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 Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (91133)	4/8/2003 7:04:14 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

While the world's eyes are focused on Iraq, there are wars going in North, Northeast, East and Southeast Africa. And Col Peters made a good comment on that situation in "American Heritage." It also fits our new "Neocon" Policies. >>>>>The idea of absolute state sovereignty is relatively new, and it derives from agreements among kings, emperors, kaisers, and czars for their mutual benefit. What we're left with from the state making of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe is a legacy that tells us we cannot intervene in states as they slaughter their own citizens because they're sovereign. By that logic, Hitler would have been perfectly legitimate as long as he killed only German Jews. It's patently flawed logic. Any state that benefits only a dictatorship, oligarchy, or clique, that oppresses, brutalizes, and even massacres elements of its own citizenry, has no legitimate claim on sovereignty, period. Sovereignty is fine for contemporary Japan, the European states, or, for that matter, India. Mexico is now coming along and trying very hard. But states like Iraq, Milosevi´c's Yugoslavia, and a number of African thugocracies have no legitimate claim on sovereignty<<<<<< americanheritage.com

To: unclewest who wrote (91133)	4/8/2003 8:06:41 AM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

While the world's eyes are focused on Iraq, there are wars going in North, Northeast, East and Southeast Africa. Indeed. Where has the biggest slaughtering since WW II taken place? Not in Vietnam, not in the Gulf Region: Conflict in Democratic Republic of Congo Deadliest Since World War II, Says The IRC theirc.org Apr 8, 2003 The four and a half year war in the Democratic Republic of Congo has taken more lives than any other since World War II and is the deadliest documented conflict in African history, says the International Rescue Committee. A mortality study released today by the IRC estimates that since August 1998, when the war erupted, through November 2002 when the survey was completed, at least 3.3 million people died in excess of what would normally be expected during this time. “This is a humanitarian catastrophe of horrid and shocking proportions,” says George Rupp, president of the IRC. “The worst mortality projections in the event of a lengthy war in Iraq, and the death toll from all the recent wars in the Balkans don’t even come close. Yet, the crisis has received scant attention from international donors and the media.” ...

To: unclewest who wrote (91133)	4/8/2003 8:34:08 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

People getting killed in Congo, too. Very bad. Edit: I see Jochen made the same point, with more detail. What is the UN for if things like this happen and nobody raises an outcry or trys to garner support for intervention? I thought that was the point of the UN? Not saving the skins of murderers. I guess every government decides to look the other way so they, too, can remain in power unchallenged, and do whatever they want to their own people. Just don't cross the border, and you can kill as many as you please, however you like.