What are you willing to give?

[nvflash]

These are trying times to be sure, more is a stake in the Ukraine than the fate of that nation. What is a stake is what has been at stake since the free people of this world decided the human beings have rights both inalienable and unbridgeable. That free people have the rights of a government of their own choosing, and to only be ruled by the consent of the governed.

I think JFK said it best when he said," Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free."

If you believe that, if you take it to heart, then we can not allow aggressive nations that give not freedom to their own people's to roll their tanks over their neighbors.

But what are we willing to give?

Are we willing to give it all, to risk the fate of the entire world in a conflict that could result in nuclear annihilation?

Maybe I'm just a simple man, with simple ways, but I have always known that you have got to stand up to a bully. I think it is time to take Putin and China to task for their endless and reckless threats, they only make these reckless threats because they know the free world will be measured in our responses. They know we value all life, that we love this world and all it's peoples', but you can still love a thing and be willing to risk it to stand up for what is right.

To me, we can not allow the forces of tyranny to reign over man, that I would be willing to risk it all to stand up to a bully, even a nuclear armed one. Does that mean I would be reckless? No, but you have to stand up to these threats with tough speech, to let them know that you are willing to give the last full measure of devotion for human freedoms anywhere human dwell.

I think our response to these threats needs to be unequivocal, that we are willing to risk all to save few. Such speech maybe only stands to escalate, but that would only prove that Putin and China are run by madmen, and it's time to make them put up or shut up.

 

[noonereal]

Your poll question makes no sense. Fix it.

 

[MamboDervish]

These are trying times to be sure, more is a stake in the Ukraine than the fate of that nation. What is a stake is what has been at stake since the free people of this world decided the human beings have rights both inalienable and unbridgeable. That free people have the rights of a government of their own choosing, and to only be ruled by the consent of the governed.

I think JFK said it best when he said," Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free."

If you believe that, if you take it to heart, then we can not allow aggressive nations that give not freedom to their own people's to roll their tanks over their neighbors.

But what are we willing to give?

Are we willing to give it all, to risk the fate of the entire world in a conflict that could result in nuclear annihilation?

Maybe I'm just a simple man, with simple ways, but I have always known that you have got to stand up to a bully. I think it is time to take Putin and China to task for their endless and reckless threats, they only make these reckless threats because they know the free world will be measured in our responses. They know we value all life, that we love this world and all it's peoples', but you can still love a thing and be willing to risk it to stand up for what is right.

To me, we can not allow the forces of tyranny to reign over man, that I would be willing to risk it all to stand up to a bully, even a nuclear armed one. Does that mean I would be reckless? No, but you have to stand up to these threats with tough speech, to let them know that you are willing to give the last full measure of devotion for human freedoms anywhere human dwell.

I think our response to these threats needs to be unequivocal, that we are willing to risk all to save few. Such speech maybe only stands to escalate, but that would only prove that Putin and China are run by madmen, and it's time to make them put up or shut up.

Well that's all very lofty, but where's it been? Why now? Tyranny exists all around the world, as do war crimes, including efforts at genocide. Should we go to war with Myanmar? Saudi Arabia?? Chad??? Central African Republic???? Do you think it's time to attack China? Really?? Why are all those lives any different than Ukrainian lives? What are we willing to give for them? Do you really expect the USA to unilaterally engage Russia or China? To what end?

How does the destruction of life on the planet serve the civilians in Ukraine? I'll answer that one. It doesn't.

 

[aociswundumho]

Tyranny exists all around the world, as do war crimes, including efforts at genocide.

Yes, because the state as an institution is pure evil.

 

[oneworld2]

These are trying times to be sure, more is a stake in the Ukraine than the fate of that nation. What is a stake is what has been at stake since the free people of this world decided the human beings have rights both inalienable and unbridgeable. That free people have the rights of a government of their own choosing, and to only be ruled by the consent of the governed.

I think JFK said it best when he said," Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free."

If you believe that, if you take it to heart, then we can not allow aggressive nations that give not freedom to their own people's to roll their tanks over their neighbors.

But what are we willing to give?

Are we willing to give it all, to risk the fate of the entire world in a conflict that could result in nuclear annihilation?

Maybe I'm just a simple man, with simple ways, but I have always known that you have got to stand up to a bully. I think it is time to take Putin and China to task for their endless and reckless threats, they only make these reckless threats because they know the free world will be measured in our responses. They know we value all life, that we love this world and all it's peoples', but you can still love a thing and be willing to risk it to stand up for what is right.

To me, we can not allow the forces of tyranny to reign over man, that I would be willing to risk it all to stand up to a bully, even a nuclear armed one. Does that mean I would be reckless? No, but you have to stand up to these threats with tough speech, to let them know that you are willing to give the last full measure of devotion for human freedoms anywhere human dwell.

I think our response to these threats needs to be unequivocal, that we are willing to risk all to save few. Such speech maybe only stands to escalate, but that would only prove that Putin and China are run by madmen, and it's time to make them put up or shut up.

When the US itself ceases to be the most prolific state terrorist on the planet maybe, just maybe, you will be in a position to lecture others but until such times you are all just engaging in major league hypocrisy.

The US and NATO allies are currently aiding the head choppers of Saudi to prosecute a vicious war against Yemen that has been the cause of nearly 400,000 deaths there. Don't brown people count?

They currently illegally occupy a swathe of Syria. Do Arabs not count?

The have just got out from a 20 year occupation and slaughter of Afghans and have left Iraq destroyed after the illegal invasion of 2003 that probably cost around another million lives. Do Afghans and Iraqis not count?

It is killing people in Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Syria. Do I need to state the obvious again?

It used and abused, with its NATO allies, UNSCR 1973 to induce, illegally, regime change in Libya. The country is now in meltdown with open air markets selling human slaves. etc etc

You have also just threatened China if it dares help Russia deal with the sanctions. Where is China's right to make sovereign decisions?

The guy you cite as a champion was engaged in a state terrorist war against the people of Cuba

So, consider climbing down off the pedastal and seeing the light about you own crimes and criminals before you wax lyrical about what peoiple should be doing against Russia and China

 

[tacomancer]

These are trying times to be sure, more is a stake in the Ukraine than the fate of that nation. What is a stake is what has been at stake since the free people of this world decided the human beings have rights both inalienable and unbridgeable. That free people have the rights of a government of their own choosing, and to only be ruled by the consent of the governed.

I think JFK said it best when he said," Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free."

If you believe that, if you take it to heart, then we can not allow aggressive nations that give not freedom to their own people's to roll their tanks over their neighbors.

But what are we willing to give?

Are we willing to give it all, to risk the fate of the entire world in a conflict that could result in nuclear annihilation?

Maybe I'm just a simple man, with simple ways, but I have always known that you have got to stand up to a bully. I think it is time to take Putin and China to task for their endless and reckless threats, they only make these reckless threats because they know the free world will be measured in our responses. They know we value all life, that we love this world and all it's peoples', but you can still love a thing and be willing to risk it to stand up for what is right.

To me, we can not allow the forces of tyranny to reign over man, that I would be willing to risk it all to stand up to a bully, even a nuclear armed one. Does that mean I would be reckless? No, but you have to stand up to these threats with tough speech, to let them know that you are willing to give the last full measure of devotion for human freedoms anywhere human dwell.

I think our response to these threats needs to be unequivocal, that we are willing to risk all to save few. Such speech maybe only stands to escalate, but that would only prove that Putin and China are run by madmen, and it's time to make them put up or shut up.

I have given a certain amount of dollars to the UNHCR

 

[phoenix2020]

I'm willing to commit my career to solving the global problems that I believe I can help solve, and have chosen to do so.

I'm only trying to solve those issues where I think I can make a meaningful impact. Going to some foreign land to punch someone because they are punching someone else is not my forte, so I will leave that to others who are better at punching things.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

These are trying times to be sure, more is a stake in the Ukraine than the fate of that nation. What is a stake is what has been at stake since the free people of this world decided the human beings have rights both inalienable and unbridgeable. That free people have the rights of a government of their own choosing, and to only be ruled by the consent of the governed.

I think JFK said it best when he said," Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free."

If you believe that, if you take it to heart, then we can not allow aggressive nations that give not freedom to their own people's to roll their tanks over their neighbors.

But what are we willing to give?

Are we willing to give it all, to risk the fate of the entire world in a conflict that could result in nuclear annihilation?

Maybe I'm just a simple man, with simple ways, but I have always known that you have got to stand up to a bully. I think it is time to take Putin and China to task for their endless and reckless threats, they only make these reckless threats because they know the free world will be measured in our responses. They know we value all life, that we love this world and all it's peoples', but you can still love a thing and be willing to risk it to stand up for what is right.

To me, we can not allow the forces of tyranny to reign over man, that I would be willing to risk it all to stand up to a bully, even a nuclear armed one. Does that mean I would be reckless? No, but you have to stand up to these threats with tough speech, to let them know that you are willing to give the last full measure of devotion for human freedoms anywhere human dwell.

I think our response to these threats needs to be unequivocal, that we are willing to risk all to save few. Such speech maybe only stands to escalate, but that would only prove that Putin and China are run by madmen, and it's time to make them put up or shut up.

Poll question is gibberish. Might wanna fix that.

 

[Monica33]

OP writes sincerely .

But everything that is wrong and sad about the American non education system is self evident

 

[Lycanthrope]

Russia's (and Belarus) economy is being crippled by sanctions imposed by a multi-national coalition.
Corporations have temporarily halted business with these nations.
Russia's banking assets have been frozen. The ruble, already shaky, is now worthless.
The majority of the world has condemned the invasion of Ukraine.
President Biden has condemned Putin as a war criminal. The US Senate joined him in doing so. Unanimously.

What are you asking here - whether we should engage Russia militarily at this point?

 

[phoenix2020]

Russia's (and Belarus) economy is being crippled by sanctions imposed by a multi-national coalition.
Corporations have temporarily halted business with these nations.
Russia's banking assets have been frozen. The ruble, already shaky, is now worthless.
The majority of the world has condemned the invasion of Ukraine.
President Biden has condemned Putin as a war criminal. The US Senate joined him in doing so. Unanimously.

What are you asking here - whether we should engage Russia militarily at this point?

I personally think there are some interim actions before WW3, if we're interested in them. The escalation could look like:

<present state> --> EU cuts off Russian fossil fuels --> EU/US economic warfare against China if they do not stop supporting Russia --> engage Russia militarily

(just to cite two examples of potential next steps that don't involve bombing Moscow)

Oddly, most debate on this topic seems to equivocate between the present state (do as much as possible without actually giving anything up) and WW3, and I see little options analysis about the things between where we are today and shooting down Russian jets. That's probably because those other options are the ones that hit peoples' 401Ks, empty their local supermarket shelves and force them to conserve fuel and wear sweaters.... and let's face it, Americans and Europeans thus far fully support Ukraine so long as it doesn't cause an inconvenience in their day -to-day.

 

[MamboDervish]

Yes, because the state as an institution is pure evil.

?? Define "pure evil".

No. Your thinking demonstrates a dismal lack of imagination. Most states, by far, are not involved in any such thing, and a great deal of slaughter and attempted genocide are carried out by militias that do not represent a state. You might have heard of outfits like al Qaeda, and others over the past 30 years. They specialize in targeting civilians.

 

[Gatsby]

We do not have the ability, desire, or resources to enforce liberty everywhere in the world, including in many places that do not want it.
But what we can do is stand up for our allies that want liberty, in the face of foreign aggression from neighbors who don't want liberty. Sometimes.

 

[aociswundumho]

?? Define "pure evil".

No. Your thinking demonstrates a dismal lack of imagination.

The track record of the state speaks for itself. R.J. Rummel spent his life studying democide, and the results aren't pretty:

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

hawaii.edu

Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century.

Mass murder and torture is one of the very few areas where government excels.

 

[Indydave]

there is real freedom and there is nothing else.......real freedom is defined forever and forever in the Constitution of the United States.......when the great religions have evolved into whatever freedom will still be the same.....

that being said nations today and in history that have and that can live in happiness and peace that do not necessarily adhere to our Constitiutional definition probably should be allowed to do so....

 

[post]

Yes, because the state as an institution is pure evil.

No, because an alarmingly large portion of the population is predisposed to involuntary attraction to authoritarianism.

We're predatory by our nature. Making no effort to attempt to compensate for involuntary attraction to authoritarianism after
being informed is the choice of deplorables the world over.

Why Do People Follow Authoritarian Leaders? - Psychology ...​

https://www.psychologytoday.com › blog › why-do-pe...
Sep 8, 2020 — Research shows why some people fall under their spell while others don't.

Authoritarian personality - Wikipedia​

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Authoritarian_personal...
"The authoritarian personality is a hypothetical personality type characterized by extreme obedience and unquestioning respect for and submission to the ..,In human psychological development, the formation of the authoritarian personality occurs within the first years of a child's life, strongly influenced and shaped by the parents' personalities and the organizational structure of the child's family; thus, parent-child relations that are "hierarchical, authoritarian,.."
‎Historical origins · ‎Links to gender inequality · ‎Interpretations · ‎Prevalence

The attraction of the powerless to authoritarian leaders​

https://www.psa-pol.org › Seminars
The narcissistic dynamics of submission: The attraction of the powerless to authoritarian leaders. Lecture by Jay Frankel followed by a group dis

Link to cached page of this article,
https://webcache.googleusercontent....y.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera

Measuring the authoritarian mind-set of Trump's followers​

https://www.washingtonpost.com › outlook › 2020/10/01
Oct 2, 2020 — The first hundred pages deal with Trump's upbringing, business career and presidency, and cover some of the same ground as Mary L. Trump's ...

 

[aociswundumho]

We're predatory by our nature.

If that's true, then the worst thing to do would be to give a small group of predatory humans political power over everybody else. Or do you believe politicians and bureaucrats are morally superior to the rest of us?

 

[Bodi]

These are trying times to be sure, more is a stake in the Ukraine than the fate of that nation. What is a stake is what has been at stake since the free people of this world decided the human beings have rights both inalienable and unbridgeable. That free people have the rights of a government of their own choosing, and to only be ruled by the consent of the governed.

I think JFK said it best when he said," Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free."

Why is that even worth remembering? Obviously if one person is enslaved all are not free. Because one is enslaved.

All - one = not all

If you believe that, if you take it to heart,

It was a silly quote of meaningless meaninglessness...

then we can not allow aggressive nations that give not freedom to their own people's to roll their tanks over their neighbors.

Like we did in Iraq for a years and years? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Korea? But it is OK when America does it... right?

But what are we willing to give?

I responded to this post. That might be enough.

Are we willing to give it all, to risk the fate of the entire world in a conflict that could result in nuclear annihilation?

Nope. And thankfully other sane people with that power agree with me.

Maybe I'm just a simple man, with simple ways,

but I have always known that you have got to stand up to a bully. I think it is time to take Putin and China to task for their endless and reckless threats, they only make these reckless threats because they know the free world will be measured in our responses. They know we value all life, that we love this world and all it's peoples', but you can still love a thing and be willing to risk it to stand up for what is right.

Beautiful... simply beautiful.

To me, we can not allow the forces of tyranny to reign over man, that I would be willing to risk it all to stand up to a bully, even a nuclear armed one. Does that mean I would be reckless? No, but you have to stand up to these threats with tough speech, to let them know that you are willing to give the last full measure of devotion for human freedoms anywhere human dwell.

Damn poetic, really.

I think our response to these threats needs to be unequivocal, that we are willing to risk all to save few.

Uhhhh... what? You can risk yourself mate...

Such speech maybe only stands to escalate, but that would only prove that Putin and China are run by madmen, and it's time to make them put up or shut up.

 

[Bodi]

Well that's all very lofty, but where's it been? Why now? Tyranny exists all around the world, as do war crimes, including efforts at genocide. Should we go to war with Myanmar? Saudi Arabia?? Chad??? Central African Republic???? Do you think it's time to attack China? Really?? Why are all those lives any different than Ukrainian lives? What are we willing to give for them? Do you really expect the USA to unilaterally engage Russia or China? To what end?

How does the destruction of life on the planet serve the civilians in Ukraine? I'll answer that one. It doesn't.

 

[vegas giants]

These are trying times to be sure, more is a stake in the Ukraine than the fate of that nation. What is a stake is what has been at stake since the free people of this world decided the human beings have rights both inalienable and unbridgeable. That free people have the rights of a government of their own choosing, and to only be ruled by the consent of the governed.

I think JFK said it best when he said," Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free."

If you believe that, if you take it to heart, then we can not allow aggressive nations that give not freedom to their own people's to roll their tanks over their neighbors.

But what are we willing to give?

Are we willing to give it all, to risk the fate of the entire world in a conflict that could result in nuclear annihilation?

Maybe I'm just a simple man, with simple ways, but I have always known that you have got to stand up to a bully. I think it is time to take Putin and China to task for their endless and reckless threats, they only make these reckless threats because they know the free world will be measured in our responses. They know we value all life, that we love this world and all it's peoples', but you can still love a thing and be willing to risk it to stand up for what is right.

To me, we can not allow the forces of tyranny to reign over man, that I would be willing to risk it all to stand up to a bully, even a nuclear armed one. Does that mean I would be reckless? No, but you have to stand up to these threats with tough speech, to let them know that you are willing to give the last full measure of devotion for human freedoms anywhere human dwell.

I think our response to these threats needs to be unequivocal, that we are willing to risk all to save few. Such speech maybe only stands to escalate, but that would only prove that Putin and China are run by madmen, and it's time to make them put up or shut up.

What time do you ship out?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Yes, because the state as an institution is pure evil.

Yeah, because bands of raving lunatics would be so much better.

 

[aociswundumho]

Yeah, because bands of raving lunatics would be so much better.

That's what states are.

 

[Noodlegawd]

That's what states are.

Really? What is stopping gangs of criminals from murdering you in your sleep and taking all your shit?

 

[Peter]

If that's true, then the worst thing to do would be to give a small group of predatory humans political power over everybody else. Or do you believe politicians and bureaucrats are morally superior to the rest of us?

Honest question here.

Do you really think a country can exist and thrive without a government?
Let's take the UK as an example as it's quite small and is isolated as an island. Do you think the people of the UK would be better off without a government?

 

[aociswundumho]

Honest question here.

Do you really think a country can exist and thrive without a government?

Definitely. The market already provides nearly every "service" the state does, without all the waste, fraud, and corruption. For example, in the US there are more people working in private security than there are police officers. Dispute resolution is another area where the market is superior, hence the boom in private arbitration. Government-run courts are glacially slow, extremely expensive, and commonly yield unjust decisions.

But it can be difficult (but not impossible) for markets to provide public goods, like national defense.

Let's take the UK as an example as it's quite small and is isolated as an island. Do you think the people of the UK would be better off without a government?

Let the governments there fund themselves voluntarily and the people by their actions will provide the answer.