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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elpolvo who wrote (5407)	8/29/2002 7:41:33 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

LMAO lurqer

To: elpolvo who wrote (5407)	8/29/2002 8:10:55 PM
From: abuelita	Respond to of 89467

elpie "fear it forward!" what an excellent response. i am impressed. <vbg> joser

To: elpolvo who wrote (5407)	8/29/2002 9:37:42 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

i'd like to point to the UNITED STATES as an example of how people from all ethnic backgrounds, cultures, religions, skin colors and geographical origin have joined together to make laws to live by... a prime example of how a UNITED NATIONS could work. No arguments from me there... Except that instead of "could work" the operative phrase is "should work".. And we don't have unelected state representatives serving in congress.. Yet, we have brutal, non-elected, dictatorships and totalitarian regimes given equal voting authority in the United Nations. The only equivalent that might find a place in US history is when organized criminal organizations were able to buy elections and intimidate voters to choose "their man in Washington". And that's also why there are laws preventing felons from holding office or voting. I would opine that regimes such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and so many others around the world could/should be considered "criminal governments" which do not deserve the right to full voting membership in the UN. The UN must be reorganized so that only duly elected (via internationally recognized and monitored elections) governments have the right to vote in the general assembly. As to what to do vis-a-vis an international police force, the only equivalent is the US military and Interpol. We ARE the world's policeman and have been since WWII. And it will only be through the exertion of military, economic, and political pressure on anyone who chooses to "obstruct" carrying out justice, that we succeed. Personally, I'm kind of sick of trying to "enforce the law" on behalf of so many of the world's non-elected governments. But since we have "interests" in those parts of the world and oftentimes represent the only hope that people in those nations have to eventually overcome the oppression they live under, we have to decide if we wish to remain engaged, or to permit them to fight it amongst themselves. Unfortunately, WMDs and the advent of mass suicide attacks have pretty much forced our hand to the point where we have to do what few in the rest of the world have the guts, or the sense, to do. But don't rely upon an "international" police force... It will have little authority, and would be rife with political turf battles. If the US wishes to extract "justice" it will have to do it by itself and damn those who get in our way. There is something to be said for the Israeli approach to handling terrorists, such as those carried out the Munich hostage taking... They hunted them down and killed the large majority of them, one by one. The US should do the same, and not ignore the financial backers who funded, or had foreknowledge of 9/11 (those who short-sold Airlines and Re-insurance companies). Btw, I can't quite say I understand what you mean by "nano-nano tech bastards".. I think we're still a long way from having nanocomputers directly interface with our nervous systems. Hawk