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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46665)10/27/2010 5:51:23 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Spending trillions to access sand and dates is a non-sequitur.

We don't spend trillions for that purpose, no one is arguing spending trillions for that purpose, we never in the past have spent trillions (even in 2010 dollars) for that purpose. We almost certainly won't in the future spend trillions for that purpose; and perhaps more to the point spending trillions on keeping sea lanes secure does not imply spending trillions on securing only oil, dates, and sand (so as to imply that if we aren't doing it for oil, it must be for dates and sand), but rather for all of our imports and exports that travel over oceans.

Securing access to the seas is in the public interest. More to the point its a public good (the terms do not have identical meaning, and my statement which started this branch of conversation was about how securing the seas was a public good, not about it being in the public interest).
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News