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 (115046)	9/16/2003 10:50:06 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

The ends do not justify the means -- only in a totalitarian state would the population accept the proposition that the ends justify the means, and they would accept it only because they have no choice. There is nothing more effective in moving a society in the direction of totalitarianism than a credible external threat -- take 9/11 for example. Hitler had to invent a threat -- the Jews. Japan said they attacked us in self-defense -- the attack preempted our ability to roll back their unilateral invcasions in Asia. Germans and Japanese went to war because their government gave them no choice -- supporting the unilateral invasion of other countries was the "patriotic" thing to do. Bush had an excuse given to him with 9/11. But if the response to 9/11 is to move us towards a totalitarian state, then it is our government we should fear as much as the terrorists themselves, for it is our government that has the power to destroy the freedom we cherish. Nothing that terrorists can do can directly alter the nature of our free society -- we are the ones who must remember why we cherish our freedom so dearly. No society can ever be free without the rule of law and the respect for due process that is such a central part of the law in a free society. When our elected leaders lie to us and at the same time try to use fear to justify eroding our freedom, we should take note and vote accordingly, while we still have that right.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (115046)	9/17/2003 3:36:30 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<If the US military had relied upon public consent for every batter <sic> we've ever fought in WWI and II, we'd never suceeded <sic> in defeating Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.> Hawk, here a sic, there a sic, everywhere a sic sic. I think we'll just have to agree to agree, despite our slight miscommunications. We are saying the same thing really. I didn't really mean the military should do what I in particular want. I meant, as you wrote, that we as a society are in charge and determining what goes - I used me just to personalize the situation, to indicate how individuals feel when they are subsumed by an overbearing police or military in an authoritarian society. American police, customs and immigration people are, I have found, invariably very polite and friendly, using "Sir" to address me. I think that's better than some of the language used by the less professional Kiwi Kops [though again, I have had nearly always a reasonable attitude from NZ police]. Maybe I have just come across the good ones, though I doubt it. My point, and I doubt we differ on that either, is that in general, militaries and police tend to want to be in charge overall, rather than being in the position of servant of We the Sheeple, [not just me]. Hence the Kims, Maos, Stalins, Hitlers and on and on and on. I wouldn't trust myself to be in charge even if drafted to be Big Boss. It's difficult enough deciding things just for myself and immediate family and trying to get it right. I am amazed that people presume to demand the right to rule everyone else too. I hope you're not suggesting that I think the police or military are criminal organisations. I'd cut their money supply off if I thought that. My money supply anyway. We also have the power of the vote, not just the purse, though I realize that's more or less the same thing, though there is actually a difference. I like it better when we have some disagreement to get our teeth into. Go on, be contentious. You must have lots of crazy ideas I can correct you on. Being reduced to writing [sic] doesn't do it for me. Did I mention that I suspect Jesus was homosexual? Circumstantial evidence only, I admit. Mqurice Mqurice [sic] PS: Okay, I admit, that's a lot of writing to say I agree.