RE: [-empyre-] "a politically realist question"

greetings, Empyre and guests. 
In response to Nicholas Ruiz the third, 
please forgive me if I misunderstand:

why do I need to determine how much martial control a
nation should have or exert, if I dare to question
that control &, say, its mechanisms?

I'm not standing for election. No-one with their hands
on, or anywhere near, that kind of power is ever going
to ask me my opinion.

I don't think it is irresponsible to ask questions
when you don't know the answers.


--- Nicholas Ruiz <> wrote:

> Greetings Henry/all,
> Quite a list of juridical and political aporias
> here...many of which history
> has seen before, albeit in different shapes and
> locales.  
> With everyone vying for a controlling stake (or
> favored nation relationship)
> with the largest shareholders of the world
> pie--which is not to say that
> controlling stake means total control, but rather, a
> sphere of significant
> influence--we might ask a politically realist
> question:  
> In terms of national security, what are nations to
> do, otherwise? 
> This is a question we need to ask
> much of a martial strategy
> is a nation of peoples ethically entitled to in
> order to prosper and ensure
> its survival?  Total?  None? Something between?
> It's a very real question that needs to answered by
> everyone that dares to
> think of such real global problematics, no? 
> Nicholas Ruiz III

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.