Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on September 28, 2002, 04:46:45 pm
-
just wanting to know were everyone stands
-
I'll take door number 3, Bob!
Lets get together and whup his ass. If not for us (for future safety) for his own folks who get tortured/raped//electric tortured/finger-nails-pulled-out/forced-to-do-all-weird-****/etc...
-
First option for me of course. Let's take over the world! :D
-
Five words:
War is never an option.
Stargazer.
-
Everything is always an option.
War is just another inevitable part of human experience; nothing all that special about it. :p
-
I didn't vote, cos you didn't have this option:
I'm not a Merry Can, and I reckon that while ole Saddam is 99% likely to be developing weapons o' mass destruction, neither the US nor any one else, be they multi-national coalition or one man army like me self, has the right to go and blow the sucka up without unquestionable, non CIA-produced proof. I'm all for removing that psycho-mentalist ego-trip nutcase from power (Saddam, not Bush), but we cannae just drop da bomb 'just in case'.
-
Good idea for a poll. Its a shame your own beliefs spoilt the wording of the options.
I'll take 7:
no I'm not american and I think america should be held to account for it's corperate imperialistic global domination plans and Iraq should be delt with through the UN under international law.
-
so you're not american and your againced the war
that would be option 4
thats all I care about learning from the poll you're nationality (as far as being an american) and you're position on this war currently
I just worded it to sound a little less bland
ok if some mod want's to change the wording go ahead
-
I hate war myself, tough it is an invetible effect of the human predetorial nature.
I can only pray (to a deus I dont belive in) that the humans are capable of changing their nature. If not; they will, in the end, eliminate themselfs and this planet.
Actually; it would take a miracle for them to survive the next 20 years...
Stargazer.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so you're not american and your againced the war
Not that black and white, Im against America just going to war just because it can. However Saddam is clear a threat and if he doesnt do what the UN wants then force is justified.
-
4
-
Numero Uno, here! :nod:
-
......
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Numero Uno, here! :nod:
Didn't see that comming...
-
I jumped the gun and took Option 2, even though I hardly think that Iraq is a "wonderous land".
RandomTiger summed up my thoughts pretty well. I don't think going to war with Iraq right now is a good idea, especially with Osama bin Ladin still at large. there are too many things that could go wrong with a war on Iraq that would jeopardize the war on terror.
The army that fights two battles at once loses twice.
Saddam is a petty power-hungry dictator and needs to be dealt with, but let's take care of Osama first. Saddam can wait.
-
Originally posted by an0n
......
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Didn't see that comming...
What?? I have dual American-Israeli citizenship. :D
-
For those of you who are against war, shame on you for your shortsited naive ignorance. War may not be a fun thing, but someone's gotta do the dirty work every once in a while and the US would not be going to war just because 'it can', but because theres a nutcase in power who needs to be removed before he starts nuclear armageddon.
1 here.
-
it is prety black and white if you think something must be done (that economic and political stuff isn't going to work, ie militarily action will be needed), then you are for the war, else you are aganced it
-
option 4.
fascists.
-
fascists rule! :D
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
For those of you who are against war, shame on you for your shortsited naive ignorance. War may not be a fun thing, but someone's gotta do the dirty work every once in a while and the US would not be going to war just because 'it can', but because theres a nutcase in power who needs to be removed before he starts nuclear armageddon.
1 here.
LN, just for the record, I'm not against war on Iraq. I fully realize that he will have to be dealt with soon. But I haven't seen any evidence that his threat of getting nukes is imminent (and Bush hasn't supplied any such evidence yet). We still have to deal with Al Queda first. All I'm saying is that we should finish one war before we start another, especially another war that could jeopardize the first one.
The debate isn't whether we should go to war with Iraq, but how and when.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
fascists rule! :D
Not for very long, though. :D
Remember Mussolini and Hitler? Both of their regimes lasted less than 20 years (and thank God for their regimes fell, too).
-
Well, Hitler at least would have gotten somewhere but for all his political cunning, he was a tactical buffoon... :p
All I'm saying is that we should finish one war before we start another, especially another war that could jeopardize the first one.
You see though, this one will never be finished, since as I said in the other thread, it is essentially impossible for us to root out Al Qaeda completely. We can only disrupt their plans and keep them running.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, Hitler at least would have gotten somewhere but for all his political cunning, he was a tactical buffoon... :p
You see though, this one will never be finished, since as I said in the other thread, it is essentially impossible for us to root out Al Qaeda completely. We can only disrupt their plans and keep them running.
Yep...never finished as long as anyone isnt brainwashed enough to exhibit non-conformists attitudes.
Your defense of this tired, over-tried course of action in an effort to expand your empire actually makes me sick.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
it is prety black and white if you think something must be done (that economic and political stuff isn't going to work, ie militarily action will be needed), then you are for the war, else you are aganced it
I still disagree. 'political stuff' with the threat of force is the only way to do with without causing a lot of people in the middle east to turn to terrorism.
I reserve the right to agree to war on conditions.
LtNarol
For those of you who are against war, shame on you for your shortsited naive ignorance. War may not be a fun thing, but someone's gotta do the dirty work every once in a while and the US would not be going to war just because 'it can', but because theres a nutcase in power who needs to be removed before he starts nuclear armageddon.
I have read most of the British document on Iraq and it would seem that containment is working to the extent that we have breathing time to try and find a diplomatic solution.
Why is everyone so desparate to go to war?
-
ANTHRAX !!!!!!! AHGGGGGGGGGGG..... :shaking: :shaking:
:eek:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
You see though, this one will never be finished, since as I said in the other thread, it is essentially impossible for us to root out Al Qaeda completely. We can only disrupt their plans and keep them running.
Al Qaeda relies on fanatics to join their cause.
If people stop joining then its nothing an Bin Laden is only one man (assuming hes still alive).
If you are willing to look for and solve the root cause it will do a lot more good.
-
Why? That means search of power, power superiority.
And the 500 year of fuels that are in the enemy territory, well thats what wants your country, $$$$$$$$$$$.
They allways find some excuse for war, lets blow our own ship!!!!! And go to war.
And people are stupid, they will believe the most B.S. commentary, that can tell your goverment, thats the power, you can do anything in it.
Well, i dont like people beeing killed for dirty work.
Who cares who got Biological weapons, maybee 50% of the planet there are stored for future use, and 80% of the planet has nuclear weapons, this will never end, radiation cannot be cleaned, that can last up to 300 years or more.
At least all of it will burn in "hell".
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
Why is everyone so desparate to go to war?
Its empire-fever. They want to bash someone because they can.
-
Well, talking of the Bin Laden Guy, gee, who you will blame for the billions of dollars was donated to him, for fighting against the Russians.
-
Unfortunately for your arguement people like Saddam also support things like Al Queda, are you therefore saying that plugging one wellspring of evil while leaving the other to sprout readily solves international terrorism?
As for containment, don't make me choke; I just had dinner. Containment and diplomacy didn't work with Hitler during WWII, it will not work with Saddam and WWIII. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Diplomacy only works with the sane, its a whole new game when you're dealing with the insane.
-
Well, thats a big mess.
-
I say we nuke everything, just to be safe. Including the US- you don't want those insider cells to wreak havoc without their leaders.
-
JAja :ha: :ha: :ha: cool.
It will be like the fallout game.
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
Unfortunately for your arguement people like Saddam also support things like Al Queda, are you therefore saying that plugging one wellspring of evil while leaving the other to sprout readily solves international terrorism?
We are not saying leave it how it is.
I want to see all Saddams weapons destoryed.
I believe this can be done without killing anyone.
Look at history, how often is the quick fix better than the slow long term solution?
As for containment, don't make me choke; I just had dinner. Containment and diplomacy didn't work with Hitler during WWII, it will not work with Saddam and WWIII. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Diplomacy only works with the sane, its a whole new game when you're dealing with the insane.
This is totally different. We have a huge advantage. In a mater of hours we could have total air superiority over Iraq and do whatever the hell we like. The problem with WW2 is that no-one tryed to contain Germany.
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
This is totally different. We have a huge advantage. In a mater of hours we could have total air superiority over Iraq and do whatever the hell we like. The problem with WW2 is that no-one tryed to contain Germany.
Air superiority is not the issue. An attack by Iraq upon an Allied country would come, not on the wings of fighter/bombers, or from the deck guns of a Cruiser, but rather from long range missiles carrying biological or chemical weapons. Even the JSF would have trouble stopping that. :nervous:
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
I want to see all Saddams weapons destoryed.
He won't do that just because you ask him nicely.
Originally posted by RandomTiger
I believe this can be done without killing anyone.
Sorry for being blunt, but if you really believe that then you're as naive as the hippies of the 70s and as idiotic as they come. Nothing is so free.
Originally posted by RandomTiger
Look at history, how often is the quick fix better than the slow long term solution?
Never, and leaving Saddam in power _IS_ a short term solution because he _WILL_ find a way to aquire new weapons.
Originally posted by RandomTiger
This is totally different. We have a huge advantage. In a mater of hours we could have total air superiority over Iraq and do whatever the hell we like. The problem with WW2 is that no-one tryed to contain Germany.
Not true, we may have air superiority, but Saddam can always dig in or run for the tall grass. If he builds his missile silos underground, nothing short of tac-nukes will be able to get to them.
Leave him in power and we'll have the cold war all over again, only this time with an opponent who has nothing to lose and everything to gain. Frankly, I'd rather die fighting it than live fearing it.
-
It is because America must have Iraq under total survalence. Theres no way that a missle launch could be setup (for that kind of range) without it being seen and stopped.
Im more worried about if Saddam gives it away in small batches to Al Qaeda and other terror groups.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Air superiority is not the issue. An attack by Iraq upon an Allied country would come, not on the wings of fighter/bombers, or from the deck guns of a Cruiser, but rather from long range missiles carrying biological or chemical weapons. Even the JSF would have trouble stopping that. :nervous:
And leaving him able to do so in the future is such a better alternative?
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
He won't do that just because you ask him nicely.
He will if he knows we'll attack him if he doesnt.
Sorry for being blunt, but if you really believe that then you're as naive as the hippies of the 70s and as idiotic as they come. Nothing is so free.
I think thats a bit more than blunt.
You are a fool if you think that killing Iraq's, even Saddam is going to solve America's security problems.
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
And leaving him able to do so in the future is such a better alternative?
Where did I say that? I'm just saying simple containment isn't an option.
-
killing Iraq will solve the Iraqi security problem :)
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
Im more worried about if Saddam gives it away in small batches to Al Qaeda and other terror groups.
isn't that reason alone to take the guy out. he likes terrorist groups... hell he compensates the families of suicide bombers (gives them a good $25000 which a bunch of money to palestineans)
-
I'm not for an all out assault meant to level Iraq, I want Saddam dealt with and dealt with before he becomes any more of a threat.
-
If you are willing to look for and solve the root cause it will do a lot more good.
Of course, finding a solution to this "root cause" is pretty much impossible; the only realistic and practical solution is to keep killing them as they come up. It is much harder to destroy an idea than to destroy men.
Sorry for being blunt, but if you really believe that then you're as naive as the hippies of the 70s and as idiotic as they come. Nothing is so free.
I quite agree here. This is over-optimism at its worst.
Actually, I think that this absolute anti-war thing that some people display has nothing to do with what people are saying here - they are giving pseudo-rational reasons but the true sentiments behind it are somewhat different. The simple fact is that much of western society has become softened to the extreme, and the mere mention of war, death, "immorality," and whatever else causes the rabbles to start protesting. Sorry, but this is the real world, and all of this does and must happen as long as humans act independently of each other, which will be the case for at least our lifetimes.
-
Whaa...? The hippies were in the 60s- the 70s were fashionable dropouts- most didn't even CALL themselves hippies. And if you think the student radicals were naive, you seriously need to brush up on history. Some of those guys were out for blood, plain and simple, and knew EXACTLY how things worked.
-
One of the funniest things I've read here and heard on the news etc is the "WE have not seen good enough proof about Iraq"
Ummm ppl .... MILITARY,... do ppl actually think it's a bright idea to produce everything for a freaking public debate ? ?
Imagine hearing this on CNN "Today at 3pm EST we recieved satelite footage that clearly shows a military installation in Iraq setting up a nuclear warhead for transport to a nearby aresenal."
:wtf:
Gee ... no wide spread panic here eh ? No offense to anyone here ,.. so if the following upsets anyone ... oh well,....
But I think the Joint Chiefs have been doing all this for a wee but longer than ANYone on this forum. Hell most of them have prolly held that position longer than half the forum's been breathing.
Let the ppl TRAINED to make this type of call do it.
:rolleyes:
-
Yes, but they get paid to kill people, so I'm not going to go on their recommendations alone
-
They get paid to defend their country, not to kill; killing just happens to be required from time to time. They're there for a reason, and I quote: "If Command wants your opinion, they'll promote you to admiral." If your thoughts were needed, you'd be sitting on a board by now, not posting on the internet.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Gee ... no wide spread panic here eh ? No offense to anyone here ,.. so if the following upsets anyone ... oh well,....
Yeah, because it's one thing to issue terror warnings every day, say that anybody near a nuclear power plant, public building, large city or the ground is putting themselves at imminent risk of terrorist attack, and scream about a bioweapon threat when powdered donuts turn out to leave dust and mosquitoes bite people, never mind encouraging people to spy on their neighbors because they MAY BE TERRORISTS. Saying that the government had any evidence that Saddam has the weapons it's been claiming it knows he has all along is the WRONG kind of panic-inducing!
Screw your head on, kid. It's a war, and we've got war propoganda. A heightened state of panic, tempered with murderous hatred, is just what the powers that be want and need. Never mind that producing actual, real evidence, instead of making it up, wouldn't create a very effective panic. Maybe one or two new bomb shelters, but people are running on the assumption that he's got bombs anyway, because that's what the military keeps screaming to panic about on TV.
But I think the Joint Chiefs have been doing all this for a wee but longer than ANYone on this forum. Hell most of them have prolly held that position longer than half the forum's been breathing.
Let the ppl TRAINED to make this type of call do it.
:rolleyes:
And I'm sure Stalin was quite qualified for the job, as well. In fact, no junta dictator comes to mind who wasn't, in some way. "years of experience" might wash at McDonalds, but not when I have to live with deeper consequences than food poisoning. Assuming that, simply because someone appears to know what they're doing, they're any more likely to get it right than Joe Blow might sound good on paper, but in real life it's almost never been the case in politics- certainly not the case when you're talking about US foreign relations. Pull out a history book and tell me how well the qualified men have fared in the past.
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
If your thoughts were needed, you'd be sitting on a board by now, not posting on the internet.
Needed by whom? By a consortium of generals whose career hinges on blowing **** up- who've been trained their entire lives to kill foreigners whenever they poked their heads up? No, I suppose any thoughts leading to the concept of "not blowing **** up for the hell of it" wouldn't be needed. But a government that doesn't need the people is the greatest threat to the peopel there could ever be- we get in the way. And I'm not the government, I'm the people- I think I'll cover MY ass, not worry about theirs.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Imagine hearing this on CNN "Today at 3pm EST we recieved satelite footage that clearly shows a military installation in Iraq setting up a nuclear warhead for transport to a nearby aresenal."
Nope, but instead you might hear this:
"According to military sources, there is a reason to believe that the government of Ouagadaogou has been supporting terrorism. Their country will cease to exist at 3. pm tomorrow."
My point is, would you let your country(I assume you are an american) to attack absolutely anyone just because the government says so?
Oh, and that would be option 3 for me, but I'm hoping it would be possible to get rid of that wacko-Saddam without turning Iraq into a glass parking lot. Also, the US should be held accountable for it's corperate imperialistic global domination plans. Still, some of these "War is BAD!, USA is BAD!"-hippies here make laugh.(referring to no-one in particular, put down those flamethrowers)
-
well it would be fun to nuke sadam we could just use our conventional weapons and instal a democratic republic in his place
and how's this for some evedence, a bunch of guys were just caut in turky 130 miles from the Iraqi border with 30 pounds of weapons grade uranium
or something a little simpler, Iraq kicked UN inspectors out and won't let them back in to see what they have, Iraq hates us (not just America, but the entire western world) becase we wooped his ass so baddly, and is, at the least idealogicaly, alighed with these islamic terrorists
-
Anyone know about what Bush and Blair plan to do after any war with Iraq? Regime change is all well and good, but it does start a rather dangerous precient. What happens if the next guy in power isn't all that friendly?
-
"Ouagadaogou" is a city, not a country :D
Saddam Hussain will not attack Britian/America if we don't attack him. He could well attack his neighbours, which have regiemes that are no better than his, if not worse. He's not stupid, he's well aware that the use of any chemical weapons will mean the end of his rule so they're effectively useless to him, unless he's invaded.
It seems that certain people here are unfammiliar with the concept of war: When you bomb someone, it's normally customary to be bombed back. A war would only be provokation for more terrorist Attacks. Bush and Blair are a far Bigger threat to us (the people), than saddam could ever be. America doesn't even provide basic healthcare for its citizens, 40 million of which live in poverty and britain "can't afford" to pay its firefighters a decent wage yet they spend millions on a war with a country thousands of miles away. Wake up guys. The desires of Bush and Blair are very different to the desires/needs of the people they "represent". We should have a "regieme change" in our own countries before bothering about others.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
"Ouagadaogou" is a city, not a country :D
:wtf: You're kidding, right? 'cause I just made it up.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
fascists rule! :D
:nod:
4.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I quite agree here. This is over-optimism at its worst.
Actually, I think that this absolute anti-war thing that some people display has nothing to do with what people are saying here - they are giving pseudo-rational reasons but the true sentiments behind it are somewhat different. The simple fact is that much of western society has become softened to the extreme, and the mere mention of war, death, "immorality," and whatever else causes the rabbles to start protesting. Sorry, but this is the real world, and all of this does and must happen as long as humans act independently of each other, which will be the case for at least our lifetimes.
Nope, I just think the western way of life is corrupt, has had its day and needs to be removed for any kind of progress to happen.
I am fundamentally against any attempt by western nations to spread their capitalist sedition under the guise of "security" "containment" or "war on terror". I'm not saying the other guys are saints, i'm saying this will cause problems in the long run and its going to get harder to make everything right the longer you all SIT ON YOUR ARSES AND PRETEND EVERTYHINGS' OK.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
....I just think the western way of life is corrupt...
I am fundamentally against any attempt by western nations to spread their capitalist sedition under the guise of "security" "containment" or "war on terror".
Then you are your likes, sir, better be ready for the fight of your lives. Because this is one capitalist westerner who will fight to the last to protect our way of life, and I'm not the only one.
-
the longer you leave it and refuse to see what you're doing to the world around you the nastier things will get when they finally snap.
What you want is unsustainable and you know it.
-
LOL Ya know I swear some days I think HLP needs to be renamed to "The Blatantly ***** about America BB"
When half the ones here whining are willing to put their asses on the line and sign up for duty, call me. It's just sad that for the most part it seems patriotism is a ****in fad. 9-11, all the flags ppl ran out of bought , meant dick to 90% of them as it was just "the thing to do".
Worldwide it's even stupider.
Anyways we'll always agree to disagree here, but in realiality none of the opinions here mean crap as it's not really going to change a damned thing.
Heh personally I would LOVE to see the US change and close it's borders and let the rest of the world rot.
-
LOL 11 votes that America should get nuked!
And that while we were talking if the US should go to war with Iraq...
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Heh personally I would LOVE to see the US change and close it's borders and let the rest of the world rot.
Please do.
-
Warlock certainly has a point there; this is a military operation, and people are asking for "evidence?" :p I think that they are already publicizing way too much stuff, but that is one of the big problems with a republic; if they had done it right, we wouldn't know anything at all about this Iraq issue.
My point is, would you let your country(I assume you are an american) to attack absolutely anyone just because the government says so?
In this case it would be fine, since as I said before, we have little to lose.
I am fundamentally against any attempt by western nations to spread their capitalist sedition under the guise of "security" "containment" or "war on terror". I'm not saying the other guys are saints, i'm saying this will cause problems in the long run and its going to get harder to make everything right the longer you all SIT ON YOUR ARSES AND PRETEND EVERTYHINGS' OK.
No, like I said in that other thread, the only way that this system can be permanently removed is through its unprecedented success. If you have some kind of revolution, it will eventually be once again replaced with something like the current system. We want to unite the world under the current way of life and then watch it change internally.
Besides, what is it costing us to spread the "capitalist sedition?" Our lives will be unaffected by the result of this, so honestly speaking, the last two options in this poll are the only real choices. (unless you live in Iraq, of course)
Anyways we'll always agree to disagree here, but in realiality none of the opinions here mean crap as it's not really going to change a damned thing.
That's the good thing about this. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That's the good thing about this. :D
or not depending a more in depth objective analysis.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
No, like I said in that other thread, the only way that this system can be permanently removed is through its unprecedented success. If you have some kind of revolution, it will eventually be once again replaced with something like the current system. We want to unite the world under the current way of life and then watch it change internally.
I wouldn't say that. Just because that's how things have turned out so far doesn't mean that's how they will always be. Although admittingly, the right conditions for a permanent revolution are very, very hard to come by (There's zero chance of it happening in the west). If Lenin's Bolshevik party had been more careful to avoid internel degeneration, followed by sucsessful revolutions in Other, less backward countries then it had every chance of working out.
-
I do find it very sad many people are so unimaginative, uninterested, uninteresting and dead inside that they cannot or will not consider that an alternative system would ever work.
We've tried this way, its been going for over 300 years in its current form and all its' generated is misery for practically everyone.
Try something else, try anything else - just dont give up and stick with this because "It works". It does not work. It only looks like it does because you've lost the will to improve.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
I do find it very sad many people are so unimaginative, uninterested, uninteresting and dead inside that they cannot or will not consider that an alternative system would ever work.
We've tried this way, its been going for over 300 years in its current form and all its' generated is misery for practically everyone.
Try something else, try anything else - just dont give up and stick with this because "It works". It does not work. It only looks like it does because you've lost the will to improve.
Please tell me where it does not work for me?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well it would be fun to nuke sadam we could just use our conventional weapons and instal a democratic republic in his place
and how's this for some evedence, a bunch of guys were just caut in turky 130 miles from the Iraqi border with 30 pounds of weapons grade uranium
or something a little simpler, Iraq kicked UN inspectors out and won't let them back in to see what they have, Iraq hates us (not just America, but the entire western world) becase we wooped his ass so baddly, and is, at the least idealogicaly, alighed with these islamic terrorists
In truth, the only reason I am against a war with Iraq is due to the fact that ever since Korea the United States has done a half-ass job in any armed conflict.
In Afghanistan is the Marshall Plan being enforced to turn it into a Democratic Republic? No, infact the US has been opposed to aid from other allied nations to build their economy to prevent such conflicts in the future.
In the Gulf-War we did not level Bagdhad and put in a democracy. Why? Because the war was and still is over oil and not the defense of democracy and civilization.
America itself as a multicultural society is a wonderful thing. However, the US does what is expedient in it's foreign policy, not what is right.
Will Bush install a Republic in Iraq if he is given a war? Afghanistan has proven he will not. Thus Bush and his policies have no concern for the longterm wellfare of the American people.
Anyone who wishes to argue these points faces that these are based on observations from hard facts. A true Republic requires an economy which supports a middle class, Afghanistan currently lacks this and there are no plans emplaced to build an economy which will have one. Thus my points are valid.
-
You Know what would totally catch me off gaurd?
say another country... perhaps china or maybe Russia (:p ) says "hey, **** america, lets walk in and kill Saddam and take the oil for ourselves."
You never hear that usually CNN: "Today, China/Russia brutally attacked and slaughtered millions of Iraqi's in a uncalled and brutally heinos attack. President Bush has condemmned the attacks and says that unless They withdraw, he will be forced to use millatary force." :rolleyes:
hmmmm.. U.S. Turf-War :wink:
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
You Know what would totally catch me off gaurd?
say another country... perhaps china or maybe Russia (:p ) says "hey, **** america, lets walk in and kill Saddam and take the oil for ourselves."
You never hear that usually CNN: "Today, China/Russia brutally attacked and slaughtered millions of Iraqi's in a uncalled and brutally heinos attack. President Bush has condemmned the attacks and says that unless They withdraw, he will be forced to use millatary force." :rolleyes:
hmmmm.. U.S. Turf-War :wink:
That's close to what the Russians did in Kosovo ;)
-
well i haven't heard of China since the U.S. Spy plane "crash", i think it's somebodies deal now.. ;)
-
Originally posted by vyper
Please tell me where it does not work for me?
You happy with your life? Your one aspiration a white picket fence and a well-mown lawn, paid for by sitting at a desk accomplishing nothing for years of your life? You happy being a mindless cell in a machine that has little use for you, doesn't give a **** for you, and will spit you out as soon as you show warning signs of becoming useless, to sit and rot out of sight of the rest of society, as an embarassment? You happy worrying all your life over fancy green cigarette paper and metal slugs (or, now, imaginary gigarette paper and slugs)? Well, your thing, I guess. Most people aren't.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
You happy with your life? Your one aspiration a white picket fence and a well-mown lawn, paid for by sitting at a desk accomplishing nothing for years of your life? You happy being a mindless cell in a machine that has little use for you, doesn't give a **** for you, and will spit you out as soon as you show warning signs of becoming useless, to sit and rot out of sight of the rest of society, as an embarassment? You happy worrying all your life over fancy green cigarette paper and metal slugs (or, now, imaginary gigarette paper and slugs)? Well, your thing, I guess. Most people aren't.
See this is what pisses me off, royally! Just because thats all YOU can see in this society, does not mean thats what everyone else is limited to. :mad2:
-
yet another pointless country bashing thread. tsk-tsk
-
Originally posted by vyper
See this is what pisses me off, royally! Just because thats all YOU can see in this society, does not mean thats what everyone else is limited to. :mad2:
All right, you go try and live the life you always dreamed of, back when you were a kid and before your expectations were artificially lowered. What'd you wanna be? Astronaut? Rock star? Cowboy? Test pilot?
I have yet to see anyone who felt that the highest one could reach in life was to be a pediatrician or lawyer- and in this society, that's about as far as you can get. So tell me- what'd you always dream of doing when you were a grown-up, and how the **** are you doing anything close to it now? About .1% of the country- MAYBE- is doing what is known as "living life to the fullest"- doing something with their lives that anyone could see one would want to do for their entire life. I know several- they're people to aspire to be. But for every one of them, there are many thousand who settle for less, settle for nothing, are nothing, till they die (a change few notice). REALLY. Get real, man!
-
Its post like these that screw up threads (though I dunno how this thread could get worse). IMO, a post like the one above me (strykes) should be pm'd to the one it is intended to.
-
or not depending a more in depth objective analysis.
Well, if it was true, there would be a world-wide anarchy instead of governments. :p :D (as I said, democracy just does not work the way it is supposed to because of the way the common people's minds operate in groups; the governments simply cannot go by what the people complain about, or they would end up doing the most ridiculous things and would be long dead)
I wouldn't say that. Just because that's how things have turned out so far doesn't mean that's how they will always be. Although admittingly, the right conditions for a permanent revolution are very, very hard to come by (There's zero chance of it happening in the west). If Lenin's Bolshevik party had been more careful to avoid internel degeneration, followed by sucsessful revolutions in Other, less backward countries then it had every chance of working out.
You could well be right about that, but still, the odds are heavily against it based on what have seen so far in history along with the workings of the mind of today's man. I personally am more for the Schumpeterian view than the Marxian one in regards to the establishment of a stable communist state; it would grow right out of a long-lasting capitalism instead of through eschewing capitalism in a bang. ;) Although as I said, the revolution option is by no means impossible. I think that if Lenin had lived a bit longer, the USSR would have really turned into a much more powerful and stable institution, since everything was going quite well until his death and the subsequent power struggle.
You happy being a mindless cell in a machine that has little use for you...
This is the equivalent of asking a cell whether or not it is "happy" being a part of an organism. :p
I have yet to see anyone who felt that the highest one could reach in life was to be a pediatrician or lawyer- and in this society, that's about as far as you can get. So tell me- what'd you always dream of doing when you were a grown-up, and how the **** are you doing anything close to it now? About .1% of the country- MAYBE- is doing what is known as "living life to the fullest"- doing something with their lives that anyone could see one would want to do for their entire life. I know several- they're people to aspire to be. But for every one of them, there are many thousand who settle for less, settle for nothing, are nothing, till they die (a change few notice). REALLY. Get real, man!
:wtf: so...what are you trying to say? That every person should get exactly what they want in regards to their profession? That simply cannot be done as long as more than one human exists in the world, and this is all the more true in a society; not everyone is going to be able to become, say, a, top-notch programmer, because not only do everyone's skills significantly vary (and therefore some are better suited than others), but the society only needs so many programmers and it needs other positions to be filled up. Besides, people sometimes set unrealistic goals given the circumstances. I am aspiring to be a pure mathematics researcher/professor, which shouldn't be that hard since there are few people in that area nowadays (everyone goes into applied stuff), although if for some reason I cannot go into this field, there are a number of other related things I have in mind.
Its post like these that screw up threads (though I dunno how this thread could get worse). IMO, a post like the one above me (strykes) should be pm'd to the one it is intended to.
I'm not even sure what he is trying to say... :p
-
Heh yea let's blame society for the fact that we're not all we've ever wanted to be in life. Hell let's sue!!!
Ok now would be a good time to pull your head OUT of your ass and think with it.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
:wtf: so...what are you trying to say? That every person should get exactly what they want in regards to their profession? That simply cannot be done as long as more than one human exists in the world, and this is all the more true in a society; not everyone is going to be able to become, say, a, top-notch programmer, because not only do everyone's skills significantly vary (and therefore some are better suited than others), but the society only needs so many programmers and it needs other positions to be filled up. Besides, people sometimes set unrealistic goals given the circumstances. I am aspiring to be a pure mathematics researcher/professor, which shouldn't be that hard since there are few people in that area nowadays (everyone goes into applied stuff), although if for some reason I cannot go into this field, there are a number of other related things I have in mind.
No, I'm saying a society where the aspirations and the realities are so widely divergent is, by definition, a screwed-up one. I don't care about "exactly"- nobody ever even comes close. I don't know whether to fault the part of society that sets the hopes and aspirations, or the part that limits one to being a worthless drone. Either way, ****ed-up. And that's not normally the case- look at any culture not largely overtaken by our own, and you'll see that nobody has any pipe dreams, but they more or less usually have a chance to define themselves as individuals. Though I might have phrased it badly, that's the point I'm making- everyone wants to be themself, clearly different from everywhere else, and it just plain ain't happening. The displays of "individualism" that DO go on in this society, rare as they are, are generally pathetic, furtive little midlife-crisis-like spending sprees or done via the purchase of designer clothing- the capitalist's soul is bared. It's just... wrong, particularly for a society that places so much weight on the individual (it's one thing to see hundreds of, say, Chinese living the same life, with their long culture of collectivism. Here, where everyone's expected to be a ****ing special snowflake, nobody is, and thus everyone's unhappy).
And you're wrong, anyway. After a certain, very early point in life, what one wants to do with it starts to conform with one's native ability to get to do this- I never really wanted to be a mathemetician, more of a writer/artist sort, because that's what I'm good at, and thus what I like. Same with everyone. After that point, it's mostly experience and education- I COULD become a virtuoso programmer, if that was my interest. I AM a good (relative to those around me, at least) writer. The visual direction, I'm working on, but I'm already a fairly accomplished amateur photographer, and I think you could tell how my CG work has improved, if I showed you my old stuff.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Ok now would be a good time to pull your head OUT of your ass and think with it.
If you had demonstrated any sense of humor previously, I'd think this was self-effacing irony. Go look on your past posts, then tell ME to pull my head out of my ass. I haven't responded to your babbling tripe so far, since for the large part it has been beneath contempt, much less notice, but your idiotic squawking and insistence on intruding on what is otherwise a fairly intelligent argument is really starting to be annoying. Go watch Jerry Springer or hit on your cousin or something, hick-boy.
-
Though I might have phrased it badly, that's the point I'm making- everyone wants to be themself, clearly different from everywhere else, and it just plain ain't happening. The displays of "individualism" that DO go on in this society, rare as they are, are generally pathetic, furtive little midlife-crisis-like spending sprees or done via the purchase of designer clothing- the capitalist's soul is bared
How is that necessarily a good thing? Individualism for its own sake is equally as stupid as trying to blend in with the mass just for social acceptance. And no, everyone does not necessarily want to be themselves; about half the people do, and there is no reason why they cannot do that as long as they continue to perform their other tasks.
And you're wrong, anyway. After a certain, very early point in life, what one wants to do with it starts to conform with one's native ability to get to do this- I never really wanted to be a mathemetician, more of a writer/artist sort, because that's what I'm good at, and thus what I like.
Where did I say it was not so? In fact, I'm the one around here who has always been saying that our likes and dislikes are almost completely determined by our experience in life. Of course, this is completely unavoidable due to the fact that we exist in a reality (nothing to do with governments or economies), and it also means that there is no such thing as "natural" likes or dislikes. What exactly is the problem here?
-
Originally posted by vyper
See this is what pisses me off, royally! Just because thats all YOU can see in this society, does not mean thats what everyone else is limited to. :mad2:
And just because you might be happy but the other 99% of the planet isnt except you dont want to do anything because it "upsets" you pisses ME off.
However i'm not forcing you to do anything - its just you'll have to live with the ramifications of your actions (or Inactions, should I say). and that situation is a good deal less than optimal.
-
Originally posted by Pera
:wtf: You're kidding, right? 'cause I just made it up.
No he's not kidding.
It's the Capital of Burkina Faso, the country just north of Ivory Coast.
For reference: that's the country where an attempt at a coup happened and which might now be spiralling into civil war
-
Originally posted by CP5670
How is that necessarily a good thing? Individualism for its own sake is equally as stupid as trying to blend in with the mass just for social acceptance. And no, everyone does not necessarily want to be themselves; about half the people do, and there is no reason why they cannot do that as long as they continue to perform their other tasks.
Well, I suppose. Still, there's something wrong with a society that puts so much weitht on it, and then doesn't really allow for it.
-
Heh yea let's blame society for the fact that we're not all we've ever wanted to be in life. Hell let's sue!!!
no no no no no.... Blame Canada! :p
-
Yesss! Nuke Canada! And the French! Can't forget to nuke the French!
-
I agree whole heartedly, and don't forget the little known mexico. They've been Jealous ever since we sto- Reclaimed what was right fully ours form them (i.e. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas) They've already over run Cali with millions... i mean, ya we need people to pick our grapes and other various fruits, but when they hop over iur borders and reproduce with our Un-tainted white girls, by the dozen.. well that's just not cool.
And Canada.
-
No, we need the cheap labor. I say, just sink everything north of Mexico City, mine the canal thus created, and reshape Texas to cover the entire US southern border. The Texan's will kill any foreigners who make it past the shark-infested waters, land and water mines, razor-wire fences/concrete blockades, and punji stake traps. Then, declare Mexico the 50th state (did I mention selling Rhode Island to the Japanese first?)
-
Cheap Labour = Great
7 Malnourished Beaner Kids walking daring to walk into your garage to steal soem soda when you can't find your fathers gun = Annoying
it could be worse i spose'. i like the texas idea though :nod: And i'm sure it'll happen if we keep Bush in power
-
"As President of the United State of Texas, I hereby declare war on the following continents...":D
It doesn't have quite the same ring as United States of Iowa, which I had always expected would happen first, but hey...
-
:timothymcveigh: i'm sure mexico city could use a few less captitol buildings :timothymcveigh:
... oh wait, he's dead
hmmmm...
yeah, jus take everything down till you get to eccuador. Jus be carefull, wouldn't want our boys to catch a nasty case of malearea.
-
Hmmm... I don't know. Maybe if we send the poor to invade- they're expendable, they come in large numbers, they're already diseased! Practically invulnerable, in this case! What's more, we'd be killing two birds with one stone!
-
There's this one homeless dude ~ i call him homejoe ~ , he lives by Food For Less and is curiously large for a guy who can't find food, i guess that's where the back of Food 4 Less comes in. Anyways, most of them are Vets, so it's not like they wouldn't be experianced :D (Makes you want to join the Army , huh?) :D
-
I hear herion addiction comes free in the Army now, too.
Is the rampant homosexuality from long lack of exposure to women part of the deluxe package, or can I just order the standard and get harassed?
-
i can hear it now
"Get down and blow me 50 soldier"
"You either give me 50 wet ones, or your on Salad tossing duty for the next month"
-
I hope you two ****s get conscripted
-
:lol: :lol:
Drafted and I am legally too young :D :p
-
This discussion just went down the toilet... :doubt:
Btw, seen the American protest against war? I loved every second of it :D!
-
Sorry baby, but every toilet must be flushed, eventually :)
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Sorry baby
*Checks edge of her Axe*
*adds a little rust along with some nasty poisons*
*chops KTs arm of*
But really what do you guys think this protest will do? Nothing or will it influence the course of events?
-
:D Tiara, you are so silly :D
no, i think They (being the heirarchy) will do what they want now and there's not much we can do.
And on the topic, I don't really think that "protesting" (walking around with big sticks on a sidewalk or sending flyers/chain mail around) ever really accomplishes anything.. at all. All it is, is a deterant to daily life and a cause of traffic jams. If you really want to make a difference ( :lol: ) run for office.
Anyways, i am off to bed. I better not wake up and see 4 new threads and 50 new posts tomamrow or there will be hell to pay.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
Nope, I just think the western way of life is corrupt, has had its day and needs to be removed for any kind of progress to happen.
I am fundamentally against any attempt by western nations to spread their capitalist sedition under the guise of "security" "containment" or "war on terror". I'm not saying the other guys are saints, i'm saying this will cause problems in the long run and its going to get harder to make everything right the longer you all SIT ON YOUR ARSES AND PRETEND EVERTYHINGS' OK.
So..... pray tell, what would replace the 'western way of life'?
-
Originally posted by Shrike
So..... pray tell, what would replace the 'western way of life'?
...anarchy...
(ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to kill you and take the cows. )
...Or worse : SURREALISM...
(SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.)
-
The western way of life has existed for a very long time, and it isn't about to die overnight, no matter how much some people would like that. Its worked this long. I admit, its not perfect - but no system is. Our way is the best, because it allows for human nature while aspiring to a level of morality. (At least in Britain, I don't know where everyone in this debate lives). wEvil, you may disagree, but that is because you seem to have a predefined hatred of western society. I should point out, that the ability to use this BB or even the internet would not have been developed if not for the western way of life.
If nothing else, its a lot bloody better than the eastern way.:)
-
Ok, just to clearify things. These are the possible governments that can replace the western world :p :
FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.
BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as the regulations say you should need.
FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk. :lol:
PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.
DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you. :nod:
SINGAPOREAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment. :lol:
MILITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate".
BRITISH DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You feed them sheeps' brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything. :lol:
BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows..
ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to kill you and take the cows.
CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. This is the current :p
HONG KONG CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly - listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother - in - law at the bank, then execute a debt / equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the fung shiu is bad.
ENVIRONMENTALISM: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.
FEMINISM: You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf. :D:D
TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.
COUNTER CULTURE: Wow, dude, there's like... these two cows, man. You got to have some of this milk.
SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
LIBERTARIANISM: You have two cows. One has actually read the constitution, believes in it, and has some really good ideas about government. The cow runs for office, and while most people agree that the cow is the best candidate, nobody except the other cow votes for her because they think it would be "throwing their vote away."
-
:lol: yeah I saw that a while ago, although it is still simply hilarious... :D :D (the hong kong capitalism one is the best :D)
I think that the "western way of life" has worked because it is the most conducive to the process of innovation, which is what keeps a civilization running; nothing more than that.
-
Woah I can see that many people er for nuking america.
-
Now, we all know that the war is not the answer *kicks CP* and that nothing will be accomplished by trying to kill that Sadam. So what? He is supposingly torturing his people in Iraq, so why do you americans care about that? Instead of spending trillions of dollars in wepoans that "will be used" in bombing Iraq, you should use that money to for instance, rebuild the trade center, tore down Pentagon :yes: economically help countries that are in stage of recovery and development. Now taht would be a more HUMAN way to spend all taht money. But, unfortunately, you are stuck with a bird brain monkey who gives you orders and pushes you to do things taht you know are wrong.
Oh wait a minnutes. ow I remember. You want to "take over Iraq" because they have the resources that you need like oil and gass. Now that makes sence. Why would you care about Sadam when all you need is that oil that Iraq has and of course as usual, you find another pathetic reason to torture a country that never did anything to you. By the way, in which way did Iraq bring any evil or harm to you? No no let me guess. Sadam worked with B L right? :lol:
-
Actually, we all know that war is the only rational answer to certain things, but certain people have been brainwashed by their surroundings into thinking otherwise for no reason at all. :rolleyes: If it is a more "human" thing to do, it is usually less rational too, so there is no reason to do it. And don't tell me what is right or wrong; that is competely subjective and means nothing in the absolute. Although I do agree with rebuilding the WTC will be a good idea to boost morale, but we can still kill everyone else while we're at it, can't we? :D
Oh wait a minnutes. ow I remember. You want to "take over Iraq" because they have the resources that you need like oil and gass. Now that makes sence. Why would you care about Sadam when all you need is that oil that Iraq has and of course as usual, you find another pathetic reason to torture a country that never did anything to you. By the way, in which way did Iraq bring any evil or harm to you? No no let me guess. Sadam worked with B L right?
Exactly, he didn't do any harm; we just want his oil, and he is too weak to defend it anyway. And what is wrong with that?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Exactly, he didn't do any harm; we just want his oil, and he is too weak to defend it anyway. And what is wrong with that?
No a handful of plutocrats want his oil, they'll become even more stupidly rich from it and you'll get a couple of cents off a galllon of Petrol.
-
We will get something out of it, at any rate. Granted, the big businessmen will get more, but that's alright at the moment, because as I said we are currently very reliant on them, and they are digging their own grave in the long run through it anyway. The more successful they are, the faster the processes of society will become automated. ;7 :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
but we can still kill everyone else while we're at it, can't we? :D
*Shoots CP with a sniper and makes two holes on the oposite sides of his head* Is that cool now? :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
...The more successful they are, the faster the processes of society will become automated. ;7 :D
I'm not sure I like the sound of that...
[Borg Collective voice]We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Your society will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.[Borg Collective voice/]
Keep your automated society, you flarging drones!
*shoots Borg drones with shotgun*
Let's see ya try to "adapt" to double-ought buck, ya mothers!
*keeps shooting*
:D
-
*Shoots CP with a sniper and makes two holes on the oposite sides of his head* Is that cool now?
*suicide nukes strapped to CP explode and destroy the world*
Sure thing. :D
[Borg Collective voice]We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.[Borg Collective voice/]
Ah, that's exactly what we want. ;7 :D :D (communism taken to the extreme ;7)
-
I've got 5 words for you CP.
YOU SIR ARE AN ASSHEAD
-
Now I would really appreciate if someone of the admins deletes this thread!
-
oooh....what an inventive insult... :p
Here's a better one:
YOU SIR ARE IRRATIONAL.
That one is better. :D
-
Please kill this topic! Anyone! Please!
-
No admins online at the moment. :p The intelligent discussion has pretty much ended already, but the insults are still to come. ;7 :D
-
Look, SH and his cronies are getting thier head/dick/multiple-body-parts blown off no matter what WE think anyway. So if this is just gonna become a slagging match...:rolleyes:
-
That's what I was saying earlier; the moaning of the common people is not going to change anything. (fortunately) But it's fun to slag each other anyway just for the heck of it. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
No admins online at the moment. :p The intelligent discussion has pretty much ended already, but the insults are still to come. ;7 :D
Oh really? Well I can always PM them so that you nor anyone else can insult anymore.
But hey don't worry. One of the admins will read my post and hopefully will destroy the thread because locking it would not be a good enough punishment for it's pointlessness.
-
As I said, there are no admins online, so nobody will read the PMs just yet; when they come around it will (probably) be locked anyway. :p
It was a very good and useful thread before, but it degenerated somewhere in the last page, but it is still fun nevertheless. :D
-
Wrong, there's me online. And that means this ends now.
For reference, I think we've had more or less enough political/etc discussion around here for the time being. Everyone (more or less) has had their say at least once and there really isn't much more to talk about that will break new ground. Let's see an end of these sorts of topics unless something worth discussing comes up in the news etc.. Ok?
Thread Oppressed.