NationStates Jolt Archive

I read an article today about how Kerry has put forth a great deal of information about his plans concerning Iraq should he be elected. The author tried to present a balanced piece and included the usual bashing by the right, but one little paragraph about halfway down stuck in my craw. An Independant National Security Analyst's (who claimed to not endorse either candidates plan) only criticism of Kerry's plan was it wasn't "financially Practical"! Come on! We're talking about peoples lives here! What exactly is a financially practical measure of a human life? How can you be talking monetary cost when the cost in human lives keeps rising?





I don't care what the guy say's, he's obviously a Republican.

Sadly enough, many soldiers qualify for welfare. Is this any way to treat the defenders of our way of life? Even the worst third world nation treats its fighter better.

Well, the pricetag for Bush's Iraqi adventure is around $200 billion and counting, right? And it hasn't gone very well, has it? I don't find that to be very financially practical at all.

Bush sucks

Well, the pricetag for Bush's Iraqi adventure is around $200 billion and counting, right? And it hasn't gone very well, has it? I don't find that to be very financially practical at all.

Bush sucks
I only do this (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=253) because I like you I don't want you to get burned. Your conclusion is valid, but you know peoples knack for minutia...

No worries. I'm not always right, and I'm not too proud to admit it. Sigh, a victim of spin, this time from my side. What a dirty business politics is.

Okay, correction. Under $120 billion is still to high a cost for a failing war.

You guys are missing the point. The true cost in Iraq is in the lives lost there. No amount of money is too great if it is spent in a way that will end the toll of human lives.

You guys are missing the point. The true cost in Iraq is in the lives lost there. No amount of money is too great if it is spent in a way that will end the toll of human lives.

Don't get me wrong. I realize the real cost all to well. I am merely framing the argument in another way in order to reach a different section of the populace. Specifically, that segment that tends to think with their wallets first.

It's sad how many people think of the bottom line when there are more important things to consider.

I read an article today about how Kerry has put forth a great deal of information about his plans concerning Iraq should he be elected. The author tried to present a balanced piece and included the usual bashing by the right, but one little paragraph about halfway down stuck in my craw. An Independant National Security Analyst's (who claimed to not endorse either candidates plan) only criticism of Kerry's plan was it wasn't "financially Practical"! Come on! We're talking about peoples lives here! What exactly is a financially practical measure of a human life? How can you be talking monetary cost when the cost in human lives keeps rising?

The whole "a human life is infinitely valuable" thing is frustrating because nobody really believes that, regardless of what they say. If it were true then you'd never drive too fast or smoke cigarettes, in fact you'd only leave the house and cross the street to earn enough money to buy health food and vitamins. Do you donate all your income (apart from what's necessary to buy essentials) to charities to relieve famine in Africa, or do you buy CDs and decent cloathing? What is the financial value of a human life? You tell me, you just spent some African's dinner on N-Sync.

You guys are missing the point. The true cost in Iraq is in the lives lost there. No amount of money is too great if it is spent in a way that will end the toll of human lives.
You don't really believe that. Would you spend the entire GDP of the USA to stop the Iraqi war, or would you realise that a) the money isn't yours to spend b) spending all that would do more harm to Americans than good to Iraqis?

Sadly enough, many soldiers qualify for welfare. Is this any way to treat the defenders of our way of life? Even the worst third world nation treats its fighter better.

You're so full of shit its sickening, Housing, food, medical is all paid for by the U.S. Government.
A Private in the Army or a Seaman Recruit (E-1 fresh out of boot camp) makes 1104 first 4 months and 1193 after that E-2's make 1337 a month. All of this without having to pay for rent, basic utilities, food, or medical.

Sadly enough, many soldiers qualify for welfare. Is this any way to treat the defenders of our way of life? Even the worst third world nation treats its fighter better.
Defenders? When was the last time America was attacked? (and don't say Pearl Harbour, that was provoked by an embargo on Japan) Have you actually been attacked since the first war of independence? The army IS welfare, you just get a gun as part of the package.

To all you people that say "Life is Infinitely Valuable" - You are wrong, and you are wrong for a VERY SIMPLE reason:
Since the dawn of time, men put prices on EVERYTHING. Including other men.
I mean, look at slavery: Some time, not too long ago, you could buy a real human being, as if it was a piece of furniture.
In some countries you still can - sure, it's illegal. But it's also profitable, and as long as there is profit in ANY activity, legal or not, that activity will continue to happen.
So don't say that "You can't put a price on human lives", because you can:
1 Chinese woman, working in a sweatshop. Her life is worth... What? the 10 cents she gets after a day's work? Come on. She's a human being... No way her life would sell so cheaply. Right? Wrong. As soon as she is sick, or unproductive, she's worthless. Her life is forfeit over a DRESS.
Or, another example: A soldier that goes to war. What's the value of his life? Whatever country he serves, BUYS his life - He gets paid to go to war, and maybe get killed. So his life is valued at whatever "Salary" he gets.
How about those Iraqis, that die in Bush's war? What's the value of their lives? Less than a dollar. Why? Because that's the cost of the bullet that will kill them.
So, there is a price tag on everybody - Even YOU and ME. That's the idea behind health insurance - to put a price tag on a person.
To the topic at hand: The war is NOT financially practical, but not due to loss of human life. It is impractical because the money that is being spent on the war could have been spent on something actually useful, like fighting crime INSIDE the U.S.
The lives that are lost, both soldiers and civilians, are NOT worth that much.
--------Damn, I Wrote A Lot---------------

Defenders? When was the last time America was attacked? (and don't say Pearl Harbour, that was provoked by an embargo on Japan) Have you actually been attacked since the first war of independence? The army IS welfare, you just get a gun as part of the package.

Pearl Harbor.

E-2's make 1337 a month.

US Army = 1337?!?!?!?!

US Army = 1337?!?!?!?!
Plus related benefits like housing, food and the right to rape foreigners.

Defenders? When was the last time America was attacked? (and don't say Pearl Harbour, that was provoked by an embargo on Japan) Have you actually been attacked since the first war of independence? The army IS welfare, you just get a gun as part of the package.

War of 1812... well.. a japanese bomb did hit the coast of Oregon....

And come on... we provoked the attack with an embargo? so that doesn't count as an attack? You make it sound like war is the only way to settle our differences (an embargo is a diplomatic technique, although not a really effective one).

No matter if you like it or not, they are defending our life style. Until we can rip ourselves from being dependant on that "certain" resource we are locked in a tough spot. Even if you don't drive, there are many ways everyday that you use oil from the middle east, even if you don't realize it.

I say we should become independant of the middle east. Then it doesn't matter what goes on over there.

Sadly enough, many soldiers qualify for welfare. Is this any way to treat the defenders of our way of life? Even the worst third world nation treats its fighter better.

Not any more they don't. Pay for military personnel has increased to the point where the only way they could qualify for welfare is to leave the service.

War of 1812... well.. a japanese bomb did hit the coast of Oregon....
I stand corrected.

And come on... we provoked the attack with an embargo? so that doesn't count as an attack? You make it sound like war is the only way to settle our differences (an embargo is a diplomatic technique, although not a really effective one).

Well, yes. Japan was in the middle of a war and the Americans prevented their access to oil, you can see how Japan was forced to attack America. Plus, an embargo implies that anyone violating it will be attacked, presumably by the US navy. Thus it was America who first used military action against Japan.

No matter if you like it or not, they are defending our life style. Until we can rip ourselves from being dependant on that "certain" resource we are locked in a tough spot. Even if you don't drive, there are many ways everyday that you use oil from the middle east, even if you don't realize it.
Defending your lifestyle??? So you're saying the war was about oil and that it was thus a GOOD thing? Why not just lift the oil embargo on Iraq?

I say we should become independant of the middle east. Then it doesn't matter what goes on over there.
And you can bomb, kill and rape them without economic repercussions. Cool!

Defenders? When was the last time America was attacked? (and don't say Pearl Harbour, that was provoked by an embargo on Japan) Have you actually been attacked since the first war of independence? The army IS welfare, you just get a gun as part of the package.

9/11/2001

9/11/2001
That barely counts. That was a crime, not an act of war.

That barely counts. That was a crime, not an act of war.

Merely your interpretation of the event.

Hmmm, well, choosing not to trade with someone (ie an embargo) doesn't give that person the right to bomb to piss out of you. The next time you decide not to buy a CD from the Backstreet boys, they have every right to pull a drive-by on your butt.

I'm pretty sure that the World Trade Center was attacked 3 years back.

I'm pretty sure it was attack 11 years back also.

Mexico invaded during the 1840's

The Brits invade during the war of 1812, and they burned the Whitehouse to the ground. Hand carried a torch inside and lit the place up.

Big Jim P is right in that most young soldiers and their families do qualify for Welfare in some form or other, and Fox is also right, E-2's make 1337.70 a month before any other special pays.

That said, 1337.70 isn't enough to live on in the US. Don't know where you are getting all high and mighty from, but according to my calculator annually that only comes out 16052 gross. Minus some taxes in there. Oh, and the poor kid probably has a family, so might not have base housing. His wife can't keep a job (or if she does its fast food, minimum wage) because they move every 6 months. He's off in some shit-hole getting shot at. If he's a marine, a tent counts as that wonderful housing you claim the Government supplies. And if you think for an instant the a) the government condones rape and/or b) the average soldier in a military of a million troops runs around raping people, then perhaps you should seek some help. You are either to deluded by candy aisle rag journal media to be able to make a true judgement on the character of the people around you, or you so desire to see pain, suffering and harm inflicted upon others that you are prepared to create a self-fulfilling prophecy and pushed your vile delusion on others lives. Either way you need help.

That barely counts. That was a crime, not an act of war.

Crime? Are you from Europe by any chance? I read an interesting article about the difference in views that Americans and Europeans have towards terrorism. I was just wondering because I have not had the chance to talk to many Europeans since I read that.

Anywho, in my book it is war waged by a "nation" that does not fit into our defined political borders.

As for oil. Don't get me wrong, I think it is incorrect to think that oil would ever justify invading Iraq but I also am not ignorant of the our dependance something they have. You seemed to have justified Japan attacking us over oil.

Yes, why didn't the United Nations Security Counsel lift the Embargos against Iraq? That would include France, China, Russia, and the rest of the G-7.

Embargos have nothing to with military might, they have to do with impeding trade. Never heard of anyone in any country being attack for violating an embargo.

Quit trolling.

Hmmm, well, choosing not to trade with someone (ie an embargo) doesn't give that person the right to bomb to piss out of you. The next time you decide not to buy a CD from the Backstreet boys, they have every right to pull a drive-by on your butt.

An embargo isn't "choosing not to trade with someone", it is FORCING people not to trade. If they CHOSE not to you wouldn't need an embargo, would you?

And if you think for an instant the a) the government condones rape and/or b) the average soldier in a military of a million troops runs around raping people, then perhaps you should seek some help. You are either to deluded by candy aisle rag journal media to be able to make a true judgement on the character of the people around you, or you so desire to see pain, suffering and harm inflicted upon others that you are prepared to create a self-fulfilling prophecy and pushed your vile delusion on others lives. Either way you need help.
It doesn't matter whether the govt officially condones it or not, it is what happens when you launch an invasion. They did order military attacks that resulted in massive death, destruction of property AND rapes. That makes them responsible for crimes that private citizens would face the death penalty for.

And you can bomb, kill and rape them without economic repercussions. Cool!

I don't know where this comes from... I mean, come on now... will anyone dispute the fact that we care about what happenes in those countries because of economic reasons? Without that they can do what ever they wanted and we wouldn't care.

I hope you are not under the mistaken assumption that we just do this out of malice. If you do then you are mistaken.

An embargo isn't "choosing not to trade with someone", it is FORCING people not to trade. If they CHOSE not to you wouldn't need an embargo, would you?

I believe the term you are looking for is "asking" not "forcing". We didn't attack France, Germany and Russia for breaking the embargo (UN Sanctioned I might add) against Iraq did we? (We meaning the rest of the world (or those who upheld the embargo anyway.))

*edited to add the second close parenthesis*

Yes, why didn't the United Nations Security Counsel lift the Embargos against Iraq? That would include France, China, Russia, and the rest of the G-7.

Embargos have nothing to with military might, they have to do with impeding trade. Never heard of anyone in any country being attack for violating an embargo.

Quit trolling.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24432-2004Jul29?language=printer

Bobby Fischer, who faces about 10 years in jail for PLAYING A CHESS MATCH in violation of sanctions.

Then there is every smuggler who ever went to jail. The coast guard patrol the coast and arrest these people.

Sure no big ships try to run embargos and gets bombed because who wants to risk a big ship against the US navy?

I believe the term you are looking for is "asking" not "forcing". We didn't attack France, Germany and Russia for breaking the embargo (UN Sanctioned I might add) against Iraq did we? (We meaning the rest of the world (or those who upheld the embargo anyway.))

*edited to add the second close parenthesis*
No, but any private citizens who violate these orders go to jail, like Bobby Fischer. And no mistake, if a tanker had tried to deliver oil to Japan it would have been sunk by the US navy, or boarded and seized at the very least.

No, but any private citizens who violate these orders go to jail, like Bobby Fischer. And no mistake, if a tanker had tried to deliver oil to Japan it would have been sunk by the US navy, or boarded and seized at the very least.

So your now saying that Japan's preemptive strike against an attack that may or may not of happened was justified.... hrm... interesting...

Plus related benefits like housing, food and the right to rape foreigners.

Hmmm...that last bit isn't specified in the manuals though. ;) I'm glad the soldiers make 1337 dollars. Teh 4rmy pwns!

No, but any private citizens who violate these orders go to jail, like Bobby Fischer. And no mistake, if a tanker had tried to deliver oil to Japan it would have been sunk by the US navy, or boarded and seized at the very least.

I would expect that if my country asked me not to deal with a specific country in my business dealings and gave legitimate reasons for me to do so, that if I were to break those sanctions I would have to pay a penalty, just like any other criminal.

We hardly go out and arrest people from another country for doing so, and we don't impose our wishes on other countrys with military force.

If a country wants to arrest someone for breaking a law by going into an area under embargo, they have every right. It is a law after all.

So your now saying that Japan's preemptive strike against an attack that may or may not of happened was justified.... hrm... interesting...

It was stated in another thread on these boards that eventually the US would be blamed for starting WWII .. I guess it was proved out to be correct.

I wish I could point you at a thread, but I don't feel like it at this time :-)

Bobby Fisher is a US citizen currently charged with breaking US law. Regardless of which law, specifically in this case a sanction, criminals deserve their day in court and if found guilty, a fitting punishment. You can't believe you'd prefer to let your criminals go unpunished?

The Coast Guard is not in the military except during time of imminent invasion, during which it would have been moved for the Department of Transportation (where it currently resides) to DoD. This may have become unfeasable now that it is part of the Dept of Homeland Security.

Can you bring proof that we ever seized goods heading to Japan prior to WW2? Not saying its not out there, I've just never seen it. We would have impeded trade, either turning ships around, or withholding them in port. But seizure of goods of a countries ships at sea is an act of war, and we had not commited any acts of war prior to Dec 7, 1941. Statement of record.

That barely counts. That was a crime, not an act of war.

Merely your interpretation of the event.

If America considers 11/9 (I'm British - sue me) an act of war, can yall stop calling it terrorism please? Or can you change the name of your War on Terrorism to "Terrorism to Counter Some Other Terrorism"?

I would expect that if my country asked me not to deal with a specific country in my business dealings and gave legitimate reasons for me to do so, that if I were to break those sanctions I would have to pay a penalty, just like any other criminal.

We hardly go out and arrest people from another country for doing so, and we don't impose our wishes on other countrys with military force.

If a country wants to arrest someone for breaking a law by going into an area under embargo, they have every right. It is a law after all.
It is exactly this sort of muddled thinking that excuses all tyranny. The govt does NOT have the right to pass such laws. It has no more right to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults than to forbid gay sex. You think the govt has the right to forbid trade or drugs but not (presumably) orthodox Judaism. Where do you draw the line? What is your reasoning? How come a govt may use agressive violence to command obedience while civilised people may not? What freedoms may the govt or the majority legitimately take from you?

If you don't think embargos are maintained via military force just ask what would have happened (probably did happen) to Syrian trucks transporting goods to Hussein's Iraq in violation of sanctions? Airstrike, most probably.

Can you bring proof that we ever seized goods heading to Japan prior to WW2? Not saying its not out there, I've just never seen it. We would have impeded trade, either turning ships around, or withholding them in port. But seizure of goods of a countries ships at sea is an act of war, and we had not commited any acts of war prior to Dec 7, 1941. Statement of record.
Don't know if it counts as proof, but there are history sites out there like this one

http://www.hangtide.com/holidayhistory/Pearl%20Harbor%20Day/

that specify why Japan thought it necessary to attack Pearl Harbour.

It is exactly this sort of muddled thinking that excuses all tyranny. The govt does NOT have the right to pass such laws. It has no more right to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults than to forbid gay sex. You think the govt has the right to forbid trade or drugs but not (presumably) orthodox Judaism. Where do you draw the line? What is your reasoning? How come a govt may use agressive violence to command obedience while civilised people may not? What freedoms may the govt or the majority legitimately take from you?

If you don't think embargos are maintained via military force just ask what would have happened (probably did happen) to Syrian trucks transporting goods to Hussein's Iraq in violation of sanctions? Airstrike, most probably.

Your opinions are showing ... and attempting to pass them off as facts just proves that your argument is shaky at best.

Your opinions are showing ... and attempting to pass them off as facts just proves that your argument is shaky at best.

Expressing a statement of percieved probability is hardly "passing something off" as facts.

It is exactly this sort of muddled thinking that excuses all tyranny. The govt does NOT have the right to pass such laws. It has no more right to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults than to forbid gay sex. You think the govt has the right to forbid trade or drugs but not (presumably) orthodox Judaism. Where do you draw the line? What is your reasoning? How come a govt may use agressive violence to command obedience while civilised people may not? What freedoms may the govt or the majority legitimately take from you?

If you don't think embargos are maintained via military force just ask what would have happened (probably did happen) to Syrian trucks transporting goods to Hussein's Iraq in violation of sanctions? Airstrike, most probably.

Why do you have to turn everything into a discussion about the validity of the existence of government? In very bald terms, the government has the right to forbid stuff because it says that it does, and it is the government that gives out rights. Why not accept that some people like having governments and discuss something else for a change, eg whether it is a good thing that some US soldiers may or may not qualify for welfare.

As it goes, when you were discussing that you were right, the US Military is pretty much a welfare program. Which bodes ill for any country where these people turn up. If the level of pay is to be believed, a lot of these people wouldn't get a job on pizza delivery and yet they are given tanks to drive.

Why do you have to turn everything into a discussion about the validity of the existence of government?
That's what most of these issues boil down to, and justifying my views as part of a coherent philosophy a) makes the point more forceful b) might alert people to the parallels to other instances of govt violence.

Your opinions are showing ... and attempting to pass them off as facts just proves that your argument is shaky at best.
Please adress this point...

"The govt does NOT have the right to pass such laws. It has no more right to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults than to forbid gay sex. You think the govt has the right to forbid trade or drugs but not (presumably) orthodox Judaism. Where do you draw the line? What is your reasoning? How come a govt may use agressive violence to command obedience while civilised people may not? What freedoms may the govt or the majority legitimately take from you?"

The pay scale is correct, but I don't think you said what you meant to say. Did you mean that though they weren't paid as much a Pizza Delivery folks, soldiers were allowed to drive tanks? How about, though a tank is more difficult to drive, more stressful and requiring more responsibility, they a paid less than even Pizza Delivery folks.

The pay scale is correct, but I don't think you said what you meant to say. Did you mean that though they weren't paid as much a Pizza Delivery folks, soldiers were allowed to drive tanks? How about, though a tank is more difficult to drive, more stressful and requiring more responsibility, they a paid less than even Pizza Delivery folks.

No, I meant that what would make a person want to put themself and others in great danger for less money than they would get driving pizza delivery? Might it not be that a lot of said people wouldn't get a job in pizza delivery? And if they could, are they sane to be driving tanks?

The Gov't has the right because the people of a given nation has given it that right. Majority rule applies here, one desenting vote can not count in the progress of society. One person who thinks its alright to murder cannot be allowed go forth and aggrivate. Rights are gifts given to a people of a nation by its governement. The government as established therefore has the right to set in place the rules and regulation that citizens of a nation must abide by in order to maintain a nation state. Any gov't that over steps its bounds as seen by the citizens can expect resistance, revolt, and internal strife. The government had the same right to restrict commerce as it does morally indecent acts, to include murder and sodomy. A government set up within a given structure can even limit any or all religions which may be practiced within it boundries. The United States citizens, as a majority, have chosen not to give the gov't the ability to take away its own rights in regards to religion.

Personally I believe that the infringement of rights that do not effect persons beyond the individual is flat out wrong. If I want to bugger some other willing bloke, I should be allowed to. Thats not what society in Amercia has chosen as standard norm.

Met some tank drivers, not all sane, true.

That's what most of these issues boil down to, and justifying my views as part of a coherent philosophy a) makes the point more forceful b) might alert people to the parallels to other instances of govt violence.

You belief that government is the root of all evil and your desire to proselytise about it make you sound like a born again.

You belief that government is the root of all evil and your desire to proselytise about it make you sound like a born again.

If you dislike Libertovania's habit of tying things in to gov't violence you should take a look at Letila's posts. That kid's posts should rile you pretty good. :)

Met some tank drivers, not all sane, true.

I used to know an ex tank driver, he was a nice guy but really nervous. Saw his mate get his head shot off in Northern Ireland. So he left the army. Me, I wonder what people are doing in the army at all. I'd want a huge amount of money to be a soldier, and I probably still wouldn't turn up.

The Gov't has the right because the people of a given nation has given it that right. Majority rule applies here, one desenting vote can not count in the progress of society. One person who thinks its alright to murder cannot be allowed go forth and aggrivate. Rights are gifts given to a people of a nation by its governement. The government as established therefore has the right to set in place the rules and regulation that citizens of a nation must abide by in order to maintain a nation state. Any gov't that over steps its bounds as seen by the citizens can expect resistance, revolt, and internal strife. The government had the same right to restrict commerce as it does morally indecent acts, to include murder and sodomy. A government set up within a given structure can even limit any or all religions which may be practiced within it boundries. The United States citizens, as a majority, have chosen not to give the gov't the ability to take away its own rights in regards to religion.
That is sickening. For a start the whole idea of rights is that nobody, including the govt, may violate them. Otherwise what's the point?

Personally I believe that the infringement of rights that do not effect persons beyond the individual is flat out wrong. If I want to bugger some other willing bloke, I should be allowed to. Thats not what society in Amercia has chosen as standard norm.
Like trading with someone from another country, or smoking cannabis?

If you dislike Libertovania's habit of tying things in to gov't violence you should take a look at Letila's posts. That kid's posts should rile you pretty good. :)

I'll be on the lookout. :sniper:

You belief that government is the root of all evil and your desire to proselytise about it make you sound like a born again.
Okay. What's your point?

That is sickening. For a start the whole idea of rights is that nobody, including the govt, may violate them. Otherwise what's the point?



Since we're going to do this (again) let's do it. Rights don't have a point. Rights don't exist. "Rights" is what the people in charge let you do. It doesn't matter what country you are in, eg the US of A where your rights are enshrined in the constitution, which can be changed.

The people in charge, incidentally, don't have to be a government. Even if there wasn't a government, there would still be people in charge. And your rights would be whatever they said your rights are.

"Failing War?" Says John Kerry and the DNC I suppose.

We're seeing a great success in the War as far as I can see from my vantage point. Saddam Hussien's army at one time the fourth largest in the world was essentailly wiped from the field in less than one month. Since then, with the exceptions of a few cities surrounding Baghdad, Iraq is generally a peaceful nation. Things are improving and will continue to do so. Elections will be held very shortly. The United States will be taking it to our enemies in short order to pacify this meager resistance. A resistance that most Iraqi's disagree with.

The general media focuses solely on the Bombings, Beheadings and the body counts. I'm sure there will be many more in the coming months. These are being carried out by those, who through terror, are trying to manipulate the elections in Iraq and yes here in the United States. The terrorists are being aided by a few political opportunists (See above) who are trying to regain power. They are having an effect on the weak minded and the cowards who live among us. The Democrats fearing another term for Bush are walking hand in hand with Zarqawi, Bin Laden, etc. whether they know it or not. My suspicion is, they know that it aids our enemies but in thier own selfish interests have put our safety more at risk for political and personal gain.

We have a long hard road ahead, but with courage and determination we will previal.

Please adress this point...

"The govt does NOT have the right to pass such laws. It has no more right to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults than to forbid gay sex. You think the govt has the right to forbid trade or drugs but not (presumably) orthodox Judaism. Where do you draw the line? What is your reasoning? How come a govt may use agressive violence to command obedience while civilised people may not? What freedoms may the govt or the majority legitimately take from you?"

A government has the right to protect herself, her boarders and her people in a manner it sees as best. This may infringe upon some capitalist acts (as you so elloquently put it) but if it is in the best intrests of her people then so be it.

They have taken away your freedom to indescriminately kill people because it is in the best interest of society as a whole. Trade embargos are used to better the world society as a whole and this is/was no different then that. You keep saying they are using aggressive violence to command obedience without showing any proof therof. Please stop trying to foist your opinions off as fact, use facts to do it, your argument may turn out better that way.

Thank you Independent Households. Exactly what I was saying, with less verbatim.

And Libertovania, that's exactly what I mean. If I wanted to trade with sanctioned people/ countries, then I'd have to suck it up and move on. Just like I have to drive the speed limit, and obey traffic signals even when nobody is looking. I don't smoke pot, even though it does less harm than alcohol, and was driven into illegal status through ignorant cotton farmers who were afraid of losing their share of the textiles industry. Live by the rules, make them work for you.

You keep saying they are using aggressive violence to command obedience without showing any proof therof. Please stop trying to foist your opinions off as fact, use facts to do it, your argument may turn out better that way.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Capital-punishment

According to that, in 2003 the US executed 65 people.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Capital-punishment

According to that, in 2003 the US executed 65 people.


For breaking a trade embargo? I think not. For murder most likely.


Let me break down what i've been trying to say in a manner that you should all be able to understand.

Lets say I own a manufacturing company that makes widgets, and you own a store that sells widgets. Now, lets say that I don't like the way you do business, so as a business owner, I decide that it is not in the best interests of my company to sell your company Yaddah brand widgets (tm). Do you have the right to sell widgets, sure, do you have the right to sell Yaddah brand widgets(tm)? nope. Now, lets take this one step farther, stay with me here.

Lets say one of my sales people, doesnt like that he cant sell Yaddah brand widgets (tm) to your company and does so behind my back, and I find out. Do I (as the business owner) have the right to fire him for breaking company policy? Yep, my business, my rules. The salesman may have a right to work, but he has to do so within the confines of the rules of the company he works for.

Ok, now .. to finish this story, lets replace the Yaddah widget company with the USA, and your store with Cuba, and finally the salesman with US Resident. Does this better explain my position?

I hope so.

If America considers 11/9 (I'm British - sue me) an act of war, can yall stop calling it terrorism please? Or can you change the name of your War on Terrorism to "Terrorism to Counter Some Other Terrorism"?

Terrorism is an act of war, it sure the hell isn't an act of peace.

Expressing a statement of percieved probability is hardly "passing something off" as facts.

If that is what I was referencing you'd be correct, but I wasn't so ... thanks for playing.

ewwwe, nice.

Can I buy Yaddah brand widget(tm)?

A government has the right to protect herself, her boarders and her people in a manner it sees as best. This may infringe upon some capitalist acts (as you so elloquently put it) but if it is in the best intrests of her people then so be it.
Oh really? Then Hitler was right to kill the Jews?

They have taken away your freedom to indescriminately kill people because it is in the best interest of society as a whole.
I don't like your phrasing but yes, murder is illegal for good reason (unless you're president)

Trade embargos are used to better the world society as a whole and this is/was no different then that. You keep saying they are using aggressive violence to command obedience without showing any proof therof. Please stop trying to foist your opinions off as fact, use facts to do it, your argument may turn out better that way.
Every law is an act of violence. If you break the law you will be seized and kidnapped by armed men. This is a transparantly obvious fact, unless you think that jails and police are a figment of my imagination. Would you like me to try and prove that police and jails exist, or are you willing to accept this FACT?

Trade embargos and sanctions clearly do NOT benefit "world society as a whole". They benefit special interests in the Western nations. Nor do they generically make anyone safer, especially if you are a trader between those nations.

You have still not adequately adressed the question.

For breaking a trade embargo? I think not. For murder most likely.


So? It's still aggressive behaviour to force people yada yada

Terrorism is an act of war, it sure the hell isn't an act of peace.

So is all war terrorism or just the war you don't like? Because in the first case the war on terrorism is terrorism, so Dubya is a terrorist, and he should therefore attack himself. In the second case, a terrorist is anyone that Dubya decides is a terrorist, which is what most of the world has suspected all along.

Which question.

I posit, that unless we agree with you, we will never adequately address the question.

I can not agree that arrest is kidnappig.

And technically, though I hate to admit it, the German government was right to kill as many of its citizens as it saw fit. Just as the US government executes criminals on death row.

And, non western nations impose embargoes and santions all the time get off your soap-box and quit hurting your arguement.

Japan is currently sanctioning US beef.

Ok, now .. to finish this story, lets replace the Yaddah widget company with the USA, and your store with Cuba, and finally the salesman with US Resident. Does this better explain my position?

It explains your position, now I'll explain mine. The company owns it's own property and you are there because it is mutually voluntary. If the company doesn't like you they can throw you out because they are simply terminating a voluntary agreement.

The govt on the other hand does not own the USA or the UK and at best is protecting it FOR us ("derives it's powers from the consent of the governed....") and at worst is running a protection racket. Thus if I want to disassociate from them they have no right to expel me from MY land, or anyone elses' who will have me on theirs, have no right to imprison me or to seize my property with force.

Even the land and services the govt does own/provide such as roads were created and maintained through armed violence and would be more efficiently and morally provided by the free market.

I can not agree that arrest is kidnappig.
Why?

And technically, though I hate to admit it, the German government was right to kill as many of its citizens as it saw fit. Just as the US government executes criminals on death row.
Yes, the holocaust is just like executing murderers!!!??? I think we're seeing your true colours now.

And, non western nations impose embargoes and santions all the time get off your soap-box and quit hurting your arguement.
That's true, although they don't usually result in starvation for their citizens like N Korea or Africa.

Japan is currently sanctioning US beef.
Indeed. This is agressive violence and completely immoral. Imagine if a private Japanese citizen did this!

IH, you are spouting Rhetoric. Its ugly.

The terrorism is an act devised to instill fear in the desire to bring about change of some form.

The "War on Terrorism" is unwinnable in the traditional sense, but it is still a war, just not against a specified nation or territory. The war is not designed to instill fear, it is hoped that it will end all acts of terrorism world wide. Its kinda like the War on Drugs, also a stupid idea. Fortunately, George W. Bush is not a dictator, he can be removed for cause. Unfortunately, no one has done it yet. But, honestly, its not like he just gets to walk out and point at someone and call them a terrorist. Hundreds of people are in collusion with him.

We are talking about the government, so it's not any stretch at all to say that if the money is budgeted, it is as good as spent. Quit trying to find something between the lines. Kerry was right on. $200 Billion budgeted/set aside is $200 Billion spent.....and counting. A responsible president would have not have pushed for extensions on the three middle class tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of this year ($120 billion over the next five years), but would have used the added revenue to pay for this ridiculous war instead of compiling a record $422 billion deficit this year alone.

Indeed. This is agressive violence and completely immoral. Imagine if a private Japanese citizen did this!

What, and decided not to buy beef? Oh no :eek: what a tradgedy.

Yes, the holocaust is just like executing murderers!!!???

You think the jews were as criminal as murderers? I pity you and your closed mind.

I said I hated to admit the gov't had the right to kill people, I wish it weren't that way.

Why can't I agree its kidnapping... because I know the definition, and don't just let my mouth spew forth like the waste lines of the New York sewer system.

Kidnapping : the unlawful act of capturing and carrying away a person against their will and holding them in false imprisonment

Has to be unlawful, and false imprisonment.

Why? Yes, the holocaust is just like executing murderers!!!??? I think we're seeing your true colours now.

This is an interesting point. I think the problem stems from the word "rights."
What are rights? Are there basic human rights instituted by a higher power?

Right now I have to agree with those who say that rights are rights because the government of your respective country says they are. The US Bill of Rights grants rights because it defines them to be rights.

Did Hilter have the right? Morally it was horrible and no person of good conscience can ever condone such an act of mass murder. It is a good thing that the rest of the world took the right away from him.

It is concievable that one day someone will come and take our rights away. The government might change or the additude of the people might change,

IH, you are spouting Rhetoric. Its ugly.

The terrorism is an act devised to instill fear in the desire to bring about change of some form.

The "War on Terrorism" is unwinnable in the traditional sense, but it is still a war, just not against a specified nation or territory. The war is not designed to instill fear, it is hoped that it will end all acts of terrorism world wide. Its kinda like the War on Drugs, also a stupid idea. Fortunately, George W. Bush is not a dictator, he can be removed for cause. Unfortunately, no one has done it yet. But, honestly, its not like he just gets to walk out and point at someone and call them a terrorist. Hundreds of people are in collusion with him.

Rhetoric is ugly? OK.

So Terrorism is an act of war devised to instill fear in the desire to bring about change? Like the Daisycutter BLU-52 bomb which floats down on a parachute in order to instil fear in opposing soldiers and change their minds so they run away? So dubya is a terrorist then?

This is an interesting point. I think the problem stems from the word "rights."
What are rights?

Spotted. :) There's a lot of difference between rights and right. Hitler was well within his rights to do whatever he wanted. I thought of all people Libertovania would be in favour of him acting without let or hindrance. I don't think what he did was right, but that's a different thing.

Terrorism is a single, solitary act, not a chain held within a series.

Is the Dasiy-cutter a War? Or even an act there-in? Allowing the Daisy cutter to float down might be viewed as a fearful event, but that is not their designed function.

Daisy-cutters aren't used for fear, they vaporize landscapes, its just a step below WMD. Kinda like a MOAB. Bush also didn't have Daisy-cutter commisioned, the were all built during a previous administration. I'm almost certain he has ordered their specific use either. He's a civilian and can not do that. Though he can sure as hell make recommendations.

Indeed. This is agressive violence and completely immoral. Imagine if a private Japanese citizen did this!

Well... I do remember hearing a report about Greenpeace boarding ships. I don't remember if they were carted off to jail but I hope so.

Maybe we shoulod abolish all laws and governments and go to a survival of the fittest type lifestyle. I mean, if I am smarter than you don't I deserve to take your BMW if I can get away with it?

Terrorism is a single, solitary act, not a chain held within a series.

Therefore the attacks on 11/9 weren't terrorism because a) there were 3 of them and b) they form part of a series of attacks by Al Qaeda on US targets.


Is the Dasiy-cutter a War? Or even an act there-in? Allowing the Daisy cutter to float down might be viewed as a fearful event, but that is not their designed function.

Daisy-cutters aren't used for fear, they vaporize landscapes, its just a step below WMD. Kinda like a MOAB. Bush also didn't have Daisy-cutter commisioned, the were all built during a previous administration. I'm almost certain he has ordered their specific use either. He's a civilian and can not
do that. Though he can sure as hell make recommendations.

Yes they are, their main purpose is to scare people shitless. The US Military "shock and awe" tactics are also fear tactics. Or do you think they wanted to shock their enemies and make them feel awe, but not scare them?

My point is that all your definitions of terrorism don't work or apply equally to lots of other things. Terrorism is a matter of your point of view.

EDIT dubya is the C in C and therefore responsible for every act of the US military

Therefore the attacks on 11/9 weren't terrorism because a) there were 3 of them and b) they form part of a series of attacks by Al Qaeda on US targets.

I have to say that "Act of War" is a better description than Terrorism in this case.

never said it wasn't a point of view...

Terrorism is:
the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature

I don't remember the American Goverment targeting civilians this time. Many soldiers have died because they were specifically not allowed to non-combatants.

War is:
a legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply

Curently the government says it is biding by the int'l rules of war. Though there have been questions of torture, I'll give you that. There is another defination of war which states that war is any armed conflict between two enemies. By that ruling, The war on terrorism still falls under war, whereas the attack on the world trade centers would still not reach a war status, because the targets were not armed, nor were they enemies prior to the attack.

never said it wasn't a point of view...

Terrorism is:
the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature

I don't remember the American Goverment targeting civilians this time. Many soldiers have died because they were specifically not allowed to non-combatants.

War is:
a legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply


Well... my point is that it doesn't matter really what you call it. It was an agressive action by one organized group agaisnt another. Whether it be war, terrorism or crime, the results are the same.

No worries. I'm not always right, and I'm not too proud to admit it. Sigh, a victim of spin, this time from my side. What a dirty business politics is.

Okay, correction. Under $120 billion is still to high a cost for a failing war.

NOTE: This was as far as I read into this thread because I frankly don't have time to do this all day at university.

If you think this war is failing, you are:
- purely a child of the media,
- a liberal who believes anything right-bashing he's told, and/or
- the epitome of American bigotry.
How DARE ANYONE say that the freedom of twenty-nine million individuals is not worth the lives of those sworn to defend against all threats, foreign and domestic. I personally would die the most gruesome, torturous death imaginable for that many oppressed people to be free; perhaps I will someday after I join the Marine Corps. There is no draft, no excuse, no WHINING for God's sake. If you don't want to fight, don't sign up. Soldiers do what they do because it's the right thing to do, not because it's financially appealing. (Benefits are a different story.)
The fact of the matter is that you will never hear about so much as one percent of all military operations that occur, and even less of the successful ops. Mind you, you will never hear of ANY black operations, nor the specifics of their generous spending habits. OH YEAH, spending, not just peeing into the wind. The money is going back into our "STRUGGLING" American economy in many companies involved in aerospace and things of the sort which HAD been struggling until 9-12-01. The money isn't "disappearing" into some Middle Eastern country; it's right here at home coming back into your pocket and mine. Those who disagree with that statement (and there's at least one in every crowd) have a grasp of neither world culture nor the function of the institution that is the government of the United States of America.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -- George Orwell

Defenders? When was the last time America was attacked? (and don't say Pearl Harbour, that was provoked by an embargo on Japan) Have you actually been attacked since the first war of independence? The army IS welfare, you just get a gun as part of the package.

pancho villa attacked columbus new mexico in 1916

if you are 19 years old and just out of your parents house, $1300 per month in "spending money" is swell

if you are a married 19 year old with a new baby living in california and your base doesnt have enough housing for your family, oops you are screwed big time.

Sorry Skwerrel, I was responding to the accusation the the current conflict undertaken by the United States of America is an act of Terrorism, and that the attacks on the World trade center fall into the same category of discussion as armed conflict between to knowing and consenting forces.

(And before anyone asks, the Iraqi gov't which was unfortunately invloved in this conflict did say to bring it on, they'd hand the US their butts.)

An American citizen becomes a soldier from a personnal choice. I don't see the individual choice of joining the ranks of the American military on the sole purpose to enter wars & defending their country. Several do so for the promise of a free education. As the current President introduced America into another "economic conflict", there was no rush by anyone to enlist into the Iraqi Campaign. :sniper:

Possibly because of its transparency.

America is new to the attacks of foreign terrorism. These sorts of attacks have swept the world for decades. Today as the United States makes their bold move to lead the fight on terrorism, they have started their plan by attacking a country with a dictator whom the American government had left in charge.

We don't know what the situation will be with Iraq if Kerry is elected. Saddam has been captured and we have not had any problems since. If Kerry is willing to put forth the effort to use some of our nation's income to deal with a problem that doesn't exist anymore than why should we elect him. All he would be doing is sending an invitation to Iraq that says we want more trouble.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

That is sickening. For a start the whole idea of rights is that nobody, including the govt, may violate them. Otherwise what's the point?

Like trading with someone from another country, or smoking cannabis?

Try reading some of Edmund Burke's work some time. It'll probably piss you off but it will be good for you :D. To have all "natural" rights we'd have to have anarchy. Most people want some safety though, which is where government comes in. We automatically give up some "rights" to have government. Its the freedoms we have from there that are up to negotiation. Theres a balance between freedom and order somewhere (and it also probably changes with the times) but arguing over the "right" to food or medicine won't get us anywhere (it was the same dogmatic belief of "rights of man" that led to the violence of the French Revolution that influenced Burke). As Burke said "I'd rather go to the farmer and the physician" in order to solve the problem (whether it involves government or not).

Defenders? When was the last time America was attacked? (and don't say Pearl Harbour, that was provoked by an embargo on Japan) Have you actually been attacked since the first war of independence? The army IS welfare, you just get a gun as part of the package.

War of 1812 the White House was burned to the ground by foreign troops.... I believe that would constitute an invasion. The civil war also constituted a defense of the Republic. Lee's idea for independance rested on hitting Washington to pressure surrender of the union. You also have to remember that the confederacy was relying on foreign support, Britain/France. It lost this support at Gettysburg.
In WW2 the colony of Pearl Harbor was attacked. Many of the Japanese explosion balloons fell on California beachs and districts. These constitute attacks on our land.

You can also go with the cold war scenario. "Defense" does not necessarily mean the protection from invasion. It can also mean deterring a nuclear barrage as it did in the Cold War. I think many of you will agree that the Cold War was the apex of defensive war. The only difference is that there was no chance of direct invasion.

The War on terror works on the same principle. It is "defense" but not one of defending an invading force. Any military action that can deter or directly stop a terrorist threat would be defense albeit not preventing invasion.

Hope that clears up the confusion on our military serving in defense.

We don't know what the situation will be with Iraq if Kerry is elected. Saddam has been captured and we have not had any problems since. If Kerry is willing to put forth the effort to use some of our nation's income to deal with a problem that doesn't exist anymore than why should we elect him. All he would be doing is sending an invitation to Iraq that says we want more trouble.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Hold on man Iraq has had many problems since Saddams capture. Look at the most recent article in Foreign Affairs. It talks about the difficulty of drafting a constitution that respects all ethicities mainly Kurds without denying Shiite population and authority by numbers.
There are also many problems with having elections in January. 3 of 18 provinces may not have election booths at all and will be completely unrepresented.
The media has painted a false picture of Iraq. These insurgents are not from one source (I.E. Saddam, Al Sadr etc) They aren't even all from the same country. But they all have the same goals to emerge out of the power vacuum as a ruling force. But please if you believe this look to Powell's recent speech on "Meet the Press" or the Foreign Affairs articles it will open up your eyes on where Iraq is.

If that is what I was referencing you'd be correct, but I wasn't so ... thanks for playing.

You're welcome. I like to play.

So you were talking about this:

It is exactly this sort of muddled thinking that excuses all tyranny. The govt does NOT have the right to pass such laws. It has no more right to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults than to forbid gay sex. You think the govt has the right to forbid trade or drugs but not (presumably) orthodox Judaism. Where do you draw the line? What is your reasoning? How come a govt may use agressive violence to command obedience while civilised people may not? What freedoms may the govt or the majority legitimately take from you?

Which was an OT comment that can legitimately ignored anyway, and you didn't bother to respond to this:

If you don't think embargos are maintained via military force just ask what would have happened (probably did happen) to Syrian trucks transporting goods to Hussein's Iraq in violation of sanctions? Airstrike, most probably.

Which actually had to do with the discussion. Very interesting. Thanks for playing. :)

Oh really? Then Hitler was right to kill the Jews?


No offense, but that has to be one of the most idiotic things i've ever seen typed here.



Every law is an act of violence. If you break the law you will be seized and kidnapped by armed men. This is a transparantly obvious fact, unless you think that jails and police are a figment of my imagination. Would you like me to try and prove that police and jails exist, or are you willing to accept this FACT?

Yes, it is a fact that police and jails exist, but they exist to protect the majority of citizens, and as to it being an act of violence, it is only a violent confrontation if the criminal chooses to elevate it to that level.



Trade embargos and sanctions clearly do NOT benefit "world society as a whole". They benefit special interests in the Western nations. Nor do they generically make anyone safer, especially if you are a trader between those nations.


That is merely an opinion of someone who is decidedly anti-government in any form.




You have still not adequately adressed the question.

Sure I have, it's just not something you want to believe.

So is all war terrorism or just the war you don't like? Because in the first case the war on terrorism is terrorism, so Dubya is a terrorist, and he should therefore attack himself. In the second case, a terrorist is anyone that Dubya decides is a terrorist, which is what most of the world has suspected all along.

Terrorism is an act of war, war is not an act of terrorism, I'd think that was obvious, but I guess it isnt.

It explains your position, now I'll explain mine. The company owns it's own property and you are there because it is mutually voluntary. If the company doesn't like you they can throw you out because they are simply terminating a voluntary agreement.

The govt on the other hand does not own the USA or the UK and at best is protecting it FOR us ("derives it's powers from the consent of the governed....") and at worst is running a protection racket. Thus if I want to disassociate from them they have no right to expel me from MY land, or anyone elses' who will have me on theirs, have no right to imprison me or to seize my property with force.

Even the land and services the govt does own/provide such as roads were created and maintained through armed violence and would be more efficiently and morally provided by the free market.


You own land purchased (with taxes et.al.) from the government not the other way around. Merely a point of perception.

I guess I should watch out for my garbage man then, someday he may take over my garbage cans in the name of government.

You're welcome. I like to play.

So you were talking about this:

It is exactly this sort of muddled thinking that excuses all tyranny. The govt does NOT have the right to pass such laws. It has no more right to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults than to forbid gay sex. You think the govt has the right to forbid trade or drugs but not (presumably) orthodox Judaism. Where do you draw the line? What is your reasoning? How come a govt may use agressive violence to command obedience while civilised people may not? What freedoms may the govt or the majority legitimately take from you?





Which was an OT comment that can legitimately ignored anyway, and you didn't bother to respond to this:


If you don't think embargos are maintained via military force just ask what would have happened (probably did happen) to Syrian trucks transporting goods to Hussein's Iraq in violation of sanctions? Airstrike, most probably.


Which actually had to do with the discussion. Very interesting. Thanks for playing. :)

I was specifically responding to what was bolded in the first statment, the second is just supposistion and therefor not necessicary to comment on.

I was specifically responding to what was bolded in the first statment, the second is just supposistion and therefor not necessicary to comment on.

Personally, I would have ignored him on the rambling about what rights the government has and called him on his supposition. However, I suppose you are entitled to choose what you respond to. Meh.