Formerly About Applied Materials Message Board

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 : Formerly About Applied Materials

AMAT 268.91

+0.1%

2:29 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: runes who wrote (67718)	2/10/2003 6:29:00 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) of 70976

Runes, I missed answering one of the important points you raised and it is a good one. You said: ...But how do you assess the consequences of the associated inaction? You are a hundred percent right that there are costs associated with inaction as well. I am not promoting "inaction" so much as non-interference. There is a difference though it is hard to describe. The best I can come up with is that in everyday life I do not tell you how to live your life and you do not tell me what to do either. In very rare circumstances, we may find an issue which we cannot just ignore such as finding out that the corner store is front for selling drugs to minors. In those cases, we do not support a rival drug dealer to take out the guy. Rather we cooperate with the police or the neighborhood watch to get rid of him. There are times when intereference is legitimate. None proliferation of WMD is one of them. Anti-terrorist coalition building is another. Ethnic cleansing is also a valid reason for direct involvement. But that is about it. Defending corrupt regimes against their dissidents is not a valid reason, even if those dissidents are not good people in our opinion. Neither is trying to establish "democracy". BTW, aside from the fact that only the Pashtuns were supported during the Soviet invasion which left their local opposition in a very weak spot. And aside from the fact that we never pointed out to them that proper goal is liberation of Afghan people (rather than kill as many Russians as you can and Allah will reward your Jihad). The reason why Afghanistan fell into civil war was that the Afghans were never part of the peace negotiations. It was just USA, Pakistan, USSR, and their puppet Afghan regime who signed a treaty and decided what should or should not happen in Afghanistan. This is not the kind of non-interference that I am calling for. Once we do get involved, we have an obligation to see a moral conclusion to event. Sun Tzu PS Assume we have just invaded Iraq and removed Saddam. What will be most likely course of event over the next few years?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next