|
 Ekstaza
stranger than most
Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 1 year, 15 days
|
 Re: Supporting our troops  [Re: silversoul7]
#2584351 - 04/20/04 07:45 PM (20 years, 4 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
They only do not gain ground with people who believe that taking human life(even if not in self-defense) is ok.
Did I say that taking innocent life is ok? No, I didn't. I said that human life isn't as sacred as some people make it out to be. I'm a firm believer that we are a part of this world and not it's master.
Quote:
This is why we have things like diseases, accidents, and old age.
True, but we are systematically defeating those controls, now aren't we?
Quote:
As I said, I am all for defending our borders, and would gladly join any militia that was trying to fend of an invader. However, there is no need to go overseas and fight other people in their own land.
How much of your spare time are you going to invest in learning how to defend against possible intercontinental balistic missle attacks. Do you think that your everday armed populant is that sophisticated? Our hired killers are doing their part to allow you and everyone else that wants to, to do other things with their life.
--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.
|
 silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Ancalagon]
#2584356 - 04/20/04 07:46 PM (20 years, 4 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ancalagon said:
Quote:
Which is exactly why arming other countries is a bad idea.
The word arms was not integral to my point...feel free to disregard it. Your country is simply selling supplies such as medicine and food, again country Y knowing you have no means to stop it, eliminates your capability to produce these things via modern technology.
Then we send in the National Guard. They volunteer knowing that they will not have to fight in a foreign war. If they aren't enough, then we're fucked anyway.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Ekstaza]
#2584369 - 04/20/04 07:49 PM (20 years, 4 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is why we have things like diseases, accidents, and old age.
True, but we are systematically defeating those controls, now aren't we?
When they find a cure for old age, let me know. The birth rate needs to be decreased, rather than the death rate increased.
Quote:
Quote:
As I said, I am all for defending our borders, and would gladly join any militia that was trying to fend of an invader. However, there is no need to go overseas and fight other people in their own land.
How much of your spare time are you going to invest in learning how to defend against possible intercontinental balistic missle attacks. Do you think that your everday armed populant is that sophisticated? Our hired killers are doing their part to allow you and everyone else that wants to, to do other things with their life.
We have a National Guard that is trained in using more sophisticated military technology. The armed populace can also help in fighting off invading troops.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
#2584377 - 04/20/04 07:51 PM (20 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
So then just to make sure..."hired killers" are fine so long as they stay on our soil?
--------------------
?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'
|
germin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Ancalagon]
#2584378 - 04/20/04 07:52 PM (20 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Touche!
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Ancalagon]
#2584383 - 04/20/04 07:53 PM (20 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Yes, if they are used to fight off invaders. Self-defense is the only acceptable reason for violence.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
#2584396 - 04/20/04 07:56 PM (20 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Yes, if they are used to fight off invaders. Self-defense is the only acceptable reason for violence.
So.... someone rapes your mom, you catch them in the act and don't fight them off her because self defense is the only acceptable reason for violence?
Do you think about these things before you say them? Or is your sense of values really so fucked up?
--------------------
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
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
#2584397 - 04/20/04 07:56 PM (20 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Remember, no invaders in my example, simple destruction. So would you then be fine with our national guard launching ICBMs into Country Y?
--------------------
?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'
|
Ekstaza
stranger than most
Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 1 year, 15 days
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
#2584408 - 04/20/04 08:00 PM (20 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Yes, if they are used to fight off invaders. Self-defense is the only acceptable reason for violence.
Our soldiers in Iraq were told that they are fighting to defend the US from terrorists. So by your definitions they are A.O.K.? Or is it only on a personal level theat self defense is proper? Why should we wait for an enemy to be on our door steps to fight back when we know that the first punch can be thrown from far away?
--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Ok, change "self-defense" to "defense." Most countries, however, don't need us for defense(the only one I can think of is illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip).
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Ancalagon]
#2584443 - 04/20/04 08:08 PM (20 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ancalagon said:
Remember, no invaders in my example, simple destruction. So would you then be fine with our national guard launching ICBMs into Country Y?
I wouldn't have any problem with the military(except for the fact that it's funded by stolen taxpayer money) if it was used for defense purposes only. However, anyone entering the military in this day and age should know damn well that that's not the way we do things around here.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: Ekstaza]
#2584463 - 04/20/04 08:12 PM (20 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ekstaza said:
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Yes, if they are used to fight off invaders. Self-defense is the only acceptable reason for violence.
Our soldiers in Iraq were told that they are fighting to defend the US from terrorists. So by your definitions they are A.O.K.? Or is it only on a personal level theat self defense is proper? Why should we wait for an enemy to be on our door steps to fight back when we know that the first punch can be thrown from far away?
For the third time, I believe that those soldiers were decieved. Sure, they probably believed that they were defending us from terrorists, but it should be apparent by now that they were not. As for waiting for the enemy to strike first, we need not necessarily do that, but we should at least have clear evidence that they plan to attack us. Anyway, I am not saying that soldiers are bad people. I'm saying that this idea that we all need to "Support Our Troops" is ridiculous.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
germin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
#2584501 - 04/20/04 08:19 PM (20 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
I wouldn't have any problem with the military(except for the fact that it's funded by stolen taxpayer money) if it was used for defense purposes only. However, anyone entering the military in this day and age should know damn well that that's not the way we do things around here.
From reading arguments about the taxation=theft issue, I think that they are usually citing Article X of the Bill of Rights. According to that, money is allowed to be appropriated from the people by the federal government for military usage. I don't see that as theft, maybe others will disagree with that.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
My taxation=theft argument has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has to do with the fact that people have a right to their income.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
#2584546 - 04/20/04 08:28 PM (20 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I wouldn't have any problem with the military(except for the fact that it's funded by stolen taxpayer money)
I'd have to disagree with the military being stolen money. The protection of a countries citizens happens to be one of the few legitimate roles of government in my oppinion.
I agree with you completely that wars should be fought only when absolutely neccesary. My main objection to your points was that an armed populace can do near nothing against an opposing force using modern technology. You've since made clear that you would support a national guard with military capability to deter or retaliate against the scenario I presented. Another question I would ask you is would you consider national self-defense situations outside of being directly attacked. Say hypothetically some country has attacked and is having its way with another country that alone supplies us with some, again, hypothetical item that the citizens of our country depend on utterly. Would you consider this a legitimate reason for entering into conflict?
--------------------
?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'
|
germin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
#2584550 - 04/20/04 08:28 PM (20 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
For the third time, I believe that those soldiers were decieved.
So who would determine if the threat were real? Our Commander in Chief did, and Congress voted in agreement. At that time, according to false/misleading information, they believed that Iraq WAS an imminent threat to us, which is justifiable under your clause. You can't use this as your justification for violence, then say, after the fact, that their "isn't" a threat. Who would make that call if their TRUELY was a threat? If the Chinese were sending battleships, and one single person thought it was just a surprise party, would we not initiate force?
Quote:
Sure, they probably believed that they were defending us from terrorists, but it should be apparent by now that they were not.
So, if the majority of the leadership believes that it's a defensive act, and the President and Congress OK it, then they find out that their might have been incorrect intelligence (or they lied, whatever), we, what, turn the clock back and don't fight them? Based on your own definition of justification for attack, that being "defense", and your statement that "they probably believed that they were defending...", their was ample justification for our defensive action. "Knowing" after the fact doesn't change the fact that we truly thought that we were acting in a defensive posture. If I'm wrong, use the statements of yours about "violence only being justfied in defense" and "they beleived that they were defending..." and tell me how that isn't meeting your criteron for violence.
Quote:
As for waiting for the enemy to strike first, we need not necessarily do that, but we should at least have clear evidence that they plan to attack us. Anyway, I am not saying that soldiers are bad people. I'm saying that this idea that we all need to "Support Our Troops" is ridiculous.
You don't think that we should encourage our troops to do their best? You believe that these soldiers are pawns in a rich-mans quest for money, and you don't think that they should be shown support for the position in which they find themselves? That sounds like people that hate policemen. They don't MAKE the laws, they just enforce them.
Do you think that a father telling his Iraq-bound son to "Stay safe" is offering support? Would you not tell someone over there to "stay safe"? If yes to both, aren't you then saying that you would "Support our troops", even though they aren't fighting for a position that you personally support?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
germin8tionn8ion said:
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
For the third time, I believe that those soldiers were decieved.
So who would determine if the threat were real? Our Commander in Chief did, and Congress voted in agreement. At that time, according to false/misleading information, they believed that Iraq WAS an imminent threat to us, which is justifiable under your clause. You can't use this as your justification for violence, then say, after the fact, that their "isn't" a threat. Who would make that call if their TRUELY was a threat? If the Chinese were sending battleships, and one single person thought it was just a surprise party, would we not initiate force?
The president mislead the nation into believing the threat was real, and for that he deserves to be voted out of office. See, that's what you do: when someone fucks up that bad, you fire them. I wish more people would get this concept.
Quote:
Quote:
Sure, they probably believed that they were defending us from terrorists, but it should be apparent by now that they were not.
So, if the majority of the leadership believes that it's a defensive act, and the President and Congress OK it, then they find out that their might have been incorrect intelligence (or they lied, whatever), we, what, turn the clock back and don't fight them? Based on your own definition of justification for attack, that being "defense", and your statement that "they probably believed that they were defending...", their was ample justification for our defensive action. "Knowing" after the fact doesn't change the fact that we truly thought that we were acting in a defensive posture. If I'm wrong, use the statements of yours about "violence only being justfied in defense" and "they beleived that they were defending..." and tell me how that isn't meeting your criteron for violence.
Mistakes happen, and so do lies. I still don't see any reason to support our troops when they are fighting for a mistake or a lie.
Quote:
Quote:
As for waiting for the enemy to strike first, we need not necessarily do that, but we should at least have clear evidence that they plan to attack us. Anyway, I am not saying that soldiers are bad people. I'm saying that this idea that we all need to "Support Our Troops" is ridiculous.
You don't think that we should encourage our troops to do their best? You believe that these soldiers are pawns in a rich-mans quest for money, and you don't think that they should be shown support for the position in which they find themselves? That sounds like people that hate policemen. They don't MAKE the laws, they just enforce them.
I don't hate the troops. I just don't think I need to "support" them any more than I should "support our lawyers." They chose to be in the military. Let them deal with it.
Quote:
Do you think that a father telling his Iraq-bound son to "Stay safe" is offering support? Would you not tell someone over there to "stay safe"? If yes to both, aren't you then saying that you would "Support our troops", even though they aren't fighting for a position that you personally support?
Of course I would tell someone to stay safe. I would also advise them not to join the military in the first place. If they decide to do so anyway, that's their problem, not mine.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
germin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
#2584623 - 04/20/04 08:44 PM (20 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
The president mislead the nation into believing the threat was real, and for that he deserves to be voted out of office. See, that's what you do: when someone fucks up that bad, you fire them. I wish more people would get this concept.
speaking of missing concepts, my point was that, at the time, the president and congress decided to go to war for defense. The majority o the people did so. Even had your safe guard of "defense only" been in place, we'd have gone to war.
Quote:
Mistakes happen, and so do lies. I still don't see any reason to support our troops when they are fighting for a mistake or a lie.
So a mistake, or a lie, occured by a politican, so you stop supporting the innocent puppets of said politicans?
Quote:
I don't hate the troops. I just don't think I need to "support" them any more than I should "support our lawyers." They chose to be in the military. Let them deal with it.
Hm.
Quote:
Of course I would tell someone to stay safe. I would also advise them not to join the military in the first place. If they decide to do so anyway, that's their problem, not mine.
you didn't answer my question as to wether or not telling someone to stay safe constitues support, nor wether or your act of doing so could be construed as support for the troops.
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: Supporting our troops [Re: silversoul7]
#2584637 - 04/20/04 08:48 PM (20 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The president mislead the nation into believing the threat was real, and for that he deserves to be voted out of office. See, that's what you do: when someone fucks up that bad, you fire them. I wish more people would get this concept.
The President is a President, not a King. He does not have sole authority for making decisions nor does he take care of all the history and information that go into making a decision. To say he mislead(To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving) the nation at this point is to be disgustingly rash. I am more open to the possibility that president bush had an agenda against Iraq and wanted to go in under any set of truths or lies then many, but as there is no proof of this, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he was presented a shitload of information by a shitload of sources that all happened to be wrong. Why should the president be fired for making a very sound decision based on what he was presented as fact because the information turned out to be fallacious?
--------------------
?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'
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
germin8tionn8ion said:
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
The president mislead the nation into believing the threat was real, and for that he deserves to be voted out of office. See, that's what you do: when someone fucks up that bad, you fire them. I wish more people would get this concept.
speaking of missing concepts, my point was that, at the time, the president and congress decided to go to war for defense. The majority o the people did so. Even had your safe guard of "defense only" been in place, we'd have gone to war.
That may be so, but those of us who say through the propaganda knew all along that Saddam was not a threat.
Quote:
Quote:
Mistakes happen, and so do lies. I still don't see any reason to support our troops when they are fighting for a mistake or a lie.
So a mistake, or a lie, occured by a politican, so you stop supporting the innocent puppets of said politicans?
They chose to make themselves puppets. Therefore they get no sympathy from me.
Quote:
Quote:
Of course I would tell someone to stay safe. I would also advise them not to join the military in the first place. If they decide to do so anyway, that's their problem, not mine.
you didn't answer my question as to wether or not telling someone to stay safe constitues support, nor wether or your act of doing so could be construed as support for the troops.
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
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Buy Bali Kratom Powder
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
moog
bukkake
afoaf
Ellis Dee
rhizo
silversoul7
