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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (867)	5/24/2007 5:04:14 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

That was my point with Hawk. There is a certain hubris in the US telling other folks how to live. We need to teach it thru good works and not preach it and certainly not impose it by force. If we were to do that we would have troops in 20 countries right now. Americans are not Prussians, nor can we have guns and baubles (used to be only butter) at home when we fight these things without paying for them. Moreover we cannot abuse our volunteer army and reserves as we do now, just like we couldnt force draftees to fight wars that the Hawks of the world are fanatical about.

To: one_less who wrote (867)	5/24/2007 6:22:58 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

In an atmosphere lacking coercive oppression Whn has that EVER been he universal case on this mudball? However, when we attempt to coerce others into accepting democracy in an unwelcome atmosphere, we may find we are acting in a counter productive manner, at least in the short run. Invitation beats coercion every time. You HONESTLY think SH would have accepted an invitation to institute democracy?

To: one_less who wrote (867)	5/25/2007 12:43:12 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

Gem, However, when we attempt to coerce others into accepting democracy in an unwelcome atmosphere, I'm sorry... Maybe I'm just confused here, but how can we possibly EVER be able to coerce people to rule themselves? I've just never understood that concept. Now.. if we're deliberately using military force to provide one group of people, with their parochial interests, to dominate other groups of people and deny them their rights, then we're not coercing democracy, but Ochlocracy (mob rule). Military force in the defense of democratic mechanisms and social reconciliation can only unleash the instinctive desire for people to have a say in how they are governed. I don't care who you are, no human being likes having some self-declared, unelected, ruling body telling them what they can, and cannot, do. Of course, those very same people might feel entirely justified in telling OTHERS what they can, and cannnot, do. And the purpose of democratic mechanisms (elections, rule of law, and inalienable human rights) is to find compromise and tolerance under an established rule of law that pertains to ALL the people of that country. Hawk