[Kazan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4178804.stm

/sigh

[Ford Prefect]

But the standards of proof must be high, or we might inadvertently invade an irrelevant country.

[Charismatic]

Go in and flush them out... take their nuky's. Dumbass US.

Contaminated equiptment? Wow thats origional.

[Kazan]

Charismatic are you being serious?

that was an IAEA report

The independent report, published on Tuesday by the International Atomic Energy Agency, concluded that traces of uranium found in Iran two years ago came from contaminated equipment imported from Pakistan.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
But the standards of proof must be high, or we might inadvertently invade an irrelevant country.

But surely the US has a duty to remove these evil Islamic law-run theocratic nations?!!oneoneone

[Rictor]

Proof positive that God exists, and that he has a wicked sense of humour.

As for Iran: good for them. If the report is true, it's a slap in the face to all the warmongers.

[vyper]

Watch this, the dolly will be out the pram any day now.

Suddenly "reform" of the UN will speed up.

[Kazan]

ok if we covertly support the students protesting and trying to get their freedom - fine

[Rictor]

Originally posted by vyper
Watch this, the dolly will be out the pram any day now.

Suddenly "reform" of the UN will speed up.

That went right over my head.

Kazan: Here's a question: would you support let's say China supporting movements in the US? If not, why would you advocate the same thing for another country?

[Kazan]

Rictor: if they're supporting movements to promote more democracy and human rights then hell yes

[DragonClaw]

With the right technology, leftover waste from a nuclear power plant can be used to create nuclear bombs. If every country has "civilian" nuclear rights, at some point a crazed maniac is going to decide to cause nuclear armageddeon. I'm in favor of limiting nuclear power for that reason, but what the hell... we're gonna blow ourselves up some way or another.

[Bobboau]

I bet they are trying to get nukes and thanks to Mr Bush's wonderful leadership there isn't a damned thing we can do about it.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: if they're supporting movements to promote more democracy and human rights then hell yes

What if their definition of human rights and democracy is different from yours?

[Kazan]

aldo: the definition of human rights is not subjective - if someone is subscribing to a subjective one then they need to be ignored

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: the definition of human rights is not subjective - if someone is subscribing to a subjective one then they need to be ignored

There is a question of the definition, and a question of how and who to that definition is applied.  Within certain contexts, there is probably ambiguity due to political reasons.

There's also the question of the way in which one human right can be advanced at the expense of another; the classic security versus liberty issue.  For example, one way to help ensure personal security could be to ban private ownership of firearms.  There's no explicit protection in the UN declaration of human rights for firearms ownership, but I'm sure you'd see many in the US arguing it was a violation of their rights to do so.

The justification for this, would then be an entirely cultural thing; i.e. in the UK the firearms ban is accepted and approved by, I believe, the majority.  If another culture has a different concept of the aformentioned liberty-security balance and what it means, then you can see possible subversion of an independent countries culture through those measures.  And that would be, IMO, a problem.

I'm not going to argue against anyone supporting human rights & democratic movements, only against the dangers when it's done with a subtext, regardless of how subtle or minor.

[Kazan]

the right to bear arms is not a human right

[aldo_14]

Personally, I agree - but some could define it as such, perhaps within the definition of right to security, or not to arbitrarily denied property.  I don't know if that has ever been legally tested, though.

Either way, I believe there can still be an implied subtext to that sort of operation; usually the justification for funding it.  i.e. the US would be expecting greater - for lack of a better word - co-operation from Ukraine and Georgia at the minimum.  And sometimes you don't know about these subtexts' until after the 'event'.  So I'd be at the least concerned by any foreign involvement, regardless of how nice it looks on the surface.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan
the right to bear arms is not a human right

Says who? They're a piece of property, just like a toaster or a desk. It's a slipperly slope, with many grey areas.

Also, "human rights organizations" and "pro democracy groups" are hardly apolitical and above abuse. In fact, the have become one of the main catalysts for political action, on the grounds that whatever agenda one is trying to push is given a nice, happy face by working through an NGO. Influence is bought and sold, lies are spun - just like everywhere else.

[aldo_14]

I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a slipperly slope.  It's a balance; you have law and the protection of society on one side, and individual rights of ownership on the other.  I don't think the inherent or even likely result of banning guns is banning private ownership of anything, nor do I think legalising guns leads to an Iraq or Somalia style anarchy of destruction.

[Kazan]

aldo exactly "the right to bear arms" is not a human right - the "right to own property" is