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 (222786)	3/8/2005 4:09:40 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572921

You're ignoring the fundamental questions, Ted, that come from your conclusion that a nation should never use force against another nation unless the first nation is directly threatened by the second. Why should an individual use force to help another individual if she is being raped, but a nation should not use force to help the citizens of another nation if they are being raped? 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 just because the oppressors happen to be citizens of the same country, and that country is not your country? Why would you allow the ability of an elite 20% of a country's population to oppress 80% of the same country's population, rather than use US's ability to stop the elite 20% from their oppressive behavior?

To: tejek who wrote (222786)	3/8/2005 4:15:44 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572921

There comes a point where the failure of the sovereign nation's government to rule in the best interests of its people outweighs the principle of national sovereignity. At least in my mind.... See this is the problem with your POV. In the US, even the bad guys are subject to due process. Due process becomes hard to find during an invasion Is your point here that the US is incapable of determining that a sovereign nation's government is consistantly worsening the lives of its citizens? It seems fairly OBVIOUS that the leadership of North Korea and leadership of Iraq have been bad for those country's civilian populations for at least 20 years. What due process do you want to decide to remove them? I don't get your point. If the government of Zimbabwe starves 10% of its population to death every year for 10 years, and the governmnet of Zimbabwe refuses outside pressure to reform for ten years, what due process do you want before outside countries forcibly remove that government?