So Eyesys ...

[TMF]

I'm not excusing the attack, only explaining the reasons why it happened and stating that it was intentionally provoked so we could enter the war. Our national policies don't exist in a vacuum of consequence. Much like you have stated in the past here that sometimes someone's freedom of speech invites a punch in the mouth, we invited that particular punch as a pretext for getting into the fight while claiming "he hit me first!" As far as the bolded portion goes, when an honest look is taken at our foreign policy over the last century, who says we haven't become the very evil we sought to fight?

You're aware of the genocide which occurred at the hands of the Nazis and imperial Japan, yes? How on earth could you ever compare us to that?

What lands have we conquered and subjugated its people? Every place we invade we immediately turn it over to the indigenous people. Abstract view of who runs the world is not the same as the very direct, self evident conquering done by Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. Coming to the aid of allied nations is not the same as invading countries to systematically slaughter its people and steal their resources.

And I'll add, if our foreign policy happens to be at odds with that of another nation, it does not excuse an attack on us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

When you enable, install and support murderers, you are responsible for their actions. How many murderous regimes did the US support over the 20th century because it served our foreign policy goals? I mean they were savage bastards but they were our savage bastards and not the Soviets', right? I think the fundamental point where we disagree is that I don't make distinctions amongst state actors by degrees of evil they commit. One evil or one million evils still makes the actor evil. Simply put, I view the very existence of the state as the greatest evil present on this earth second only to Satan himself. Edited September 6, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[TMF]

When you enable, install and support murderers, you are responsible for their actions. How many murderous regimes did the US support over the 20th century because it served our foreign policy goals? I mean they were savage bastards but they were our savage bastards and not the Soviets', right?I think the fundamental point where we disagree is that I don't make distinctions amongst state actors by degrees of evil they commit. One evil or one million evils still makes the actor evil. Simply put, I view the very existence of the state as the greatest evil present on this earth second only to Satan himself.

I realize you're pretty set in your extreme anarchist views, and so your opinions on foreign policy are going to be skewed by that as opposed to logical consideration of the reality we live in, but I have to ask: Do you honestly believe that this world you envision would ever happen? Even if the world was comprised of 7 billion Chucks, all with the same non-interventionist views, your model is still not possible. The intangibles here are human nature. You must recognize that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

Those intangibles of human nature are the greatest argument for the anarchist model. If people are evil and can't be trusted to govern themselves, they must be kept in check by a government composed of...other people? A single man can do a little evil on his own. To do a great evil takes many men working in concert and wearing the mantle of legitimacy because they claim title of being a government. You can call me a utopian if you want, that's fine. Understand that I am a utopian only in that I suggest that instead of swimming around in the cesspool to find the spot with the least amount of floating feces, maybe it would be preferable to get out of it entirely. Whether or not I believe that it is possible to truly attain what I seek, is that any reason to quit seeking it if I truly believe it is the right thing? Should I quit trying to conform myself to the model of Christ simply because I know for a fact that it is impossible for me to attain? Especially since I am particularly terrible at it? I don't think so. I try, fail and try again. I don't say, "this is the best I can do so I may as well quit trying." If I really believed that the US is or was as good as man could be, I'd probably eat a bullet because the depressing hopelessness of that thought would leave no alternative.

[RC3]

:popcorn:

[Ted S.]

:popcorn:

 

:popcorn: +1

 

â’¶ + 1

Edited September 6, 2014 by Ted S.

[Omega]

I try, fail and try again. I don't say, "this is the best I can do so I may as well quit trying."

That is what I am saying, just because we have not achieved total victory over those that wish us harm is no reason to stay back and let them do what they want. The US has not always been a utopian society, but the freedoms we enjoy have been paid for in sweat and blood and will continue to exact that price if we are to keep them. Whether that price is paid on US soil or foreign soil is the question as is which blood will pay the principle and which will pay the interest.

[mikegideon]

No matter who is right in this debate, when the extreme muzzies show up, I'm using lots of this...

 

http://www.silverbulletgunoil.net/

[btq96r]

So you're saying that all other elected leaders, that were not George Bush or Dick Cheney, are not responsible for their own vote? Nope. I don't buy that. Each person had a choice. If they made their choice based on whether or not they could hang on to power rather than right vs wrong, it doesn't matter. In fact, I'd say it's worse.

Bush isn't the only elected person with access to the intel at the time of the invasion. Unless Bush was such a mastermind that he was to manipulate every echelon in the CIA, from source handler to director, as well as all those folks in Congress who read the same reports as he did prior to invasion, I call BS.

What I can't understand is at the same time people are saying Obama isn't solely responsible for our current status in the series of international blunders we've suffered, are also claiming that Bush/Cheney were solely responsible when they had more combined support from Congress, Americans and the international community (in 2003) than Obama has at any point in his presidency.

I'm no mathematician, but I can see that does not add up to what you or the other people here are saying. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Bush is as diabolically genius as Cobra Commander.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm not absolving the Congress for how they voted, I'm just saying in the political realm, they were masterfully backed into a corner by the Bush administration. 

 

My issue is that the Iraq war didn't need to happen.  We could have kept Saddam in check through various means (sanctions, air strikes, even limited ground incursions like the Israeli's do in Gaza and the West Bank) to protect our interests in the region.  He was valuable to us as a regional counter to Iran.  But instead, our actions destabilized the entire country and the only way we could have prevented ISIS from being in Iraq would be to have keep enough troops stationed there for a generation. 

 

I will say, the intel that took us into Iraq was cherry picked by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rummy, ect...to get the desired effect.  I can only imagine the conflicting views that never made it to the President's desk for review.  I also don't subscribe that Bush was either an idiot or some diabolical genius.  He was just pressured into a bad decision by those he trusted presenting him only their side of the story.  I do think his "Freedom Agenda" was horribly misguided for that region.  The middle east at large is most certainly not ready for democracy.

 

I concur that President Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster; "if wishes were horses" comes to mind.  So, while I agree that ISIS should be on the target deck, I also think it's fair to say our actions 11 years ago are directly related to the reason they are a factor today.  But yes, they need to be dealt with.  I would just want Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, ect...put their skin on the line as well, rather than the US and the UK doing it all like we all know is going to happen.

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="Chucktshoes" post="1186834" timestamp="1410021055"]When you enable, install and support murderers, you are responsible for their actions. How many murderous regimes did the US support over the 20th century because it served our foreign policy goals? I mean they were savage bastards but they were our savage bastards and not the Soviets', right?I think the fundamental point where we disagree is that I don't make distinctions amongst state actors by degrees of evil they commit. One evil or one million evils still makes the actor evil. Simply put, I view the very existence of the state as the greatest evil present on this earth second only to Satan himself.[/quote] And the problem of course is without some form of government, you get anarchy which also presents the very problem of your second evil. So the conclusion is evil exists in the world, and man is corruptable - so now what? I will call you utopian in these sense that your ideals are fine, but nowhere to be found in this world. So that said, how exactly so you think man should organize himself to ensure rule of law, the creation and enforcement of law, and various public goods (ie roads, sewers, etc)

[RC3]

Can we just stop this before things get out of hand? Its gonna head into that downward spiral pretty soon. So lets agree to disagree. 

[Fourtyfive]

Really ?

http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/isis-seizes-armed-russian-jets-in-syria-and-issues-threat-to-vladimir-putin-we-are-on-our-way-to-attack-video/

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Omega" post="1186917" timestamp="1410034006"]That is what I am saying, just because we have not achieved total victory over those that wish us harm is no reason to stay back and let them do what they want. The US has not always been a utopian society, but the freedoms we enjoy have been paid for in sweat and blood and will continue to exact that price if we are to keep them. Whether that price is paid on US soil or foreign soil is the question as is which blood will pay the principle and which will pay the interest.[/quote] I still maintain that our FP does not exist in a vacuum and invites the wishes of harm from folks in the M/E. The other part that I think you're missing is that you should remain persistent when what you seek is good. Spreading American hegemony and democracy by gunpoint does not qualify.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Hershmeister" post="1186936" timestamp="1410036643"]And the problem of course is without some form of government, you get anarchy which also presents the very problem of your second evil. So the conclusion is evil exists in the world, and man is corruptable - so now what? I will call you utopian in these sense that your ideals are fine, but nowhere to be found in this world.So that said, how exactly so you think man should organize himself to ensure rule of law, the creation and enforcement of law, and various public goods (ie roads, sewers, etc)[/quote] "Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children. In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous." Robert Higgs

[mikegideon]

"Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children. In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous." Robert Higgs

 

So, what happens when you shove a bunch of natural born statists into anarchy? I'm thinkin' you're gonna need lots of ammo. Can't fix the human race.

[Ted S.]

"Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children. In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous." Robert Higgs

 

Statism does have a pretty good record of starting every war in the history of man, coercing the support of its followers in the name of expansion, religion, hate, freedom, this, that, and whatever else. Statism also has a history of monopolizing violence, theft, oppresion, enslavement, coercion, etc. etc.

 

Edited September 6, 2014 by Ted S.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1186954" timestamp="1410037895"]So, what happens when you shove a bunch of natural born statists into anarchy? I'm thinkin' you're gonna need lots of ammo. Can't fix the human race.[/quote] Nope, I can't. What I can and will continue to do is tell folks "don't hit people and don't take their stuff." The initiation of aggression is wrong and the state is built upon the initiation of aggression. It can't exist without it. So here I stand explaining that the state is wrong and telling folks, "Don't hit people and don't take their stuff."

[mikegideon]

Nope, I can't. What I can and will continue to do is tell folks "don't hit people and don't take their stuff." The initiation of aggression is wrong and the state is built upon the initiation of aggression. It can't exist without it. So here I stand explaining that the state is wrong and telling folks, "Don't hit people and don't take their stuff."

 

Hard to argue with that. It won't ever be that way. And, you know all the reasons why. Best we can hope for is to temper it. And if they're taking YOUR stuff, sizzle their nuts on the hot pavement :)

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1186959" timestamp="1410039781"]Hard to argue with that. It won't ever be that way. And, you know all the reasons why. Best we can hope for is to temper it. And if they're taking YOUR stuff, sizzle their nuts on the hot pavement :)[/quote] The Feds tend to get upset when you start threatening to sizzle legislators' nuts on the hot pavement. They take more of my stuff than anyone. :D

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="Chucktshoes" post="1186947" timestamp="1410037439"]"Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous." Robert Higgs[/quote] You ducked my question

[Ted S.]

So that said, how exactly so you think man should organize himself to ensure rule of law, the creation and enforcement of law, and various public goods (ie roads, sewers, etc)

 

A free market will always develop solutions to real problems and demands. If people honestly demand all of those things, someone will profit by making them available for use.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Hershmeister" post="1187000" timestamp="1410046606"]You ducked my question[/quote] Not intentionally. To be honest, I didn't really read the second paragraph. My eyes kinda glazed over after the "oh noes! Anarchy!" first paragraph. Not to insult or slight you, just a failing of mine. The Higgs quote is my response to that first paragraph. To your second paragraph, that question was very well answered by Ted. The market is very good at providing things people actually want and need, not what some folks in legislative halls [i]think[/i] everyone else should have.

[Omega]

Not intentionally. To be honest, I didn't really read the second paragraph. My eyes kinda glazed over after the "oh noes! Anarchy!" first paragraph. Not to insult or slight you, just a failing of mine. The Higgs quote is my response to that first paragraph. To your second paragraph, that question was very well answered by Ted. The market is very good at providing things people actually want and need, not what some folks in legislative halls think everyone else should have.

This premise has always made me laugh; if this was the case somewhere in some corner of the universe there would be a society where this would exist but throughout history its always some sort of governance that has provided for the good of that society. While the forms of government can be debated as to which is better its hard to say that an anarchist society would provide roads, hospitals etc when none have done so yet.

[Smith]

The true genius of Obama is that here many of his opponents sit still blaming, vilifying, and analyzing Bush as the source of all Obama's faults. He just may actually be the devil incarnate ;-) Every president inherits a unique world and I don't hold them responsible for what they inherit. However, they should be responsible for the decisions they make in response to that world. Edited September 7, 2014 by Smith

[RC3]

I give up on this thread, half way thru it went to who knows where. From lets go fight isis, to anarchy is supreme. Guess what, nothing is perfect. If it was, we wouldnt have to shit in a damn hole.