SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Proud_Infidel who wrote (218498)2/14/2007 5:06:00 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
I don't see sending money to groups in the country who work for change to be a problem. I don't have a problem with relief organizations legally within the country doing good work, either.

But even in genocide cases, unless the world can come to agreement to intervene, then I am against military intervention. I think, for the world to function, and for these decisions to be made correctly, we need UN approval and support for such invasions. I'd like to see a force as diverse (and as universally approved) as the force behind Desert Storm. I'd like to see this sort of thing happen sooner, rather than later. I think it could be a force for good. I don't want to see any country running around do-gooding unilaterally, though.



To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (218498)2/14/2007 5:23:11 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
We don't do humanitarian things anymore. Now we check for ideological, economic and geo-political significance. People lacking impact on these three scales can go right ahead and die -- it means nothing to US policy makers.