>so, even if a dictator rules a country, the sovereignity of that >country should be respected.
*** Oh sure, but why should the USA adhere to such principles? What will anyone do if the big boy on the block has made up his mind to kick some brat's ass? Never mind what the reasons are. He gave enough warning, didn't he? Unfortunately THIS is exactly what many Americans don't buy. The other critical factors: 1: The Republican hawks, made up their mind long before 9/11, to use US might to do what they feel is their God-given right: to re-shape the world in its own image. 9/11 just provided the excuse. 2: OIL is a very very important factor. Dilip explained that well. What is however not spoken about much, if at all, is that currently the USA does not have access to Iraqi oil. The French, the Germans, the Russians do. The question is if the apalling sanctimony with which WE are demonizing these countries for their concerns about oil are befitting of the "greatest nation on earth" ? 3: Missing from all the self-serving proclamations of American piety is the REAL reason for the Middle-east unrest: Israel and Palestine. Of course it is NOT convenient to talk about it. cm At 2:06 AM -0500 3/7/03, Saurav Pathak wrote: >Alpana Sarangapani said on AssamNet: > >+ How do you ask? If you could ask (and they could reply - with a free mind), >+ there won't be a dictator. The guy even had his sons-in-law killed, had he >+ not? > >alpana-baideu, > >at the crux of this dilemma lie the issue of sovereignity. the >u.n imposed international order maintains that the protection of the >sovereignity of a country is the foremost task. according to this >"doctrine", this is the only way wars and human tragedies can be >avoided. > >so, even if a dictator rules a country, the sovereignity of that >country should be respected. in case of acute human tragedy, generally >the entire international body intervenes, under the aegis of the u.n. if >we donot follow this self imposed rule, then every country can go >into war with another on one pretext or the other. for example, >india can invade pakistan on account of musharraf. pakistan can >invade india on account of the kashmir tragedy. that is why iraq >was reprimanded and sanctions were imposed when it invaded kuwait. > >if it is seen that there is a human tragedy underway in iraq, the >united nations may intervene -- collectively. if a country acts >unilaterally, this international order is broken. > >needless to say, this 'order" is not perfect, but it has been >working very well on the average. > >+ >+ > collateral damage is not acceptable. >+ >+ why not? you have to give up something in order to get something - freedom >+ (and justice), that is. > >morally, you cannot ask the iraqis to pay for freedom and justice >which they have not asked for. no matter how difficult it is to get >a "yes" from them. the fact remains that they have not asked for >help. > >+ do you think Assam has been having this 'collateral damage' for a while? > >yes, i do. > >-- >saurav >_______________________________________________ >Assam mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
