Decolonisation is a moral duty, not a foreign policy failure. As someone who claims to be in favour of personal liberty and self-determination you should be highly in favour of it.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Decolonisation is a moral duty, not a foreign policy failure. As someone who claims to be in favour of personal liberty and self-determination you should be highly in favour of it.
Decolonisation is a moral duty, not a foreign policy failure. As someone who claims to be in favour of personal liberty and self-determination you should be highly in favour of it.
I was speaking out of character. The Labour party in foreign secretary doesn't mean more conservative foreign policies. Considering it was just the Labour who was the main drive force behind colonialzation, brought upon the winds of change (which would neve happen here as they were Tory government plus success in Suez and Liberals being bigger than Labour) so I pointed out that IRL the Liberals would be nore conservstive foreign policy wise.
He said Labour in foreign policy would be better than Liberal for his point of view, I pointed out it is not the case
((The Red Army Chorus and the official marching band of the Combined Soviet Forces in Germany played "Bring the Boys Back Home" with Pink Floyd in 1990 for Roger Waters' "The Wall: Live in Berlin" album. Quite a breathtaking performance, actually))
I think half of our current government is too limp-wristed to fight international Communism, and the other half doesn't believe international socialism is something that needs fighting.
I think half of our current government is too limp-wristed to fight international Communism, and the other half doesn't believe international socialism is something that needs fighting.
Think about what would happen now if CPGB won and started to support the communist Indonesians
I was speaking out of character. The Labour party in foreign secretary doesn't mean more conservative foreign policies. Considering it was just the Labour who was the main drive force behind colonialzation, brought upon the winds of change (which would neve happen here as they were Tory government plus success in Suez and Liberals being bigger than Labour) so I pointed out that IRL the Liberals would be nore conservstive foreign policy wise.
He said Labour in foreign policy would be better than Liberal for his point of view, I pointed out it is not the case
No it wasn't, just look at the manifestos. In litterally every Liberal manifesto published so far they've been in favour of granting self-government and a gradual withdrawal from the empire, how can you say the Liberals weren't in favour of decolonisation?
Decolonisation is a moral duty, not a foreign policy failure. As someone who claims to be in favour of personal liberty and self-determination you should be highly in favour of it.
It's moral duty to leave people in Africa to endless civil wars, starvation and chaos? Your sense of morality is somewhat strange. Because of the rapid and not really well-thought decolonisation Africa is still embroiled in lots of conflicts. Now I'm not really a supporter of colonisation in it's classic meaning, but I think that Europe should indirectly control the colonies, at least until people of Africa can form stabile governments on their own.
I was speaking out of character. The Labour party in foreign secretary doesn't mean more conservative foreign policies. Considering it was just the Labour who was the main drive force behind colonialzation, brought upon the winds of change (which would neve happen here as they were Tory government plus success in Suez and Liberals being bigger than Labour) so I pointed out that IRL the Liberals would be nore conservstive foreign policy wise.
He said Labour in foreign policy would be better than Liberal for his point of view, I pointed out it is not the case
You don't have to lecture me about British history, I'm quite intrested in it and I'm fully aware that decolonisation IRL was Labour thing. But this AAR's Labour seems more sensible (at least I think so) and certainly more willing to do something other that fighting for more social liberties.
As I said I was speaking out of character and about how it was IRL
And using that stance to assume that Labour party would be more pacifist in their foreign policy than Liberal party.Good point. But for me it seem like they are more anti-militaristic for some reason. And hope I didn't come across as lecturing or condensending
As I said I was speaking out of character and about how it was IRL
This statement is wrong on so many levels. The Liberals post-1945 were on balance as much if not more pacifistic than Labour and were in no way imperialistic.
Good point. But for me it seem like they are more anti-militaristic for some reason. And hope I didn't come across as lecturing or condensending
Not at all, I just wanted to point that out to save you some time.
Well, Labour supports sending troops to protect Commonwealth members.
The Labour party want to abolish conscription for starters, Liberal party don't have it on their manifesto. But it is difficult to say who would be more isolationist and who would be more hawkish, Andarak got a good point over here. Guess we need to see what happens in order to judge who is what
Uh, what conscription? (No, National Service isn't quite the same thing.
From their current Manifesto: "The Labour Party would therefore also bring an end to conscription entirely and move towards a professional army." Remember, Tories implemented two year conscription two or three elections ago.
And National Service is only a pretty name for something that is conscription/military service.
(("Conscription in the United Kingdom has existed for two periods in modern times. The first was from 1916 to 1919, the second was from 1939 to 1960, with the last conscripted soldiers leaving the service in 1963. During the First and Second World Wars, it was known as War Service or Military Service. From 1948 it was known as National Service."))
If I steal your knife I've done a bad thing, and the right thing is to give it back and appologise. If you then stab someone with it, that's not my fault, you chose to do it not me.
I still don't see how giving the knife to potential killer can be justified from moral standpoint.
Any ETA for the next update?
What if you knew that it owuld result in a murder then? Wouldn't it then be better to prevent it, and find another solution to the problem? Like it or not, but you would have had an involvement in it.
I think Kant would provide a good answer here. Essentially, you are responsible only for giving him the knife – which would be done in good faith, as each person is responsible for their own actions. You would therefore not believe that the person to whom you have just given a knife would kill you, as it would be against accepted moral standards – though you are not responsible for his actions in any case. Look here for more details.
I think Kant would provide a good answer here. Essentially, you are responsible only for giving him the knife – which would be done in good faith, as each person is responsible for their own actions. You would therefore not believe that the person to whom you have just given a knife would kill you, as it would be against accepted moral standards – though you are not responsible for his actions in any case. Look here for more details.
A very rational answer there Densley... very rational indeed. Perhaps dadrian had a point about the whole Enewaldian entryist thing?
I think Kant would provide a good answer here. Essentially, you are responsible only for giving him the knife – which would be done in good faith, as each person is responsible for their own actions. You would therefore not believe that the person to whom you have just given a knife would kill you, as it would be against accepted moral standards – though you are not responsible for his actions in any case. Look here for more details.
That work out well in theory. However when you know that he will stab you, or others, is it still so wise? No, it would be ludacris.
A very rational answer there Densley... very rational indeed. Perhaps dadrian had a point about the whole Enewaldian entryist thing?
I'm not agreeing, I'm quoting.
I think Kant would provide a good answer here. Essentially, you are responsible only for giving him the knife – which would be done in good faith, as each person is responsible for their own actions. You would therefore not believe that the person to whom you have just given a knife would kill you, as it would be against accepted moral standards – though you are not responsible for his actions in any case. Look here for more details.
I agree with ThaHoward here, if we know that he will commit murder after receiving knife, then we can't really justify giving away the knife by claiming good faith. On the contrary, giving away knife in this situation would mean acting in mala fides.
- Status