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: Hawkmoon who wrote (115100)	9/17/2003 4:23:10 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A beautiful moment where the UN could have effectively admonshed BOTH SIDES for moving towards peace, wasted on partisan politics... My take is a bit different : On 1 side there is the goverment of a country making assasination threats against a person. On the other side there is no formal nation/government but they have groups that act in undesirable manners. Can not use the same yardstick for both.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (115100)	9/17/2003 5:01:24 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Oddly, I agree with you, Hawk. Why does the UN want Israel not to kill Arafat? Is it: 1) They oppose killing, or 2) They oppose Israel. If they are only going to criticize Israeli killing, it looks like choice 2.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (115100)	9/17/2003 5:25:44 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, here a sic, there a sic... I think you meant censure <For example, the UN voted to censor Israel for threatening to kill Arafat. The US wanted to support the resolution, but could not get anyone to agree to ALSO censoring Hamas and other groups who have been just as guilty of reckless and violent threats and actions.> <it's going to require certain members to be more responsible and objective, rather than using the UN to pursue their petty self-interests. > I'd prefer less nationalism and more mutuality in the UN. But I don't blame the USA for pursuing their petty self-interests at the UN. They are in good company there. Given the form of the institution, that's what we should expect. The USA interests would be better served by moving the UN away from the dog eat dog world, even though the USA is the biggest and toughest dog, because even big dogs get bitten [as the USA has found over the past decade or two]. Civilization benefits big and small dogs. Probably the bigger the dog, the bigger the benefit to them. That's why alpha males prefer peace in the chimpoid tribe - fighting isn't good. Better to sit at the top of a civilized heap. Saddam kept the peace in Iraq and did it with brutal determination. So did Stalin, Mao and anyone else who gets to be the boss. They do NOT want fighting in the village. Fighting beyond the pale is fine by them though [it gives something for the young guys to do and keeps their minds off insurrection at home]. The USA is still too much in 19th century isolationist mode, which served it so well for so long. But as found by Albania, China and North Korea, boot-strapping and dog-in-the-manger are not as effective as synchronicitous, synergistic and harmonious globalisation. That means institutions and political systems to run a well-oiled machine [and well-painted, with a good website and professional police and military]. The current Arabian Nights system is, as we have found in the past couple of decades, no way to run a railroad. Mqurice