The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Government is the sprit of conquest

Government is the sprit of conquest

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
TBC...sign up ? mate..I did.. long ago..and it is not the best feeling flying in to Vung Tau watching all the boats down below to see who is shooting at you.

Peter...glad you took that hit from me on the chin...but that was just an opening jab :) now for the left hook and the right sweeping round kick.

Kidding of course.

War is war..and within that crimes can indeed occur..but you jammed so much separate information into your sentences and then "declared" them as 'crimes' that I thought I better jar you out of your trance for a bit.

For example:

"Could a majority vote of the American people justify such blatant mass murder against the Iraqis?"

Mate..if I was into weed I'd ask you what ur smoking and beg you for some.

Where in this wide world do you get 'mass murder' ? ? ? ?

You would need to scrutinise every bit of intel and event of the Falluja campaign and 'then' form a reasonable conclusion, but I hazard a guess that NONE of us have access to that so... we are left with the 'official films' and the left wing/progressive sleaze machine which cares as much about truth as a King Cobra does for your eyesight after it's launched a blob at you.

BUT....you do say a few things I can agree with... in your last paragraph.

//In war we see the essence of the State. //

*bingo* 100% agree.

But what do you propose as a solution? After all..'States' comprise flawed human beings.. I prefer the term 'fallen'.

I have a solution :) Acts 2 the whole chapter specially the last few verses. 42 to end.

I invite and challenge you... seriously.. read that whole chapter in 'careful' detail..and see what you come up with.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2&version=NIV
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 1:21:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PETER....one more addition.

You said:

"So if you or I go around killing people by the hundreds or thousands, that's crime. But if government does it, that's not crime."

Where the rubber meets the road.. yep..that's how it is.

What is your external standard for right and wrong by which you determine the actions of a government are so ?

Remember.. the Nazi's were 'right' until they got their butts kicked by a bigger foot.
Only 'then' were they wrong......

The Nuremberg trials had to determine that very issue.

//In "moral choices" or ethical dilemmas an ethical decision is often made by appealing to a "higher ethic" such as ethics in religion or secular ethics. One such "higher ethic," which is found in many religions and also in secular ethics, is the "ethic of reciprocity," or the Golden Rule. It states that one has a right to just treatment, and therefore has a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others. "Higher ethics," such as those, could be used by an individual to solve the legal dilemma presented by the "Superior Orders" defense.//

It should be noted though, that 'international' law would have simply been the laws of the 3rd Reich had it been successful.

Boils down to 'winners are grinners' :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 1:27:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There you go blaming capitalists for the actions of governments exercising their monopoly power again. Who paid the companies that participated in the war? Where did governments get the money that they paid for people to produce weapons? How did they get the money? Did anyone who paid consent? Prove it.

We have already seen that your concept of property being unjust, because exclusive, must mean that thousands of millions of people would starve to death because no-one would the right to exclusive use of any resources that is currently supporting the world's population above the level that could be supported by everyone working in isolation. It is an anti-economic, anti-human view, that would be posing as concern for human beings, if it wasn't just blind anger.

And your Marxist concept that private ownership involves "exploitation" comes from Marx's labour theory value. You have been completely unable to either prove it, to show why future goods should not be discounted against present goods, to show why workers should be paid for risk they are not undertaking, to show why value is nothing but the embodiment of labour, to refute the argument showing that the LTV is rubbish.

"Show me a single example of an improvement in service and utility of something that was once the sole province of government that has been privitised?"

Agriculture in Russia. Or did you think mass starvation was better.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are authorised primarily by the American government in breach of their Constitution, in violating the private property rights of the taxpayers who are being forced to pay for it all. Absent that, the whole thing wouldn't be taking place.

And I note you didn't mention Obama or Gillard in your list of war criminals? Bias to the left.

Only libertarians are consistent in criticising the violations of the State across the board. The socialists are no more opposed to them *in principle* than the neocons. Only libertarians support freedom from hegemony, and the socialist impression to the contrary derives from their profound ignorance of economics that killed millions.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 1:44:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Al
Actually your argument is ethically no different than the ethics of the Nuremberg defence. You are only proving my point and displaying your moral confusion.

mikk
You say that you are opposed to the state. But you don’t apply against state ownership the same standards for which you criticise private property, even though they apply equally to states. You constantly urge for higher taxes. You continue to believe that the state can provide goods and services more economically than private owners, as well as more fairly. And you allege against capitalism exactly the same reasoning as Marx did – “exploitation” - without once every having proved or even tried to prove it. And your communism extends not only to capital goods, but to some undefined round of consumer goods as well.

Thus you are not anti-state at all. You are a thorough-going totalitarian communist who has somehow managed to convince himself that he stands for the freedom and wellbeing of the little guy against institutionalised hegemony.

The thing is, while you remain clueless about economics you really won’t have the faintest idea what you’re talking about. That’s why you keep on advocating policies that would result in mass starvation while pretending to moral superiority, without realising that that’s how stupid your pretensions actually are.

You could do worse than to read the first chapter of Rothbard’s Man, Economy, State, Market and Power: http://mises.org/books/mespm.pdf .

Let us know if there’s anything in it you can disprove. Disprove, not have a childish little tanty about.

If you allege "exploitation" one more time without proving it, proving the labour theory of value, and disproving the theory of marginal utility, it means you lose. Get with the program.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 2:06:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How can you separate the actions of the American government and it's close association with big business in the Iraqi invasion?
Starting way back in Bush Snr's administration, Dick Cheney was scouting around trying to find ways to outsource the military. According to Naomi Klein in "The Shock Doctrine" - "...he scaled down the number of active troops and dramatically increased reliance on private contractors. He contracted Brown and Root, the engineering division of Haliburton, to identify tasks being performed by U.S. troops that could be taken over by the private sector for profit."
Klein points to the outsourcing of war for profit and adds that: "Haliburton in particular all but took over organising the entire infrastructure of U.S. military operations overseas during the Balkans War.
According to the congressional Research Service, The Department of Defence these days increasingly relies upon contractors to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Contractors make up to 54 percent of Department of the Defence's workforce in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The administration under George W. Bush was especially famous for parcelling out various functions of government to private interests.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 9:16:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter I did not agree with you, not with Boazy, but gee I liked it.
Not the content ,intent as it is on a one sided view of mans inhumanity to each other.
But the comrades rushing out to put the boot in to America and the halo on the head of any one they confront is a hobby.
The true very left emerges from its phone box HQ armed with such and gives me reason to laugh, at them.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 5:24:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy