|
On October 10 2009 12:57 alphafuzard wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep  Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves.
Wrong. Draft isn't repelled. There is this thing all 18+ males are automatically enrolled in, called the Selective Service. They can call up the draft at any time and you would be forced to go.
So volunteer your time, your services, your money, and your life. All those who agree with you, if they so choose to, can do the same. People who don't agree, or don't want to, can choose not to. This isn't the case though. You are forced to pay taxes, to pay State compulsory requirements, etc.
|
On October 10 2009 12:56 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:55 BalliSLife wrote:On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun? Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no. Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? Dude slaughtering the indians was how long ago? like 150 years ago? or 200? that doesn't make it an invalid example
Ok how are other countries suppose to know that at that time?
|
On October 10 2009 12:57 alphafuzard wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility"
well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited.
|
On October 10 2009 12:58 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:56 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:55 BalliSLife wrote:On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun? Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no. Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? Dude slaughtering the indians was how long ago? like 150 years ago? or 200? that doesn't make it an invalid example Ok how are other countries suppose to know that at that time?
they had a written language back than, and were capable of traveling.
.....
|
United States43864 Posts
Aegraen, I'd just like to clarify something. You're saying that if you were in charge in 1936 and you knew for a fact that the Japanese were using American oil to power an occupation allowing them to deliberately and systematically massacre innocent civilians you would continue to sell them oil because they're obviously homicidal and it's best not to piss off homicidal people.
Right?
|
United States43864 Posts
On October 10 2009 12:59 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:57 alphafuzard wrote:On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility" well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited.
Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower.
|
On October 10 2009 13:01 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:58 BalliSLife wrote:On October 10 2009 12:56 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:55 BalliSLife wrote:On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun? Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no. Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? Dude slaughtering the indians was how long ago? like 150 years ago? or 200? that doesn't make it an invalid example Ok how are other countries suppose to know that at that time? they had a written language back than, and were capable of traveling. .....
And you really think they would travel ALL the over to stop america from fucking up the indians at that time?
K i have nothing else to say
|
On October 10 2009 13:02 Kwark wrote:
Aegraen, I'd just like to clarify something. You're saying that if you were in charge in 1936 and you knew for a fact that the Japanese were using American oil to power an occupation allowing them to deliberately and systematically massacre innocent civilians you would continue to sell them oil because they're obviously homicidal and it's best not to piss off homicidal people.
Right?
First, if I was President, I would repel, or at least try to, all laws and actions of the State in all matters of Economic Affairs. I'm not the CEO of Exxon, am I? Why do I have the power to tell and force someone else to not sell to someone else? Secondly, our embargo didn't stop them, did it?
It's not because "I'm not trying to piss off Homicidal people", it's because I believe in the individuals right to conduct commerce with whomever they choose. I have no right to tell you, or anyone what they can or cannot do with their private property. I believe in property rights, private property, Natural Law, etc. All that goes against everything you espouse.
If individual citizens, wanted to they could volunteer their time, services, life, and money. Why is it ok to make that compulsory?
|
On October 10 2009 13:05 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:01 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:58 BalliSLife wrote:On October 10 2009 12:56 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:55 BalliSLife wrote:On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:
[quote]
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun? Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no. Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? Dude slaughtering the indians was how long ago? like 150 years ago? or 200? that doesn't make it an invalid example Ok how are other countries suppose to know that at that time? they had a written language back than, and were capable of traveling. ..... And you really think they would travel ALL the over to stop america from fucking up the indians at that time? K i have nothing else to say
Are you this unedcuated? How do you think Britain controlled an entire colonized empire.
Other countries were well aware of what was happening, but it was pretty typical of that time period anyways. No one really cared about the natives -- they wanted to expand.
|
Oh sorry I forgot, nobody cared about the natives WTH was i thinking?
|
On October 10 2009 13:03 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:59 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:57 alphafuzard wrote:On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility" well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited. Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower.
It's not retarded. You either believe that no country should conduct any association with a country that violates human rights, or you believe that a Country is sovereign and can conduct whatever it wants to with another Country based on their self-interests. It's called logic. You can't single out one entity and say thats wrong, while another entity is doing the same thing, and call that association of behavior retarded. You either follow it through to its logical conclusion or you become inconsistent. International "Law" would then be dictated by superpowers. You would have to follow our demands, or else. No longer would the law, be Natural Law, but rather dictated by the de-facto most powerful. What if that nation decided that not having public healthcare or socialized medicine was a humanitarian crisis? Does that now give them the right to invade a Sovereign Country?
|
United States43864 Posts
On October 10 2009 13:06 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:02 Kwark wrote:
Aegraen, I'd just like to clarify something. You're saying that if you were in charge in 1936 and you knew for a fact that the Japanese were using American oil to power an occupation allowing them to deliberately and systematically massacre innocent civilians you would continue to sell them oil because they're obviously homicidal and it's best not to piss off homicidal people.
Right? First, if I was President, I would repel, or at least try to, all laws and actions of the State in all matters of Economic Affairs. I'm not the CEO of Exxon, am I? Why do I have the power to tell and force someone else to not sell to someone else? Secondly, our embargo didn't stop them, did it? It's not because "I'm not trying to piss off Homicidal people", it's because I believe in the individuals right to conduct commerce with whomever they choose. I have no right to tell you, or anyone what they can or cannot do with their private property. I believe in property rights, private property, Natural Law, etc. All that goes against everything you espouse. If individual citizens, wanted to they could volunteer their time, services, life, and money. Why is it ok to make that compulsory?
It's not black and white. Obviously the embargo didn't trigger a Japanese retreat out of China, that doesn't mean it didn't damage their efforts to subjugate the Chinese people and ultimately it led to the end to Japanese atrocities in 1945.
Like it or not, you'd have the power to impose sanctions and the knowledge that innocent people would be saved from terrible fates if you imposed them. I wonder how you could morally fail to intervene.
I too believe in freedom. The problem is that liberty is great in a world of sane rational individuals but in a world where there are insane, evil people they cannot be allowed to act with impunity.
|
United States43864 Posts
On October 10 2009 13:12 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:03 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:59 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:57 alphafuzard wrote:On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility" well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited. Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower. It's not retarded. You either believe that no country should conduct any association with a country that violates human rights, or you believe that a Country is sovereign and can conduct whatever it wants to with another Country based on their self-interests. It's called logic. You can't single out one entity and say thats wrong, while another entity is doing the same thing, and call that association of behavior retarded. You either follow it through to its logical conclusion or you become inconsistent. International "Law" would then be dictated by superpowers. You would have to follow our demands, or else. No longer would the law, be Natural Law, but rather dictated by the de-facto most powerful. What if that nation decided that not having public healthcare or socialized medicine was a humanitarian crisis? Does that now give them the right to invade a Sovereign Country?
Obviously they measure their power against their self interest. A nation like Switzerland does not stand up to Nazi Germany because they have no power to do so and it would do great damage to their self interest. Conversely when Germany offers Britain favourable terms in 1941 Britain declines in spite of self interest because Britain believes it has the power to succeed.
It's a judgment call, not a black and white law. Ideally every country would take a moral stance against human rights abuses but some are better able to take that stance than others. It's forgivable for a weak vulnerable country with everything to lose to be passive because they can justify it. It's not for a strong country with little to lose to do the same.
International law is dictated by superpowers and it is law of the most powerful. How are you not aware of this?
What if a nation decided the sea should be made of candy!?!? What then!?!?
|
On October 10 2009 13:13 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:06 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 13:02 Kwark wrote:
Aegraen, I'd just like to clarify something. You're saying that if you were in charge in 1936 and you knew for a fact that the Japanese were using American oil to power an occupation allowing them to deliberately and systematically massacre innocent civilians you would continue to sell them oil because they're obviously homicidal and it's best not to piss off homicidal people.
Right? First, if I was President, I would repel, or at least try to, all laws and actions of the State in all matters of Economic Affairs. I'm not the CEO of Exxon, am I? Why do I have the power to tell and force someone else to not sell to someone else? Secondly, our embargo didn't stop them, did it? It's not because "I'm not trying to piss off Homicidal people", it's because I believe in the individuals right to conduct commerce with whomever they choose. I have no right to tell you, or anyone what they can or cannot do with their private property. I believe in property rights, private property, Natural Law, etc. All that goes against everything you espouse. If individual citizens, wanted to they could volunteer their time, services, life, and money. Why is it ok to make that compulsory? It's not black and white. Obviously the embargo didn't trigger a Japanese retreat out of China, that doesn't mean it didn't damage their efforts to subjugate the Chinese people and ultimately it led to the end to Japanese atrocities in 1945. Like it or not, you'd have the power to impose sanctions and the knowledge that innocent people would be saved from terrible fates if you imposed them. I wonder how you could morally fail to intervene. I too believe in freedom. The problem is that liberty is great in a world of sane rational individuals but in a world where there are insane, evil people they cannot be allowed to act with impunity.
Because it is immoral to protrude on private property rights. It is never moral to force another human being into an action they don't consent to. That is the moral position. No one is stopping people from voluntarily creating Militia's to come to the behest of persecuted peoples. It is no different than the hiring of a private security firm, in this case it would be all voluntary.
It is never right, no matter the ends, to justify the destruction of private property rights. Of compulsory forces.
Liberty is great no matter what. If we had liberty, then we could have self-defense. You are against self-defense. One of the reasons why atrocities are committed in the first place. Defenseless people are an invitation to the criminal.
|
On October 10 2009 13:18 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:12 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 13:03 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:59 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:57 alphafuzard wrote:On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:
[quote]
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility" well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited. Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower. It's not retarded. You either believe that no country should conduct any association with a country that violates human rights, or you believe that a Country is sovereign and can conduct whatever it wants to with another Country based on their self-interests. It's called logic. You can't single out one entity and say thats wrong, while another entity is doing the same thing, and call that association of behavior retarded. You either follow it through to its logical conclusion or you become inconsistent. International "Law" would then be dictated by superpowers. You would have to follow our demands, or else. No longer would the law, be Natural Law, but rather dictated by the de-facto most powerful. What if that nation decided that not having public healthcare or socialized medicine was a humanitarian crisis? Does that now give them the right to invade a Sovereign Country? Obviously they measure their power against their self interest. A nation like Switzerland does not stand up to Nazi Germany because they have no power to do so and it would do great damage to their self interest. Conversely when Germany offers Britain favourable terms in 1941 Britain declines in spite of self interest because Britain believes it has the power to succeed. It's a judgment call, not a black and white law. Ideally every country would take a moral stance against human rights abuses but some are better able to take that stance than others. It's forgivable for a weak vulnerable country with everything to lose to be passive because they can justify it. It's not for a strong country with little to lose to do the same. International law is dictated by superpowers and it is law of the most powerful. How are you not aware of this? What if a nation decided the sea should be made of candy!?!? What then!?!?
Switzerland wasn't passive. They actively helped Nazi Germany via banking.
Tell that to the millions of wounded, and hundreds of thousands of dead Americans. They had little to lose. How fucking selfish and tyrannical that statement is. Sure, some volunteered, but many were drafted. It is never right for compulsory measures of any intent. Why is another person's life more valuable than any others?
|
United States43864 Posts
On October 10 2009 13:18 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:13 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 13:06 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 13:02 Kwark wrote:
Aegraen, I'd just like to clarify something. You're saying that if you were in charge in 1936 and you knew for a fact that the Japanese were using American oil to power an occupation allowing them to deliberately and systematically massacre innocent civilians you would continue to sell them oil because they're obviously homicidal and it's best not to piss off homicidal people.
Right? First, if I was President, I would repel, or at least try to, all laws and actions of the State in all matters of Economic Affairs. I'm not the CEO of Exxon, am I? Why do I have the power to tell and force someone else to not sell to someone else? Secondly, our embargo didn't stop them, did it? It's not because "I'm not trying to piss off Homicidal people", it's because I believe in the individuals right to conduct commerce with whomever they choose. I have no right to tell you, or anyone what they can or cannot do with their private property. I believe in property rights, private property, Natural Law, etc. All that goes against everything you espouse. If individual citizens, wanted to they could volunteer their time, services, life, and money. Why is it ok to make that compulsory? It's not black and white. Obviously the embargo didn't trigger a Japanese retreat out of China, that doesn't mean it didn't damage their efforts to subjugate the Chinese people and ultimately it led to the end to Japanese atrocities in 1945. Like it or not, you'd have the power to impose sanctions and the knowledge that innocent people would be saved from terrible fates if you imposed them. I wonder how you could morally fail to intervene. I too believe in freedom. The problem is that liberty is great in a world of sane rational individuals but in a world where there are insane, evil people they cannot be allowed to act with impunity. Because it is immoral to protrude on private property rights. It is never moral to force another human being into an action they don't consent to. That is the moral position. No one is stopping people from voluntarily creating Militia's to come to the behest of persecuted peoples. It is no different than the hiring of a private security firm, in this case it would be all voluntary. It is never right, no matter the ends, to justify the destruction of private property rights. Of compulsory forces. Liberty is great no matter what. If we had liberty, then we could have self-defense. You are against self-defense. One of the reasons why atrocities are committed in the first place. Defenseless people are an invitation to the criminal.
These people were defenseless due to no fault of their own but rather due to a combination of historical factors over which they had no control. Either they would be tested on and killed like cattle or someone would champion their right to life. Fortunately for the conscience of humanity as a whole the world eventually stepped in and stopped it.
|
United States43864 Posts
On October 10 2009 13:20 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:18 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 13:12 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 13:03 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:59 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:57 alphafuzard wrote:On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:
[quote]
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you.
And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility" well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited. Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower. It's not retarded. You either believe that no country should conduct any association with a country that violates human rights, or you believe that a Country is sovereign and can conduct whatever it wants to with another Country based on their self-interests. It's called logic. You can't single out one entity and say thats wrong, while another entity is doing the same thing, and call that association of behavior retarded. You either follow it through to its logical conclusion or you become inconsistent. International "Law" would then be dictated by superpowers. You would have to follow our demands, or else. No longer would the law, be Natural Law, but rather dictated by the de-facto most powerful. What if that nation decided that not having public healthcare or socialized medicine was a humanitarian crisis? Does that now give them the right to invade a Sovereign Country? Obviously they measure their power against their self interest. A nation like Switzerland does not stand up to Nazi Germany because they have no power to do so and it would do great damage to their self interest. Conversely when Germany offers Britain favourable terms in 1941 Britain declines in spite of self interest because Britain believes it has the power to succeed. It's a judgment call, not a black and white law. Ideally every country would take a moral stance against human rights abuses but some are better able to take that stance than others. It's forgivable for a weak vulnerable country with everything to lose to be passive because they can justify it. It's not for a strong country with little to lose to do the same. International law is dictated by superpowers and it is law of the most powerful. How are you not aware of this? What if a nation decided the sea should be made of candy!?!? What then!?!? Switzerland wasn't passive. They actively helped Nazi Germany via banking. Tell that to the millions of wounded, and hundreds of thousands of dead Americans. They had little to lose. How fucking selfish and tyrannical that statement is. Sure, some volunteered, but many were drafted. It is never right for compulsory measures of any intent. Why is another person's life more valuable than any others?
Ultimately hundreds of thousands of dead isn't very many. Why is one soldiers life more valuable than 10 civilians saved?
|
On October 10 2009 13:24 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:20 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 13:18 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 13:12 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 13:03 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:59 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:57 alphafuzard wrote:On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:
[quote]
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility" well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited. Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower. It's not retarded. You either believe that no country should conduct any association with a country that violates human rights, or you believe that a Country is sovereign and can conduct whatever it wants to with another Country based on their self-interests. It's called logic. You can't single out one entity and say thats wrong, while another entity is doing the same thing, and call that association of behavior retarded. You either follow it through to its logical conclusion or you become inconsistent. International "Law" would then be dictated by superpowers. You would have to follow our demands, or else. No longer would the law, be Natural Law, but rather dictated by the de-facto most powerful. What if that nation decided that not having public healthcare or socialized medicine was a humanitarian crisis? Does that now give them the right to invade a Sovereign Country? Obviously they measure their power against their self interest. A nation like Switzerland does not stand up to Nazi Germany because they have no power to do so and it would do great damage to their self interest. Conversely when Germany offers Britain favourable terms in 1941 Britain declines in spite of self interest because Britain believes it has the power to succeed. It's a judgment call, not a black and white law. Ideally every country would take a moral stance against human rights abuses but some are better able to take that stance than others. It's forgivable for a weak vulnerable country with everything to lose to be passive because they can justify it. It's not for a strong country with little to lose to do the same. International law is dictated by superpowers and it is law of the most powerful. How are you not aware of this? What if a nation decided the sea should be made of candy!?!? What then!?!? Switzerland wasn't passive. They actively helped Nazi Germany via banking. Tell that to the millions of wounded, and hundreds of thousands of dead Americans. They had little to lose. How fucking selfish and tyrannical that statement is. Sure, some volunteered, but many were drafted. It is never right for compulsory measures of any intent. Why is another person's life more valuable than any others? Ultimately hundreds of thousands of dead isn't very many. Why is one soldiers life more valuable than 10 civilians saved?
No one's life is more valuable than anothers. I guess you missed the part about compulsory vs. voluntaryism? You are telling the people you make compulsory service that their life is inherently less valuable than anothers. They have no say whether or not to go. They are forced.
If you don't like it, get with other like minded invidividuals and do something about it. Don't force others. How hard is this to understand? Pool your resources, and do something! Don't make other's fight your conflicts for you.
PS: I'm hungry, so I'm going to go out and get something to eat, probably either Taco Bell or DiGiorno's. Leaning towards pizza. Will further this conversation when I get back. Suffice it to say, you might as well look up Anarcho-Capitalism and Non-interventionism, and that'll answer all your questions 
|
United States43864 Posts
The history of the twentieth century is the history of the failure of appeasement and the tragedy of non intervention. I find it stunning that someone can look at the events, see the direct causes and not reach the logical conclusions.
How would you have seen the Japanese invasion of China resolved? They're in China, exploiting the vast natural resources, building up and training their army and testing biological weapons on civilians. America is currently their friend and business partner. How does this play out 100 years down the line?
|
United States43864 Posts
On October 10 2009 13:27 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:24 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 13:20 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 13:18 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 13:12 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 13:03 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:59 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:57 alphafuzard wrote:On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:
[quote]
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility" well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited. Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower. It's not retarded. You either believe that no country should conduct any association with a country that violates human rights, or you believe that a Country is sovereign and can conduct whatever it wants to with another Country based on their self-interests. It's called logic. You can't single out one entity and say thats wrong, while another entity is doing the same thing, and call that association of behavior retarded. You either follow it through to its logical conclusion or you become inconsistent. International "Law" would then be dictated by superpowers. You would have to follow our demands, or else. No longer would the law, be Natural Law, but rather dictated by the de-facto most powerful. What if that nation decided that not having public healthcare or socialized medicine was a humanitarian crisis? Does that now give them the right to invade a Sovereign Country? Obviously they measure their power against their self interest. A nation like Switzerland does not stand up to Nazi Germany because they have no power to do so and it would do great damage to their self interest. Conversely when Germany offers Britain favourable terms in 1941 Britain declines in spite of self interest because Britain believes it has the power to succeed. It's a judgment call, not a black and white law. Ideally every country would take a moral stance against human rights abuses but some are better able to take that stance than others. It's forgivable for a weak vulnerable country with everything to lose to be passive because they can justify it. It's not for a strong country with little to lose to do the same. International law is dictated by superpowers and it is law of the most powerful. How are you not aware of this? What if a nation decided the sea should be made of candy!?!? What then!?!? Switzerland wasn't passive. They actively helped Nazi Germany via banking. Tell that to the millions of wounded, and hundreds of thousands of dead Americans. They had little to lose. How fucking selfish and tyrannical that statement is. Sure, some volunteered, but many were drafted. It is never right for compulsory measures of any intent. Why is another person's life more valuable than any others? Ultimately hundreds of thousands of dead isn't very many. Why is one soldiers life more valuable than 10 civilians saved? If you don't like it, get with other like minded invidividuals and do something about it. Don't force others. How hard is this to understand? Pool your resources, and do something!
I don't like it so I get together with a bunch of other people who also think the role of the Government should be to intervene on my behalf and you know what, we do something. We make our voices heard and the politicians hear and they build it into their manifesto and then we vote for them. That's how we got here.
You say that people should get together and enact change. They did that, the change was demanding that their leaders should enforce a ethical policy and they collectively voted to support it.
If you don't like that feel free to write a letter to your representative. If he disagrees feel free not to vote for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
