War Monger At Work

"The whole implication that $250 billion over three years would have solved the nation's ills if only it had been spent on something other than a war is very naive"

Marlin, I agree, the issue is not the actual sum, but what do we get in return. On the other hand one should combine $250 billion with entire military budget from past 25 years. It will become an overwhelming number. I would dare to ask the question are we secure now? What did we get in return?

Few islamo-fascists managed to attack us with $50 thousand dollars operation!

It is imperative that accountability is addressed.

 

Dude, people have been going on and on and on about the debt clock concept for YEARS.

Furthermore, you seem to think debt as some sort of constant, it ISN'T. Debts get wiped out all the time in a multitude of deals, shaped by political forces, etc., etc., etc. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye on it, but at the same time, people like you seem to go out of their way to make it seem like a bigger deal than it actually is. You soooooooo are the Canadian version of the typical arrogant American...lolololololol

 

Whoops, I screwed up a little. GDP is around $10 trillion. Federal revenues and budgets are in the $2 to $3 trillion range.

 

Bulls***. Money truly has no value anymore if you can magically "write off" things, and I trust crackpot accountants about as much as I trust politicians and corporate CEO's.

So now you're an expert in economics. Cool! I have to admit your delusion is good for giggles. Too bad I'm leaving this Thursday on a 2 week business trip, I'm going to miss this.

 

Apparently you reply on this site without reading any of the posts you are replying to, and I greatly resent your blatant misrepresentation of me. Say what you like about history and current events. That's your right. But don't characterize me or my views when you have not bothered to read what I have written.

I have said many times that I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, that I consider both parties to be more or less equally corrupt, and that as a pacifist I would not have fought in any war, regardless of which party started it. (And both parties have supported every war we've been in!)

And what in the world would possibly make you imagine that a Liberal would be a Democrat, when the Democrats are almost as reactionary as the Republicans? (And neither party deserves any longer to be called conservative! Barry Goldwater must be turning over in his grave -- though I admit I don't have much sympathy for him.)

 

Demagogic neo-con BS. Ask those people how many would give back the US 'largesse'. But ask soon, before they become just more collateral damage on the road to american spirituality.

 

I will agree with you if you replace .."in the best interest of the government... with "human nature". and lose the 2nd sentence.

WE are the gov't.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Well daniel it's not a blatant misrepresentation I said. . .

so nice try genning up outrage.

Also on this thread you have never once said that you were neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Don't expect people to go far a field trying to figure out who you are, your the one responsible for your views and stands in each and every topic/thread that you post in. If you don't post them expect people to have to assume somethings about you. I now stand corrected as to your political and pacifist stands. Also my discription of liberals and conversatives goes far beyond just judging their reactionary state it also includes stands on the economy, taxes, voting record, seperation of church and state and a whole multitude of other issues. Therefore, since almost all democrats are engaged in a diatribe against Bush and his adminstration for the war, even though they also voted for it, I assumed that you were one of them. Forgive me it was as I stated earlier not a balant misrepresentation but non-the-less almost unforgivable to accuse someone of being a democrat when he/she is not.

If you don't mind me asking how do you think you would fare in a country such a North Korea, or Nazi Germany or pre-fall Russia? Those countires could care a less about pacifist ideals and without someone willing to stand against them. . . well we would all be under their thumb. Of course if we were all pacifist then it's a non-issue but we all know that is a pipe dream at best. If someone were attacked next to you say at a bus stop would your pacifism prevent you from going to their aid? What would you do? These are valid questions I like the ideal but find it wholly inadequate in this world we live in.

Thank you


Wildkow

p.s. Do you have a source for the cat thing? I would like to use it in case it ever comes up.

 

With over 2,000 posts to my name here on PC, it's rather unfair to characterize me based on a single thread. However, I'll accept your apology.

Too many people assume that pacifism means passivity. It does not. Pacifism involves active, creative, resistance to injustice, and historically there are volumes of evidence that non-violent resistance is more effective than violence. The underlying reason is that assaulting people makes them hate you, and killing them makes their loved ones hate you.

Only one country invaded by the Nazis managed to save its Jews, and that was the only country that responded with non-violent resistance. This was Denmark.

Non-violent resistance is not easy and it is not safe. Unlike violence, it requires creative thinking, and, like violence, it involves risk. But there is abundant evidence that it is effective, and, more importantly, a resolution achieved through non-violent resistance is much less likely to lead to further violence. This is because non-violence tends to reduce the amount of hatred between the sides, unlike violence, which creates hatred on both sides and resentment on the losing side.

It's amusing (in a very sad way) that most of the people who claim to believe that Jesus was god, reject outright his very practical advice for conflict resolution through non-violence. Most Christians, while professing to believe in Jesus, assert as an equal item of faith, that his teachings are "impractical."

A good source of information is Gene Sharp's book, Civilian-Based Defense. Also a historical study of the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. is useful, as is a study of Gandhi's overhthrow of the salt laws in colonial India. Gene Sharp's book is out of print, but is available used on Amazon, and probably elsewhere.

I'm not able to cite specific sources for the cat information. But I have read various places (and it makes sense) that the wholesale destruction of cats by a society oppressed by religious superstition, allowed the rat population to multiply exponentially. And we know that rats were the carriers of plague.

 

Rewriting history to support your position? Well you are wrong again. Denmark did use violence to repel the German invasion. It wasn’t much but the Danish Military did what it could. In addition a very active resistance was organized and violence was used to aid escaping Jews. <_<

I can't even begin to number the resolutions, treaties, pacts, non-aggression-agreements signed or agreed to through peaceful means that have later been violated with violence. <_< Perhaps I'm not understanding what you meant if so please name the resolutions of which you speak and I'll name 2 or more that were broken despite the fact that they were entered into without violence.

Wildkow

p.s. OK let the BACKPEDALING begin! :lol: