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: TimF who wrote (269437)	1/21/2006 8:48:05 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573901

You wrote in a prior message: IMO a war does not have to be necessary for the survival or territorial integrity of a nation, in order for it to not be evil. You might disagree but my position is not unusual or extreme. If you have another purpose in mind when you use the term "necessary" could you please state it. Let's put all this into perspective. There are a lot of wars going on right now and there is a lot of unnecessary killing of people. We are pretty barbaric, but much less so than 500 years ago. Compared to 1000 years ago, we are pretty civilized. But, 500 years from now, people will be saying how barbaric we are today. The trend seems clear. It is away from having people kill people. But getting back to your question as to what is a "necessary" war (or necessary for people to kill people). Saint Augustine defined "just wars". Nothing has changed to make that definition obsolete. Saint Augustines definition will stand and it will come to fruition. People like you, defending these unnecessary wars prolong the barbaric stage of our civilization. But, the trend is clear.