I would oppose the US intervening in foreign affairs. If the US had a clean track record, didn't lie to take us into war, didn't lie about occupation and wasn't hated vehemently in those pockets of the world, then this would be a different conversation. But we don't live in that world.

So, yes, I oppose military force to do anything outside of national defense as long as the US government stands and is stealing my money to pay for defense spending.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Maybe on FB? I don't remember. So, you would oppose using military force to stop genocide?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I wish my viewpoint was uncomplicated so I could take a fair weather non-stance. But you know us liberal peaceniks; we don't see aggression and death with rose colored glasses.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I see merit on both sides.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He disagrees with this Libyan interventionism. You agree with it. How do you reconcile your two systems of belief?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Chomsky's concerns are all valid. I agree with him too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe Chomsky is right about this one. What are the odds that there'd be a topic and I'd side with Chomsky and you wouldn't?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

Maybe on FB? I don't remember. So, you would oppose using military force to stop genocide?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I wish my viewpoint was uncomplicated so I could take a fair weather non-stance. But you know us liberal peaceniks; we don't see aggression and death with rose colored glasses.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I see merit on both sides.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He disagrees with this Libyan interventionism. You agree with it. How do you reconcile your two systems of belief?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Chomsky's concerns are all valid. I agree with him too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe Chomsky is right about this one. What are the odds that there'd be a topic and I'd side with Chomsky and you wouldn't?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

I remember you saying that you do support intervention in some circumstances. Have you changed your thinking on this?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I wish my viewpoint was uncomplicated so I could take a fair weather non-stance. But you know us liberal peaceniks; we don't see aggression and death with rose colored glasses.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I see merit on both sides.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He disagrees with this Libyan interventionism. You agree with it. How do you reconcile your two systems of belief?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Chomsky's concerns are all valid. I agree with him too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe Chomsky is right about this one. What are the odds that there'd be a topic and I'd side with Chomsky and you wouldn't?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

I see merit on both sides.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He disagrees with this Libyan interventionism. You agree with it. How do you reconcile your two systems of belief?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Chomsky's concerns are all valid. I agree with him too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe Chomsky is right about this one. What are the odds that there'd be a topic and I'd side with Chomsky and you wouldn't?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

Chomsky's concerns are all valid. I agree with him too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe Chomsky is right about this one. What are the odds that there'd be a topic and I'd side with Chomsky and you wouldn't?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
And now imagine if he had no clip at all. That would be 100% fewer bullets. We'll just arm up our military and militarized police and get that under control. Heil Hitler! Godwined, bitches.

I'm still waiting for you to answer me on private ownership of nuclear weapons. Do you want that, or do you think there are reasonable limits on the level of weaponry that should be in the hands of an individual?


Your fighting a loosing battle there. It will only be a matter of time before doomsday level technology is smaller than a briefcase, and simple enough to make over the weekend, and sophisticated enough to erradicate entire populations. The problem about who gets what will be moot, as it already is...people have guns even where they are illegal. The real question is how do you keep humanity around and alive when a broken hearted teen can end all life in the solar system with a press of a button. That doesn't have an easy answer, and both lines of reason here fail to even cope with that, what I see as, inevitable eventuality. Weapons are only the symptom of a deep seeded violence in man, there is the problem, and only in addressing that problem will you find any true answers. Everything else is addressing leaves that blow in the wind.

>> ^blankfist:

And now imagine if he had no clip at all. That would be 100% fewer bullets. We'll just arm up our military and militarized police and get that under control. Heil Hitler! Godwined, bitches.


I'm still waiting for you to answer me on private ownership of nuclear weapons. Do you want that, or do you think there are reasonable limits on the level of weaponry that should be in the hands of an individual?

>> ^NetRunner:
I guess I have the reverse view after this Tuscon incident. Loughtner was stopped when he went to reload. He had a 31 round extended clip, and if he'd only had the 9 or 10 in a normal clip, he would have been able to get off only a third of the shots before he was made vulnerable by the need to reload.


And now imagine if he had no clip at all. That would be 100% fewer bullets. We'll just arm up our military and militarized police and get that under control. Heil Hitler! Godwined, bitches.

@RedSky, I haven't answered your question because I'm not sure I know the answer. I'm not sure it's fair to assume its the result of firearms just because a gun was involved. There's motivation to consider. Some feel one-sided and one-size-fits-all government legislation and protectionism keep them poor, limit opportunity and ultimately disenfranchise them.

It's a loaded question, because it requires a lot of discussion that won't easily fit into a yes or no answer. I'll just say statism creates victims. It's a system that must steal to legitimize itself, and by majority vote polices morality (sin tax, prohibition on prostitution, drug laws, etc). We've seen the militarization of the police thanks to heavy funding from the Pentagon.

Maybe the police state is paranoid of its armed citizenry and uses excessive force more than necessary? Maybe incidents are quickly escalated by the police and there's a growing distrust from the less fortunate neighborhoods?

Militarization of the border coincided with the signing of NAFTA...it was predicted this would happen and plans were made to make sure the border was somewhat protected. You want Free Movement of persons...you can do it in the US by making sure we get rid of NAFTA which has devastated Mexico.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Addicted to War: Why the U.S. Can't Kick Militarism. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

And I find it interesting that DFT chose to list the very base things that government in the US was supposedly created to defend as his reasons for justifying our current big government. Murder, slavery, robbery, rape, child molestation, etc. all fall within our basic rights of life and liberty.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" (U.S. Declaration of Independence)

But if this was only what government was currently protecting (only our lives and our liberties), then you'd not hear a word from me. Not a peep. But what part of "preventing" rape, murder, slavery, theft, etc. comes from me paying for unjust wars, paying for bombing women and children, paying to militarize the domestic police, seatbelt laws, interstate border patrol, DUI laws, etc.?

And if I do NOT consent, then it's "get the hell out" from the apologists.