NationStates Jolt Archive

What's your opinion on neutrality in foreign conflicts? Take for example the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is one that I've often heard people saying that neutral = complicit. Well I'm neutral in the whole thing. Not neutral as in "They should all get together and sort it out all nicely", but neutral as in "I couldn't give a flying fuck about what happens over there". Because I don't really see why I should be worrying about a load of people who would rejoice if my family was killed in a terrorist attack. The Israelis could napalm the West Bank and Gaza Strip for all I care. Same goes with Darfur or the conflicts in Bosnia or Kosovo.

So, what's your opinion on this kind of position? Are you all going to tell me I'm an evil bastard who's complicit in oppression or genocide?

What's your opinion on neutrality in foreign conflicts? Take for example the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is one that I've often heard people saying that neutral = complicit. Well I'm neutral in the whole thing. Not neutral as in "They should all get together and sort it out all nicely", but neutral as in "I couldn't give a flying fuck about what happens over there". Because I don't really see why I should be worrying about a load of people who would rejoice if my family was killed in a terrorist attack. The Israelis could napalm the West Bank and Gaza Strip for all I care. Same goes with Darfur or the conflicts in Bosnia or Kosovo.

So, what's your opinion on this kind of position? Are you all going to tell me I'm an evil bastard who's complicit in oppression or genocide?
Of course not, the victims of the Janjaweed are undoubtedly all terrorists who would rejoice at your death.

I say the US should keep troops out of foreign wars unless it involves: A) a conventional war involving 4 or more countries that is escalating dramatically, B) some unopposed acts of genocide, C) if they are our very close neighbors or allies (like if mexico declared war on canada or something :D ) or D) we are getting involved with a UN multinational peacekeeping force, which usually only gets involved with B) style conflicts anyway

Please direct any questions of neutrality to Switzerland, they seem to be good at it

What's your opinion on neutrality in foreign conflicts? Take for example the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is one that I've often heard people saying that neutral = complicit. Well I'm neutral in the whole thing. Not neutral as in "They should all get together and sort it out all nicely", but neutral as in "I couldn't give a flying fuck about what happens over there". Because I don't really see why I should be worrying about a load of people who would rejoice if my family was killed in a terrorist attack. The Israelis could napalm the West Bank and Gaza Strip for all I care. Same goes with Darfur or the conflicts in Bosnia or Kosovo.

So, what's your opinion on this kind of position? Are you all going to tell me I'm an evil bastard who's complicit in oppression or genocide?
So what you are trying to say is that you're not neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rather, you side with Israel.

You are allowed to speak plainly, you know.

There's really two issues here. Neutrality in War, like Switzerland, who sit around protending nothing is their problem, all the while profiteering off both sides of the conflict.

And then there's the kind of appeasement attitude prevalent before World War II, where people would rather let people be sent into camps than bother to do anything.

The first is pretty duplicitous, but I suppose it is not inhumane. But the second is complacency and amounts to indirect support.

P.S. Your generalisation of the... (well, I'm not sure who) is unfounded. Most of the people in situations of oppression maintain their capacity for human reason and therefore would not wish you personally any ill without knowing you.

Of course, I don't care about people in other countries :rolleyes:

We're English - why would we?

Cup of tea anyone?

You forget to mention that Sudan, if left unchecked, could become an outpost for terrorists if this genocide keeps up...Besides, its' not like the U.N. is doing anything about it.

I'm only neutral if certain conflicts have nothing to do with our interests/security...Otherwise, i'm all for intervention, wether it be clandestine or direct.

Please direct any questions of neutrality to Switzerland, they seem to be good at it

Are we talking military or financial?

Swiss neutrality is NOT sitting around doing nothing, or profiteering. Swiss neutrality is 'We're against whoever attacks us first'. Now, this works because Switzerland has a very high repute for deadliness, and while it is a tiny country, EVERY SINGLE MALE owns and knows how to shoot a gun; spends several months in the military at age 20; stays in reserve military force until age 38; and is required to attend yearly refresher courses until age 60, although MANY Swiss men choose to participate in more than just one refresher course a year.

Not to mention, Switzerland is ringed by mountains, so any invading country would have to fight through garrisons, booby traps, and the AA guns sticking out of hills. I happen to have seen all three of the above personally.

Now do you see why the Swiss stay neutral? They only can because they'd be a rather decisive force in any war; thus they can afford to be neutral, because no-one wants to attempt an attack. An army attack would fail, because, as I mentioned, Switzerland is surrounded by mountains, with only a few passes and many [booby-trapped]tunnels. The passes happen to be constantly guarded. A fleet of aircraft couldn't get past the Anti-Aircraft guns- there are simply too many.

So, no commander wants to waste their time and armies trying to attack Switzerland, or have Switzerland retaliate, possibly nuclearly if the threat is deemed great enough. Some 500,000 jews found refuge in Switzerland during WWII, and Germany still didn't attack. It had to let Switzerland be neutral.

Thus is Swiss neutrality.

Swiss neutrality is NOT sitting around doing nothing, or profiteering. Swiss neutrality is 'We're against whoever attacks us first'. Now, this works because Switzerland has a very high repute for deadliness, and while it is a tiny country, EVERY SINGLE MALE owns and knows how to shoot a gun; spends several months in the military at age 20; stays in reserve military force until age 38; and is required to attend yearly refresher courses until age 60, although MANY Swiss men choose to participate in more than just one refresher course a year.

Not to mention, Switzerland is ringed by mountains, so any invading country would have to fight through garrisons, booby traps, and the AA guns sticking out of hills. I happen to have seen all three of the above personally.

Now do you see why the Swiss stay neutral? They only can because they'd be a rather decisive force in any war; thus they can afford to be neutral, because no-one wants to attempt an attack. An army attack would fail, because, as I mentioned, Switzerland is surrounded by mountains, with only a few passes and many [booby-trapped]tunnels. The passes happen to be constantly guarded. A fleet of aircraft couldn't get past the Anti-Aircraft guns- there are simply too many.

So, no commander wants to waste their time and armies trying to attack Switzerland, or have Switzerland retaliate, possibly nuclearly if the threat is deemed great enough. Some 500,000 jews found refuge in Switzerland during WWII, and Germany still didn't attack. It had to let Switzerland be neutral.

Thus is Swiss neutrality.
The Swiss have nukes?!

The Swiss have nukes?!
Nuclear chocolates and nuclear powered cuckoo-clocks :p

*sigh* The ignorance of some people...
Yes, the Swiss have nukes.
Have you heard of CERN? Not only do they appear in Angels & Demons, they actually exist. They have truly created antimatter, although a much smaller amount than depicted in Angels & Demons.

Antimatter is much stronger than nukes, not to mention cleaner. The Swiss have already gone beyond nukes.

*sigh* The ignorance of some people...
Yes, the Swiss have nukes.
Have you heard of CERN? Not only do they appear in Angels & Demons, they actually exist. They have truly created antimatter, although a much smaller amount than depicted in Angels & Demons.

Antimatter is much stronger than nukes, not to mention cleaner. The Swiss have already gone beyond nukes.
Psssh. So you mean that the Swiss have one nuke.

*snip*
Thus is Swiss neutrality.

And I thought it was the bank accounts that the world leaders like to keep there.

The Swiss have many more than one nuke.

My friend happens to work in the [Swiss] military. Missile direction. Suffice to say, Switzerland wasn't included in the Warsaw Pact.

And I thought it was the bank accounts that the world leaders like to keep there.

It's both, really. If you can stay neutral in militray matters, why not financial?

The Swiss have many more than one nuke.

My friend happens to work in the [Swiss] military. Missile direction. Suffice to say, Switzerland wasn't included in the Warsaw Pact.
What are you talking about? The secret, covert, and unofficial swiss nuclear program?

And it would be very strange indeed if they had been a part of the pact, since they don't share a border with any other country that was a part of the pact.

Swiss neutrality is NOT sitting around doing nothing, or profiteering. Swiss neutrality is 'We're against whoever attacks us first'. Now, this works because Switzerland has a very high repute for deadliness, and while it is a tiny country, EVERY SINGLE MALE owns and knows how to shoot a gun; spends several months in the military at age 20; stays in reserve military force until age 38; and is required to attend yearly refresher courses until age 60, although MANY Swiss men choose to participate in more than just one refresher course a year.

Not to mention, Switzerland is ringed by mountains, so any invading country would have to fight through garrisons, booby traps, and the AA guns sticking out of hills. I happen to have seen all three of the above personally.

Now do you see why the Swiss stay neutral? They only can because they'd be a rather decisive force in any war; thus they can afford to be neutral, because no-one wants to attempt an attack. An army attack would fail, because, as I mentioned, Switzerland is surrounded by mountains, with only a few passes and many [booby-trapped]tunnels. The passes happen to be constantly guarded. A fleet of aircraft couldn't get past the Anti-Aircraft guns- there are simply too many.

So, no commander wants to waste their time and armies trying to attack Switzerland, or have Switzerland retaliate, possibly nuclearly if the threat is deemed great enough. Some 500,000 jews found refuge in Switzerland during WWII, and Germany still didn't attack. It had to let Switzerland be neutral.

Thus is Swiss neutrality.

I'm sorry, but you're not going to able to convince me on this one. Swiss Neutrality is (apologises for using such an old-fashioned term) dishonourable. During World War II for example, Switzerland had a duty to protect its neighbours but it shunned this duty and instead offered its financial assistance to Nazi Germany (granted, it also protected many Jews, but that only proves Switzerlands duplicity).

And anti-aircraft weaponry has an inherent disasdvantage against aircraft, not to mention gravity AA guns have the element of surprise against them and they are difficult to replace when destroyed. Switzerland would not remain inpenetrable against a united aircraft attack.

Swiss neutrality is NOT sitting around doing nothing, or profiteering. Swiss neutrality is 'We're against whoever attacks us first'. Now, this works because Switzerland has a very high repute for deadliness, and while it is a tiny country, EVERY SINGLE MALE owns and knows how to shoot a gun; spends several months in the military at age 20; stays in reserve military force until age 38; and is required to attend yearly refresher courses until age 60, although MANY Swiss men choose to participate in more than just one refresher course a year.

Not to mention, Switzerland is ringed by mountains, so any invading country would have to fight through garrisons, booby traps, and the AA guns sticking out of hills. I happen to have seen all three of the above personally.

Now do you see why the Swiss stay neutral? They only can because they'd be a rather decisive force in any war; thus they can afford to be neutral, because no-one wants to attempt an attack. An army attack would fail, because, as I mentioned, Switzerland is surrounded by mountains, with only a few passes and many [booby-trapped]tunnels. The passes happen to be constantly guarded. A fleet of aircraft couldn't get past the Anti-Aircraft guns- there are simply too many.

So, no commander wants to waste their time and armies trying to attack Switzerland, or have Switzerland retaliate, possibly nuclearly if the threat is deemed great enough. Some 500,000 jews found refuge in Switzerland during WWII, and Germany still didn't attack. It had to let Switzerland be neutral.

Thus is Swiss neutrality.

switzerland has nukes?

*sigh* The ignorance of some people...
Yes, the Swiss have nukes.
Have you heard of CERN? Not only do they appear in Angels & Demons, they actually exist. They have truly created antimatter, although a much smaller amount than depicted in Angels & Demons.

Antimatter is much stronger than nukes, not to mention cleaner. The Swiss have already gone beyond nukes.

here it says they abandoned their nuclear program in 1969
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_powers

switzerland has nukes?
Shush! Don't tell the French! Or the Swiss, because they don't know it either! :p

here it says they abandoned their nuclear program in 1969
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_powers
What are you going to believe, a source on the internet :rolleyes: or the friend of a friend (of a friend?) of a random poster on NS General? Huh? :p

What are you going to believe, a source on the internet :rolleyes: or the friend of a friend (of a friend?) of a random poster on NS General? Huh? :p

Hey a guy I met on the street said it was true. Should I ignore the fact he was taking a leak on the side of a building at that time?

Hey a guy I met on the street said it was true. Should I ignore the fact he was taking a leak on the side of a building at that time?
He was probably trying to look inconspicuous while he passed along some classified information.

Wait a minute.

Does this mean you're part of a conspiracy now?

Guys, lets be brutally honest here. Any western country can build a nuke tomorrow. It isn't hard.

That's the real secret (and why Nuclear Non-Proliferation is a bad joke). Making a nuke is difficult the first time anyone does it. After that, any trained physicist can build you one.

What's your opinion on neutrality in foreign conflicts? Take for example the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is one that I've often heard people saying that neutral = complicit. Well I'm neutral in the whole thing. Not neutral as in "They should all get together and sort it out all nicely", but neutral as in "I couldn't give a flying fuck about what happens over there". Because I don't really see why I should be worrying about a load of people who would rejoice if my family was killed in a terrorist attack. The Israelis could napalm the West Bank and Gaza Strip for all I care. Same goes with Darfur or the conflicts in Bosnia or Kosovo.

So, what's your opinion on this kind of position? Are you all going to tell me I'm an evil bastard who's complicit in oppression or genocide?

Well, if you don't care about them, why should they care about you? Or your family. In fact, what you are doing is spreading a lack of care which leads people to do things like, for example, blowing up your family or bombing a building or whatnot.

So, yeah. You win in the Battle of Who Could Care Less... at least, until someone who cares even less than you do manages to kill your family or something.

Swiss Neutrality is (apologises for using such an old-fashioned term) dishonourable. During World War II for example, Switzerland had a duty to protect its neighbours but it shunned this duty and instead offered its financial assistance to Nazi Germany (granted, it also protected many Jews, but that only proves Switzerlands duplicity).
That's bullshit.

Switzerland didn't offer assistance to anyone. Their government just doesn't get involved in their banks - it's a matter of principle for them. Some Nazi organisations used Swiss bank accounts, and that's about as far as that went.

Switzerland and Germany weren't exactly friends: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum

Guys, lets be brutally honest here. Any western country can build a nuke tomorrow. It isn't hard.
Not a country without the right nuclear facilities. Switzerland has a few PWR and BWR, but those can't produce weapons-grade materials I don't think. So the question is whether they have enrichment facilities, or whether they import fuel elements. I'm not sure.