Political Crossfire Forums

Jehan · Joined: 07 Apr 2005 Posts: 3697 Location: Rhode Island

Demonic Spoon wrote: No, murderers should be put in prison because they violates someone's rights. Believing that a group of people deserves to die violates NOONE'S rights.

I find this ironic. News flash: The people perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide WERE murderers.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6957 Location: Ohio

Quote:
I find this ironic. News flash: The people perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide WERE murderers.

News flash: Our laws do not apply ot other countries. We do not live in a wet dream of the Falconist party. We live in the United States of America, not the United States of Terra.

antonio62 · Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: Ask people for donations.

You could do this but then will they donate to me as I am not a well known charity and will I get enough to fund an ad campaign that will get me enough money to do this.

Quote: Tell me how this helps the US

Well one is for trade. A stable successful Africa means another place to sell and buy goods from. Another being that although now the Asians will work for pitiful wages they wont always do so and using African labour would mean a continuation of cheap goods which is what the Americans want.

Quote: We live in a republic, not a democracy. Mob rule does not apply. If the majority thinks gays should be executed, that would not make it legal.

Dose it say in the constitution that America shall not intervene to stop genocide?

Quote: Mercenaries already have all the equipment they need, they just need some cash to carry it out (and as an incentive). It would cost no more than it would cost to have the US army do it. In fact, it'd probably cost a lot less.

They don't have the equipment do stop it. It would only result in a mini war between the rebels and the mercenaries. Most likely the rebels would win because they have the backing of a government that can supply them with money to buy arms and they would probably outnumber the mercenaries. If the US sent a few planes and helicopters in the rebels would stop instantly they know they don't have the power to take them on the sky and without their air cover they would start suffering major casualties.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6957 Location: Ohio

Quote:
You could do this but then will they donate to me as I am not a well known charity and will I get enough to fund an ad campaign that will get me enough money to do this.

So? Become well-known. Quote:
Well one is for trade. A stable successful Africa means another place to sell and buy goods from. Another being that although now the Asians will work for pitiful wages they wont always do so and using African labour would mean a continuation of cheap goods which is what the Americans want.

Mmmmm...no. Africa, even without war, will still be too shi**y for that.

Quote:
Dose it say in the constitution that America shall not intervene to stop genocide?

No, but there were quotes by founding fathers that denounced interventionism.

antonio62 · Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 3:36 pm Post subject:

[quote="Demonic Spoon"]So? Become well-known.[quote]

So I would need to advertise first then. How do I fund that?

Quote: Mmmmm...no. Africa, even without war, will still be too shi**y for that.

It would be stable meaning companys would be much more likely to invest. Do you actually have any reason to think that?

Quote: No, but there were quotes by founding fathers that denounced interventionism.

Quotes from founding fathers don't mean anything. I wonder if you asked them they could spend very little amount of money to save hundreds of thousands of lifes what they'd say. I'm guessing they'd be for it.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6957 Location: Ohio

Quote:
So I would need to advertise first then. How do I fund that?

Get the money yourself, and ask family/friends. Start locally, and expand.

Quote: It would be stable meaning companys would be much more likely to invest. Do you actually have any reason to think that?

Economic imperialism. As we have found in the middle-east, you can't just go into a country and make everything stable. AFrica has to stabalize itself.

Quote:
Quotes from founding fathers don't mean anything. I wonder if you asked them they could spend very little amount of money to save hundreds of thousands of lifes what they'd say. I'm guessing they'd be for it.

What's your damn point? I am for it to. I am not for, however, (and I doubt they were either) FORCING PEOPLE to donate. You're missing the whole point. It's not about whether doing it is right or not, it's about FORCING people who DON'T think it's right to donate/DIE for it.

antonio62 · Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: Get the money yourself, and ask family/friends. Start locally, and expand.

By the time I get the money if I ever get enough doing it that wya to advertise to get the money how many people die. Whydon't we just do it the quick and cheap way.

Quote: Economic imperialism. As we have found in the middle-east, you can't just go into a country and make everything stable. AFrica has to stabalize itself.

Yes but that wasn't stabalising the egion it was making sure the leaders served our interests and not the people of the country's. Thats nto what I want to do with Africa.

Quote: What's your damn point? I am for it to. I am not for, however, (and I doubt they were either) FORCING PEOPLE to donate. You're missing the whole point. It's not about whether doing it is right or not, it's about FORCING people who DON'T think it's right to donate/DIE for it.

That there is nothing to stop intervention in the constitution and an opinion of someone who has been dead for hundreds of years has no revelevance on the world today. Forcing is the wrong word to use. The people elected the leaders and the leaders are there to do the job as they see fit and if the electors don't like it they wont elect them.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6957 Location: Ohio

Quote:
By the time I get the money if I ever get enough doing it that wya to advertise to get the money how many people die. Whydon't we just do it the quick and cheap way.

It would take just as long for Congress to make a decision to do it, and to mobilize the army and get it over there. We shouldn't do it that way because it forces people who may not believe it needs to be stopped to pay/die for it.

Quote:
Yes but that wasn't stabalising the egion it was making sure the leaders served our interests and not the people of the country's. Thats nto what I want to do with Africa.

What? Make them serve our interests instead of their own? Hooray for imperialism! Guess what: They are soverign nations. If you want other nations to treat the US as a sovereign nation, then treat other nations in kind.

Quote:
That there is nothing to stop intervention in the constitution and an opinion of someone who has been dead for hundreds of years has no revelevance on the world today. Forcing is the wrong word to use. The people elected the leaders and the leaders are there to do the job as they see fit and if the electors don't like it they wont elect them.

..oookay then...should Congress be allowed to abolish the first amendment?

theykilledkenny83 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 23 Location: Neenah, WI

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:
By the time I get the money if I ever get enough doing it that wya to advertise to get the money how many people die. Whydon't we just do it the quick and cheap way.

It would take just as long for Congress to make a decision to do it, and to mobilize the army and get it over there. We shouldn't do it that way because it forces people who may not believe it needs to be stopped to pay/die for it.

Quote:
Yes but that wasn't stabalising the egion it was making sure the leaders served our interests and not the people of the country's. Thats nto what I want to do with Africa.

What? Make them serve our interests instead of their own? Hooray for imperialism! Guess what: They are soverign nations. If you want other nations to treat the US as a sovereign nation, then treat other nations in kind.

Quote:
That there is nothing to stop intervention in the constitution and an opinion of someone who has been dead for hundreds of years has no revelevance on the world today. Forcing is the wrong word to use. The people elected the leaders and the leaders are there to do the job as they see fit and if the electors don't like it they wont elect them.

..oookay then...should Congress be allowed to abolish the first amendment?

It would take even longer to form a private military group, raise money, buy all the equipment, then go over there. And we are not exactly forcing people to donate, we are asking. Believe it or not the majority of people think we SHOULD be in Darfur. And we are not doing it in our own interest, we are doing it in theirs, but they are to busy watching people being butchered innocently to do anything about it.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6957 Location: Ohio

......

Really? People volunteer to pay taxes that run the military? I was not aware.

antonio62 · Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 3:40 am Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: It would take just as long for Congress to make a decision to do it, and to mobilize the army and get it over there. We shouldn't do it that way because it forces people who may not believe it needs to be stopped to pay/die for it.

They have been elected so they are not forcing people to pay for it. Not anymore than they are forcing someone who doesn't beleive in cars to pay for the upkeep of the roads.

Quote: What? Make them serve our interests instead of their own? Hooray for imperialism! Guess what: They are soverign nations. If you want other nations to treat the US as a sovereign nation, then treat other nations in kind.

I just siad exactly that. What we did in the middle east of was impeiralistic and failed. What I want the world to do in Africa is help them to become stable country's so they can help themselves.

Quote: ..oookay then...should Congress be allowed to abolish the first amendment?

No because it still has relevance in the modern world. Them saying we shouldn't intervene doesn't have relevance. I think what they meant by not intervening was not intervening in things like the Napoleonic wars.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6957 Location: Ohio

Quote:
They have been elected so they are not forcing people to pay for it. Not anymore than they are forcing someone who doesn't beleive in cars to pay for the upkeep of the roads.

And people who don't use roads shouldn't pay to support them. And guess what: not everyone chooses the politicians that get into Congress. The majority does.
Quote:

I just siad exactly that. What we did in the middle east of was impeiralistic and failed. What I want the world to do in Africa is help them to become stable country's so they can help themselves.

How the f**k is this any different? That was the exact goal we had in the Middle-East.

Quote:
No because it still has relevance in the modern world. Them saying we shouldn't intervene doesn't have relevance. I think what they meant by not intervening was not intervening in things like the Napoleonic wars.

the Napoleonic Wars only started in 1792...

And tell me how the first amendment has any more bearing on today's world than that.

theykilledkenny83 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 23 Location: Neenah, WI

Demonic Spoon wrote: ......

Really? People volunteer to pay taxes that run the military? I was not aware.

As long as they know its for a good cause and saves lives, yes.

antonio62 · Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject:

[quote="Demonic Spoon"]And people who don't use roads shouldn't pay to support them. And guess what: not everyone chooses the politicians that get into Congress. The majority does.[quote]

The majority choose what is best for society when it affects the collective group.

Quote: How the f**k is this any different? That was the exact goal we had in the Middle-East.

We were trying to make the Middle East profit our interests not the interests of the people of the Middle East. I want to help make Africa a good place for the Africans.

Quote: the Napoleonic Wars only started in 1792...

It was an example of the type of war they didn't want to intervene in.

Quote: And tell me how the first amendment has any more bearing on today's world than that.

Well the First amendment was about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is and always will be a human right and therefore is still relevant to the modern world. Them saying something (which has no legal bearing) about not intervening in other countries which was probably meant in a different context than what we are talking about just now has no bearing on the world today.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6957 Location: Ohio

Quote: As long as they know its for a good cause and saves lives, yes.

Who decides what's a "Good cause"?

Quote:
The majority choose what is best for society when it affects the collective group.

Then why the hell do we have a constitution? You are advocating a democratic system, not a republican system. There's a reason a constitution exists. Tell me, if majority domination was good, then why do we have a Constitution, if not to prevent the majority from silencing the minority?
Quote:

We were trying to make the Middle East profit our interests not the interests of the people of the Middle East. I want to help make Africa a good place for the Africans.

Uhh...rebuilding Iraq and Afganistan cost insane amounts of money, and has yet to benefit us.

Quote:
It was an example of the type of war they didn't want to intervene in.

Really now? What makes you say that?
Quote:

Well the First amendment was about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is and always will be a human right and therefore is still relevant to the modern world. Them saying something (which has no legal bearing) about not intervening in other countries which was probably meant in a different context than what we are talking about just now has no bearing on the world today.

On what date did interventionism start becoming a good thing, when it was a bad thing, hmm?

antonio62 · Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: Then why the hell do we have a constitution? You are advocating a democratic system, not a republican system. There's a reason a constitution exists. Tell me, if majority domination was good, then why do we have a Constitution, if not to prevent the majority from silencing the minority?

No because the constitution is only talking about individual rights. Things that only affect the individual the government shoudl ahev no power over. Things that affect society as a whole such as going to war should be decided by the majority of people.

Quote: Uhh...rebuilding Iraq and Afganistan cost insane amounts of money, and has yet to benefit us.

But we haven't been trying to help we were in it for our own interests. I'm not even proposing building or rebuilding the country's only helping them become stable and self determened states where they can build themselves a country and get themselves out of poverty.

Quote: Really now? What makes you say that?

Was there any intervention for humanatarian reasons back then? I cant think of any examples. The only interventions were for reaosns of self interest. They didn't want to become involved in Europes impeiralistic wars that happened so regularly back then.

Quote: On what date did interventionism start becoming a good thing, when it was a bad thing, hmm?

Intervention has always been good when it helps everyone. It is bad when it only helps one country or group of people or helps no one.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6957 Location: Ohio

Quote:
No because the constitution is only talking about individual rights. Things that only affect the individual the government shoudl ahev no power over. Things that affect society as a whole such as going to war should be decided by the majority of people.

Uhh..no...the Constitution sets up our WHOLE GOVERNMENT. So tell me, why is it that you can't vote to take away someone's freedom of speech, but you can vote to force them to give up their own cash? BOTH ARE RIGHTS. Your cash is your property. Property is a right..

Quote:

But we haven't been trying to help we were in it for our own interests. I'm not even proposing building or rebuilding the country's only helping them become stable and self determened states where they can build themselves a country and get themselves out of poverty.

Once again, HOW has this war benefitted us?

Quote:
Was there any intervention for humanatarian reasons back then? I cant think of any examples. The only interventions were for reaosns of self interest. They didn't want to become involved in Europes impeiralistic wars that happened so regularly back then.

How is that any different from intervention in imperialistic affairs?

Quote:

Intervention has always been good when it helps everyone. It is bad when it only helps one country or group of people or helps no one.

I agree. Lets go socialist then, if FORCING people to give up THEIR PROPERTY for SOMEONE ELSE is a good thing.

antonio62 · Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 5:40 am Post subject:

Quote: Who decides what's a "Good cause"?

The majority of people.

Demonic Spoon wrote: Uhh..no...the Constitution sets up our WHOLE GOVERNMENT. So tell me, why is it that you can't vote to take away someone's freedom of speech, but you can vote to force them to give up their own cash? BOTH ARE RIGHTS. Your cash is your property. Property is a right..

There is no other way to fund a country other than taxation. If there was we would be doing it by now.

Quote: Once again, HOW has this war benefitted us?

Well Iraq hasn't but the idea was to stop them selling oil in Euros before the idea spread to other country's. Afganistan would have had we stayed there and stopped the country being taken over by the Taliban and there allies again because it would have stopped terrorist training camps and cauptured some terrorist leaders.

Quote: How is that any different from intervention in imperialistic affairs?

Because we aren't doing it only for our own benifit.

Quote: I agree. Lets go socialist then, if FORCING people to give up THEIR PROPERTY for SOMEONE ELSE is a good thing.

You did that a long time ago. It also benifits them anyway so they shouldn't really complain.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6957 Location: Ohio

Quote: The majority of people.

Uhhuh. Then, once again, why do we need a bill of rights, if the majority of people are always right? If the majority of people were always right, then we wouldn't need those things.
Quote:
There is no other way to fund a country other than taxation. If there was we would be doing it by now.

Hence why government is inherently evil. It, however, is a necessary evil. Either way, a nationwide sales tax would be far superior to what we have now.

Quote:
Well Iraq hasn't but the idea was to stop them selling oil in Euros before the idea spread to other country's. Afganistan would have had we stayed there and stopped the country being taken over by the Taliban and there allies again because it would have stopped terrorist training camps and cauptured some terrorist leaders.

What? I can't even understand that post...

Quote: Because we aren't doing it only for our own benifit.

Who benefits? Not everyone who pisses away money on such imperialism benefits. Besides, what about the people who don't think some people need to be helped?

Quote:
You did that a long time ago. It also benifits them anyway so they shouldn't really complain.

..it does now? Me giving away my computer to my neighbor because he's a lazy s**t who doesn't work benefits me?

antonio62 · Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 6:33 am Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: Uhhuh. Then, once again, why do we need a bill of rights, if the majority of people are always right? If the majority of people were always right, then we wouldn't need those things.

If it isn't in the constitution then it is decided by th government of the day which is elected by the people.

Quote: Hence why government is inherently evil. It, however, is a necessary evil. Either way, a nationwide sales tax would be far superior to what we have now.

It would be perhaps fairer but it far to easy to avoid that tax to make it viable.

Quote: What? I can't even understand that post...

I said America went in to stop Saddam selling oi in Euro's so it has benifited you. In Afganistan the job has been done poorly. It could have helped stop terrorism had the job been done correctly.

Quote: Who benefits? Not everyone who pisses away money on such imperialism benefits. Besides, what about the people who don't think some people need to be helped?

Everyone in the long term benifits. And if they don't like it they can vote for people who wont intervene.

Quote: ..it does now? Me giving away my computer to my neighbor because he's a lazy s**t who doesn't work benefits me?

It might. If you were buying a new computer anyway and needed to dispose of it. it would save you having to pay for it to be disposed through taxes or otherwise.