Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarianism

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 12:41:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was reading the comments on some Ron Paul article (yes, I do stalk him. Don't claim you do any different) and I saw someone comparing the Libertarians to the Tea Party. I went charlesb all over them. This was most of my post. Are they valid?

The Tea Party is stupid, but all it's done is make noise. The Libertarian Party is not the Tea Party. The Tea Party believes in big government (more war, policing social lives, etc.) while the Libertarian party believes in small government (no intervening in foreign affairs, don't police peoples lives, government runs only things like national defense, infrastructure, protecting rights, etc.)

The Libertarian Party is the best Party. Conservatives believe in big government (war, policing social lives, etc) and of course none of those policies make sense.

Here's how the conservatives run: (yes, I am aware that the conservative position has changed. This is how they are currently)

1. Decide that Iran needs a better ruler.

2. Coup

3. Blowback comes 26 years later.

4. Start a war.

And I haven't even got to policing lives because of "family values". An authoritarian government protecting "family values". Ridiculous.

That's not to say that liberals are any better. They basically believe that it is the government's job to be your nursemaid. They set up regulations that could easily be emulated by the free market. Example: The Jungle. The Jungle showed that the meat packing industry used very bad processes in making meat. The government sets up regulations. However, who would have bought meat from those industries now that the word was out? There would have been a tremendous demand for clean meat.

Example Two: They believe everyone should have health care, so they take the money out of your pocket and then waste billions in order to give everyone horribly inefficient and expensive healthcare. (Remember, the money comes out of your pocket) I have an idea. Maybe, if you didn't give people unlimited money so that health care can have huge prices, you would have affordable health care. Stop stealing everyone's money, and everyone would be able to afford healthcare.

Liberals essentially break your leg and then give you a crutch. The free market usually works great, but once the government sucks the money out of the market and wastes it while imposing tons of regulations, the free market is dead. Then "Oh no, nobody can afford health care. Let's take even MORE money from them to give them an inefficient and expensive product"

The Libertarian Party is the way to go. Ron Paul is closest to my ideals, and easily the best candidate. Obama runs off "hope and change", the only thing that's changed is our debt. All the other GOP candidates are basically status quo (police lives, start wars, etc). Only Ron Paul tries to make policies that make sense. Once he does that, the GOP candidates make absurd claims that Ron Paul supports polygamy and such.

In summarization, the Libertarian Party is awesome and so is Ron Paul.

P.S.

If the government isn't taking money from you, they are printing it which basically has the same effect.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 12:48:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Tea Party isn't a formal party with a formal platform, so I don't see how you verify that it believes what you say it believes.

National defense by definition entails interfering with the designs of foreign countries.
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.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 1:56:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 12:48:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The Tea Party isn't a formal party with a formal platform, so I don't see how you verify that it believes what you say it believes.

National defense by definition entails interfering with the designs of foreign countries.

Valid point. I know the majority of Tea Party members are con gay marriage, but I am not sure about the war. I suppose my rant is more against conservatives like Santorum.

Invading random countries based on the possibility they may have a nuke or contain terrorists is taking things a little too far. If a country was preparing to invade, that would be something else. But invading someone on the possibility of a nuke? Not only is there little to no reason, that helps foster anti US sentiment.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 2:11:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A country that gives aid or harbor to terrorists is necessarily preparing those terrorists to invade some other country.
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.
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 2:57:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just post this video. Nothing else needs to be said.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 6:28:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 2:57:09 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:

Just post this video. Nothing else needs to be said.

Problem: The "libertarian" is fiscally liberal.

Quote 1: "in an attempt to save the US from financial ruin brought about by the unregulated business sector taking financial risks costly enough to crash the global economy"

The "libertarian" believes in regulating the crap out of business.

Quote 2: "it's actually health insurance reform. All healthcare will still be provided by the private sector. The Congressional Budget Office has rated the program as deficit neutral."

The "libertarian" wants health insurance reform.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 7:24:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 2:11:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A country that gives aid or harbor to terrorists is necessarily preparing those terrorists to invade some other country.

We invade another country, waste a trillion or two, foster anti-American sentiments which leads to more wars, waste thousands of lives, and become the authoritarians forcing everyone to do as we see fit in order to possibly prevent a couple terrorist attack? I think preemptive strikes (killing someone because they might be threat) could be grounds for attacking anybody.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 7:53:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 7:24:26 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 2:11:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A country that gives aid or harbor to terrorists is necessarily preparing those terrorists to invade some other country.

We invade another country, waste a trillion or two, foster anti-American sentiments which leads to more wars
If there are already terrorists, Anti-American sentiment is not marginal to our decisions.
You're listing the cost of occupation while discussing invasion.

I think preemptive strikes (killing someone because they might be threat) could be grounds for attacking anybody.
This isn't about preemption. It's about verifiable things that have already happened.
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.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 9:10:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Did you guys know that...

-Ron Paul can lead a horse to water AND make it drink, but seeing as how Paul knows it isn't the government's right to do so, he refuses.

-Ron Paul doesn't go to the gym. He stays fit by exercising his civil rights.

-Ron Paul doesn't deliver babies. He reads them their civil rights, and they come out in the anticipation of freedom.

-Ron Paul doesn't cut taxes. He kills them with his bare hands.

(If you haven't noticed, I totally love Ron Paul--hence my volunteering for his campaign.)
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 9:21:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 6:28:58 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 2:57:09 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:

Just post this video. Nothing else needs to be said.

Problem: The "libertarian" is fiscally liberal.

Quote 1: "in an attempt to save the US from financial ruin brought about by the unregulated business sector taking financial risks costly enough to crash the global economy"

The "libertarian" believes in regulating the crap out of business.

Quote 2: "it's actually health insurance reform. All healthcare will still be provided by the private sector. The Congressional Budget Office has rated the program as deficit neutral."

The "libertarian" wants health insurance reform.

While the first quote is true and I do disagree with it, in the second quote the libertarian is not endorsing health insurance reform, but trying to fix the misconception of the tea partier that the health care bill was for insurance and not actual health care and that it was not specifically the thing that was throwing the country into the pits of debt.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 9:26:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 9:21:27 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 8/13/2011 6:28:58 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 2:57:09 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:

Just post this video. Nothing else needs to be said.

Problem: The "libertarian" is fiscally liberal.

Quote 1: "in an attempt to save the US from financial ruin brought about by the unregulated business sector taking financial risks costly enough to crash the global economy"

The "libertarian" believes in regulating the crap out of business.

Quote 2: "it's actually health insurance reform. All healthcare will still be provided by the private sector. The Congressional Budget Office has rated the program as deficit neutral."

The "libertarian" wants health insurance reform.

While the first quote is true and I do disagree with it, in the second quote the libertarian is not endorsing health insurance reform, but trying to fix the misconception of the tea partier that the health care bill was for insurance and not actual health care and that it was not specifically the thing that was throwing the country into the pits of debt.

He kinda came off as pro health insurance reform. He didn't exactly strike me as a libertarian. If I was using this a an argument for libertarianism, I would probably only use the part about social liberties.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 9:32:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 7:53:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:24:26 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 2:11:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A country that gives aid or harbor to terrorists is necessarily preparing those terrorists to invade some other country.

We invade another country, waste a trillion or two, foster anti-American sentiments which leads to more wars
If there are already terrorists, Anti-American sentiment is not marginal to our decisions.

Invading Iraq has more than likely made a lot more anti-American sentiment than before the invasion.

You're listing the cost of occupation while discussing invasion.

You support a quick invasion? Doesn't that not really work? I.e. Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. Invade, kill most of them, leave, repeat?


I think preemptive strikes (killing someone because they might be threat) could be grounds for attacking anybody.
This isn't about preemption. It's about verifiable things that have already happened.

You are talking about the Taliban, correct? I am pretty sure the amount of damage they can to do the US, even by training terrorists, is minimal. A large part of why there are terrorists in the first place is because of previous US invasions. Does the vast expenditure justify creating more wars and preventing little damage?

The more we attack the people in the Middle East, the madder they get.
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 9:38:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 9:26:59 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 9:21:27 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 8/13/2011 6:28:58 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 2:57:09 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:

Just post this video. Nothing else needs to be said.

Problem: The "libertarian" is fiscally liberal.

Quote 1: "in an attempt to save the US from financial ruin brought about by the unregulated business sector taking financial risks costly enough to crash the global economy"

The "libertarian" believes in regulating the crap out of business.

Quote 2: "it's actually health insurance reform. All healthcare will still be provided by the private sector. The Congressional Budget Office has rated the program as deficit neutral."

The "libertarian" wants health insurance reform.

While the first quote is true and I do disagree with it, in the second quote the libertarian is not endorsing health insurance reform, but trying to fix the misconception of the tea partier that the health care bill was for insurance and not actual health care and that it was not specifically the thing that was throwing the country into the pits of debt.

He kinda came off as pro health insurance reform. He didn't exactly strike me as a libertarian. If I was using this a an argument for libertarianism, I would probably only use the part about social liberties.

He seems libertarian, except for the aforementioned cause mentioned for the financial crisis. Funny, we're having a conversation on the political affiliation of a cartoon bear with the voice of a robot.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 10:34:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 9:38:09 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 8/13/2011 9:26:59 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 9:21:27 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 8/13/2011 6:28:58 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 2:57:09 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:

Just post this video. Nothing else needs to be said.

Problem: The "libertarian" is fiscally liberal.

Quote 1: "in an attempt to save the US from financial ruin brought about by the unregulated business sector taking financial risks costly enough to crash the global economy"

The "libertarian" believes in regulating the crap out of business.

Quote 2: "it's actually health insurance reform. All healthcare will still be provided by the private sector. The Congressional Budget Office has rated the program as deficit neutral."

The "libertarian" wants health insurance reform.

While the first quote is true and I do disagree with it, in the second quote the libertarian is not endorsing health insurance reform, but trying to fix the misconception of the tea partier that the health care bill was for insurance and not actual health care and that it was not specifically the thing that was throwing the country into the pits of debt.

He kinda came off as pro health insurance reform. He didn't exactly strike me as a libertarian. If I was using this a an argument for libertarianism, I would probably only use the part about social liberties.

He seems libertarian, except for the aforementioned cause mentioned for the financial crisis. Funny, we're having a conversation on the political affiliation of a cartoon bear with the voice of a robot.

Overall, I think I would just disagree with this "Just post this video. Nothing else needs to be said."
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 10:39:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 10:34:24 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 9:38:09 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 8/13/2011 9:26:59 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 9:21:27 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 8/13/2011 6:28:58 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 2:57:09 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:

Just post this video. Nothing else needs to be said.

Problem: The "libertarian" is fiscally liberal.

Quote 1: "in an attempt to save the US from financial ruin brought about by the unregulated business sector taking financial risks costly enough to crash the global economy"

The "libertarian" believes in regulating the crap out of business.

Quote 2: "it's actually health insurance reform. All healthcare will still be provided by the private sector. The Congressional Budget Office has rated the program as deficit neutral."

The "libertarian" wants health insurance reform.

While the first quote is true and I do disagree with it, in the second quote the libertarian is not endorsing health insurance reform, but trying to fix the misconception of the tea partier that the health care bill was for insurance and not actual health care and that it was not specifically the thing that was throwing the country into the pits of debt.

He kinda came off as pro health insurance reform. He didn't exactly strike me as a libertarian. If I was using this a an argument for libertarianism, I would probably only use the part about social liberties.

He seems libertarian, except for the aforementioned cause mentioned for the financial crisis. Funny, we're having a conversation on the political affiliation of a cartoon bear with the voice of a robot.

Overall, I think I would just disagree with this "Just post this video. Nothing else needs to be said."

I don't agree with the guy's belief on the cause of the current financial crisis but when I first saw this I laughed so hard.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 11:00:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Libertarianism needs to stop being used synonymously with Capitalism. Libertarianism CAN be Capitalistic, it doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 11:21:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 11:00:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Libertarianism needs to stop being used synonymously with Capitalism. Libertarianism CAN be Capitalistic, it doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with it.

Though libertarianism isn't synonymous with capitalism, as libertarianism isn't an economic model, I've always been under the impression that a philosophy based on minimizing the state and maximizing individual freedom more or less entails capitalism as an economic system. Can you tell me how it can be otherwise?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 11:31:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 11:21:19 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 8/13/2011 11:00:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Libertarianism needs to stop being used synonymously with Capitalism. Libertarianism CAN be Capitalistic, it doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with it.

Though libertarianism isn't synonymous with capitalism, as libertarianism isn't an economic model, I've always been under the impression that a philosophy based on minimizing the state and maximizing individual freedom more or less entails capitalism as an economic system. Can you tell me how it can be otherwise?

Any Libertarian-Capitalist system other than an AnCap society is only Libertarian until the arbitrary rules enforced through coercion have been crossed.
There can just as easily be a government with certain base rules that make it Socialist and apply Libertarianism on top of those other than Capitalistic ones, which is in-fact what I support.
A 100% Libertarian society has no coercively enforced property rights or any other rights for that matter.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TheBaldKnobbers
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 11:33:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 11:00:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Libertarianism needs to stop being used synonymously with Capitalism. Libertarianism CAN be Capitalistic, it doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with it.

incorrect. Libertarianism is capitalism. It is both a social and fiscal philosophy. One can not say well I'm socially libertarian and in terms of economics i'm a communist.

That's not libertarianism
TheBaldKnobbers
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 11:34:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 11:31:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/13/2011 11:21:19 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 8/13/2011 11:00:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Libertarianism needs to stop being used synonymously with Capitalism. Libertarianism CAN be Capitalistic, it doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with it.

Though libertarianism isn't synonymous with capitalism, as libertarianism isn't an economic model, I've always been under the impression that a philosophy based on minimizing the state and maximizing individual freedom more or less entails capitalism as an economic system. Can you tell me how it can be otherwise?

Any Libertarian-Capitalist system other than an AnCap society is only Libertarian until the arbitrary rules enforced through coercion have been crossed.
There can just as easily be a government with certain base rules that make it Socialist and apply Libertarianism on top of those other than Capitalistic ones, which is in-fact what I support.
A 100% Libertarian society has no coercively enforced property rights or any other rights for that matter.

This is completely incorrect and is by no means libertarian.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 12:10:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 9:32:30 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:53:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:24:26 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 2:11:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A country that gives aid or harbor to terrorists is necessarily preparing those terrorists to invade some other country.

We invade another country, waste a trillion or two, foster anti-American sentiments which leads to more wars
If there are already terrorists, Anti-American sentiment is not marginal to our decisions.

Invading Iraq has more than likely made a lot more anti-American sentiment than before the invasion.
I doubt it. Might make the people who are already anti-American more vocal but meh.


You're listing the cost of occupation while discussing invasion.

You support a quick invasion? Doesn't that not really work? I.e. Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. Invade, kill most of them, leave, repeat?
When did we do that in Vietnam or Afghanistan?
It depends what you want it to "work" for. If you want to make a city on a hill in the Middle East, it won't work. If you want to leave a problem on Iran and Saudi Arabia's doorstep that they'll have to deal with, then invade Iraq, leave it in anarchy, likely works-- they are distracted, they move in, meet each other, find out how much they hate each other again, kill each other, have fewer resources to invest in Al Qaeda or Hezzbollah and Hamas.

You are talking about the Taliban, correct? I am pretty sure the amount of damage they can to do the US, even by training terrorists, is minimal. A large part of why there are terrorists in the first place is because of previous US invasions.
Which ones?
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.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 12:18:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 11:34:55 PM, TheBaldKnobbers wrote:
At 8/13/2011 11:31:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/13/2011 11:21:19 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 8/13/2011 11:00:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Libertarianism needs to stop being used synonymously with Capitalism. Libertarianism CAN be Capitalistic, it doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with it.

Though libertarianism isn't synonymous with capitalism, as libertarianism isn't an economic model, I've always been under the impression that a philosophy based on minimizing the state and maximizing individual freedom more or less entails capitalism as an economic system. Can you tell me how it can be otherwise?

Any Libertarian-Capitalist system other than an AnCap society is only Libertarian until the arbitrary rules enforced through coercion have been crossed.
There can just as easily be a government with certain base rules that make it Socialist and apply Libertarianism on top of those other than Capitalistic ones, which is in-fact what I support.
A 100% Libertarian society has no coercively enforced property rights or any other rights for that matter.

This is completely incorrect and is by no means libertarian.

This is incorrect. I am a dolphin with a keyboard.

It's fun making baseless assertions with no further explanation, isn't it?!
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TheBaldKnobbers
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 12:30:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 12:18:14 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/13/2011 11:34:55 PM, TheBaldKnobbers wrote:
At 8/13/2011 11:31:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/13/2011 11:21:19 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 8/13/2011 11:00:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Libertarianism needs to stop being used synonymously with Capitalism. Libertarianism CAN be Capitalistic, it doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with it.

Though libertarianism isn't synonymous with capitalism, as libertarianism isn't an economic model, I've always been under the impression that a philosophy based on minimizing the state and maximizing individual freedom more or less entails capitalism as an economic system. Can you tell me how it can be otherwise?

Any Libertarian-Capitalist system other than an AnCap society is only Libertarian until the arbitrary rules enforced through coercion have been crossed.
There can just as easily be a government with certain base rules that make it Socialist and apply Libertarianism on top of those other than Capitalistic ones, which is in-fact what I support.
A 100% Libertarian society has no coercively enforced property rights or any other rights for that matter.

This is completely incorrect and is by no means libertarian.

This is incorrect. I am a dolphin with a keyboard.

It's fun making baseless assertions with no further explanation, isn't it?!

Clearly you must think so as you asserted that a government could steal others money, redistribute it, control every business, exclude competition and then be termed both the minimization of state as well as the maximization of personal freedom simply by saying that since there is no clear line for minimization of the state you can just arbitrarily term socialism as libertarianism.

Sorry pal.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 9:06:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 12:10:55 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/13/2011 9:32:30 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:53:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:24:26 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 2:11:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A country that gives aid or harbor to terrorists is necessarily preparing those terrorists to invade some other country.

We invade another country, waste a trillion or two, foster anti-American sentiments which leads to more wars
If there are already terrorists, Anti-American sentiment is not marginal to our decisions.

Invading Iraq has more than likely made a lot more anti-American sentiment than before the invasion.
I doubt it. Might make the people who are already anti-American more vocal but meh.

They call terrorists freedom fighters. If Iraq invaded the US because they knew about the KKK or right wing Muslim haters, we would be understandably upset.


You're listing the cost of occupation while discussing invasion.

You support a quick invasion? Doesn't that not really work? I.e. Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. Invade, kill most of them, leave, repeat?
When did we do that in Vietnam or Afghanistan?
It depends what you want it to "work" for. If you want to make a city on a hill in the Middle East, it won't work. If you want to leave a problem on Iran and Saudi Arabia's doorstep that they'll have to deal with, then invade Iraq, leave it in anarchy, likely works-- they are distracted, they move in, meet each other, find out how much they hate each other again, kill each other, have fewer resources to invest in Al Qaeda or Hezzbollah and Hamas.

This will not foster anti-American sentiment at all. Our objective is to kill as many as possible without pissing them off too much because we think that this leads to fewer terrorists? Ruin as much as we can without fostering too much hate?


You are talking about the Taliban, correct? I am pretty sure the amount of damage they can to do the US, even by training terrorists, is minimal. A large part of why there are terrorists in the first place is because of previous US invasions.
Which ones?

Overthrow the Shah, the little military base in their holy land, sticking military bases all over the Middle East, killing and leading to the deaths of thousands of citizens while invading Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a reason many of the people we call terrorists are called freedom fighters by many in the Middle East.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 6:24:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 12:30:49 AM, TheBaldKnobbers wrote:
Clearly you must think so as you asserted that a government could steal others money, redistribute it, control every business, exclude competition and then be termed both the minimization of state as well as the maximization of personal freedom simply by saying that since there is no clear line for minimization of the state you can just arbitrarily term socialism as libertarianism.

Sorry pal.

Profile: Socialist

lolwut?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 6:32:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 9:06:32 AM, seraine wrote:

They call terrorists freedom fighters. If Iraq invaded the US because they knew about the KKK or right wing Muslim haters, we would be understandably upset.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 10:06:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 9:06:32 AM, seraine wrote:
At 8/14/2011 12:10:55 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/13/2011 9:32:30 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:53:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:24:26 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/13/2011 2:11:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A country that gives aid or harbor to terrorists is necessarily preparing those terrorists to invade some other country.

We invade another country, waste a trillion or two, foster anti-American sentiments which leads to more wars
If there are already terrorists, Anti-American sentiment is not marginal to our decisions.

Invading Iraq has more than likely made a lot more anti-American sentiment than before the invasion.
I doubt it. Might make the people who are already anti-American more vocal but meh.

They call terrorists freedom fighters. If Iraq invaded the US because they knew about the KKK or right wing Muslim haters, we would be understandably upset.
I don't see how the KKK is A. government funded or B. has ever bombed anything in the Middle East. OTOH, if Iraq were a libertarian country, or more libertarian than the US at least, and invaded the US because of its taxes I would be happy :)

This will not foster anti-American sentiment at all. Our objective is to kill as many as possible without pissing them off too much because we think that this leads to fewer terrorists? Ruin as much as we can without fostering too much hate?
You CANNOT determine your strategy on "what will foster anti-American sentiment" when there is already enough of said sentiment to ram a plane into your towers. No solutions lie down that road except reciting the Shahada. Whatever we do, someone in the Middle East won't like us. You have proposed no other solution to the problem than the kinetic one.



You are talking about the Taliban, correct? I am pretty sure the amount of damage they can to do the US, even by training terrorists, is minimal. A large part of why there are terrorists in the first place is because of previous US invasions.
Which ones?

Overthrow the Shah
The Shah was on the US' side. The Shah's predecessor was already anti-American (and running the economy so far into the ground that he would have little choice but to make the country a Soviet sattellite, leaving the US with little choice but to make it a US one instead), so your argument here fails as to the causes of anti-Americanism on temporal grounds alone.

the little military base in their holy land,
With the permission of their "holy land's" government. Anyone who considers a whole damn country a holy land is asking to be offended, and anyone who would consider it something to be "retaliated" over is a frothing theocrat with whom it is impossible to coexist. It's not like there's a base in the middle of the Kaaba.

sticking military bases all over the Middle East
They are bases. Bases are not aggression, they are assemblies of personnel. And they exist with permission of the sovereigns of the land.

killing and leading to the deaths of thousands of citizens while invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
The question was about BEFORE 9/11.

There is a reason many of the people we call terrorists are called freedom fighters by many in the Middle East.
Yes. That reason is MANY IN THE MIDDLE EAST ARE MORONS. Nothing the terrorist groups in the Middle East have done is rationally related to the achievement of freedom. Achievement of autarky, some of them, which is "freedom" from Hitler's perspective, but not actual freedom-- the movement of goods across borders is not a form of oppression.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 10:06:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 6:24:54 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/14/2011 12:30:49 AM, TheBaldKnobbers wrote:
Clearly you must think so as you asserted that a government could steal others money, redistribute it, control every business, exclude competition and then be termed both the minimization of state as well as the maximization of personal freedom simply by saying that since there is no clear line for minimization of the state you can just arbitrarily term socialism as libertarianism.

Sorry pal.

Profile: Socialist

lolwut?

Did he claim to be libertarian?
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 10:13:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If there were actual freedom fighters to be found in the Middle East, I'd be fine with leaving unless they asked for help. But, in any significant numbers, no such thing exists there. There are theocrats, there are national socialists whose secularism confuses the media into thinking there are freedom fighters... and there's not much else, as far as organized movements go.
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.