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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (22218)	11/6/2004 10:51:04 AM
From: Bruce L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN THE AFFAIRS OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS Ed: In my post to SUN TZU, I stated that it was YOUR position that the U.S. had no right to intervene in the affairs of sovereign nations such as Iraq. The reason I attributed this position to YOU was based on an exchange of earlier posts. On 9/10/04 you had written: "What is it that YOU believe? Do you believe in the right of sovereign nations to self determination. Cause if you believe in the right of other nations to choose their own, admittedly tortured and twisting paths to SELF-determination, then you surely don't believe that our leaders in Washington have the power, much less the right, to choose the governors and governments of other nations." Message 20509689 In a long post, I elaborated why the U.S. had both the right and power to intervene in the afairs of sovereign nations. Message 20510095 You never responded to this post. I not unreasonably believed that your stated belief in the inviolabilty of sovereign nations remained unaltered. In TWO subsequent posts, I reviewed Francis Fukuyama's new book, "Nation Building", and set forth his views on this very topical subject of 'weak states and the violation of sovereignty.' <http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20663459> Message 20663402 You never responded to these posts either. You now seem to have a more nuanced view. You state: "If by "influence" you mean the right to use diplomatic, economic and peaceful means to "influence" events in Iraq, then I would agree that we have a limited right to do so." But I would argue that if "up front" we declare that we are going to respect a country's sovereignty and never use other than "peaceful means", then the "influence" we can assert is negligible; in other words, meaningless. As to "diplomacy", to paraphrase Clausewitz, 'war is the continuation of a nation's policy (i.e.,diplomacy) by other means.' The Athenians spoke to the Melians: "....you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Clearly this "realpolitik" is not palatable to you. But is it "wrong" in any intrinsic sense? In other words, if we believe it is good for us and good for them (the Iraqis), and we have the power to do it, what moral principle is violated if we do do it? As to how many jihadists are in Iraq, I would like to see your source for your proposition that the percentage is "not high." Bruce