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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (173796)	3/25/2003 2:13:42 PM
From: tcmay	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Too many silly points for me to waste time here refuting. There are many conflicts in many places. In the particular history we are in, U.S. politicians sent men to die in Korea for reasons having nothing to do with the military security of the U.S. In another history we might have expended a million American lives to "liberate" China...and then think how cheap DRAM would be today! These conflicts amongst tribes and nations are what tribes and nations have been doing for millennia. In this particular history, we expended lives in Korea when probably had Korea been conquered it would now be moving towards freedom on its own (the DPRK was only able to maintain its isolationism and ideological purity because it had China and the USSR as sponsors, because it was geographically more isolated, and because it had a focus of hatred). We wasted 55,000 American lives in South Vietnam. By your logic, it was useful for helping the world economy. (Remember, when making a point of principle it is not fair to look at the outcome in this particular history of the word...one must take a Rawlesian view. In some histories perhaps the South was not overrun, much as ROK was not overrun. In some histories South Vietnam is now a major DRAM maker, and someone like you is on a list like this explaining that sending free men to die for another country was useful for maintaining the world economy. You say that the Constitution is not relevant the way it was in Washington's time. This is what happens when we let third worlders and their parents immigrate to our country and spread this kind of ignorance. --Tim May

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (173796)	3/25/2003 2:31:39 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

That's why if you like America being in control of its own economic destiny, you should appreciate America's role on the world stage. An isolationist America risks becoming irrelevant in this world as other nations (including China and India) figure out how to be more dominant world players, and not just economically. Don't you think that many wars can be won with economics though- and that means no bloodshed. Vietnam and the USSR for example. In the end, economics seems to matter most imo, and its getting to be more significant with the increased globalization of capitalism. My point is an isolationist America from a military perspective is not terrible as long as it is counterbalanced with a global economy. Syria for example is one ME country I think will embrace some form of capitalism at some point. Too much outsourced manufacturing going on there for them to fight a war. We know the US military has lost in the past... but the US economy has never lost, at least not yet.