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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (181424)	1/26/2004 2:15:34 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1578178

Excuse me......you of the "protect our sovereignty at almost any cost"......are you saying that because Lebanon was having a civil war, we could do whatever we wanted in that country? I never said we could do anything we wanted. And it was more then just a civil war. There was no central authority there wasn't much that could be called a country at that point. A number of competing factions including Syria and foreign terrorist groups controlled various sections and the control was often minimal. There wasn't much that could be called a government that we could violate the sovereignty of. Under such conditions its not immoral or inappropriate to try to keep the situation from deteriorating further. It may not always be a good idea to intervene but if it is a bad idea it is more from practical considerations then from moral or legal ones. I would love to watch you scream if the Iranians ever tried to patrol the waters in the Gulf of Mexico. If they where in international waters I would not scream. I'm sure the US navy would shadow them anyway. No real chance of them doing much. I see........we just happened to have our warships 7000 miles from the nearest coastline of the USA while the Iranians were in the Persian Gulf which borders their southwest coast............and they were the aggressors! Aggression is not a function of distance but of actions. No wonder you all worry so much about US sovereignty.....you don't respect anyone else's so why would you expect them to respect ours. I was mainly talking about US sovereignty in relation to the UN or other international orgs. I was pointing out that they are not an authority over the US because the US is sovereign over itself. The US is not special in this regard. Other nations are sovereign as well and other nations can wage war against us just as we can wage war against them. Dang, do you not read what you post? You said there is nothing wrong with "imposing our politics and will" even though it might be a local dispute between countries in the Persian Gulf. That suggests we have the might to do it; hence, might makes right! No Ted you are the one not reading what I post. I said "If defending someone against naked aggression is "imposing our politics and will", then there is nothing wrong with imposing our politics and will." Which is the same as saying that there is nothing wrong with defending other nations from aggression. If you want to label that "imposing our politics and will" then you cause that label to cease to mean anything that is wrong or inappropriate. I think you where misapplying the label. I don't think that everything that label is properly applied to is automatically ok. Saying it is ok to defend other countries from attack is very different then saying might makes right. In case you need help with that thought I will explicitly state that might doesn't make right. Tim