New Mars Forums

Why should we expend resources, and risk a soldiers trying to rebuild a nonrepresentative society, where some local "yo yo" has absolute governing power dues to Tradition or Religion or whatever, I don't think that is an appropriate expenditure of US taxpayers dollars. Why should we prop up one local "yo yo" and not another who also "shakes a rattle" and "grows a beard". The only decent thing we should do while rebuilding a country is to return the government to the people, and not to anyone else, that means democracy and that means a republic. A representative government is the only practical form of democracy. Having the local "yo yo" run things and pass the reins of power down to his son is not a worthy expendituee of our efforts.

I think our priority should be toward defeating the enemy rather than rebuilding his society afterwards, especially if he makes it cost our soldier's lives for no damn good reason. If society does not help us to rebuild their country, and they just use it as an opportunity to kill our soldiers who are trying to help them, we can just let them stew in their ruins. The theory being that their government got them into this mess by starting a War with us in the first place, and if we knock down their buildings and ruin their infrastructure in the process, then that is their problem. We can offer to help them rebuild, but if they just shoot our soldiers because they don't understand that when they surrender, they are supposed to lay down their weapons and stop shooting, then we'll just leave them in their wreckage and maybe that wreckage will suffice to demostrate what happens when they start wars with us. Stay out of our way, and they can continue to have electricity, and running water. We were being generous in spending billions of collars trying to rebuild Iraq, we had no obligation to do so. Most of our soldiers' casualities were in the rebuilding of Iraq, not in the defeating of it.

The lesson of the Iraq war is Knock em down, defeat your enemy, but do not rebuild his country. If the defeated country starts becoming a problem again, knock him down again, and till he finally gets it through his thick skull not to start any more wars with us. The idea of rebuilding Iraq was a fairly liberal one to start out with. The only reason liberals object is because Republicans were doing it, and they needed an election year issue. Perhaps we should have just let Germany and Japan lie in ruins, and if their populations caused any more trouble we should have just bombed them again. The Iraq War proves that the Marshal Plan idea was a bad one, don't you agree? For that was the idea behind rebuilding Iraq, it was called a "Republic" after all, so we therefore tried to make it one. That Iraqis are ungrateful for our sacrifice and expense is their character flaw, and because of that and the failure of the Iraq War, I would not welcome them into my country should any of them choose to immigrate and flee that mess they created with their uncivilized violence. My reasoning is that if they are not ready for Democracy over their, they are certainly not ready to come over here and become US citizens! We should have not let Vietnamese people into our country either, they did not make their country work after our 10+ years of sacrifice, they can very well sleep in that nasty bed they made. If in the Future Iraqis suffer and die because of their own barbaric violence, it is their own fault! No more help from us.

Your 76 years old and still a humanist?

I expect I'll be getting more religious toward my old age. So far science has not offered much in averting the Inevitable End. The clock is ticking on all of us, when your young and in your 20s Atheism works fine, you just have to be very careful and avoid doing dangerous things. If you are very careful, you get to be old, and no matter how careful you are, you know the end is coming. I have sufficient awareness of self that I really don't want it to end. If you convince yourself that their is an afterlife, that makes dying all the more easier. If you want a good example of that, just look at how Pope John Paul II died, he died calmly and his last acts were in preparing for that death rather than fighting it with every fiber of his being. It does tend to make things run more smoothly if you believe in something after this world.

So if a future Iraq successor state invades our country, do you suggest that we offer them no resistance because we don't know how to occupy their country if we win? Much easier to lose and throw in the towel, convert to Islam and accept a dictator isn't it?
According to your stated age you should remeber World War II. It seems that liberals try very hard not to learn the lessons of World War II and not to apply those lessons. What was the proper course for our foreign policy back in the 1930s? What should we have done to prevent World War II from happening and us sacrificing millions of our soldiers? A little imperialistic pre-emption perhaps? The liberals always say we should have done the opposite from what we had done, so therefore if we listened to their advice we'd always be starting things and the abandoning them, because according to them we should always have done the other thing, and its impossible to satisfy that condition. The liberals always want the US to do other that what its doing no matter what it is, they are perpetual critics.

The elections today are all about losing. The Democrats don't have any solutions, the public is impatient with the lack of progress in Iraq, so they are voting for someone they perceive as losers, people they know will give up the gfight in Iraq and quit. Quiting is always easy, its winning that's hard.

But only the Bush Administration brought Saddam Hussein finally to trial and to be sentenced to Death, al the past Administrations simply Managed Saddam Hussein, it was George Bush and George Bush alone that got rid of him. If it weren't for George Bush, the World would still be fretting about Saddam Hussein.

In fact Sargent Thomas Kalbfus, the original, participated in that conflict for the State of Pennsyvania to preserve the United States of America. Do you have something against the preservation of the United States?

What was the 9/11 attack retaliation for, specifically?
I don't recall any reason given. Explain that to the victims families why those hijackers had it out for them!
Unlike you I don't automatically assume the attackers had a good reason for murdering so many. What was the latest Israeli occupation of Gaza for?
You automatically assume the terrorists have good reasons for doing what they're doing, why can't you extent to us the same courtesy?

People who support a dictatorship are people who want to supress other people's right to vote. It makes no difference if the American people choose a dictatorship for ourselves or if we choose a dictatorship for Canada, to give a hypothetical example. In the latter we are imposing a dictator on someone else, and in the former we are imposing a dictatorship on ourselves and our children for a number of future would be elections. I don't believe I have a right to overthrow the US Constituion and force my children to live under a dictatorship. My right to vote and my children's is not mine to give away. The right of the people to choose their government is inherent, they cannot however be allowed to choose undemocratic forms of government for one time only. If you support the right of people to choose a dictator, then I support the right of the American People to forceably remove that dictator if it causes the American people trouble. I don't see how anybody who gives up his right to vote, has any right to complain about whatever we do to his country in the name of our national security, didn't he just give up any say he wanted to have in choosing his own government? That is what I interpret someone choosing a dictatorship to mean. The Iraqi people have made their choice in choosing a dictatorship, fine, now after their having shosen to give up all say in how their country is run, we've chosen to remove that dictator and give the right to choose their government back to the people.

By retreating, they'll only ensure that their will be more wars, it was the "doves" that gave Hitler a great head start in World War II, by offering him Austria, and Czechoslavakia.

What was the invasion of Afghanistan in retaliation for? If the 9/11 terrorists had good reason then surely so must have we. Let the first move for peace be theirs by their surrendering. Why don't they choose the "Doves" and not us? Why must the West always be the one to make the sacrifice for peace and not the other guy?

That's why the unemployment rate is so low.

The Canadian dollar is worht less.

The US Deficit is down.

Canada certainly can't afford to get involved in another conflict, for the sake of our peaceful relations with other nations of the world.[/QUOTE]
It hasn't been involved in Iraq anyway, I don't know what the heck your complaining about. Do you want to be neutrals in the War on terrorism? Well then please excuse us as we close the borders with Canada, as we don't want those terrorists your so willing to "glad handle" to come down to the United States.

So if the enemy attacks, we just surrender and convert to Islam to save our pocketbooks?

I say to the terrorists to step back from the brink, they are the ones on it. However much we're suffereing, they're suffering that much more. The ultimate aim is deterence, their pain is greater, and their sacrifice is greater. The way we win this war is by making the enemy make the greater sacrifice, and cause them to die on droves until they cease to fight.

The US has a powerful Navy, but it doesn't sink commerical shipping so that its commercial ships can benefit. Most generals would want to control as much as possible so it can deny the enemy their targets, it would be dishonest for them to say otherwise, this is true of other countries as well as out own. If you want a successful outcome in a war, you want to control the battlefield where ever it is. we are far from controlling space, it is more of a goal to shoot for than a reality. The purpose being to deny the enemy the ability to destroy our cities, a rather selfish aim I admit, trying to preserve the lives of millions of people and all, but there it is.

So you say, Lincoln was wrong to put down the Confederate Uprising. The Soldiers of the Confederate States of America were also Americans, yet Lincoln used Federal troops to defeat them and thus saved the Union. I believe precident was established during the American Civil War. Are you saying that the US Federal Government no longer has the right to put down internal rebellions with its own military forces?

"Revolt" is an emotionally charged word, after writing it, I decided not to use it, and I also have a tendency to put too many words in my sentences when fewer words will do and make the point just as well. A revolt can be an expression of the will of the people, or just that of a dissatisfied section, the rebellion in the South was also a revolt, it does not justify slavery though. Since the word "revolt" is emotionally charged and is seen in some eyes as partially justifying the cause behind the revolt, I have decided not to use that word. I'm sure you have revised your sentences to on many occasions.

Yes I dare, they were given a free vote a chance to determine their own government and a chance for peace where the Israeli government would not bomb them from afar and kill their children, and what did they do with that vote? They voted in terrorists, the Hamas organization that calles for the destruction of Israel, and then they kidnapped Israeli soldiers and launched rocket attacks on Israel, killing some innocent Israeli civilians. Since the Palestinians by their own vote, broke the peace, they shall suffer from the resulting war, they were given a chance to live in peace with their neighbors and in their own land, but they rejected it. You cannot seriously expect the Israelis to stop defending themselves when the Palestinian people launch an unprovoked attack on them do you? Do you live in Israel, are you willing to sacrifice your life because you feel sorry for your attackers, then how can you expect that of the Israelis?

The majority voted for the Hamas terrorist organization, I'd say that includes most of the people. Most of the Palestinians wanted this war, and most of them expected the Israelis not to defend themselves when they attacked, a most foolish expectation, so now they suffer, and maybe next time they'll learn when next peace is offered to them, if the Israelis will allow them another chance.

It is wrong to steal, and I'd pass by many valuable possessions without stealing it, just because it was left in plain sight. Also If I see a nearly naked beautiful woman, that does not mean I will rape her just because she was dressed like a prostitute. I follow a code of moral conduct that says stealing is wrong, and I expect my fellow man to adhere to the same code.

That is a clasic blame the victim argument if I ever read one. The owner may be foolish, but I've heard of many societies where people leave a child unattended for a moment and the child is not kidnapped. If people steal just because their is an opportunity to steal, that does not excuse it, if people murder just because they think they can get away with it, that is not an excuse.

And we were bound to retaliate when they did! They should have expected it, did they not? When they attack us unprovoked their was bound to be a response, they were fools to expect otherwise, and you should not expect otherwise either. I don't care how aggrieved some people think they were, murdering innocent people was not justified, and you do a diservice to their memory when you try to excuse it as an "irresistable" opportunity to attack.

The right to choose one's government is an inherent right that cannot morally be given away. If one chooses a dictatorship, he is denying future generations the right to vote and it is just as wrong as when a foreign enemy chooses to occupy his country, and it is just as wrong as when the military chooses to seize power by force.

If we want a Mars without war, we have to be realistic about it, we need a governing authority that can impose the rule of law, and these consideration on how war is fought on Mars will still have to be considered. Hopefully war will be between the Government and an insurgent group rather than between two governments, as the later would be much more deadly. There is no gene that makes up not get along. As long as their are more than one intelligent human being their will be conflicts, and the more colonists we send to Mars, the greater the chance that those conflicts will be expressed through violence. The only way to keep the violence down is to suppress it with a governmental force that has a preponderance of weapons. If we take the idealistic point of view and not bring weapons, then when the populations is big enough people will make weapons locally and attempt to seize power by force and impose their will on others through threat of violence. It best to have an established government from the get go, and make it a democratic government that to leave things to chance based on who can build weapons first.

Lets say eveyone agrees to go disarmed, then the more people we sent to Mars, the more likely it is that someone will try to violate this agreement and try to build weapons so he can force his will on others and gain political power. If there is no armed authority to stop this, it will go on unchecked and Mars will break up into waring factions. We cannot leave human nature behind when we bring humans with us. The option to use force to get one's way will always exist, the purpose of government is to make that option of using force to be an unattractive one.

I don't care, an enemy is an enemy, and the enemy of my enemy can also be my enemy too. One of the main reasons why wars last so long is the liberal tendency to show sympathy for our enemies, that sustains the enemy in the field.

So you want to pit everybody who's beyond fighting age against those who are at fighting age. So everybody who's beyond fighting age sould council defeat and vote for Surrendercrats, who want to quit, give up, and throw in the towel. My time to fight was from 1985 to 1995, I registered with selective service, and if they really needed me during those years, they could have drafted me. The first Persian Gulf War really didn't last that long, and I was not about to quit college in order to fight it, I was pursuing other career objectives than training to shoot people. Still I have a son who is three years old, it would be nice if all the terrorist countries and movements were gone and eliminate by the time he is 18. As I have said before, I have no patience with long protracted wars, but my preference is not to quit them, but to destroy the enemy so he will not rise again. I have no patience for the traditional policy of engage the enemy, then back off until he attacks you, then engage the enemy again.
Do you know why I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992?
Because he didn't finish off Saddam Hussein in the First Persian Gulf War. I look upon George W. Bush's activities as a correction to his Father's mistake of letting Saddam live to fight another day. The reason why this war has gone on for too long is that George W.  Bush has been to nice too he enemy, he got rid of Saddam, but as they say 'the apple doesn't usually fall very far from the tree'. George W. Bush has a chivalorus streak, where his inclination is to give his enemy quarter whn he asks for it. I knew the enemy was going to take advantage of the change in strategy from overthrowing Iraq to rebuilding that country, and so they have. The only problem is that the Democrats want to be that much nicer to the enemy and hand over to them victory laurels, they want to defund the war and put our troops and ultimately the American public in greater danger! The only way to withdraw from Iraq is by crushing them enemy so that they can never rise again and so my son will never have to fight them. If Iraq can be built, fine, but if the Democrats make that impossible, then I think the factions that have been most helpful to us should receive the largest and most valuable portion of Iraq, and those fairweather friends and sometimes enemies should be punished for not helping us, especially that Prime Minister that ordered our troops to abandon the search for that kidnapped US soldier. George Bush that nice and accomodating President complied of course.

You see, I don't care if Iraq is rebuilt or not. If the Iraqi people aren't sufficiently interested in that project, that is their problem. All I really want is for our enemy to be sufficiently punished and whipped so bad, that he'll never mess with us again. If Iraq self-destructs, then that will stand as a lesson to those who mess with us. I would like to reward the Kurd, who have been helpful to us handsomely, and shove aside those groups who weren't so helpful or who actively harmed our troops or aided and abedded the terrorists. The the Iraqis as a people are willing to destroy their own country so that a temporary US President can be called a failure, I want to make sure that they do not enjoy the loss of their country in any particular way. Meanwhile we can arm the Kurds just like we do the Israelis if they remain cooperative, we'll give them a free hand in dealing with minority Shiite and Sunni Arabs, that have given us so much trouble. If we can't help build a working Iraq, then at least we could wreck revenge against our enemies, so that they'll be deterred in the future. The Germans and the Japanese were interested in helping us rebuild their countries after we conquered them, if the Iraqis are fools and do not help us, then we can offer them only the stick after our patience with the carrot is exhausted.

I'm not really interested in fighting wars. I am interested in fighting the wars we have to fight in such a way that future wars are prevented because our enemy is defeated. If we give them a victory as the Democrats seem so enthused about, there will be future wars against us by that same enemy. Do you understand where I'm coming from. Just because I'm not in uniform right now, doesn't mean I should be a Surrendercrat. We will do our young people no favor by letting the enemy win and encouraging them to fight future wars against us. Our reputation is very important, if we fight and finish off our enemies, future enemies will be much less eager to fight us, than if we just quit and give up the fight like we did in Vietnam.

You can also get run over by a car while you are riding your bike though traffic and the ambulance will have some difficulty getting to you because of the traffic and once the ambulance gets to you, it will take some time for it to take you to the hostipatl again because of the traffic, and meanwhile all this emergency activity will only slow down traffic that much more and the police block cars and take statements, the cars get stuck and can't get to where they are going, this will make them fume and more likely to drive like a baat out of Hell when traffic finally lets up to make up for lost time, and therefore risking collision with another hapless bicyclist. Also in New York City, bicyclists have a tendency to ride their bikes on sidewalks, and down the wrong way on one way streets, they tend to bolt from between cars forcing cars that suddenly see them come out of nowhere to slam on their breaks to avoid hitting them and may get rear-ended for their trouble. I think safety is better served by a smoothly flowing traffic system that includes cars.

I'd hate to live without the Paris crowd of peoples easy contact[/QUOTE]
A crowd of people you can lose your children in, a crowd of people where pick pockets can bump into you and steal your wallet while you are momentarily distacted, then you have to cancel all your credit cards and replace all those stolen IDs with new ones, oh joy, I have had that experience.

You are safer in some ways and less safe in others. If a terrorist wants to attack a crowd, you are more likely to be attacked if you are in the crowd. If you are in the woods, you may be attacked by a Grizzly bear and their would be no one to dial 911, of course it helps if you have a gun.

You can choose to ignore the danger, just like the people had who worked in the World Trade Center that morning on September 11, 2001, a date which most liberals would like to pretend never happened.

France is in the same boat as the Israelis, like it or not, violence is in the streets of the West Bank and Gaza and violence is inthe streets of Paris. Look around you fella, do you really want to make friends with people who have terrorize parisians, rioted in the streets, burned cars, and suppressed yo0ur freedom of speech? Have the Israelis ever done that to your country? Why don't you make friends with people who don't attack you instead of those that do? Is being anti-American so important to you that you are willing to tolerate gangs of arab commiting arson in Parisian streets. The Israelis don't like these things either, why don't you make common cause with them as you are both on the side of civilization?

The problem with the Palestinians is that they can't stop fighting, they elect terrorists into their government and they go on killing and kidnapping Jews no matter what they agree to. When is enough going to be enough?