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: carranza2 who wrote (123234)	1/14/2004 9:57:01 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

'The contentious issue is who decides when and how to use force. No one nation can or should shoulder alone the obligation to prevent a repressive regime from acquiring WMD ...' 'No one nation' ... same page 5, beginning of the paragraph before the one you cite - foreignaffairs.org Actually i have read this, it's been up for some time .... their view is that the concept of sovereignty is flexible, that it must change to accomodate prevention of proliferation .... valid point yes, but they leap straight to a rather easy acceptance of absolute rule by Washington .... seems to me like they could promote international cooperation just a little along the way, give it some lip service if nothing else ..... here [page 4] is a part that comes across as quite funny, given Washington's attitude to the ICC - 'Like intervention for humanitarian purposes, international action to counter WMD proliferation can take the form of diplomatic pressure or incentives, economic measures, or coercive action, often in combination. It can also incorporate new strategies, such as indicting individual leaders before the International Criminal Court or a special court for crimes against humanity, grave war crimes, or genocide when such charges apply, as they certainly would have with Saddam Hussein and possibly with Kim Jong Il.' They give Kim a 'possibly', yet he looks to me more dangerous than Saddam ever was .... haven't read all that much on NK, but what little i've seen of US stance there seems fairly logical, as if they realise they need to cooperate with the chinese on the matter, and they haven't expressed any bellicosity since the 'axis of evil' idiocy ..... one of the more cynical mad mullahs might make of this, that Saddam's big mistake was in not having nukes Not an easy subject no, it woudn't have been for tribes back in the stone age either .... they only had stones though, what's the range of stones, maybe fifty metres, get beyond that and you're home free ... different story now ... yeah i am typed out too, cheers ...... but look, there is a lot of mistrust of foreigners going around - guardian.co.uk '... The directive expressed Saddam's fears that the Islamists would hijack the insurgency for their own ends, and were not interested in restoring the Ba'athist regime. He instructs leaders of the insurgency not to allow the alliance to become too close.'