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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (149636)	11/4/2002 9:50:17 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Interesting perspective. Thanks for posting it. I do have to wonder, however, how a "war of liberation" based on Saddam's atrocities against Iraqis, with the goal of "regime change" where "we" impose rule by anti-Baath opposition groups, is more legally sound and less of a dangerous precedent than a preemptive war of self defense. It seems to me that if the US, along with a coalition of allies or even with the UN, claims the right to overthrow regimes we deem to be threats to their own people, this is a much more slippery slope than the one feared by opponents of regime change in the name of self defense. Even if the concept of "anticipatory" self defense is subject to debate (at least as to what constitutes sufficient basis for action), International law, to my knowledge, does not recognize "we think he's a bad guy who oppresses his people and most everyone else agrees with us" as justifying attack on a sovereign nation. So, the question is, is it justifiable (legally or morally) to go after bad guys to liberate their oppressed people, but not to go after them based on the threat they pose to ourselves or others? And, if the "what about Pakistan?" (or N. Korea or whoever) slippery slope argument weighs against the latter basis for action, why is the former justification not more slippery? Bob PS: I know your posting the article doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it. I'm not sure whether I buy his justification myself - just trying to figure out the logic of his argument. PPS: Bush's national security strategy does argue for working to spread freedom and democracy and against oppressive regimes. The basis is simply that all people, not just us and our friends, have the same basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that it is in our own long-term interest (economic & security) to help oppressed people enjoy those rights. But it does not claim for us or the UN the right to overthrow oppressive regimes that do not pose a threat to us or our allies. Rather, it argues for using peaceful and mostly positive means to bring about change - our long-standing policies toward China being a good example. However, it does single out states that sponsor global terrorism as potential threats that must be persuaded, perhaps more forcefully, to change their behavior, especially if they also possess or are developing WMDs.