Should prostitution be made legal?

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.

Reply 243

ben2111

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!

Reply 244

ben2111

I think I am off to bed, too. Good night!

Good night and nice to meet you.

Reply 245

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.

Reply 246

ben2111

I think I am off to bed, too. Good night!

Nice to meet you. Bye!

Reply 247

zizero

Nice to meet you. Bye!

Where are you from Ayrton?

Reply 248

Eternal Idol

Where are you from Ayrton?

Luxembourg

Senna is my childhood-hero...

Reply 249

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.

Reply 250

zizero

Luxembourg

Senna is my childhood-hero...

Ok, I must say Juan Manuel Fangio because I'm from Argentina hehe.
:biggrin:

Reply 251

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.

Reply 252

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.

Reply 253

Josh75077

This is the weirdest discussion about prostitution I ever heard.............

Reply 254

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?

Reply 255

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.

Reply 256