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: Maurice Winn who wrote (163759)	6/6/2005 8:03:54 PM
From: SirWalterRalegh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

"Halliburton benefits from the loot of the Iraqi war." Mq- The employees of Halliburton who work or worked in Iraq while not quite soldiers are nevertheless entitled to our admiration. Many (~40) have been killed in action including being beheaded. Imagine if 40 QUALCOMM employees were there to assist in installing a telephone infrastruction based on CDMA and they were all KIA. Would you think of them as looters? RB

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (163759)	6/8/2005 8:30:45 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>> That's a weird approach to ethics. Ethics has little to do with it; pragmatism does. All Americans benefit from passing on mostly worthless piece of paper that to a good extent maintains its value due to US military might. Without US covert and overt operations USD would be worth less than half of what it is. The same goes for all other major currencies, though to a smaller degree. This is part of the loot and unless you are going to form your own island nation, you are stuck with this loot. On the flip side, assume New Zealand declares war upon Australia despite your objections. Then either you will have to leave NZ behind, or you'd better damn well make sure NZ comes on top (or at least don't lose big). Otherwise you may lose everything you have. >> You can think of outright negro slavery/segregation as an example of a society in which not all members benefit... Not quite. Slaves never gave consent to being part of the slavery so they are not obligated to abide by the social contracts within that society. Furthermore, I consider democracy to be more than tyranny of majority. There is a hierarchy of rights that needs to be respected. Your right to be alive is not on the same level as your right to own land which is not on the same level as your right to spit your gum on the sidewalk. The higher the right, the more provisions it should have against the tyranny of mob. Yet this will happen naturally in a true democracy as most people instinctively understand this hierarchy.