This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Universe Prince
Pages: 1 ... 240 241 [242] 243 244
3616
« on: October 13, 2006, 02:31:20 AM »
Intresting that you anticipated my bringing up jail, as if you saw the same path of arguments I did.
I try to anticipate. I've been through this sort thing enough times that I can sometimes pick out the more obvious counterarguments to what I say.
I don't think that the draft was an injustice , for the same reason that jailing people is no injustice.
I don't see how they are comparable.
Punishment of wrongdoing is only a part of the reason for jail , I would argue not even the greater part. People who cannot be trusted withthe safety of their fellow citizens or who interrupt the flow of business have to be put out of the way and out of circulation for the sake of haveing a society that will function
I'm sure what you're saying is obvious to you, but what are you saying? "People who cannot be trusted with the safety of their fellow citizens" what does that even mean? People who have guns? People who smoke? People who oppose the government? People "who interrupt the flow of business"? What? I mean, I can see a whole lot of people who might fit inside your rather vague phrases, depending on whom one asks. So I'm asking you. What are you talking about? What do you mean?
The right of a society to cull a person and take his rights away is essentially the right of civilisation to exist, as individuals it behooves us well to insist that this function of civil life be undertaken with due process that minimises its frivolus and unnecery use.
Um, no. Unless you think society/civilization is more important than the individual, that the individual serves society and indeed belongs to society. Maybe you believe that. I do not. First of all, society has no right whatever to take away an individual's rights, because rights are not something given or taken away. Second, individuals have the right to defend themselves from those who would violate the rights of individuals. They have a right to agree that an organization be formed to play the role of the protector of rights and to punish those who violate the rights of individuals. The reason they have this right is not the right of civilization to exist, whatever that means, not because they belong to society, but because they own the right to the free exercise of their rights. Once you start saying society has a right to cull a person and to take away his liberty for the sake of civilization, the you place yourself, your liberty, your life at the mercy of society that then has the power to decide anyone, even you, are a threat to the existence of civilization. This is, unfortunately, the path that America seems to be on, but that doesn't make it the one we should be on.
The Draft is not at all intended to be a punishment , even though a drafted person might feel badly used . A society has the right to compell its needs be met wnen now and then it runs out of volentary resorces.
I know I already said this, but, um, no. In this context, to compel behavior from people who have not chosen or do not choose to engage in that behavior is nothing short of enslavement. And no, society does not have the right to enslave individuals. Because when "society" compells people to meet the "needs of society" what is really happening is one group of individuals is deciding that other people should be made to do the work that the first group wants done. It does not matter if that group is government, a majority of voters or plantation owners. Individuals do not own other individuals. And no individual's rights are greater than any other individual's rights. And no group of individuals has rights greater than any other group of individuals. So no, society does not have the right to compel its "needs" be met when it runs out of voluntary resources.
But when there is a shortfall and an unmet need that is severe and genuine will a society have no recourse but to end?
I know I'm being repetitive, but, um, no. No recourse but to end? What a ridiculous question. First define what is a genuine need of society. And who gets to decide what these genuine needs are? Protect liberty and leave people alone, and society will adapt when crises arise. Individuals and society can be remarkably good at adapting when we let it. Only a rigid social structure, for example fascist or socialist societies, have cause to worry about not being able to meet its "needs". Look at them. They are the societies that constantly find they must take away liberty for the "good of society". It is the hallmark of totalitarian power structures. In its most horrible form it manifests as killing people in the name of protecting society, but it also manifests in other ways like censorship laws or government control of industry and business. In any case, among the important needs of society is the protection of rights of individuals. Protect the rights of individuals, and society will adapt to meet its needs because it will be free to do so. Only those intent on controlling life fear that a change in society will result in the end of life as we know it.
Individual rights can be protected by a society this is the highest purpose to which a society can be put, but there have been long running societys that did not protect individual rights and there are societys now that dont, as societys they do work , if the society that protects individual rights may not outcompete these that do not a process of natural selection may eradicate the freer societys leaveing the fitter less free societys to be more common
Contrariwise, if the society that does protect individual rights outcompetes those societies that do not protect individual rights, then a process of natural selection may eradicate the less free societies, leaving the free society to prosper.
What will become then of individual rights when individuals may not band themselves together successfully and totaliarian societys may outcompete?
You might as well wonder what will become of honest competition when cheaters "outcompete" honest athletes and only cheaters win. Does the honest competitor strike a blow for honest competors if he cheats to win a competition? Can a person cheat in the name of protecting honest competition? Can you keep your cake if you also eat it? No, of course not. So a free society does not "outcompete" totalitarian regimes by abridging the free exercise of the rights of individuals. That only leads to a win for the totalitarians as the free society becomes less free and more totalitarian. The protection of a free society lies in the protection of liberty.
3617
« on: October 12, 2006, 12:09:35 PM »
The Islamic extremists are pledging to act like Islamic extremists.......THAT happens to be comparable to acting like Nazis, IN THE VANE of desiring to rule the world, with their version of how it's to be governed
So they are pledging to act comparable to Nazis. What-the-frak-ever. You're being entirely too literal here, even after I explained exactly what I meant. This is not my problem.
Starting to remind me of how I supposedly despise legal immigration for daring to despise illegal immigration.
I believe what I said was that since you said you were in favor of immigration being difficult that you wanted immigration to be difficult. Kinda like now, you assured me both that you held the position I said you did, and that I was misrepresenting your position to say that you held that position. Which is a really neat sort of confusion, but I could never figure out how it worked. Apparently, I still can't.
so, perhaps we should cease our debate on this topic, at this time, and move to another, before either of us begin saying things we don't mean.
I rarely say things I don't mean (unless I'm being obviously sarcastic), but you seem to think I mean things I don't say. Again, not my problem.
3618
« on: October 12, 2006, 10:01:42 AM »
Aren't we basically talking about balance?
I'm sure Plane was talking about balance, and I think I've seen you talk about it before. Me, no, I'm not talking about balance. At least, not in the sense of balancing liberty and security. There is no balance between liberty and security. To the extent that we have liberty, we have security. To the extent that we do not have liberty, we are not secure. You might argue that an abridgement of my liberty allows the government to protect my life, but even if that is true, it does not mean I am then safe or have security. To the extent that government can abridge my liberty in the name of protecting me, government can also abridge my liberty to attack me. Therefore, there is no balance. It is the protection of the free exercise of our rights that makes us secure. The abridgement of that liberty is the abridgement of our security.
3619
« on: October 12, 2006, 09:46:06 AM »
I don't recall that you did (claim militant Islamists were trying to be like Nazis).
Whoa. Hold it right there. No. Let's get this part straight right now. You said, and I quote: "Prince, when did I EVER claim that Islamofacists were identical to German Fascists? When did I ever opine that militant Islam is trying to copy Hitler & Nazi Germany?" To which I replied, "I don't recall that you did. But then, I don't recall having said or implied that you did." Just so we're completely clear, you did not say they were identical, did not say the one was trying to copy the other, and I never said you did.
Now then, you have been comparing the Islamic terrorists to the Nazis for some time now, going to far as to suggest that current efforts to stop them are akin to if someone had tried to stop the Nazis in the 1920s or 30s. The Islamic extremists are the Nazis of the future if we do nothing about them was the basic gist of your argument. And, long story short, you said "I'm advocating going after people who have pledged to do what I believe they have pledged to do in the future." And my question to that was "When did the Islamic extremists pledge to become like the Nazis?" Nothing about that was any sort of "bogus implication". Either you think the Islamic terrorists are like the Nazis and will become more so in the future if not stopped, or you do not. If the Islamic extremists are pledging to act like Nazis—the meaning of the word 'like' in this context being 'of a similar manner, analogous, bearing a resemblance, corresponding in some aspect(s)'—then when did they do so? This is not a trick question. You are the one comparing the terrorists to the Nazis, so why do you protest that I'm misrepresenting your position if I should say that you're claiming the terrorists are like the Nazis? If the Islamic extremists are comparable to the Nazis, how are they somehow also not like—the meaning of the word 'like' in this context being 'of a similar manner, analogous, bearing a resemblance, corresponding in some aspect(s)'—the Nazis. Either they are like the Nazis, or they are not.
A better question would be along the lines of "When did Islamic extremists start demonstrating similar traits and tactics that the Nazis employed?"
I don't see how that is a better question. You said we had to go after the terrorists because they are like the Nazis and will become more so if they are not stopped. When challenged on how you can condemn someone for future actions, you insisted the terrorists were analogous to the Nazis and that you advocated going after them based on what they had pledged to do. The direct question is the one I asked.
The answer to that question largely was when Usama declared war on the U.S. specifically, and western civilization in general. It began occuring as more and more soldiers of militant Islam, most exemplified by AlQeada and the Iranian President, began engaging in systematic attacks on both U.S. & Israeli populations. Unlike Germany of course, Islamofascists aren't limited to just being AlQeada. It includes Baathists, Suuni nationalists, Hamas, Hezbollah, just to name a few. All with differing leaderships, but all with a generalized goal of wiping Israel & America off, and implimenting their version of a some global Islamic governance. Convert, be subjugated, or die being the only viable options. I recall listening to an excerpt of a high ranking AlQeada member declaring precisely that agenda
Seems to me they are very much unlike the Nazis. They may hate Israel and Jews, but that isn't sufficient to make them similar enough to justify the comparison you're making. And the fact they are a number of small groups rather than one united national war machine is also a huge and quite substantial difference, imo.
You have made the comparison of the Islamic extremists to the Nazis, yes, but you have not actually given a reason why your comparison of current events to history is the only valid one
Show me one more valid, in your opinion
So, you're not going to give me a reason. Okay. Anyway, off the top of my head, I'd say we need to go back further than the 1930s to the end of World War I. Germany was defeated, and the Allies essentially punished Germany by placing the blame for the war on Germany and demanding it pay all the costs of the war. This made many Germans bitter, and eventually became controversial among the Allied countries. Of course the bitterness among the Germans, along with the world wide depression of the 1920s helped contribute mightily to the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party. The contention over the severe punishment of Germany and a desire to avoid war is what resulted in many people being willing to turn a blind to the rise of Nazis and their excursion into the Rhineland. (And frankly, those who wanted to avoid war were not wrong in that desire. The problem lie not in wanting to avoid another war, but in the fact that Hitler was ambitious and untrustworthy. If Hitler had quit at the Rhineland, those who argued for peace would now be considered wise rather than foolish.)
The point here being that attempting to squash the terrorists may in fact eventually cause them to unite and to start to genuinely become like the Nazis. I'm not advocating that we do nothing about the terrorists, I'm simply saying there is more historical precedent to consider than just the Nazis and World War II. We need to learn from history certainly, but one of the most important lessons of history is that no amount of planning and comparison will tell you all the consequences of current actions. There are always unintended consequences. And one of the lessons I see in history is that trying to control other people who disagree with you is a really prime way to create bad unintended consequences. This is among the reasons why I doubt your comparison of current events to history is the only valid one.
Where was this massive militant Islamic extremist uprising before September 11, 2001?
You do grasp the concept of a malignancy? That's the most accurate analogy I can provide for you in this case. This uprising has been hitting us since the late 80's, early 90's. 911 was simply a wake up call.
So are you saying there was a massive militant uprising before September 11, 2001, or not?
3620
« on: October 12, 2006, 01:00:23 AM »
On the contrary , when I enlisted in the Military I gave up a large amount of liberty because I beleived it necessacery to my countrys defence
You choosing to give up your liberty voluntarily does not give you the authority to decide for others that they should have to give up their liberty. And you choosing to give up your liberty is not at all the same as the government or even a voting majority to decide to take liberty away from others.
On a periodic basis we have instituted a draft which is the forced removal of these libertys
Which was wrong. And that something wrong has been done in the past does not make it something we should do now or in the future.
These sacrifices are much greater than the ones we are currently speaking of , how about looseing the right to speak across the borders in privacy? Only a very few of us will miss that
Many people make overseas calls, not just a few. But that is beside the point. What does it matter how many people's liberty you trample on? It is still wrong whether it is done for one million or merely one.
But giveing up the right to decide for myself where I would live , what I would wear and what I would do with my weekend was a major impact on my life.
An impact you voluntarily chose to accept by enlisting in the military. Again, not the same as deciding for other people what "sacrifice" of liberty will be imposed upon them regardless of their choice.
We have always accepted that some of us will give up some libertys for the greater good , what makes the current sacrifices worse than usual in simular circumstances?
To say some of us will give up some liberty is one thing. To say that all of us should "sacrifice" some liberty is altogether something else. To choose to agree to not do certain things is the free exercise of the liberty to do or not do those things. The liberty to exercise rights does not only mean the liberty to speak out or to choose where one lives, or the like. It also means the liberty to choose not to do these things. It means each person has the right to choose for himself how to exercise his rights. It means you choosing to make a contractual agreement to exchange part of your life and part of your decisions about your life in exchange for recompense from the government is you exercising your rights. This is fundamentally and substantially different from taking liberty away from people without their consent, whether by government fiat or majority vote.
The greater good is not served by taking liberty away from the people. (And before you start talking about how we put people in jail, that isn't what I'm talking about, and you know it. Punishing people who violate the rights of others is not the same as expecting everyone in society to "sacrifice" their liberty. And I would add that even accused people and convicted criminals have rights that should be protected, and the abuse of those rights also does not serve the greater good.) Protecting and preserving the free exercise of rights is the greater good, and that cannot be served by doing the opposite of protecting and preserving the free exercise of rights. The integrity of a house is not protected by knocking a hole in the outside wall. A family is not protected by child abuse. Your cake is not kept by eating it. The greater good is not protected by "sacrificing" liberty. The greater good is protected when we protect liberty.
3621
« on: October 11, 2006, 12:58:55 PM »
It is not only imperative but essential that we as a nation become energy independent. Why? We need to for national security reasons. And, because it is the right thing to do, namely, God let us as guardians of the Earth. Let's stop raping it, shall we? Do you agree? If so, then let's do what we need to achieve this. We must! For a start, let's bring back the energy initatives in the Carter Administration. Tax credtis for solar and alternative energy systems/products/installations. Increased R&D on geothermal, more efficient hydroelectric...well, the list goes on. I postulate that if the will is strong enough, it is amazing what can happen. An example: over a decade ago, the Government forced the automobile ondistry to dramatrically increase their MPG. The automobile industry swore they couldn't. They went back and forth but the Government was firm. Guess what? It worked. MPG increased. Now perhaps we do not to force this R&D, but offer incentives. Real ones. Offer $5M to the first firm to come up with a solar energy system for a home that is 500% better than current, as only one example (I'm not really sure what the current state of this technology is). Let's incentive oursleves into energy independece. Also, in a parallel vein, let's encourgage people to conserve. If you use less than you used this time last year, thne you get a rebate or something similiar. Increase R&D in nuclear energy. Pump serious R&D funding into cold fusion and on and on.
Do you agree?
I thought I'd already posted a reply to this, but it doesn't appear to be here. So I'll just give a summary of what I said before:
Cold fusion is this era's perpetual motion machine. Not gonna happen. What we need are better batteries that store more energy in smaller and lighter containers. If you want to start an X-Prize type deal for encouraging research and development of alternative fuels and/or methods of energy production, I'll contribute if I can, but please let's keep the gorram government out of this as much as possible. And even if we could find some amazing way to become energy independent, that won't do much at all to halt our need for oil. Gasoline and jet fuel are not the only things we use crude oil to produce. Crude oil is also used in the creation of plastics, synthetic fibers, tires and probably some other things I'm not remembering off the top of my head. I just don't see us being free of oil anytime soon, alternate energy source or not.
3622
« on: October 11, 2006, 12:41:06 PM »
Also, TATP has been used in terrorist attacks previously, including the attempted "shoe bomber" and the London subway attacks.
Mixing it at home seems a tad easier than getting it all past airport security and standing in an airplane lavatory, while the plane is in the air, to mix it. I'm just not buying it.
3623
« on: October 11, 2006, 12:37:51 PM »
Prince, when did I EVER claim that Islamofacists were identical to German Fascists? When did I ever opine that militant Islam is trying to copy Hitler & Nazi Germany?
I don't recall that you did. But then, I don't recall having said or implied that you did.
If you recall, I made it painfully clear that their not "identical", simply historically comparable.
No, I don't recall that, but I'll take your word for it.
So why the continued questions or implications along the lines of "when did the Islamic extremists pledge to be Nazis"
Uh, I believe my question was "When did the Islamic extremists pledge to become like the Nazis?" Notice that word between the words "become" and "the Nazis"? You get to say, "you don't believe the Islamic fundamentalists are anywhere close to being the Nazis of the 1920s, thus that's what drives your thought process. I DO, again reinforced by their rhetorical goals & actions upon us." But I don't get to ask "When did the Islamic extremists pledge to become like the Nazis?" What's up with that? This hardly seems fair. You get to compare the two, but I don't get to call you on it? Frack that.
You're clearly assuming your comparison of current events to history is the only valid one, and this I doubt seriously. And you have yet to give me any reason not to do so.
Again, if you wish to run the risk of repeating History, by all means, ignore the signs of Militant Islam, ignore their rhetoric, ignore their actions, and keep condeming Bush for daring to try and listen in on their overseas phone calls. I've given you ample reason, that of a repeat of the likes of the Nazi war machine of the 30's & 40's. It is you that are chosing to ignore that potential.
You have made the comparison of the Islamic extremists to the Nazis, yes, but you have not actually given a reason why your comparison of current events to history is the only valid one. And stop assuming that just because you haven't convinced me you're correct I must then be ignoring history. I'm chooseing to not be quite so singularly selective as to what history I compare current events.
You give them an awful lot of credit. Double to triple the amount of new recruits? What makes you think they can so dramtically up their recruitment rate with American troops not there?
Again, another question I'm stunned that you'd even ask. Suffice to say, without our military intervention, they can recruit, train, and re-arm to their heart's content, without any obstrution or hiccup of impedence. This should fall into the category of what I'd dare say is "obvious", though I'll concede on how we all know how that term has been mutated by the likes of Xo
Which leads me back to a question I already asked, but you ignored. Where was this massive militant Islamic extremist uprising before September 11, 2001? I mean if all they need is a lack of American military intervention, why were they not a vast military force before September 11, 2001? Our military presence in the Middle East was not nearly then what it is now, and the terrorists had years to recruit with virtually no interference during the Clinton administration. So why now are they going to suddenly surge in numbers, doubling or even tripling in size, if our troops depart? Please explain.
And you expect me to believe your comparison of the terrorists to Nazis is accurate?
And you expect me to believe that its not?
Well, no, not if you really think Hitler was blindly shooting into the dark when he sent troops to the Rhineland. But don't expect me to believe you.
3624
« on: October 11, 2006, 11:58:09 AM »
I think you're overestimating the difficulty of the plan. Liquid explosives are difficult to use because they are inherently unstable; however safety of the user is not at the top of a list of suicide bomber's priorities. There are many liquids are are, in and of themselves, stable, yet highly volatile when mixed with another liquid. For some combinations, the skill required is no more than is required to use home hair color treatments - mix in the correct proportions and shake.
From what I have read, mixing the chemicals via the proper procedure and in the proper contitions to create an explosion large enough to actually destroy the airplane would be a nearly impossible task on an airplane even if one could get into the lavatory for the amount of time needed without anyone noticing. While I am sure there are some simpler combinations, the reports I have read say the terrorist plot was to create triacetone triperoxide, which is not something one just mixes in the correct proportions and shakes in a bottle. And as for the safety of the user, I should think that would come into play in so far as the terrorists would not get very far if they blew up only themselves before they got to the plane, or if fumes from the process of making the explosive killed them or made them pass out. And as for the simpler combinations, my understanding is that most of them require more than a 20oz bottle to create a large enough explosion to bring down a plane.
3625
« on: October 11, 2006, 11:17:56 AM »
9/11 WAS a wake up call because we were lax in security.
We were not lax in security or intellegence. We were lax in listening to them. Or rather, our leaders were. (Both the Clinton and Bush administrations.) The actions taken since have not helped that one bit.
3626
« on: October 11, 2006, 11:09:03 AM »
No? History books referencing a similar history doesn't count, huh? I'll have to remember that. But what I'll remember more so is that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. You may be ready and willing to risk repeating history. I prefer not
You're clearly assuming your comparison of current events to history is the only valid one, and this I doubt seriously. And you have yet to give me any reason not to do so.
No, that would be you missing the point. I'm advocating going after people who have pledged to do what I believe they have pledged to do in the future. A DISTINCT difference, I might add
When did the Islamic extremists pledge to become like the Nazis?
Back then the militia were civilians. And I didn't say they targeted or killed civilians.
Yet the current crop of non-unifomred terrorists are doing precisely that. Again, a DISTINCT difference than the militias of the U.S Revolution
Yet your initial complaint was, "I do wish they'd play by the rules of war, wear uniforms & adhere to the Geneva Convention, but they just don't seem to be the 'do-it-by-the-book' type of soldiers". And so my point remains. Not wearing uniforms and not making war "by the book" is hardly a reason to condemn them. And quite frankly, that our own government seeks to use the letter of the Geneva Convention to circumvent the intent of it, we hardly have much high ground there either. Stick to arguing your distinct differences, not some lame anti-enemy propaganda.
So? Not that I agree with you, but even if you're right, so what? ("Leaving them alone" does zilch to lessen the threat.)
I'm stunned an objective person as yourself needs to ask such a question.
You might not be so stunned if you had included the rest of my comments in that paragraph: "Quite frankly, what we're doing now does nothing to lessen the threat. But leaving them alone means we're not wasting our military and resources. How is that not an improvement?"
As I gather, you're advocating a complete "do-over". We bring everyone home. close up shop, let AlQeada and the growing militant Islam movement get completely rehabilitated, re-supplied, re-armed, double/triple the amount of new recruits, train with abandon with no interference. And seeing how they "scared those cowardly americans away", motivate them for the next few 911's they can cause. And of course it'll be made easier, because we shouldn't be listening in on their phone conversations....noooooo, perish the thought. We ought not tracking their bank records or datamining calls......noooooo, baaaaaaad. Just when they do hit, we........hit back hard, and hold nothing back........kinda like what we're doing now, but with alot more loss of both our civilian life from those 911-like events, and thousands more sodliers as we try to take on new refortifie, rearmed, and fresh terrorist forces. I'll be honest here Prince.......I don't see that as the "right thing to do"
Wow. You give them an awful lot of credit. Double to triple the amount of new recruits? What makes you think they can so dramtically up their recruitment rate with American troops not there? And what makes you think they're not being resupplied and rearmed now? And given their track record, what makes you think they'll get in a "few 911's"? Where was this massive militant Islamic extremist uprising before September 11, 2001? I just don't buy it. I'm not saying they'll all go away, I'm just doubting this scenario you're proposing.
But let's look at how things are stacking up now. American troops are getting killed. Iraqi citizens are getting killed. People are having possessions large and small taken away from them at airports and never returned. Some folks here in America got arrested because they had "too many" cell phones. Some people are being held indefinitely, without trial, and if they get a trial, it may be one where they are not allowed to mount an appropriate defense against the charges due to "national security" issues. And the terrorists are rearming and resupplying anyway. And their recruitment rate has, as I understand it, gone up since the beginning of the Iraq war. And they have new excuses to spin themselves as victims of American aggression. And the American government continues to insist it needs more power to go after terrorists at home and abroad. Folks like you and Plane are telling me how we need to be willing to sacrifice liberty for the sake of national security. Nothing about this situation is the right thing to do.
And I'll tell you the same thing I told Plane. What I believe the government should do at home—leave people alone—is what I believe the government should do abroad. We will never save the world by trying to control it, either here or overseas. It's a fool's dream, and one we would be better off discarding sooner rather than later. And I'll repeat what I said to you. Continuing to do something stupid because quitting would make you look bad doesn't make continuing to do the something stupid a good idea or the something stupid any less stupid. And frankly, this whole "emboldening the terrorists" bit is really lame. It doesn't matter what we do, they're going to spin it to their advantage. If we remain, we're emboldening them by being there to be seen as an invading/oppressive force to fight. And while we're here, I should add that just because doing the right thing might make you lose face doesn't mean it isn't still the right thing to do. And just because doing the right thing might seem to let the bad guys win doesn't mean it isn't still the right thing to do. Or do you advocate that previously convicted criminals should not be given a fair trial and reasonable defense because it might let them back on the street?
They're shooting into the darkness, hoping something gets hit. That is not exactly what I would call a serious ability to wage war on anyone.
Hitler did pretty much the same thing when he sent a small underarmed contingent of troops into the Rhineland. We turned a blind eye to that one to. We have history to tell us where it went from there
And you expect me to believe your comparison of the terrorists to Nazis is accurate?
3627
« on: October 11, 2006, 09:52:03 AM »
I disagree, in time of war the emergency does justify sacrifices.
Not of liberty.
Seen from the other side , in time of peace liberty ought to be maximised to the best extent that is possible while keeping the peace.
You say that as if you think maximizing liberty might somehow endanger the peace.
Should our discipline and level of sacrifice always be at a wartime level? or when the threat is lower can our exercise of freedom be less restricted?
The free exercise of our rights should never be restricted, and this free exercise is in point of fact at no time more crucial and more needed than in time of war.
If the level of sacrifice and discipline ,must always be the same , then it must always be set at a level compatible with war.
When are we not at war? Before the "war on terror" we had the Cold War. And if the "war on terror" should falter or have a lull, we still have the "war on drugs". And we may soon have a war with North Korea. At what point do we stop being at war so that we can have all of our liberty back?
And frankly, if the free exercise of our rights is so incompatible with war, then perhaps we should work harder on achieving and maintaining that liberty rather than on telling other countries what to do. If we kept a "cleaner house" at home, we might have better grounds to chastise other countries for their lack of such "cleanliness".
But beyond that, where do you draw the line? What is the acceptable level of risk? If you sacrifice this much liberty, and the attack or threat of attack still comes, do you sacrifice more liberty? At what point do you say, this much and no more? And if you say this much and no more, how can you justify not sacrificing more liberty if it means more security? (Not that it ever does.) I draw the line back at the beginning of the process, liberty complete and no further, because no sacrifice of liberty makes us safer and because whatever power is given the government to do things for us ipso facto carries with it the equivalent power for the government to do things to us. And because the only real purpose government should ever have is to protect the free exercise of the inherent and unalienable rights of the people. Any sacrifice of that is a corruption of government and should be abolished.
3628
« on: October 11, 2006, 09:09:20 AM »
Yes ,I do think that mixing chemicals on an airplane could pose a real danger, with a large team of suicidal terrorists several Aircraft could be brought down killing a few thousand persons.
I think you're naive about how easy (difficult) setting up and carrying out such scenario would be. Everything I have read on the matter leads me to the conclusion that not only would it be extremely difficult, the people charged with the plot didn't have the skill to carry out such an inherently risky plan.
Should we just put up with the the loss of a few thousand persons now and then?
No, of course not. But every time someone mentions the people killed in Iraq, I see the response that war is hell and people are going to die. Why is it okay for you to be concerned about dead people in America, but wrong for other people to be concerned about dead people in Iraq. And before you start in with but our troops knew blah blah blah, civilians are being killed in Iraq as well. Civilians who did not sign up to be in a war zone. And I repeat, every time someone mentions the people killed in Iraq, I see the response that war is hell and people are going to die. So why is it okay for civilians in Iraq to die because of this war, but not Americans? And please do not misunderstand me. I am not in favor of Americans getting killed. But when you ask me "Should we just put up with the the loss of a few thousand persons now and then?" my first thought is, aren't we doing that now? We're putting up with our troops being killed. We're putting up with Iraqis being killed. I just want to know why people who are in the U.S. of A. are more important than people who are in Iraq.
I do not think that leaveing them entirely alone would be suficient to them , several Al Quieda tapes present their demands which are wide rangeing and sometimes even include us all embraceing Islam. As long as some portion of their demands were not met they would very likely continue just the same, if all of their demands were met , they could always get more demands.
I could care less what their demands are. My proposal to leave them alone has nothing to do with their demands. My proposal to leave them alone is based on what I believe is the only appropriate foreign policy, non-intervention. What I believe the government should do at home—leave people alone—is what I believe the government should do abroad. I don't believe there should be seat-belt laws or massive business regulations or bans on weapons. And likewise, I don't believe the government should be telling other countries what to do. Government should have one main purpose, protecting the rights of its people, and purt' near anything else should out of bounds for the government. I realize that you and others paint the "war on terror" as protecting our lives, but I believe that story less and less everyday. Not because that isn't how it is intended, but because that simply is not what it is accomplishing. And frankly, the notion that America can protect Americans if can just control the rest of the world or even just the Middle East is ludicrous. It's the same thinking that says America can protect Americans if we just ban enough guns or mandate enough safety requirements or legislate enough control over business. It does not work here and it does not work there. It does not work now and it never has. The fact is that we will never save the world by trying to control it, either here or overseas. It's a fool's dream, and one we would be better off discarding sooner rather than later.
3629
« on: October 09, 2006, 02:48:50 AM »
UP, I think you fail to see it as the terrorist war it is. It is a war, not in a conventional sense, but one where one fanatic idiot can go into the mall down the street from where you live and set off a bomb, all the while crying Allah's name. It is the fear factor that it might happen anywhere because it did happen down the street that can decimate a democractic society. This is why eternal vigilance is needed. Protect your borders as best you can, cooperate with other nations, educate people on the situation and so on. All the while realizing that our personal liberites must be balacned against this vigilance.
I disagree. That people could be killed does not make it a war. And we do not need to balance our personal liberties against national security. If anything could genuinely be said to be at stake in this matter, it is our liberty. We do not protect our liberty by whittling it away to achieve a false measure of security. If we sacrifice protecting our liberty for the sake of stopping the terrorists, we lose. I'm not suggesting we do nothing about terrorism. I'm suggesting that if the security we seek to maintain does not include our liberty, our free exercise of our rights, then the security is a fraud. If we cut down the protections of our liberties to keep the terrorists at bay, there will be nothing to protect us from our government. We do not need to balance our liberties against national security because protecting our personal liberties is our national security. If we must have a war, let us have a war to protect our liberty, our rights. Without that protection, our borders might be intact, but America will have lost.
3630
« on: October 08, 2006, 04:29:42 PM »
Why is it bovine exrement?
Because it's asinine, self-righteous fantasy. Let us count the ways.
1. The West lacks the will to survive. We make mountains out of trivial political issues, such as humiliating terrorists, and obsess instead about the rights of people who will cut our throats at the first opportunity. 9/11 has been relegated to historical movie status, not the wake up call it should have been. Too many Americans view the war with radical Islam as an inconvenience or a political problem and not something that concerns and threatens their very existence. A reality check is essential for survival.
Where to begin? The "war with radical Islam" does not threaten our very existence. It does, however, threaten our liberty in that it seems to be prompting the government to find new ways to ignore basic rights. And speaking of rights, concern about the rights of human beings, even if they are Islamic fundamentalists, is not trivial. It is one of the things that should be separating us from them, one of the things that makes us the good guys. To toss such considerations aside is not a sign of strength or will to survive, but rather of ignorance and stupidity.
2. The West is selfish and divided. Politics and party have become the priority and survival has been relegated to the closet. Politics no longer stops at the waters edge, but war has become a thing to manipulate for political advantage. The voters seem to not care that undermining the war effort for political gain is the order of the day, as long as their lifestyles aren’t compromised or discomfort brought down upon their heads. Our enemies and our politicians play that to their advantage. We have exposed to all our enemies, our soft divided underbelly and naively expect that they will but rub it for us.
When has war ever not been a thing to manipulate for political advantage? How old is the author of this article that he or she thinks this is new? And this "undermining the war effort" bit, do I even have to explain why that accusation is stupid? I realize some folks would be happier if we had some sort of national cry of bloodlust so that we could all be united in the "war on terror", but expressing concern about the correctness and the morality of our military action is not a bad thing or even a weakness.
3. The West is too open and too naive about war. We have lost our smarts about what a war is. War is not a made for TV movie with a pre-written script. The other side writes its own game plan, while we foolishly and openly talk of withdrawal schedules. The same people who demand such schedules would react in horror were their favorite coach to announce the play he is going to use next. Mistakes are always made in war. It is in correcting and adjusting, that victory comes about, but never without a will to survive, and that means a will to fight and die in the first place. Supporting out troops means stifling our open disagreements about details. Enough with the armchair generals, and the neutral, but biased media - we have lost our sense of the evil of treason.
The author has lost his sense of what treason actually is. Or maybe just lost his sense. Like the bit where the author equates a will to survive with a will to fight and die. As if the only means of survival ever is to fight and die. And if the author is so eager to fight and die, why is he sitting around writing columns for The Times of London? Or wherever you found this list. Anyway, someone should point out to the author that the means of human survival is for people to work together in an environment of liberty and peace, not seeing how many people we can kill. And no, supporting our troops does not mean stifling our open disagreements. Supposedly they're fighting to protect our freedoms. Well, here's a clue: one of those freedoms is the freedom to openly criticize the government. Can you say First Amendment?
4. The West is illiterate about faith and martyrdom. It is essential to know your enemy. For liberals to continue to preach multicultural moral equivalency is, but evidence that we act in ignorance of the seriousness of the enemy’s intent and will to die for his cause. Islam, as understood by these radicals, is not a religion of country club requirements and manners. Failing to comprehend what drives this enemy is a guaranteed road to defeat.
And here all this time I thought the conservative folks held the position that we didn't need to care about why the terrorists are driven to want to kill us. We don't need to understand them, or so I keep hearing. We don't need to know why they hate us, or so people keep saying. But here is the author of this didactic list is saying we need to comprehend what drives the enemy. Anyway, I doubt the West is as ignorant about faith and martyrdom as the author seems to think.
5. The West is reactive not proactive. It is failing for reasons of domestic political caution, to prepare for international war. It only looks backward such as the current fascination with who caused 9/11, Bush or Clinton, as if we’re in denial that the simple unaltered fact is that we were attacked not once on 9/11, but many times by radical Islamists. They have openly declared war on our nation and have pledged to eradicate each of us while we lack sufficient concern to prepare to fight the most difficult battle of this country’s existence. We have failed to mobilize the major elements of a society at serious war. For example, we fail, for political reasons, to reinstitute the draft and the types of things necessary to engage the enemy fully, as we go about our daily business wondering, or even actually debating, if attacking the terrorists over there is better than waiting to have them over here.
More comments that make me wonder why the author isn't busy enlisting or already toting a weapon in Iraq. The most difficult battle of this country's existence? I'd laugh, but I think he really believes it.
6. The West refuses to become energy independent. The fuel of radical Islam is our petrol-dollars. No war can be fought successfully when the enemy controls the energy and our economy through our own continued foolish choices - choices we make because of a paralyzing political fear of radicalized environmental worship. Russia, Venezuela, and the Mid-east oil producers can be counted on to close us off in a second should it be thought by them to be to their advantage. Undermining and bringing down super-power America is already their desire. All that is necessary is the minutest turn of events. The eminent war with radicalized Islam offers much more than minute potential, when it comes to affording them opportunity. Energy is victory and lack of sufficient energy is defeat. Our domestic eco-politics have chosen to aid the enemy.
That is utter nonsense. We have no way to achieve energy independence. And even if we could, that would be exactly the wrong plan. You want to see this country struggle to maintain itself, then by all means, let's throttle our most profitable corporations and drive the cost of fuel, energy and the cost of living sky high. Oh yeah, that's a great plan... (That last bit was sarcasm.)
7. Our borders are sieves and remain waiting conduits for subversive entry and terrorist activity. Moats weren’t invented because of curiosity or convention. They were created, because in an evil world, the enemy and the danger he presents needs to be kept out of people’s homes. The Trojan Horse mentality we play with our open borders is suicidal. Again, domestic politics by both parties, not security, is the priority that drives our border policy. A policy, I would predict, that history may very well write in chapter one of, How Great Nations Have Fallen (In Arabic of course).
You knew from the start of the column that the xenophobia has to make an appearance somewhere. It's like a rule or something, ranting about America's lack of seriousness toward the "war on terror" must include comments about how our open borders are just asking for terrorists to sneak in an kill us all. Again we have a nonsense idea. Shutting down our borders is an almost unachievable goal and entirely short sighted. Not only would it harm businesses, it would damage our relations with other countries. If we are truly in a fight for survival, shutting out our neighbors, particularly when it would have a negative effect on our economy, is not something we need to be doing.
8. The moral case for war. Though we debate about Iraq and the War on Terror, we really have not as a nation, understood and accepted the moral case to fight radical Islam on the moral level that they fight us. We have lost the concept of it being of the highest morality to defend oneself. In a day where WMDs are available and petrol dollars and sophisticated weaponry are funneled to radical regimes or Jihadists, morality requires that we either surrender or capitulate to radical Islam, or we fight. We have failed to make the case for fighting evil to the nation and we have failed to win agreement by both political parties about that core concept. Instead, we play gottcha politics with details and nuance.
Fight the terrorists on the moral level they fight us? One would hope we would maintain a higher level of morality than that. Defending oneself is fine, but attacking other people first is not. Initiating the violence is one of the immoral things the terrorists do that make them squarely in the wrong. If we fight on the same moral level, then we're not fighting a moral war.
9. Propaganda. We fail to use it to bolster our unity and to undermine our enemy’s unity and cohesiveness. Perhaps we need to use propaganda in Islam to question the goodness of a God that allows for a faith that is spread by the sword, and a faith that chooses such weapons of conversion as dynamite belts on innocent young Muslims. We need to drop our fear of cartoon type reactions and control our multicultural sensitivities when they interfere with our action in this vital area. We need to use propaganda to rally Americans around the need for a common loyalty over and above, lesser things such as ethnicity, class status, and party affiliation, that we may survive as a nation, not a land of competing special interest groups.
While I agree that we should find a way to encourage Muslims to question the more militant aspects of the religion, I doubt we're going to get there via Western propaganda. But my major problem here is the notion of propaganda to promote national unity. However fascist the Islamic terrorists might seem, the last thing we need is a campaign to promote people submerging their individuality into the concept of national unity. We need more individualism, not less.
10. We lack the decency of a moral society worth fighting for. Beyond the biological urge to survive, there is a moral level that man is able to attain that needs and deserves protection and recognition. When both parties squabble about how much innocent life is moral to take or use for our pleasure, or health, when we laugh at those who believe and live in compliance with nature’s God, we lose our moral authority to fight wars. When we deliberately in the name of liberty, confuse good and evil in order to manipulate and control the minds of the masses, we invite evil and lose the sole basis for fighting any war.
A society that believes man is incapable of evil is in its death throes. A society that fails to recognize evil is already dead. A country that does battle for neither good nor evil is doomed to lose that battle.
If we fight just to protect our culture of death or our radical materialism, be it for hedonist, capitalist, or consumer, we fight for a hollow cause, for mankind chooses to die for great and noble causes. Islamists understand that. We had better learn it or live to regret it.
And finally we come to the real reason for this list to exist: moralistic condemnation of anyone who does not share the author's apparently religious beliefs. This is the point where, if I were to take the author seriously, the entire list would have become somewhat frightening. He (or she) has talked about the morality of war, the need to oppose evil, and the need for national unity over the desires of individuals. And now we have the evil in our midst component. A nice recipe for starting a cult or a fascist political movement.
Either way, the whole thing is adult male bovine excrement.
Pages: 1 ... 240 241 [242] 243 244
Show Posts