What the hell is this?

[Edric O]

I agree with your last post, Wolfwiz. While it stands to reason that the government should curtail certain freedoms during wartime, that doesn't mean that it can do anything it wants. And it has no right to curtail the freedoms that don't have any tactical value.

But none of this matters, anyway, since America isn't at war with anyone. The "War on Terror" is a perpetual skirmish against a phantom enemy that can never be truly defeated. "Terror" can't surrender, it can't sign an armistice or a peace treaty. So how do you know when you've defeated it? The whole thing smacks of "fatherland in danger" propaganda... You see, wars always whip up popular support for the government. So certain intrepid governments decide that it would be a good idea to be able to conjure up a war on demand.

As for Republicans, who ever said they're evil? All they want is immense wealth and power for themselves. The side effects, whether good or evil, do not interest them in the slightest.

You will find that very few people do evil for evil's sake. The majority of "villains" do evil only because it benefits themselves. Most evil is born out of selfishness and greed, not malevolence.

[Wolf]

Indeed, that I understand, Edric. A government should only curtail freedoms when the very existence of the peoples that the government protects is in jeoprady. Or, when the enemy also threatens to violate those same freedoms. In the Second World War, from the perspective of the United Kingdom, their survival was, indeed, in jeoprady. Hitler had sent the Luftwaffe to soften up the English in preperation for Operation Sea Lion, I believe, the invasion of the British Isles. Yet, I do not recall any major sacrifices in the war of personal liberties that were made for the war effort. Indeed, British citizens rationed food, sacrificed material wealth and property to the war effort, yet they did not sacrfice their status as citizens. I believe that such action in war is justified -- and only becomes unjustified when sacrifices are made that are not necessary to the outcome of survival.

However, how should a nation defend itself against terrorism?

[TMA_1]

the problem with posting in a thread like this is there are overwhelming emotions, and when too many emotions run thre is no real reason and thinking behind it. There might be bits and specks of reason, but it is overshadowed by opinion. "It is wrong, I hate it, how can they do something like this" blah blah.

Why not look at the issue first from an objective open handed mindset, then evaluate it with your own moral viewpoint instead of starthing from that standpoint ,its just too gosh darn dangerous to messaround with a subject liek this from a pure outlook of emotions.

[Wolf]

I thought I was being objective, TMA, in fact, I don't think that anyone wasn't...

[TMA_1]

no, there are just many statements made on peoples moral opinions and ideals, just a bit worried about it.