Georgia

[BaNa]

There was a interesting sentence in a weekly newspaper, saying this is the first time the russians invaded a independant country after ww2, i wonder if its the same with the US?

>_>

Slek, that seems fairly suspect, the word "independent" didn't really mean much in post-ww2 eastern europe and asia.

Also, I'm kind of surprised that the "peacekeeper" argument is keeping up. Honestly, we are talking about russian peacekeepers in a territory that russia wishes to annex. The same peacekeepers from whom 4 officers got arrested two years ago by the georgians for spying. And about the "russian nationals" in ossetia, this is sort of like Iran unilaterally giving the Palestinians citizenship and then invading Israel because they are being mean towards them. Bullshit.

[tombom]

because america is bad russia is perfect in all things

LOGIC

[Sleksa]

Also, I'm kind of surprised that the "peacekeeper" argument is keeping up. Honestly, we are talking about russian peacekeepers in a territory that russia wishes to annex.

If they'd want the whole georgia, they could've taken it already.

Russia propably has over hundred times more tanks aircraft gunships and soldiers than georgia, how many days do you think it would take for the russians to move into tbilisi?

The same peacekeepers from whom 4 officers got arrested two years ago by the georgians for spying.

Georgian police are surrounding Russia's military headquarters in Tbilisi demanding the handover of another suspect.

Relations between the two ex-Soviet states have plummeted to a new low since the arrests of the Russian officers and a dozen of their alleged Georgian agents on Wednesday ... The Georgian president, Mikhail Saakashvili, has denounced the evacuation as hysteria. "Russian personnel and their families face no threat here," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/se ... ia.georgia

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/i ... 0206.shtml

And about the "russian nationals" in ossetia,

Except that north ossetia is a part of russia, and more than half the south ossetians already had russian citizenship before georgia attacked.

because america is bad russia is perfect in all things

because US should look to their own fucked up wars and then start talking about "over reacting"

[PicassoCT]

American Conservatism - is liberalism in disguise.. And liberalism is what we call social democratic- and your rightextremists - those who stuff the hawks are actually bothsided politically..reminds me a little of the Nazis.. they were considered a strange mixture of left socialist politics and rightwing National .. anyway...dismessed

Galleon, Fahrenheit and Football-Country..

Shakes his Head..

I have to attend a Wedding today.. horrorz, all those boring social glue, beeing happy for beeing grey glue bonding for the rest of his dull life, ignoring every relevant fact of human life (well not all, but most)

I somewhat envy some native Djungel Cultures who knew that nothing lasts long in a Tigers mouth, and don´t overcelebrate this bullshit (& like with all bullshit, the free market supports the stupidness to sell weddingcakes, weddingjewels, weddingdresses, weddingpudding...)

My Present: Free Entrance Ticket for the next great Exponation "World of Divorcing" in Vienna (Lets hope it has the - don´t invite this associal bastard effect i desire)

[Decimator]

and restriction of the public (behavioral laws).

What exactly are you referencing with this?

[SwiftSpear]

and restriction of the public (behavioral laws).

What exactly are you referencing with this?

Abortion laws and homosexual laws, additionally, pornography laws (most of which have been repealed by now but would still be on the agenda if it weren't for more left sided law makers). Internet activity laws, excetra. Basically, religious conservatives like to tell people how they are allowed to live behind closed doors in their own houses, and maby they should, I'm not sure. I'm just stating that's the trend.

The left in the states is very powerful for the personal side of libertarianism, but they have no interest in economic libertariansim, because a small government and a free market can feasibly create ethical conflicts with happy/healthy living and a balance of wealth. The right in the states plays a poor foil to this, and generally also supports the idea of a large government, but for a different reason, they want more cops and tanks. Forb's ideals aren't well represented, it's all I'm saying.

[Decimator]

Abortion is different, because the two sides of the issue are basically it's murder/a bundle of cells. If it's murder, then the government should definitely be preventing it.

Homosexual and pornography laws, however, are not something the government should be messing with, not least because they're utterly impossible to enforce without a significant intrusion into the daily lives of the populace.

[manored]

In the phase of pregnancy where abortion is reccomended to happen (Doesnt causes a huge after-impact on the woman) the fetus has not developed enough to actually fell anything yet, so in no way it can be called murder... unleash your religion tells you that there is some magic thing inside everbody that makes killing anyone, no matter the reason, a atrocity :)

[Decimator]

So if I kill someone by overdosing them with sleeping pills it isn't murder? After all, they don't feel anything.

I did not want to debate abortion here, I was simply stating why abortion is different from the other two issue Swiftspear mentioned.

[manored]

That is different, even if the person you are killing wont fell anything, you will be emotionally hurting everone related to that person, and you will be also invading the persons right to live, but a fetus hasnt entered society yet so its not leaving a gap in anyones life, and doesnt haves the brain capacity (maybe not even a brain yet) to decide between life and death.

[Decimator]

So what you're saying is that killing humans is ok as long as they don't understand life and death and nobody cares about them?

[Imperium]

I vote yes to this policy.

[manored]

So what you're saying is that killing humans is ok as long as they don't understand life and death and nobody cares about them?

Yes

[Forboding Angel]

Deci pretty much said it perfectly SS.

As for abortion, I myself refuse to take a stand on the issue. I can see the good (If you really wanna call it that) of both sides of the coin. I am very well aware of the arguments for both sides, but I run into trouble when I try to peg a stance on the issue, so I don't.

@manored, thats, kinda twisted...

[manored]

Not if you think in who meets those prerequisites: Fetus, that in the stage where its safe to kill then they dont even think yet, vegetables, that are like dead except that they are still eating and hurt the family more since they arent buried and forgotten, and clones, who we still dont have so cant speak about yet.

But that really depends of our view of life. Im my view of life the objective of ever human is to contribuite to the survival of the species, and therefore a human being whose existance is hardzarous for the society must be excluded from it or killed.

[Snipawolf]

I believe abortion is alright BEFORE the fetus resembles a human or baby. Once it loses that mass of cells look, it's fucked up.

[tombom]

I believe abortion is alright BEFORE the fetus resembles a human or baby. Once it loses that mass of cells look, it's fucked up.

i know what you mean, when i see people burning effigies, i think "murder..."

[manored]

I believe abortion is alright BEFORE the fetus resembles a human or baby. Once it loses that mass of cells look, it's fucked up.

Yeah thats around the timing, after around 3 months abortion becomes dangerous for the mother too.

[Machiosabre]

I think this is an(other) issue where input from random people has nothing to offer.
I'm sure the people having abortions have their reasons and if they take it very lightly the doctors would send them to a psychiatrist.

It's easy to say killing something is always wrong when you're not connected in any way, but in the individual cases of abortion and euthanasia it is often right.

so serious :-

[SwiftSpear]

Abortion is different, because the two sides of the issue are basically it's murder/a bundle of cells. If it's murder, then the government should definitely be preventing it.

Homosexual and pornography laws, however, are not something the government should be messing with, not least because they're utterly impossible to enforce without a significant intrusion into the daily lives of the populace.

Why can't homosexual people legally marry in the states? Why are child pornography, beastiality, and other pornography laws enforced the way they are? The conservative right in the states believes they need to save people from themselfs, and at the more extreme level, save society from deviants. It's an extreme example, but in Hitlers right wing germany, an offshoot of fanatic conservatism, he imprisoned and killed people based on their race, let alone sexual preferences. Now, I'm not trying to draw parallels, hitler's conservative government was fanatic, and pretty much evil in alot of ways. But fundamentally, true conservationism is a free market, restricted personal freedom governmental system. Forb is right that pure libertarians tend to focus on isolationism and decrease the size of the military and police forces with the government decrease, but there's middle ground between the two as well, and that middle ground isn't "conservatism".

Forb's arguing that the wiki definition of conservatism is wrong, I disagree, forb's definition of conservatism is actually conservative libertarianism. I'm not trying to say they don't exist, or that they aren't right/wrong, I'm just saying that forb isn't a perfect fit for the people group he's trying to identify with. Many conservatives do believe that pornography should be illegal, and homosexuals should be imprisoned, as well as a range of other socaital norms, should have legal status, like the christian religion. Some with varying levels of extremism. But they are still valid conservatives. I'd define the most extreme as "religious conservatives" but the more moderate are at the same middle point as their atheist and loosely libertarian counterparts.