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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (7829)	10/27/2001 9:40:33 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

2-party systems are smart in the way they balance the terror of a one party system and in how they tear down the common sense. (polarizing, as it is called, also in elections) just like the medieval (evil??) fight between "evil" and 'good", moderation and others are road kills on the yellow lines. Ilmarinen adversarial 2-party systems, always has but not many left??? nor right?? (seriously, one major problem the few 2-party systems left have with the rest of the world)

To: Carolyn who wrote (7829)	10/27/2001 10:33:38 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But - duh - nations act in their own self-interest That is exactly right Carolyn. I wonder how long this discussion needs to continue. As an American I reserve the right to say here and now that America, including our oil companies, will do everything in it's power to protect it's interests all over the world and that includes going after oil. Those that oppose our tactics can complain, vote, move, or try kill us. None the less those are the facts, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Nations do act in their own self interest and admitting that we want the oil isn't difficult at all. Not giving a damn whether others don't like it isn't difficult either. We are in Afghanistan for two reasons. Kill the terrorists and protect our interests. One of which is defending freedom as we know it. We have tons of enemies all over the world and a few right here at home. That's OK. It has always been that way and it will always be that way. That is one of the benefits of war, it shows who your enemies are. Continually reiterating the bad things that America has done, will do or is doing is a place that some wish to continually dwell. Fine by me, let them grumble! Who cares what they think? Proud to be a politically incorrect American. Hope you are well. ;-) M

To: Carolyn who wrote (7829)	10/28/2001 1:25:53 AM
From: ratan lal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Are we the only ones who seem to have a populace which tears apart everything we do? Mabe and maybe not. But the better question is why should'nt we irrespective of whether others do or dont? So a question for you. If we went to Kuwait to preserve our access to oil, then whouldnt the oil cos. that benefited have paid for Desert Storm and also hire and pay the soldiers (together with appropriate death benefits) to go and fight that war?

To: Carolyn who wrote (7829)	10/29/2001 5:48:29 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<nations act in their own self-interest. ALL do. > Carolyn, that's true, but only in a narrow way that requires the definition of 'nation' to be what the people in charge want at any particular time. A broader definition of 'nation' would say that nations do not act in their own interests all the time. Even if there was a single opinion in a country of what constituted 'our interest', because life runs more like a Simpsons episode than the clinical fantasy politicians like to propound, nations act in what they THINK is their interests, but really, their interests might better be served in another way, if only they could figure it out. Commonly, elections are won by a bare majority and that switches at the next election when the manifestation of the public wishes turns to reality. So 'the nation's interest' is built on shifting sands. Was it really in the USSR's interests to invade Afghanistan? Was it really in the USA interest to try to maintain the South Vietnamese military regime in power? Is it really in the USA interest to maintain the Saudi Arabian regime in power? I don't have the answers, I'm just pointing out how what seems like a good idea and 'in the nation's interest' or 'defending the nation's interests' can seem as silly as buying Amazon.com at the peak. Mqurice