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: Jaunatxo who wrote (99510)	5/30/2003 10:19:57 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Glad to be of help. Look, no one participates in politics without an idea of the rightness of his side. One may as well warn Daschle about the road to hell, since he is trying to make his own views prevail, as well. Two principles are involved in the current policy: one, the right of self- defense; and two, the right of rescue of those oppressed. In the current environment, it is not good enough to wait to retaliate. The potential destructiveness of certain weapons makes pre- emption a necessary option. Additionally, one often cannot afford to wait until the strategic situation is precarious before acting. For example, the we could not have tolerated a Soviet Europe, and therefore formed NATO. Adter the Holocaust, we can no longer pretend that crimes against humanity are purely internal affairs. Obviously, regimes vary in brutality, and there are also practical reasons for not making a blanket commitment to overthrow all dictators within a given time frame. Thus, as a matter of policy, diplomacy and pressure through multi- lateral institutions is more likely than military intervention. However, we have the right to intervene, if practicable, against a regime that wildly flouts reasonable standards and engages in widespread brutality against its citizens.....