Should force be used to protect human rights?

The sight of people being deprived of parts of their lives that we take for granted is one of the most unsettling that can reach us. The cases that appear the most urgent are those that command the headlines — Saddam’s treatment of Kurds, Milosovic’s treatment of Kosovar Albanians — and they are the cases that command the most drastic action from the West. But less prominent infringements of human rights can be as serious: “prisoners of conscience” are held world-wide. Is there any moral difference between the urgent and the ongoing, and how should they be tackled? Intervention, whether by all-out military force, through peace-keeping forces, or by diplomatic means, can arguably curtail human rights abuses, but it does pose practical and moral problems. What country has the right to intervene? How can civilian casualties be curbed? The problem leads towards a cold cost–benefit analysis, but any debate on this subject is likely to revolve just as much around emotive arguments.

"you have no clue what you are on about."

Troll reply. Nothing more.

"Don't try to feel sad/sympathetic or write posts like this because it somehow makes you feel better about yourself."

Troll.

It's seemed to me that for a long time the defining characteristic of the human condition is to make your own kind happier by the wholesale destruction of someone or something you don't like. And we were always OK with that until we were the something unliked. Now we have mass media transporting The Truth around the world, always with different levels of polish, we can see a situation somewhere and think "not on my doorstep, you don't!" or "I wouldn't want that happening here, so why should we tolerate it there?"

If you don't think you can change things, you are an idiot. Shoot yourself. Because by never trying to change things you're essentially condoning someone's right to eventually come along and shoot you.

Why the question really should be wether or not it's worth the human lives you may be taking to do so. I mean why the hell should we care if other nation are not treating their people the way we think they should. It is their goverment way waste the lives of your nations armed forces in order to enforce your will upon other nations. Human rights has NEVER been granted to people that haven't developed the idea on their own. Only places where the concept has sprung forth and taken root can ithey be granted. The middle east is a good example those people have no concept of anything close to humans rights and trying to extend it to them with the barrle of a gun won't change that. It's a fundemental diffrence in philosphy of human exsistence. Things like human rights catch on when the time is right and when a culture reaches the point where they can ccept such a thing. It can't be forced. However you're asking from the stand point of someone who wants such rights and doesn't have them then YES it is. Anything is worth it to achieve such a thing for your people. But otherwise don't bother trying to bestow it upon people who haven't asked for it.

"The middle east is a good example those people have no concept of anything close to humans rights"

And this was never made more clear than with the creation of Israel, right?

no it's not legal

Maybe using examples of war and foreign lands make this difficult for people to grasp [like crunkz].

We all understand far better the right of the police departments to use for to uphold the laws, which on occasion protect our human rights.

Put simply, if a person is physically attacking another person, I believe wholeheartedly that the police, or anybody who is willing for that matter, is morally validated in using force to end that unpleasant situation.

Moderate force does work in achieving goals, especially when you are held accountable for your actions, as we and police forces should be.