A Voice of Reason Rises Above the Hysteria

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ramo
Among other reasons, our bombs are what have caused the Taliban to repress civil liberties so much these past months, exacerberating the problem by quite a bit.

Bull****. Taleban has been steadily turning up the ratchet of oppression ever since they became the dominant political/armed force in Afghanistan.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Am I the only one that doesn't think that this war is over oil?

Nope. Blaming the oil companies for everything is just sooooo 70's.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Nope. Blaming the oil companies for everything is just sooooo 70's.

Hey, but don't you know they bought up all of those patents that let cars run off water for 200mpg.

[Ramo]

MtG:

You think the level of the Taliban's repression, if the US retaliation didn't happen, would be the same as it is now? It would start locking up international aid workers if 9/11 didn't happen?

Have you made some kind of function? How would things like the ethnic cleansing in Mazar al-Sharif figure into it? You think the conditions have escalated from genocide?

edit: Just making it perfectly clear who I'm talking to.

[n.c.]

The war is not directly about oil.

[Scipio Centaurus]

Originally posted by n.c.
Scipio Centaurus- You have no idea who the fvck I am

Nor do I care...

or what I think.

Sure I do. You just posted your thoughts on an open forum.

-"Anyone who disagrees with me on this issue, must be a narrow-minded statist."
Did I miss anything?

Wouldn't be the first time, would it?

-"a result of periods of deep introspection."
Retrospect that you don't know anything about my viewpoint.

I'm afraid I do, since you just posted your viewpoint. Or were you trying to bait us with misleading statements?

-"Try to think outside of the box for a change."
Try to not doge my point.

You stated "Only a libertarian can point out how ...blah...blah...blah. I suppose strictly narrow-minded dogma has always been a barrier to logical connections"

I'm a Libertarian [Capitalize that when you write it]. You just accused me of not being able to think. Was there some other point? Or were you just trying to convince everyone that you're emotionally retarded. It's working, BTW.

-"they would have simply clouded the salient points of Ron Paul's speech."
That we are overly dependant on foreign oil? Yeah, those two points are inconvenient, oops, not sufficiently related.

So you read that entire speech and concluded that Paul is trying to tell us we're too dependent on foreign oil? 'fraid I can be of no assistance to you there.

-"Focus."
Or are we thinking outside of the box? I realize it's hard to to be consistent while trying to patronize, but do try.

Irrelevant, as best I can tell...

-"don't disturb the rest of us who aren't interested"
Sorry to bother you with others starvation. Did this degree of caring and compassion come from one of your periods of deep introspection?

Oh I see. Anyone who doesn't think the way you think and emote the way you emote, is a flawed human being? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

I just don't feel like butchering innocent people to achieve my own grandiose purposes for the rest of the human race. How about you? Would you trade the lives of a few thousand here and there in the name of humanity or religion?

-"your latest holy crusade"
Wow, this is my crusade! Cool! Amazing, since I never asked for it or even expressed support. Apparently saying that we should be concerned about others' stavation is a blanket endorsement of Bush's foreign policy.

Bush's foreign policy? I wasn't aware that Bush had a foreign policy - other than intimidation. If you don't like the idea of people starving, then by all means, get up off your a$$ and go feed them - instead of pissing and moaning about it here.

You really must develop a thicker skin if your going to participate in open debate. I suggest you pretend you're a Democrat and listen to Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. That'll toughen you up in no time!



- ScipittyO

[David Floyd]

Ramo, I'm a Libertarian, but one who also believes in things such as national sovereignty. Additionally, I'm opposed to the part of Libertarianism that advocates totally open borders for anyone.

n.c.,

Well, OK, so I have learned a bit about that sort of thing. I'll admit that you were probably right

That is one of the scariest quotes I've seen on Apolyton. How is it that you are also a nice, polite guy?

Thanks, I think

Seriously, my beliefs are sorta scary - that's why I'd never let my friends or, worse, any girlfriend see Apolyton, they'd probably run screaming. I assure you I don't go around spouting that in real life - I WANT friends, you see

[Hans2]

Originally posted by David Floyd Seriously, my beliefs are sorta scary - that's why I'd never let my friends or, worse, any girlfriend see Apolyton, they'd probably run screaming. I assure you I don't go around spouting that in real life - I WANT friends, you see

If you cannot openly discuss your political opinions among your friends and family without fear of alienating them perhaps you should re-examine your beliefs.

[Berzerker]

Victor -

gun control can wait until this threat to civil liberties has passed. I'm decidedly worried that the US will become a police state before too long.

Owning a gun is not a civil liberty? And just how do you propose to get the guns from millions of Americans (and keep them away in the future) without a police state?

I support reasonable exchanges of liberty for security, not mass surrender of civil liberties that don't return **** in terms of security.

Gee, do we all get to throw out a few rights/freedoms whenever each of us decides it's a reasonable exchange? Or did you make this statement believing only you will get to make these decisions?
And you don't think the private ownership of guns creates a "return" in terms of security? Then why are so many genocides preceded by this "exchange" of liberty (gun ownership) for security (banning guns)?

I'm not pro-civil liberties. I'm anti-stupidity. Surrendering a mass of civil liberties is stupid. Hence my opposition.

Disarm the general population and you take the first step toward surrendering all civil liberties. But if we all got to do what you are claiming for yourself - the authority to surrender rights you don't care for - then we'd be surrendering "a mass of civil liberties".

nc -

Only a libertarian can point out how the war (and foreign policy in general) is overly influenced by oil and not mention alternative energy or conservation. I suppose strictly narrow-minded dogma has always been a barrier to logical connections

Maybe Mr. Paul doesn't believe it's the government's role to develop alternative fuel sources or impose "conservation" on us, those are leftist ideas - central planners. I'm sure he wouldn't want the government to make it illegal for you to invent other fuel sources or make a conscience effort to use less water. Besides, his speech was about the war, not about electric cars and turning down the lights. Or did you miss that "logical connection"?

There is a reason why it is the business for those of us who are human. Think about it

So you would force other human beings to pay for and die fighting this/your war so others won't starve and anyone who doesn't support your endeavor is not human? Yeah, others must go and die in a war half way around the world because you are "human".

Wow, this is my crusade! Cool!

Good comeback. I'd characterize a desire to force others to die for your "morality" as a crusade.

Scipio Centaurus- You have no idea who the fvck I am or what I think

You're an a$$hole.

That we are overly dependant on foreign oil? Yeah, those two points are inconvenient, oops, not sufficiently related.

I'm sure Mr Paul supports drilling in Anwar and coastal areas as well as nuclear power, do you? If not, then stop complaining about him not mentioning alternative sources of oil/power. But if he started talking about these things, some liberal (maybe even you) would have complained that he was using this current situation to push his capitalist agenda to benefit big business.

Sorry to bother you with others starvation. Did this degree of caring and compassion come from one of your periods of deep introspection?

Maybe it was one of those periods of deep introspection that led Scipio to the realization that "caring and compassion" doesn't include using violence or the threat thereof to force others to die for his causes. If you care so much, why are you sitting at a computer instead of heading to Afghanistan to help?

Amazing, since I never asked for it or even expressed support. Apparently saying that we should be concerned about others' stavation is a blanket endorsement of Bush's foreign policy.

No one ever said you supported Bush's "blanket policy", only that you supported a war to get rid of the Taliban and to feed the Afghans. Let me see if I can remember your exact words from a previous thread: "Some enemies are worth having".

Ramo -

Why is it wrong? A state doesn't have rights, people have rights

It's wrong because you and I don't have the right to force other people to fight wars we might like.

The rights of the people trump the rights of the state. How can you be a libertarian and disagree?

You have the right to not fight my fights. The fight must precede or coincide with the food deliveries over there, and we wouldn't be having this discussion about starvation if not for the terrorist' attacks and "our" response.

Among other reasons, our bombs are what have caused the Taliban to repress civil liberties so much these past months, exacerberating the problem by quite a bit.

Huh? We've been bombing for less than a month and as we have bombed and the NA has taken ground, fewer Afghans are under the Taliban's rules. Hell, the Taliban is almost destroyed as far as their ability to repress anyone.

Scipio -

"Anyone who disagrees with me on this issue, must solve all of the worlds problems before attempting to voice dissent."

The discussion of alternative energy and conservation are subjects deserving of debate in their own right, but they would have simply clouded the salient points of Ron Paul's speech. Focus.

NC would rather expose his nastiness by taking another cheap shot at a libertarian. Notice how he didn't complain about what was in the speech, rather what he felt should have been in the speech?

Then solve it in a humane and business-like fashion, so you don't disturb the rest of us who aren't interested in being dragged along on your latest holy crusade that will cost thousands of innocents their lives.

But we wouldn't be "human" if we didn't send others to their death.

Sure I do. You just posted your thoughts on an open forum

I'm afraid I do, since you just posted your viewpoint. Or were you trying to bait us with misleading statements?

Funny that you would have to point out these logical connections to someone who accused Mr Paul/libertarians of being to stupid to see them. Very nice job Hope you hang around...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
It would start locking up international aid workers if 9/11 didn't happen?

Yes, they would. They started locking them up before 9-11.

Berzerker, et al.: We are, sadly, going to be forced to have some limted involvement in this region after the conflict is over in order to keep it from sliding into the morass of anarchy that allowed the conditions for the rise of the Taliban from happening again. I'm not happy about it but that is the way I see the situation.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Scipio Centaurus
Nor do I care...

You cared enough to comment (but apparently not enough to defend those comments).

-"You just posted your thoughts on an open forum."
-"I'm afraid I do, since you just posted your viewpoint."
And you inaccurately characterized me as a result.

-"Wouldn't be the first time, would it?"
For what? Your being wrong about something? I'm certain that it is not.

-"Or were you trying to bait us with misleading statements?"
That would be you.

-"You just accused me of not being able to think."
So your libertarianism has made you as narrow-minded and dogmatic as Rep. Paul? Too bad. (Or perhaps you didn't actually catch the context of my comments? Oops!)

-"you're emotionally retarded. It's working, BTW."
More name-calling. The pathetic cry of the defeated.

-"Paul is trying to tell us we're too dependent on foreign oil?"
So it was no part of his comments? Interesting.

-"Irrelevant, as best I can tell..."
Nope, just you being wrong again.

-"is a flawed human being?"
Well, if that's how you want to describe people who don't care about others' starvation I won't make much effort to debate you. I would have said callous, but the two descriptions are arguably similar.

-"Would you trade the lives of a few thousand . . . ."
Try asking a non-loaded, specific question and I will try to answer.

-"I wasn't aware that Bush had a foreign policy - other than intimidation."
I almost agree with that statement.

-"instead of pissing and moaning about it here."
More of you knowing all about who I am and what I do. Amazing.

-"You really must develop a thicker skin"
This from the guy who personally attacked me for critisizing a congressman.

I know you like to think of yourself as a thoughtful adult, and you are making good progress. Just don't think you are there yet.

DF- "Thanks, I think"
Well, it was at least 1/2 a compliment.

Berz- "did you miss that 'logical connection'?"
I saw one that appartently others did not.

-"others must go and die in a war half way around the world"
-"Good comeback."
-"doesn't include using violence or the threat thereof"
-"if we didn't send others to their death"
Look, all I said was that people should care about others' starving. You and SC have taken that radical notion and assumed that I want to take all types of action. Please stick to what I actually said.

-"not mentioning alternative sources of oil/power"
He can say whatever he likes. I just think that someone with a less dogmatic view would have said more.

-"some liberal (maybe even you) would have complained"
Are you suggesting he would care what we liberal say and adusted his comments accordingly?

-"expose his nastiness"
That's ironic coming from you.

-"Notice how he didn't complain about what was in the speech"
I actually support a lot of what was in the speech. Had I know how sensitive you guys are I would have started out with a few examples. I'll try to be more careful about your feelings in the future.

DinoDoc- Now you've stepped in it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ramo
AFAIK, the war is about getting as much as aid as possible to the Afghan people. Now that the attack has begun, the Red Cross and other charity organizations certainly aren't going to be let into Taliban territory.

Since when? The war was never about feeding the refugees and was always about revenge. Food distribution didn't stop because of Taliban repression, but because the charity organizations were afraid of their convoys getting bombed. Have we forgotten so soon that the US bombed the Red Cross food warehouses in Kabul? The Taleban were stealing food from the warehouses, but not all of it.

But I didn't even know of the plan to hand over Kurdish lands in Iraq to the Turks. I can't say it surprises me, though. Is there a place with more comprehensive information about the Rumsfield's plan?

Yikes. So we screw the Kurds again. This administration is pure evil.

[Scipio Centaurus]

Originally posted by Hans2

If you cannot openly discuss your political opinions among your friends and family without fear of alienating them perhaps you should re-examine your beliefs.

Or perhaps you should re-examine your friends and family?

[Richard Bruns]

I read the entire speech, and with one exception, I agree with everything in there. I would definitely recommend it. Even if you do not agree with it, it is a very articulate and thorough defense of the libertarian viewpoint as it applies to the current situation, and well worth your time. A lot of these points mirror what many on Apolyton have been saying for a long time. The only way that the terrorists can truly win is to goad us into outbursts of blind rage and cause our government to erase civil liberties.

However, his presumption that we entered into this war to build an oil pipeline is simply foolish. The amount of oil from such a pipeline would be negligible. National security planners wouldn't put this much effort into it. As for oil companies, they have very little power. The idea of them dictating policy such as this is laughable. If they were really these all-powerful entities with secret plans rivalling the Iluuminati's, why can't they manage to build a few wells in Alaska?

The current administration's policy has been to reduce dependence on foreign oil and develop domestic production from places like ANWAR. If you truly believe that this war was fought to obtain oil, you must blame the opponents of ANWAR drilling for forcing us to get oil from abroad.

Also remember that the USA only gets about 10% of its oil from the Middle East, while Europe gets almost all of its oil from there. If all this was about oil, why isn't Europe fighting more than we are?

I am very curious about the comments about reinstating the draft. I have not heard of anyone, anywhere seriously recommending it. Yet the speaker feels compelled to argue against people who support it. Has anyone else heard of someone truly supporting the draft?

Now a few minor points:

"After all, someone middle aged owes a lot more to his country than an 18-year old." Gotta love that line. I must remember it.

Originally posted by Ramo
I didn't support the start of the war principally because there wasn't a viable alternative. After all, the NA is nothing more than a bunch of murdering thugs, marginally better than the Taliban.

Actually, the northern alliance is and always has been the government of Afghanistan that was officially recognised by the United Nations. The USA was not making a unilateral decision in supporting them; we were acting in accordance to official UN policy.

n.c., what happened to the intelligent and mature debator that used to be on Apolyton? First you call the speaker a narrow-minded fool for not adding irrelevent material in his speech, and then you toss insults about at random. I miss the person who was so coherent and articulate in threads like the affirmative action debate.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
The current administration's policy has been to reduce dependence on foreign oil and develop domestic production from places like ANWAR.

Where is the consumption side of reduced dependance? What about alt. energy? GWB has essentially ignored these. ANWAR cannot begun to replace the Gulf even if wildly successful.

First you call the speaker a narrow-minded fool for not adding irrelevent material in his speech

I did not say or even imply that he is a "fool". Yes I think some strident libertarians are narrow-minded and dogmatic. Why is that so terrible? edit: Do you not feel that way about any group? Does it matter that I think this is a phenomenon of most ideologies? Should I have to use these qualifiers each time?

-"you toss insults about at random."
For example? Seriously! The worst are in response to others, and mild by comparison. edit: Any words for them?

-"so coherent and articulate"
Which part was incoherent or inarticulate?

This is really out of left field.