I Wear Pants;925906 wrote:So you would support invading a large swath of countries in Africa (Somalia, et al), Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc because there are evil people in those places and oppressing good people?

It isn't practical for me to go around trying to beat up all the people I think are morally reprehensible nor is it practical for us as a country to try to enforce our moral standards via military activity upon the rest of the world. And it's not right.

Just because we dont invade a country doesnt mean we arent involved. we are involved in Africa, it just not sexy for the news media to cover. Obviously we are involved with North Korea, Syria and Iran. not every situation needs an invasion and like you said, we cant support an invasion of every country that needed it. but that doesnt mean we shouldnt do what we can.

i thought morals were standard across humanity and dont change over time, isnt that basically what you were telling me in that other thread? we wouldnt be enforcing our moral standards, it would be human moral standards of right and wrong.

believer;925931 wrote:lol As I recall that's really AR 69.

ah ok, it has been a few years.

Glory Days;926331 wrote:Just because we dont invade a country doesnt mean we arent involved. we are involved in Africa, it just not sexy for the news media to cover. Obviously we are involved with North Korea, Syria and Iran. not every situation needs an invasion and like you said, we cant support an invasion of every country that needed it. but that doesnt mean we shouldnt do what we can.

i thought morals were standard across humanity and dont change over time, isnt that basically what you were telling me in that other thread? we wouldnt be enforcing our moral standards, it would be human moral standards of right and wrong.

In the other thread I was merely arguing theories of moral ethics.

We do not have the right to tell the world how to live or govern. By doing so we're acting as colonialists. And that has not historically worked out well for anyone.

I Wear Pants;926696 wrote: We do not have the right to tell the world how to live or govern. By doing so we're acting as colonialists. And that has not historically worked out well for anyone.

i probably wouldnt argue that, except for the fact when the world calls 911, our phone rings. its sort of a stretch, but its like calling the police to your home because someone broke into your house and stole stuff. then when the police get there, they find a marijuana growing operation going on. you cant expect them to show up and ignore the bad.

No one called 911 for us to invade and occupy Iraq. No one in Libya wanted our help. What we think is right isn't necessarily what they think is right, and if we occupy their lands or we prop up the wrong dictator with our money, they are going to hate us for it. Why haven't we invaded China over their human rights abuses? Not only that, but we are bankrupt and can longer afford to police the world. We need to mind our own business for once.

Cleveland Buck;927657 wrote:No one called 911 for us to invade and occupy Iraq. No one in Libya wanted our help. What we think is right isn't necessarily what they think is right, and if we occupy their lands or we prop up the wrong dictator with our money, they are going to hate us for it. Why haven't we invaded China over their human rights abuses? Not only that, but we are bankrupt and can longer afford to police the world. We need to mind our own business for once.

Oh hi Iran.

Cleveland Buck;927657 wrote:No one called 911 for us to invade and occupy Iraq. No one in Libya wanted our help. What we think is right isn't necessarily what they think is right, and if we occupy their lands or we prop up the wrong dictator with our money, they are going to hate us for it. Why haven't we invaded China over their human rights abuses? Not only that, but we are bankrupt and can longer afford to police the world. We need to mind our own business for once.

saddam didnt exactly hide his issues though and they did want our help, and because of the attitudes of people like you, thousands of iraqis died following the gulf war. Libya i would disagree, pretty sure they did want help. we havent invaded china because it would be stupid. but dont think we dont use politics with them etc.

Glory Days;928024 wrote:saddam didnt exactly hide his issues though and they did want our help, and because of the attitudes of people like you, thousands of iraqis died following the gulf war.

No. Because of the attitude of Saddam and his regime, thousands of Iraqis died. And once again, why is it our right/responsibility to go in and do something about it? The military was never intended to be the protector of all the world's citizens. It is intended to be the protector of US citizens and US soil.

Because of the attitude of military interventionists, thousands of American troops have died in the Middle East in countries that had not committed acts of war against us.

Glory Days;928024 wrote:Libya i would disagree, pretty sure they did want help.

Doesn't matter. Not our job or responsibility. The Federal government does the American people a disservice by taking military personnel and resources and allocating them AWAY from protecting us and our homeland to play Superman in other countries.

Glory Days;928024 wrote:we havent invaded china because it would be stupid. but dont think we dont use politics with them etc.

Why don't we try using politics or diplomacy with other countries as well? It would indeed be stupid to invade China ... just as it has been stupid to invade places we have already invaded.

Many well played points. We only hurt ourselves in the future when we try to play the interventionist of the world. It doesn't work. It hasn't worked in the past and it won't work now.

Imagine....if we only had a brain....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpDg79inmh8

Footwedge;928428 wrote:Imagine....if we only had a brain....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpDg79inmh8

I remember seeing this and getting a chuckle out of the irony of how different we might see things.

Footwedge;928428 wrote:Imagine....if we only had a brain....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpDg79inmh8

But isn't Ron Paul just some radical?

[video=youtube;KnbSUEwA2Co][/video]

That ad is a speech Ron Paul gave on his radio program or something a couple years ago.

Ron Paul speaks with too much truth, intelligence, reality, logic and common sense for most of our citizens to understand and for nearly all politicians to agree with.

dwccrew;928435 wrote:But isn't Ron Paul just some radical?

Compared to the average Washington politician today, I'd say he's QUITE radical!

I'm pretty sure that's a good thing, given that he's radical to the side of allowing more freedoms!

Cleveland Buck;928459 wrote:[video=youtube;KnbSUEwA2Co][/video]

That ad is a speech Ron Paul gave on his radio program or something a couple years ago.

I think the date was March 11, 2009. I had it saved on my computer at one point.

dwccrew;928473 wrote:Ron Paul speaks with too much truth, intelligence, reality, logic and common sense for most of our citizens to understand and for nearly all politicians to agree with.

That, plus the fact that he doesn't play the politicking game is what has been the hardest thing for him to overcome in terms of a nomination.

Isadore is going to come in here and call you all terrorists for daring to question our military policies.

I think the hardest obstacle for him is the media. Most voters get their information from the news and talk shows, especially Republican voters from Fox, and the only times they mention Paul they are either downplaying his straw poll wins or they are discussing how crazy and unelectable he is.

Another problem is when he does get an interview he has a hard time dumbing down his economic views for the typical voter. When they ask him what he would do to stimulate the economy, instead of talking about liquidating debt and printing money, which is absolutely right, he needs to say that he will cut taxes, eliminate regulations, strengthen the dollar, allow competing currencies, let bankrupt corporations fail, and the market will take over from there.

Cleveland Buck;928498 wrote:I think the hardest obstacle for him is the media. Most voters get their information from the news and talk shows, especially Republican voters from Fox, and the only times they mention Paul they are either downplaying his straw poll wins or they are discussing how crazy and unelectable he is.

Another problem is when he does get an interview he has a hard time dumbing down his economic views for the typical voter. When they ask him what he would do to stimulate the economy, instead of talking about liquidating debt and printing money, which is absolutely right, he needs to say that he will cut taxes, eliminate regulations, strengthen the dollar, allow competing currencies, let bankrupt corporations fail, and the market will take over from there.

That might even be too much information for some of the ignorant voters we have in this country.

Cleveland Buck;928498 wrote:Another problem is when he does get an interview he has a hard time dumbing down his economic views for the typical voter. When they ask him what he would do to stimulate the economy, instead of talking about liquidating debt and printing money, which is absolutely right, he needs to say that he will cut taxes, eliminate regulations, strengthen the dollar, allow competing currencies, let bankrupt corporations fail, and the market will take over from there.

I mentioned this on another thread. He is feeding porterhouse steak to babes and they are choking. He as to find a way to convey some of his views in the form of milk. Its not easy I admit. Sometimes I can see his frustration.

dwccrew;928503 wrote:That might even be too much information for some of the ignorant voters we have in this country.

I know a LOT of Republicans. I don't know a lot of Republicans that could appropriately digest that information.

I Wear Pants;928488 wrote:Isadore is going to come in here and call you all terrorists for daring to question our military policies.

Isadore is a terrorist to the human language and to basic logical skills most of the time. As such, I doubt it really matters if he comes on here and calls me Dr. Baron von Evil-Satan.

O-Trap;928384 wrote:No. Because of the attitude of Saddam and his regime, thousands of Iraqis died. And once again, why is it our right/responsibility to go in and do something about it? The military was never intended to be the protector of all the world's citizens. It is intended to be the protector of US citizens and US soil.

would you use that same statement next time there is a earthquake in haiti or a tsunami in asia? its our responsibility because we can. and personally, i am not perfect, but i dont like standing by when other people are in need etc.

Glory Days;928711 wrote:would you use that same statement next time there is a earthquake in haiti or a tsunami in asia? its our responsibility because we can. and personally, i am not perfect, but i dont like standing by when other people are in need etc.

What on earth makes you think we can? We should just print money until we destroy ourselves so that we can help other countries? We have no money and the federal government will absolutely default in the next 10 years without ending the wars or ending entitlements.

Glory Days;928711 wrote:would you use that same statement next time there is a earthquake in haiti or a tsunami in asia? its our responsibility because we can. and personally, i am not perfect, but i dont like standing by when other people are in need etc.

From a Federal government standpoint, yes. Mostly because it is not the right or responsibility of the Federal government to do so.

Secondly, because it is fallacious to say we can, as the Federal government has no money and is in enormous debt.

If someone was having their home foreclosed and was several hundred thousand dollars in debt, and you were raising money to help tsunami victims in Japan, would you fault that person for not helping? Would you contend that they still have a responsibility to give or spend out of what they already don't have in order to help?

Now, as far as privately owned and operated non-profit organizations, charities, philanthropist, and the like, I am in full support of such people fulfilling a humanitarian obligation to help however they can. I don't like standing by while others are in need either, but it is astonishing to me that people assume that the Federal government is the only way to go about that.

However, it is not the responsibility, nor the right, of the Federal tax dollars to be appropriated to anything that was not outlined in the Constitution.

Plus, even if that were not true, it would be like a man further bankruptcies his family to help starving pigmies in Africa. Noble thought, but irresponsible and destructive to his own household.