1-Decent? Shameful?
2-Should countries help eachothers? or should each country be held responsible of its own acts?
2007-06-05 22:00:44 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's kinda badass.
2007-06-05 22:23:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyone above me that says "Switzerland is just scared" or something to that effect is an uninformed moron.
It's all about the almighty dollar.
Switzerland's main economy is international banking. They can't afford to place mistrust in certain countries, because if people from that country ever think a war is possible, (not even short term, just possible at all) they won't put their money in to Swiss banks, thereby hurting their economy.
People from every nation around the world have money is Swiss banks, and the reason is because they know Switzerland will always be neutral. They don't even have an Army, they have local militias, almost every citizen of Switzerland is armed to the teeth, which is why they have never been invaded. Occupying them would be like Iraq on steroids.
It is also the reason crime is so low there, would you break in to someones house if you though they had an AK by their bed?
I think not.
2007-06-06 05:15:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the Swiss benefit from the wars others fight for them, There should be a neutrality tax that we put in things coming in and out of there. This is my analogy. In WW2 Amish were against the war and all wars.. even though they didn't fiight they benefited from not having Hitler run the USA.
So the Swiss can remain neutral but as other countries lost thousands of soldiers , so they should pay a non-loyalty tax in order to do business with countries that have paid in blood
2007-06-06 05:26:40 · answer #3 · answered by magpie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it depends on what is considered neutrality...
being the banker of holocaust (which Switzerland was during WW2) doesn't seem like neutrality to me...
I think every country should be responsible for its own actions...however, if you say I'm neutral... to me, that means I'm not getting involved.... and financing a mass slaughter is not neutrality... that's a direct involvement which I consider extremely shameful..
2007-06-06 07:47:02 · answer #4 · answered by bustedsanta 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some countries have no choice but to be a neutral country. Reason is they are so small, the simply cannot defend who they are should it become necessary.
Switzerland for example is tiny and have an equally tiny military. It's laughable. But they have done an excellent job of creating identity for who they are. They are respected for their banking and finance skills, and they bother no one. Can't ask for much more than that....
2007-06-06 05:06:32 · answer #5 · answered by Billy 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There are other small countries, with smaller military than Switzerland and they all are trouble makers, and always at war with each other. Look at Africa. Is there any country in Africa that is neutral?
Your country can be small in size and military and yet be able to fight if you have to. Switzerland is just scared.
2007-06-06 05:14:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Swiss sell weapons and hide money for dangerous organizations. That isn't exactly neutral. That's profiting off of war and wrongdoing.
2007-06-06 05:18:52 · answer #7 · answered by tttplttttt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For most of U.S. history, the American people have supported neutrality. A tremendous propaganda campaign by the U.S. govt. was necessary to gain the support of the people to get involved in WW2.
No, neutrality isn't shameful. For people who truly understand U.S. actions in the Mideast for the last 50 years, we know that a neutral U.S. would not be the target of terrorism.
2007-06-06 05:22:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Cowardice is the main character of being neutral.
2007-06-06 05:04:44 · answer #9 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1..good deal...FDR screwed us on that score..we'd have been a great neutral...
2007-06-06 05:29:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋