Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael M who wrote (54943)	9/10/1999 12:52:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Re. "legal" invasions -- curious about your feelings re. Normandy, Anzio, Inchon or Sinai in 67. My response was too limited -- thanks for calling me on it. I should have said that invasions outside of a declared war or a response to an attack on one's soverign territory are illegal. Normandy and Anzio, we were in a declared war, and invasion is perfectly legal and appropriate and indeed necessary if you're to win a war. Inchon, I don't know the situation. Sinai, if I recall corectly Egypt had attacked Israel, and the invasion was a retaliation. Again, in war invasion is perfectly legal. Still leaves plenty of times that we have invaded countries illegally. Kosovo, for example, is one. That was purely a civil war and there was no attack on the U.S. or on any Nato country. I have made clear elsewhere my belief that the NATO actions openly violated both the UN Charter and NATO treaty, and from my reading most objective (i.e. not paid by the U.S. government) international law scholars agree with that interpretation. If we invade East Timor to impose a "peacekeeping" force, it will also be in violation of international law. E. Timor is still part of Indonesia, despite the vote -- it has not established a government or been recognized as an independent country by any major nation or by the U.N. as far as I know.