The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

[Radar]

I think your question is fair Dana, but you should keep in mind it is impossible to prove that you helped avert something that never happened. One can not prove a negative.

It's like the morons who claim we've had major terrorist attack on U.S. soil due to the insane policies of George W. Bush. One can not prove such a statement and even making such a claim is logically retarded.

It is like me saying that the paint on my house repels Bigfoot and saying, "Well you don't see Bigfoot at my house do you?" as a means of proof.

UG obviously can't prove that he has helped avert genocide. He can only state that he has opposed gun control laws which have been used in the past to disarm people so they could carry out genocide. On the other hand, one could easily contend that UG and Merc have both supported a very real torture and genocide in Iraq at the hands of Americans. I'd say a million dead Iraqi people who never posed any harm to America and who died defending their own country from a hostile rogue nation who invaded (The USA), or who were imprisoned and tortured without charges or valid cause, or whose families were broken up when soldiers kicked down their door, and took their only means of defending themselves, and allowed a stream of murderers to come in to Iraq.

Each and every single death on both sides of the Iraq conflict are the fault of the Bush administration and none of them were the result of defending America.


So to summarize, UG can't prove that he helped avert a genocide, but you and I can easily prove that he supported carrying out genocide in Iraq. He'll most likely use the language that all tyrants have used when carrying out such atrocities like "liberating the people" or "killing a horrible dictator". But those are just empty words.

The invasion of Iraq was not done to "liberate" the Iraqi people or to kill a dictator who murdered his own people and rule the others with an iron fist. Even if it was to do these things, it still would not further libertarianism or freedom. Invading Iraq is nothing other than murdering those who were already victims of Saddam.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Radar

I'd say a million dead Iraqi people

Speaking of knowledge pulled out of one's backside. More reliable sources say 93,067

So to summarize, UG can't prove that he helped avert a genocide, but you and I can easily prove that he supported carrying out genocide in Iraq.

If it was a genocide, it happened with an armed populace. The place is lousy with AK-47s.

[Radar]

More reliable sources according to whom? To you?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...25-401,00.html

THIS is the lancet study.

The Lancet study is the only existing study that uses the method accepted all over the world for estimating deaths due to large-scale violent conflict: a cluster survey.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_de...aspx?NewsId=78


The numbers used to determine that more than a million Iraqi deaths can be attributed to the unconstitutional 2003 invasion takes the lancet study and extrapolates from there. There is no doubt that when you include the unconstitutional 1991 invasion of Iraq, the 12 subsequent years of bombing Iraq daily and keeping them from life saving medicines, the unconstitutional invasion of Iraq in 2003, and those murdered by the flood of terrorists America brought into Iraq, those who were imprisoned and tortured (sometimes to death), etc. that well over a million Iraqi people are dead due to America's actions. More than double that amount of become refugees from their own country.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If it was a genocide, it happened with an armed populace. The place is lousy with AK-47s.

You mean the AKs that were quickly taken when Americans kicked down Iraqi doors and ransacked their houses to take their only means of defending themselves from a hostile rogue nation invading their country (USA)? Those AKs?

[Radar]

For the record, the site you linked to only counts CIVILIAN deaths and then only the reported ones.

[Radar]

I'm marking today in my calendar. It took me nearly 40 years to be called "girlfriend".

I apologize if I seemed rude or like I was attacking. I'm always ready to jump on those who would use force against others for political gain or social engineering.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Radar

I apologize if I seemed rude or like I was attacking. I'm always ready to jump on those who would use force against others for political gain or social engineering.

Such apologies have a thin tone from someone unwilling to destroy antidemocracies, liberate the oppressed, or improve the worldwide liberty count -- which, radar, is an altogether immoral and unconscionable position that amputates you as a libertarian. You're just not a maker of freedom, and you're not temperamentally disposed to become one. You desire, at bottom, too much to be an absolutist ruler. This may be why you left the Libertarian Party last year. Thus, I am called, indeed inspired, to jump all over you.

If you want libertarianism to happen worldwide -- or indeed on any acreage you don't personally happen to own -- you've got to find political advantage. That this should sometimes take the form of countervailing aggression against fascists should not trouble you for a moment. Yet, it does. While this logically follows from your starting premises, your starting premises don't allow any libertarianism to ever happen, particularly not in the places that would benefit the most from it.

This is, in two words, grotesquely stupid. Your mentality is thereby made altogether inferior, and it makes your morals suck worse than an eighty-stellar-mass black hole. So, I jump on you, hard. Often. Permanently.

Why do you live in such a lousy way? Be more like me.

[Undertoad]

For the record, the Lancet study relied on reported deaths for its survey too, verifying deaths by death certificate.

What it didn't do, which would have been far easier, is just ask the people issuing death certificates.

If they did, they would have learned numbers similar to iraqbodycount.

Muslims are pretty anal about dead bodies and must handle them in proper ways. Remember that it took mass graves for Saddam to bury 100,000 victims. Where are the mass graves from 5-10 times that number? Where are the bodies?

You mean the AKs that were quickly taken when Americans kicked down Iraqi doors and ransacked their houses to take their only means of defending themselves from a hostile rogue nation invading their country (USA)? Those AKs?

Do you believe that 130,000 troops could disarm an entire nation, along with everything else happening?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Do you believe that 130,000 troops could disarm an entire nation, along with everything else happening?

Insert easy shot at the evil bastard Cheney here.

[Radar]

What do you mean mass graves, or bodies. They were all over the battle field. They were in the homes that were bombed. They were not all accounted for, and were not limited to those who have gotten death certificates. Some of the bodies were incinerated or destroyed entirely, or were blown into so many parts an identification would be impossible.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Radar

What do you mean mass graves, or bodies. They were all over the battle field. They were in the homes that were bombed. They were not all accounted for, and were not limited to those who have gotten death certificates. Some of the bodies were incinerated or destroyed entirely, or were blown into so many parts an identification would be impossible.

The battlefield? Less than a hundred thousand allied forces were killed at the Battle of the Bulge. (Most of them were buried.) To equal the number of deaths you're talking about would require 11 Battles of the Bulge.

Your last study says 48% killed by being shot, or about 500,000; 9% bombed with munitions; 20% car-bombed, about 200,000; yet there's no reporting from embeds, private citizens, Iraqi bloggers or anything from the military that indicates anything remotely resembling the sort of activity that could produce that level of carnage.

Both Lancet surveys were published during the national elections. The first one was released days before the 2004 election. Both were broadly and reasonably criticized. This last one is a fucking fantasy.

[TheMercenary]

The Lancet Study's have been debunked as bull shit.

[Radar]

Democracy does not equal Freedom. Also, invading nations led by oppressors kills those who were already victims. I am more libertarian than 10 million UGs combined ever will be. You lie about being a libertarian and try to misuse libertarianism a thinly veiled excuse to murder people.

Libertarians do not initiate force against anyone....PERIOD. They don't use force against anyone who isn't using force against them....PERIOD.

If you want libertarianism to happen worldwide, the only way to make it happen is to stop making enemies around the world, stop starting unprovoked wars against those who pose no threat to us, and to once again become a beacon of hope, liberty, and freedom to all. The only way to spread libertarianism around the world is for America to start living in a libertarian way so others can see that it is successful...and contrary to the twisted and warped fantasies of the clinically insane like Merc or pathological liars like UG.

The only way for libertarianism to spread around the world is for America to once again realize that we are the well-wishers of freedom and liberty to all and the champions and vindicators only of our own.

Sticking our nose into every dispute of every other nation, taking sides in those disputes, arming both sides, and making enemies around the world while violating civil rights in our own country (the foreign and domestic policy of the Bush administration) won't work.

The truly stupid are those who think liberty can be won by using these techniques. Starting wars doesn't bring peace. Initiating aggression will never bring about libertarianism. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and a worthless piece of shit.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and a worthless piece of shit.

[DanaC]

Why do you live in such a lousy way? Be more like me.

Hahahahahah.....*pauses to reread that sentence* ....hahahahahah.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Hahahahahah.....*pauses to reread that sentence* ....hahahahahah.

I got a nice laugh out of that too.

The trouble with morons like Merc & UG (other than being pathological liars and virtually retarded) is that they are too dim witted to realize how wrong they are.

If I say, "I'm a vegetarian". It means I don't eat meat. It doesn't mean I eat some meat and not others. It means I don't eat meat. If I say, "I'm a vegetarian that eats meat", I'm lying. It's not a matter of opinion. If I tell them that they are lying when they make such a claim, and say that by definition, everyone who says they are a vegetarian is saying they don't eat meat, I'm stating a fact. It's not me pushing people around. If I say that everyone claiming to be a vegetarian but who eats meat is a liar, I'm also stating a fact.


The libertarian philosophy prohibits any initiation of force, especially for political gain or social engineering...like say spreading democracy, or toppling the leadership of nations we don't like.

Any pre-emptive wars, especially those which are not in our own defense, are absolutely 100% in direct violation of libertarian principles and also in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Libertarians want governmental powers to be very limited in scope and demand that our government adhere to the limitations on its powers within the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution says that all of the legitimate actions of the federal government must be one of the enumerated powers and nothing that isn't listed is legal for the government to take part in. It also defines and limits the scope and role of the U.S. Military as being for the "common DEFENSE" of AMERICA. It's not to be used for any other reason than defending our own country. It's not to be used for humanitarian aid missions or to spread democracy or to prop up the leadership of other nations or to topple dictators or overthrow totalitarian regimes or to spread libertarianism by killing all of the petty warlords around the world. The role and scope of the U.S. military doesn't include policing the world or enforcing UN sanctions or preventing nuclear proliferation.

Any use of the U.S. military to do these things not only violates the U.S. Constitution and common sense, it also is a direct violation of libertarian principles. Anyone who suggests that libertarianism can be spread through unprovoked wars like the war in Iraq is like someone saying that abstinence can best be spread through rape.

If you support the war in Iraq (or any war like it), you aren't a libertarian any more than someone who eats beef is a vegetarian. Again, this isn't an opinion, it's a cold, hard, and indisputable fact. Nothing anyone says to the contrary will change this fact. Nothing anyone says about me or anyone else making this statement will change this fact. If someone contradicts this statement they are lying. They are liars, and if they have already been given the truth and persist on telling this lie, they are assholes too. The asshole part is my personal opinion. The lying part is not opinion. It's a fact.