How is Militant Islam as large a threat as Hitler or stalin.

[fieldsofwind]

"It is not"

Three of my brothers are dead because of militant islam.

You're here telling me, a man who does stand in between them and yourself, that "it is not." ???

Bro... as rude as it may sound to hear, you have no idea.

 

[celticfan83]

"It is not"

Three of my brothers are dead because of militant islam.

You're here telling me, a man who does stand in between them and yourself, that "it is not." ???

Bro... as rude as it may sound to hear, you have no idea.

They lost there life in the military I assume?

please do not assume my state of knowledge and I will have the same respect for you and not do it either.
Secondly do not refer to me as Bro thank you.

 

[Mjallhvit]

Can anyone outline a situation were militant Islam results in the deaths of more than 20 million people?

How were Hitler and Stalin a threat to the USA? Answer is that they weren't, and only the US Government's provocations started any sort of hostilities.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

How were Hitler and Stalin a threat to the USA? Answer is that they weren't, and only the US Government's provocations started any sort of hostilities.

Re-read your history.

Japan was already going on a rampage of aggression through Indochina long before World War II started, even before Hitler's troops crossed the Rhine. America actually wanted to sit out the Asian and European wars, but was dragged in when Pearl Harbor was bombed.

And do you really think dictators who butchered tens of millions of people would have just left America alone? Come on now, please tell me you're not THAT naive...

 

[Mjallhvit]

Japan was already going on a rampage of aggression through Indochina long before World War II started, even before Hitler's troops crossed the Rhine.

Note: Indochina. Not 'America'. That FDR skillfully and deliberately provoked the war is a matter of public record and the statements of government officials, and records of Japanese command reveal paralell views: War with the American government was inevitable, and they were attempting to knock an unbeatable foe out of the war quickly.

America actually wanted to sit out the Asian and European wars, but was dragged in when Pearl Harbor was bombed.

It is true that much of the American public did, but through his vast propoganda, censure, conscription and imprisonment techniques he did not give them much choice in the matter.
For much on this matter, I direct you to the following websites. Most of this is public record, much of it is referenced.
http://www.liberty-page.com/cliches/depression.html#games

And do you really think dictators who butchered tens of millions of people would have just left America alone? Come on now, please tell me you're not THAT naive...

I believe they would like to have taken what the US inhabitants had, certainly.
Do I believe that an already collapsing socialist government which couldn't get across the English channel (Nazis) could invade across the Atlantic? Do I believe a nation which couldn't invade Afghanistan could invade the Rockies or North American rain forests against a population wealthy, self-owning and free to bear arms?
To both: an emphatic no.
What is it about conservatives that they give so much faith to the strength of Totalitarianism and so little to the strength of liberty and wealth?

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Note: Indochina. Not 'America'. That FDR skillfully and deliberately provoked the war is a matter of public record and the statements of government officials, and records of Japanese command reveal paralell views: War with the American government was inevitable, and they were attempting to knock an unbeatable foe out of the war quickly.

Yes, sooner or later Japan and America were going to war. And since Germany and Japan were both in the Axis, going to war versus one meant we were at war with both.

It is true that much of the American public did, but through his vast propoganda, censure, conscription and imprisonment techniques he did not give them much choice in the matter.
For much on this matter, I direct you to the following websites. Most of this is public record, much of it is referenced.
http://www.liberty-page.com/cliches/depression.html#games

We've already established that war with the Empire of Japan was inevitable...therefore war with Nazi Germany was also inevitable. I'm not going to say I agree with everything Roosevelt did; he was as human as any other leader, and therefore imperfect. But he would have been derelict in his duty as Commander-in-Chief if he hadn't taken prudent steps to prepare America for the probable war to come.

I believe they would like to have taken what the US inhabitants had, certainly.
Do I believe that an already collapsing socialist government which couldn't get across the English channel (Nazis) could invade across the Atlantic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_264
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_410
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_program

Put 2 and 2 together here. Is it not obvious that, if Hitler had been allowed to continue unmolested, he would have developed nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them?

Do I believe a nation which couldn't invade Afghanistan could invade the Rockies or North American rain forests against a population wealthy, self-owning and free to bear arms?
To both: an emphatic no.
What is it about conservatives that they give so much faith to the strength of Totalitarianism and so little to the strength of liberty and wealth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBMs

An enemy doesn't have to invade to be a major threat. Granted that the USSR under Stalin did not have ICBMs--not yet--but it did have nukes.

 

[Mjallhvit]

War with Japan was only inevitable because FDR made it so. Neither the Nazis, Japanese nor Soviets were in any position to invade the US (nor had any desire to).
Furthermore, the 'arms race' can largely be laid squarely on the US Government's 'Cold War' policy of militarizing the economy to fight a militarized economy (a cockamamie scheme if I've ever heard one). Apparently the fact that the Soviets themselves were aware of the frequent paralyzation of major sections of their military forces due to the lack of rational allocation that socialism makes inevitable, noteably that large swathes of their weapons wouldn't have work.
Further, it makes one wonder why the US would spend tons of money on offensive weaponry and use it in such a way as to provoke the person with whom war is allegedly most undesireable and at the same time totally fail to protect or even allow personal protection by citizens it is supposedly 'protecting'. All with stolen money, no less.
'National security' is a myth, the military is nothing but the 'business' end of the government and, like all government institutions, dangerous to liberty both at home and abroad and quite frankly I am so far beyond taking your assertions seriously that no debate between us would be productive.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

War with Japan was only inevitable because FDR made it so. Neither the Nazis, Japanese nor Soviets were in any position to invade the US (nor had any desire to).

So you honestly believe if Hitler had gobbled up all of Europe and North Africa, he would then have left the rest of the world alone?

And I already established that the ability to carry out a ground invasion was irrelevant. We never invaded Japan, yet they surrendered to us. Having two cities nuked from the air pulled that one off. Do you really think if Hitler had invented an atom bomb and a rocket powerful and accurate enough to deliver it to the U.S. mainland he'd have had any qualms about leveling New York and Washington, D.C.?

Furthermore, the 'arms race' can largely be laid squarely on the US Government's 'Cold War' policy of militarizing the economy to fight a militarized economy (a cockamamie scheme if I've ever heard one).

That came about after Hitler and Stalin were dead, and therefore really isn't relevant to the discussion. If you want to say the whole Cold War was a colossal waste of resources on both sides, I'll heartily agree with you. But war is, unfortunately, a part of the human condition. And never forget the Soviet Union had the capability after the early '60s or so to level the United States...and visa-versa. There was even a name for it: Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).

 

[Mjallhvit]

But war is, unfortunately, a part of the human condition.

Almost entirely caused and propogated by States, and worsened by States; the free market is superior in providing defense; as it is in all other areas.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Almost entirely caused and propogated by States, and worsened by States; the free market is superior in providing defense; as it is in all other areas.

Perhaps. However ideal it may appear, anarchism simply runs counter to human nature. Humans have a tendency to congregate in groups, and leaders invariably emerge from these groups. Then these groups seek other groups and band together based on ethnic, religious and cultural commonalities. Then said groups find rocks, sticks, spears, bows, muskets, cannon, airplanes, rockets and hydrogen bombs to arm themselves with to defend themselves against real and perceived threats from other groups.

Wrong as it may be, Homo sapiens has been this way almost from the dawn of time. America simply gets picked on because it is (at least for now) the most successful at playing the Game of Groups and has the most advanced weaponry. If history had turned out a bit differently, do you really think a victorious Japan, Germany or Soviet Union would have been any less venal and corrupt?

 

[Mjallhvit]

However ideal it may appear, anarchism simply runs counter to human nature.

That may be true (due to evolutionary biology and pervasive government propogandizing), but only to the extent that it runs contrary to what people are inclined to believe; in that the State is just another violent, expropriating system which ignores and disrupts human reason the same way that the 'jungle' does. That does not change the fact that private-property and markets are superior for the production of human security and well-being; these are in fact is the cornerstone of all human civilization which has progressed (as the natural habits of humans) against the best efforts of the State to curtail it for thousands of years. No government 'solution' is possible, the nature of the State is inherent and prior to any consideration as to the composition or aims of its members; it is logically incapable of doing what it's alleged to be able to do. Thus your criticism does not apply in any rational sense to anarcho-capitalism, and is rather a judgement on the capacity of human beings to understand it. So long as they fail to, misery will be the lot. Furthermore, given a level of ignorance, anti-social behaviour and violent tendencies, any society WITH a State will suffer far more from their existence than a society without.

The 'argument from human nature' ignores the continuing existence of the market despite vast attempts to stamp it out, and also is no more convincing to the economist or political philosopher than the equivalent statement of 'the problem of anarchism is it isn't practiced', which is (of course) the primary reason I am bothering to promote it at all.