If you're not with me, you're against me.

@Arella Mae,

Quote:

I don't think you are understanding where I'm coming from. Bill has made it clear how he feels about people who have warred, killed, etc., claiming it was for God. But, he flat out makes these statements:

You damn right to promote a religion by any means including the sword and the torch is beyond evil.

To break moral codes in an attempt to save your nation and all it people from being completely wipe off the face of the earth is far more understandable and very human.

Of course sadly torturing non-believers is also very human .

Y

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

So let me get this straight AM torturing people in the name of your god and promoting your religion by the sword is the same as Carthage trying to prevent it people including all it men women and children being either put to the sword or taken into lifetime slavery?

It city and it empire no more just burn marks on the ground for a hundred years or so until even that fade out.

You admitted that you would commit an immoral act. You obviously consider those that claim to kill for God are committing immoral acts. I wanted to know why it would be okay for you to commit an immoral act but if a Christian does it they are evil?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You damn right to promote a religion by any means including the sword and the torch is beyond evil.

To break moral codes in an attempt to save your nation and all it people from being completely wipe off the face of the earth is far more understandable and very human.

Of course sadly torturing non-believers is also very human .

Y

I am not talking about religion per se. I am talking about immoral acts committed by people. You obviously think you committing your stated immoral act is okay but it's not okay for someone else. There is no difference. An immoral act is an immoral act. The reason one commits a crime doesn't negate the fact a crime is committed.

In the bible God had certain people wiped out. I'll never deny that. He had it done for the very reason you are claiming it is okay for you to do.

And again, I have never tortured anyone. You still try to blame me for things I have never done.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The Swiss were riding a tiger, but it was their choice to do so.

How and in what manner did they had a choice not to ride the tiger either they could had not sold the bearing to the Germans and have armor units crossing their border or they could sell the bearings and take the chance of the allies bombing.

Oh given if the Germans had seized their ball bearing plants there would be no question that the allies would had bomb them I see little else they could had done.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Now that's not pompous or patronizing in the least.

My hypothetical supposes an existential conflict in at least the scope of WWII.

The phrase that is the origin of this thread is pretty absolute. The only way to consider whether or not it has any relevance is to consider an absolute situation: Life and Death.

I am arguing that the actual, not perceived, need to preserve life trumps property rights and national sovereignty.

If I have an abundance of food and my neighbors are starving; and I refuse to sell or barter my excess food to them, they are justified in seizing the excess as long as they don't kill me in the process or leave me in a state of starvation.

There is a limit to the rights of the individual.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves. - Lao Tzu

...agreed...
...but the point was on how you should approach the matter diplomatically speaking...

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Laying claim to neutral status was a very deliberate and clear choice, and put them on the back of a running tiger.

They wagered that the Allies and the Axis would raise the value of their being a neutral country above whatever specific value they could provide as an "ally."

They were playing both sides against the middle, but it wasn't sustainable because eventually one of the two opponents were bound to find a need for Switzerland that had nothing to do with their neutrality. This was even more assured by the fact that the Swiss sought to profit on the fact that there was a war going on outside of their borders.

The matter of the ball-bearings followed their declaration of neutrality, and demonstrates the peril of the neutrality strategy.

It's a pretty good bet that that if they hadn't sold the ball-bearings to Germany, it would have invaded their country, but obviously the sale of these parts to their enemy didn't prompt the Allies to punish Switzerland. The Swiss were lucky.

I doubt that the Swiss ever though their neutrality would play out perfectly, but they bet on it as the best option for their nation. In retrospect, it was a pretty good bet, but it could easily have been otherwise...which of course is the essence of betting.

National neutrality is not a position based on morality, it is a strategy; the strategy of the merchant.

It worked for the Swiss in WWII but it might not the next time.

Better, I think, to take a stand than to hide in the shadows and hope that the warriors don't notice you.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Better, I think, to take a stand than to hide in the shadows and hope that the warriors don't notice you.

Better to had the Nazis in control of your country and the Allies therefore considering your whole country part of the battlefield

Somehow I do not see the logic or the benefit as they could not had even slow up the German army.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

we should probably ask setanta on that...

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Obviously as history played out, the Swiss made the right call, but there was certainly no guarantee that they had, and it could just as easily have been a disaster.

The Swiss actually shot down a few German fighters, and while the Germans had plans to invade, due to the topography it would not have been a cake-walk.

They gambled on neutrality and won. If it had been up to me they would not have. This is a personal preference and not an argument that taking sides is perforce more effective than neutrality.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Obviously as history played out, the Swiss made the right call, but there was certainly no guarantee that they had, and it could just as easily have been a disaster.

What other action would you suggest they had taken?

The German army overran French in what a few weeks total and penetrated to in sight of Moscow buildings in months.

How many days repeat days would you think it would had taken them to overrun the Swiss.

They did not have a choice of any other actions that make any sense at all.

They taken a chance of allies bombings however if they had not done so all that would had happen is that their nation would had been overrun by the Nazis and then the allies would had ended up bombing them anyway.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Swiss neutrality pre-dated WWII.

They adopted the strategy at the beginning of the 19th century.

As I've indicated, it's been successful for them but it has always been a risk and never more so than during WWII when they were not so much neutral as appeasers of both sides (particularly Germany).

By doing so they sought to avoid conflict, but all the same invited it. They walked a tightrope and made it across the chasm.

In doing so they sacrificed any position of morality that neutrality may have imparted since they readily helped the Nazis plunder European Jews.

Smells of weasels to me, rather than pacifists.

In truth, I don't think the Swiss have necessarily encouraged the world to view their neutrality as evidence of elevated morality. I don't think they have discouraged it either, but then why should they?

Fairy-tale pacifists have bestowed a mantle of morality on Switzerland that the Swiss neither actively sought, nor deserved.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

In doing so they sacrificed any position of morality that neutrality may have imparted since they readily helped the Nazis plunder European Jews.

Since when does being a neutral nation means taking a moral position of any kind?

You seem to be equally being a pacifist nation who is taking that stand for moral reasons and a neutral nation doing so because it is the best course of action in their leadership opinion in dealing with foreign relationships.

Of course there are few examples in history of a pacifist nation state most likely because they would be overrun and taken over in short order.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Since when does being a neutral nation means taking a moral position of any kind?

You seem to be equally being a pacifist nation who is taking that stand for moral reasons and a neutral nation doing so because it is the best course of action in their leadership opinion in dealing with foreign relationships.

Of course there are few examples in history of a pacifist nation state most likely because they would be overrun and taken over in short order.

I agree that it doesn't. I don't believe the Swiss based the strategy on morality nor have necessarily encouraged the outside world to consider it in that sense, but many have.

0 Replies

If you're not with me, you're against me.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know