Ron Paul- The Racist Liar

[helmespc]

Regardless of a treaty they signed, it is still wrong to tell a sovereign nation what they can and can't do.

I disagree.... its every nation's duty to sit in judgement of what other nations do. Global intervention is one of the few protections citizens have from their own government. Injustice is not O.K., simply because you're a sovereign nation.

[Autumnlicious]

The fuck did I just read about Gaddhafi?

Please read this book. I just don't feel like he could be such a horrible man after reading it.. seems like so many things he talks about makes sense. But please read and take what you will from it. It is a very good read IMO. I mean it starts with saying Government is the problem... so read away. Don't let cognitive dissonance cloud your thoughts.

Muammar-Qaddafi-Green-Book-Eng.pdf

Oh man, even the Reagan-esque "Government is the Problem!" platitudes.

Paintpooper, you've gone whack.

[Anomalocaris]

Regardless of a treaty they signed, it is still wrong to tell a sovereign nation what they can and can't do.

Actually, as I understand it, these are the only circumstances in which nations can tell other nations what they can and cannot do. A treaty is an agreement between nations, and enforced by those nations. If you agree to do something, and then fail to do it, the other nations are bound by law to act.

That's cloud coo coo land legalistic fantasy.

There is almost no circumstance in which some nation is not both capable of, and actually is, telling other nation what they can and can not. Whenever a country one wants country two to do something, and has the wherewithal to make it unpleasant if the country two doesn't do it, country one can and most often will, tell country two to do something. Much of times when two countries are in this situation, everyone knows it and there is no need for country one to verbalized it and country two will do it unbidden.

[paintpooper]

The fuck did I just read about Gaddhafi?

Please read this book. I just don't feel like he could be such a horrible man after reading it.. seems like so many things he talks about makes sense. But please read and take what you will from it. It is a very good read IMO. I mean it starts with saying Government is the problem... so read away. Don't let cognitive dissonance cloud your thoughts.

Muammar-Qaddafi-Green-Book-Eng.pdf

Oh man, even the Reagan-esque "Government is the Problem!" platitudes.

Paintpooper, you've gone whack.

Certain types of governments can surely be the problem. Did you read any further into it then the first few lines?

Reagan was not honest when he said that, did you see him shrink government? No he grew the military and financial institutions within the government, and created a very corrupt system.

Under Reagan, Social Security spending went from 179 billion in 1981 to 269 billion.

Farm programs skyrocketed: 21 billion to 51 billion.

Medicare jumped from 43 billion in 1981 to 80 billion in 1987.

During the Reagan era, federal entitlements alone rose from 197 billion to 477 billion.

Most of that shit is probably the waste and spending we all hate, subsidies and people dipping into funds they shouldn't.

Also Reagan tried to kill Gaddafi back in the 80's, I don't think they agreed on politics.

I love things like social security and medicare and think they are great, but its not fixing any problems. We should be able to do without these things.
We should have universal health care for all.
And people "shouldn't" need social security if the system was not so fucked up. Just like welfare, and food stamps. If people are working a full time job they shouldn't need that stuff!
Those programs are just band-aid fixes to a much bigger problem.

[Tiberius]

That's cloud coo coo land legalistic fantasy.

There is almost no circumstance in which some nation is not both capable of, and actually is, telling other nation what they can and can not. Whenever a country one wants country two to do something, and has the wherewithal to make it unpleasant if the country two doesn't do it, country one can and most often will, tell country two to do something. Much of times when two countries are in this situation, everyone knows it and there is no need for country one to verbalized it and country two will do it unbidden.

I understood "tell another nation what they can and cannot do" to mean literal wording to that effect, whether by some legal decree or some action of force (i.e. a trade blockade is set up until the nation does X or Y). Of course, there are plenty of ways in which nations can assert some degree of "control" over other nations without expressly saying it. The entire Cold War played out to this effect, with both sides having the capability to destroy one another, yet neither doing so since it would lead to their own destruction.

A treaty is a legal document that is a literal way for some nation to tell another nation how to behave. The point here was that Iran signed a treaty saying they would not develop nuclear warheads, and they appear to be trying to break that treaty.

[LastPoet]

What is it with all the necroposting? Splitting and closing...