We Support the Troops? - Page 7

real american · 8th December 2007, 05:26 PM

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.

real american · 8th December 2007, 05:39 PM

I ask that this thread be deleted, it has become nothing more than a slander topic. Thank You.

Normal Dude · 8th December 2007, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by real american

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.

No, not "nuff said". You totally missed the point of the analogy, even when we explained it to you. Ok, let's try this again: The point we are trying to hammer home to you is that is you DO HAVE a RIGHT to speak up and say that a plan is nonsense, if you choose to do so. This also means that supporting the troops does not always mean supporting the plan. This is direct opposition to your original post. Do you understand this?

Originally Posted by real american

I ask that this thread be deleted, it has become nothing more than a slander topic. Thank You.

Way to run away when your opinions are challenged. I thought you didn't back down? Of course, you can always just admit that you were mistaken and we can move on.

Dr Adequate · 8th December 2007, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by real american

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.

Would your support for the troops involve sharing their opposition to a bad plan?

Remember, the plan is not the troops. The troops are not the plan.

Troops != plan.

The plan is a thing that the troops are not.

Troops are not plans.

One way you can tell is that if you kill a plan, it doesn't bleed, but if you kill a soldier, he does.

Quote:

but in some way I am being a hipocrit

Yes, you are. You keep pretending that you "support the troops" when it's clear that what you actually support is the war.

JoeEllison · 8th December 2007, 07:50 PM

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?

real american · 8th December 2007, 08:59 PM

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.

JoeEllison · 8th December 2007, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by real american

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.

The real point is that you have staked out an indefensible position, and now that you've realized that we're not as gullible as you'd hoped, you want the evidence of your mistake to disappear.

That's completely weak.

real american · 8th December 2007, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

The real point is that you have staked out an indefensible position, and now that you've realized that we're not as gullible as you'd hoped, you want the evidence of your mistake to disappear.

That's completely weak.

Not at all, I never thought you all were gulible. I created this thread and many others and afterreading them I see they are sland threads from each side.

Normal Dude · 8th December 2007, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by real american

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.

In the last few posts, have you seen any slander? Please point it out.

Or you could just apologize and acknowledge that you were mistaken. That would be the adult thing to do. We all screw up from time to time.

JoeEllison · 8th December 2007, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by real american

Not at all, I never thought you all were gulible. I created this thread and many others and afterreading them I see they are sland threads from each side.

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

real american · 8th December 2007, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

"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 · 8th December 2007, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by real american

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.

Normal Dude · 8th December 2007, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by real american

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 · 9th December 2007, 02:16 AM

Originally Posted by real american

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 · 9th December 2007, 03:30 AM

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 · 9th December 2007, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

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 · 9th December 2007, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by real american

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.

Originally Posted by real american

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 · 11th December 2007, 02:40 AM

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

godless dave · 11th December 2007, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by real american

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 · 11th December 2007, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

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 · 11th December 2007, 06:07 AM

real american totally copied American

gumboot · 12th December 2007, 03:01 AM

Originally Posted by godless dave

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 · 12th December 2007, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

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 · 12th December 2007, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by brumsen

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 · 12th December 2007, 11:41 AM

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

danielk · 12th December 2007, 12:04 PM

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 · 12th December 2007, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

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 · 12th December 2007, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by brumsen

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 · 12th December 2007, 11:07 PM

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 · 12th December 2007, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 17th December 2007, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

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.

8th December 2007, 05:26 PM	#241
real american Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: The Good Ol' U.S. of A Posts: 265	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.
	__________________ "It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." - Ayn Rand

8th December 2007, 05:39 PM	#242
real american Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: The Good Ol' U.S. of A Posts: 265	I ask that this thread be deleted, it has become nothing more than a slander topic. Thank You.
	__________________ "It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." - Ayn Rand Last edited by real american; 8th December 2007 at 05:39 PM.

8th December 2007, 06:41 PM	#243
Normal Dude Space Shuttle Door Gunner Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: W/ The Evil Council Posts: 3,959	Originally Posted by real american 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. No, not "nuff said". You totally missed the point of the analogy, even when we explained it to you. Ok, let's try this again: The point we are trying to hammer home to you is that is you DO HAVE a RIGHT to speak up and say that a plan is nonsense, if you choose to do so. This also means that supporting the troops does not always mean supporting the plan. This is direct opposition to your original post. Do you understand this? Originally Posted by real american I ask that this thread be deleted, it has become nothing more than a slander topic. Thank You. Way to run away when your opinions are challenged. I thought you didn't back down? Of course, you can always just admit that you were mistaken and we can move on.
	__________________ "At some point, you just get past the horror of someone having these beliefs, and begin to enjoy the sheer comedy of it all." Complexity And I dont care if your name is Norm or Jack, Or Dick. I dont see why you have to post your name everytime you make a comment./ its IRRELIVANT -Rwalsh Last edited by Normal Dude; 8th December 2007 at 06:44 PM.

8th December 2007, 07:49 PM	#244
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by real american 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. Would your support for the troops involve sharing their opposition to a bad plan? Remember, the plan is not the troops. The troops are not the plan. Troops != plan. The plan is a thing that the troops are not. Troops are not plans. One way you can tell is that if you kill a plan, it doesn't bleed, but if you kill a soldier, he does. Quote: but in some way I am being a hipocrit Yes, you are. You keep pretending that you "support the troops" when it's clear that what you actually support is the war.
	Last edited by Dr Adequate; 8th December 2007 at 07:52 PM.

8th December 2007, 09:24 PM	#249
Normal Dude Space Shuttle Door Gunner Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: W/ The Evil Council Posts: 3,959	Originally Posted by real american 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. In the last few posts, have you seen any slander? Please point it out. Or you could just apologize and acknowledge that you were mistaken. That would be the adult thing to do. We all screw up from time to time.
	__________________ "At some point, you just get past the horror of someone having these beliefs, and begin to enjoy the sheer comedy of it all." Complexity And I dont care if your name is Norm or Jack, Or Dick. I dont see why you have to post your name everytime you make a comment./ its IRRELIVANT -Rwalsh

8th December 2007, 07:50 PM	#245
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	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?

8th December 2007, 08:59 PM	#246
real american Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: The Good Ol' U.S. of A Posts: 265	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.

8th December 2007, 09:16 PM	#247
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by real american 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. The real point is that you have staked out an indefensible position, and now that you've realized that we're not as gullible as you'd hoped, you want the evidence of your mistake to disappear. That's completely weak.

8th December 2007, 09:24 PM	#248
real american Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: The Good Ol' U.S. of A Posts: 265	Originally Posted by JoeEllison The real point is that you have staked out an indefensible position, and now that you've realized that we're not as gullible as you'd hoped, you want the evidence of your mistake to disappear. That's completely weak. Not at all, I never thought you all were gulible. I created this thread and many others and afterreading them I see they are sland threads from each side.

8th December 2007, 09:27 PM	#250
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by real american Not at all, I never thought you all were gulible. I created this thread and many others and afterreading them I see they are sland threads from each side. "Slander" involves an untruth. There have been no untruths directed at you. So, are you claiming that you're a liar?

8th December 2007, 09:34 PM	#251
real american Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: The Good Ol' U.S. of A Posts: 265	Originally Posted by JoeEllison "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.

8th December 2007, 09:36 PM	#252
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by real american 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.

8th December 2007, 09:46 PM	#253
Normal Dude Space Shuttle Door Gunner Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: W/ The Evil Council Posts: 3,959	Originally Posted by real american 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.
	__________________ "At some point, you just get past the horror of someone having these beliefs, and begin to enjoy the sheer comedy of it all." Complexity And I dont care if your name is Norm or Jack, Or Dick. I dont see why you have to post your name everytime you make a comment./ its IRRELIVANT -Rwalsh

9th December 2007, 02:16 AM	#254
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by real american 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.
	__________________ Writing.com Account Last edited by Lonewulf; 9th December 2007 at 02:18 AM.

9th December 2007, 03:30 AM	#255
articulett Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Las Vegas, NV (and the ethers of cyberspace) Posts: 15,786	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.

9th December 2007, 06:12 AM	#256
stanleywinthrop Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 121	Originally Posted by JoeEllison 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.
stanleywinthrop Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 121

9th December 2007, 09:20 AM	#257
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by real american 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. Originally Posted by real american 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.

11th December 2007, 02:40 AM	#258
Normal Dude Space Shuttle Door Gunner Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: W/ The Evil Council Posts: 3,959	I'm going to assume from your lack of a response that you do not support your position anymore.
	__________________ "At some point, you just get past the horror of someone having these beliefs, and begin to enjoy the sheer comedy of it all." Complexity And I dont care if your name is Norm or Jack, Or Dick. I dont see why you have to post your name everytime you make a comment./ its IRRELIVANT -Rwalsh

11th December 2007, 02:43 AM	#259
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,125	Originally Posted by real american 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.
	Last edited by godless dave; 11th December 2007 at 02:51 AM.

11th December 2007, 02:49 AM	#260
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,125	Originally Posted by gumboot 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.

11th December 2007, 06:07 AM	#261
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	real american totally copied American

12th December 2007, 03:01 AM	#262
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,110	Originally Posted by godless dave 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
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

12th December 2007, 04:40 AM	#263
brumsen Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 438	Originally Posted by gumboot 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.
	Last edited by brumsen; 12th December 2007 at 04:42 AM.

12th December 2007, 10:45 AM	#264
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,110	Originally Posted by brumsen 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
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

12th December 2007, 11:41 AM	#265
brumsen Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 438	In that case - we fully agree, Gumboot. (except that you meant to use the word "principle" not "principal")

12th December 2007, 12:04 PM	#266
danielk Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Berlin Posts: 1,077	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?
	__________________ "Our brains are capable of much more than we realize." - mayday

12th December 2007, 12:28 PM	#267
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by godless dave 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?

12th December 2007, 10:16 PM	#268
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,110	Originally Posted by brumsen In that case - we fully agree, Gumboot. (except that you meant to use the word "principle" not "principal") Yes, thanks for the correction. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

12th December 2007, 11:07 PM	#269
brumsen Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 438	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.

12th December 2007, 11:32 PM	#270
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,110	Originally Posted by 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. 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
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

17th December 2007, 05:58 PM	#271
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,125	Originally Posted by gumboot 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.