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: Maurice Winn who wrote (8186)	10/30/2001 5:09:05 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

I understand your point, Maurice. But TVs are not vital to your survival. Oil is vital to the survival of the nation. If a nation/collection of nations deliberately sought to deprive the US of oil, it is an act of coercion at best, aggression at worst. If the intent was to destroy the US by depriving it of oil, then it is an act of aggression. Just the same as if I could control your supply of oxygen and cut it off with the sole intent to kill you. If I possessed the only supply of oxygen, and withheld it from you for my own purposes in order to kill you, it would be justifiable for you to attack me in order to preserve yourself. Derek

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (8186)	10/30/2001 5:34:17 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 281500

Hi Mqurice, Re: But going and stealing somebody else's property because you want it!! Tsk, tsk!! Wasn't that what England knighted Sir Francis Drake for doing? -Ray

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (8186)	10/30/2001 7:30:56 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Oil fields are owned by the countries on top of the oil fields. Hi, Maurice! The above statement that you have made is probably believed by everyone on this thread but me. Most of the oil fields under discussion were not found by the people who are now squatting on them, but by Oil companies who went in and discovered them. They were then stolen from the oil companies by the local dictatorships. It happened in this hemisphere starting with Mexico in the '30s, and in the middle east by Iran in the '50s. Once the rest of the world found out that our Government was so spineless that it would let them get away with it, the other countries joined in and it happened all over the globe. The people even in our own country have now bought this argument to the point that if we set out to protect our property world-wide, it is called "Selfish", and is condemned. The only wars that are approved now are "Unselfish" ones, such as the Balkans, or Somalia, where we have no real interest. If you want to successfully attack someone on this thread, or in the world, today, call them "Greedy" and watch them back off. Propose that they are only taking the position they have for "their own selfish interest", and they will apologize to you. IMO, it is "Moral" to go after these thugs. If we are not willing to defend this moral position worldwide, we will lose this struggle.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (8186)	10/30/2001 1:57:32 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Oil fields are owned by the countries on top of the oil fields. Hmmm.... does that mean that every farmer's field is rightfully owned by the government? Seems to me that in communist societies you're argument would certainly apply. But the heart of a capitalist society, and one that represents individual rights, is that property rights should be decentralized as much as possible in order to create proper stewardship. Since the property is actually owned by a private party with an interest in preserving it's economic benefit and intrinsic value. So I do agree that owning property is the foundation of freedom. Thus, the crux of the argument is whether such nations have an obligation to recognize laws in other nations that are contrary to our own during wartime.. It's comparable to whether the north had the right to deny the south the right to own slaves. Or whether allegedly marxists such as the Sandinistas had the right to confiscate property from Nicaraquan property owners... Obviously marxists have had no compulsion about nationalizing private assets under their centralized control, showing utter contempt for the those who hold individual property rights sacred to the concept of freedom.. So should we also be able to make the argument that centralized nation-states without such property rights are "fair game" since we don't acknowledge their right of ownership?? Just a hypothetical question... Hawk