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: geode00 who wrote (198966)	8/24/2006 12:20:59 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If you only have two parties that may be the case but obviously there are the neighbors and everyone else around who are involved. Not committed but definitely involved. What kind of waffling is this? You stated that international law (or any kind of law) "is simply an agreement between people at a specific geographic location at a specific point in time and nothing more. If there is no agreement, there is no law." Since Al Qai'da has not signed, observed, and actually violates the Geneva Conventions by conducting terrorist attacks, there is no law that pertains to them. They have created a trans-national entity they call Al Qai'da, which seeks to subvert and overthrow sovereign states who all abide by the GC. They violate the GC at every turn, and thus, we have no obligation to confer the benefits of the GC upon their membership. They have chosen to be "men without a country" and they should be treated that way. If someone holds a gun to your head and says she's going to shoot you then you can kill them. It's still murder but the 'law' such as it is (and it's not very good much of the time) will let you go home. No.. in such a situation, it not "murder" because killing my assailant in self-defense would not meet the requirement of pre-meditation. dict.die.net If someone threatens to kill my family, and I can see indications and preparations toward carrying out that threat (and the authorities either don't exist, or refuse to intervene) and then I pre-meditate, and carry out, their deaths before they can perpetrate their plan, then I could conceivably be tried for murder. But then again, if the authorities are non-existent, or refuse to intervene, the likelihood that I would actually stand trial is pretty minimal. Unless you're incapable of moving or stubbornly unwilling to move, you would STILL MOVE. If my family consists of 5 million people, exactly where am I going to move them to? Which country is going to suddenly accept 5 million people, lock, stock, and barrel? And who's going to house, feed, and employ them all? Who's going to compensate them for having to desert their homes and everything they have worked their lives to accumulate? Like hell I would move. Who is not holding direct, free and fair elections other than the US of A? You mean our 51st state Iraq? Where would you like me to begin? Iran (which has elections where the only candidates are those "approved" by the "Supreme Guide"), and there is little freedom of the press? Syria? Similar situation where only one party is permitted to hold power, and that is the Ba'thist party. Opposition parties are small and heavily repressed. China? Same situation, and the only elections at the national level are those carried out by Communist Party members. I will admit that China is attempting to implement democratic elections at the local level and this is a good start. But without the ability of the people to form organized national parties that then also function at the local level, the domination of the communists remain secure. Now should I mention Africa? Saudi Arabia? Cuba? N. Korea? Vietnam? You mention Venezuela, and there Hugo Chavez has rolled back the very democratic freedoms that permitted him to achieve power. The list can easily go on... I won't say Mexico can be included any longer since their last election was heavily monitored and strongly contested by a viable opposition. You are talking about the Katrina victims and Dubyette aren't you ma'am. There is $110 Billion allocated by the Federal Government for Katrina relief. It's up to the state and local governments to come up with the programs that will meet the needs of their people. It is NOT THE JOB of the Federal Government to usurp the local authority of the state governments. So go ask Mayor "New Orleans will be chocolate again" Nagin why there hasn't been more progress in alleviating the misery of the Katrina victims. And ask Louisiana's Governor... They are BOTH Democrats.. So you should be able to get them on the phone right away.. However, I will concur that FEMA showed itself ill-prepared to handle the immediate needs of the states and local authorities in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane. But that doesn't explain the current delays in cleaning up the mess, which IMO, are primarily the weakness of the states and local authorities. The last thing the Federal Government should do is just throw money at a problem. There has to be a plan for such relief efforts and all levels of government are likely learning some hard, but valuable, lessons from this. Hawk