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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (75366)	10/6/2004 11:23:53 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 793928

UW, you are quite right that there are plenty of people who can only be prevented from megalomania by a judicious reduction of their existential concepts using an accurate application of kinetic energy to enforce a pre-frontal lobotomy, aka a bullet in the brain. Saddam was one and won't be the last. Uday was another. Though Saddam was prepared to surrender in the face of instant death, in the hope of regaining some power and at least staying alive. He might yet win the Iraq election, which would be hilarious. Would the USA be in favour of democracy in that case? I am appreciative of honourable military talent applied in ethical situations. The USA lost its way in Iraq, despite my excellent advice on what to do before the invasion and occupation. USA security is best met through international agreements and that means some form of reconstituted United Nations. A dog eat dog world of sovereign countries is a replica of the old-style way of running the middle-east, which has led us to the current situation. It might be nice while the USA is top dog, but that situation might not last for too many centuries and while the USA is top dog, it might be a good idea for the USA to prepare for a time when the USA isn't top dog. By the time of WWII, Great Britain was decidely NOT top dog and the hegemony they enjoyed in the 19th century was dissipated. They lost a LOT in the conflict subsequent to which people figured that maybe some sort of UN was a good idea. It would have been much better to figure that out in the 19th century, when they had a better chance to make a better international security arrangement. A hegemonistic super-powerful USA is one way of avoiding the age old problem of war as a solution to property right disputes. But that would end up with the situation which led to the American Revolution to overthrow the hegemonistic Great Britain which ran an empire from one end of the world to the other and top to bottom. The USA has a great opportunity to recast international relations within a revamped, reamed out and rebuilt NUN. Given the way politicians act, I suppose nothing will happen and business as usual, until something goes badly wrong, will be the order of the day. History won't stop though, and we'll trundle on towards some sort of denouement, traditionally involving a LOT of dead people and economic dislocation. Mqurice

To: unclewest who wrote (75366)	10/6/2004 11:49:52 PM
From: Captain Jack	Respond to of 793928