How can the consequences of continuing abuse/aggression be
anything but continued abuse/aggression - AND MORE HARM? If you
mess up and cause a problem, you don't solve it by continuing the
mistake. A solution does not usually consist of continuing the
problem. A solution usually consists of something quite
different. A solution usually consists of solving the problem.
Solving the problem usually consists of stopping the problem.
Stopping the problem is not usually accomplished by not stopping
the problem. (Redundant, yes; but apparently necessary.)
Your questioning of such obvious fundamentals implies you don't
agree. So the more efficient conversation would center around
this: What do YOU think would happen after a pull-out and why
would (any of) it be a reason to stay?
If you are expecting to find some excuse for staying, asking
others to describe/predict all the specific kinds of harm that
will likely continue after a pull out is an exercise in futility;
you won't find one. Whatever the list of specific harms may be,
it would likely only consist of "more of the same and worse" and
would only serve as a basis for pulling out. Any "basis" for
staying that I have heard consists of circular reasoning: "we
should stay because we are there".
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
-----------------
I agree with everything you have said here. Everyone is arguing
over the BS reasons that ole George gave for invading. I too
thought it was crap. My logic herein is not to simply spend the
rest of eternity crying over the pretext for war. I would rather
argue over what should be done. ABSOLUTLEY NO ONE here has
answered
what would happen if we left Iraq right now. I've wanted someone
to
explain what the consequences are of leaving and all I get are
analogies to robbing a damn bank, told that 1 american life and 1
american tax dollar is not worth freeing 30 million people (which
is
not what I think we are doing in Iraq), that every war since WWII
has been illegal and unconstitutional (I agree with some of
this),
and more analogies and metaphores about Germany, etc. All i'm
disagreeing with is what should be done now, so please spare me
the
lecture on the 'illegal war in Iraq.' I get it, i'm on your side.
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> William,
>
> Regarding the Iraq War
> The ends do not justify the means, especially when the original
> end was a lie, when the means is war/death, and when the
revised
> end claims to justify the original - and a continuation of an
> endless mean. For a little clarity and perspective, try
applying
> the govt "ethics"/"logic" on a smaller scale. A person trying
to
> justify the continuation of his mistake on the fact that it WAS
a
> mistake, was HIS mistake, was a BAD mistake, and has been going
> on for a long time, is beyond most people's level of
> comprehension. Yet somehow many seem to be able to accept this
> same rationale on a national scale. There is nothing rational
or
> ethical about continuing this war/mistake. Unjustified
aggression
> does not defend further aggression any more than past spouse
> abuse defends more spouse abuse. Nor does harm resulting from
> past abuse defend further abuse, which is another "nonsanism"
> (even more insane, if that's possible) commonly heard coming
from
> state/war supporters.
>
> I know you are new here, but if you are gonna get "personally
> offended" so easily, put on your steel-toed shoes. No one here
> walks on egg shells for anybody, or avoids sensitive toes.
>
> American Libertarianism is precisely that. Just like our
> constitution, the LP / philosophy does not value world
domination
> over domestic goals. If a chance to spread liberty abroad
> presents itself, I'm sure any Libertarian would jump on it; but
> not if it comes at the expense of liberty at home. It's really
a
> very simple matter of basic priorities: America comes first. Do
> you really think we Americans are in Iraq because we love them
> more than ourselves??
>
> -Mark
>
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
