StarGateWars Forums

i was just watching the news, and there was an item on the elections in Iraq.
now, to prevent interfering with the result, a curfew was enforced throughout Iraq. so basically, an Iraqy citizen went in, put a ballot in the ballot-box, went out and had an american (or british) soldier shoving an M-16 in his face yelling at him to go home (they didn't show it on the news, that's just how i imagine it. and anyway, whether this exact scene happened or not is immaterial to the specific discussion).
so i was thinking, what right has the western world to enforce it's values?
what moral standpoint an election that are being held and monitored by an invading and occupying force has?
and assuming hussein's (sadam, nod barack ) party wins fair and square, what would you reckon the US should do?

Hitchkok wrote:so i was thinking, what right has the western world to enforce it's values?

none whatsoever...but that wont stop them enforcing their will on anybody.

Hitchkok wrote:what moral standpoint an election that are being held and monitored by an invading and occupying force has?

again, none whatsoever....but i'm sure the western media will spin it so the elections will appear that the west was very much justified in destroying the nation of Iraq (and also justifies the many deaths on both sides both of civilians and combatants) with some crap like "look, the Iraqi people can now vote just like you can. is that not worth the massive amounts of money and deaths?!".

Hitchkok wrote:and assuming hussein's (sadam, nod barack ) party wins fair and square, what would you reckon the US should do?

get the hell out regardless of who wins.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:and assuming hussein's (sadam, nod barack ) party wins fair and square, what would you reckon the US should do?

get the hell out regardless of who wins.

the other stuff was too conspiricy theorist for me,
but this is correct, leave it to the UN peacekeepers and the iraqi army

where do you see "conspiracy theory"?


just an example here, there were no WMD's in Iraq and they knew it...did that stop them enforcing there will or the media spinning it to whip up support for the invasion??

[KMA]Avenger wrote:where do you see "conspiracy theory"?


just an example here, there were no WMD's in Iraq and they knew it...did that stop them enforcing there will or the media spinning it to whip up support for the invasion??

CONSPIRACY!

Oh wait. Those facts destroyed our government here as well, and should have done the same in a few other countries.
At least ours has the guts to stand up for their mistakes and accept responsibility.. and we're a minor player.





Don't you know though, that it is our humanitarian duty to enhance the lives of others to that great standard we're so proud of? So proud we'd rather commit suicide instead of work to enhance our own lives? (http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/Depression_Information/facts.htm)
Either way. Our Glorious Civilization must and shall be spread across the globe. Even now, the agents of Westernization are polluting some of the historically far more valuable civilizations around the world, damaging them to the point of no return. Is it that strange that threatened civilizations cling to dictators like moths to a flame?
*grin*
Same thing is happening in the other direction though. Should let go of our inbred desire to meddle ignorantly in the lives of others. Build a wall, that honestly is the best way forward. An incurable meddler is locked away too.

Mister Sandman wrote:Agreed with [KMA]Avenger

It isnt a conspiracy theories

thank you

Who said it was? I haven't seen anyone make a point that it'd be a conspiracy theory?
If you mean Balor's comment.. he's just sneaking in and out of the conversation.

what gives you the right to pop my balloon?! lol



back on topic?

Offensive Bias wrote:Who said it was? I haven't seen anyone make a point that it'd be a conspiracy theory?
If you mean Balor's comment.. he's just sneaking in and out of the conversation.

ok i'll bite, i guess this is the intelligent discussion

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:so i was thinking, what right has the western world to enforce it's values?

none whatsoever...but that wont stop them enforcing their will on anybody.
its had nothing to do with enforcing their will and everything to do with preservation of human rights and ending a tyranical regime

Hitchkok wrote:what moral standpoint an election that are being held and monitored by an invading and occupying force has?

again, none whatsoever....but i'm sure the western media will spin it so the elections will appear that the west was very much justified in destroying the nation of Iraq (and also justifies the many deaths on both sides both of civilians and combatants) with some crap like "look, the Iraqi people can now vote just like you can. is that not worth the massive amounts of money and deaths?!".

you mean american media right? british media (at least the BBC) have always shown both sides of the coin. the fact is the world is a better place now than it was before the war on terror, and to me thats worth all the money in the world. lolcliche

you seriously believe our Govts lied to us by falsifying reports on WMD's in Iraq, and the British secret service murder of Dr. David Kelly and the fact we cant find out what actually happened to Dr. Kelly for 70 years...is because we wanted to get rid of a tyrant, preserve human rights and spread democracy to that part of the world?

no mate, the media can drum up the support of the people for a criminal action by simply not telling the whole truth and censoring important information. it doesn't have to be an out an out lie...you do know that right?

Sir Balor wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:Who said it was? I haven't seen anyone make a point that it'd be a conspiracy theory?
If you mean Balor's comment.. he's just sneaking in and out of the conversation.

ok i'll bite, i guess this is the intelligent discussion

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:so i was thinking, what right has the western world to enforce it's values?

none whatsoever...but that wont stop them enforcing their will on anybody.
its had nothing to do with enforcing their will and everything to do with preservation of human rights and ending a tyranical regime

here's the question i'd like to point out. say Sadam's reign was a benevolent dictatorsip. say the only rights reserved from Iraqy citizens were the rights to vote and to hold office. would the war still be justifiable by the human rights argument?
note: this is a hypothetical question, and as such, is not concerned with the current reality of Iraq, or the events and reasons leading up to it. it might be easier for you not to refer to "Iraq", and "Sadam", but to "the state" and "the dictator".

Hitchkok wrote:here's the question i'd like to point out. say Sadam's reign was a benevolent dictatorsip. say the only rights reserved from Iraqy citizens were the rights to vote and to hold office. would the war still be justifiable by the human rights argument?
note: this is a hypothetical question, and as such, is not concerned with the current reality of Iraq, or the events and reasons leading up to it. it might be easier for you not to refer to "Iraq", and "Sadam", but to "the state" and "the dictator".

if he was a benevolent dictator then britain would not have been a part of the war on iraq.
blair stated that he would have went to war against saddam's regime with or without wmd's, purely because he hd used nerve gas, killed on a level nearing genocide etc.
i cant say it wouldnt have happened as the US mindset to me may as well be a damn rubix cube, but i can only guess that they actually can use logical thought and wouldnt even think of a war on iraq.

Well The Amricans own it now, so from that standpoint that have every right. In a Realistic sense.

But if Your talking about from a objective moral one, then they have no right. Because they really don't have the stake in the land that the people who have inhabbited, cultivated, and have made and continue to make a life in that nation do.

That place a **Filtered** storm right now and getting a sense of any objective and fair course of action on behalf of the people is probably not really possible. Until some form of representational government is worked out. So social justice will have to wait for order (that's seems to be the course as show by history).

Thriller wrote:That place a **Filtered** storm right now and getting a sense of any objective and fair course of action on behalf of the people is probably not really possible. Until some form of representational government is worked out. So social justice will have to wait for order (that's seems to be the course as show by history).

but, does it have to be a representational government?
my point is that self determination "In politics is seen as the freedom of the people of a given territory or national grouping to determine their own political status and how they will be governed without undue influence from any other country." (a wikipedia qoute).
self determination is also considered to be a natural human right.
so if a referendum in Iraq (and again, i'm only taking Iraq as an example) would have shown that the population (and for the sake of argument, let's assume an overwhelming majority, >95%) prefer a monarchy or other kind of dictatorship, we have one human right defeating another (the rights to vote for office and hold office). can any of them be given precedent? and under what justification?