https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi12aVa3psc I Get Goosebumps at the end. So much Emotion and Honesty, its brilliant.
I have never read, or heard, any evidence that Ron Paul is in favor of reduction or elimination of nuclear weapons. He is against most ground war, but not nuclear weapons as long as everybody can have them. This way, they'd all have some of these weapons so that we don't have to go have a conventional war with countries like Iran - we'd just nuke 'em off the face of the earth if they threaten or attack us - and as long as they have a few of these weapons, then we have a reason to do so and can't be called a bully. Basically, Ron Paul is as far-right as his admirers in the John Birch Society, and that type of thinking is very dangerous.
I do not support nuclear weapons for anybody. Ron Paul does. Which would YOU prefer, nukes or no nukes?
Its funny you make this claim. The only countries in the world we dont bang up the arse have nukes, go figure. No nukes. We bully them around. I believe if everyone had nukes we'd leave them the eff alone. ~ poke
You know my stance. I'm an anarchist. Without the state, viable nuclear weapons would be damn near impossible. It is only government, fueled by stolen money, that can create such monstrosities after they destroy everything else good.
Out of curiosity, how are you an anarchist? Anarchy is always a temporary state, and a leader always rises when anarchy presents. Always, 100% of the time. Even if they break into factions and battle. What makes you an anarchist? I hear this claim a lot, im curious if you live on a boat in the sea somewhere avoiding taxes n such or is it just a label? Serious question. Thanks. P.s. nice sig btw
Perhaps I am missing something. Why is a nearly 4 year old debate involving someone that is (allegedly) out of politics relevant to anything?
Well you don't have to be an avowed anarchist to be anti-nuke. People that are, come in all stripes. My contention is that Ron Paul would rather do away with the military, or greatly reduce it, because we have them. I am sure that I heard him singing the praises of nukes once, but I can't find the quote. In any case, he supports letting Iran have them, and has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever called for an end to nuclear weaponry for the entire planet.
It is an ideology. I hold no delusions of seeing an anarchy in my life but maybe someday people will be more connected and informed about the evils of every single government in the history of the world and evolve past that. I'm sure the slaves in America 200 years ago had no hope of ever seeing freedom but that doesn't mean they shouldn't dream and spread hope of eventual liberty for their descendants. My personal beliefs are diametrically opposed to every single aspect of the state and democracy and I refuse to just accept this abuse of authority quietly and not at least try to educate people about freedom.
If we did not have them, and nobody else did, at least we don't have to worry about somebody pushing the button here, or over there in whatever country that might have them. I mean, I have said many times that we could have used them in the hills of Afghanistan after 9/11, where Al Qaeda was probably holed up, and saved a considerable amount of lives but, in reality, I'd rather see a world ban on nuclear weapons, strictly enforced and that includes the United States and Europe as well.
Fair enough and i sincerely thank you for that explanation I was worried the tone would come across wrong (as it often does in politics) and i was just genuinely curious, so i appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me. Would be interesting to see a simulation of how anarchy might work without government intervention somehow. I think an anarchist society would look much like the middle east in terms of how they trade at bazaars, or what we call swap meets. Even though their govts are often regime controlled, it seems to me that without forcing people to do the right thing, some never would. Entitlement is a human issue that kinda always gets in the way. Greed, jealousy etc always leads to a leader rising up and suppressing anarchy. ~ poke
You know i read that einstein said he regretted his life work, not sure if thats bs or true, but i personally wouldnt want to be resonsible for creating such a weapon. Then again, kalishnokov's rifles have killed many more than nukes have. Its one of those never ending debates where you say, well, if this didnt exist, the world would be a better place. But it does exist, so what do we do about it? Look at it like this. You give 5 men pistols and 5 men rocks and tell them to go to war. The men with the pistols pull the trigger and the war is over. But give the other 5 pistols and theyre pretty evenly matched. I personally believe that if everyone had nukes the u.s. would speak to everyone politely, whether they agreed or not. The alternative is extinction. This assumes of course that the middle east had nukes and didnt use them. And it assumes religious fanaticism doesnt exist. Since all of these do exist what can be done? Im really not sure from a logical standpoint, but i dont believe that if everyone had nukes we would nuke anyone. I dont believe we would have nuked japan if they had the ability to return the favor. It wouldnt be an intelligent strategy. The cold war is a perfect example of this, imho. ~ poke No we dont. We manipulate the market, we sanction them. We dont invade. Not even if theyre killing white people in georgia or the ukraine. Edited for my atrocious spelling
That's fucking with them. And yes, we do invade Pakistan, shoot Pakistanis, kill people in Pakistan, all against the wishes of the Pakistani government. We've been doing this for over 10 years.
Actually the Pakistani government has silently approved the attacks while publicly decrying it. Pakistan's government has for years received direct communications from the CIA regarding strikes by U.S. drones and repeatedly given its consent to their use within its territory, according to leaked CIA documents and Pakistani memos published by The Washington Post on Thursday.
You make a lot of valid points which make a lot of sense. But, on this forum, and elsewhere, there is common belief, which I think is usually incorrect, that the whole world sees the United States as a war-mongering, repressive bully. Worldwide public opinion polls, except for a few countries, usually do not reflect this view and there are many other nations which usually do much worse in popularity polls.