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: epicure who wrote (212492)	1/11/2007 10:00:05 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree if you don't think you can have things turn out well, then you shouldn't undertake one of these overseas interventions. But I don't agree they always go poorly. US military intervention in Panama, Grenada and the Philippines have probably caused those countries loads of net positive benefits. Look at South Korea - had the US not intervened the entire Peninsula might look like North Korea, a hell on earth I wouldn't wish on any human. There is an interesting thing going on now in Somalia where the Ethiopian military has apparently routed the Islamist Courts to put the UN recognized Somalian government back in power. Whether it is going to be a positive or negative invasion for Somalians we won't be able to judge for somewhere between a year and a decade, but it looks (so far, first two weeks!) like a textbook case of meddling in another country's political system. But you're right, it does need to be well planned and executed, or not done at all. That's probably a main reason why it is done so seldomly.

To: epicure who wrote (212492)	1/11/2007 10:10:05 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It seems to me that the time to meddle is when there is a very direct and specific threat, and one should meddle to cure that, and not to do more. I presume you mean threat to the meddler? In other words, if NK isn't threatening anybody outside of Asia, the rest of the world should do nothing to change the North Korean's regime? Is that what you mean? If you argue countries shouldn't get involved with other countries internal politics because the meddler is incapable of helping (they just don't have the resources and ability), then I'll agree with the principle your point. It's an arguement of capability as opposed to morality. If you think a country should only meddle with another country when it is being directly attacked by that country, then I disagree.