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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (261857)	11/23/2005 12:09:46 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572918

"We already have that. And already had that through much of the last century, definitely since the end of WWII." During the cold war, there was a reason for for excessive militarism, the Soviet Union on the opposite side. Even then it was insane - history has proven that the Soviets were never as much of a threat as the fearmongers of the time painted them. Now, there's no reason on earth for us to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on our military. Most Americans are completely unaware that we do so. Frequently we read of the "growing Chinese threat" - but we currently spend ten times what they do on the military. This isn't cost free. For what we spend on the military, every American citizen could have health care and a free ride through college if they could do it.

To: combjelly who wrote (261857)	11/23/2005 3:31:21 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1572918

"Any imbalance of power eventually gives rise to excess and resentment." We already have that. And already had that through much of the last century, definitely since the end of WWII. Your point is below: An imperialistic US could be a very positive force for the globe, leading to a truly civilized world. As our political system stands, I'd rather we keep to our own knitting. We aren't equipped to pull it off. The first part of your sentence is what I take issue with, the second part of your sentence suggests that you would not attempt it, but only because our political system is anathemic to its success...I contend that human nature precludes a perennially "benign" imperial force. One may experience periods of magnanimity, but in the end, all empires become self serving and bad for its subjects. History is replete with examples of bad empires. I can't think of an example supporting the converse. Al