lol we didn't go to Iraq for terrorism or oil, we went there so that our military could have some fun at the expense of taxpayers and brainwashed young men.

 

Anybody who reads too deeply into the motives of the US government won't get far, because it's not a logical or coherent institution - it's an organization of parasites, who figure out ways to collect more money from the productive class of society.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo]YouTube - Rumsfeld 2.3 Trillion Dollars missing Pentagon 1 DAY b4/9-11[/ame]

 

They just want our money. That's all.

Not fair.

 

I also want to point out that the noble prizes are given out on my birthday. If anyone here wins one I expect that person to invite me to the ceremony, as a birthday present.

when I win one I will

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:stunned:

happy bday btw

I don't think that's true, Saffire.

 

Why do you hate the military so much?

The reason we ever went there was to fight terrorism.

 

Where were the terrorist in Iraq? What terrorist groups? What connection did it have to Al Qaeda or 911?

 

Anyone who thinks we went there for oil is an idiot.

 

Do you know anything about oil trading? The Forex market? The Reserve currency?

I didn't say Iraq, I said the Middle East.

 

I don't think we should have gone to Iraq, but we didn't go there for oil either.

I don't think that's true, Saffire.

 

Why do you hate the military so much?

 

Because the military is an unnecessary, parasitical security corporation.

 

One of the fantastic features of North America is that we don't have to live near unstable and insane governments, yet we perpetually feel a need to run over to that side of the world and get our hands dirty. It's like living in an oceanfront mansion within a gated community, and racing down to the ghetto to shoot some people every night. It makes zero sense.

:curtain: I didn't know this thread would turn into a brawl.:confused: Anyway, i've heard on TV Obama had given the money he got from this Nobel Price to a charity.

 

 

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

 

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

We've had a military since colonial times. If we didn't have one, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves. It's not unnecessary at all. One of the reasons other nations fear us is because we have a very strong military.

 

You're right that we get involved in things that we shouldn't, and I think that is because we feel the need to help out our allies....

 

Plus it's better to keep the war in the Middle East instead of leaving and having it come HERE.

We've had a military since colonial times. If we didn't have one, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves. It's not unnecessary at all. One of the reasons other nations fear us is because we have a very strong military.

 

You're right that we get involved in things that we shouldn't, and I think that is because we feel the need to help out our allies....

 

Plus it's better to keep the war in the Middle East instead of leaving and having it come HERE.

 

Read Washington's farewell address and his warnings about "entangling alliances", which interestingly, are the cause of World War 1.

 

And a standing army is unnecessary when you've got nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. No country would dare invade anybody who has the capacity to destroy their major cities in one stroke.

 

Ceolsige, it's all about money. The military is a redistributive welfare scheme. Commanders, generals, officers all make six figures and get to play with exciting and fun weapons. They get to play our their homocidal fantasies every day in the sandbox that is the Middle East. It's also a way to artificially reduce the unemployment figures, and mask the pitiful job our public schools do when it comes to raising students who are intelligent enough to compete in the real world. It masks the insanely high crime-rate America would have, if half its sociopaths were actually at home, rather than overseas.

We've had a military since colonial times. If we didn't have one, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves. It's not unnecessary at all. One of the reasons other nations fear us is because we have a very strong military.

 

You're right that we get involved in things that we shouldn't, and I think that is because we feel the need to help out our allies....

 

Plus it's better to keep the war in the Middle East instead of leaving and having it come HERE.

 

Yeah, militaries are so helpful and caring and nice.

The reason we ever went there was to fight terrorism.

 

Can you define me terrorism ?!

Can you define me terrorism ?!

 

Are you being serious?

Are you being serious?

 

Yes, I am.

 

you said that USA is fighting against terrorism in the middle east and i would llike to know how you are defining terrorism.

It's a trap!

 

You can't define terrorism without including the activities of governments! Because they are terrorist organizations, by definition. And taxation is theft.

Hah sure, it was too early. As many people has pointed out.

 

What's up with the Peace Nobel comitee in Oslo? Hope they don't end up turning the significance of this price in a joke... As if it wasn't enough with Hitler's, Musolini's and Stalin's nominations for this price years ago.

Where were the terrorist in Iraq? What terrorist groups? What connection did it have to Al Qaeda or 911?

 

 

 

Do you know anything about oil trading? The Forex market? The Reserve currency?

 

Love this. Glad you are in agreement Nick. I find it sad and interesting that people still think that we went to Iraq to fight terrorism. Give me a fucking break. It's interesting how she could not even respond to you.

It's a trap!

 

You can't define terrorism without including the activities of governments! Because they are terrorist organizations, by definition. And taxation is theft.

 

How's a modern society without taxation and governments supposed to work? :thinking:

How's a modern society without taxation and governments supposed to work? :thinking:

 

Governments aren't a "modern" concept, they're as old as the Stone Ages.

 

The real question is - How is a modern society supposed to work WITH taxation and governments? It clearly can't. Governments create all sorts of trade imbalances, murder millions, cause massive unemployment, reduce the quality of life for the average citizen, etc. And we're supposed to trade all this downside just so we can "have defense and roads"? I don't think so.

 

Anything the government claims it can do, the free market can do better. And the free market isn't a "thing" or "institution" like the government is. It's Darwinian evolution, but with goods and services rather than animals. Anybody who doesn't believe in the free market is tantamount to a Creationist in my view.

^

What about the police, do you want to privatise that as well? And what happens to those who can't fend for themselves? The poor, the disabled etc.?

 

Survival of the fittest works well in the animal kingdom, but in a human society, not so much ;)

At least not in a society I would want to live in.

Of course, security should be provided by private businesses.

 

And that's a good question, what does happen to the poor? Oh that's right, the government dangles paper money in front of their faces to go fight in Afghanistan. Or locks them up in jail for smoking marijuana. Or inflates the currency so their savings evaporate with time. Or taxes imports, the production of food, and gasoline, which comprise a large % of what the poor spend their money on. Or puts a "price floor" (minimum wage) on the value of their labor which keeps them from getting a job. Or confiscates certain drugs, which increases the price, which creates violence in poor neighborhoods.

 

Yeah, the government really helps the poor! I'm glad we have it.

Of course, security should be provided by private businesses.

 

And that's a good question, what does happen to the poor? Oh that's right, the government dangles paper money in front of their faces to go fight in Afghanistan. Or locks them up in jail for smoking marijuana. Or inflates the currency so their savings evaporate with time. Or taxes imports, the production of food, and gasoline, which comprise a large % of what the poor spend their money on. Or puts a "price floor" (minimum wage) on the value of their labor which keeps them from getting a job. Or confiscates certain drugs, which increases the price, which creates violence in poor neighborhoods.

 

Yeah, the government really helps the poor! I'm glad we have it.

 

Jay, I have to run so if you do respond, I'll respond later but,

and my point has always been this, how can you be so sure that an anarchy would work? Are you at least open to the fact that perhaps it won't be all cookies and sunshine as you portray?

I never said it would be all cookies and sunshine. You're projecting. Statists tend to look upon anarchy with strong cynicism, yet uphold government (and all its attendant horrors and illogic) as some sort of panacea. Got a problem? Government can solve it! So from my perspective, ANYTHING is better than a geographic monopoly on violence. Anarchy is just the alternative, and how it's done is the result of millions of little decisions each member of society makes on a daily basis. It's not a single decision one man makes, and then implements with the force of a military whose weapons are so fearful, God himself would tremble!

 

The reason I believe anarchy would work is that throughout history, you see temporary periods where there was anarchy or near-anarchy. And in each of these times & places, life was relatively wonderful. Governments will propagandize and say things like "Oh without us, you'd still be working in a dirty factory! And you'd make 10 cents an hour!" But of course, if this were such a bad thing - why did millions of Britons choose to do it, rather than farm? Because they made a decision, independent of government interference, that this would be a better life. And it was.

 

Any time society changes due to a new technology or shift in economics, governments resist it, and put laws into place to "protect us" from ourselves. And then when things start to get better, the court historians say "See! This was because of that law they passed!"

 

Look around you. Any time the "government" does something, it's actually the cops who are doing it. They're the edge of the knife. They're the ones who make sure that government policy is implemented. So anytime someone says, "Government should do X", they're really saying, "Cops should do X".

There's a reason those periods of anarchy you speak of were short-lived. If there's a vacuum, it will get filled. If you get rid of democracy in favour of anarchy, sooner or later you will end up with another Hitler or Stalin.

[enters thread]

 

 

Obama does not deserve this.

 

[/leaves thread]

There's a reason those periods of anarchy you speak of were short-lived. If there's a vacuum, it will get filled. If you get rid of democracy in favour of anarchy, sooner or later you will end up with another Hitler or Stalin.

 

Of course, because Hitler and Stalin both came to power following periods of anarchy in their respective countries!

 

:rolleyes: