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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (17966)	6/23/2004 8:02:35 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

That was really interesting. Thanks! I had to rush through it, but I think I will read it again, later...

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (17966)	6/23/2004 8:57:36 AM
From: exdaytrader76	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I thought it was war-mongering propaganda. Soros' recommendation of being "nice" seems hardly appropriate: if anything it would be counterproductive, strengthening the groups interested in sustaining the institutions of their "immobile civilization". Some of Huntington's recommendations, as noted at the beginning of this article, are at best unclear, at worst wrong. Ruthless dictators, sitting on natural resources, who have the power to keep their own people in fearful resignation, buy arms and have the potential to engage in wars and finance terror, impose a heavy burden on the rest of the world. That's why discussing the present situation in terms of "sovereignty" is hardly relevant. One civilization encroaches on the other. It sounds like a GWB speech. the US had little choice but use power WTF? This is nonsense! This is why the crucial first step in moving toward long-term stability in the Middle East is to leave no doubt in the minds of the leaders of the "immobile groups" that the coalition armies are there to say. Does this guy write GWB speeches? He's pretty down on religion, so maybe not. Religion becomes "fundamental": God can't be wrong, and one can't even argue with Him. (Contrast such an attitude with the Old Testament, where characters argue and negotiate constantly with God, and debating interpretations of the text is encouraged). Encouraged by whom? Has he even read the OT? Of course God can't be wrong! That is a self-contradicting notion. Maybe if the author had any spiritual beliefs at all, he would not be a defender of war. He's also the definition of ethnocentric. "Your way is wrong. Our way is the only way. You must change, like it or not." I mean nothing personal against you, 2MAR$, but I found it to be a horrible article by a horrible man, who happens to work for cato and is compelled to defend GWB's war. cato.org