Saudi Arabia to execute woman for 'witchcraft'

[Peikko 1,575]

We had Saddam under UN sanctions for 10 years. He was still thumbing his nose at us. How long were you willing to give it? The UN is a useless body. They cannot do anything. As far as I am concerned the UN should be disbanded.

Part of the problem Gary, the US has never really either backed the UN or the issue of human rights (partly because the US wants to continue to be able to do 'its own thing'. The US doesn't have an unblemished human rights record)

The fact that Sadam was 'thumbing his nose' at us was irrelevant and yes, these things can take years and no, the US didn't really care that much about the human rights issues in Iraq then, nor does it now.

[junglee069 0]

junglee..... just wrong. how could you be so heartless.

it's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.

[Peikko 1,575]

That is not to say that individual Americans and even military personel don't take human rights issues seriously because clearly they do. My point is the issues of political expediency and policy.

[DeadPoolX 9]

i don't think anyone is saying that it's not alright for private citizens to join international aid groups or whatever. is it just the military aspect you are objecting to deadpoolx?

I suppose what annoys me is... how we can we sit here and realistically tell another country (many other countries, actually) that they need to change and in effect, be more "like us" when we're not only completely unwilling to understand their culture and society but we've gone to war to protect our own culture and society!

That seems just a bit hypocritical in my book.

As I see it, we have one of two options:

1. We attempt to change these other cultures and societies (by force if need be) and if, in the near or far future, some other culture or society decides it wants to change us, we need to be ready for it and deal with it. We'll be "fair game" considering our actions in the past.

2. We take a "live and let live" approach, so long as these other cultures and societies do nothing to harm or otherwise threaten us. If they do that, then we can interfere with them, but beyond that, we do nothing to get involved.

I can't see how we can expect to say it's "okay" to alter others, but then turn around and announce that it's "not okay" for them to do the same to us. Other countries aren't going to abide by that and I wouldn't blame them one bit.

Edited February 14, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[junglee069 0]

We had Saddam under UN sanctions for 10 years. He was still thumbing his nose at us. How long were you willing to give it? The UN is a useless body. They cannot do anything. As far as I am concerned the UN should be disbanded.

Part of the problem Gary, the US has never really either backed the UN or the issue of human rights (partly because the US wants to continue to be able to do 'its own thing'. The US doesn't have an unblemished human rights record)

The fact that Sadam was 'thumbing his nose' at us was irrelevant and yes, these things can take years and no, the US didn't really care that much about the human rights issues in Iraq then, nor does it now.

how did you get from saudi witches to saddam? his wife couldn't have been that much of a hag...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

DeadPool,

I don't think you can realistically ask people to not be outraged at things they find outrageous.

I can bet you plenty of people in Saudi are outraged by our TV, our cinema, our culture in general.

[DeadPoolX 9]

DeadPool,

I don't think you can realistically ask people to not be outraged at things they find outrageous.

I can bet you plenty of people in Saudi are outraged by our TV, our cinema, our culture in general.

I understand and agree. But by that same token, if being outraged is a good enough reason to affect change in another country, and the Saudi people might very well be outraged by our "TV, cinema and culture in general" what's stopping them from changing us?

[SMOKE 1,426]

I am waiting for the execution so I can start a thread titled Ding Dong The Witch is Dead... or when Hillary drops out, whichever comes first

[Peikko 1,575]

Size matters!

[GaryC 7]

We had Saddam under UN sanctions for 10 years. He was still thumbing his nose at us. How long were you willing to give it? The UN is a useless body. They cannot do anything. As far as I am concerned the UN should be disbanded.

Part of the problem Gary, the US has never really either backed the UN or the issue of human rights (partly because the US wants to continue to be able to do 'its own thing'. The US doesn't have an unblemished human rights record)

The fact that Sadam was 'thumbing his nose' at us was irrelevant and yes, these things can take years and no, the US didn't really care that much about the human rights issues in Iraq then, nor does it now.

The UN is impotent and useless. They are worse than our own government when it comes to corruption and being self serving. I would like to see the UN building turned into condo's. If we want something done I am in favor of doing it ourselves. The UN does not have our best interests at heart.

[Alex+R 0]

i don't think anyone is saying that it's not alright for private citizens to join international aid groups or whatever. is it just the military aspect you are objecting to deadpoolx?

I suppose what annoys me is... how we can we sit here and realistically tell another country (many other countries, actually) that they need to change and in effect, be more "like us" when we're not only completely unwilling to understand their culture and society but we've gone to war to protect our own culture and society!

That seems just a bit hypocritical in my book.

As I see it, we have one of two options:

1. We attempt to change these other cultures and societies (by force if need be) and if, in the near or far future, some other culture or society decides it wants to change us, we need to be ready for it and deal with it. We'll be "fair game" considering our actions in the past.

2. We take a "live and let live" approach, so long as these other cultures and societies do nothing to harm or otherwise threaten us. If they do that, then we can interfere with them, but beyond that, we do nothing to get involved.

I can't see how we can expect to say it's "okay" to alter others, but then turn around and announce that it's "not okay" for them to do the same to us. Other countries aren't going to abide by that and I wouldn't blame them one bit.

We DO need to be open to being told what to do by other countries. By a functioning, more powerful UN. We need to be able to told to stop torturing, using secret prisons through extraordinary rendition and to back off on the military aggression. We are a country like any other country and if other nations want to resolve to tell us what not to do, we should listen.

By the same token, we need to be able to come together with other countries and say "hey, stop killing your witches" once in awhile. Sure, I understand that they do it because they feel it's right, because religion dictates they do it and because culturally it's acceptable. Actually a few days ago I was reading an argument that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with human rights. Too effing bad, IMO. Everyone deserves life.

Here's the problem DeadPool. You see an "us" as just Americans or even just Westerners; I see "us" as human beings. There is no "live and let live" when we're all in this together.

[junglee069 0]

DeadPool,

I don't think you can realistically ask people to not be outraged at things they find outrageous.

I can bet you plenty of people in Saudi are outraged by our TV, our cinema, our culture in general.

i doubt it - they try to emulate all that is american.

but really, on a serious note - chirstianity was killing witches when they were in their teens (1400's, salem witchcraft)...islam is doing the same....

by the time islam comes out of puberty (about 600 years) they'll be debating whether gay imams are acceptable or not...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

DeadPool,

I don't think you can realistically ask people to not be outraged at things they find outrageous.

I can bet you plenty of people in Saudi are outraged by our TV, our cinema, our culture in general.

I understand and agree. But by that same token, if being outraged is a good enough reason to affect change in another country, and the Saudi people might very well be outraged by our "TV, cinema and culture in general" what's stopping them from changing us?

I never said "being outraged is a good enough reason to affect change in another country".

Most of this outrage is just outrage for its own sake.

[Peikko 1,575]

The UN is not meant to have the US best interests at heart, that's the point. It's meant to have human rights issues at heart. The UN or any other likeinstitution can't work without the complete and enthusiastic participation of the principle players, it never got it from the US because as you rightly point out, the US has always had its own agenda. Personally, I think this is wrong and fundamentally tragic.

Yes, I get the corruption angle too.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

but really, on a serious note - chirstianity was killing witches when they were in their teens (1400's, salem witchcraft)...islam is doing the same....

by the time islam comes out of puberty (about 600 years) they'll be debating whether gay imams are acceptable or not...

It's going to take 600 more years?

Oy dios mio!

So for the time being we should just get used to dealing with imams with teeny bopper temper tantrums?