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: D. Long who wrote (8188)	10/30/2001 5:36:57 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Re: Just the same as if I could control your supply of oxygen and cut it off with the sole intent to kill you. They say that sex is a lot like oxygen. You only miss it if you aren't getting enough.

To: D. Long who wrote (8188)	10/30/2001 5:48:01 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Derek, you are in an ethical minefield there. Think intellectual property for cancer cure. Companies should just give away their property without compensation under your argument. After all, the patients NEED the products to live. To me you are making an amoral argument. The same one that Osama is making. There he is stuck in the Afghan hills and for his survival, he needs to get the USA the hell out of Saudi Arabia so he can take it over and go home and sell a lot of oil. So, by your argument, he was quite right to destroy the WTC buildings and all those people. I disagree and if somebody can't make their SUV go without my oil, that's their problem, not mine. If people want to go on strike and withdraw their labour, you surely aren't in favour of slavery. But that's where your argument leads. It's a chimpanzee method of living. Toughest one takes anything they want. No private property. No human rights. No freedom. They tried it in USSR and a lot more places. It's ugly, cruel and doesn't work. Mqurice

To: D. Long who wrote (8188)	10/30/2001 12:01:05 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Derek, based on your logic, Japan was right in attacking the US at Pearl Harbor. They were only trying to secure their oil supplies.

To: D. Long who wrote (8188)	10/30/2001 12:44:40 PM
From: ratan lal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If the intent was to destroy the US by depriving it of oil, then it is an act of aggression. The above statement is just too damn funny for words. therein lies the arrogance of the americans. Now lets turn it waround and say that "cheap labor" is the product of Mexico. And if America deprives Mexico of providing cheap labor by closing its borders and preventing 'as much' immigration as the number of people wanting to come here and provide cheap labor, then, according to your theory, the US is commiting an act of aggression against Mexico ! Lets take it further and allow cheap labor from any and all countries that want to provide it. We could go on to other things. Why just stop with Oil and cheap labor? If US refuses to sell NUCLEAR energy to other countries, then, according to your theory, the US is committing an act of aggression. Do you get the point or should I go on?