Explain the Justification of War

[Andrew Lynch]

Can some on please explain to me the justification of this war

As far as i can see its all about OIL

As well as letting Britian And America Colonise another country

We are only being told what america and britian want us to here and that changes a lot i.e have they taken BASRA

[Force Flow]

In a nutshell? Bush wants to get rid of Saddam.

[Andrew Lynch]

Why? What does Bush want? OIL?

[morriswindgate]

Terrorists can only exist if they have benefactors that supply them with money, safe haven, training, and weapons. Iraq has been identified as one of these countries, by the way it is also rumored that they have supplies help to the IRA.
The middle east as a whole is governed by small family groups of despots who live high while their population starves and lives in poverty. And to keep their power they subject their own people to terror or in the case of Pakistan and Saudi, they encourage an anti-western agenda through proxies.
Think about this;
Among all Arab countries there is not a single representative country.
Among all Arab countries there is not a single manufactured product that is exported.
Among all Arab countries there is not a single recognized world class university. And the arabs are the people who invented most modern math, science, and humanities.

It is not about oil or colonies, if it were then why did the USA not take over the Kuwaiti oilfields or make them pay for the 1st Gulf war by giving their oil to us for free or less than market price.
The problem that you have, where you live, is that the French have seen this as a chance to increase their power in the EU over the Brits, which they have historically dispised.

[Andrew Lynch]

1. Kuwaiti had to pay for the last war
2. The Arab countries are oppressed not by themselves but by the west with there santions etc
3. I live in the oppressed NOrthern Ireland
4. The IRA is not responsible for everything!!

[Strider]

1. Kuwaitt probably did help pay for the last war, but the majority fell on the coalition of countries that fought. Besides it's not like Kuwaitt couldn't afford to help pay, for they are a rich nation full of oil.
2. Not to sound prejudice, but they (Arabs, mainly Saddam and his regime) played games with the U.N. inpections by playing hide and seek (12 years they did this) - where all they had to do was obey the U.N. resolutions. They weren't oppressed, but plain stupid.
3. ?
4. Iraq is not reponsible for everthing, but for the majority of the mess - They are. See No. 2

[piasabird]

How can the country (IRAQ) which has the 2nd largest supply of Oil in the world claim to be oppressed? Sadam is a mad man! There is enough money coming in from the sale of oil to Iraq to allow everyone to live reasonably well. However, Sadam has oppressed his own people. People in the middle east are oppressed because none of these countries even resemble a democracy. They all are led by dictators that run their countries like Nazis. They oppress themselves.

[newme]

im not an expert but seems to me they produce enough oil to be a wealthy nation,where has all the money gone?the other thing ive noticed is ,as soon as an iraq citizen doesnt have a gun held to there head and has freedom to speak,they say there glad to see the coalition there,even at the exspense of loss of life.one fella said he lost some his family ,but said the way they were treated by there own government they had no life anyways.

[sdkfz]

Please list the leaders who

1) Have used nerve gas against anyone
2) Who use rape as a governmental policy instrument
3) Who invade neighbors without asking for permission from the UN and then in their obvious interest to 'help' their neighbors (this is why they invaded right? reverse oppresion etc ) immediatly start to systematically strip the liberated people of anything of value.

Since, obviously, I know nothing about the situation, being a brain washed citizen of the US and a subject to the crown of England -Let me ask you one question.

When are you moving yourself and your family to this paradise called Iraq?

[StuartW]

Originally posted by Andrew Lynch

3. I live in the oppressed NOrthern Ireland


Countless polls have shown that the MAJORITY of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the UK mainland. It is only Irish terrorists who consider they are oppressed, and try to overcome the majority consensus , and enforce what they want ,with a rule of terror and bombing.
A bit like the Iraq Republican Guard.

[Andrew Lynch]

Originally posted by StuartW
Countless polls have shown that the MAJORITY of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the UK mainland. It is only Irish terrorists who consider they are oppressed, and try to overcome the majority consensus , and enforce what they want ,with a rule of terror and bombing.
A bit like the Iraq Republican Guard.

If u lived in the unlawfully occupied six counties u might realize a thing or two like the police brutality and the corruption in the PSNI, as well as the best housing and jobs being offered to the members of the protestant community

[shazam]

When you builed temples unto oneself 1 mile long and 200 ft. It must cost at least a buck and a half. And theres about 5 of them .Thats about seven and a half bucks. Plenty left over for the people.

[StuartW]

Originally posted by Andrew Lynch
If u lived in the unlawfully occupied six counties u might realize a thing or two like the police brutality and the corruption in the PSNI, as well as the best housing and jobs being offered to the members of the protestant community

It makes me sad that at the start of the 21st Century, there are still people who are trying to fight the battles of almost a hundred years ago instead of trying to peacefully co-exist and enjoy life.
Andrew, perhaps you could prove your extraordinary statement quoted above.By proof I mean unbiased eyewitness reports, and not the usual Socialist and terrorist propaganda thats only purpose is to destroy a democratically run society. The six Counties comprise of roughly 50-50 Protestant/Catholic; and the many Irish people I know there are wonderful, witty people more interested in making the most of life instead of continually fighting a lost battle. Obviously your anger at this historic event is tearing you apart.Why not lighten up and enjoy life, it is very short.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Andrew Lynch
1. Kuwaiti had to pay for the last war
2. The Arab countries are oppressed not by themselves but by the west with there santions etc
3. I live in the oppressed NOrthern Ireland
4. The IRA is not responsible for everything!!
1. No, Saudi Arabia did.
2. No, by their dictatorships, they need good ole Western freedoms.
3. I live in unoppressive Southern Nevada.
4. I believe that.
Originally posted by morriswindgate
Terrorists can only exist if they have benefactors that supply them with money, safe haven, training, and weapons. Iraq has been identified as one of these countries, by the way it is also rumored that they have supplies help to the IRA.
The middle east as a whole is governed by small family groups of despots who live high while their population starves and lives in poverty. And to keep their power they subject their own people to terror or in the case of Pakistan and Saudi, they encourage an anti-western agenda through proxies.
Think about this;
Among all Arab countries there is not a single representative country.
Among all Arab countries there is not a single manufactured product that is exported.
Among all Arab countries there is not a single recognized world class university. And the arabs are the people who invented most modern math, science, and humanities.

It is not about oil or colonies, if it were then why did the USA not take over the Kuwaiti oilfields or make them pay for the 1st Gulf war by giving their oil to us for free or less than market price. Excellent points all, Morris!

[Zred1]

Thank God we live in a country where the majority rules. I love the Freedom to speak my mind and in a perfect world there would be no war. All people would be able to rationalize and come to agreement and treat others with respect. Unfortunately the world is not perfect and Evil people need to be dealt with. More Iraqi people have died by Saddam's hand while we tried to reason with him than in either war to date. Sometimes war is a NECESSARY EVIL. GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!!!!

[icallmedan]

For the last time OIL is not the reason.....you know what i am going to make my own thread...

[Andrew Lynch]

In yesterdays (31th March's) Daily Mirror it was reporting on what is going to happen after the war i.e. the building of Airports Hospitals etc I agree that this should be done for two reasons

1. They need these modern Facilities
2. "The Collition" caused this damage so they should fix it

BUT the intresting part was that the contracts for this work was being awarded to American Companies without going through the UN

IS this JUSTIFIED I dont think so !!

[mikeL]

1. The UN had years to do something about the problem, but they didn't.

2. I think contracts should be awarded first to countries within the coalition, then all the countries that didn't support the coalition, would be put on the bottom of the list and get the contracts leftover, (If there would be any)

[Nuclear Krusader]

Oil is not the reason?

Then perhaps you should read what I got today in the mail.

(My own thoughs are in italics)

____________________________________________________

There are many reasons for the obsession of George Bush towards Bagdad. In other articles that I have written for Yellow Times.org, I made reference to the not so obvious reason against Iraq, but to the war of Bush against Europe. In fact I believe that it is the main reason of his fixation against Iraq. Whenever a nation decides to go to war they formulate plans on whom will win and who will lose; nobody goes to a war hoping to lose, but not always the obvious target of the aggression is the true reason for the war. Sometimes it is not what you want to win of a war but, rather, what the other will lose; and that other does not have to be your declared enemy.

In this case, Bush's victim is the European economy, which is robust and probably will grow even more strong in the near future. The entrance of Great Britain in the European Union is unavoidable; Scandinavia will be united early more than late. Already, even in those countries, there will be 10 new nations members in May of 2004, which will inflate the GIP of the European Union to near $9,6 trillions, with 450 million people, in contrast to $10,5 trillions and 280 million people in the U.S.A. This represents a formidable block of competition for the U.S.A. but the situation is much more complex of what these numbers reveal and much of it depends on the future of Iraq.

I have written before, like many others, that this war is about oil. Surely that there are other reasons, but oil is the force that most impels it. Not in the way that could be expected, nevertheless. It is not as much that one believes that there are enormous oil reserves without proccesing in Iraq and that they have not been due to Iraq's old technology; it is not as much the desire of North America to put its dirty hands on that oil. It is because of the dirty hands that the North Americans want to keep away from it.

What triggered all this precipitated was not the 9/11, neither a sudden realization that Sadam is repugnant type, nor the change of leadership in the USA. What precipitated this was what Iraq did the 6 of November of 2000: changing to euro as the currency with which to make its oil transactions. At the moment of the change it could seem idiotic that Iraq was resigning to such amount of oil gains to make a political declaration. But this political declaration became and the constant depreciation of the dollar against euro since then means that Iraq has obtained good gains when changing its reserves and their currency to make transactions. Euro has won near 17% on the dollar from
that moment, which also is due to apply to the $10 trillions that are at heart of reserve of the United Nations "oil for food" for Iraq. The question that arises, and the one that George Bush asked himself, is this one: What would happen if OPEP, suddenly, changes to euro? In a brief word: chaos.

At the end of World War II an agreement in the conference of Bretton Woods fixed the value of gold to $35 the ounce and this became the International Standard with which the currencies were measured. But in 1971 Richard Nixon removed the dollar from the gold standard and ever since the dollar has been the most important global monetary instrument and only the USA can produce it. The dollar, now a currency without endorsement, is high in spite of the deficit record of current account and estatus of the USA like the main indebted nation. The debt of the USA the 4 of April of 2002, was of $6,021 trillions against the GIP of $9 trillions. The commerce between the nations has become a cycle in which the USA produces dollars and the rest of the world produces what the dollars can buy (a modern form of cholonialism if you ask me). The nations no longer deal to obtain competitive advantages, but rather to manage the dollars that need for the service in dollars of their external debts and to accumulate dollars like reserve, in order to maintain the value of change of their domestic currencies. In an effort to prevent speculative attacks and potential detrimental attacks to their currencies, the central banks of these nations must acquire and maintain reserves of dollars equivalent to their own circulating currency. This situation creates a support incorporated for a strong dollar, that simultaneously forces the central banks of the world to acquire and to maintain but reserves in dollars, thus strengthening the dollar. This phenomenon is known like "the hegemony of the dollar" which is created with the peculiarity of which the merchandise critics, mainly oil, are denominated in dollars. Everybody accepts dollars because the dollars can buy oil. The reality is that the force of the dollar since 1945 resides in being the international currency for the global oil transactions (that is to say, "petro-dollar"). The USA prints hundreds of trillions of these without any endorsement; "petrodollars" then are used by the nations to buy oil and energy of the producers of OPEC (except at the moment Iraq and in certain degree Venezuela which would explain why the USA has been desestabilizing
Venezuela and striving to depose Hugo Chavez). These petrodollars are recycled by OPEC again towards the USA, via letters of the treasure or other assets denominated in dollars, such as actions, real estate, etc. The recycling of petrodollars is the price that the USA has extracted since 1973 from the oil-producing countries by its tolerance to the exporting petroleum cartel.

The reserves of dollars must be invested in North American assets, which produces an excess in accounts of capital for the economy of the USA In spite of the poor operation of the market during the last year, the value of the North American reserves is still a 25 higher percent and the commerce a 56 percent over its value compared with the emergent markets. The excess of the capital accounts finances the commercial deficit. Since the USA prints the petrodollars, they control the oil flow and that's it. As oil is paid in dollars and the dollar is the only currency to negotiate it, we can reach the conclusion that the USA has the oil of the world for free. Then, what would happen if OPEC as a group decided to follow the example of Iraq and began to negotiate petroleum in euros? Economic meltdown.

The oil consuming nations would have to get out the dollars the reserves of their central banks and have them replaced by euros. The value of the dollar would come down and the consequences would be those that could be expected of any currency's collapse and massive inflation (take Argentina, as an example); the foreign invests could leave the North American market hastily and there would be an escape from the banks of the assets in dollars like the one of 1930; the budgetary deficit would be failed to fulfill so on and on. And this only in the USA. Japan would be struck hard because of its total dependency of foreign oil and its incredible sensitivity to the American dollar. If the economy of
Japan falls, many other countries would also fall, specially the United States in a "Domino effect". This it is the potential effect of a "sudden" change to euros.

A more gradual change could be manageable, but this would also change the financial and political balance of the world. Given the size of the European market, his population, his oil needs (Europe imports more oil than the USA), the Euro could quickly become in fact the Standard currency for the world. There are some good reasons for the OPEC as group following Iraq's move and beginning to value oil in euros. There are few doubts as to that they can enjoy the opportunity to make a political declaration after so many years have to stoop before the USA and pay it homage, but there are solid economic reasons also.

The almighty dollar has reigned supreme since 1945 and in the last years it has taken still more terrain with the world's economic domination of the USA. At the end of the 90's more than the four fifth parts of the transactions in foreign currency and half of all the world-wide exports was done in dollars. The objective of the Bush's war against Iraq, of course, is to secure the control of these oil fields and to revert its value to dollars soon to increase exponentially the production to force the prices to lower. Finally, the objective of Bush's war is to threaten taking significant actions against anyone from the oil producers if they change to euro. In the long term, the objective is not really Sadam, is the euro and, of course, Europe. The USA is not going to sit there arms crossed calmly and let those European take the reins of their destiny and of the world's finances. Of course, everything depends on how Bush's crazy plan, does not trigger a Third World war, as it can happen.

[Andrew Lynch]

Am speackless

could you put the web address to this thread of where you reecived your information

Thank You

[Nuclear Krusader]

A friend got it in his mail and forwarded it to his contacts (me being one of them). I dunno who sent it to him.

[WJWheels]

hehehe... I just went to www.yellowtimes.org and got this response:Welcome to YellowTimes.org.
Currently our site is down.
Please check back on Wednesday, April 2, 2003.

YellowTimes.org It sure looks to be a reliable source. :p

[Nuclear Krusader]

LOL.

Perhaps they took down the site so the contents wouldn't be think of an April's fools day joke? ;)

[WJWheels]

I guess a well-written letter of someone's opinion/conjecture (and that's all the unsigned epistle really is) is considered to be more convincing than a simple placard proclaiming: BUSH JUST WANTS TO RULE THE WORLD.

[raftero]

after the efforts of the united states in defeating both hitler and the japinese all the country we ask for was a place to bury our dead. the US will not colonise nor steal the oil,and if the UN had acted as it should(or better yet if saddam had) there would have been no reason for inspectors and no war.there is little doubt if saddam had the bomb he would use it and there would not be much anyone could do then.why were children dying,not because the bad old US was holding back supplies but because the money saddam had(through oil and drugs)was spent on saddam.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by raftero
there is little doubt if saddam had the bomb he would use it and there would not be much anyone could do then. That is the justification for the war. He would provide them to terrorists. Terrorists want to destroy as much of Israel and America as they can. Saddam sought nuclear weapons.
We'll put his sorry a** down and anybody else we can identify as being a WMD threat to us via terrorists or otherwise. That includes Iran and N. Korea, those sick thugs....

[Byte 2.0]

Right Now I think Saddam is holding back, He knows if he deploys his weapons of Mass D. More countries will back the USA, (even France as said they will) as for Germany, they built his bunkers, they aren't going to do anything. That is the last thing he wants, He is going to sit there and be the victum, he is not going to tip his hand and show what he has been hiding for years. However, He has launched a few Scuds(the ones he don't Have). Now when the USA gets closer, some of his commanders might use those weapons in a last effort to stop the advancement.

As for who gets the contracts to rebuild Iraq, It should be thoses involved.

[mystvearn]

Yes-its oil. bush plans to use the oil to rebuild iraq.

Now lets think for a moment-forget any sides-

Think: first a country eager to go to war without consent-then after destroying the infrastructure-goes in and rebuilds it back-with the loosing's side treasure. IS that fair?

This is one of the reasons that the Iraq people hit those humatarian trucks

[AlwaysUp]

the Yellow Times? Not sure I feel like this publication would be unbiased. .....hmmmm.....No, now that I think about it; I am SURE what I feel about this publication! Andrew Lynch get on over there guy, sounds like your kinda place. BTW, I have never seen more threads closed attributable to a single member, as you! Congrats.

[not important]

There is no justification for any war! War is by politicians for politicians.

[mystvearn]

good conclusion:D

[AlwaysUp]

not important, sadly, we are imperfect beings and war is a part of life. As for justification, surely you realize there is justification for war. Just not enough to satisfy you. Wars have been fought , both moral and immoral depending upon your viewpoint. You are too broad in your condemnation of politicians. There are good ones, and it is your duty to elect your conscience by voting. I suspect, however, that your statement suggests too much cynicism to be a active participant.

[Zred1]

An ostrich with it's head in the sand leaves it's backside unprotected. Idealistic blind faith without logic or reason only leads to enableing those who seek to destroy freedom while hidding in the shadows.

[AlwaysUp]

Wow, that's deep Zred1! What does it mean?

[WJWheels]

Dittoes.... not to tromp on Jerry Maguire, but, "You lost me at hidding!"

[Kubie]

Idealistic blind faith without logic or reason only leads to enableing those who seek to destroy freedom while hidding in the shadows.

The agenda of radical liberals and socialists. Notice how they attack our second amendment? Take the guns away from the general populace and they can take over.

[Beholdereye]

We build monster trucks for fun.
We make dragsters that go 300+ mph. because we're bored.
Piss us off and see what we make to go to war

[mr krinkle]

Kubie said<p> The agenda of radical liberals and socialists. Notice how they attack our second amendment? Take the guns away from the general populace and they can take over.<p>As a Libertarian Kubie I think Bush has done more than the NRA ever could to remind people that Guns should never be banned to protect ourselves from our own tyranical goverment....I hope Liberals who are against guns take notice.

[mr krinkle]

And War? The USA is always at war with something,If its not some poor country it Drugs or some other insane reason to keep the public frightened.

[avx]

How else would you propose we solve these problems?? Make drugs free...let other countries establish dictatorships in a peacful civil country? O wait...Let me guess...We should send some negotiators in to try and talk them out of it....We tried that with Hitler and where did that get us??? Face it, we are not some highly enlightened specieis that is beyond war, we are human...and even though it is possible to come to peaceful conclusions, it usually takes a very long time, and has many ups and downs...Why are we even gonna risk wasiting that much time, allowing this psycho to sit there and tell us "Yeah, you got a point, let me thing about it..." While he goes back and sees how the nukes are comming....Screw that...Sometimes the only way to get through to someone is to totally kick their ass...Its like those people who have those punk little kids, and they refuse to hit them cause they think its wrong...and their kids are just PUNKS! A good ass whooped is what they need, whip, paddle, branch....USE IT ALL! That will straighten them out...and its the same case with Saddam....He had a rough child hood, and his uncle made him a general in a military while he was still very young, he hasnt had to worry about anyone telling him what to do since then....now hes a punk, and we are whooping his ass...

Besides...we spend over 60Billion+ dollars a year on our military...shouldnt we give them some good jobs to do?

[AlwaysUp]

I think you like to stir s**t up, Mr Krinkle. You can't possibly be that closed minded. Come on...admit it, you are a libertarian my ass. You were a Gore Democrat! Now turned a libertarian cause even you realize Gore is a moron. Fess up!

[avx]

Well...that about sums this thread up....:D

[padawan]

LOL...this thread is not even really funny anymore.

Mr. Krinkle...when was the last time you served your country? We are not always ar WAR with someone. I served for 11 years in the USAF, and I did more humanitarian missions than war missions. Wanna hear the kicker? The ONLY mission I was ever shot at was dropping food off in Somalia. Tell me why a sniper would shoot at me in Somalia, when we were bringing supplies and food. The US has taken a very noble stand with our power. We could rule the world, and anyone that doesn't think so should take a look at what we are capable of. If we focused on building an Empire, we could make short change of abou 90% of the world, as the only true remaining Super Power.

But, instead, we use our technology and wealth to help poor nations, bring food and medical care to those that need it, and attempt give freedom to those that don't have it.

Don't tell me that we are warmongers, sir, until you have the guts to sign up and see what it is all about. Then maybe you will know what it means to salute the flag.

'Nuff said. And remember to play nice in here, boys...

[WJWheels]

I'm not bothering to look up the source, but someone said, "After all the American battle conquests, the only foreign soil we've ever asked for is enough to bury our dead soldiers."

[Kubie]

Libertarian is just a longer word for liberal.

[morriswindgate]

Libertarian = Wasted Vote

[avx]

Originally posted by padawan
LOL...this thread is not even really funny anymore.

Mr. Krinkle...when was the last time you served your country? We are not always ar WAR with someone. I served for 11 years in the USAF, and I did more humanitarian missions than war missions. Wanna hear the kicker? The ONLY mission I was ever shot at was dropping food off in Somalia. Tell me why a sniper would shoot at me in Somalia, when we were bringing supplies and food. The US has taken a very noble stand with our power. We could rule the world, and anyone that doesn't think so should take a look at what we are capable of. If we focused on building an Empire, we could make short change of abou 90% of the world, as the only true remaining Super Power.

But, instead, we use our technology and wealth to help poor nations, bring food and medical care to those that need it, and attempt give freedom to those that don't have it.

Don't tell me that we are warmongers, sir, until you have the guts to sign up and see what it is all about. Then maybe you will know what it means to salute the flag.

'Nuff said. And remember to play nice in here, boys...

GO PADAWAN GO!! HELL YEA!!!
You were in the airforce...how the hell did you fit in the cockpit??? :D

Doesnt matter....GOOD JOB MAN!

[Zred1]

We live in a country that is so sheltered and removed from the real world, that we tend to think that all stories have a happy ending, all the bad guys go to jail and that monsters are only real in the minds of movie directors. The memory of 9-11 has already faded in the minds of many of the same people who think that Saddam could be reasoned with. Does it take a nuke landing in their bloody back yard to get their attention? Do they have to bury their own children before they get off their holier than thou, purest, I can’t deal with reality; unless it’s reality TV mentalities. The reason people in this country even have the ability to fall into this mindset is because American service men and women have given their live to protect our beloved country. Trying to jump on the anti-war bandwagon because it was so glorified in the 60s and early 70s as such a cool thing to do by the liberal media only shows that in this country image comes before intelligence or honor.

[mr krinkle]

AlwaysUp I am just trying to get you and some others to Think about the situations instead of just being blind patriotic toadies.So Gore is a moron? Perhaps but that would make Bush one then Right?<p> avx487 try 400 Billion a year on the Military.<p>Kubie Libertarians are in general Socially Liberal but Fiscally Conservative.<p> padawan All I can say to you is You served in uniform,Good for you,I have done my duty in Gulf War #1 So Yea We are a War loving country. The Pentagon along with the WH loves to keep the sheeple scared ..It appears to be working going by the posts here.. So padawan you just go on blindly saluting that Flag of yours,It is a Free Country.<p>I always try to play nice..:)

[mr krinkle]

Zred1 There is a significent amount of Veterans who protested this War because they have seen the horrors of what it produces,If you think you are safer now after attacking Iraq that is your opinion.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by mr krinkle
Libertarians are in general Socially Liberal ...You seem pretty ignorant of your own niche krink. The quotes below are from "Libertarian.org"Since libertarians believe that the government should leave people alone unless they are aggressing against someone, they almost uniformly reject the modern regulatory state. Regulations limit an individual's choices, especially their choices about what to do with their property.

Many environmental regulations, zoning and rent controls, and occupational safety and other labor regulations, are implemented with good intentions. But, libertarians argue, they often have unintended consequences. For example, minimum wage laws usually cause unemployment among the very people they are intended to help.

Libertarians also point out that regulations are frequently inspired by special-interest lobbies, not the politicians' concern for the general welfare. For example, because of the dairy industry's political power, Californians now pay up to 50% more for milk than do people in neighboring states.

So, what's the alternative to the regulatory state? Libertarians believe people can make personal, voluntary choices about what they buy and who they buy it from. Private "watchdogs" like Consumer Reports or Underwriters Laboratories can help them get the information they need.

and another- Libertarians also strongly support other Constitutionally-protected civil liberties such as the right to be secure in one's possessions, the right to due process, and the right to equal treatment under the law. Equality under the law (a.k.a. "the rule of law") is one reason, among others, that most libertarians oppose affirmative action.

and another- Entitlements are the crux of the modern welfare state.

So it's probably not much of a surprise to discover that libertarians believe that state-run welfare and health care are inappropriate in principle and hugely inefficient in practice. Allowing people to interact and trade freely, libertarians believe, greatly increases the health, welfare and security of all people, including the people the big-government programs are intended to help.

Libertarian public policy analyst Charles Murray greatly advanced much of the debate on this issue, convincing many skeptics that the private sector could do a better job helping the poor than the welfare state does.

and another- Many libertarians favor complete separation of school and state, while others favor school vouchers and charter schools, at least as intermediate steps. Both groups argue that education is better and more flexible when it is taken out of the hands of the state. In a world that is moving lightning-fast, the 19th-century one-size-fits-all schooling model sits like syrup in sand, slowing everything down and wasting our most precious resource: the potential of the human mind.

and finally- In almost any situation libertarians say that a higher (or new) tax is not the answer to whatever social problem for which the funds are needed. In fact, many maintain that any and all taxation is stealing, and that if it were done by anyone besides the organized group of people calling themselves the government it would be recognized as theft.

To the extent that libertarians believe taxes are necessary, they support taxes which are low, flat and unintrusive.

Hardly "liberal" in any sense of the word. If anything a Libertarian could almost be considered a "super conservative" ("neocon" has been taken :))

[mr krinkle]

WJWheels do you believe 100 percent of what the Republican platform says?<p>http://www.self-gov.org/quiz/quiz.php<p> take this test

[morriswindgate]

I still stand by the fact that a Libertarian is a non- participant in his/her government. The fact that no Libertarian has ever been elected to a Federal Office means that basically these people are wasting their votes and at the same time allowing special agenda driven people to be elected with less overall representation from the public. You might as well not even vote as it is the same, being that for every independant party voter there is one less vote that the winner has to worry about his competitor getting.
Independant (not Democrat or Republican) voters and non-voters are a major reason in this country for the Federal Governement that we have, their non-participation in choosing the best canidate from the major parties, mean that the extremists canidate always wins.
You may think that you are sending a message by voting this way, but in reality all you are doing is insuring the canidate that you hate the most wins.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by mr krinkle
WJWheels do you believe 100 percent of what the Republican platform says?<p>http://www.self-gov.org/quiz/quiz.php<p> take this test What's the test.... trying to get your flaky link to function? :D

Of course I believe what the Republican platform says.. after all it says it! Do you mean, "believe in it"? Why don't you post a plank (or several) and ask if I agree?

[mr krinkle]

http://www.self-gov.org/ <p>There try that link WJWheels, Should have checked it so My Bad.

[padawan]

Mr Krinkle.....

You think we NEED the WH to make us scared? The 9-11 incident seemed to scare the crap out of me enough. I think it is the exact oposite. If the American people knew how many times our military is put in harm's way for nothing, they would be freaked out. Yes, our people lead a sheltered life. Sheltered because the Amercian people don't really know just how bad of a place the rest of the world can be. You know what? I like that. The average person doesn't need to know about the death and destruction around the world. I don't want my daughter to live her life scared, but some countries want us to be just that....scared. Screw that.

I don't blindly salute the flag. But, I do appreciate the fact that I live in the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. I am curious why you say we are a war loving nation? What is so nice about war? War sucks. If you think anyone really likes to send our young people out to die, you are truly a callous, shallow, uninformed person. I can promise you that each time President Bush hears of a soldier dying, he feels bad. He is not a ruthless dictator. I feel bad when I see a 19 year old soldier die...and I was once one of them.

[WJWheels]

I already did it... Centrist - the same as the Bush 2000 Republican platform.

[avx]

I vote Arnold Schwartzneggar for president...I bet he would intimidate the hell out of any little string necked politician...:D

Thats the best way to win anything...intimidate them into doing nothing...that was the plan with the Iraqi army...but they gotta be dumb and think they can win....o boy...

[mr krinkle]

morriswindgate all I can say is change takes time. On average only 50% of Americans vote because IMO the people that dont consider the Repub-Dem partys to be dumb and dumber,In no particular order.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by avx487
I vote Arnold Schwartzneggar for president...I bet he would intimidate the hell out of any little string necked politician...:D One cannot be foreign born and aspire to be President. Ask Hank Kissinger.

[mr krinkle]

padawan I wasnt just talking about the war on terror or against communism,The Goverment also has this War On Drugs that incarcerates hundreds of thousands of our own people and invades other peoples countrys like Columbia for instance.

[morriswindgate]

For over 150 years we have had third party canidates, and most went down to defeat. Most third parties have ideas that the majority of people will not support, some of their ideas on the surface are good, but many of them are to extreme for the majority of people. Therefore there will never be a place for the Libertarians, the Greens, the hodunk hellraisers or any other 3rd party group other than to as a spoiler in an election. And this almost always maens the worst person wins.

[mr krinkle]

padawan you said" The average person doesn't need to know about the death and destruction around the world." <p>Why is that?

[padawan]

I say that because I don't want to have to sit and explain to my kids why there are people starving to death in Africa, being tortured in China, and murdered in a dozen other countries by ruthless leaders. I'm not saying hide the info, but for the average person, they don't want to know.

If all people were fully informed, we would live in fear. A terrible way to live. I just want to feel safe. Let the guys in the uniform figure out how to make it so.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Or would live more concious of what is wrong and will take action to solve it somehow.

One of the main reasons of the chaos in the world is that so many people are unaware of it.

How can people turn the world into a better place if they are ignorant of the things that are wrong with it?

[padawan]

OK, so let me get this straight...we make people more aware of what is going on, and we most likely have to use force to get rid of the cause of evil...then we get called warmongers by the left and other nations without the moral fiber to do what is right.

How do we win? Then US will be considered a rogue state. Better to let the liberals sit at home in the dark.

[Nuclear Krusader]

The US has been always at war. In the past century there were at least 17 latin america countries invaded by the US. And that is only in America. I'm not counting the invasions of african, european and asian countries.

[mr krinkle]

Well put Nuclear Krusader,Ask the common american about Columbia and they will probably say something about Coffee,,But We have Troops there fighting the war on drugs and Our Troops have already Died there.<p>Is this the thing people dont want to know about padawan? And I think most people like to live in fear and the gov feeds on that.

[mr krinkle]

padawan can you define evil? It Is a word that they throw around alot these days and it confuses me.

[Nuclear Krusader]

According to the Knight's Book of Tenets:

Evil: what does no good at all.

It's a relative term. What is evil for me could be normal for you and viceversa. It depends on your beliefs and principles.

[avx]

Originally posted by WJWheels
One cannot be foreign born and aspire to be President. Ask Hank Kissinger.
Yeah I know...and plus it aint like he would ever get to use his muscle, the scrauny little politicians arnt the ones doing the fighting, and dieing, the soldiers are...

About the whole little "why shouldnt the world be more informed of the terrible things going on around the world?"

Well, for starters I think you guys are wrong...Im only 19, and I know all too well that there are some seriously sick, dimented fools who have massive amounts of power all over the world. Im pretty sure Ive known that since I was 16...I think half the US just doesnt care...as much as I would like to say that everytime I see that poor kid in the commercial over in Sumolia or whatever, that it brings a tear to my eye...but it doesnt...if someone decides tos ponsor him or send some money, great! but as far as I am concerned, I dont really care, and I dont care for 3 reasons. 1)He aint related to me. 2)I dont know him. 3) He aint even an American, and I know that there are kids in that same eposition over here. Even the kids over here, it does bother me a little but to know that there are kids over here starving too...but I wont lose any sleep over it, for 2 reasons. 1)He aint related to me. 2)I dont know him.

I know what I just said is harsh, but its the truth. How many people do you know that every time they see that commercial call in and sponsor one of those kids?? I am very sure that most people know, but they just dont care. The other half of the America population, well, they might care, but they just dont think that they can make a difference so they just block it out. Its not being cold hearted or evil, or merciless...Its instinct...take care of your own...I just think most people either dont care, or dont think they can make a difference, but Im sure poeple are more than aware that there is some truly evil people in the world, and they know that there is some horrible suffering...but we just block it out so that we can make the best of our own little lives...Lifes hard, its a fact, its hard enought to make it worrying about yourself, we cant worry about other people and their problems...I know its harsh, but...atleast Im not lieing.

[padawan]

Sorry, this discussion really will never end. You guys will never see our side, we will never see your side.

I fail to see how the US has "invaded" foreign countries. We have done military action in the best interest of our people, but we aren't exactly annexing these lands as new states.

If there were a rabid dog on your street, would you confront it and get rid of it, or wait for it to bite one of your children? I think this is a relavent example.

[Nuclear Krusader]

True. This discussion could go on forever.

Originally posted by padawan
I fail to see how the US has "invaded" foreign countries. We have done military action in the best interest of our people, but we aren't exactly annexing these lands as new states.

In 1847, the US invaded Mexico and annexed more than half of Mexico's territory as states. The actual states of California, Nevada, Arizona, Nuevo Mexico, Colorado, and part of others nearby.

I agree that your gov has acted in USA citizens' best interest. Unfortunately that hasn't always been in non-USA citizens' best interest.

It's the same thing that has been happening ever since. The romans waged war to give roman citizens the best way of life. Unfortunately lots of ppl were killed and enslaved so romans could have their roman way of life.

After America's discovery, several civilizations were destroyed and their citizens put to the sword so european nations could be rich and maintain their european way of life.

We agree at least on one thing: this will continue forever.

[Kubie]

padawan,

Sorry, this discussion really will never end. You guys will never see our side, we will never see your side.

At this point padawan, for them to see our side, they would have to admit they've been wrong for so long. I feel sorry for them.

Carl

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Nuclear Krusader
It's a relative term. What is evil for me could be normal for you and viceversa. It depends on your beliefs and principles. Evil, Henry, is not relative. Good is not relative. They are firm truths.
Some can wrongly believe something is evil, but that doesn't make it so. Natural law determines evil and good.
For instance, if good and evil were relative, and you showed me the hottest computer in your shop and I told you it would be good in my eyes for me to take it for free, you would instantly recognize that to be evil. You would feel wronged. It would be a natural feeling.
Discernment of good and evil, ah, there's the rub....

[Nuclear Krusader]

I agree with you Tim, but remember not everyone is catholic.

The "relativity" of acts it's a concept you learn in ethics. For example: conservative ppl sees sex as taboo, while open minded ppl is not afraid to talk about it free and openly. To conservatives, talking about sex in common talk is evil, while for open minded ppl is not.

Sex in itself is not evil, it's good. But, as many other things, it's a thing that can be seen very differently by different subjects.

That was the point I was trying to make. I hope I didn't bumfuzzle you more.

Regarding evil in itself, I hold true to my premise: evil is what does no good.

Lemme clarify this a little bit more: I have heard so many people say: "I am not evil. I don't kill, I don't steal, I attend church all sundays, I don't lie, etc. Hence I am not evil". Well enough; but if those guys also don't *do* good, then they are indeed evil. Because they are acting passively. And you know the worst sin of all is that of omission. To be capable of doing something good and not doing it (for whatever reason) is an evil act in itself.

If I see a deaf boy playing on the highway and a big truck coming at him, and I don't run and move the boy aside and the truck kills him, then it was my fault. I could come up with a thousand excuses, and many of them believable things, but in the end it's still my fault.

I could go on but I would be threading in the religious ground. I better not. Tried to explain the feelings of non americans to americans and got flamed. Tried to clarify some points of history and got flamed. With my arse still smoking, I think I'll give the religious topics a miss for a while.

[TimPoet]

Henry, I like your thoughts on that last post. Too bad not everyone is Catholic, huh? :D You made me do some research in the Catholic Encyclopedia; I think it was St. Thomas a`Quinas who said evil is that which hinders one from perfection.
Anyhow, hope you find a nice tub of cold water for your bottom. Try silvadene for the burns. :p

[glc]

Well - whenever the discussion turns to politics - and especially religion - things get warm fast. That's why we discourage these discussions here. It's just too easy for a lively discussion to turn into a flamefest when these topics come up.

[mr krinkle]

Interesting definition of Evil Nuclear Krusader,With that broad brush that makes us all Evil-doers in a way at one time or another then..<p>padawan your dog catcher example bothers me,That is outside the frame of how the constitution works,, We are a nation of laws. We can't sit by when the government operates outside the framework of the law.,<p> glc talking politics and religion has ruined many friendships and marriages! :)

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by mr krinkle
glc talking politics and religion has ruined many friendships and marriages! :) LOL... don't try to tell that to James Carville & Mary Matalin.... or Arnold Schwarzenegger & Maria Shriver. :D

[krokadil]

It is a fool's dream to live in a world where everyone one does what's in everyone ELSE'S best interest and that people will change just because you'd really like them to.

I am so tired of people boiling down complex world problems into amusing little phrases. This war is not because we want oil. The fact that there is a legitimate threat to world security in a country we don't like that happens to have oil certainly makes things cost-effective to us. People work in their own best interests, and if it is in our own best interests to do something that is ultimately productive and positive then that seems to me a good balance.

I WISH that we would step in where we were really needed - Rwanda, Congo, Burma, North Korea - but those places aren't enough of a vested interest for us to risk ourselves. Shame.

It is easy for us in the first world to try to just want to pull out and protect our televisions and cars and let the suffering suffer by themselves. Unfortunately that is why the Second World War was such a hard fight - because in the face of overwhelming evidence that the German and Japanese and Soviet regimes were corrupt and dangerous America just let it all play out until too many people had to pay. And what happened there? We got stuck with Stalin, one of the world's most disgusting and ludicrous butchers, just because he was against Hitler. And look at the problems all THAT caused.

I saw Elie Wiesel speak once a couple of years ago about his experiences during the Holocaust. What he said always struck me - America and the free world has a responsibility to ease suffering. He said that the whole world knew what the Nazis were doing and they just let it happen. THAT is a crime. People dying is a crime. Whether it is spectacular numbers during a single air raid or slow painful thousands over the years.

Which is worse?

[mr krinkle]

James Carville & Mary Matalin,,That is a Odd couple I must say.

[LocoCoyote]

Why does everyone (antiwar any way) always scream "Its all about the OIL"? Gad I'm so tired of hearing it!
They said it during the first Gulf War...wasn't true. Now here it is again. AKKKKKKKKK!
So let me get this straight...
How do we justify removing a brutal dictator who murders not only his neighbors, but his own people as well? How can we possably justify getting rid of a maniac who harbors terrorists and has weapons of mass destruction and hates our country?

Don't know...its probaly just about the oil

[Nuclear Krusader]

"War, war never changes. The romans waged war to gather slaves and wealth. Spain built an empire from its lust for gold and territory. Hitler turned a battered Germany into an economic superpower. But war never changes.

"In the 21st century war was still waged over the resources that could be acquired. Only this time, the spoils of war were also its weapons: petroleum and uranium..."

-Quote from the game Fallout's intro.

[LocoCoyote]

Except this time it ain't no game

[Nuclear Krusader]

The point I am trying to make: war is a business. Only in the songs and the novels wars are waged for noble purposes. In the real life wars are fought for resources, wealth, spOILs and power.

[LocoCoyote]

I just don't see how that applies here. The world already knows that the US is the most powerful. No way is the US going to steal anything from the Iraqi people. What you are saying is true, grant that. But the difference here is that the US president is a noble man. He is well aware that he has damaged his political career doing this Iraq thing. But he did it anyway. And do you know why? Because his honor will let him do no less

[Nuclear Krusader]

The US is the most powerful, yes; but depends on the oil to continue as the most powerful.

And no, US is not stealing, only making sure the oil will keep on flowing without problems. Saddam was proving not cooperative.

Perhaps you may wanna take a look at my first post in this thread.

[LocoCoyote]

I read it, sorry I am just a bit tired been pulling duty since 0400 this morning and its 0122 the next day now

[Nuclear Krusader]

LOL. It's ok.

IMHO, there's always dozens of reasons and minireasons to something as big as a war. Unfortunately (or fortunately) ppl often see only the most obvious ones, which are not always the most important or the most true.

To put an example: here in Mexico, before the war the uncertainty caused the dollar to go up. It reached 11.10 pesos for 1 dollar. When the war started the american currency started to drop. Now it's 10.71 pesos for 1 dollar. You see, the war benefited US and the countries that depend from the US like mine.

This is not related to America or president Bush, but, do you know why my president didn't support the war? Easy: the Electoral Institute is gathering proof that his electoral campaing received illegal funding. So, knowing that 90% of the mexicans were against war, he decided to not support it, this way the population would like him and pay no attention to the irregularities of his Amigos de Fox organization that supported his electoral campaign back in 2000. The media covered the war and nothing but the war, and so many other important things were relegated to the background or simply weren't covered. Just an example of how big things can be used to a man's advantage.

There are many more things, but I am also kinda tired of this Iraq thing. Plus, it's dangerous thing to look for the truth, so I withdraw.

May you have a good nite's rest. :)

[LocoCoyote]

Thanks and Good Night

[Andrew Lynch]

And now the US will not let weapons inspectors in to Iraq to verify if the Collation has found any genuine WMD's (this was the supposed original reason for the war) so if they DO find any WMD's (I don’t think they will) how will we know its the truth and not just The collation trying to justify there wrongs
Also there will be atrocities i.e. bombing of market places, carried out by the collation that will never be reported (Another reason I am against this war)

[TimPoet]

1) The original reason for the war was that Hussein was seeking an AMD arsenal, most specifically, a nuclear one, which had a huge chance of being provided to terrorists to be delivered to the US. We will do our best to prevent a nuclear September 11.

2) It does violence to the truth to accuse the coalition forces of conspiring to bomb marketplaces (what would be our motive?).

You seem to forget who the barbarians are.

[craig722]

If you are really serious about your question, then read this article

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb2003/02edit03.asp

And remember--you can reason with reasonable people, but don't try it for long with zealots,crazies, or any one that is willing to be trained as a suicide bomber.

[TimPoet]

Exactly, Craig, you don't debate with barbarians. You destroy them when they take action to kill you.