What is meant by moral support by one nation to another ?
603868
It means, that I accept and agree with what you are doing, I'm just not doing it myself. But if need be, I will back you up if I am able.
1049734
This a no brainer. Morality originated in God's realm to personify the conduct he expected from his children in the social world. To interact with one another in such a manner as to promote healthy relationships all over the world. Treat each other with respect, kindness, compassion, love, forgiveness, thus creating a social enviornment similiar to what heaven must be like, blissful.
41247
There is a price for our freedom and security. I will have to go with freedom. In freedom comes the security and stability our great nation needs. However we need to stand by the decisions that have been made. Children need to feel free and secure. And as parents we need to set that path for our future. Well the only way we can become the greatest nation is for us to pull our heads out of our 4th point of contact and really desire and respect the sanctaty of respect for our leader(s). How can we expect other nations to respect and to fear us when we dont respect our leader? We belittle him and make fun of him. Why? because we know that we can't make the right decision. This world is about damn if you do and damn if you don't. Either way someone isn't happy. As a nation we need to become one and support our freedom. Let those know that we are greatful for their sacrifices.
944422
We are a freedom loving nation that was founded on morals and uses that base to help the rest of the world out of problems. The government is strong and is decided by its people. We have resolved many conflicts around the world without them escalating and give billions of dollars and aid to almost any country that asks for it. My short answer, based on those facts, is yes, The United States of America is the greatest country on earth and I am proud to live and serve such a nation.
473860
Morally, no nation has the right to impose it's will on another. \n\nMilitarily, the US has the power to make other nations do as it pleases. \n\nThroughout history, might has usually made right. However, there are usually consequences for enforcing one's will on another nation. In time, nations/empires that impose their will usually collapse because of weakened infrastructure, citizen apathy, and internal rebellion against tyranny. \n\nI'm really confused as to why we(the human race) have not worked to build a better world. I think we're trying, but there are so many man made obstacles in our way that prevent us from building the most human friendly world. \n\nI think we'll get there, or kill ourselves in the process. Keep working to make the world a better place is all I can say.
12213
It all depends on the monarch, the previous one was allied to both India and Pakisthan so he couldnot support any of the nations but the current one has publicly embraced his support of India.\n\nIt's a matter of personal preference, friendship
259863
In addition to various factual questions (such as how many people on both sides might have been killed in an invasion, or whether hostilities might have been ended without an invasion or the bombs), you'll want to define the terms.  Yes, moral/justified are two differet words, but they may or may not have different meanings in context; it depends on your values.  If morality is everying to you, than moral = justified.  If morality is not your highest value, then there must be some other values by which you measure what is justified.
1099671
If you ask G W Bush, he'd say that means of opening a concentration camp offshore where people can be tortured at will, held indefinitely without charge and even (he had hoped) 'executed' (= murdered) after a travesty 'trial', is justified by the stated 'end' of scaring everyone witless of the US as it becomes an international bully without regard for human rights.  This will help America to achieve its stated aim of 'full spectrum dominance' and at last make the world realise that the US Government is not interested in democracy, international law or any moral absolutes with regard to the rest of the world.  Its only concern is naked self interest.\n\nHowever, in my view, the end almost never justifies the means where the 'means' is morally wrong.  If your Mum asks, 'Does my bum look big in this dress?' then I can excuse a 'little white lie'.\n\nThe 'means' being morally wrong is, of course, often a matter of opinion.  The US foreign aid to anti-AIDS programmes in sub-Saharan Africa for example.  The US government (which is supposedly not involved with religion) has refused to give aid to projects which do not pledge to preach 'abstinence' as the primary weapon in the fight against AIDS.  As a result, it is almost impossible for any work to be done in encouraging condom use in sex-workers.  The 'Christian Right' will claim this as a moral victory while condemning (in effect) many people to death.  Those Christians are - whatever else you might say about them and their beliefs - morally consistent.  However, I disagree that there is a moral problem here.  It's not that I agree that the end here justifies the means - but that I feel there is nothing to justify.
543340
PRO: Sets a behavioral standard for society, in which all people are treated equal.\nCON: morality can be subjective, and what might be good for one culture may not necessarily carry the same weight with another (look at the US compared to Saudi Arabia)
707623
I think it would be good to split the union especially now since its the 300th anniversary in 2007. I dont want to start arguments about countries which would survive outside of it or which countries support others. It is a myth that England supports the neighbouring countries though. Sure; Scotland for example is given a hefty supplemet every year to look after itself but only from money the UK (NOT England - contrary to popular belief) has earned ie from oil (which is actually Scottish anyway)and tourism - which all nations in the kingdom earn. Please dont continue flaming or anything. I havent said anything to insult anyone and everything I have said is fact. btw Robespierre made the classic fault assuming Wales and Scotland were in England. They are not and never have been, I strongly suggest you don't say that when you are in one of those smaller UK nations. You may be risking your health ;)
795612
Hard to say. And the "why" doesn't matter. We do support each other because we care in more than a political way -it's in a human way. We don't just keep each other around for a little extra party strength. It's very much a friendship; one that you're welcome into if you choose. (I hope you do.)
1002821
Very well thought out question.  I commend you for putting some brainpower around framing the question.\n\nThe answer, in my humble opinion, is complex and multi-dimensional.\n\nLet's start with the underlying intent of your question which is really whether the USA has a MORAL obligation to work with the United Nations to prevent the collapse of third-world states.\n\nThe preliminary and qualified answer is; "NO"; the USA is not morally obligated to save poorly governed states.  At least not by virtue of being a world superpower nor by virtue of having the means to resolve violent conflict with powerful military.\n\nNor is it always best served to promote its' self-interest by working with an amorally neutral world organization such as the United Nations which cloys to its' own narrow ambitions and realities of global politics.  Remember, this is the same organization that put Cuba and Libya in the chairman's seat of their Human Rights Commission.  And as the Oil-for-Food scandal has shown, no less susceptible to corruption.  Generally, it is not wise to put American lives in the hands of such people (the Kuwaiti liberation, certainly being a notable exception).\n\nBut here are some hard realities...\n\nLawless states are prime breeding grounds for terrorists and extremists to grow and strengthen their organizations.  This is as true in the day of the Barbary Pirates as it is with Al Qaeda today.  Afghanistan and Iraq stand as certainties on this model.  Sudan and Somalia qualify as well.\n\nBy ignoring these situations, we do so at our peril and national self-interest and security.  It is a truism, that democratic states are more peaceful than despotic ones.  The great democracies of the world evolved from values generated during the Enlightenment which threw off the tyranny of religious and the rule of monarchs.  In general, we refer to these as Western values.  India, Japan and South Korea are "eastern" countries which have successfully embraced Western values.\n\nFor third-world peoples to overcome the plight, they must be willing to embrace Western values and willing to make great sacrifice for them.  Sending in troops can only serve to keep the peace temporarily until there is a national resolve and interest in succeeding as a nation-state. \n\nThe reality is that many small third world nations cannot expect help from the West unless it is in the national interests of their own countries.  Iraq gets focus because of oil; while Darfur suffers further.  Rwanda and the Hungarian Rebellion were great moral failings of the West and the United States.\n\nThe US can't fix everything and should focus on its' national interest and security, but it should be willing to help when others are willing to make the same moral sacrifice.
243385
Yeah, but we're the richest and most powerful country in the world, so the rules don't REALLY apply when they're not convienent, do they?  We're not worried about being MORAL, just as long as we can wage unilateral war to make OTHERS moral.\n\nWe're America, we don't have to worry about being hypocrites.
1163817
There's a number of them:\n\n* Kickbacks and scandal (Kofi Annan's son)\n* Where it goes when it gets there (to a dictator or a hospital?)\n* Whether it could be spent better elsewhere (India doesn't really need as much aid as it did years ago, some argue)\n* Whether it is morally justified to support foreign interests when domestic interests are suffering\n* whether it is morally justified to provide aide to terrorist states or military enemies of our allies.
754090
I don't think of the American conscience in these terms, so I cannot answer this question.\n\nI doubt the liberals will ever provide a consensus for morality.
560312
Grace, Peace and Mercy.\n\nKING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &C.,/P \n\nThe Translators of the Bible wish Grace, Mercy and Peace, through JESUS CHRIST, our Lord.\n\nthe link below has other good links attached...very informative.
506222
what does any other country have to give to us? why do other countries have to "give" to us?