Ron Paul on Fear

[Aggrad02]

Bombings in London. Assassination of a film maker in Europe. A translator of the Satanic Verses killed in Japan. An attack at the Glascow airport.

Spelling Glasgow. You forgot Bali, which was a terrorist attack on Australians.

We're much better off thinking of Islamic terrorism as crime, something done by small numbers of madmen, a police problem. No matter what the White Christian Anglo-American-Canadian-Oz military forces elect to do, the police problem will persist and infuriate everybody. I agree with Dustan that this needs to be healed with creative thinking, rather than greater injustice.

On August 6, 1945 police problems ceased to exist (at least for a while) in Hiroshima. Ditto for Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945. There is something about a nuclear fireball that simplifies matters a great deal, don't you think?

I love the month of August. My birthday is in August. The anniversary of my marriage is in August and above all the Sixth and Ninth are in August. I consider 6 and 9 August Holy Days to be celebrated every year. Those were the days when we finally Got Even for Pearl Harbor.

If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, rip his head off an shit down his neck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Hey Bob, I heard there is no crime on the Moon either nor any Muslims. I bet if you booked a ticket through NASA you could be one of the first to get prime real estate. If you want a destination a little closer but some what cooler try Antarctica.

-Dustan

Edit: If you decide on the Moon, and are visted by aliens please don't nuke them, we don't want nuclear waste fly back to Earth.

And if you go to Antarctica please don't kill the penguins, they are only looking for fish, not a way to blow you up. Plus a nuclear blast might melt the cap and then we would all be swimming.

Edited August 4, 2007 by Aggrad02

[Brant Gaede]

Bombings in London. Assassination of a film maker in Europe. A translator of the Satanic Verses killed in Japan. An attack at the Glascow airport.

Spelling Glasgow. You forgot Bali, which was a terrorist attack on Australians.

We're much better off thinking of Islamic terrorism as crime, something done by small numbers of madmen, a police problem. No matter what the White Christian Anglo-American-Canadian-Oz military forces elect to do, the police problem will persist and infuriate everybody. I agree with Dustan that this needs to be healed with creative thinking, rather than greater injustice.

I admire your perspectve, Brant, so fire away if you think I'm mistaken.

W.

The West has puffed up Islam and terrorists in two main ways: 1) Oil money. 2) What greater glory than to battle the Great Satan, look how mighty he is? All those planes and aircraft carriers and a mighty army. The more the US ostensibly engages, especially ineffectually, the more glory, the greater the cause.

I favor a lot of stuff under the table and dirty tricks and propaganda to negate the second.

If the US doesn't understand it's at war (with Iran at least) it will eventually pay a bigger price by only sending in policemen instead of various types of soldiers.

--Brant

Edited August 4, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

You still didn't answer my question. When are you going to rip the heads off all Muslims and shit down their necks?

Child's play. Right?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Bob,

You still didn't answer my question. When are you going to rip the heads off all Muslims and shit down their necks?

Child's play. Right?

l

Michael, Bob was speaking metamorphically.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

If we kill our enemies we have solved the problem.

I have finally figured out your problem. You're concrete bound, dedicated to the measurable here and now, disdainful of concepts, insisting on machine logic a la Russell, 100 percent meatspace empiricist. No wonder right and wrong are irrelevant to you. You're epistemologically handicapped.

Right on! I am not epistemologically handicapped. I am epistemologically enabled. I can tell the difference between the Word and the Thing. I can tell the difference between the Map and the Territory. I am totally immersed in Reality which is to say the physical universe, because all there is is matter, motion, energy and space-time. I am not haunted by reifications of abstractions, which are merely tools with which barbarians like myself fiddle around in reality for Fun and Profit.

Morality is Opinion. There are no Moral Facts. There never were. There are only atoms and quantum whizzing through the void.

Now here is the question: who is more likely to survive in our not-so-nice world, meat machines like me or floating abstractions like you? If you study the world carefully, Evil is leading Good and it is the bottom of the seventh.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Evil" is an "opinion." So is "good."

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

If the US doesn't understand it's at war (with Iran at least) it will eventually pay a bigger price by only sending in policemen instead of various types of soldiers.

--Brant

Brant,

Why do you think we are at war with Iran?

What has Iran done that is threatening to the US?

How are they a threat to our security?

If Iran wanted to fight against the US why isn't it helping Al-Qeada in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Don't you think one reason why the Iranian leaders are spewing so much anti-American rhetoric is because of our record with them, in conjunction with having over 100,000 troops and 14 military bases on their doorstep.

First we booted out their democratically elected government and installed the Shah to be a tyrant over them.

Then we impose sanctions against them.

Then we give Saddam money and weapons to fight a war against them.

We gave support, money and weapons to Israel who bombed them.

Then we label them a part of the "Axis of Evil".

And finally Bush's rhetoric for regime change in Iran is almost identical to the rhetoric he used to justify disposing Saddam. I would also consider Bush's "tough" talk against Iran to be almost identical to Ahmadinejad's against the US.

I would wager that if we withdrew from the Middle East, use diplomacy in good faith to let them have their nuclear plant, and quit giving money and arms to Israel, we would become good trading partners with Iran, just like Russia, China, Vietnam, India and Pakistan.

I would also wager that a non-threatened Iran would be a very stabilizing force in the Middle East, and would actually help prevent the further spread of terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Stable nations do not like the types of Bin Laden because they are a threat to their own government institutions as well.

All normal people and governments want to be secure and safe, and have opportunities to raise their standard of living. With the sanctions now imposed Iran is barely scraping by with their oil revenues. Don't you think that Iran looks at the progress of Turkey, Pakistan, India and China with some jealousy and longing. Iran is very young and has a good population base to build an economic powerhouse.

It is my opinion that people only fight as a last recourse or take resources. There are no resources for Iran to take from the US, we are too far away and too powerful. So if they are looking to fight, it is only because we have backed them into a corner.

The real war being waged is the war against the American people and our freedoms by special interest and Corporate-Fascist (not all corporations but some) that want to form one world government. They are the same ones who are using the US military to wage an offensive war against the people of the Mid-East to take control of their oil assets. They are the same ones trying to form the NAU. They are the same ones who keep the federal reserve in place. They are the same ones who do nothing to protect our borders while screaming terrorism. They are the same ones who lobby for Israel. They are the same ones who wrote up the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act and all of those executive orders that steal our freedoms. They are the same ones who write the energy bill giving corporate welfare by the billions. They are the same ones that profit every time a US soldier fires a gun. They are the same ones who profit every time an Israeli fires a gun. They are the ones that profit every time an Iraqi Police Officer fires a gun. They are the same ones that profit every time a Palestinian fires a gun. They are the ones that profit every time a Sunni Tribal leader fires a gun. They are the same ones who profit every time a Kurd fires a gun. They are the same ones who profit every time a bomb is dropped and then profit more by rebuilding what had just been blown up. This is the danger we face.

--Dustan

Edited August 4, 2007 by Aggrad02

[Brant Gaede]

Dustan, I don't know about the Taliban, but Iran is fueling the war in Iraq. Iran seized the American Embassy. Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

Dustan, I don't know about the Taliban, but Iran is fueling the war in Iraq. Iran seized the American Embassy. Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

--Brant

But isn't all of that "blow back" from our policies toward them. They seized the embassy because we overthrew their country. They are developing Nuclear Weapons because we are at their doorstep threatening to over throw them again. Plus they can't even deliver them here. Heck they know that if they somehow smuggled them into the US and set them off, we could pull a Bob and Nuke them off the planet.

As to Iraq, they are just borrowing Bush's policy: "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here". If the Iraq war would have been as easy as Bush thought it was going to be, we would have already invaded Iran.

Isn't logical that if we weren't so aggressive towards them they would be more peaceful towards us?

BTW: Israel can take care of itself.

--Dustan

[BaalChatzaf]

Isn't logical that if we weren't so aggressive towards them they would be more peaceful towards us?

BTW: Israel can take care of itself.

--Dustan

No it is NOT logical when dealing with Muslims.

And Israel can be wiped out in a day. Of course they would not go peacefully. Think of Blind Sampson in the Temple at Gaza (Book of Judges).

Ba'al Chaztaf

[Brant Gaede]

Dustan, I don't know about the Taliban, but Iran is fueling the war in Iraq. Iran seized the American Embassy. Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

--Brant

But isn't all of that "blow back" from our policies toward them. They seized the embassy because we overthrew their country. They are developing Nuclear Weapons because we are at their doorstep threatening to over throw them again. Plus they can't even deliver them here. Heck they know that if they somehow smuggled them into the US and set them off, we could pull a Bob and Nuke them off the planet.

As to Iraq, they are just borrowing Bush's policy: "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here". If the Iraq war would have been as easy as Bush thought it was going to be, we would have already invaded Iran.

Isn't logical that if we weren't so aggressive towards them they would be more peaceful towards us?

BTW: Israel can take care of itself.

--Dustan

"They." They stone homosexuals to death--or hang them. There's "blow back" and there's "blow back."

You can argue moral equivalence with Bob, not me. The blood sucking Imams who control Iran can roast on spits for all I care.

Israel can take care of itself by nuking Iran--first. Only the US has the means if not the will to do things differently.

After they seized the Embassy the US should have kicked their ass and set things right.

Force rules the world. Our force or their force, take your pick.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

I must be stupid. Okay, Iran will someday be a minor nuclear power, like Pakistan. So what exactly is the problem for the United States? (not Israel or Saudi). Why would Iran attack Minneapolis or Tulsa or Philadelphia -- especially if we withdraw from the Middle East (like Vietnam)? It seems inevitable that ordinary Americans will put an end to war, especially if we suffer a big setback like Tet again.

W.

[Brant Gaede]

Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

I must be stupid. Okay, Iran will someday be a minor nuclear power, like Pakistan. So what exactly is the problem for the United States? (not Israel or Saudi). Why would Iran attack Minneapolis or Tulsa or Philadelphia -- especially if we withdraw from the Middle East (like Vietnam)? It seems inevitable that ordinary Americans will put an end to war, especially if we suffer a big setback like Tet again.

W.

Stop. If the US withdraws from the Middle East that means ending all aid to Israel (and Egypt). That means Israel gets to deal with Iran as best it can, but without US censure. This might indeed be best. But as I said I think Israel will nuke Iran. Before Iran nukes them is best, after, worse.

After Israel is destroyed, Americans will become the Jews of the world, to be attacked, discriminated against, warred upon, exterminated.

As for Tet, let's not digress.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Seriously? NEVER withdraw from the Middle East?

[Brant Gaede]

I think it's important to note that I am trying to deal with the situation the US is in now, not the one it should be in but is thanks to its misguided past policies. I do believe in principle for significantly less US involvement over time in the Middle East.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Thanks. I want to think about this further.

W.

[Aggrad02]

"They." They stone homosexuals to death--or hang them. There's "blow back" and there's "blow back."

You can argue moral equivalence with Bob, not me. The blood sucking Imams who control Iran can roast on spits for all I care.

Israel can take care of itself by nuking Iran--first. Only the US has the means if not the will to do things differently.

After they seized the Embassy the US should have kicked their ass and set things right.

Force rules the world. Our force or their force, take your pick.

--Brant

1) It is none of the US's business what they do to homosexuals. It is not our duty to impose morals on the rest of the world. Especially with tax payer money, American lives, and at the point of a gun.

2) It is not the US's responsibility to figure out the Israeli-Palestinian/Jewish-Muslim conflict. They have to figure that conflict out for themselves, whether it is through diplomacy or through war. But the US should not be involved. The only reason why we support Israel in the first place is because we need a policeman near the oil fields. And we should never do this with tax payer money, American lives, and at the point of a gun.

3) No one can rule the world, and it is not America's position to try. Especially at the point of a gun, with taxpayer money and American lives.

I could also really care less what happens to Iran, I could also care less what happens to Israel, and I could care less what happens to the people in Iraq when we leave. On a personal level I will feel sad if there is bloodshed and hope it doesn't come to that, but it is not for the US to police the world. The US is not the ruler of the world, not the mother of the world, not the daddy of the world, nor is it the God of the world. It is not our place to tell people how to conduct their business, it is not our position to clean up after them, it is not our place to make them deal in commerce with us under certain conditions and it is not our place to force our ideals and morals/religion on them. Especially at the point of a gun. It never works and never will. The only way that you can change the direction of a country is by example and by spreading ideas.

The idea of our force vs their force is extremely absurd. They have never used force against us except only in retaliation against us and inside their own country. Compared to the United States they have no force. Besides, the US should never use force abroad except in defense when we have been attacked first (examples WW1, WW2, Afghanistan).

P.S. Also it you wouldn't have signed your name to the bottom of your post, I would have sworn that Bob wrote it.

--Dustan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Who would you have Israel nuke first in Iran? The students below protesting Ahmadinejad?

(See here for story.)

Or the Iranians writing and risking their lives here?: Recent Pro-Democracy Movement Communiqués

Or here?: Iranians for Human Rights and Democracy

Or any of the growing number of places scattered all over Iran and over the Internet?

Or how about the people mentioned in this article from the Heritage Foundation: Advancing Freedom in Iran? From that article:

The great majority of the Iranian people are deeply dissatisfied with the Iranian regime. If they could change the nature of their government, they would.

Which of these people should die first, Brant?

Or should we simply put them under "collateral damage"?

Michael

[Aggrad02]

I think it's important to note that I am trying to deal with the situation the US is in now, not the one it should be in but is thanks to its misguided past policies. I do believe in principle for significantly less US involvement over time in the Middle East.

--Brant

What you just said is very important. But you have to consider how the situation got to where it is to find a way to get out of it.

If Iran is a threat to our security and is attacking/plan on attacking us in a major way, by all means we must do something about it. But to me it seems like our policy and Bush's threats have backed them into corner. They are between a rock (US in Iraq) and a hard place (US in Afghanistan). If we eased tensions by leaving the middle east, then the pressure on them would be alleviated and we could deal with them diplomatically.

I still don't see the threat. If we leave that area and use that money to beef up security at home, the threat to the US will be gone.

--Dustan

[Aggrad02]

Stop. If the US withdraws from the Middle East that means ending all aid to Israel (and Egypt). That means Israel gets to deal with Iran as best it can, but without US censure. This might indeed be best. But as I said I think Israel will nuke Iran. Before Iran nukes them is best, after, worse.

After Israel is destroyed, Americans will become the Jews of the world, to be attacked, discriminated against, warred upon, exterminated.

--Brant

I seriously don't think either country will nuke the other. Too much to lose. I strongly believe that if the US leaves, Israel and the surrounding Islamic countries will quickly have peace.

[Aggrad02]

The Fear Factor

by Ron Paul

While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.

Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.

The statement “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is clear, people seek out safety and security when they are in a state of fear, and it is the result of this psychological state that often leads to the surrender of liberty.

Here is a prime example of what Ron Paul was talking about:

Senate Pass Bush Spying Bill

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic-led U.S. Senate, amid warnings of further attacks on the United States, approved a bill on Friday that would allow President George W. Bush to maintain his controversial domestic spying program.

ADVERTISEMENT

On a vote of 60-28, the Senate sent the measure to the Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives for consideration as early as Saturday as lawmakers push to begin a month-long recess.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said earlier he needed the legislation "in order to protect the nation from attacks that are being planned today to inflict mass casualties on the United States."

The Senate bill was needed, congressional aides said, because of restrictions recently imposed by a secret court on the ability of U.S. spy agencies to intercept telephone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists overseas.

Offered by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, no relation to the national intelligence director, the bill would allow the administration to continue the warrantless surveillance but require it to describe to a secret federal court the procedures it uses in targeting foreign suspects.

The Senate defeated, on a 45-43 vote, a Democratic alternative, which would have placed tighter controls on the spying and provided for independent assessments of the attorney general's implementation of the measure.

The Senate votes came shortly after Republicans in the House rejected as inadequate a competing Democratic measure.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid criticized the Senate-passed bill, saying it "authorizes warrantless searches and surveillance of American phone calls, e-mails, homes, offices and personal records for however long (it takes for) an appeal to a court of review."

If signed into law, the Senate bill would expire in six months. During that period, Congress would seek to write permanent legislation.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978, requires the government to obtain orders from the secret FISA court to conduct surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States.

After the September 11 attacks, Bush authorized the interception without warrants of communications between people in the United States and others overseas if one had suspected ties to terrorists. Critics charge that program violated the FISA law, but Bush argued he had wartime powers to do so.

In January, Bush put the program under the supervision of the FISA court. Terms of the oversight have not been made public.

House Democrats argued their bill gave the national intelligence director what he wanted and that he demanded more after conversations with the White House.

The House bill would have required the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, to submit procedures for international surveillance to the secret FISA court for approval and require periodic audits by the Justice Department's inspector general.

Gonzales had proven to be a problem in reaching an agreement since mostly Democratic lawmakers have accused him of misleading Congress on the spying program.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Who would you have Israel nuke first in Iran? The students below protesting Ahmadinejad?

(See here for story.)

Or the Iranians writing and risking their lives here?: Recent Pro-Democracy Movement Communiqués

Or here?: Iranians for Human Rights and Democracy

Or any of the growing number of places scattered all over Iran and over the Internet?

Or how about the people mentioned in this article from the Heritage Foundation: Advancing Freedom in Iran? From that article:

The great majority of the Iranian people are deeply dissatisfied with the Iranian regime. If they could change the nature of their government, they would.

Which of these people should die first, Brant?

Or should we simply put them under "collateral damage"?

Michael

I'd not have anything to do with it. Presumably Israel would target nuclear facilities. Right now the US is making 30,000 lb conventional bunker-buster bombs that can be carried two at a time by a B-2 bomber anywhere in the world. I merely pointed out a possible consequence of the US just up and getting out of the Middle East. I deeply resent your casual and inaccurate reading of what I have been posting. DEEPLY RESENT, Michael! Best for Israel to nuke Iran before Iran nukes Israel doesn't mean that there isn't a non-nuking overall best. I've been arguing that the US shouldn't just pull out for that very reason!

--Brant

Edited August 4, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Sorry. I got set off by your endorsement of Bob's nuke 'em all approach, but I just tried to find it and I couldn't. It obviously got edited.

Still, you can't have it both ways. You said that good and evil are nothing but opinions and that the world is governed by force.

So what's to resent? In your stated view, the "collateral damage" I mentioned is only a matter of opinion. No big deal. Some people like chocolate and some like vanilla. Some think killing your friends is evil and others think wiping them off the face of the earth is good. Opinion, right?

I do want to clarify something. You rejected a military-intellectual dichotomy, imputing to this a meaning I did not provide or insinuate. Obviously, the military needs morality and intellectuals should own guns for self-defense. These are not mutually exclusive fields. Taking my words to mean that I was proposing a mindless military is so far out, I am at a loss for words.

To be master of the obvious, the basic job of the military is not to engage in ideological debates, write books, create art works, stage philosophical lectures and persuade by reason. It's job is it use force. And the basic job of intellectuals is not to organize into armed units, carry out surveillance and dispatch ordnance against an armed foe. It's job is to persuade by non-violent means. Some overlapping is inevitable.

In your rejection of such a "dichotomy," do you deny that these are the basic functions? Since when does job descriptions become a dichotomy (meaning one or the other and you can't have both), anyway?

If you are merely saying that the commanders of the military need ideological preparation and definition, I agree. When have I ever said otherwise?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Sorry. I got set off by your endorsement of Bob's nuke 'em all approach, but I just tried to find it and I couldn't. It obviously got edited.

Still, you can't have it both ways. You said that good and evil are nothing but opinions and that the world is governed by force.

So what's to resent? In your stated view, the "collateral damage" I mentioned is only a matter of opinion. No big deal. Some people like chocolate and some like vanilla. Some think killing your friends is evil and others think wiping them off the face of the earth is good. Opinion, right?

I do want to clarify something. You rejected a military-intellectual dichotomy, imputing to this a meaning I did not provide or insinuate. Obviously, the military needs morality and intellectuals should own guns for self-defense. These are not mutually exclusive fields. Taking my words to mean that I was proposing a mindless military is so far out, I am at a loss for words.

To be master of the obvious, the basic job of the military is not to engage in ideological debates, write books, create art works, stage philosophical lectures and persuade by reason. It's job is it use force. And the basic job of intellectuals is not to organize into armed units, carry out surveillance and dispatch ordnance against an armed foe. It's job is to persuade by non-violent means. Some overlapping is inevitable.

In your rejection of such a "dichotomy," do you deny that these are the basic functions? Since when does job descriptions become a dichotomy (meaning one or the other and you can't have both), anyway?

If you are merely saying that the commanders of the military need ideological preparation and definition, I agree. When have I ever said otherwise?

Michael

I never endorsed Bob's (stupid, revolting) "nuke 'em all approach" and didn't edit out any such endorsement.

I never said it was my position that "good and evil are nothing but opinions." That's Bob's position which I was criticizing.

Force (and power) does rule the world. Law is used to control and direct that force in a free society among both private and public parties, but force backstops law. Philosophy helps create, establish and maintain that law.

My viewpoint on "collateral damage" is exactly the same as Barbara Branden's.

I am not going to discuss your other points right now, which you should have raised earlier but for some damn reason didn't except to say it seems diversionary.

You made a mistake. You grossly attacked me. Instead of an apology you reloaded and fired again. Then you lecture me about something else.

--Brant

[edit:] The closest I came to what you said I said was when I said that it might be best if Israel went its own way and then stated that the consequence might be Israel nuking Iran which would be better than Iran nuking Israel first. (However, that would not be best if Israel went it's own way [did you notice my use of "but"?]. Best in that context would be Israel finding a way that didn't involve nukes. Also, Israel nuking Iran would refer to Israel hitting specific, nuclear related targets, not cities. Consider what would happen if Israel were nuked first, though, Israel's remaining Bobs might do what Bob probably thinks it should do right now: nuke 'em all.)

My posts should be read accurately or you'll miss the difference between "a" and "a-bomb." I try to make them concise, precise and nuanced. You read them too damn fast!

[edit 2:] I have found another thing I said that needs some clarification: "Israel can take care of itself by nuking Iran first. Only the US has the means if not the will to do things differently." I doubt that nuking would be Israel's only and necessary option, absent the presence of the US in the Middle East, only that Israel would have far fewer options in dealing with Iran than the US does now. Again, Israel nuking Iran would/could be quite a different thing than Iran nuking Israel.

Edited August 4, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

I never endorsed Bob's (stupid, revolting) "nuke 'em all approach" and didn't edit out any such endorsement.

I never said it was my position that "good and evil are nothing but opinions." That's Bob's position which I was criticizing.

I said -morality- was opinion. It is based on social codes and conventions.

Things that threaten you and your family and things that benefit you and your family are largely -fact-.

That is why self-defense is an absolute choice that must not be impeded in any way.

By the way "my" stupid nuke'em all approach is derived from the policy of Curtis LeMay and Bomber Harris who saved our asses. Because of this stupid nuke'em all approach we did not have to invade Japan guns a-ablazing. We -walked- ashore. When something works don't denigrate it just because it runs afoul of your "principles". In a fire fight, principles won't save you. Intelligently applied force and a good aim will. Your principles and $1.69 will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts ™.

I have a straightforward methodology for survival (both personal and social).

1. Cherish and protect your friends.

2. Kill your enemies.

3. Be polite to the others, if circumstances permit.

4. God Damn the collateral damage.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I never endorsed Bob's (stupid, revolting) "nuke 'em all approach" and didn't edit out any such endorsement.

I never said it was my position that "good and evil are nothing but opinions." That's Bob's position which I was criticizing.

I said -morality- was opinion. It is based on social codes and conventions.

Things that threaten you and your family and things that benefit you and your family are largely -fact-.

That is why self-defense is an absolute choice that must not be impeded in any way.

By the way "my" stupid nuke'em all approach is derived from the policy of Curtis LeMay and Bomber Harris who saved our asses. Because of this stupid nuke'em all approach we did not have to invade Japan guns a-ablazing. We -walked- ashore. When something works don't denigrate it just because it runs afoul of your "principles". In a fire fight, principles won't save you. Intelligently applied force and a good aim will. Your principles and $1.69 will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts ™.

I have a straightforward methodology for survival (both personal and social).

1. Cherish and protect your friends.

2. Kill your enemies.

3. Be polite to the others, if circumstances permit.

4. God Damn the collateral damage.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The US did not bomb to death hundreds of millions of Japanese and Germans.

AT the height of the Cold War both the US and the USSR were poised to kill most of each others' populations. That got toned down with the advent of smaller, more accurate nukes. Then further toned down by the end of the USSR.

In regard to 2. I would say defeat your enemies. In regard to 4. I would say avoid unnecessary collateral damage. You have spoken of killing billions of human beings, which to me is ipso facto stupid on the face of it. All you have to do is move to Australia or southwest Oregon instead if it comes to that.

--Brant