Subject:
|
Re: Idealism vs Realism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:44:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
402 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=2&ColumnsName=tso
Hmmm, I mostly disagreed -- that just seemed very pointlessly judgmental. I
think there are *some* of the ivory tower types that the author suggests,
but they are certainly of less concern than people in the privileged Bush
mold. Being privileged because of education is not that same as being
privileged because of actual economic/political power -- thanks, dad!
One of the author's underlying assumptions is that we are going after the
correct targets for the 911 attack on the U.S. -- which I think is false. I
am not big on fighting in foreign lands, but if we were to go after the
people responsible shouldn't we be following the money trail back to Saudi
Arabia?
Plus, I can hardly look at U.S. foreign policy with much of anything but
disgust.
Here, look at this:
1. Country A has guns, Country B has guns, Country C has none.
2. Country A has the bomb, Country B has the bomb, Country C has guns.
3. Country A has weapons of mass destruction (hell, they practically
invented them!), Country B has weapons of mass destruction, Country C has guns.
4. Country C tries to become a "player." Countries A and B form a union of
countries calling for the economic sequestration of Country C. If Country C
does not stop trying to become a "player" it may mean war.
Fair or unfair?
And I didn't even mention oil or how I think Iraq has done nothing as
compared to the kind of stuff we are likely to see from China soon enough.
Well, unless we allow them to become a "player" and/or our economic
equal/superior. Hey, there's a 1/4 of the world's population over there
needing our goods and services and they aren't even that choosy -- they'll
eat rat at KFC!
Cha-ching!
Do you think an IMF puppet will look good propped up as *president* in the
forbidden city?
It's not about countries or political ideology -- that's just PR for the
peons to wring their hands over.
It's about money/real estate/oil/gold/diamonds/database entries and power.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Idealism vs Realism?
|
| (...) I don't know that they are of less concern but rather at the oppisite end of the spectrum. I was more concerned with the discription than the conclusions the author drew. (...) guns. (...) Well I have the silly notion that the United Nations (...) (22 years ago, 28-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Idealism vs Realism?
|
| Well kind of anyway. I don't really agree with everything in this article but most of it seems right on to me. (URL) is an opinion peice written by Thomas Sowell. As of posting the link refers to the September 18, 2002 article. Agree or disagree it (...) (22 years ago, 28-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
