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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (44024)	4/28/1999 8:06:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I think we should have intervened militarily neither in Africa nor in Kosovo. Nevertheless my accusation should have begun with the word “apparently.” You see, I have not heard you press for intervention in Africa anywhere nearly as forcefully as the words “never again” imply. So it appears to me your “never again” simply does not apply to Africa. It is but a "catchy slogan," as you say. I have assumed the words “never again” mean precisely what they say-- “never again.” They mean that under no circumstances will the thing to which they apply be tolerated. Nevertheless I should remember not to think Clinton defenders and I will ever share the same views of common words. (grin) >Excuse me but the US was not brought into the war because of any treatment of the Jews as you well know.< But of course. My statement is nevertheless correct. I said it merely to lure you toward this very point, as now I am ables to underscore the point that “never again” is really but a catchy slogan. >I only speak for myself. What Bill Clinton may or may not believe is of no relevance to my posts. Why is it you speak of "kicking our butts" like this is some kind of little street fight?< Because ultimately that is all it is. We have considered the bully in Serbia and determined him significantly weaker than ourselves-- so much weaker that we find we are capable of giving him a good punch with little risk. But in the cases of other bullies we have not been as forceful. In fact we have enhanced diplomacy and trade with the other bullies. My friend, we are not bombing Kosovo because of any compelling principle. We are not acting as a nation of principles. We bomb the Serbs because we are engaged in nothing but a street fight. >"Kicking our butts" means the death of perhaps a hundred million people. Sorry but apparently unlike yourself I understand that in the modern age our leaders must take into account the realities of today's world.< Well you see, because of “the realities of today's world” I do not think we should have attempted to bomb Serbia into submission. I think the realities beckon us toward the use of other means. I think the realities of today's world require we intervene militarily only when our direct interests are threatened. If we should see two men fighting, it is really quite unreasonable for us to fire upon one of them simply because it appears he has the upper hand on the other. It may have been the case that prior to our having seen them, the circumstances were exactly opposite of what they became. This, by the way, is indeed the case regarding the Serbian/Albanian situation. When we openly assault other countries because we disagree with the manner in which they handle their internal squabbles; and when we attempt to by military threat force countries to accept our ideas of peace, we imply we have authority enough to inflict our values and beliefs upon those countries. What gives us this authority? Weapons? Collective might? The “realities“ of today's world tell me that it is a very dangerous thing we have done. >In some instances we can interfere. In others it would be suicide…< Interfering is one thing. Using weaponry is quite another. Merely because a bully cannot effectively fight against us does not give us authority to strike him without striking the bully that can effectively fight against us. If we must strike one, we must strike the other. Otherwise we reveal a disgusting lack of principle. We claim the only real difference between tyrants in this world concerns their relative abilities to kick our butts. Now of course it is reasonable that we use different tactics in dealing with stronger enemies. But our philosophical position and intent toward such enemies should be the same as they are for weaker enemies. Otherwise our position is hypocritical and disgusting, just as I have said. At this juncture, America has tended toward neutralising weaker enemies and enhancing diplomacy and trade with the stronger ones.