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: skinowski who wrote (72349)	2/8/2003 11:57:33 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"The next question borders on heresy: In a world, where an individual or a group or an outlaw country could, at least theoretically, have the potential of destroying entire countries and continents – can we still afford to stick to the principal of non-interference with the internal affairs of others?" Skin, This war may make future non-interference possible. Without this war we may have multiple pre-emptions later on. Now only the North Koreans were able to get some advantage out of iraq. Perhaps without this war, the next time we want to stop a saddam invasion of kuwait for example, these dictators will work together to make that impossible. Then perhaps you will have NK, Iran, Syria, Mugabe, some other STAN, and perhaps a South American entry in the mix. With this intervention, though the rules technically change, the opportunity for folks to cause trouble in the future actually diminishes. Does this make any sense? mike