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 : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (5872)	3/5/2003 2:00:33 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12247

John, the normal reaction is to close it. But that begs the question on how international relations would be handled. 5 billion aliens don't want the USA to rule the world; no taxation without representation and all that, habeas corpus etc. So it would be a very short-sighted and actually stupid decision to ditch the whole thing. There is a great need for a UN which does the right job. The old-style UN isn't doing the job. The answer isn't to return to the 19th century, which was followed by WWI and WWII and a lot more besides. The answer is to think up something good for the 21st century where we all live cheek by jowl and all borders are crossed by hordes of people every day and so does air pollution and so do oceans and so does electromagnetic radiation, not to mention trade and all sorts of stuff. It's a global village. By voting to close it, the USA would shut itself off from the world. China or Europe or maybe even India if they got their act together, would become the king pin. Or maybe the ROW will simply make their own UN and the USA would be left out in the cold. We'll see in the next couple of years what the trend will be. I pick increasing internationalism. That's my vote. Mqurice