The Texas Unmiracle

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313610697' post='2290025']
War is an unpleasant buisness, having it happen in your own country is also quite unpleasant. However, and this may be a shock to you, people get killed in war, it is strange I know, but it happens. As a Catholic, death is not the worst thing I can think of, many many things are worth going to war over, this is knowing, in advance, that people will, shockingly, die in those wars.
[/quote]

Thanks for the condescension . I'm honestly just trying to engage in your thought process, if I come off as being snarky or rude it is unintended. I'm slightly baffled by your attitude yes, but I simply want to know the thinking behind it.

As for death not being the worst thing you can think of . . . I don't know I sorta get that. People who join the military well that's what they sign up for and there are some things worth fighting, and thus dying, for. But when we're talking about civilian casualties (be it 100 or 100,000) to say "death is not the worst thing" seems kinda callous. And as I'm sure you understand, people sign up for service thinking that they are fighting for a noble cause when in reality they are not. So they're losing their lives over something they wouldn't have necessarily believed in.

That's kind of sad. You don't need to belittle people's grief and desire to avoid the same needless waste of life over and over again by calling it "whining."

[quote]Well As I said, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, but the miniscule casualties we have suffered was not the reason, I was concerned that hussein might still have some sarin stashed away and that our casualties would be much higher, but that was not the reason either. We do not draft anyone, if you join the military you know what you are getting into, armies exist to fight, not as humaitarian organizations, when armies fight, casualties occur, if you do not want to fight, do not join the military.[/quote]

So wait, you opposed the invasion of Iraq primarily because you thought there would be a higher death toll among US military? I don't want to get in a debate about just war theory and all, but for me and many others that would have been the first reason to oppose the invasion. You seem to have decided on sort of a risk vs. reward and I can't say I admire that. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[quote]Wht the iraqi invasion accomplished--- it removed Saddam Hussein from power, he was a monster who put children into wood chippers in front of thier parents to make a point. He ruled there for 25 years or so, and would still be ruling had we not removed him. That seems like a fairly serious accomplishment to me. He was also unfinished buisness, we made conditions in 91 which were simply untenable for him, and he could not comply with them, however, his lack of compliance made America look weak, and that realisticly had to be dealt with eventually. [/quote]

He WAS a monster, but for the most part Iraq was fairly stable upon the time of the invasion wasn't it? Creating that power vacuum is probably going to do more harm than good. Time will tell. For now I would hesitate to call it an "accomplishment" because it might turn out to create more havoc than it was trying to avoid.

And another accomplishment is: making America look like a BAMF? So making sure we don't look weak is worth thousands of lives? I don't get that.

[quote]I opposed the invasion because Hussein, monster that he was, protected his Christians, more than any other ruler in that area, and I figured when he was gone the Chaldeans would be persecuted, unfortunately I was right.[/quote]



[quote]


However there was not hundreds of thousands of deaths, in both wars, if you include all possible deaths, direct, indirect,crime etc, all military deaths on all sides, etc, then you still only get to 175,000 or so. That just isn't all that many for what amounts to 17 years of war ( 10 in one country and 7 in the other).
[/quote]

This http://www.unknownnews.org/casualties.html would suggest that there were more. Now I haven't researched its verifiability yet, but jsyk perhaps this is where people are getting their numbers from. If you have an issue with the consistency and reliability of that report that's all well and good, this is more of just a heads up as to what people might be talking about.


[quote]

Well Saddam husein was responsable for hundreds of thousands of deaths of his own people, far more than have dies in our invasion, so the number of deaths directly relates to Proportionality, which is a serious concideration for one when discussing war. The number of deaths is important.
[/quote]

Ok but, you would have to demonstrate how US military intervention [b]prevented[/b] more death than it caused. That would be hard to do I admit, but I do understand where you're coming from.



[quote]

Mourning deaths is one thing, crying out to withdraw for the "quagmire" of Iraq is something else all together. the entire Iraq war cost fewer american lives than the first day of Tarawa, in a country of 300,000,000 people 4500 deaths over a 7 year occupation of a hostile country is just not a crisis. We should have been yelling "Veni, Vedi, Veci" fro the roof tops, instead we were having a national crisis about it. America has apparently lost its stomach for war, you may find that an acceptable social development, I did not argue aboutthat at all, I only commented that the north seemed to have lost it more than say Texas, and I thought that should an actual attempt at secession occur I did notthink the average urban northerner would be up for a civil war. I do not see anything in your post to make me reconsider that postion.
[/quote]

To be honest I'm not thinking about Texas or secessation or any of that at all. I know that's the thread topic, but I was sort of taking off on a tangential discussion. I don't disagree with the above position, but I don't think civil war in the US is a real concern.

[quote]I fail to se what a crazy persons shooting of civilians on the street has to do with casualties of war.[/quote]

I could draw parallels but my main contention was that lamenting war casualties is nothing but whining. You probably wouldn't call the national upset about 6 civilian casualties "whining" but you are able to make light of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilian deaths.

It's unimportant I suppose. I would urge you to choose your language a bit more carefully when talking about war so that you don't seem like such a jack arse (cause I'm not the only one who preceived it that way) but the choice is yours.

God bless.

[dairygirl4u2c]

what's sad, is that in my last post, i was in truth vague enough that even a conservative could agree with me. general principles, i've always said, are not where most people dont see eye to eye on. it's the details, or how and when to apply those principles.
half the disagreements that do occur, are mostly on talking past each other in filling in the theory details, or on general dispositions, nothing monumental.
what's sadder is that the rhetoric ya hear in presidental races, never develops even close to my even my last post. no details. that's how the population is often upset, not knowing what to expect from so little being offered.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1313616317' post='2290080']
what's sad, is that in my last post, i was in truth vague enough that even a conservative could agree with me. general principles, i've always said, are not where most people dont see eye to eye on. it's the details, or how and when to apply those principles.
half the disagreements that do occur, are mostly on talking past each other in filling in the theory details, or on general dispositions, nothing monumental.
what's sadder is that the rhetoric ya hear in presidental races, never develops even close to my even my last post. no details. that's how the population is often upset, not knowing what to expect from so little being offered.
[/quote]
Well, if one assumes the government may zone in the first place. Which I don't. The government does not own the land within the borders of the United States--it has the obligation to protect the life liberty and property of those within the United States. We do not live in the type of nation that owns all the land within its borders. Government has no right to zone. That can and should be settled on a private level with private contracts--which will be protected against violation by the government.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']


So wait, you opposed the invasion of Iraq primarily because you thought there would be a higher death toll among US military? I don't want to get in a debate about just war theory and all, but for me and many others that would have been the first reason to oppose the invasion. You seem to have decided on sort of a risk vs. reward and I can't say I admire that. Please correct me if I am wrong.
[/quote]

Did you actually read my post, I said quite explicitly that I thought there would be higher casualties but that that was NOT the reason I opposed the war. Soldiers die in war, that is the way of it, if you are not prepared to die, or to kill, don't go for a soldier.

I opposed the invasion becuase he protected his Christians, and no one else over there,, including our "allies" could say that.
[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']
He WAS a monster, but for the most part Iraq was fairly stable upon the time of the invasion wasn't it? Creating that power vacuum is probably going to do more harm than good. Time will tell. For now I would hesitate to call it an "accomplishment" because it might turn out to create more havoc than it was trying to avoid.
[/quote]

Yes, as i said, I opposed the invasion, but we invaded, once that was done we were commited. We shouldn't make it out like things were going badly when things went better than any conquest in modern history.

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']
And another accomplishment is: making America look like a BAMF? So making sure we don't look weak is worth thousands of lives? I don't get that.

[/quote]

Yes, that is, looking weak would only cost more lives, do you have any idea how many wars are prevented by people thinking that we are the baddest guys on the block? Why do you think there has been no cession of the Ceasefire in Korea., that China stays out of Tiawan, that in genral our enemies don't attack our friends? If we look too weak, the world becomes a shoot fest. I think taking out a small country and providing a place to fight our enemies that was not our own country was worth it. even if that cost thousands of lives.

You are free to disagree.

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']

This [url="http://www.unknownnews.org/casualties.html"]http://www.unknownne...casualties.html[/url] would suggest that there were more. Now I haven't researched its verifiability yet, but jsyk perhaps this is where people are getting their numbers from. If you have an issue with the consistency and reliability of that report that's all well and good, this is more of just a heads up as to what people might be talking about.


[/quote]

Their methodology is laughable, and the report which they used as the basis of there numbers ( which they then extrapulated from at a consistant basis) has been widely discredited. The fact that they say it ihas not been means nothing, it has been, people say the Nazis didn't have death camps too, that doesn't make them credible.
[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']

Ok but, you would have to demonstrate how US military intervention [b]prevented[/b] more death than it caused. That would be hard to do I admit, but I do understand where you're coming from.
[/quote]

Well actually I don't, I would have to sho that the reaction was proportional, to the evil that was being done. That said its not hard, Hussein killied more than 1/2 a million of his own people, ( some say 800,000, but I cannot verify those numbers credibility) that means he killed approzx. 20,000 + people for each year he was in power, having him out of power means that approx 140,000 people were not killed by him, and that the party which did things like cripped athletes who lost at the olympics and feed children into wood chippers was removed from power. Those death rates are for his own peole and do not count the casualties of the 2 wars he started, nor the Kuwaiti civilians killed during the occupation of that country.

However human dignity does not mesh well with a simple math spread, by your logic we should have never gotten involved in teh war against Hitler ( which by the way we were involved in in 1939, way before he declared war in support of the Japanese).



[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']
To be honest I'm not thinking about Texas or secessation or any of that at all. I know that's the thread topic, but I was sort of taking off on a tangential discussion. I don't disagree with the above position, but I don't think civil war in the US is a real concern.
[/quote]

well I don't think secession is a real possibility, but i actually think civil war in the US is a very real concern, We are balkanized inthe extreme, and tensions are running higher. I cannot see how a civil war cannot happen in the next 30 years or so unless we break off into different countries peacably, the issues dividing us very serious, and I don't see them going away anytime soon.


[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']
I could draw parallels but my main contention was that lamenting war casualties is nothing but whining. You probably wouldn't call the national upset about 6 civilian casualties "whining" but you are able to make light of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilian deaths.

It's unimportant I suppose. I would urge you to choose your language a bit more carefully when talking about war so that you don't seem like such a jack arse (cause I'm not the only one who preceived it that way) but the choice is yours.

God bless.
[/quote]

But you see I am not talking about lamenting war casualties, I am talking about whining. The fact that your son or daughter came home in a body bag and you and yours are sad, is not whining, the fact that as a country we honor those who dies in our militaries service is not whining. Going on national tv demanding to know why your _________ who joined the military of thier own free will had to go to war, and how we have taken [i]so many casualties, [/i]when we have achieved a military victory greater than alost any in history [i]IS WHINING[/i]. The portrayal of our casualties as terrible and heavy when they have been lmost magically light [i]is whining. [/i]

If one opposes the war that's fine, but saying it is because we have taken so many casualties is simply ridiculous and the way people have spoken about it is whining. Whining is a disrespectful way to mourn the death of the brave.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1313617573' post='2290096']
Well, if one assumes the government may zone in the first place. Which I don't. The government does not own the land within the borders of the United States--it has the obligation to protect the life liberty and property of those within the United States. We do not live in the type of nation that owns all the land within its borders. Government has no right to zone. That can and should be settled on a private level with private contracts--which will be protected against violation by the government.
[/quote]


Well I am not sure that is true, some States own the land. If they did not then there could be no confiscation of land for failure to pay property taxes. Our government claims ownership of everything, and it always has, that is the basis for the idea of eminent domain.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313619045' post='2290111']


Well I am not sure that is true, some States own the land. If they did not then there could be no confiscation of land for failure to pay property taxes. Our government claims ownership of everything, and it always has, that is the basis for the idea of eminent domain.
[/quote]
A claim is not always valid. They claim there is private property, but, like most States, violate their laws when it is convenient to do so.

[dairygirl4u2c]

half of conservatives, including most of our founding fathers, think regulating private lives was more than okay, eg, gays doing what they do in their private time. it shouldnt be wrong by extension to regulate a little about how you use the property.
eminent domain is permissible by the US constitutin... it doesnt seem like it's be wrong to have a less worse tool, zoning.
i agree too much is too much, though.
and can even effectively amount to eminent domain, ironically, yet where's the 'just compensation' as required with eminent domain?

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1313619464' post='2290121']
half of conservatives, including most of our founding fathers, think regulating private lives was more than okay, eg, gays doing what they do in their private time. it shouldnt be wrong by extension to regulate a little about how you use the property.
eminent domain is permissible by the US constitutin... it doesnt seem like it's be wrong to have a less worse tool, zoning.
i agree too much is too much, though.
and can even effectively amount to eminent domain, ironically, yet where's the 'just compensation' as required with eminent domain?
[/quote]
Do you have a reason for repeatedly bringing up conservatives?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1313619192' post='2290114']
A claim is not always valid. They claim there is private property, but, like most States, violate their laws when it is convenient to do so.
[/quote]

They pay lip service to private property, but have made it very clear that they do not acknowledge that there is.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1313619464' post='2290121']
half of conservatives, including most of our founding fathers, think regulating private lives was more than okay, eg, gays doing what they do in their private time. it shouldnt be wrong by extension to regulate a little about how you use the property.
eminent domain is permissible by the US constitutin... it doesnt seem like it's be wrong to have a less worse tool, zoning.
i agree too much is too much, though.
and can even effectively amount to eminent domain, ironically, yet where's the 'just compensation' as required with eminent domain?
[/quote]


Zoning is a violation of property rights. I do not feel that zoning is " less worse" it is worse as it does not give me the option to go somewhere else, at least with eminent domain they are supposed to pay you for what they have taken, but if they zone my property residential, when I planned to put a buisness there, then I am just hosed.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313558125' post='2289731']


I fundementally disagree, I think someone saying " if we can't change this its going to have to be destroyed, so lets try to change it" is a perfectly viable and logical position. I understand exactly what you are trying to say I simply disagree, I think that says that he indeed would make his decisions with the interests of the entire country at heart, the interest of the entire country, those interest being the changing the relationship of the Federal government to the States.


I prefer the term dictatorship for what is happening here, most western monarchs were bound by custom, our President is decidedly not. The Constitution is indeed being used as toilet paper. Perry claims he intends to restore the proper relationship of the States to the central government. That seems like exactly what is needed, I don't know the man personally, I have met him, he seemed sincere enough, but he is a politician so I take that with more than a grain of Salt, but he seems like the only person in the race who has actually stated that this relationship must be changed. He has said it dramaticly, by stateing that if it doesn't the country will break. What would you have someone running for president say, if not that the Fedral government needed to return local control to the States?
[/quote]

Dictatorship? Hardly. Don't ascribe more power to the presidency than actually exists. What exists in this country is an oligarchy where the determining factor of status is not legacy, it's money. The president is the figurehead piece in a group of people who pull strings and make decisions based solely on the power inherent in large sums of money. Government by this bunch has absolutely zero to do with the welfare of the people. It is all about how can the political game be played to the greatest advantage to maximize profits. The president, if he is unfortunate enough to be considered nouveau riche among the power players, only has as much leeway to operate as the purse-string pullers permit him. Obama is no different. If he took a grand swipe at legitimate leadership, and tried to enact some piece of legislation (regardless of what it was) that actually did some benefit for the country and the people, he'd be summarily set aside if that action in any way conflicted with the deep pockets at the top. Political largesse ends when the profit margin no longer suits.

I still think that public advocacy of secession is incompatible with trying to say that you want to the leader of a union, but that's my perspective, and we can agree to disagree on that point. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter what Perry says. He wants to restore power to the states? Nice idea. However, when you hand the keys of the castle over to someone, their first act is rarely going to be knocking down the gate and covering the moat...the whole "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" concept. Government has a way of making Machiavellians out of otherwise decent people.

[dairygirl4u2c]

usually, zoning is 'less worse'. getting hosed like that is an outlier.
most people who have their property taken from them, even if they are paid, would probably rather have had nothing given to them, and simply told to keep the gutters in good shape. (or whatever other zoning rule

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1313539944' post='2289476']

I don't think that was his argument.[/quote]
That was the gist of it. It was obvious Krugman's real enemy is not Governor Perry, but "conservative economic policies."


[quote]I know. The loving God was so swift to answer the prayers of the faithful and end the drought. I bet Krugman feels like a dumbass.


[url="http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/"]http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/[/url]

[/quote]
Yes, I'm well aware of the drought. I'm living in the midst of it.

And yes, I'm another one of those unenlightened drooling idiots who prays for rain.

God may or may not bring rain as He in His infinite Wisdom sees fit. God is not some genie who is obligated to do whatever people tell Him to.

However, that does not mean petitioning God is worthless or futile. Prayer benefits the pray-er by bringing him into the proper relationship to God by acknowledging our dependence on Him for all things and paying Him proper homage. God will reward those who trust in Him and pray earnestly to Him either in this life or the hereafter.

And yes, I realize what I said will likely simply provoke more mockery from you, but I don't care.

Governors and presidents have declared public prayer in times of trial from the beginning of this country, going back to George Washington. You may as well mock him and Abraham Lincoln as well.

And again, I find mocking prayer in the face of natural disaster to score ideological points despicable, but that's what one can expect from liberalism.

But I suppose the meteorological data proves beyond a doubt that only staunch atheists should be in public office.

[quote]Here or in general? It's true that he didn't promote his own argument in this particular article. But he most certainly has elsewhere.[/quote]
Exactly, and his attacks on Perry do nothing to prove that our country going deeper into debt (after $ 14 trillion and counting!) and the government spending yet more money it does not have will save our economy. We're broke, but we just can't ever spend enough.



[quote]I'd guess that Germany is more the sort of backwards, socialist hell-hole that Krugman has in mind.[/quote]
More like Greece.

[url="http://www.ft.com/indepth/greece-debt-crisis"]http://www.ft.com/indepth/greece-debt-crisis[/url]

That's the road Obamanomics will head us down.



[quote]Not really.


[url="http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/category/gps-episodes/"]http://globalpublics...y/gps-episodes/[/url]




Yeah. You can. Krugman did that here. You still have not actually attacked his argument with a counter argument. You just pontificated for a bit, set up a straw man, pontificated a bit more, the end. More Sophist than Socratic.[/quote]
Sweet mullet, bro.

[dairygirl4u2c]

usually, zoning is 'less worse'. getting hosed like that is an outlier.
most people who have their property taken from them, even if they are paid, would probably rather have had nothing given to them, and simply told to keep the gutters in good shape. (or whatever other zoning rule

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313618768' post='2290107']

Did you actually read my post, I said quite explicitly that I thought there would be higher casualties but that that was NOT the reason I opposed the war. Soldiers die in war, that is the way of it, if you are not prepared to die, or to kill, don't go for a soldier.

I opposed the invasion becuase he protected his Christians, and no one else over there,, including our "allies" could say that.
[/quote]
Whoops, my bad. Forgive my misreading.


I'll stop hijacking the thread tho

Edited August 18, 2011 by Ice_nine