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: Sun Tzu who wrote (167137)	7/25/2005 4:05:57 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"I am saying those options should be explored before the military "option"." The false premise is your presumption that the have nots are striving against the haves because of an unjust distribution of resources and a desire for a more egalitarian subsistence. The targeted 'Terrorist' enemies of the USA are not so motivated.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (167137)	7/26/2005 8:14:24 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

Of course X is not going sit and allow itself to die of thirst. Nor should it. Such statements in America mean that we have the right to nuke Canada to get water if we need it. And of course "need" is defined as "inconvenient compared to invasion". If I may add to that. Country Y and countries A, B, C .... should be doing something to make sure that Country X doesn't get desparate to begin with. But in the recent G8 wasn't there a recent argument over farm subsidies that harm developing countries with the conclusion that ~"You get rid of your farm subsidies first, then we'll get rid of ours. Let's talk about it again later." In a related move the US agreed to forgive some debt, but it would come out of future aid. As an ethical position, I don't think "forgive" is the right word. I don't know what other G8 countries have done with respect to this type of condition. An article from ForeignPolicy.com that is germane. The Failed States Index By FOREIGN POLICY & the Fund for Peace July/August 2005 About 2 billion people live in countries that are in danger of collapse. In the first annual Failed States Index, FOREIGN POLICY and the Fund for Peace rank the countries about to go over the brink. .... foreignpolicy.com Highly recommeded read. I am saying those options should be explored before the military "option". Absolutely, I agree. But the world is in such a state [or failed state] that what's rational is to negotiate the elimination of nukes off the planet. The NPT isn't a failure the states are failing at the NPT. The first Strategic Arms treaty wasn't intended to reduce strategic weapons, it's intent was to stop the exponential growth in the inventory. Subsequent agreements led towards a reduction. "Progress" isn't measured by one agreement, it's measured over decades of agreements. Out of the realm of weapons and into global warming. Everyone knows that the Kyoto Agreement doesn't solve the problem. It's intent is to be a "beginning" and basis for future agreements that do solve the problem. It forms a global community with a common interest and a common goal. You have to start somewhere. Because States have their own interests, progress has to be evolutionary. jttmab P.S. No doubt that people will argue over the ranking of the Failed States index. It's not an important argument.