On Thursday, August 17, 2000 3:04 PM Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> I am not sure I disagree with your comments on the state of affairs in the
> Balkans over the last several decades.
Where do you agree?
> The we I refer to is the U.S. and European citizens.
Then your usage is still a bit wrong, since the US and European citizens,
also, were not part of the decision-making process, especially since during
the war, in some countries, majorities were against it, such as Italy and
Germany. In most, there was sizeable (and mostly ignored) opposition to
it -- even the US. But it's great to use the plural. So continue!:)
> I toyed with Libertarism back when the economy really
> sucked back in the late 1970's, but I currently believe it to be
> unworkable,
> in large part because I believe we lack the nanotechnology to implement
> it.
I don't follow you here. Freedom only works if one has nanotechnology?
It's funny that the more libertarian a nation is, typically, the better off
its economy and its society as a whole is. (Surely, there are
counterexamples to the first part. Saudi Arabia, sitting on top of huge oil
reserves, is not doing to badly financially, but its society is not so
great, especially with strict internal control to barely suppress those who
are trying to overthrow its monarchy.) This alone makes me question your
claim.
> This seems to be the first economy driven by technology only. The Nano era
> is not here yet.
Explain please.
> I am not attempting to embue guilt or a sense of
> responsibility upon you.
Well, you certainly fooled me. In fact, rereading your posts, I find it
hard to interpret them any other way -- even after your above assertion.
> But there have to be a sense of international law
> in this era.
And what is that law to be like? NATO violated current international law by
attacking a nation which was not an aggressor. It also violated its own
charter, since it is only supposed to attack when one of its members is
attacked. Also, the bombing itself -- the targets chosen -- are in conflict
with international law. (Of course, NATO members pay for and run the Hague,
so I don't expect the Serbian brief filed there to go far.)
> The technology to inflict heavy damage has grown. I believe
> you
> cannot live under your own fig tree, so to speak, forever. People with
> vastly
> different values might not chose to let you in peace.
This is a strange view to take, especially since Serbia did not attack
another country. Nor did it use high tech weapons. Its military, in fact,
is outdated in terms of technology.
Also, interventionism of the sort the US is practicing is just the kind of
thing that breeds counter-interventions. Note that neither Switzerland or
Sweden are the targets of Islamic terrorists. How come they are able to
"live under [their] own fig tree"?
Note, too, that the countries with advanced technologies and militaries that
use them are in NATO. Serbia flew no stealth aircraft. Nor does it have
satelites. Nor is it capable of all the things NATO members are, militarily
or technologically.
Needless to say, your reasoning is strange and does not, in any way
perceptible way, lead to the conclusions you're for. The part about
technology makes no sense in this context.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:12 MDT