war hawks ( coreyRIT and venom ) please read...

[starvingeyes]

does it matter if the entire world supports the us? no. they are still wrong, and so is anyone who supports them.

[Venom]

Your also saying that our lies and coverups are better than the rest of the worlds intelligence? Boy we are #1 aren't we. I bet the Chinese and Russians wouldn't be to happy to hear that their armies and intelligence is that inferior to the US's. Man, you think the whole world is that far behind the US in capabilities huh??? Who's the naive one?

[starvingeyes]

Well, for one thing, an unfocused rebellion against the loss of freedom would not amount to much. We've seen what happens when battles go down to chaos. The stronger survive. Who would be stronger in this case? The state or the people? The state, of course. Trained soldiers, weaponry we don't have access to. If someone were to lead this, though, if a council of people were to, plans could be made. Someone would have to lead such an expedition, though.

http://www.freestateproject.com

somebody is.

In every culture, in every prosperous culture, at least, there's been leaders.

fine. we are not arguing against the existence of leaders. sheeple will always need someone to follow. we are arguing against the forced introduction of rule by one person onto others who do not want it i am arguing against the power that the majority has to violate my rights.

So you're saying that one person is more important than one million people? One million individuals? Each of these people would die. Individual rights would be broken for one million people, rather than just one. Now... can you explain how that works?

no, i am not.

in order for me to answer all of your questions i will need to define a scenario. let's say that we have a baby, who, if killed, will cure a terminal illness that one million people have.

it is not within my rights to kill the baby. the baby is not responsible for the illness, the baby is not causing anybody any harm. the baby did not do anything wrong, and therefore is not obligated to be punished or accept responsibility for the suffering of others.

if i do not kill the baby, i have not done anything. a lack of action cannot be a violation of rights. you are not obligated to do anything, only not to do certain things.

The Bill of Rights is a system that states what the government cannot do. It is not a grouping of individual rights. It applies to everyone. A mass, not an individual. You have to deal with other people, correct? That's the right of everyone -- not the right of individuals, but the entire populace.

firstly, i don't really give a shit about the bill of rights. even if it said nobody had any rights that wouldn't matter. the bill of rights is an abstraction, it means nothing.

seconldy, i'm not really sure what you are saying. the american bill of rights enshrines the individual rights of the entire populace. nowhere in there is there any reference to some sort of "mass right".

Oil. Control. A war lust that Bush has

it does not make economic sense to go to war for oil. ask nobel prize winner and advisor to RONALD REAGAN, milton friedman.

control is a reason but it's not a valid one. neither is war lust.

let me rephrase. there is no good reason, politically, to go to war.

[starvingeyes]

Your also saying that our lies and coverups are better than the rest of the worlds intelligence? Boy we are #1 aren't we. I bet the Chinese and Russians wouldn't be to happy to hear that their armies and intelligence is that inferior to the US's. Man, you think the whole world is that far behind the US in capabilities huh??? Who's the naive one?

the chinese and russians are likely in on any lies and coverups the us may issue. now who's naive? you really believe in the pretty picture of world politics, don't you? jesus.

[Venom]

Ohhhhhhhh so now its Russia, the US, AND China......hmmmm.....then why don't they let the UN take military action against Iraq like the US wants??? You know what I bet Canada is in on this conspiracy too......yikes we should all be very scared.

[Venom]

Quote:
So you're saying that one person is more important than one million people? One million individuals? Each of these people would die. Individual rights would be broken for one million people, rather than just one. Now... can you explain how that works?


no, i am not.

in order for me to answer all of your questions i will need to define a scenario. let's say that we have a baby, who, if killed, will cure a terminal illness that one million people have.

it is not within my rights to kill the baby. the baby is not responsible for the illness, the baby is not causing anybody any harm. the baby did not do anything wrong, and therefore is not obligated to be punished or accept responsibility for the suffering of others.

if i do not kill the baby, i have not done anything. a lack of action cannot be a violation of rights. you are not obligated to do anything, only not to do certain things.

Well what if the one person who you don't wanna kill WOULD be responsible for those million deaths?? According to your opinion he still shouldn't die?

[mosaik]

if he is going to be directly responsible for their deaths, then yes, he should die.

there is nobody making an argument that saddam is not an evil man. the thing we are saying is by lowering yourselves to saddams level and slaughtering innocents in order to seek him out, you are doing evil as well.

[Bandalero]

dude, were not 'slaughtering' innocent people intrentionally, get that right. we are hitting MILITARY positions with missiles. Sadam has his ground troops in the cities...can you give me a reason why he is doing that? He wants urban warfare, thus putting his own civilians in harms way. so for every US bullet your going to find in an Iraqi civilian, you only have sadam to blame because he obviously doesn't give a shit about his own people and wants to display their dead bodies and cry about human rights. It's smart now to move out of the cities and run for the border. those who don't are going to suffer from sadam's sick twisted military actions.

non-action in the baby senario is not a violation of rights. but it's ethically wrong to let 1,000,000 people die when the life saving alternative is right there. go ahead twist that into this America VS Iraq thing, i got a good comeback for it.

heh, trap.

[Venom]

dude, were not 'slaughtering' innocent people intrentionally, get that right. we are hitting MILITARY positions with missiles. Sadam has his ground troops in the cities...can you give me a reason why he is doing that? He wants urban warfare, thus putting his own civilians in harms way. so for every US bullet your going to find in an Iraqi civilian, you only have sadam to blame because he obviously doesn't give a shit about his own people and wants to display their dead bodies and cry about human rights. It's smart now to move out of the cities and run for the border. those who don't are going to suffer from sadam's sick twisted military actions.

Its useless reno they don't see reason. They see nothing wrong with Saddam killing his own people (past and present), but if a few are killed by our missiles, because Saddam puts those people in harms way and they aren't smart enough to leave the city we're the devil. How many months warning do you need. They know we're comming, get the hell out and in a couple weeks you will have more freedom than you could have ever dreamed of. I'm sure Doug and co. think we're just gonna kill them all, take their oil, and rape their wives and children, but time will prove him wrong.

[starvingeyes]

Well what if the one person who you don't wanna kill WOULD be responsible for those million deaths?? According to your opinion he still shouldn't die?

when did i say that? o that's right. i didn't.

i am also not surpised to discover you have never heard of either the bilderberg group or the trilateral comission.

reno - you contradict yourself.

we are hitting MILITARY positions with missiles. Sadam has his ground troops in the cities...can you give me a reason why he is doing that? He wants urban warfare, thus putting his own civilians in harms way.

if you're only hitting military positions, then why would you be bombing soldiers in non-military/strategic positions, like cities?

secondly, there are always soldiers in iraqui cities. it is not uncommon in any third world country for the military to double as police. third, as iraq is calling up more soldiers, it is not uncommon for off duty ones to wander around in cities near where they are stationed.

finally, does this not mean that bush is doing the same thing when he stations troops in DC and such during his fake terror alerts?

fully 60% of the targets clinton destroyed in his bombing of iraq and in kosovo were civillian targets. this violates the geneva convention and is a war crime.

g.w. is already a war criminal for his attacks on civillian infrastructure in afghanistan. this "soldiers in cities" bullshit is just the usual propaganda. they're just trying to justify the impending massacre of innocent people.

but it's ethically wrong to let 1,000,000 people die when the life saving alternative is right there

no, it's not. not killing an innocent is never wrong, regardless of the consequences. it's wrong to kill an innocent person. period.

[Bandalero]

actually missles aren't going after ground troops, our own ground troops and tanks and whatever are going in the cities. that's why the pentagon has ordered 70,000 body bags, cause urban warfare is going to suck it bad for those troops going in. as for military/police. wrong, mexico doesn't do it, they are a thrid world country. it's not necessary but i wouldn't doubt that Iraq might have that situation. there shouldn't be a town next to a base, and if there is, well, those people better move the hell away, cause we all know what's going to happen. of course there is a stragety by putting a base right by a city. stray missiles, are a real threat to those civilians. if and when the missiles hit their MILITARY targets, the planting of innocent peoples in destoryed bunkers is going to be alot easier becuse the resource is right there. It's going to be hard for those civilians to move away however, because the Military/police want to keep them there as casualties. if your life is threatened, your still going to find a way to get the hell away from there. determination to stay alive.

as for troops in DC, lets face it, terrorist aren't looking to hit military positions. that's why there are SAM's and other military equipment in and around the City.

clinton did not want to put in danger our soldiers on the ground, thats why he bombed the hell out of Kosovo. war crimes...has he been tried? has the world court put in a hearing or something?

sorry if i wasn't clearer earlier, i can understand how it looks like i contradict myself.

so letting 1,000,000 people who are innocent but have come down with a life threatening illness is right? for the sake of a child? how is that baby going to grow up, knowing that he's alive because 1,000,000 people are dead? hell, he'd probably kill himself and we would all be in a world of shit! doing that is wrong because it puts that guilt on the kid.

[starvingeyes]

only time will tell whether or not cities are bombed. we cannot guarantee one way or the other what will happen.

and so what if mexico doesn't double up with the use of military and police? i didn't say all 3rd world nations did, just that it wasn't uncommon. it isn't.

man, there are bases next to cities all over the world. i'm not talking about next door, but even here in edmonton we have the edmonton garrison base.

there is no evidence to back up your spurious claims that saddam will kill and then plant civillians in military targets. why would he need to? as history shows us, the americans have no problem taking care of that for him.

as far as war crimes go, bombing civillian infrastructure is outlined as a war crime in the geneva convention. both clinton and bush have already done this. it's just that simple.

knowing that he's alive because 1,000,000 people are dead?

he isn't. he is alive because his parents had sex and he wasn't aborted. his life is not the cause of, or the result of their deaths.

so letting 1,000,000 people who are innocent but have come down with a life threatening illness is right?

"letting" something happen is neither right nor wrong. it's nothing.

[happening fish]

Boy we are #1 aren't we.

Yes, yes you are number one, in

millionaires

billionaires

military spending

firearm deaths

beef production

per capita energy use

carbon dioxide emissions (more than australia, brazil, canada, france, india, indonesia, germany, italy, mexico and the UK.... combined.)

total and per capita municipal waste

hazardous waste produced (by a factor of more than 20 times your nearest competitor, Germany)

oil consumption

natural gas consumption

least amount of tax revenue generated

least amount of federal and state government expenditure

budget deficit

daily per capita consumption of calories

lowest voter turnout

recorded rapes (by a factor of nearly 3 times your nearest competitor, Canada)

injuries and deaths from road accidents

births to mothers under the age of 20

number of international human rights treaties not signed

countries in the UN with a legally constituted government to not ratify the UN convention on the Rights of the Child

number of known executions of child offenders

likelihood of children under the age of fifteen to die from gunfire

likelihood of children under the age of fifteen to commit suicide with a gun

lowest eight-grade math scores

becoming the first society in history in which the poorest group in the population are the children

Number one indeed. If you need any of those sourced just holla.

[areusad831]

man we better do something about those math scores fast

[mosaik]

but really, if the math scores are the lowest, then they're not #1, they're like #300 and something.

[Sufjan Stevens]

We're #1. Wooo.

[faninor]

give me a break.

demos & ray - so it is your belief then that all people are not created equal? That some are better then others?

And what is the criteria? Who decides who is better? Is it based on skin color? gender? Have the KKK been right all along?

I do have faith in human beings, because this is a race of survivors, and I'm sure if you gave man back his freedom he would excel to heights never seen before. Who was it that taught you that man needs the state to survive? the state. doesn't it make sense for the body that needs you to exist to try and convince you that it's the other way aronud? how can you say people couldn't survive without big brother when we've never tried it before?

Yeah, people aren't created equal. Different people are gifted in different ways. It has nothing to do with ethnic background or gender. It has to do with skills and ability. Do you believe that teachers shouldn't grade their students based on their abilities and how they apply themselves? Similar to how teachers grade students, we can judge whether a person is capable of leading others. Would Bush come out on top? No, he's done some pretty stupid things. Would Saddam? No. I think he's done some insane things.

Here's some philosophy. The state hasn't used these to convince me of anything, but these did influence how the US was formed. I've only read excerpts from these myself, hopefully I'll get around to the rest sometime.

Locke: http://history.hanover.edu/early/locke/j-l2-001.htm

Hobbes: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html

Whether or not it was recently, or even on this continent, anarchy has been tried before, but strangely enough it is always replaced with government. That leaves me with two possibilities. (1) Having a structured government is superior to anarchy, or (2) there are people who want to be leaders, and when they see people living in anarchy, they organize it and gain power for themselves. This second option was the point I was trying to make about having too much faith in other humans . . . how can you expect people not to try to lead, when history proves that some will? If anarchy were tried again, one of those two possibilities I gave would just happen again. I think it's more practical to just try to keep a government that the citizens find favorable.

[Bandalero]

actually, were not the lowest when it comes to voter turnout. the swiss are... in 1995 35.7% voted, where as in 96 the US turned out a 49.1. (51% in 2000) every other country turns out well over 50%. Italy turned out 87.4% in 2000, pretty impressive. but anyway...


that's right bro, there are bases all over the world next to cities, but when you have a lunatic for a leader, you don't want to be around his military. (notice i said lunatic not dumbass) I can promise you that if that base were a target of a military strike, you'd be leaving. there is evidence that Sadam will plant bodies because he did just that same thing last time. (as did milosovitch) yeah, America has accedent;y killed innocent people, but we let it be known that we did it, that it was an accident, and we are constantly striving for the least possible amount of innocent lives lost.

has Clinton been charged? if there is evidence, then the world court would go through with the motions now wouldn't they? you can look around and accuse all you want to, but if there is no court proceeding then he is not a war criminal. not until he's found guilty. ex. OJ simpson is not a murderer because he was not found guilty of murder. now, the evidence was overwhelming against him, and it really looks like he did it, but he is still not a murderer, because court proceeding have been put into motion and he was found innocent. but he's liable. that was found in civil court.

as for the kid...
he was concieved by his parents, but when the issue of killing the kid for the sake of 1,000,000 people was brought up, that made his life the result of their deaths because he wasn't sacrificed. simple cause and effect. letting people die is wrong when the cure is right in front of you.

[Ray 2]

Here's a good tidbit on why our math scores are lower than other countries:

A lot of European and Asian countries essentially don't allow students to continue on into high school if their grades aren't up to snuff. And it gets weeded down to eventually, the smartest people these countries have being the ones taking the tests.

In the US, we try to give everyone, regardless of their intelligence, willingness to learn, or capacity to even bother, a fair shot. We have people taking the tests that probably shouldn't be taking them. If that doesn't help, how is it whenever there's the whole comparison tests between the best of the best students from all over the world, the US's students keep up pretty well?

So, the whole 8th grade math scores thing is based off of the amount of people taking it. Less people, with a better capacity for the subject, is obviously going to pull up the scores for the country using that system.

So... yeah. We're not a stupid country, despite world belief off of statistics (and we all know 79% of people believe statistics).

[megxyz128]

Boy we are #1 aren't we.

Yes, yes you are number one, in


beef production

hell yes! i knew i was proud to be American for SOMETHING!