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: Brumar89 who wrote (4963)	3/5/2003 7:56:30 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Actually that [free trade vs steel import restrictions] is an area where criticism doesn't seem unfair. I am happy you agree. The steel import restrictions were inconsistent, in fact quite incompatible with, the free trade tradition of the US. The US hasn't committed to the ICC or Kyoto treaties. I have not said it did. What I have pointed out was: "We rigorously enforce international treaties we see in our benefit (WTO) and undermine others that don't have a profit for us (ICC, Kyoto)" I suppose you would agree that other countries do not have a benefit from limiting their industries (Kyoto) and potentially subjecting their own citizens and governments to trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity (ICC). Yet they uphold these treaties. US does not. Why do you think that is? This [ICC & Kyoto] is an area where I see we are being bullied by others It is an area of collective good. It is not to the benefit of any single country. Is this what you call "bullying" - being asked to do something for collective good, although it is for nobody's own benefit? Yes. Nevertheless the information we have gotten from the terror detainees has allowed us to capture others. I see you accept the inconsistency re human rights in this. I cannot agree with you, however, that the ends justify the means. The detainees are not soldiers of a state we are at war with I am surprised you say this after this subject was beaten to death on various subjects, and this point was raised clearly: Geneva Convention says a competent tribunal needs to convene to determine the prisoner of war status of captured combatants, in case there is doubt. There is obviously doubt. Where is the competent tribunal? Sec. of State Powell negotiated 1441 and he thinks it meant war. I believe him. Powell negotiated 1441, not with his own reflection in the mirror, but with other parties - i.e. members of the UN Security Council. They don't seem to think it means "war". And you and I have no choice but to believe the collective.