Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 20:54:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1109 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
>
> "David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:I0JpDD.1yqA@lugnet.com...
> > Maybe a sort of international tribunal, or collection of representatives from
> > all sovereign nations can be formed that could arbitrate disputes between
> > individual sovereign nations. An international coalition can say, "Hey
> > sovereign nation #1, we, as an international community, state that you
> > massacring your citizens is wrong. If you don't change your erronous ways, we
> > will send 'peacekeepers' into your country. If you won't allow that, then a)
> > you're out of the international coalition but more importanly in this new world
> > when trade, finances, and goods are very important--all trade in and out of your
> > nation to any other nation is banned until you submit.
>
> This does tend to be the best way to deal with people who won't play nice.
> Of course at some point, I think you need to come to the rescue of people
> who are being forced into situations against their will.
>
> I forget now, were you a supporter of the trade sanctions against Iraq?
>
> Frank
I support cohesive sanctions against Iraq. That said, my wanting to not let
people suffer anywhere in the world gets conflicted with what's best in the long
run. 'Food for oil' will minimize the suffering of the people today, however it
won't remove the despot in charge.
If we are coming purely from the point of 'the coutry is sovereign and can do
whatever it wants inside its borders no matter what other countries may think',
then I support complete trade embargo. This leads to much suffering of the
citizens, but, like the American citizens of the past who finally rose up and
threw off their yokes of burden, change has to come from within.
In the long run, as demonstrated, it's a better solution. People won't shortly
forget the oppression and won't let those who would return to the same
oppressive gov't start running things (I'd hope)
Maybe a 'prime directive' is needed for those of us 'looking in'--not
necessarily turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering of others, but
adhering to the lines of sovereignty and imposing sanctions where applicable. I
don't think there's a country in the world today that can survive without trade
with other countries and keep up the necessary infrastructure of the country.
'Bad' leaders would either have to give up their corruption, or be overthrown by
the masses. In the interm, non-gov't agencies, such as the Red Cross, could
lessen the suffering of the populace.
This is all conjecture by me.
Tangent hypothetical debate--
If we woke up tomorrow and found an impenetrable barrier around each country
such that no physical object could pass through from one country to another
(lets not get into semantics about wind, polution, et al) which countries would
decay into 'stone agism' immediately and which countries could probably make a
good go of it?
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
120 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
|
|
|
|
