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.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (4993)	4/22/1999 12:00:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 17770

What's wrong with ending up with a UN mission? That's where this belongs. Even NPR, the bastion of intellectual liberalism, acknowledged in a story on this morning's Morning Edition that the Nato action violated international law. The focus of their concerns is the same concern I have voiced here before, that if the U.S. espouses the principle that international law is not to be a limiting factor on national interference in the soverign rights of other nations, we are setting in place a new world order which will some day turn around and bite us. The U.S. has been the dominant military power in the world for less than 100 years. As with all military empires, ours too will fall. For my kids sake, when the military power of other nations begins to eclipse ours, I would rather leave my kids a world where international law was firmly entrenched than a world where we have set in place the policy that a country or alliance with sufficient military strength is entitled to impose its will on a weaker country by force.