Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2014, 06:12:26 AM
That says it all, it's the mental block many have, mostly because they've never left the sanctuary of the U.S., and two, too young to have a historical reference to grasp the concept evil does exist.
They just lead a too PC and protected life here.

You just as well give it up N, he has no interest in the truth, simply because he can't grasp a context he's never experienced.
Your point is succinct, he's led a protected and blinded life here.

Never give up!
I used to have the same views as him - then I went to Iraq and realized how different they are compared to us. It's like landing on another planet (a hot ugly one).

Quote from: Novanglus on August 16, 2014, 02:21:12 PM
Never give up!
I used to have the same views as him - then I went to Iraq and realized how different they are compared to us. It's like landing on another planet (a hot ugly one).

You never know how hot the desert can be until you live in it for a summer.   Life is the same way, some have not been in the desert of life yet.

Quote from: Novanglus on August 16, 2014, 02:21:12 PM
Never give up!
I used to have the same views as him - then I went to Iraq and realized how different they are compared to us. It's like landing on another planet (a hot ugly one).

Yeah, he really needs to get out, visit 3rd world countries, see just how well off he really is, Hell, maybe even appreciate our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Too many take it for granted, want to change it, think they have the wisdom to make things better. Problem is, no single individual has that power, it takes a willing populace wanting to make it better, and right now, just a bit more than half are wanting to make it better by removing the commies in power.

Hopefully once purged, the country will come together in sacrifice, like it used to, for the betterment of the nation, not the individual.

Quote from: Novanglus on August 16, 2014, 02:09:03 PM
True, but I think we would be Muslim because if not, we would stand a good chance of being killed.

Let me appeal to your intellectual side.

I used to have the same view as you; I believed that "everyone wants to be free." That everyone wants to live in peace. That we could live in peace side by side with Muslims. Then I went to Iraq, and talked with the Iraqis that I worked with over many months.

I realized that they can not live as equals in peace with people of other religions because they can not separate their religion from their politics. They are one and the same - even Sunni and Shia can't live together in peace as equals. One must dominate the other because the government is the religion / the religion is the government - therefore the government (and it's power) must be Sunni or Shia, and can not be both - as that would be an abomination to either religion (and only one can be god's true will).

This is why Muslims in Chechnya, the Filipines, Serbia, China ..... all over, fight for independent Muslim states (once the Muslim population reaches a critical mass in those places)

Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism are religions, separate from the government. Islam is a political system and a religion, the idea of separating the 2 is inconceivable, illogical and alien to Muslims.

I'm not arguing against what you are saying here.  And I don't believe that "everyone wants to be free" or that "everyone wants to live in peace".  If anything, this was the view of the neocons who got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.  These people thought that if we only installed a democracy in the middle east, peace would flourish and we could remake the region in our image.  On the contrary, it is quite clear that most Muslims who live in the middle east will vote to elect radical Muslim leaders who do NOT believe in freedom and would gladly oppress women, behead infidels and institute oppressive Sharia law.  This irrationality of middle east politics is precisely why libertarians have been arguing that we should stay out of that region and allow their dysfunction and violence to remain a problem for the Muslim world to deal with.

Since you seem to be a non-interventionist, then we have far more in common than we have differences.  I just caution that the sort of language you are using to describe Islam is dangerous because it can lead people to devalue the lives of people killed in that part of the world, especially when it is the result of our foreign policy. 

Like Ron Paul has said, it is very important that we consider how we would react if some other military superpower did to us what our government has done to nations in the Middle East.  To speak about people in the Muslim world as just backwards extremists is dehumanizing.  Whatever the merits of the dominant religion, these are people of value and worth. 

I don't think I'm being naive about the problems with Islam or its capacity to incite violence.  We just shouldn't allow this to permit our government to use aggression against people who have never done a thing to us.  I'm concerned that this sort of generalization of Muslims using collectivist language plays right into the hand of people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 17, 2014, 02:56:09 AM
I'm not arguing against what you are saying here.  And I don't believe that "everyone wants to be free" or that "everyone wants to live in peace".  If anything, this was the view of the neocons who got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.  These people thought that if we only installed a democracy in the middle east, peace would flourish and we could remake the region in our image.  On the contrary, it is quite clear that most Muslims who live in the middle east will vote to elect radical Muslim leaders who do NOT believe in freedom and would gladly oppress women, behead infidels and institute oppressive Sharia law.  This irrationality of middle east politics is precisely why libertarians have been arguing that we should stay out of that region and allow their dysfunction and violence to remain a problem for the Muslim world to deal with.

Check your history. Both party's put us in Iraq.

QuoteSince you seem to be a non-interventionist, then we have far more in common than we have differences.  I just caution that the sort of language you are using to describe Islam is dangerous because it can lead people to devalue the lives of people killed in that part of the world, especially when it is the result of our foreign policy. 

Like Ron Paul has said, it is very important that we consider how we would react if some other military superpower did to us what our government has done to nations in the Middle East.  To speak about people in the Muslim world as just backwards extremists is dehumanizing.  Whatever the merits of the dominant religion, these are people of value and worth. 

One of the first rules of war. Know your enemy, and never empathize with them, until they surrender.

QuoteI don't think I'm being naive about the problems with Islam or its capacity to incite violence.  We just shouldn't allow this to permit our government to use aggression against people who have never done a thing to us.  I'm concerned that this sort of generalization of Muslims using collectivist language plays right into the hand of people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Again, check your freakin history!!!

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 17, 2014, 02:56:09 AM
I'm not arguing against what you are saying here.  And I don't believe that "everyone wants to be free" or that "everyone wants to live in peace".  If anything, this was the view of the neocons who got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I probably was a "neocon" back then.
Now, I prefer to stay out of foreign entanglements. However, it would be prudent to prepare for war because it may be inevitable.

I always believed that following 9/11 we should have made a stronger statement to deter aggression. On 9/15 Afghanistan should have looked like superman's fathers house on krypton (made of glass) if the Taliban did not turn over all the radicals.

Quote from: Novanglus on August 17, 2014, 02:19:21 PM
I probably was a "neocon" back then.
Now, I prefer to stay out of foreign entanglements. However, it would be prudent to prepare for war because it may be inevitable.

I always believed that following 9/11 we should have made a stronger statement to deter aggression. On 9/15 Afghanistan should have looked like superman's fathers house on krypton (made of glass) if the Taliban did not turn over all the radicals.

It is nice to know that real life experience can open ones eye even in this day and age young man. 

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 01:46:54 PM
Islam.  What do you mean "how does it fit"?  If someone initiates violence against us then we have the right to defend ourselves.  We have the right to use force to compel restitution or punish those criminals that are proven in a court to have committed an act of aggression.  The key is that the punishment must be proportional to the crime committed.  If you steal a candy bar, you can be forced to pay the cost of the candy bar but no more.  If you destroy someones property you can be forced to pay damages.  If you murder someone, your punishment can be anything up to and including death. 

I don't know how much of a neo con presence there is on these boards, but I don't think I have to explain that the response of the US government after 9/11 has been horrific.  What we have done to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hundreds of thousands we have killed or displaced, is a far greater crime than what was done to us.

In a different scenario, a libertarian would have advised that we do the following.  In the first place, Osama bin Laden and the dozen or so radical Islamic terrorists that were directly responsible for planning and carrying out the attacks on the World Trade Center should have been formally proven to have committing the crimes in a court of law.  The evidence should have been presented to the American people in an open manner.  After it was proven conclusively that it was indeed bin Laden and a few others who were responsible, we should have targeted those individuals specifically.

Ron Paul argued that we should have used the Letters of Mark and Reprisal in the Constitution to target a non State threat like a dozen terrorists and then use special forces or a contractor to capture those men who were responsible and bring them to the United States for trial.  They should have been tried and then, if found guilty, put to death.

We should have used the opportunity to prove the the Muslim world that we are not the imperialist oppressors that bin Laden made us out to be.  We could have proven that we follow the rule of law, we don't needlessly kill Muslim civilians and we grant a fair trial to even the worst criminals.

The entire thing could have been over in six months, no Iraq War, no occupation of Afghanistan, no nation building, no 6000 dead Americans, no 5 trillion dollars in debt to fight needless wars and rebuild a country after we destroyed it.

OBL was proven guilty, just not in a court of law as he was never arrested nor was he a citizen.  He was an enemy combatant of a legally declared war.  Furthermore, even OBL admitted he was responsible.

As for your statement Libertarians believe in using force to defend the nation or other nations and people who are being attacked only the former is correct.  I am a Libertarian and this is one of the issues I take with my own party.  Also being as the former is at least correct, 911 was nothing if not an attack on the US and therefore military action was justified and rightfully conducted.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 17, 2014, 02:56:09 AM
I'm not arguing against what you are saying here.  And I don't believe that "everyone wants to be free" or that "everyone wants to live in peace".  If anything, this was the view of the neocons who got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.  These people thought that if we only installed a democracy in the middle east, peace would flourish and we could remake the region in our image.  On the contrary, it is quite clear that most Muslims who live in the middle east will vote to elect radical Muslim leaders who do NOT believe in freedom and would gladly oppress women, behead infidels and institute oppressive Sharia law.  This irrationality of middle east politics is precisely why libertarians have been arguing that we should stay out of that region and allow their dysfunction and violence to remain a problem for the Muslim world to deal with.

Since you seem to be a non-interventionist, then we have far more in common than we have differences.  I just caution that the sort of language you are using to describe Islam is dangerous because it can lead people to devalue the lives of people killed in that part of the world, especially when it is the result of our foreign policy. 

Like Ron Paul has said, it is very important that we consider how we would react if some other military superpower did to us what our government has done to nations in the Middle East.  To speak about people in the Muslim world as just backwards extremists is dehumanizing.  Whatever the merits of the dominant religion, these are people of value and worth. 

I don't think I'm being naive about the problems with Islam or its capacity to incite violence.  We just shouldn't allow this to permit our government to use aggression against people who have never done a thing to us.  I'm concerned that this sort of generalization of Muslims using collectivist language plays right into the hand of people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Your claim we "use aggression against people who have never done a thing to us" is without merit.  To what aggression are you referring?  Neither in Afghanistan nor Iraq were innocent people targeted.  Far from it.  We lost many lives precisely because of our reluctance to even accidently target such people.

Quote from: LibDave on August 18, 2014, 03:51:29 PM
OBL was proven guilty, just not in a court of law as he was never arrested nor was he a citizen.  He was an enemy combatant of a legally declared war.  Furthermore, even OBL admitted he was responsible.

As for your statement Libertarians believe in using force to defend the nation or other nations and people who are being attacked only the former is correct.  I am a Libertarian and this is one of the issues I take with my own party.  Also being as the former is at least correct, 911 was nothing if not an attack on the US and therefore military action was justified and rightfully conducted.

I'm also a libertarian,

and I wanted to go Hiroshima on the Taliban on 9/12; at least some carpet bombing.
The Taliban where the official government of Afghanistan at the time. They allowed terrorists to operate from Afghanistan and the way I see it - that makes Afghanistan responsible.

You could argue that the people had nothing to do with it, but I don't see it that way. The people let the Taliban run the show and the Taliban let UBL attack US. Besides, the Japanese got the nuke for attacking a military base (they where not convicted either) - wouldn't we be discriminating if Afghanistan did not get it also?  They attacked civilians.

I think our grand parents would not have hesitated to light it up. Then they would have went back to work.

Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2014, 02:55:37 PMToo many take it for granted, want to change it, think they have the wisdom to make things better. Problem is, no single individual has that power, it takes a willing populace wanting to make it better, and right now, just a bit more than half are wanting to make it better by removing the commies in power.

Until it got to "commie", I thought you were speaking about Iraq, as it would pretty much approach my view of it.

QuoteHopefully once purged, the country will come together in sacrifice, like it used to, for the betterment of the nation, not the individual.

? America was built upon the idea of Rugged-Individualism. It's mantra in the 19th century was "Self-interest, rightly understood".

Kind of an uphill battle, don't you think?

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:10:44 AM
Until it got to "commie", I thought you were speaking about Iraq, as it would pretty much approach my view of it.

? America was built upon the idea of Rugged-Individualism. It's mantra in the 19th century was "Self-interest, rightly understood".

Kind of an uphill battle, don't you think?

If you consider how leftist trash perverted our schoolhouses and demasculinized every boy they could get their sorry hands on, would today's U.S. boys be prepared to defend their nation if required? How do you convince some brain-addled leftist kid that it is in his best self-interest to put down the Game Boy and pick up a weapon to kill the rat bastard communists ruining our nation?

Liberals are a disease. They're the ones telling him it's OK to weigh 300 pounds and declare himself "handicapped," or if he's black he's "disadvantaged." They enable sloth, and sloth enables weak self-defense. They're the ones stealing his future by spending it today, on unworkable harebrained schemes like solar energy or corn-based fuel which drives up food costs because there's a shortage of corn.

EVERY leftist idea has bad consequences. That's why we wound up with a piece of communist trash like Obama and his racist filth attorney-general. They're the ones actively trying to help our enemies win against America.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:10:44 AM
Until it got to "commie", I thought you were speaking about Iraq, as it would pretty much approach my view of it.

? America was built upon the idea of Rugged-Individualism. It's mantra in the 19th century was "Self-interest, rightly understood".

Kind of an uphill battle, don't you think?

Less govt = more liberties, more Liberty, means self sufficiency which would lead us back on the path of Individualism.
The battle is weaning the babes off the govt, hard at first, but when they see their programs being cut and the money coming in is less that that of a minimum wage job, self sufficiency will lead to independence.

Regardless of consequence, it's the right thing to do to free the country.

Quote from: quiller on August 19, 2014, 05:25:38 AMEVERY leftist idea has bad consequences. That's why we wound up with a piece of communist trash like Obama and his racist filth attorney-general. They're the ones actively trying to help our enemies win against America.

Hmm, never seen a forum where people spoke quite that openly...

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

Quote from: Solar on August 19, 2014, 05:26:38 AM
Less govt = more liberties, more Liberty, means self sufficiency which would lead us back on the path of Individualism.
The battle is weaning the babes off the govt, hard at first, but when they see their programs being cut and the money coming in is less that that of a minimum wage job, self sufficiency will lead to independence.

Regardless of consequence, it's the right thing to do to free the country.

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)?