"John H" wrote in message
...


I doubt that Chuck disagrees completely with the idea of meddling
PEACEFULLY
in order to create favorable political or economic situations. Every
country
on earth does that to the best of its ability. I suspect the problem is
that
people involved with the PNAC have already demonstrated that whether to
meddle peacefully or with weapons is pretty much a coin toss - a 50/50
chance of either happening. Not much different than standing in the
cleaning
products at the supermarket and picking Ajax instead of Comet because it
doesn't make much difference.

Doug, this could be true, but Chuck referred to the shaping of
circumstances as arrogant. He didn't limit the shaping to combative
shaping.

John H

Maybe Mrs Chuck shaped circumstances in such a way that he had to spend an
unwanted afternoon with a relative he's not fond of, so he expanded this
attitude to encompass world politics. I can't believe Chuck thinks EVERYONE
doesn't shape circumstances at one time or another. Even him. :-)

Maybe Mrs Chuck shaped circumstances in such a way that he had to spend an
unwanted afternoon with a relative he's not fond of, so he expanded this
attitude to encompass world politics. I can't believe Chuck thinks EVERYONE
doesn't shape circumstances at one time or another. Even him. :-)


It would be arrogant for me to assume I had the right, (perhaps the divine
imperative!), to shape curcumstances on the rest of the planet for my personal
benefit.

http://www.tomorrowsbestseller.com/w...State/book.asp

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Maybe Mrs Chuck shaped circumstances in such a way that he had to spend
an
unwanted afternoon with a relative he's not fond of, so he expanded this
attitude to encompass world politics. I can't believe Chuck thinks
EVERYONE
doesn't shape circumstances at one time or another. Even him. :-)


It would be arrogant for me to assume I had the right, (perhaps the divine
imperative!), to shape curcumstances on the rest of the planet for my
personal
benefit.


http://www.tomorrowsbestseller.com/w...State/book.asp

Chuck, I'm talking about doing it through any peaceful means, such as
diplomacy, above-board win-win financial arrangements, etc. By "win-win", I
don't mean that an American company gets permission to mine copper by paying
off some generalissimo, while the workers are essentially slaves from the
nearest prison. There *are* real-life situations which are better than that.
If you call Microsoft tech support at 3:00 AM Eastern time, you stand a good
chance of speaking to someone from Ireland or India.

On 08 Jan 2004 18:10:51 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Maybe Mrs Chuck shaped circumstances in such a way that he had to spend an
unwanted afternoon with a relative he's not fond of, so he expanded this
attitude to encompass world politics. I can't believe Chuck thinks EVERYONE
doesn't shape circumstances at one time or another. Even him. :-)


It would be arrogant for me to assume I had the right, (perhaps the divine
imperative!), to shape curcumstances on the rest of the planet for my personal
benefit.

http://www.tomorrowsbestseller.com/w...State/book.asp

Chuck, this book doesn't seem like an unbiased explanation of the
Patriot Act.

I don't think it would be arrogant of you to *try* to shape
circumstances on this planet for any reason you desire. After all,
isn't that what you are attempting in this NG, albeit at a smaller
scale?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On 08 Jan 2004 18:10:51 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Maybe Mrs Chuck shaped circumstances in such a way that he had to spend an
unwanted afternoon with a relative he's not fond of, so he expanded this
attitude to encompass world politics. I can't believe Chuck thinks EVERYONE
doesn't shape circumstances at one time or another. Even him. :-)


It would be arrogant for me to assume I had the right, (perhaps the divine
imperative!), to shape curcumstances on the rest of the planet for my personal
benefit.


But what about for the benefit of society?

Dave

But what about for the benefit of society?

Dave


You shape domestic circumstances for the benefit of domestic society.

We have no business making a decision about what will be best for the society
of some other nation. They have right to self determination.

We can persuade, negotiate, trade, etc.
We should not intimidate or bully.

On 09 Jan 2004 16:59:48 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But what about for the benefit of society?

Dave


You shape domestic circumstances for the benefit of domestic society.


True.


We have no business making a decision about what will be best for the society
of some other nation. They have right to self determination.

Not under the oppressive rule of a tyrannical dictator. That's why wee
need to "help" them to this goal.


We can persuade, negotiate, trade, etc.
We should not intimidate or bully.

I say that the ends justify the means in this case.


Dave

We have no business making a decision about what will be best for the
society
of some other nation. They have right to self determination.

Not under the oppressive rule of a tyrannical dictator. That's why wee
need to "help" them to this goal.

And who decides that a government is oppressive, tyrannical, or dictatorial?

By what standards?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
We have no business making a decision about what will be best for the
society
of some other nation. They have right to self determination.

Not under the oppressive rule of a tyrannical dictator. That's why wee
need to "help" them to this goal.

And who decides that a government is oppressive, tyrannical, or
dictatorial?

By what standards?

You have already done just that. What was your criteria?

Bert

On 13 Jan 2004 14:41:46 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

We have no business making a decision about what will be best for the
society
of some other nation. They have right to self determination.

Not under the oppressive rule of a tyrannical dictator. That's why wee
need to "help" them to this goal.

And who decides that a government is oppressive, tyrannical, or dictatorial?

By what standards?

That should be fairly obvious. When the rights of the citizens of a
particular country are oppressed to the point where they live in fear
for their lives if they happen to inadvertently break some strange
"law", then I'd say that that government qualifies.

Also, if the leader of said country invades another country for the
sole purpose of taking it over and subjugating the population for his
own benefit, then that also qualifies. If the country also takes an
aggressive policy of amassing a large arsenal of weapons with the
intent to use them (domestically or otherwise), then I'd say that
qualifies as well.


Dave