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: one_less who wrote (570026)	6/3/2010 8:07:11 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579980

"What makes those "principles" right?" Those are deep questions, which are rarely respected on this thread but I'll give you the benefit of doubt being a newbee here. The 'principles' I referred to are made right on different accounts. The first principle, "individual liberty" is considered right based on it being a right and good condition for human existence, a condition that is innate and self evident. If there is a valid argument against that, I've yet to hear it. The root of the matter is at hand. Who determines what is a valid argument? Many religions would dispute your premise on individual liberty. Even the concept of individual liberty is suspect on its own merits. Suppose I was a Baathist in Iraq. I supported Saddam. That would be my freedom to do so. It's a circular logic deal. Who determines the bounds of acceptable individual liberty? We're back to might makes right. The fact that you reject another's argument on what determines individual liberty doesn't make that person's argument "wrong" in and of itself does it? The strong always impose their will on the weak. The second principle, "National Strategic Interests" is a matter of fact for any and all existing nations. It is a given that the interests of Nationhood must be supported and opposition of any threats to those interests is required for continuance. It would be wrong not to do that in the same way it would be wrong not to protect your eyes from staring directly into the sun. Harm would be done to the entity that you rely upon for a healthy continuence. It is right in the context of contributing to the health or maintainence of National Existence but if you want to challenge the idea of Nation states I have no argument. There are probably other ways to organize the world which are probably no more or less right than being organized under Nation States. As long as you have a nation it is right to take care of it. If there is something wrong with that, I've yet to hear what that is. Is it a matter of fact for all existing nations? When Saddam tried to protect his oil from being stolen by Kuwait what happened? Did the US accept his argument that Kuwait was slant drilling into his oil. hell no. We went in and crushed him then rewrote history. So much for being "right". "What gives the US the "right" to go into another country and impose its will? Presuming the US is acting responsibly according to those two principles I've defined for you, they have a responsibility to act in support of those principles and to oppose threats to those principles. You are playing a little loose with the term "right" here, but I think I've already answered that question more than once. I am not playing loose with "right" at all. I am stating that "right" is in the eyes of the beholder unless you can show me otherwise. isn't it a truism that the winner of the war writes the history? Same applies to individual liberty. presuming the US is acting responsibly? that os a monstrous leap of faith. How many interdictions and overthrows have we done for sole benefit of corporations? "If it isn't the most powerful military in the history of the world(aka "might") then what is it? Military power is an asset, a resource, a capacity, or an ability, but not a right. You are the only one of the two of us who is declaring otherwise. You can have the ability to occupy other lands without that occupation being justified by the principles I represented to you. The US could occupy another land in violation of one or both of those principles and it would be wrong to do so, from the US principled perspective. Military power is definitely a right. As in "the right to bear arms".