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 : A CENTURY OF LIONS/THE 20TH CENTURY TOP 100 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (1235)	11/3/1999 11:12:00 AM
From: Raymond Clutts	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3246

My point is that a Wilson's uniform preference for self determination is no more likely to benefit the party that is "morally correct" than a strict adherence to realpolitik. Self determination is nothing more than a doctrine used by victors to justify their actions after winning. (None dare call it treason...) Your point about the primary role of the central government being the preservation of territorial integrity is one that you may want to reconsider as an absolute value. After all, keeping what you have on the basis of established constitutional norms would require reassembling the Austrian-Hungarian Empire for the benefit of any of the Hapsburgs successors that we might still identify. It may also require that we support the territorial prerogatives of the Great Russians vis a vis their lesser neighbors in the entities that succeed the Soviet Union. Do you really consider Ukrainian nationalism or Muslim separatists morally superior to Russian nationalists? If so, on what basis do we make these distinctions other than our own national self interests? Do we as a nation really have any point of reference other than our own self interests for choosing between these combatants? Too many of the men in my family and neighborhood have served in the military for me to be cavalierly willing to commit American forces for some vague benefit accruing to some minority that couldn't win the issue with their own force of arms. I have a little difficulty in separating the Hutus and the Tutsis and deciding which is morally preferable to the other. I have real problems rationalizing the use of American forces to separate the two in Rwanda when there is no real benefit or detriment to be had by the United States. It's always a benefit in winning international support to be able to take the moral high ground on an issue such as slavery and to dissuade intervention when the British Crown and Commons are involved as decision makers. But again, that is only one of many issues that will determine the outcome of a civil war. Most of them have to do with cold iron(Remember Kipling's quote? "No said the cannoneer, iron, cold iron shall be the ruler of you all." And that may be a slightly misquoted paraphrase.), population growth rates, bigger battalions and a host of material factors none of which correspond with maintaining the moral high ground. As for a the legality of the Confederacy's right to secession, I would recommend that you review the 10th Amendment reserving all powers not expressly utilized to the states and the people respectively. Ultimately, legal arguments serve only to rationalize what you have won on the ground and there it was Grant's rebuttal to Lee's arguments that was the real determining factor in our victory. This may all be too cynical for most Americans but unless we get some real benefit or are at significant risk of detriment to our own national interests, we should stay out of these disputes lest we dissipate the effect our involvement will have on issues that do effect us.