To: Neocon who wrote (10659 ) 4/6/2001 6:17:52 PM From: Lane3 Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486 But if there is an evident aggressor, there is an obligation to condemn the act I agree with condemning aggression against another country. IMO, when entities don't respect the autonomy of other entities, their peers should express their displeasure to the extent that they can. Again, this matter is not a question of the internal affairs of the entity but of the relationship between entities.Even without international aggression, diplomatic pressure to end slavery or the gross subordination of women is arguably the duty of a Great Power Now we're back to the original point. If a country truly wants to legalize slavery and the gross subordination of women and the government doing so is a legitimate government, it's none of our official business. No country has the right or obligation to invade them to set things "right." Officially, a country shouldn't even roll its eyes at practices in other countries of which it disapproves. It's arrogant and rude and it encourages them to be arrogant and rude right back. We have to respect the legitimate internal practices of other countries regardless of what we think of them just as we need to let Greg paint his geese the color of his choice. If individual citizens of other countries, on the other hand, want to condemn those practices and operate in ways to discourage them, I would heartily encourage it. I'll be first in line. But the peer to peer relationship--the official relationship between the countries--has to be hands off. I'm OK, you're OK. Don't butt into my business and I won't butt into yours. That's how we uphold the principle of respect for the autonomy of countries. Karen