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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (47832)	9/29/2002 1:53:15 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

We're not in a court of law, John. So knock it off with the "we need proof that will stand up air tight before the Supreme Court" babble. Oh some would opine that the UN is a court... But it's the kinda of court where the judge and jury are "bought" by the bad guys, and the sheriff, not matter how many times he's told to arrest the culprit, sees the court releasing the defendant on his own recognizance with unenforced probation. Yet the US, acting as the only capable law enforcement for the UN, must risk the lives of its soldiers, as well as its reputation, trying to maintain stability in these regions. Well this time.. the judge and jury are being told to lay down the law, or the sheriff will institute his own form of frontier justice. And if anyone doubts that the UN is "bought", they need only ask how Syria, a brutal dictatorship, was granted a position on the UNSC when Germany, a democracy with a far greater economic and political "footprint" has been denied such a right. What the hell did Syria do to earn the right to hold such a prestigious position?? There's an agenda at the UN that is not entirely conducive to the alledge democratic values of the organization. Hawk

To: D. Long who wrote (47832)	9/29/2002 10:05:58 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Derek, No one is arguing we are in a court of law. You moved a discussion of rights of self defense to a generic case, away from international relations. Now you wish to move it back. Okay. Let's take the case on the table, should we accept the Bush administration claims to a justification for unilateral preemptive attacks. I think not. 1. A doctrine of preemption offers other nations a language and very powerful precedent to do the same. Pakistan or India in Kashmir is the most obvious example but there are many others that could be advanced. 2. Such a doctrine without a reasonably careful stipulation of the conditions under which it could be applied makes the precedent even worse. It then does become an argument that the US can do it whenever it decides to do so. And, in the very bald form put forth in the Bush papers, can do so without some sort of multilateral agreement. Forget the UN, since it seems to be such a bogey in your mind. Just to advocate the government of any country can do it whenever it so decides without some sort of shared agreement, leaves the international scene without any checks and balances.