We Support the Troops?

[real american]

"Slander" involves an untruth. There have been no untruths directed at you. So, are you claiming that you're a liar?

Slander does not matter on truth nor lies. It is on hatred words to mock a person.

[JoeEllison]

Slander does not matter on truth nor lies. It is on hatred words to mock a person.

Maybe, among all the other things you've shown ignorance on, the meanings of words is a place where you can most easily educate yourself. There's this thing called "Google". It can be a great start to your further education. :D

[Normal Dude]

Slander does not matter on truth nor lies. It is on hatred words to mock a person.

Once again, please point this out in this page of posts. And stop dodging the issue.

[Lonewulf]

but I have no say in the army so I would have no control over it.

Wrong.

That you think that the army has such a powerful control over the country that they can do as they will, outside of the desires of the common person and the average soldier, demonstrates that you do not only think you live in a democratic republic, but that you don't want to live anywhere outside of a military Junta or a dictatorship.

The red has, indeed, replaced the blue and white for you.

[articulett]

SLANDER - A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel.

This is written--not spoken... nobody has said anything false except you, RA-- and you do not have a character or reputation that can be defamed any more than you have done for yourself. Grow up... read more... type less... and then come back with a whole new screen name so that you don't have to be embarrassed for pretending to have a clue.

You wanted to be treated as an adult. An adult doesn't demand that people get rid of his posts because the going has gotten tough. You'll be taken more seriously when you learn to apologize and admit your mistakes and recognize that you have more to learn than to teach on most topics.

[stanleywinthrop]

Did you know that the Marines want out of Iraq RIGHT NOW? Why not support the troops, and get them to Afghanistan, where they might actually do some good?

Joe, why don't you tell us WHICH marine wants all marines to go to afghanistan, and WHY he wants to.

[Upchurch]

I ask that this thread be deleted, it has become nothing more than a slander topic. I am not backing down but tierd of this, as I said in one thread befor this, no point in pi$$ing in the wind.
We don't delete threads merely because you are tired of them.

Slander does not matter on truth nor lies. It is on hatred words to mock a person.
I recommend trying to understand what a word means before you use it. Slander is a matter of truth vs lies (and damages they cause). Further, you are concerned about libel, which is of written, graphic, or otherwise visual in nature, rather than slander, which is verbal in nature.

I highly recommend you use this as an opportunity to broaden your horizons and learn a little something about the world that you did not previously understand. This is, after all, and educational foundation's forum. At the very least, you can learn to avoid the same mistakes you've made in this thread.

[Normal Dude]

I'm going to assume from your lack of a response that you do not support your position anymore.

[godless dave]

Ok. Lets say we did invade china, even though I don't think we would at this moment of time, yes I would support the troops, whatever the plan may be. but in some way I am being a hipocrit, I do support the idea of the iraq war but I don't think invading china is such a good idea, but I have no say in the army so I would have no control over it. Nuff Said.

As a citizen of the United States, when you turn 18 you will have a say in how the army is used. In fact, you will have a civic duty to inform yourself of national security issues and vote based on how you want the US to use its military.

[godless dave]

Currently nations that have oil are willing to sell it to the USA at a reasonable price (the largest exporter of oil to the USA is Canada), therefore it is not necessary to endanger military personnel to secure it.

However, were a situation to arise whereby it was necessary for the military to be deployed to ensure US access to oil, yes it would be the duty of the US government to authorise that action.

I couldn't disagree more.

Other countries do not have an obligation to sell their resources. Using military force to "secure" resources that belong to someone else is called "mercantilism". It has a long history, but not a good one.

[Upchurch]

real american totally copied American (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=401362#post401362)

[gumboot]

I couldn't disagree more.

Other countries do not have an obligation to sell their resources. Using military force to "secure" resources that belong to someone else is called "mercantilism". It has a long history, but not a good one.


So if a society's survival depends on a particular resource, and no one is willing to sell that resource to the society, the only appropriate thing for the leaders of that society to do is watch it collapse around them?

-Gumboot

[brumsen]

if a society's survival depends on a particular resource
You make it sound as if that were clear cut. But what exactly counts as survival? And what as dependance: given the actual state of affairs? Or are you thinking of some absolute dependence?

Examples would help.

ETA: I don't think that the case would be entirely convincing for oil.

[gumboot]

You make it sound as if that were clear cut. But what exactly counts as survival? And what as dependance: given the actual state of affairs? Or are you thinking of some absolute dependence?

Examples would help.

ETA: I don't think that the case would be entirely convincing for oil.


Of course it's not clear cut. My point is I'm claiming that in principal the invasion of another state to secure resources can be a legitimate duty that a government should undertake.

Determining when this principal would apply to a specific situation is of course a significantly difficult task - the sort of task we expect our leaders to carry out. Firstly, one must determine if a resource really is essential to the society. Secondly, one must determine if there really is absolutely no other way to get it other than through conquest.

I've already pointed out that I do not believe oil currently qualifies in regards to the USA.

Some would of course disagree and claim there there is never a circumstance under which this action would be legitimate - much like my own position on torture which is that it is never acceptable, regardless of the situation.

-Gumboot

[brumsen]

In that case - we fully agree, Gumboot.
(except that you meant to use the word "principle" not "principal")

[danielk]

Interesting thread. I'm still trying to decide who was funnier: real american conveniently drawing the line against militarism at conscription, or the indignant and quite unexpected Oliver backup? Both have their merits, but right now I'm somewhat in favor of the latter on grounds of creativity.

Jury, your verdict please?

[JoeEllison]

I couldn't disagree more.

Other countries do not have an obligation to sell their resources. Using military force to "secure" resources that belong to someone else is called "mercantilism". It has a long history, but not a good one.

This is also a pretty good argument against the "free market capitalism" cult, isn't it?

[gumboot]

In that case - we fully agree, Gumboot.
(except that you meant to use the word "principle" not "principal")


Yes, thanks for the correction. :)

-Gumboot

[brumsen]

perhaps just one more remark. While I agree with gumboot that there could be conditions under which an attack on a country not wanting to sell certain resources might be justified, I believe that it's a very dangerous principle nonetheless - given, say, people's attachement to their creature comforts once they've known them.
The intellectually lazy- who, as we know, in the actual world sometimes manage to become presidents and such - have therefore a tendency to mis-use this principle, which is, I suspect, why some (as Gumboot says) would hold that an attack to secure resources is never justified.

[gumboot]

perhaps just one more remark. While I agree with gumboot that there could be conditions under which an attack on a country not wanting to sell certain resources might be justified, I believe that it's a very dangerous principle nonetheless - given, say, people's attachement to their creature comforts once they've known them.
The intellectually lazy- who, as we know, in the actual world sometimes manage to become presidents and such - have therefore a tendency to mis-use this principle, which is, I suspect, why some (as Gumboot says) would hold that an attack to secure resources is never justified.


I'd agree, and even go so far as to suggest that not only is it possible for governments to misuse this principle, but that it's relatively common.

One of the problems of course is that by the time you know for certain if a resource is vital to your society's survival it's generally too late. I dear say the Easter Islanders never considered trees vital to their survival while they were busy chopping them down.

The other problem, of course, is that governments tend to have a habit of misusing all principles, which would suggest having any principles at all would be a bad idea (including, in fact, the principle of having no principles, which would in itself be open to abuse).

-Gumboot

[godless dave]

So if a society's survival depends on a particular resource, and no one is willing to sell that resource to the society, the only appropriate thing for the leaders of that society to do is watch it collapse around them?

No, the appropriate thing to do is to adjust the society so its survival no longer depends on that resource. Neither people nor states are obligated to sell things.