WA Delegate (non-executive): The Republic of HUFS (elected 52 days ago)
Founder: The Commonwealth of Whipjangle
Regional Power: Moderate
Today's World Census Report
The Best Weather in libertarian
The following nations were determined to have the best all-round weather.
As a region, libertarian is ranked 15,901st in the world for Best Weather.
|1.||The Blablabla of Anarchyst||Civil Rights Lovefest||“Where there is authority, there is no freedom”|
|2.||The Most Serene Republic of Resipsaloquituria||Civil Rights Lovefest||“Don't be mean unless you have to”|
|3.||The Republic of HUFS||Liberal Democratic Socialists||“Veritas, Pax, Creatio”|
|4.||The Most Serene Republic of Umwahwah||Anarchy||“Tu Ne Cede Malis”|
|5.||The Free Land of Foundation IV||New York Times Democracy||“Freedom and Exploration”|
|6.||The Nomadic Peoples of Pacalas||Scandinavian Liberal Paradise||“Faru kion vi volas!”|
|7.||The Republic of Left-Libertarian Colonies||Corporate Bordello||“Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government”|
|8.||The Federation of The Bezrat Corporation||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“We shall survive to live again”|
|9.||The Commonwealth of Whipjangle||Civil Rights Lovefest||“If you don't like it, move!”|
|10.||The Armed Republic of Gun Toting Dimwits||Left-Leaning College State||“A free people ought to be armed.”|
- 4 days ago: The Free Land of Voluntara ceased to exist.
- 4 days ago: The Community of Libermalia arrived from The North Pacific.
- 5 days ago: The Socialist Republic of Tristantia departed this region for Social Liberal Union.
- 9 days ago: The Republic of Desperaclitus ceased to exist.
- 19 days ago: The Free Land of Maywood ceased to exist.
- 27 days ago: The United Socialist States of Thomphratt ceased to exist.
- 28 days ago: The Oppressed Peoples of Mwarf ceased to exist.
- 28 days ago: The Holy Empire of Riders of Revelation arrived from Lazarus.
- 29 days ago: The Commonwealth of Saipan Island ceased to exist.
- 32 days ago: The Dying Empire of Cynical Conservatives arrived from Osiris.
Libertarian Regional Message Board
I meant Sophism, not solipsism, damn you greek tongue twisters...
That was a joke. *sigh* From now on when talking to you, i will use [sarcasm][/sarcasm] and [joke][/joke] codes.
It was also used to illustrate a point. Violence (war) is not optional, since the point of violence is that person enacting it denies others certain options.
a) I made it clear in earlier posts, that fiat currency is neccessary to WAGE wars, not PREPARE for them via military military spending. Debt is terrible way to fund any longterm project, military among them. But as for actual war, debt is viable short-term. As long as we assume it'll last short enough to recover from it and repay the debts.
b) Those dates are relevant. FED was neccessary for the abolishment of Gold standard, since it allowed creation of Fiat Money. And Roosevelt did severely restrict gold in 1933, and Nixon finished the job in 1971. Gold standard was not abolished in US in either of those wars you given. There were war measures, but things largely went back they were before after it was done. In some european countries during WWI, yes, gold standard was abolished directly as result of war, but not in US. Those are facts.
You can't follow statement to their "potential" conclusions like that. Because there is no reason to think that I would EVER have to murder child to survive. You might as well say: "Well your argument is flawed since it doesn't take into consideration martian invasion! Boyah!". You are inventing fantastical scenarios, like "The Cold Equations", and claim that you got me, because you placed me in a terrible situation (murder child or die), but I would never be in that situation in the first place. We are discussing real world, not parallel universes, or sadistic "choices" that happens only in "Saw" movies, please stay on topic.
Oh dear. Over 95% of Arabs are Muslim. It is called "generalization". If I said "chinese are short" would you raise a hand shouting "Oh, oh! I know a tall chinese guy! You were completely wrong" - no, I was not. I know all about Nestorians, Miaphysites, Maronites and other Non-muslim group that speak arabic languages. I also know that Persians, Turks and Indonesians are not Arabs. (And they are actually less "terrorism-happy" than arabs, even when comparing average muslims from those countries.)
[sarcasm]Way to focus on nitpicking[/sarcasm], instead answering an argument I made there. And then you claim I aren't offering rebuttal. You ignored my rebuttal: They are willing to murder us, and unless we find better way, we must do what we can do to protect ourselves form them.
Oh please. You don't ask adult man when was he last time in school, and expect it not to be taken as an passive-aggresive insult.
"When was last time you fellated someone?". There. A question. [sarcasm]Its not like it implies anything[/sarcasm]. So are we in agreement that question asked in seemingly polite and peaceful manner, without any swearwords, might still be used as an insult? If not why don't you answer it? (Even if you do, you still have to make it clear why yours was okay, and mine was not)
And I am still curious if you think public schools are good thing.
Man, [sarcasm]I fell silly. All that time I worked hard constructing arguments, when I could just say "You are not offering actual rebuttals! You lose! I say so, so its true."[/sarcasm]
And "this sort of trolling" is also called "making sound arguments when other person wants to win".
According to you, not giving up on my point when not presented with sound arguments is, among others, Cognitive Inertia. Got it.
Wow. Passive aggressiveness. [sarcasm]Hadn't seen that in a while[/sarcasm]. Again you go with those "Hey man, its just a friendly suggestion, don't take it personly man, child out dude!".
I take it, that you would not take it as an insult if someone suggested to you undergoing orchiectomy? Becase, hey, if its okay for one person to suggest seeking uncomfortable treatment for supposed condition for which there is no evidence, then its okay for other to also offer suggestions. [sarcasm]See, I am helping you :)[/sarcasm].
[lie]It will be good for you, it won't hurt. I promise.[/lie]
I was at my state convention and alot of it seemed just like our debates/arguments.
The decline of the British armed forces had very little to do with the "loss of Empire".
For example the key attacks on the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force in the late 1960s were nothing to do with the loss of Empire.
Read (for example) Eric "Winkle" Brown (the famous pilot - and in the team that liberated the Belson Extermination Camp) on this (I met him a few weeks ago - an astonishing man for his age, or any age).
And what of the decline of armed forces of Australia, Canada and New Zealand (and on and on)?
This is parasitism - and leaving everything to the Americans WILL NOT WORK (not in the long term).
Turning from mistakes to stupid lies.
Far from being "suicidal" to attack the military in the United States - it has, in fact, been the road to academic and media success (for 50 years).
Even OTC groups were kicked out of "elite" universities - but far left groups were just fine (after all many of the modern academics and teachers are Frankfurt School "Critical Theory" Marxists).
It is not an honest mistake to pretend that the "warfare state" can not be opposed in the United States (that it is "suicidal" to do so) - it is a LIE and someone who comes out with this line is a LIAR.
As for the wars of Mr Bush - they were based on the "good people" fallacy.
"The good people of Afghanistan are being oppressed by the Islamists - we must liberate them".
"The good people of Iraq are being oppressed by Saddam - we must liberate them" (that had been policy since the Clinton Administration - passed by Congress and signed by the President).
Sadly the opposition to the wars also shared the "good people fallacy" - the lovely people of Iraq killed by the "Imperialist" American military (X hundred thousand "dying from sanctions" under Clinton and they dying again from the "Imperialism" of Bush).
Anyone with any practical knowledge of the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq and who tried to explain what they are really like.........
Well they were denounced as "racists" by BOTH sides.
By the "neo cons" and by the "anti war" crowd.
I opposed the Iraq war - but (if anything) the "anti war" crowd were even more deluded and wrong headed than the neo cons.
Coming out with nonsense about "American Imperialism" and "American Militarism" may get someone a nice job in a university, but it remains nonsense.
The Islamist populations are not nice - they are oppressors (far more than the oppressed) and they remain not nice (free migration people please note) when the immigrate to the United States or Europe.
Of course they (or their children) could be converted (if not to Christianity then to some other belief system such as Randian Objectivism) , but that violates the sacred doctrines of the Frankfurt School Critical Theory types.
On the contrary (so the media and academia tell us) Islam should be "celebrated" in the West - in Europe, in Australia, in North America. To the truth (as Gladstone and Winston Churchill did) is "Islamophobia".
In fact it is "suicidal" to tell the truth about Mohammed - and the fact that his followers are taught to follow his example.
One will not get any nice teaching jobs that way.
I was also opposed to MIddle East involvement, due primarily to the regions history. However, when the decision was made, we (the US) was obligated to actually do something, unlike Viet Nam. The scenes in Iraq are eerily remniscent of the fall of Saigon - I'm just waiting for the copters to pull the last remnants of the American presence off the embassy roof and the slaughter of the innocents to begin (no re-education camps here).
But this is what you get with an Administration that does not understand (or rejects) geo-politics and the role of the military and has no idea on how military forc should be used. The fall of Saigon took place under a weak President (Ford) with an overacting Congress that was definitely anti-military, as pesonified by the late Senator Frank Church and the other usual suspects (Teddy, et. al). We now have a relatively ineffective Congress with a weak teflon President (militarily at least)
The cut off of air support and supplies in Indochina led to millions of civilians being murdered in Laos, South Vietnam and Cambodia (Cambodia was the worst of all - where pro Mao, rather than pro Soviet, Communists came to power). What happened in 1975 (and after) was a terrible crime (a betrayal) and the "anti war" crowd have the blood of millions of innocent civilians (people the United States had sworn to defend) on their hands. This is the exact opposite of what the education-system and the media teach.
However, and with the greatest respect, I think the situation in Iraq (and the rest of the Islamic world) is FUNDEMENTALLY different.
As I (and others) tried to explain some years ago (and got "racist" screamed at us for our pains) the population of somewhere like Iraq are NOT (unlike, say, most people in Vietnam) essentially apolitical - on the contrary, they (the people of somewhere like Iraq) have a political ideology - ISLAM. Islam is a philosophy that covers every aspect of life and death - to treat it the flippant way that modern "educated" Westerners treat religion is a terrible mistake. And nor can Mohammed be treated as if he was Jesus of Buddha.
Mohammed was a politician and soldier of genius (his ruthlessness was like a well balanced sword), he was nothing like Jesus or Buddha (or anyone else a university type would think of a "religious figure"). And the "peace" he offered was the peace of SUBMISSION. But also a quiet conscience - people are tormented in war (the faces of the those they kill torment them - years afterwards), Islam offers a release (no more regrets - no more waking up in a cold sweat) as ANYTHING one does for Allah is morally justified BY DEFINITON.
As for his followers in Iraq........
They are indeed divided (Sunni, Shia) but they are no vast numbers of apolitical "innocent people" (one does find many innocent types in the Middle East).
Even the Kurds are not apolitical types - although (thankfully) their Kurdish nationalism trumps their Islam.
Going into Iraq looking for innocents is an error - remember the same people who are slaughtered by one side, would happily be the slaughterers if things went their way. They crave the skulls of their enemies far more than they want the schools-and-hospitals that well meaning Western aid offers. And it is not "ignorance" or "stupidity" - many of those involved in the worst deeds are highly intelligent and with a good technical education (they know all about modern technology).
The same is true in Syria (where Sunni and Shia are also in a death match).
American diplomats (and others) always come to the Middle East with the same misconceptions.
"Most people just want to get a long - if only it was not for a few extremists....".
Sadly just not true.
Peace in the Middle East is not an option - it is just unachievable.
Which is why sending Americans (or others) in is wrong.
Sending people to their deaths on an IMPOSSIBLE mission is not acceptable.
The only chance for stable Iraq would be bringing back Hashemite dynasty - the relatives of Jordan King.
That is because in arab/muslim culture, a tribal/dynastic system with a King figure (not neccessarily outright monarchy, but also a regime like Syrian Assads) backed by his entire extended family, a "clan", is only viable alternative to outright theocracy like the one in Iran, or old Taliban Afghanistan.
But American leadership fails to realise, that western style democracy is just not possible there. You can have secular tribalism (Jordan, Syria, Saddams Iraq), theocratic republic (iran), or theocratic tribalism (Saudis), but not a secular republic.
"As a region, libertarian is ranked 2,978th in the world for Most Politically Free."
Just looked at a couple of pages of the Regions listed as "Most Politically Free" and all have just one or two NationStates within them. Kind of skews things...
Snifkowoland - yes the old Kings (and tribal elders) are the least bad option in these countries.
The world contains 113,911 nations in 17,619 regions. As a region, libertarian is ranked 17,515th in the world for Highest Average Tax Rates. (bottom 0.6%, only 104 regions scored lower)
Out of 35 nations, 30 are in the bottom 50%, 27 are in the bottom 10%, 25 are in the bottom 5%, and 12 are in the bottom 1%. Well done!