You might be a neocon

Post Reply New Topic

1. That the USSR sucked was why they couldn't match our defense spending, and spend themselves into the ground, among other things. They were teetering on the edge, and Reagan pushed them over.

2. I don't think the GWOT was ever about making the US look good, and I don't think it ever will. But it is making a lot of Muslims think about whether the whole terrorist thing is good. They send money to a Shiite group to kill Sunnis and Americans, but when the bomb they funded kills a bunch of Shiites at a market, they get annoyed. I think getting rid of fundamentalist gov't isn't a bad idea, but I don't think war is the best way to do it.

2B. As for the casualty numbers, since no one will ever be able to say how many people we would have lost to terrorist attacks on our soil, I won't be able to refute your argument. I will say, however, that by killing terrorists over there, and not over here, we saved American lives. And as I mentioned above, damaged the popular support for terroriss.

2C. Yes, I value the lives of an American more than I do foreigners. It's an extension of valuing the lives of my friends and family more than I do the people down the street. I'm not a warmonger, and I don't think killing people is a good thing, but I'd rather it happen somewhere else. I'm proud to be an American, and I stand by my country. Even if I don't like everything we've done.

3. The pot thing is my opinion, i've never seen a study in which they allowed a bunch of potheads access to heavy equipment. I've never been convinced of the GDP thing. Think about it, potheads aren't notorious for being industrious workers, would they really be working hard at getting degrees and making money, or would they be working minimum wage jobs to make enough to buy more pot? I think there would have to be a restriction on welfare that included drug tests. Which there really ought to be now.

3B. I know that for some potheads, it's a joint here and there at parties, and I don't mind that. However, it's the addicts that bother me. And since it would be legal, and since pot metabolites take so long to dissipate, a company would never be able to prove that the industrial accident that maimed someone was the result of a pre-work joint. I don't think it's a good idea, IMAO.

Well, they would have fallen over without Reagan. I mean, their system was doomed to failure.


I don't think that most Muslims are terrorists though, but rather a few extremist groups. Not only that, but still, I would think that the driving power behind terrorism would be a hatred of the west more than anything related to terrorism.


Well, the issue is that we weren't losing that many before. And hitting our troops in another nation is pretty much low-hanging fruit. Not only that, but 9/11 was an extreme instance, where 2,998 were killed and 6,291+ were injured. The casualties in Iraq have overall been worse though with 4,186 dead and 30,182 injured. I mean, you can say that the counterfactuals are unknown, but given that 9/11s generally weren't happening before this, it seems as if our actions in Iraq have been worse in terms of American deaths than 9/11. Not only that, but there are people who argue that terrorism has increased since the Iraq war. I mean, you can dodge this problem all you want by saying that there is the unseen, but a simple extrapolation seems to indicate that things are worse since then.


Aren't you the one who was defending Christianity earlier?

Matthew 5:46-47 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? (47) And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Rom 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Your self proclaimed religion stands outside of the nations.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

2 Timothy 2:4 No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.

And yet you speak of favoritism, you who have been told to carry a cross.

Luke 9:23-25 And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. (24) For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. (25) For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?

and to be persecuted by the whole of the world

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.

But you seek to let others, others with worse lives than you die for your sake?

Matthew 25:40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

To essentially openly become exactly what your teacher condemned??

Matthew 23:27-28 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. (28) So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! !!

You say that 91,059 – 99,431 deaths of poor Iraqi civilians is the equivalent of 2,998 American deaths? I mean, even granting that the Americans are innocent as well, this is almost the equivalent of saying that each American is 30-33 times as morally valuable as an Iraqi. Perhaps you will contest me, but I think my point is well-established.


Well, the issue is that most jobs don't allow people to work while intoxicated, so there is no reason why this would be worse than alcohol. As for the GDP thing, well, for one, the marijuana industry is already rather large, as 12.6 percent of the population have probably used it at least once in every given year. Another thing is that marijuana arrests reduce the GDP worse than a less productive worker would. Finally, I don't think that marijuana use would become massively popular given that large parts of society are disinclined to the use and given the fact that legal drugs are worse than marijuana.


Addicts? Cannabis is less addictive than alcohol or tobacco, wouldn't those be a bigger issue? Not only that, but an increase in industrial accidents seems a rather small price given the extensive damage to people's lives already done with the drug war, and the immense monetary waste in trying to track down drugs such as marijuana. I mean, I think your reasoning is outright flimsy and just a justification for the existing social order, and not much more than that.

A system doomed to failure can last for a very long time. Reagan simply hastened the end.

I don't think most Muslims are terrorists either. Al-Qaeda was funded the same way the IRA was, through the support of more moderate people who sympathized. If the only force behind terrorism was hatred of the west, wouldn't all of the terrorist attacks happen at or near US military personnel, not crowded markets?

Was WWII worth it? We lost 2345 people, then joined a war in which we lost 413,000 more. So by your justification, it was worse for us than not declaring war?

9/11 was PR victory for al-qaeda, increasing their support base. Your simple extrapolation states that we are worse than what? The counterfactuals? Perhaps we should have finished in Afghanistan first, but you do realize that a strictly military victory there would have required an invasion of Pakistan, right?

The beautiful thing about being an atheist must be the complete lack of hypocrisy, since they can always say that since they have no morality, they can't contradict it. Must be nice, to always hold the moral high ground, and never having to defend their actions.

Indeed I was defending Christianity, and indeed it does stand outside of nations. Should I let a man kill my sister because I'm a Christian? I'm not good with people, but if God calls me to, I will go do missionary work anywhere. I've donated to church mission trips, done a few myself to inner cities, and I have a friend who is almost done with a three-month trip to Lesotho.

You've lived my life? You've seen the times I've been mocked and forced out of jobs because I am open about my faith? No, I will not say I've been persecuted as badly as others, but it does happen. For example, just about everyone here is attacking my faith. Do I mind? Not really.

Does self-chosen servitude to God contradict my desire for war to happen elsewhere? I have three friends in the military, does that make me evil? I tried to join the military on multiple occasions because I feel I would rather die protecting that which I love. Frankly, if I could, I'd rather die fighting to protect people whose name I'd never be able to pronounce. But I can't. And since we're fighting an enemy whose stated goal is the slaughter of the unfaithful, when the enemy attacks his own supporters, he attacks himself.

"There is no greater love than a man laying down his life for his friends", and I would gladly do so. Does the fact that I don't want my family, friends, and country die make me evil? No, it makes me human. I've never claimed to be perfect, but I serve the one who is.

And you think that because I have some pride in my nation that you've seen enough of my life to speak to me about becoming exactly what my teacher condemned? you've read the story of my life, you know all the people I could have helped, but didn't? I can't help the Iraqis any more than I could have helped the victims of 9/11.

Did I say that an American life is worth 30-33 times as much as an Iraqi life? No. But I will say that I'd rather they died than my friends. An innocent man dying is an innocent man dying, it's always tragic. Apparently I'm a total a**hole for wanting it to be someone else.

I admit that I don't live up to Jesus' teachings. It's something I'll always try to do, and I'll always fall short. I'm a hypocrite in that I believe in things I don't always do, but I've never claimed otherwise, and I've never said I'm OK with it. Which makes me an honest hypocrite.

You can quote all the scripture (an impressive amount, IF you did all the research yourself)you want to condemn me, but you can't argue with the fact that I admit to it all. So you've attacked, and I've been honest, which leaves you where? Did you expect me to deny everything, and claim to be perfect? You underestimated me.

Well, the problem is that it would be technically rather difficult to prove whether or not someone was intoxicated, so it would be hard for a company to prove someone was stoned on the job. You might not mind industrial accidents, but what do you do for a living? I've worked freight, I've worked in factories, and now I'm involved in the transportation industry. Ok, so I work at a truck stop, but it's related. Point being, it would become a safety issue, and those are generally unacceptable.

If pot was legal, then every last person would pay taxes on it? You seriously believe that pot dealers are going to start filing for small business licenses, keeping records, and paying taxes? Or do you believe that if the gov't was the seller, that the pot dealers would give up dealing and go work at Jack in the Box?

HAHAHAHAHA

Ok, and at a cost of international debt.


Well, the issue is probably that the terrorist attacks are also towards the notion of a new government.


Well, by your logic, it wasn't. After all, we would have been better off by not getting involved, and fascism would have likely overstretched itself.


Perhaps, but I don't buy that. Yes, we are likely worse than the counterfactuals. Frankly, I am not in favor of the war on terror at all, so I don't really buy your argument.


Ok? That does not mean that you still aren't full of crap with your defense of something like that. In any case, the morality issue is dependent upon the atheist, for there are Kantians, and Utilitarians who both uphold an ethical code. You don't meet their standards either. In any case, a contradiction is a contradiction.


Umm..... at the cost of thousands upon thousands of lives???? Yeah.... it really appears to, especially given your ethical justification. I mean, you are explicitly saying, "I prefer those people over there to die", that's a major ethical problem for your belief system.


Openly espousing evil is a rather different claim than just being human. This isn't a matter of liking people, but rather liking them to the point you want lots of other people to die.


But intellectually being complicit in their deaths?? That's a much much different matter. That is an outright intellectual justification of evil.


You implied it, or you are ignorant of it. You would prefer 30-33 people in another country to die vs one of your friends? That seems to be a contradiction.


Hypocrisy is something that you can often blame your opponents for, as this gets out of the issue of having a false argument. So, honesty is an issue.


Not that big of an if. No, I don't have to argue with your admittance. It leaves me with an opponent I don't have to argue against on this matter to a large extent, as hypocrisy is hypocrisy. I didn't expect you to claim to be perfect though, I expected concession or another scriptural argument. For your talk of me underestimating you, you've only come to prove another part of your scripture.

Proverbs 26:12 Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Even a fool is more correctable than an open and unabashed hypocrite.


Well, ok. You could also make people in certain industries sign certain contracts that precluded certain drug-use, which would handle the same problem to a good extent, as hair keeps for 90 days, and blood for 2-3 days for marijuana use. The matter is trade-offs, and even safety isn't exempt from those at all. There is no notion of "perfectly safe", but rather the question is always one of safety vs other values, and to say that one particular industry will be somewhat less safe, despite having possible mechanisms to deal with the problem, and despite the large number of people who already suffer due to being arrested for possession, with numbers approaching in the hundreds of thousands per year. Somehow, I'd bet that any utilitarian calculation will favor marijuana legalization.


Strawman, actual businesses could enter the field as they enter any other field and benefit from higher quality, greater diversity of products as exist in areas where marijuana is legal, and people will go to places with greater transparency and perhaps even better economies of scale. Doesn't sound ridiculous when you put it this way. After all, legal alcohol put most moonshine creators and Canadian border-runners out of business didn't it? Why would marijuana be amazingly different?

My line, for you are still an absurd person.

Equal opportunity offender... I'd say fairly center...

Oh, wait, you said news source... okay, I guess you got me on that one...

First of all it is the war against Wahabite and Shi'ite Islam. Let us call it by its right name.

Second one can destroy ideology by force. The U.S. destroyed Shinto Emperor worship in Japan by burning Jap cities to the ground and nuking two large Jap cities. The Japs folded, and within a few years Emperor worship was no more.

You can kill any ideology by killing the people who follow it and never, ever let up. If it show up again, kill again. It is as simple as that.

Third, Economics is ideology because our economics is based on property rights which exists nowhere in Nature outside our primate species. It does not exist on the ocean bottom or on Orion's belt. Possession can be a fact, ownership is an artifact. A purely made up human thing.

Western Ideologues triumphed over Commie Ideologues. We wore them down until the Russian people stopped believing in Communist b*llsh*t. The Soviet Union fell apart from the inside out. The spirit departed from it and the body died.

ruveyn

Hey dont lump me in with that bunch of pricks

AG: Verbose, astute, and yet not entirely correct. But goodness, I've missed debating people ever since I changed jobs a while back.

1: National debt. Yep, always a bad thing, and I don't like it. Might have been worth it, might not, but hey, it worked. Had the next four presidents not added to the debt without the same justification, I wouldn't care, but it set a nasty precedent.

2: Yeah, and that's half the point. They've shown their vicious side in their desperation, which is kinda the point of the whole thing. Like I said, ice-hearted genius.

3: I do believe it was worth it. The entrance of the US into the war provided an advantage in war materials that the Axis powers just couldn't match. Maybe fascism would have overstretched itself, but our entrance ultimately defeated it, and both Shinto emperor worship and fascism are pretty much gone from the world.

4: Ok, so you don't like the GWOT. What would you have done?

5: So you don't like war, you think it is never worth it, and you appear to think that I enjoy it and promote it? And you've never said what you believe, so my point may be true and you're simply dodging the issue.

6: Ok, how would you stop the terrorists from slaughtering people? You can criticize all you want, but you've yet to provide a solution. BTW, where in the Bible does it say that I can't care who dies, and that I should be OK with my friends dying?

7: Openly espousing what evil? War? I've said I'm not a fan, but since it came to us, we must respond with an effective method. If you menace me, I'll try the Love and Peace approach, which I've done. If you launch an murderous attack on civilians, the same thing won't work. So I'll try to erode the support you have, I'll try to destroy your supply lines, I'll try to dissuade you, and in the end, if I have to, I'll kill you to save them. I will damn myself to protect the innocent, because if I did it not to the least of them, I did it not to Jesus.

8: Interesting, you saying I'm intellectually complicit in something that I don't like and hope doesn't happen, yet realize has to happen. It is truly evil for civilians to die, yet how many have we killed, and how many have the suicide bombers killed? As for the Iraqis who attacked our troops directly, I have no more sympathy for them than I do for a man who commits suicide. Because it's pretty much the same thing.

9: A miscommunication on my part. I'd rather 30-33 Iraqis die than 30-33 of my friends.

10: Yet I don't blame you for my hypocrisy. Ignoring religion, my views on the war make sense from a military perspective, which you probably don't have. Religiously, I don't like war, yet since it is upon us, we must fight. This is Biblical, and while I will turn the other cheek if slapped, and I literally have, I will not ignore murder.

11: Not a big if because you did or didn't? And did you really just quote Proverbs to make the point that since I accept my hypocrisy, that I'm too wise to be correctable? Did you cherry-pick what I said to ignore the point I made about always trying to better myself? Do you think that since I've accepted my weakness, am honest about it, and am trying to change, that I cannot be changed?

12: The problem with your contract idea, while a good one, is that if pot is legal, they can't legally discriminate against users. Personally, I'd stop throwing potheads in jail and just fine them the money they'd buy their next bag with. Jail is both overly expensive and generally non-punitive.

13: You make a good point about actual businesses, I hadn't thought of it.

Ruveyn:

1: Originally, it might have been. Now all three kinds of Muslims are involved in terrorism. I do not believe that every last Muslim of any group is a psycho-killer in sheep's clothing, nor do I believe that every German was a Nazi, nor every Japanese a kamikaze in waiting. As long as they stop suicide bombing people, I don't give a rat's ass who they worship.

2: Maybe back in the day, but since Islam isn't located in one country, it wouldn't work. Especially since all 1.5B Muslims would take it kinda personally, and with good reason.

3: A philosophy is an ideology, so we are in agreement, I think.

So, let's see, killing nearly 100,000 people and spending, because they killed 3000 of ours, and spending hundred of billions of dollars, $550 billion by August 2008 is ice-hearted genius? We could have probably bribed the entire middle east to leave us alone for that sum of money, or almost anything else. I mean, I think the idea of the war is absurd, and perhaps you think it will make this particular sect of terrorists less popular, but I think it will just make the US much less popular.


Well, the issue, oh ice-hearted genius, is that you have to prove that the Axis powers would have been able to crush the US after attacking all of those regions, and that their economy wouldn't also go kaput like the USSRs.


Not much, tell people about the dangers of terrorism, pass a few laws that give anti-terrorist forces power to do as they need, make sure the CIA had what it needed, etc. I don't think that a massively expensive war in the Middle East was what was necessary. You may say that this isn't a solution, I'll just respond by saying that the GWOT is not justified by it's massive costs, and saying otherwise is absolutely absurd. If there is no good method to address something, then doing something is just stupid, this holds for terrorism, this holds for economic crises.


Umm.... I never said anything about whether wars can be justified or not. Actually, I perceive you as crossing a line on justified war.


You know, putting 90,000 people up to be slaughtered isn't really called stopping the terrorists from slaughtering people. So, you know, it seems as if you do not have a solution.

Hmm.... the problem isn't just that you don't want your friends dying, but that you are willing to have many other people to die for your friends. In any case, given that you are to love all people as yourself, that precludes a lot of favoritism.


Ok, but we don't have an effective method. We have methods that lead to the killings of thousands of our people, and many thousands more of foreign people at the cost of billions upon billions of dollars. In any case, "eroding support" doesn't seem a good euphemism for saying "allowing the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of people", a terrorist group also doesn't tend to have much in terms of supply lines, and what it does have is often international related to financing, finally, terrorist groups aren't conventional enemies that you can go to war with. You aren't protecting the innocent though, your strategy involves the wholesale slaughter of them, thus you are doing it to Jesus. I mean, are you not actually grasping that you are admitting to a strategy that kills a multiple of the number of people who have been killed??


Well, your strategy is that it happen. The issue isn't just directly killing them, but rather the fact that we have caused these killings to come about, and you are lauding these people dying.


Well, the relevant ratio is 30-33 to 1 of your friends.


There is no such thing as "military perspective" outside of battle commands. The issue is that society doesn't boil down to a battleground. You can say I probably do not have a military perspective, and I am fine with that because whatever likely is counted as a "military perspective" is probably wasteful. I'd rather have an economist's perspective and measure the costs and effects analytically rather than a "military perspective". As for "ignore murder", well, frankly, guess what? Murders have to be partially ignored, as resources are never enough to address all things with sufficient force to stop them. Now, how about this: stop ignoring the fact that trade-offs exist and that you are simply making one and then creating some stupid justification by appealing to some arbitrary moral preference that can never be universalized.


Here's what I saw:


Both of those show some level of failure on your part, as with the first you are basically making excuses to try to attack me. With the second, you are failing to own up to having a contradiction. In fact, the entire thing was a self-justifying rant that I cared very little to bother with reading, but still did. Frankly, the issue has nothing to do with whether or not you "try to improve", whether or not you have "weaknesses", etc, it has everything to do with a perceived contradiction. You can't just say "Oh, I am flawed" and not be lower than a fool, that is just a self-justification, and just a clever dodge.


Umm.... being legal and not being able to contractually prevent usage of something are two different things. It seems wholly permissible to be hired onto a job with the non-usage of certain drugs being in the contract, it isn't even discrimination so much as it is a interpersonal arrangement where a person can agree to stop.

The Soviet Union would have collapsed with or without Reagan's "Star Wars." And the money he blew on that could have been put to much beter use.


We're losing this from a PR perspective, and if you don't realize that you are simply delusional. We are creating more sympathy for the terrorists by bombing civilians because now it appears that they are trying to defend their homeland against hostile invaders.


The Soviets would have beaten Nazi Germany anyways. After the Battle of Stalingrad, Hitler's hopes for winning the war were pretty much shattered because he could not continue to fight against the Soviets while still trying to deal with stubborn Brits on another front. Even with our entrance into the war, it was the Soviets who did most of the liberating of Europe from Nazism.


The purpose of terrorism is to instill fear into a population and, through that fear, to effect a change in the political climate. When we change our behavior in response to terrorism, when we surrender our liberties to "combat terror," we have already lost.


Well, spending billions of dollars sending young Americans to the terrorists' hometown, where it is much more convenient for the terrorists to kill them, does not seem like the right response, especially given that we have gotten loads of innocent civilians killed in the process. The most conservative estimates I've seen are around 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq due to our occupation.


Sure you can. Doctors are prohibited from being drunk while practicing, anyone who drives is not permitted to drink while doing so. There is no reason why similar restrictions could not apply to pot. Or to any other drugs for that matter- personally, I'm in favor of legalizing everything, including heroin and cocaine. Fining people doesn't eliminate the problem of it being a black-market industry.

And that is probably what really matters. If we were the US, saver of puppies, or even the US, the guys who don't screw people over, we probably wouldn't get terrorist attacks. Why would they care? In any case, some of these bombings probably have little to do with international terrorism, and more to do with the political issues running through Iraq, given the fact that there are 3 Islamic groups that each distrust each other. Even if outsiders are entering to disrupt Iraq, part of this is really to make the US look incompetent and cause it to bleed out more money with greater ease than would be found through direct attacks. At least, we are giving up some international soft power with Europe, which does not help us with the Chinese in financial issues. It also probably hurts our ability to stabilize the world whereas not sending these resources out there could help us try to stabilize regions through economic development.


Well, I wouldn't say we've lost, but we have certainly precluded victory, as the idea of terrorist tactics is to have increased damages with less cost, and they've just caused us to lose more people and resources than we would have ever lost otherwise.


Yeah, my numbers end up being around the same number of casualties, and they admit to possibly excluding large numbers of people and thus leaning conservative. Many other surveys get much higher.


Fining doesn't solve a lot of problems really, it still leaves it in the black market, and subject to all of the problems of the black market. In any case, I would really bet this problem is overstated, as I would bet that tests like used for alcohol could be reliably created for marijuana. Not only that, but other nations have already legalized this drug without major problem.

Well, I suppose your solution, Orwell, could be defensible on grounds of allowing for better standards, as market products are better known for stability. It also precludes violent criminal elements from the business. Finally, it is easier to bring a person in for legal treatment for a problem than it is to bring them in for an illegal problem, as in a legal situation there is no fear of punishment. In any case, I think the number of people who try tobacco once and keep on doing it is higher than the number doing this for most other drugs.

The military's estimate is about 5,000. The 100,000 figure is anti-war propaganda that lumps the people killed by terrorists with the people killed by coalition forces.

No, the anti-war propaganda figure is closer to a million. A 100,000 figure for the deaths caused by the military action in Iraq is fair and is the one arrived at multiple sources. In any case, the issue isn't one of "who directly is killing these people" but rather one of changes in the number of deaths caused by an invasion, as the decrease in stability in Iraq is something that could be believed as an outcome caused by US action.

A million people would leave large piles of bodies that would be hard to dispose of. You might be able to come up with a figure of a million if you count everyone who dies of anything: natural causes, infant mortality, street crime, terrorism, and civilian casualties in the war on terror.

Well, the issue is that there was large-scale disruption during the war on terror, this causes problems with most of their basic infrastructure. Now, I am not defending the figure of over a million, but rather just the much more conservative figure of around 100,000