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: Hawkmoon who wrote (111443)	8/14/2003 4:47:43 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, there's some irony in here: <Furthermore, there's this tribal concept of being unwilling to compromise from a position of weakness, for fear of suffering a loss of face, or loss of power. And when in a position of strength, they figure they don't need to compromise... They want to increase their power and not share it with anyone. This is the condition that, I opine, pervades much of the mid-east. The real question is what level of poverty and disgust is required to provoke the common people to force their leaders to compromise and live in peace with one another?> Some would say the say thing applies to the USA. In this very stream, somebody said in relation to North Korean negotiations, "we mustn't appear week" [sic] and I added, "or stupid". Meaning the USA. While Stalin, Hitler and Saddam are unaccountable megalomaniacs, few politicians aren't power-trippers. Even the USA and New Zealand politicians [many or most of them] aspire to be the world Supreme Ruler. King George II aspires to it as shown by his "with us or against us" demand. I might be indifferent. It's his ego that matters. Not mine or any other living thing's. Just his and his supporters. Helen Clark wants to rule the world, but she likes the UN route [the Mouse that Roared approach is okay in movies, but not in 3D]. The great thing about democracy is that they have the damned polls to end them when they get too big for their boots. But they operate from the same drives as the monsters, if lacking the blood lust. The blood isn't their reward. The power is. I think the Saddams enjoy a spot of blood as icing on the power cake. King George II could simply say, "Well, bugger me, I was wrong. Sorry about that. There sure doesn't seem to be any BigFoot in Iraq. So, we're going to pull out. To help avoid disaster in the power vacuum, how about the UN setting up shop there. There's heaps of oil to fund the UN, so you won't even go broke doing it. We'll give you a few palaces to work from and provide some security while you get set up." But as you say, they don't want to lose face etc, don't want to appear weak [or week as our FADG expert pronounced], or stupid, or be misunderestimated, and being powerful don't really think they need to compromise - though the body count is annoying some constituents when it was meant to be a cakewalk and the Iraqis were meant to be throwing rose petals on the liberty-giving troops. I wonder when We the Sheeple will force our 'leaders' to get with the programme and live in peace = which means, get the UN set up with a sensible constitution instead of the current gangster constitution which is more how a competing set of Mafia gangs would run things. As you say, there's enough poverty around. While military spending appears in GDP and contributes to 'wealth', it's really just an unnecessary cost which can be reduced as political stability improves. Just as the military activity inside the USA is now at a fairly low level, with the likes of Tim McVeigh to deal with,the occasional O J Simpson chase and sometimes some civil insurrection in downtown areas. States in the USA don't maintain the peace with MAD nuclear deterrents or even F15s. They have figured out that political stability is a better road to wealth and happiness [Prozac consumption notwithstanding]. Now there's an idea! Maybe the same thing would work on a grander scale. Mqurice PS: When I contemplate being World Ruler, it seems an impossibly arrogant and stupid thing to aspire to. To consider that one has the qualities necessary to lead a world or even a country seems insane. I'm sure the aspirants don't really think they have the qualities and don't even think about it. They just love their ego flying free. If anyone gets in the road, they're road kill. I suppose a democratic system is designed to find the right sort of candidate, where ego, ability and reflection of the electorate interests are more in balance. BTW, I wasn't really wanting to usurp FaultLine The Terrible, in case you think I was a closet aspiring World Leader.