Yakk

So if some Brazillian outcast, trained by crack Arintinian death squads, living in Mexico said "I will kill Americans", what is the correct scale of response?
1> Nuke the city the person is in.
2> Ignore the crazy dumb-fuck.
3> Place all people you suspect are mexicans or mexican sympasizers in concentration camps.
4> Invade and occupy Venezuala.

Now suppose the person mananged to kill 5 Americans. 50 Americans. 500 Americans. 5000 Americans.

Now suppose 20 years pass. You occupied Venezuala (and currently have about twice as many armed forces there as the Venezualian government does), and supported a revolution in Mexico in order to kill the person who killed the 5 Americans. You are supporting dictators in the vast majority of latin american states.

A Venezualian who the USA trained to be a Mexican revolutionary shoots the vice president, saying "Venezualia will be free!". The assasin gets away, smuggled away by Mexicans. What do you do?
1> Nuke Argentina.
2> Track down and arrest the killer.
3> Invade Cuba.
4> Build a wall between Bolivia and Paraguay.
5> Say that the Venezualian terrorist hates freedom, and occupy Argentina.

...

Feel free to add other answers. I tried to pick ones that seemed to line up with current US foriegn policy.

Your family is in more danger from automobies than it is from terrorists. By orders of magnitude. Massive orders of magnitude.

Your family is in more danger from an oppresive government than terrorists. Oppressive governments have killed many times more people than any act of any foriegn power in any time in history.

So are you willing to say "the government can put anyone away for as long as they want, with no appeal, 100% secrecy, and I'll support them"? And if so, why do you hate your family so much that you want to increase government oppression?

Replace "suspected terrorists" with "anyone the government wants".

Do you have any problem with the government being able to hold anyone they want, torture anyone they want, and do it on any scale they want to?

By "the government", I'm talking anyone with any significant government rank. An appointed beaurocrat, someone with enough seniority, the ultra-left-wing democrat cabinate member who becomes president after the VP and Pres are assasinatd in 2015?

Or by "suspected terrorists" do you mean "bad guys"?

Because I can't see anything in the actual things you are supporting that restricts the powers you want the government to have to only apply to the "bad guys". Can you point it out?

You probably do not need me. I'm actually in favour of a Canadian nuclear arms program (secret) in order to provide a defence against American aggression. That is because I'm a Canadian, and I don't think America is to be trusted, given the attidude of people like you.

Such a nuclear arms program should be unofficial, of course. Canada should profess that we are nuclear arms free. We should just have medium-range rockets right next to "non-functioning" nuclear bombs (ie, the switch turned off).

Given the attitude of the USA, nothing else will keep Canada safe and soveriegn against a day when a US president wants to start an arbitrary war to funnel money to his power base.

As demonstrated by Russia and N. Korea, having a nuclear deterrant will slow and/or stop American imperial ambitions quite effectively.

Care to explain it to me? I would be much happier if the USA wasn't forcing me to support nuclear arming Canada.

Do you care more about being national top dog, or do you care more about the wellbeing of your family?

Usually, great power struggles are about one growing power wanting power and freedom and feeling justified in taking it, while a fading power feels justified in blocking the power and freedom of the growing power.

The only nukes aimed at the USA are in Russia, last I checked. Russia is not threatening to fire them. Between 1988 and 2000, Russia was quite reasonably friendly with the USA.

However, the Russian president, in response to recent American imperial invasions has started making some quite strong anti-American rhetoric.

So, I must ask, which nukes are you talking about? Korean nukes don't have nearly the range, and the only nuke they set off could easily have been a large conventional bomb. Britian isn't currently aiming nukes at the USA. France isn't aiming nukes at the USA, as far as I know. South Africa disarmed themselves reasonably credibly. India and Pakistan don't have the range to hit non-imperial American targets. Isreal might have a nuke aimed at the USA.

China probably has a handful of nukes aimed at the USA. I'm guessing more are aimed at American imperial forces in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the like.

Am I missing a nuclear power?

I understand. The moral pain that the raper of small children feels makes me feel sorry for the poor rapist. He wishes he lived in a world that he did not have to rape children, then kill them, chop their corpses up, and then console their poor parents over the loss of their child. If only the world understood that he has no choice. Oh woe is him.

Oh wait, that's not right. I don't feel sorry for the child rapist.

"Wishing" you didn't "have" to be evil means nothing. I'm not saying you rape small children and chop up their corpses -- I'm just saying you support acts that are morally worse, that from your perspective "have" to be done.

Most people who are evil and/or support evil feel justified, and wish that they didn't "have" to.

First, who is the war against, and what is it about?

Are we talking "Falkland Islands" skirmish-war, or a "I'm Britian/Russia and they are germany and it is WW2" existential-crisis war?

But in short, yes -- the ends can justify some means. On the other hand, one does not sign off on arbitrary means for an end of limited usefulness. That is stupid and evil.

How so? I was using "lie, cheat and steal" as a proxy for "the ends justify the means" -- ie, discard any usual restriction one has on one's acts.

Actually, I don't belong to the Liberal party. I don't strongly follow liberal-economic theory, but that isn't probably what you mean. I think that the communist party is foolish, and most socialists don't understand the raw power and usefulness of modern economics.

So, by liberal, what do you mean? The opposite of "conservative"?

If so, the opposite of which "conservative" -- fiscal responsibility, government intruding on personal lives, cut-tax-and-spend, the military industiral complex, anti-enthropy, don't think just feel, do whatever my parents did?

I'm just wondering which pigeon you think I'm sharing a hole with.

I really don't need any permission from you to ignore a question. Is this an attempt at trolling for flame response?

BTW, what fog are you talking about?

In what way is the world-wide network of US vassal-states and military bases not an Empire?

That the US government doesn't use the word Empire to describe itself means no more than lack of formal declaration of war during the Iraq war. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, swims like a duck and looks like a duck, calling it a duck sure seems reasonable.

You, personally, might not like having an Empire. You might not personally be supporting Empire building in order to have an Empire. But you got one.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.