SI
SI
discoversearch

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (38004)8/15/2002 5:17:25 PM
From: maceng2  Respond to of 281500
 
"traditional allies"

Yep we are those. So just STFU and listen OK? -g-



To: jlallen who wrote (38004)8/15/2002 7:01:40 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi jlallen; Re: "So you propose that the national interests of a sovereign nation should be subject to a veto by "traditional allies"???"

No veto is proposed. What I'm stating is a consequence of the often observed fact that democracies take these things into consideration.

You misunderstand me if you think that the main purport of what I'm saying is that we shouldn't go into Iraq. What I'm saying is that we won't go into Iraq with large scale military force (i.e. massive bombings, etc.)

-- Carl



To: jlallen who wrote (38004)8/15/2002 9:11:02 PM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
So you propose that the national interests of a sovereign nation should be subject to a veto by "traditional allies"???

Most sovereign nations find it expedient to include the potential impact of a decision on traditional allies in the debate over what course of action best serves the national interest.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News