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 : A CENTURY OF LIONS/THE 20TH CENTURY TOP 100 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Clutts who wrote (1250)	11/3/1999 11:23:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3246

Whether or not we ought to intervene in these disputes is a separate issue. I do not think that articulated principles have no effect on the ground, if only because they have rhetorical power which may benefit the party able to mobilize opinion. I did not say that territorial integrity was an absolute value, I said that it should not be lightly set- aside. We calculate about intervention based on self- interest "rightly understood", which means first our long term strategic interests; second, our long term diplomatic and economic interests; and third, our conception of our historic role as a great nation, and the kind of world we want to promote. If, for example, we may curtail genocide at a reasonable cost in blood and treasure, than we should do it. The Kosovo operation was ill- conceived, and it is not clear that we could have done much good in Rwanda at the height of the killing, but there may be instances where we can act effectually....There is no legal mechanism for secession. Therefore, it is extra- legal. The 10th amendment reserves rights to the states and the people within the framework of the Union, and is not awfully clear about it.....