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 (156001)	1/12/2005 3:46:44 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<as a practical matter, I am often constrained to rely upon it, even when skeptical, because I am in no position to offer an alternative.> Perhaps that's so in some instances, but an alternative would be to obviate the need for "intelligence" services and the eons-old 12 year old boy's gang games of territory, battle, club huts, secrets, and bosses. The way to do that is to create larger political systems, as have been formed in the USA, where many states have formed a geopolitical system which doesn't require intelligence services from Alabama to spy on those from Oregon who are watching those in Maine who are worried about attack from New York who are forming a terrorist alliance with Oklahoma to take out Texas and effect regime change in Nevada. So you see, it is possible to create such larger political systems. Okay, there was a civil war not all that long ago, so it's obviously not a perfect system which has been created, but that era of civil war was still one where men were men and shooting and hacking other men was considered good form. European Union and the British Empire also created large geopolitical systems which functioned well, without internal conflict or repression. The Soviet Union, Roman Empire and most other large empires were simple dominance kleptocratic hierarchies. Democracy is the key to success. Not to mention some philosophical foundations related to voluntary interaction, trade and association among adults, if not children and the mentally incompetent, or criminals. These larger political systems won't just appear like magic. Somebody has to provide leadership. Usually, the appointed leaders are the ones in the position to do that. People with imagination. Maybe the USA will get a leader with imagination one day and they will see that a United States of the World would be better than eternal war, pre-emptive strikes and Arabian Nights alliances. But some people like a good war [especially when it's not them doing the shooting and being shot or blown up], so they aren't likely to be putting themselves out of business with any of that United States of the World newfangled idea. That's like getting Saudi Arabia to vote for all atomic fusion as an energy source instead of fossil fuels. Or turkeys voting for an extra Thanksgiving [though people act like turkeys and do that time after time, then moan about the political results they get from the people they voted for - duh!] We often hear how a world government is a bad thing. But if the USA continued to add states as it did for a long time, until all the states of the world were included, then there would be a world government. Would Americans then consider a world government a bad thing? If all the other countries disappeared, and there was only the USA, then again there would be a world government. So it's not a world government that's a concern, it's the type. People seem to worry that any world government necessarily will tell them everything from how to brush their teeth to what time they have to wake up and which clothes to wear today. Yet they are effectively living within one within their own countries. That's people and their lack of imagination. But all that aside, if you believe the "intelligence" and are likely to die from taking action on their information, and not taking action won't result in you dying, perhaps it would be wise to assume they are telling porkies and see if some other more accurate cross-checking information isn't available. Time magazine fell for the male child prostitution con, much to their regret. Dan Rather fell for the documents about Bush, much to his regret [if he has the wit to feel regret - some people don't]. Better to ensure the information is correct. Intelligent intelligence would have done that. Mqurice