Do governments have a responsibility to step in when civilians come under fire?
- May 28, 06:00
Comments
10:39 02 Jun 2008, shawna wrote:
yes i think that they should step in and do something
11:07 16 Jun 2008, Henry wrote:
Yes, when civilians are under fire, the government, whether it be indigenous or internationally constructed, has the responsibility to intervene. The insurance of protection and safety for everyone is what I believe to be the fundamental role of government. That being said, if a government is intervening to protect the citizens of another country or if a government is intervening to protect its own citizens, some form of oversight regulations MUST also be established. This is essential because interventionist policies are always understood most clearly in terms of "taking a side" in a confrontation. It is near impossible to intervene and maintain impartiality. Therefore, the interests of all parties involved must be considered and the greatest weight must be given to the interests of the citizens of that particular country.
12:58 29 May 2008, Andy wrote:
Yes and it should not be limited within those lines on a map. There should be no magic distance before people being attack become your responsibility. Maybe Iran didn't possess illegal weapons that could hit the UK, Saddam did posses illegal weapons which exceeded the maximum range we was permitted to have (technically making them WMDs) but are there some people so selfish that unless they are in danger they don't care about any one else being killed. What if he had missile that could hit the south of England, would anti-war campaigners in the north still be against the invasion because they weren't in harms way. Too much of a blind eye is being turned on governments that go to war against there own people, we must realize that if this is how they treat there own citizens then how will they treat the people of another nation.