Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Attack them it is an act of war. We should have attacked the Arabs in 73 when they put an oil embargo on us.
War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.
It depends. Prevents how? Or rather: prevents where?
If it attempts to use force to impose such restrictions outside of its own borders, then that would be an act of war.
If it attempts to use force to impose such restrictions inside of its own borders, then that would be an internal matter, and would not be an act of war.
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
Care is an emotion. For their own sake they shouldn't retaliate in any ways that wouldn't be good for them to do in the first place. And it may well be the case that the best thing they could do would be to give into the demands that the sanctions are there for. I don't know what all that would involve, but it's probably mostly things they'd be better off doing anyway. They just shouldn't have their arms twisted by some foreign government telling them, "We know what's good for you better than you do."
What is your point here?
Seems odd that we can all see the issues of one-size-fits-all solutions that the feds enact, but in a case like this we're supposed to figure out a one-size-fits-all response?
It is entirely based on the contingencies. In this case the US did wrong and are reaping consequences, so war doesn't seem appropriate... However, say the US is not stepping on any toes and another power-hungry superpower decided to take the wind out of our sails with blockades and such, then that may be seen more as an act of aggression rather than retaliation... And this is not to mention all of the other contingencies of whether war, which of course should only be started as an absolute last resort of defense, is warranted.
I just don't understand why you're looking for a definitive answer to a question that is greatly affected by a number of different factors.
I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than be living as a puppet or a slave - Peter Tosh
The kids they dance and shake their bones,
While the politicians are throwing stones,
And it's all too clear we're on our own,
Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...
Last edited by klamath; 02-05-2013 at 11:07 AM.
War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
Nonsense. Sanctions are either an act of war or they are not. Period.
Whether the sanctioned country chooses to regard them as such (or decides to do something about it if it does) has nothing to do with it.
I'll repeat what I said about the matter in another thread [quote is edited for concision]:
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
Last edited by erowe1; 02-05-2013 at 11:13 AM.
I'm not really looking for one answer that will make me understand everything and be done with this thread. Just trying to facilitate discussion so if you want to come up with your hypotheticals, go ahead.
I'm wondering would people here who are very non-interventionist support a military war if very harsh sanctions were imposed on us. Say if our sanctions on Iran were instead imposed on us by a powerful country, would that justify us sending boots on the ground to said powerful country (regardless of each country's military strength).
War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.
I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than be living as a puppet or a slave - Peter Tosh
The kids they dance and shake their bones,
While the politicians are throwing stones,
And it's all too clear we're on our own,
Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...
There have been plenty of aggressive superpowers, the Nazis, Soviets, Brits just to name a couple, but I don't see what that has to do with the US getting accused of what it frequently does.
Hell, the last time we were attacked by a sovereign nation was 1942, so I don't know what you're doing here if you don't feel that America has been THE major source of aggression since then.
I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than be living as a puppet or a slave - Peter Tosh
The kids they dance and shake their bones,
While the politicians are throwing stones,
And it's all too clear we're on our own,
Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...
You know I really don't give a $#@! why you think I should be here. I am here for MY own reasons and it is not because I think the US has been the the agressor all the time. I have absolutely no problem holding my countries feet to the fire for wrong actions I think we have done but I don't automatically try and blame EVERTHING wrong action in the world on the US even when we have nothing to do with it which many people do around here.
War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.
Example? What exactly has been levied against the federal government that they didn't deserve?
By the way I don't care why you're here either, but I just find it bizarre why you can't see the animosity towards our government that has taken it upon itself to pre-emptively kill millions to secure resources and control, while we haven't been attacked by a nation since the 40's.
I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than be living as a puppet or a slave - Peter Tosh
The kids they dance and shake their bones,
While the politicians are throwing stones,
And it's all too clear we're on our own,
Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
You seem to be equivocating is and ought.
If somebody argues that sanctions are unethical because they are an act of war, the answer to that needs to be more than just, "No it's not because governments say so."
I think the word "war" is superfluous to the argument anyway. It's like saying that a crime is somehow worse than what it is if the government calls it a hate crime or an act of terrorism.
Connect With Us