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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (97309)	5/2/2003 11:36:28 PM
From: smolejv@gmx.net	Respond to of 281500

>>You have to become a Ghandi, when each of the 6-10 billion of us have access to nuclear weapons << MAD on the house2house level...

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (97309)	5/3/2003 1:57:15 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

New Zealand warns on 'law of the jungle' Charlotte Denny and Jonathan Freedland Saturday May 3, 2003 The Guardian One of Tony Blair's closest foreign political allies has warned Britain and America that they may live to regret unleashing the "law of the jungle" in international relations when China becomes the dominant world power later this century. The Labour prime minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, told the Guardian that Washington and its allies had created a dangerous precedent by going to war without a UN resolution. "This is a century which is going to see China emerge as the largest economy, and usually with economic power comes military clout," she said. "In the world we are constructing, we want to know [that the system] will work whoever is the biggest and the most powerful." She understood why Britain had stood beside the US, its closest ally. But New Zealand had taken a different view, because of the danger of setting a precedent for ignoring the UN. "It would be very easy for a country like New Zealand to make excuses and think of justifications for what its friends were doing, but we would have to be mindful that we were creating precedents for others also to exit from multilateral decision making," she said. "I don't want precedents set, regardless of who is seen as the biggest kid on the block." Ms Clark said the the damage to the UN had to be re paired to prevent the world returning to 19th century style anarchy in international relations, which could leave countries like New Zealand at the mercy of the great powers. "New Zealand has always argued for the rights of small states," she said - one of her predecessors, the wartime Labour prime minister Peter Fraser, helped to write the UN's founding charter. "We saw the UN as a fresh start for a world trying to work out its problems together rather than a return to a 19th world where the great powers carved it up ... Who wants to go back to the jungle?" The multilateral system had been damaged by the rifts over Iraq, but countries were now redoubling their efforts to cooperate in the Doha round of global trade talks. guardian.co.uk

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (97309)	5/3/2003 2:29:59 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Your grandchildren will live in that world. And they will either be committed pacifists, or you won't have any surviving grandchildren. Those are the only two possible futures. Your grandchildren will be pacifists, committed to peaceful interactions in all personal, group, national and international settings. They will not do this out of idealism, or because they are angels, or live in a community of angels. They will eventually abandon their selfish short-term Realistic Social Darwinism, and come to see that thinking (and the actions that flow from it) as barbarism, much like today we see the Inquisition or the Crusades. They will Change Everything, because those who don't, will die. I blame Gene Rodenberry for this... No scratch that. He never went this far. He always kept a strain of hideous, evil, flesh eating "barbarians" across the Neutral Zone in recognition of the immutable Law of DNA. <Hoo><Hoo> In all seriousness though Jacob, assuming you are serious, this future you are forecasting has no basis in fact, and is clearly illogical. It may be a theology. It certainly is idealistic. But, like all articles of faith, it is founded on a fiction and denies the very stuff of which you are made. Whether you like it or not you are a predatory destroyer of worlds. That's "humanity" per se. It isn't something you chose to be. Evolution simply "rewarded" your DNA's capacity for such conduct. You are stuck with it. You can't change this capacity of your DNA, but even if you could, the resulting creature would be no more "human" than your average chimpanzee or low-land gorilla. In effect what you propose would require the elimination of all "human" DNA which now exists on this or any other planet. They will Change Everything, because those who don't, will die. ...The other choice is to be tossed on the ash-heap of history. Come on now. Surely you forgot to add the "<vbg>'s" on this?! Could it possibly be that your goal is to wipe out all humanity? Are you truly asserting that there is a real "Nirvana?" A place "humans" can "go" to avoid the "ash-heap of history" on which every human who has ever existed has been or will be deposited? I just don't get it. 0\|0