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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavesM who wrote (292012)	8/31/2002 4:35:59 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

I'd suggest attempting to discuss an adjective should begin where the adjective has the most meaning. Not at some abstract level. What is noble. Having or showing qualities of high moral character, such as courage, generosity, or honor: a noble spirit. This is a characteristic of individuals. War is the action of collectives of individuals. Whenever an individual puts his own life at risk to preserve others he is being noble. So if all in a war believe they are noble, the more who die the more noble the war is. The Slaughter of World War I demonstrated only that technology retards at the top of society were clueless about how deadly the technology of making war had become. The technology retards did not understand that a stiff upper lip was no defense against the fruit of the mind of an engineer who systematically calculated how to create a death zone. The Civil War also gave this example. Many noble American died. World War 2 also gave us another example. The Vietnam War demonstrated a tactic of attrition that could frustrate or mitigate the technology of fruit of the mind of an engineer who systematically calculated how to create a dead zone. The Gulf War, the Afghan War showed how technology could allow the execution of War by noble Americans and prevent killing innocent people caught up in the location of the war. In this century, Americans, noble Americans have fought showing stupendous nobility.

To: DavesM who wrote (292012)	8/31/2002 10:36:46 PM
From: Mr. Whist	Respond to of 769670

Re: "Couldn't another reason be that, (the 1st World War was) possibly for the first time (for Europe, anyway), a major war was fought, where a majority of "common soldiers" were literate ..." Very good point.

To: DavesM who wrote (292012)	9/1/2002 2:23:03 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

These "literate" "common soldiers" danced in the streets as their countries announced mobilization. It was 99 years of relative peace that bored them into loving the idea of martial glory. Their leaders did what they wanted them to do, and the historic errors created a dangerous and hostile world in the 20th century. Enterprises come and go. Economic creative destruction makes a self-correcting world that moves forward, not backward, in the long run. Government is just the opposite. Bad (i.e., over-empowered) government creates bad worlds. The situation of the US was far different. It started out minding its own business and didn't get motivated until the totalitarian enemy was dominating the globe and challenging them right off the coasts. There has always been a movement in the US to roll over and die in this hostile world. Someday it may prevail, but not in this century. We must face down and destroy the American left in every one of our institutions, political, academic, educational, media, business, etc. Our real war begins at home, and with world Islam striking at our cities, we see that the left must be dis-empowered much more quickly than previously thought. It's that, or roll over and die...