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: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (101365)	6/13/2003 5:09:14 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

But there are treaties and understandings that, if broken or dismissed, undermine the intent of international cooperation and the very concept of international agreements. Treaties are basically promises between countries. But I agree its not usually good when you break your promises. What treaties that have been signed and ratified by the US do you think we directly broke? >>don't believe an undemocratic government that imposes itself brutally by force has a right to continue imposing itself by force.<< Like Pakistan? Yes. Pakistan's government has not been as bad as Saddam's in my opinion, but if I could snap my fingers and replace the regime in Pakistan with a democratic and free one I would. I wouldn't suggest going to war against Pakistan (or Iran or Syria or China or Cuba) Iraq was a special case but I don't think it would be wrong to get rid of Pakistan's government if we could put in a stable liberal democracy and do so without causing a massive amount of death and destruction. 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 wouldn't suggest trying to overthrow any of them at the moment. You have to consider a lot of factors. Size is only one of them. A bigger country is harder to deal with so it would require more justification to make the effort. The two countries that gave the most justification where Iraq and North Korea. Iraq provided the most justification in "international law". North Korea is probably the case where US interests are most severely threatened. However taking on North Korea could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people so when you weight the balance or risks and rewards, of positive and negative, it probably doesn't make sense to attack North Korea. 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. Perhaps my understated language left you confused about what I really meant. Change "a history of causing problems", to "a history of invading and conquering its neighbors". 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 IT was not blown apart. Iraq's government had 1 - Violated the cease fire agreement. 2 - Brutally oppressed the Iraqi people, and 3 - Generally been a nuisance and a danger to its neighbors an to the strategic interests of the United States. What’s now on other county’s minds is…..who’s next…and why..and by whom..and by what authority…among other questions. The answer is probably that no one is next. Tim