Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
Anonymous
|
|
a perfect government would never initiate force.
a good one would do it as little as absolutely necessary.
a bad one would do it more than that.
there's no such thing as a perfect government. if the government does not tax you to provide police services, the fact that you are free from taxation will be of little consolation when your car is stolen. if it does not tax to pay for military, it will not matter much when the nation is taken over by a new power, domestic or foriegn, which does that and a whole lot more. it will be of little consolation when a foreign dictator lets some terrorists borrow some sarin which they let loose on american soil.
the government will initiate force. even a good one will. what limit should there be to this force? i've always said that it should only be to support its efforts to keep the peace. your basic response is: whatever sounds good.
|
 silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2248772 - 01/17/04 03:04 PM (8 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
a good one would do it as little as absolutely necessary.
The Iraq War was far from necessary.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
The Iraq War was far from necessary.
yes it was. as i see it, we had three options:
1. end weapons inspections, end the sanctions levied in response to noncompliance with those inspections, and allow hussein to produce and stockpile chemical weapons. he could then produce chemical weapons, and maybe get a nuclear program going, without our pesky interference. he could even slip them to willing terrorists if he wanted. his people wouldn't be under sanctions, but they'd still be under hussein.
2. continue to put up with hussein's crap while half-assedly performing inspections when he lets us. he'd get away with whatever he could get away with, and all the while, his people would be starving from sanctions for noncompliance. we'd keep playing hide and seek with him. it'd be a little harder for him to produce and store chemical weapons, but he'd try, and occasionally get away with it. maybe after another decade of sanctions, the death toll caused by them would maybe reach a million. how long would this would go on and to what end i am not sure.
3. take him out. remove him from power. end the crap, free the iraqi people from both hussein and the sanctions, and secure americans from a chemical weapons obsessed government which sponsored terrorism and hated america.
i can't think of any options significantly different from these, and #3 sounds the best to me. how do you think he should have been dealt with?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2248884 - 01/17/04 03:41 PM (8 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
1. end weapons inspections, end the sanctions levied in response to noncompliance with those inspections, and allow hussein to produce and stockpile chemical weapons. he could then produce chemical weapons, and maybe get a nuclear program going, without our pesky interference. he could even slip them to willing terrorists if he wanted. his people wouldn't be under sanctions, but they'd still be under hussein.
Notice all the "could's" and "maybe's" in that statement. This is the problem with the pre-emptive doctrine. We could apply it to ANYONE because it's based quite arbitrarily on what others MIGHT do to us.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
ok. you've got a guy who at one time was the largest producer and stockpiler or chemical weapons in the world. his military, before the gulf war (the second war he started), was 500,000 men strong (the 5th largest military in the world at the time), even after a decade-long bloody standoff with iran (the first war he started). he had the will, and the financial ability, to persue a nuclear weapons program. he hated america, and was sponsoring terrorists. i put all of that together and it to me, it equals "major threat". i don't know what it equals to you.
why should we have not attacked the ba'athists? surely you can see that there was a threat there. who did we owe it to not to attack? the ba'athists?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2248978 - 01/17/04 04:10 PM (8 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ok. you've got a guy who at one time was the largest producer and stockpiler or chemical weapons in the world. his military, before the gulf war (the second war he started), was 500,000 men strong (the 5th largest military in the world at the time), even after a decade-long bloody standoff with iran (the first war he started). he had the will, and the financial ability, to persue a nuclear weapons program. he hated america, and was sponsoring terrorists. i put all of that together and it to me, it equals "major threat". i don't know what it equals to you.
First of all, the terrorists which Saddam supported, at least the one's we know about, were not attacking us, but rather were attacking Israel. As far as being the largest producer and stockpiler of chemical weapons, I'm pretty sure we hold that position. As for a nuclear weapons program, if he ever started one, I might think differently about the threat he presented to us. However, he didn't. As for hating America, who doesn't? And regarding the Ba'athists, are you refering to the party which we helped bring into power? Ya, that's what I thought.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
First of all, the terrorists which Saddam supported, at least the one's we know about, were not attacking us, but rather were attacking Israel.
that's pretty weak.
As far as being the largest producer and stockpiler of chemical weapons, I'm pretty sure we hold that position.
it was said that he was at one time. however, precise figures on these things are not exactly public knowledge. who knows. the fact remains that his regime was an extremely prolific producer and stockpiler of chemical weaponry. the point still stands.
As for a nuclear weapons program, if he ever started one, I might think differently about the threat he presented to us. However, he didn't.
he did, and it was shut down after the first gulf war. he'd be back at it again ASAP if we weren't monitoring him. at least one scientist has already come forward with components he was ordered to hide by hussein's regime.
And regarding the Ba'athists, are you refering to the party which we helped bring into power?
are you implying that this makes them less of a threat or something? i fail to see the relevance.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2249040 - 01/17/04 04:26 PM (8 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
First of all, the terrorists which Saddam supported, at least the one's we know about, were not attacking us, but rather were attacking Israel.
that's pretty weak.
My point is let Israel deal with it. They have a pretty big military.
Quote:
As far as being the largest producer and stockpiler of chemical weapons, I'm pretty sure we hold that position.
it was said that he was at one time. however, precise figures on these things are not exactly public knowledge. who knows. the fact remains that his regime was an extremely prolific producer and stockpiler of chemical weaponry. the point still stands.
And yet so far, several months after he's been out of power, we still have yet to find ANY chemical weapons. Interesting...
Quote:
As for a nuclear weapons program, if he ever started one, I might think differently about the threat he presented to us. However, he didn't.
he did, and it was shut down after the first gulf war. he'd be back at it again ASAP if we weren't monitoring him. at least one scientist has already come forward with components he was ordered to hide by hussein's regime.
Did I say anything about not monitoring him? Hell, isn't the NSA pretty much monitoring EVERYONE? If we did find solid evidence that he was developing nuclear weapons, we could easily make a case in front of the UN for multilateral military action against him.
Quote:
And regarding the Ba'athists, are you refering to the party which we helped bring into power?
are you implying that this makes them less of a threat or something? i fail to see the relevance.
Are you saying that the Ba'ath party(indepent of Saddam) is a threat?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
My point is let Israel deal with it. They have a pretty big military.
my point is that he has shown that he was willing and able to sponsor terrorists to attack his enemies.
And yet so far, several months after he's been out of power, we still have yet to find ANY chemical weapons. Interesting...
what are you suggesting? perhaps he had none in march 2003. it would have been a temporary condition. now it's a permanent one.
Did I say anything about not monitoring him? Hell, isn't the NSA pretty much monitoring EVERYONE? If we did find solid evidence that he was developing nuclear weapons, we could easily make a case in front of the UN for multilateral military action against him.
i'm sorry, i asked you how he should have been dealt with and you then quoted option #1 and appeared to defend that option. do you think he should have been monitored? what should have been done when he did not allow it? should only his nuclear activities have been monitorred, or chemical weapons production as well?
Are you saying that the Ba'ath party(indepent of Saddam) is a threat?
probably. his sons were next in line and they were as bad if not worse. what are you suggesting?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2249105 - 01/17/04 04:58 PM (8 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
My point is let Israel deal with it. They have a pretty big military.
my point is that he has shown that he is willing and able to sponsor terrorists to attack his enemies.
So if he started sponsoring terrorism against us, then we'd have reason to invade.
Quote:
And yet so far, several months after he's been out of power, we still have yet to find ANY chemical weapons. Interesting...
what are you suggesting? perhaps he had none in march 2003. it would have been a temporary condition. now it's a permanent one.
I have an idea. Let's invade EVERY country that doesn't like us just in case they start developing chemical weapons.
Quote:
Did I say anything about not monitoring him? Hell, isn't the NSA pretty much monitoring EVERYONE? If we did find solid evidence that he was developing nuclear weapons, we could easily make a case in front of the UN for multilateral military action against him.
i'm sorry, i asked you how he should have been dealt with and you then quoted option #1 and appeared to defend that option. do you think he should have been monitored? what should have been done when he did not allow it? should only his nuclear activities have been monitorred, or chemical weapons production as well?
Yes, I think he should have been monitored. When he didn't allow UN weapons inspectors in we should've let the UN decide what to do(there are also other ways of monitoring him). Chemical weapons should be monitored within reason, tho I think it's pretty well established that whatever weapons he had weren't capable of reaching US soil.
Quote:
Are you saying that the Ba'ath party(indepent of Saddam) is a threat?
probably. his sons were next in line and they were as bad if not worse. what are you suggesting?
I am suggesting what is already an established fact: that Saddam and his family were neither the first nor only members of the Ba'ath party.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
So if he started sponsoring terrorism against us, then we'd have reason to invade.
are you saying that if it is found that hussein supported terrorist organizations that attacked americans, you think that the war would have been justified?
I have an idea. Let's invade EVERY country that doesn't like us just in case they start developing chemical weapons.
no, only ones that mix with terrorists, and especially if they have an affinity for NBC weapons.
When he didn't allow UN weapons inspectors in we should've let the UN decide what to do(there are also other ways of monitoring him).
i doubt it. several member nations on the UN security council, most notably france, were owed large sums of money by hussein's regime and stood to profit from oil development contracts there, all of which they would lose in the invent of an invasion. letting them "decide what to do" wasn't working.
I think it's pretty well established that whatever weapons he had weren't capable of reaching US soil.
which is where you and i disagree. i believe that he was willing and able to produce chemical weapons and supply them to terrorists who would find their way to america.
I am suggesting what is already an established fact: that Saddam and his family were neither the first nor only members of the Ba'ath party.
what is the importance of this?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2249334 - 01/17/04 08:03 PM (8 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
So if he started sponsoring terrorism against us, then we'd have reason to invade.
are you saying that if it is found that hussein supported terrorist organizations that attacked americans, you think that the war would have been justified?
Well, if by "supported" you mean armed, funded, etc., and by "attacked" you mean "targeted" then yes, I would have supported the war.
Quote:
I have an idea. Let's invade EVERY country that doesn't like us just in case they start developing chemical weapons.
no, only ones that mix with terrorists, and especially if they have an affinity for NBC weapons.
That should keep us busy for the next 20 years or so.
Quote:
When he didn't allow UN weapons inspectors in we should've let the UN decide what to do(there are also other ways of monitoring him).
i doubt it. several member nations on the UN security council, most notably france, were owed large sums of money by hussein's regime and stood to profit from oil development contracts there, all of which they would lose in the invent of an invasion. letting them "decide what to do" wasn't working.
Then so be it. If he had enough weapons to constitute a threat, we would've known about it soon enough.
Quote:
I think it's pretty well established that whatever weapons he had weren't capable of reaching US soil.
which is where you and i disagree. i believe that he was willing and able to produce chemical weapons and supply them to terrorists who would find their way to america.
If he was willing and able, don't you think he would've done it by now?
Quote:
I am suggesting what is already an established fact: that Saddam and his family were neither the first nor only members of the Ba'ath party.
what is the importance of this?
That Saddam does not equal the Ba'ath party, and that you are laying unfair blame on that party. That's like saying the Republican party should be banned because of Richard Nixon's illegal activities.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2249774 - 01/18/04 01:18 AM (8 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
ok. you've got a guy who at one time was the largest producer and stockpiler or chemical weapons in the world
I find that very hard to believe. Evidence?
was 500,000 men strong (the 5th largest military in the world at the time),
Like Bill Hicks said, "there's a REAL big fucking drop off between the first three largest armies in the world and the fourth. The Hare-krishna's are the fifth largest army in the world..and they've already got our airports.."
he hated america
Think it was a bit more complex than that. During the 80's he was so close to America it was dubbed "the love affair".
and was sponsoring terrorists
You arn't meaning that hoary old bullshit about giving money to Palestinians killed by Israeli's are you? There's precious little evidence apart from what Tariq Aziz said that he ever gave anyone money anyway.
i put all of that together and it to me, it equals "major threat".
So a country effectively in the stone age, with hundreds of thousands of it's people starving, a destroyed infrastructure, penniless and unable to sell the vast bulk of it's oil, 5000 miles away from you, with no airforce and no intercontinental ballistic missiles is a "major threat" to the USA?
Go figure 
How long have you felt Saddam was a "major threat" to you? Was it during the 90's or just since Bush started pushing the shit about WMD?
btw, what's the next "major threat"? The solomon islands?
i don't know what it equals to you.
Fucking hell mush - we must have different ideas about what constitites a "major threat". The german army massing on your border with thousands of men after just invading most of Europe is what I would consider a "major threat".
|
 Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Many would make the arguement that pre-emptive stikes are a valid form of self defense. As it does not specify in the constitution that we must not strike until after we have been struck, there is a validity to that arguement.
Ok, so if I kill you because I think you have plans to kill me that would be a preemptive strike. Preemptive is a PC way of saying that we are terrorists.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 19,034
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Granola]
#2250282 - 01/18/04 10:03 AM (8 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Obviously not every instance could be considered a preemptive strike.
--------------------
Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data
-----------------------------------
A thin-skinned Mod that deletes rates of himself that he doesn't like.
-----------------------------------
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
|
|
yes, only the ones that government declares as preemptive strikes, it's still nothing more than terrorism, what ever happened to using the cia.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 19,034
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Granola]
#2250444 - 01/18/04 11:25 AM (8 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
So are you suggesting that one should always wait until after the first blow has been struck?
--------------------
Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data
-----------------------------------
A thin-skinned Mod that deletes rates of himself that he doesn't like.
-----------------------------------
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
|
there are times when you can use the pre-emptive defense argument, for example when you have DAMN GOOD EVIDENCE that you are about to be attacked.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 19,034
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2250822 - 01/18/04 03:04 PM (8 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
I agree. I realize some think the evidence was insufficient, but as I don't have access to all the info, who can really say?
--------------------
Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data
-----------------------------------
A thin-skinned Mod that deletes rates of himself that he doesn't like.
-----------------------------------
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Maybe, but has it occurred to you that the reason why they aren't on
the brink of starvation is BECAUSE they're on welfare? It might be a completely different story if they were all left to fend for themselves.
I think that most Americans have no idea what it is like to be on the brink of starvation. If you can afford all of the services and amenities previously mentioned then you can make the conscious decision to NOT purchase those goods or services, so that you can have food for you and your family, or you can decide to keep recieving those particular amenities. If you have cable TV, a television, an air conditioner, and the other non-essential things that "luvdemshrooms" demonstrated that the majority of the "poor" do have, then you aren't on the "brink of starvation".
Visit India to see what poor people live like in that nation. In cities where I lived the poorest people are living in metal boxes that they've made from scrap metal, with 15 family members stuffed inside a hut that can barely fit all of them standing up, families that sent their children out to beg all day for food for the night. THAT is what "brink of starvation" is, not driving your old, used car or truck home to watch the football game on cable TV and having to drink cheap beer because you can't afford the good stuff.
I think that the pro-welfare people's main platform is that in a nation as plentiful as America, noone should have to live in poverty, and I do agree with that to a point. Noone should have to live in the poor conditions that people in, say, India live in. However, the class that does work certaintly shouldn't be compelled by force to ensure that the lower class has amenities that are considered "average" in the American standard of living (such as an air conditioner). If the claim from the pro-welfare people is that the poor shouldn't be starving, I can see where that is coming from. If they believe that the poor should be made as comfortable as possible vis a vis taxation, I would have to say that I disagree
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1
9,026 topic views. 2 members, 1 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Anonymous
