ClumsyMonkey.net

So. First of all i have a few handy links to circulate.

Who really caught Saddam? The Kurds.

Please note the fact that they won't be getting their hands on that $25 mil. How alturistic. Those of you who are both american and anti-war should be pleased that this sacrifice saved you further gouging at the hands of your evil masters.

Second link: Freedom of Speech in Iraq.

Please note the following: "Any demonstration against the government or coalition forces will be fired upon," Jaburi's voice said, according to an army interpreter. "This is a fair warning."

Demonstrators risk a year in jail and, if they work for the state as civil servants or teachers, they will loose their jobs, the message said. All demonstrations are illegal in the U.S.-occupied province.

"They are not allowed to go around kissing pictures of Saddam in this city," Russell said. "It will not happen."

Yay for Liberty. Anybody want to tell me what happened in "pre-war" iraq when the country was a destitute land of horror and rape when you protested the unwanted government? Supposedly, death or jail.

The american version is so much better. I can already hear venom's excuse "At least we're warning them!"

Now i have some more questions. Venom and Corey seem to believe that the war in Iraq was a smashing success. I want to know if you guys have the nuts to categorically deny/disprove the assertion that iraq is in turmoil. Basically all the news i read, from all over the USA and the rest of the world, is painting that picture.

If they love you so much why are your boys still dying? Is America safer? Now that we know Saddam obviously didn't have a massive weapons program, how can you argue that he was a threat? What gives you the right to invade his country and topple his government if he doesn't have weapons and doesn't pose a threat to america?

What gives you the right to shoot Iraqi demonstrators for disliking you? Why is america right to be fighting this war? Why is america never wrong?

doug wrote:So. First of all i have a few handy links to circulate.

Who really caught Saddam? The Kurds.

That makes sense. It would surely explain his behaviour when he was captured. He was way too placid to have not been drugged.

130,000 troops, hundreds of casualties, billions spent daily and all they have to show for it is a man found in a hole.

Correction: A drugged man found dazed and confused in a hole.

indeed!! how could I have forgot?

wow i gotta agree with just about eveything Doug said their

good to see you back starting topics Doug! Your anarchist bastard!

You know what I like a lot? The way doug cries and moans about "amerikan propoganda" and how the government distorts the truth and blah blah blah and then goes around throwing out terms like "evil masters."

I also like how his entire moral system decries altruism as a bane to mankind, then he cries foul when the government isn't as altruistic as he feels they should be.

I like how he ignores that the turmoil in Iraq was there before American troops ever set foot over there thanks to Saddam and his influence, and refuses to acknowledge that the Iraq's and former Baathist party members are the ones toppling the most power lines and destroying the most hospitals.

I like how he preaches that "you own yourself," then refuses to acknowledge that the "american boys" over there signed up for the military of their own free-will fully aware that being in the military means you may get shot at.

I like how he preaches logic above all else, and then slaps these impossible, illogical double standards on everything he doesn't like, just to prove a non-existant point.

uh, cutting a swath through the bullshit here, let's just get to the point:

a. has the american campaign in iraq been successful to this point? and in that i mean is it going as well for them as they expected it would.
b. yes, there was turmoil there before, but the current situation is at best, just as bad, and likely, worse.
c. maybe the "terrorists" et al. are the ones destroying the most hospitals etc. but the americans are the ones who are killing the most civillians "by mistake".
d. where in the post does he bitch about the government not being altruistic enough?

please note, i spelled it america today. thank you.

the government does distort the truth. as for "evil masters", what, i can't be dramatic anymore? you all got the point i think.

next, if i had my way there'd be no government. ok? so there's no way you can accuse me of wanting an alturistic government. i don't see how my wanting the USA to not kill everyone alive makes me an alturist, so you're going to have to spell that one out for me.

As for Saddam being a bad man, hey, maybe he is and maybe he isn't. I don't know. I will freely, happily admit that it's his supporters that are causing the greatest disturbance over there if you and your friends will learn to admit that his supporters aren't just former party members and privellaged friends, but real iraqi's too who don't like the US occupying force.

As for your soldiers, i know that they freely sign up and freely go goose stepping off to do whatever work they're told to. frankly, they disgust me. So does every military in the world, for the same reason. the reason i call attention to their getting shot is because i would like to use that as evidence to support big truth #1: iraq does not like america.

i don't really get why you always have to come flying in here and label me as illogical when you know that's false. even if sometimes i do say things that don't make sense, if you're supporting the war in iraq then this here is a case of pot calling kettle black.

doug wrote:#1: iraq does not like america.

whoa.......very, very broad statement there. some Iraquis might not like America, but there are also a few that support America. unless you've asked every single Iraqi out there, this is false.

c. maybe the "terrorists" et al. are the ones destroying the most hospitals etc. but the americans are the ones who are killing the most civillians "by mistake".

where as terrorist go around killing innocent people intentionally. and Baathist loyalists go around causing the situation in Iraq to remain at the current situation instead of allowing it to improve.

blue eyed soul wrote:uh, cutting a swath through the bullshit here, let's just get to the point:

a. has the american campaign in iraq been successful to this point? and in that i mean is it going as well for them as they expected it would.

In all honesty, what kind of standard is that? So bad shit happened. I would be far more worried about any person or orginization that freaked out and quit whenever shit got tough rather than work through it.

b. yes, there was turmoil there before, but the current situation is at best, just as bad, and likely, worse.

Yes, yes, of course. Having food, water, and electricity TOTALLY sucks ass. Way totally.

c. maybe the "terrorists" et al. are the ones destroying the most hospitals etc. but the americans are the ones who are killing the most civillians "by mistake".

Final numbers: Terrorists and the baathist party killed a lot more Iraqis than Americans have.

And the "et al's" did it for FUN.

d. where in the post does he bitch about the government not being altruistic enough?

the government does distort the truth. as for "evil masters", what, i can't be dramatic anymore? you all got the point i think.

Protestors do distort the truth. As for the "weapons of mass destruction," what, George can't be dramatic anymore? You all got the point i think.

next, if i had my way there'd be no government. ok? so there's no way you can accuse me of wanting an alturistic government. i don't see how my wanting the USA to not kill everyone alive makes me an alturist, so you're going to have to spell that one out for me.

Again,


You did cry foul when the government wasn't as altruistic as you apparently think they should be.

PS: More distortion of the truth. More illogical acts from you. I'm really not shocked.

As for Saddam being a bad man, hey, maybe he is and maybe he isn't. I don't know. I will freely, happily admit that it's his supporters that are causing the greatest disturbance over there if you and your friends will learn to admit that his supporters aren't just former party members and privellaged friends, but real iraqi's too who don't like the US occupying force.

Okay, first, logic is a two way street. If something that you may not like is logical, you have to lend it the same credence as you do to the logic that supports positions you favor.

Saddam was a filthy bastard. Deal with it.

Also, the US force's primary goal over there is to stablize the region. Hence the hospitals, roads, asking for debt relief, etc etc and so on. If the "real iraqis" really want the US gone, the fastest way to get them out would be to leave them the fuck alone while they improve the country.

for your soldiers, i know that they freely sign up and freely go goose stepping off to do whatever work they're told to. frankly, they disgust me. So does every military in the world, for the same reason. the reason i call attention to their getting shot is because i would like to use that as evidence to support big truth #1: iraq does not like america.

Let's talk about hippies.

A long while back, there was a rather famous commercial wherein a lot of hippies got together on a hill and sang about how if everyone would just buy a coke and sing then the world would forver be a bright, shiny place of joy and peace.

This wasn't some marketing gimmick. The counterculture of the sixties believed totally and completely in the power of music, pot, and mushrooms and a smile in every household but failed completely to take into account even the basics of human nature.

You do the same.

You believe completely that if everyone on the planet is just waiting for government to go away and then they'll all just somehow BE rational and logical and great things will happen to all. But actually believing that without taking into account the basics of human nature is just as naive, and well, quaint, as believing that everyone sitting down with a coke will usher in some kind of 60's utopia.

People are assholes. We are not built as rational beings. With finite minds we cannot be rational beings. It just doesn't work, and you can't logic your way out of that. We do not know everything, and there will always be some key variable that we miss that leads us to fuck something up royally.

Trying to pretend that our minds are capable of machine like logic while ignoring the implications about free will that this leads to as you did in a previous thread is illogical. You are illogical. People are illogical. Your moral system is illogical (See Godel's incompleteness thereom). Trying to create a society based on logic while ignoring something as key as this is like trying to add two numbers without knowing what either of them are. You are ignoring the situation because it doesn't fit into your logic. Explain how that's objective.


PS: I believe fully and totally that you're illogical. I'm also, again, less pro-war than I am anti-you.

Protestors do distort the truth. As for the "weapons of mass destruction," what, George can't be dramatic anymore? You all got the point i think.

I'm not a protestor. I'm a free mind. Big fucking difference, you see, i don't stand around in large groups of idiot hippies waving a sign and shouting "No Blood For Oil!"

And me calling the government your evil masters is a lot different then YOUR PRESIDENT INVADING A GODDAMN COUNTRY over some imaginary weapons.

I hope i don't need to explain why. My comment was not meant to be taken as a fact - just my opinion.

I want you to reread my post. When I said "how alturisitic" i was refering to the refusal by the kurds to accept the $20 million in reward money. As in, THE KURDS WERE BEING ALTURISTIC.

read before you insult me. k thx.

Nothing I posted was untrue. Take off your goddamn blinders.

PS: It's highly illogical to follow behind the president making "baaahh" noises and doing and believing whatever he says.

Okay, first, logic is a two way street. If something that you may not like is logical, you have to lend it the same credence as you do to the logic that supports positions you favor.

Thanks, knew that. I've been doing it - have you?

Saddam was a filthy bastard. Deal with it.

Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. I don't know because I've never met him. But in the last year, he's been a hell of a lot better behaved then GWB.

Also, the US force's primary goal over there is to stablize the region. Hence the hospitals, roads, asking for debt relief, etc etc and so on. If the "real iraqis" really want the US gone, the fastest way to get them out would be to leave them the fuck alone while they improve the country.

How do you know that? I'm guessing you have no idea what the US force's primary goal is. It could be to rebuild or it could be to get drunk and make little girls piss in the street. Who knows?

You say you know for a fact that the US soldiers are all nice little saints over there trying to rebuild a country that needs them. Prove it or shut up.

Ok, first of all, we're not having the "are humans rational" debate again because YOU DON'T LISTEN. Just for fun, let's take a look at what you said in your magnum opus here that's supposed to prove me wrong.

You believe completely that if everyone on the planet is just waiting for government to go away and then they'll all just somehow BE rational and logical and great things will happen to all.

Let's see. Does this make me wrong? Or are you just saying you don't think anarchy is possible?

(hint - it's the second one.)

But actually believing that without taking into account the basics of human nature is just as naive, and well, quaint, as believing that everyone sitting down with a coke will usher in some kind of 60's utopia.

Again, your OPINION has been noted.

People are assholes. We are not built as rational beings. With finite minds we cannot be rational beings.

No proof. Nothing. What does this mean, "with finite minds"? I don't even know what you're trying to say.

My favorite part is coming up. Get ready.

It just doesn't work, and you can't logic your way out of that.

To me, this is hilarious. "Hey Narbus, can you prove me wrong?" "Sure can, Doug! IT JUST DOESN'T WORK! Deal with it buddy!"

Well, using your arguments against, it just does work. Deal with it.

We do not know everything, and there will always be some key variable that we miss that leads us to fuck something up royally.

We don't know everything, but the great and might Bush does, right? That's why he has the god granted moral authority to slaughter thousands based loosely on some shit he thought he knew, right?

The best day of my life was the day i learned that i don't know everything. If only others like Bush and yourself could come around.

Trying to pretend that our minds are capable of machine like logic while ignoring the implications about free will that this leads to as you did in a previous thread is illogical.

What implications about free will? What did i ignore, exactly? And how is my ignoring you illogical? How does saying "i have a logical mind" imply anything about free will?

People are illogical. Your moral system is illogical (See Godel's incompleteness thereom).

More of your "opinion is fact" stuff. My moral system is that there are no morals. There are only choices and what's right for you at the time. Once, i was an objectivist, which i assure you is very logical. See Ayn Rand's Objectivism for further explanation.

Trying to create a society based on logic while ignoring something as key as this is like trying to add two numbers without knowing what either of them are.

IF people are illogical, then you're right. But I believe that people are capable of being logical. In fact, I would say that i know they are. I see people doing things every day that i define as logical. Therefore, a rational society could and will exist. See Ayn Rand's "Galt's Gulch" for a good fictional example.

You are ignoring the situation because it doesn't fit into your logic. Explain how that's objective.

No, I'm not. I am saying "i don't believe you" or "you're wrong." You see, Narbus, for you to be right in this, you have to be able to prove that nothing a human being does is achieved through logical thought. For me to be right, all i have to prove is that human beings CAN achieve through logical thought, not that we do all the time. Just that we can.

You believe i'm illogical? Good for you! I believe that i'm not. Glad we settled that.

As for me not accepting something because it doesn't fit with my version of reality, that's what you and your fellow war hawks have been doing since the begining of the war. You prove something to me, i'll be the first person to change my mind or admit a mistake. I'm not claiming to know everything.[/quote]

Oh, and narbus, you say "terrorists" and Baathists killed more iraqi's then americans have?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

there are some hard numbers for you to look at. Let me ask you a question: Whose killed more iraqi's over the last twelve months, terrorists or american soldiers?

Because I spared more than the cursory glance you threw at that website, I see that the site takes into account deaths they feel the occupying force should have prevented, but did not directly cause. Two thoughts.
1a. You yourself said many times that inaction is morally neutral. By your own admissions the occupying forces are not responsible for the terrorist car bombs, the terrorist gunfire, the terrorist suicides, etc. The terrorists are responsible.
1b. You have provided no facts to show how many people Saddam and his party have killed. Since you couldn't be bothered to, allow me. Some highlights:
--Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000. As long as Mr. Hussein remains in power, figures like these will be uncheckable, but the huge toll is palpable nonetheless.
--The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000.
--More recently, according to Iraqis who fled to Jordan and other neighboring countries, scores of women have been executed under a new twist in a "return to faith" campaign proclaimed by Mr. Hussein. Aimed at bolstering his support across the Islamic world, the campaign led early on to a ban on drinking alcohol in public. Then, some time in the last two years, it widened to include the public killing of accused prostitutes.

I realize you're not a math major, but as an engineer I can assure you that 300,000 is much greater than 1,500.

PS: Since saddam was out of power, well no shit he had a hard time killing people. You may as well ask how many people Stalin's killed over the last year to support an anti WWII stance.

Also, explain the following from your "the kurds got him" link:
1. other reports claim that Saddam was "talkative" at the time of his capture. Your report claims he was "drugged and lethargic."
2. He was carrying $750,000 in Amercian dollars with him. If he was drugged and forcibly locked in a hole, why?


Moving on.

I'd like to point out an article in the most recent issue of Wired magazine. It details some of the neuroscience behind autisic children and the "savant" syndrome, where a person lacks in some area of brain development, but makes up for it with some sort of incredible leap in other areas (see "Rain Man").
Over the past several decades, a lot of information about the brain has been uncovered, including the following tidbit, provided by this article: "The brains of typical childrengrow in response to lessons learned from the enironment - that was one of the significant upgrades in the evolution of Homo sapiens. As new stimuli are absorbed, the neurons in the cortex adapt gradually, and synaptic connections rae forged or eliminated. Our brains are cast in the image of our experience."

In short, we think the way we do because of the life we lead. It follows that just as a child who listens to jazz everyday for 18 years will have a hard time disseminating prime factors, a child raised irrationally will be irrational.

It also follows that the brain is continually evolving, never complete, and never perfectly rational. In fact, from the same article, it seems that the most creative, irrational people are those in whom the brain comes together as a whole to push forth new ideas. Your philosophy, it appears, is self-defeating.

In regards to the possibility of anarchy. I have several thousand years of empirical evidence to suggest the people without rules turn into giant assholes. I suppose that the "well, we've never really tried anarchy" argument will be pulled out here, but I'd like to point out that you've never really tried to leap off a cliff and fly.
You're ignoring all this evidence. I'd like to know why.
PS: Fictional anecdotes are not proof of fact. While I appreciate the effort, there is a very large chasm I like to call "reality" between an author creating an entire world that does what she wants it to, and real life.
PPS: In the same vein, please point out how a society whereupon everyone accepts the Christian faith will not succeed. Or where everyone accepts the "Narbus's joy is paramount" philosophy. (Please be noting the "everyone accepts" bit when formating your answer.)

I'd also like to point out that my OPINION was backed by what actually happened. A lot of people sat down with a coke and listened to Janis Joplin, and yet here we are.

As for the "well, it doesn't work," bit. I'd like to point out the crux of Objectivism and your personal philosophy is your version of the Aristotilean statement "A is A." The full, logical version is "Given A, A is A."
So by your truncated version, we have the following exchange:
"Man is Man."
"But what is man?"
"Well, man is man."
"Okay, but what is it?"
"It's man. Man is man."
"Man is man, huh? That statement is either so deep it would take a lifetime to fully comprehend every particle of its meaning, or it is a load of absolute tosh. Which is it, I wonder?"
(with help from Terry Pratchett)

You fail to actually tell anyone what man is. Just that Man is Man and this means all this deep stuff that has no real backing at all. You started the "Just deal with it" bit. Don't get pissy when I continue it.

And the implications about free will thing stems from this thread, which you just abandoned.

Also, people are capable of being logical, yes, clearly. But people are also capable of being cardiologists. So does it follow that I should ask the trash man for open heart surgery? Becuase that's what you're suggesting.


PS: Still not "making baaaah noises" while being blindly pro bush. Still being rather anti-you.

PPS: For someone who was "overjoyed" when he realized he doesn't know everything, you sure act like you do. It's fascinating.

Narbus, of the reported minimum 7950 deaths caused by the iraq war, 80 are attributed to terrorism. The terrorists are responsible for those 80. The other 7870 are "your" problem, as it were.

Secondly, you bring up iraq iran to support your "Saddam is the devil" claim?

Well... where did he get all those weapons?

I'll give you a hint:



That's Rumsfeld, in case you didn't know. He works for Dubya, and he worked for Dubya's daddy and Reagan, too.

Will you now tell me America had nothing to do with that war?

Saddam's a bastard, but there's just as much blood on americas hands. Ok? You want to talk about regime change and threats to world peace? The biggest threat to world peace is the usa.

Moving on:

Your "other reports" quote american soldiers. Hate to burst your bubble bud, but they tend to lieabout events happening in iraq. So my rinky dinky little source seems a little bit more credible right now then yours does.

To restate: Why don't i believe the americans? Because they lied and they were caught. Why do i believe the independent media? they have not been caught lying yet.

My philosophy ONLY requires man to have the capacity for reason and the ability to apply said capacity. The only reason my philosophy exists, narbus, is because man has this capacity. I do not require men to be perfectly rational all the time.

Is global anarchy possible, in the sense that everyone will prosper and live out their days happily? Likely, no. Clue in - i don't give a fuck. I want to be free, and i don't care about the resulting effect on the world.

Is a community of like-minded, rational indviduals (GALTS GULCH) possible? yes. give me one good reason why it's not.

You want me to tell you what man is? Fine. See handy dictionary reference for "man".

Be anti-me. I find it depressing that you base your entire philosophical/political outlook on what i'm doing. If i tommorow switched to pro-war, could i not make you into a giant contradiction?

doug wrote:Narbus, of the reported minimum 7950 deaths caused by the iraq war, 80 are attributed to terrorism. The terrorists are responsible for those 80. The other 7870 are "your" problem, as it were.

The big headline on that page was regards to the 1500+ civilian deaths that have occured, that's the number I noticed.
Two things:
1. In the colums listing the "targets," the vast majority are blank. I'd like to know where you got your "only 80 deaths" from terrorists figure.
2. That's still far less than the estimated 200,000 that Saddam killed in secret.

Secondly, you bring up iraq iran to support your "Saddam is the devil" claim?

He kills people. I thought you said that was bad.

Well... where did he get all those weapons?

I'll give you a hint:

That's Rumsfeld, in case you didn't know. He works for Dubya, and he worked for Dubya's daddy and Reagan, too.

Will you now tell me America had nothing to do with that war?

So, the people of iraq have no responsibility for actually using the weapons? I thought that you held individual choice and responsibility high. My mistake.

Saddam's a bastard, but there's just as much blood on americas hands. Ok? You want to talk about regime change and threats to world peace? The biggest threat to world peace is the usa.

You're kidding, right? Fine.
First, from your very own poll: "NOTE: This is an unscientific, informal survey for the interest and enjoyment of TIME.com users and may not be indicative of popular opinion."
Second, popular opinion means shit, as it is inherently subjective in nature, Mr. "Objective facts only."

Moving on:

Your "other reports" quote american soldiers. Hate to burst your bubble bud, but they tend to lieabout events happening in iraq. So my rinky dinky little source seems a little bit more credible right now then yours does.

Your "rinky dinky" little source states outright that it's based off of reports from major media.

To restate: Why don't i believe the americans? Because they lied and they were caught. Why do i believe the independent media? they have not been caught lying yet.

"yet." Hardly reassuring. I'd also like to point out the hyprocrasy between your "maybe saddam's a bastard, maybe he isn't, I haven't met him" statement and your total acceptance of whatever your little news sources tell you without seeing it with your own eyes.

My philosophy ONLY requires man to have the capacity for reason and the ability to apply said capacity. The only reason my philosophy exists, narbus, is because man has this capacity. I do not require men to be perfectly rational all the time.

Is global anarchy possible, in the sense that everyone will prosper and live out their days happily? Likely, no. Clue in - i don't give a fuck. I want to be free, and i don't care about the resulting effect on the world.

You live in a society. Physically, you are surrounded by other people. If all of those people decide to gang up on you and take your shit, guess what? Your shit's gone. The only way you get to be free of their force is if they agree to not apply force to you. Your freedom is dependent upon them allowing you to have it.
Need proof? See Iraq. Saddam wanted a lot of freedom, so he tried to force his citizens to give it to him. Then along came someone else (the USA), and there were more of us and we were stronger, so we forced him to knock it the fuck off. He even tried to stop us. He fought back, he ran and hid, he tried to stave us off, but now he's screwed.
He no longer has his freedom, we took it. His freedom is clearly dependent upon those around him, as is yours. To say "fuck all" to everyone else is to have no idea what it is you actually want. If you actually do want your freedom, the easiest way to get everyone else to give it to you is through an organized system of rules, or "laws." To ensure that all people are actually giving you the freedom you desire, a group of people with more strength than the average mob would be maintained, ie "military" and "police."

I'm sure you can see where this is going.

Is a community of like-minded, rational indviduals (GALTS GULCH) possible? yes. give me one good reason why it's not.

I cannot think of any community where everyone thinking together wouldn't work out just like they wanted it to. Yipty fuck. If I lived in a community where everyone wanted to be beaten with sticks daily, then we'd get along. Wonderful attempt at a strawman, there.

You want me to tell you what man is? Fine. See handy dictionary reference for "man".

Great. Now point out where in that defintion it says anything about "free will" or "right to be free."

Be anti-me. I find it depressing that you base your entire philosophical/political outlook on what i'm doing. If i tommorow switched to pro-war, could i not make you into a giant contradiction?

By "anti you" I actually meant "anti your philosophy." You're just a convienient target.

PS: If you did switch to pro war, any contradiction you tried to drop on me could also be dropped right back on you. Seriously. Think, then post.

Ok, Narbus, how many of the 8000 deaths would you attribute to "terrorism"?

Half? All? Like the americans killed nobody?

for the last time, and i'll bold it and large print it for you:

Saddam Hussein is a threat to humanity.

So stop trying to prove it. It's an old hat. I've never said the guy was innocent, just that I don't know how bad he really is because ninety percent of what's been said about him lately is utter bullshit.

that's the facts, jack.

I do place individual responsibility on the soldiers who commited the murders in Iran-Iraq just as i put responsibility on the soldiers who are commiting the murders in Iraq-America right now. It's you who doesn't. So if you're going to say Saddam Hussein should bear the responsibility for Iran-Iraq, I say Rumsfeld and friends are just as responsible as he is.

I know this is hard for you, but look at my post again and tell me where i wave my magic wand and absolve the iraqi/iranian soldiers from any responsibility. What you are doing is putting words in my mouth to try and help your argument about me.

You want an objective measurement of "threat to world peace"? How? What is the unit by which one objectively measures such a thing?

The subjective opinion of a select group of americans who felt "threatened" by Iraq is enough in your mind to justify a war, but the subjective opinion of thousands of non-americans who feel threatened by your country is totally irrelevant?

and you say i'm irational?

You're attacking my use of the word "yet". What's wrong with me being as critical with my own sources of information as i am with yours? The guys who i cite are probably slimy little shit heads, just the same as the guys you cite. Everybody's got a bias.

That's why i've taken the stance that until i see it with my own eyes, i can't fully believe anything i'm told about it.

I have never "totally accepted" anything from anybody as absolute truth. Once again, you're making shit up to try and aid your argument.

Let's point out the fundamental glaring hypocricy of government that you yourself describe in your "you can never be free, doug" paragraph. For such a smart guy, Narbus, i'm suprised that you haven't seen this already.

You say that other people, naturally, would gang up on me and take my stuff. You then use iraq as an example, and say that Saddam did it.

How did he do it?

HE WAS THE GOVERNMENT! He used these things called "laws" and the 'military' and 'police' to get his way and take away other peoples freedoms. Contrary to your self-righteous flag waver pride, america is not helping the matter just yet. they're basically doing the same thing.

You see, government requires human beings to place other human beings, no different from the masses, in positions of power. They require some human beings to own other human beings' lives, or at least attempt to govern their use.

when this occurs, there is not freedom. Freedom is an absolute. it's like being pregnant. either you are or you aren't. There's no compromise and there's no grey area.

Don't try and debate this with me, because you'll lose. We'll argue about it until we are ninety and then you'll give up because you're sick of my zealot ranting. Freedom is not a compromise. Trust me.

So you admit then that a community of like minded individuals working towards a common goal (ie anarchy) is possible? Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

You still haven't pointed out how it's not completely intellectually cowardly to base your philosophical outlook on whatever i'm not thinking.

I don't know how many of the deaths to attribute to terrorism, the site doesn't list enough information because such information is hard to track down in the middle of a combat zone. I understand this. YOU are the one who pulled out the "only 80 deaths because of terrorists" factoid. I merely asked you to back up this information with some kind of source.

I'd also like you to point out where I said the soldiers weren't responsible for any deaths. Obviously they are. Saddam's sons, if nothing else. I get that. You, however, are throwing around sites like that "Iraq body count" to imply that the war killed more people than if we hadn't gone. This is 1) refuted by the 200,000 dead people Saddam secretly killed and 2) shaky ground at best because the road not traveled wasn't actually traveled. We don't know. For all we know Saddam was about to turn a new leaf and help his people plant flowers, or he was about to snap and start running tanks through schools.
Given his past actions, The more likely scenario is pretty clear.

The website you posted cites that the US is responsible for the deaths that the terrorists and the remnant of Saddam's regime are causing. Your own philosophy refutes that idea. Ergo, many of the "deaths caused by soldiers" listed are also on shaky grounds with your philosophy.

In regards to the Rumsfeld thing, I suggest the following. A man, after a few drinks to many, becomes convinced his (actually faithful) wife is cheating on him and shoots her dead. Who's at fault? I'd suggest the man is. But if you're the type of person to blame Rumsfeld for the Iran/Iraq war, then it appears you'd blame WalMart for selling him the gun.

You are the one who demands logical, irrefutable facts. An informal poll put out on the internet is so far removed from such facts that we might as well start stating the opinions of the Fairy Court and Lollypop Guild to bolster our arguments.

The "subjective opinion" of those people was based on years of atrocities commited by Saddam and intelligence from multiple sources, many of which have billion+ dollar budgets, stating that he was trying to develop some rather nasty shit.
Your "subjective opinion" from thousands of non-americans was based off an internet poll whereupon 200,000 votes were thrown out because of botting, and the creators of the poll state outright that it in no way should be considered factual.

On a minor tangent, if the subjective opinion of others is of such key value to you, then I'd suggest you look at the great majority who are peachy keen fine with government. Since an informal poll indicates that the US is a horrible, horrible place, surely you concede that all these people must have some kind of point, so "yay government."
I don't see how you can claim that popular opinion is fine for indicting the US, but then turn around and say the popular opinion of the masses is just wrong when it comes to governments.

As to your sources, I was merely pointing out that your key source thus far in this thread openly states that they rely on the (biased) major media outlets for information. To cry foul at the major media while supporting their derivatives seems irrational to me.

I used Saddam's regime as an example for clarity's sake. Not the bedrock of my argument. Allow me to provide another example.

After the Rodney King trial, a whole lot of people decided to protest racism by trying to score a free big screen TV. A mass of people descended on LA to loot. The individuals were overwhelmed, and their rights violated, by a non-governmental entity (the mob), which didn't have laws, didn't have any kind of military, just had a lot of people which correlates directly to a lot of force. A large mass of people decided to take stuff forcefully, and strip the freedoms from others, and stuff was taken forcefully and the freedoms were stripped from others.

If you live in a society, as in are physically surrounded by people, then the masses can rise up and forcefully remove your freedom, as the LA riots so clearly demonstrated. That was my point.

And I didn't say you could never be free. There are two ways for it to work: One, everyone just says "ok." (which history has shown not likely to happen). Two: You move to the middle of the woods and live outside of society.

Also, let's review the mission statement of that project you linked to.

The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people to move to New Hampshire. We are looking for neighborly, productive, tolerant folks from all walks of life, of all ages, creeds, and colors who agree to the political philosophy expressed in our Statement of Intent, that government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.

(emphasis mine)

This is what I've been saying all along. Goverment, when properly utilized, is the best way to ensure that all people have their rights, and no one has to worry about their rights being unjustly stripped from them (before you post, the unjustly is in there because we shouldn't let serial killers enjoy their right to walk around parks late at night).


My stance is anti-your-current-stance, ie: Anti-anarchy. If you ever do come out and say "go go government yay!" Then I'll be all happy and go about the rest of my business. I won't suddenly jump sides and say "government boo!"

I fuckin' love yous smart peoples.

question: what length of time does it take you's all to write one of those huge posts?

just wondering, for referance reasons