Home | Community | Message Board


Zamnesia.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

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!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleDoctorJ
Minister to the Damned
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,775
Loc: space
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: trippysmurf]
    #2587229 - 04/21/04 04:21 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

trippysmurf said:
soldiers are simply the tools





Yeah, I agree with that. soldiers are tools. Not by inheritance, but because they made the decision to be tools.

I use tools. I laugh at tools. I send tools to die so that I can have cheap gasoline. I do not respect tools. Obviously, they dont respect themselves, or they wouldn't have put themselves in that position.


--------------------
Deep in the heart of Central Texas
lurks a Doktor
SM tool
Native Dallas brick-chopper...


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: HagbardCeline]
    #2587275 - 04/21/04 04:39 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Weak. You know that has nothing to do with modern warfare. The point is that if a military power decided on attacking us, it wouldn't be something that a militia could defend against. Especially if they didn't even use a ground force. Maybe they just decided to lob 25 cruise missles per day, everyday until we are effectively living in the Stone Age again.

Good point. The right-wingers on the board make endless posts about how a militia could repel anything. That's why Switzerland has never been invaded apparantly... :rolleyes:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Xlea321]
    #2587283 - 04/21/04 04:42 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
Weak. You know that has nothing to do with modern warfare. The point is that if a military power decided on attacking us, it wouldn't be something that a militia could defend against. Especially if they didn't even use a ground force. Maybe they just decided to lob 25 cruise missles per day, everyday until we are effectively living in the Stone Age again.

Good point. Most of the right-wingers on the board think a militia could repel anything.



It did a pretty good job of repelling us out of Vietnam.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Xlea321]
    #2587284 - 04/21/04 04:42 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Really? Show me a quote from a right winger that said that please.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Xlea321]
    #2587318 - 04/21/04 04:52 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Alex, all you have to do is make the cost too high for those trying to control a country. It is not necessary to defeat them and take over their country. Winning battles means nothing if you can't hold onto a country and keep the peace, you can lose in the long run by attrition. The cost in treasure and blood of the 'victors' can continue to mount until the 'victors' end up cutting their losses and quit. This is the nature of guerilla warfare and insurgency. Again, it is not necessary to dominate your opponent, only to make his costs too high. As was pointed out already, Vietnam is a good example.

As for Switzerland, it's not that the country could not (or cannot) be defeated militarily, but that the cost of taking it and holding it has been and is too high for potential aggressors. This is why the Nazis never invaded, although their best estimates told them that they could defeat Switzerland it wasn't worth it.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
    #2587367 - 04/21/04 05:11 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

It did a pretty good job of repelling us out of Vietnam.

No, that was an army called the Vietcong. Do you think every Vietnamese civilian had an AK-47 and a thousand rounds under the bed for "hunting" or something?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Evolving]
    #2587374 - 04/21/04 05:15 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

This is why the Nazis never invaded

Nothing to do with the enormous financial assistance Switzerland provided to the Nazi regime then  :rolleyes:

The greatest slaughter in history has, until quite recently, tended to obscure the other horror perpetuated by the Nazis - namely, the greatest robbery in history. The first order of business for the invading Nazi army as it trampled through Europe was a raid on the national treasury and the hauling of millions of dollars in gold and cash back to the Reichsbank in Berlin. Next were art seizures from museums, galleries and the private collections of Jews. In time, all the valuables and property of Jews would be confiscated, and eventually they, too, would be taken away. Even after their deaths, the thieving would continue. Wedding rings snatched from the corpses, gold wrested from their teeth; in fact, an estimated 72 pounds of dental gold was extracted each day from victims at Auschwitz.

Billions of dollars of the looted gold and cash and an estimated $2.5 billion in stolen art were sent to Switzerland, where the Reich's Swiss bankers attended to its purchase, care and investment. Nazi Germany was, after all, the most important client in the history of Swiss banking. Before World War II, Switzerland had been a poor country. Thanks to the Third Reich, Switzerland emerged from the war as the second-richest country in the world.

In news stories over the last two years, the world has learned that the Swiss were hardly the beset-upon neutrals that they have claimed to be but instead were full partners with the Nazis. Moreover, as Tom Bower's masterly chronicle, "Nazi Gold," makes clear, the Nazis could never have prevailed as long as they did without the Swiss. Indeed, as Bower makes clear, the war would most likely have ended a full year earlier had it not been for the financial intervention of Swiss bankers.





Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Xlea321]
    #2587375 - 04/21/04 05:16 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

How many tours did you do in 'Nam Alex?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Xlea321]
    #2587416 - 04/21/04 05:25 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
Nothing to do with the enormous financial assistance Switzerland provided to the Nazi regime then?



No, it was a military decision. Don't you think that the Germans would not have benefitted by confiscating the wealth from Switzerland as they did from every place else they conquered? That way, they could keep all the profits. Or do you think 'the master race' thought themselves incapable of running things as well as the Swiss?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Evolving]
    #2587425 - 04/21/04 05:27 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

No because they could launder money through switzerland.

Read the book, I don't have time to explain why you are wrong.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
    #2587443 - 04/21/04 05:33 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
That may be so, but those of us who say through the propaganda knew all along that Saddam was not a threat.




So, if the decision isn't in the power of the majority of the voters, the congress, or the president, who, exactly, will decide when it's "defense"? If the Japanese Navy was off of our coast back a few Decembers ago, with planes heading towards us, their would probably still be one person who would say "Nope, those Zeros are coming in for a look at our beautiful island, not defense, don't attack them". Who, then, do we listen to? The minority (that has always demonstrated a dislike for Bush), or the voice ofthe majority, congress, and the president.

Summation: you said that the use of the military is only for defensive purposes. In any given situation, what would classify as defense? Attacking AFTER another group attacks? Do you think that hte majority ofthe nation, including the Senators that voted for the Iraq war, believe that it was defense? In the future, if the majority of the people believe that it is defense, and the congress does too, would you still say "Nope, no war".

Quote:


No it does not constitute support, at least in the sense that I'm using the word. It constitutes advice.



So if it's not support, what is it?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2587465 - 04/21/04 05:39 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

germin8tionn8ion said:
Quote:

silversoul7 said:
That may be so, but those of us who say through the propaganda knew all along that Saddam was not a threat.




So, if the decision isn't in the power of the majority of the voters, the congress, or the president, who, exactly, will decide when it's "defense"? If the Japanese Navy was off of our coast back a few Decembers ago, with planes heading towards us, their would probably still be one person who would say "Nope, those Zeros are coming in for a look at our beautiful island, not defense, don't attack them". Who, then, do we listen to? The minority (that has always demonstrated a dislike for Bush), or the voice ofthe majority, congress, and the president.



It is the government's position to determine that, but they are often wrong.

Quote:

Summation: you said that the use of the military is only for defensive purposes. In any given situation, what would classify as defense? Attacking AFTER another group attacks? Do you think that hte majority ofthe nation, including the Senators that voted for the Iraq war, believe that it was defense? In the future, if the majority of the people believe that it is defense, and the congress does too, would you still say "Nope, no war".



I think that the majority of people were misled into believing this war was for defense. It's too late to worry about that now, but it was a grave mistake.

Quote:

Quote:


No it does not constitute support, at least in the sense that I'm using the word. It constitutes advice.



So if it's not support, what is it?



Ahem...
Quote:

No it does not constitute support, at least in the sense that I'm using the word. It constitutes advice.




--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Xlea321]
    #2587493 - 04/21/04 05:51 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
No because they could launder money through switzerland.



So you think that the Germans thought themselves less capable than the Swiss, and there would be higher profits for them by letting the Swiss run things and taking fees off the top than if the Germans controlled everything?

Quote:

... I don't have time to explain why you are wrong.



No, you don't have the ability.

I have read military accounts of the Nazi's decisions. They would have taken over Switzerland if the cost was not so great. Hitler had referred to Switzerland as a pimple on the face of Europe, his generals estimated that it would take at least eighteen division to dislodge the Swiss from their defensive fortifications. This was a cost the Nazis were unwilling to bear until their other European enemies (Britain and The Soviet Union) were defeated.

So, if they couldn't afford to defeat them right away they might as well use their services until a more opportune time arose, right?

I have gone over this in previous posts, but as usual you have chosen to ignore what I presented and to remain stubbornly ignorant. Since efforts to get you to think are akin to getting a worm to fly under it's own power, I will refrain from further attempts at explaining to you what you are unable or unwilling to comprehend. This is the end of my discussion with you on this tangent.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
    #2587778 - 04/21/04 07:32 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
I support the use of deadly force only when it is absolutely necessary to do so. If a situation was dire enough to warrant the use of troops overseas, I might support it, but aside from World War II, I have yet to see any such situation.




In your initial post that began this thread, you quoted Hicks as saying the "hired killers" comment. The context of how you did this means that, no matter what, at the end of the day, they are still "hired killers". If you think this, and you are making a judgment call as to them being "hired killers", then no matter what the war, no matter what the justificaiton, this label that you deem negative still applies. If the military personnel are lining children up against a wall and machine-gunning them, they are still as much of a "hired killer" as the military personnel that are liberating the concentration camps, or Europe, and thus, are still "Wrong" in your book.

Second, your guidelines for justification of force seem to change as the thread deepens. We go from "self-defense", to "defense", and now, a very vague "dire enough". Which is it?

Third, you still haven't answered the question as to who decides that a "defensive" action is needed. For the Iraq war, without knowing what we know now, the majority of the people, the majority of Congress and the Senate, and the leader of the US Military all believed (Well, "maybe" the CinC 'lied') that we were taking defensive action. What possible more could you want to justify it being a "defensive" action? Should we always wait until we are struck first until we counter attack? Should a single voice of dissent, or a minority voice of dissent, be the voice that speaks and controls our action? Since, as you said earlier, we beleived that it was a defensive action, wouldn't it be justified according to the, let me count, ah yes, the second revision that you said of when to justify the use of combat troops? If "everyone" knew that the Japs were off of the coast launching planes on that December day, and the president, the congress, the senate, and the majority of the Americans wanted to shoot down the squadron of Zero's flying towards Hawaii, but one person who was "seeing through the propaganda" says "Hey now! Those Zeros are just trying to get a nice look at beautiful Pearl Harbor, I don't feel that we need to adopt a defensive posture!" should we not do it? You've already (three times, by my count) defined and redefined the acceptable use of force, but you haven't really said who makes the decision as to wether or not something is defensive,or if it's not defensive.

Finally, you have now updated (as of 7:28PM EST, further revisions expected) the definition of acceptable use of hired killers as when a "dire need" exists. If Hitler was a dire need due to his propensity towards attacking neighboring states and gassing minorities, wouldn't Iraq STILL be a justifed war?

Tip: Write the first paragraph of your post to contain the main central point of it, rather than a quote meant to cause reaction. Then, follow that paragraph up with expository writing that supports the premise or point you are trying to defend. Then we could clearly understand what you mean, and debate it point by point. It would certaintly give you more ground to stand on than a one-liner from a dead comedian, and your constnatly morphing definition and criteron for acceptable use of our hired killers.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2587784 - 04/21/04 07:35 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
I use tools. I laugh at tools. I send tools to die so that I can have cheap gasoline. I do not respect tools. Obviously, they dont respect themselves, or they wouldn't have put themselves in that position.




You don't respect any tool of any form? You "obviously" don't use tools on a regular basis. I respect, care for, and treat my tools in my machine shop quite well. Also, the "send tools to die" thing, showing how you 'hate the troops' doesn't really make you a badass, or make people think that you are more convinced that you are right, it just makes you look like a, well, tool. And I'm not talking about the work bench tool.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Minister to the Damned
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,775
Loc: space
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2587887 - 04/21/04 08:24 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

germin8tionn8ion said:

You don't respect any tool of any form? You "obviously" don't use tools on a regular basis. I respect, care for, and treat my tools in my machine shop quite well. Also, the "send tools to die" thing, showing how you 'hate the troops' doesn't really make you a badass, or make people think that you are more convinced that you are right, it just makes you look like a, well, tool. And I'm not talking about the work bench tool.




hmmmm.... I wonder if your problems with reading comprehension have anything to do with the ignorance of your opinion.

Sure, I respect the tools I use in my work or in my art. But I don't have the same respect for tools as I do for human beings. When my hammer breaks, I go buy a new one. I don't hold a funeral for it. But anyway, I dont see what any of that has to do with whether I use tools on a regular basis or not.

When I used the word 'tools' in my previous post I meant it in a human way as in "that person is a tool". As in "that person has no respect for himself to the point where he is willing to sign all of his rights away to the government and become a souless mercenary."

Also- not once in my post did I say I "hate the troops". I simply don't respect their decision and won't be surprised or sorry for them when their short lives are filled with pointless agony and suffering. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Thats all I'm sayin.


--------------------
Deep in the heart of Central Texas
lurks a Doktor
SM tool
Native Dallas brick-chopper...


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 12 years, 17 days
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
    #2587916 - 04/21/04 08:30 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

To try and get back on topic, I would include in the phrase "supporting our troops" financial support. Silversoul, despite a conflict you feel is unjust, do you feel it proper to allocate the resources neccesary to allow our troops to accomplish their mission and survive in the process?


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Ancalagon]
    #2588025 - 04/21/04 08:56 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Ancalagon said:
To try and get back on topic, I would include in the phrase "supporting our troops" financial support. Silversoul, despite a conflict you feel is unjust, do you feel it proper to allocate the resources neccesary to allow our troops to accomplish their mission and survive in the process?



Sure, as long as it is not forced out of someone's rightful income. If someone supports the war, they should show it by financing it. Those who are opposed to it should not be forced to pay.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 12 years, 17 days
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
    #2588068 - 04/21/04 09:03 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

If such a system was implemented right now with our troops remaining in Iraq, and there simply wasn't enough money flowing in to provide the troops with supplies neccesary to accomplish the mission and survive, would you send money regardless of your dislike for the war?


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Ancalagon]
    #2588083 - 04/21/04 09:04 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

No, I would petition Congress to send our troops home, as they clearly could not afford to keep them there.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* what if i don't want to support "our" troops?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
moog 6,858 116 07/04/05 04:48 PM
by zappaisgod
* Army: Mental ills worsen after troops return
( 1 2 all )
bukkake 2,605 31 08/01/05 07:41 PM
by Vex
* Kerry supports our troops afoaf 1,023 16 03/20/04 03:41 PM
by Learyfan
* Let's not support our troops
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Ellis Dee 4,526 98 03/27/03 09:57 AM
by sirreal
* War people, why do you support the war?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
rhizo 8,042 145 07/05/06 11:56 AM
by Phred
* Support Proper Solutions to National Security Issues silversoul7 804 12 05/18/03 02:59 AM
by z@z.com
* Support 3 DPR Bills in California silversoul7 504 3 05/23/03 04:30 PM
by Madtowntripper
* Support the Freedom to Read silversoul7 271 1 07/22/03 01:08 PM
by Azmodeus

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,458 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Gaiana.nl
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.081 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 17 queries.