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: JSwanson who wrote (433)	3/24/2003 10:21:42 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7832

if it is within your own boundaries, then it is internal That's what I said: a country's INTERNAL AFFAIRS. As in, freedom from external control WITHIN YOUR OWN BOUNDARIES. You really seem to have trouble understanding what you read. As for the rest of your post, you are going into perceived threats ("imagined", more likely) and right of "defense". We can argue, if you like, whether or not Iraq is a threat to America, or if it has threatened America in any way, shape, or form that might possibly justify an invasion. (Keep in mind that it was Al-Qaeda, not Iraq, who did 9/11, and that there is no convincing indication of a link between them) However, what we were discussing here was the validity of the statement "We don't need no stinking votes. We are a sovereign nation. There is no mention in our constitution of being subject to the UN or any other outside agency.", which Michael M posted before you appeared. My points were: (1) Sovereignty has NOTHING to do with right to attack and invade other countries (2) Yes, UN Charter is relevant when it is considering the invasion of another country. Because the US signed it.