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: TimF who wrote (101354)	6/12/2003 10:50:32 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>No one has a strictly legal right to overthrow the government of another sovereign state but in international relations you aren't really dealing with legal rights. There is no real international law as there is no international government not even a loose confederation.<< But there are treaties and understandings that, if broken or dismissed, undermine the intent of international cooperation and the very concept of international agreements. >>don't believe an undemocratic government that imposes itself brutally by force has a right to continue imposing itself by force.<< Like Pakistan? >> In practice, in the interest of peace its often best not to overthrow them, and certainly no other country has an obligation to do so, but if they can be overthrown without causing more death and suffering then the regime itself causes.<< So it’s the small – less defendable regimes that need to be overthrown. Like North Korea? Too big? How’s about Iran or Syria? Just right? >>>I don't think it is wrong to do so, particularly when the regime has a history of causing problems for other countries.<< All countries cause some sort of “ problem “ in one form or another for other countries.Tis the downfall of having to share the planet I guess. >>>In the case of Iraq there was the added justification of a violation of a cease fire agreement from a war that Iraq had started. If you violate the agreement you could be considered to have rendered it null for the other party as well.<<< Yes.Iraq was indeed a “ Special Case “,and right up to invasion, your concept was working well.Too bad it was all blown apart by those who really believed they were justified in invading,when goals were being met almost daily,but were being dismissed as just another trick by the grand trickster Saddam. But that’s now in the past,with the outcome less than favourable for the long term.What’s now on other county’s minds is…..who’s next…and why..and by whom..and by what authority…among other questions. Apparently there’s no list……….but I’m sure we could make a nice excel file that would mirror unofficial conversations at the smoky backyards of the PNAC barbecues. Thanks for your thoughts. KC