Should prostitution be made legal? Watch

This discussion is closed.
ben2111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#241
Report 14 years ago
#241
(Original post by vienna95)
a) if you could tell me the interest in their intervention in

Germany
Kuwait
Israel
Kosovo

b) whats wrong with national interest?
I wrote that already, Germany=defense against the upcoming russian threats
Kuwait = oil
Israel = satisfying their influensive Jewish voters in America,getting a base in the middle east
Kosovo = testing weapons (I am quite serious about that), getting a better status within the NATO?

national interest should never be the trigger for global operations, especially if not authorized by th UN
0
ben2111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#242
Report 14 years ago
#242
(Original post by vienna95)
certainly the freedom and defence of Europe. which i believe is where we all are now?
??? WHEN ??? You do not mean Hitler, do you?
0
EI_123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#243
Report 14 years ago
#243
(Original post by vienna95)
certainly the freedom and defence of Europe. which i believe is where we all are now?
Oh sure ... we aren't going to agree... bye all, have a nice day.
0
ben2111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#244
Report 14 years ago
#244
(Original post by Eternal Idol)
Oh sure ... we aren't going to agree... bye all, have a nice day.
I think I am off to bed, too. Good night!
0
EI_123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#245
Report 14 years ago
#245
(Original post by ben2111)
I think I am off to bed, too. Good night!
Good night and nice to meet you.
0
zizero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#246
Report 14 years ago
#246
(Original post by vienna95)
a) if you could tell me the interest in their intervention in

Germany
Kuwait
Israel
Kosovo

b) whats wrong with national interest?
a) Germany - They could not allow Europe to remain fascist or to be taken over by the USSR. That would have been against the national interest of the US, not only for economic reasons, but also because a totalitarian Europe would have been a threat to the US

Kuwait - Had the US not stopped Saddam in Kuwait, his empire might stretch to Morocco today! He was on a campaign to conquer Arabia and perhaps beyond. That definitely could not be allowed, as the Middle-East is of capital importance to the energy supplies of the Western world.

Israel - Once Israel was created, the US had to make sure, it remained. In addition to the fact, that Israel is a useful sphere of influence in the Middle-East, the existence of Israel is part of the US national interest, because Americans have strong sympathy for the Jews (and indeed a large proportion of the US population is Jewish).

Kosovo - A destabilized Europe is always against US national interest and since no-one else was able/willing to intervene, the US had to save the day (again). By the way, apparently the very fact that the US got involved militarily is largely down to Wes Clark who did not always respect orders from the Pentagon. The administration was furious about this and he got sacked later.
So, it is possible, that in the case of Kosovo, the US got involved "by accident".

b) There's nothing wrong in acting according to your national interest, if there's nothing wrong with your nation. If you believe the US is built on morally sound values, than it is right for the US to act upon its national interest.
0
zizero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#247
Report 14 years ago
#247
(Original post by ben2111)
I think I am off to bed, too. Good night!
Nice to meet you. Bye!
0
EI_123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#248
Report 14 years ago
#248
(Original post by zizero)
Nice to meet you. Bye!
Where are you from Ayrton?
0
zizero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#249
Report 14 years ago
#249
(Original post by Eternal Idol)
Where are you from Ayrton?
Luxembourg

Senna is my childhood-hero...
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#250
Report 14 years ago
#250
(Original post by zizero)
a) Germany - They could not allow Europe to remain fascist
precisely, they helped liberate Europe from the fascist threat. the USSR was barely a consideration in comparison.

Kuwait - Had the US not stopped Saddam in Kuwait, his empire might stretch to Morocco today! He was on a campaign to conquer Arabia and perhaps beyond. That definitely could not be allowed, as the Middle-East is of capital importance to the energy supplies of the Western world.
he was on a campaign to conquer, thats right, to remove the right of Kuwait and its people to exist in peace.

Israel - Once Israel was created, the US had to make sure, it remained.
erm, as i said, right to exist.

Kosovo - A destabilized Europe is always against US national interest and since no-one else was able/willing to intervene, the US had to save the day (again).
save the day...save a people from extermination.

b) There's nothing wrong in acting according to your national interest, if there's nothing wrong with your nation. If you believe the US is built on morally sound values, than it is right for the US to act upon its national interest.
irrespective of moral values, every leader should pursue national interest.
0
EI_123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#251
Report 14 years ago
#251
(Original post by zizero)
Luxembourg

Senna is my childhood-hero...
Ok, I must say Juan Manuel Fangio because I'm from Argentina hehe.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#252
Report 14 years ago
#252
(Original post by ben2111)
I wrote that already, Germany=defense against the upcoming russian threats
Kuwait = oil
Israel = satisfying their influensive Jewish voters in America,getting a base in the middle east
Kosovo = testing weapons (I am quite serious about that), getting a better status within the NATO?

national interest should never be the trigger for global operations, especially if not authorized by th UN
at least try and pretend to be remotely in the same ballpark as impartial.
0
zizero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#253
Report 14 years ago
#253
(Original post by vienna95)
precisely, they helped liberate Europe from the fascist threat. the USSR was barely a consideration in comparison.



he was on a campaign to conquer, thats right, to remove the right of Kuwait and its people to exist in peace.



erm, as i said, right to exist.



save the day...save a people from extermination.



irrespective of moral values, every leader should pursue national interest.
I agree with you on Europe and Germany.

However, I don't think you can say that the intervention in Kuwait was all about liberating the Kuwaiti people. Indeed, I don't think the Kuwaiti people was very important in the US strategic considerations.
What mattered was the fact that the Middle-East is absolutely crucial to the US, because of its energy resources. In addition, Saddam was becoming a threat and had to be stopped.
These are not considerations of a Great Liberator, they are the considerations of a government that acts on behalf of its national interest. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's hypocritical to pretend that these actions are in any way altruistic or noble. They are not.

As for Kosovo, the genocide was again not the main motive of the administration for intervention. Look at Chechnya: Nobody confronts Putin on this, because the "raison d'état" of the US and the European states is more important to them than the fate of the Chechen people.

The US, like everyone else, acts upon what it considers to be its national interest. That national interest does not have much space for the fate of people, for altruism or humanitarianism.
That's a basic fact of life. I don't hate the US, because of that. In fact, I'm happy the US of all countries is the 'hyperpower' today. But, it would be hypocritical to believe the US is somehow a "force of good" etc. etc.
0
Josh75077
Badges: 0
#254
Report 14 years ago
#254
This is the weirdest discussion about prostitution I ever heard.............
0
zizero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#255
Report 14 years ago
#255
irrespective of moral values, every leader should pursue national interest.
I'm not quite sure whether I can agree with you on this... it sounds a bit extreme.

I'll give you an example:

The effects of global warming will very differently distributed: Bangladesh will suffer hugely, it might be completely under water in a few decades. Other countries will suffer less, or maybe not at all (large parts of Russia will become fertile and apparently US agriculture might benefit as well).
Do you think that leaders of countries that could benefit/would not suffer from global warming should not try to reduce CO2-emissions?
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#256
Report 14 years ago
#256
(Original post by zizero)
I'm not quite sure whether I can agree with you on this... it sounds a bit extreme.

I'll give you an example:

The effects of global warming will very differently distributed: Bangladesh will suffer hugely, it might be completely under water in a few decades. Other countries will suffer less, or maybe not at all (large parts of Russia will become fertile and apparently US agriculture might benefit as well).
Do you think that leaders of countries that could benefit/would not suffer from global warming should not try to reduce CO2-emissions?
i understand that point of view, but i wouldnt support an agreement that would bring economic damage to my country if i thought there was a better way of dealing with it. since i assume we are talking in regard to the Kyoto Protocol, i dont particuarly advocate the US' behaviour on this but i do believe there is an element of truth in their objections based on the fact that the protocol is unrealistic, draconian and particuarly damaging toward the US economy. Bush has promised to concentrate on this problem, but doesnt think Kyoto is feasible. neither do the russians or the chinese.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#257
Report 14 years ago
#257
(Original post by zizero)
I agree with you on Europe and Germany.

However, I don't think you can say that the intervention in Kuwait was all about liberating the Kuwaiti people. Indeed, I don't think the Kuwaiti people was very important in the US strategic considerations.
What mattered was the fact that the Middle-East is absolutely crucial to the US, because of its energy resources. In addition, Saddam was becoming a threat and had to be stopped.
These are not considerations of a Great Liberator, they are the considerations of a government that acts on behalf of its national interest. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's hypocritical to pretend that these actions are in any way altruistic or noble. They are not.

As for Kosovo, the genocide was again not the main motive of the administration for intervention. Look at Chechnya: Nobody confronts Putin on this, because the "raison d'état" of the US and the European states is more important to them than the fate of the Chechen people.

The US, like everyone else, acts upon what it considers to be its national interest. That national interest does not have much space for the fate of people, for altruism or humanitarianism.
That's a basic fact of life. I don't hate the US, because of that. In fact, I'm happy the US of all countries is the 'hyperpower' today. But, it would be hypocritical to believe the US is somehow a "force of good" etc. etc.
ill concede the ground over Kuwait although i still believe it was a motivation for them, but as far as the Balkans go there was a clear threat to a peoples right to exist and the americans defended that. the Chechens are considered terrorists and even though the US doesnt particuarly like the Russian treatment, it cant tell Putin to back off bearing in mind its own stance on terrorism.
0
love_4_ducks
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#258
Report 14 years ago
#258
(Original post by ThornsnRoses)
We were going to have this debate at school about whether or not prostitution should be made legal, but we weren’t allowed...so we planned to have it in secret but then our school got burnt down and so things went a bit pooey...so we can debate it here...


Ok...im for the legalisation of prostitution because there are so many girls from Eastern Europe and other places that are forced into by gangs and have no way out. They tend to be threatened and live their lives in fear of being caught and have no way but to submit to those men who happen to have forced them into it. So by legalising it many women, or in this case prostitutes, can call for help...giving them an escape way...

What do you guys think?!

prostituion is not illegal surely its only solicting thats illegal
0
love_4_ducks
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#259
Report 14 years ago
#259
(Original post by love_4_ducks)
prostituion is not illegal surely its only solicting thats illegal
but its illegal if under 16
0
love_4_ducks
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#260
Report 14 years ago
#260
Prostitution is illegal if your over 16 as it's illegal to solicite on the streets-taking money for sex.
If ur under 16, sex is illegal, but the man will get charged even if ur a prostitute. If u are caught being a prostitute under 16, police will take u off the streets into care, etc
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

The new Gillette ad. Is it:

Man-hating bullsh*t (114)
45.78%
Pro-humanity (135)
54.22%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise