ErricoMalatesta 0 #101 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuote Yeah like butchering tens of thousands of Latin Americans. Better leave that out. You were just defending an ally from communism. hahaha. Aren't you Spanish? Why? are we playing the game 'can't differentiate between the population and the historical actions of the state because of patriotism/nationalism'...? Seems to be a recurring theme around here. No, I'm not Spanish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #102 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Remember our proxy war in Afghanistan? You probably don't recall that al Qaeda were our allies then, but we called them freedom fighters instead of terrorists. Al Qaeda did not exist in its form during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. bin Laden created "the base" after he was disowned by his family when he protested US protection of Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield. The Mujahedin in Afghanistan were not an organized base or "al Qaeda" when ISI was supplying arms and training against the USSR. Al Qaeda was formed in 87-88. Their tactics were essentially the same then as now, as was their ideology. Granted, and I'm being nit-pickyish. What I mistyped, "Al Qaeda did not exist in its current (what I left out ) form during the Soviet occupation. AQ may have been formed in 1988 as the Soviets were withdrawing, but they did not have a true base, or model of operations until bin Laden moved to Sudan in 1991(-ish). Their overt operations were clear during US involvement in Somalia. Al Qaeda's model is clear by the mid-90s and bin Laden's edict for kill Americans comes in 1998.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #103 July 10, 2008 Quote No, the argument presented was that Iran had a legal nuclear power program. Israel has nothing to do with the disproving of this claim. None, other than Darius' argument that holding Iran accountable for violating UNSC resolutions and not doing the same with Israel is hypocritical. It's that double standard that repeatedly gets us in trouble in the region. But regarding legality, I've been looking around a bit this morning and I haven't found much from the UN that states that their program is illegal. The IAEA's report in February stated that Iran's program looked ok and that all but one issue has been dealt with satisfactorily. That one issue is based on some questionable intelligence about the alleged "green salt project". I'm not sure what to say about that one because from what I've seen, the info is supposedly from a smuggled laptop in the CIA's possession. The CIA won't turn it over to the IAEA for inspection. On that issue the IAEA board of Governors states: In light of the above, the Agency is not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. However, it should be noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard.. So basically, I'm still not sure whether or not Iran's program is illegal. A civilian program is legal under the NPT. I know that our government doesn't like it but that doesn't make it illegal. And I don't know about any of you folks but I don't want to go to war again over bad intelligence, hyped threats, and itchy trigger fingers in Washington and Israel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BClear 0 #104 July 10, 2008 Interesting story on how there was apparantly a dud in the missle group and the photos were later "edited." http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/10/1191157.aspx Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #105 July 10, 2008 QuoteI find it ridicules for anyone to think Iran would or should act in any other way. It is surrounded by US forces and constantly threatened by Israel and us. Do we really think everyone should bend over and grab their ankles on request? Off course if Israel does lunch yet another preemptive attack I am sure our media and the sheep that follow will be quick to blame the brown people as usual. We really need to give people the same respect that we crave. . . . What the hell do you expect them to do? And how would we react to the same threats that Iran has been faced with for the last 8 years? I agree with you. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #106 July 10, 2008 > All those american made RPK's, AK's, GSu's T-34's T-62's, Mortars >of various sizes, 122, &130mm Howitzers. and all the rest. And Stinger missiles, and IED's, and M-16's. =============== Gust Avrakotos, 67; led CIA's arming of Afghan mujahideen against Soviets December 26, 2005 WASHINGTON -- Gust L. Avrakotos, 67, the CIA agent in charge of the massive arming of Afghan tribesmen during their 1980s guerrilla war against the Soviets, died of complications from a stroke Dec. 1 at Inova Fairfax (Va.) Hospital. Mr. Avrakotos, who ran the largest covert operation in the agency's history, was dubbed ''Dr. Dirty" for his willingness to handle ethically ambiguous tasks and a ''blue-collar James Bond" for his 27 years of undercover work. In the 1980s, he used Tennessee mules to bring hundreds of millions of dollars in automatic weapons, antitank guns, and satellite maps from Pakistan to the mujahideen. Working with former Representative Charles Wilson, a Democrat from Texas, Mr. Avrakotos eventually controlled more than 70 percent of the CIA's annual expenditures for covert operations, funneling it through intermediaries to the mujahideen. As a result, the tribesmen drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and the long Cold War shuddered toward an end. Those weapons later were used in a civil war in Afghanistan before the Taliban took control. Critics noted that those weapons probably were still in use, both in support of and against US troops, when the United States went to war in Afghanistan in 2001. ================ Three weeks after Soviet tanks rolled into Kabul, Carter's secretary of defense, Harold Brown, was in Beijing arranging for a weapons transfer from the Chinese to the ClA-backed Afghani troops mustered in Pakistan. The Chinese, who were generously compensated for the deal, agreed and even consented to send military advisers. Brown worked out a similar arrangement with Egypt to buy $15 million worth of weapons. "The U.S. contacted me," [then-Egyptian president] Anwar Sadat recalled shortly before his assassination [in 1981]. "They told me, 'Please open your stores for us so that we can give the Afghans the armaments they need to fight.' And I gave them the armaments. The transport of arms to the Afghans started from Cairo on U.S. planes." . . . The objective of the intervention, as spelled out by Brezinski, was to trap the Soviets in a long and costly war designed to drain their resources, just as Vietnam had bled the United States. The high level of civilian casualties that this would certainly entail was considered but set aside. According to one senior official, "The question here was whether it was morally acceptable that, in order to keep the Soviets off balance, which was the reason for the operation, it was permissible to use other lives for our geopolitical interests." Carter's CIA director Stansfield Turner answered the question: "I decided I could live with that." According to Representative Charles Wilson, a Texas Democrat, "There were 58,000 dead in Vietnam and we owe the Russians one.... I have a slight obsession with it, because of Vietnam. I thought the Soviets ought to get a dose of it.... I've been of the opinion that this money was better spent to hurt our adversaries than other money in the Defense Department budget." The mujahideen consisted of at least seven factions, who often fought amongst themselves in their battle for territory and control of the opium trade. To hurt the Russians, the U.S. deliberately chose to give the most support to the most extreme groups. A disproportionate share of U.S. arms went to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, "a particularly fanatical fundamentalist and woman-hater."' According to journalist Tim Weiner, " [Hekmatyar's] followers first gained attention by throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. CIA and State Department officials I have spoken with call him 'scary,' 'vicious,' 'a fascist,' 'definite dictatorship material." There was, though, a kind of method in the madness: Brezinski hoped not just to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, but to ferment unrest within the Soviet Union itself. His plan, says author Dilip Hiro, was "to export a composite ideology of nationalism and Islam to the Muslim-majority Central Asian states and Soviet Republics with a view to destroying the Soviet order." Looking back in 1998, Brezinski had no regrets. "What was more important in the world view of history?... A few stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" In March 1985, the Reagan administration issued National Security Decision Directive 166,29 a secret plan to escalate covert action in Afghanistan dramatically. Abandoning a policy of simple harassment of Soviet occupiers, the Reagan team decided secretly to let loose on the Afghan battlefield an array of U.S. high technology and military expertise in an effort to hit and demoralize Soviet commanders and soldiers.... Beginning in 1985, the CIA supplied mujahideen rebels with extensive satellite reconnaissance data of Soviet targets on the Afghan battlefield, plans for military operations based on the satellite intelligence, intercepts of Soviet communications, secret communications networks for the rebels, delayed timing devices for tons of C-4 plastic explosives for urban sabotage, and sophisticated guerrilla attacks, long-range sniper rifles, a targeting device for mortars that was linked to a U.S. Navy satellite, wire-guided anti-tank missiles, and other equipment. Between 1986 and 1989, the mujahideen were also provided with more than 1,000 state-of-the-art, shoulder-fired Stinger antiaircraft missiles. By 1987, the annual supply of arms had reached 65,000 tons. Although the CIA claimed that the purpose was to attack military targets, mujahideen trained in these techniques, and using chemical and electronic-delay bomb timers supplied by the U.S., carried out numerous car bombings and assassination attacks in Kabul itself. ==================== >Wow you are quite the expert in that regard. Why thank you! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #107 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuote Remember our proxy war in Afghanistan? You probably don't recall that al Qaeda were our allies then, but we called them freedom fighters instead of terrorists.Quote Whoa there, you just made a statement that is absolutely false. You might try looking into history. We didn't have any formal treaties with them, but we certainly knew of their existence and their tactics. No one seemed to mind when they were fighting against the Soviets.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #108 July 10, 2008 Quote Granted, and I'm being nit-pickyish. What I mistyped, "Al Qaeda did not exist in its current (what I left out ) form during the Soviet occupation. AQ may have been formed in 1988 as the Soviets were withdrawing, but they did not have a true base, or model of operations until bin Laden moved to Sudan in 1991(-ish). Their overt operations were clear during US involvement in Somalia. Al Qaeda's model is clear by the mid-90s and bin Laden's edict for kill Americans comes in 1998. Well, I suppose it could be argued that al Qaeda (which translates to "the base," IIRC) didn't take their current form until the GWOT, when GWB decided it would be a good idea to help increase their recruitment. Care to tell us when the US most recently gave aid to the Taliban?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #109 July 10, 2008 Quote Care to tell us when the US most recently gave aid to the Taliban? I didn't look it up, but I know US humanitarian aid went to Afghanistan during the 1990s, and I believe there was an official recognition (94-95?) for their reduction of poppy crops ($200M was a number I remember reading somewhere). Of course, now, the Taliban are allowing the growing of poppy to fund their cause. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #110 July 10, 2008 Quote Of course, now, the Taliban are allowing the growing of poppy to fund their cause. They banned it during their most puritan era since it was evil drugs. But now, given their need for cash in the aftermath of the US war, they're more pragmatic about it. Money is good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #111 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteCare to tell us when the US most recently gave aid to the Taliban? I didn't look it up, but I know US humanitarian aid went to Afghanistan during the 1990s, and I believe there was an official recognition (94-95?) for their reduction of poppy crops ($200M was a number I remember reading somewhere). 2001 I can't help but wonder about the logic and wisdom that determines that fighting the war on drugs is more important than standing up for human rights.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #112 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteCare to tell us when the US most recently gave aid to the Taliban? I didn't look it up, but I know US humanitarian aid went to Afghanistan during the 1990s, and I believe there was an official recognition (94-95?) for their reduction of poppy crops ($200M was a number I remember reading somewhere). 2001 I can't help but wonder about the logic and wisdom that determines that fighting the war on drugs is more important than standing up for human rights. Well, there it is. I had the dollar figure more or less correct. To your statement regarding drugs vs. human rights, no easy answers. I do see the context that fighting the drug production also defends human rights.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #113 July 10, 2008 QuoteTo your statement regarding drugs vs. human rights, no easy answers. I do see the context that fighting the drug production also defends human rights. There is no justice in the war on drugs. It certainly doesn't defend human rights.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #114 July 10, 2008 QuoteI do see the context that fighting the drug production also defends human rights. Are you serious? Fighting the drug production, distribution, and use attacks human rights."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #115 July 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteI do see the context that fighting the drug production also defends human rights. Are you serious? Fighting the drug production, distribution, and use attacks human rights. From a purist libertarian view, that may be. But I don't think you'll agree with that point of view given the rival cartels that are killing scores of innocent people just over the Mexican border. Or, the dozens of kidnappings in Laredo, TX by the same cartels. Fighting the production and distribution of drugs preserves the rights of others that would be the victims of the trade.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ErricoMalatesta 0 #116 July 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI do see the context that fighting the drug production also defends human rights. Are you serious? Fighting the drug production, distribution, and use attacks human rights. From a purist libertarian view, that may be. But I don't think you'll agree with that point of view given the rival cartels that are killing scores of innocent people just over the Mexican border. Or, the dozens of kidnappings in Laredo, TX by the same cartels. Fighting the production and distribution of drugs preserves the rights of others that would be the victims of the trade. No it doesn't. It gives you a pretext for stifling economic and social development in the countries you want to exploit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #117 July 11, 2008 QuoteIt gives you a pretext for stifling economic and social development in the countries you want to exploit. Okay, please explain then, how Mexican drug lords contribute to economic and social development. I don't even need to start the list of how they contribute to the disorder.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #118 July 11, 2008 Quote... and IED's, Bill, there is no American (or any other manufactured) "IED"...it's an "Improvised Explosive Device"...operative word being "Improvised".So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #119 July 11, 2008 On another note to the original topic: It appears that some of the Iranian provided photos were shopped...whooops....http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080710/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsmilitaryphotograph_080710165747 So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #120 July 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI do see the context that fighting the drug production also defends human rights. Are you serious? Fighting the drug production, distribution, and use attacks human rights. From a purist libertarian view, that may be. But I don't think you'll agree with that point of view given the rival cartels that are killing scores of innocent people just over the Mexican border. Or, the dozens of kidnappings in Laredo, TX by the same cartels. Fighting the production and distribution of drugs preserves the rights of others that would be the victims of the trade. Fighting the production, distribution, and use gives rise to cartels who then kill scores of innocent people, kidnap, etc..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #121 July 11, 2008 QuoteFrom a purist libertarian view, that may be. But I don't think you'll agree with that point of view given the rival cartels that are killing scores of innocent people just over the Mexican border. Or, the dozens of kidnappings in Laredo, TX by the same cartels. Fighting the production and distribution of drugs preserves the rights of others that would be the victims of the trade. It's the drug war that causes the violence by allowing the extreme price markup. End the drug war and the violence goes away.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ErricoMalatesta 0 #122 July 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteIt gives you a pretext for stifling economic and social development in the countries you want to exploit. Okay, please explain then, how Mexican drug lords contribute to economic and social development. I don't even need to start the list of how they contribute to the disorder. Mexican drug lords don't contribute much of anything which wasn't my point. Drugs, communism, terrorism - Great pretexts. Drug use isn't a small problem and the way to deal with it is prevention and treatment. Prevention meaning removing the social conditions from which it arises and treatment meaning treating it medically and not criminally. The Rand corporation found it to be about 23 times more effective than 'source country control'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #123 July 11, 2008 Holy crap. 123 posts already. I don't have time to read them all. Could someone sum it all up please? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #124 July 11, 2008 >Could someone sum it all up please? When we do it, we're just testing stuff, or giving a little demonstration. When they do it, they are warmongers bent on genocide. And if you don't agree with that, either you should move there, or you believe that we should just roll over and let them scratch our tummy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Darius11 12 #125 July 11, 2008 Quote >Could someone sum it all up please? When we do it, we're just testing stuff, or giving a little demonstration. When they do it, they are warmongers bent on genocide. And if you don't agree with that, either you should move there, or you believe that we should just roll over and let them scratch our tummy. funny yes but also sadly true. I like my tummy scratched............what does that mean?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 of 13 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jcd11235 0 #108 July 10, 2008 Quote Granted, and I'm being nit-pickyish. What I mistyped, "Al Qaeda did not exist in its current (what I left out ) form during the Soviet occupation. AQ may have been formed in 1988 as the Soviets were withdrawing, but they did not have a true base, or model of operations until bin Laden moved to Sudan in 1991(-ish). Their overt operations were clear during US involvement in Somalia. Al Qaeda's model is clear by the mid-90s and bin Laden's edict for kill Americans comes in 1998. Well, I suppose it could be argued that al Qaeda (which translates to "the base," IIRC) didn't take their current form until the GWOT, when GWB decided it would be a good idea to help increase their recruitment. Care to tell us when the US most recently gave aid to the Taliban?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #109 July 10, 2008 Quote Care to tell us when the US most recently gave aid to the Taliban? I didn't look it up, but I know US humanitarian aid went to Afghanistan during the 1990s, and I believe there was an official recognition (94-95?) for their reduction of poppy crops ($200M was a number I remember reading somewhere). Of course, now, the Taliban are allowing the growing of poppy to fund their cause. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #110 July 10, 2008 Quote Of course, now, the Taliban are allowing the growing of poppy to fund their cause. They banned it during their most puritan era since it was evil drugs. But now, given their need for cash in the aftermath of the US war, they're more pragmatic about it. Money is good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #111 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteCare to tell us when the US most recently gave aid to the Taliban? I didn't look it up, but I know US humanitarian aid went to Afghanistan during the 1990s, and I believe there was an official recognition (94-95?) for their reduction of poppy crops ($200M was a number I remember reading somewhere). 2001 I can't help but wonder about the logic and wisdom that determines that fighting the war on drugs is more important than standing up for human rights.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #112 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteCare to tell us when the US most recently gave aid to the Taliban? I didn't look it up, but I know US humanitarian aid went to Afghanistan during the 1990s, and I believe there was an official recognition (94-95?) for their reduction of poppy crops ($200M was a number I remember reading somewhere). 2001 I can't help but wonder about the logic and wisdom that determines that fighting the war on drugs is more important than standing up for human rights. Well, there it is. I had the dollar figure more or less correct. To your statement regarding drugs vs. human rights, no easy answers. I do see the context that fighting the drug production also defends human rights.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #113 July 10, 2008 QuoteTo your statement regarding drugs vs. human rights, no easy answers. I do see the context that fighting the drug production also defends human rights. There is no justice in the war on drugs. It certainly doesn't defend human rights.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #114 July 10, 2008 QuoteI do see the context that fighting the drug production also defends human rights. Are you serious? Fighting the drug production, distribution, and use attacks human rights."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #115 July 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteI do see the context that fighting the drug production also defends human rights. Are you serious? Fighting the drug production, distribution, and use attacks human rights. From a purist libertarian view, that may be. But I don't think you'll agree with that point of view given the rival cartels that are killing scores of innocent people just over the Mexican border. Or, the dozens of kidnappings in Laredo, TX by the same cartels. Fighting the production and distribution of drugs preserves the rights of others that would be the victims of the trade.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #116 July 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI do see the context that fighting the drug production also defends human rights. Are you serious? Fighting the drug production, distribution, and use attacks human rights. From a purist libertarian view, that may be. But I don't think you'll agree with that point of view given the rival cartels that are killing scores of innocent people just over the Mexican border. Or, the dozens of kidnappings in Laredo, TX by the same cartels. Fighting the production and distribution of drugs preserves the rights of others that would be the victims of the trade. No it doesn't. It gives you a pretext for stifling economic and social development in the countries you want to exploit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #117 July 11, 2008 QuoteIt gives you a pretext for stifling economic and social development in the countries you want to exploit. Okay, please explain then, how Mexican drug lords contribute to economic and social development. I don't even need to start the list of how they contribute to the disorder.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #118 July 11, 2008 Quote... and IED's, Bill, there is no American (or any other manufactured) "IED"...it's an "Improvised Explosive Device"...operative word being "Improvised".So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #119 July 11, 2008 On another note to the original topic: It appears that some of the Iranian provided photos were shopped...whooops....http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080710/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsmilitaryphotograph_080710165747 So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #120 July 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI do see the context that fighting the drug production also defends human rights. Are you serious? Fighting the drug production, distribution, and use attacks human rights. From a purist libertarian view, that may be. But I don't think you'll agree with that point of view given the rival cartels that are killing scores of innocent people just over the Mexican border. Or, the dozens of kidnappings in Laredo, TX by the same cartels. Fighting the production and distribution of drugs preserves the rights of others that would be the victims of the trade. Fighting the production, distribution, and use gives rise to cartels who then kill scores of innocent people, kidnap, etc..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #121 July 11, 2008 QuoteFrom a purist libertarian view, that may be. But I don't think you'll agree with that point of view given the rival cartels that are killing scores of innocent people just over the Mexican border. Or, the dozens of kidnappings in Laredo, TX by the same cartels. Fighting the production and distribution of drugs preserves the rights of others that would be the victims of the trade. It's the drug war that causes the violence by allowing the extreme price markup. End the drug war and the violence goes away.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #122 July 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteIt gives you a pretext for stifling economic and social development in the countries you want to exploit. Okay, please explain then, how Mexican drug lords contribute to economic and social development. I don't even need to start the list of how they contribute to the disorder. Mexican drug lords don't contribute much of anything which wasn't my point. Drugs, communism, terrorism - Great pretexts. Drug use isn't a small problem and the way to deal with it is prevention and treatment. Prevention meaning removing the social conditions from which it arises and treatment meaning treating it medically and not criminally. The Rand corporation found it to be about 23 times more effective than 'source country control'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #123 July 11, 2008 Holy crap. 123 posts already. I don't have time to read them all. Could someone sum it all up please? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #124 July 11, 2008 >Could someone sum it all up please? When we do it, we're just testing stuff, or giving a little demonstration. When they do it, they are warmongers bent on genocide. And if you don't agree with that, either you should move there, or you believe that we should just roll over and let them scratch our tummy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #125 July 11, 2008 Quote >Could someone sum it all up please? When we do it, we're just testing stuff, or giving a little demonstration. When they do it, they are warmongers bent on genocide. And if you don't agree with that, either you should move there, or you believe that we should just roll over and let them scratch our tummy. funny yes but also sadly true. I like my tummy scratched............what does that mean?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
