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: Sig who wrote (126580)	3/19/2004 9:31:03 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I considered myself a pacifist for a few years, roughly from my junior year in high school to my junior year in college. (Jacob has no idea how trite a lot of what he says sounds to me. He imagines I have never heard it, or thought it, before.) I finally saw starkly that it was foolish to think that those predisposed to brutality, like Nazis, would be in the long run affected by civil disobedience and the superior example; that Gandhi was lucky he had the British, and MLK was fortunate to have Americans, who were largely not brutal, and had consciences that would be pricked; and violence really, in many situations, does solve things wonderfully well. I finally could not cede the field to those who didn't mind bullying everyone else in order to keep my own hands clean, that was just a recipe for hell on earth. Once the Nazis had shown that an apparently civilized group of people was capable of the wildest evil, of trying to exterminate whole peoples systematically, who knows what the malicious might contrive and promote unless held in check?

To: Sig who wrote (126580)	3/19/2004 9:33:44 AM
From: boris_a	Respond to of 281500

bloodless solution for fighting terrorism There's no bloodless solution, of course. But the amount of blood does not correlate with success. Until now, the Bushies are acting favourably to AQ. Nowadays, "AQ" is a franchise for a number of passive terror cells nobody had ever heared before. Even before 9/11, the NeoCons reportedly wanted to make political business with such a terror act ("we should have another Pearl Harbour") to get unconditional support for their existing Iraq plans. After 9/11, they started to exploit the "opportunity". But such a strategy is extremely dangerous, because you help to create the monster. Aznar must have made a similar calculus. If not, he's even more stupid than I thought.