It's alright to supply weapons to persons resisting a foreign occupation but not to persons committing genocide, homicide or crimes against humanity? Just checking for a paper I'm delivering to a few universities, thanks.<br><br>km<br><br>
[color:blue]Either is aiding and abetting killing people ... so in either instance, best not to supply the weapons in the first place.</font color=blue><br><br>Interesting point although I suppose that 1. If someone insists on arming one side even though the weapons are likely to be used for, say, genocide to defend illegally occupied land it would rather compel the other side to seek their own supplies for self-defence and defence of property and in such a case: 2. neither supplier nor recipient is acting unlawfully even if the weapons are used to kill in self-defence or defence of property because those acts are allowed by law. I see, so the first party and their suppliers are in the wrong because force is not allowed for grabbing someone's land and the second party and their suppliers are in the right because they're allowed to use force to get it back. Thanks, I've just added that point to my paper.<br><br>km
Loc: Alexandria, VA
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I see so the first party and their suppliers are in the wrong because force is not allowed for grabbing someone's land and the second party and their suppliers are in the right because they're allowed to use force to get it back. Thanks, I've just added that point to my paper.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Knock yourself out, but those conclusions are ones you have drawn yourself -- I certainly haven't written anything to support such conclusions.<br><br>Your original post questioned if it was "alright" to supply weapons to another under circumstance A, but not under circumstance B. Circumstances being the fluid devils they are in armed conflict, and since the result is usually more dead innocent people regardless, I maintain that the third option of not supplying weapons at all in the first place is the only one that is really "right" ...<br><br>If you're talking legalities instead of morals, I'd imagine it would be difficult to determine -- If you supplied weapons to party A for defense purposes, but they turn around and use them to commit genocide instead, does that make you in the wrong, legally, for supplying them in the first place? What if party A actually *does* use the weapons for defense, but also uses them to murder their political/religious/whatever rivals at the same time?<br><br>Unless you, as the supplier, have absolute control over how the weapons are actually used, I'd guess you're still probably better off not supplying them in the first place lest others try to hold you legally accountable should the recipient use them in unintended (by you) ways ...<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Don't blame the weapons sellers for the deeds of the buyers. That's my opinion. it would get really crazy if we followed this in other situations. Like blaming doctors for delivery of babies that later would grow up to commit crimes.<br><br>The only reason one wants to blame weapons dealers is that we have been brainwashed to belive that weapons, in and of themselves, are evil.<br><br>dave<br><br><br>dave<br><br><br><br>
There are 10 kinds of people. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
Very good points. I agree that the ideal situation is for neither side to a conflict to be supplied with arms provided they are not needed to defend or recover land illegally occupied or taken away. In such a case it's right both morally and legally to supply only the side that is occupied or dispossessed if that is the only means of ending the occupation or restoring the property to its rightful owners. If there's a peaceful method then that should be adopted but I suppose there could come a time when it would be reasonable to conclude that peaceful solutions are not going to work. <br><br>It's difficult to know what a reasonable time would be but let's say 100 years would almost certainly be too long. I dunnio even a couple of years might be too long but something in the middle, let's say 40 years, would probably also be too long. The best people to make the judgment would probably be, not either party to the conflict or their suppliers, but a duly constituted court of law. Anyone not co-operating with that whilst international crimes are going on should also be arrested and put on trial because they would be perverting the course of justice.<br><br>Regarding the judgment that has to be made by the supplier where there's an ostensible justification for supplying one side or the other the best thing is to judge it by experience. If the recipient is let's say the party who is occupied or dispossessed then the supply is probably alright but if the supply is to a party regularly annexing other people's land and committing lots of homicides with the weapons it probably amounts to aiding and abetting those crimes because the supplier can then foresee that the arms are likely to be put to illegal use. In that regard it's important to be clear about what is and isn't a crime because some people get confused between crimes and legitimate acts of self-defence.<br><br>km<br><br>
[color:blue]Don't blame the weapons sellers for the deeds of the buyers. That's my opinion. it would get really crazy if we followed this in other situations. Like blaming doctors for delivery of babies that later would grow up to commit crimes.</font color=blue> <br><br>I agree. Arms suppliers helping people to resist occupation or genocide and doctors in that situation should be completely off the hook. The only people who should be on the hook are those supplying arms that they can foresee are likely to be used for, let's say, genocide or grabbing or occupying someone else's land.<br><br>km<br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.