Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfieA
Just to illustrate the point, say your ally suddenly decided to endorse slavery and human trade for whatever reason - something that your own nation finds abhorrent. A neutral nation (which decides to be a defender of human rights) implements offensive measures against your ally (possibly military action or more likely economic embargos - which can be just as effective or even more devastating in some circumstances etc). Surely your own nation, answering to the ideals and wills of your own people, cannot be bound to assist in something that your nation's populace finds reprehensible?
|
No, of course not. Allies become enemies and vice-versa pretty consistently through history. If an ally acts in a way a country's people find abhorrent, then it is time to make some hard decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire
Isreal isn't really a touchy subject.
The USA supports a state that systematically marginalises and oppresses a significant population.
|
Touchy, sensitive, evokes strong emotions, whatever we want to call it, I am not going there here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire
I don't understand what you're trying to convey here in relation to what I said. Are you asking me whether Frances actions were justifiable? I don't know.
Iraq annexing Kuwait was only a big deal because it went against US interests. The USA had no problem funding Saddam while he was commiting atrocities against his own people. Let's not forget that the USA was Iraq's ally too.
|
What I am saying is, and ally is an ally and if they are in the right you come to their aid. If they are in the wrong, then you may want to rethink how good an idea being their ally is, as both the US and France did.