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

To: D. Long who wrote (9117)5/19/1999 6:43:00 PM
From: Dayuhan  Respond to of 17770
 
Well said.



To: D. Long who wrote (9117)5/19/1999 7:37:00 PM
From: The Philosopher  Respond to of 17770
 
Wrong. One of the purposes of international law is to protect the sovereignty of states except when they voluntarily give that up by signing treaties. The US has signed the NATO treaty and the UN charter, and can therefore be held to obey those. Yugoslavia has also signed the UN Charter and can therefore be bound to obey decisions of the UN body. The problem would arise if we were faced with a nation which were NOT a member of the UN. But that isn't the case here.



To: D. Long who wrote (9117)5/19/1999 11:47:00 PM
From: Stormweaver  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 17770
 
>> I think that statement sums up the extent of the contradiction
>> in you and Christopher's outlook

There is no contradiction. There currently is no U.N. doctrine or NATO treaty item that says "intervene in civil wars and disputes with all force necessary". The summary of the U.N. doctrine position is the use of peace keeping forces and diplomacy; not agressively attacking.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News