It is my understanding that the defense of our rights is the very purpose of the state.
Well, except for not agreeing with you, I think you made my point right there-- our rights.
Care to explain why you disagree?
But perhaps I don't understand Republics and Constitutions and you could enlighten me?
Care to explain why you disagree?
I thought that the defense of our rights was the purpose of a military, law courts, the police, and the very reason UHC advocates try to claim that its a right. But perhaps I don't understand Republics and Constitutions and you could enlighten me?
It is my understanding that the defense of our rights is the very purpose of the state.
No. They do not.
Quite the contrary. In my opinion, in any intervention regarding human rights abuses within a state the burden is upon the interviener to ensure that any such intervention undertaken in fact bought an overwhelmingly enhanced situation for the society involved.
This is to say, that if there is a high chance that all you will do is make it worse, let them work it out amongst themselves. You cant always save everyone, even if that is the desire. I think were the world has a genuine capability to intervene in genocide, that it can theoretically be undertaken. But with strict stipulations. Ive only been able to think of a few ways to do this effectively, and they are very situationaly dependent.
Foreign interventions can create more harm than good, in my opinion.
One needs to be very careful, and ward of opertunistic urges when dealing with such matters. As once things go sour, one loses the capability to act constructively.
How about Kosovo?