The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DanaC]

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

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

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

[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.

[headsplice]

And this has been another episode of "Libertarian Dick Waving." Have a nice night, and keep packin' that heat!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

The trouble with morons like Merc

The trouble with you is that you support an invasion of the US and think you are always right while you want us to support your spawn. Leave me out of your little rants.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by headsplice

And this has been another episode of "Libertarian Dick Waving." Have a nice night, and keep packin' that heat!

I wasn't dick waving. I was setting the record straight. If I were dick waving, you'd be a lot more impressed. And don't worry about packing heat. I never leave home without it.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Actually, what you're doing is staying crooked and rigidly xenophobic also, owing to your exceeding narrowness of view.

I don't see where it's libertarian to concern oneself at all with the continued life of the determinedly antilibertarian, id est the communists, the fascists, and other totalitarians usually describable only in terms of personality cults. My point has always been that they can't get in libertarianism's way if they are dead.

And none of us but radar over there really want them in our way. Radar's entire philosophical construct is designed for complete failure. I will have nothing to do with it.

[Radar]

You finally said something right. You said that you will have nothing to do with my philosophical construct...namely libertarian philosophy. You are not a libertarian by any stretch of the rational mind.

It's libertarian to concern ones self with the rights of ALL people, even those who have different beliefs than we do. I even respect the rights of a morally and intellectually inferior dimwit without the slightest concept of what libertarianism actually means.

Those living under a fascist or communist regime have all of the same rights as those living under a capitalist democracy. No more, and no less.

If the people living in North Korea want freedom, all they have to do is overthrow the leadership of that country to win it. The same is true for everyone else on earth. We have enough trouble in America trying to stop our freedoms from violated here to never have to worry about the freedom of others.

But I respect UG's right to volunteer his weapons, his money, and his own body to help oppressed people around the world to win freedom. As long as he doesn't try to use the U.S. military to do it, I have no problem with it. I do have a problem with him killing people who haven't attacked him, and if he did something like that, I'd hope he was caught and punished without any help from America.