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 : Support the French! Viva Democracy! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (240)	3/18/2003 10:15:45 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7834

It is simply international law, that countries don't have the right to invade each other to replace leaders they don't like. Look it up. Very true. There is even a name for it: "Sovereignty". True even if there is no invasion involved. Unless, of course, you are the US and decide to replace the democratically elected president of Chile with a brutal dictator just because his leftie views are not to your liking, projecting the country into a bloodbath whereby many thousands are tortured, killed, or plain simple lost. I am referring to Pinochet and the US support who placed him in power, for those of us who do not know our history.

To: epicure who wrote (240)	3/18/2003 12:25:46 PM
From: Scott Bergquist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7834

Is this 2003, or 1803?? The ideas of "sovereignty" must be adjusted for a modern world. The notion of a 'sovereign entity' carried with it in past times the obvious notion that events within borders were contained within those borders. Citizens and their actions pretty much remained within their country. War between countries has been "outlawed" by various measures for some time. Does it mean that once a country has committed unambiguous aggression, such as the invasion of Iran by Iraq in 1980, and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990, that Iraq has purposely waived its sovereignty rights until...?? I would say yes. The notion of "statehood" in the Islamic world is a superimposition foreign to the core religion. The notion of "sovereignty" can only be a temporary status toward the ultimate goal of a world entirely Islamic, and ruled by Sharia. It is with that -fact- of Islam that the entire notion of "statehood" and the possible intervention of one state in the affairs of another, in the modern world, must be constructed. The 1815 notions do not apply.