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: Elroy who wrote (212495)	1/11/2007 10:25:16 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I have often said exactly what my views are on this. I think the international community must intervene when countries attack one another and sovereign borders are violated. These acts are too destabilizing to global trade, and must be contained. I (for example) would have expected the US to intervene in WWII the minute Germany attacked another sovereign nation. That, imo, is a good way to bring stability- good clear rules, rigidly enforced. Civil wars I think should rarely be meddled in. Internal affairs of sovereign nations- if you're going to meddle in them, be sure you know what you're doing. Our encouragement of the Iraqis to rebel against Saddam, and then our complete disregard of their pleas for help, led to massive deaths. That's just poor meddling- and we do thing like that a lot. Not quite as murderously, usually, but the end result is the same- botched results. In international relations, just as in life, I think it is ill advised to waste money and energy on projects that have little change for success, or where the odds of success are unknown, unless you HAVE to, to support a rule that is important- as the above rule, about protecting the sovereignty of countries and the integrity of their existence, is important (imo). Best not to have too many rules like that, though.