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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (97195)	5/2/2003 7:43:27 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If it becomes clear that democracy in Iraq will lead to an Iraqi government that is not in accord with our interests, will we retain our commitment to democracy or put our interests first? Hi Steven, ...I hope you realize that you have single handedly [OK, maybe Jacob helped a tad:-] managed to push me over the edge of abject nihilism and into the well fortified arms of the "Darwin Made Me Do It Society." <Hoo><Hoo> Suffice to say that whatever we do - instill democracy, install feudal cast systems, support military dictators, or simply turn the entire region into a huge military base for our "U.S. Foreign Legions" - it will most definitely be done with our interests at the forefront. Moreover, I am now completely at a loss as to why anyone would think that we should, or even want us to, do otherwise. Further, if given sufficient time, funding and the assistance of Carl Bilow, ...I am quite sure that I could prove to your own satisfaction that any attempt to put the "interests" of other nations before our own would not only require the abnegation of everything that defines this country, ...but would also require the rejection of everything Albert Einstein ever postulated concerning the universe as we know it. <g> US, Iraq, Philippines, where ever human beings are, we all have the same motivations and needs. We and our institutions are born and we die. The trick is to die last. ...Although why that is I cannot say. <Hoo> But take my word for it Steven, OBL is quite likely right about one thing. There is no way for him to have his dream/needs fulfilled without first "blowing up" the U.S. Putting his "Islamist" needs/dreams first would require a "policy" of suicide on our part. For better or worse we are culturally, politically, theologically, and economically invasive beasts. So are "Islamists" for that matter, but they have simply been less successful at it for the past 6 centuries or so. This is how humans interact. Sooner or later the last of us will "die" off. Until then, barring the arrival of ALIEN beasts, I see scant prospects for any one of our "groups" gaining universal adoption, integration or even acceptance. That is simply not what human beings do. Indeed, all evidence of record that I have ever seen, suggests that life itself is inconsistent with the idea of "putting the interests of others first." ...It makes for nice propaganda and it may aid in maintaining a semblance of order among the superstitious and/or nihilists among us. But I doubt seriously that, if given a second chance, American Indians would consider the Pilgrims' interests first during that initial encounter. ...Not that it would have mattered in the long run. <sigh> I suppose the real point is that even if they could and did try again to do "more good than harm" for the Pilgrims, they would get the same negative outcome 10 out 10 times. Put another way, just because we can imagine Indians and Europeans living together in a harmonious "America," doesn't mean that it really is possible. Or, if in fact it were possible, it would necessarily mean that neither the "United States" we have today, nor the peculiar mix of inhabitants and "policies" that make it up could exist. <vbg> 0\|0

To: Dayuhan who wrote (97195)	5/2/2003 3:53:58 PM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

P.S. to Steven, Just in case you are tempted to respond to my posts of last night, you might want to consider this tale. <g> I just got back from my "analyst" and she assures me that I am completely incompetent and unable to engage in rational discourse. ...Much less attend to my own affairs. <Hoo?> I, of course, advised her that you - and Jacob - had driven me to this "pitiable state" by your incessant demands for peace where there is no peace, and understanding where there is only negation. Whereupon she had the "Gaul" to suggest to me that yours was the better alternative!! Imagine that!! <Hoo> I told her that this may well be true, but only in the highly specialized and dangerously homogeneous environment of her offices. And further, that should she ever have to cope with life on the street, instead of her green house, she would soon come to appreciate the depth of the competitive forces which have drawn me to this immutable faith in the preeminence of positive law. Hearing this, she told me she would think about it. ...I doubt that she will. Her's is a very busy and profitable office. But I am quite sure that given the correct stimulus, she will respond in a "positive" way, ...as best as her genes will allow. I will keep you advised of her progress but, as you can see, for my own well being I'm afraid I will just have to keep my thoughts on your "foreign policies" to myself. <vbg> 0\|0