Subject:
|
Re: This is disgusting!...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2001 07:37:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
332 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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?
Perhaps we owe them a little?
>
> > 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.
If you don't like a law you should work to change it, not ignore it.
>
> > 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.
How can we justify just looking at the easy problems?
>
> > 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.
I agree.
> And if they are, then we should be even more greatly ashamed for not
> doing more to help out.
Should we not be ashamed that we have not helped before now? A few months
ago they (the Taleban) were given money to help stem the drugs trade. Why
was that ok back then, but now it is ok to bomb them?
>
> > 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.
If we do go for the weak ones, let's hope it puts pressure on the big bad guys.
>
> 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
I don't see myself as having a "devotion to national machismo".
> 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?
A famous Scot once said:
"You cannot run away from a weakness; you must sometimes fight it out or
perish. And if that be so, why not now, and where you stand?"
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: This is disgusting!...
|
| (...) Yes. So what? (...) I'm not as great an advocate for this legality thing as you are, so it is of relatively less import to me. (...) Ultimately, I (think I) think that it ought to be up to those funding the change. So if it's a US thing, then (...) (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
|
|
|
|
