BF2S Forums Political Preference

edit: This one is to pfciling, obviously

pfcilng wrote:

well guess I gotta have to clarify my response.

Violence does work at times, yes it did stop Hitler, BUT at what point was something done about it.  World War II  began and Hitler was "placed" in power not more than 5 min after the treaty ending world war I ( I am NOT being literal).  If we look back at what causes people like Hitler and terrorism to exist, we will see that a non-violent solution would of worked at the root of the problem.  Once you let the problem get out of hand, violence might have to be used, when all other options are exhausted.

As Dshak has mentioned, kill one terroritst, you are only creating more.  I believe this is 100 % true.

I play a game at time, I switch places with a "insurgent" and imagine how I would feel if a hostile dictator had been removed, only to find those who removed him are hanging around and things are not getting much better (crime and violence increasing).  What would you do?

I think non-violent means often would work, if we can recognize when and where to use them very, very fast.  I dont think that is feasible though, take Hitler for example.  He came to power and made a lot of changes domestically to try and reapir their economy which was in shambles, should that have provokes us to remove him from power? not at all, After that, he began rebuilding the military, which was at the time, not at all a provokation or indication that in 10 years, we would be in a World War.  After invading the Sudentenland(sp?) for it's resources, that was a provocation and an indication that bad things were coming, but it was already too late, so non-violent means were never really applicable wer they?

Now to be fair, and keep the topic current, that was the last true war, so to speak.  Guerilla warfare is the name of the game now, though no revolution has ever succeeded without some clearly defined battle.  I can list a slew of example sif you would like. 

As for terrorism, its a sticky issue.  What are the causes of terrorism? Ive thought about this one a lot and I can identify several causes, but I cant identify a solution, the wonder of politics.  Religious fanaticism? yes Oil creating huge poverty gaps in the middle east? yes A hatred of Israel beacause of a perceived theft of "their" land? yes

How do we fix these things? Nobody knows.  Israel has tried both non-violent and violent means, and non have worked.  How should the United States change it's foreign policy to make Extremist Muslims hate Chirstians and Jews less? They can't.  How can the U.S. reduce Oil consumption whihc creates massive povertry gaps in the middle east? They can't, because for every barrell we dont buy, CHina and the rest of the edeveloping world will.

So how should the Iraqi people feel about American Troops in their country?  Well, in my opinion, I think its the same kinds of people that worked for Saddam that are killing so many Iraqis now.  SO, I'd kind of appreciate it that at least somebody in the world is trying to make things better, its at least a more hopeful situation than it was before.

Last edited by redfoxster (2005-11-06 20:51:02)

Here is some forum debate etiquette.

When answering questions or offering rebuttle to a statement of another, please state whom you are speaking to. In answer to "John Doe" or to John Doe, or [John Doe] preceding your answer.

This gives the readers a better comprehension of whom you are speaking to and answering so if they want to go back and see what you are refering to they can. This helps the flow of the thread and the debate.

Thanks for reading.

Cheers.

dshak

A) your being educated does not offend me, never said it does, never implied that it does, the way your try represent yourself as "looking at the whole picture" while everyone else is not, is what offends me, because in reality, people just form a different opinions and have different perceptions than you, though they are considering all of the same things you are, but you choose to berate them and me beacuse you disagree

B) I thought the joke was that all the war hawks play a game called Battlefield, not that people who play battlefield are all warhawks. I hate the term, I hate war hawks, Ive seen what war does to peeople both physically and mentally, and the reason it bothers me is because I despise anyone who ever "wants" to go to war, so sorry, I missed the joke

C) Your reference to Gahndi and Mandela implied the USSR fell because of passive resistance, that was the point i was making, because as we both have said now, it was not

D) I called you a hypocrite because you accused everyone else of "not considering the whole picture" when it is just easy argued and proved that you are "not considering the whole picture", it had nothing to do with your position on violence as a means to peace.

E) In most states, you do have the right to possess assault weapons, especially since the expiration of the Brady Law, "run" around with them, probably not, brandishing a weapon is a crime in most areas.

F) Great, Im glad we have found something we agree on, your statement, "The only way to peace is not through violence. to say so is ignorant..."  I read that as, saying  "the only way to peace is through violent means" is ignorant.  It could jsut as easily be read to mean the exact opposite, and I apparently misinterpretted it, so I apologize.

G) See F

Again, I took offense to your implication that myself and other people in this thread wer not considering the whole picture, not that you were an educated person.  I debate with people very often, and I have found tha very often, Liberal Democrats often try to paint themselves as being superioir minded and more cultured and more educated, when in reality, they are no better than me in any of those areas at best.  I dont want to imply that you are a Liberal Democrat, I just have seen and heard that areguement so many times that I call anyone on it at the slightest hint of them trying to make it.  I myself am 22, and finishing my undergrad in Mechanical Engineering, Im going to grad school for the same, and history and politics are two subjects I take a great deal of interest in, and have read quite a bit on.

You state the overall sum of our debate pretty well, and I do agree for the most part, though I personally believe that violence is usually the only viable solution to bring about a peaceful end, not always, but most of the time.

I didn't respond to the arguement about the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict because the first sentence was just so wrong, I skipped the paragrah.  The violence in that region is certainly not a daily event, especially not lately.  During the Israeli withdrawl the last few months, there has been almost no military action by Israel, and very very few suicide bombings, though there were some.  The 3 points I would make about the whole situation is that a peaceful action has not brought about peace in the region.  Second, Israel's History is the exception to every generalization that can be made about peace and violence, and that's generally why I don't like bringing it up in this kind of discussion. Third, the only sustained "peaceful" period in that region was brought on by the Roman presence and occupation, which was most defiently a violent one.

Sure, ill pick up the kid.  When I was 13, I knew more about politics and foreign policy than 99% of Americans will in there entire lives, though im not sure that's saying anything good for me.  The point is, just because someobdy is young, does not automatically mean they are uneducated, or uncultured, or dont have a something valubale to offer to a debate, it just means they are young.

Witty comment followed by, HA!

Last edited by redfoxster (2005-11-06 21:01:52)

dshak wrote:

"When I was 13 I knew more about politics and foriegn policy than 99% of Americans in their entire lives..."

wow

the debate ends there for me!

Awwww, nobody wants to play with me.  Consider this, average voter turn out is like 15% or so? Then think about how many of those people actually take the time to study issues, and canidades positions on them.  Ill give you 99% of Americans is a stretch, but realisticaly, not by much.  It doesn't take much to become an educated, intelligent person with basic logical thinking skills, but very very few Americans actually make that effort.

Found it among my past papers. This is what Woodrow Wilson had to say about the very Federal Reserve that he signed into law.

"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated
in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no
longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and
duress of small groups of dominant men." --President Woodrow Wilson

I have other quotes and research as well, but at this point I just want to make those who are interested curious enough to do their own research. I can provide a more in-depth explanation of my views upon request, and why I think the Federal Reserve is the most crucial but invisible issue in political discussions.

Miller wrote:

Ok im living breathing proof that at 13 i knew more about politics than most people ever will.  My dad is a conservative, thinks the war is great.  I think the war is great.  The soviet union didnt collapse from economics only, the other thing that made it fall is something called the cold war. Oh and dshak you spelled genius wrong, no o.  There is also something else,  when people dont research who they're voting for its sad, about half the time they vote for teh wrong person *cough* *clinton* *cough*  and what happened is horrible.  El Toro airforce base was shut down.

Dshak, I formally withdraw my defense of Mr. Miller.

Miller wrote:

Ok im living breathing proof that at 13 i knew more about politics than most people ever will.  My dad is a conservative, thinks the war is great.  I think the war is great.  The soviet union didnt collapse from economics only, the other thing that made it fall is something called the cold war. Oh and dshak you spelled genius wrong, no o.  There is also something else,  when people dont research who they're voting for its sad, about half the time they vote for teh wrong person *cough* *clinton* *cough*  and what happened is horrible.  El Toro airforce base was shut down.

I dont think things were bad under Clinton, I am assuming you were 8 at the end of the Clinton years.  Yes bases were closed, BUT look at things under Mr. Bush, bases are closing as well.  More bases are closing now than they did when Mr. Clinton was in office.  Mr. Clinton's indiscretions only hurt himself, Mr. Bush's mistakes get people killed.

I recall having a budget surplus under Clinton.

For those who say that CLinton crippled the military due to downsizing.  Lets look at this, the Army that fought and won in Afghanistan is the same Army that was there under Clinton.  The budget for the Bush administration did not kick in, until after the war in Afghanistan.  I think Clinton's military did a pretty good job in Afghanistan for being crippled.

Cold war - no actual shots fired.  There wasnt a massive tank battle that decided the outcome.  Yes there was Korea and Vietnam, but Vietnam fell anyway and Korea is still divided.

eMarine wrote:

Im a Moderate republican. For the death penalty, pro women rights, for same sex marriage, for gun control. (Some people in the stats, are to out there to have a gun.)

If I there was a moderate republican candidate for president, I would vote for him or her.
Nice to see people break the stereotype of republicans.   I might votre for a republican governor here in Illinois i the moderate candidate makes its past the preliminary's.

With your views, you could even be mistaken for a moderate Democrat.

I vote Every Single Election on the Candidates and Issues I was a Republican as a Child 6 years old ( I Swear I was ) they lost me with Bush 1 in the 92 Election. He Just couldn't lead. Wanted to be everyone's Friend. When I heard him Say " I see a thousand points of light " I moved on.

    We have not had a Real Leader Since. G. W. or ( Bush II ) has been the Strongest since Reagan. He doesn't cater to polls doesn't cut and Run. Most people are Bleating sheep mimicking the opinion they here the most. He Worry's about America Not Europe.
He said this War will not and on my watch. Most people don't remember that.
  It didn't start on his Watch Either It started with WTC 93.

dshak wrote:

I'm not too sure that Washington DC is the murder capitol of the United States, but I don't know for sure or not so I can't disagree (always thought it was Youngstown Ohio, then New Orleans, based on per capita)

I'm not necessarily against the idea of guns, for example if you want to own a hunting rifle whatever... i don't do it (now if we equipped deer with RPGs to fight back then it'd be more interesting!). Not to mention the fact that I don't know if you'd see a lot of gangsters running around with buckshot and bolt action rifles, but I think handguns are ridiculous, and you might not like it, but a 13 year old saying he wishes he could carry his gun everywhere... that kind of makes my point for me.

By the way, you're point about DC being the murder capitol, if it is true, isn't valid at all. You could just get one in Jersey and bring it there, or buy it illegally in georgetown, ha. You're not going to win a single arguement with me by saying the reason the United States is the gun death capitol of the known universe isn't because they are accessable here.

The University of Colorado in Boulder is a 'dry campus.' The sale of alcohol is illegal, yet it is always one of the Princeton Reviews top 20 'party schools.' You can make it illegal, beer guns whatever, but if its not illegal after a 15 minute drive there's really no point.

The difference between a lunatic in the US and a lunatic in Great Britain is the one in the US can get a gun.

Finally, the ACTUAL LIVING CONSTITUTION READS:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

I really don't believe that the framers meant everyone has a right to carry a glock. The current gun lobbies use of that provision is a complete bastardization of the law.

GO BUFFALOES!

And of Couse... I own a Glock, You Tuanting me arent you lol

Pseudomissy wrote:

i have no idea what i would be called in other country's but  im on the left side,hihi.
the nature loving 'hippy' that wants more animal rights and improvement in the nature department.

im very against guns and if it was in my power i would take them all away from everyone. (sorry)
saying thins like ' I would like to get a shotgun for animal control ' makes me think it even more.
its everybody's right to think what they want off course,thats the best thing ever thought off.

This guy " Gahndi "wore a Diaper Right ?

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
- Mohandas Gandhi

The man  Knew his way around an SMLE .303 did he?

Horseman 77 wrote:

The man  Knew his way around an SMLE .303 did he?

The man was a genius, not just because he understood the power of nonviolence but because he knew deep down that he was a rare specimin among humankind. He understood that while he was fully capable of living a life of nonviolence and accomplishing many great things with that path that the majority of our species would never and could never reach that state.

The difference between free men and slaves is the ability to own a weapon because once you have one, you're no longer a slave.