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.

Pastimes : Books, Movies, Food, Wine, and Whatever -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: coug who wrote (4306)	1/31/2003 8:59:20 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 51717

:-) Hi Coug It's funny I read something on another thread on this subject someone said "anti war means disliking war so much you are willing to fight only when you really need to" I agreed with that- but of course the poster was saying we really need to go to war NOW- which struck me as quite a perversion of the word "need".

To: coug who wrote (4306)	1/31/2003 2:29:26 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 51717

Why, I wonder, is it that apparently no civilization on earth has existed without war? It's not a Western, or an Eastern, thing. It's not cross-cultural, as far as one can tell. African tribes were forever fighting and taking slaves. Mesopotamia was almost incessently at war. Persia and Greece. Rome. Pax Romanica was fine for Rome itself, but it was sustained by continual fighting at the borders. China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia warred. In the Americas, Native Americans warred, Mayans, Incas, warred. Some people would contend that the South Seas Islanders didn't war, but I don't think that's true. Maybe the Abrigonals didn't war, don't know their history well enough. But war seems to be a univeresal human activity, as natural to mankind as eating and sex. Makes one wonder.