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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marginmike who wrote (221849)	2/17/2003 8:02:51 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

It's been said recently that france is like an old woman still living in the 1950's who thinks she's still attractive and she's still trying to get dates, but she's just an old woman, her face is wrinkled and sagging, and she still doesn't realize it... GZ

To: marginmike who wrote (221849)	2/17/2003 11:07:51 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 436258

MM how do you feel about international law? 1) If the US wants every other country to follow international law, why shouldn't the US follow international law? 2) If a country does not follow international laws would the US want that country subject to retribution? The answer is obvious here. The US would, unless by double standard the US considers it to be the only nation above International law. The post in italics below from Tinker on the FOOL. My reply to Tinker follows that. This is the problem I have. You want U.S. foreign policy to be decided by the Russians, Chinese and French? Neither of these countries has the United State's best interest in mind and in fact just the opposite. Tinker you have a point here, but I have one rather large problem with it. War is not just any ordinary foreign policy decision. Under international law there is no grounds for war unless we are attacked, or the UN approves it. The US not only has not been attacked by Iraq, it is under no serious threat from Iraq either. This is not just a mere foreign policy decision, the proposed full scale invasion including possible nuclear attack is a serious violation of international law. So no, in a general sense I do not want Russia or China deciding US foreign policy. On that we have common ground. However, I do not want the US rushing into war, against world opinion, against the opinion of the average US citizen who wnats more inspections, and against international law. I suggest you consider the body of opinion on this matter. globalpolicy.org International law establishes principles and criteria, based on treaties, conventions, court cases and the UN Charter. These govern the circumstances under which states may legally go to war. Comments by legal experts consider the arguments put forward by the United States and the UK to establish the legality of their cause and the counter-arguments by other nations and by legal scholars. The body of opinion considers the US-UK position to be contrary to international law and liable to undermine important principles of world order if an attack on Iraq takes place. This is precisely why I believe Bush should be hauled into international court if he decides to wing it without UN approval, unless and until we have grounds under international law. ================================================================== Is the US above International law or not? M