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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (21956)	10/22/2004 1:30:15 PM
From: Bruce L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

My Brother: You write that the history that I related did not lead you to the my conclusion that it supported the neo-con position. WHY NOT? You haven't set forth a single fact or idea contra. For the benefit of others on this thread, the post you referenced was <http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20463837> I had written that in 504 B.C. when Herodotus began HIS history, almost ALL of the hundreds of independent City States were ruled by tyrants/hereditary kings. By 431 B.C., when Thucydide's history began, the Athenian democratic model had made such progress that in the entire Mediterranean Greek world, there was not a single Greek king!!! So how can you argue with my conclusion that: <<I take this to be a dramatic validation of the neo-conservative doctrine. " The Athenian model spread because it worked: it empowered and energized the people as a whole; it made their societies dynamic in a way that FORCED other Greek cities to emulate if they were to remain competitive. There really is no reason why it would not work equally well in the Middle East.>> <<By implying that because they were "slaves" and possibly "barbarians" they will lack the will to fight, however, I think you are wrong.>> In the post you referenced, I said that the clasical greeks were dismissive of the courage of barbarians: they "believed barbarians GOOD ONLY AT LONG-DISTANCE FIGHTING AND THE AMBUSH: FACE-TO-FACE AND MAN TO MAN....THE BARBARIAN WOULD ALWAYS FLINCH AND RUN ....BEING BY NATURE A SLAVE...." Again, you have not cited a single fact or idea contra. I stand by the above conclusion. The Iraqi insurgents are good only for long distance sniping and the ambush. The foreign jihadists, being volunteers along the lines of those in the Spanish Civil War, clearly fight better. But there is no real reason why - if the western world has the will - that the superiority evidenced over the past 400 years should not be demonstrated again. Bruce