Kitty Genovese and the UN

[apothanein kerdos]

The U.N. doesn't do well with 'humanitarian' work either; I mean...we are right in the middle of the Oil for Food scandal NOW!  No.  The UN doesn't do anything effectively, and is a source for trouble, not for good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh I agree. That's why I said the only use the Un could possibly have is as a humanitarian network, but to accomplish this we would practically need a new organization to deal with it due to the corruption. One key element would be allowing only certain countries in it....when most of the UN is comprised of totalitarian dictatorships it's hard to make a case that shows any positive aspects of the UN.

[Cherub_Rocket]

You assert that the US has no right to intervene but do not explain how we have no right. We have no right to stop murder in other nations?

Because we are not sovereign over those nations. President Bush is President of America, not the world. There are many things we can do to promote human rights. War is not one of them.

If this is your view of justice and of rights...then you do realize that you and Kofi Annan would get along beautifully? You're just like the people in the Kitty Genovese case. "It's not my right", "It's not affecting me".

I'm sad that you judge me like that.

[ted]

Easy folks.

Be nice.

t.

[apothanein kerdos]

Because we are not sovereign over those nations. President Bush is President of America, not the world. There are many things we can do to promote human rights. War is not one of them.

This is the exact kind of thinking that my article adresses. "It's not our country". "It's not our right." Human beings...women and children...are being killed. Three year old girls are being taken up in these nations, raped, and then brutally murdered. Mothers are watching their children die. Husbands are being forced to hear the screams of their wives as these brutal soldiers mutilate them...yet you advocate it is not our right or place to intervene?

[Cherub_Rocket]

Super Jew, it is not possible to make a comparison to the Kitty Genovese case. This could have been prevented had one individual in his/her own sphere of action made the decision to help her. Such is not the case when discussing an entire nation.

You are perfectly free to go to Iraq and try to help -- that is your decision. But you have no right to tell others that we must go along with you. Like I said: talk the talk, walk the walk. You are part of this "super power" nation as well; do not assume that you'll be allowed to sit back in your reclining chair with wifey and kids, all safe and sound at home, while I and others are forced to die in Africa. Do you have the courage to turn words into action? If not, then there is nothing to further argue.

Edited December 28, 2004 by Cherub_Rocket

[apothanein kerdos]

Super Jew, it is not possible to make a comparison to the Kitty Genovese case. This could have been prevented had one individual in his/her own sphere of action made the decision to help her. Such is not the case when discussing an entire nation.

You are perfectly free to go to Iraq and try to help -- that is your decision. But you have no right to tell others that we must go along with you. Like I said: talk the talk, walk the walk. You are part of this "super power" nation as well; do not assume that you'll be allowed to sit back in your reclining chair with wifey and kids, all safe and sound at home, while I and others are forced to die in Africa. Do you have the courage to turn words into action? If not, then there is nothing to further argue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've tried to join the military and was rejected due to having four torn muscles that have grown back incorrectly in my left shoulder. Basically my left shoulder is useless if I need to lift anything above fifty pounds.

Regardless of that painful trip down memory lane, me being in the military or not being in the military doesn't matter. If the US government told me, "Joel, we'll follow your plan and let you in the military regardless to make sure you follow up on this" then I'd have no problem doing it. Also, like I said, it shouldn't just be the US but a collection of nations doing this.

Also, explain to me the difference between the Kitty Genovese case and us intervening to save lives...cause I'm not seeing any difference.

[ted]

You are perfectly free to go to Iraq and try to help -- that is your decision. But you have no right to tell others that we must go along with you. Like I said: talk the talk, walk the walk. You are part of this "super power" nation as well; do not assume that you'll be allowed to sit back in your reclining chair with wifey and kids, all safe and sound at home, while I and others are forced to die in Africa. Do you have the courage to turn words into action? If not, then there is nothing to further argue. 

While I am certainly in favor of actions, not words;

while I and others are forced to die in Africa.

Rocket, you were drafted?

I'm confused.

t.

[Cherub_Rocket]

Also, explain to me the difference between the Kitty Genovese case and us intervening to save lives...cause I'm not seeing any difference.

Selective reading.

This (the Kitty Genovese case) could have been prevented had one individual in his/her own sphere of action made the decision to help her. Such is not the case when discussing an entire nation.

It is not our business to interfere in the affairs of other nations; it is simply not for us to decide. God has placed all leaders into power for a reason. Saddam Hussein had no authority except which was given to him by God.

"You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above."

John 19.11

While our nation was formed to serve as a beacon of liberty, it was not formed to search the world for monsters to destroy. It is not the sovereign right of any nation to do that. In the words of John Quincy Adams,

"[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

You're looking at this from a globalist and humanist perspective. While that is admirable, you must accept that we're living in an unperfect world ruled by evil. Peace will never be possible in this world. If you believe otherwise, then you're in a fantasy world apart from the reality that man is flawed.

Rocket, you were drafted?

Edited December 28, 2004 by Cherub_Rocket

[apothanein kerdos]

Stop being rude and let's have a rational discussion, okay?

Selective reading.

This (the Kitty Genovese case) could have been prevented had one individual in his/her own sphere of action made the decision to help her. Such is not the case when discussing an entire nation.

It is not our business to interfere in the affairs of other nations; it is simply not for us to decide. God has placed all leaders into power for a reason. Saddam Hussein had no authority except which was given to him by God.

"You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above."

John 19.11

While our nation was formed to serve as a beacon of liberty, it was not formed to search the world for monsters to destroy. It is not the sovereign right of any nation to do that. In the words of John Quincy Adams,

"[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

You're looking at this from a globalist and humanist perspective. While that is admirable, you must accept that we're living in an unperfect world ruled by evil. Peace will never be possible in this world. If you believe otherwise, then you're in a fantasy world apart from the reality that man is flawed.

First, I am looking at this from a moral perspective, not a humanistic one. I also realize that we cannot have absolute peace nor can we stop all violence in the world. Yet it is our moral obligation to stop genocide. You're telling me that when a government kills its own we have no right to step in and stop them? How in the world can you morally justify this?

[Cherub_Rocket]

Stop being rude

Then I suggest you cease in your judging of others for their personal beliefs. You're going to have to learn that you're not going to be correct 100% of the time. We're all flawed; I could very well be wrong on this matter, but I must follow my convictions.

and let's have a rational discussion, okay?

No. This is not a "rational" issue, nor do I subcribe to rationale. My beliefs stem from the precept that sovereignty is divided for a purpose. There are evil kings and there are good kings -- all are in place for a reason higher than our own.

Being as this is a divisive matter upon which we shall never agree, I see no good reason to further discuss it here.

Warm regards,

Cherub

Edited December 28, 2004 by Cherub_Rocket