Got to love Ron Paul. If you haven't heard of him, he's about only a handful of people that make sense that are in high places. Please enjoy a little common sense:
Iraq 1 year later
Iraq 1 year later
Iraq 1 year later
- Thread starter linthat22
- Start date
Yeah unfortunately, with our current position as the world trade leader, I dunno how well isolationism really works anymore. Not to mention the fact that when our constitution was written, a voyage that took a month now takes an hour. The world is too small for our former foreign practice to have any merit; isn't that obvious?
How do you propose we isolate ourselves now? Seal off the borders entirely? Even then it wouldn't work. Given our position the only realistic way to protect yourself is to seek out the threat before it becomes a tangible threat at all. After that point, it is too late nine out of ten times.
So how do you suggest we revert ourselves into our pre-WWII island nation isolationist stance?
How do you propose we isolate ourselves now? Seal off the borders entirely? Even then it wouldn't work. Given our position the only realistic way to protect yourself is to seek out the threat before it becomes a tangible threat at all. After that point, it is too late nine out of ten times.
So how do you suggest we revert ourselves into our pre-WWII island nation isolationist stance?
Using the FF for every argument is quite folly. Although some principles should be listened to, others should be taken into context. Like Citrous pointed out, we live in a completly different time.
Im a big supporter of gun ownership, but feel that the FF never intended for common folk to own an ak-47.
later,
epic
Im a big supporter of gun ownership, but feel that the FF never intended for common folk to own an ak-47.
later,
epic
Mintmaster
Veteran
I don't think that's much of a problem in the US. You have around 20,000 homocides per year, a way higher per capita rate than other western countries. You think they're being done with AK-47's? Handguns are an infinitely bigger threat, but I'm sure that that's the type of gun you do support, right? What pisses me off even more is that the vast majority of Canadian homocides are commited with American guns, so your stupid-ass "right" is doing damage far beyond your own borders.epicstruggle said:
I think that you bringing up this topic of guns is rather ironic. The US mentality is that people should have the freedom to have guns, and the problem is behavioural, i.e. "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Yet when it comes to WMD, you must go after even the slightest threat and make sure no country (other than yourselves) has any possibility of acquiring them, instead of trying to do something about the intent of harm. More ironic is that the loss of life from 9/11 is rather insignificant compared to the number of lives lost to American homocide, yet only the former warrants action and you are obsessed with foreign threats.
Moreover, the action you did take is so misguided, it reeks of naivety. With the Iraq war, you killed nearly 10,000 civilians and angered millions of Muslims around the world, doing nothing but making them more sympathetic to the cause of extremists. And you lost less than 200 soldiers by the official end of the war, so what does that say? It says bomb as much as necessary to minimize soldier losses, because an American's life is worth far, far more than an Iraqi civilian's. Makes plenty of sense for a just war, doesn't it?
You cannot reduce the threat of terrorism with military force, and it baffles me that the American public and officials thought so. Look at Israel and that's immediately obvious. Conflict becomes unmanageable once revenge gets involved, and that's precisely what the US has provided. Given that isolationism is impossible today, you have to attack the problem at the root.
I don't have the solution, but war has just made things worse. One idea I though of immediately after 9/11 was to start a fund to help Islamic children or promote development (a big fund that actually makes a difference, comparable to the cost of all this military invasion, where all western countries contributed). After any terrorist attack, the payments would be withheld/reduced for a period, and so Muslims, especially the poor that are benefitting from the fund, would have a direct reason for preventing anyone they know from getting involved with these extremist organizations. I dismissed my idea as naive and idealistic until someone on CNN suggested the same thing for the Israel-Palestine conflict.
In any case, it would do a lot more good than the war. The US just spent hundreds of billions -- while mired in an enormous deficit, no less -- to increase the probability of a future terrorist attack.
Great job.
Mintmaster said:
Yes, giving the government a monopoly on the use of force is just so much better. That always works out nicely...
Prohibition has never worked. If people want something, the free-market will provide - no matter what "laws" the state apparatus tries to pass, the war on drugs anyone? If your "policies" and "laws" fail because other nations are "bad," then maybe your policy isn't so quite robust after all.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Mintmaster said:
You know...I never thought of like that...
Hey...let's GIVE THEM MONEY as a response to terrorist attacks!
FUCKIN' A BRILLIANT!
What's more, when we TAKE IT AWAY when "bad things happen", all these little children will be "taught" how "evil" we all are stealing that money which is "theirs". You've just concocted a "let's blackmail ourselves plan!"
Where do I sign up!?
akira888 said:
What (relevant to the US) examples do you have where it failed?
akira888 said:
But that's a bit of a cop-out, no? Just because laws won't be followed 100% nor can they be enforced 100% doesn't mean we should give up on them.
akira888 said:
That's an interesting question, at what point does the culture / society of another impact negatively (of course there are positive impacts as well) and what, if anything should be done? Can the other be held culpable? I doubt it as well.
Joe DeFuria said:
Obviously that's NOT what he's saying. He's basically re-iterating the tact that Natoma mentioned earlier (from Friedman?). That by increasing properity in the area, the culture of terrorism begins to be marginalized. IF the general populace could see that their welfare was also hurt by the actions of a few lunatics, then the terrorists no longer have a safe haven to engender their beliefs in. But right now, they are seen as heroes. Do you think the plight of the average Palestinian would be better if all terrorism stopped? Do you think they believe that? I don't think they do. Therefore the culture of false idols continues to exist.
Mintmaster
Veteran
Joe DeFuria said:You know...I never thought of like that...
Hey...let's GIVE THEM MONEY as a response to terrorist attacks!
FUCKIN' A BRILLIANT!
What's more, when we TAKE IT AWAY when "bad things happen", all these little children will be "taught" how "evil" we all are stealing that money which is "theirs". You've just concocted a "let's blackmail ourselves plan!"
Where do I sign up!?
We don't just hand them MONEY you idiot. I thought you could figure that out yourself. We set up the fund and then we decided what to buy for them. We make the governments of these nations match our contribution in some way so that they don't get to divert their own related funds to other activities.
Finally, how can they get angry at us for taking away what they don't have right now? Maybe you don't take away all the money. Maybe you don't take away anything. Maybe the money "taken away" would go to other purposes, say African development where a water system would save millions more than all these sponsorship programs you see on TV. Maybe you show how that lack of money is hurting us. Maybe part of the money goes to the families of the victims of these attacks. I don't have the numbers to make it work, and I don't have the details. I'm just throwing out the basic, unrefined idea out there.
But, Joe, how the hell does war in Iraq do anything even remotely better? Can't you see how this is just fuelling the true source of terrorism? The overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world did not want 9/11 to happen, but the majority of America did want the war in Iraq to happen. That's why their anger towards America as a whole is fully justified and predictable. It's why we can't simply use military force, kill thousands of Muslims, and simply label them "casualties of war".
Mintmaster
Veteran
akira888 said:
Sure, but it doesn't help that the US laws have made this particular free-market absolutely enormous. As for our laws, we can't do anything about people bringing your guns in here - it's just impossible.
Really, do you really think having a gun will make you safer? Do you really think that you can outdo a criminal with a gun? All it does is put a shitload more guns on the street, and by being legal there's no stopping it.
And you think your government is going to take advantage of a monopoly if you don't have guns? Hell they already do with the way they manipulate you through the media. You're so patriotic, you'd stand by your government no matter what they did. Finally, this kind of paranoia and fear is just ridiculous. Michael Moore really hit the nail on the head on that point.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Mintmaster said:
Really?
Sounds like an oppressive regime to me. This would be satisfactory to you? Having someone else decide what to buy for you?
Oh...that's too rich. How does one "make" a government do anything? Hint: you use force.
Are you kidding me? It's called "propaganda". They get "used" to getting something, and then before you know it....they expect to get something. And then you take it away, and "we're just a bunch of big, selfish meanines."
You go and ask those on welfare programs today if they would get "angry" if we ("the so called rich") take benefits away from them. They're entitled to it as far as they're concerned.
Because the way to "promote development" is to remove the barries to it, and allow the people who are being shackled and oppressed to do it on their own, so they take responsibility for themselves, instead of being dependent on others for their own future.
It's not until people genuinely feel that they actually have a stake in their own future that they will stand up for themselves, and try and make something of themselves.
Mintmaster said:
I hate to say this but I'm a radical libertarian that opposes 97-98 percent of my governments' actions, be it welfare, Kosovo, Iraq, the drug war, tariffs, or anything except national defense, police, and courts. Sorry I don't fit into one of the easily defined categories. :?
Ty said:
Giving the government a monopoly on force? For a list of it's failures read "Power Kills" by R.J. Rummel. 100 million dead, murdered by the government that ruled their land, in this century alone. It's hard to get through all of it without becoming an anarchist...
akira888 said:
Ty said:
If a law makes things demonstrably worse then it should be repealed. We could ban "rudeness," and everyone likes less rudeness in society, yet the implementation of such a statute would lead to a totalitarian nightmare.
akira888 said:
ty said:
Well, it's inevitable that any two states will have different political cultures. Just looking at neighboring nations these differences range the whole gamut from ultra-subtle (US-Canada, Germany-Austria) to ultra-stark (Greece-Turkey, Israel-Egypt).
mintmaster said:
That's looking at the situation backwards. A more productive line of analysis would be to say that a small but strictly positive probability of death or severe wounding for a crook would create a large negative value in his/her cost-benefit analysis. A 0.1 percent probability of death might make me think twice about stealing 10 bucks; I don't value my life at 10000 dollars and I doubt few criminals do either. In any case I'm much less scared of crooks on the street than I am of crooks along the Potomac.
Mintmaster said:
I don't understand your point. Fear is a valid response to a situation in which harm is a responsible possibility; otherwise it would have evolved out of the genome millenia ago.
Aren't you yourself the just the last bit afraid of some of the people in the Bush adminstration?
Having reread this something strikes me as bizarre. On the one hand I'm "paranoid" for thinking (correctly) that my government will take advantage of a disarmed nation to do something absolutely horrific. Yet on the other hand I also mindlessly swallow up pro-government propaganda. I have to admit, I'm baffled by that.
Mintmaster
Veteran
OK, now your arguing for the sake of arguing. If someone just decided to give me something, would I call it an "oppressive regime" because they didn't give me exactly what I wanted? Is a friend oppressive for buying you a bad birthday gift? Give these people some respect.Joe DeFuria said:
Why are you being so short-sighted? We're giving them money. Our contribution is simply proportional to theirs (to a certain degree), depending on the nation's state. There you go again jumping the gun and thinking force is the only answer.Joe DeFuria said:
I see. So we give them something, take some of it away for a limited period of time, and then they'll be more angry and hostile than if we didn't give them anything at all? Even if that money was going to some other humanitarian cause? Even if you establish these ground rules at the onset?Joe DeFuria said:
Can't you give these people even an ounce of respect? You praise the democracy and capitalism of the western world so much, which are to a large degree based on reward and punishment, but you think a reward system like this will only make people more angry and hateful to the US? What are you doing wasting your time and money for promotion of democracy to such illogical people?
As for the welfare argument, there's plenty of motivation to try and get a job. Just because you don't have a job means you should starve and die? They're not exactly living the high life with welfare. Your always going to find some people who abuse it or find loopholes to get it, but that doesn't mean you punish everyone on welfare. Luck and circumstance have a lot to do with whether one can get a job or not. Anyway, I'm getting OT here...
You think dropping bombs and making random victims makes them feel they have a stake in their own future? You think people of any Muslim country feel they have control of their fate with the US demonstrating their ability and will to invade whoever they want?Joe DeFuria said:
The sense of purpose the US has given potential terrorist recruits is not one of "making something of themselves". Their influence used to be just the calls from a few extremist leaders saying they must wage jihad against the "great satan". Now their purpose is similar to the Palestinian mindset - they must fight for the lives of their loved ones, for the existence of their religion and country, and most significantly, for revenge and justice of past atrocities. They now legitimately feel a threat from the US; moreover, it is something they witnessed and concluded themselves, which can be very powerful motivator.
I'll repeat myself. The only way to get rid of or at least reduce terrorism is to eliminate the "great satan" perception. The more wars you start like this, the stronger that perception becomes, and more retaliatory acts you'll all receive, no matter how much you try to defend it.
Silent_One
Newcomer
God, I love these people who say this simplistic shit. So....what is the root of the problem?
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Mintmaster said:
No, because whatever that someone gives you, there's a bunch more intimate someones that you know telling you that ther are ulteriour motives for it, not to trust it, or that it actually came from someone else.
I have no respect for the people who are teaching the hatred that is instilled in the once innocent children.
Joe DeFuria said:
I know that buying them off is not an acceptable or realistic answer. Why are you so short sighted? How much "resentment" do you hear about the "oil for food" program?
Yup. Because those receiving it are constantly proagandized about what it is, by those who don't give a crap how much money we give them.
Yes, because terrorists and terrorist states are known for playing by the ground rules.
This is not a reward system. It's blackmail.
Because democracy is different than trying to buy them off.
If you have the means to get a job, but instead you are being taught that you don't have a job because I'm the evil Satan, then the person who's teaching you that I'm the evil Satan deserves to die.
No, I think removing dictators like Sadam does. Based on the polls I've seen Iraqis tend to agree.
I couldn't disagree more.
First of all, I think it's unrealistic to think we could ever "get rid of it."
The way to reduce terrorism is to hunt them down, destroy them, disrupt their operations, and make their lives a living hell.
How overly simplistic can you get? Try this one:
The more that we respond to terrorism with appeasement, the more likely they will see terrorism as a legitimate tool to get what they want, and the more terrorist acts we'll get.
Canadians own more guns per capita than Americans, but have a much lower homicide rate. Clearly, the problem isn't just a question of guns per capita. (and what's Homocide? Is that gay killings?)Mintmaster said:
More people are killed by car accidents than guns or terrorism, or cigarettes for that matter. But they have different effects and different victims. Blowing up Wall Street or the New York transit system is way different than gun violence. Gun violence is oftened perpetrated by someone you know, on a select social class, and in select circumstances. Those who are at risk to it are often aware of it.
When gun violence is *random* (snipers on highways, etc) *WE DO TREAT IT LIKE TERRORISM* Or rampage killings (school shootings, work place shootings), we take notice.
There is a big difference between 30,000 people being killed by guns distributed over the entire US and 30,000 people being killed in NYC by a radiological weapon on a single day. The WTC buildings were housed with highly educated professionals doing important work with respect to billions of dollars in the world economy, and their loss is frankly worse for everyone than a similar number of innercity poor getting killed.
If you look at history, you're the one that's naive. The Palestinian struggle, to which you refer, is a proxy war funded by the Arab states, plain and simple. This idea of "grass roots" terrorist movements against states is bogus. They are always funded by the outside. That's true of the PLO and Hamas, it was true in Vietnam (on both sides), South America, Northern Ireland, Africa, and in the Korea.
Historically, states have been able to subdue and crush subversive activity, quite easily I might add, which is why democracy rarely evolves. It is only in the modern area which makes it easy to ship around information, propaganda, and capital, where outside states and NGOs can fund terrorist insurgencies, that gives us the modern face of terrorism.
Military force is just one of the tools in the chest, along with diplomacy, and police work, to stop terrorism. But to suggest that military force be taken out of the equation is most definately naive in the same way that people who suggest it is the only option.
Mao said power flows from the barrel of the gun, and that's the ultimate truth. Behind police work, because diplomacy, there must be the threat that violence is the last resort. This is how the police work. And it's why Saddam allowed the UN to reenter Iraq *ONLY* after hundreds of thousands of troops were on his border. For years, the UN tried to negotiate with Saddam to be more open, like Libya recently did, because many members of the UNSC wanted sanctions lifted (Russia, Germany, France) so they could do more business. Peaceful negotiation failed, which brought us to war.
What's the root? Poverty? Bzzt. Wrong answer.
Or, they installed a long lasting western style democracy in an Arab country, revitalized it's economy, and will be a lasting lesson to the regimes of the area. Will the Saudis abandon the Wahhabists? Will Syria seek more peace with Israel? Will Iran moderate even more? Time will tell.
If Iraq turns into another Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan, causing a domino effect in the area, it won't look so stupid in hindsight, even if it increases terrorism in the short term.
Sometimes, you need to break some eggs to make an omelet. Sometimes you are stuck at a local sub-optima and must stir up some chaos before you can reach higher order. It was time to shake up the status quo in the Middle East. Bin Laden helped wake us up from our status quo, now it is time to return the favor to his people.
akira888 said:
But are those examples relevent to the US? For example, if all of the guns in the hands of private citizens disappeared tomorrow, would the US government run amuck against its own population? I hardly think so. What about the other modern nations that have a markedly lower gun per capita rate? Finally, do you think guns in the hands of private citizens keeps the government in check in any way? I certainly don't think so. In fact it seems that loonies use guns against legitimate government actions every day (shooting at cops, firemen, etc.).
akira888 said:
Absolutely. But how would a prohibition on guns make things worse? I'm NOT for that mind you but I don't see how your argument holds up (about the free market and how the law can't fight the inevitable).
akira888 said:
Amen to that. But I don't hold the view (I'm not sure if you do or not) that they'll use force of arms to keep the public down. I think they're much more politically savy (Cheney and his cronies) than that.
Mintmaster
Veteran
I'd agree with you if the crime rate was actually lower in the US, but it is so much higher that it's rather hilarious that you think a criminal is significantly deterred by the possibility of a civilian having a weapon. Sure, if we suddenly took every civilian's weapon away from them in an instant there'd be some tiny increase in crime, but that's not the way to disarm a nation. There are so many more guns out there, it makes it a cinch for anyone to become an armed criminal if they choose, so the benefits are complety steamrolled by the costs.akira888 said:
I think in many ways criminals are more likely to use their gun, actually, because they may have a "better get him before he gets me" attitude. If they really were thinking of cost/benefit ratio, then there's no need to increase the chance of death row (if caught) if the victim poses no threat.
Well, you have a bit of a point there, but I'm a rational person that weighs different risks accordingly. Your homocide rate makes the risk of getting murdered about 1/15,000 per year, a good 3 or 4 times higher than other countries, and I'd weigh the possibility of needing to force Bush out of power using civilian force as much, much, much less than that. It's such a remote risk to me that I think it's paranoia, and if the risk was so possible, I don't see how he'd get elected.akira888 said:
Why exactly don't many other nations feel this? Don't you have faith that your police and army, being US citizens themselves, will come to the civilians' aid in the extremely remote possibility that this happens, or do you think that the government will have complete control over them, too? Even if it did happen, do you think that everybody will be united and willing to go against their own president? I just don't understand this threat, and why it's worth thousands of American (and many Canadian) lives per year.
My bad, I was being ambiguous with my pronoun usage. The paranoia applies to you, as you stated, and your use of the word "will" pretty much solidifies that point. The patriotism applies to the general American public, which is well known and is something that they are proud of. How the majority were so swiftly and completely convinced by Bush that war was the answer baffles me, but I'm not American.akira888 said:
Ty:
But I do believe they are relevant to America. Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Indian Holocaust are all proof that mass killing can occur even in the US, committed by both Democrats and Republicans, neither of which is really any better than the other.
Mintmaster:
Well, between the Dems and Reps I really don't care either way - the real problem is the temptation of power in general.
Final note for me - An order of magnitude more people died in the last century by government rather than street crime.
But I do believe they are relevant to America. Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Indian Holocaust are all proof that mass killing can occur even in the US, committed by both Democrats and Republicans, neither of which is really any better than the other.
Mintmaster:
Well, between the Dems and Reps I really don't care either way - the real problem is the temptation of power in general.
Final note for me - An order of magnitude more people died in the last century by government rather than street crime.