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 (218494)	2/14/2007 4:57:53 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

"I'm not very fond of the idea of genital mutilation, but I wouldn't invade a country to stop it, either. Surely that is a problem for the people of that country to solve, or not solve, as they may choose." OR NOT CHOOSE. Lets be honest, folks who are mutilated for the most part do not choose but are forced into it. I agree we cant be everywhere but when we arent we should have regret and not somehow implicitly blame the victim in order to sooth our conscience.

To: epicure who wrote (218494)	2/14/2007 4:58:11 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

My question is at what point does the world intervene? Should we have let the Tutsis and Hutus keep hacking away in the 90's? (well, in a sense the world did- bad example). These girls have no choice, no say in the matter- that is point 1. But surely at some point, you cannot simply stand by and watch. Pressure them in whatever way you can, but work for change.

To: epicure who wrote (218494)	2/15/2007 4:44:55 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Obviously you can be against it, but shouldn't the people of that country really be the ones to change things? I'm not very fond of the idea of genital mutilation, but I wouldn't invade a country to stop it, either. Surely that is a problem for the people of that country to solve, or not solve, as they may choose. This argues that the US should not have participated in Europe in WW2. Shouldn't the French have removed the Germans from France, not the "allies"? The US is the most powerful country on the planet. Where we are able to promote good things among non-Americans, we should do so. Sometimes we succeed (South Korea) and sometimes we fail (North Korea). We should try to succeed more often and fail less often. Your argument appears to be that we should do nothing - and for that to be correct you'd have to make the case that American intervention overseas ALWAYS makes things worse. Is that your argument?