07 Mar 04
Originally posted by ianpickeringIf the west did not sell them weapons (and it generates billions of dollars of revenue and maintains thousands of jobs) then dictators would by them from somewhere else - China, Russia, or through some third party country. Then, we would have no idea how many or what types of weapons these "rogue" countries possess as they have purchased them without our knowledge.
Several western countries (Britain included Slimjim!!) have sold arms to dictatorships. Should there be such a thing as an 'ethical foreign policy' ? Or should foreign policy depend solely on self interest and the mighty dollar?
"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" springs to mind
Mark
07 Mar 04
Originally posted by mmanuelFunny. 'Bollocks' springs to my mind when I read this crap!
If the west did not sell them weapons (and it generates billions of dollars of revenue and maintains thousands of jobs) then dictators would by them from somewhere else - China, Russia, or through some third party country. Then, we would have no idea how many or what types of weapons these "rogue" countries possess as they have purchased them without our knowledge.
"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" springs to mind
Mark
07 Mar 04
Originally posted by mmanuelIn all seriosness claiming that by the reason it is a good idea for the west to sell arms is so that we can then keep track of them is a bit of a joke right - or do you know where the WMD are?
straight back at ya
Does a government have any moral responsibility to act in an ethical way with regard to foreign policy?
07 Mar 04
2 edits
moral responsibilities and governmental activities are two very different things.
if you have a way to bring them together then that would be nice.
i think the whole world would like to know.
sadly noone seems to know how.
some people believe democracy achieves this.
i think our present methods of democracy do not.
the concept of a democratic country havng any foreign policy at all seems self-contradictory : the foreign people affected by the government did not vote for the government.
hopefully one day ....
07 Mar 04
Originally posted by ianpickeringa government does have a moral responsibility to act in an ethical way. I did not suggest selling arms just to keep track of them is a good idea, but that if a country desperately wants to buy arms, if the west do not sell them someone else will. In which case, the west misses out on a) money b) intelligence and c) allows other dubious countries to developing long-term arms deals/contracts.
In all seriosness claiming that by the reason it is a good idea for the west to sell arms is so that we can then keep track of them is a bit of a joke right - or do you know where the WMD are?
Does a government have any moral responsibility to act in an ethical way with regard to foreign policy?
The case of Pakistani proliferation of nuclear weapons info springs to mind Even though the west did not sell any information does not mean that other people will not - and how surprised was everyone when Libya revealed it had the information to build nuclear weapons (just not the resources).
In an ideal world, there would be no need for weapons, let alone a weapons trade, but sadly we do not live in an ideal world.
Mark
p.s. I do know where Iraqs WMDs are.... in George and Tony's imagination!
p.p.s. Then again I would not be surprised if they, like Libya, had the information but not the capability of manufacturing nuclear weapons.
08 Mar 04
WMDs: Gee, even FRANCE and Russia (and, dare I say it, Saddam himself?) thought Iraq had WMDs, so don't go making it completely GWB and TB's fault.
Does a country need to have ethics and morality? Depends. The answer could easily be 'No', if the country is a dictatorship. It could also be 'No' if a republican people decide that legislating morality is passe, and vote to remove ethics and morality out of government.
I'm of the opinion that lack of morality and ethics are based upon lack of faith and belief in a code of ethics, regardless of source. People, disenchanted with religion and/or government, tend to do whatever they want, 'as long as they're not hurting anyone.'
Except, there are people who strive to better themselves and their surroundings on their own. The demand better of the world around them. But, left without a code of ethics, a code of morality, a solid, unchanging standard by which right and wrong can be measured, and replacing it subtly, insidiously, with the placement of rights of self over responsibility to others leads to the very struggles we are encountering today.
You may guess that I'm talking about religious values, but I could easily be describing any great ideaset that places a code, such as honor, respect, and chivalry above self.
Then again, not coveting is probably enough of a rule in itself. If the world could figure THAT out, the world would be a much better place. That, and getting paid fair for your work.
</SoapBox>
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by mmanuelWell put, Mark 😉
If the west did not sell them weapons (and it generates billions of dollars of revenue and maintains thousands of jobs) then dictators would by them from somewhere else - China, Russia, or through some third party country. Then, we would have no idea how many or what types of weapons these "rogue" countries possess as they have purchased them without our knowledge.
"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" springs to mind
Mark
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by ianpickeringWhat are you asking Ian? That I agree with some of the dictators that the US has supported during the years? If the US or England didn't sell arms then you can bet China would.🙂
Several western countries (Britain included Slimjim!!) have sold arms to dictatorships. Should there be such a thing as an 'ethical foreign policy' ? Or should foreign policy depend solely on self interest and the mighty dollar?
08 Mar 04
If the US or England didn't sell arms then you can bet China would.🙂[/b]is that really the point? To me that sounds the same as the line people take on many issues: "If I didn't run the concentration camps then someone else would have" was a common line at the Nuremburg trials - I'm not trying to compare this to the Nazis but I think it does show just how far this argument can be used and how hollow it can be.
Is it really valid to say that we should gain the benefits, financial and political, from something that is morally 'wrong' because our abstenance wouldn't stop it from happening? Maybe our abstenance & political pressure would stop it, if not entirely then partially.
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by belgianfreakHow many nuclear proliferation treaties have been signed, money invested in dismantling and disarming defunct weapons, and political pressure been put on countries known to be developing nuclear weapons programs? Only for the world to discover that a single individual in Pakistan is responsible for diseminating information throughout the world, amd then to discover that the material originally came from China - who have signed numerous proliferation treaties.
is that really the point? To me that sounds the same as the line people take on many issues: "If I didn't run the concentration camps then someone else would have" was a common line at the Nuremburg trials - I'm not trying to compare this to the Nazis but I think it does show just how far this argument can be used and how hollow it can be.
Is it ...[text shortened]... pening? Maybe our abstenance & political pressure would stop it, if not entirely then partially.
Personally I would like nothing more than arms manufacture/trade to end, however this is NOT going to happen. What do you think would happen if the EU and USA decided to outlaw the manufacturing or export of weapons. All the manufacturers would relocate to China or some other country with a more corruptible government and cheaper workforce. They would probably like to do this now, but government pressure will not allow them to.
What myself, chancremechanic and slimjim have said is not a perfect excuse or reasoning, but then we do not live in a perfect world.
Mark
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by mmanuelyeah, I see what you're saying. But if the US or UK had just sold the nukes to these countries in the first place would it not have have been worse? Instead of having 1 or 2 small nukes, or even the know-how but not the materials, they'd all have shiney state of the art ones, and many more of them. And we'd have no grounds to stand on to say they shouldn't have them because we'd given them to them in the first place.
How many nuclear proliferation treaties have been signed, money invested in dismantling and disarming defunct weapons, and political pressure been put on countries known to be developing nuclear weapons programs? Only for the world to discover that a single individual in Pakistan is responsible for diseminating information throughout the world, amd then to d ...[text shortened]... e said is not a perfect excuse or reasoning, but then we do not live in a perfect world.
Mark
Just because we can't beat them doesn't mean we have to join them.
Our refusal to sell arms to dubious governments/dictators would make a difference (eg. have you seen the average 2nd hand Russian tank - they're pretty crummy).
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by belgianfreakThe sale of nuclear weapons should not be undertaken by anyone (US and UK included). I was using the example of nuclear weapons info proliferation to demonstrate that if countries are willing and able to undertake this then they will be equally willing to sell small arms and battlefield weapons (such as anti-tank and anti-air missiles etc). I would not (and do not) condone the sale of nuclear weapons even to "friendly" countries.
yeah, I see what you're saying. But if the US or UK had just sold the nukes to these countries in the first place would it not have have been worse? Instead of having 1 or 2 small nukes, or even the know-how but not the materials, they'd all have shiney state of the art ones, and many more of them. And we'd have no grounds to stand on to say they sho ...[text shortened]... e a difference (eg. have you seen the average 2nd hand Russian tank - they're pretty crummy).
Mark
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by mmanueland I was using the same example to show that even though our not selling a certain weapon to other countries has prevented them gaining similar weapons, it has still left a preferable situation than if we'd just sold them the weapons in the first place. If I had a choice out of the 2 I'd prefer a rogue government to be suppied with Chinese anti-aircraft missiles than UK or US ones, because the Chinese ones are damned inaccurate/unreliable and the US ones could bring down a plane if operated by a child. The same goes for many other weapon systems. Therefore our refusal to sell weapons, while not effective in preventing those governments from getting weapons, reduces the number/effectiveness of the weapons they can get.
The sale of nuclear weapons should not be undertaken by anyone (US and UK included). I was using the example of nuclear weapons info proliferation to demonstrate that if countries are willing and able to undertake this then they will be equally willing to sell small arms and battlefield weapons (such as anti-tank and anti-air missiles etc). I would not (and do not) condone the sale of nuclear weapons even to "friendly" countries.
Mark
From a political standpoint, we are on very weak ground if we try to stop a power using weapons for 'bad' purposes if we sold them those weapons in the first place, no questions asked.