Freeze! Get your hands up! You have the right to remain silent!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: geko

as an after-thought (...that's 2 tonight), an exception to the capitalist rule is programming ....from the idea that the UNIX kernel (etc.,) probably wouldnt have existed under such a regime (but i know not much)

Yes Open Source is about as Socialistic as you can get!

[IrishEyes]

Whether you believe that we all came from the same infintessimally small (ever so slowly evolving) blob of biological tissiue; or that we were placed here by an infinate God, we must still all be related somehow. Would you turn yur back on you're brother or sister or wife or husband or son or daughter if they were in need? (and you had the resources to help).

You would if you followed Christinaity or Islam and actually did what thier sources of Revelation require.

 

Not for this thread, guys. I thought that was pretty clear from description, which was posted *Twice*.

But here it is, yet again, just so you don't continue to wallow in your confusion.

Some people complain that the United States doesn't do enough to make the world a 'better place'. Some people feel that it is the moral obligation of every country to ensure that other countries run smoothly. Still others feel that each country should only be responsible for themselves, and stay the heck out of other countries business.

 

How do each of you feel about this? I think it would be very beneficial to the people that read the responses in this thread if each person that responds will tell what country they are from, and if they have ever lived in another country or not.

 

If you'd like to have a discussion about religion, please feel free to start a brand new topic and carry out the discussion there. This thread is specifically about the 'right' of any country to police the world, or if there is a need for a 'world cop'. Thanks so much for sticking to the topic of the thread.

[Freethinker]

If the religious biases of a country are not an issue, NOTHING is.

 

Especially when the leader of the US claims that his god put him in office. That he is doing what his god says to do. That the first words out of his mouth after 9/11 was his CRUSADE against the Muslems. His Security head of Iraq saying that his god was the real god and could beat up the Allah.

 

And you want to keep this same exact reasoning out of the discussion?

 

Yes we know why Irish. You can't stand to have your personal addiction questioned. If you can't keep your personal agenda out of the decisions, you should not be moderating an OPEN discussion.

 

But it IS a very explicit reason for what is happening. It belongs here. Or nothing does.

[IrishEyes]

Get off it Freethinker. Drop it NOW. This is the second time in as many hours that you have tried this line, and it's not going to continue.

 

If the religious biases of a country are not an issue, NOTHING is.

At no time in this thread that *I* started did I indicate that the religious 'biases' of *any* country should be discussed. I specifically kept the discussion to the need for a 'world cop' or not. Furthermore, as the creator of this thread, I think *I* am uniqely qualified to decide what is at issue here, in this thread.

 

You can't stand to have your personal addiction questioned.

 

My personal 'addiction' is not the subject of this thread. However, I am very open to discussing my religion if it is relevant to the topic.

 

If you can't keep your personal agenda out of the decisions, you should not be moderating an OPEN discussion.

If you have specific complaints about the way I Moderate this, or any other, discussion, you are free to send a PM to me, or any of the other Admins of this site. Any questionable behaviour will be discussed between the Admins, and it will be taken care of. You are quite aware of this procedure.

[geko]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

If the religious biases of a country are not an issue, NOTHING is.

 

Firstly, i agree with this. I also agree with religious influence being warped into most things (principles, thoughts, decisions, etc.,), done by the vast majority of this planet (whether the people in question are conscious of this influence or not).

 

I was a little taken a-back at first with this comment being in this thread also, but then i thought about what we're discussing. And that is "how should we be? As nations and as individuals?" How should we treat our fellow humans, mainly foreign, but also domestic?

 

These are choices. Decisions. People make decisions. Decisions are influenced. To talk of a choice without an influence is lazy as there's no reason or comprehension of why the choice was chosen in the first place. Therefore if a choice is made it's pertinent to highlight, even discuss, the reason for the decision in the first place.

 

Therefore i also see highlighting the use of a system of thought (religion) relevant to the discussion in question. FT, i think, was highlighting a frame of mind that would invalidate Beakers' argument of doing what's best for your breathen, [if only being a product of close relation].

 

Stating a principle that can be shown to have been influenced by Christianity or Islam, for example, no more belongs on a science site by definition than does stating the earth as flat in the physics section and providing inaccurate evidence to show that it is does.

 

To stick by a philosophical principle based on unsound reasoning is as invalid as is sticking by your guns that the earth is flat and denying the coherent evidence provided by someone else against such a stance.

 

Sorry, but i think FT just provided his case against this idea. A proper argument against it would be to show reasoning concluding in this idea pointing to the opposite. That or accepting that the idea is bogus and moving on. Saying only "it stands" and "the idea is allowed" doesnt prove anything either way. In fact, FT is winning the argument as he hasnt been proved wrong, in which case we're back to square one and on a level playing field.

 

 

.........

 

Let's discuss...

 

How should we progress? Where should we go from here?

[IrishEyes]

Thanks geko. I've thought a lot about your response over the weekend. I want to be very objective, and also make sure that recent, um, discussions with Freethinker were not clouding my argument.

 

I can see what you mean by "religious influence being warped into most things (principles, thoughts, decisions, etc.,), done by the vast majority of this planet (whether the people in question are conscious of this influence or not)." I agree that a person's religion, or lack of, is a major factor in how they act and react to any given situation.

 

But then I got to... "I was a little taken a-back at first with this comment being in this thread also, but then i thought about what we're discussing. And that is "how should we be? As nations and as individuals?" How should we treat our fellow humans, mainly foreign, but also domestic?", and I realized we might be thinking about different things for this thread. If Freethinker is coming at this from the same POV that you are, then I can understand the confusion.

 

That's where I am. I didn't intend this as a thread in which to reflect on how we should be, or figure out how we could be better. That wasn't what I meant at all. It wasn't supposed to be any deep delve into the inner psyche of anyone or any nation, really.

 

This thread is intended to discuss only if some sort of international police force/nation is needed, and if it is, who should it be. I started it after watching people on the news talk about our (USA) role as world-cop, and how other countries were angry that we stepped in to Iraq and Afghanistan. Then someone else said that if we (USA) didn't do it, then other countries would be screaming about how we are the only ones with the force to stop bad things from happening and yet we stayed out of it. It seemed like a double-edged sword. If we jump in to a bad situation, we are condemned. If we stay the heck out, we are condemned. Makes me wonder what the right choice is.

 

It had nothing to do with religion, at least the way I was thinking. It wasn't about being a "Christian" nation, fighitng against a "Muslim" nation. It's more about asking people throughout the world, via this forum, if there is a need for ANY country to be seen as the 'big brother on the block'.

 

The discussion got heated after Freethinker made what I consider to be very mean-spirited and unneccessary comments about Christians and Muslims, and then went on to very personal comments about me. You should all be aware that those types of comments are not only very bad for this site, but also a quick way to get yourself banned.

[IrishEyes]

Also, I want to say that if any of you have questions or concerns about how I Moderate any of the discussions:

 

Your first course of action should be to send me a PM.

If that does not help, PM Tormod and tell him exactly what you think I have done wrong.

 

Thank you all for following these guidelines when dealing with me, or any other Moderator.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

This thread is intended to discuss only if some sort of international police force/nation is needed, and if it is, who should it be. I started it after watching people on the news talk about our (USA) role as world-cop, and how other countries were angry that we stepped in to Iraq and Afghanistan. Then someone else said that if we (USA) didn't do it, then other countries would be screaming about how we are the only ones with the force to stop bad things from happening and yet we stayed out of it. It seemed like a double-edged sword. If we jump in to a bad situation, we are condemned. If we stay the heck out, we are condemned. Makes me wonder what the right choice is.

First we have to understand that there is more to the decision. If you have read Plato's Republic, you would find that he was against a Democratic Society.

 

There is a prejudicial decsion being made that in fact a Capitalistic "Democracy" (remember, the US is NOT a Democracy) is the BEST form of Socio-political structure. And that thus it is our responsilibyt to promote, even force this on everyone.

 

While others, such as Islamic tenets, suggest otherwise. That some individuals are by at times divine guidence, in a better position to do so. That social order and justice is best derived by constent to be governed without individual voice.

 

What we have is basically "Might makes Right". The US, and thus "Western Europe", as THE POWER has decided therefore that it's form of Government is THE form of government the world needs to adopt at all costs.

 

If this is not specifically the threads topic then, I do not know what is.

 

As such, since religion has played a part in the ideology which has determined carious stances on all sides of the issue, religion itself must be explored when discuss WHO should hold the power, be the cop. And WHAT laws should be promoted.

It had nothing to do with religion, at least the way I was thinking. It wasn't about being a "Christian" nation, fighitng against a "Muslim" nation. It's more about asking people throughout the world, via this forum, if there is a need for ANY country to be seen as the 'big brother on the block'.

But which ideology does the winning "big brother" draw it's tenets from? Many in the US claim the US is based on Christian Theology. How can that not be part of the discussion on what laws a Big Brother will enforce? Or even if any one group has the authority to do so.

 

Take for example the Magna Carta. Divine right from a specific god of Rule!

 

Or the US Constitution in which the word god does not even appear and starts out "We the PEOPLE...".

The discussion got heated after Freethinker made what I consider to be very mean-spirited and unneccessary comments about Christians and Muslims,

And the ONLY reason YOU see them as "mean-spirited" is your own personal bias. All I did was show specific examples of passages from the claimed source of moral law from each group. If seeing what is actually in the claimed sources of absolute rule bothers you, stop pretending to follow it.

You should all be aware that those types of comments are not only very bad for this site, but also a quick way to get yourself banned.

And caused Socrates to commit suicide. He was accused of leading young people away from adherence to the local religious views. That was enough to apply the death penalty.

 

We see that believers always find killing the opposition to be a desirable process. And the more convinced they are that some god is on their side, the stronger their resolve. Add to this that their sources of Revelation promote such prejudice and promote slaughter of the "other" beleivers and even more the non-beleivers.

 

If this does not fit the discussion of a World Cop/ Laws. what does?

[sanctus]

Freethinker,I'm curious what's your idea about this "world-cop"-issue? As it seems to me, that until now you just answered earlier posts (nothing aginst that, as I tend to agree).

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: sanctus

Freethinker,I'm curious what's your idea about this "world-cop"-issue?

I agree that with the resources the US has, we have an obligation to humanity to use our resources to provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. But then I am a Secular Humanist and consider providing positive benefit to Humanity to be our greatest goal. I do not see where we can accomplish this if the approach of our intention is to POLICE rather than HELP.

 

World Cop implies an enforcement effort. Laws that other countries may not be sympathetic to. Which we find to be the case right now.

 

Hitler wanted to be the World Cop. He was convinced that Jesus, his god, had appointed him to force the world to follow.

 

If we take a specific example. Perhaps the one we might assume this discussion to be based on, the US/ Islam situation, while anyone here that knows me, knows I would never consider a religious theologically based government structure to be acceptable, I can understand how they might see Islam as an organizing set of laws that can bring peace if followed strictly. Just as Plato's Republic would.

 

How would we feel if Islam was the largest Governmental power and they wanted to HELP the US by Policing us with their laws?

 

People raised in any environment will typically find that to be the preferable system. People accepting of the laws they are ruled under do not need police. If our laws were universally accepted, there would be no need for a World Cop.

 

I think we are hypocritical to try to enforce thru "police action" our socio-political structure on others and claim to be a Free Country. We can't even do it correctly in our own country.

 

How can we FORCE a country to "elect" a new leader when the only choices they have are our appointees and have a leader ourselves that was not elected, but appointed?

[IrishEyes]

I think we are hypocritical to try to enforce thru "police action" our socio-political structure on others and claim to be a Free Country. We can't even do it correctly in our own country.

 

I agree 100% with this statement.

 

I think you make a strong argument against having any nation be put into, or assuming, the role of world cop. I think that there are many countries that do an effective job of ruling themselves, even though their government structures may be vastly different from ours. I also think that it shows a typical American attitude to think that our country is 'the best', even though many that live here would not choose to live elsewhere.

 

Anyone that has spent any time travelling, or living, in any country besides the one in which they were born would be able to attest to the fact that every country has its good and bad. That was the reason that I asked people to say where they were from, and if they had ever lived in another place. While I do like living in the US, I think there are many things that we could do much better, especially after living in other countries. I recall how well the elderly were treated in Latin America, and I am jealous that we do not value our elderly as they do. But I don't think I'll be moving back there any time soon.

 

However, while I think it is grossly unfair to force *our* way of life on other countries, I also don't like the idea of basic human rights being denied to any people. If that means that sometimes a country has to step in and 'guarantee' that those rights are restored, then it should be done. The problem, as I see it, arises when lines get blurred and there is no clear-cut reason to enter a situation/country, and no plan on how to resolve an issue.

 

Someone mentioned that we shouldn't intercede if help isn't requested. But who gets to request help? An oppressive government, or its oppressed people? America's government screamed about Saddam for years, but Pinochet got away with murder for just as long, didn't he? What did we do about that besides have an aging rocker sing a song about it?

 

I do agree that the answer should not be about dictating how a country should/will be run after we barge in, but in giving a better kind of help that negates the need to militarily intervene at all. Occupation should be the absolute last resort in the case of any sovereign nation, in my opinion. Because as Freethinker said (in very different words), one day the shoe could be on the other foot, and we might not be the biggest kid on the block anymore.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

I think you make a strong argument against having any nation be put into, or assuming, the role of world cop. I think that there are many countries that do an effective job of ruling themselves, even though their government structures may be vastly different from ours. I also think that it shows a typical American attitude to think that our country is 'the best', even though many that live here would not choose to live elsewhere.

 

 

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Someone mentioned (that was me) that we shouldn't intercede if help isn't requested. But who gets to request help? An oppressive government, or its oppressed people? America's government screamed about Saddam for years, but Pinochet got away with murder for just as long, didn't he? What did we do about that besides have an aging rocker sing a song about it?

 

If there would be an organisation like the UN, but with no veto rights, but something where everybody really has the same rights, it should be up to that organisation to decide if something has to be done somewhere in the world. I could imagine something like a big majority of the members would have to agree so that something is done (I imagine something like 2/3).

 

You ask who gets to request help, the oppressors or the oppressed? Both, there is no government which is oppressive enough that nobody can get out and show what is going on (at least since Germany in WW2), take Birmania for example or Cambodja under the red khmer, the world always knew what was happening with the oppressed (maybe with a time delay of a month, but...)

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

If the religious biases of a country are not an issue, NOTHING is.

 

Especially when the leader of the US claims that his god put him in office. That he is doing what his god says to do. That the first words out of his mouth after 9/11 was his CRUSADE against the Muslems. His Security head of Iraq saying that his god was the real god and could beat up the Allah.

 

And you want to keep this same exact reasoning out of the discussion?

 

Yes we know why Irish. You can't stand to have your personal addiction questioned. If you can't keep your personal agenda out of the decisions, you should not be moderating an OPEN discussion.

 

But it IS a very explicit reason for what is happening. It belongs here. Or nothing does.

 

I disagree. Religion is not a main staple of this topic.

 

Economics, military might, and population are viable souces for discussion on the issue; where religion just leads to more 'my god/beleif is better than your god/beleif' bull$*** that made me decide the forums were best left alone. Your incessant whining and scapegoating of religions has rendered far too many otherwise logical discussions into a vicious circle of 'prove it is/isn't' in a topic that has asked for none of that. Definitive proof on any 'theoretical' or 'experimetal' technlogy is like telling einstein he can't make a nuclear weapon because he refuses to set one off in your anus.

 

Respond if you will FT, you can have the 'last word' on religion all you want. Just do it in one of the multitude of threads with the word 'God' in it.

 

In regards to the topic of the thread itself, I'm one of the people that says countries should keep their guns pointed at the soil of their borders. However with the current world population reaching such a critical level, I beleive humanity is just reacting like water in a pressure-cooker. Anarchy is bound to win-out over order for a while, then it'll shift back, it has quite a few times from what history tells us. :/

 

I suppose world-policing to stop a serious (and active) invading force repeatedly attempting to usurp controll of other countries would qualify as a reason to get involved, in fact it would be an idiot who didn't when the question of "who's next on the dinerplate?" looms above. It is times like these that always seem to be the beginning of the next war.

 

Ooh, I'm no idealist who doesn't beleive that there is at least one war raging at any one time in the world. At the same time I really don't see secand and third world countries as a threat because they just don't have the resources to mount a truely effective assult.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Economics, military might, and population are viable souces for discussion on the issue; where religion just leads to more 'my god/beleif is better than your god/beleif' bull$*** that made me decide the forums were best left alone.

Your right GAHD, it is much better to have posts like yours which spend +90% of it with "Your incessant whining" about my posts. That adds so much more to the discussion.

 

"Respond if you will (GAHD) you can have the 'last word' on (Freethinkers posts) all you want. Just do it in one of the multitude of threads with the word '(Freethinker)' in it."

[IrishEyes]

Gahd,

 

WELCOME BACK!!

We (I) have missed you tremendously.

 

You made your point well, and I appreciate the time and effort you put into your response. Well said