Everyone is emotional. The US has no shortage of enemies.
The relevance is that people keep invoking this fear of a nuclear Iran, when they already live in a state which deploys weapons of mass destruction against civilians. If I am going to be afraid of anyone, it is the known killer, not the 8 year old boy who might grow up to be one.
Equivocating.
He’s just another elected puppet like Obama. That you keep invoking him, when he doesn’t control the military, and can barely win an election, indicates to me how much the threat is distorted.
So the Iranians are uppidy if they want the same security you are using to rationalize possibly killing them?
Do you support an attack on a nuclear or pre-nuclear Iran?
When you use fire to fight fire, you burn up all the fuel and end up only with ashes. You really need to rethink the eye for an eye rationale.
What’s laughable is thinking you can know the motives and predict the actions of other people, whether economically or politically. The only reason no one would attack/invade the US is if they considered the US nukes a threat, or seeing them as a threat, actually gave a damn. If anything can be learned from fanatics here and abroad, it is that their cost benefit analysis of situations don’t match those of the majority of the population. If they did, large scale wars would not be an issue, people would not fly planes into buildings, or run into crowded places full of innocents with ten pounds of dynamite strapped to their ass.
Just because your neighbor has no right to you television doesn’t mean leaving your door unlocked is a good idea. He may disagree with you. Good fences make good neighbors. The only problem on the foreign policy front is what constitutes a good fence and what constitutes a clear and present danger. When it comes to nukes, ethical qualms about the state not withstanding, I’d rather not wait until the threat were imminent and my neutron detector starts going off.
In ‘reality’ all sorts of atrocities happen, people think lots of stupid things, etc etc.
Why are you wasting your time in this forum where people advocate lots of ‘impractical’ things? it’s a mystery…
Oh wait. You do advocate positions that are out of touch with ‘reality’ (say economic freedom), but invoke pragmatism when it suits you. Pretty consistent…
Do you think you can provide a single consistent reason why you are hysterically whining about the iranian bogeyman while forgetting that the most deranged and criminal government on earth has the biggest collection of nukes ?
The US. That nation which exists outside of a theoretical anarcho capitalist society in this thing called reality.
You’re preaching to/asking probing questions of the choir. I’ve already accepted that the ideal society is purely voluntary, anarcho capitalist in nature. Now just make an ideal world for us to live in and you can lob such questions as the above over the fence into this world where they might make some people reconsider their approach to life and come to the ideal world. But, since we all live in this world and are likely to for some time, maybe in between the theorizing and dorm room bull session antics we can take some time to come to a solution to the real and practical problem that some men who have proven themselves time and again to be on the wrong side of sanity and basic decency want weapons that can melt cities, even though the tools available to us for dealing with the issue are admittedly less than ideal?
The U.S. Military is not really used for defense. It is used to project power. It is used to keep other governments in line. It is used to protect the national interests of the U.S. as defined by the politicians and special interest groups. It is used in expeditions into other lands in order squash dissent or to gain votes for those in power. The U.S. Military is used to entertain the masses, who can watch a war while sitting comfortably in their living rooms.
While the U.S. has a considerable military capability, this was provided via an economic system that outpaced the rest of the world. The U.S. is losing and probably will lose this advantage. In fact it could get real ugly. A nuclear arsenal isn’t some static entity, and requires significant resources to replenish and maintain. With a sufficient economic hit, the U.S. could very easily lose it’s nuclear capabilities. As for conventional forces, the U.S. doesn’t have the largest military (China, India, North Korea, Russia, South Korean and Vietnam have larger militaries than the U.S.). The U.S. relies a lot upon it’s technological advantage, which has been significantly shrinking for some time now. An economic crisis, along with some strategic actions (such as killing U.S. satellites) could all but cripple the U.S. Military. The fact that the U.S. has had a very heavy hand over the past 60 years or so hasn’t won vary many real allies. In fact, if conditions are bad enough, the U.S. could be carved up by a number of foreign adversaries or hopefully broken out into independent states that operate on libertarian principles (although it’s probably more likely that we get more of the same).
Irrelevant. The point is how to deal with them, my suggestion is move gradually toward a full non intervention policy. What’s wrong with that approach which makes a full pull out better, more practical, more achievable?
That would only be relevant if someone was arguing the state is good as opposed to an evil which for practical purposes will probably have to be tolerated to some degree. Since no one has offerred that argument, you’re shooting at a strawman. Arguing over the methods and speed of a withdrawal is not the same as saying stay involved in a neve ending fight. Learn the difference.
If you’ve read my posts I have repeatedly referred to multiple men, not just DinnerJacket. He’s the visible figure head, deal with it.
I said the state, not the Iranians. I differentiate between the two. Nor have I said anywhere the Iranians need to be killed. However our military, with a change in tactics and priorities, can certainly deal with DinnerJacket and his superiors if they are a threat. And since we would not be slaughtering civilians wholesale nor targetting the infrastructure they need, we can draw down our military and still move toward nonintervention.
Holy cow, that’s… that’s… that’s a practical way to achieve a more free society without bending over pantless in front of the people who may want to rape us and giving them a tube of lube.
You also stop a larger conflaguration from destroying more fuel and resources.
No, it’s because at base I agree with them, and hate to see the ideology I myself hold spurnned by others because it offers them nothing of value, and because the people who espouse it are arrogant dip sticks who have beguiled themselves so much with their own ideological purity that they seem to have forgotten or overlooked the fact that you win points and make progress in this world by engaging it, not by constructing an uncompromised ideological bubble that allows you to sit outside of it and snipe from a distance.
Which only proves you either: have not read my posts; are illiterate. Either way, you’re not worth addressing further, except to say it’s people like you that make it hard for people who have some practical chance of increasing our freedoms to actually get anything done in this world.
You whine about X being impractical. In this case, not toeing to your fascist line means being impractical. The ‘practical’ thing is to spout amerikkkan war propaganda like you do.
Now, why is it that sometimes you don’t spout propaganda and subscribe to ‘ivory tower’ theories like laissez-faire ?
What’s the guiding NON-PRINCIPLE that guides your enlightened actions ?
States will never end, therefore there will never be peace. So, how do we at least minimize this problem? Getting rid of the state is like getting rid of rats or flies; it’s not practically possible, but you can make them much less of a nuisance.
I can see where you’re frustrated. An ideology that is maleable doesn’t lead to popularity, it leads to destruction. If we could bring about change in incremental steps without changing the principles, believe me this would have been done by now. The problem is that you cannot be one thing while advocating another. Our greatest purpose is to either advance or maintain the work of those who came before us. The people aren’t ready for truth now, no matter how we package it. They have been deceived by promises of social justice and equality, and have enslaved themselves. We don’t help the cause of freedom by enslaving ourselves, and we don’t serve any purpose in becoming martyrs for a cause that the people aren’t ready for.
I see xahrx, you lack either the intellectual power to understand the flaw in your position or the honesty to admit that you are just an amerikkkan imperialist.