Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:41:27 AM
So how would you apply that logic to Afghanistan, who receive 60-90% of their revenue through us, and who don't have a single accountable ministry in their Government (ergo, money just "disappears" a lot)?

If you have a point to make, then make it.

Well, Afghanistan's history is like the tides, they've had innumerable nations try to intervene in their affairs to shape them into something else, and they all went back empty handed.

I don't think were in position to succeed where they failed, considering cultural differences, the lack of influence on the people there... and the results we've been getting these last 13 years.

If it's position I'm going to take, it's that of Col. Gentile, whose a Professor of History at West Point (my parents alma mater incidentally).

We had narrow policy objective in Afghanistan: take out Bin Laden, and push Al Qaeda out of power.

We've done both of these things, we shouldn't be pushing for an even wider policy objective we cannot be sure we can achieve. If Afghanistan's own history is any indicator, it's not likely to bear fruit, at least, not the kind we're looking for.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:37:36 AM
Hmm, never seen a forum where people spoke quite that openly...

I think I'm going to like it here. B)

Welcome to the forum. We are true conservatives here and do not mind expressing our views. PC we are not.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:37:36 AM
Hmm, never seen a forum where people spoke quite that openly...

I think I'm going to like it here. B)

I have several reliable observers here who will attest that I am MUCH kinder and gentler than I used to be.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 07:42:42 AM
Well, Afghanistan's history is like the tides, they've had innumerable nations try to intervene in their affairs to shape them into something else, and they all went back empty handed.

I don't think were in position to succeed where they failed, considering cultural differences, the lack of influence on the people there... and the results we've been getting these last 13 years.

If it's position I'm going to take, it's that of Col. Gentile, whose a Professor of History at West Point (my parents alma mater incidentally).

We had narrow policy objective in Afghanistan: take out Bin Laden, and push Al Qaeda out of power.

We've done both of these things, we shouldn't be pushing for an even wider policy objective we cannot be sure we can achieve. If Afghanistan's own history is any indicator, it's not likely to bear fruit, at least, not the kind we're looking for.

So you had no point. Now stop wasting my time.

No, I do. We've created a nation that is completely dependent on us, for no real benefit to us.

Afghanistan cannot ever reach enlightenment in this manner, we're simply dragging along a half-nation that is stuck along the way to reaching it.

By supporting Afghanistan like this, we demean them, and deny them the chance of coming into their own, which they desperately need to do.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 01:40:54 PM
No, I do. We've created a nation that is completely dependent on us, for no real benefit to us.

Afghanistan cannot ever reach enlightenment in this manner, we're simply dragging along a half-nation that is stuck along the way to reaching it.

By supporting Afghanistan like this, we demean them, and deny them the chance of coming into their own, which they desperately need to do.

The only benefit we have received from the Afghanistan event is we destroyed the terrorist training ground. It does appear dealing with terrorists is like moving water in a balloon. It goes to somewhere else, but the amount of water remains the same. Bush was naive in believing the USA could provide an environment that the citizens would embrace democratic government. These people are not interested in that and will never be. This is a lesson the US never learns. That being said, what we did in Afghanistan what was necessary to attack Al Qaeda and take the Taliban out of power.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:41:27 AM
So how would you apply that logic to Afghanistan, who receive 60-90% of their revenue through us, and who don't have a single accountable ministry in their Government (ergo, money just "disappears" a lot)?

We tried to help with that, but the democracy experiment appears to have failed in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  So yes, we should stop giving either one jack shit.  And attack their various factions as we decide is needed for our security......just as we're doing to ISIS.

Of course we sort of already do ignore Africa......and liberals cry that we don't care about them.

Go figure.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 12:22:48 PM
Hello,

I am a new member here and I am posting because I want to compare and contrast our different political views.  I find great value in dialog with those of differing political persuasions.  I have spent some time debating leftists on various forums, and I wanted to do the same with a conservative group.  I don't mean to "troll" or be rude in any way.  I don't exactly know how much we might agree or how much we might disagree.  I hope to find that out through discussion.

I'm sure you are aware that libertarianism is a growing political movement in this country, with plenty of influence taking root within the (grassroots) GOP, as well as outside of organized politics.  I want to state my views and I look forward to thoughtful critiques.

I am an anarchist libertarian, otherwise known as "anarcho capitalist", though I have some issues with that label.  What this means is that I believe in individual self ownership.  As a purposeful independent human being of intrinsic worth, I reject the idea that any other individual has the right to commit aggression against me without my permission.  And similarly, I don't believe I have any right to use aggression against anyone else.  Aggression is the initiation of force.  This principle is otherwise known as the non-aggression principle.

I believe that aggression cannot ever be justified.  And the State, as an institution, necessarily must use aggression.  Therefore, the State is illegitimate and immoral. 

As another justification for this view, I understand that any rational ethical principle for human behavior must be universal.  If, say, murder is determined to be immoral and unjustified, then it must be immoral and unjustified for all individuals in a society.  We cannot have different standards for ethical behavior based on class, wealth, or any other superficial distinction.

By tolerating the existence of the State, you must concede that you do not accept any universal moral principles for human behavior.  Because those that hold office in government, or are granted special privileges through the State, necessarily are permitted to commit acts of aggression whereas all those individuals who are outside of the State as expressly forbidden from committing these very same actions. 

You are not permitted to steal your neighbors money and property and call it "taxation".  You are not permitted to counterfeit money and call it "central banking".  You are not permitted to secede and disassociate yourself from the State.  You cannot decide to murder people and call it a legitimate "war" or a "targeted drone strike".

Conservatives are supposed to believe in moral absolutes.  There are certain actions that are immoral and unjustifiable.  To arbitrarily make exceptions to the moral law for politicians is to reject ethics and philosophy outright.


Could you explain to me why aggression is justified?  And if you have a broader issue with libertarianism in general, I'd like to hear your best critiques.

jrodefeld, you are not a Libertarian.  What you profess is not mainstream Libertarianism.  I should know, I am a Libertarian myself.

    You state no one has the right to use aggression against you, nor you against others.  So if I come up and Byatch slap you, forcibly take liberties with your wife and obfuscate with the fruits of your labor what of it?  Are you saying you have no right to respond with aggression?  Or is it just that I have no right to do so?  What of it?  What are you going to do with no government to apply aggression against me in reprisal and as you said you have no right to use aggression against me either.  I guess you are SOL.  Now right after you frantically run off to establish such an institution to redress your grievances you will need to find a method to fund it, or use aggression against those employed in it's efforts to donate their labor, free of charge as you wouldn't want to give them "counterfeit" money.  Your ideologies are ludicrous and they furthermore do not represent Libertarianism.... reality or world geopolitics either for that matter.

Quote from: LibDave on August 19, 2014, 06:32:43 PM
jrodefeld, you are not a Libertarian.  What you profess is not mainstream Libertarianism.  I should know, I am a Libertarian myself.

    You state no one has the right to use aggression against you, nor you against others.  So if I come up and Byatch slap you, forcibly take liberties with your wife and obfuscate with the fruits of your labor what of it?  Are you saying you have no right to respond with aggression?  Or is it just that I have no right to do so?  What of it?  What are you going to do with no government to apply aggression against me in reprisal and as you said you have no right to use aggression against me either.  I guess you are SOL.  Now right after you frantically run off to establish such an institution to redress your grievances you will need to find a method to fund it, or use aggression against those employed in it's efforts to donate their labor, free of charge as you wouldn't want to give them "counterfeit" money.  Your ideologies are ludicrous and they furthermore do not represent Libertarianism.... reality or world geopolitics either for that matter.

I went round and round with him on that, and he claims they'll hire mercenaries.
Now how stupid is that? I'll simply pay off his mercs and use them to take everything he holds dear.

Does this bizarre clusterfuck of a conversation really belong in the War Forum?

Mods, may I suggest that we move this sad piece of shit somewhere where it can die quietly? Maybe the Pit? Or the Nut House?

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:37:36 AM
Hmm, never seen a forum where people spoke quite that openly...

I think I'm going to like it here. B)

Well, that was a little harsh of quiller.  He didn't need to insult trash and filth like that.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 01:40:54 PM
By supporting Afghanistan like this, we demean them, and deny them the chance of coming into their own, which they desperately need to do.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? I wasn't aware humanity is by some i.e natural law on a continual progress towards enlightenment. Where is the evidence?

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 20, 2014, 04:52:10 AM
Could you clarify what you mean by this? I wasn't aware humanity is by some i.e natural law on a continual progress towards enlightenment. Where is the evidence?

Are you really expecting him to explain his "Feelings"?

Quote from: taxed on August 20, 2014, 01:31:06 AM
Well, that was a little harsh of quiller.  He didn't need to insult trash and filth like that.