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: Dayuhan who wrote (218275)	2/13/2007 8:07:42 PM
From: Katelew	Respond to of 281500

Good post, Dayuhan. I think you articulated the crux of the problem quite well. I was completely opposed to invading Iraq. The whole thing just smelled. But I was and still am somewhat fractured in my thinking about presidential authority and sovereignty of nation issues. It will be interesting to see how this thing shakes out over the next ten years or so......what policies are put in place to try and prevent a repeat of Iraq.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (218275)	2/13/2007 11:52:53 PM
From: Garden Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Dayuhan, the world didn't elect the US as cop, judge and jury. International law brings some order to the world, the law of the jungle as exhibited by the US produces chaos and a likely precursor for a 3rd World War. Give me international law over every man for himself. By the way, the US should mind its own business rather than continually interferring in the affairs of other countries. We'd cry foul if the Chinese tried to install military bases in Venezuela, but on the other hand we plant military bases all over creation causing disharmony and suspicion for a lot of the world.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (218275)	2/14/2007 12:21:29 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>" There were excellent reasons for concerted multilateral action against Iraq. Sanctions were causing great misery to Iraqis but having no effect on Saddam. Sustaining sanctions and no-fly zones indefinitely was insupportable, but lifting them would have been surrender, and would only have encouraged Saddam to re-arm, resume violent suppression of dissident ethnic groups, and eventually take a bite of another neighbor. If sanctions couldn't be lifted or sustained, what options were available? "<< What a bunch of baloney...

To: Dayuhan who wrote (218275)	2/21/2007 5:48:13 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's against international law to invade and pillage your neighbors, but unless you are willing to violate sovereignty, it's practically impossible to hold those responsible to account for their actions......If sanctions couldn't be lifted or sustained, what options were available? The sanctions were working. The Iraqi people had to do their part. They could have revolted. As it was, after the US invaded, Saddam couldn't find all that many Iraqis to protect him. He was found in some hole underground. Contrast that with OBL. OBL must have quite an infrastructure to keep him in hiding. My point is that violating sovereignity is tricky business. All other avenues have to be employed to bring about justice.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (218275)	2/25/2007 2:04:10 AM
From: Garden Rose	Respond to of 281500

Dayuhan>...There is a basic contradiction between the premise of absolute sovereignty and the entire concept of international law. Genocide may be against international law, but you can't enforce that law unless you violate sovereignty." No contradiction Dayuhan. The point is the the UN acts on a "consensus basis" and can address genocide. Often it is difficlt to collectively act, however, we don't need Robin Hoods in world affairs, it's too risky and creates more problems than it corrects (i.e. Iraq, Vietnam, all of Latin America and others). Robin Hood should tend to business in his own back yard, that's how sovreignty works best by minding your own business unless a collective effort of "neighbors" wants to intercede and address the "problem" in the neighborhood.