• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Freedom Vs. Safety (Patriot Act etc.)

Painter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
583
Reaction score
314
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Freedom Vs. Safety debacle is one of the only political issues where I am still slightly open to have my mind changed.
Although I have made posts that indicate I come down on the side of Safety, I was once on the side of Freedom and my mind is not made up on a permanent level.

The point of this post is to discuss how this issue might transform as we move into the future.
-After the next significant terrorist attack
-20 years
-50 years
-100 years

Right now my number one concern is not morons running around trying to blow people up with little bombs and airplanes.
My concerns are terrorists or anyone that might get hold of a nuclear or atomic device, either by making it in America, bringing it here, or stealing it. Or terrorists that might try to hit us in other ways that would be easier but that I will not mention here.

I also worry about Tea Party Obama hater types, Government hating Libertarians, and home grown idiots in general.

As technology increases and it becomes easier and easier for weapons of mass destruction to be made and to be acquired, it seems to me that without a significant loss of our freedom (in the ease dropping category), that a tremendous attack is totally inevitable.
I see it as only a matter of time.
I mean seriously, how could it not happen? The only way I can see for someone to disagree with this statement is that if they answer it with, "God wont let it happen".

For the purpose of debate, lets assume the following statement is true:
"We know that a massive terrorist attack will happen within x many years, killing 10's of millions of people and plunging us into a Super Depression"

Now, what are we willing to do to stop that?
Are we willing to let our government snoop into ALL our communications?
Spy on us in our homes?
Monitor every single thing said or done by every single person?
Just keep up with some phone records and randomly check a few calls?

Or would we stick to our freedom and say, "Bring it!"?
 
The Freedom Vs. Safety debacle is one of the only political issues where I am still slightly open to have my mind changed.

Right now my number one concern is not morons running around trying to blow people up with little bombs and airplanes.
My concerns are terrorists or anyone that might get hold of a nuclear or atomic device, either by making it in America, bringing it here, or stealing it. Or terrorists that might try to hit us in other ways that would be easier but that I will not mention here.

For the purpose of debate, lets assume the following statement is true:
"We know that a massive terrorist attack will happen within x many years, killing 10's of millions of people and plunging us into a Super Depression"

Now, what are we willing to do to stop that?
Are we willing to let our government snoop into ALL our communications?
Spy on us in our homes?
Monitor every single thing said or done by every single person?
Just keep up with some phone records and randomly check a few calls?

Or would we stick to our freedom and say, "Bring it!"?

The reason why we, as a nation, need to fear terrorist attacks is because we, as a nation, have painted a big target on our backs.

We act towards other nations like any other “superpower” has down through history. Whether it be Persia, Rome, The Mongol Empire, Great Britain, etc., we interfere, direct, control, and bully practically everyone else just because we can.

You don’t see Canada or Australia worried about terrorism do you? That’s because they stick to their own business and pretty much leave everyone else to theirs.

So the first thing to realize is…we need to STOP trying to be the World’s Policeman, or the World’s Conscience, and just try to be a friendly neighboring nation.

Meanwhile, we also need to recognize a truism that we often overlook in our drive toward “never again,” and “absolute prevention” policies. If someone wants to cause you harm and they don’t care if they live or die doing it, then despite any steps you try to take you are still going to suffer that harm.

:bomb:

Having said all that IMO all our government needs to do is maintain control of all volatile (i.e. nuclear, biological, and chemical) materials within the country, and maintain proper security procedures for all methods of access into our country. Then improve emergency management procedures in the event of any possible catastrophe. What we don't need is more and more invasive surveillance; instead we actually need to cut back on it.

Beyond that, we need to stop living in constant fear. Realize that life can end at any moment for any reason, so instead of worrying about it, live life as if every moment has meaning. Basically: “Don’t worry, be happy.”

We don’t need Big Brother watching us if we practiced more of the above. :twocents:
 
Last edited:
The reason why we, as a nation, need to fear terrorist attacks is because we, as a nation, have painted a big target on our backs.

We act towards other nations like any other “superpower” has down through history. Whether it be Persia, Rome, The Mongol Empire, Great Britain, etc., we interfere, direct, control, and bully practically everyone else just because we can.

You don’t see Canada or Australia worried about terrorism do you? That’s because they stick to their own business and pretty much leave everyone else to theirs.

So the first thing to realize is…we need to STOP trying to be the World’s Policeman, or the World’s Conscience, and just try to be a friendly neighboring nation.

Meanwhile, we also need to recognize a truism that we often overlook in our drive toward “never again,” and “absolute prevention” policies. If someone wants to cause you harm and they don’t care if they live or die doing it, then despite any steps you try to take you are still going to suffer that harm.

:bomb:

Having said all that IMO all our government needs to do is maintain control of all volatile materials within the country, and maintain proper security procedures for all methods of access into our country. Then improve emergency management procedures in the event of any possible catastrophe. What we don't need is more and more invasive surveillance, we actually need to cut back on it.

Beyond that, we need to stop living in constant fear. Realize that life can end at any moment for any reason, so instead of worrying about it, life as if every moment has meaning. Basically: “Don’t worry, be happy.”

We don’t need Big Brother watching us if we practiced more of the above. :twocents:

I do not really disagree with you that much.
Canada has seen its share of terrorism and attempted terrorism though.

However, the essence of the question was about considering how easy it will be to acquire weapons of mass destruction as we progress into the future.
Humanity will reach a certain point when the actions of one young child could all but wipe us out.

The only question is how long will it take before our technology passes our collective morality by far enough that it enables this problem.
There has to be a time frame when this will occur. If you have trouble envisioning that, then start father into the future and work backwards with the analogy.

Oh, and I am also not only concerned about foreign or muslin terrorists.
 
I do not really disagree with you that much.
Canada has seen its share of terrorism and attempted terrorism though.

However, the essence of the question was about considering how easy it will be to acquire weapons of mass destruction as we progress into the future.
Humanity will reach a certain point when the actions of one young child could all but wipe us out.

The only question is how long will it take before our technology passes our collective morality by far enough that it enables this problem.
There has to be a time frame when this will occur. If you have trouble envisioning that, then start father into the future and work backwards with the analogy.

Oh, and I am also not only concerned about foreign or muslin terrorists.

Terrorism in Canada has been a direct result of it's support of our policies. All they have to do is stop supporting us when we go screw around with other countries. :)

It not all that easy to acquire bomb-level nuclear material, even if the tech on how to built a bomb is available. Chemical and biological weapons are fairly easy to acquire though...hell anyone can make mustard gas from things they can buy in various stores. Still, they are typically limited area effect weapons, and easily contained.

I already provided methods of dealing with these concerns. Control NBC materials and improve rapid response emergency management programs.

Meanwhile, fear is the real enemy. These things you worry about are not really that likely to happen to you, and if they do you'll be dead so whats the problem?
 
The Freedom Vs. Safety debacle is one of the only political issues where I am still slightly open to have my mind changed.
Although I have made posts that indicate I come down on the side of Safety, I was once on the side of Freedom and my mind is not made up on a permanent level.

The point of this post is to discuss how this issue might transform as we move into the future.
-After the next significant terrorist attack
-20 years
-50 years
-100 years

Right now my number one concern is not morons running around trying to blow people up with little bombs and airplanes.
My concerns are terrorists or anyone that might get hold of a nuclear or atomic device, either by making it in America, bringing it here, or stealing it. Or terrorists that might try to hit us in other ways that would be easier but that I will not mention here.

I also worry about Tea Party Obama hater types, Government hating Libertarians, and home grown idiots in general.

As technology increases and it becomes easier and easier for weapons of mass destruction to be made and to be acquired, it seems to me that without a significant loss of our freedom (in the ease dropping category), that a tremendous attack is totally inevitable.
I see it as only a matter of time.
I mean seriously, how could it not happen? The only way I can see for someone to disagree with this statement is that if they answer it with, "God wont let it happen".

For the purpose of debate, lets assume the following statement is true:
"We know that a massive terrorist attack will happen within x many years, killing 10's of millions of people and plunging us into a Super Depression"

Now, what are we willing to do to stop that?
Are we willing to let our government snoop into ALL our communications?
Spy on us in our homes?
Monitor every single thing said or done by every single person?
Just keep up with some phone records and randomly check a few calls?

Or would we stick to our freedom and say, "Bring it!"?

The moment that AMERICA wakes up to the FACT
that 9/11/2001 was a made for TV drama that did NOT include 19 radical Arabs
we will see a call for not only the repeal of the "patriot UNNATURAL act"
but many other laws & regulations that were put in place as a direct result
of the alleged "terrorist" attack, Well, YES it was a terrorist attack, but are
we absolutely certain that we know who the TERRORISTS are?
 
The Freedom Vs. Safety debacle is one of the only political issues where I am still slightly open to have my mind changed.
Although I have made posts that indicate I come down on the side of Safety, I was once on the side of Freedom and my mind is not made up on a permanent level.

The point of this post is to discuss how this issue might transform as we move into the future.
-After the next significant terrorist attack
-20 years
-50 years
-100 years

Right now my number one concern is not morons running around trying to blow people up with little bombs and airplanes.
My concerns are terrorists or anyone that might get hold of a nuclear or atomic device, either by making it in America, bringing it here, or stealing it. Or terrorists that might try to hit us in other ways that would be easier but that I will not mention here.

I also worry about Tea Party Obama hater types, Government hating Libertarians, and home grown idiots in general.

As technology increases and it becomes easier and easier for weapons of mass destruction to be made and to be acquired, it seems to me that without a significant loss of our freedom (in the ease dropping category), that a tremendous attack is totally inevitable.
I see it as only a matter of time.
I mean seriously, how could it not happen? The only way I can see for someone to disagree with this statement is that if they answer it with, "God wont let it happen".

For the purpose of debate, lets assume the following statement is true:
"We know that a massive terrorist attack will happen within x many years, killing 10's of millions of people and plunging us into a Super Depression"

Now, what are we willing to do to stop that?
Are we willing to let our government snoop into ALL our communications?
Spy on us in our homes?
Monitor every single thing said or done by every single person?
Just keep up with some phone records and randomly check a few calls?

Or would we stick to our freedom and say, "Bring it!"?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news Painter, but it now appears quite likely that nuclear weapons have ALREADY been deployed on US soil, back on 11 September. Aside from those killed on that day, it seems the victims were those good men and women who labored 'on the pile' at Ground Zero.

In truth, the most virulent form of terrorist is the one wearing a business suit and tie with an American flag lapel pin attached. :peace

As for the Unpatriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, NDAA amendment nullifying Habeas Corpus, you can thank the domestic enemies of the US Constitution for that. They inhabit, for the most part, the halls of government in the District of Columbia.
 
The reason why we, as a nation, need to fear terrorist attacks is because we, as a nation, have painted a big target on our backs.

We act towards other nations like any other “superpower” has down through history. Whether it be Persia, Rome, The Mongol Empire, Great Britain, etc., we interfere, direct, control, and bully practically everyone else just because we can.

You don’t see Canada or Australia worried about terrorism do you? That’s because they stick to their own business and pretty much leave everyone else to theirs.

So the first thing to realize is…we need to STOP trying to be the World’s Policeman, or the World’s Conscience, and just try to be a friendly neighboring nation.

Meanwhile, we also need to recognize a truism that we often overlook in our drive toward “never again,” and “absolute prevention” policies. If someone wants to cause you harm and they don’t care if they live or die doing it, then despite any steps you try to take you are still going to suffer that harm.

:bomb:

Having said all that IMO all our government needs to do is maintain control of all volatile (i.e. nuclear, biological, and chemical) materials within the country, and maintain proper security procedures for all methods of access into our country. Then improve emergency management procedures in the event of any possible catastrophe. What we don't need is more and more invasive surveillance; instead we actually need to cut back on it.

Beyond that, we need to stop living in constant fear. Realize that life can end at any moment for any reason, so instead of worrying about it, live life as if every moment has meaning. Basically: “Don’t worry, be happy.”

We don’t need Big Brother watching us if we practiced more of the above. :twocents:

One of the main reasons that Canada and Australia can take that lazy attitude towards involvement in the rest of a chaotic world is because they, particularly Canada, know that we here in the US will do most, if not all, the heavy lifting.
 
One of the main reasons that Canada and Australia can take that lazy attitude towards involvement in the rest of a chaotic world is because they, particularly Canada, know that we here in the US will do most, if not all, the heavy lifting.

Sorry, I find that a typical ethnocentric argument based on a jingoist worldview.

It is not a "lazy" attitude to try and maintain good relations with other countries and not try to push your brand of ideology onto them. The only reason the USA does all that "heavy lifting" is because think we have both a right and a duty to interfere everywhere in the world. Once we realize that we don't things would calm down and we wouldn't be as much of a target as we make ourselves.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I find that a typical ethnocentric argument based on a jingoist worldview.

It is not a "lazy" attitude to try and maintain good relations with other countries and not try to push your brand of ideology onto them. There only reason the USA does all that "heavy lifting" is because think we have both a right and a duty to interfere everywhere in the world. Onve we realize we don't, things would calm down and we wouldn't be as much of a target as we make ourselves.

Yeah yeah yeah, that fairly wimpy appeasement and utopian world view didn't really help us too much just prior to WW2, now did it? Isolationism in a modern world is impossible. Australia is fairly insulated by being its own contenient far away from lots of the trouble and Canada has us right next door and we are a good, protective neighbor. Somebody has to take the lead and right now that somebody is us. And the rest of the world may grumble, but what if it wasnt us? If you leave a hole, a vacuum, somebody is going to fill it. I do not disagree that we probably get too involved in the business of others, we are currently leading from behind [ Obama Doctrine = take cover behind everyone else, let the world go to hell ] and it is now a completely Topsy-turvy world.

And you think we don't try to maintain good relations with other countries? Which countries, besides Iraq, have we tried to push our own brand of ideology on? Which country does NOT act in its own best interests? Obama has proven what a foreign policy idiot he is... estranged our former allies, bowed and curtsied to our enemies, very rarely helping encourage those groups that we should, giving aid and probably arms to those we should not, its a total mess...again, somebody must be in charge, who do you suggest if its not the US of A? China....? Russia? Japan? England? The Swiss perhaps?
 
As a centrist, I value creating a dynamic balance between the yin-yang complements of freedom and security ("safety" is not freedom's complement, technically speaking, though I get the OP's relationship between security and safety).

By creating this dynamic balance between freedom and security, we also thereby do the same in the higher level relationship between liberty and justice, the two created by freedom and security respectfully.

If someone's liberty is excessive than someone else's justice is likely being infringed, and, vice versa.

In a back-pack sized nuke-bomb age, however, there are more challenges to the balancing task than ever.

With respect to the very real and previously executed terrorist behavior, we sometimes forget that we are in a state of war.

Nations at war often dial down freedom to dial up security, to compromise some degree of liberty to insure the justice of protecting the populous.

When the war ends, balances are restored.

America's herding of Japanese people into camps on the west coast during WWII is such an example of liberties compromised during war.

We forget that we are in a state of war, but, that is the case.

With most wars, the sides are really trying to win rather than to just keep from losing too much.

In our war with Al Qaeda and the like, it's difficult to tell who's winning, whose goal is what exactly, and the tendency for D.C. to be a bit quiet about the matter sometimes makes us forget that we are most definitely in a state of war.

I, for one, am looking forward to when that war is over.

Not sure how and when that will occur.

Sometimes we're too busy blaming the other side for striking the first blow that we lose sight of the possibility that our Corporate Global Expansionists and their conquistador economic values are highly provocative.

Too bad we can't just focus on making economics work on our own soil for our own people, many of whom really need a full-time living-wage job.

If we spent less time "rescuing" .. read: exploiting economically .. other people in other nations, everyone everywhere might be happier ..

.. And a little freer.
 
Yeah yeah yeah, that fairly wimpy appeasement and utopian world view didn't really help us too much just prior to WW2, now did it? Isolationism in a modern world is impossible. Australia is fairly insulated by being its own contenient far away from lots of the trouble and Canada has us right next door and we are a good, protective neighbor. Somebody has to take the lead and right now that somebody is us. And the rest of the world may grumble, but what if it wasnt us? If you leave a hole, a vacuum, somebody is going to fill it. I do not disagree that we probably get too involved in the business of others, we are currently leading from behind [ Obama Doctrine = take cover behind everyone else, let the world go to hell ] and it is now a completely Topsy-turvy world.

And you think we don't try to maintain good relations with other countries? Which countries, besides Iraq, have we tried to push our own brand of ideology on? Which country does NOT act in its own best interests? Obama has proven what a foreign policy idiot he is... estranged our former allies, bowed and curtsied to our enemies, very rarely helping encourage those groups that we should, giving aid and probably arms to those we should not, its a total mess...again, somebody must be in charge, who do you suggest if its not the US of A? China....? Russia? Japan? England? The Swiss perhaps?

There it comes, talking in the extreme. Check through ALL my posts in any thread and you will never find either "appeasement" or "utopian" worldviews. My positions are emminently realistic.

I also do not advocate "isolationism." I believe in strong alliances with nations sharing similar ideologies and actively defending them under the terms of alliance. What I don't advocate is "spheres of influence" which compel us to interfere in the internal affairs of any other nation. Nine times out of ten such "spheres" have to do with business interests deciding they want to maintain control over resources in other countries and have no problem sending OTHER Americans to fight and die for this. I also do not advocate "pre-emptive" wars; an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

There is nothing wrong with maintaining military preparedness. I like Teddy Roosevelts "Talk softly but carry a BIg Stick" position. However using it whenever we feel like it rather than holding it as a warning "Don't Tread on Me?" NO need.

The rest of your comments are... Well I'd say there is really no need to respond, they speak clearly for themselves. :)
 
Last edited:
There it comes, talking in the extreme. Check through ALL my posts in any thread and you will never find either "appeasement" or "utopian" worldviews. My positions are emminently realistic.

I also do not advocate "isolationism." I believe in strong alliances with nations sharing similar ideologies and actively defending them under the terms of alliance. What I don't advocate is "spheres of influence" which compel us to interfere in the internal affairs of any other nation. Nine times out of ten such "spheres" have to do with business interests deciding they want to maintain control over resources in other countries and have no problem sending OTHER Americans to fight and die for this. I also do not advocate "pre-emptive" wars; an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

There is nothing wrong with maintaining military preparedness. I like Teddy Roosevelts "Talk softly but carry a BIg Stick" analysis. However using it whenever we feel like it rather than holding it as a warning "Don't Tread on Me?" NO need.

The rest of your comments are... Well I'd say there is really no need to respond, they speak clearly for themselves. :)
One does not have to search through any of your threads, you stated it yourself this thread. You just fail to recognize the fact. Seems there is a four way tie... as who can really measure which one is worse, the unmerited condescension, the utter superciliousness, the historical obliviousness or the complete dis-ingenuousness of the positions you hold. Views/positions that are eminently unrealistic...they are utopian as stated earlier.

Lets take some of these step by step, ethnocentrism... which major world power in the known history of the planet can come even close to matching the goodness that the US has done? Can match the power we have assembled and which we have kept, for the most part, especially territorial aggression wise, in check. Did Rome do that, Spain, England? Which one is near on par. Which country, both its government and its people individually, give more to the rest of the world than all the others? Which country has sacrificed themselves on as many shores and on so many foreign battlefields, which country has rebuilt its enemies to the point where they are competitive with itself... the list good deeds goes on and on. We have the warts too, but which world power/superpower has less than us in history?

Now you are not forced to be proud of such a record, nobody is required. We all have rights here, people have fought and died so that we may all be free even to the point of being ignorant, arrogant, and/or ungrateful as well as all the good things that we should strive to be.

One need only look at all the atrocities committed in other parts of the world, other than the Western Hemisphere where we early on had the Monroe Doctrine to keep out the colonizers, kept the countries in our sphere of influence fairly free to pick their own governments without the interference of the meddling and more greedy Imperialists of Europe. We backed that up under Teddy Roosevelt with the Roosevelt Corollary to that Monroe Doctrine...indicating we had no territorial intentions, but would step in if our interests were threatened or if these nations got in too deep or into trouble with countries from outside the Hemisphere. Did we meddle? Sure, we are not perfect, far from it...just much much much better than all the rest. We have kept the misery, murder, mayhem, destruction and strife to a bare minimum this side of the world compared to what went on in Asia, Africa and Europe. Not millions, not tens of millions but over a 100 millions of their own peoples killed in less than 100 years. We are not even counting any of the wars in addition. UN- DEEE-NI-ABLE.

So, ethnocentrism....?? Pppffft....No brag just fact. So YES, we had a right and we had a duty, its what we thought and its what we did. Thank god.

Jingoistic? As powerful as we are we could get into a war with just about anybody on the planet at any time and win... you call the fact that we have not, that we rarely get into wars, that we avoided like the plague getting into one with the Soviet Union and instead adhered to a policy of Containment in which we played our King, Queen and pawns so successfully only have to get in a few minor hot wars? How many lives did that save? Yes, we lost about a hundred thousand brave souls in defense of liberty, in other countries that we had made a solemn pledge to assist against Communist aggression...and we kept Europe from being under that iron boot, kept Japan, kept South Korea from similar fates... and again, on our side of the Atlantic and Pacific, pretty pacific all told.

I have not the time to teach you all the true history and its interesting facets, nor are all able to figure it out even when presented the evidence... but wow are you way off...and while you may not use the words appeasement or isolationism, that is what you really are saying, whether one is in the possession of the capacity to recognize it or not, and some, unfortunately by the grace of bad misfortune, are not. But some actively avoid the truth... question is, which are you?

And you have the admitted incapacity to understand a preemptive war, what it means? Call it an oxymoron? Had England and France gone into the Rhineland, beaten back Hitler and resumed monitoring the Nazis when they were still weak, curtail their ability to make war materials... you would not have been for that? How many lives might have been saved... there is no way of knowing. But to just summarily take that off the table?
 
Last edited:
Lets take some of these step by step, ethnocentrism... which major world power in the known history of the planet can come even close to matching the goodness that the US has done? Can match the power we have assembled and which we have kept, for the most part, especially territorial aggression wise, in check. Did Rome do that, Spain, England? Which one is near on par. Which country, both its government and its people individually, give more to the rest of the world than all the others? Which country has sacrificed themselves on as many shores and on so many foreign battlefields, which country has rebuilt its enemies to the point where they are competitive with itself... the list good deeds goes on and on. We have the warts too, but which world power/superpower has less than us in history?

A very pretty piece of rhetoric. Full of sound and fury; signifying nothing. For example, “goodness” is a relative term. Most nations engaged in colonialism thought they were doing “Good” by bringing “enlightenment to the heathen” during their period of expansion. I’m fairly certain the USA thought so too as various administrations blithely slaughtered their way from the east to the west coast.

“Power” too is relative. Both the Mongol and British Empires held greater territory and international status similar to the USA during their periods of supremacy. They too, along with Rome, Spain, and China “checked” the power of rival nations.

Charity, sacrifice, honor, etc…all relative; claims to which many citizens of foreign nations can make as easily as you do.

Now you are not forced to be proud of such a record, nobody is required. We all have rights here, people have fought and died so that we may all be free even to the point of being ignorant, arrogant, and/or ungrateful as well as all the good things that we should strive to be.

More pretty rhetoric with very little substance. I am not forced to be proud, I AM proud. However, I can still be proud of our accomplishments without ignoring all of the horrible, foolish, selfish, greedy, vile, dastardly deeds our nation has perpetrated and still attempts to commit in the name of “patriotism.” I do not buy into the jingoistic false patriotism of “My country, right or wrong.” I prefer “My country, uphold the right but punish the wrong.”

Now I skipped the next few paragraphs because it is more jingoistic B/S presenting a glossy view of events as seen through rose colored glasses.

And you have the admitted incapacity to understand a preemptive war, what it means? Call it an oxymoron? Had England and France gone into the Rhineland, beaten back Hitler and resumed monitoring the Nazis when they were still weak, curtail their ability to make war materials... you would not have been for that? How many lives might have been saved... there is no way of knowing. But to just summarily take that off the table?

Actually since you opened the door to "what-if land" I'd say you are partly right but still thoroughly wrong. Party right in that France and Britain could have stuck to the Treaty of Versailles terms and stopped Germany from re-occupying territory that is ethnically German. It might have brought Hitler down, or not. Wrong because their inaction was based on the recognition it was an unjust treaty term which would have remained a bone of contention leading to a showdown at some point with Germany regardless of who ran the German government

Also wrong, because it would have served them better to draw the line after the Austrian Anschluss; by talking a hard line and then honoring their agreement to defend Czechoslovakia rather than betraying that country in an effort to appease Hitler.

I took it off the table, because at that point in time IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE USA. Hitler could have easily been handled by the British and the French, completely through a stronger diplomatic policy. Since your "what-if" question was not grounded in the issue of "American military intervention in the internal affairs of another country," that's my last word on it.

We can be a strong, proud nation without meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. We can develop lasting treaties with countries who share our values; and fight to defend them from all comers without interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. We can be a force for moral good without losing the moral high ground by interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.

That is the real point.
 
Last edited:
A very pretty piece of rhetoric. Full of sound and fury; signifying nothing. For example, “goodness” is a relative term. Most nations engaged in colonialism thought they were doing “Good” by bringing “enlightenment to the heathen” during their period of expansion. I’m fairly certain the USA thought so too as various administrations blithely slaughtered their way from the east to the west coast.
It is always rather foolish to attempt a rational discussion with someone who starts this “relative term” nonsense. It is quite apparent you have no real argument, not even the relative of a real argument. I think one could most easily look just in terms of tens to hundreds of millions killed over yonder Hemisphere and make a pretty good guess about relative goodness vs badness, don’t you? Or is being torture/and or murdered and dying of old age pretty similar to you? I guess it would all be relative, right?

Blithely slaughtered, why not break that down into actual events for us, actual numbers… then maybe we can compare the relativeness, perhaps?

What utter absurd bunk you must feed yourself to think you can believe we are even in the same ball park.

Oh and, rhetoric being the art of conveying a message effectively, I appreciate the compliment.

“Power” too is relative. Both the Mongol and British Empires held greater territory and international status similar to the USA during their periods of supremacy. They too, along with Rome, Spain, and China “checked” the power of rival nations.

Charity, sacrifice, honor, etc…all relative; claims to which many citizens of foreign nations can make as easily as you do.
Blah blah blah is relative too. Do you use this as a debate strategy often? I cannot imagine people putting up with it for very long. Then you even make my points, inadvertently no doubt, as the British and the Mongol Empires are considered way more bloody, far more barbaric and not nearly as generous, giving and forgiving as America has been. And as far as "checking", we have had far more ability than any of those mentioned to create massive destruction on a “biblical” scale and yet we have not. But I guess that would be relative…ahhh…to what?



More pretty rhetoric with very little substance. I am not forced to be proud, I AM proud. However, I can still be proud of our accomplishments without ignoring all of the horrible, foolish, selfish, greedy, vile, dastardly deeds our nation has perpetrated and still attempts to commit in the name of “patriotism.” I do not buy into the jingoistic false patriotism of “My country, right or wrong.” I prefer “My country, uphold the right but punish the wrong.”
We should all be aware of the warts and scars we have gone through, there is no perfect system, no perfect past, we learn from our mistakes and teach our history fairly honestly. You know about those dirty deeds because we openly allow it. We even allow folks like Howard Zinn to lie and make it appear worse than it really was. It is a free society, being misguided is allowed.

Straw man. Whoever, I repeat, whoever said my country right or wrong, and your pushing jingoism onto me and present it as though our country is often provoking wars is, to say the least, offensive. And its not smart history. We do use our power and influence, we have earned that right. What you have not done is what I asked you to do, which is find a world power in the history of the planet that has been better, relative or not, than the US. You can go fish for that answer as long as you want, that mythical creature does not exist on land or sea. American exceptionalism is easily proven by a lack of credible choices in competiton for the right to be called exceptional.

We do all this protecting of the rest of the free world with very little war, certainly no massive world wars have been our creation… and are given very little credit, even as proven by you, by our own people.

Now I skipped the next few paragraphs because it is more jingoistic B/S presenting a glossy view of events as seen through rose colored glasses.
I would posit you are ignoring it because it is absolutely the historical truth and you have no answer to it… so best to avoid the whole thing.



Actually since you opened the door to "what-if land" I'd say you are partly right but still thoroughly wrong. Party right in that France and Britain could have stuck to the Treaty of Versailles terms and stopped Germany from re-occupying territory that is ethnically German. It might have brought Hitler down, or not. Wrong because their inaction was based on the recognition it was an unjust treaty term which would have remained a bone of contention leading to a showdown at some point with Germany regardless of who ran the German government

Also wrong, because it would have served them better to draw the line after the Austrian Anschluss; by talking a hard line and then honoring their agreement to defend Czechoslovakia rather than betraying that country in an effort to appease Hitler.

I took it off the table, because at that point in time IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE USA. Hitler could have easily been handled by the British and the French, completely through a stronger diplomatic policy. Since your "what-if" question was not grounded in the issue of "American military intervention in the internal affairs of another country," that's my last word on it.
“I also do not advocate "pre-emptive" wars; an oxymoron if ever I heard one.” That was your silly statement, indefensible. If a pre-emptive war might be plausible against a Hitler, are you saying only the Europeans can logically be allowed a pre-emptive war, that there could not be a case where we would use the same strategy to minimize death and destruction when we have a known sociopath in control of this potential... and the willingness to cause that wanton death and destruction?

Help me out here, is there a word that means ridiculous, madness and absurdity? That would sure describe that load of hot hooey nicely.

We can be a strong, proud nation without meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. We can develop lasting treaties with countries who share our values; and fight to defend them from all comers without interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. We can be a force for moral good without losing the moral high ground by interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.

That is the real point.
There you go with daydreaming into utopianisms again. If we lived in a perfect world patrolled by good angels…maybe we would not need to get involved. Fact of the matter is, we are competing against other countries, some of them with less than good intentions, some downright evil, and we are moved, sometimes forced, to act for the betterment of our country as well as the rest of the free world.
But if you are one of those ones thinking it’s all relative anyhow, well then I guess it doesn’t really matter then, does it?
 
Last edited:
The Freedom Vs. Safety debacle is one of the only political issues where I am still slightly open to have my mind changed.
Although I have made posts that indicate I come down on the side of Safety, I was once on the side of Freedom and my mind is not made up on a permanent level.

The point of this post is to discuss how this issue might transform as we move into the future.
-After the next significant terrorist attack
-20 years
-50 years
-100 years

Right now my number one concern is not morons running around trying to blow people up with little bombs and airplanes.
My concerns are terrorists or anyone that might get hold of a nuclear or atomic device, either by making it in America, bringing it here, or stealing it.

After developing so long without the spirit of liberty in our midst, we've reached the point where the security apparatus itself has precipitated the terrorist threat, both conceptually and actually. The way forward is to redefine "freedom" without reference to "liberty". The problem, though, is that the "security" part of "security apparatus" is a con, a trick: "control" is the truth of it. If all the government wanted to do was protect us, I would allow any manner of intrusiveness. But it is incompetent to provide complete protection in the absence of total control. That I am unwilling to yield. Life, whether mine or anyone else's, is not so precious to me that I'd prefer such a perpetually tortured existence to death.
 
I am more convinced today that free societies will not survive. I am not saying I am correct but dictatorships for a lack of a better term seem to be doing quite well. While we all know the Russians and Chinese would like more freedom (and so would we) they are not rioting for it are they? We see in Libya not a fight for democracy but one for justice and religion. I think if America experienced a super charismatic leader we may hear calls for dropping the two term limit ie., FDR. Every day we have more laws passed than probably any country on earth. Our form of government is democratic but who rules.....Wall St.? World Banks? Our jails are packed with non threatening people and we send little kids home from schools for pointing a finger because it resembles a gun. When wars are to be fought a democracy is inherently weaker than a dictator and lord knows thereb are some big wars coming down the pipe. "Martial Laws" is a dangerous power so dangerous it may someday never go away.
 
I am more convinced today that free societies will not survive. I am not saying I am correct but dictatorships for a lack of a better term seem to be doing quite well. While we all know the Russians and Chinese would like more freedom (and so would we) they are not rioting for it are they? We see in Libya not a fight for democracy but one for justice and religion. I think if America experienced a super charismatic leader we may hear calls for dropping the two term limit ie., FDR. Every day we have more laws passed than probably any country on earth. Our form of government is democratic but who rules.....Wall St.? World Banks? Our jails are packed with non threatening people and we send little kids home from schools for pointing a finger because it resembles a gun. When wars are to be fought a democracy is inherently weaker than a dictator and lord knows thereb are some big wars coming down the pipe. "Martial Laws" is a dangerous power so dangerous it may someday never go away.

How do you define a free society?
 
Back
Top Bottom