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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (9664)	9/17/2001 5:03:25 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

I don't think Afghanistan has sufficient natural barriers to mobility to serve as an exile. Besides, the local, repressed population deserves a chance at life without the presence of war mongers. Clearing out the bad apples might ease the emigration pressures. East Timor may not be the perfect location, but vague recollection seems to suggest it being a potential hot spot. If anything, the island is too close to other land masses. There may be other similarly situated land masses that may serve to host people convicted of terrorist belief systems. I'm not quite savy enough to comprehend your suggestions regarding the UN etc, so I'll have to leave it to you to carry forward that thread.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (9664)	9/18/2001 10:49:28 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 74559

The best place for Afghan refugees is Afghanistan, not New Zealand The Maori people probably had similar thoughts a few hundred years back LOL. It amazing how consistent our we remain... regards Kastel a cute and cuddly Canadian

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (9664)	9/18/2001 10:51:24 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 74559

The UN a synonym for ineffectual.......

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (9664)	9/19/2001 9:43:54 PM
From: oconnellc	Respond to of 74559

<<The UN is the way to do it. Not a pussy-footing UN as now pathetically allowing murder in Srebenica. I mean a hard-nosed police force and legislative state owned by the UN with the locals possessing the whole place in fee simple [to use some legal jargon].>> Interesting. I suppose we would all like to see something like this, but who would join? I suppose it gets to the point that the best government is not a democracy (or republic, whatever it is called these days), but a benign kingship. The problem with democracies is that you have to let all the knuckleheads vote. Now, if we could have a good king, like Aragorn (for you Lord of the Ring fans), then we would be in fine shape. Our army would be off fighting orcs in Mordor or Srebenica or East Timor or wherever. And when the wars were over we would all live in happiness for ever. Until the good king died without any children, and then the kings younger, evil brother came to power. I'm pretty sure that the US would never fund a legislative state with a hard-nosed police force (at least someone else's. We are pretty happy to fund our own). And most of the world seems to hate the US because we view ourselves as the police force you speak of (just replace the WTC with the state capital of the new UN). <<...within a federal constitution protecting the rights of everyone in them>> Which rights? Who's rights? The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What happens if your pursuit of happiness gets in the way of my right to liberty? Do I still get to keep the right to shoot all those buggers who don't look like me?