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: marcos who wrote (145563)	9/15/2004 3:04:55 PM
From: TimF	of 281500

A nation gets no added justification for war by quoting as pretext a 'security guarantee' it has itself offered. In cases where a security guarantee would be relevant there usually is no extra need for extra moral justification. Defending others against attack is usually a moral act whether or not you had promised to do so before the attack. The existence of such guarantees do increase the practical justification (extant that it is in our interest to get involved), but not always enough to be decisive. or a parallel on another continent, the US fought its bloodiest war ever to prevent its southern states from seceding, though it had at the time less than one-twentieth the recorded history of the vietnamese people The government in Washington had been the government in the South as well. The communist government in Vietnam had never been the government in South Vietnam. A better analogy to the us would require a hypothetical. If the Union had let the confederate states break away (willingly or as the result of losing the Civil War), and then years later a new government (not just a new administration but a whole new regime) formed in the north and invaded the Confederate States, that new government would be the aggressor. The fact that America had traditionally be one country wouldn't change the fact that the new government would be an aggressor. At most it would provide an argument for the aggression. The government in South Vietnam was nor more a fiction or "smoke and mirrors" than was the government in South Korea. Once again the fact that a foreign power helps create a country and a government doesn't make the country or government a fiction. Many countries where created with foreign help. Even the US might not have became independent without help from the French. but you can't have 'the UK' because brits overall are emphatically not turning neocon The UK is there as part of the coalition. The fact that the policy of the government of the UK might not enjoy widespread popularity doesn't change the fact that it is indeed their policy. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next