Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Drunken]

Small point of order: Embargoes and sanctions can be as inhumane and damaging as war. They tend to affect children, the elderly and the sick most heavily. See the Iraq sanctions and the Gaza strip for examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions

[Montague]

Small point of order: Embargoes and sanctions can be as inhumane and damaging as war. They tend to affect children, the elderly and the sick most heavily. See the Iraq sanctions and the Gaza strip for examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions

No country has any obligation to do trade with any other country. Trade is a privilege. If these countries wanted to act in the best interests of their people, they would provide these goods themselves.

[Wrex]

Small point of order: Embargoes and sanctions can be as inhumane and damaging as war. They tend to affect children, the elderly and the sick most heavily. See the Iraq sanctions and the Gaza strip for examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions

No country has any obligation to do trade with any other country. Trade is a privilege. If these countries wanted to act in the best interests of their people, they would provide these goods themselves.

America, or any modern first world country, cannot survive without trade.

[Osmosis Jones]

If these countries wanted to act in the best interests of their people, they would provide these goods themselves.

How? You can't just magically whip up a pharmaceutical factory and the people needed to staff it out of the blue. Hell, particularly in regions like the Gaza strip (where they resorted to smuggling *concrete* because of the sanctions), there reaches a point where you can't do anything because you can't get anything.

America, or any modern first world country, cannot survive without trade.

To be fair, no country that wants a lifestyle above subsistence level is gonna last long without trade.

(FWIW, I'm in favour of sanctions as a policy motivator compared to the alternatives, but they still aren't pretty)

[Montague]

If these countries wanted to act in the best interests of their people, they would provide these goods themselves.

How? You can't just magically whip up a pharmaceutical factory and the people needed to staff it out of the blue. Hell, particularly in regions like the Gaza strip (where they resorted to smuggling *concrete* because of the sanctions), there reaches a point where you can't do anything because you can't get anything.

America, or any modern first world country, cannot survive without trade.

To be fair, no country that wants a lifestyle above subsistence level is gonna last long without trade.

(FWIW, I'm in favour of sanctions as a policy motivator compared to the alternatives, but they still aren't pretty)

Well, those folks in Gaza (or whatever other country) better make some friends or resolve whatever issue is making their importers hate them so much.

That said, embargoes and sanctions are almost non-punishments in some cases. Some countries have absolutely no dealings with these countries in the first place. It's only effective if they do and rely on them heavily.

Which is why nations like Best Korea practice self-sustainment economic practices so that halting of imports and exports can't harm them.

[Karnewarrior]

Best Korea is also the same brand of morality as Lex Luthor and Dr. Doom. This doesn't exactly make them good role models.

Sanctions suck, wars suck, and oppression sucks. It's like having a person dangling over a lavapit, only you can't just help them up, you either have to raise the lava and hope the adrenaline helps them out, or shoot them in the head and haul up their corpse and give them a good funeral. What's the better option there?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Best Korea is also the same brand of morality as Lex Luthor and Dr. Doom. This doesn't exactly make them good role models.

Now hold on a moment. Lex Luthor and Dr. Doom are both extremely competent and able to recognize the value in taking good care of people, neither of which Best Korea is.

The latter especially. Doom may claim a tyrant's throne, but he certainly accepts the responsibilities as much as the power.

[scriver]

So let's try a little closer to home scenario: the way Americans treat their animals, children, and poor, as well as the gun culture, is horrifying in the eyes of most Swedes. If we pretend Sweden had the power to do so, would you accept our ability - no, obligation even - to invade and occupy the USA and enforce correct moral behaviour?

Also yeah. Dr Doom's own little kingdom Latveria is pretty much the best place in Earth to live, if I remember my Marvel correctly, as long as you don't seek to hurt other citizens. It's part of what makes Dr Doom such an awesome villain.

[Glowcat]

So let's try a little closer to home scenario: the way Americans treat their animals, children, and poor, as well as the gun culture, is horrifying in the eyes of most Swedes. If we pretend Sweden had the power to do so, would you accept our ability - no, obligation even - to invade and occupy the USA and enforce correct moral behaviour?

I've sometimes at least considered the prospect... But similar to why I don't support the USA going into other countries to enforce morals, and why I have a high threshold when it comes to a moral rebellion, there's always the consideration of collateral damage and ultimately causing more harm than good. This is I believe the more important element when it comes to discussions of whether a country should invade another, rather than the supposed sacredness of sovereignty.

[Montague]

So let's try a little closer to home scenario: the way Americans treat their animals, children, and poor, as well as the gun culture, is horrifying in the eyes of most Swedes. If we pretend Sweden had the power to do so, would you accept our ability - no, obligation even - to invade and occupy the USA and enforce correct moral behaviour?

Also yeah. Dr Doom's own little kingdom Latveria is pretty much the best place in Earth to live, if I remember my Marvel correctly, as long as you don't seek to hurt other citizens. It's part of what makes Dr Doom such an awesome villain.

Sweden is not an important country. It has like, 22 million people, I think, about as powerful as Alabama or something. Norway and Finland as your stalwart allies is another 10 million combined. I'm sure you know that already, I dunno why I brought it up.

But no, while the USA has problems, none of them, I believe is enough to warrant invasion. It's illegal to kick your dog here. up to 9 years in prison. Messing with a kid will basically see you dead or in prison forever and ever. Guns are no more dangerous then any other stupid toy adults here have. ATVs and boats and little homemade planes and modified pick-up trucks and the sort. Dangerous, sure, rednecks kill themselves in droves with ATV's and boats and planes and everything else. Does the danger outweigh the rights to do such things? Nope. Same applies with guns. Freedom vs safety. We believe in freedom and the people here like it that way.

Freedom, at any cost. Believe it.

[Reelya]

You tend to kill yourself with all those other things, while guns tend to kill other people.

It's like you're saying "guns aren't that dangerous because ... hang-gliding accidents".

[Criptfeind]

((He's trolling you in case you did not notice. Not saying you did not. But. You seemed upset before.))

[Montague]

You tend to kill yourself with all those other things, while guns tend to kill other people.

It's like you're saying "guns aren't that dangerous because ... hang-gliding accidents".

Well yeah, guns kill people at about the same rate sports kill people. A gov't would erase more statstics banning highschool football then banning firearms.

Some people, really gotta have their ATV's and highschool football and firearms. I think people should be free. Freedom means letting people own and do such things.

I personally weigh personal freedom above all other factors.

[Nadaka]

Murdering people with guns is already illegal.

[kaijyuu]

Guns are enablers to do more damage than would be otherwise possible.

You value personal freedom? How much do you have when someone points a gun at you? Even if you never get shot. "But they'll just use a knife or something instead!" Well yeah, but a knife is less threatening.


I'm generally anti banning enablers, but guns really don't serve any purpose I'm sympathetic to except target shooting.