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: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (110352)	8/7/2003 10:19:17 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

What I described is pretty much the framework that has applied since the second world war. Kuwait is a perfect example. Saddam had no business invading Iraq and the UN repelled him but did not invade and topple him. The UN does not make war. Countries that do make war -- whether on their neighbors or their own people through civil war or genocide -- are the subject of UN intervention. We are seeing that again in Liberia, where peacekeepers ARE being cheered as they arrive in the streets.

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (110352)	8/7/2003 10:33:56 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<Exactly no (as in zero) countries actually adhere to any of this. They all act as dictated by their own self-interest, to whatever extent they have the military or economic power to do so.>> Countries are free to pursue their own interests in most ways -- but are not free to pursue their own interests by invading other countries simply to pursue their own interests. The only exceptions are to stop a war/genocide and/or in self-defense. Neither case applies to the Us invasion of Iraq.