Countries should cease giving development aid to nations with nuclear arms programmes

[eschemat]

No introduction given in debate.

http://debatewise.org/debates/3510-...-to-countries-with-nuclear-weapons-programmes

Thread is ongoing.

 

[ballin4life]

countries shouldn't give aid

 

[Theftz22]

There is no objective should or should not. Get on my level, bro.

Edit: This applies to every topic.

 

[1048576]

Boring, too many nuances to outline each individual case. Sometimes they should, sometimes they shoudn't.

*should meaning it maximizes happiness

 

[ballin4life]

There is no objective should or should not. Get on my level, bro.

Edit: This applies to every topic.

topic never said OBJECTIVE. Clearly we are debating the subjective

 

[PieSquared]

Simply put, if a country has the money to spend to create a nuclear weapons program, then they probably have the money to help themselves. If they are gonna spend enough money on a DEFENSE project, they should make sure the budget allows for MAINTENANCE of the nation itself.

 

[| Big D |]

I agree, if the country is struggling to provide their people with basic needs, and they have the money for nuclear weapons, something should be done about their government, never mind giving help. These problem with these countries is their government. The government keeps their people in poverty by selling all the farm land to corporations and pocketing money. Africa is a good example. Nuclear arms is a much more public example.

 

[John2k4]

Even if they have funding for nuclear arms, if they don't have enough money for much else (therefore requiring the aid), then just about all they would be able to do in a time of all out war would be to launch what they have, and not much else...

 

[Ocean]

it's hypocritical for a country with a nuclear arms program to not give aid to a country on the premise that they have a nuclear arms program.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Even if they have funding for nuclear arms, if they don't have enough money for much else (therefore requiring the aid), then just about all they would be able to do in a time of all out war would be to launch what they have, and not much else...

But in that scenario it's a matter of how their government is structured and what their priorities are. Having funds to advance in the nuclear programmes but not to feed their people needs some reconsidering.

it's hypocritical for a country with a nuclear arms program to not give aid to a country on the premise that they have a nuclear arms program.

I pretty much have to agree with this, however.

 

[blazedaces]

it's hypocritical for a country with a nuclear arms program to not give aid to a country on the premise that they have a nuclear arms program.

Just because you're hypocritical doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong.

-blazed

 

[Ocean]

Just because you're hypocritical doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong.

well, yes it does. it means you're doing something you believe is wrong. so either you are wrong about what is wrong, or what you're doing is wrong. however, that said, I see what you're trying to say. in that case, it's possible to do right things for the wrong reasons.

I said it's hypocritical for a country (with a nuclear arms program [going to abbreviate this to NAP]) to refuse to give aid to another country on the premise that they have a NAP. for example, should the US refuse to give aid to France just because they have a NAP? it's how a country uses/plans to use their NAP that is more important than whether or not they have one; this is why (mostly) no one will give aid to North Korea, because they are a country with a bat**** insane dictator with a NAP, but (mostly) no one has trouble aiding the UK, because they are a stable, peaceful constitutional monarchy with a NAP.

 

[blazedaces]

well, yes it does. it means you're doing something you believe is wrong. so either you are wrong about what is wrong, or what you're doing is wrong. however, that said, I see what you're trying to say. in that case, it's possible to do right things for the wrong reasons.

I said it's hypocritical for a country (with a nuclear arms program [going to abbreviate this to NAP]) to refuse to give aid to another country on the premise that they have a NAP. for example, should the US refuse to give aid to France just because they have a NAP? it's how a country uses/plans to use their NAP that is more important than whether or not they have one; this is why (mostly) no one will give aid to North Korea, because they are a country with a bat**** insane dictator with a NAP, but (mostly) no one has trouble aiding the UK, because they are a stable, peaceful constitutional monarchy with a NAP.

Good point. We concur.

Now, the question is where do we draw the line? Not every case is as clear cut as North Korea or the UK. The best example I can think of is Israel. They neither confirm nor deny that they have a NAP, but are widely believed to possess one. Now we not only don't know 100% their intentions (though I believe them to be much more pure than let's say North Korea) we don't even have complete proof they have a NAP at all...

-blazed

 

[Terywj [태리]]

That's a very good example that could then probably be the sort of middle ground? I'm not too familiar on the Israeli government, so their intentions is not something I can clear in my mind, but they're struggling just as the world is struggling so to be refusing them aid in time of need... I dunno. It all boils down to their government, I guess.

I wish this was place was more active. I want to hear others' opinions on this.

 

[Ocean]

Now, the question is where do we draw the line?

indeed, that is the question.

I would be inclined to avoid giving aid to israel, due to the fact that they spend the majority of the time beating the crap out of country for religious reasons and then framing that country as beating the crap out of them. it's a pretty gnarly situation that I don't think anyone would want to get in the middle of.

 

[blazedaces]

I would be inclined to avoid giving aid to israel, due to the fact that they spend the majority of the time beating the crap out of country for religious reasons and then framing that country as beating the crap out of them. it's a pretty gnarly situation that I don't think anyone would want to get in the middle of.

No offense, but it sounds to me like you're hearing just one side of the story and not considering the other. I've heard statements like this before and when I ask for supporting evidence no one ever comes up with anything.

Which country is Israel "beating the crap out of"? What "religious reasons" are you talking about? What evidence do you have that they have been "framing that country as beating the crap out of them"?

Are we talking about the conflict with the Gaza Strip right now? Please be specific.

And sorry if I'm derailing the topic a bit.

-blazed

 

[Ocean]

No offense, but it sounds to me like you're hearing just one side of the story and not considering the other. I've heard statements like this before and when I ask for supporting evidence no one ever comes up with anything.

I can understand why it would seem that way, but it's basically impossible to present an argument for either side without sounding biased, because of the hostility that exists on each side.

Which country is Israel "beating the crap out of"?

sorry, I made a mistake of calling it a country. the "it" I'm referring to is the state of palenstine.
as for "beating the crap out of", here's a pretty good source comparing and contrasting the casualties of both sides of the conflict.

What "religious reasons" are you talking about?

the idea of the holy land. the UN took away a section of land now called israel from what was palenstine and gave it to the jews as reparation for the holocaust, without consent from palenstine.

What evidence do you have that they have been "framing that country as beating the crap out of them"?

that's a hard requirement to impose on someone, but here's an article on the subject.

Are we talking about the conflict with the Gaza Strip right now? Please be specific.

the specifics I'm talking about right now are about the israeli-palestinian conflict. however, other cases to take in consideration include the six day war, the seuz war, the lebanon war, and a couple other cases.

granted, in retrospect, I never really answered your question, which led off on this tangent.
each case has to be looked at on a individual basis. there isn't any sort of formula of "we should give aid to this country or that country", and other variables such as how much aid to be given, whether or not parameters must be set before hand, etc. it's much more complicated than looking at a specific country and saying yes/no.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Yeah, definitely. I'll say that Israel was probably not a good example of this, but bringing up was good for discussion nonetheless.

 

[blazedaces]

the idea of the holy land. the UN took away a section of land now called israel from what was palenstine and gave it to the jews as reparation for the holocaust, without consent from palenstine.

I know it’s out of order, but I’m going to respond to this statement first, because it’s the one that bugs me the most. And if I sound like I’m angry at all it’s not anger directed at you Ocean, but rather us as a society. Because Ocean, you didn’t try to look this one up. You didn’t google it or try to find any information about it. Had you done so you would have easily discovered that it’s not true.

This is one of those myths that kind of baffles me. Where did it start? Why do people believe this to be true? So I want to ask you specifically Ocean, why do you think this is the case? Did someone tell you this? Did you imagine it? Who came up with it?

I could go through a short history of how Israel came to be. How the Zionist movement began to pursue massive migrations (known as “aliyas”, Hebrew for the act of rising, you could say that it loosely translates to journey) to Israel back in 1882. I could point out that in 1917 the Balfour Declaration was written, a letter from the British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild describing how the Jewish people should be given the right to have a state in what was then called Palestine. I could explain that before the Second World War even started Israel already had its own government, its own military and in fact helped fight with the allied forces in this war.

I could elaborate further, believe me there’s tons of evidence out there explaining how Israel came to be as a nation. I mean, if you realize that in 1948 when the British Mandate of the area ran out, and they high tailed it out of there as fast as they could, that nearly every Arab country surrounding the State of Israel waged war on it, you would realize that what you say seems silly and impossible. How could a completely new nation with no established military or government possibly defend itself against such an onslaught?

But there’s a lot of work involved with explaining a country’s history and I would rather not do it injustice by leaving a lot out which I’m sure I would. I’m just going to call this one out and say that you’re absolutely wrong and if you want to prove otherwise you need to find evidence to support it, which you won’t.

I can understand why it would seem that way, but it's basically impossible to present an argument for either side without sounding biased, because of the hostility that exists on each side.

It’s true that bias always exists, but that isn’t an excuse to never try. You could argue this about a lot of subjects.

sorry, I made a mistake of calling it a country. the "it" I'm referring to is the state of palenstine.
as for "beating the crap out of", here's a pretty good source comparing and contrasting the casualties of both sides of the conflict.

I think you meant to provide a source here… but I don’t see one. I am looking forward to it though.

that's a hard requirement to impose on someone, but here's an article on the subject.

Hard is an understatement, unrealistic is more like it. I mean, it’s basically like me demanding that you provide evidence that the American government is behind the attack of 9/11. It plays like conspiracy theory nonsense, which is what it always sounds like to me. I’m sorry, but this is not a reputable source. This is a blog, written by someone obviously with a lot of anti-Israeli beliefs who cherry picked a few pieces of information to make his point. Notice that he didn’t source anything?

I could point out a lot of obvious truths, like how Israel is a free country and if they had so much control on the media why would there exist plenty of media portraying Israel poorly and as a sort of monster in many cases?

I’m not going to bother going further, this is not a valid source and I’m not accepting it. You want to prove a conspiracy theory to be true, I’m not going to hold you up to a lower standard than if you were trying to prove anything else. Provide a valid source, not some hatred in the form of a blog without a single source of valid information.

the specifics I'm talking about right now are about the israeli-palestinian conflict. however, other cases to take in consideration include the six day war, the seuz war, the lebanon war, and a couple other cases.

Pick one if you would like and we can discuss the specifics of it. I’m not saying Israel hasn’t made plenty of its own mistakes, but what you originally said is easily refuted in every single case you have mentioned.

granted, in retrospect, I never really answered your question, which led off on this tangent.
each case has to be looked at on a individual basis. there isn't any sort of formula of "we should give aid to this country or that country", and other variables such as how much aid to be given, whether or not parameters must be set before hand, etc. it's much more complicated than looking at a specific country and saying yes/no.

And that is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make by bringing Israel up in the first place, to show that the OP is trying to over-generalize on a single piece of a very large puzzle. We can’t just decide to give aid or not based on a NAP. There’s a lot more that we have to think about it and we’ve only just scratched the surface.

-blazed