Author Topic: A little poem a friend sent me guys (Read 2511 times)

Maverick · « **Reply #105 on:** June 23, 2006, 06:10:51 PM »

Letters,

Yes you are quite correct I intended to use the term ad hominum. In the current vernacular, my bad.

As to your question.

I already answered a part of it and yet you do not wish to recognize it. Let me reinforce what I was saying. The world is not a place where a nation can exist in peaceful isolationism. That period past after we became so dependant on industrial and commercial benefits that we can no longer produce within our own shores all the materials we need to maintain the current technological level of society.

This is the case for pretty much any nation in the world not based on a totally agrarian society (example Amish and I mean society not nation with that group). No one nation can maintain itself without trading with some other part of the globe. If a critical material is controlled by a hostile power or can be manipulated by a hostile power there exists a significant economic threat to all nations that depend on that commodity. If you need an example look at the current price of oil and how it jumps everytime there is a mere threat to a portion of the production of any country that is a source of it. Even the loss of offshore drilling and refining capacity in this nation alone caused a price increase and a significant impact on the economy. Since our economy is also tied to other nations we were not the only one to feel the pinch.

Leaving a hostile power in control of a significant portion of that critical commodity is a significan5t weakness to our security and economy. Even if there were simply a single nation embargo by that hostile nation the entire globe would be effected economically due to the price fluctuation from the decrease in overall supplies. This would be the case even if other non-hostile nations decided to increase production to take up the shortfall form the one nation’s embargo. In fact a similar situation still exists as the oil production from Iraq is still not up to full production and the mere threat of reducing it further from terrorist attacks continues to cause economic fluctuations across the globe with the overall price of oil.

If that hostile power were able to gain direct control, the threat is even greater to nations that the power is hostile towards. Even if you wish to ignore the specific impact of the oilfields that were controlled by Iraq and Kuwait alone. The take over of that single small country had an impact that far exceeded the borders of that nation. This also included the supplies of other nations that may or may not have bordered Iraq and Kuwait. The mere threat was enough to cause a significant impact on the world both politically and economically. Exporting the threat militarily either through a direct attack or through using low intensity conflict tactics (terror) will cause even more economic impacts. Just because a nation that is intent on making their will felt cannot do so through an invasion does not negate the fact that they may have an extremely damaging impact on the target nation through the use of a simple threat.

Now going back to what I said earlier in another post. Yes there is certainly precedent for military action by one nation towards another if the political process cannot do so peacefully. Given the possible threat to the economy and the risk of a collapse of the entire nation due to a severe enough threat to the economy, again like the depression of the 20’s, it is certainly justification to express political power through military means. Maintaining a status quo and stable trade situation preferably with a friendly power is a benefit not only to this nation but also to every other nation that has economic ties to both sides of the disagreement. Almost every nation’s economy is tied to others through trade and a significant impact on a large trading partner will ripple through the entire globe. If that can be maintained through peaceful means the political way will have succeeded.

If you cannot see the potential here there is really nothing I can do to convince you of it. Like I said, I do not think there is any chance an isolationist concept will succeed. Even if we did wish to close our borders totally the rest of the world’s economies will certainly do their utmost, and successfully in our case, to open those borders either through direct or indirect action. FWIW economic action IS direct action and can be as devastating as military action to a nation.

red26 · « **Reply #106 on:** June 23, 2006, 08:35:31 PM »

Right on MAV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:aok

Eagle Eye · « **Reply #107 on:** June 23, 2006, 08:44:13 PM »

I found it online google search ww2 planes

Eagle Eye · « **Reply #108 on:** June 23, 2006, 08:45:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by uvwpvW
I’m confident you meant ad hominem, not ad hoc. No I have made no ad hominem attacks. Although I recognize that some of my comments may carry a bit of sting, that does not make them ad hominem attacks.

Your post quoted above however is an ad hominem attack. You attack the person (hominem) – me – to deflect the fact that you are unable to form a counter-argument. The only options you are left with are to concede the debate or make an ad hominem attack. Naturally you choose the latter.

Let’s review the debate in brief:

You failing to come up with a credible response leaves me no choice but to conclude that Iraq was no threat to us or the west in general, militarily, economically or otherwise.

Unless you have some more straws you wish to grasp at, I consider this matter closed.

People Like this make me long for the days when Hanging was allowed

red26 · « **Reply #109 on:** June 23, 2006, 09:42:33 PM »

Im sorry I got the name of our mission mixed up at the top I was mad so Im sorry guys but its the people that will never go fight and then think they know whats it like to come home to this country. They always say its not so bad . And we dont treat our soliders bad but BS on that. They will understand when they have to pick up a wepon because of people like thouse they just sat back and said there is no threat out there to the US. Then they are running for there live's because since they said there is no threat and had there gaurd down like the whole Red Army is on the arsh. One day because of people that just set back and say its ok this country will be hurting. And its only going to be the ones that support this country are going to be on the front lines kicking arsh looking back to see thouse people running to anouther country to leave us MEN to fight. GO FIGURE!!!:aok

Toad · « **Reply #110 on:** June 23, 2006, 10:16:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by uvwpvW
Did you just fail to think this through or are you really this obtuse?

Quote

Originally posted by uvwpvW
No I have made no ad hominem attacks.

Quote

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

Mini D · « **Reply #111 on:** June 23, 2006, 11:34:04 PM »

Amazing how many people saw buddies get killed over in Iraq and then came to share it with us here on the humble AH bbs.

At least nobody bought you 3 free months of AH this time.

Sandman · « **Reply #112 on:** June 24, 2006, 01:45:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
not saying you can't be against the war, but when you protest the war publicly you become a propaganda tool for the enemy and encourage the enemy to keep on fighting thereby causing more deaths on all sides.

Bull****.

Sandman · « **Reply #113 on:** June 24, 2006, 01:46:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
who cares what nash thinks so long as he can't vote and...

he get's slapped down when he tries to sneak in yet another boring endorsement for liberal socialist democrats in our country.

lazs

More handwringing about the liberal socialist bogeyman.

red26 · « **Reply #114 on:** June 24, 2006, 09:08:30 AM »

In all my life I didnt know there were so many people aginst the US that LIVED HERE. GO FIGURE:huh

Sandman · « **Reply #115 on:** June 24, 2006, 09:21:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by red26
In all my life I didnt know there were so many people aginst the US that LIVED HERE. GO FIGURE:huh

Hmmm... I don't follow your logic.

red26 · « **Reply #116 on:** June 24, 2006, 09:45:00 AM »

I'm saying that back in the days of WWII everyone backed this country no matter what the country did. Now if the country goes to war it seems like hardly anyone supports this country most of the people are aginst us if we go to war.

Thrawn · « **Reply #117 on:** June 24, 2006, 09:53:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Given the possible threat to the economy and the risk of a collapse of the entire nation due to a severe enough threat to the economy, again like the depression of the 20’s, it is certainly justification to express political power through military means.

Wow, someone has something new to say.

Generally I disagree with it. Although since time immemorial nations have gone to war for exactly the reasons you state, I don't believe that those wars could be called "just".

Look at Japan in WW2. Do to sanctions thier oil resevers were deminishing. They had two choices, reduce demand and the size of their military or use that military to conquer nations that had oil. And this is basically the choice that any nation would face if they lost extra-national access to a resource.

Just because one nation wants a resource, it does not follow that the nation that has it is obligated to sell or give it to them. Land is a resource, Germany wanted more land, Poland didn't want to give it to them. Does that justify Germany's invasion?

What about in the extreme case of possible economic disaster like the Great Depression? Typically speaking the nation that faces the disaster is in that position because it put itself there. If a person goes massively into debt and is facing bankruptcy, are they then justified in robbing the bank if they refuse to extend any more credit? I don't think so, the person should tighten their belts and work their way out.

I think, at it's heart you are advocating for a socialist solution instead of a capitialist solution to an economic problem. Yes, under the conditions you discribe the price of the commodity (say oil) would go up. But the nation that needs the oil will naturally reduce usage as demand would go down. Not only that but it would become economically viable to start investing in researching and developing other energy sources. If instead they invade an oil producing nation, not only are they destroying the oil producing nations freedom to define their own destiny, but they are screwing up thier own economy by forcing the taxpayers to pay for the war (which are typically very expensive). And I would bet that the war would end up being more expensive than paying the increase in the price of oil.

Sandman · « **Reply #118 on:** June 24, 2006, 09:57:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by red26
I'm saying that back in the days of WWII everyone backed this country no matter what the country did. Now if the country goes to war it seems like hardly anyone supports this country most of the people are aginst us if we go to war.

Unlike WWII, many Americans believe the war in Iraq was unnecessary.

Being against the war in Iraq does not make one against the U.S.

red26 · « **Reply #119 on:** June 24, 2006, 10:30:07 AM »

I think if you live in a country you should back it no matter what they do. I am one of the guys that thinks every person should have to serve at least 2 yrs in the Armed Forces at 18 or upon graduation. And most will say that being a COMMIE. but its not its called giving back to your country and also taking pride in your country. If you want to run this country down then MOVE go to another country and run down this country form there. When out fore father's sighned the bill of rights and they put freedom of speech in it they had no idea that our country would turn the way it has.