 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
James Dagger
Joined: Oct 31, 2004
Posts: 37 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 23
Country: Australia
Province/State: New South Wales
City: Annandale
|
[Poll] War and Neutrality?
March 4, 2005 - 06:40 AM
|
|
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis"
- Dante
What do people think about this quote in relation to war and peace?
Should countries remain to themselves? Are there reasons to go to war or is it best to remain neutral? Are there special circumstances where it is wrong to sit by and do nothing? (eg genocide)
Please reply
Countries that remain neutral during war are:
Weak
(0 votes for 0%)
Targets
(0 votes for 0%)
Intelligent
(1 votes for 50%)
Examples to be followed
(1 votes for 50%)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ben
Joined: Jan 31, 2005
Posts: 47 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Australia
Province/State: Victoria
City: Melbourne
|
Re: War and Neutrality?
March 6, 2005 - 06:19 AM
|
|
to start with, i agree with tah quote in the sense that people who stand idely by and watch injustices go on are as bad as the people committing teh crimes. having said that i do not believe that staying neutral in a time of war is the same thing. a war as happened in iraq was a war started under false pretences (which many governments already knew the truth about saddams WMD) and using the "freeing the iraqi people" as the new reason for going in is almost justified - but we should never have gone in the first place. if american and the "coalition of teh willing" were serious about creating freedom for people and government rule (arent we all in a way) then we would be going throughout areas of africa getting rid of the militant regimes, but as there is nothing to gain from it no one goes there.
staying neutral is not a sign of weakness, or a dumb government, i believe staying netural in situations that do not warrant action is the smartest thing to do.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
James Dagger
Joined: Oct 31, 2004
Posts: 37 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 23
Country: Australia
Province/State: New South Wales
City: Annandale
|
Re: War and Neutrality?
March 25, 2005 - 05:50 AM
|
|
Fasle pretence may not be right. But it isn't an orginal idea. It's been used in the past and the sad thing is that no one is really learning anything.
There is a real difference between American actions in Iraq and American actions in Africa. I mean war is war and all the same but when you say Africa you are talking about a whole continent which is practically completly armed through the back door sale of dated U.S. and Russian arms.
There are similarities though, i mean Africa has sources of uranium, diamonds, that strange little chemical that makes chips for mobile phones. But America gets alot of African sources from other nations (eg Australia exports uranium to the U.S.) and i dont think they mind paying for it.
Oil is harder to reach, now this is a generalisation but generally people who have oil are usually not America friendly (eg Russia). So by masking a war and invading to secure oil is just much easier. Now apart of me is for Americas actions only because they have liberated a people and introduced democracy to a place that has NEVER seen this. Men and Women are voting in free elections and deceiding upon rules to govern themselves in a place that has been harshly ruled by a malevolent dictator. Its a good day for humanity and personally i dont wanna give saddam his job back.
Now i dont agree with the actions but i do agree with liberating people under Saddam. I only wish he had said that when he started this whole thing, i might actually like him if he had done that.
The thing i'm most disappointed with is that alot of people do nothing when the important moments go down. I mean Chamberlain appeased Hitler, and it wasn't until the invasion of poland did he realise "What have I done?" Peace and Neutrality isn't always the best course of action, Staying out of it can be the absolute flaw.
You see a pregnant woman being attacked in the streets. Do you sent you kids to go and help her? Yes? No? The first thing that comes to mind is that my kids may die but so may hers...
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
redmamba
Joined: May 2, 2004
Posts: 91 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Kenya
Province/State: Nairobi Area
City: Nairobi
|
what the hell are the hells you talk about!
March 25, 2005 - 08:50 AM
|
|
Never will one remain indifferent without reason. it is the reason for remaining indifferent that should be guestioned and not the remaining indifferent or neutral.
if i choose to remain indifferent, is it indifference to the action or to the morality of the action. I may have morally judged that the action is no good and i may also have judged that poking my face will mean more trouble. so, after weighing we seek the prudent way i.e not to act with or on a divided conscience.
can you oppose the men of the world and expect them to side with you in your crisis?
we need their benovelence and to milk a giant one needs look down into the soil and not into the face of the giant.
And "God son- Jesus" was presented by the woman caught in adultery. He sat queitly and wrote on the ground, the bible says.
Jesus remained kind of neutral. if He who is claimed to be God could afford to be indifferent, why not us, frail as we are?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
