300 Billion in Reparations

[Gary Childress]

That's what Iran wanted in exchange for peace. So the question I will ask is, should we pay it to sue for peace with Iran? $300 billion would amount to reparations for all the damage we have done in an unprovoked war with Iran. I don't fancy our tax dollars going to Iran, but we were the ones who started the current war. So what do you think? Should we pay for peace or should we just suck up our responsibility for this war and fight until we think we're in a position to win an unjust war?

Thoughts?

[FlashDangerpants]

If you can call months of war an "excursion". And if you can call paying to be allowed to run away a "victory". Then you can call the 300 billion dollars you pay to be allowed to run away a "Parking Fine" perhaps.

Or a gratuity.




A tip perhaps?

[Immanuel Can]

Should we pay for peace or should we just suck up our responsibility for this war and fight until we think we're in a position to win an unjust war?

How about neither?

You can't bribe somebody whose whole desire is to see you dead, and who is willing to die in order to get it done. They'll take your money, sure; but they'll still kill you.

[Gary Childress]

Should we pay for peace or should we just suck up our responsibility for this war and fight until we think we're in a position to win an unjust war?

How about neither?

You can't bribe somebody whose whole desire is to see you dead, and who is willing to die in order to get it done. They'll take your money, sure; but they'll still kill you.

I think we all (Jihadists included) need to stop believing in stupid fantasy versions of God that only "we" know are the right versions. Maybe then we can all live together without feeling like we're supposed to destroy each other because, unlike "us", "they" are "blasphemers".

[Immanuel Can]

Should we pay for peace or should we just suck up our responsibility for this war and fight until we think we're in a position to win an unjust war?

How about neither?

You can't bribe somebody whose whole desire is to see you dead, and who is willing to die in order to get it done. They'll take your money, sure; but they'll still kill you.

I think we all (Jihadists included) need to stop believing in stupid fantasy versions of God that only "we" know are the right versions. Maybe then we can all live together without feeling like we're supposed to destroy each other because, unlike "us", "they" are "blasphemers".

Actually, historically, the very LEAST able to live together with others in peace and harmony have been the Socialists. Their creed requires total obedience in the political realm, and they can tolerate NO differences on that. Jihadists may be cruel and tyrannical, but they've got nothing, in that regard, statistically, on the people who historically have believed exactly what your first sentence articulates -- that Socialism is "the right version," and all differences are "opium" to the masses.

[Gary Childress]

How about neither?

You can't bribe somebody whose whole desire is to see you dead, and who is willing to die in order to get it done. They'll take your money, sure; but they'll still kill you.

I think we all (Jihadists included) need to stop believing in stupid fantasy versions of God that only "we" know are the right versions. Maybe then we can all live together without feeling like we're supposed to destroy each other because, unlike "us", "they" are "blasphemers".

Actually, historically, the very LEAST able to live together with others in peace and harmony have been the Socialists. Their creed requires total obedience in the political realm, and they can tolerate NO differences on that. Jihadists may be cruel and tyrannical, but they've got nothing, in that regard, statistically, on the people who historically have believed exactly what your first sentence articulates -- that Socialism is "the right version," and all differences are "opium" to the masses.

Wow! Now, "socialists" are worse than Jihadists. Amazing! Who would have thunk it? Says the Christian who doesn't believe in universal healthcare and thinks a trillionaire can "earn" his keep. Outstanding! I feel like I've been judged by a true humanitarian.

[Immanuel Can]

I think we all (Jihadists included) need to stop believing in stupid fantasy versions of God that only "we" know are the right versions. Maybe then we can all live together without feeling like we're supposed to destroy each other because, unlike "us", "they" are "blasphemers".

Actually, historically, the very LEAST able to live together with others in peace and harmony have been the Socialists. Their creed requires total obedience in the political realm, and they can tolerate NO differences on that. Jihadists may be cruel and tyrannical, but they've got nothing, in that regard, statistically, on the people who historically have believed exactly what your first sentence articulates -- that Socialism is "the right version," and all differences are "opium" to the masses.

Wow! Now, "socialists" are worse than Jihadists.

The statistics are impossible to deny. Socialists killed over 140 million people in the last century alone. Nobody and nothing has ever come remotely close to that body count.

Here's a question for you, Gary. You know that every single time Socialism has gotten control of a country -- whether it's Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Cuba...wherever...it has, 100% of the time, killed piles of people and crashed the economy. There are no success stories in Socialist rule.

So what would possess you to be so devoted to a system that literally has failed 100% of the time, and disastrously so? And why ought somebody else to agree with you that we should do it again?

Honest question. I'd really like to understand what makes that prospect so enduringly attractive to you. What is it that you think is bound to be different this time? What do you think it's going to get you? I really want to know.

[Gary Childress]

Actually, historically, the very LEAST able to live together with others in peace and harmony have been the Socialists. Their creed requires total obedience in the political realm, and they can tolerate NO differences on that. Jihadists may be cruel and tyrannical, but they've got nothing, in that regard, statistically, on the people who historically have believed exactly what your first sentence articulates -- that Socialism is "the right version," and all differences are "opium" to the masses.

Wow! Now, "socialists" are worse than Jihadists.

The statistics are impossible to deny. Socialists killed over 140 million people in the last century alone. Nobody and nothing has ever come remotely close to that body count.

Here's a question for you, Gary. You know that every single time Socialism has gotten control of a country -- whether it's Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Cuba...wherever...it has, 100% of the time, killed piles of people and crashed the economy. There are no success stories in Socialist rule.

So what would possess you to be so devoted to a system that literally has failed 100% of the time, and disastrously so? And why ought somebody else to agree with you that we should do it again?

Honest question. I'd really like to understand what makes that prospect so enduringly attractive to you. What is it that you think is bound to be different this time? What do you think it's going to get you? I really want to know.

Government-administered institutions have done fine. Post office, public schools, social security, police, emergency services, Food and Drug Administration, all are often government-funded programs, and they work well. Every government program doesn't end up like the Soviet Union; in fact, very few do. There are countries all over the world with government assistance available for their citizens. There's nothing wrong with it except in the minds of paranoid conspiracy freaks who think "big government" always = "big brother".

[Immanuel Can]

Wow! Now, "socialists" are worse than Jihadists.

The statistics are impossible to deny. Socialists killed over 140 million people in the last century alone. Nobody and nothing has ever come remotely close to that body count.

Here's a question for you, Gary. You know that every single time Socialism has gotten control of a country -- whether it's Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Cuba...wherever...it has, 100% of the time, killed piles of people and crashed the economy. There are no success stories in Socialist rule.

So what would possess you to be so devoted to a system that literally has failed 100% of the time, and disastrously so? And why ought somebody else to agree with you that we should do it again?

Honest question. I'd really like to understand what makes that prospect so enduringly attractive to you. What is it that you think is bound to be different this time? What do you think it's going to get you? I really want to know.

Government-administered institutions have done fine.

They haven't, actually. But a few "institutions" are not Socialism, anyway. The question is why you want national-scale Socialism, not why you like the post office.

Every government program doesn't end up like the Soviet Union;

Every Socialist one does, of course; and some, not even that good. The Chinese government is even more vicious. The regime in Cambodia? Super nasty. Cuba? They shot people into ditches...

So my question again: when you get Socialism in power in the US, what do you think it is that they'll do for you?

[Impenitent]

The statistics are impossible to deny. Socialists killed over 140 million people in the last century alone. Nobody and nothing has ever come remotely close to that body count.

Here's a question for you, Gary. You know that every single time Socialism has gotten control of a country -- whether it's Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Cuba...wherever...it has, 100% of the time, killed piles of people and crashed the economy. There are no success stories in Socialist rule.

So what would possess you to be so devoted to a system that literally has failed 100% of the time, and disastrously so? And why ought somebody else to agree with you that we should do it again?

Honest question. I'd really like to understand what makes that prospect so enduringly attractive to you. What is it that you think is bound to be different this time? What do you think it's going to get you? I really want to know.

Government-administered institutions have done fine.

They haven't, actually. But a few "institutions" are not Socialism, anyway. The question is why you want national-scale Socialism, not why you like the post office.

Every government program doesn't end up like the Soviet Union;

Every Socialist one does, of course; and some, not even that good. The Chinese government is even more vicious. The regime in Cambodia? Super nasty. Cuba? They shot people into ditches...

So my question again: when you get Socialism in power in the US, what do you think it is that they'll do for you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0

Dire Straits wrote a song about it

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0

Dire Straits wrote a song about it

-Imp

That seems about right, so far as I can tell.

[mickthinks]

Huh? Does Manny think that “Money for Nothing” is some kind of comment on or critique of socialism?

That would explain everything.

[Immanuel Can]

Huh? Does Manny think that “Money for Nothing” is some kind of comment on or critique of socialism?

Imp suggested it.

However, I think it's just as likely to be the reason that people are drawn to Socialism: they actually think that when Socialism rules, the Socialist elites will turn around and start handing them free money, and in infinite supply, apparently.

To start with, of course that's ridiculous. Name the country where that has happened.

[mickthinks]

Now Manny is trying to pretend he wasn’t talking about the song that Impenitent recommended when he responded with “That seems about right, so far as I can tell”. Manny will pull every trick to avoid admitting his mistakes.


And he makes so many.

[Gary Childress]

The statistics are impossible to deny. Socialists killed over 140 million people in the last century alone. Nobody and nothing has ever come remotely close to that body count.

Here's a question for you, Gary. You know that every single time Socialism has gotten control of a country -- whether it's Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Cuba...wherever...it has, 100% of the time, killed piles of people and crashed the economy. There are no success stories in Socialist rule.

So what would possess you to be so devoted to a system that literally has failed 100% of the time, and disastrously so? And why ought somebody else to agree with you that we should do it again?

Honest question. I'd really like to understand what makes that prospect so enduringly attractive to you. What is it that you think is bound to be different this time? What do you think it's going to get you? I really want to know.

Government-administered institutions have done fine.

They haven't, actually. But a few "institutions" are not Socialism, anyway. The question is why you want national-scale Socialism, not why you like the post office.

Every government program doesn't end up like the Soviet Union;

Every Socialist one does, of course; and some, not even that good. The Chinese government is even more vicious. The regime in Cambodia? Super nasty. Cuba? They shot people into ditches...

So my question again: when you get Socialism in power in the US, what do you think it is that they'll do for you?

Do you think the Canadian health care system is "socialist"? Or why do you despise government-funded universal healthcare so much?