>
> The debate over Elian is disgusting. While I typed this
> message, around
> forty children died, thirty of them from starvation. Militarily, at
> least, we have more than enough strength to go into those
> countries and
> knock over the tinpot dictators. We don't. Why? Because it would
> upset the international teapot, give the US a big honkin'
> black mark in
> the UN's book, make *big* dictatorships like China extremely nervous,
> and up the probability of nuclear war by a few points.
>
Considering that the US setup and feeds half of those tinpot dictatorships,
it would also be rather self-defeating. The US has proven many times that
it doesn't care what the UN thinks of its actions (i'm not saying this is a
bad thing).
The thing that bothers me is that while you are in
Singularity-creation-mode, your moral objectivism is subdued by the fact
that you admit that you have no smidgin of an idea of what this objective
moral code would be, but when you switch to analysis of everyday affairs,
you forget about your ignorant condition and transform yourself into the
classical american asshole who thinks he knows what's best for the world and
how the US should go about making it so. but of course, you weren't
advocating a decision one way or the other.
Alejandro Dubrovsky
(Child of a tinpot dictatorship country partly setup, partly fed, and partly
fucked by the US. Of course, the natives did the rest)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:06 MDT