Santa and retorted friends RARELY .provide.specific arguments. They only attack, never offer.logic or.facts.

Go on,fag-boys ...attack me. Demonstrate you inability to answer.on-topic.arguments. Retards.

Do you berate your children with that mouth?

Wow, so much for a debate. More like an insult-fest. But eh, I guess thats what debate has become in the modern world, so I won't gripe too much.
I've got a couple things that I feel like need to be pointed out. Firstly, we have supplied guns to rebels in the past, who fought against opression and lined up with our ideals. They were called the Taliban, and once they beat the USSR back, they turned them on us.
Also, I think it is nearly universally recognized that invading Syria, as we did with Iraq and Afghanistan, is not a good option here. This is far too volatile a situation, and it will only bring hatred, death, and debt to the US in the long run.
That said, I don't feel like we can still look ourselves in the mirror if we allow thousands more to be massacred without doing SOMETHING about it. Not bringing political parties into this. However, we could seriously aid the rebels by enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria, and maybe making occasional aerial strikes if necessary. It would put nearly no risk on Americans (seriously, do you think Syria could actually shoot down a US jet in air-to-air combat?) and it could be done without massive redeployment. We already have three carriers in the area. If we involved our allies like Turkey, it would be even easier.
Just my view. Not trying to attack anyone. But because I started this monster, I figured I'd better post.

@Santa. No...when I discipline my children, it is usually with a rationalie explanation and a consequence that is relevant to the offense. No coincidence, my children at honors students who have recieved nothing but praise from their teachers for both their attitude and academics. Think what you want, jackass...but actual discipline works CORRECTING false childish beliefs is a good thing.

So...I don't "berate" my children, because they are not narrow-minded insulant douche-bags. But....if they go off to college and come home with thoughts such as yours, I will **most certainly** berate them, followed IMMEDIATELY by cutting their college funds. I will demonstrate the economic laws of supply and demand....i.e. if their liberal fuck-tard idea deserve fuinding, then they will find it on their own.

I will stick true to my word.

THAT BEING SAID....MY children have assisted in running a small family business. They have persoanlly witnessed profit and loss, supply versus demand....and their paycheck week to week has depended on the\ success of the business.. So I have ZERO fear that daughters will end up as some liberal fucking fucktards with their hands held out looking for a government handout (i.e.wealth redistrubituom...) and they the day I find out that they took a hand out, they wil be out of my house living on their own.

"That said, I don't feel like we can still look ourselves in the mirror if we allow thousands more to be massacred without doing SOMETHING about it. Not bringing political parties into this."

There's a big difference between "we ought to do something about it" and "we ought to use the government to do something about it." When you look at "we should have the US government enforce a no-fly zone over Syria" as "we should force dozens of millions of taxpayers to give us a share of their income to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria regardless of whether those taxpayers think doing so is the right thing to do," you'll understand (even if not ultimately agree with the line of reasoning) why I and others would disagree with this notion.

Eden, there are laws that ensure that nobody but the government can do anything about it.

"THAT BEING SAID....MY children have assisted in running a small family business. They have persoanlly witnessed profit and loss, supply versus demand....and their paycheck week to week has depended on the\ success of the business.. So I have ZERO fear that daughters will end up as some liberal fucking fucktards with their hands held out looking for a government handout (i.e.wealth redistrubituom...) and they the day I find out that they took a hand out, they wil be out of my house living on their own. "

I worked in my fathers business every summer. He is a liberal, I am a liberal. And he is not a drunk I might add.

Lol at krellin. I am against hand outs, but I will give you money if you agree with me that giving money out is bad.

" Firstly, we have supplied guns to rebels in the past, who fought against opression and lined up with our ideals. They were called the Taliban, and once they beat the USSR back, they turned them on us."

Carter approved funding for the mujaheddin in July 1979, the Soviets invaded in December. But you are right, the mujaheddin did agree with American values, such as support for the King of Saud.

"Eden, there are laws that ensure that nobody but the government can do anything about it."

Now, wait a minute. There are restrictions on straight up sending guns and ammo to Syria, yes (that suggestion to krellin was mostly tongue-in-cheek), and it would be difficult to acquire a fleet of fighter jets and just go establish a no-fly zone yourself. But that doesn't mean nothing can be done - nor, more importantly, does it make using the US government to do something permissible.

No, but your argument that you can aid a rebel movement from the comfort of your living room is disingenuous

President Eden,
I understand your point, but I feel like the government is the only agent the American people have to act in Syria. Yes, we can send financial aid and such, but to actually affect change, I think military action of some kind is necessary because of the vast technological advantage enjoyed by the regime.
As to my point about the mujaheddin, the value I was citing was hating communism. Saudi Arabia really had nothing to do with that.

"They were called the Taliban, and once they beat the USSR back, they turned them on us."

The Taliban did not exist until the early 1990s, years after American funding for the mujahideen had dried up. And the Taliban never attacked America until after America invaded Afghanistan in 2001.

"Carter approved funding for the mujaheddin in July 1979, the Soviets invaded in December. But you are right, the mujaheddin did agree with American values, such as support for the King of Saud."

I think the unifying value was more a dislike for the communist overlords of Afghanistan, who came to power in a military coup in 1978.

"No, but your argument that you can aid a rebel movement from the comfort of your living room is disingenuous"

I'm not arguing that it's some easy thing you can do from your living room... my principal argument hasn't been that it's easy, my argument has been that it's not right to force other people who disagree with you to foot part of the bill.

That is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard you say. Do people who can't afford or want cars want superhighways? Do people who don't have kids want to pay for schools? Do people in the country want to pay for projects in the cities? Do people who send their kids to private school want to subsidize your education at LSU? Someone agrees with everything. So why the hell are we paying for anything?

*someone disagrees*

To clarify, you are speaking to a voluntarist. (Probably better known as voluntaryism instead of voluntarism, but that 'y' is a crime against humanity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism ) So if you don't anticipate this getting too far (which is reasonable, I suspect we're coming from very different value systems), that may be why.

In short - yes, why are we? We being the state, not individuals. (I should note that the answer to the first two is probably still "yes" because the benefit to those services extend beyond the direct uses you suggest in the questions. But that's not the point.)

Since I personally anticipate this line of discussion will distract from the point, I'll rework the statement. I lack direct polling numbers, but I anticipate that the objection to US involvement in Syria is pretty high, if not a sentiment held by the majority of the US population. Surely even if one disagrees with the notion that no one should be forced to pay for things with which they disagree, it's still a reasonable notion to say that if there's sufficiently large objection to Syrian intervention that it shouldn't be undertaken.

President Eden, have you ever been a Lincoln Douglas debater? You sound suspiciously like one. Our fundamental difference, as you have pointed out, appears to be a values issue. To your arguments, I say touche. I disagree, but they have been well made, and for that I thank you.

I did alright at LD my senior year of high school. Founded my school's team, which was probably the biggest thing I did. lol. But yes, I have a little experience with it.

(And even then that's a slight exaggeration, I co-founded and was the vice president, i.e. I wasn't the main founder. lol)

So if I'm speaking to someone in fantasy land, why don't we just follow every rainbow and pick up the pot of gold!


"In short - yes, why are we? We being the state, not individuals. (I should note that the answer to the first two is probably still "yes" because the benefit to those services extend beyond the direct uses you suggest in the questions. But that's not the point.)"

We do because despite your naivete, people generally don't pay money for things that directly benefit them. So, I don't know how your volunteer utopia will work, but in 20 years when the highway between Newark and Sheboygan becomes littered with potholes and no one wants to "volunteer" to pay what happens?

Not that the tycoons flying their helicopter and sponsoring whatever highway they like (as they charge everyone else who rides on it a premium) would care

Then again, these are the people who are moving sheep like you around the board as their pawns.

After all, when the social contract is voided, new brutes can come to power

"Since I personally anticipate this line of discussion will distract from the point, I'll rework the statement. I lack direct polling numbers, but I anticipate that the objection to US involvement in Syria is pretty high, if not a sentiment held by the majority of the US population. Surely even if one disagrees with the notion that no one should be forced to pay for things with which they disagree, it's still a reasonable notion to say that if there's sufficiently large objection to Syrian intervention that it shouldn't be undertaken. "

And if you noticed, it hasn't been undertaken.

It's hardly fantasy land, but voluntarism is neither the subject of the thread nor anything I'm particularly interested in discussing when the discussion starts as it has here.

Moving to the focal point of the thread:

"And if you noticed, it hasn't been undertaken."

...yes. I have noticed. The OP was submitting that intervention in Syria ought to be undertaken. I was responding to that point. I feel I must be missing your point here, because I'm not sure what it is you're driving at with this response.

My point was that your assertion that the government cannot do something because a portion of society disagrees with it is preposterous.

My second point is that in general we already have power over that. We are not going to attack Iran, and we are not going to attack Syria because those wars would be very unpopular. As usual, I agree with a libertarian's point, but I find the way they reached that point nonsensical and dangerous.

"My point was that your assertion that the government cannot do something because a portion of society disagrees with it is preposterous."

Is it preposterous here, given the high expense in money and (depending on the nature of the intervention) lives, and the sizable opposition to it? Because that's all I'm interested in discussing here. The thread's about Syria, not my quixotic views

Here, though I think I disagree with him, President Eden is, in my view, and in the view of most western philosophy, right. The power does lie with the people. If the majority do not believe we should intervene, we should not. "Of the people, by the people, for the people". I simply disagree with the majority.