|
On October 10 2009 13:29 Kwark wrote:
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?
Wrong. Appeasement is intervention. Britain and France allowed Germany to annex the Anschluss. What are the people of the Anschluss going to do if the Countries around them GAVE them the Anschluss? The right to self-defense is inherent from birth to all of us. No one can give away another person or their property. Absurdity.
The late 20th Century and the 21st Century will be the history of the failure of interventionism, just like the early 20th Century was the failure of interventionism.
The people of China would overthrow their tyrannous occupiers. America did the same thing. Some people volunteered to come help us (Foreign Generals, etc.), and we openly accepted them. It would be no different in their context. Sure, the French helped at the end of the War, but by then we had won it anyways. We didn't go around to countries begging for their invasion of America to liberate us, did we?
|
|
|
United States43864 Posts
On October 10 2009 13:35 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:29 Kwark wrote:
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? Wrong. Appeasement is intervention. Britain and France allowed Germany to annex the Anschluss. What are the people of the Anschluss going to do if the Countries around them GAVE them the Anschluss? The right to self-defense is inherent from birth to all of us. No one can give away another person or their property. Absurdity.
I'm not convinced that you know any history at all. The people of the Anschluss? Seriously? Germany annexed the Anschluss? Anschluss isn't a place, it's a word for what happened.
I don't know why I bother arguing with you. You should just move to Anschluss with all the Anschlussicans and live there.
|
On October 10 2009 13:33 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:27 Aegraen wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
/sigh. I'm done. Obviously you feel its moral and just to make other people do compulsory actions forced via the State, brought about by the Majority. Awesome. No one, and this means no one, nor the majority, have the right to tell you, or I, what I cannot do with my own private property, or other such means.
I am an idividual, not a collective. I'm not a worker bee, I'm not a soldier bee, and the President or Head of State is not the Queen bee in a hive. We are not a hive. We are individuals, sovereignt entities, who have the right of self-determination and private property.
|
On October 10 2009 13:39 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 13:29 Kwark wrote:
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? Wrong. Appeasement is intervention. Britain and France allowed Germany to annex the Anschluss. What are the people of the Anschluss going to do if the Countries around them GAVE them the Anschluss? The right to self-defense is inherent from birth to all of us. No one can give away another person or their property. Absurdity. I'm not convinced that you know any history at all. The people of the Anschluss? Seriously? Germany annexed the Anschluss? Anschluss isn't a place, it's a word for what happened. I don't know why I bother arguing with you.
You know what I meant; Austria. At least we see eye to eye on the latter. We obviously have poles apart different political ideologies.
|
United States43864 Posts
I believe in democracy, you should look it up sometime since you seem to be unaware you live in one.
|
United States43864 Posts
On October 10 2009 13:35 Aegraen wrote:
The people of China would overthrow their tyrannous occupiers. America did the same thing. Some people volunteered to come help us (Foreign Generals, etc.), and we openly accepted them. It would be no different in their context. Sure, the French helped at the end of the War, but by then we had won it anyways. We didn't go around to countries begging for their invasion of America to liberate us, did we?
The native Americans called. They want to know how the overthrow of the evil invaders is going. What should I tell them?
Sometimes the people being oppressed don't win. Sometimes the oppressors just have too much of a resource advantage and change must come from outside.
|
On October 10 2009 13:41 Kwark wrote:
I believe in democracy, you should look it up sometime since you seem to be unaware you live in one.
Actually, America is supposed to be a Confederacy. We were never meant to be a Democracy, nor are we. This is why we have laws. If we were a Democracy then the will of the Majority would be law.
America shares nothing, or is supposed to share, nothing in common with the British idea of Government. Why do you think we had a revolution against Britain?
Confederacy - A union of persons, parties, or states; a league.
Of course, the War of Southern Independance destroyed that, now didn't it?
|
United States43864 Posts
On October 10 2009 13:45 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:41 Kwark wrote:
I believe in democracy, you should look it up sometime since you seem to be unaware you live in one. Actually, America is supposed to be a Confederacy.
Wow, that's pretty cool. In other news, you live in reality. And America is actually a democracy. Maybe you should write to your representative and tell him what's supposed to be. He might care about supposed a little more than I do.
|
United States43864 Posts
On October 10 2009 13:45 Aegraen wrote:
America shares nothing, or is supposed to share, nothing in common with the British idea of Government. Why do you think we had a revolution against Britain?
Also you and I will disagree a great deal on the causes of the declaration of Independence.
|
On October 10 2009 13:47 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:45 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 13:41 Kwark wrote:
I believe in democracy, you should look it up sometime since you seem to be unaware you live in one. Actually, America is supposed to be a Confederacy. Wow, that's pretty cool. In other news, you live in reality. And America is actually a democracy. Maybe you should write to your representative and tell him what's supposed to be. He might care about supposed a little more than I do.
I am, and I'm actively campaigning for those who believe in what I do. We are trying to work within the current system first. We also do not live in a Democracy. A Democracy is the rule of law by the Majority. We are, as of now, still a Republic, albeit just slightly. We were supposed to be, a Confederate Republic, that is, each State voluntarily joined the Union, and could voluntarily leave the Union. That was changed by Lincoln the tyrannous traitor that he was.
Perhaps you should look up people like:
Mary Ruwart
Adam Kokesh
Rand Paul
Debra Medina
Randy Brogdon
Peter Schiff
Ray Mcberry
etc.
The will of the Majority is not something sacred, nor something that is worthwhile. I bet you rail against Prop-8, but that was the will of the majority. There's your-so-called wonderful Democracy at work. Taxation is another - will of the majority. Will of the majority is antithesis to liberty.
Don't worry, if things don't change, and change in a respectable manner sometime soon, you will see the second American Revolution, because tyranny in any form, must be fought against.
|
United States43864 Posts
On October 10 2009 13:54 Aegraen wrote:
Don't worry, if things don't change, and change in a respectable manner sometime soon, you will see the second American Revolution, because tyranny in any form, must be fought against.
Okay, well, feel free to not keep me informed how that goes. And feel free to stop posting about it too because as cute as your forays into the realms of fantasy can be, they're getting a little stale. By all means you can continue to hold your detestable world view and nobody on God's earth could stop you posting on subjects you don't understand (remember that progressive taxation episode) but if you could stick to the politics of the real world that'd be cool.
You don't have to like the way things are but it'd be nice if you accepted reality and, you know, let reality into your arguments sometimes.
|
On October 10 2009 13:59 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:54 Aegraen wrote:
Don't worry, if things don't change, and change in a respectable manner sometime soon, you will see the second American Revolution, because tyranny in any form, must be fought against. Okay, well, feel free to not keep me informed how that goes. And feel free to stop posting about it too because as cute as your forays into the realms of fantasy can be, they're getting a little stale. By all means you can continue to hold your detestable world view and nobody on God's earth could stop you posting on subjects you don't understand (remember that progressive taxation episode) but if you could stick to the politics of the real world that'd be cool. You don't have to like the way things are but it'd be nice if you accepted reality and, you know, let reality into your arguments sometimes.
Be happy you aren't here to regret your ignorance when it happens.
|
It's mind boggling how some people still think public option is not the way to go, unless you want 44,000 americans to continue dying due to lack of healthcare then go ahead and oppose it.
|
Why was Aegraen banned? I know he and Kwark took this thread way off topic, but he was arguing in a completely reasonable manner - respectfully and without making gratuitous insults. Yet he's called ignorant and booted for having a strong viewpoint? Absurd. 
On October 10 2009 14:20 BalliSLife wrote:
It's mind boggling how some people still think public option is not the way to go, unless you want 44,000 americans to continue dying due to lack of healthcare then go ahead and oppose it. Many people, myself included, think it would be a far greater tragedy for people to think it's okay to create universal healthcare at the expense of a few others. Additionally, it would be completely fiscally irresponsible at this point and create no incentive for doctors to work to their highest potential.
Anyway, unless we bring this topic back to Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize, this thread's gonna get closed real quick.
|
On October 10 2009 14:49 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:Why was Aegraen banned? I know he and Kwark took this thread way off topic, but he was arguing in a completely reasonable manner - respectfully and without making gratuitous insults. Yet he's called ignorant and booted for having a strong viewpoint? Absurd. Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 14:20 BalliSLife wrote:
It's mind boggling how some people still think public option is not the way to go, unless you want 44,000 americans to continue dying due to lack of healthcare then go ahead and oppose it. Many people, myself included, think it would be a far greater tragedy for people to think it's okay to create universal healthcare at the expense of a few others. Additionally, it would be completely fiscally irresponsible at this point and create no incentive for doctors to work to their highest potential. Anyway, unless we bring this topic back to Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize, this thread's gonna get closed real quick.
Then you're ok with that many americans dying each year instead of everyone that wants public option to chip in for everyone else, what kinda democracy is this?
|
I think that health care is like any other good or service, in that it can be provided for a cost. If you can't afford it, then you have to either accept the charitable contributions and services of organizations willing to give it to you or go without.
I'm not going to go into further detail here because (1) it's not the proper thread (2) it'll just make you think I'm cold-hearted.
|
Well,
This is a heated topic. (odd to find it in one of my game's web page) However, we all live in this world so we all have something to say. I think for the most part we can all agree that the world has many reason for doing the things that it does. This one is a new, thats for sure. The thing is, the worlds changing. Don't know if it's for the better or the worst, but it is. I think in the U.S. there is a war on the horizon......... the young vs. the old. Yeah I said it.
For the better part of the last 100 years the US has done a lot to change the face of the world. I think for the worst but thats another story. Now that country is going though some changes. The number of people over the age of 60 in the U.S. is insane, on top of that the numbers growing each year. This people VARY much have a "different" way of seeing things. (Are kids are trying to kill us!!!!!) There still living in the past, the way the world was ran. You know the one that had two world wars, several "police actions", and all the other things like human right violations, and that allow genocide. The rest of us under the age of 30 have vary much a different way of looking at things. We want green energy, to get along with the rest of the world, (I want to get rid of cars) get the nuclear shit out of the world (Both power and weapons) and to change the way the world looks at us. So what happens here is watched.
I think that thats the tip of this funny looking ice burg. I think the goal of the prize is not to reward Obama for what he has done, but to point to what is wanted. By putting this on a current leader forces him to follow through with the promise that he has told the world. (like some guy how want in are pants) So look at like a gauntlet thrown down be the Nord's. Fix it or look like the worst nobel peace prize winner ever. So lets watch were it goes from here. And stop taring each other heads of over silly shit.
Note: not all people over the age of 60 are evil (just most)
and not all people under the age of 30 are cool
|
It is nice to debate about whether or not our president deserves a Nobel Peace prize, rather than debate about whether or not he is a war criminal.
|
On October 10 2009 15:27 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
It is nice to debate about whether or not our president deserves a Nobel Peace prize, rather than debate about whether or not he is a war criminal.
we should start with Bush and Cheney
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
