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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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.

Hey...we did this recently.

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.

We've been doing this since 1946. We supposedly stopped creating chem/bio
weapons, but the nuclear arsenal continues to grow.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:54:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


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.

Hey...we did this recently.

When?



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.

We've been doing this since 1946. We supposedly stopped creating chem/bio
weapons, but the nuclear arsenal continues to grow.

Really? Where did you hear that we are still building nukes? According
to the various START and SALT treaties, we should v'e been reducing
that stockpile.


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:54:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


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.

Hey...we did this recently.

When?

That place in the desert....you know....Iraq?


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.

We've been doing this since 1946. We supposedly stopped creating chem/bio
weapons, but the nuclear arsenal continues to grow.

Really? Where did you hear that we are still building nukes? According
to the various START and SALT treaties, we should v'e been reducing
that stockpile.

Dave, this is disturbing. You continue to lie to me. You say you get your
information from a variety of news sources, but you are ignorant of so much
going on around you.

Be sure not to fixate on one source which you may deem to be partisan,
without first reading all of them, and perhaps doing your OWN search. And,
if you still believe we're behaving, let me know. Just for you, I'll contact
my senator's office and get some official stuff for you. Just be sure that
you really want to know these things. When you're cornered, your only
possible response may be "Oh yeah? Well, Gore lost the election."

http://www.charleston.net/stories/04...r_23bomb.shtml

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,47319,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story...541845,00.html

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0802/080702gsn1.htm

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-11/p32.html

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_...ster_dec02.asp

Have a nice day, Dave.