Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 247248249250251 285>
Author
Message
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8329
Post Options Post Options   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
    Posted: August 30 2013 at 21:41
Originally posted by The T

Damn, that was harsh.

Yep, I wrote that and then deleted it because I had made a rather hurried statement that sounds extremely nation-selfish and wanted to refine it a little. But then again, that's what I think. I have never thought of my taxes as a way to pay for the army to go and save anybody anywhere but here. Sad, but true.



I am sorry for coming across as harsh, Teo. I assure you I didn't mean it in that way. I am notoriously bad at getting my generally sarcastic tone across in text format. Please accept my apologies for any offense caused.

(but don't delete posts when you can amend them. Tongue )
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16409
Post Options Post Options   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 30 2013 at 22:12
No problem Logan

The whole deleting thing was to amend it actually. I just didn't know how to say it properly. So better leave it as it was.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5493
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2013 at 08:32
Originally posted by dr wu23

Originally posted by rogerthat

Ermm....lol, since i am from the 'other side', i.e. the receiving end of the help, I shall refrain from commenting on that as you seem to be a passionate advocate of intervention.  
 
If you are referring to me I'm not a passionate fan of intervention.....and where exactly are you from?
 

I am from India.  We are deeply grateful to USA's efforts to obliterate Afghanistan in their attempt to weed out Taliban.  But the problem is they propped up Taliban in the first place.  I would much rather USA and Russia stopped poking their nose and taking all these 'strategic' positions.  Not that we have any say in that.  But you know, we already have a difficult neighbour to manage and the instability in Afghanistan makes life even worse for us.  I wonder if superpowers ever consider the implications on the region as a whole when they jump to 'rescue' one troubled nation.  

Besides, after Rumsfeld's infamous sh*t happens comment, you can rest assured next to nobody from Asia will ever take USA seriously again when they talk about military intervention.  It takes only one malicious act to break trust for good.
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3916
Post Options Post Options   Quote manofmystery Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 03 2013 at 17:35
So, when John Kerry says it's "Not the time to be spectators to slaughter" what he means is "How dare they have a slaughter without letting us in on it", right
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27971
Post Options Post Options   Quote stonebeard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 03 2013 at 22:28
Uh, so I may be the only person on the internet who doesn't think the US is bloodthirsty regarding Syria. This is a mess and we really have nothing to gain from involving ourselves in it.

I'm a pretty cynical person, sadly, but Christ Afghanistan and Iraq were not easy, effective, or cheap endeavors and I don't think anyone at the top really wants to get involved.

I don't particularly want us to be involved in Syria, but I really don't care who you are, it's not as simple as ignoring it and hoping for the best.


Edited by stonebeard - September 03 2013 at 22:30
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27971
Post Options Post Options   Quote stonebeard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 03 2013 at 22:31
Originally posted by Epignosis

Yesterday, I had a student tell me that Obama paid all his bills (such as his cell phone bill).   Ouch

That's public education for you.


Imma get dat Obamaphone.

(Program was started under Reagan).
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29307
Post Options Post Options   Quote Padraic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 03 2013 at 22:32
I have a few bills I could send Obama's way if he's feeling generous.
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4119
Post Options Post Options   Quote dr wu23 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2013 at 09:49
Originally posted by stonebeard

Uh, so I may be the only person on the internet who doesn't think the US is bloodthirsty regarding Syria. This is a mess and we really have nothing to gain from involving ourselves in it.

I'm a pretty cynical person, sadly, but Christ Afghanistan and Iraq were not easy, effective, or cheap endeavors and I don't think anyone at the top really wants to get involved.

I don't particularly want us to be involved in Syria, but I really don't care who you are, it's not as simple as ignoring it and hoping for the best.
That was basically my point a few posts back.
Et In Arcadia Ego
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4119
Post Options Post Options   Quote dr wu23 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2013 at 09:53
Originally posted by stonebeard


(Program was started under Reagan).
 
And the Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan mess were started under Bush senior and then Bush junior.
Now the GOP are doing a 180.
Maybe the US should just let all the other nations fight amongst themselves and sit back and wait for the dust to settle.
Unhappy
Et In Arcadia Ego
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31671
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2013 at 10:31
Do not forget that this is a Nobel Peace Prize recipient:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-reserves-right-to-buck-congress-on-syria-strike-140227751.html
Back to Top
King of Loss View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Watching You
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14541
Post Options Post Options   Quote King of Loss Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2013 at 13:13
Originally posted by Epignosis

Do not forget that this is a Nobel Peace Prize recipient:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-reserves-right-to-buck-congress-on-syria-strike-140227751.html



LOL


Zizou 1988-2006
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Online
Posts: 15405
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2013 at 14:18
So did I come back from vacation or go into a time machine to 1999?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3916
Post Options Post Options   Quote manofmystery Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2013 at 15:21
Information:
Back to Top
Earendil View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1563
Post Options Post Options   Quote Earendil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2013 at 17:07
I haven't been keeping up on this thread at all, but I posted a facebook status that's relevant to the discussion going on here:

Reports and opinions in the mainstream media make it sound like the two sides in the debate over US involvement in Syria, Iraq, etc, are A) Go in and kill the bad guys or B ) Let the bad guys kill people. This is a red herring argument (a distraction from the actual issue); the real question is whether the US ought to send troops to try to accomplish option A given the reality of the situation. 

The Reality: American soldiers, innocent Syrians, and guilty Syrians will die in the process. 

Reality: starting another war will increase the strength of the military-industrial complex by millions and millions of dollars, instead of using that money for the countless (in my mind) better options, like addressing climate change or fighting poverty. 

Reality: there is no way to know how successful the operation will be, but judging from the US' past world-policing, the war will be more expensive, more lives will be lost, fewer goals will be accomplished, and less stability will be established than the pre-war estimates say.

You just can't blindly accept the sideshow that the government puts 
on without any second thoughts. Governments are meant to obey their people, not the other way around. Just because the media/federal government displays a controversy over a critical issue in a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that those are the only two arguments, or that they're even relevant arguments at all. 


There's my take on it.


Edited by Earendil - September 04 2013 at 17:07
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Online
Posts: 15405
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2013 at 17:25
The other reality, and maybe the most important really, is that this is not the Chronicles of Narnia. There are not bad guys and good guys. Both sides have committed atrocities. Both sides manipulate the media to demonize the other. You do not stay out of conflicts out of cowardice but out of prudence and an acknowledgement that you lack the necessary information about the ramifications of your intervention. Without such foreknowledge, the necessary endangerment of innocents on all three sides of the war is criminal and reckless. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Earendil View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1563
Post Options Post Options   Quote Earendil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2013 at 17:34
Absolutely agreed
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Online
Posts: 32829
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2013 at 17:45
The (intended) purpose of any strike against Syria is not about intevention, or picking sides against whichever bad guys is the most badest, but about slapping  al-Assad's regime for using chemical weapons to try and ensure they don't do it again. How effective that would be is completely unknown, the basic assumption is a series of air strikes would neutralise those weapons or inflict so much collateral damage al-Assad would think twice before provoking such retaliatiory action again. This is international corporal punishment, not global peacekeeping.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 47850
Post Options Post Options   Quote Atavachron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2013 at 18:43
^ Of course it is, it's just when Bush Jr. or Reagan did it I decided they were reckless warmongers.   When Clinton or Obama do it I decide they're using prudent force against a despotic regime.   What's that all about?

Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Online
Posts: 15405
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2013 at 19:46
Originally posted by Dean

The (intended) purpose of any strike against Syria is not about intevention, or picking sides against whichever bad guys is the most badest, but about slapping  al-Assad's regime for using chemical weapons to try and ensure they don't do it again. How effective that would be is completely unknown, the basic assumption is a series of air strikes would neutralise those weapons or inflict so much collateral damage al-Assad would think twice before provoking such retaliatiory action again. This is international corporal punishment, not global peacekeeping.


That may be the purported intent of the strikes, but the effect will be what I described above. Especially in terms of blowback, the selective US punishment of chemical actions in the eyes of the area must be considered.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
King of Loss View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Watching You
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14541
Post Options Post Options   Quote King of Loss Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2013 at 20:16
Originally posted by Dean

The (intended) purpose of any strike against Syria is not about intevention, or picking sides against whichever bad guys is the most badest, but about slapping  al-Assad's regime for using chemical weapons to try and ensure they don't do it again. How effective that would be is completely unknown, the basic assumption is a series of air strikes would neutralise those weapons or inflict so much collateral damage al-Assad would think twice before provoking such retaliatiory action again. This is international corporal punishment, not global peacekeeping.

Let's just have a global world war sometime, ok?Tongue


Zizou 1988-2006
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 247248249250251 285>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.656 seconds.