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: paul_philp who wrote (69008)	1/26/2003 11:54:08 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

As I read it, Murphy is critiquing the argument that the UN has some sort of moral authority. I don't think either the UN or the US has any particular moral authority. There are strong practical arguments against unilateral action, which make it expedient to gain UN sanction if that's possible. Many nations do not see military action as being in their interest. We - some of us, at least - do see it as being in our interest. That doesn't mean that they are wrong and we are right, it means that our interests diverge. All we can do about that is to persuade, one way or another. I don't see him arguing that America has a handle on the 'right thing'. Certainly looked that way to me. The argument that Bush should wait for the superior judgement of the UN is simply silly. As I said before, there are good practical reasons to avoid unilateral action. If we choose to go it alone anyway, the risk/reward ratio changes, and many things have to be reconsidered. There is a long hard job ahead in Iraq. Now is a good time to find out who is reliable and who is not. Reliable? What exactly do you mean by that? We can rely on other countries to act on their perceptions of their interests, as we do. We cannot rely on them to place our interests above their own, or to allow us to tell them what they ought to do. That should not come as a surprise.