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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (187054)	5/22/2006 3:21:05 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> Yet how is it that Zunes manages not to mention "Saudi Arabia" even once in the article? Actually it is mentioned more than once. Just do ctl-F and search <vbg> But I even highlighted a related portion...so I am afraid you did not read the article carefully...and that is a pity because this is a valuable article regardless of your stand on Israel. Perhaps you'd like to fully read the article. Here is one such mention: Though the US bias in supporting the Israeli government and Washington's double standards regarding Israeli behavior are undeniable, such official US conduct is not uniquely applicable to Israel. For example, Mearsheimer and Walt correctly observe how Washington's support for Israel despite its human-rights abuses against the Palestinians "makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to respect human rights", but there is no mention of the equally hypocritical US support for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, Morocco and other repressive Arab regimes... >> Ah yes, that Utopia of "international law and human rights", which only the US impedes. Nobody I know has ever made that argument. The argument is that the world as whole and USA included would benefit from fair and equitable rule of law. Law and order mean the weak have a recourse against the strong. So the strong naturally have a reflex against giving up their perks and prefer the law of jungle, since more often than not that law works in their favor. US being the strongest beast in the international jungle, is the fiercest opponent of establishment of the international law, but it certainly is not the only one. The best argument for establishment of the rule of international law is draws on historical parallels in virtually every part of the world. Every part of the world started out as some lawless whatever the overlord says goes and eventually evolved towards civil society. This evolution was not due to benevolent aristocrats wishing the good of the public, but rather due to the acknowledgement of its collective benefits. And so it was that a House of Lords and eventually a House of Commons were established. Parallels have existed everywhere in the world and the sooner a society established these civil institutions, the sooner it prospered. This argument should be obvious to anyone who examines the evolutions of civil society, even briefly. The United States has a real chance to lead the world forward towards this inevitable destination. As its only hyperpower (for now) we can suggest and almost dictate the terms how such institutions should work. Either we will do this now, while we have the chance and can shape its outcome (and later claim credit for our foresight). Or the order will eventually be imposed on us just as democracy was imposed in France...it will be very bloody and much chaos will engulf humanity during the transition. the choice is ours. Sun Tzu