If your principles are never challenged, then they are worthless. How do you know that they are worthy of holding to if they have never been challenged?Mightysword wrote:If it's something defined as a 'principal', why does it matter? The rest of your address is meaningless. I already said principal is something you will be willingly to die upon. Some people can have very strong belief, that doesn't mean they have a principal.Morkonan wrote: That is true.
But, how often does that get challenged?
That doesn't mean, however, that you have to break your principles. Seeing the good that comes from others who have held to them is worthy, too.
The prudent person understands that if they value their principles, they must act to preserve them in the face of terrible challenge where, as they truly understand human nature, they will not be put at risk.
One doesn't have to avoid the necessities of life because one's principles are too weak to withstand them. Those would be useless, moot, principles to hold to. But, one does have to understand that one is not infallible and that extreme risks to one's principles should not be lightly engaged in if one truly does value those principles.
If you value your principles, then you likely do not engage in behavior where they will be constantly under challenge, right? Or, are you so confident in your own infallibility and ability to resist temptations that you blithely enter into situations where you principles are challenged, over and over again?
Yes, hold to your principles, always. But, just as importantly, recognize that you are not perfect and you will never be perfect. Because of that, protect your principles and do not unduly expose yourself to situations where temptations or risks to your closely held principles are common.
If you were against viewing pornography, for yourself, but did not impose such restrictions on others, would you work at PornHub? Probably not. Why?
So, I am to infer that, instead of addressing the subject, you just changed it by asking a completely unrelated question? OK.But that's what I asked?
In what ways are we an antagonist against Cuba?...These days we are like ... the only antagonist toward them in the continent, actually scratch that, we're like the ONLY antagonist in the entire world against Cuba at this point. Kinda hard to justify we're punishing them for the shake of regional piece when pretty much everyone else is cool with them except us.
Did our embargo contribute to the changes in economic policy of Vietnam and did its lifting by Clinton have a positive effect on the economy of Vietnam. You, yourself, stated that both of these things happened. Are you now saying that they didn't happen?..Taking credit, ain't you. It appears I was correct on the ignorant part.
Your definition of "ignorant" seems to lack rigor.
How did the Soviet models ineffectiveness "become clear?" What factors contributed to that?... When it started to become clear the Soviet model doesn't work, people already started looking for change. Some does a total revert like Eastern Europe, some others like China and Vietnam do an internal change. China's second open door policy was initiated in the late 70', just a bit after the US was kicked out of Vietnam. Tell me, are you gonna claim credit for that too?
No, I am not claiming "credit" for everything. I didn't do anything. But, you placed an extreme amount of emphasis on Clinton's lifting of the embargo and the extreme, positive change that came about immediately after that. You made a pretty big deal about that. It's strange that you, yourself, place such an emphasis on crediting the lifting of that embargo by Clinton and now claim that all that positive change should be credited to China. Don't you think US sanctions and embargos have a purpose to them? Don't you think that placing such things in place against a country can, eventually, encourage or affect positive change? It doesn't mean that they always will, but such positive change can be brought about as a result, without going to war to do it.
A policy that is designed to reduce the sovereignty of a foreign government is called "war."...If you think your policy changed the government ... get a clue please, people are getting beaten up over there over a factory site, or a sewer line, or for refusing to give up the land that interfered with the government's vision of developments, Vietnam is still in no shape or form a democracy ... how is that "change" from what it was before?
If trade sanctions and embargoes are used to influence a government or even to influence a change in that government, that is not "war."
Both methods can be used to affect positive change in a government's policies, perhaps even in the form that a nation's government takes. One method takes longer than the other. However, the most sure method of all is for the people, themselves, to choose and only one of those two methods, war or trade policies, can make that happen.
You keep applying your experiences in Vietnam to this subject. OK, fair enough, but Vietnam is not "everything." If the subject was just about Vietnam, I would be much more attentive to your opinions. But, that Vietnam's government policies continue to be oppressive, in your opinion, that does not mean that those policies will not now start facing internal pressure from the people, themselves.
You, yourself, stated that now that the people have newfound prosperity and greater exposure to the rest of the world, they may start questioning their government's policies. (Do I have to quote your own statements back to you?) Are you now going to claim that this method of changing a government's policies, or even the government itself, is not effective? It may take time, but faced with increasing internal pressure by "The People" that government will likely be forced to change its policies or risk Revolution.
Have you considered that is it possible that your experience may bias your opinions?...Mock my view to what you like, simple as it is, it is still one imbued with the actual pain and experience. In my opinion, that at least has some more value over one that imbued with naive idealism and ignorant assumption. I doubt we will ever see eye to eye in this.
I am not mocking your views.
I said that these actions were an example of how nations demonstrate the things that they value and that these actions were taken in response to what were seen as human rights abuses. That was, after all, the subject at the time, or do I have to go back and quote that to you?... But if you say those measure is used because you want to improve the human right record
Would they improve the human rights record of a nation? It's possible they could. But, if a country places a sanction against another because it believes that country has done some moral or ethical wrong, it's evidnce of that sanctioning country's upholding of their principles and taking action to reinforce their principles. The country doing so is taking a stand for their principles, whether or not their action is, indeed, successful or not.
This is a "natural law" of governments and the governed. This is the rule that we have to acknowledge exists. You railing against it does not change the fact that it exists and you will never get rid of it.... then I'm sorry it's a stupid idea. You don't need me to say it, but regardless of reason, it will always be the people who first in line to suffer, and the regime the last to suffer ...
As I asked, before, do you have a better suggestion? A suggestion that doesn't involve war? A suggestion to at least help bring about peaceful, but radical, long-lasting change in the actions of a foreign government? Please, if you do, then post it. Otherwise, the natural rhythms of collective governance and the negative effects that could be experienced by a population under foreign sanctions will go on, unabated, because that is how the world works... That is, after all, why sanctions and embargoes are put in place. (I suppose you will now claim in response, once again, that I am "naive" and "ignorant.")
It's almost like you read my post....The main reason I brought up Vietnam now is to point out the contrast in the society behavior. It wasn't the government that changed, what changed was the people, and you can see what triggered that change. Focus on the people, not the goverment, once you show them what they miss, they'll take the fight to their government themselves.
Why do you tend to first insist that something is true, then almost in the same sentence, say it is not always true? It's terribly difficult to interpret.I know this is an unholy grail on this forum so apology to moderator first. But I think the best comparison I can draw here on a gaming forum is this: trying to fight human right record through economy sanction is like trying to fight piracy with DRM measure.
Sanctions do effect the people. This is known. It is a natural law of foreign policy. That it will not likely effect the pleasures of an authoritarian regime is also well known. (By most people.) That such sanctions can have egregious effects against the people or the nation's economy is also understood, that's why they are only taken when other diplomatic measures fail. That such sanctions, besides serving as evidence of a nation's stance on the matter, could possibly have effects that lead to internal policy changes of a nation, or even a complete change of government instituted by internal revolution, is also known.
Yet, you proclaim these things as being, one assumes, your own unique observations, as if you are bringing enlightenment to the ignorant. (That ignorant person being me, according to your assertions.) However, it is for these very reasons that nations place sanctions and embargoes against other nations. Do you think that the concept of doing so rose up magically from the ground one day and diplomats just starting using it for no reason? Yes, a nation can use such a thing to demonstrate its dissatisfaction, but the ultimate goal, it is hoped, is to change the policy of another nation, often because the people of that nation witness the direct effects of the misbehavior of their own government. Yes, it is possible for the people to suffer and that is one reason why drastic sanctions and embargoes are not done lightly. People already understand this fact of life of international diplomacy. That doesn't make it any better, but next alternative is open conflict, so it's much better than engaging in that, isn't it?