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: marcos who wrote (123221)	1/14/2004 5:38:55 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

but carranza is tired of hearing that, and i'm tired of typing it with only Mq listening, so hey who cares, sieg heil der PNACentury Always good to hear what you say as it is well-thought out, politic in the best sense of the word, and often humorous, all of which do not keep me from disagreeing. vbg. I am declaring a self-imposed hiatus on the "who rules" or "who should rule" debate because I don't have any satisfactory bright-line answers appropriate for the kind of terse internet-appropriate analysis, i.e., weak and incomplete, that is de rigueur here. Too much complex balancing between sovereignty, the right of self defense, the needs of the global system, etc. I don't feel intellectually equipped to discuss these issues except on a superficial level, and I don't like to wander too much into nebulous territory I don't feel comfortable traversing. By the way, there is a GREAT article in this month's FA foreignaffairs.org I haven't completed reading on the obligation to prevent under international law, though it might be a bit too hegemonico-centric [how do you like that word] for your tastes, which you might enjoy as it touches on these points.

To: marcos who wrote (123221)	1/14/2004 6:15:35 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

'people of your ilk are just sorry Saddam lost', it's hard to see how this was helpful The comments to which my remarks were targeted have not been particularly helpful either marcos.. (claiming that Bush lied while Clinton told the truth, regarding WMDs in Iraq). Unless you are counting yourself amongst his "ilk" (and I would hope you're not that foolish.. :0) he may also have been deceived by his underlings, who couldn't admit failure for fear it would endanger their health Not quite understanding your point here... Are you saying that his underlings destroyed all the weapons, but attempted to deceive Saddam into believing that they hadn't? If so, that would seem pretty risky, I would say.. And certainly indicative that Saddam had no intention of disarming and had directed his people not to do so. Who will decide matters so vital as the sovereignty of nations, a few men in a single national capital or some reasonable quorum of the Rest of Us? I would opine that if the law generated by the UN is not upheld and enforced, the law of the jungle will pre-dominate.. And I believe that's what Bush was telling the UN back in September, 2002. Hawk