Re: The price of peace.foreverbeachApril 9 2011, 13:16:13 UTC
Forcing Americans to pay taxes to be the world's policeman is insane. But hey, America's foreign policy is killing America, so I guess that's a good byproduct the insanity.
Re: The price of peace.ernunnosApril 9 2011, 13:25:40 UTC
Policing the world is cheap by comparison to the other things we spend money on, and - when coupled with relatively free trade - produces vital economic partners. Germany, Japan, South Korea, Italy...
Re: The price of peace.foreverbeachApril 9 2011, 13:32:29 UTC
We'll have to agree to disagree. Stealing from people in order to maim and murder children is unjustifiable in my opinion. But we all have different moral codes.
Re: The price of peace.ernunnosApril 9 2011, 14:11:49 UTC
Children will be maimed and murdered regardless. Life is hard for little things. The question (at least for me) is which course of action will result in the fewest children maimed and murdered. You and Ron Paul consistently vote for zero consequences for those who maximize this outcome. And produce maximum economic destruction in the process. It's a lose-lose, and why? Because you think it keeps your hands clean. Well, it doesn't. Refusal to act bears just as much responsibility as action, and even if you could escape responsibility that easily... who cares? Who gives a fuck about your hands? God? The libertarian purity club? Who are you trying to impress?
Re: The price of peace.foreverbeachApril 9 2011, 14:23:08 UTC
But your course of action consistently makes things worse. Not only do you end up directly killing many of those kids you wanted to save, but then you support murderous regimes because they'll help you kill their neighboring countries' kids; then when they fall out of favor, you go in and kill more kids to get rid of said regime. And to finance all of this, you steal trillions of dollars from people who don't want any part of your schizophrenic foreign policy. You make the same argument the Drug Warriors make.
Re: The price of peace.ernunnosApril 9 2011, 22:36:24 UTC
One Ron Paul "total success" killed more people in a few weeks than decades of foreign policy "failures" and "blowback". With no economic or political benefits whatsoever.
Re: The price of peace.foreverbeachApril 9 2011, 20:17:16 UTC
No, see, that's the plan: put Al Qaeda in charge of Libya so you have pretense (not that he thinks you need any at all) to open up yet another full-scale war. Ask him about "Yojimbo".
Re: The price of peace.ernunnosApril 9 2011, 22:39:34 UTC
100 billion a year? To change the balance of power in the mideast for generations? Pocket change.
And what's the alternative? I know, I know. People you don't like get to suffer genocide. That's awesome for bigots of your particular flavor, but what does the rest of the world get out of it? What economic benefits do we reap? Do you really think the real threats won't be threats (economic or political) if we just leave them alone? Are you joining the Ron Paul "brown people don't have motives of their own, and only respond instinctively to us, the only people on the planet with free will?" brigade now? It sounds like you.
Re: The price of peace.ernunnosApril 9 2011, 23:48:39 UTC
1. Simple as long as you realize that "benefit" includes "killing Shia/Persians". Bigot. 2. "People" does not include Shi'ites or Persians. 3. Winning in your world includes letting someone else kill Shi'ite/Persian women and children for you.
Although in your world winning does not include denying Sunni Al Qaeda a free haven to operate out of.
Re: The price of peace.ernunnosApril 10 2011, 18:43:30 UTC
You were the one to bring up the Sunni/Shia split as though it made a difference - rather obnoxiously too, as usual - and not just in the context of Bahrain, but also Kosovo. Despite the fact that both sides of this religious divide have worked both for and against American interests, you have picked one as worthy of support, and one as worthy of genocide. You're not just a bigot, you're a bigot in a fight that isn't even your own. A bigot by choice.
Re: The price of peace.ernunnosApril 10 2011, 23:15:40 UTC
Yes, sure. All that Kosovar oil. Don't even try to pretend it's about energy policy or national interest for you. You support killing Shi'ites even when there's no such thing at stake.
You're advocating atrocity based on race and religion. I'm advocating immigration restrictions and potential deportations, which isn't even violent, and well within the rights of any sovereign nation. And would likely improve the lot of the majority of Mexicans who live in Mexico, as their corrupt government would no longer be able to export their poverty and much of their labor force to the U.S., and would actually have to face many of their problems.
The fact that you even begin to equate the two (again, on your own initiative) really reveals just what a sick fuck you are.
Click to view
"Great success!"
- Ron Paul
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
And what's the alternative? I know, I know. People you don't like get to suffer genocide. That's awesome for bigots of your particular flavor, but what does the rest of the world get out of it? What economic benefits do we reap? Do you really think the real threats won't be threats (economic or political) if we just leave them alone? Are you joining the Ron Paul "brown people don't have motives of their own, and only respond instinctively to us, the only people on the planet with free will?" brigade now? It sounds like you.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
2. "People" does not include Shi'ites or Persians.
3. Winning in your world includes letting someone else kill Shi'ite/Persian women and children for you.
Although in your world winning does not include denying Sunni Al Qaeda a free haven to operate out of.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
You're advocating atrocity based on race and religion. I'm advocating immigration restrictions and potential deportations, which isn't even violent, and well within the rights of any sovereign nation. And would likely improve the lot of the majority of Mexicans who live in Mexico, as their corrupt government would no longer be able to export their poverty and much of their labor force to the U.S., and would actually have to face many of their problems.
The fact that you even begin to equate the two (again, on your own initiative) really reveals just what a sick fuck you are.
Reply
Leave a comment