Comments on: Congress the unloved http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/ Tue, 22 May 2012 21:33:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: The Iron Fist of Law and Order « Sake White http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43836 The Iron Fist of Law and Order « Sake White Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:40:43 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43836 [...] Says: October 4th, 2007 at 11:27 am There are two schools, basically, of philosophy. One says that liberty, dignity, and human progress [...] [...] Says: October 4th, 2007 at 11:27 am There are two schools, basically, of philosophy. One says that liberty, dignity, and human progress [...]

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43835 Ymarsakar Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:36:24 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43835 Logic isn't your strong suit Jimmy. Logic isn’t your strong suit Jimmy.

]]> By: neo-neocon http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43713 neo-neocon Sat, 06 Oct 2007 04:27:44 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43713 Jimmy: one could make an argument, but it would not be a "very logical" one. You're exhibiting the same fallacies as before in your reasoning. And re civil war in Iraq, see <a href="http://neoneocon.com/2006/10/18/wars-civil-andor-religious-part-i/" rel="nofollow">this</a><a>.</a> Jimmy: one could make an argument, but it would not be a “very logical” one. You’re exhibiting the same fallacies as before in your reasoning.

And re civil war in Iraq, see this.

]]> By: Jimmy http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43704 Jimmy Sat, 06 Oct 2007 01:46:29 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43704 Neo, One could make a very logical argument that we were responsible for much of the violence of Saddam, considering we armed him against Iran in the '80s. As for the terrorists, well, most would not be there today had the US not initiated war. And are you still denying what even most Republicans admit is a civil war? I thought you were a new kind of conservative. Neo,

One could make a very logical argument that we were responsible for much of the violence of Saddam, considering we armed him against Iran in the ’80s. As for the terrorists, well, most would not be there today had the US not initiated war. And are you still denying what even most Republicans admit is a civil war? I thought you were a new kind of conservative.

]]> By: neo-neocon http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43639 neo-neocon Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:20:24 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43639 Jimmy: how is it that we are responsible for the deaths of innocents at the hands of terrorists? Are the perpetrators themselves not responsible? Are they not free agents? And were not Saddam Hussein's actions an important cause of the war? Is not the so-called "civil war" in Iraq the product of removing a tyrant who kept the lid on strife there through Draconian means and alternate types of violence? Apparently you would prefer the tyrant. You choose an arbitrary starting point---our invasion of Iraq, which was not when the history of conflict in Iraq began---and decide to consider <i>that</i> to be the first and only cause of all that follows. But that's not the way the world works. And how about the responsibility we have for our <i>inaction</i>? During the years between the first Gulf War and the Iraq War, were we not also responsible for the deaths caused by Saddam when we <i>failed</i> to take him out after the Gulf War? Jimmy: how is it that we are responsible for the deaths of innocents at the hands of terrorists? Are the perpetrators themselves not responsible? Are they not free agents? And were not Saddam Hussein’s actions an important cause of the war? Is not the so-called “civil war” in Iraq the product of removing a tyrant who kept the lid on strife there through Draconian means and alternate types of violence? Apparently you would prefer the tyrant.

You choose an arbitrary starting point—our invasion of Iraq, which was not when the history of conflict in Iraq began—and decide to consider that to be the first and only cause of all that follows. But that’s not the way the world works.

And how about the responsibility we have for our inaction? During the years between the first Gulf War and the Iraq War, were we not also responsible for the deaths caused by Saddam when we failed to take him out after the Gulf War?

]]> By: Jimmy http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43618 Jimmy Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:40:13 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43618 Neo, If the war in Iraq was simply the case of bad guys v. good guys, I might concur. But the fact remains that the majority of victims in this kind of protracted civil war are innocent citizens of Iraq. Of course our departure will not mean a nonviolent solution to the problem. But we brought this bloodshed to Iraq and we are responsible for the deaths of these civilians. Neo,

If the war in Iraq was simply the case of bad guys v. good guys, I might concur. But the fact remains that the majority of victims in this kind of protracted civil war are innocent citizens of Iraq. Of course our departure will not mean a nonviolent solution to the problem. But we brought this bloodshed to Iraq and we are responsible for the deaths of these civilians.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43589 Ymarsakar Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:27:33 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43589 There are two schools, basically, of philosophy. One says that liberty, dignity, and human progress is furthered and maintained by violence, threats of violence, and capability to do violence. This view is shared by Special Forces folks like JB, Jimbo (a pacifist he calls himself, him a former SF Weapons sergeant), and classical liberals like Victor Davis Hanson, also Book and you Neo. The other school says that violence can be countered by the void of... an absence of mass and energy so to speak. SO long as people don't try and they don't compete, violence and conflict disapears. But in order to prevent people from fighting and competing, the Left has to institute totalitarian and secret police institutions. You can't stop inertial by doing nothing or simply making a vacuum where no energy and matter exists. Violence is a force and like all forces in the universe, it may only be countered, modified, harnessed, focused, and nullified through more force. There are two schools, basically, of philosophy. One says that liberty, dignity, and human progress is furthered and maintained by violence, threats of violence, and capability to do violence. This view is shared by Special Forces folks like JB, Jimbo (a pacifist he calls himself, him a former SF Weapons sergeant), and classical liberals like Victor Davis Hanson, also Book and you Neo.

The other school says that violence can be countered by the void of… an absence of mass and energy so to speak. SO long as people don’t try and they don’t compete, violence and conflict disapears. But in order to prevent people from fighting and competing, the Left has to institute totalitarian and secret police institutions. You can’t stop inertial by doing nothing or simply making a vacuum where no energy and matter exists. Violence is a force and like all forces in the universe, it may only be countered, modified, harnessed, focused, and nullified through more force.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43588 Ymarsakar Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:24:11 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43588 Jimmy may benefit from reading Tim Larkin of Target Focus infamy, Neo. Thus we are reminded of the difference between classical liberals and those non-violent advocates that only call themselves liberals. Jimmy may benefit from reading Tim Larkin of Target Focus infamy, Neo. Thus we are reminded of the difference between classical liberals and those non-violent advocates that only call themselves liberals.

]]> By: neo-neocon http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43581 neo-neocon Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:21:35 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43581 Jimmy: Nonviolence is not possible in a place such as Iraq. Anyone who thinks our departure will create nonviolence there is living in a dream world. The world is an "endless spiral of violence," <a href="http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Isa&chapter=2&verse=4" rel="nofollow">Isaiah 2:4</a> notwithstanding. Killing bad guys is better than being killed by them, or allowing innocent people to be killed by them. That's what war is about. But it's about a great deal more. Read some of Michael Totten and get an idea of what's going on with the non-killing part of the Iraq war. Jimmy: Nonviolence is not possible in a place such as Iraq. Anyone who thinks our departure will create nonviolence there is living in a dream world.

The world is an “endless spiral of violence,” Isaiah 2:4 notwithstanding. Killing bad guys is better than being killed by them, or allowing innocent people to be killed by them. That’s what war is about. But it’s about a great deal more. Read some of Michael Totten and get an idea of what’s going on with the non-killing part of the Iraq war.

]]> By: Jimmy http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43569 Jimmy Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:30:53 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/01/congress-the-unloved/#comment-43569 Yes, Neo, Reid talks about the endless spiral of violence. Am I to deduct that because a few times "we" may kill more of them than they kill of "us" this is to be considered a move toward nonviolence? Yes, Neo, Reid talks about the endless spiral of violence. Am I to deduct that because a few times “we” may kill more of them than they kill of “us” this is to be considered a move toward nonviolence?

]]>