just let the marines have it as their personal playground 
Canāt have it both ways secede and citizenā¦
Canāt have it both ways secede and citizenā¦
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Who exactly did we free in 1812???[/quote]
People traveling on US flagged ships. The British navy would stop US ships and seize men for forced labor. They called it impressmentā¦ Anyone can call anything anything to make it sound better but regardless they were still seizing people for forced labor.
Exactly!
And we were not the aggressor.
[quote]Null wrote:
Canāt have it both ways secede and citizenā¦
[/quote]
Sure!
That is why a āsecessionā is deemd impossible, you are murdering your own citizens.
If not, you are at war and they clearly have seceded.
[quote]Amonero wrote:
More people have been killed because of the War on Terror than during āacts of terrorā in the last decade.
[/quote]
You must not consider the invasion of Iraq an act of terror then.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
and engaged in a global orgy of 69s, giving each other orgasms of peace and tranquility ][/quote]
but isnāt the above kinda right up your alley?
Well we went in there because the taliban were harboring terrorists training camps, even of they do take back over do you think they will make that mistake again?
Why would we want to keep control of that crap hole? We just wanted to setup bases of operations.
We will control the skies with our UAVās and bomb them some more.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
While I would agree that the use of violence to defend yourself is absolutely justifiedā¦[/quote]
-
If it is morally permissible to use violence to defend myself, may I ask for and recieve the aid of others? Or, am I morally obligated to go it alone, as a singular person, to defeat an enemy force?
-
What if the majority of my fellow citizens refuse to stand with me? Am I morally obligated to follow the consensus? Some sort of democratic awareness, that restrains me from striking out at the regime? Nah, that would be collectivism, right? Youāre talking about the right of the individual, of course?
-
What if, with the majority of my fellow citizens having accepted the yoke of the tyrant , I seek and accept the might of another power to oppose and overthrow the regime? Am I morally wrong?
-
Is it limited to fisticuffs against the regimeās armed soldiers, armor, artillery, and air power, in order to eliminate non-combatant casualties (something unacceptable to you)?
Considering all those questions, do you really believe I have the right to use even violence to protect/liberate myself from a brutal regime? How can I have that right, if Iām obligated to follow the lead of a cowed majority? If I donāt have to follow their lead, as you might say, what good does the right do me if Iām obligated to only stand with some tiny minority of my countrymen, brave enough to stand with me, in a clearly hopeless effort?
Surely, I could look outwards for alliances, no? Or, do you believe my right to use violence ends when I have to recruit non-nationals to aid me? Why? Perhaps your solution for my limited numbers would be anti-regime guerrilla tactics. But then Iām stuck fighting from and blending back into the populace, increasing non-combatant casualties (something unacceptable to you). [/quote]
What struck me about the above is how easily the logic explains the terrorist view point.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
ā¦Either you can argue well or you canāt.[/quote]
You of all peopleā¦canāt.[/quote]
What makes you say that? Are you sure youāre not letting your bias through? You disagree with many of my positions, therefore, you reason, I must be an ineffective debater? Non sequitor there, my friend.
If I were to accuse you of being an ineffective debater, I would predicate that claim not on what you profess to believe but on how you choose to articulate your beliefs. One of the most fundamental distinctions to draw is whether someone argues with reason or emotion. In your posts, I have noticed a sizable dose of the latter.
Personally, I think that arguing with emotion turns one into a woman and causes him quickly to lose the argument.
My take is that all claims in an argument must reduce to logical axioms, thus being mathematically rigorous. If the parties do not agree on terms and definitions prior to commencing the debate, then it will go absolutely nowhere and merely result in creating ill will.
There are only a few ways to debate a person legitimately and Iām familiar with each of them. Really, itās no different than solving an equation.
There are, however, far more ways to lie and cheat your way through a debate, and those Iām constantly seeing new examples of.[/quote]
good stuff. bravo.
[quote]lixy wrote:
[quote]Amonero wrote:
More people have been killed because of the War on Terror than during āacts of terrorā in the last decade.
[/quote]
You must not consider the invasion of Iraq an act of terror then.[/quote]
Itās a war.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]lixy wrote:
[quote]Amonero wrote:
More people have been killed because of the War on Terror than during āacts of terrorā in the last decade.
[/quote]
You must not consider the invasion of Iraq an act of terror then.[/quote]
Itās a war.
[/quote]
And a war is what?
Do acts of terror transmogrify into something else when they are really, really ginourmous acts of terror?
USA has to pull out sooner or later, and simply adding more gasoline to the fire will not work either.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
While I would agree that the use of violence to defend yourself is absolutely justifiedā¦[/quote]
-
If it is morally permissible to use violence to defend myself, may I ask for and recieve the aid of others? Or, am I morally obligated to go it alone, as a singular person, to defeat an enemy force?
-
What if the majority of my fellow citizens refuse to stand with me? Am I morally obligated to follow the consensus? Some sort of democratic awareness, that restrains me from striking out at the regime? Nah, that would be collectivism, right? Youāre talking about the right of the individual, of course?
-
What if, with the majority of my fellow citizens having accepted the yoke of the tyrant , I seek and accept the might of another power to oppose and overthrow the regime? Am I morally wrong?
-
Is it limited to fisticuffs against the regimeās armed soldiers, armor, artillery, and air power, in order to eliminate non-combatant casualties (something unacceptable to you)?
Considering all those questions, do you really believe I have the right to use even violence to protect/liberate myself from a brutal regime? How can I have that right, if Iām obligated to follow the lead of a cowed majority? If I donāt have to follow their lead, as you might say, what good does the right do me if Iām obligated to only stand with some tiny minority of my countrymen, brave enough to stand with me, in a clearly hopeless effort?
Surely, I could look outwards for alliances, no? Or, do you believe my right to use violence ends when I have to recruit non-nationals to aid me? Why? Perhaps your solution for my limited numbers would be anti-regime guerrilla tactics. But then Iām stuck fighting from and blending back into the populace, increasing non-combatant casualties (something unacceptable to you). [/quote]
What struck me about the above is how easily the logic explains the terrorist view point.[/quote]
Well, the terrorist view point is that you and the rest of the world should convert, or pay taxes to Islamic masters, or die.
[quote]orion wrote:
If you want to take arms against the Taliban, that is your right. How ever, they can of course do the same.[/quote]
Well, of course they can. However, thereās two different motivations. One is exercising self defense in order to liberate themselves from Taliban rule. The other takes up arms to brutally oppress. Youād agree only one is exercising a āright to self defense,ā no?
Why not? Because the rights of brown people (had to use it) arenāt worth as much? In discussions about putting enemy combatants through our own court system, itās been said they have same rights as ourselves. So if they, non-citizens, do have all the rights as myself then securing their rights is just as important as securing mine. In fact, you should be petitioning every military/political power you can to aid those oppossing the return of Taliban rule.
Even if they are a minority, why do you begrudge those who do wish for the help of foriegn powers to escape Taliban rule in their country? A cowed majority whoād subjugate themselves to this rule canāt possibly override the right of the minority? Thatās too collectivist, I would thinkā¦
I donāt understand what youāre saying here. Though Iām not sure it matters. Basically, you said people have a right to self defense, and Iām assuming that includes offering or accepting aid. Or, would you say that noone has the right to defend someone else? Or, that there is no right to accept outside defense of self? No, that would be silly, every brutal regimes would then go unoppossed.
At the very least youād have to agree that fellow countrymen have the right to form alliances amongst each other in an attempt to replace the regime. But, how could you limit this to only fellow citizens, as far as accepting and offering aid? Wouldnāt that be admitting rights begin and end with nationality?
[quote]molnes wrote:
USA has to pull out sooner or later, and simply adding more gasoline to the fire will not work either. [/quote]
Oh I agree, we should pull out now. But, not because of some silly notion that the US is even remotely equivalent to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc,. Itās not that itās morally wrong to liberate others. Even if those others are only a minority in their country, who are willing to risk it all.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]lixy wrote:
[quote]Amonero wrote:
More people have been killed because of the War on Terror than during āacts of terrorā in the last decade.
[/quote]
You must not consider the invasion of Iraq an act of terror then.[/quote]
Itās a war.
[/quote]
And a war is what?
Do acts of terror transmogrify into something else when they are really, really ginourmous acts of terror?
[/quote]
Lets try to keep track of the conversationā¦
If the War on Terror is in fact an act of terror, how on earth could āmore people be killed because of the War on Terror than during āacts of terrorā in the last decade.ā when in fact the War on Terror is actually an act of terrorā¦
That original statement would be wrong.
Youāve got the US bashers bashing another guy who is also bashing the US.
Ironic.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
While I would agree that the use of violence to defend yourself is absolutely justifiedā¦[/quote]
-
If it is morally permissible to use violence to defend myself, may I ask for and recieve the aid of others? Or, am I morally obligated to go it alone, as a singular person, to defeat an enemy force?
-
What if the majority of my fellow citizens refuse to stand with me? Am I morally obligated to follow the consensus? Some sort of democratic awareness, that restrains me from striking out at the regime? Nah, that would be collectivism, right? Youāre talking about the right of the individual, of course?
-
What if, with the majority of my fellow citizens having accepted the yoke of the tyrant , I seek and accept the might of another power to oppose and overthrow the regime? Am I morally wrong?
-
Is it limited to fisticuffs against the regimeās armed soldiers, armor, artillery, and air power, in order to eliminate non-combatant casualties (something unacceptable to you)?
Considering all those questions, do you really believe I have the right to use even violence to protect/liberate myself from a brutal regime? How can I have that right, if Iām obligated to follow the lead of a cowed majority? If I donāt have to follow their lead, as you might say, what good does the right do me if Iām obligated to only stand with some tiny minority of my countrymen, brave enough to stand with me, in a clearly hopeless effort?
Surely, I could look outwards for alliances, no? Or, do you believe my right to use violence ends when I have to recruit non-nationals to aid me? Why? Perhaps your solution for my limited numbers would be anti-regime guerrilla tactics. But then Iām stuck fighting from and blending back into the populace, increasing non-combatant casualties (something unacceptable to you). [/quote]
What struck me about the above is how easily the logic explains the terrorist view point.[/quote]
Well, the terrorist view point is that you and the rest of the world should convert, or pay taxes to Islamic masters, or die.[/quote]
Well the Wilsonian viepoint is that āmaking the world safe for Democracyā justifies slaughter on a grand scale.
Interestingly enough the Taliban were never active outside of Afghanistan, the Wilsonians howeverā¦
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
USA has to pull out sooner or later, and simply adding more gasoline to the fire will not work either. [/quote]
Oh I agree, we should pull out now. But, not because of some silly notion that the US is even remotely equivalent to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc,. Itās not that itās morally wrong to liberate others. Even if those others are only a minority in their country, who are willing to risk it all. [/quote]
You do not wish to āliberateā them, because their āliberationā would most definitely not lead to a Western style democracy.
Elections in Algeria, Tunesia and elsewhere hhave shown again and again that they vote moderate to hardcore Islamist into power, which is why Karzai is kept in power.
To āliberateā the 5% that acctually want to be āfreeā the way you find freedom to be acceptable justifies the killing of the rest?