Manic Hedgehog
Registered Member
Which do you value more -- NATIONAL SECURITY or INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS -- and why?
National Security or Individual Rights?
- Thread starter Manic Hedgehog
- Start date
individual rights...
because national security is based on fear and power concentration
individual rights is based on freedom
Re: Re: Re: National Security or Individual Rights?
a man of wisdom should refuse to be a moderator?!?!
Originally posted by IXL777
A man of wisdom you should be a moderator with wisdom like that!
a man of wisdom should refuse to be a moderator?!?!
Re: Re: National Security or Individual Rights?
you cannot have national freedom until you have national security
you cannot have national freedom until you have national security
we weren't asking for national freedom...we want personal freedom
"because national security is based on fear and power concentration"
Prove it.
Then prove that national security is 'bad' or detrimental because (if you can prove the first one) it is based on fear and power concentration.
I'd say national security is pretty fucking important. You know, what with the whole threat of war thing..
"individual rights is based on freedom"
You sound like a rather typical American-basher (take note that I am not, myself, American) - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. You've described how many people see American defence and ideal freedoms. However, individual rights really aren't based on 'freedom' in the same way you could (true or not) say national security is 'based' on fear or power. Individual rights are, by definition, freedom. It's like saying - The right to vote is based on ideal democracy - it's a completely redundant and useless sentance.
Prove it.
Then prove that national security is 'bad' or detrimental because (if you can prove the first one) it is based on fear and power concentration.
I'd say national security is pretty fucking important. You know, what with the whole threat of war thing..
"individual rights is based on freedom"
You sound like a rather typical American-basher (take note that I am not, myself, American) - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. You've described how many people see American defence and ideal freedoms. However, individual rights really aren't based on 'freedom' in the same way you could (true or not) say national security is 'based' on fear or power. Individual rights are, by definition, freedom. It's like saying - The right to vote is based on ideal democracy - it's a completely redundant and useless sentance.
From maslow's pyramid, I'd guess that most people who are being truthfull would say national security...
But, the need for national security is indeed based on fear... were we not afraid we would not be concerned about it. And Power concentration is one possible by-product of one possible way of going about improving national security. But I have to admit, he didn't say that national security was bad.... just that individual's rights were more important.
A balance is nessesscary, with the absolutes of both national security and freedom are mutually exclusive.
But, the need for national security is indeed based on fear... were we not afraid we would not be concerned about it. And Power concentration is one possible by-product of one possible way of going about improving national security. But I have to admit, he didn't say that national security was bad.... just that individual's rights were more important.
A balance is nessesscary, with the absolutes of both national security and freedom are mutually exclusive.
why do i have to proof my opinion?
and you are not under threat of war...iraq is.
What i meant was personal freedom Nationally.
which country are you refering to.
we need to help give them rights. it is their human right to have individual rights. Saddam has denied them that right.
yeah, that would be nice, but it has no basis in reality.
The US is not the paragon of freedom and human rights it holds it self up to be and is in no position to be liberating anyone.
Just about every country "liberated" by the US has ended up with a worse government than it started with. I'm guessing that after we get rid of saddam we'll replace him with an equally brutal and repressive, but pro-western dictator(remember the Shah in Iran)?
The US is not the paragon of freedom and human rights it holds it self up to be and is in no position to be liberating anyone.
Just about every country "liberated" by the US has ended up with a worse government than it started with. I'm guessing that after we get rid of saddam we'll replace him with an equally brutal and repressive, but pro-western dictator(remember the Shah in Iran)?
so I guess a good example of this in your opinion would be Russia. whell I personaly think that not having people like stalin killing everybody is a good thing unless you are a NAZI like yourself
when we replace saddam it wont be with a dictator, the new leader will not have absolut power.
what i meant was that it isn't
maybe they don't want freedom or rights
sorry spuriousmonkey: I mistook your quoting someone else as your own quote. I apologize