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.

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.