|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-08 11:24:56
The word "we" was perhaps misleading, i meant the canadian companies.
legitimate concerns : Self-defence and "certain" specific offensive actions to protect the greater good of mankind (such as the invasion of Germany to get rid of the Nazi regime - i don't consider invading Germany during WWII an act of self-defence). Don't ask me to define what specific offensive actions should be allowed, as I'm not an international law lawyer... Offensive action is a very touchy issue, and i don't have a real specific answer ... i think it must be analyzed case per case.
"Do you mean to say that you think the selling of arms should be controlled by democratically elected governments, or just the governing body in general?"
Controlled was maybe the wrong to use, i should rather say "oversee" that the weapons are not sold to countries which are not democratic, don't respect international law, and which do not respect human rights... This analysis must also be done on a case per case basis by the government.
"It might be better to seek dialogue, than to pour time and effort into creating and selling more weapons- better to seek dialogue"
I agree with you, dialogue must be the priority, but we also have to be realistic, if dialogue fails, sometimes you have no choice but to resort to force, especially when one of the parties involved in the dialogue is a despot and dictator. Mr. Chamberlain during the 2nd world war did try dialogue for a very long time with Hitler, and it completely failed...
Reply to this message
|
