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.

Pastimes : Ask Mohan about the Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: robnhood who wrote (14190)	2/16/1998 7:49:00 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18056

Hmmm russell- Well thanks for the admission that you got "slightly carried away". I will still consider that you were speaking nonsense, and I vaguely recall a little history of your making what I consider incorrect claims about the record of the US government- for which, BTW, my record on SI indicates I do not have blind, unbridled love. Still, Uncle Sam is a long way from the likes of the Soviet Union or (OK- here goes) Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Ruby Ridge notwithstanding. As for the US always having a "bad guy"- well bad guys do exist. For better or worse, Uncle Sam frequently believes it must deal with them, often times at considerable cost to the US taxpayer (although burdensome as it was, I question whether the US was spending itself into bankruptcy during the Reagan years). Overall I think our record of dealing with "bad guys" is not-so-bad and I do not think that US government or the American people have a notably bad history of demonizing the enemy. Not that all statements by US officials could pass scholarly muster, however. As far as my referring to Saddam as a "murderous thug" etc.- well I am no diplomat, and have no desire to be one. I believe the description is accurate, even if highly charged. I notice you did not respond to my question about what you think is the appropriate way to respond to Iraq's refusal to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction and to submit to UNSCOM investigation. Would you suggest "Peace in our year?" (gen Xers- that refers to Nevile Chamberlein, whoever he was). We in North America are fortunate not to face serious existential threats from military enemies- not all people enjoy such a state. Finally, with regard to my initial post on this topic. The poster did make a false comment about Iraq's history- it was so far removed from the truth as to warrant a harsh response IMO. Too often in public discourse the Big Lie goes unchallenged and thereby garners an air of truth. The poster warned of the dangers of confronting Saddam at this time (as opposed, I guess, to the option of dealing with him later, when he has more weapons at his disposal). I suspect he has a hidden agenda- I found his words simply too balmy. And now, Really Truly Finally, <<since there is not enough pie to go around , perhaps it is better that I am associated with the strongest" Does the end justify the means?>> I don't understand. I do understand that capitalism is the only proven way to effectively bake the pie of prosperity. It is also moral. As far as ends justifying means- I think that question normally masks a failure to distinguish proximate from long term ends. Regards, Larry P.S. My sister and closet relatives among the rising generation live on PEI. So you can count on me to man the barricades if some hotheaded US politician should ever again threaten "54/40 or fight!"