Intervening to uphold our own morals Watch

This discussion is closed.
homoterror
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#1
A thought stimulated by reading this which left me gutted - http://direland.typepad.com/direland...xecutes_2.html

I think the civilised world should intervene more in the uncivilised world. We should have a conviction in what we believe, some cultures are more civilised than others, clearly one that has brought about a regime that does things like this is less civilised. We have a duty to protect victims from criminals, which is what we would regard this to be.
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 13 years ago
#2
Are you suggesting that Britain should invade and occupy Iran until its social structure resembles Britain's?
0
homoterror
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#3
(Original post by Bismarck)
Are you suggesting that Britain should invade and occupy Iran until its social structure resembles Britain's?
I'd start by using all friendly contacts to bring any economic pressure possible on an unacceptable regime. Then I might start considering having innocent people lined up for human rights abuses busted out of prison. I would consider even more dramatic measures, because I feel we're far too unwilling to condemn other countries for barbaric behaviour.
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report 13 years ago
#4
(Original post by homoterror)
I'd start by using all friendly contacts to bring any economic pressure possible on an unacceptable regime.
Iran has a highly protectionist economy. The only way you can harm it economically is if you force the entire world to stop buying their oil. Needless to say, that's not going to happen.

Then I might start considering having innocent people lined up for human rights abuses busted out of prison.
How do you propose to do that? :confused: Attack heavily-guarded prisons with troops?

I would consider even more dramatic measures, because I feel we're far too unwilling to condemn other countries for barbaric behaviour.
Taking action against this barbarism would result in far more barbarism. The means must be subordinate to the end, not the other way around.
0
Alexdel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 13 years ago
#5
(Original post by homoterror)
A thought stimulated by reading this which left me gutted - http://direland.typepad.com/direland...xecutes_2.html

I think the civilised world should intervene more in the uncivilised world. We should have a conviction in what we believe, some cultures are more civilised than others, clearly one that has brought about a regime that does things like this is less civilised. We have a duty to protect victims from criminals, which is what we would regard this to be.
No we shouldn't. People eventually will rise up themselves and overturn dictators. That's how countries have become democratic in the past and that's how these countries will become free too. Foreign intervention will only make things worse...
0
homoterror
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#6
(Original post by Bismarck)
Iran has a highly protectionist economy. The only way you can harm it economically is if you force the entire world to stop buying their oil. Needless to say, that's not going to happen.
I suppose I'm saying it should happen.


How do you propose to do that? :confused: Attack heavily-guarded prisons with troops?
Yes, even if such an operation resulted in death and destruction. I feel we should uphold morals and refuse to tolerate such heinous crime.


Taking action against this barbarism would result in far more barbarism. The means must be subordinate to the end, not the other way around.
If you're referring to more barbarism from the regime, then we should continue to take it on until the regime is exhausted. Again, it's about refusing to tolerate it and being willing to take on resistance/war to uphold morals.
If you're referring to the population of say Iran resenting the foreign influence and making a resistance, then I'm not quite sure what I think to be honest. Clearly superior ideas and morals come through economic freedom and education. Maybe a very intensive intervention needs to take place until this economic change takes place and a population can see the light to make better decisions.
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report 13 years ago
#7
(Original post by Alexdel)
No we shouldn't. People eventually will rise up themselves and overturn dictators. That's how countries have become democratic in the past and that's how these countries will become free too. Foreign intervention will only make things worse...
Actually, it's nearly impossible to overthrow totalitarian (in contrast to authoritarian) regimes as they do not allow independent centers of power from which opposition might gain support. A crusade against "immoral" regimes might very well help the people living under those regimes, but it would severely harm the countries doing the crusading.
0
homoterror
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#8
(Original post by Alexdel)
No we shouldn't. People eventually will rise up themselves and overturn dictators. That's how countries have become democratic in the past and that's how these countries will become free too. Foreign intervention will only make things worse...
It's 2005. I don't really believe this. Nations may well just spiral into poverty, with theocracies brainwashing populations to become more and more submissive.
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 13 years ago
#9
(Original post by homoterror)
Yes, even if such an operation resulted in death and destruction. I feel we should uphold morals and refuse to tolerate such heinous crime.
So you would be fine with the deaths of thousands and complete economic collapse in your country if it meant freeing a few innocent people from prison in Iran?

If you're referring to more barbarism from the regime, then we should continue to take it on until the regime is exhausted. Again, it's about refusing to tolerate it and being willing to take on resistance/war to uphold morals.
If you're referring to the population of say Iran resenting the foreign influence and making a resistance, then I'm not quite sure what I think to be honest. Clearly superior ideas and morals come through economic freedom and education. Maybe a very intensive intervention needs to take place until this economic change takes place and a population can see the light to make better decisions.
I'm referring to the barbarism that is inevitable in a war between Britain and Iran. How many soldiers and Iranian civilians would you be willing to sacrifice for you "noble" mission of changing Iran's social structure? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? A million?
0
homoterror
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#10
(Original post by Bismarck)
So you would be fine with the deaths of thousands and complete economic collapse in your country if it meant freeing a few innocent people from prison in Iran?



I'm referring to the barbarism that is inevitable in a war between Britain and Iran. How many soldiers and Iranian civilians would you be willing to sacrifice for you "noble" mission of changing Iran's social structure? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? A million?
I don't economic collapse is a particularly terrible thing if we're talking about a protectionist oppressive economy, it means the economy can't be that great for a start, and it has to have a huge shock sooner or later if it's going to develop into anything resembling freedom.

I don't think the costs of war can be worth it in cases like Iran yes. I would also hope that the understanding that we're prepared to make sacrifices to uphold our morals will mean that countries will take initial threats seriously. You're not just releasing people from prison, you're establishing an authority of morality.
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 13 years ago
#11
How are you, someone who's prepared to kill millions for the sake of your own morality, any different than the ayotollahs who'are willing to oppress millions for the sake of their morality?
0
Alexdel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report 13 years ago
#12
(Original post by homoterror)
It's 2005. I don't really believe this. Nations may well just spiral into poverty, with theocracies brainwashing populations to become more and more submissive.
So you advocate another Iraq (or even worse in this case) where countries invading will be hated for it, another mess, thousands of people dead.....more people recruited by extremists, less security etc....
0
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 13 years ago
#13
It might be an idea for the western world to get its house in order before it worries about others.
0
homoterror
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#14
(Original post by Bismarck)
How are you, someone who's prepared to kill millions for the sake of your own morality, any different than the ayotollahs who'are willing to oppress millions for the sake of their morality?
There is no objective judgement of who's better, I just say since we're the more developed ones, we assume we have the better values and that these populations want our values whether they realise it right now or not. If they're misled by theocracies, confused by poverty then they probably can't appreciate our values right now.
0
Lychgate
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 13 years ago
#15
Because Britain is a model example of all that is great and true, isn't it:questionm
0
homoterror
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#16
(Original post by Alexdel)
So you advocate another Iraq (or even worse in this case) where countries invading will be hated for it, another mess, thousands of people dead.....more people recruited by extremists, less security etc....
Yes. We have the capability to enforce our values, there are huge costs, but as I said I think as the developed world, we should regard as morals and values as better and enforce them with the notion that said countries will appreciate it in the long term.
0
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 13 years ago
#17
Yes. We have the capability to enforce our values, there are huge costs, but as I said I think as the developed world, we should regard as morals and values as better and enforce them with the notion that said countries will appreciate it in the long term.
Then we wonder why we get bombed and become targets of terrorism :rolleyes:
0
homoterror
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#18
(Original post by Lychgate)
Because Britain is a model example of all that is great and true, isn't it:questionm
It might be an idea for the western world to get its house in order before it worries about others.
Hey guess what we don't hang 16 year olds for homosexuality. Ending such young life is utterly barbaric. When I refer to western values I'm talking about freedom, including economic freedom.
0
Alexdel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#19
Report 13 years ago
#19
(Original post by homoterror)
Yes. We have the capability to enforce our values, there are huge costs, but as I said I think as the developed world, we should regard as morals and values as better and enforce them with the notion that said countries will appreciate it in the long term.
I'm sorry but I don't want in excess of 100k people dead in order to uphold your morality..
0
homoterror
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#20
(Original post by Alexdel)
I'm sorry but I don't want in excess of 100k people dead in order to uphold your morality..
I didn't want to make the comparison, but if you knew the holocaust would take place without Britain's intervention would you not think it was worth it?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (863)
80.28%
Leave (212)
19.72%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise