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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (17741)	7/7/2001 12:21:47 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

On top of that I think most of us here- although I will only definitively speak for myself- do not "want" to IMPOSE anything on them. I do not advocate invading Afghanistan to save either women or statues. I do not even advocate intervening if they begin to kill off the religious minorities they now want to force to wear little badges. It is the right of every country (imo) to do what they want within their borders, and it is the responsibility of the people within those borders to rise up and stop it, if they want to. That does NOT mean that the international community must tolerate whatever countries do inside their borders though. That is the difference between non-interference and approval. The fact that I do not advocate interference in a country does NOT mean I approve of what they do. It merely means that in the interest of non- interference in my own affairs, and those of my country, I think it wise to set as preeminent the right to be left alone. Occasional shocking acts of deviance will always be the result of such a policy (as we see from time to time in the US) but I consider that proof of the salutary effects of the policy, as opposed to proof that totalitarian crackdowns across the board are more "healthy". The vast majority of nations, like individuals in this country, use their freedom of action responsibly.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (17741)	7/7/2001 1:38:55 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

it is adherence to the most minimal internationally recognized norms of human rights. Recognized by whom? By the west. Not by China. Not by Africa. Not by non-westernized Asia or Middle East. What you consider internationally recognized means recognized by those countries which adhere to the concept of rights which was developed in Europe and imposed on certain other countries by the Western colonial movement. Find me an authentic African, Egyptian, or Asian voice not influenced by Western liberal thought which agrees with your position. Not that I disagree with you. After all, I was brought up in this Western culture, too, and have adopted it as the best culture. But I am also fair minded enough to recognize it for what it is--my culture that I believe in enough to think other people should all adopt it. But I don't have the audacity to pretend that it is the natural culture of all people, either. Or that it is "internationally" recognized other than by Western countries, or Westernized countries, or countries which feel a need to kowtow to the Western line because we have the wealth and the atomic weapons to impose it.