Should the people of any country have the absolute right to resist invasion by another country?

[NNN0LHI]

[ChenZhen]

1. "Right"?!? It should be an obligation?

Imagine if this world enabled any power hungry country to rape and pillage a people and their country? Where would they stop? How much death and destruction could such an entity wreak upon the world? How many millions more would die at the hands of an unresisted destructive regime?

As world citizens, shouldn't we stand shoulder in shoulder with fellow humans who give their lives to stop powerful regimes bent upon destruction and control?

[acmavm]

3. Yes, it is the duty of the citizens of a country to avoid an invasion. EXCEPT

in my opinion cases such as Nazi Germany. They were the aggressor in a world war and their country was killing people that they didn't think were 'fit' to live.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. The right, nevertheless, remains.

But if they know the invader is going to be an improvement of their own government, nobody can blame them for NOT resisting. Most germans knew their government was in the wrong, which is why there was relatively little resistance to the occupation. A few 'werewolves' in the first two years, nothing more.

[Kutjara]

2. If we're going to live in a world that has countries in it...

...then it is the right of the residents of those countries to be left alone by other countries.

[and-justice-for-all]

4. Would we not do the same if it was the US being invaded?? nt

[BushOut06]

5. This isn't going to be used as justification for an anti-immigration thread, is it?

Obviously, people have a right to resist a bona fide invasion by another country. If Russia or China suddenly decided they were start dumping thousands of troops into this country, then we would put aside our differences with the rethugs and join together to fight the invaders.

[ChenZhen]

6. I think this is a response to the Iraqis are evil because they resist thread.

You're not allowed to resist the US, you know.


Im sure the Germans were telling the Russians much the same at one point. Im glad the Russians didn't listen.

[cali]

7. I didn't vote and here's why

If a nation is committing genocide, I can see supporting troops going in to stop it. Preferably under the U.N., but I can see circumstances where it wouldn't be the U.N. I am forever haunted by General Romeo Dallaire. And yes, I would have supported "invading" Rwanda, even unilaterally to save hundreds of thousands of live.

[ChenZhen]

10. Gotcha. I am mostly voting in the context of the occupying regime committing the genocide.

Or being unlawfully oppressive of the inhabitants along other means.

[charlie]

8. You would guess

that the rightwing Get Off Muh Property types would think so. But as usual, their keening need for an Authoritarian Daddy trumps every do-or-die "principle" they've squalled about for the last 50 years.

[treestar]

9. Yes, and it amazes me the wingnuts actually think that if we invade

the people of the country chosen should be happy about it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. yes.

[NOLALady]

13. Absitively, Posilutely!

[Annces]

14. Yes

And I think people who have double standards are mucho mucho hypocrites.

[baby_mouse]

15. Good Lord.

Well, at least you've given me some ideas for polls.

[Kelly Rupert]

16. This thread is dangerously oversimplifying a very complex moral issue, so "no."

Absolute right to resistance? Absolutes are very dangerous. Where do you draw the line on morality?

Is the former government legitimate? To what extent is it legitimate, and why was it overthrown? If it was in response to a war of aggression--say, such as that of the German government in WWII--is that the same as the Afghan resistance to Soviet invasion? Was the invasion that of a rogue state, or was it under U.N. mandate?

Suppose we agree that the occupation is illegitimate. What resistance is covered?

Certainly firing on armed soldiers on patrol would be allowed.
How about firing on medics trying to rescue downed soldiers?
Firing on military hospitals treating soldiers?
Firing on civilian hospitals who also treat soldiers?
Firing on foreign civilian contractors driving supply trucks?
Firing on your compatriots driving supply trucks for enemy soldiers?
Firing on your compatriots driving supply trucks for other compatriots?
Firing on foreigners overseeing reconstruction efforts?
Firing on civilians working on reconstruction efforts?
Firing on groups you believe are working to common end with the occupier?
Firing on groups working to common end with those working to common end with the occupier?
Firing on groups you believe are not adequately resisting the occupier?
Firing on journalists covering the occupation?
Firing directly on unarmed civilians, knowing it will cost the occupier and turn the occupier's population's opinion against the war?

At what point does it stop being resistance to invasion, and at what point does it become murder?

People certainly have limited right to resistance. An absolute right? No. Human rights trump any right to resistance, and the extent to which they conflict is the extent to which resistance becomes unjustified.

[NNN0LHI]

17. So if we ever get invaded we all need to read down that list before defending ourselves?

All the while the invaders are butchering, torturing and raping our fellow citizens?

You are kidding me ain't ya?

Don