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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Calladine who wrote (4958)	3/28/2003 9:33:06 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21614

Oh. Then using the same logic, since peace is the interval between wars, peace sets up the conditions for war. And, in fact, that is even true.

To: James Calladine who wrote (4958)	3/28/2003 10:49:44 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

This is the standard cliche line. If one examines WAR as a method of achieving PEACE it is obvious that it does NOTHING of the kind. And your ideal alternative would be??? Hawk@inquiringmindswouldliketoknow.com

To: James Calladine who wrote (4958)	3/29/2003 11:36:46 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Actually appeasement often works. For example, our behavior to the Chinese has been appeasement- and it has kept us at peace and in a stable relationship with the Chinese. When they took Tibet we appeased them. I regret we did not try to get the world to stand up for the Tibetans but if we had we could have started WWIII. Any time you start a war you have to think, is it worth WWIII? I don't know, honestly, if Tibet was worth it. I thought at the time it was, but it was a close one. Are human rights abuses and murders of Chinese civilians by the Chinese government worth WWIII? Obviously not- we appease them continually with most favored nation status. And that may not be a bad thing- even though it has made me a little nauseous in the past. Every issue should be looked at that way, because ever confrontation can be the spark that leads us into global thermonuclear war. If the issue isn't worth it, it is probably better to appease (IE find a NON- military solution- because that is all it really means). Was the Iraq issue worth the chance of a WWIII? Not hardly, ergo- find a non-military solution. There were plenty. It seems a simple risk/reward calculus to me.