[slimsex]

I think we should pull out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and stop interfering in every stupid event that happens around the world. .

Do you not get it?

The US does not interfere in "every stupid event that happens around the world"...

The US is quickly slipping off it's current leading position in the world on all accounts: moral, political, social, economic and financial. But your elites are not about to accept it. It means they are going to do EVERYTHING in their power to preserve their current position. What options are open to them?
1. A nuclear war. (I don't think they will go for it with ease)
2. A provokation of chaos throughout the world coupled with gaining control over major energy resources which will make the US the only place of stability atractive for investments.

This means the US elites will up the shit stirring efforts around the world using the only thing that is trully well developed and working in the US -- military.

It means that when you hear your elites discussing "Steeper Pullout" out of one place know that's because you will be needed elsewhere.

[texbrease]

Why not? And if the UN is up to the task, it could also ensure a republican form of government in the US, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and so on.

We already have a republican form of government, by design.

What objection would there be to a federal UN with this in an Article of a federal constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. In my opinion, it could be a boon for States' rights since the general government of the Union has been successfully nullifying UN authority in the name of States rights for a while and it could take a while to reverse that course under any form of common law system.

[JessicaLin]

We already have a republican form of government, by design.
What objection would there be to a federal UN with this in an Article of a federal constitution:
In my opinion, it could be a boon for States' rights since the general government of the Union has been successfully nullifying UN authority in the name of States rights for a while and it could take a while to reverse that course under any form of common law system.

Personally, as an individualist, I think that state's rights, the alleged rights of nation-states, and collectivism in general, is all a bunch of crap.

[DzjwMKo5]

Yet, how many modern AnCaps are above third world in standard of living and economic development? Consider that modern States may have evolved from the perfect Anarchy of Eden due to the evolving nature of the subjective value of morals.

[abubycera]

Yet, how many modern AnCaps are above third world in standard of living and economic development? Consider that modern States may have evolved from the perfect Anarchy of Eden due to the evolving nature of the subjective value of morals.

I don't really care whether free enterprise, fascism, communism, or military-industrial colectivism produces the most widgets per capita. I just don't like being lied to, or having to kiss Big Brother's ass. A person can be relatively poor and still relatively happy.

[Serttyfd]

Would we have any wars on abstractions if our tax burden had to reflect "wartime" rates?

[avaissema]

Would we have any wars on abstractions if our tax burden had to reflect "wartime" rates?

Your guess is as good as mine, especially since I don't understand the question.

[dfuzioniag]

Obama finally sees an opportunity to suck up to his anti-war base.

The Taliban will return, we'll be right back where we started, and our blood and treasure will have been wasted.

And if I recall, this was precisely what he said he wouldn't do when he announced the kill.

GTFO

Tell the Pakistanis that if the Taliban resestablishes itself and allows terrorists to attack the US we'll put drones out looking for the guys in charge of preventing this.

Make it their problem.

[megasprut]

GTFO

Tell the Pakistanis that if the Taliban resestablishes itself and allows terrorists to attack the US we'll put drones out looking for the guys in charge of preventing this.

Make it their problem.

TERRORISTS ATTACKED THE US??????!!!!!!!

Are you sure it is not the US that attacks every other country and threattens the rest?

[haudraufwienix]

GTFO

Tell the Pakistanis that if the Taliban resestablishes itself and allows terrorists to attack the US we'll put drones out looking for the guys in charge of preventing this.

Make it their problem.

If you can scrape up a little cash to invest in General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc, manucfaturers of Predator drones, you, too, can become a Daddy Warbucks.
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/ad...d=23&fromval=1

[Elelaytet]

TERRORISTS ATTACKED THE US??????!!!!!!!

Are you sure it is not the US that attacks every other country and threatens the rest?

The US drones are going after members of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, anyone not allied with a US puppet dictator who purchases weapons from US weapons manufacturers is obviously a terrorist of some kind.

[Jeaxatoem]

Your guess is as good as mine, especially since I don't understand the question.

Historically and during times of War; tax rates go up to accomplish that end because it is considered to be important to the national interest.

It could be claimed, that our wars on abstractions are not very important to the national interest if tax rates can go down and render scarce, funding that should be necessary to accomplish those ends.

[Soresbox]

The US drones are going after members of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, anyone not allied with a US puppet dictator who purchases weapons from US weapons manufacturers is obviously a terrorist of some kind.

Then, Al-Q should be struck off the list of "terrorists"; after all, they do get weapons from "international community" in Libya.

Again, Taliban is now in talks with the US, so they can't be "terrorists" either...

[ErubTiereedig]

Then, Al-Q should be struck off the list of "terrorists"; after all, they do get weapons from "international community" in Libya.
Again, Taliban is now in talks with the US, so they can't be "terrorists"
either...

As you must know, the US called the groups of people fighting the Russian occupation of Afghanistan Mujahadin "freedom fighter's". These same people fighting US occupation under different names are now called "terrorists". Shakespeare said "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"...yada, yada, yada.

[Tainlyferfara]

As you must know, the US called the groups of people fighting the Russian occupation of Afghanistan Mujahadin "freedom fighter's". These same people fighting US occupation under different names are now called "terrorists". Shakespeare said "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"...yada, yada, yada.

I'd be leery to use the term freedom fighter because the Taliban have nothing to do with freedom. If a young woman can get her face burned by acid for only trying to get an education then freedom is obviously a word you cannot use. They are more just mad that they aren't the ones in full power to abuse other people.

Additionally, Afghanistan is tribal and consists of two different people groups (Pashtuns and Persians). Tribes are like mini-states or governments. A whole village can be just one big extended family. Now one tribe will fight against another tribe or one people group against the other. Are they then not just as guilty?

[JulieSmithdccd]

I'd be leery to use the term freedom fighter because the Taliban have nothing to do with freedom. If a young woman can get her face burned by acid for only trying to get an education then freedom is obviously a word you cannot use.

Tribes are like mini-states or governments. A whole village can be just one big extended family. Now one tribe will fight against another tribe or one people group against the other. Are they then not just as guilty?

Yet, the US and assorted "international community" not only helped mujaheds to come to power and turn educated, forward looking Afghan society few centuries back; it jumped into bed with Taliban over the pipe line... And now the US/internationalcommunity is happy to once again support Taliban...

And that is THEIR business.

[BigBobdd]

As you must know, the US called the groups of people fighting the Russian occupation of Afghanistan Mujahadin "freedom fighter's". These same people fighting US occupation under different names are now called "terrorists". Shakespeare said "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"...yada, yada, yada.

They arent the same people at all. The Taliban came to Afghanistan in the 90s. The mujahadin fought Russians in the 80s. In both cases we have been on the side of Afghanis fighting off first the russians, second the taliban in the 90s, and now the taliban in the 00s (plus alqeada).

[excholza]

They arent the same people at all. The Taliban came to Afghanistan in the 90s. The mujahadin fought Russians in the 80s. In both cases we have been on the side of Afghanis fighting off first the russians, second the taliban in the 90s, and now the taliban in the 00s (plus alqeada).

The mujahadin fought Russians in the 80s, and then they evaporated! And "Taliban" consists of some green men from out of space!

[intifatry]

The mujahadin fought Russians in the 80s, and then they evaporated! And "Taliban" consists of some green men from out of space!

Read the history. The Taliban came from Pakistan in the 90s, caught up some southern warlords, killed most of the "freedom fighters" who were in charge of the country at the time, and took over the country. The US tried to help the northern alliance fight them, but Clinton pulled the CIA out. The Taliban then had total control. In came AlQeada, who set up camp with the Talibans permission, attacked the US, who then came in to finish off the Taliban and AQ.

We never supported the people we are fighting, no more than did we ever create Bin Laden and AQ in Iraq, as the myth goes. People simply havent researched the facts.

[Dumpishchaism]

Read the history.

I did.

"Taliban" was created by Pakistan secret services, Saudi money and CIA with the assistance of OBL on the basis of the very same "mujaheds" you think have nothing to do with anything.