Subject:
|
Re: This is disgusting!...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Oct 2001 14:22:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
323 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> This is all very worthy. 2 Questions.
>
> 1. What is the wealth of "richest nation in the world" based on? Hard work?
> Some human rights abuses? Exploitation? A mixture?
Yes. So what?
> 2. If taking action on the Afghans for their "egregious human rights
> violations" were legal (I'm not sure it is).
I'm not as great an advocate for this legality thing as you are, so it is of
relatively less import to me.
> What next? The next easy target
> or the next worst abusers of human rights?
Ultimately, I (think I) think that it ought to be up to those funding the
change. So if it's a US thing, then whatever the US decides to do. If it's a
NATO coalition, then we all decide together. Etc. I would advocate doing an
analysis to look for the nations that have serious deficiencies for which we
might be able to implement a remedy. Very bad situations that we can't help
with should be avoided. Situations where we can help, but they aren't far
behind our standard, should be put off in favor of those who need greater
remediation.
> Do we even accept that Afghanistan is the worst abuser of human rights?
I haven't claimed that, and I don't know. I haven't done the analysis that
backing such a claim would require. But surely they can't be far from the
bottom. And if they are, then we should be even more greatly ashamed for not
doing more to help out.
> Would we ever tackle Iran, Saudi-Arabia or even Israel?
Uh, maybe.
> Is it not weak just to go for the easy targets?
No. It's going for quick wins. There is nothing at all wrong with that. In
fact, as we are getting started with such a program, investing time and energy
in the easier situations might be a good idea in order to get our bearings and
build some precidential understanding of how such actions work. It might
minimize our mistakes in more complex situations.
By the way, Scott, what is our fascination with weakness? Your seeming
devotion to national machismo runs counter to what I would expect from
someone with your normally advocated stances. Yet I've seen a number (at least
two in the past couple weeks) of these "isn't that the weak way out" kind of
things from you. What gives? Weakness is in the eye of the beholder and why
would I care whether someone thought that?
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: This is disgusting!...
|
| (...) Triage, in other words, applied to oppression! (patients that you cannot help, don't. Patients that will recover without you, don't. Concentrate on the third group, those that will benefit from your help and which would die (continue with (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: This is disgusting!...
|
| (...) Perhaps we owe them a little? (...) If you don't like a law you should work to change it, not ignore it. (...) How can we justify just looking at the easy problems? (...) I agree. (...) Should we not be ashamed that we have not helped before (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: This is disgusting!...
|
| (...) This is all very worthy. 2 Questions. 1. What is the wealth of "richest nation in the world" based on? Hard work? Some human rights abuses? Exploitation? A mixture? 2. If taking action on the Afghans for their "egregious human rights (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
