Subject:
|
Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:01:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
600 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Marc Nelson, Jr. writes:
>
> > Well, exactly what our national interests are is certainly a matter for • debate.
> > I was just saying that whatever we decide they are, it is fine to use force • to
> > protect them. But if by economic imperialism, you mean free trade, than yes.
>
> I mean dominating other nations through unethical trading practicing or
> harsh sanctions or expoitating human labor and natural resources of other
> nations. There's no morality in using force to "defend" our greedy business
> ventures and economic gain.
>
> > As far as one nation honoring the rights of another nation's citizens, they
> > obviously do not have to. I may have rights as an American citizen, but the
> > government of China is not obligated to protect them.
>
> I imagine you mean rights as in our Constitutional Rights, not the
> "inalienable human rights" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
> Those are the rights of all people and should be honored around the world.
>
> > The Founding Fathers were perhaps the wisest bunch of people in the same • place
> > at the same time. But a lot of what they said was idealistic (their actions
> > were a bit more pragmatic), and being idealistic just doesn't cut it in • foreign
> > policy.
>
> Have we really given it a chance though?
>
> > What was Bush's crime? (not that I'm a big Bush defender)
>
> CIA director responsible for numerous assassinations, death squads in
> Central America, Iran-Contra, etc. Bombing Iraq into the stone age and
> imposing and orchestrating the brutal sanctions that led to the death and
> suffering of innocent men, women and children. Promising support to the
> Iraqi people in the north and south of Iraq if they rebel against Saddam,
> then withdrawing that support and allowing them to be wiped out. Staying on
> the sidelines during the "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia and even block arms
> for the Bosnians to defend themselves.
>
> > I think the lopsided kill ratio is more a result of America's geographic
> > isolation and technological superiority than any particular policy.
>
> Yes, we kill because we can.
>
> > Harry Browne (the LP presidential candidate) endorsed a policy of
> > assassination, which I fully agree with. It makes a lot of sense if you want • to
> > punish dictators without hurting civilians.
>
> And what, replace one dictator with another? Another puppet for America? Is
> assassination the answer? Is America better off that Kennedy or Lincoln were
> assassinated, by their own countrymen?
>
> Dan
So if trade is bad, then shouldn't the Iraqis be grateful that they are
sanctioned? Now they don't have to worry about American economic imperialists
exploiting their labor and natural resources. No greedy American business
ventures can make any economic gains by selling things to Iraq. Aren't they
better off?
You seem to think that any economic activity that results in profit is
unethical, exploitative, and greedy. But then you acknowledge the benefits of
trade by accusing Bush of war crimes for not allowing it to take place. It
looks like the US is damned if we do and damned if we don't. What's the deal?
-Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) Maybe I should explain the sanctions against Iraq better. It's not about trade with America, it's not about business with America, it's about starving and killing innocent men, women and children and destroying the infrastructure of Iraq. The (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) I mean dominating other nations through unethical trading practicing or harsh sanctions or expoitating human labor and natural resources of other nations. There's no morality in using force to "defend" our greedy business ventures and economic (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
