US threatens China with military deployment

[amadeus]

Then why do you insist the government take actions that are financialy damaging to the economy? Is it for the sake of your own conception of morality?

You're changing the subject again.

 

[GhostWriter16]

We should just liberate North Korea

I agree with this.

But I don't agree with the stuff after that. They have a right to self-determination, but Kim Jong IL can't do that for everyone...

 

[GamezRule]

Spoiler :

Really, all that I can say.

Spoiler :

 

[Ajidica]

You're changing the subject again.

Only because you keep doing the same thing. If a general statement is relavent in one area, you must be able to explain why it is relavent in a different area it is still applicable to.

 

[amadeus]

Only because you keep doing the same thing. If a general statement is relavent in one area, you must be able to explain why it is relavent in a different area it is still applicable to.

I was going to say that morality doesn't govern foreign relations, but I liked the sound of "politics" better. It was an aesthetic choice, not a clarion call to those who want to discuss domestic politics.

Morality doesn't govern foreign relations. That is what I meant.

 

[Ajidica]

I was going to say that morality doesn't govern foreign relations, but I liked the sound of "politics" better. It was an aesthetic choice, not a clarion call to those who want to discuss domestic politics.

Morality doesn't govern foreign relations. That is what I meant.

Okay. It is just that given your love of wordplay in other discussions I assumed it would apply here. Mea culpa.

 

[amadeus]

Well, I'll say that I would have answered if it wasn't a loaded question that required I answer from a defensive position. That said, the subject is over.

I am interested now though in knowing how much you believe having a moral standing matters in diplomacy. I was thinking of an example like World War II -- it was before segregation had been abolished, even at the federal level. Yet despite our flaws, we went to war against Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and imperial Japan.

 

[Ajidica]

Morality should not be the driving factor in foreign relations, but I feel it has to play some role. Selling weapons to the Iranians while they were fighting our allies has to be on the low list, and that didn't even involve installing our own dictators because we didn't feel like having vaguely left-wing governments in Latin America.
If we can gain leverage against China by gaining better relations with North Korea, do it. If however we use North Korea to conquer South Korea because they are infringing upon our sphere of influence, then I feel that is immoral and should not be done.

 

[amadeus]

Morality should not be the driving factor in foreign relations, but I feel it has to play some role. Selling weapons to the Iranians while they were fighting our allies

Sorry, technical question: Iran was fighting our allies? What are you talking about? (I mean it as the question, not what are you talking about?!?!)

 

[Ajidica]

Sorry, technical question: Iran was fighting our allies? What are you talking about? (I mean it as the question, not what are you talking about?!?!)

Iran-Iraq war. We supported Saddam because he opposed Khomeni who kicked out the pro-Western Shah.

The United States supported Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. This support included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]

Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives, although the public and news media paid little attention. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war

 

[Skwink]

Spoiler :

I hate when someone makes a post with nothing but pics, and the pics don't work.

 

[amadeus]

OK, I didn't know if you were referring to Iraq. The U.S. had a more nuanced position than pro-Iraq: it was pro-stalemate. If Iran won, then we'd have a revolutionary Iraq and that would be bad. If Iraq won, Iraq would become very powerful and that would also be bad. So, the U.S. position was to make sure that neither side won.

And superficially, Iraq was far closer to the USSR than the U.S. if you're talking about Iraq's general foreign policy as well as their arms purchases (some 2/3rds, if memory serves correctly, came from the USSR. France was a close second and Czechoslovakia third.)

 

[Ajidica]

Still, selling weapons to the enemies of our nominal allies is morally ambigous to say the least. It gets worse when we sold them the weapons through drug-trafficers/terrorists (I can't remember what type of group the Nicaraguan Contra rebels were.)

 

[GamezRule]

I hate when someone makes a post with nothing but pics, and the pics don't work.

Right-click on the red x, and select "open in new tab" or window if you are still using IE6.