Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Hang on, I had the decency to answer your questions, how about you actually answer mine.
1. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide no action should be taken, then should a nation take action on it's own and oust the dictator?
2. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide action should be taken, then should a nation with the backing of the UN oust the dictator?
3. If your answers are 1. No, 2. Yes, then are you putting international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?
|
Sorry for the delay, had to go pick up my lad.
1. No
2. Yes
As well as torturing and murdering his population, you forgot to mention cruelty to cute puppies and kittens and lickle babbies (just in case your question wasn't emotive enough).
"
then are you putting international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?" Nice slanted black/white statement - my answer would be (again) that I am putting International Law above meddling in the internal affairs of a country (but as you've stated, you don't need no steenkin' international law). Or should we invade Zimbabwe and North Korea as well, then pick on China when we are finished?
re some of your "answers" -
"
We didn't need to for the action to be legal." - who is this "we" you refer to (or is it the Royal we)?