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: KonKilo who wrote (109033)	7/31/2003 9:52:29 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

when the choosee suggests a third choice, Naah, that's just an "out" when you don't have an answer. "Take the Tuna, it's you! it's you!"

To: KonKilo who wrote (109033)	7/31/2003 4:26:56 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Lindy, to be with us or against us aren't the only options for third parties. That's an egocentric insanity which only a megalomaniac would demand of the world. There is also the choice of indifference. To help make the point clear, the Hutu and Tutsi got involved in a bit of genocide a few years ago. Most people on the planet were indifferent. I suspect you were indifferent. I couldn't define the difference between the two and if I did decide to support one side, I wouldn't know which was the other so I'd know who to whack with a machete, though I'm pretty sure it was the Hutus doing the whacking of the Tutsis, even though there were more Tutsis [I think] and they presumably had access to machetes too. It's perfectly reasonable for people to not care whether Al Qaeda and Osama and Saddam blow up Washington with a nuke, though it would make interesting viewing on CNN. People could be indifferent whether King George II nukes Mecca or Saddam nukes Washington. Heck, there are some Americans who would be comfortable with a large explosion in Washington in the middle of that park which is ringed by Congress, White House, Federal Reserve and so on. If not with an explosion, they are certainly comfortable when the Federal Government goes on strike or is closed down because the money is shut off in political disputes. People don't have to choose sides. Or, to make it even clearer, I doubt that you get too excited when the red ants get into a fight with the black ants over some crumbs you dropped in your back yard. You don't choose sides, or respond to "with us or against us" binary demands by one or other of the ant tribes. You might even poison both of them. It's not a binary world of decisions Lindy. There is an infinite array of choices to make at any instant. There is a binary fact though; King George II is either alive or dead. From his point of view, it is indeed a binary world. Things are either with him, or against him. But, like a rock in a road, they can be indifferent to him. But the key point is his perception, not the rock's. If King George II perceives the rock as being in his way, especially if he stubs his toe on it, then the rock is against him and it'll be nuked, or Tomahawked [being a cheaper option]. The USA [meaning the people in it] has [as did Saddam and most megalomaniacs and indeed all of us to a greater or lesser extent] a peculiar idea that the world revolves around itself. The indifferent world will disabuse them of that notion. Just as great golfers are humbled. Even Tiger Woods, the master of the universe, can be reduced to a scowling, self-defeated little dot on the landscape. Good golfers know the course is neither for them or against them, it is indifferent. Long live the King, All hail the King, Mqurice