Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: aladin who wrote (48903)	10/2/2002 9:57:52 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (5) of 281500

Re: US Right/Obligation to intervene You ask: > So on the one hand we have no right to intervene, > and on the other we have an obligation. > Which is it? The European view on this issue (intervention) is a little more complicated. Where there are significant human tragedies being played out, like in Bosnia and in Jewish concentration camps under Hitler, it seems that anyone who is strong enough to stop the bully is morally obligated to intervene. Otherwise, however, there isn't even a 'right' to intervene, let alone 'obligation'. Such unprovoked aggression of another sovereign country is virtually unprecedented in human history. It is pretty clear, actually. Europe says that there is no compelling situation (as with Bosnia and Hitler) that begs interfering in Iraq at present. Yes, there are some human rights issues in Iraq but no more than in Nigeria (US ally) where girls are subjected to "circumcision" (i.e. cutting out the necessary parts so the girl will have no pleasure from sex, ever), Turkey (US ally) where you get jailed and/or tortured for speaking your mind, etc etc.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next