How sacred to you is another nation's right to govern itself ?

The only time a country should step in and take drastic measures over the policies of another nation is when that nation is being attacked by a stronger military force (withstanding that the stronger military force is not an ally).
I want to know everything you've got about this fake Hell!

Some of these are interesting. The moon option brings to mind the fact that when humans landed on the moon it was the US flag that was unfurled, as if they had claimed the moon. The US and many other countries including mine, Australia, exports weapons technology already. I wonder how we would react if another country sent troops to the US, Britain or Australia to stop this practice? The cloning one is difficult. I see no problem with cloning until clones are used for medical research or spare body parts. They are still human.

I chose all those policies where human rights were removed or diminished except the religious option, which many socialist countries came close to, and the poor one, since that would surely mean invading the US and other western countries with street people.

Not the least bit sacred to me, but thanks for asking.

Although I find most of the practices described quite abhorrent, I don't necessarily approve of a military invasion as a solution. Except the "age limit of 50" thing. I would hope that everyone got out in time or something, but if they started killing foreigners, I think the rest of us would have a good excuse to go in there and put a stop to it. Bottom line, I really don't think that military invasions are appropriate unless these guys are doing something outside their borders. Uh, the nuclear bomb testing one is a likely candidate too, I would just be a little nervous about tangling with psychos like that.

Other: I have no choice. My government does what it wants to do without consulting me. No matter what I believe...my government will take the action it sees fit depending on who is in power at the time. It is not like I can call the President or congress and say..."Hey, I want you to take this or that action."
I don't even have a guarantee that the person I would like to run my country or make those choices will be the man I choose. It's all dumb luck.

Have you seen the chimp who rules America? I did not choose that chimp!!!! Neither did the majority of US voters...... Not that the other monkeeeeee would have been any better.
*sighs*

You anarchist you

Who Me?
*innocent look*

This survey is too long and my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

It really depends on how democratically these laws were passed. If, for example, women voted themselves into slavery (ie being owned) why should I go and release them? But if the men voted them in without them having their say, I'd be more tempted.

I wish I could have selected some of these options, but without considering the processes of a country, I don't think I could say right or wrong on some of them.

I still checked the nuclear weapons one (considering it would probably have a significant effect on other territories) and the Hell one (although I don't believe in Hell, hypothetically if the nasties living there came here it wouldn't be too good for anyone - not just the residents of that one nation).

*But* both those only after talks, sanctions, etc had failed. And with UN support (for those two, I'm pretty sure I'd get it!)

There are other things I would see as worthy of military action, but more to free people who had no say in it than just because they're wrong. Otherwise I'd be joining the terrorists bombing America because of capital punishment and the ease with which guns are bought and sold.

"my" country already considers the poor expendable

it is not our right to boss other countries around and you know damn well if the u.s. did any of these things they would have all kinds of excuses for why its ok and would scream to the ends of the earth if another country threatened militaryt might to change it

you said it there!
at least you can admit it.
most people actualy think that their governments really have to follow the law or listen to what the citizens say.

I would like my country and her citizens to stop or prevent "unapproved" activities by means other than armed conflict.

You CAN call the President / Congress / your senator. Even though the system sucks badly, politicians still care about votes. Every phone call represents about a thousand votes, so it is worth it. You need to make your government accountable!

(They don't need to know that you're not a citizen!)

Happy New Year!

hhhhmmm, this is difficult because many of these items are already carried out or threatened at one time or another........ i never favor military action as first line but then i am a pacifist at heart. i think reason and pressure may help from other countries and us.
i checked: the export of weapons, age limit of 50, manipulation and release of gen. mod. animals etc., poor, religious practices, women, and humans the status of objects.

I select none of the above. As a nitpick, nations don't have rights; only people do.

That whole hell question is a strange one. To effectively make a decision to invade that country would throw the whole world into turmoil as they would first have to believe.

Being totally opposed to something on a personal level is not the same thing as endorsing acts of cultural imperialism. Still, there are some common-sense scenarios in which, regardless of anti-imperialist ethics, surrounding nations would need to act upon for the safety of the entire planet, such as careless nuclear testing and ecological disasters.

Mostly the ones that strip certain people of their basic human and civil rights, and the ones that would adversely (in my opinion) affect people in or from other countries (but not other planets).
I'm not sure I would support military action for any/all of these. But I would encourage some sort of action on our part.

You're insulting chimps (and all the primates) as a whole when you compare Bush to a chimp. They have far more intelligence than he has.

*shrugs* I don't know....why would people even want to do some of these things?

I'm sorry, but I'm just too damn lazy to give serious thought to, let alone specifing "which change of laws (and consequences) in that other nation would you want your government to take drastic actions?"

I'm VERY concerned about the rights of women around the world. Abuse and degredation isn't cultural, it's criminal.

I looked at each of the choices and only found one that would require action. The testing of nuclear weapons. This would affect others not just the country testing them. The export of weapons and/or drugs (assuming we're not importing them) dose not harm us directly. Most everything else just affects that country and not to say I would agree with what they choose to do, it is their country who are we to tell them how to run it. If we don't like something a trade embargo would be the way to go not military action. I am surprised that the training and harboring of terrorists was not a choice, this would have been the only other one I would have picked for a military action.

I think it's high-time for the United States to get up off its butt and set the world straight. We know that our form of government is best, we're free and prosperous. We can't stand still and let all these human rights violations happen, when we know how to adjust these countries so that they are like us, with free citizens and prospering economies. We fixed Japan and Germany after world war 2; I hope we do the same for Afghanistan.
Isolationism is for xenophobes. To achieve the next level of cultural evolution, we need to push out ideals out, fix the wrongs we know how to fix in the world. Not doing so is a crime, one that clearly costs thousands of lives every year.

It'll only work if the US can do that without acting like the "police-man" of the world. Because the rest of us really hate that!

I would like to state that even though I listed that I insist that ANY military action taken is approved by the UN, the U.S. can (and has on several, in fact FAR TOO MANY occasions) overule the UN. Of course, this coming from a country who called Saddam Hussein "our kind of guy" while he was using their training and equipment to massacre the Kurds, until the public at large started finding out about it, and then they denied knowledge of this use of their equipment. The same sort of things happened with Trujillo, Mobutu, Marcos, Duvalier, Noriega and many others. The US has also vetoed the World Court, and the Security Council, on several occasions. When it comes down to it, our opinions on this matter, simply do NOT matter. *shrugs* It's sad, but true. Unless you have the power (whether through corpolitical money talks power or through political "my daddy and/or bribed officials gave me this job" power), you aren't going to have much of a chance.

Unfortunately, some of these things do happen in other countries and nobody seems to give a damn.

i would think these are a bit far fetched. i would be most against the idea of slavery. and the rights taken away from women

Strangely enough I agree with you.