Marijuana.com

HappyMan

Arabl, Middle Eastern and Muslim terrorism is not about Bin Laden. It did not start with him and it won't end with him.

__________________
Bla.

and

Marijuana.Com Community Posting Guidelines

 

MickityMike

Exactly.

It's not as if those who support the war have some sort of bloodlust or adhere to some paranoid belief in a super-secretive ingenious government plan. I think that most of us, especially those posting on this board, are fairly reasonable in our reasons for supporting the war. (Actually, in the tangentially related thread that sprouted this one, I was trying to cast away a bit of the nit-picking rhetoric and try to get to the bottom of our disagreement. Some of those who are anti-Iraq War are very reasonable and have very similar positions to myself - then there are those that think it's all about oil and that the evil neocons lied their way to war... No matter the Congressional inquiries that have found to the contrary. *shrug*)

Mine, oddly enough, have not changed since the beginning, although 9/11 most definitely jolted the way that I view the world and whether or not we should allow threats to fully materialize. To paraphrase George, it's my belief that we must act in the post-9/11 world before the threat fully materializes - before it becomes imminent. It’s not as if I thought that Saddam Hussein was going to put a few Iraqis into rowboats and attack New York Harbor with harpoons; my concern was the stockpiles of WMDs that I believed existed, and the WMD programs that did exist.

Furthermore, I think that the only way we're going to reach a long term solution to Islamist extremism is via self-governance and all that that implies: freedom of speech, of the press, etc. I don't think it's enough to simply blow the crap out of the Taliban - fundamental change must take place in the socio-politico structure of the region, or, IMHO, nothing will change and this truly will be a war without end... That is, at least until things go nuclear. (And for those who might scoff at the possibility of a nuclear exchange, imagine for a moment that 9/11 had been not with planes but with nukes, or just chemical or biological agents: How do you think the public might have reacted, and what sort of pressure might they have put the administration under? Scary.)

It's also important to remember that this war has been brewing for a long time. It's not as if we've been at peace with Iraq since 1991 - it just stopped making the news after a while. They were constantly shooting at our aircraft, we were constantly bombing their AA emplacements. They try to off a former prez, we blow up some janitors in their intelligence HQ. I've been waiting for this since 1998 with the enactment of the Iraqi Liberation Act and Operation Desert Fox.

__________________
I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons. - Glenn Reynolds

Herb Ninja

Of course you don't mean giving them the freedom to say anything or print anything, didn't we close one of their newspapers? And didn't you support that decision? So what you mean is freedom of the press, with exceptions, right? Peace, HN-

__________________
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies." -Ron Paul

HappyMan

Neither Freedom of Speech or the press are considered to be unlimited. The neither expressions can be used to spred lies or incite violence. The Wall Street Journal can not print something that they know to be false. Neither can I go out on the street and actively campaign to have Micheal Moore put to death. There are limits on all freedoms, because without limits freedoms are abused.

MickityMike

I guess the WSJ could print something that they knew to be false, but they'd probably get sued.

But yeah, you're exactly right. It should not be legal to incite violence, for the love of christ. The very existence of a functioning government precludes such "luxuries."

In one case yes, in another no. For the rest, see above.

Methinks you assume too much.

 

HappyMan

I include civil liabilities in aspects of social control. Instead of the government enforcing such sanctions, it allows individuals to pursue justice by their own means. These civil liabilities often does more to curtial questionable activities than government regulation.



g

^_^truth

The ideal that Freedom is Speech or press are limited is, in an of itself, a disgrace to founding idea of Freedom of Speech. It is the place of societies to create unwritten limits on such freedoms through the use of taboo. If a government does put a restiction over a freedom such as speech, it is attempting to control and deny a part of human-nature; and as we all seem to see, seeing as how we are all members of a group that fights such restrictions (a.k.a this site's over lying theme towards legalization), it should be obvious what can happen if, or when, a government restricts the rights to express one's own opinion through press or speech.

So, IMHO, Happyman your assumption that all freedoms there contains limits are somewhat false, all limits can be overcome. It is controlled by both the individual's own ideal system and that of the society that raise him/her that determines the extent at which a so-called limit would be "tested."

In short: Limits are not truly limits as they can be overcome, moreso they are just taboos created by society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

But back on track:

I myself was never a supporter of either of the wars Bush proposed, both the War on Terror and the War on Iraq. My reasoning is that war is never necessacy. This has been my belief for quite some time, I mean who gives anyone or any group of people the right to kill others to convert that areas belief system. War is never an option...Ever.

I, in my inner core, believe that nothing is worth killing for. I detest the sentiments of my fellow Americans that claim, "We are protecting ourselves from them," or, "They attacked us first, we are merely extracting our revenge."

With that said I would expect that the reason why people have such differing feelings on war would stem from either their religious teachings, sub-societies/cultures they are involved in, their inablity to see fear for what it is, and/or the type of faith in the system they have (be it blind or questioning).
Oh and of course bigotry, you can never forget that!

__________________
Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
Nietzsche

JTP

I tend to think of war as the great decider. And I think the WOT (Islamic militants) has been needed for decades. The US would have been a lot better off had we delt with all these nuts in the late 70s. But hey, thanks Carter...

Mamabudz

There we go ...confusing Philosphy and Political Science ...with Reality and Law

-- I love a good debate --

Anyone want a cookie

Hugz,

Mama Budz

^_^truth

Sorry about my mix of Philosphy and Political Science, it just get carried away.



Oh and I would love a cookie