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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (68544)	3/12/2003 8:26:19 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

The issue is whether we SHOULD stop genocide Great. Now answer the question: WHERE IS THE GENOCIDE?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (68544)	3/12/2003 1:19:07 PM
From: runes	Respond to of 70976

Fred - the UN one last time... You still want to pillary the UN fro doing what it was designed to do. And you seem to gloss over the phrase "collective action" which is where the trouble lies. In the case Iraq disarmament - the majority of voting nations are opposing the US request. In the case of the Balkans it was the Russians who called a halt. In the case of Rwanda it was self preservation - no one was willing to volunteer troops to fight a civil war in the jungles for good reason - it would end up like Vietnam - guerilla warfare in the jungle. In the case of the land mine treaty it was the US. And, even though the UN did pass legislation for a War Crimes Tribunal - <<The US has declined any obligation to co-operate with the International Criminal Court when it comes into force on July 1>> smh.com.au And back to genocide - ...First - I don't think that the UN ever cited the attack on the Kurds as genocide. It would be an almost impossible sell given that the Kurds had been in a constant state of revolt for some time. To call that genocide would be to invite accusations against any country facing an uprising by a minority faction. ...Second - the UN did pass a resolution condemning Iraq for Halabja. And, as far as I can tell, Iraq has not used chemical weapons since. So one can argue that they prevented further transgressions in a peaceful manner. ...Third - Clinton did try to get Saddam a war crimes tribunal for the multitude of sins. I don't know where this ended up but I suspect that it got the same treatment as Sharon just got - no tribunal for a sitting head of state. Why - because to take on a head of state is tantamount to a war declaration. So don't tell me that the UN has failed to do it's duty. It has done it's job as best as it can subject to the limitation of collective action. ...And if you want it to do more and be more effective then be prepared to make some major sacrifices. For starters give them the right to tap the US military for operations that we don't agree with. And be prepared to watch the US be dragged through numerous war crimes trials (we are the major player in the larger wars). ...Or you can go the Bush route - UN? UN! We don't need no stinkin' UN. But, IMO - that is the most dangerous solution of all.

To: Fred Levine who wrote (68544)	3/14/2003 4:18:04 PM
From: Sam Citron	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Fred, The following NYT op-ed piece suggests that Turkey has mistreated Kurds even more than Iraq has. nytimes.com If you are so concerned about genocide, how do you justify an imminent American attack on Iraq while it simultaneously befriends Turkey? You harp on the colossal failure of the UN to stop genocide. Don't you think that the US has the power to exert great economic pressure on Turkey to improve the situation of Kurds, if human rights were truly a priority for this administration? Sam