TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Neutrality

Neutrality

whats is your opinion on neutrality when it comes to issues and a contries policies (ie switzerland)?
i'm not talking about some ordinary topic that has no affect on you but rather more broader and general topics

i feel choosing the side of neutrality is wrong, its a cop out and in fact only helps in aiding the worse side. best thing to do is learn about two two sides of the arguement and pick the 'better' side (or any side for that matter) so as to help them along and come to the 'better' solution.

example: foriegn policy, say you have two warring countries. i think it is morally imparitive to chose one side over the other. by not choosing a side you are taking the chance of the worse side actually winning. in the case of bad vs. bad its still best to chose the 'better' side as to help take a step in the right direction, i've never met a case where both sides had equal claims.

Neutrality, IMO, is like criminal negligance where for example you have two friends argueng, one is drunk and about to drive the other trying to stop him. but you stand there and do nothing... it doesnt affect you so why should you chose sides.

neutrality is a kind of the case that bush pointed out in his terror doctrine - those who lead a blind eye to terrorism are terrorist themselves.

I pretty much agree with you in principal, but I think you also have to weigh the costs of actually contributing to a war effort against the benefits of the side you favor winning, especially in the "bad vs bad" scenario. I don't really see any point in declaring allegiance to one side unless you're actually going to help out, because that will just make you a target if they lose.

You should pursue a doctrine which is most vital to your (and your allies) best interest. If it is pacifism, then so be it. If it is agression, then so be it. If it is neutrality, then so be it.

Re: Neutrality

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy Neutrality, IMO, is like criminal negligance where for example you have two friends argueng, one is drunk and about to drive the other trying to stop him. but you stand there and do nothing... it doesnt affect you so why should you chose sides. neutrality is a kind of the case that bush pointed out in his terror doctrine - those who lead a blind eye to terrorism are terrorist themselves.

PREACH ON!!! i totally agree with the above statements. neutrality works in Switzerland's case. in USA's case, no way.

>JM<

hehe yes staunch neutrality is for a bunch of pansies. C'mon ... there must be ONE issue where you have a definitive stance. Haha no offense to the Swiss but could they support their stance on the issue of remaining neutral? Wouldn't they be neutral on the issue?

I don't see anything wrong with neutrality if you legimitimately don't care one way or the other, or if you legitimately feel both sides are equally right/wrong.

Take an example from my life, my friend Scott was dating my friend Tamara for a long time. I was a good friend to both of them, and when they'd fight I wouldn't entertain either of them by saying "Yeah, he's a ******" or "Yeah, she was really a bitch" because I could usually see both of their views on it.

If neutral is how you feel, than I see it as a moral imperative to go with how you feel and declare it rather than exercising the good old herd mentality and following along just because everyone else is.

Doh ... missed that .001 minute edit deadline. If you ask me, that's a verrryyy bad idea for the political forum.

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb I don't see anything wrong with neutrality if you legimitimately don't care one way or the other, or if you legitimately feel both sides are equally right/wrong. Take an example from my life, my friend Scott was dating my friend Tamara for a long time. I was a good friend to both of them, and when they'd fight I wouldn't entertain either of them by saying "Yeah, he's a ******" or "Yeah, she was really a bitch" because I could usually see both of their views on it. If neutral is how you feel, than I see it as a moral imperative to go with how you feel and declare it rather than exercising the good old herd mentality and following along just because everyone else is.

Yes I believe there are cases where the best thing to do is remain neutral. But I said that "staunch" neutrality is for pansies. Meaning you can't be completely neutral on virtually EVERY issue. Although the swiss have been departing from that stance in recent times (joining the EU) I believe they've been somewhat criminal in the past by remaining completely neutral (WW2). Much like the catholic church during WW2. I almost threw up when some religious freak actually tried to tell me that the catholic church (the institution not individual priests) made an active effort to "help" the Jews during WW2.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yes I believe there are cases where the best thing to do is remain neutral. But I said that "staunch" neutrality is for pansies. Meaning you can't be completely neutral on virtually EVERY issue.

I have to agree with you that staunch neutrality on a majority of issues is a bit of a cop out of sorts, but I think you also have to look at the relative power of the countries involved...if you aren't a world power you have to do what it takes to survive at times.

I agree the Swiss conduct during WWII was reprehensible, along with the catholic church, but beyond that I can understand their foreign policy.

It's a survival tool that's worked well to this point, and I don't think anyone feels serious hatred for them, so they're definitely doing something right.
I think in a world where you have a stronger UN to protect smaller countries like that, you'd see them reconsider their stance, as I said, I consider it more of a safety mechanism than anything. If you make it unneccesary it'd likely change.

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb I have to agree with you that staunch neutrality on a majority of issues is a bit of a cop out of sorts, but I think you also have to look at the relative power of the countries involved...if you aren't a world power you have to do what it takes to survive at times. I agree the Swiss conduct during WWII was reprehensible, along with the catholic church, but beyond that I can understand their foreign policy. It's a survival tool that's worked well to this point, and I don't think anyone feels serious hatred for them, so they're definitely doing something right. I think in a world where you have a stronger UN to protect smaller countries like that, you'd see them reconsider their stance, as I said, I consider it more of a safety mechanism than anything. If you make it unneccesary it'd likely change.

You make a very good point. I would never fault switzerland for what it has done. I always considered it a very wise decision considering its circumstances. However, the catholic church I'm a little more hard on forgiving. Despite its central location in Rome, I think that religion should transcend politics. I think that Pope Pius functioned more as a head of state than as a head of religion. As such, his treaties with Germany were a discredit to the catholic faith and human decency as a whole.

There aren't many statements, in the context of absolutes, that I would totally agree with. My position is similar to CortexBomb's in that, if you are truely indifferent, there is no other appropriate stance than that of neutrality. In cases where there is an inclination to one side or the other, the potential outcomes of the necessary action, and likelyhood of those outcomes, need to be assessed. There is far greater responsibility placed upon one who commits an act, rather than one who ommits an act. Depending on the relative wieghting of the costs and benefits, you could then determine if the situation warrants action or inaction. In the second case, if inaction (neutrality) is chosen, can you really blame someone for protecting their interests when faced with uncertainty? IMO, no.

Btw, it's good to see you around again Izzy!

Ok, Izzy. Where do you stand on the conflict in Congo/Rwanda? Who should control Kashmir? Which political party in Spain do you symphatize with?

IMO it is in most cases nigh on impossible to gain enough unbiased information on conflicts to put yourself into alliance with one of the parties.

"Either you're with us or against us" is IMO rash crap. I take positions on different things daily, and also have done so on the three conflicts you were probably thinking of when posting this thread (having read your posts in old CO-threads ), but I am not confident that I know enough to actively put in an effort for one side or the other.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic IMO it is in most cases nigh on impossible to gain enough unbiased information on conflicts to put yourself into alliance with one of the parties.

True, but I think Izzy was referring mostly to a Government's position on whatever issue... who would obviously have better access to information than you or I.

quote:

Originally posted by InsomnEac True, but I think Izzy was referring mostly to a Government's position on whatever issue... who would obviously have better access to information than you or I.

Yes. I got to think of that the second I pressed "Submit Reply".

But even for governments, some individuals would have to gain the necessary overview to come to a conclusion. Then their conclusion would represent the rest of the people in the country. Guess, that's representative democracy for you.

quote:

I agree the Swiss conduct during WWII was reprehensible

Couldn't help but agree.

They claimed neutrality, but when push came to shove (possibly to protect themselves, I'm not exactly sure) they ended up aiding the Nazis more than anything else. Even today, the money and possessions stolen from the Jews by the Nazis, and then laundered in Switzerland by the Nazis, continues to resurface. Nazi wealth has been sitting in Swiss banks for close to 60 years, and we still call them neutral? Neutrality would involve telling the Nazis to invest their money elsewhere shouldn't it? I'm pretty sure the action of offering a safe-haven for this blood-money wouldn't fit under most definitions of neutrality? Or am I just being silly?

Though having said that, I see no problems with neutrality so long as it is "genuine" neutrality. Australia, historically, for instance, has been quick to enter wars that do not immediately concern it (Boer War, WW1, Vietman etc.) and I shudder to think how many Australian lives have been lost fighting someone elses war. Conflicts are not so black-and-white, and it doesn't make sense, much of the time, to pick a side merely to avoid being seen as neutral.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Though having said that, I see no problems with neutrality so long as it is "genuine" neutrality. Australia, historically, for instance, has been quick to enter wars that do not immediately concern it (Boer War, WW1, Vietman etc.) and I shudder to think how many Australian lives have been lost fighting someone elses war.

sad eh?

Don't forget Switzerland helped tons of jews by letting them in the country. But at one point they had to stop. Their own people had to eat aswell! The fact that the Swiss government bought the freedom of it's own people with gold is a shame.

But nowadays Swiss contribute so much in international help (Red Cross etc) we should forgive them.

What is neutral? Swiss economy depends on Germany, France and Italy. They recently joined the United Nations. 20% of all Swiss are foreigners etc etc...

Switzerland has not seen war since 600 years. By being neutral they could keep internal affairs under control: 3 different languages means 3 different cultures. Without their neutrality the country would have fallen apart, or a civil war would haven started long ago!

If u can and want help neutrality is always wrong. Saying "both are right" or "both are wrong" always encourages the conflict and never solves it. If you have no clue and don't wanna take sides (for me that would be judging the Congo/rwanda for example) you better openly proclaim your cluelessness instead of hiding behind "well both are partly to blame" phrases. Of course there's no black and white and in every war you somehow got legitmate claims of each side but still, in order to get to a solution you'l have to find the the side which is a bit more....well.. "right". Example: India vs. Pakistan. Killings on both sides but pakistan is the country harboring Terrorists which now and then heat up the entire region with strikes in the Cashmir area. Both sides use violence but one's violence is a re-active one and the other is the provocing one. ..em..yeah

so pplz....this is no protection and beautification aginst the truth (note the one of cosmic gate!) of your posts and the history, this is only for information and my opinion about switzerland & neutrality!

nearby, nice thread here..!

quote:

neutrality is a kind of the case that bush pointed out in his terror doctrine - those who lead a blind eye to terrorism are terrorist themselves

neutrality - in our case (and others), we do not lead a blind eye to them, we have also our security services to catch these crime pplz!
To searching after terrorists world wide it isn't important to be in neutrality - all countries do that...also we (the neutrals) to protect us!

quote:

Juricimo PREACH ON!!! i totally agree with the above statements. neutrality works in Switzerland's case. in USA's case, no way.

absolutly true!

quote:

occrider Although the swiss have been departing from that stance in recent times (joining the EU) I believe they've been somewhat criminal in the past by remaining completely neutral (WW2).

Nowadays, Switzerland hasn't joined the EU! The second part of your sentence isn't completly correct! Its very difficult the explain that...!

quote:

CortexBomb I have to agree with you that staunch neutrality on a majority of issues is a bit of a cop out of sorts, but I think you also have to look at the relative power of the countries involved...if you aren't a world power you have to do what it takes to survive at times. I agree the Swiss conduct during WWII was reprehensible, along with the catholic church, but beyond that I can understand their foreign policy. It's a survival tool that's worked well to this point, and I don't think anyone feels serious hatred for them, so they're definitely doing something right. I think in a world where you have a stronger UN to protect smaller countries like that, you'd see them reconsider their stance, as I said, I consider it more of a safety mechanism than anything. If you make it unneccesary it'd likely change.

nice and true statment!

quote:

Nazi wealth has been sitting in Swiss banks for close to 60 years, and we still call them neutral?

This isnt correct! The money was there, but the money belongs the Jews...not the Nazis..they arent any more since 57 years...and Germany did never demand after this money for themself! And also after the complaint of the US justice some years before, there were 3 Billions for the Jews spoken...i know..nothing can made WW2 forgotten!

quote:

I'm pretty sure the action of offering a safe-haven for this blood-money wouldn't fit under most definitions of neutrality? Or am I just being silly?

See ie CortexBomb

quote:

Don't forget Switzerland helped "tons of jews by letting them in the country. But at one point they had to stop. Their own people had to eat as well (true)! The fact that the Swiss government bought the freedom of it's own people with gold is a shame. The Gold History - not at all, but most things are true But nowadays Swiss contribute so much in international help (Red Cross etc) we should forgive them. What is neutral? Swiss economy depends on Germany, France and Italy. They recently joined the United Nations. 20% of all Swiss are foreigners more! Switzerland has not seen war since 600 years. By being neutral they could keep internal affairs under control: 3 4 different languages means 3 4 different cultures. Without their neutrality the country would have fallen apart, or a civil war would haven started long ago!

well done..i see, you know much over us! ! From where do you know this facts...history lessons?

Now back to the Topic!
Short:
whats is your opinion on neutrality when it comes to issues and a contries policies (ie switzerland)? i'm not talking about some ordinary topic that has no affect on you but rather more broader and general topics.

My opinion into the History:
Fact is, that the swiss neutrality leads back to year 13xx or the beginning of the 14 century! Beacuse Swiss is so small and we havent really a chance against any others military forces from outside, we edecided to be neutrally! Since thsi time up to 1798 we didnt had any wars or problems with our neighbours! Consider, that France, Germany, Italia, Spain etc. had long wars such as the 30 years during war! After the french revolution was switzerland the first country in europe (worldwide the second after usa) with a democratie! While half Europe had the Wolrd War 1 which was really stupid...didnt participiate and we didnt destroy our country!
WW2 - some things went wrong - but there is more than explanation therefore:
- we're neutrally - no war - "no official alliance" - no destruction
- do you think germany couldn't get into switzerland in WW2, their army was so much biger than ours! i think, in fact, they used switzerland for money transactions. Nearby - in the frist 3 years of WW2 Germany could get coal & stell (others) over switzerland from USA and others rivals!


They (Nazis) used us and we used them to escape from the totally destruction! It was not one of the finest hours of Switzerlands histroy - we know that!

Nowadays - in Switzerlands case:
We cant say its good the be neutrally today, its a way...such as to be the "bad" or the "good" one! None of these ways is the right - the mix it is! But, i'm happy that we arent into a NATO because its a (needed) war engine (in some cases its also helpful to help with violence! I'm happy the be into the UN (voted over this last year => yes) there we can help and do our way of helping, humanitarian!

At last, this is an endless discussion, such as all other too! why isnt there anyone / anything who has the force to unify the whole world? The world can never be made fairly for all, but we all can made it fairlyer for all of us...this will take time!

Lotadeus

quote:

well done..i see, you know much over us! ! From where do you know this facts...history lessons?

General interest and I ski in Engelberg/Laax/Davos/Grindelwald

The Rethoromanic language/culture hasn't got that much importance

Although most traffic signs are in two languages

quote:

The Rethoromanic language/culture hasn't got that much importance Although most traffic signs are in two languages

so it is...but into swiss...we say that we have 4 cultures..!


General interest

Hmm...you're from Holland, are you? Hm...i have also a lot of General interests but was never there (Holland) ! And i also dont know much about your cultutre...!

so, bybeybe!

Lotadeus

Schwitzerdutsch sounds like Frysian, a language spoken in a northern province.

Uf widerluecke

Btw: I like the taste of Swiss mountain weed

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Though having said that, I see no problems with neutrality so long as it is "genuine" neutrality. Australia, historically, for instance, has been quick to enter wars that do not immediately concern it (Boer War, WW1, Vietman etc.) and I shudder to think how many Australian lives have been lost fighting someone elses war. Conflicts are not so black-and-white, and it doesn't make sense, much of the time, to pick a side merely to avoid being seen as neutral.

cause of their G.B. ties...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.