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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (131152)	5/3/2004 2:54:38 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

<A good look at history does not support the interpretation that 'war never works'. > Nadine, even a cursory glance shows war is often highly successful. There are very often winners. Even though WWI didn't have a distinct winner, in the long run it did have a winner, which was the good guys in WWII [the long intermission before Hitler decided it was time to start again was just a breather]. The war against Japan was also successful. It worked very well. The New Zealand war against Maoris in the Waikato worked well as did the cannibalistic Maori wars against the Chatham Island Moriori. Crikey, Google is smart. Not only do I get an explanatory link to Moriori defeat and genocide, I get a good analogy for what's going on now in the wider world [pacifism vs totalitarianism]. The wars between Maori and British were not as great as the wars between Maori and Maori [Hongi Hika was a very vicious bloke and armed with muskets, he created carnage]. 66.102.7.104 The British acquisition of New Zealand was in a similar manner to the current acquistion of it by Hu Jintao - bribery and immigration; we modern Maoris are being taken over in much the same was as Maoris were in the 19th century. Mqurice

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (131152)	5/3/2004 7:58:23 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This discussion started with this post: "Once upon a time the Christians tried to christianize the world with military power. They failed. Later the Muslims tried to islamify the world with military power. They failed. Even later the nazis tried to nazify the world with military power. They failed. The communists tried to communize the world with military power. They failed. Now military power is being used to democratize the world(starting with Iraq). Any bets? " You have now responded to the above by agreeing. "You want to argue that it's a bad bet, it fails more often than it succeeds, it has unintended consequences, fine -...."

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (131152)	5/5/2004 8:48:41 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<< What kind a long run are you talking about? Plain fact is, that for the kind of long run that men are interested in, i.e. the rest of their own lives and beyond, war can win big, though it usually doesn't, or it does but its gains cannot be kept. But sometimes it does, and that keeps the option popular.>>> There is some logic to what you say, but your conclusions are wrong. In the same way that you say that war can win big, so can murder. A lot of people get away with murder. Some get away big time. If you go to war for religion and win, the only way that religion keeps its gains is if it were inherently good. However, in the overall scheme of things, I think Damon Runyon (I think) had it right: The race does not always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way you bet - (by this I mean your bet should be on doing the right thing). In the several thousand years of history, I don't know of any serious philosophers (from any culture that is still in existence today) have made a case for killing, murder, or war. You are definitely better educated than I and you no doubt did much better in school (I mean this and I for the most part try to understand your views). Perhaps you could point to literature that makes a case for killing, murder, or war.