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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46028)	9/22/2002 6:33:24 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

That they're actually quite incoherent and narcicistic in nature? The arguments are basically "pacifist" in nature. They will allow us a defense when we are attacked, but are uncomfortable even with that. However, they will never admit this, and will tell us how many civilians we are killing when we do attack a direct enemy, and whine about "Violence never settles anything," and "We are going to make the Arab Street mad," and "We have no plan to bring peace to the area when we are done." Any proposed attack on anyone else who is after us is outrageous, and means we are warmongering ChickenHawks.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46028)	9/22/2002 9:40:03 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, yes, Den Beste is trying to figure out some coherent philosphy that could put forth this set of arguments. If there is no philosophy behind these arguments, and no practical reasons behind them (most are plainly anti-utilitarian in nature), where does that leave us? That the arguments are based on nothing more than the feelings of the arguer? That they're actually quite incoherent and narcicistic in nature? Personally, I can buy that, but Den Beste was trying to give the arguments the benefit of the doubt. False dichotomy, Nadine. You insist these arguments must either be a coherent ideology or they are then "incoherent and narcicistic." I certainly will not ask how you arrive at the latter judgment, but this betrays, now, your own approach to political thinking. It must be one or the other. In fact, it's quite possible to favor Kyoto on environmental grounds, the ICC on international law grounds, etc. without linking them. The only reason Den Beste insists that they must is this then gives him his "left wing" strawperson. We're wasting our time.