for the benefit of the government who are just embezzling money anyways.

[ward_rb]

jeez, the first topic and you have to pick something that i dont have a clear opinion on. :p


im at a bit of a moral crossfire on this subject. on the one hand, if you see injustices happening that you can stop, i think you should. but on the other hand, a nation enforcing its will on another nation that does not want its help is just as much of an injustice.

at this point in time, i believe that a nation should only step in in extreme circumstances. hitler, for example. imagine if the only nations to oppose the nazi's were the ones they were invading at the time. theres a good chance that a nation of nazi's would still exist today as a major power...and i think most people can agree that would not be good for anyone.


Is extremely heavy and intentional bombing of civilian targets justified in wartimes? (Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII, causing 220.000 civilian casualties) targeting civilians is NEVER justified in my opinion. war needs to be contained within military and government.


Should we idly stand by as one man supresses an entire nation? (North-Korea) honestly, to me it would depend on how bad the dictator is. there would have to be a very real danger to the majority of a nations populace for me to justify another nation sending its troops to die for others.


Can we force democracy on a nation? (Iraq) we can, but i dont think we should. that would be no different than trying to enforce a religion. i think democracy is great, but i dont think it should be forced on anyone.


Should we intervene if the ruling government is messing with the votes to stay in power? (Iran) no, unless the population is asking us for help, and it can be done non-violently.


Should we just stay neutral? (Switzerland)most of the time yes, but in extreme cases a nation that has the power to intervene should. if you can stop a great injustice, but choose not to, you are no better than the ones committing it.

[bonobo4]

Is extremely heavy and intentional bombing of civilian targets justified in wartimes? (Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII, causing 220.000 civilian casualties)

No. As a non-American, I may be biased. However, that said, it was Japan that started the war and it was their choice to bomb Pearl Harbour. However, with Trumann's bombings the reason they bombed two places, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is because they didn't surrender after the first nuke.

Should we idly stand by as one man supresses an entire nation? (North-Korea)
No. We should do what the people want us to do.

Can we force democracy on a nation? (Iraq)
No. We should accept people's beliefs/government, however if 1 man ruins a nation then we should intervene and help the people, not the government.

Should we intervene if the ruling government is messing with the votes to stay in power? (Iran)
Yes. Do what the people say and who they want not what some guy wants. You want proof, Gordon Brown is a hated prime minister here in the UK. However, he was not elected and he wont get sacked, he can't be. He'll resign, for sure. :pray: However, he'll be the only PM I think to have not been elected and to not have been sacked. And he's done a terrible job. However, he didn't rig the voting, as they wasn't one. Like the king/queen, he wasn't voted, merely succeeded by right, sadly.

Should we just stay neutral? (Switzerland)
If there's nothing to complain about then yes. If there's urgent action required then no.

That's my thoughts anyway.

[Boombaye]

Is extremely heavy and intentional bombing of civilian targets justified in wartimes? (Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII, causing 220.000 civilian casualties)

Yes. The planned American invasion of Japan would have caused no less than 6 million deaths on the American side alone. Not counting the millions of Japanese who would die or commit suicide.

Should we idly stand by as one man supresses an entire nation? (North-Korea)

Not until they do something stupid. Their people are content.

Can we force democracy on a nation? (Iraq)

Democracy is probably a good thing but we shouldn't force it on someone.

Should we intervene if the ruling government is messing with the votes to stay in power? (Iran)

Yes. They want democracy. We'll give it to them, even if it's per the kiloton.

Should we just stay neutral? (Switzerland)

Feel free. Join us if they harass you.

[Draeziel]

Is extremely heavy and intentional bombing of civilian targets justified in wartimes? (Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII, causing 220.000 civilian casualties)

Never ever. The Americans didn't know how Japan would react to the Attacks. They just used their nukes hoping that Japan will concede.
What if Japan had continued the war? How many 'civilian targets' would have been attacked further.
IMO agressions are hard to justify, when talking about such dimensions even almost impossible.

Should we idly stand by as one man supresses an entire nation?
No, but we also must not intervene militarly. We can use political and economical agents, but no weapons!

Can we force democracy on a nation?
Same as above, we can try it peaceful, but we must not use weapons.
Forcing democracy on a nation will be extremely hard without a war, but its the only way.

Should we intervene if the ruling government is messing with the votes to stay in power?
Is this our task at this world? To ensure fair elections all over the world?
On the one side, demorcaty helps to ensure wealth for a country, but it doesnt guarantee it. We might pedal the responsible gouvenment, but i doubt that we can effect something (see Iran).

Should we just stay neutral?
For most Issues, staying neutral is a good solution.But sometimes it is nececcary to intervene (but only peaceful!). Taking stand in difficult issues isn't wrong at all, it's even required sometimes.