A Voice of Reason Rises Above the Hysteria

[Shi Huangdi]

"Paul didn't say they were sympathetic to bin Laden, he said Pakistan and Saudi Arabia sponsored the creation of the Taliban"

From the Transcript

The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with bin Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government of Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan? Probably not much.

"That's the price an imperialistic nation pays when they choose the losing side in a world war."

The Ottomans had little choice excpet their course of action. Russia was pressign against their borders, and Germany was one of the key nations that wouldn't tolerate a Russian-held Dardanelles. Had Russia went ahead and beat Germany, they would likely have next gone for Constantinople. Their move was a defensive action. But in any case, Mosul is Turkish land, so it is more legitmate returning it to them if we had to take over Iraq.

"They took an oath to defend this country in accordance with the Constitution - the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war, it hasn't since WWII."

The Congress declared war on terrorism.


And in any case, it's well known now that the US doesn't always use Declerations of War, so you'd have to be pretty stupid to join the military and not expect you could be sent into action without a DOW issued.

[Ramo]

Keep in mind that Mosul is a part of the Turkey proper that they were forces to give up in WWI.

I missed this. Do you realize what has been done to the Kurds? Does perhaps the worst genocide in the past decade mean anything to you?

So Turkey deserves a shot at wiping out more Kurds because it formerly was able to steal from their ancestors?

You support the war, the people fighting the war are forced to fight it. Yes, they volunteered, but they volunteered to defend this country in accordance with the Constitution. Congress did not declare war...

Well, I supported a declaration of war, rather than a War Powers Resolution... And the scope of this particular war I advocate isn't outside the intended bounds by Congress.

So? Taliban repression has only decreased, not increased.

No, the area in which the Taliban has authority has decreased. For the people under Taliban control, repression has increased.

The Taliban were imprisoning people for bringing food?

Yep.

Not true, prosecuting murderers is a delegated power, but not one that requires the initiation of force.

I take issue with the delegation of authoritarian powers to the states.

[Berzerker]

DinoDoc -

What did the Saudis have to do with creating the Taliban?

It's my understanding that the Iranians were backing the NA and their predecessors while the Pakistanis and Saudis wanted an Afghan government more suitable to their needs - hence the insertion and takeover by the Taliban. The Saudis and Pakistanis are not too friendly with the Iranians and did not want a pro-Iran government in Afghanistan.

I don't understand what you mean here

We are blaming the Taliban for bin Laden and his network, but Pakistan and Saudi Arabia set up the Taliban so shouldn't those governments share the blame?

A war powers delclaration is just that, an act of congress stating that hostilities exist and that WAR POWERS (under the constitution) now exist. There is no prescribed form or style for a declaration of war in the constituion, it is what the congress says it is. - Lefty Scaevola

There is no "war powers" provision in the Constitution, only the congressional power to declare war with the President serving as the officer in charge once war has been declared. Lefty is quoting from the War Powers Act of 1933?, not the Constitution.

Every murderer has a motive, Berz

This all happened because we are screwing with people in other countries. If we keep screwing with them, they will screw with us. I consider that "motive" very important if we are to prevent future attacks. If "we" dont and want to continue screwing with people in other countries, more Americans will be murdered. If we stop screwing with people in other countries, we greatly reduce the motive of people in those countries to screw with us. You may not think that is important, but I do. I just wish the Democans would acknowledge that they have decided to sacrifice the lives of some Americans to pursue their foreign policies.

If I shoot at you and hit your child, are you now justified in shooting my child? No, but if you do, I can hardly blame you without acknowledging that my actions led to the tragedy.

nc -

With the execption of ANWAR that would have been a minor improvement. I still would have remarked on conservation

And I still think it is petty of you to complain about Paul not including your agenda in his speech. If you had given his speech and included your comments, there would be conservatives complaining about how you were using the war to push your political agenda and that would have detracted from the rest of the speech.

Where? Not in the context of the Afganistan discussion

Geez, don't you read my posts? I'm not going to keep repeating what I've already said.

Yeah boy it was a harsh one

"Harsh" or not, don't expect to get away with insulting people.

Given your extreme sensitivity to my comments (not shared by others here) I'm not surprised you took it that way

So when you pop into a thread to insult people, they are too sensitive for responding, but when you respond to retaliatory insults, you aren't? You're a hypocrite! As for me being the only one, here is what others have said in response to your insults:

Scipio - 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.

Scipio - 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.

Scipio - 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!

I guess he thinks you were a bit "sensitive".

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

Gee, I guess so.

Richard - 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.

Generally, "fool" is a synonym for a narrow-minded dogmatic person who is incapable of making logical connections. You sort of implied that all libertarians are narrow-minded dogmatic people who are incapable of making logical connections, i.e. fools.

Imran - SC: For some reason, n.c. seems to have a BIG chip on his shoulder about Libertarians. He seems to think that most of them are narrow-minded and dogmatic (from what I can see from his posts).

As you can see, other have condemned his throwing around of insults, so best to ignore him.

That's 4 people who took your comments as insulting, not me alone.

That's funny!

And not a rebuttal either.

I didn't realize it was necessary

Or maybe because you didn't want to admit you agreed with alot of what he said while accusing him of being narrow-minded and dogmatic?

No, just back up your characterizations of what I've said. I'm not holding my breath.

I have.

Shi Huangdi -

From the Transcript

Oops, my mistake. But in all fairness to Mr Paul, where is your proof that the Taliban and/or bin Laden were trying to overthrow
the Pakistani and Saudi governments? After deciding to "help" us, the Pakistani dictator purged his government and military of pro-Taliban people, but not before it became clear to him his future was in jeopardy if he didn't play ball with us. And where are the assassinations of Saudi royal family members and officials? Where are the bombings of Saudi government/royalty buildings? If bin Laden was really trying to overthrow the Saudi royal family, I haven't seen the proof. Much of his money comes from rich Saudis...

But in any case, Mosul is Turkish land, so it is more legitmate returning it to them if we had to take over Iraq.

Not more legitimate than returning the land to the people who actually live there.

The Congress declared war on terrorism

No, they passed a "resolution".

And in any case, it's well known now that the US doesn't always use Declerations of War, so you'd have to be pretty stupid to join the military and not expect you could be sent into action without a DOW issued.

True, and irrelevant. They took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not violate it by fighting illegal wars.

Ramo -

Well, I supported a declaration of war, rather than a War Powers Resolution... And the scope of this particular war I advocate isn't outside the intended bounds by Congress.

But the Congress did not declare war so supporting the war means forcing those in the military to fight it even if they volunteered. And I don't know what particular war you "advocate".

No, the area in which the Taliban has authority has decreased. For the people under Taliban control, repression has increased.

Overall, Taliban repression has decreased significantly. But I'll accept without proof that repression has increased in those areas they do have some control.

Yep.

Any proof?

I take issue with the delegation of authoritarian powers to the states

Do you take issue with defending yourself from a would-be murderer? The state (in a libertarian system) is nothing more than the individual's proxy. The state can try to help you defend yourself from the murderer and to punish the murderer if he succeeds and you are no longer capable of punishing him yourself. Is that an improper delegation of power? If so, why?

[Wraith]

--"I believe that Ramo was refering to a State not a state"

Hm. That's what happens when you skim a thread late at night. Oh well. Been involved in too many Constitution related debates.

Wraith
Freedom of speech is wonderful - right up there with the freedom not to listen

[n.c.]

-"I still think it is petty of you to complain about Paul not including your agenda in his speech."
Okay.

-"there would be conservatives complaining"
Probably.

-"don't you read my posts?"
I read a reference to "some enemies are worth having," which are my words but I am almost certain from a different context. (Which, btw, I have said on this thread already.)

-"they are too sensitive for responding"
That was my guess as to the reason for the nature of the responses. I now think it was the result of a miscommunication. However, I realize that in your world that doesn't happen: it's always me being nefarious.

-"I guess he thinks"
I don't think we know what he thinks, other than the remark about how nothing I said was a personal insult. Other than that he has had little to say.

-"That's 4 people"
[edit for my difficulties with counting ] Given Richard's other remarks about me (and possibly you) I'm surprised to see him quoted at all. Of course Imran jumped in: he hates me almost as much as you do. And we have Scipio:

I actually haven't counted anything he's said as a personal insult so far.

-"And not a rebuttal either."
Your remark was such a gross distortion of my statement what I didn't know where to begin. I also realize there is no point in trying.

-"you didn't want to admit you agreed with alot of what he said"
Hmmm, perhaps someone else was using my login when I clearly stated that I agree with alot of what he said? Or maybe it would be easier for some here if I didn't?

[Berzerker]

nc -

-"there would be conservatives complaining"

Probably.

Which is a good reason to avoid adding peripheral political agendas here at home to a speech about the war and it's impact on our freedoms.

I read a reference to "some enemies are worth having," which are my words but I am almost certain from a different context. (Which, btw, I have said on this thread already.)

The context was exactly the same. We were (and are) debating the validity of creating enemies and forcing others to go and fight them while other people are targeted by terrorists. Given the fact you already denied having the debate (you left in August ), declaring the context to be different is problematic given your memory.

That was my guess as to the reason for the nature of the responses. I now think it was the result of a miscommunication. However, I realize that in your world that doesn't happen: it's always me being nefarious.

You opened with a post insulting libertarians based on one man's speech. How did you mis-communicate your intent? Were those of us you were insulting being nefarious for responding?

I don't think we know what he thinks, other than the remark about how nothing I said was a personal insult. Other than that he has had little to say.

So when Scipio advised you to develop a thicker skin, he wasn't suggesting you were thin-skinned, i.e., overly sensitive? And if he said nothing from you was a personal insult, then he can explain why he said this:

Scipio - 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.

-"That's 4 people"

[edit for my difficulties with counting ] Given Richard's other remarks about me (and possibly you) I'm surprised to see him quoted at all. Of course Imran jumped in: he hates me almost as much as you do. And we have Scipio:

Why are you surprised? You claimed I was the only one who viewed your comments as insults. I proved you wrong by quoting 3 other people. Rationalizing why they also viewed your comments as insults is irrelevant to your claim and my rebuttal. As for "hating" you, that word is far too strong. I hate murderers and the like while disliking some of your debating tactics.

Your remark was such a gross distortion of my statement what I didn't know where to begin. I also realize there is no point in trying.

Here is what you said to DF and anyone who agrees with him:

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

I said you accused others of being inhuman and you did, no "gross distortion" of your words.

-"you didn't want to admit you agreed with alot of what he said"

Hmmm, perhaps someone else was using my login when I clearly stated that I agree with alot of what he said? Or maybe it would be easier for some here if I didn't?

Your failure to quote my entire sentence has distorted my point, here is what I said:

Or maybe because you didn't want to admit you agreed with alot of what he said while accusing him of being narrow-minded and dogmatic?

You didn't offer your support for any of his speech until long after your opening post -an opening post in which you accused the man (and libertarians) of being narrow-minded and dogmatic. If you had admitted your approval of much of what he said, it would have detracted from your intent of insulting him and left others wondering why you agreed so much with a narrow-minded, dogmatic libertarian.

[Scipio Centaurus]

Originally posted by Scipio Centaurus
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... You just accused me of not being able to think...

I characterize this as an indirect insult [see the 'Favorite Libertarian Poster' thread. It should be clear from the full context of my reply, that I am using an editorial 'me' in the last sentence.

- Scipio

PS. Still waiting for n.c. to comment on the actual content of the speech... >twiddles thumbs<

[Ramo]

But the Congress did not declare war so supporting the war means forcing those in the military to fight it even if they volunteered. And I don't know what particular war you "advocate".

1. A War Powers Resolution is functionally equivalent to a declaration of war.

2. Although the War Powers Resolution gave Shrub a little more discretion than I care for, the war is operating within the bounds of the intent of Congress. Do you believe Congress didn't intend for war against the Taliban? Do you think Congress would vote against a dow against the Taliban if it came up? If not, don't you think you're being a wee bit pedantic?

Any proof?

From the CNN archives:

http://asia.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/11/13/gen.afghanistan.aidworkers/index.html

"The trial of the eight aid workers had just begun when the U.S.-led military campaign was launched against the Taliban for sheltering Osama bin Laden, blamed for the suicide-hijacking attacks in the United States that killed more than 4,000 people."

Do you take issue with defending yourself from a would-be murderer? The state (in a libertarian system) is nothing more than the individual's proxy. The state can try to help you defend yourself from the murderer and to punish the murderer if he succeeds and you are no longer capable of punishing him yourself. Is that an improper delegation of power? If so, why?

I was referring to authoritarian measures by the state, not libertarian ones.

[David Floyd]

From the CNN archives:

http://asia.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asia...kers/index.html

"The trial of the eight aid workers had just begun when the U.S.-led military campaign was launched against the Taliban for sheltering Osama bin Laden, blamed for the suicide-hijacking attacks in the United States that killed more than 4,000 people."

Just to interject a bit, I'd hardly call CNN unbiased proof - say hello to the Communist News Network

[n.c.]

B- "Which is a good reason"
Perhaps. I doubt it was his reason.

-"you already denied having the debate (you left in August"
Well, I don't know how I engaged in a debate while absent. (Again, to the best of my recollection I was not here during the bombing.) edit This makes it hard to see where I called for a war to feed starving Afgans.

Furthermore, the "enemies worth having" statement doesn't address humanitarian needs. In the past your memory has often been better than mine, but I think it failed you here. Finally, I think it would be a very rare case, if ever, where we should go to war only to stop starvation; I don't know if Afganistan would've qualified. end edit

-"How did you mis-communicate your intent?"
I said there was a misunderstanding, which I would be glad to explain if I thought you actually cared.

-"he wasn't suggesting you were thin-skinned"
He certainly was. However, we were discussing his thoughts on an entirely different matter (the nature of my comments).

-"Why are you surprised?"
I guess you didn't get what he said.

-"You claimed I was the only one who viewed your comments as insults. I proved you wrong"
I believe I said that your sensitivty to my comments is not shared by others. There are important differences that you would not chose to see.

-"anyone who agrees with him"
Really? I don't recall saying that.

-"you accused others of being inhuman"
Since his being human is a given (some people here got that part), I merely said that is a reason he should care. edit In other words, I called on his humanity in an attempt to persuade.

But here is the most important fact: I was directly resonding to him. Not surprisingly, given the benefit of our long standing context, he understood exactly what I was saying. Therefore I shouldn't have to explain anything about our exchange to you or anyone else.

You, on the other hand, jumped in and made it about Berzerker. Not surprisingly, given a very different context (and that I was responding to someone else), you didn't understood what I was saying. But that wasn't all- you went on to twist my words into their worst possible meaning. end edit

-"it would have detracted from your intent of insulting him"
Really? I think it would have helped my case.

Originally posted by Scipio Centaurus
Still waiting for n.c. to comment on the actual content of the speech...

You are waiting on me to comment on something? Perhaps if I waded back to page 1, past many unanswered questions/comments from me, I could find exactly what you mean.

[Ramo]

Riiight, DF. Get that from Newsmax?

[Shi Huangdi]

"Where are the bombings of Saudi government/royalty buildings"

The Saudis are helping us, letting us an airbase against the Taliban.

"If bin Laden was really trying to overthrow the Saudi royal family, I haven't seen the proof."

Bin Laden hates the Saudi royals because they allow infidel soldiers in their land. He is an exile from that country for a reason.

"

Not more legitimate than returning the land to the people who actually live there."

Yes but if we set Mosul free they would help Turkish Kurds rebel, thus re-igniting a civil war.

"

No, they passed a "resolution"."

Well, the thing is we can't declare war on the Taliban, because officaly, they don't exist. You can only declare war on countries that you recognize. We have always recognized the head of the Northern Alliance as the head of his country, and our troops are there with their consent. So a DOW in this case would be both impossible and un-needed.

[Ramo]

Yes but if we set Mosul free they would help Turkish Kurds rebel, thus re-igniting a civil war.

If the Kurds want to throw off the yoke of Turkish oppression, more power to them.

I don't see how more genocide could possibly be considered preferable to civil war by any means.

[Berzerker]

nc -

Perhaps. I doubt it was his reason.

Maybe, maybe not, but any good speaker will make a conscious effort to limit his comments to the issue at hand and not peripherals that can only serve as distractions.

Well, I don't know how I engaged in a debate while absent. (Again, to the best of my recollection I was not here during the bombing.)

It's possible we were debating the Taliban before the attacks, but given their impact, it's much more likely the debate occured after the Taliban became so newsworthy.

I said there was a misunderstanding, which I would be glad to explain if I thought you actually cared.

And this means you did not intend to insult libertarians based on your "critique" of what Mr Paul failed to mention in his speech? You didn't say Mr Paul was narrow-minded and dogmatic for omitting your domestic agenda, you said only a libertarian would be so narrow-minded and dogmatic. I'd love to hear you explain this "misunderstanding".

He certainly was. However, we were discussing his thoughts on an entirely different matter

So what? Thin-skinned is thin-skinned.

I guess you didn't get what he said.

I quoted a rather lengthy criticism of how you had dis-appointed him. I did so to show I was not the only one who viewed your comments as insulting. Was I to quote other parts of his post that had nothing to do with my rebuttal of your claim? Given the length of his criticism of you in proportion to his posts, I wonder why you aren't calling him too sensitive. Yeah, I wonder...

I believe I said that your sensitivty to my comments is not shared by others. There are important differences that you would not chose to see.

This is what you said in response to my claim that your insult was a "blanket condemnation" of libertarians:

Given your extreme sensitivity to my comments (not shared by others here) I'm not surprised you took it that way

Imran, Scipio and I all took your insult as a blanket condemnation of libertarians. Only you are the one who seems to think otherwise, go figure...

And here is what one of your fans had to say about your behavior:

Richard - 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.

Is he overly sensitive or do you apply that insult only to me because I'm the one still here holding your feet to the fire? I see right through your BS.

Really? I don't recall saying that.

If you say a person is inhuman for believing A = A, then it doesn't take a genius to figure out that your comment applies to all people who believe A = A.

Since his being human is a given (some people here got that part), I merely said that is a reason he should care.

Duh! We all know you meant this as an insult and not scientific fact. And some of us could also figure out you were insulting him and anyone who agrees with him (the part you cannot figure out).

Really? I think it would have helped my case.

"This guy is narrow-minded and dogmatic. Oh, btw, I agree with him". Yeah, that's what you meant to say.

[n.c.]

it's much more likely the debate occured after the Taliban became so newsworthy.

Could be. It's just that I barely think what you accused me of saying, which is the main reason I doubted saying it.

-"I'd love to hear you explain this 'misunderstanding'."
I meant "some" Ls (which I thought was implied), you assumed "all" (perhaps because of your attitude towards me).

-"Thin-skinned is thin-skinned."
Yes it is, but I never meant we were in doubt as to his thoughts on this, since I we were discussing something else.

-"Was I to quote other parts of his post"
-"Is he overly sensitive"
Let's just say I was flattered by his overall message, and if I were you or SC I would be asking him a question or two. However, I have no wish to drag him into our sad litte dust-up.

-"all took your insult as a blanket condemnation"
Indeed. But I never said you were the only one to do so. I said you are uniquly sensitive to my comments, a phenomenon that pre-dates this thread.

-"your feet to the fire?"
Don't flatter yourself.

-"I see right through your BS."
If you even wanted to understand what I'm saying we'd be long done by now.

-"If you say a person is inhuman"
Of course that is an "if" that isn't true.

-"all know you meant this as an insult and not scientific fact."
It was niether, but I've explained that and more to no avail.

-"that's what you meant to say."
That's what Idid say.