|
Mercnbeth -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/3/2010 8:21:24 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL brainiacsub
universal moral principles
Therein is the crux of the matter. Who's version of "universal", I would think 'global' difficult enough to use as a standard.
On the globe cows are worshiped in one place, in another they're ground up and proudly served billions of times as a 'Happy Meal' marketed by a red nosed, big footed, clown.
There isn't any universal moral principle and the western version of moral principles, not that there is one standard for that either, isn't always the most benign. A position of non-intervention, fundamentally one of respect, doesn't require facilitating their cultural and legal norms, the closest neighbors of the US won't extradite anyone for a capital crime unless the death penalty is off the table. The law of any sovereign nation starts and stops at the border. There is no agreement clause in a visa application, only stipulation of awareness.
I know some people would invade Mexico to capture and return to the US for trial and execution person's accused of certain murders such as when police officers have been killed. Having a different outcome, others may think an armed rescue of this person would be the 'right' thing to do. There is no difference to what either of these actions represent to the host country - invasion. Would the US stand by while, under either circumstance, people from a foreign culture did the same to us? Again, we're not talking about words and opinions, but action; escalating the situation in a way where instead of one person getting killed for practicing witchcraft many are killed in the action, or escalated hostile consequences between the nations.
The polarity of the sides serves that end; which is why I've been an advocate of US isolation when it comes to being the world's police force using 'Western' or at least a US version of it contingent upon the person and party in power. Fundamentally inconsistent and at minimum confusing to other sovereign powers; the policy is pointed to, correctly in my opinion, of the negative image and downright hatred of the US regardless of who is in power. The only solution, as I see it, is to limit any responses to activities not directly, meaning an attack on US citizens on soil, involving us is to let them.
The Saudis want to behead, or burn 'witches' and/or 'fortune tellers', Saddam is using a people shredder, or threatening his neighbors with real or imagined WMD's; oh well - its their country. Talk about it all you like, exhibit and apply whatever moral outrage serves you - but it is their country to be respected as much as the 'Holy' religious ritual of crucifixion which went on in the Philippines yesterday.
One required corollary however for a non-intervention stance that separates me from the Buddhist persuasion is quick, escalated response to any breach of the US sovereignty. Of course, the problem comes up about who or what foreign entity backed an attack, but without trying to account for each and every eventuality, I'd summarize my proposed response by the words spoken to Elliot Ness when he after Al Capone and the Chicago mob; "They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."
Note - it referenced "one of" not 'the one'. Perhaps another compromise to 'acceptable' western standards to pull off, and live by, a non-hypocritical, non intervention, total respecting the autonomy of other sovereign countries and cultures, policy; while not totally abdicating the Constitutional obligation of government to protect its citizens.
Again - this is only a academic debate. I can't imagine this position becoming a "universal moral principle".
|
|
|
|
