Show Posts

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 ... 241 242 [243] 244
3631
3DHS / Re: Will the West survive?
« on: October 08, 2006, 02:28:22 PM »
Quote from: sirs on October 08, 2006, 02:07:05 AM

And I'd add effective as well


I'm sure you would, but you haven't done anything to support that assertion.

Quote from: sirs on October 08, 2006, 02:07:05 AM

No, apparently you don't understand.  We should kill those not for "thinking" about it (killing Americans & Israelis, and anyone who doesn't covert to Islam), but those actively working on it.  A distinct difference, I might add


You're missing the point. You're advocating going after people based on what you believe they will do in the future. You talk of targeting people because they're planning an attack. The American military plans attacks all the damn time. And I'll ask again, if someone tried to stop that, you would be against that, wouldn't you? If you're targeting people for planning something, you're targeting people for thinking about it. And poof, there goes your distinct difference.

Quote from: sirs on October 08, 2006, 02:07:05 AM

Perhaps you can point out the chapters in the history books, that demonstrated where our militia were fighting from positions amongst the civilian population.  Perhaps you can also show where these militias actively targeted and killed innocent civilians


Back then the militia were civilians. And I didn't say they targeted or killed civilians. I said they could hide in the civilian population, didn't wear uniforms and didn't fight by the book. If it makes you feel any better, during the American Civil War, both sides had folks who killed plenty of civilians.

Quote from: sirs on October 08, 2006, 02:07:05 AM

"Leaving them alone" does zilch to lessen the threat. 


So? Not that I agree with you, but even if you're right, so what? 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?

Quote from: sirs on October 08, 2006, 02:07:05 AM

"Leaving them alone" does nothing but embolden them to do more, since we'll have been perceived as running away with our tails between our legs.


A position we would not be in if we had been leaving them alone in the first place. But regardless of how it is perceived, it is still the right thing to do. 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. So I could care less if leaving makes them happy or not.

Quote from: sirs on October 08, 2006, 02:07:05 AM

"Leaving them alone" does nothing to lessen their ability to wage war on us.


So? What has that got to do with it? Their ability to wage war on us is minuscule. You don't really think mixing chemicals on an airplane was a plan that was really going to work do you? 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.

3632
3DHS / Re: Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? 10 reasons why not
« on: October 08, 2006, 12:31:33 AM »
Who wrote that particular bit of adult male bovine excrement?

3633
3DHS / Re: Will the West survive?
« on: October 08, 2006, 12:27:13 AM »
Quote from: sirs on October 07, 2006, 02:05:38 PM

Well, I've got history as well, if that helps


I don't believe you. Yeah, I know you keep comparing the Islamic extremists to the Nazis, but that is rather selective.

Quote from: sirs on October 07, 2006, 02:05:38 PM

It means killing them before they kill us.  It means targeting those who are planning, organizing, and carrying out attacks on us, before those attacks see the light of day. 


So if I understand this correctly, your position is that we should kill people not just for what they do, but also for what we thinking they could, would or might do if we don't kill them. We are to take the position of world authority on what other people are allowed to think, and to kill people whose thoughts are too dangerous. We, of course, are to be left free to plan and organize attacks that we may or may not ever carry out on other people, left free to decide for ourselves what is and is not a threat and how to defend ourselves, but no one else should be allowed this freedom. No, I cannot go along with that.

Quote from: sirs on October 07, 2006, 02:05:38 PM

It means that Usama and Islamofascist terrorists are a tad farther down the road than Hitler and his Nazi party were in the early 20's.  Hitler did have the luxury of Germany's borders and remedial scouting technology on our part, to build his war machine.  That's the advantage Hitler had.  The advantage that militant Islam has is widespread muslim support, and the ability to hide among the civilian population.  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


Once upon a time, we had people fighting for the U.S. who could hide in the civilian population, who didn't wear uniforms, who didn't fight by the book. They were called militias and helped win the American War for Independence. I find it hard to hold such tactics as criminal behavior. Anyway, you have yet to demonstrate how the Islamic terrorists are even close to the Nazi Party in terms of preparedness to make war.

Quote from: sirs on October 07, 2006, 02:05:38 PM

Addressed already in that such an (in)action will NOT stop the threat, will NOT impair their ability to train, plan, and instigate attacks on us, will NOT diminish their goal of both killing us and installing some global Muslim Governance


So? You seem to keep confusing "leave them alone" with "never do anything about them". "Leave them alone" means we stop screwing around in the Middle East, bring the troops home and adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy. It does not mean ignore them and do nothing if they decide to attack. Frankly, I don't give a damn what they plan. They can plan until their lips turn blue and their fingers fall off. Our military constantly plans for what to do if we should defend or attack some place or other. If someone tried to stop that, you would be against that, wouldn't you? I fail to see why we should stop other people from doing what we do unless we're willing to stop doing it too. This "do as we say, not as we do" policy seems rather... what's the word... hypocritical.

3634
3DHS / Re: Will the West survive?
« on: October 07, 2006, 09:54:03 AM »
Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 06:42:27 PM

If left unchecked, yes, I'd opine, as many, using history as a learning tool, that it would indeed become inevitable


So, it would be inevitable, if left unchecked, because... you think so? Is that all you've got?

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 06:42:27 PM

You do what you can to prevent the future wonton slaughter of Jews, and the global goal of Nazi rule.  Kinda like what we're doing currently, but aimed at militant islam vs fascist nazis


So what does that mean? You'd advise Roosevelt and Churchill to make a preemptive strike against Germany? Based on what? How do you justify taking out people based on actions you believe they will take but have not yet happened? Isn't punishing people based on what you think they'll do eventually rather arrogant? I mean, it's easy to say let's stop the Nazis, but just why does that give you or anyone else a position to declare definitively what other people will do in the future?

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 06:42:27 PM

And when I see start seeing such in the way of overt unconstitutional behavior by the U.S. government, I'll be right on board.  FBI getting red flags about jihadist & bomb making library books being checked out doesn't make me flinch in the least.  Neither does the NSA listening in on Foreign terrorists calling in & out of the U.S.  Neither does holding these enemy combatants taken off the battlefield and held indefinately, as any other war has done.  Neither does perfectly legal datamining.  Neither does harsh interrogation tactics in trying to learn about the next 911.


The first sentence there seems in conflict with the rest of the paragraph. Unless you mean you're willingly turning a blind eye to the unconstitutional behavior so that you don't see it. Yeah, yeah, I know, the courts say blah blah, and foreigners are not protected blah blah. I am not so cavalier with human rights or the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution exists to restrict government and protect the rights of people, even the bad ones. And spying on what people read is far too close to policing what people think for me to stomach it. It makes me ill to think of it. I frankly don't understand how people can be not bothered by such things. Yes, I understand the rationalizations, but that anyone would actually say, oh sure, holding someone indefinitely without a trial, nothing wrong with that, what the f...? I expect that of the mafia, of criminals, of terrorists, but we're supposed to be the good guys, the folks who give a damn about the rights of other human beings. Apparently this is not the case. We only care about the rights of our people, and anyone else gets treated like a wild dog. Frankly the extent to which we're willing to ignore the rights of people who are not us, not Americans, not on our side, is rather scary.

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 06:42:27 PM

I do draw the line at the infliction of any acute physical pain & suffering.  I'll leave that to the enemy


Well, I suppose that is something. I'm glad to see you're willing to draw the line somewhere.

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 06:42:27 PM

but Williams is no where close to the fringe as Savage is.


Didn't I say that?

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 06:42:27 PM

And we ARE under a threat.


We may face a threat but we are not under a threat.

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 06:42:27 PM

It's been made perfectly clear by our enemy what their intentions are.  Convert or die, with convert largely a questionable option.  One more time, they can't be placated, they can't be appeased, they can't be made to be nice-nice.


All the more reason to leave them alone.

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 06:42:27 PM

They can only be defeated.


Yes, I know. We must beat them into submission or kill them. Remind me why we're the good guys... oh yeah, because we're not Islamic terrorists who want to control the world. We're just Americans who want to influence the world. Right. Yeah. Sure.

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 06:42:27 PM

We're not Rome,


Your pal Williams made the comparison, not me.

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 06:42:27 PM

we're not trying to make everyone govern like us, or behave like us.  Due to the complete impotence and non-credibility of the UN, we've become the defacto Global security force.


You probably believe that. I don't.

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 06:42:27 PM

We could just turn tail and hide within our borders, and pray that everyone will leave us alone, but reality dictates that won't happen.  they will come, and they will kill.  Our options are largely limited to killing them either closer or farther away from our country.  The farther away we can kill them, the less potential death they can inflict within our country


Or instead, we could simply start leaving other countries alone and take care of our own concerns. Leaving other people alone is not the same as running away. I'm not suggesting that if we leave them alone, then no one will try to hurt us. But that other people might try to hurt us is not a valid excuse for us to decide we know what is best for other countries. If we really want to deter other countries from screwing around with world, then we should lead by example and start following our own advice. And if we want to maintain the safety of our people, then we establish that anyone who attacks us or our people is going to end up bombed, hunted down and killed, or otherwise made irrevocably dead. No negotiations, no Jimmy Carter hand-wringing, just retaliation. That would be protecting Americans. This nonsense about a "war on terror" is a lot of rhetoric, and a lot of people are dying, but we are no closer to accomplishing our goal now than we were before the Iraq War. The U.S. government is making the wrong decisions and pursuing the wrong foreign policy. No amount of talk about "capitulation" or "turning tail and hiding" alters that fact one iota. And we will not be pursuing a policy of protecting Americans from the terrorists until the U.S. government starts making the correct decisions and pursuing a rational, non-interventionist foreign policy. Instead of continually acting as if America is afraid that the terrorists are going kill us all, the government needs to take off the temper-tantrum shorts, put on some clean long pants, grow a damn spine, and start acting like the leadership of a strong and free nation.

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 06:42:27 PM

I DO believe that, and that they COULD achieve being the Nazis of not just the 20's, but the 30's as well, if left unchecked.  And my POV is reinforced not just by their rhetoric, not just by their actions, but by the large support and minimal condemnations they receive from other countries, especially Muslim countries


If left unchecked, if left unchecked, if left unchecked. You keep saying that, but what does that mean? Is someone around here suggesting we ignore terrorist activity? Is some one suggesting Chamberlain-like treaties with the terrorists? I realize that some folks want to equate a non-interventionist policy with appeasement of the terrorists, but that is really stupid and not even remotely accurate. One thing people tend to overlook about the rise of the Nazi Party is that this was really an extension of events that started with the damn Treaty of Versailles, governments pushing around the defeated Germany. So even if a defeat of the terrorists is achieved, you have no guarantee that your end result will not be something worse than what you started with. Which is to say, we could end up being the catalyst that leads the Islamic extremists to becoming the Nazi-like horror you keep insisting they will be. Unless of course you intend to advocate their complete annihilation as I discussed before. In which case, I'll repeat what I said before. To take a stand against totalitarianism in a situation like the one we are in, the answer to totalitarianism is not war but liberty.

3635
3DHS / Re: Will the West survive?
« on: October 06, 2006, 06:03:16 PM »
Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 12:03:12 PM

Mr. Williams, like many others, which would include Bush I would imagine, sees the threat of militant Islam for what it could become.


So they're all trying to get us to latch onto their fear of a possibility that is by no means inevitable? Not an improvement. But I don't believe that is what Walter Williams is trying to say. He did not say, for example, "Will we have the intelligence to recognize the attack and the will to defend ourselves from annihilation?" He said, "Do we have..." And he did not say, "The sooner we recognize the West will be in a war for survival," but rather, "The sooner we recognize the West is in a war for survival". So I think Mr. Williams is not talking about what may happen, but about the threat, as he sees it, right now.

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 12:03:12 PM

It's like catching Hitler and the Nazi party back in the 20's.


Is it? Suppose one could travel back in time and accomplish raising awareness of the Nazis. What then? Hindsight is said to be 20/20. It's easy to say, oh, if only we'd recognized the Nazis for what they were before the got into power, but even if they had recognized them for racist, evil bastards, no one in the 1920s would have any grounds for extrapolating onto the Nazi Party crimes that none of them had committed yet. Similarly, trying to use the Nazi model as a means of pinning future crimes onto Islamic fundamentalists is something we have no grounds to do. We are not God, so we don't get to claim we know what they're going to do and so punish them for something they supposedly will do. I'm all for punishing terrorists responsible for crimes they have committed. This "what they could become" bit, however, strikes me as a load of propaganda proping up a desire for American hegemony. Thus does it lead Mr. Williams to compare America to the Roman Empire.

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 12:03:12 PM

Now, I'm sure that if folks like Mr. Williams started opining how dangerous the Nazi party could be, he would have been denounced with comments along the line of "There he goes again, trying to paint our current situation as a (cue the dramatic yet patriotic musical flourish) war for survival". In actuality it's recognizing the threat for what it could and likely will be if left unchecked.  Not so much for what it is right now, right this minute.  IMHO, a "war for our survival" would mean Iran already had nukes, AlQeada had already taken charge of the entire Middle East, and Israel was on the verge of ceasing to exist.


I have no problem with someone trying to point out the agenda of Islamic terrorists is to create a fundamentalist Muslim state/world free from Western influence and to convert or kill as many people as that takes. I'll say it myself (like I just did). However, moving from there to a "war for survival" is an error. And as I pointed out before, Mr. Williams is talking about a "war for survival" not in the future tense but in the present tense.

Quote from: sirs on October 06, 2006, 12:03:12 PM

And the interesting thing is, to the best of my recollection, you were making these same arguements as to what the real agenda of what Militant Islam was all about, power and expanding it to cover as much of the Middle East and beyond, as they could.  I vividly recall you making that accurate case to the likes of Brass & co.  Has the war in Iraq changed your assessment on their agenda?  Am I simply rememebering it wrong?


No and no. For a time after September 11, 2001, I was deliberately equating Usama bin Laden with Adolf Hitler. The threat of the terrorists loomed large before me as it did for most of the country. I was already questioning that stance by 2003 when the case for war with Iraq was being built. Even so, I was still on the fence about war with Iraq at the time. The more I examine the situation, trying to place events in context and consider them rationally rather than emotionally, the more convinced I become that we have we overblown the threat of terrorism—and it is a threat, make no mistake—into something bigger than it really is because it feeds, on an emotional level, a romantic notion of America taking a stand against injustice and tyranny, and the popular notion that without us fighting for influence in the world, the world would be overrun by despots and genocidal fanatics. The thing that makes me the most cynical about this is that the supposed struggle against totalitarianism is resulting in the U.S. government itself becoming more authoritarian, demanding more power in its pursuit of terrorists et al.

And then, sadly, along come folks like Michael Savage and even Walter Williams who insist that America is under threat of cultural and physical annihilation. Michael Savage is a mean-spirited crackpot who gets mean-spirited morons calling into his show and congratulating him for being the lone voice of sanity. So I can pretty much dismiss him. Walter Williams, on the other hand, respresents a more mainstream, if not necessarily widely accepted, position on the matter. But Walter Williams makes his case in clear language. The "West is in a war for survival" he says. And if we don't recognize this, he implies, America will fall like the Roman Empire to barbaric hordes, leaving the world to fall into a new Dark Ages. You can't get much more romantic about our situation than that. And if you believe the world needs an American hegemony run by the U.S. government, then his case is very appealing. But I don't believe that. And I don't believe the Islamic fundamentalists are even close to being the Nazis of the 1920s, unless we make them that way. What I do believe is that to take a stand against totalitarianism in a situation like the one we are in, the answer to totalitarianism is not war but liberty.

To paraphrase the old 1960s cliché, we need to make trade not war. The only American hegemony worth pursuing is one of free trade. And before someone tells me that we can't trade with them or they won't trade with us, or whatever along those lines, yes we can, but that isn't something we need to worry about. If no American business ever did trade with a Middle East business, it would not matter. Ludwig von Mises said, "The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice versa, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom." And he said, "When men have gained freedom in purely economic relationships they begin to desire it elsewhere." And I think he was right on both counts. Let the Middle East not trade with us. If economic freedom world wide were to grow, as those in the Middle East did business with someone, their desire for political freedom would also increase. The point here being not that money will make things better, but that there is no sort of oxymoronic situation where people can be subdued into freedom. Freedom comes by liberation, emancipation, the empowerment of the individual. And if we really want to fight tyranny and totalitarianism, if we really want to influence the world and save ourselves from annihilation, then we need more freedom, not more war.

3636
3DHS / Re: Tavern camera mandate proposed
« on: October 06, 2006, 10:04:26 AM »
Quote from: The_Professor on October 05, 2006, 10:47:01 AM

Is there a solution to mitigate or reverse this tide?


Sure. Quit demanding government take care of us.

3637
3DHS / Re: Will the West survive?
« on: October 06, 2006, 10:02:23 AM »
Quote from: The_Professor on October 05, 2006, 05:15:56 PM

I have found an article I find to be both enlightening and accurate. Do you?


No, not really.

Quote from: The_Professor on October 05, 2006, 05:15:56 PM

Will the West survive?


It might if the people in the West don't turn it into a fascist police state first.

Quote from: The_Professor on October 05, 2006, 05:15:56 PM

The Muslim world is at war with Western civilization. We have the military might to thwart them. The question is: Do we have the intelligence to recognize the attack and the will to defend ourselves from annihilation?

[...]

The sooner we recognize the West is in a war for survival, the more likely we'll be able to escape the fate that befell the Roman Empire.


My major problem with Walter Williams' analysis is that he, like many others, is trying to paint our current situation as a (cue the dramatic yet patriotic musical flourish) war for survival. In a war for survival, there are two basic options, either you learn to peaceably co-exist, or you completely destroy that which you are warring against. Any attempt to promote the notion of peaceable co-existence in this current "war for survival" is called "capitulation to the terrorists". Which leaves annihilating all of them.

"So?" says you. "What's wrong with annihilating the terrorists?" says you. I'll tell you. Annihilating just the folks that are terrorists now won't be enough. More folks will become terrorists, because they too see themselves in a war for their survival. I'm not saying we would have to kill all Muslims. I am saying there would be truly horrible amount of people dead, tens of millions if not hundreds of millions. It would be a slaughter on a scale that would out do Hitler and Stalin and any other murderous dictator you can name.

"But they want to kill us," says you, "so shouldn't we be defending ourselves?" Let's make one thing very clear, in a war, any war but particularly a war for survival, the only way to win through annihilation is not to defend oneself from attack, but to attack before the other can do harm to you. Not only that, it means doing whatever is necessary to kill the enemy as completely as possible, to prevent any chance that the enemy might later recover and again be a threat. So anyone who believes this to be a war for survival, anyone who really wants to kill all the terrorists should seriously consider if America should do that kind of killing. This isn't a case where a couple of nukes is going to compell the enemy to capitulate and the threat dissapears forever. This is a case of all out annihilation, killing off every last man, woman and child who sides with, sympathizes with and/or in anyway gives aid to the terrorists. Is that really the path America needs to take?

"But if we don't stop them from killing us," says you. Let me stop you right there. Before we start getting into this whole "if we don't stop them, they're going to kill us all" bit, there is something that must be made extremely clear. If we start all out annihilation of our enemy in this so-called war for survival, we are the ones who are going to be doing the killing. Killing people. Hunting people down and killing them. Bombing homes and killing people. Killing people however we can. If we do this, we will be doing the same thing we claim they're wrong for wanting to do to us. Oh yeah, we have justifications out the wazoo, but we would still be engaging in the slaughter of millions of people. We would become both the fulfillment of what they already claim we are and what we claim them to be.

"So are you saying we should give into them?" asks you. No, says I. I'm not saying that at all. I don't believe we are in a war for our survival. We are not in any kind of war at all, except the ones we make for ourselves. Absolutely we should be going after the terrorists who have and are trying to attack us. Absolutely we should hunt down those who are responsible for crimes against us. But we are not in a war for survival with the Islamic terrorists any more than we are in a war for survival with the mafia or folks like Timothy McVeigh. Did we start hunting down and killing radical, anti-government racists after the Oklahoma City bombing? No. We went after the people responsible for the bombing. Does anyone argue that we capitulated to the radical, anti-government whatevers because we haven't made "war" on them or had more incidents like the ones at Ruby Ridge and Waco? No. In fact we've mostly forgotten about them.

"Yeah, but," says you. I'm not finished yet. The question that someone made the headline for Walter Williams' column is "Will the West survive?" The biggest threat to the survival of the West is not the terrorists but ourselves. Everytime we surrender our rights to give government more power over society, we lose just that much more liberty. The more we insist government protect us from everything, the more we erode the very thing that made Western civilization the world dominating success that it is. And I find it ironic that the people who keep trying to make the "war on terror" into a war of survival are the ones who seem most willing to make that erosion happen. The more that we demand government make the rules for our lives, the more we become like the society that the Islamic extremists want, which is to say, the closer we get to a society wherein everyone's life is defined by a strict set of laws and the only liberty anyone has is the liberty to follow the letter of the law. If the goal is to see Western civilization survive, then we need a little less "war on terror" and a lot more protection of individual liberty. Otherwise, the West may indeed not survive. In which case we will have strangled it with our own hands.

Okay, I'm done for now. What were you going to say?

3638
3DHS / Re: Adopting our values and Iraq
« on: October 05, 2006, 07:57:50 AM »
Quote from: The_Professor on October 04, 2006, 03:54:00 PM

If we cannot induce those growing up here to adopt our values,


What does that even mean? Which values? Which "those growing up here"?


Quote from: The_Professor on October 04, 2006, 03:54:00 PM

Clearly nations can be built; equally clearly the Western intelligentsia despises "nationalism". If Iraq is not to inspire "national" patriotism, to just what are Babylonians, Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians, Persians, Turkomen, etc. to be loyal? To Islam? Which one? Shia, Sunni, Wahabi, Sufi? What, other than dislike of Israel and US intervention, unites all these people? I ask seriously.


Maybe Iraq should not inspire nationalism. Maybe we should let the country split. Why do we have to have Iraq as Iraq? And why should we even care about it one way or the other?

3639
3DHS / Re: To Free Iraq from Dictatorial Oppression
« on: October 05, 2006, 07:41:32 AM »
Quote from: Plane on October 05, 2006, 12:49:16 AM

People are still people , we have changed only a little since prehistory , we wear diffrent clothes and drive faster chairiots but what Socraties observed about People is still relivant nonetheless.


None of which changes the fact that the specific motivations for entry into World War II are not relevant to the discussion of motivations for the Iraq War. If the same people were making the decisions, and if the nature of the conflict was the same, you might have a valid point here. But different people are making the decisions, and the nature of the conflict is different.

Quote from: Plane on October 05, 2006, 12:49:16 AM

Is it your point that freeing Iraq from repression was a reason given to the masses by the eletes who really make the decisions?


No. That is not my point. My point in this discussion is the same as it has been since my initial post. The notion that we are helping to establish a free Iraq is a false notion with no basis in reality.

Quote from: Plane on October 05, 2006, 12:49:16 AM

So the the" real " reasons were ulterior reasons known only to a few?


I'm not saying that. It might in fact be the case, but I'm not saying it is, and whether we do or don't know is not my point. Whatever their motivations were or are, the romantic idea that we're fighting tyranny and establishing a bastion of freedom in the Middle East is simply not true. Whatever this conflict is about, it isn't about freedom no matter much we might wish it was.

Quote from: Plane on October 05, 2006, 12:49:16 AM

I do not have this paradgn down really.

In my estimation , the reason that is taken by the people is a real determiner , the people don't just vote every two years , they lend support or oppose the direction of government constantly , the resultant vector is an addition of millions of vectors with the leanings of the elete only able to turn the tide a little off of its chosen trajectory.

If the People beleived , wanted and supported the relief of the people of Iraq then this is a real reason .


Um, no. If the people believed it, it might be a reason why they supported the war, but that hardly makes it a genuine reason or motivation as to why the leaders decided to go to war. Unless you expect me to believe that there was some sort of great outpouring of demand from the general populace that America go to war with Iraq. That is not the way events unfolded, as I recall.

Quote from: Plane on October 05, 2006, 12:49:16 AM

If the people as a whole care some what less now than then for this reason , then this may be a rest in the momentum , or it may be a turning of the tide , either way when the great mass of us are moving the elete surf along on our waves .


That is a wonderfully romantic notion, Plane, but as romantic a fellow as I am, I don't buy it. The Bush administration had to build a case for war with Iraq. There was no demand from the people for war in Iraq before that. I hope to God that we never see the day when the general populace starts demanding the leaders take America to war against a country that has not attacked us. That would truly be a horrible day.

3640
3DHS / Re: Tavern camera mandate proposed
« on: October 04, 2006, 08:04:06 PM »
And people scoff when I say America is gradually progressing toward a police state.  ::he said cynically::

3641
3DHS / Re: Republicans Dropped The Dime on Foley
« on: October 04, 2006, 07:53:53 PM »
Quote from: Mucho on October 04, 2006, 06:19:13 PM

The age of consent in Ca is 18 which is where the actual sex probably happened .


So you're condemning a man on a probably? You don't even know if there was an actual, physical sex act. Your case is pathetically weak.

Quote from: Mucho on October 04, 2006, 06:19:13 PM

Leave it to you to support a pedophile because he passed laws against it.


Who said I was supporting Foley? I didn't say that. And no, criticizing the complaints about Foley does not equal support. To point out that I am not supporting the man at all is one reason I included the second quote. I notice you seem to lack the skill to pick up on that. The man without a doubt deserves the public and political fallout he is getting, but that doesn't make him a pedophile. And frankly, I'd like to reserve that title for people who are actually proven to be pedophiles, not out of any respect for Foley (which I haven't got) but because I prefer words to have meaning. It makes clear communication much easier.

Quote from: Mucho on October 04, 2006, 06:19:13 PM

If you really don't mind a 54 year old man soliciting sex from a 16 year old, why don't you send him your IM addy.


Who said I don't mind? You have a genuine skill for making stupid assumptions, don't you?

3642
3DHS / Re: Republicans Dropped The Dime on Foley
« on: October 04, 2006, 04:25:11 PM »
"But as it turns out, the Mark Foley pedophilia sex scandal lacks two things: pedophilia and sex. The victim of Foley's electronic overfriendliness was not a pre-adolescent, but a 16-year-old; above the age of consent in D.C., and an age at which the average American moves from explicit IM exchanges to the real deal."

[...]

"...thanks to a culture Foley helped create, he has been portrayed as an alcoholic pedophile/adulterer/cybermonster hybrid as guilty as any predator beyond cyberspace. If the laws he helped to write are hopelessly clumsy, the circumstances of his political end couldn't be more perfect."

More at Reason Online

3643
3DHS / Re: To Free Iraq from Dictatorial Oppression
« on: October 04, 2006, 04:18:26 PM »
Plane, motivations for entering W.W. II have no relevance, that I can see, to this discussion. The conflict in Iraq is not W.W. II. That ended back in the 1940s This year is 2006 by the Gregorian calendar. There are something like 60 years between now and then. Our leaders are entirely different people, and the war in Iraq is an entirely different conflict. If you want to talk about similarities of motivations, about the only similarity that might be drawn is that there are speculations both F.D.R. and G.W.B. wanted to find a way to draw America into a global conflict. So I think you don't really want to be bringing W.W. II into this discussion, unless your goal is to persuade me that JS is entirely correct.

3644
3DHS / Re: If the US Presidential Election "Mythical 3rd Party" Primary were held today
« on: October 04, 2006, 06:54:44 AM »
Is Badnarik even running for President this time around? I thought he was running for Congress.

3645
3DHS / Re: To Free Iraq from Dictatorial Oppression
« on: October 04, 2006, 06:23:35 AM »
Quote from: Plane on October 04, 2006, 05:11:15 AM


They are odviously not doing this the American way .


And what way would that be?

Quote from: Plane on October 04, 2006, 05:11:15 AM

But if we interpose ourselves do we humiliate them ?


We didn't care about that before the war, so why would it be a consideration now? Anyway, for the record, I have not suggested we force the Iraqi government to do anything.

Quote from: Plane on October 04, 2006, 05:11:15 AM

Are we just going to be a better despot than Saddam?


Us? What about the Iraqi government?

Quote from: Plane on October 04, 2006, 05:11:15 AM

If all they have is genuine  elections they can use the election process to fight any problem, includeing an overbearing government.


Can they? If their election process works anything like ours, I have serious doubts that they can.

Pages: 1 ... 241 242 [243] 244