Subject:
|
Re: Genocide and terrorism (Was: SW <-> Russia conspiracy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 May 1999 21:26:18 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JSPROAT@nomorespamGEOCITIES.COM
|
Viewed:
|
540 times
|
| |
|
|
John DiRienzo wrote:
> Speaking for myself, I feel my
> only duty or obligation is to myself, and not to my brother or anyone else.
> To protect and provide for myself. Out of love, caring or kindness I am
> free to help others, but I have no moral obligation to do so.
Does this include how you relate to your literal brother or sister (assuming
you're not an only child)? How about parents, spouse, children, cousins,
cow-orkers, strangers on the street, mass murderers, presidential
candidates, parents-in-law, etc.? Surely at some point, you draw the line
and say "I am keeper of X, but not Y".
> If you are still reading...
:-D No problem there; this is educational.
> My "faith" is not a religion, but only a faith in myself - that I will do
> that which is in my own best interest. For me, supporting a system that
> enables people not to earn their own living is not in my best interest. I
> believe I have to work to live (and I live to work) although others believe
> they should live without working. I do not willingly support those who can
> live without working by taking from me.
Clarification, please: By saying "work" I assume you're talking about more
than just employment? e.g. Your proverbial spouse and / or children can be
unemployed but still be supported by you because they fulfill some other
need?
> That is the fallacy behind the
> brother's keeper philosophy (pushed by religions and liberals these days) -
> the doctrine which "entitles" people to certain things in life; I am
> adamantly opposed to entitlements.
And yet Americans are entitled to certain things, from the Constitution,
referred to in the Declaration of Independence, certain federal, state, and
city laws, etc.
> Anyway, my stance on US involvement in world affairs. You said we are
> obligated to act in this situation because of our tremendous power
> (economically, militarily and technologically). I suppose your rationale is
> that we are obligated because the United States is the only country capable
> of "helping" and thus it is our "duty."
Ummm, not the only country capable of such, but yes, essentially that's my
rationale.
> While it might be true we are the
> only country capable (but I seriously doubt it), I don't think that is the
> correct reason for us to be involved. In my view the only reason we should
> be involved is if the whole affair will bring an outcome that is desirable
> to us.
An reason other than altrusim? Whoops, that's a different argument, which
has already been had. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. (1)
Let's leave altruism out of it.
The situation can be roughly described in marketing terms. We have a bad
public image; we should try to fix it. It's good for business. It's good
for our neighbors who do business with us. It's also good for the whole
melting pot thing -- which is a bad thing if you're against the whole
melting pot thing.
> I don't see how the outcome makes any difference to us, so I don't
> think we should be there! In fact, I can only see this leading into
> something much worse, so if those who are for it want a bigger war, then by
> all means, go for it. That will be the result of our (leaders') actions.
> Now, if we are going to get a lot of money for spending billions on bombs or
> if we could guarantee peace in that region (which is a preposterous thought)
> it could be worth it.
I think you're talking specifically about Yugoslavia here.
In that case, I don't think anyone can guarantee peace in that region for
quite a few generations, if ever. But, work can be done to stabalize the
region, to reduce the level of outward hostility and violence, and to create
a calm playing field for our future generations to work out a peace in.
Since our leaders' administrations tend to be over in less than a
generation, the odds of this happening are slim. But it is possible and has
happened in the past. Germany and the US are at better terms now than they
were at sixty years ago. The whole US/UK hostility issue has been resolved
for well over a century. Peace happens, but not in the name of apathy.
> > Scary thing is, is that we're *still* raping nations via international
> > treaty all the time...
> That seems to be the nature of man kind (to steal, kill, rape, etc.), not
> surprising or scary to me. But are we creating more formidable enemies?
> That would be scary.
Would be scary? Is scary. That's exactly the effect our Kosovo bombing is
having with Serbia, China, Russia, probably Yugoslavia's neighbors, and
possibly quite a few others. Note that a lot of the nations we're turning
into formidible enemies have a significant nuclear capacity. Is scary.
Cheers,
- jsproat
1. obb5quote :-P
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@geocities.com>
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Horizon/5249/
May the Force be with y'all.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
29 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
|
|
|
|
