|
Transpower
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: September 15, 2005, 01:06:39 pm » |
|
Chuck:
I don't know any Libertarian who is advocating the use of strategic atomic weapons against terrorists; the most I've heard is the use of small, targeted tactical atomic weapons against the deep cave tunnels in Afghanistan. Unlike the terrorists, all of us want to avoid civilian casualties. This is precisely why the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists--they do not respect the rules of war agreed to by most nations.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ken
smf LPPa W - Media Relations
Newbie
 Offline
Posts: 13
|
|
« Reply #46 on: September 15, 2005, 02:33:52 pm » |
|
I don't know any Libertarian who is advocating the use of strategic atomic weapons against terrorists; the most I've heard is the use of small, targeted tactical atomic weapons against the deep cave tunnels in Afghanistan. Let's not bargain over inches (or megatons) of evil. A nuke is a nuke is a nuke, not only according to the laws of physics, but also in the public perception. But I understand you: what you are saying is that there are Libertarians who support the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons. Terrible as that may seem, I think the nuclear part is incidental to our discussion. Again, the key point is that you're saying there are Libertarians who support the initiation of force. Isn't that a contradiction? Or did you mean the non-pre-emptive use of nukes? This is precisely why the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists--they do not respect the rules of war agreed to by most nations. And America does??? Can you say Guantanamo? Sure you can. And you missed a part of your sentence: "This is precisely why <fillin the blank says that> the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists". Who says that, Ron? Is it you? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ken Krawchuk Libertarian for Pennsylvania Governor (1998,2002) Past Chair, Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (2002-04) c/o PO Box 260 Cheltenham, Penna. 19012 (215) 881-9696 (voice) (215) Krawchuk (fax) Ken@KenK.Orgwww.KenK.Org |
|
|
Ken
smf LPPa W - Media Relations
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 13
|
|
« Reply #47 on: September 15, 2005, 02:36:38 pm » |
|
This should make things easier. Right, hawks? Hey, Chuck: I'd opine that introducing the term "hawk" doesn't add anything to what we've already discussed; I'm not sure how relevant it is to the thread. Personally I'm a hawk (and not because I'm a St. Joe's grad!), but only a hawk against those who have initiated the use of force or fraud. I'd think that a dove would be against retaliation at all, something which probably does not describe anyone participating in this thread. So I assume that your article was directed at all of us? Hawks aside, I think the key issue mentioned in your quoted article is about the efficacy of pre-emptive strikes. And that brings us back to the issue at hand, which is still mired in the definitional stages. I'd like to get that part moving again. Toward that goal, here's a summary of who's on what side of which fences, as they've mentioned in this thread (in alphabetical order). Of course if I'm wrong on any of these categorizations, please let me know. 1. Obey all of the Constitution: - EVC Darren - Jim - KenK 2. Ignore parts of the Constitution: - KenC - RonS 3. Haven't said: - Chuck We can also break things down using The Pledge: 1. People who promote the initiation of force: - KenC - RonS 2. People who oppose the initiation of force: - Chuck - EVC Darren - Jim - KenK And extensions to The Pledge: 1. People who promote the initiation of force in response to threats: - Jim - KenC - RonS 2. People who oppose the initiation of force in response to threats: - KenK 3. Haven't said: - Chuck - EVC Darren So there's a summary of who's where. I'm ready to pick this thread back up again, starting with the issue of definitions as outlined above. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ken Krawchuk Libertarian for Pennsylvania Governor (1998,2002) Past Chair, Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (2002-04) c/o PO Box 260 Cheltenham, Penna. 19012 (215) 881-9696 (voice) (215) Krawchuk (fax) Ken@KenK.Orgwww.KenK.Org |
|
|
|
Transpower
|
|
« Reply #48 on: September 15, 2005, 02:46:54 pm » |
|
No Libertarian is advocating the "initiation of force." What I and others are saying is that we may strike any al Queda base--because they have declared war on us! They hate the West and want to impose a totalitarian version of Islam on us. There are--right now--secret al Queda cells in the U.S. just waiting for the word from OBL to attack us again. Naturally we should do everything we can (short of causing civilian deaths) to rid the world of these destructive morons. They are the main threat to our lives, our liberty, and our property.
As for Guantanomo, the terrorists do not respect the rules of war, so therefore we are not bound to do so either with regard to them. Tough, but that's how it is. The Left is wrong about the war, just as they are wrong about just about everything else. I'm proud to be on the side of America and American values!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
evc
|
|
« Reply #49 on: September 15, 2005, 08:38:38 pm » |
|
No Libertarian is advocating the "initiation of force." What I and others are saying is that we may strike any al Queda base--because they have declared war on us! They hate the West and want to impose a totalitarian version of Islam on us. There are--right now--secret al Queda cells in the U.S. just waiting for the word from OBL to attack us again. Naturally we should do everything we can (short of causing civilian deaths) to rid the world of these destructive morons. They are the main threat to our lives, our liberty, and our property.
As for Guantanomo, the terrorists do not respect the rules of war, so therefore we are not bound to do so either with regard to them. Tough, but that's how it is. The Left is wrong about the war, just as they are wrong about just about everything else. I'm proud to be on the side of America and American values! Ron, I can't believe that someone who calls himself a libertarian can be so confused. This stuff about big bad Al Qaeda (AQ)is nothing but bunk. To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does AQ have? Answer ZERO! They're nothing more than a nuisance, & only that because the US gov gives them reason to be angry. If the US gov would leave them alone they'd leave us alone.This isn't, BTW, condoning what they do just explaining it: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/11/Osama_text.htmlOn another point you erroneously make, the greatest threat to liberty around here is the US gov. They terrorize all of us everyday. (Ask Art or Larken about this.) I don't see AQ taking money out of each & every paycheck I bring home. I don't see AQ confiscating people's guns. I also don't see AQ kidnapping & locking up drug users. Etc, etc, etc. Moving right along, the left, the left, the left. It's only the left, in your world, that opposes the war. Get it through your head it's not only the left that opposes the war. (Never mind that they also oppose the war on drugs & corporate welfare, no to you they're just wrong about everything.) Also, don't be so proud, your support for what it takes to fight a war on terror (whatever that means) is a betrayal of everything the founders stood for. I'll say good bye with a question, if AQ has secret cells in the US how do you know about them? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It is not because a part of the government is elective, that makes it less a despotism, if the persons so elected possess afterwards, as a parliament, unlimited powers."
|
|
|
|
jimbabb
|
|
« Reply #50 on: September 18, 2005, 03:23:17 pm » |
|
And extensions to The Pledge:
1. People who promote the initiation of force in response to threats:
- Jim
- KenC
- RonS
2. People who oppose the initiation of force in response to threats:
- KenK
3. Haven't said:
- Chuck
- EVC Darren Before you put me in group one, I'd have to know what type of threat you are referring to. If someone points a gun at my family and declares the intention to shoot, yes I would try to get the first shot off if I could. Clearly, that is completely different from slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians in a far away land because somebody there has "WMD related program activities". Jim |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jimbabb
|
|
« Reply #51 on: September 18, 2005, 03:29:41 pm » |
|
. There are--right now--secret al Queda cells in the U.S. just waiting for the word from OBL to attack us again. What? The US is harboring terrorists? I guess to you this is justification to "shock-and-awe" the US. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ken
smf LPPa W - Media Relations
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 13
|
|
« Reply #52 on: September 19, 2005, 03:34:11 pm » |
|
And extensions to The Pledge:
1. People who promote the initiation of force in response to threats:
- Jim
- KenC
- RonS
2. People who oppose the initiation of force in response to threats:
- KenK
3. Haven't said:
- Chuck
- EVC Darren Before you put me in group one, I'd have to know what type of threat you are referring to. If someone points a gun at my family and declares the intention to shoot, yes I would try to get the first shot off if I could. Sounds like you belong in group one. Personally, I believe the "proper" way (whatever that means) to respond to a threat is with another threat. That's in keeping with the "non-initiation of threats" principle. Of course if the offender does not remove their threat, then I believe you're justified in backing up your own threat and resorting to force to remove that threat. I hear that the NYC police have a similar policy: "Stop or I'll <BLAM!> shoot!" Clearly, that is completely different from slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians in a far away land because somebody there has "WMD related program activities". Amen. The latter involves the initiation of lies to achieve social or political goals, while the former involves the right to personal defense. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ken Krawchuk Libertarian for Pennsylvania Governor (1998,2002) Past Chair, Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (2002-04) c/o PO Box 260 Cheltenham, Penna. 19012 (215) 881-9696 (voice) (215) Krawchuk (fax) Ken@KenK.Orgwww.KenK.Org |
|
|
Ken
smf LPPa W - Media Relations
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 13
|
|
« Reply #53 on: September 19, 2005, 03:36:00 pm » |
|
No Libertarian is advocating the "initiation of force." Then I'm confused. Earlier in this thread, you said: Iran is a threat to us--it's leaders call us "The Great Satan" and want to defeat us and our social system. They wish to impose a totalitarian version of Islam on us and the rest of the world. So, here we may intervene You also said: What I and others are saying is that we may strike any al Queda base--because they have declared war on us! If someone calls you a rude name, is it initiation of force if you shoot them for saying it? I would argue vehemently that it is. And if I follow you correctly, you're saying that it isn't. If that's the case, I better be careful about calling you names! You might shoot me!!! Reminds me of a Moxy Fruvous song, tellingly titled "Gulf War Song": "If I said you were crazy, would you have to fight me? Fighters for liberty, fighters for power Fighters for longer turns in the shower Don't tell me I can't fight, 'cause I'll punch out your lights And history seems to agree that I would fight you for me" As for Guantanomo, the terrorists do not respect the rules of war, so therefore we are not bound to do so either with regard to them. Tough, but that's how it is. No it isn't. I took a look at the Conventions ( http://www.genevaconventions.org/) and found nothing to support your point. In fact, it goes the other way. Protocol IV, Article 2 says "[T]he present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them." That also contradicts something I said earlier in this thread, which I humbly retract. I said that since the Iraqi war wasn't "war" the conventions did not apply. I was wrong; George W is in violation. No surprise. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ken Krawchuk Libertarian for Pennsylvania Governor (1998,2002) Past Chair, Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (2002-04) c/o PO Box 260 Cheltenham, Penna. 19012 (215) 881-9696 (voice) (215) Krawchuk (fax) Ken@KenK.Orgwww.KenK.Org |
|
|
Ken
smf LPPa W - Media Relations
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 13
|
|
« Reply #54 on: September 19, 2005, 08:41:56 pm » |
|
. It's deja vu all over again. I was looking up some Toastmasters stuff when I stumbled onto the following piece I posted on the old LPP-run LEEbernet. Here it is, six years later, and the same arguments are still going on and on. From: Ken Krawchuk < KenKrawchuk@Enter.Net> To: pa-libernet@lppa.org; H. Antoinette Hilmer < freelady99@netcarrier.com> Subject: Re: Kuck the Flan! Date: Sunday, May 23, 1999 9:48 PM FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 23, 1999 For more information, contact Christina A. Belovesick LEEBERNETIANS EGG WOMAN'S HOUSE IN BUCKS COUNTY Scions of Pa-LEEbernet stormed Toni Hilmer's house this evening in retaliation for her exercising her right to free speech. Hilmer, a long-time Libertarian activist, stated in an e-mail that she has "the right to throw eggs at" the KKK. But in saying so, Hilmer inadvertently established the precedent of egging anyone you happen to disagree with. Taking advantage of this new loophole regarding the eggnitiation of the use of force, the ever-argumentative LEEbernetians replied quickly, and in force. So many eggs were rained on Hilmer's house that there was a brief spike in the egg futures market when news of the massive egging broke. Concern was raised whether there would be enough eggs for an upcoming KKK rally in Butler. When questioned about a possible run on eggs, a clerk at the Acme quizzically said "We have lots of eggs". Hilmer was not surprised by the attack. In the past, Hilmer had written, "If ya do not like what I have to say, you could toss an egg at me". Prophetically, she added that she "would be willing to pay the price" for her pro-egg stand, a price she paid tonight. "We also could be come victims of such 'egg throws'", Hilmer had warned, but adding: "Hey, that's fine by me!" Since no law was broken, the eggers remained on the scene afterward to sign autographs and receive cholesterol tests. Bill Shadle, a LEEbernetian, observed: "Isn't it a terrible thing to have principles?" "Look out for the return," Hilmer rejoined. - 30 - ... and another... From: Ken Krawchuk < KenKrawchuk@Enter.Net> To: Rick Gemi < rmg26@hotmail.com>; freelady99@netcarrier.com Cc: pa-libernet@lppa.org Subject: Re: Kuck the Flan! Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 7:19 AM ---------- > From: Rick Gemi < rmg26@hotmail.com> > To: freelady99@netcarrier.com > Cc: pa-libernet@lppa.org > Subject: Re: Kuck the Flan! > Date: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 11:29 PM > > I conclude you're in denial that the act of throwing eggs at people > with very low intelligence levels could possibly ignite an already volatile > situation into a fist fight or a gun fight, where others around you may get > hurt or even killed. Am I right? Are you? From today's Montgomery County Record... -------------------- TROOPER FEARED KLAN WOULD SHOOT HIM SOMERSET (AP) - A state trooper testified Tuesday that he believed he would be shot during a confrontation with Ku Klux Klan members at a Somerset County farm. Trooper George Emigh took the stand during the first day of testimony in the trial of Klan members Donald Lee Penrod, 49, of Boswell; Michael Abraham, 31, of Bethlehem; Adam Moyer, 34, of Lehighton; and Ronald Bedics, 35, of Whitehall. All were charged with aggravated assault, simple assault, reckless endangerment and terroristic threats. Emigh was part of a surveillance team watching over Penrod's Jenner Township farm during a Klan picnic. Emigh testified that he was sitting in a tree on adjoining property when Klan members spotted him and threatened him with guns. "I felt my best option was not to move," Emigh said. Defense lawyer James L. Heidecker Jr., who is representing Bedics, told the jury during opening statements that troopers were actually threatening the people at the picnic. I'm tellin' ya! Them Libertarians! Ya see what I'm sayin'? Nuttin' changes! Seriously: Meet force with force and threats with threats (then always back them up). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ken Krawchuk Libertarian for Pennsylvania Governor (1998,2002) Past Chair, Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (2002-04) c/o PO Box 260 Cheltenham, Penna. 19012 (215) 881-9696 (voice) (215) Krawchuk (fax) Ken@KenK.Orgwww.KenK.Org |
|
|
gussser
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 3
|
|
« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2005, 06:27:43 pm » |
|
:twisted: Give Iranians 3 days to leave the country. Those who do can return to reclaim their country, those who don't leave need nuked. This way they get to recieve their nuke weapons they want so bad, & get peace at the same time. They can visit with Alah.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
k
|
|
|
|
evc
|
|
« Reply #56 on: September 26, 2005, 06:32:46 pm » |
|
:twisted: Give Iranians 3 days to leave the country. Those who do can return to reclaim their country, those who don't leave need nuked. This way they get to recieve their nuke weapons they want so bad, & get peace at the same time. They can visit with Alah. The more you post the ignorant you get. This is a libertarian board, not a neo-con one. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It is not because a part of the government is elective, that makes it less a despotism, if the persons so elected possess afterwards, as a parliament, unlimited powers."
|
|
|
|
|
timcrowley
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 151
|
|
« Reply #58 on: October 16, 2005, 11:09:27 am » |
|
Without a strong military presence, the USA would be taken over piece by piece and we wouldn't be able to carry on these parlour room discussions that we love soooooooo much.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
evc
|
|
« Reply #59 on: October 16, 2005, 03:43:39 pm » |
|
Without a strong military presence, the USA would be taken over piece by piece and we wouldn't be able to carry on these parlour room discussions that we love soooooooo much. Yes, by the millions they'd swim over with boxcutters & wipe us out. Here are some ideas about how to defend the US while maitaining our liberties: The Bill of Rights: Antipathy to Militarism by Jacob G. Hornberger, Posted December 3, 2004 <snip> ...the military bedrock of a free society lay not in an enormous standing army but rather in the concept of the citizen-soldier — the person in ordinary life in civil society who is well-armed and well-trained in the use of weapons and who is always ready in times of deepest peril to come to the aid of his country — but only to defend against invasion and not to go overseas to wage wars of aggression or wars of “liberation.” As John Quincy Adams put it in his July 4, 1821, address to Congress, America “does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.” <snip> http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It is not because a part of the government is elective, that makes it less a despotism, if the persons so elected possess afterwards, as a parliament, unlimited powers."
|
|
|
|
