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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: runes who wrote (67732)	2/11/2003 2:52:37 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

OK so we may have our terminology crossed. Go ahead and change every instance of "moral" in my post with "ethical". Given that, I hope you are not going to tell me that ethics is a very flexible concept. Barring ideologies like Nietzsche's and Hitler's, the rest of us do not believe that being able to do something is the same as having the right to do it. There are two major concepts of right and wrong, and I happen to be among those who believe there are a set number of principles which are right/ethical/moral/etc no matter the culture or circumstances. I am also a big supporter of letting nature take its course, be it in the market, local politics, or global politics, I believe in ethics it is called being supporter of "natural law", though the term has been misused. At the very least, a nation should be true to its values. Being true to oneself is the minimum standard of decency IMO. Last I checked this country was founded on principles of justice, liberty, and tolerance. I consider direct support of regimes who are fundamentally opposed to these values as a treason to the soul of America. I do not buy the arguments like "we are trying to hold off the commie expansions so it is ok to support terrorist groups" or "we need the oil in the middle east so we should make sure the Saudi's stay in power". When there is a will there is a way. And we must be able to find a better way to protect ourselves without such hypocritical arguments. Every one of us instinctively understands that unless our very survival is at stake, killing others for our own wants is wrong. If you are going to pose the argument that we are the global victims' right group and should punish Saddam for his crimes, then you should also demonstrate that we will do the decent thing for the victims. Or else we are just another swindler after the trust fund of the abused child we are "rescuing". In case of Iraq, this means a commitment to establishing a representative government. In other words the wishes of the 56% Shia and the 20 odd percent Kurds should be respected, even if it is not pleasant to us. I do not see such a commitment on the part of the government. I have heard a lot of talk about what will happen with Iraqi oil, but nothing about the Iraqi people. Given this unethical bias, I very much expect the end results will come to haunt us (added whatever interest time accords it). Then when that will happen, someone will claim that we rescued the Iraqi people from Saddam and saved the entire Persian Gulf from a mad man but those ungreatful bastards are just jealous of our wealth. Hardly!! > I contend that, no matter what - interfere, don't interfere, chose option A or B or C or D - you have to expect to get bit. We could not have been further apart on this. Why do you believe in such dark sentiment? Personally I don't believe that everyone who makes half as much money as I is just lining up to rob me at gun point. Why should this be any different on a global level? And even if this was the case, which I certainly do not believe in, why should it be so definite that no matter what we do it will come to be so? > Hutu/Tutsi - I don't know the details but I would bet that, at the core, it is a tribal conflict being played out with the technology of advanced civilizations. Nope! When the British colonized Rwanda, they chose to fully favor the minority and pursue a policy that would increase the hatred between the two sides. This is an old dirty tactic whose aim is tie the survival of the minority with the colonizing force thereby assuring their best loyalty. As I stated, ethnic cleansing is a legitimate reason for direct involvement, no matter who caused it. Of course the details are everything... Sun Tzu PS "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" Let's hope we have learned the right lessons from Afghanistan. PPS "One who plants wind, shall harvest typhoon". In other words, unethical policies put forward as a matter of convenience will come around with greater force to bite us in the rear.