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 : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (5996)	3/15/2003 11:59:45 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

Saudia Arabia and Iran are theocracies. No fair. Turkey: The recognition that no protection shall be afforded to thoughts or opinions contrary to Turkish national interests, the principle of the indivisibility of the existence of Turkey with its State and territory, Turkish historical and moral values or the nationalism, principles, reforms and modernism of Atatürk and that,as required by the principle of secularism, there shall be no interference whatsoever of the sacred religious feelings in State affairs and politics; mfa.gov.tr Tunisia: OK, the words are there. The actual practice is far more tolerant. There is an established religion. Other religions seem to be left alone. OTOH, several US states came into the Union with established religions and this was not seen as a problem at the time because the 1st amendment was seen as limiting what the FEDERAL gov't could do, not state gov'ts. IRAQ: Article 19 [Equality] (a) Citizens are equal before the law, without discrimination because of sex, blood, language, social origin, or religion. .................................................... Article 25 [Religion] Freedom of religion, faith, and the exercise of religious rites, is guaranteed, in accordance with the rules of constitution and laws and in compliance with morals and public order. oefre.unibe.ch The idea of a secular state has no rooting in those gov'ts. Not all have an established religion, but all expect religion to play a part in gov't. There is also the strange idea that those Arab states are really all one nation- -the Arab Maghreb- -just temporarily divided. Likewise, they have pandered to Saudi Arabia because it is not only wealthy, but the Islamic center of Holiness. And it has lots of oil. When the US had lots of oil, it didn't give a &&&&& about Saudi Arabia. And it was also them the Islamic center of Holiness. The significance here is that Saudi Arabia has been the center of Islam since the 600's. The US did not particularly care about it until oil was discovered. Religion has nothing to do with its importance in Western eyes. In my mind, ALL religious States or countries (where a representative of some cultural "God" is the HEAD of STATE), must be contained from FORCIBLY expanding their religious imperialism. With WMD's so available and accessible to modern methods and groups, and considering the vulnerability of large populations of innocent people to such weapons...the ethics which have governed in the past are no longer adequate to safeguard civilized interests. I take it then that use of force against Islamic countries is allowed? Particularly those attempting to develop WMDs? In 1935, Germany moved troops and military equipment into the Rhineland. This was a specific violation of the Versailles Treaty ending WW1 which Germany had signed. Would military action by France and/or the UK have been justified? Germany was prohibited from having an air force. It soon became apparent it did. Would military action by France and/or the UK have been justified? Germany was prohibited from having more than a 100,000-man army. Germany instituted a draft which clearly would violate that provision of the treaty. Would military action by France and/or the UK have been justified? In 1938, France and the UK negotiated an mutual defense treaty with Poland. In 1939, Germany invaded Poland. Was military action by France and the UK have been justified? If the answer to any of those questions is "no", at what point, if any, is military action justified The significance here is that Germany refused to comply with the the requirements of the treaty it signed ending WW1- -precisely the position of Iraq WRT the Gulf War. If use of force would have been justified against Hitler's Germany - and tens of millions of lives could have been saved by that - then it is justified against Iraq. Here's that same question in a more abstract form: << I have no time to research those questions and I will not answer them off the cuff.>> The question is simply this: You launch a war against a neighbor. You lose. In the treaty (or truce) ending that war, the neighbor puts provisions to keep you from getting into a position where you can again present a threat. You violate them. That neighbor takes military action to remove the threat you present before it gets worse. Is the neighbor justified? THis does not require hours or days of research. A quick application of reason and ethics should give an answer.