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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (7050)	6/16/2004 11:52:20 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

My country is directly affected by the ongoing Isrealie [sic] /Palestinian conflict. We are subject to terrorist attacks, because of our support for Isreal [sic]. So instead of supporting Israel financially in conflict, we should support Israel financially in pursuing a peace, you're saying. What do you think the average Palestinian in the street would say to that? Also, the conflict sometimes spills onto our streets as jews and arabs are attacked. Addressed: Message 20148594 So, yes we do as a country have a real interest in settling that dispute. Again, I can assure you that I have no interest in their conflict, at least, none of my making. The cycle of Palestinians killing Israelis killing Palestinians does impact me in that I'm one face assigned - against my will, by my government - to supporting one side. As you'd have it, I'd still be supporting one side, but on the other end of a dubious process. We also, have an interest in the fact that we financially and militarily support the Isrealies [sic] . But according to you, it's less a problem that we support one side than that we support one side with specific objectives in mind. Right? As a human being, I'd like to see peace in the world. War is bad. I don't like to see people suffer. Sure, war is bad. When it comes to suffering, though, better them than me, my family, my community, etc. I'm suffering from having my money taken from me against my will and, worse yet, having those monies utilized in a way that makes me a passive aggressor in a situation I have no stake in at any level. End my suffering! Perhaps ending the Isrealie [sic] /Palestinian wouldn't end all the suffering in the world... No 'perhaps' about it: I can assure you, not only would our involvement in that little situation not 'end all the suffering in the world,' but it wouldn't end their suffering. All such an effort would accomplish is to continue to coercively involve me in someone else's problem, albeit in a newfangled way. ...but at least it would alleviate some. At what, and whose, expense? I know Libertarians aren't too keen on altruism... Of course we are. We are 'keen on altruism' to the extent that it's voluntary. You're endorsing coercive practices and interventionist policies. What are you, a Republican? ...so I can understand why reason #2 wouldn't matter to you. "Reason #1" didn't 'matter' to me either. But, no matter what your political philosophy is, reason #1 affects you in one way or another as an American. Sure it does - I addressed my philosophy on that point earlier. It's not even a case of doing the moral thing because we're the biggest kid on the block. As I see it, the biggest kid on the block has the highest and most moral obligation to steer clear of such conflagrations, instead encouraging peace by promoting trade with everyone over coercively-acquired, partisan incentives or rewards on a selective basis. It's because we feel the affects of the conflict on our shores and to ensure our security, we should see that it comes to an end. Yes - by adopting a sink-or-swim policy that leaves us with clean, uninvolved hands. There's no security better than being able to say, truthfully, that you've got nothing to do with what's going on, good or bad. LPS5