Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Calling Out Libertarians on Foreign Policy

CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 11:19:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Alright. Ill make the challenge more public. If you are a libertarian who strongly believes the Ron Paul vision of foreign policy. Challenge me to a debate. It seems you are all so passionate about it, so I wouldnt see what is holding you back. Andddd Go!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 11:29:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is a debate forum. Why can't you defend YOUR assertion that Ron Paul's foreign policy is incorrect.

The onus is on you to give a reason why pulling troops out and ending all wars is a bad foreign policy decision and in your words "won't work."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 11:30:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
would love to hear a good reason why we should be giving billions of our tax dollars to governments like pakistan who are basically aiding and abetting al qaida.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 11:31:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah, I don't see why you can't just say it here. If anything it's an easier and more accessible way of discussing, getting points across, etc.
Brainmaster
Posts: 1,603
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 11:31:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 11:30:42 PM, askbob wrote:
would love to hear a good reason why we should be giving billions of our tax dollars to governments like pakistan who are basically aiding and abetting al qaida.
Kfc.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 11:35:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 11:30:42 PM, askbob wrote:
would love to hear a good reason why we should be giving billions of our tax dollars to governments like pakistan who are basically aiding and abetting al qaida.

That's just one example though, It's not like we spent a bunch of money arming the taliban or gave money to Hosni Mubarak for 30 years.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 11:38:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 11:31:03 PM, jat93 wrote:
Yeah, I don't see why you can't just say it here. If anything it's an easier and more accessible way of discussing, getting points across, etc.

Refer to the other forum - I answered your question. And to the others - I dont see the point unless it is competitive. Just my nature. Also, fine I grant its my BoP to deconstruct libertarian foreign policy...so Ill challenge whoever wants to debate. And to askbob - theres multiple arguments. 1) Not propping up Pakistan at this point just destablizies a country which has many jihdist organizations, e.g. the pakistani taliban. 2) The US has kept the balance between Pakistan and India. 3) Without US support Pakistan would look to support elsewhere, possibly Iran or North Korea as a way to counter-balance its rivals.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 11:48:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 11:30:42 PM, askbob wrote:
would love to hear a good reason why we should be giving billions of our tax dollars to governments like pakistan who are basically aiding and abetting al qaida.

Yeah, I love the way Ron Paul puts it.

The terrorists are in Pakistan and we are giving them billions of dollars in aid each year. On top of that, we're also bombing them!
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 11:48:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 11:38:21 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/15/2011 11:31:03 PM, jat93 wrote:
Yeah, I don't see why you can't just say it here. If anything it's an easier and more accessible way of discussing, getting points across, etc.

Refer to the other forum - I answered your question. And to the others - I dont see the point unless it is competitive. Just my nature. Also, fine I grant its my BoP to deconstruct libertarian foreign policy...so Ill challenge whoever wants to debate. And to askbob - theres multiple arguments. 1) Not propping up Pakistan at this point just destablizies a country which has many jihdist organizations, e.g. the pakistani taliban. 2) The US has kept the balance between Pakistan and India. 3) Without US support Pakistan would look to support elsewhere, possibly Iran or North Korea as a way to counter-balance its rivals.

1) so what? Is Pakistan going to attack us? They already harbor jihdist organizations.
2)We do that by the nature of our existence, we don't have to give money or keep troops there. We can wipe either country off the face of the earth,their self preservation keeps the balance.
3)So what, is Pakistan with or without Iran or North Korea going to attack us?

The America is the sole super power and can destroy any of these nations if they step out of line. We don't need to send money to them.
As for harboring terrorists, why don't we stop killing them, ignoring their national sovereignty,propping up repressive regimes and see if that stops their hatred for us? can't hurt right?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 11:50:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 11:38:21 PM, CiRrK wrote:
I dont see the point unless it is competitive. Just my nature.

It is competitive. It will involve you attempting to come up with an intelligible argument and me shutting you down.

1) Not propping up Pakistan at this point just destablizies a country which has many jihdist organizations, e.g. the pakistani taliban.

that makes it easier to drone bomb them not more difficult

2) The US has kept the balance between Pakistan and India. 3) Without US support Pakistan would look to support elsewhere, possibly Iran or North Korea as a way to counter-balance its rivals.

I see no ill in having Iran pay for the peasants rather than us.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 11:50:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We created most of the enemies we are now fighting. I predict we will soon turn on Karzai.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 11:55:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 11:50:25 PM, BennyW wrote:
We created most of the enemies we are now fighting. I predict we will soon turn on Karzai.

Exactly, is there a single "enemy" of the past decade we didn't train/support??
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 11:59:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 11:48:38 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/15/2011 11:38:21 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/15/2011 11:31:03 PM, jat93 wrote:
Yeah, I don't see why you can't just say it here. If anything it's an easier and more accessible way of discussing, getting points across, etc.

Refer to the other forum - I answered your question. And to the others - I dont see the point unless it is competitive. Just my nature. Also, fine I grant its my BoP to deconstruct libertarian foreign policy...so Ill challenge whoever wants to debate. And to askbob - theres multiple arguments. 1) Not propping up Pakistan at this point just destablizies a country which has many jihdist organizations, e.g. the pakistani taliban. 2) The US has kept the balance between Pakistan and India. 3) Without US support Pakistan would look to support elsewhere, possibly Iran or North Korea as a way to counter-balance its rivals.

1) so what? Is Pakistan going to attack us? They already harbor jihdist organizations.
2)We do that by the nature of our existence, we don't have to give money or keep troops there. We can wipe either country off the face of the earth,their self preservation keeps the balance.
3)So what, is Pakistan with or without Iran or North Korea going to attack us?

The America is the sole super power and can destroy any of these nations if they step out of line. We don't need to send money to them.
As for harboring terrorists, why don't we stop killing them, ignoring their national sovereignty,propping up repressive regimes and see if that stops their hatred for us? can't hurt right?

1) Thats not the harm I proposed. The Pakistani government is on the point of being destabilized. The Pakistani Taliban is one group that wants to remove the current government and implement a Afghani Taliban like government. Remember: Pakistan has nuclear weapons. This directly threatens us because it gives jihadist groups direct access to a nuclear weapon. Better for them to harbor then for these groups to have actual control.

2) Keeping the government stabilized yes, is necessary. Those same groups which did the Mumbai bombings are the same ones trying to overthrow the current Pakistan government. Plus your alternative is to wipe both off the face of the earth? Oh thats consistent? And what would that do to the world economic system? Your talking about a rapidly developing nation, second to China.

3) The impact here is that Pakistan looking for external help just exacerbates the proliferation problem. Pakistan has a nuclear weapon, and it would look to an alliance with Iran and North Korea. Counter-balancing at this level false because you are talking about an area that cant take care its own. Result: as ive brought up before arms races - more nuclear proliferation and instability in the worlds oil capitals.

And this is why an actual debate round is more appropriate, this will just keep going on and on. But to continue.

You say we are the worlds superpower. Yeah and your logic destroys that. If I remember correctly Paul is for heavy defense cuts and basically an entire draw back. That defeats our geopolitical advantages we have now. So if we are forced back the conflict will be worse, and that will be because of your foreign policy...or lach thereof.
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:00:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 11:50:08 PM, askbob wrote:
At 6/15/2011 11:38:21 PM, CiRrK wrote:
I dont see the point unless it is competitive. Just my nature.

It is competitive. It will involve you attempting to come up with an intelligible argument and me shutting you down.

1) Not propping up Pakistan at this point just destablizies a country which has many jihdist organizations, e.g. the pakistani taliban.

that makes it easier to drone bomb them not more difficult

2) The US has kept the balance between Pakistan and India. 3) Without US support Pakistan would look to support elsewhere, possibly Iran or North Korea as a way to counter-balance its rivals.

I see no ill in having Iran pay for the peasants rather than us.

Really askbob? Shutting me down. Prove it in a debate.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:05:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:00:36 AM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/15/2011 11:50:08 PM, askbob wrote:
At 6/15/2011 11:38:21 PM, CiRrK wrote:
I dont see the point unless it is competitive. Just my nature.

It is competitive. It will involve you attempting to come up with an intelligible argument and me shutting you down.

1) Not propping up Pakistan at this point just destablizies a country which has many jihdist organizations, e.g. the pakistani taliban.

that makes it easier to drone bomb them not more difficult

2) The US has kept the balance between Pakistan and India. 3) Without US support Pakistan would look to support elsewhere, possibly Iran or North Korea as a way to counter-balance its rivals.

I see no ill in having Iran pay for the peasants rather than us.

Really askbob? Shutting me down. Prove it in a debate.

lol or just have an intelligible point to what you are saying and info to back it on the forum
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:08:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 11:59:09 PM, CiRrK wrote:
1) Thats not the harm I proposed. The Pakistani government is on the point of being destabilized. The Pakistani Taliban is one group that wants to remove the current government and implement a Afghani Taliban like government. Remember: Pakistan has nuclear weapons. This directly threatens us because it gives jihadist groups direct access to a nuclear weapon. Better for them to harbor then for these groups to have actual control.

The harm you propose is jihadist groups having access to nuclear weapons, correct?
So what?
I'm pretty sure the CIA or NIA know every single detail of each and every nuclear weapon in Pakistan and that those weapons can't be budged without us knowing about it.
In the very off chance that one of those weapons was ever used, that would be the end of Pakistan and of their nuclear program, end of the problem.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:11:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:05:03 AM, askbob wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:00:36 AM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/15/2011 11:50:08 PM, askbob wrote:
At 6/15/2011 11:38:21 PM, CiRrK wrote:
I dont see the point unless it is competitive. Just my nature.

It is competitive. It will involve you attempting to come up with an intelligible argument and me shutting you down.

1) Not propping up Pakistan at this point just destablizies a country which has many jihdist organizations, e.g. the pakistani taliban.

that makes it easier to drone bomb them not more difficult

2) The US has kept the balance between Pakistan and India. 3) Without US support Pakistan would look to support elsewhere, possibly Iran or North Korea as a way to counter-balance its rivals.

I see no ill in having Iran pay for the peasants rather than us.

Really askbob? Shutting me down. Prove it in a debate.

lol or just have an intelligible point to what you are saying and info to back it on the forum

1) Drone argument makes no sense.

(1) Pakistan hasnt once tried to stop us militarily with our drone strikes.

(2) Drawback from Afghanistan means we dont have access to the FATA region anymore....no solvency for you.

(3) Destablization makes it harder because they can move freely out of the FATa region, which they cant in the status quo

2) Iran

(1) Iran would trade nuclear technology with Pakistan

(2) Iran would be supporting terrorist groups in that region

Now, lets have an actual debate.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:11:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:08:08 AM, lewis20 wrote:
In the very off chance that one of those weapons was ever used, that would be the end of Pakistan and of their nuclear program, end of the problem.

Minus a US city
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:13:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:08:08 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/15/2011 11:59:09 PM, CiRrK wrote:
1) Thats not the harm I proposed. The Pakistani government is on the point of being destabilized. The Pakistani Taliban is one group that wants to remove the current government and implement a Afghani Taliban like government. Remember: Pakistan has nuclear weapons. This directly threatens us because it gives jihadist groups direct access to a nuclear weapon. Better for them to harbor then for these groups to have actual control.

The harm you propose is jihadist groups having access to nuclear weapons, correct?
So what?
I'm pretty sure the CIA or NIA know every single detail of each and every nuclear weapon in Pakistan and that those weapons can't be budged without us knowing about it.
In the very off chance that one of those weapons was ever used, that would be the end of Pakistan and of their nuclear program, end of the problem.

Terrible argument.

1. The CIA doesnt even know the demographics of the Libyan rebellion atm, plus they are blind as to how many Iranian light-water reactors exist.

2. Pakistan is the leader in the nuclear black market - thats how NK got their original technology. Opps...CIA failed again.

3. As mentioned before your foreign policy itself would make us lose our geopoltiical advantages so no it wouldnt be gameover for PAkistan. Moreover, the scenario I explain would decentralize Pakistan so again no, not game over.
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:14:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:11:30 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:08:08 AM, lewis20 wrote:
In the very off chance that one of those weapons was ever used, that would be the end of Pakistan and of their nuclear program, end of the problem.

Minus a US city

Plus that
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:15:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:11:30 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:08:08 AM, lewis20 wrote:
In the very off chance that one of those weapons was ever used, that would be the end of Pakistan and of their nuclear program, end of the problem.

Minus a US city

Extremely unlikely.
Also that's a risk you have to take if you don't believe in preventive wars.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:16:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:08:08 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/15/2011 11:59:09 PM, CiRrK wrote:
1) Thats not the harm I proposed. The Pakistani government is on the point of being destabilized. The Pakistani Taliban is one group that wants to remove the current government and implement a Afghani Taliban like government. Remember: Pakistan has nuclear weapons. This directly threatens us because it gives jihadist groups direct access to a nuclear weapon. Better for them to harbor then for these groups to have actual control.

The harm you propose is jihadist groups having access to nuclear weapons, correct?
So what?
I'm pretty sure the CIA or NIA know every single detail of each and every nuclear weapon in Pakistan and that those weapons can't be budged without us knowing about it.
In the very off chance that one of those weapons was ever used, that would be the end of Pakistan and of their nuclear program, end of the problem.

Terrible argument.

1. The CIA doesnt even know the demographics of the Libyan rebellion atm, plus they are blind as to how many Iranian light-water reactors exist.

2. Pakistan is the leader in the nuclear black market - thats how NK got their original technology. Opps...CIA failed again.

3. As mentioned before your foreign policy itself would make us lose our geopoltiical advantages so no it wouldnt be gameover for PAkistan. Moreover, the scenario I explain would decentralize Pakistan so again no, not game over.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:18:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:15:08 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:11:30 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:08:08 AM, lewis20 wrote:
In the very off chance that one of those weapons was ever used, that would be the end of Pakistan and of their nuclear program, end of the problem.

Minus a US city

Extremely unlikely.
Also that's a risk you have to take if you don't believe in preventive wars.

Preventive wars aren't an issue of principle, initiation of force is. If someone is already a force initiator there is nothing unprincipled about making war to prevent them from expanding their operations regarding you.

Whether such a thing works is a different question.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:19:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:18:53 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:15:08 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:11:30 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:08:08 AM, lewis20 wrote:
In the very off chance that one of those weapons was ever used, that would be the end of Pakistan and of their nuclear program, end of the problem.

Minus a US city

Extremely unlikely.
Also that's a risk you have to take if you don't believe in preventive wars.

Preventive wars aren't an issue of principle, initiation of force is. If someone is already a force initiator there is nothing unprincipled about making war to prevent them from expanding their operations regarding you.

Whether such a thing works is a different question.

Yay, a professed libertarian who gets is : )
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:21:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:13:52 AM, CiRrK wrote:
Terrible argument.

1. The CIA doesnt even know the demographics of the Libyan rebellion atm, plus they are blind as to how many Iranian light-water reactors exist.

What's that have to do with Pakistan's nuclear program, or are you simply attacking the U.S. intelligence agencies ?

2. Pakistan is the leader in the nuclear black market - thats how NK got their original technology. Opps...CIA failed again.

So our intervention in Pakistan has been paying dividends eh?

3. As mentioned before your foreign policy itself would make us lose our geopoltiical advantages so no it wouldnt be gameover for PAkistan. Moreover, the scenario I explain would decentralize Pakistan so again no, not game over.

How is having the greatest military on earth.. stationed at home... worse than having it spread thin across the globe.
Great military is the geopolitical advantage, not small military presence in over 100 countries.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:21:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:19:44 AM, CiRrK wrote:
Yay, a professed libertarian who gets is : )

Ragnar is as much libertarian as Obama is anti-war.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:22:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:21:28 AM, Nags wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:19:44 AM, CiRrK wrote:
Yay, a professed libertarian who gets is : )

Ragnar is as much libertarian as Obama is anti-war.

Where did I advocate initiating force?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:25:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:21:08 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:13:52 AM, CiRrK wrote:
Terrible argument.

1. The CIA doesnt even know the demographics of the Libyan rebellion atm, plus they are blind as to how many Iranian light-water reactors exist.

What's that have to do with Pakistan's nuclear program, or are you simply attacking the U.S. intelligence agencies ?

2. Pakistan is the leader in the nuclear black market - thats how NK got their original technology. Opps...CIA failed again.

So our intervention in Pakistan has been paying dividends eh?

3. As mentioned before your foreign policy itself would make us lose our geopoltiical advantages so no it wouldnt be gameover for PAkistan. Moreover, the scenario I explain would decentralize Pakistan so again no, not game over.

How is having the greatest military on earth.. stationed at home... worse than having it spread thin across the globe.
Great military is the geopolitical advantage, not small military presence in over 100 countries.

1. You make the unwarranted claim that the CIA definitely knows about pakistans program. I say, they dont even know something as simple as X. It shows that they cant get a very simple fact correct, let alone a state secret nuclear facilities

2. You miss the point. The CIA had failed to intervene in the nuclear black market. You lack solvency in this issue.

3.

(1) Ron Paul wants to drastically cut the defense and military budget. So good bye to the little solvency you have

(2) Losing our geopolitical advantage means counter-balancing will occur. Thats the harm of apolarity as I mentioned elsewhere. It doesnt matter if we respond. How state react is what matters.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:26:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:15:08 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:11:30 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:08:08 AM, lewis20 wrote:
In the very off chance that one of those weapons was ever used, that would be the end of Pakistan and of their nuclear program, end of the problem.

Minus a US city

Extremely unlikely.
Also that's a risk you have to take if you don't believe in preventive wars.

That's why we believe in preventive wars.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 12:27:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 12:22:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:21:28 AM, Nags wrote:
At 6/16/2011 12:19:44 AM, CiRrK wrote:
Yay, a professed libertarian who gets is : )

Ragnar is as much libertarian as Obama is anti-war.

Where did I advocate initiating force?

Your arguments for invading places (like Pakistan in this thread) rely on hypothetical what-ifs. Of course, Pakistan could be taken over by terrorists and WMDs could be used against the US. But you can apply that what-if logic to every country around the globe. It's not a preventive war just because you say it could prevent aggression towards the US.