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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (45484)	2/22/2006 2:21:52 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 90947

"Would it have been acceptable for a US company to make a munitions supply contract during WW II with the Japanese or Germans? Or any other fascist dominated country?" NO. In this case, the argument against the Port Contract has nothing to do with religious prejudice. It has to do with using an abundance of caution to minimize potential threats to homeland security. I don't think Muslim values should inform American Port control and we ARE talking about MUSLIM VALUES. Muslim religious values are supposedly the aegis under which practicing Muslims must orient all their earthly activities. While this may not mean terrorism--it certainly DOES means allegiance to Allah--and what that entails is the question...isn't it?? It certainly NEVER means allegiance to American interests--or to American values. American values rest on the natural rights and freedoms of man--not on rights or duties dictated by this or that religious authority or sect. To allow any foot in the door of totalitarianism (which is what all religious exclusivity entails) is a grave error, in my opinion. To believe that Muslims will subordinate their Supreme Ruler to secular authority is wishful thinking beyond the level of Chamberlain. This is not to say that the Bush decision necessarily implies probable danger. Rather, it fails to exhibit a requisite caution. It is very much on the order of Chamberlain who believed that mitigating the sense of grievance was sufficient to create peace. He failed utterly to recognise how ideological fanaticism can drive people. How can Bush be unaware of the vulnerability of one or more people within the Port Contract to the overtures which are bound to come from Muslims of a fanatical bent?? Oh well...