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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (4807)	2/28/2003 5:26:45 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

This has nothing to do with my morality, what I believe is right or wrong. It has to do with my understanding of the complex web of choices that is life, and that nothing is as easy as "We are good, they are evil". Indeed.. I completely concur with this assessment.. And furthermore, it really does pertain, IMO, to the root influences of Foreign Policy since decision makers are constantly in "cost/benefit" analysis and selective morality as well as why some causes are "evil" enough to fight, while others are not. After all, the same rational we use with Saddam IN GENERAL (that he's evil, brutal, aggressive.. etc) meant nothing to the UN when it came to preventing the massacres in Ruwanda, or the Killing Fields of Pol Pot.. The world sat still, unwilling to become involved in those nightmares or to prevent the savagery that erupted... As if their lives were less important than those of people living in the Middle East.. But whatever selective logic we use, in general, what is different is that we are specifically citing binding UNSC resolutions, that we have declared Saddam in violation of. Resolutions that only came about as a result of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.. IOW, with regard to Saddam, we can cite some UN resolution, as if that suddenly "blesses" what Saddam's intransigence has brought us to the brink of.. War. What is different also, is that the UN is like a neighborhood association, the members of which represent various "heads of family" who live there.. However, that committee only has authorization to interfere in conflicts between households, and not within the individual family... So we did nothing to stop the slaughter in the Ruwandan except to try and provide humanitarian relief afterward. But Saddam? Well, the committee has spoken (years ago) and he's done nothing to obey. Thus, he's about to be evicted, and those other residents in the house put into rehab and probation.. Simplistic? Maybe.. But bringing foreign policy decisions down to a local level certainly makes it more understandable for most, as well avoiding all of this mumbo-jumbo the political elitists would attempt to confuse us with.. And it makes us wonder why we have little problem with the cops arresting an unruly and abusive individual, but when it comes to ousting Saddam Hussein for his international violations, all the peaceniks come out of the woodwork to obstruct justice, or outright prevent Saddam's arrest/ouster. I don't find FP and international relations to be so "high and mighty".. It is simple, and complex, at the same time.. And it consists of any variety of choices, good and bad, by various international players. But some folks CHOOSE TO DO EVIL DELIBERATELY, and for their own personal gain at someone else's expense. That becames a matter of proving scienter and intent. And I think that the case, with regard to Saddam, is compelling, irrefutable, and overdue for enforcement.. Hawk

To: zonder who wrote (4807)	3/1/2003 2:05:02 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Hmmmmm. Wonder what's going to happen to your Turkish t-bills now? You already know that the Turkish parliament voted, narrowly, to allow US troops into Turkey, but that the vote was voided on Constitutional grounds (not a majority of those present, due to abstentions). And you probably know that under Turkish law, the same bill that was submitted, the one that took weeks to negotiate, cannot be submitted again. So either the US and Turkey negotiate a new bill, or the US moves its ships elsewhere, presumably through Suez (not sure what Egypt will say). Oh, well. Such is life.

To: zonder who wrote (4807)	3/1/2003 3:40:27 PM
From: E. T.	Respond to of 15987

"The Iraqi leadership should decide to give up power in Iraq and to leave Iraq," the president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan, declared in a statement issued here (a summit meeting of Arab leaders), saying he wanted to propose "a way out of this complicated and dangerous crisis." ...Saudi Arabian foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, said at a news conference moments after the sheik's proposal first circulated inside the conference hall. "I call it an idea. It is not an initiative." He added, however, that the proposal had been made in good faith, suggesting that the idea had broader support among some Arab leaders. "We are sure, knowing the Emirates and its president, Sheik Zayed, that they only care about the integrity of the Arab nation," he said. As the prospects of war have mounted, President Bush and his aides have repeatedly said that Mr. Hussein's departure could avert war. On Thursday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell suggested that the Arab League should consider asking Mr. Hussein to leave, or at least call forcefully for Iraq to comply with United Nations resolutions. nytimes.com