First off, again, New member? READ THIS!
such as…
You’re right. That is a completely different question. But I guess we know where you stand on that…whatever the majority wants, goes. Right?
Have you ever heard interventionism called anything other than “preventive action” or some other euphemism?
Again there you go with this “we” stuff. First of all, the situation would depend on what you mean by “knowledge”. If you mean “knowledge” like “we” had “knowledge” of WMDs in Iraq, then, no that is not sufficient to prove an attack is eminent. Second it depends on what you mean by “prevent”. If you go by what warmongers/brown-people-haters like Romney and Santorum believe, it would mean anything including nuking the entire region.
Third, I would argue that Israel has a say in how and who gets involved in their affairs. As it stands now, it is not exactly a sovereign nation and would have to get permission from the U.S. government to defend itself. Unlike many others I do not consider Isreal to be a nation of helpless children who don’t know what’s good for themselves.
Right, but your hypothetical was “what if the US removed its bases and Israel was on the verge of defeat”…as in, your hypothetical assumes that not only could a country with basically no military by today’s developed standards make a country with an entire nuclear arsenal its slaves, but you’re saying this would be the inevitiable consequence of a US base removal. Again, you even said it “removing bases causing Israel to be attacked.”
Yes I understand this is a “hypothetical situation”. But it’s a “hypothetical situation” that’s so ridiculous it’s asinine to propose it. It’s just like this guy asking “but what if the economy does grow”…have a listen to the answer. It’s about on par with your hypothetical.
So let me get this straight. Someone could not work, and still have their basic needs met for them, guaranteed, by the sweat of someone else, and you’re telling me the only reason they don’t get a job is because they’re afraid of losing the job they get?
Are you seriously that naive? People who don’t have to work don’t work simply because they’re “afraid” of losing any job they might get?
That’s the most asinine thing I’ve ever heard. The only way that makes sense is if you made up some rule that said “if you’re on the public dole now and for some reason you stop taking the stolen money at some point, you can’t ever take it again.” Obviously there wouldn’t be much interest in getting off welfare then. But simply saying “you’ll always have your basic needs met, no matter what the hell you do” I don’t see how that incentivizes anyone to do anything either.
Can you please explain how literally telling someone “you don’t have to do a damn thing, ever in your entire life, and you will still be guaranteed your basic necessities” incentivizes them to do anything. See cuz in my mind, that kind of does the exact opposite.
There are people committing crimes just to get into jail, for the living quality. Good luck with that.
Again, “guaranteeing people that they never have to work a day in their life drives them to find jobs.” You really need to explain that. And if you could, explain why it’s a better motivator than “not guaranteeing anyone anything”.
Oh I see. “Wrong yes, but it is what the people want.” = “compromise”
So I guess if the people want to enslave blacks, jews and gays, it would be wrong, yes, but we need to “compromise” because right or wrong, “it’s what the people want.” Right? Maybe we could make a compromise with “the people” and only enslave the gays. That way we’re bound to catch someof those blacks and Jews too. Make more people satisfied. Hey, it’s what the people want, right? After all, we need to flexible.