Invading countries with under-evolved morals....

[Lord Porpington]

I think each country should be able to have it's own opinions and standards, but there are times where a country is in such a state, and fails to to evolve with the rest of the species, that I think we should be able to invade a country, overthrow it's government/dictator and rule them for the good of their population

How can we just sit and watch things like women being put to death for being raped, or young girls being forced to marry their rapist? 10 year old boys being drafted into the army. People being stoned to death simply for not following a religion.

Does this give us the right to invade and take over?

Personally, I think if we have the power, we should do it. If these bastards had the power, they would nuke all who didn't believe in allah. Look at history, and what happens when power falls into the wrong hands. Lets consider ourselves fortunate that we have the power and can use it responsibly.

Should we invade? Should we enforce some sort of decent moral standard? I'm not saying we should rule these countries forever, but simply help them evolve.

[Ramone]

Who are we to say what's right or wrong? What if an alien species invaded Earth because they thought we had "under-evolved" morals compared to them, causing countless civilian casualties? If people want to leave a country they live in because they feel like the current laws or rules are wrong we should make it as easy as possible for those people to come here but we should not presume to be arbiters of morality.

[Lord Porpington]

Who are we to say what's right or wrong? What if an alien species invaded Earth because they thought we had "under-evolved" morals compared to them, causing countless civilian casualties? If people want to leave a country they live in because they feel like the current laws or rules are wrong we should make it as easy as possible for those people to come here but we should not presume to be arbiters of morality.

I predicted something like this would come up, and it's a point made by a lot of people. I've always known that there is no set standard for right and wrong. Nature is nature and that's all that exists. What's right and wrong is completely opinionated.

You can use the same argument against any set of rules that are made by any government on the planet. Rape is a punishable crime, but who are we to say it's wrong? It's only an opinion.

The only moral standards that have an effect on others is the moral standards of the people who have the power to enforce them. We have the power to help human beings that are being ruled and hurt by those that we would call disgusting/horrible human beings.

All those being stoned to death for following the wrong god, killed for being raped, being forced to marry rapists etc. We could help them, so regardless of whether or not you think us acting as the world police is wrong, and trying to act as the arbiters of morality, we have the power to do it.

At the end of the day, morality is being forced upon human beings wherever you go. It's not a system that everyone finds fair, but it is what it is because the only way we will survive together is to develop a moral standard that helps us survive.
The development of morality is the most important thing when it comes to societies being able to function.

This sort of thing could also apply to the world as a whole. If we do not step in and do something to change certain countries, then it could be a disaster for the entire planet if they manage to get a hold of something that could do damage to everyone else.

Imagine if a country which contains certain individuals with power that think all those who don't believe in their God are infidels/inferior/sinner etc get their hands on a significant amount of nuclear weapons? Their lack of morals will not only effect their own country, but the entire planet. The development of morality can, in some cases, effect the human race as a whole. You think it's not a possibility? There are plenty who think that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for doing it!!

Look at 9/11! All the motivation they needed to suicide bomb buildings in the US was their belief that they'd get to f*** 72 virgins in heaven! Regardless of all the women that they've raped on this planet, and all the people they kill for not believing in their god, they will be rewarded!! It can affect all of us!!

This is why I believe it's necessary to enforce our morals upon certain countries, not only to help it's inhabitants, but also to defend our species, and the planet!

[skalpel]

Who are we to say what's right or wrong?

A signatory of the Genocide Convention.

[Ramone]

Who are we to say what's right or wrong?

A signatory of the Genocide Convention.

Of course...

*Runs off to see what the f*** the Genocide Convention is*

[skalpel]

Haha. It's a treaty signed (or rather ratified nowadays) by the vast majority of countries in the world to enforce a moral standard. It states that genocide is morally wrong and it should be prevented, that intervention is warranted and that those responsible for it should be punished by the international community.

[Lord Porpington]

Exactly. The moral standards held by those with the power to enforce them are the ones that will effect all of us, and the majority of the planet agree that certain things are wrong, including genocide.

It would be a justified act in most of our opinions to overthrow the pieces of s*** that run some of these countries and help the people involved.

[skalpel]

Although genocide is not an equal evil to the examples mentioned in your OP which are not grounds for invasion at all.

[Lord Porpington]

People getting stoned to death for not believing in God. People getting killed for being raped. People being forced to marry rapists. The Taliban killing and torturing it's own people. Are these not justified reasons for invasion?

I'm not saying invade all countries who disagree with us, but I think some countries right now are pushing it far too much.

We've even had to deport certain people from our own country simply because they renounced Islam and their home countries demanded they serve trial and most likely be killed for doing it.

It may not be mass genocide, but it's something that needs to be dealt with.

[Seagull]

Alright, I'll bite.

The total cost of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the United States since 2001 stands at nearly $1,500,000,000,000. That's 12 years of fighting in two states, and it's helping to financially cripple the country.

You want to invade every single country that practices an ethical code you see as inferior? You'll be invading dozens of countries across a range of continents, waging wars against people who don't want to be invaded. You have an issue with Russia and China's stance on human rights? Good luck even trying.

[Lord Porpington]

I think people are just reacting to the title a little too much.

I never said under-evolved was anything that differs from ours. I'm pretty sure anyone who's read my OP and my comments knows what countries I'm talking about.

I'm also realistic and know if a country that was powerful enough adopted these same under-evolved morals, it wouldn't be worth the cost and the blood to do it. But fortunately, all of the superpowers, despite disagreeing significantly on certain things, contain a population of which most people would agree that the things that go on in certain countries are just plain evil. Good and Evil is opinion-based, I know, but most human beings agree that there are certain things that need to be classed as evil and eradicated or else we'll never come close to achieving a global community, and therefore significantly decreasing the chances of another world war, or countries destroying each other due to religious beliefs and thins like this.

With a collaborative effort of many countries that would share the same moral code, It would surely be worth it for the lives that we can save and those who's lives we could improve. We could give people a chance to live properly. We spend money trying to feed and give clean water to a lot of people in different countries, and I think we should help people that face death, rape and other types of horrible treatment in certain countries. A country where half it's population will be on the end of what is called corrective rape if they show anything other than their eyes is what most human beings would call under-evolved.

[Sir Bobby]

It seems as if you're demonising African and Shariah law run areas together as being hellholes for stoning people whereas you're ignoring similar acts that occur in more developed countries.

The allowance of America's citizens to bear arms coupled with the stand your ground law sees numerous people killed every year for relatively minor acts like burglary and fighting. Was the murder of Trayvon Martin that much different (from a moral viewpoint) than the murder of an adulterer in a country like Somalia?

Both crimes come from a poor moral code each country has (America's being the right to stand your ground with deadly force and Somalia's being that adultery is punishable by death). Both crimes could have been stopped if we had enforced our morals on them. And both crimes resulted in the death of (fairly) innocent people.

Should we invade America for their morally-backward take on standing your ground? By your own standards surely we should?

Ultimately every country has it's own moral issues and having a policy for invading other countries for having poor morals would most likely lead to far more wars and deaths, which defeats the objective of invading and enforcing good morals on people.

[jpg]

What that last guy said, sort of...

[Lord Porpington]

It seems as if you're demonising African and Shariah law run areas together as being hellholes for stoning people whereas you're ignoring similar acts that occur in more developed countries.

The allowance of America's citizens to bear arms coupled with the stand your ground law sees numerous people killed every year for relatively minor acts like burglary and fighting. Was the murder of Trayvon Martin that much different (from a moral viewpoint) than the murder of an adulterer in a country like Somalia?

Both crimes come from a poor moral code each country has (America's being the right to stand your ground with deadly force and Somalia's being that adultery is punishable by death). Both crimes could have been stopped if we had enforced our morals on them. And both crimes resulted in the death of (fairly) innocent people.

Should we invade America for their morally-backward take on standing your ground? By your own standards surely we should?

Ultimately every country has it's own moral issues and having a policy for invading other countries for having poor morals would most likely lead to far more wars and deaths, which defeats the objective of invading and enforcing good morals on people.

Everyone country should have the right to establish it's own morals, but if we are to survive as a species and achieve a decent standard of living for all humans, we must find the best way to prevent global conflicts and also to make sure that countries are lead with people who at least agree with the basic moral standards that most of us have adopted. And the best way to do that is to allow each country rights to make it's own rules, but there must be certain rules that all must follow, or else the rest will invade and restore order. This is why the genocide convention was started. Who are we to say it's wrong? We are the majority, and in this case we think you've gone too far.

Invading countries too often would lead to blood shed that we don't want to see happen, but if blood shed, pain and suffering is already in place in a certain country, then we should try and help the people involved, whether it be bringing water and bread to starving people, or assassinating evil dictators and putting into place a remotely sensible set of morals which leads to the population of the country at least the chance to live without fear of death simply for not believing in a god or showing too much skin.

If we achieve this sort of system, a sort of global community, then I think we will survive as well as we can, until nature takes it's course or a meteor strikes the planet or some s***.

On to another point -

The Trayvon Martin case wasn't just open and shut. It wasn't "the black kid was attacking him and the white guy rightfully shot him, case closed". It was debated for months and the trial lasted a long time. Opinions were divided. Some of the people that were for the white mans release were just racists bastards, but I have seen a lot of people state their opinion that lethal force should be permitted when defending yourself, but they weren't happy that Trayvon died and wished he could have lived.

It's a flaw in the justice system in that country, and one that a lot of it's population recognise. It's a moral standard that's very disagreeable, but I think the important thing is that opinions were divided. People discussed why it was wrong or right or why justice was and wasn't served.In Iran, you don't get that. You just get "you were luring that rapist to you, and therefore he shall be set free, and you're going to be stoned to death you whore. How dare you make eye contact and seduce that man."

I think you can see the difference and the extremism of the latter. The USA has it's flaws, but it's justice system has been attacked by it's own people. A lot of it's inhabitants have voices that will be heard.

[Bik]

Yours is a very poorly veiled and even more poorly reasoned bit of anti-muslim bollocks.

[Lord Porpington]

Bik, if the topics being discussed are too complex for you to understand, then don't say anything.

Everyone else has given arguments and remained respectful. If you can't do the same then just shut up.