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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9147)	9/24/2003 3:33:07 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793752

Libertarianism is pretty big umbrella. "Left Libertarians" are socialists, for all intents and purposes. The divergence is after the agreed principle that government should maximize liberty. The disagreement is whether that is a positive, or negative, obligation. The left libertarians argue that it is a positive obligation to provide, the "right" libertarians (which include some of the anarchists) argue that it is a negative obligation to abstain from interference. Derek

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9147)	9/24/2003 4:10:04 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793752

To the left, if you are pro-globalization and favor multinational investment in the developing world, you are RIGHT, no further questions asked. Well, you are out there having a "Rumble in the Jungle," so I can imagine what your Lefties are like. All still socialists, by the sound of it. I went "NeoCon" after 911. By that I mean I felt it was now necessary to go to a world wide effort to put the terrorists out of action. You and others complain that the Admin has not been honest about where we are going. They can't. And here is why. Most of the Neocons that publish, such as Bill Kristol of the "Standard," Michael Ledeen and Victor Davis Hanson of the "National Review," and Charles Krauthammer of the "Washington Post," plus others, see it this way, as far as I can tell. After cleaning out the Taliban in Afghanistan, the four countries that we have to deal with are Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. This is the festering sore in the Middle East. Iraq, for obvious reasons, was chosen first. We were already at war with them, and we could not accomplish anything in the area until Saddam was out of the picture. Plus, we needed a base of operations, since it was obvious that we could not use Saudi Arabia. So liberating Iraq was first on the list. By next spring we should be set up there. How do we approach the others? As circumstances warrant. Iran is the most dangerous of the remaining three, due to their Nuke ability. A lot of what we will do with Iran will develop as we see what happens in Iraq, etc. We cannot let them have a Nuke. Otherwise, stay out of the country. We seem to be leveraging the Saudis. We certainly don't want to invade. If the House of Saud should collapse, the best bet would be to occupy the oil fields since they are on the coast, and let Jordan take over Mecca and the Holy areas. The Syrians seemed to have backed off. We will "play it as it lays" with them. The above scenarios cannot be discussed openly by any administration. But these are the plans that the people who agree with them are writing about. Then we have the rest of the world to worry about. Aren't you glad you don't live in DC?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9147)	9/24/2003 7:37:51 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793752

Ain't that the truth! "I guess it all depends on where you draw your center." I recently took one the those online "FInd Your Political Identity" surveys and it said I was "Liberal—Third View" (which kinda sounds, to me, like saying "Left-Libertarian"). Yet, my view on capital punishment is neither yea or nay, but instead that we're not killing enough criminals. And …nobody except Charleton Heston appreciates my perfect gun-control strategy (Thumb Recall!™). Me? I just figure I'm center, right in the middle of both of all three sides. Go figure. <g>