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 (222773)	3/8/2005 2:26:59 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572695

But instead, please answer the question - why do you think it is OK for that 20% (or less) of the population of a given country to oppress the remaining 80%+, but it is not OK for the US to oppress the 20%? That was not your original question. You asked if I thought we had a right to interfere when we saw bad things going on in another country. No, the original question was as follows: If one country is not threatening its neighbors and only affecting the citizens inside its borders, do you EVER feel an outside invasion followed by a forcible regime change is warranted, and if so when? to which you answered No, I don't Message 21111381 So the conclusion is regardless of what is going on in some country, other countries should never use force to stop it unless they themselves are threatened. And the implication of that is that if the rulers of some country are routinely raping the adolescent female population of some minority group in their country, you would not go save those minority girls. You can't have it both ways - sometimes you've either got to fight, or let the bad guys be bad. To answer your question..........I don't like it at all when the 20% oppress the 80%. I didn't ask if you like it. I asked if you would go in and forcibly stop those 20% from their oppressive acts or not. Would you ever stop them IN ANY SITUATION where you aren't directly threatened? Your relatively immoral conclusion seems to be that using force is OK if YOU are threatened (you actually haven't even said this), but using force is NOT ok if OTHERS are threatened. Because I firmly believe there are good reasons for international law and it should be respected. I also believe there are good reasons for respecting the sovereignty of every nation. Why do you think that respecting "international law" (whatever that is) and respecting "sovereignity of nations" are more important than fighting for the rights of oppressed people to be free from persecution at the hands of people more powerful than them that happen to be citizens of the same country, which is not your country? Why is national sovereignity more important than stopping those armed government militia in Darfur from raping village girls?

To: tejek who wrote (222773)	3/8/2005 2:30:19 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572695

And lastly, your views border on megalomania...........which supports the argument that power corrupts. Hardly. Megalomania would be along the lines of advocating that the US should go into every country on the planet as a matter of course and try to implement American values within the week, and kill any who don't go along. That's NOT my view. My view is a modest one - when a nation's government pro-actively worsens the lives of the citizens of the nation for years or decades, it should be removed by force. I would think that would be common sense.