How do we handle genocide?

Again, you're so paranoid that Government will "forcefully" take money from you yet you never look at what the fuck the money in your pocket is! It's PAPER! The Government said it's money! So you rage against the machine, your name implies nothing less than abolition of the machine, yet you accept the machine's money! So you're all talk when it comes to this, but you never want to inconvenience yourself. You want government abolished, but if that meant you had no money, well then it might not be such a good idea. If it is a good idea, why the hell do you bother worrying about taxation? Don't use their money!

WE ARE FORCED TO ACCEPT THE TRASH PAPER MONEY AS LEGAL TENDER! You obviously do not have a clue. Oh and many of us have gold silver bank accounts. Wtf are you talking about? If the gov got abolished we could use REAL money like GOLD AND SILVER!!

You people SERIOUSLY have a twisted view on what the Constitution says and its precedent set by the Founders.
- You are a liberal who does not know anything about the constitution.

They fought a Revolutionary War because they had zero say in the policies instituted. Had the colonies a say in such policies, history would have been extremely different! Yet the Founders created the Constitution which gave birth to the federal government. In the Constitution, it clearly states Congress has the power to levy taxes. - Read the constitution for once. INCOME TAX is unconstitutional because it makes some people pay more taxes than others aka economic inequality and that is unconstitutional.

In the Articles of Confederation you could even levy taxes! Taxation has existed for thousands of years! You must accept taxes if you are to accept some form of government. If you feel it's stealing, then move the fuck out of the country and into Somalia. If you favor anarchy, go live in an anarchist state for a change. We favor limited government.

Walk the damn walk instead of snobbishly sitting behind a computer screen too tuned in to inconvenience yourself.

If you favor anarchy, then go to Somalia. Tell me how long you live or if you enjoyed it. If you favor no anarchy, then you need some government. Even Thomas Paine understood this and all the Founders did as well. You fund government through taxation which you claim is theft. So you're in intellectual limbo here, bud, and it seems to me you would live in a utopia where human beings magically come together and make peace with one another. We're not Native Americans, we don't understand nature, we're too involved and wrapped up in trying to predict the future and worrying about what the fuck to wear in the morning or how to impress your boss in a job interview that we create a system unsustainable and unattainable without a government to prevent fraud and crime in a society.


A limited government enforces against fraud. Why are you even a Ron Paul supporter? You disagree with him on the main principles,meaning you disagree with the principles of the constitution and freedom.

You enjoy the status quo don't you? You got your big government and it has failed yet AGAIN.
 
Do you guys have any clue??
We PROP up those viscous dictators who murder millions of innocent people.
People like Bush, Obama, Bernanke, Clinton, European central bankers and politicians etc are THE BIGGEST terrorists and mass murderers in the world.
 
May I remind you, I can find just as many photos of happy Iraqi children thanking USA.

It's very dangerous to be sucked in by your emotions on helping people, because while one person dead is one too many, giving authority and trust to government and military to solve problems is no different than trusting the government to better our economy.

socialists know this damn well, they exploit your fear to fool you into supporting a cause, which is corruptable power that works both ways. It sounds very nice to help poor people, but it can be worse when people and governments abuse this trust to harm people and further other agendas in the name of spreading justice.

you cannot criticize what we are doing in Iraq if you believe genocide in a foreign country is our business.
 
Well, that would mean our military is nothing more than mercenaries for hire. Actually, I think they have become that already, unfortunately, but I sure don't think we want to sanctify it.

Those 75% are free to send their own money to Darfur or go over there themselves. Our government should not. Otherwise, we as a country are intervening in a sovereign nation's affairs. Hamadeh, how would you like it if some other country invaded our own to supposedly right some wrong they believed was going on in our own country? Well, what gives our government the right to do that to someone else?

Fantastic response.

I'm biased towards South Africa because I lived there for a while, and if I were in some powerful position, I just might force every American to send their money to my South African of choice.

Does that mean I'm on the right side?

No.

Do I have the right to take money from another person without their consent because I'm backing a "good cause?"

No.

Just look at this mess between Israel and Palestine. Do I want someone to take my money and choose a side for me? HELL NO. What the heck?

I'm on the Palestinian's side for the most part, but not enough for me to support them, after all, a suicide bomber could kill innocent Israeli's, which I am completely against. But guess what? Americans are forced to support the Israelis at gunpoint. And very, very few of us complain.

The merit in philanthropy is entirely based in the fact that it is voluntary. Take that away and it's meaningless.

bleh.
 
You know, it's funny how people feel about foreign aid and intervention in genocides

This will be no shock to anyone, but I've seen studies that show an individual is more likely to support intervention in a genocide if that person's family came from the country where the genocide is occurring.

I wonder how many people here oppose aid to African nations, Israel, etc. but would strongly support the U.S. ending the genocide of people in England, Germany, Ireland, etc.

If China/Russia invaded Western Europe and killed 12 million Brits, Swedes, Germans, Italians, Irish, etc. would you want intervention?
 
Last edited:
2002qdu.png

+1776
 
This is such a tough issue but,

I don't see why government has to get involved at all. Foreign Genocide has nothing to do with national security, especially places like Darfur.

If the American people truly want to do something, they would march into Darfur themselves, Armed to the hilt, and start wiping out the criminals.

The problem is we all expect someone else to do these things we "care" so much about.

There's simply too much craziness in the world for 1 nation to solve.
 
Wonder if the million dead Iraqis are giving us thumbs up?

Stopping genocide usually means committing another genocide to end it.

Thus is the nature of racial, ethnic, religious wars and genocides.

First of all, you are suggesting that a key reason for the current intervention in Iraq was the prevention of genocide. That is a false claim given that the main reason for the war was "national security". Americans supported the war because they falsely believed in a link b/w Saddam and 9/11. Additionally, they were told of his alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Second, the cost of many interventions in the name of genocide are not very "costly". The only NATO troop casualties in Kosovo were the result of a crashed helicopter

Third, I never suggested that the U.S. should be the ones to intervene. I support the U.N. doing such things without support of the U.S. government
 
First of all, you are suggesting that a key reason for the current intervention in Iraq was the prevention of genocide. That is a false claim given that the main reason for the war was "national security". Americans supported the war because they falsely believed in a link b/w Saddam and 9/11. Additionally, they were told of his alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The "Saddam gassed his own people" meme was well established as a valid reason for his deposing by military force.

Second, the cost of many interventions in the name of genocide are not very "costly". The only NATO troop casualties in Kosovo were the result of a crashed helicopter

NATO was chartered as a unified defense against a land-air-sea invasion of Western Europe by a Red Army attack.

We should not even be part of it anymore, let alone sanctioning Kosovo type missions.

Third, I never suggested that the U.S. should be the ones to intervene. I support the U.N. doing such things without support of the U.S. government

The UN proved to be a disaster in Rwanda.
 
Back
Top