Log in

No account? Create an account
More than a little frightening - Kurt's Life (or lack thereof) [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Kurt Onstad

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

More than a little frightening [Sep. 27th, 2003|02:24 pm]
Kurt Onstad
[Current Mood |scaredscared]

I don't often post political stuff here, but go read this. It's a compiled list of the top news stories that didn't get the national attention that they deserve.

And remember to vote in 2004.


[User Picture]From: shironiku
2003-09-28 04:50 am (UTC)

An Open Mind (and a Shut Mouth)

Rather than submit you to my "radical" political viewpoints (which can be read here if you're really curious), I would instead like to ask a favor of everyone who's reading this:

Pretend I'm from another planet and am completely ignorant of human morality and ethics. Then explain to me, why you feel the actions described in the article linked here by speedball are bad.


I would like to know people's opinion on this. And don't be a dick about it, either. Don't say "what, are you kidding me??" I'm from another planet, remember? Your ways frighten and confuse me.

I really do want to know the thinking behind the opinion. Maybe once I do, I can understand why so many people share it.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: speedball
2003-09-28 09:42 pm (UTC)
By preemptively attacking countries like Iraq, in order to take control of their oil, we send a message to the world saying "If we want what you have, we're going to take it." We appear to be the bullies of the world. That makes it all the easier for terrorist organizations to recruit new members, because they have a legitimate threat.

Attacking without reason, other than "I want" simply destabilizes the world more, and makes it more difficult to live in peace.

When the U.S. attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, I didn't have a huge complaint about it, although it saddened me to see the loss of life there (as it does to see loss of life anywhere...), because there was credible evidence that the person who organized the 9/11 attacks was there, and was hiding there with the implicit, if not explicit, permission of that country's government. That's extraordinarily different from attacking a country simply because we want what they have...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: shironiku
2003-09-28 09:48 pm (UTC)
That makes sense, I suppose.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: speedball
2003-09-28 09:51 pm (UTC)

One other thing...

Since you set your political viewpoint entry to not allow comments, but asked a question, I thought I'd answer it here.

Why empire is a bad thing: Read the definition of empire: "A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority." (Emphasis mine) One person ruling over a huge area of diverse people. As we've seen in the past, while the first couple of people in that position may be intelligent, just rulers, eventually, the law of averages says we get someone who doesn't know what the heck they're doing. Even if we do get consistently good "emperors" (that's where empire comes from...), the larger an area, the more beauracracy needs to be involved, leading to the eventual collapse of the government under its own weight...


(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: shironiku
2003-09-28 11:20 pm (UTC)

Re: One other thing...

Perhaps. But in ages past, a nation as large as ours would definitely have been called an empire. With improvements in communication and transportation technology over the past two centuries, the amount of territory that is managable under a single government today is far larger than it used to be.

And remember: at one point, Rome was a Republic.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)