Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

**Old_Scratch** · March 09, 2009, 08:16 PM

It seems unfair, but no nation has ever become powerful by playing fair. It's happened throughout history, and continues to happen today. So, should we be the least bit surprised when a modern power uses espionage, blockades, or military action for reasons other than altruism?

Or should we be more critical of this behavior since we live in a time that is unlike any time in all of history? Should there be more inclusion and considerate for the interests of countries other than our own or our allies? Or would this just be setting ourselves up to be conquered?

**Zephyrus** · March 10, 2009, 12:05 AM

I firmly ascribe to the belief that a nation must fix its own problems before it can help others. Any person with common sense would tell you the same thing.

**Old_Scratch** · March 10, 2009, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

I firmly ascribe to the belief that a nation must fix its own problems before it can help others. Any person with common sense would tell you the same thing.

I was mostly talking about using force to secure a favorable situation for one country at the expense of another.

**Ahlerich** · March 10, 2009, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

I firmly ascribe to the belief that a nation must fix its own problems before it can help others. Any person with common sense would tell you the same thing.

there is a difference though between fixing own problems and fixing own problems by exploiting/harming others

**Sidmen** · March 10, 2009, 12:40 AM

It is a nation's responsibility to do everything in its power to better the lives of its citizens. All others peoples are secondary concerns.

**Pious Agnost** · March 10, 2009, 01:26 AM

Whilst it may once have been, now the world is more of an international community, Jingoism is now simply belligerence. The attention should not be turned from ones own citizens, but broadened to the citizens of adjacent or nearby countries, but no further for now

**~~Ummon~~** · March 10, 2009, 01:39 AM

It isn't acceptable, but necessary.

**Viking Prince** · March 10, 2009, 01:40 AM

Nations are sovereign and that does imply an answer of yes to the question.

Each nation is constrained to some degree by it's own desire to have international commitments honored. That is not to suggest that all nations honor all commitments all the time.

**Darkside** · March 10, 2009, 03:14 AM

Acceptibility is a matter of relative power.

This question inherently poses the idea that the world can come together in a union which can cumulatively agree upon such a basic principle as global cooperation.

Is it acceptable? Ask the philosophers, and I dare say that no one here is qualified to answer that question.

Is it reality?

Indeed.

Acceptibility is a matter of relative power.

**Gideon Goldgod** · March 10, 2009, 03:54 AM

This could be answered by having one nation, probably through conquest, that's the fastest way.
But nobody does that anymore. Even nations with the power to do so don't do it. I really don't see why. For instance, Mexico, but I digress.

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · March 10, 2009, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by Old_Scratch

It seems unfair, but no nation has ever become powerful by playing fair. It's happened throughout history, and continues to happen today. So, should we be the least bit surprised when a modern power uses espionage, blockades, or military action for reasons other than altruism?

Or should we be more critical of this behavior since we live in a time that is unlike any time in all of history? Should there be more inclusion and considerate for the interests of countries other than our own or our allies? Or would this just be setting ourselves up to be conquered?

I think you are being unfair by bringing things to extremes by juxtaposing alturism and outright aggression. It is acceptable and a fact of life in our age for countries to compete against one another but this is governed by certain rules that human civilisation has warily built up over many centuries.

**IrishHitman** · March 10, 2009, 04:09 AM

Depends entirely on urgency and to what extent the foreign nation is being disadvantaged.

**Snowball** · March 10, 2009, 07:55 AM

It certanly is!

The job of my government is to provide for MY safety, MY needs, and to make sure I am fine. (By MY, I i mean the citizens of my country...if you understand)

So, if they do anything abroad etc, it should ultimately benefit me.

**Barry Goldwater** · March 10, 2009, 07:56 AM

Yes, it absolutely is. A nation's primary concern should be its own people, not those living in other countries.

**Problem Sleuth** · March 10, 2009, 09:11 AM

Example? Different situations have different answers. It varies.

I'm going to go with ideally, no. Realistically, yes.

**Lord Thesaurian** · March 10, 2009, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by The Man

Yes, it absolutely is. A nation's primary concern should be its own people, not those living in other countries.

yep +rep

**Lord Thesaurian** · March 10, 2009, 01:30 PM

in direct response to the original question, "duh! how do you think there's superpowers co-existing with cesspools like Sudan, etc.?" what are u all commies? it isnt right or safe to treat unequitable people equitalby. The strong crush the weak. Life sucks. get used to it!

**Phalanx300** · March 10, 2009, 01:32 PM

Indeed, taking care of your own people is a priority. Own people first.

**SorelusImperion** · March 10, 2009, 01:32 PM

it isnt right or safe to treat unequitable people equitalby. The strong crush the weak.

Sieg Heil, Adolf is going to give you the Iron Cross for that.

**Lord Thesaurian** · March 10, 2009, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by SorelusImperion

Sieg Heil, Adolf is going to give you the Iron Cross for that.

HAHAHAHA! mock all you want but my statement was the truth and you know it

Thread: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Hybrid View

Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Re: Is it acceptable for a nation to benefit its citizens at the expense of a foreign nation?

Posting Permissions