Why does Zeus want to remain neutral during the Trojan war?
Because it had nothing to do with him; the Goddesses started it, and he didn't want to get in the middle. Can't say I blame him.
What did the United States have to gain by remaining neutral in foreign affairs?
Wars cost money. You have to pay for troops, ammunition, supplies, ships, etc. Staying neutral means you are not spending the money and you can't LOSE territory.
Jehovah's Witnesses, why do you remain neutral toward Government?
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that true Christians are "no part of this world". Thus, Witnesses pursue NEUTRALITY in political, nationalistic, and social controversy. The bible quite plainly teaches that Jesus himself refused to become involved in the secular controversies of his day, but instead devoted himself to preaching the "good news of the Kingdom". The benefits of that Kingdom are permanent, while every human work can only benefit temporarily. .. ..(John 17:14-16) The world has hated [the followers of Christ], because they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. ...They are no part of the world, just as I [Jesus] am no part of the world. .. ..(James 4:4) Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God. .. ..(John 12:7,8,48-50) . . .Jesus said: “...You have the poor always with you, but me you will not have always. ...The word that I have spoken is what will judge [a person] in the last day; because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak. Also, I know that his commandment means everlasting life.
Why isn't neutrality an option for the USA like it is for Switzerland?
The U.S. tried neutrality during the Napoleonic Wars and interference with US trade pulled the US into the war, called the War of 1812 in the US much of the world sees that as just part of the greater conflict. The U.S. tried again during World War I and for much of the early part of the war there was great disagreement which side the US should join if that step came. The sinking of the Lusitania nearly pulled the US in but Germany agreed to suspend unrestricted submarine warfare. Germany later backed off that agreement (arguably because many American merchants were trading with the Allies) and made the mistake of trying to convince Mexico to join on Germany's side to tie up US forces. The U.S. then entered the war. The U.S. was less neutral in World War II openly providing arms and materials to the allies but did not enter until the attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war. Since then the US has taken the initiative more often but still has tried to avoid a number of conflicts. The U.S. was late to join the Yugoslav conflicts and was drawn in by persuasion from NATO allies who held greater concern for the stability of Europe. Likewise the US was more reluctant to participate in the Syrian civil war.
Should Australia remain neutral for their economic security or will they serve as a military ally for the United States?
Only if China becomes a global naval power.The relationship between Australia and the US is not one of want, but of need. Australia needs the US. And Australia will not “withdraw from being an American minion” unless they can get someone else to fill that void.For all of those who are a little confused right now, I will explain why Australia needs America. You see, Australia is really friggen big. Too big for its own small population size. Put simply: Australia can’t defend itself without help. America is that help. Australia being a “minion” for the US is nothing more than a “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine” situation.Australia is willing to go to Afghanistan, and Iraq, and 100 other wars that Australia should be involved in if means that the US will get involved in matters that are important to Australia. And not just wars either; Australia relies on both imports and exports. Australia doesn’t have the naval power to patrol the entire trade route between Australia and China, let alone between Australia and every other trading partners. USA does have that sort of naval power. Thus Australia is willing to stay on very good terms with the US.And now we get to China:Yes, China buys a lot of raw goods from Australia, and China sells a lot of finished products to Australia. But China doesn’t offer anywhere near the military power that the US offers. That is why for now, the AUS-China relationship is strictly business.But…if China did build a massive blue water fleet we could see Australia transition from being America’s minion to being China’s minion. Just like how at the end of WW2 Australia transitioned away being Britain’s minion.
Why can't America be like neutral European countries?
Can you show me where New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland is in the top twenty in population. Oh, wait you can't (1). The United States is the only top fifteen nation from the western world and one of two in the top twenty countries. Being that the United States has a large population as a western society resources are needed, and the United States need to protect those resources. Countries like Norway and other western nations can play the so called neutral card because they know the United States will be there. Plus, your neutral wording is a little misleading. Norway and New Zealand both supported and deployed troops to the Iraq war (2). All four of the countries you listed supported and deployed troops in the invasion of Afghanistan (3).Yes, the United States was forced into the world's watch dog back in 1942, because of all those socially progressive countries dragged the United States in another world war (4). Remember, the United States was the nation that decided to rebuild nations that declared war. The United States had to make nations like Germany, and Japan long term alliances. Other nations such as the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Germany have been attacked by terrorists (5). Even the Netherlands had an attack (6).I barely hear about any of those countries in the American news.So what? I never understood the logic that the United States is supposed to be perfect, and we are supposed know every little fact about every nation in the world, and if we don't our education system gets yapped about then our news gets blamed. Honestly, I don't give a rat's butt on every little thing Norway, France, China, or any other does, and that is ok, and very realistic.I am not saying the United States is perfect, and doesn't have their past demons just like the rest of the world. However, the truth is that the world doesn't want us to be neutral (for the most part), and as long as we still need resources from around the world there is absolutely no way backing out of our arrangements.World Population Clock: 7 Billion People (2015)Multi-National Force – IraqParticipants in Operation Enduring FreedomWorld War IIList of Islamist terrorist attacksThe murder that shattered Holland's liberal dream
Why doesn't the US Supreme Court system have neutral judges but have either liberal or conservative, is this the right way to judge things?
What is “neutral”? In other words, how would a “neutral” judge decide cases?If you ask some legal scholars (typically called “conservative”), they’d say that the “neutral” way to decide constitutional cases is to go as closely as possible by the text of the Constitution (because the text is law - any amorphous “principles” were never expressly voted on by anyone and are therefore not law) and to read that text to mean whatever it meant when it was ratified (since, if the force of law derives from common consent, then what the law means should be what people actually thought they were voting on).If you ask others (typically called “liberal”), they’d say that the “neutral” way is to look to the noble principles exemplified in the Constitution’s text, and reach a conclusion that best advances those principles and aims while being maximally “fair” to the parties.All that it means to say that a Justice is “conservative” is that he (or she) sees “neutrality” as meaning the faithful application of the most probable meaning of the text, whether or not it leads to a “good” result. To say that a Justice is “liberal” means only that he or she sees “neutrality” as properly encompassing the question of “what outcome should result in this case?”So, unless you want to amend the Constitution to define which of those approaches is “true” neutrality under the Constitution, then just accept that at least 90% of the time, SCOTUS Justices are “neutral”… according to the definition of “neutral” that their own judicial philosophy mandates.
What does the quote "You can't be neutral on a moving train" mean?
The train is heading to an obvious destination. If you remain on the train, you are going to that destination as well. You cannot be neutral because the choice is being made for you. Either stay on the train or jump off the train. If you and some friends were driving around, and someone decided to rob a liquor store. As soon as that decision is made obvious, you are no longer just riding around in a car. You are heading towards a destination. Leave the train or suffer the consequences. You can't be innocent even if you were just along for the ride.