A Voice of Reason Rises Above the Hysteria

[Ramo]

Am I to understand that you think we bombed Afghanistan in order to insure that we could provide aid to the citizens who are starving as a result of the bombings?

Aside from the fact that assertion makes no sense to me, I thought, the 'offical' reason we attacked Afghanistan was because The Taliban government refused to hand over Osam Bin-Laden... However, after reading parts of Ron Paul's speech, that explanation has come into question...

I never said that. If you re-read my post, I added the qualifier AFAIK - as far as I'm concerned, before the so-called "assertion."

[Aside: there is a Muslim version of the Red Cross]. Many humanitarian groups were operating [at varying levels of inefficiency, admittedly] inside Afghanistan prior to our assault.

(bold added)
Again, re-read my posts.

It would be naive for anyone to assume that governments in the western world do not actively make 'plans' for lands not currently under their control... and vice-versa.

I never said I didn't know there was a plan about Iraq. I said I didn't know the specifics of the plan.

[David Floyd]

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

"Those who would give up a little necessary safety for some temporary security deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

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

Ah, you're not still sore over those Amerindian debates are ya?

Anyway, starving people in Afghanistan is no more the business of the United States than, say, the Holocaust was. Sure, we can morally condemn it, but going into a country to stop it without permission is wrong, too.

[Ramo]

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

[David Floyd]

Incorrect. There is such a thing as national sovereignty. That is, the United States has no business to go into another nation to right the wrongs it decides are being committed.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why is it wrong? A state doesn't have rights, people have rights.

yes and no

(too lazy to elaborate. Use imagination)

[Ramo]

Incorrect. There is such a thing as national sovereignty. That is, the United States has no business to go into another nation to right the wrongs it decides are being committed.

National sovereignty is bull****. The rights of the people trump the rights of the state. How can you be a libertarian and disagree?

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Ramo


National sovereignty is bull****. The rights of the people trump the rights of the state. How can you be a libertarian and disagree?

Since when? "Human Rights" are nothing. 1/3 of the world recognizes them. That is how Sovereignty trumps it. (not that it should)

We cant exactly enfore these things.

[Scipio Centaurus]

Originally posted by Ramo
I never said that. If you re-read my post, I added the qualifier AFAIK - as far as I'm concerned, before the so-called "assertion."

I'm sorry, but I just find it very difficult to believe that you [apparantly] still think we bombed Afghanistan in order to ensure that we could provide them aid. Is this still your claim?

(bold added)
Again, re-read my posts.

Re-read 3 times... same conclusion reached 3 times.

I never said I didn't know there was a plan about Iraq. I said I didn't know the specifics of the plan.

I was just making a rhetorical response.

[Ramo]

I'm sorry, but I just find it very difficult to believe that you [apparantly] still think we bombed Afghanistan in order to ensure that we could provide them aid. Is this still your claim?

I, I support the war to prevent mass-starvation.

Re-read 3 times... same conclusion reached 3 times.

I said:
Now that the attack has begun, the Red Cross and other charity organizations certainly aren't going to be let into Taliban territory. It needs to be under Allied control if we're going to prevent the starvation of millions of Afghans.

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.

You said:
[Aside: there is a Muslim version of the Red Cross]. Many humanitarian groups were operating [at varying levels of inefficiency, admittedly] inside Afghanistan prior to our assault.

(Again, bold added)

[n.c.]

Originally posted by David Floyd
you're not still sore over those Amerindian debates are ya?

Nope. You'll learn about the difference between fee simple title and easements one of these days.

Anyway, starving people in Afghanistan is no more the business of the United States than, say, the Holocaust was.

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

[Scipio Centaurus]

Originally posted by n.c.
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.

A typically narrow-minded statist viewpoint.

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

Try to think outside of the box for a change. It gives one an amazing sense of purpose to question one's own dogmatic views from time-to-time. I personally, have occupied much of the US political spectrum [Republican --> Democrat --> Libertarian] with each succesive change coming as a result of periods of deep introspection.

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.

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

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.

[DinoDoc]

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

[Scipio Centaurus]

Originally posted by Ramo
...I added the qualifier AFAIK - as far as I'm concerned, before the so-called "assertion."

OK. Here's the problem, I think. You said AFAIK means "as far as I'm concerned", but it actually means "as far as I know". A subtle, but crucial distinction. So what you are saying is you disagreed with our initiating hostilities in Afghanistan, but once things reached the point where Afghan citizens were faced with imminent starvation, you believe we now have no choice but to continue the assault until we control the region?

I don't necessarily agree that the 'Alliance' must wind up in control to stave off Afghan starvation. Many International aid organizations would move in regardless of who eventually controls the area. But on the whole, it would probably be best if the situation were completely resolved before winter sets in. And that is most likely if the USA finishes what it started, so I'll concede the point.

- Scipio

[Ramo]

I've always been under the impression that "k" stood for concerned. I suppose "know" makes more sense.

But yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[n.c.]

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

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

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

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

-"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.

-"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.

-"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?

-"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.