How come there is no national disgust in the murder of innocents by our Gov?

[Publius1787]

I really don't get it. I see people bickering day in and day out about the Fiscal Cliff or Sandy Hook or how Obama blows or how Romney blows or what have you, but I almost never see anyone complain about how we murder innocent children and women and men all the time with bombs in other countries. In fact, I see people CONSTANTLY trying to defend the very politicians who charter these horrendous acts of violence.

Can't we all at least agree that an innocent human life is more important than the D or the R next to some guys name on the TV? Let's start promoting freedom for everyone.

Define "freedom."

 

[LibertyLemming]

I really don't get it. I see people bickering day in and day out about the Fiscal Cliff or Sandy Hook or how Obama blows or how Romney blows or what have you, but I almost never see anyone complain about how we murder innocent children and women and men all the time with bombs in other countries. In fact, I see people CONSTANTLY trying to defend the very politicians who charter these horrendous acts of violence.

Can't we all at least agree that an innocent human life is more important than the D or the R next to some guys name on the TV? Let's start promoting freedom for everyone.

Define "freedom."

The absence of force.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

War is a shame.

Agreed. This isn't war though, we haven't declared war on all the places we bomb nor has it been declared on us by their government. This is murder in the guise of security. Murder for profit likely.

What is it that we should do?

Ending the pursuit of....Wars-Of-Choice/Profit-Margin....would be a good-start!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXjCtkymRQ]US Troops in Iraq talk about Halliburton & KBR - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zt9BZD7mlc]Iraq For Sale - Full Movie - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Publius1787]

I really don't get it. I see people bickering day in and day out about the Fiscal Cliff or Sandy Hook or how Obama blows or how Romney blows or what have you, but I almost never see anyone complain about how we murder innocent children and women and men all the time with bombs in other countries. In fact, I see people CONSTANTLY trying to defend the very politicians who charter these horrendous acts of violence.

Can't we all at least agree that an innocent human life is more important than the D or the R next to some guys name on the TV? Let's start promoting freedom for everyone.

Define "freedom."

The absence of force.

Freedom doesn't justify force? Try again.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Define "freedom."

The absence of force.

Freedom doesn't justify force? Try again.

Freedom shouldn't be the goal of society, morality should be the goal.

But true 100% pure freedom is the complete absence of force. Now if you want partial freedom where people can't rape/harm/steal etc than yes, you need some sort of force to prevent people from violating other people's liberty.

The Let's promote freedom for all at the end of my rant was mainly trying to demonstrate an idea of not exerting our will and our ideas on other people. Globally. Sure if we hurt someone we get punished, after we hurt them, not before incase we might hurt someone, but otherwise, leave people to their own decisions.

 

[nitroz]

Because if we fixed it, then we would have to go on constant, massive killing sprees.

Look at Syria.
It's come down to Islam vs Dictatorship.

Africa is greed and power.



Fuck them. Let them suffer, or go over there and clean house.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I really don't get it. I see people bickering day in and day out about the Fiscal Cliff or Sandy Hook or how Obama blows or how Romney blows or what have you, but I almost never see anyone complain about how we murder innocent children and women and men all the time with bombs in other countries. In fact, I see people CONSTANTLY trying to defend the very politicians who charter these horrendous acts of violence.

Can't we all at least agree that an innocent human life is more important than the D or the R next to some guys name on the TV? Let's start promoting freedom for everyone.

You’ll have to take that up with the neo-cons, advocates of starting illegal wars.

Enough with your blind Zombie worship. Barack Obama has ordered drones which have killed countless to include women and children.. Everyone is beyond tired of the PARTISAN HACKS.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

War is a shame.

Agreed. This isn't war though, we haven't declared war on all the places we bomb nor has it been declared on us by their government. This is murder in the guise of security. Murder for profit likely.

Grow up man, terrorist don't operate under a national flag or are they contained within certain boarders. The first rule of war is people die and not always only the people we want to die, but not pursuing the bad guys and allowing them to operate freely have proven to be more deadly than not.

I might be able to be talked into why the Afghanistan war was necessary. This country has historically acted decisively and destructively against pirates/terrorists. And I've reached an age where I think it was necessary to destroy a small band of extremists who wielded political influence there. However I don't think there's a fair argument for why the Iraqi War was necessary. I also think the Afghanistan war was handled so unbelievably poorly by the Bush Administration and there is so much corruption and dubious history behind our middle east adventures that I believe we the American people were severely lied to on nearly a treasonous level. I'd also like to point out under Obama a 25 cent bullet did what a 4 trillion dollar war under Bush could not.

 

[Publius1787]

The absence of force.

Freedom doesn't justify force? Try again.

Freedom shouldn't be the goal of society, morality should be the goal.

But true 100% pure freedom is the complete absence of force. Now if you want partial freedom where people can't rape/harm/steal etc than yes, you need some sort of force to prevent people from violating other people's liberty.

The Let's promote freedom for all at the end of my rant was mainly trying to demonstrate an idea of not exerting our will and our ideas on other people. Globally. Sure if we hurt someone we get punished, after we hurt them, not before incase we might hurt someone, but otherwise, leave people to their own decisions.

Define Morality. And what would be the result of the absence of our influence?

Freedom is not absence of force. Force is required to maintain freedom. Stealing my wallet by force can only be redressed by force. To not redress the act by force is to have a society absent of freedom.

 

[wavingrl]

The absence of force.

Freedom doesn't justify force? Try again.

Freedom shouldn't be the goal of society, morality should be the goal.

But true 100% pure freedom is the complete absence of force. Now if you want partial freedom where people can't rape/harm/steal etc than yes, you need some sort of force to prevent people from violating other people's liberty.

The Let's promote freedom for all at the end of my rant was mainly trying to demonstrate an idea of not exerting our will and our ideas on other people. Globally. Sure if we hurt someone we get punished, after we hurt them, not before incase we might hurt someone, but otherwise, leave people to their own decisions.

freedom and morality--I'm in over my head.


ok. Iran, North Korea and many others seem to be interested in exerting their will and ideas upon us. That is probably not relevant to this discussion.

 

[OKTexas]

Agreed. This isn't war though, we haven't declared war on all the places we bomb nor has it been declared on us by their government. This is murder in the guise of security. Murder for profit likely.

Grow up man, terrorist don't operate under a national flag or are they contained within certain boarders. The first rule of war is people die and not always only the people we want to die, but not pursuing the bad guys and allowing them to operate freely have proven to be more deadly than not.

So you're okay with killing people who have done nothing to us? Even if we kill a "terrorist" or two at the expensive of 10 innocent civilians it seems unjust and unwise. It breeds children who hate us as you may have become had a bomb to kill a guy at your neighbors wiped out your village. Even these terrorists, what have they done to you? to us? Show me a victim? Are we not a society of laws ? You feel fine with having one man capable of deciding who lives and dies? Including his own citizens?

EDIT: You've never seen in your lifetime us allowing anyone to "operate freely".

You seem to think the bad guys don't surround themselves with innocents on purpose, they have no problem using human shields to try to protect themselves. Also I guess you haven't heard that some of the bad guys just put out bounties on the lives of Americans and our Ambassadors, we can't allow them to feel safe any where in the world. As for Americans who leave the country and openly wage war on the US, I have no problem killing them where ever we find them. BTW you might want to do a little proof reading before you hit the button to post, some of your reply makes no sense.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As a nation, we still don't have a commonly held belief that others have a right to come here and kill us. Not yet anyway.

But it is a brilliant idea to do it to other places? Makes sense.

Are you trying to imply the children who aren't old enough to walk and talk that we kill somehow tried to harm us?

Big Government statists on BOTH sides of the aisle call that 'preemption'...

Ah, yes....that good ol' auto-response....every time Republicans are BUSTED...."BOTH SIDES DO IT!!!!"

Whatever happened to "People need to take responsibility for their own actions!"??

You folks used to preach that....endlessly.....until your WMDs disappeared on you....and, the contractor-hu$tle was exposed, in Iraq.

I guess things are different, now, huh??​

 

[blackhawk]

The people we are dropping the bombs on or targeting are by and large terrorist or supporters of them these people don't wear uniforms that distinguish them from innocent civilians and for the most part operate in countries that don't have a strong central government, police, military, or intelligence units to find them and deal with them. If there is a peaceful non violent way to deal with this problem I would like to hear it for many years we tried the surgical strikes and basically ignored the problem and we saw what that got us on 9-11-2001 I wish this problem did exist but it does.

 

[OKTexas]

Agreed. This isn't war though, we haven't declared war on all the places we bomb nor has it been declared on us by their government. This is murder in the guise of security. Murder for profit likely.

Grow up man, terrorist don't operate under a national flag or are they contained within certain boarders. The first rule of war is people die and not always only the people we want to die, but not pursuing the bad guys and allowing them to operate freely have proven to be more deadly than not.

In other words, the first ‘rule’ of war is there are no ‘rules.’

Your post acknowledges the fact that the ‘war’ on ‘terror’ is a myth.

The rules of war only apply to nation states and uniformed armies. Terrorist don't play by any rules, why should we be shackled by rules that really don't apply?

 

[BallsBrunswick]

The absence of force.

Freedom doesn't justify force? Try again.

Freedom shouldn't be the goal of society, morality should be the goal.

...Wow, I feel like I just got in a time machine went back a couple of centuries. Why do you feel this way and define morality please.

 

[Publius1787]

Freedom doesn't justify force? Try again.

Freedom shouldn't be the goal of society, morality should be the goal.

...Wow, I feel like I just in a time machine went back a couple of centuries. Why do you feel this way and define morality please.

Universal rule of morality = The principle of self ownership.

You have the right to life, liberty, and property so as long as you do not interfear with the lives, liberties, or property of others. I was waiting for him to come to that on his own but he never responded. I would still like to know what he beleives the world would be like without American influence.

 

[OKTexas]

The absence of force.

Freedom doesn't justify force? Try again.

Freedom shouldn't be the goal of society, morality should be the goal.

But true 100% pure freedom is the complete absence of force. Now if you want partial freedom where people can't rape/harm/steal etc than yes, you need some sort of force to prevent people from violating other people's liberty.

The Let's promote freedom for all at the end of my rant was mainly trying to demonstrate an idea of not exerting our will and our ideas on other people. Globally. Sure if we hurt someone we get punished, after we hurt them, not before incase we might hurt someone, but otherwise, leave people to their own decisions.

Morality, who would you suggest defines "morality"?

 

[Publius1787]

Freedom doesn't justify force? Try again.

Freedom shouldn't be the goal of society, morality should be the goal.

But true 100% pure freedom is the complete absence of force. Now if you want partial freedom where people can't rape/harm/steal etc than yes, you need some sort of force to prevent people from violating other people's liberty.

The Let's promote freedom for all at the end of my rant was mainly trying to demonstrate an idea of not exerting our will and our ideas on other people. Globally. Sure if we hurt someone we get punished, after we hurt them, not before incase we might hurt someone, but otherwise, leave people to their own decisions.

Morality, who would you suggest defines "morality"?

Locke did a good job in his Second Treatise.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This country needs to remove itself immediately from Afghanistan, that's the biggest thing. What is happening to our nation right now and specifically our economy is what war with Afghanistan historically does to a country. They don't win wars there with body counts, they win wars there through societal attrition because they're a thousands of year old guerrilla fighting people and because it's so expensive to fight a war there. People want to give credit to Reagan for ending the Cold War (in between giving weapons to terrorists and being the first Republican to introduce brilliant trickle down economics) but the real reason the USSR dissolved is they destroyed their economy and society with an endless pointless war in Afghanistan that virtually parallels our conflict there. Fuck the violence aspect of our conflicts, the Afghanistan War is a cancer inside America.

You'd think each generation would learn from the last.

I guess that's why Corporate America puts the proper amount o' space, between Wars....so we get to reinvigorate our testosterone-level, and taste for another War....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT90Qu55O4U]Viet Nam A Television History 1, The Roots of War 2 - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erf52WGnM4g]Viet Nam A Television History 1, The Roots of War 3 - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdMhaypD5wU]Viet Nam A Television History 1, The Roots of War 4 - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[BallsBrunswick]

It's brilliant how this war worked out for the neo-conservatives and those that profit from war in this country. We were exiting a golden age of beautiful peace and prosperity since the end of the Cold War and America in some views was probably starting to get soft. Also with the type of enemy that we've been cultivated to believe in this is a war that could potentially last forever unlike the Russians who stopped being the boogeyman when they run out of money.

Although 90% of Afghanistans have never heard of the 9/11 tragedy and have no idea why Americans are at war in their lands. To them we're just another foreign face in a centuries' old progression of invaders.