If you aren't able to convince people by reasoning with them, then perhaps that says something about your cause.
No, more likely it says, you aren't able to convince people by reasoning with them because they don't actually care about your concerns, and/or they won't even bother to listen. That's why people engage in direct action.
Why does someone believe in Socialism when it's so obvious that it is anthema to freedom and liberty?
Outlawing exploitation reduces liberty - but so does outlawing murder, rape, and child abuse. Socialism would not reduce freedom too much - in fact for most people it would increase freedom on balance. And they'd end up liking it better.
Why would someone believe that wealth redistribution does anything other than repress others and eliminate incentive for success?
Don't be a moron. The UK, Sweden etc. have some degree of wealth redist yet they have not "eliminated incentive for success".
When someone is so determined to be stupid and ignorant, despite probably being somewhat intelligent, do you try and correct them or just let it go? A conundrum.
But, we destroyed the first city and asked them to surrender - they refused. We dropped the second device and finally Japan agreed to our terms of surrender.
You've been fed the same old distorted view of history. Victors rewrite history as necessary to portray themselves as the good guys. Every time.
I believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when considered in a historical perspective, were undoubtedly unnecessary and barbarous acts. Those who support this view include Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery and General Dwight Eisenhower.
we got some pretty optimistic reports about how well our targetting systems worked and how they only hit military targets.
This was a complete propaganda fabrication. For one thing the majority of the bombs dropped on Iraq weren't "smart bombs" at all - for another thing, of those that were, the success rate was appalling. Rarely have I seen the mainstream media report something so directly contradictory to the truth. It's usually more subtle distortions or ommissions.
Your post is an excellent example of moral posturing (which you decry at the same time, in a spate of unintentional irony) that completely misses the point. Sometimes, like in the fight against the Nazis, US interventionism is just. More often it isn't, e.g. in the military aid to the Indonesian regime when it was genociding East Timor in the 70s, or the sanctions against the people of Iraq.
Read zmag.org's list of US interventions in the past 100 years and get a clue.
Because this process takes a long time, I don't see how they could spontaneously react unless they are carrying out some previously designed plan.
But that's exactly what it is said they do have - previously designed second-stage plans dating from well before Sep 11.
Also, as far as I'm aware it doesn't take much planning to inject yourself with smallpox and walk into an airport or metropolitan area. Once you've smuggled the smallpox in, which in itself should not be too hard (consider drug smuggling), the rest is relatively easy. That's just one suggestion.
I think the indirect death toll might have been a little higher than 21, because that "suspected chemical weapons plant" was in fact a pharmaceutical factory producing lifesaving medicines and vaccines. But as Chomsky pointed out, no-one's done any studies, so we don't know.
...because that'd make me look about as dumb as some of the Chomsky-quoting, Rage Against the Machine worshipping 15 year old anarchist wannabes who've been posting...
If we don't do this, then you are in far more danger, because they will grow in number and boldness.
It could be argued that if we do do this we are in far more danger, because they will recruit far more terrorists after what they portray as the "unjust" actions of the US in Afghanistan.
You have to wonder, how people acn die due to lack of medicine, while at the same time the government spends millions in bio weapons.
I could say the exact same thing about the United States of America. People die due to lack of medicine due to US patent policies.
As for bioweapons, has anyone inspected the US thoroughly to check that they are not making biological weapons? No? Then they must be making them. QED. That's State Department logic for you.
So, you blow the shite out of my citizens and in return I send you food. That will definately make me not one to be underestimated!
The two flaws in that argument are:
a) We were already sending them food
b) The vast majority of the Afghan population are not terrorists.
Unfortunately, you may be right. But the alternative is to sit back and show the world that it's OK to piss on the US again and again and again because there will be no response at all (apart from a somber speech in the UN, accompanied by the jeering of many delegations).
No, the alternatives are to bring the remaining terrorists to justice - or to sponsor a "bloodless coup" in Afghanistan and then have the terrorists extradited.
"From a sociological point of view, terrorism is a multifarious form of social anomaly with numerous psycho-socioeconomic causes.
Considering the intricate nature of this menace, it would be naive to imagine that terrorism can be rooted out with a war, even of a cold nature as pr[e]scribed by Rumsfeld."
Slashdot Mirror
VMWare. VMWare and Windows 2000 is a monster.
No, more likely it says, you aren't able to convince people by reasoning with them because they don't actually care about your concerns, and/or they won't even bother to listen. That's why people engage in direct action.
You can - if they're designed to interoperate in the first pace. Pipes==kludge (useful kludge but still a kludge).
Outlawing exploitation reduces liberty - but so does outlawing murder, rape, and child abuse. Socialism would not reduce freedom too much - in fact for most people it would increase freedom on balance. And they'd end up liking it better.
Why would someone believe that wealth redistribution does anything other than repress others and eliminate incentive for success?
Don't be a moron. The UK, Sweden etc. have some degree of wealth redist yet they have not "eliminated incentive for success".
It's one I face everyday.
Don't be silly.
I stopped reading at this point.
You've been fed the same old distorted view of history. Victors rewrite history as necessary to portray themselves as the good guys. Every time.
See Why the atom bomb wasn't necessary to end the war :
Sorry, I've lost you here. Which facility? Are you talking about the civilian bomb shelter?
This was a complete propaganda fabrication. For one thing the majority of the bombs dropped on Iraq weren't "smart bombs" at all - for another thing, of those that were, the success rate was appalling. Rarely have I seen the mainstream media report something so directly contradictory to the truth. It's usually more subtle distortions or ommissions.
Read zmag.org's list of US interventions in the past 100 years and get a clue.
But that's exactly what it is said they do have - previously designed second-stage plans dating from well before Sep 11.
Also, as far as I'm aware it doesn't take much planning to inject yourself with smallpox and walk into an airport or metropolitan area. Once you've smuggled the smallpox in, which in itself should not be too hard (consider drug smuggling), the rest is relatively easy. That's just one suggestion.
Flattery will get you nowhere.
It could be argued that if we do do this we are in far more danger, because they will recruit far more terrorists after what they portray as the "unjust" actions of the US in Afghanistan.
I could say the exact same thing about the United States of America. People die due to lack of medicine due to US patent policies.
As for bioweapons, has anyone inspected the US thoroughly to check that they are not making biological weapons? No? Then they must be making them. QED. That's State Department logic for you.
The two flaws in that argument are:
a) We were already sending them food
b) The vast majority of the Afghan population are not terrorists.
Unfortunately, you may be right. But the alternative is to sit back and show the world that it's OK to piss on the US again and again and again because there will be no response at all (apart from a somber speech in the UN, accompanied by the jeering of many delegations).
No, the alternatives are to bring the remaining terrorists to justice - or to sponsor a "bloodless coup" in Afghanistan and then have the terrorists extradited.