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: Neocon who wrote (142079)	7/30/2004 2:29:21 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> We do not kill merely in self- defense. We will also kill those who oppress us... When was the last time that another country oppressed America? The problem with your position is that the rules are just too arbitrary. It has now come to a point that never mind the self defense argument, it is considered by some ok to kill to preserve "a way of life" and "our interests". But what exactly do those things mean? I am not trying to put too fine of a point on it, but when someone talks about justifications for killing, then I think we should be very clear about them rather than have them in vague generalities. Suppose the OPEC decides to sell oil at $100/b. Surely that will bring about a change to our way of life. Is that sufficient grounds to go and invade the entire middle east? Or are we going to let the "invisible hand" take care of it? Suppose the Kurds, who are after all a very distinct ethnic group with their own radically different language and culture, decide they want their own country. This can bring about changes in Turkey. Will Turkey be justified in invading Iraq if the Kurds do so? BTW, my high school girlfriend was one of the boat people you speak of. They do not look at it in so black and white terms as you indicate. And one of my closest friends spent time in Khmer Rouge concentration camps. Now there is evil if you want to look into it, and it was by no means of the "lesser" variety. My Cambodian friend too does not look at things the way you see them. I get my info from more than "Miramax" as you put it. ST

To: Neocon who wrote (142079)	7/30/2004 3:17:02 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> We have little use for old people or the handicapped if we are going to build empires, and yet a lot of programs are geared to help those who are elderly or have special needs. I think you are just plain wrong to characterize things with such cynicism. I have read a comparative study of different members of Homoerectus branch. Only humans have gone on to greatness and the interesting thing is that two of the main distinguishing characteristics of humans is their care for their elderly and their belief in after life. From this I conclude, naively perhaps, that compassion and religion are ingrained in our psyche and are required for our survival. "We", as in human beings, are not natural empire builders (though some aspire to it). Different studies indicate the natural size of a human clan/society/etc is less than 150 people. And it is also my belief that when we extend ourselves far beyond our natural tendencies (as in empire building), then the results are always for the worse. The most "primitive" people on earth are the aborigine of Papua New Guinea. Many have never seen a white man. It may surprise you to know that when these tribes go to war, they take care not to kill the other side and that the damage is kept to a minimum. Human beings in their natural state are much more noble than many think. It is the "modern" outlook and unadulterated greed and ambition that deprives them of their humanity.