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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougjn who wrote (14079)	8/24/1998 5:23:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

*Okay, okay, Doug, DEFINITELY my last LBP-OTOTTOT* I think the expression is "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" and those have a long tradition in social animal and human solutions to territorial disputes. As long as you are the victor, it works well. Keep in mind the Nuremburg trials though - times change, people live a long time, they have relatives all over and being El Supremo Presidento doing a spot of country cleansing this decade might not give protection a decade or two later. All very problematic and not given to a Captain Marvel or Rambo solution. Madeleine, Bill and Co will probably maintain a reasonably balanced approach. Also, the gene pool is rather blended these days and it isn't clear that the evolutionary pressure to kill all the opposition is as emphatic as it once was. By that I mean, the genetic difference between Afghans, Sudanese, Libyans, Iraqis and Americans is not much. So it is really a question of political power interest. Like protecting NZ, the USA will do what the political bosses think is in their interests at the time. Total obliteration of anywhere is probably not in their interests in any circumstance. For example, look how well the USA did by accepting a Japanese surrender and having them supply nice cars and electronics for a few decades at a low price in exchange for recycled trees with green dye and a picture of George Washington and the odd saying: "In God We Trust". If the United Nations gets to be the politically legitimate boundary protector it was started to be, instead of a talk shop and bureaucracy based on an absurd constitution, it would be less likely that the USA would need to fear the need for total war. There could be compulsory criminal investigations at any location in the world suspected of producing illegal weapons. That way you catch those directly involved without the collateral damage. A little like Iraq was obliged to allow inspections, though it would be better if there was better United Nations legitimacy. In the absence of a real UN, it would be better to do what the USA has just done - when somebody announces their intention to kill the infidel Americans, or in this case does so, land a cruise missile on their head. Or one of those cute little remote control bird-sized craft being developed which could be GPS guided to within a centimetre or two of the right place. I don't like people threatening me and I don't see why USA people should accept a declaration of war against them either. Mqurice - over and out!! It's fun going fishing and getting a good bite eh?