Subject:
|
Re: Idealism vs Realism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:06:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
341 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> 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.
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.
> 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
Well I have the silly notion that the United Nations should eliminate all
dictorships by any means neccessary[1] for the long term good of the world.
[1] I have an extreme preference to liberation and educating (without
brainwashing) the people currently living under dictatorships. Although I know
I personally would rather be dead than live under the slavery of a totalitarian
government. Then again I also actually know what freedom is (as opposed to
most of the people living in any Arab country.)
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Idealism vs Realism?
|
| (...) That's an egregiously qualified freedom at best, right? The fact that it is worse for others doesn't make your/our situation any better; it is only better by comparison. -- Hop-frog (22 years ago, 28-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Idealism vs Realism?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
