Human Rights and Those Who Claim to Advocate...

[Kent]

Well, it has been a while since I posted anything like this... Along with that span of time, I have cut my posting in half...

It's time for a political debate Kent style...

I want to specifically discuss the over-looked human rights progress that has occured over the last year due to the burden of protection and support for third world countries by the first world countries most of us come from.

Actually, that statment is a bit off. I should have said that the spread of human rights is due to one thing. The greatest violators of human rights decided to "take a fight to us" and the great democracies of the world, ending in changes of regimes and changes in ideologies that could only be brought by democracy.

Well, actually :D I messed up again...

I wanted to bring up the people who stand up for human rights when asked, yet oppose the very spread of those rights to spite the efforts of those who do not share their own political views.

Such is the case with the opposition to a conflict in Iraq, as well as the opposition to the defense of South Vietnam. (damn hippies oppossing American efforts to stop atrocities at the hands of aggressive communist actavist. i.e. the khamer rouge)

To state a single question for the furthering of any possible discussion in this thread...

Should an individual's political pride out wiegh his/her support for the implementation of the ideals he/she allegedly holds ?

I say no.

I believe those who hold supportive views for human rights, yet have oppossed international conflicts through out history, have proven themselves to be more arrogant than benevolent. (I also believe these actions prove these people to be blind to the progress of human rights, none the less, women's rights)

Conflict is always horrible, but the results of any conflicts are up to us to decide.:naughty:

[Kesaki_Inedia]

Daewoo? Politics confuse me...but I 'd have to say no cause you did...what does implimentation mean?

[Kent]

First off, I spelled it wrong with my initial attempts to use the word... that error has been corrected.

Implement- An instrament, tool, or utensil for accomplishing work. Implementation.

I believe I used the term properly, although I could be wrong... :lol:

[Manic Webb]

The way I understand it, the hippie lifestyle advocates the solving of conflicts through non-violent means, not to avoid those conflicts altogether and complain about them at the same time. Given, most hippies don't seem to get that, but a real hippie (if one even exists) would promote negotiation.

That said, I half-way support our current involvement in the middle-east. I seriously wish that somebody could've found another way to work through this, but there was little choice. Either way, the conflict in Iraq is almost over and I'm hoping the UN's humanitarian group can head in there for clean-up in there soon.

But I digress. There was a question to be answered in there somewhere.

[b]Should an individual's political pride out wiegh his/her support for the implimentation of the ideals he/she allegedly holds?[/b]

Of course not. It makes no sense to put politics before ethics. However, if a person's ideals involve solving problems through non-violent means, then said implimentation would have to be non-violent as well. It's not so much hypocrisy as it's somebody not being able to have their cake and eat it. It's all one big dilemma that has to be solved with one ideal being sacrificed for the other. For some people, it's a no-win situation.

[Kent]

On the contrary, someone does win...

The man who reaps the benefits of humanitarian progress always wins.

Whether the hippie gets to eat a piece of that cake too is of no importance... They already had theirs and it allowed them to voice the non violent opinion they hold.

[Change]

I like human rights. There i nothing wrong with a little compassion...That being said, it's time to get real...
Fact: At the turn of the 19th century, human rights in our own country regarding labor practices were atrocious. It was a hardship of a budding industiral society. Now the U.S. wants to preach human rights accrost the globe, but waht people forget in their arrogance is that other industrializing nations are not where the U.S. is today and they connot develop if they do not do it in the way that we did =/

I appose many international interventions. Iraq turned out to be a dud as I predicted it would be, we really did just go there for the oil, and not the lovely people and cousien...However, this is not an absolute, Clinton did excellent work in Kosove (but bunggeled Somalia).

[Kent]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Change [/i]
[B] we really did just go there for the oil, and not the lovely people and cousien...[/B][/QUOTE]

I just hope you continue saying that for the rest of your political life.

:laugh: :laugh:

[Change]

You obviously haven't been reading the newspapers or magazines much...I will keep saying it... :P

[Kent]

LOL. I will take that as a simple suggestion of possible scenerios and not a personal insult.

But just as all of you have probably noticed... I am poorly spoken and far below average in intelligence.

My political views are obviously mis-informed and out of date.

So I guess its ok for you to assume I dont read news papers or anything.

Then again, maybe theres a reason for that... :cough, cough, jason blair:

Of course, everything above and anything about oil has nothing to do with the original question and subject of the thread...

The "over-looking" of the human right progress that has occured due to the actions of an imperialist, totalitarian government.

[Change]

Heh, I really don't wanna get into this, we already got about 50 pages last time arround ^_~ So I will say that I am a firm beliver in human rights...eventualy...Everything takes time, and if you don't want to go and force poeple to change their treatment of others, you just have to wait for them to fix it (an unlikely propositions, but the cheepest in our blood and greenback, money is the clarion call after all).

[Baron Samedi]

sorry about this Change, but you really munted up the word.... it is [b]cuisine[/b] not [b]cousien[/b]. sorry but i like proper spelling. im sure that you know how to spell it properly though. in regard to this question- which i got a bit lost- but i think i found it out...A persons ethics, no matter what they are, should be important to a person, and more valuable than mere political pride. Just because the other political group wants to do it their way, you do not have to disagree. if your ethics insist that you feel you should disagree, then by all means. do what you like, as long as it involves retaining your nice, cushy, high-paying job. i think this is the main point.... but i might be mistaken. it is kinda confusing...

[Kent]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Change [/i]
[B]Heh, I really don't wanna get into this, we already got about 50 pages last time arround ^_~ So I will say that I am a firm beliver in human rights...eventualy...Everything takes time, and if you don't want to go and force poeple to change their treatment of others, you just have to wait for them to fix it (an unlikely propositions, but the cheepest in our blood and greenback, money is the clarion call after all). [/B][/QUOTE]

Well... I respect your frank and honest withdraw from a debate such as this.

I also want to remind you...

THIS IS NOT ABOUT IRAQ

This is about human rights progression over the last 1 or 2 years and the way this progression has been totally ignored by those who claim to be the champions of human rights... all to spite their own political opposition.

I also want to mention that money should not be of concern to a man who so deeply believes in the rights of his fellow man.

Your right about one thing... We can not change a persons beliefs. However, do you need to change the persons beliefs, or just (in this case) the conditions of human rights?

I gotta ask though, why no reply to my jason blair comment?

I imagine you read the paper quite often. (especially with how you spotted my ignorance to the world of print journalism)

It would only be natural that you have something to say about that. :therock:

Oh well, I guess thats how it goes sometimes, right?

[James]

[color=#707875]Hm, interesting topic.

I will tell you one thing; I'm [i]sick[/i] of the rhetoric that goes around about Iraq. The news organizations over here have pounced on the African uranium claim, because Prime Minister Howard made reference to it in Parliament. Yet they ignore the fact that the British intelligence agencies still stand by it (and still consider it to be an important point), and they also ignore that it was [i]one small claim[/i] in amongst an entire mountain of evidence and information. Secondly, I'm not aware of the Prime Minister ever pointing to that claim as our justification for war. Nor am I aware of him saying that it was absolutely true -- anyone who doesn't know the nature of intelligence has little credibility when it comes to making inaccurate comments about how heavily this particular contention was relied upon.

And, I go to college...so, I see a lot of anti-war sentiment. Most of it comes from very uninformed people. One of them did an entire project about the war in Iraq, yet she by her own admission "never watches TV news and never reads newspapers". Any surprise there?

I know that this issue isn't solely about Iraq, but hey...I needed to vent. I'm sick of misinformed people running around screaming "BLOOD FOR OIL! WAAAAAAHHH!!"

Now, let me qualify that by saying that I'm not the kind of person to sit there and suggest a violent solution to everything. Not at all. But a lot of people fail to understand all of the issues involved here. They conveniently ignore the joy that was expressed in Baghdad when the regime fell. And they conveniently forget (or are oblivious to) history.

For example, one of my lecturers said something like "Well, America is basically an Imperialist regime". I didn't say anything because I didn't want an argument. But that one statement (and from someone in her early 50's no less) smacks of ignorance. I doubt she even knows what "Imperalist" means.

I can sit here and tell you all about World War II, and how America (after establishing peace in Europe and Japan, while simultaneously pouring in funds to reconstruct what was damaged) [i]left[/i] those countries to do their own thing. If America was Imperialist, then Japan and Europe would be under the "American Empire" by now. Bah. I know that most of you aware fully aware of this, but I'm often struck by the sheer ignorance of people who often claim to be on the "higher moral ground".

Anyway, that's kind of beside the point...but as I said, I needed to vent. ~_^

More to the point, are those who were anti-war because they didn't want Iraqi citizens to die. The intention is fine, but factually there are some issues.

I forget how many civilians died during the war -- I think it was in the realm of 200 or so. Or at least, that's what has been estimated. I haven't seen any concrete figures, and I'd say that there are no actual concrete figures at this point.

However, it's estimated that each year, Saddam Hussein arrested, tortured or killed (and often all of the above), upwards of [i]30,000[/i] people per year.

I supported the war because I do consider myself to be humanitarian. I do favor human rights. If 200 deaths during war (which are always regrettable) can save 30,000 people per year...then yes, go ahead and do it. Go ahead and [b]prevent[/b] death on a massive scale. That's the truly humanitarian thing to do.

If I ever say to someone that I was pro the war in Iraq, I often feel that I'm also casting myself as some kind of warlord-like zealot who must also be a nutty conservative or something. Yet, I support equal human rights (including gay rights and further indigeonous rights). By some standards, that would paint me as being a nutty leftist. See what I mean?

My feeling is that yes, sometimes people do put politics before human rights. Both those on the left and on the right. People who are [i]always[/i] anti-war are often ignorant of some very real issues. And people who are [i]always[/i] pro-war and who dismiss gay rights are people who are [i]also[/i] often ignorant of some very real issues.

The point is, I try wherever possible to let reason (rather than ideology) dictate my views. I'm sick of ideologically-based politics. What about [i]results-based[/i] politics?

Once again, I guess that gets a bit off track. But there are just so many issues tied into this question.

Fundamentally, I feel that bringing human rights to a part of the world (ie; America/UK/Australia bringing freedom to Iraq) isn't a bad thing to do. If you're going to claim that rich democracies should share some of that wealth with poor nations to their benefit, I think it's also worth claiming that these countries should share their democracy and freedom where possible.

Of course, I don't advocate the idea of storming every non-democratic nation and imposing it forcefully. Obviously that wouldn't work for a whole variety of reasons.

But in the case of Iraq, the people there couldn't establish democracy or freedom for themselves. They actually tried to rise up on two occasions, and were beaten back. To say that they somehow didn't want anyone to come in and assist them to freedom is blatantly false -- these people obviously desired freedom, but couldn't physically achieve it. In that case, I think it's humanitarian for the free world to provide assistance, which furthers the desires of people for freedom.

Blah, that's a bit all over the place. So I hope it makes sense. ~_^[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

I'm just having some trouble following the main idea of this thread and what you want debated Gokents? I was hoping that James post would be on track and I would be able to take lead from there but like a few others in this thread it has lapsed into a bit of a mix between rights and the Iraq outcome which I thinks fair since we haven't had a thread discussing the out come and its possible futures that was said would happen at some point before hand. I would like to have a bit of a rant about it but I can't think of how to put it without going off topic to far except to say that I don't agree with James (common) view on the reasons and I believe that the precedent that this war set is one of the most dangerous that I know of and I dread the day that a head of state gets up in front of his/her people and uses the first strike process to wipe out their possibly non-hostile enemy and say in their defence "Hey, America started it!" Saddam Hussein was evil but invading another?s country for what now has turned out to be solely economic gain whether through bad planning or initial intent is plain wrong. If you don't think it's wrong argue it.

Human Rights, I'm not sure. I know I personally cannot change much, if I try I could change a few people?s opinions but I'm not a hardcore activist (hippie) who would willingly get up in front of thousands of people and try and sway their views. It's just not me; I despise those sorts of people because of the common stereotype that rings true a lot of the time. They are most things I've been brought up not to be. Now I maybe wrong but I take Gokents saying "yet oppose the very spread of those rights" as a form of justifying the conflicts America gets up and does in the name of rights, yet I cannot accept this when all I have to do is think of the thousands of captives that America (and other western countries) hold in an illegal state. An example is "Camp X-Ray" which is holding supposed "terrorists" without charge and interrogating them without lawyers and has been doing so for two years now with the full support of the general American population. Now any educated person who understands the concept of a mercenary will know that that is what most of the people in that one camp are, they are no more terrorists as anyone else. Their only interest is money. I don't mean to pick on America and the above is only an example and I'm sure other countries have done similar at some point and I just haven't heard about it. I?m just not sure on the whole issue, my only true opinion is that a country should have satisfactory level of human rights over its entire population before it tells other countries to lift up their game.

Politics and Ethics should not be mixed in the same way that I believe Religion and Politics should not be mixed. You can see examples and effects of these sorts of systems around the world and they just don?t seem to work.

[DuoMax]

Ahem. Before I post, I would like to state tat I object to being called a "hippie." I much prefer "pascifist," as I believe in non-violence and negeotiation(sp?) to solve problems.

[b]Human Rights[/b]
I am a big beliver in the basic human rights to life and happiness. IT is a sad fact that in this world there are repressive regimes and dictatorship who destroy these rights. in my very humble opinion, it would be best to use diplomacy to get these dictators to allow their people more rights.

With that said, if we are talking about human right, should not people who are repressed, such as gays, get equal rights? (I am not trying to turn this into a gay debate, just using it as an example.)
IF we allow these people, and everyone else [i]exactly[/i] the same rights, everyone is treated fairly and everyone is happy.

[b]Politics and Ethics[/b]
Again, in my humble opinion, Ethics always come before Politics.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DuoMax [/i]
[B] in my very humble opinion, it would be best to use diplomacy to get these dictators to allow their people more rights.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]What happens when you can't negotiate with someone? When they ignore your diplomatic efforts and continue to destroy their population and threaten those around them?

Negotiation should always come first, of course. But sometimes you need to use force to create an environment for peace. Sometimes you need to remove a threat -- and once that threat is gone, peace can be achieveable. This is a basic point that some people do not understand, either through ignorance or simply being naive.

Of course, none of us want war. And in a perfect world, it'd never happen. But if someone starts stabbing you in a dark alley, you don't sit there and negotiate with them -- you fight in order to protect yourself or someone else.[/color]

[Kent]

Well.... :D

I appreciate the well thought out post on the behalf of some and all.

I want to address a couple of things.

First is the idea of economic gain being the sole reason for the war... lol, I love it. As I said before to another person in this thread... cloricus, please continue using this reasoning for the length of your political life. (opinions like that and the other one expressed about oil, make life so much easier for me... not having to argue with legitimate, quality, truthful and informed opinions makes for an easy debate on the side of reason.)

A big part of one post in the above was based on the innocent workers imprisoned in military prison camps... man, I never realized those guys were such sweeties. I better get active about this one... maybe some time you could post some pictures from your vacation to camp x-ray?

I figure you must have gone there and interviewed the innocent people who have been so wrongly imprisoned. You probably also took advntage of your trip there by checking out what the fate of all the people to go there have been, as I have not heard a thing about it with the exception of the occassional word on how many were released after questioning... But for the rest who have spent the entire time there wrongfully... Man, you just gotta feel horrible about that.

--- the idea of first strike ---

Well I guess cloricus cleared this up, but I thought I would take the time to remind of of some of the other first strikes that never managed to set that dangerous precedent cloricus has only witnessed now.

We could start in germany... nazi aggression into poland.
Then japanese aggression into china.
Currently happening in the world - russian aggression into chechnia (sp?)
Communist aggressions into south vietnam...
"bandit raids" by communist into south korea...
Chinese aggressions into tibet...

That should be enough for the moment.
But since Ive gotten so off track...

Let me remind us all, THIS IS NOT ABOUT IRAQ.

This is about one thing.

People claiming to be humanitarians, yet ignoring the progression of human rights that has occured over the last 2 years, all so they do not have to recognize the good will efforts of their own political enemies.

Just as with the people I started this thread to discuss, many in this thread have flat out ignored the truth about first world compassion at the hands of "conservative" governments.

Instead of addressing this "progression in human rights," some would rather address issues that are totally unrelated. (all to avoid admiting the great deeds done by nations such as Japan, Austraillia, Britian, Pakistan and America.) *just to name a few supporters of the "anti-terrorist movement"*

So lets get this straight...

This topic is about the population of people (including the media) who have ignored the advances in human rights, yet claim to be the champions of those idealistic views for a better world through the spread of equal rights.

Note: I consider hippie to be an insulting term... if your a hippie, come here and meet the hippie killer. (look in sig :D )

[James]

[color=#707875]I only have one thing to add here at the moment. I am very impressed with Japan's reaction to North Korea. Japan has a pacifist constitution, but the country is behaving in a very responsible manner regarding NK.

Japan rejects bilateral talks (as it should) and it isn't taking a military option off the table. Unfortunately, North Korea only understands military threats -- you need a viable military deterrant to back up any discussions (negotiations would be the wrong word at this point). I'm really satisfied with Japan's response so far.

Right now, Prime Minister Howard is in Japan (and soon to visit South Korea), and it seems like our alliance is really building up -- especially over the North Korea issue. Japan has been very supportive of our efforts, and I think that's a good thing. The last thing we need is for Japan to take the Malaysian side of things (ie: don't do anything with the aim of protecting your state).[/color]

[Emme888]

Poltical sides should NEVER outweigh one's beliefs in their self morals.

Human rights for all, it is every thing god given right(or whatever you believe in or if you believe in anything at all) to live a life free of oppression against them.

And it's others responibilty as GOOD HUMAN BEINGS to help others in pain, suffering, hunger, or whatever.

The question is how can one just there, like getting their hair done or playing video games, do nothing. Knowing that someone out there is straving in some 3rd world nation. We need to help them, NOT BECOME DICTATORS!!! It's their lives, all we should do is offer help and guidance. May everyone be safe, all may soul be happy and fulfilled.

[Manic Webb]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GoKents [/i]
[B]Note: I consider hippie to be an insulting term... if your a hippie, come here and meet the hippie killer. (look in sig :D ) [/B][/QUOTE]
Meet the new "Manic" version of hippie, Hippie Lite! I support non-violence, believe in free love, and like listening to Jimi Hendrix and the Monkees. However, I don't believe in imposing my views on others in the form of a loud public display, or taking LSD.

The way I see it, there were the political activists who held up a tight fist in the name of "justice" and did wild & odd displays of protest. I, however, support those long-haired, poncho-wearing, bus-riding, sitar-playing, pot-smoking, Woodstockin' hippies who were all about having a good time and trying to abandon the confines of society. Sure, the former turned into tree-hugging Liberals and the latter got over it and turned into yuppie Conservatives by the 1980s, but it looked like a fun faze to go through... except for the drug part. People are having acid flashbacks to this day. That's just a little too dangerous for Hippie Lite.

And here I go disgressing again.

[quote]On the contrary, someone does win...

The man who reaps the benefits of humanitarian progress always wins.[/quote]
I didn't mean that [i]nobody[/i] wins, I meant that those who advocate human rights but don't support violent means, those are the people who half-lose in the end. The people who don't believe the ends justify the means feel like losers for having their ideals come about in ways which they don't support. Well, they may not feel like "losers" but they pretty much had to sacrifice one belief for the other.

"I believe these people should have human rights, but I don't believe violence is ever the way. Violence seems to be working, however, and I'm conflicted."

That's what I mean. I know that the rescued gets to reap those benefits, but those who weren't sure how to support the means don't get to eat that cake.

Did that even make any sense?

--EDIT--
Had to omit/rewrite something, out of respect for another member.

[Kent]

Everything you say makes sense, your writing is just fine and your opinions are well represented. IMO.

I gotta say though, based on my time living with the phish lot, dead-head, commun livin, veggie lovin', hipsters, we reffer to as hippies... if you were to seperate "hippies" into 2 groups as you did, atleast 50% of the "cool" hippies would be the "political hippies."

You gotta remember that the majority of those kids we think of as the woodstock hippies were college students dodging out on a war, while being educated in a world of intellectual elitism. (which can often give life to extreme leftist ideologies such as communism)

That sounds to me like a great situation for everything you mentioned... yuppies, druggies, and loud mouth idealist.

All of that aside...

This is about achieving human rights, and almost as importantly (while being the exact subject of this thread) recognizing the achievment of human rights by any party.

That is what this is all about.

Hence, the question...

Is it wrong to ignore the advances made in the last 2 years, because you do not wish to recognize the accomplishments of those who are your political opposition?

As well as...

Should a person oppose action that could result in the advancments of human rights, as to further their own political agenda?

As well as the question... (sorry :D )

Is it hypocritical for person(A) to oppose person(B) on a political scale even when person(B) has achieved great steps towards the end goal that person(B) holds so dear? (that goal being equal human rights for all)

Those questions are what I ask in this thread.

(all refferences to "you" in questions or examples are soley for example purposes. No individual at the otakuboards is intended to be the target of such questioning.) Gotta love the disclaimer :laugh: