Does the United States have the moral authority to intervene in the affairs of other countries in persecution?
114900
I think if there's an overwhelming plea from the people of that country for help, or in nations such as Sudan and Rwanda where there is overwhelming evidence of genocide, then yes. \n\nOtherwise no.
790657
well the way i see it america brought evil and destruction to a soverighn state, they were a peacefull state before the invasion, another war where america is responsible whether directly or indirectly for the deaths of houndreds of thousands of civillians.good will overcome evil and im not a muslim.
166981
Definite NO! If that were to happen, then freewill would be forfeited to that power. If one disagrees with that power, it could mean death for that person.\n\nThis is going to happen though, in the not-too-distant future. America is that Superpower. You've already witnessed what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Soon America's going to just overrule the UN Security council & do what she pleases with the world. I say overrule in the assumption that 1 or 2 countries may disagree with this but most of them will agree with being ruled by America.
469305
they have. it's partly our own fault. quite a bit of these countries we've helped, we put their officials into government and they turned around and went after us. but our presidents have a funny way of helping people out which isn't always advantageous to everyone. maybe we shouldn't get into everyone else's business.
984251
The question should be can you be a Christian and support U.S. policies.
1022626
Yes\n\nThe bottom line is that all countries, in this supposed civilized world, have no right to occupy/invade another country unless there is a threat.... That threat has to be proven and UN approval must be granted. This is exactly why we, and many other countries, helped Kuwait when Iraq occupied/invaded them.\n\nOne country has no right to decide on its own to suddenly go liberate another country. That is common sense in a civilized progressive world. That (and I am not trying to compare Bush to Hitler) is exactly what Germany did in WWII when HItler kept occupying one country after another. The world recognized that as wrong.\n\nAlso as far as being charged with war crimes... yes.\n\n* Bush has violated the geneva convention \n* Bush has used redension to knowingly use torture.\n* Bush is holding prisoners without allowing the Red Cross to have access to some of them and also not releasing some of their identities.\n\nSorry if some of us Americans don't want to hear that but all of that is fact and are clearly war crimes.\n\nI also believe that assassinating ppl in Iraq and killing 100,000s shoud be considered a war crime in this circumstance because Bush had no right to invade that country. He invaded on false-pretense. BUT that part is just my personal belief and I am not sure where that falls under any war crimes act.\n\nAlso Answerman, don't fall into the 'congress voted for it' trap. They want you to believe that all who voted to GIVE BUSH AUTHORITY IF NECESSARY was saying it was ok to go to war. I've seen many interviews with politicians who stated they never would have believed in 100 years that Bush was going to go into Iraq without UN approval. They got tricked into falling for his scam.\n\nPpl should learn their history: Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia were not occupations. They were either forms of containtment (that is the political term for the freeze on the spreading of communism) or humanitarian acts.
100744
I can't think of 1 issue where the UN has helped the US.  It always seems that the US has to force the UN to do the right thing.  After all the US human rights commitee is made up of countries like cuba & north korea.  The UN is also composed of many nations that fear freedom and democracy.  Besides, how can a gov't control its people when they have the freedom and self determination?
487646
no i dont think so ,i think it is amessage to other countries , which means 2 be with us or against us
1092262
America has not "attacked" those countries, by themselves, out of a whim.  They are backed by the United Nations and many other countries have helped in the effort to decrease terrorism.
1072446
Only Australia and Indonesia. The United States has a "judicial assistance agreement" with procedures for mutual legal assistance, but not extradition.
248092
Well I gather that you are concerned about western governments lacking anything concrete to curtail persecution by the Chinese government. I am American (USA) and I completely understand that enough is not being done to stop persecution in the world.  (not just by China, but look at the Sudan, at North Korea, at Iran, the Israel/Palestinian situation and at all the genocide that takes place in Africa) The problem is that their is no solution other than diplomacy.  Look the USA is trying to make things better for the Afghans and the Iraqis and while we have seen some success, we have also seen what a mess comes about.  The fact is we can not save everyone and we are definitely not going to take on China.  Sorry, hopefully China will change for the sake of the Chinese
922560
... since when does the U.S. care about other nation's human rights...\n\nunless they are looking for an excuse to attack someone...
996981
The US government's foreign policy dictates that democracy be spread around the world.  The World Court did try and hold the US for war crimes.  The US told the world court to 'stick it'.  I believe it was Colin Powell they wanted to try.\n\nIf you don't like democracy.  Good for you.  Just stay out of the US.  Thank you.
781979
If we adhere to the most basic of morals, that we must apply the same standards to ourselves, that we apply to others.\nThen there is no doubt that international law should also apply to us. \nUnfortunately the USA is alone in exempting itself from international law, the world court, and virtually every understanding that the rest of the world is expected to comply with.\nThe Geneva conventions were written in an attempt to criminalize the atrocities committed leading up to, and during WW2, this was not an easy task as allied forces had themselves done some immoral things.\nTorture was of course, an obvious war crime, and it has been so since Geneva.\nUnfortunately during this extremist Bush regime, the US has done the unthinkable, not only has it tortured, and contracted out torturing or anyone who it sees fit to accuse of being a terrorist, but it has tried to change the law to avoid prosecution, and to legitimize torture in the future.\nThe USA has unparalleled economical, political, and military power so it is difficult to hold them to account if they are unwilling to cooperate, I would be surprised if the charges filed in Germany will lead to anything, but the people filing seem to be confident that the court has no excuse this time to dismiss the case.\n\nThe world would be a better place if the USA had to conform to international law, the key players in the Bush regime should be tried for war crimes.
676419
The Janjaweed should be wiped out or tried at the International Court in the Hague, and probably executed. We should go for, as the Bush administration likes to call, "regime change" in the Sudan and "pre-emptive strike" against the hateful people that rise in the highest rank of the Sudanese  government. But, it is not in the US interests to get involved. I wish we would learn the lesson of other genocides. Why don't we act on morality in our foreign policy?
525705
I don't understand why other countries don't meddle in US affairs - get the drift? You are asking for more chaos. Who regulates the US then? Should the whole world be subject to the whims of one government whether right or wrong?
601080
Well, there's two ways of looking at it.\nFirstly, as you say, in an increasingly globalized world no nation--no matter how powerful or wealthy--can afford to be selfish or motivated by narrow, self-centered interests. Thus, the USA too must adapt to the new realities and requirements of this age. It must strive to be more friendly and sympathetic towards other nations and generally develop a more positive attitude in its dealings with the rest of the world.\nThe other aspect is, that all nations have their own interests at stake, ultimately. And the USA also has its interests to watch and protect. But even if this is the case, it doesnt mean that it can ride rough-shod over other nations and interfere indiscriminately in their affairs.\n There is a dire need for it to strike the right balance between (a) national self-interest and (b) global needs, concerns and relations.\nIf the US wants to play a greater, more responsible role in world politics, it should do so with legitimacy i.e., by being a part of international organizations and acting in concord with them not by trying to usurp the role of the UN or other, similar agencies.