Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: HotSnoJ on January 29, 2003, 04:58:17 am
-
I really liked it. What did you ppl think of it?
P.S. I'm suprised that the Democrats/liberals weren't laying dead on the floor.
-
Didn't see it ( I'm a Brit).
From what I've seen on the news, looks like he just used it as a chance to whip up support to go and kick the crap out of the Iraqis.:(
If you ask me, the guy's an idiot. He can't even speak properly - "nukyerler" missiles, anyone?:lol:
On the topic of George "dubya" Bush, has anyone read "Stupid White Men", by Michael Moore? It's the funniest, and at the same time the scariest, book I've read for ages. 'S really good!:yes:
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
.
On the topic of George "dubya" Bush, has anyone read "Stupid White Men", by Michael Moore? It's the funniest, and at the same time the scariest, book I've read for ages. 'S really good!:yes:
Yeah, it's pretty funny. The conspiracy theory's a bit much, but still a fun read.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Didn't see it ( I'm a Brit).
From what I've seen on the news, looks like he just used it as a chance to whip up support to go and kick the crap out of the Iraqis.:(
Yep, and they'll be a lot better off afterwards.
-
yep, after we get all their oil and their ancient way of life has been asborbed/corrupted by western society..
I dont agree with the dictatorship but there are other things at stake here as well which people, it seems, are non-too-keen to draw attention to.
-
I liked how he started running out of money after offering 400 billion for welfare (:rolleyes: ), and so each expenditure he promised decreased from then on.
And yeah- he really hasn't said anything new about why Iraq is a good target. Or provided any evidence of what he's already said- "because I think so" does not qualify as proof. It doesn't matter that everyone knows he has MDWs- if you're gonna instigate a war that could easily lead to the decimation of Israel and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians, never mind a chaotic, violent, bloody warlord anarchy created by a power vaccum after we ditch Iraq the same way we've ditched Afghanistan for the second time, you'd better have a ****ING good reason. And he doesn't.
-
i was out having dinner, i recorded it though, i'll watch it when i get home today
-
Originally posted by wEvil
yep, after we get all their oil and their ancient way of life has been asborbed/corrupted by western society..
I dont agree with the dictatorship but there are other things at stake here as well which people, it seems, are non-too-keen to draw attention to.
:wtf: The war would cost more than any gain from oil. There ancient way of life would not be destroyed :p, rather improved by being able to feed themselves and live in a rich country which would no longer have tough sanctions imposed.
The reason the US is protecting the oil, is so the new Iraqi government can use it to start rebuilding the country after years of dictatorship.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
:wtf: The war would cost more than any gain from oil. There ancient way of life would not be destroyed :p, rather improved by being able to feed themselves and live in a rich country which would no longer have tough sanctions imposed.
The reason the US is protecting the oil, is so the new Iraqi government can use it to start rebuilding the country after years of dictatorship.
First off - its spelt "Their", not "There" in the context you're using.
And I view the continuing expansion of western society a horrible thing that eventually fails to enrich the world culturally - quite the opposite, in fact. If you want to stick your head up your bum and only view the short-term implications, that's your problem.
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
I liked how he started running out of money after offering 400 billion for welfare (:rolleyes: ), and so each expenditure he promised decreased from then on.
And yeah- he really hasn't said anything new about why Iraq is a good target. Or provided any evidence of what he's already said- "because I think so" does not qualify as proof. It doesn't matter that everyone knows he has MDWs- if you're gonna instigate a war that could easily lead to the decimation of Israel and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians, never mind a chaotic, violent, bloody warlord anarchy created by a power vaccum after we ditch Iraq the same way we've ditched Afghanistan for the second time, you'd better have a ****ING good reason. And he doesn't.
:wtf: :wtf: Did you know, US troops are still defending Afganistan from the Taliban and that millions is being spent rebuilding that country. Without the help of the UK/US/Canada/Germany/France etc, that country would still be under the taliban and the hippies in the western world would be glad that they've prevented a war and stopped the evil goverment.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
First off - its spelt "Their", not "There" in the context you're using.
And I view the continuing expansion of western society a horrible thing that eventually fails to enrich the world culturally - quite the opposite, in fact. If you want to stick your head up your bum and only view the short-term implications, that's your problem.
Muppet(Most likey, by pointing out the minor error, you hoped to achieve a reaction of this sort, to further your argument, by trying to make me seem irrational and emotional). If your going to be so damn idiotic, as you bloody pick out the fact im typing this casually, with little regard for making it a PERFECT ESSAY, i,ve not got the time for your weak argument, its just silly, stupid and pedantic, your not trying to argue, your just being an annoying fool who is seeking to get the upper hand, by pointing out little mistakes, as if it makes you somehow better, the only thing you,ve achieved, it making me want to swear repeatedly, about the foolishness of pointing out gramatical mistakes, in a piece of CASUAL writing, this isnt a English forum, where we are all expected to use the proper terminology to express our viewpoints, giving proper spellings, as im typing, its a mistake i make on a number of ocassions, as i tend to type rather fast, in reference to your argument(which is irrelevant) which actually assumes that by attacking Iraq, somehow western society will spread into it, with no actual basis for this happening.
-
I didn't see it as I was asleep at the time, but I don't think it really contained any new information. Pretty much just your usual propaganda, but I don't need to be convinced. :D
And I view the continuing expansion of western society a horrible thing that eventually fails to enrich the world culturally - quite the opposite, in fact. If you want to stick your head up your bum and only view the short-term implications, that's your problem.
What exact aspects of "western society" do you not like? Now I am also a virulent opponent of some parts of the current culture but Iraq (and the entire world, for that matter) is already quite indoctrinated by the current western culture. Iraq is probably the most modern west-like nation in the Arab world and it does not differ from the west due to its culture by any means, but rather due to its politics. Besides, remember Trotsky's "continual revolution?" The same concept applies to a lot of things, including cultures, so if any one way of life is to flourish, the other "anicent ways of life" will be eliminated eventually, which has already happened long ago in this case.
-
CP: It's nice to see you're reading the works of someone that are well published online so I can respond. Remember what happened to Him and to the USSR, he was a fantastic writer (In a literary (it's a shame he never wrote novels) and factual sense) and tactician and some of the events were consequences of others he caould not have predicted (for example the rise of the social democrats in europe as opposed to the hard left). But unless proved otherwise, those theories (Permanent revolution) are to be believed with scepticism.
-
That applies to any real-world theory out there though, even things like core physics laws. If you can establish a logical connection of what really makes the cause imply the effect (in this case this is pretty obvious and would quickly explain the facts so far; look at some of my old posts on this "cultural war" thing) and that there is a higher probability of it being true than false, then that's all that is needed for our purposes. However, it hardly matters in this case, since, aside from the political system, Iraq has quite a westernized culture already, especially in comparison to some of the other nearby nations.
-
Well, its nice to see you managed that without a spelling mistake :p (@zero)
(@CP)
And its not so much commercialisation im against, although it is.
Just let me qualify that statement though:
Unfortunately with the expansion of large corporations there's a certain level of individuality that gets removed from everyday life. Eastern nations (a sweeping generalisation, I know) tend to have very strong ways and beleifs, mostly, I agree, caused by the hardships encountered by every day life.
However, I beleive the day where you can go globe-trotting and simply get the same (lack of)atmosphere at every place one visits will be a very poor day for the world. And unfortunately, like a bacteria carrying a virus, this is the thing that spreads. I dont have a problem with the west, I dont have a problem with the East, I do have a problem with the soul-snuffing aura that comes with western culture though.
A military solution, or a violent solution makes us as bad as the terrorists you so desperately want to eradicate. You're not attacking the root cause, you're just treating symptoms as they appear. That is why i'm against military action. Its just a highly visible and costly publicity stunt, in the long term it will accomplish nothing, or worse, destabilise the whole region further. Obviously there has to be an ulterior motive for it, and it is just speculation it could be the oil they're after, but its a very probable speculation in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Didn't see it ( I'm a Brit).
If you ask me, the guy's an idiot. He can't even speak properly - "nukyerler" missiles, anyone?:lol:
I guess you like stupid people that are eloquent in office better? I see it far more dangerous to have an eloquent politician in office (Clinton). He can lie easier. And in comparison he ain't that dumb chief.
One thing to add about oil...
I know everyone always says it's about oil, and you know what ? You're right! It's about oil for "old europe", Germany and France. They are the ones with big oil treaties with Saddam, and if these embargos are lifted they profit. I mean do they really care what happens to US citizens? Nope.
And for all of you people still not understanding common international law understand this: The U.S is not initiating the war. Iraq is and has. You know that little piece of paper he signed saying he will disarm and have the UN CONFIRM that? Well he violated that in '98 when all Clinton did was wag the dog. With that violation a state of war is already here. Not to mention that little unanimous resolution that told Iraq to cooperate totally or else.... well he still isn't. Even blix has said that he isn't and we sure as hell haven't been shown (destroyed or intact) where all his weapons have gone.
Tell me were any of you in support of attacking Kosovo/Bosnia and assisting them? Then why aren't you for Iraq? I mean Bosnia was not even a blip on the US's threat radar.... I just find it laughable that the US had to bail the Europeans out of that one too. Look what happens when you scrape your army. Face it you guys are becoming insignificant militarily.
Kinda sucks when you guys controlled the world and now control nothing. All you have is the Security council... I wonder why Germany wants on it? Face it, the "old europe" line is too true. The world is changing and you guys hate it.
And just for all you UN lovers:
Would you please tell me one thing the UN has actually done well? You're waiting for the great UN to take care of it, when really it has become ineffective.
Consider this... they created Israel and now they are doing NOTHING about it. They don't handle things and the shrug responsibility.
We didn't take out Saddam because we wanted to follow the UN charter... we expected the UN to handle things, well they sure screwed up.
Rwanda? When did they say anything about that? Never. And don't ***** about the US not doing anything because we can't unless the EU and the UN says we can. (or that's what's been said in the past.) Maybe we should have done something, but the UN sure as hell did nothing.
Oh and one more thing... Lybia as the human rights chair? Get a grip.
Now I apologize if I was a little to "harsh" for you guys, but hey you guys have had your fun bashing the US and now it's my turn.
-
Oh one more thing I hope you guys heard last night:
"Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others."
-
I hope we do go to war. Gives me chance to use this...
(http://www.picturevillage.com/photo/data/freakachuu/466_p39251.jpg)
-
Unfortunately the british govornment will do almost anything the US asks (tells?) it to.
I have no particular alleigance to this country, or any other to be honest. They all fail miserably in the end....
-
BTW, i read in my paper this morning that Iraq is now the boss (lost the right word in english), of the UN disarmnament committee. it's just because the leadership rotates alphabetacilly, and it's Saddams turn.:doubt:
edit: just remind that i need learn to typ ok?
-
in my opinion it's obvious we're going to go to war... that's obvious, Bush seems set on us going to war, and whatever anyone does, he's going to make us go to war with Iraq.
the reason? human and civil rights and all that crap. "fighters for freedom". now what happened to the United States' "fighters for freedom" in the wars in Nigeria and other places where hundreds of thousands of people were (are) dying. now when Iraq, which just HAPPENS to be incredibly rich in oil (which is easy to get to)
Bush almost seems disappointed whenever he hears the inspectors have found nothing. he's LOOKING for a reason to go to war... i mean what the hell... yeah, screw all the soliders, like TheKenny and Sandwich that are going to fight and possibly die for it. it's fuked up
i think the US is going to war with Iraq (well, Bush anyway) because of the oil, nothing to do with the poor people that are suffering, that's a cover-up
-
I'm a canadian, so it don't bother me none, just as long as I don't get drafted :nervous:
01010: "All your base are belong to us" ;)
-
Unfortunately with the expansion of large corporations there's a certain level of individuality that gets removed from everyday life. Eastern nations (a sweeping generalisation, I know) tend to have very strong ways and beleifs, mostly, I agree, caused by the hardships encountered by every day life.
For me less individuality is always better, but it actually goes the other way; eastern cultures definitely place more emphasis on the group rather than the individual (e.g. this was/is the case in India, where my parents are from, but the culture is very rapidly becoming "americanized"). This is actually one of the things I dislike about western society, but I can see why it is necessary to have things work correctly with the current political and technological conditions today. I certainly do agree with you on the hardship thing though, simply because it tends to create a persistent drive to succeed in people, but that will always be absent in a richer first-world society. Actually, one thing that was good about 9/11 is that it hardened the society and woke up people to the harsh reality of the world.
However, I beleive the day where you can go globe-trotting and simply get the same (lack of)atmosphere at every place one visits will be a very poor day for the world. And unfortunately, like a bacteria carrying a virus, this is the thing that spreads. I dont have a problem with the west, I dont have a problem with the East, I do have a problem with the soul-snuffing aura that comes with western culture though.
Well, that "soul-snuffing aura" is an integral part of any culture; it is just that the western one is currently the dominant one that seems to promote economic growth better than the others, so it is slowly and subtly gaining momentum in other parts of the world and thus taking over. That day will certainly come about at some point, and I can see both advantages and disadvantages to it for the civilization as a whole, but there is really no way to stop its progress.
A military solution, or a violent solution makes us as bad as the terrorists you so desperately want to eradicate. You're not attacking the root cause, you're just treating symptoms as they appear. That is why i'm against military action. Its just a highly visible and costly publicity stunt, in the long term it will accomplish nothing, or worse, destabilise the whole region further. Obviously there has to be an ulterior motive for it, and it is just speculation it could be the oil they're after, but its a very probable speculation in my opinion.
But you see, we are not and never were any better than them. They are not any worse than us either, and no actions that we or they carry out will make either of us any better than the other. There was nothing inherently wrong with 9/11, which was certainly as justified an act of military action as anything else in history, so we are not fighting them because they are evil people (they are not), but simply because they are opposing us. As I said, it is our terrorists against their terrorists; the victor of the conflict will be the best terrorist, and lesser terrorists will be wiped out. That is simply the way the world works.
As for the oil thing, it is a rather silly argument either way; supposing it was true, the western corporations would be the ones to grab the spoils and thus we would be benefit in the end (although we don't like the corporations, the reality is that we are alive and prospering because of them). Although there are reasons to think otherwise on their motive; for example, if they are after the oil, it would be much more sensible to attack Saudi Arabia instead on some pretext (and as you have surely seen, they are good at making something up), which has far more oil, a fraction of the military might and probably just as much connection to the enemy terrorist bands.
Kinda sucks when you guys controlled the world and now control nothing. All you have is the Security council... I wonder why Germany wants on it? Face it, the "old europe" line is too true. The world is changing and you guys hate it.
Exactly. Also remember, as I have said before here, everyone naturally gangs up on the top dog because of its position. Therefore, it is in the interests of the French and German governments to catalyze another 9/11 so that they will have a better chance at being the top power themselves in the future. They need to ensure that the US does not become too powerful, so obviously they want to prevent them from going into Iraq so that they can keep the US in check for a little while.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
Unfortunately the british govornment will do almost anything the US asks (tells?) it to.
I have no particular alleigance to this country, or any other to be honest. They all fail miserably in the end....
I think you'll find we have a lot of influence in the US. We managed to keep the US on the UN route, which is beneficial to the UN and everyone.
Stealth, Simple Economics state(ie adding up costs), the warwould more MORE than any possible profit from oil. Its that simple.
Iraq is in material breech of 1441, because
"Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues." resolution 1441 stated Iraq must provide a full and complete declaration of its weapons and programs. Another reason Iraq is in breech of 1441 is because
"Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account" and "Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction"
maybe
"As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered."
1441 states in the event of a material breech, there would be serious consequences.
Also Stealth, with exception to Sandwich, soldiers join the Army, they arent forced into it. Im joining up(as a officer :p) and i fully accept i may end up doing something in the Middle East, or any other regions of the world. Those who join up, should be fully ready to go to war, its part of the job. Considering Iraq is the size of France and had several months to hide its weapons, its no suprise the inspectors have found little, however, because Iraq has not provided evidence that it destroyed weapons it was known to have, one can only assume the evidence has not been provided, because the weapons were not destroyed. A questionable document also indicated a willingness by Saddamn to use Nerve gas against western troops, and Iraq has bought large quantities of a substance we can be used to produce atropine(I known its spelt wrong), which counters the horror of nerve gas. Goverments do not spend in excess of 8 billion quid, for oil they'll never get(ie Britian, other supporting countries), also, as i stated before, the cost of war exceeeds profits from oil.
-
bah! go join this lot (http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=tpc&s=78919038&f=409192893&m=5601959216&p=1). patriotic basidges!
-
That site is pretty funny. :D stupid guys fighting other stupid guys; now that's entertainment! :yes:
-
As I said before, it's about time the US stops looking for a silly excuse and do it already. And make the war available on pay per view, I want to watch it. Talk about reality shows!
:D
-
Wait a month, hmm?
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
I guess you like stupid people that are eloquent in office better? I see it far more dangerous to have an eloquent politician in office (Clinton). He can lie easier. And in comparison he ain't that dumb chief.
I find it humorous that you should seek to justify this man's incompetence by claiming it harder for him to lie. In a position as head of state stupidity constitutes incompetence, the same can be said for dishonesty (baring in mind it makes no difference to the fate of the country if a politician attempts to cover up an extra marital affair). Your point still stands that stupidity makes dishonesty, what's more successful dishonesty a more difficult option, but a dullard in power (especially one born to a life of luxury) is almost certainly not the best candidate for the job, thus just as harmful as someone dishonest of which someone articulate only stands a chance of being.
I know everyone always says it's about oil, and you know what ? You're right! It's about oil for "old Europe", Germany and France. They are the ones with big oil treaties with Saddam, and if these embargo's are lifted they profit. I mean do they really care what happens to US citizens? Nope.
Please back that statement up with facts and figures.
And for all of you people still not understanding common international law understand this: The U.S is not initiating the war. Iraq is and has.
If you could explain how you arrived at that conclusion, then that too will be appreciated or did you just hear it on the TV and thought it sounded good?. The refusal to allow what are essentially spies unfettered access and provide them with information on every aspect of the military certainly does not amount to an act of aggression by anyone's terms but the US Government's.
You know that little piece of paper he signed saying he will disarm and have the UN CONFIRM that? Well he violated that in '98 when all Clinton did was wag the dog. With that violation a state of war is already here. Not to mention that little unanimous resolution that told Iraq to cooperate totally or else.... well he still isn't.
Indeed that is so, and I'm sure the Palestinians will be pleased to be informed that America will act with the same hostility towards Israel and its occupation of Palestine, and North Korea will be as savagely attacked as Iraq is about to be, as the US Government is in no way capable of ambiguous standards where there is considerable money to be made.
Then why aren't you for Iraq? I mean Bosnia was not even a blip on the US's threat radar....
You make the assumption that everyone was. The main Reason for public support for Bosnia was because the Serbs were actively persuing a military campaign at that time. Iraq is currently militarily dormant and of no conceivable threat to anybody but dissidents of its own regime, within its borders, as are Saudi Arabia (from which the US has bases), Iran, Afghanistan still, Turkmenistan, China, North Korea, Ukraine, Pakistan, Angola, Somalia, Turkey, Tunisia, Lybia, Burma, Zimbabwe (in the form of mob violence), The Former USSR (in the form of heavy police corruption and mafia).
I just find it laughable that the US had to bail the Europeans out of that one too. Look what happens when you scrape your army. Face it you guys are becoming insignificant militarily.
The US didn't have to do anything. It was a choice made entirely of its own free will.
Insufficient Militarily to persue what? Fight a war of plunder, station troops throughout the world where they do not belong. It's fairly safe to assume that most Europeans have realized that free healthcare and ensuring a significant proportion of the population aren't living in poverty is of greater importance than that warm fuzzy feeling one obtains by proving everyone who happens to live in one geographical location is much better than everyone else by dropping bombs on them.
Kinda sucks when you guys controlled the world and now control nothing. All you have is the Security council... I wonder why Germany wants on it? Face it, the "old Europe" line is too true. The world is changing and you guys hate it.
You are displaying excessive hostility for your argument to even look credible. It is common knowledge that resorting to insults makes your seem seem weak in order for you to need to use them.
It is clear from your post that you are very Nationalistic, not just in your references to the US but to Europe. First of all it needs to be established who you were referring to by 'you guys'. There is almost no doubt that those functioning Nations in What you called old Europe did indeed 'own half the world' but who did it benefit? The peers of the Realm, the Monarchs, the industrialists and members of Parliament or the workers and farm Tennant's who continued to stare despite this influx of wealth, or are we to assume that what benefits a nation mutually benefits its entire population. It is interesting because the very same logic is used to justify the sanctions on Iraq and the Blockade of Cuba (or is this just another case of selective logical ambiguity on your part). No attention at all is payed to the huge and in some cases violent internal antagonisms within those countries much more important than the fate of their nation, within 'Old Europe'. and the number of people did not appreciate their fellow countrymen (who they supposedly have more in common with than those in the same status somewhere else) taking over 'half the world'.
You put tremendous faith in laws and treaties most of which were forced, viewing them infallible and the basis for all your judgments, clinging onto an oversimplified account which is little more than a regurgitation of the right wing rhetoric which is being broadcast by the majority of newspapers and television networks, yet you remain impervious to the HisHistory the country or the context surrounding Saddam Hussain's rise to power and reign. Loudly proclaiming America righteous and Good verses Iraq, contradictory, in the wrong and Evil. Showing no suspicion as to the ulterior motives of the politicians that were prepared to deal with this government no more than fifteen years ago, yet today are at the forefront of the campaign to launch an invasion there.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, one thing that was good about 9/11 is that it hardened the society and woke up people to the harsh reality of the world.
Not really, it aroused patriotism, national unity and with it Xenophobia and bloodlust. It trivialized internal political conflicts. As I said before, what is good for the national ideology (Perpetuated by the class to which the upper echelon of the government belongs (the very rich)), isn't at all in the interests of the rest of the people in that said nation. 9/11 blinded the huge majority of people to that fact.
-
[size=10]ALL OF YUO SUCK AT THE INTERWEB.[/size]
-
Let me go through these a bit by bit... I do have class so this could take a bit...
"If you could explain how you arrived at that conclusion, then that too will be appreciated or did you just hear it on the TV and thought it sounded good?. The refusal to allow what are essentially spies unfettered access and provide them with information on every aspect of the military certainly does not amount to an act of aggression by anyone's terms but the US Government's. "
He violated a peace treaty. They aren't spies. They are there to confirm he has done what he said (in a treaty) he would do. He has not given him the information so they can confirm that. The very fact that he kicked them out is a violation of that peace treaty making if null and void. In other words? War.
-
"I find it humorous that you should seek to justify this man's incompetence by claiming it harder for him to lie. In a position as head of state stupidity constitutes incompetence, the same can be said for dishonesty (baring in mind it makes no difference to the fate of the country if a politician attempts to cover up an extra marital affair). Your point still stands that stupidity makes dishonesty, what's more successful dishonesty a more difficult option, but a dullard in power (especially one born to a life of luxury) is almost certainly not the best candidate for the job, thus just as harmful as someone dishonest of which someone articulate only stands a chance of being. "
I didn't say he was stupid? Please stop putting words in my mouth. I admitted he wasn't eloquent. Because he can't make a public speech, doesn't mean he's stupid. (look at professors)
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
He violated a peace treaty. They aren't spies. They are there to confirm he has done what he said (in a treaty) he would do. He has not given him the information so they can confirm that. The very fact that he kicked them out is a violation of that peace treaty making if null and void. In other words? War.
To reiterate the peace treaty was forced upon the country with considerably unfair terms and implications for the majority of the population.
spying
n 1: keeping a secret or furtive watch 2: the act of keeping a secret watch for intelligence purposes 3: the act of detecting something; catching sight of something [syn: detection, catching, espial, spotting]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
Of course the definition is open to many interpretations, each opposing camp adopts the one which suits its objectives the most however this is certainly a definition which they fill all the criteria for.
-
"Indeed that is so, and I'm sure the Palestinians will be pleased to be informed that America will act with the same hostility towards Israel and its occupation of Palestine, and North Korea will be as savagely attacked as Iraq is about to be, as the US Government is in no way capable of ambiguous standards where there is considerable money to be made. "
Okay let's first address the Palestinian issue. They are terrorists... they are specifically targetting innocents. I'm not saying Israel is good or anything to that extent, but both sides have wronged so we can't come in on either side. Do you forget that the Israelis invaded to stop the bombings? That issues is heavily confused and it's funny that the UN is doing nothing to help with that issue.
North Korea? Okay let's invade North Korea right now. Ballistic missiles aren't a problem, SDI is currently deployed in Alaska... however there is one problem: The leveling of Seoul. The minute ANYONE does anything to North Korea Seoul could be leveled within seconds by artillery. I'm not saying we're avoiding them because they have a big military; we're not invading because they have a hostage with a gun to its head. Not a wise move to go moving in like John Wayne there. However, North Korea will be handled in some manner. History dictates that a poor country with a huge military will go somewhere and do something.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
To reiterate the peace treaty was forced upon the country with considerably unfair terms and implications for the majority of the population.
Of course the definition is open to many interpretations, each opposing camp adopts the one which most suits its means however this is certainly a definition which they fill all the criteria for.
]
Problem there: They signed the treaty. Yes it was forced on them, they invaded a sovergn country and lost. The victor always names terms. That's the way the world works.
-
About Bosnia and Kosovo:
It was in their own country so according to you that makes it okay. That was internal.
Question for you: Why did Europe sit there and do nothing UNTIL America jumped in? I thought you for helping people and giving them free medicine and all.
-
Originally posted by heretic
[size=10]ALL OF YUO SUCK AT THE INTERWEB.[/size]
:yes:
-
I have a (maybe) slightly controversial plan for world peace.
Get every single person on this planet in a centralised location. Have the hugest ****ing party where anything goes, drugs, sex, drugs, alcohol, drugs and sex.
Then just as it's starting to get too much, launch all the ****ing nukes and whatever survives inherits the planet.
Nihillism > everything.
-
Originally posted by 01010
I have a (maybe) slightly controversial plan for world peace.
Get every single person on this planet in a centralised location. Have the hugest ****ing party where anything goes, drugs, sex, drugs, alcohol, drugs and sex.
Then just as it's starting to get too much, launch all the ****ing nukes and whatever survives inherits the planet.
Nihillism > everything.
Too bad not everyone can agree on the exact meanings of drugs, sex, and how to drink alchohol....
Human beings do not have large differences of opinion. Human beings have small differences of opinion that they wage war over.
-
Falcon X, don't bother, Top Gun is a anti-goverment hippie, who thinks Saddamn, a dictator who rules by fear, was unfairly treated after invading and pillaging a neighbouring country.
FYI, North Korea has over 1000 Artillary pieces and Surface to Surface missiles aimmed at Seoul, an Army of over 3 million people.
BUT
I disagree with your baseless comments about our Military. Thats nonsense frankly, Britians military is far from insignificant. France's military isnt 'that' far behind.
But i also disagree with Top Gun about the US posting troops over the world. Those troops are peacekeepers, i don't care what cynical view of the political system of the world you have, but thats really why they are there.
Cuba was blockaged, to stop several medium range missiles, armed with nuclear warheads being shipped to Cuba from Soviet Russia, in doing so, nuclear war was averted.
The Arguements are of course irrelevant, there will always be hippies. What i say will have no impact whatsoever, you'll most likey spend several quarters of an hour, searching for detailed information in which to reply with, or merely disagree with the basic foundations. Which i welcome, unlike in Iraq and North Korea, people are allowed to have different opinions and at the end of the day, im not going to be bothered by Top Gun calling me or right-wing bigot(though, your use of that description, partly led to my tongue in cheek reference), nor would i hope him to take me refering to him as a anti-goverment hippie in a deeply serious manner, in which he will spend several minutes being intensely angry at such a condesending use of language. :p , though the application of that smilie, probably looks condesending(which might actually be spelt incorrectly). Though i may be wasting my time, i am actually improving my typing skills, which is a good thing, i think.
-
When I was talking about "them" I meant continental Europe. Britain usually is far different from them. You're military is very nice and it is always nice to have you around. GO SAS!
-
Originally posted by 01010
I have a (maybe) slightly controversial plan for world peace.
Get every single person on this planet in a centralised location. Have the hugest ****ing party where anything goes, drugs, sex, drugs, alcohol, drugs and sex.
Then just as it's starting to get too much, launch all the ****ing nukes and whatever survives inherits the planet.
Nihillism > everything.
One problem, together the US and Russia have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on this planet 8 times. Together with the weapons of Europe and Asia, if we launched all te nuclear missiles on Earth, those who survived would inherite what Earth?:D
Sorry, just had to be a smartass.....:nervous:
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Too bad not everyone can agree on the exact meanings of drugs, sex, and how to drink alchohol....
Human beings do not have large differences of opinion. Human beings have small differences of opinion that they wage war over.
If everyones there then they can group together and do whatever the hell they want. :)
Sadly we are a warlike species it seems, luckily for me I gave up caring about whatever the hell is going on a long time ago.
-
The next person to make a post suggesting that hippies and pacifists are the same, or that one is invariably the other, I bite.
The US tolerates tons of dictators. The US is allied with tons of dictators. Hell, the US has set up a good number of 'em. That's not a reason to go to war.
Lots of countries invade their neighbors. Less so, nowadays, but that is also not a cause for international police action. Particularly when it was just a continuation of a war the US government had fully endorsed and funded, and as soon as the threat of a US attack because of the invasion popped up, the Iraqi army went home with its tail between its legs.
I don't like Saddam as a leader. Hell, nobody does. He uses some nasty, nasty tactics. However, that doesn't mean I fall for the ridiculous concept that, because he's a bloody dictator, the US needs to attack without provocation in an extended war that will kill anywhere from thousands to hundreds of thousands of civilians, and leave the same anarchic smoking crater that Afghanistan now is (By the way, yes, I'm fully aware that the US still has troops stationed there. It's not half of the aid we promised, and in fact all but a small part of the country has essentially gone back to what it was before the US invasion. And we haven't done jack about it, because we've lost interest. So ****ing compassionate, eh?). Forget Iraqis- we can safely assume you'd never hear about THOSE deaths, anyway. How about Israel? It's no secret Saddam has MDWs, no matter whether we'd like to see Bush prove it or not. And, if attacked, there's pretty much no question that Israel will get a good share of anthrax or Sarin. Hell, the death toll could run in the millions. And for what? To give the Iraqis whose homes we're bombing "freedom" in their shelled-out, now-impoverished state? To end one of dozens of violent dictatorships working to develop MDWs? To avenge the attempted assassination of Bush's daddy?
There are plenty of good ways to get rid of Saddam. War is not one of them. And yet, the government's already set a date. Forget Hussein, I think we know who the real mass murderer is.
-
Originally posted by Hades
One problem, together the US and Russia have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on this planet 8 times. Together with the weapons of Europe and Asia, if we launched all te nuclear missiles on Earth, those who survived would inherite what Earth?:D
Sorry, just had to be a smartass.....:nervous:
Cockroaches would survive apparently. As long as I'm out the picture I don't think I'd mind too much.
They'd inherit a barren wasteland admittedly, but y'know, I can't see it being all that bad. Comparitively at least. :)
-
For starters, Bush is a hypocrite. He rejects the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and then tries to enforce it on Iraq. Would he allow IAEA inspectors in to check on our WMDs? I think not!
Right now, as we speak, the US is profiting from billions of dollars worth of oil that it controls from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If Iraq were all of a sudden allowed to trade its oil, the price of oil would go down, thus reducing American profits. You can now see why the cost of a few missiles and bombs is worth it, not to mention 2 million dead and 22 million starving.
Hell, I'm only American cause my parents ****ed here..
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
GO SAS!
One of my top three reasons for loving this country.
-
But you see, we are not and never were any better than them. They are not any worse than us either, and no actions that we or they carry out will make either of us any better than the other. There was nothing inherently wrong with 9/11, which was certainly as justified an act of military action as anything else in history, so we are not fighting them because they are evil people (they are not), but simply because they are opposing us. As I said, it is our terrorists against their terrorists; the victor of the conflict will be the best terrorist, and lesser terrorists will be wiped out. That is simply the way the world works.
What the?!? Tell me when innocent civilians, guilty of doing nothing but going about their lives the same as the day before becomes a viable MILITARY target? When we(the USA) take a military action it is and will be against a MILITARY target.
By Military, I mean an organized fighting force dedicated to doing another group harm.
Al-Quaeda = Military.
Two 96 story towers full of accountants and secrataries = Civilian.
Could someone please tell me why being the prosperous nation on the planet makes it okay for others to take whatever action they see fit against us and prevents us from acting in retaliation?
-
Human beings of the world, unite! ;)
-
Originally posted by Ace
Human beings of the world, unite! ;)
It's party time :)
-
Hiroshima and Nagasaki=civilian
It's not just soldiers who die in a war. And much of the middle east has been more or less in a state of permanent civil war since the US helped to **** it up during the Cold War. The WTC assault was a message- the deaths were collateral damage, not the intent. The symbol of the WTC and the Pentagon in flames were what those who hijacked the planes and their bosses wanted Americans to see, to wake 'em up and make 'em realize that their old crimes were gonna come back to bite them in the ass, and that we couldn't do that **** to other countries any more. You think they could have just politely mailed a signed petition to Bush? It was the only way they could really succeed in a meaningful way in shaking the country's sense of invulnerability and making it aware that it's part of the ****ing planet, too.
And technically, all the Afghan villages we carpet-bombed and killed next to every last person in were civilian, too. War is hell, it's not a civilized, tea-sippingly chivalrous thing. It's mass murder between two consenting parties and a large third nonconsenting victim of the civilian masses.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
For me less individuality is always better, but it actually goes the other way; eastern cultures definitely place more emphasis on the group rather than the individual (e.g. this was/is the case in India, where my parents are from, but the culture is very rapidly becoming "americanized"). This is actually one of the things I dislike about western society, but I can see why it is necessary to have things work correctly with the current political and technological conditions today. I certainly do agree with you on the hardship thing though, simply because it tends to create a persistent drive to succeed in people, but that will always be absent in a richer first-world society. Actually, one thing that was good about 9/11 is that it hardened the society and woke up people to the harsh reality of the world.
Unfortunately I have to disagree with you there - Individuality is something I cherish very much in human nature, and the so-called "holy grail" is not a group mentality but rather a company of individuals who can work together. I beleive in the group as much as you do, although my methods are inherently more difficult to succeed with.
Well, that "soul-snuffing aura" is an integral part of any culture; it is just that the western one is currently the dominant one that seems to promote economic growth better than the others, so it is slowly and subtly gaining momentum in other parts of the world and thus taking over. That day will certainly come about at some point, and I can see both advantages and disadvantages to it for the civilization as a whole, but there is really no way to stop its progress.
I'd devote my life to stopping the progress of such a monster.
But you see, we are not and never were any better than them. They are not any worse than us either, and no actions that we or they carry out will make either of us any better than the other. There was nothing inherently wrong with 9/11, which was certainly as justified an act of military action as anything else in history, so we are not fighting them because they are evil people (they are not), but simply because they are opposing us. As I said, it is our terrorists against their terrorists; the victor of the conflict will be the best terrorist, and lesser terrorists will be wiped out. That is simply the way the world works.
I wasnt saying we were. I've certainly never resorted to terror tactics, although many of the things I see today make me wish I had. To use a cliche - there's only one weapon, which at the end of the day is compassion.
As for the oil thing, it is a rather silly argument either way; supposing it was true, the western corporations would be the ones to grab the spoils and thus we would be benefit in the end (although we don't like the corporations, the reality is that we are alive and prospering because of them).
I wouldnt call todays suicide rate prospering. Its just a simple case of the privelaged few treading on heads to get where they are. In a world where science all but removes the need to place value on material possessions the continuing material/commercial culture is morally inexcusable. But then again morals are the least of your concerns (no, that wasn't a personal jab).
Although there are reasons to think otherwise on their motive; for example, if they are after the oil, it would be much more sensible to attack Saudi Arabia instead on some pretext (and as you have surely seen, they are good at making something up), which has far more oil, a fraction of the military might and probably just as much connection to the enemy terrorist bands.
It would, but since saudi arabia are our "friends" it makes much more sense to attack iraq (which also happens to be bang next to Kuwait...) and since they already have an excuse. As I said before, i dont think military action will solve anything except publicity. What it will do is topple a remarkably anti-western dictatorship.
Exactly. Also remember, as I have said before here, everyone naturally gangs up on the top dog because of its position. Therefore, it is in the interests of the French and German governments to catalyze another 9/11 so that they will have a better chance at being the top power themselves in the future. They need to ensure that the US does not become too powerful, so obviously they want to prevent them from going into Iraq so that they can keep the US in check for a little while.
I wouldnt call that a bad thing - it's always struck me as rather hilarious that a nation dedicated to globilisation has proven so against it by having the largest free-standing army in the world and being so tight on immigration....but you can nitpick for hours.
My beef is and always has been the base structure of the way we live lives today, one cannot deny that it wrecks as many lives as it engenders - hows that for "progress". We're doing well but we're not doing well enough.
-
Originally posted by heretic
[size=10]ALL OF YUO SUCK AT THE INTERWEB.[/size]
idiot.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Human beings of the world, unite! ;)
im finding it seriously hard to beleive many people are fully "human" considering their points of view....
-
What, you think you're any better?;)
Deep down, humans are violent, petty, stubborn, and selfish. If you can't appreciate these traits as part of the greater whole, and can't accept that the good and bad qualities of mankind, as in everything, are largely inseparable, you can't legitimately like humans.
-
Hmm, I'm not feeling the vibe for the mass extermination party.
Damn, though I was onto something too. Ah well. Happy Birthday to me at least.
Woo.
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
And much of the middle east has been more or less in a state of permanent civil war since the US helped to **** it up during the Cold War.
It goes back a lot further than the Cold War. I suggest you take a look at what was going on there in the first half of the century.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
idiot.
:lol:
I think that was the point...
-
Shrike: I consider it fair to still blame a country for something it did 20 years ago and never even had the common decency to try to make a token effort to make up for. The same does not apply to 70-100 years, since generally everyone alive and fully conscious at that time is now dead, and there are now other people.
-
Originally posted by 01010
I have a (maybe) slightly controversial plan for world peace.
Get every single person on this planet in a centralised location. Have the hugest ****ing party where anything goes, drugs, sex, drugs, alcohol, drugs and sex.
Then just as it's starting to get too much, launch all the ****ing nukes and whatever survives inherits the planet.
Nihillism > everything.
Yes, Nihilism is good (individually that is)
My controversial plan:
Have intelligence/sensibility/usefulness tests
all who fail are killed and processed as food (genetic failures as well)
So the useful humans live and are productive while dumblings all get eaten, very effective system. :p
The thing is my human side of me fervently denies the existence of such a plan and tries to suppress such inhuman, cruel and suchlike thoughts.
So I say: go communist democracy!
The war would cost more than any gain from oil. There ancient way of life would not be destroyed , rather improved by being able to feed themselves and live in a rich country which would no longer have tough sanctions imposed.
The reason the US is protecting the oil, is so the new Iraqi government can use it to start rebuilding the country after years of dictatorship.
Do you honestly buy that kind of propaganda crap that's meant to make the gov't look like a nice, giving figure? People are greedy things that only care about their own profit, go disillusion yourself.
Actually, one thing that was good about 9/11 is that it hardened the society and woke up people to the harsh reality of the world.
I notice that the only thing that people I know are doing is scream "oh no, all muslims are out to kill us gaaaah." I don't think that's the way to a mature global society.
Unfortunately the british govornment will do almost anything the US asks (tells?) it to.
I have no particular alleigance to this country, or any other to be honest. They all fail miserably in the end....
Yeah, too bad humanity has founded a deep rooted society of exchange and greed (no country will be able to meet ideals anytime soon). You can see it in the way kids embrace a capitalistic society in which you live as inescapable slaves (to money/companies). A dumb kid I was talking to said this in reply to my talk about virtual slavery, "so? it doesn't matter if we're slaves anyway." <--- great sign of brainwashing imo.
What the?!? Tell me when innocent civilians, guilty of doing nothing but going about their lives the same as the day before becomes a viable MILITARY target?
Civilian casualties are almost a given in most mass military encounters, don't try to cover up the gov't's actions with trash ideals.
When we(the USA) take a military action it is and will be against a MILITARYtarget.
By Military, I mean an organized fighting force dedicated to doing another group harm.
Al-Quaeda = Military.
Two 96 story towers full of accountants and secrataries = Civilian.
Could someone please tell me why being the prosperous nation on the planet makes it okay for others to take whatever action they see fit against us and prevents us from acting in retaliation?
"Okay" is highly subjective you know.
besides that, it doens't matter if it's "okay" or not, they just can, and will (because they are "terroists", they don't have to abide by rules of society.). However retaliatory action which is brash and harmful is immature, and should not be accepted from even the US (a proper and supposedly "mature" nation).
I wouldnt call that a bad thing - it's always struck me as rather hilarious that a nation dedicated to globilisation has proven so against it by having the largest free-standing army in the world and being so tight on immigration....but you can nitpick for hours.
My beef is and always has been the base structure of the way we live lives today, one cannot deny that it wrecks as many lives as it engenders - hows that for "progress". We're doing well but we're not doing well enough.
To copy a certain law (not government laws): "things will always not be enough, even when you count this law" :p
But it is true that our current system of society sucks and most people are culture not to care too.
Deep down, humans are violent, petty, stubborn, and selfish. If you can't appreciate these traits as part of the greater whole, and can't accept that the good and bad qualities of mankind, as in everything, are largely inseparable, you can't legitimately like humans.
Extending on this, I think it quite comical that a bunch of overgrown (brain) apes are hooting around beating each other, all claiming that they are "civilized" or "more civilized" than the other. Technology evolved faster than humans it seems.
humanity = travesty (odd that we can be a travesty to our own invention but oh well :p)
-
"There are plenty of good ways to get rid of Saddam. War is not one of them. And yet, the government's already set a date. Forget Hussein, I think we know who the real mass murderer is."
Really? What else would you suggest we do? Let him continue to give the run around?
"I consider it fair to still blame a country for something it did 20 years ago and never even had the common decency to try to make a token effort to make up for. The same does not apply to 70-100 years, since generally everyone alive and fully conscious at that time is now dead, and there are now other people."
Really? Who started the whole middle east fiasco? The UN. We supported Israel for a number of reasons, one they were being invaded/threatened by countries that were supported by the USSR.
"Right now, as we speak, the US is profiting from billions of dollars worth of oil that it controls from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If Iraq were all of a sudden allowed to trade its oil, the price of oil would go down, thus reducing American profits. You can now see why the cost of a few missiles and bombs is worth it, not to mention 2 million dead and 22 million starving.
Hell, I'm only American cause my parents ****ed here.."
Then go ahead and leave it's your choice.
As I said before, if Saddam is kept in power France and Germany profit. Why do you think they don't want us to invade?
"The WTC assault was a message- the deaths were collateral damage, not the intent. The symbol of the WTC and the Pentagon in flames were what those who hijacked the planes and their bosses wanted Americans to see, to wake 'em up and make 'em realize that their old crimes were gonna come back to bite them in the ass, and that we couldn't do that **** to other countries any more. You think they could have just politely mailed a signed petition to Bush? It was the only way they could really succeed in a meaningful way in shaking the country's sense of invulnerability and making it aware that it's part of the ****ing planet, too.
And technically, all the Afghan villages we carpet-bombed and killed next to every last person in were civilian, too. War is hell, it's not a civilized, tea-sippingly chivalrous thing. It's mass murder between two consenting parties and a large third nonconsenting victim of the civilian masses."
About Japan... that's another story. I hope you look up in history what would have happened if we had invaded.
9/11 was terrorism pure and simple. What do you think of the locherby (sp?) plane bombing?
About Afghanistan:
Really? Who destroyed that country in the first place? Russia. We couldn't find much to bomb there chief. And the only place the buffs carpet bombed was on Tora Bora.
One more thing... there's a quote by Blair that I thought was very good. It goes something like, When America strikes out by itself people say they are unilateralists, when she looks for allies everyone steps back.
-
"I wouldnt call that a bad thing - it's always struck me as rather hilarious that a nation dedicated to globilisation has proven so against it by having the largest free-standing army in the world and being so tight on immigration....but you can nitpick for hours.
My beef is and always has been the base structure of the way we live lives today, one cannot deny that it wrecks as many lives as it engenders - hows that for "progress". We're doing well but we're not doing well enough."
Let's see here... let's learn from history. What happened when Britain scaled back here military? Hitler rose to power. I can go on, but history has shown that when that occurs, someone gets an army and wishes to kick some ass.
Immigration eh? Last time I checked Europe was shrinking in population. Is it that bad to make sure we don't have ILLEGAL people here? Or heavan forbide know if guests are in our country? God forbid that.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
Immigration eh? Last time I checked Europe was shrinking in population. Is it that bad to make sure we don't have ILLEGAL people here? Or heavan forbide know if guests are in our country? God forbid that.
Erm, he's talking about the US. And the point is that the US is too strict on it, which never instigates globalisation does it?
Anyway, the US' thought of globalisation is this:
US (corps and figureheads) at top of world organizing it all
-----
everybody underneath slaving away under US rule and oppression
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
What, you think you're any better?;)
Deep down, humans are violent, petty, stubborn, and selfish. If you can't appreciate these traits as part of the greater whole, and can't accept that the good and bad qualities of mankind, as in everything, are largely inseparable, you can't legitimately like humans.
I am quite a bit better, im not that violent, what violence I do have is very well contained, thankyou very much.. Im certainly not petty and nobody has ever had a rational reason to call me selfish.
My point is if people aspired to something a little greater then the world would be a better place.
-
If the US let all the immigrints that wanted to come into our country in, then there would be no jobs for more than half the population. And many people from Mexico would swarm to the US. If our population increases too mcuh, then we'll face the same propblems as China, not good for a Superpower.
And Kamikaze, I don't think going into a country, taking out the dictators and "bad guys":D, and then establishing a government and giving the people ful reign of their country is "opression".:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Hades
And Kamikaze, I don't think going into a country, taking out the dictators and "bad guys":D, and then establishing a government and giving the people ful reign of their country is "opression".:rolleyes:
It's not meant to seem like it, doi.
You'll notice (if at all) that oppression (yes, it's two "p"s) is much more subtle.
Also keep in mind I never pointed at the Iraq case in particular.
-
Originally posted by Hades
If the US let all the immigrints that wanted to come into our country in, then there would be no jobs for more than half the population. And many people from Mexico would swarm to the US. If our population increases too mcuh, then we'll face the same propblems as China, not good for a Superpower.
And Kamikaze, I don't think going into a country, taking out the dictators and "bad guys":D, and then establishing a government and giving the people ful reign of their country is "opression".:rolleyes:
I do think giving your corporations full reign, however, is.
-
What about Guatemala, Hades? Tonkin Gulf? Who says the government we establish will be a good government? I mean, look at Afghanistan. We bombed it and left it out to dry.
People full reign of their country? What the hell is that supposed to mean? If you mean that they're confined to their homes or something, hell, the Iraqi army is too small to do anything but the occasional police action.
Let's see here... let's learn from history. What happened when Britain scaled back here military? Hitler rose to power. I can go on, but history has shown that when that occurs, someone gets an army and wishes to kick some ass.
Uhh..and those two events are connected how? Hitler never intended to go to war with Britain. It was an ACCIDENT. Hitler believed that Britain and France wouldn't respect their treaty with Poland, and he was mistaken.
Besides, America's standing army was smaller than nearly any other country's at the start of WWII. I don't remember hearing about America being conquered by the Canadians or the Mexicans.
The Japanese don't apply, either, since the Imperial Army and Navy were never intended, in the long term, to fight the U.S. on real terms.
Really? Who destroyed that country in the first place? Russia. We couldn't find much to bomb there chief. And the only place the buffs carpet bombed was on Tora Bora.
Yeah, speaking of Russia. If we were so high and mighty, why didn't we kill off the Soviet Union during the Cold War? Because they were powerful enough to kill us back. Of course we're happy little cavaliers when we're dealing with countries like Iraq, Guatemala, and all the other little nations we've shoved around over the past 50 years or so. But when it comes to people who might be an actual threat, oh no, too messy. Too many American lives lost. This applies to China too, in the view of American foreign policy. We fight for freedom, as long as we only lose half a dozen soldiers.
As I said before, if Saddam is kept in power France and Germany profit. Why do you think they don't want us to invade?
Back that up with facts, please?
About Japan, sure, a ground-based invasion would be messy, but we didn't have to drop them on cities. Industrial complexes, harbors, tank factories - Japan had plenty of those. Of course, you can't be sure that Japan would surrender without the Hiroshima-style of mass murder, but would you gamble tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives on a "maybe"? Could you be that heartless?
-
Originally posted by Alikchi
Could you be that heartless?
Yes they can, and Yes they are.
Which gives you some idea of what we're dealing with here. Slaughter by remote control removes the one obstacle to efficient killing - the conciense (yes i prolly misspelt that but its late)
-
Push-button warfare, et all.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
Which gives you some idea of what we're dealing with here. Slaughter by remote control removes the one obstacle to efficient killing - the conciense (yes i prolly misspelt that but its late)
Though indirectly related this remote thing is important. Western culture and globalisation continually make people more remote to each other, the sense of community is greatly lacking recently. Humans are a tribal animal, they weren't meant to be cultured to be remote and individualistic (not that individualism is bad, it's when it's taken too far).
-
Just wondering, whenever we're having a debate, why do people bull**** about spelling.....
-
Because, it's a defensive measure when people are worked up, angry and have no other defense at that moment.
-
Generally just to make yourself appear smarter or better in some way. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean anything at all, but all's fair in love, war, and stupid political debates on internet message boards.
You used too many periods. You're supposed to only use three. :p ;)
-
To make onself sound like a smartass, with the actual result of just making you sound like a jackass. Basically, the same reason anyone argues online period.
-
I know this is a little old, but it needed some response.
Originally posted by StrykeIX
Hiroshima and Nagasaki=civilian
Ok, we've been here before and the thread was locked. I don't care what you have against this country (and granted there is a lot wrong with it) that is simply not comparing things evenly. When two countries are devoting their entire national product to a war (and I'm not going into the ethics of total war) then all of its assets become legitimate targets. Japan was at war with us, and we bombed them. End of story. It just turns out (in hindsight) that it may have been unnecessary and that it had some pretty serious and lasting implications. The prospect of using nukes now, when we know what they are and what they do in terms of radiation, is completely different.
It's not just soldiers who die in a war. And much of the middle east has been more or less in a state of permanent civil war since the US helped to **** it up during the Cold War. The WTC assault was a message- the deaths were collateral damage, not the intent. The symbol of the WTC and the Pentagon in flames were what those who hijacked the planes and their bosses wanted Americans to see, to wake 'em up and make 'em realize that their old crimes were gonna come back to bite them in the ass, and that we couldn't do that **** to other countries any more. You think they could have just politely mailed a signed petition to Bush? It was the only way they could really succeed in a meaningful way in shaking the country's sense of invulnerability and making it aware that it's part of the ****ing planet, too.
Bull, the deaths were the purpose of the attacks. Yes, they were a statement, but those hijackers wanted to slaughter American civilians. It wasn't purely symbolic; Al-Qieda doesn't want a change in US policy, they want the ultimate destruction of the United States and its people. Whether you agree with the country's government or not, every man, woman and child in America became targets in a gurella war ment to exploit the weaknesses of an open society and breed fear and suffering on 9-11. Does the US need to change its policies abroad to be more sensitive to other nations' and peoples' sovernity? Yes. Does it need to stand by and do nothing to respond to a hostile and unapeasable organization? No. The reasons for the war with Iraq are complex, and the mouthpieces of the government are doing nothing to explain those complexities to the public, but they are present and I honestly think war against Saddam is justified. You just have to dig a little bit past the rhetoric to see it, as it doesn't lie in what is being said to the American people or to the world.
And technically, all the Afghan villages we carpet-bombed and killed next to every last person in were civilian, too. War is hell, it's not a civilized, tea-sippingly chivalrous thing. It's mass murder between two consenting parties and a large third nonconsenting victim of the civilian masses.
The US never carpet-bombed Afghan cities, nor will we blindly bomb Iraq's population centers. We did not do so in Desert Storm ten years ago, and we won't do it now. Believe it or not, Western armed forces (and that includes all of Westarn Europe) have specifically avoided targeting civilians for the past 30 years. Civilians die, yes, as they have in war since the dawn of civilization, but it isn't like we're going in with the intent of killing innocent bystanders. If you want someone to blame for the absolute devastation that is Afghanistan, blame the Russians. They are the ones who mined 50% of that country's land area, including air-dropping mines that looked like toys (you can guess what those were for). The US had a part in that conflict too, if only for arming the rebels, it is true. But you can't just say we carpet-bombed civilians to force a regime change, because we did not.
How ironic that this is my 500th post :p
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Because, it's a defensive measure when people are worked up, angry and have no other defense at that moment.
:lol:
That's quite funny.
-
You know it :D
(watch )
[size=8][glow=yellow]lEv'IaThEn[/glow][/size]
:drevil:
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Also Stealth, with exception to Sandwich, soldiers join the Army, they arent forced into it.
yes, but when the US goes to war (which it will) then ultimately most of us will be forced to... we'll be drafted... i know I will
-
Bush wouldn't really need to draft, would he?
I don't think we'd lose enough to merit a draft really..
-
Originally posted by wEvil
I do think giving your corporations full reign, however, is.
I don't think it is, it is natural for one to want their country to prosper more than any other. I don't care who you are and what you say (not in this thread, I mean human population) you want your community to be the best.
-
StratComm: I wasn't arguing that the atomic attacks were unwarranted. You won that one, you were right. But they were still civilian targets. I was using the example to demonstrate that, at times, attacks on civilians as a show of... whatever have been used successfully, and occasionally aren't all that bad. Hell, I was agreeing with you.
As for the nature of the WTC attack; I suppose it's up to interpretation. If the goal was merely to kil civilians, there certainly were more efficient ways to go about massacring more.
And however great the need is to remove Saddam from power, there is absolutely no reason Bush should be willing and eager to put several million lives at risk in order to do so. After all- he's the one who's so goddamn sure that Saddam is armed and ready to use his MDWs, and he knows as well as anyone that SCUDS could reach Jerusalem, that the Patriot antimissiles are best regarded as a Star Wars joke, and that Saddam would almost certainly do the obvious if he had absolutely nothing to lose, which he won't.
And your statement that we never carpet-bombed cities stands in conflict with the CNN news broadcast, which showed an entire village about the size of a small town near my house go up in flames after a particularly large bomb was dropped on it. Maybe they made it up, hmm? Photoshopped in?
And this is my 5,430th. :p
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
As for the nature of the WTC attack; I suppose it's up to interpretation. If the goal was merely to kil civilians, there certainly were more efficient ways to go about massacring more.
And however great the need is to remove Saddam from power, there is absolutely no reason Bush should be willing and eager to put several million lives at risk in order to do so. After all- he's the one who's so goddamn sure that Saddam is armed and ready to use his MDWs, and he knows as well as anyone that SCUDS could reach Jerusalem, that the Patriot antimissiles are best regarded as a Star Wars joke, and that Saddam would almost certainly do the obvious if he had absolutely nothing to lose, which he won't.
They sure work great in Red Alert 2 though.. wonder what's wrong with the israeli ones ;)
-
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,12836.0.html
;)
-
:D :yes:
-
The 9/11 WTC attack was just another military operation as far as I am concerned; the civlians help the military survive and the military helps the civilians survive, so an attack on one is automatically an attack on the other. These distinctions don't really mean anything.
Not really, it aroused patriotism, national unity and with it Xenophobia and bloodlust. It trivialized internal political conflicts. As I said before, what is good for the national ideology (Perpetuated by the class to which the upper echelon of the government belongs (the very rich)), isn't at all in the interests of the rest of the people in that said nation. 9/11 blinded the huge majority of people to that fact.
Here we go again; I have already told you many times why we are completely dependent on this "upper echelon." That is just the way the current capitalist economy is set up; if they get rich, the rest of us do too (the middle classes, that is), and if they suffer, so do we. It is quite possible for them to get rich at our expense, but that doesn't happen in this case. It caused all those things plus what I said.
Generally just to make yourself appear smarter or better in some way. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean anything at all, but all's fair in love, war, and stupid political debates on internet message boards.
You used too many periods. You're supposed to only use three.
You had an extra comma in there! So you don't know anything and all your arguments are wrong! :D
Unfortunately I have to disagree with you there - Individuality is something I cherish very much in human nature, and the so-called "holy grail" is not a group mentality but rather a company of individuals who can work together. I beleive in the group as much as you do, although my methods are inherently more difficult to succeed with.
Alright, you are entitled to your opinion there, but if your goal is to take down everything then obviously you would support the alternative action of leaving Iraq alone. If we are arguing about anything we must at least start with the same assumptions/goals.
Actually, one thing I don't understand is why there is not something like a "quarkism" or "stringism" idea (in contrast to individualism), where the elementary units are the most important rather than the collective. :D
I'd devote my life to stopping the progress of such a monster.
You can do that if you like, but it will be a pretty fruitless waste of time. :p
I wasnt saying we were. I've certainly never resorted to terror tactics, although many of the things I see today make me wish I had. To use a cliche - there's only one weapon, which at the end of the day is compassion.
My point is that using "terror tactics" does not make a person/institution/whatever any "better" than another. For that matter, no action makes any person any better or worse than any other person. At the "end of the day," compassion, terror and whatever else are all really the same thing. (heck, if you think about it a little, compassion is a form of terror and terror is a form of compassion)
I wouldnt call todays suicide rate prospering. Its just a simple case of the privelaged few treading on heads to get where they are. In a world where science all but removes the need to place value on material possessions the continuing material/commercial culture is morally inexcusable. But then again morals are the least of your concerns (no, that wasn't a personal jab).
"Suicide rate?" Come on, there are much better arguments for your position than that. :p What I meant is that all of us here are definitely benefitting enormously from capitalism: computers, internet, HLP/gamespy, FS2, 3D programs and all the other things we use come from the corporations. As for "morally inexcusable," it is entirely a matter of opinion; I could say that sitting in chairs is "morally inexcusable," and it would be just as true as anything else. :D (actually, why not? I think I like this one... :D)
It would, but since saudi arabia are our "friends" it makes much more sense to attack iraq (which also happens to be bang next to Kuwait...) and since they already have an excuse. As I said before, i dont think military action will solve anything except publicity. What it will do is topple a remarkably anti-western dictatorship.
The same could have been said about Iraq before 9/11 though. Besides, the US is fairly good at propaganda; I don't think it would have much trouble making Saudi Arabia into a rogue state if it wanted to. :D And the last sentence there is exactly what wants solving by the US, so nothing more is needed from their perspective.
I wouldnt call that a bad thing - it's always struck me as rather hilarious that a nation dedicated to globilisation has proven so against it by having the largest free-standing army in the world and being so tight on immigration....but you can nitpick for hours.
Sure you wouldn't, just like many others (including European governments), but the US government would, and so it will act accordingly. And "being tight on immigration?" :wtf: Also, globalization can take many forms; if the US army somehow took over the entire world by force and brought everything together under one banner, that would certainly qualify, right? :D
My beef is and always has been the base structure of the way we live lives today, one cannot deny that it wrecks as many lives as it engenders - hows that for "progress". We're doing well but we're not doing well enough.
Sure, but that is simply the way the universe is; this in many ways parellels the natural selection theory, where the prosperity of one competing unit automatically implies the destruction of the others. While I kind of agree with the last sentence, in the absolute sense we are simply doing; we could do no better or worse.
bah, this politics is a bit boring; i'm going back to math for now...
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Yeah, too bad humanity has founded a deep rooted society of exchange and greed (no country will be able to meet ideals anytime soon). You can see it in the way kids embrace a capitalistic society in which you live as inescapable slaves (to money/companies). A dumb kid I was talking to said this in reply to my talk about virtual slavery, "so? it doesn't matter if we're slaves anyway." <--- great sign of brainwashing imo.
I have a new found sense of respect for you sir. That could not have been any closer to my opinion had you been living in my brain.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Erm, he's talking about the US. And the point is that the US is too strict on it, which never instigates globalisation does it?
Anyway, the US' thought of globalisation is this:
US (corps and figureheads) at top of world organizing it all
-----
everybody underneath slaving away under US rule and oppression
Go New world order go.
-
All of this is truly irrelevant.
The right and wrong of the "War On Terror" is truly spurious since such matters are not considered when the decisions reguarding this war are made. This is all about money.
Globalisation, as the buzz-word goes. Thats what this is about.
However, the misconception that state is being replaced by business is why current anti-globalisation activists get nowhere. Globalisation is simply the high speed, bloody erosion of human rights in the "developing" world and now more recently in our own.
I never understood what people were turning against when they berated the US, but I do now. They were trying to attach a state to a "terror" organisation. Like some people saw the Taliban (Afghanistan) as the al-Queda(sp?) home base, many people see the USA as the home base of Globalisation (and in some respect this is not unjustified, considering the weight they carry in terms of the WTO and IMF).
[q]You can do that if you like, but it will be a pretty fruitless waste of time. [/q]
Not entirely. Damnit I can't type anymore 'cos feking parents are in my room....
:mad:
-
nuculer. nuculer. nuculer.
Repeat after me Georgey: NUCLEAR
:doubt: :sigh: :blah:
-
Originally posted by Alikchi
I mean, look at Afghanistan. We bombed it and left it out to dry.
Yeah, lets look at Afganistan. Its getting aid from countries, the people arent under an oppressive goverment. US forces are helping defend it from the taliban, as shown as the recent engagement. The Americans really did fubar that country up didnt they, such evil evil people :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Stealth
yes, but when the US goes to war (which it will) then ultimately most of us will be forced to... we'll be drafted... i know I will
Really? Have you looked at our force deployment? Only about half (that's right HALF) is deployed. The Navy has the most deployed at around 4-5 battle groups moving to the area. The Army is doing just fine. Even Rumsfeld said we don't draftees.
Also it would take a long time to morph your ass into an effective soldier, so this war would have to drag on and on and on.
BTW we didn't institute the draft in the last gulf war. At that time we went up against the 4th largest army and smashed it. I doubt this time we need recruits if we didn't then. And yes I know there has been force reductions, but not that much, and the force has increased ever since slick willy.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
nuculer. nuculer. nuculer.
Repeat after me Georgey: NUCLEAR
:doubt: :sigh: :blah:
Potato can be said many ways. Actually many in the military call it nuculer too. It's just how you say things. I mean the damn british need to learn how to say Vitamins and Schedule.
-
"And your statement that we never carpet-bombed cities stands in conflict with the CNN news broadcast, which showed an entire village about the size of a small town near my house go up in flames after a particularly large bomb was dropped on it. Maybe they made it up, hmm? Photoshopped in?"
Clinton News Network eh?
As you said to me so many times, show me proof. And that bomb is a daisy cutter. And I'm doubting we did or else the media would have been up in arms. Maybe they showed a test of it where the erected a small town... hmm the military doesn't do that. And it's not like we don't have desert here.
One more thing, stop commenting on people's typing grammar. Everyone knows it's ****. I don't really care about mine, but just to let you know you need to follow the double comma rule.
Alright, you are entitled to your opinion there, but if your goal is to take down everything then obviously you would support the alternative action of leaving Iraq alone.
You need to do change that second comma to a semi colon... so all your arguments are wrong! :D
-
Actually the comma there is correct. :p Find some mistakes in the anti-war posts. :D
Not entirely. Damnit I can't type anymore 'cos feking parents are in my room....
eh? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
Potato can be said many ways. Actually many in the military call it nuculer too. It's just how you say things. I mean the damn british need to learn how to say Vitamins and Schedule.
I think the "damn british" made those words up, so I think they're entitled to decide how to pronounce them in the first place?
-
I do agree that the "nucular" thing sounds silly, but this topic is about Bush's policies, not Bush's pronunciations, so it really has no relevance here.
-
AAARGH! What have I done?
I've unleashed the messy world of politics, where a once friendly and united group of people suddenly schism and re-schism into a horrible tangle of conflicting beliefs and ideologies that threatens to tear apart the very fabric of reality (or this thread:) ).
Cor.:eek:
Just like the real world, eh?
Anyway, I'm not going to carry this on, cos it's clear we're all strongly opinioned (is that a word? Should prob'ly be opinionated) about this, so I'll just say this:
*clears throat, takes deep breath and stands on chair*
PEACE, MAN!
'Nuff said.:cool: :) :yes:
-
ah come on, arguing is fun! :D
-
what does SotU mean anyway?
-
state of the union I think.
-
I don't think we should go straight to bombing Iraq. I think we should offer to set up a palace for Saddam in Switzerland or something, and let him and his cronies + family live there. He'd keep his insane riches and the Iraqis would be free of Saddam's evilness.
This is, of course, assuming Saddam doesn't do an insanely stupid thing like pissing the US off a second time. And if he refuses, THEN we bomb his ass to Jupiter.
As for Bush's domestic agenda, WHY DID WE ELECT THIS CHUMP!?? Oh, right. We didn't. :p
Anyways, I don't believe in trickle-down economics. It's a nice theory, in an ideal world, but in the end, the rich are going to inevitably get greedy, and less will trickle down than is needed. Or it'll trickle down to Mexicans who work for $4 an hour.
I find it hard to believe that, with 90% or so of Americans only two paychecks away from financial disaster (yes this is true), so many people still believe in the much-touted trickle-down theory.
And then there's Bush's tax cut plans. Once again it relies on the idealized but ineffective trickle-down theory. "Lets give money to the rich so they can pay their employees more!" Yeah, right. More like, "Let's give money to the rich so they can all buy new Hummers!"
Besides, the state taxes have to go UP to make up for the lowering of federal taxes anyway, so THE AVERAGE TAXPAYER WILL SEE NO CHANGE AT ALL.
And then of course the national debt will skyrocket due to lack of federal revenue.
I don't think I could stand four more years of Bush and his uber-conservative cronies. I'd be surprised if anyone below $60,000 a year could.
-
Yup. :yes:
...
Errr...
*tries to think of really powerful, totally complete and accurate argument about the nature of everything that will totally blow everyone away with it's sheer profundity*
:sigh: Bugger!
*fails miserably at thinking of argument, starts wondering if anyone has actually read the book I talked about in post 2 of this thread*
Aaahh...
Has anyone actually read the book I talked about in post 2 of this thread? (It's "Stupid White Men, and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation", by Michael Moore, for those of you too goddamn lazy to look back that far:D )
'S about the ****ed-up-ness of Western politics (particularly American, though he does cover Britain and Europe as well), and rips the piss out of everyone and anyone invloved in the system. Great stuff.:lol:
-
I always thought Bush said nuclear like that because he's from Texas, and has a Texan accent, well sorta.:D
-
Originally posted by Mad Bomber
THEN we bomb his ass to Jupiter.
I see how you got your title. :lol:
-
As far as the tax thing :
Two different groups of ppl man. Federal Gov lowers, State raises, but each state has it's own seperate body deciding all that. Hell not every state even has the same taxes. Va, we got property taxes out the ass. Yup own a car and pay like $300 a year just because you own the damned thing. Then again theres **** loads of highway repairs and new interstate routes going up.
Bout the ppl being two checks from $ hell :
Heh that's 98% the credit companies. Not three weeks after I was out of High School I would get at LEAST 3 credit cards in the mail. Not applications for them, full cards ready to go. Most of the problem is they don't teach kids how to really handle cash. While I was in the Army half the younger guys and gals seriously looked at finaces like "Well ... I'm out of cash...but I've got plastic and checks!" It's easy as hell to get into debt,...tough has hell to get back out.
And Hummers ? heh if they want those P.O.S.'s they can have em :D
Ok I'm done :D
*Slips back out of the room quickly*
-
Originally posted by SKYNET-011
I see how you got your title. :lol:
Yeah, his forum name is Mad Bomber
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Has anyone actually read the book I talked about in post 2 of this thread? (It's "Stupid White Men, and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation", by Michael Moore, for those of you too goddamn lazy to look back that far:D )
'S about the ****ed-up-ness of Western politics (particularly American, though he does cover Britain and Europe as well), and rips the piss out of everyone and anyone invloved in the system. Great stuff.:lol:
So a comic version of John Pilger?
-
Originally posted by Warlock
As far as the tax thing :
Two different groups of ppl man. Federal Gov lowers, State raises, but each state has it's own seperate body deciding all that. Hell not every state even has the same taxes. Va, we got property taxes out the ass. Yup own a car and pay like $300 a year just because you own the damned thing. Then again theres **** loads of highway repairs and new interstate routes going up.
Yeah, but Virginia only has 4% sales tax. TN has 9.5% sales tax, but no income tax. Everybody here in TN (Bristol) drives five minutes to VA to buy groceries, because so much money is saved. I hate the taxes, but my parents say that they are okay because there is no state income tax. Like I care about state income tax, I'm 13 for crying out loud, I don't care about income tax.
rant over.:D
-
Originally posted by Mad Bomber
I don't think we should go straight to bombing Iraq. I think we should offer to set up a palace for Saddam in Switzerland or something, and let him and his cronies + family live there. He'd keep his insane riches and the Iraqis would be free of Saddam's evilness.
we could do this and then bomb it
-
Technically, he's already been offered exile. Which is stupid, because he'd have to be dumber than plankton to accept. He'd be dead within a year or two anyway, only instead of going out with a bang he'd jsut be some retired complete asshole who'd passed on his chance to stand up to the US.
-
This is the most hilarious thread I have ever read. :lol:
Definitions...
Politics-
The art of taking responsibility for good things that happen, and denying responsiblity for bad things.
Representative Democracy-
You elect whoever has the best face to go and say things.
Personally I am conservative but I would rather not discuss politics because of the absulute pointlessness of trying to convince other people that you are right and they are wrong (even if they are).
On the other hand the things he does to his people are pretty sick and twisted. :blah:
-
Picture a club-like bar in Washington DC; dark, quiet, richly appointed.
G. W. Bush & Colin Powell are at the bar, talking in hushed tones.
The bar owner comes into the room and recognizes them.
The owner comes up to the two world leaders and gently interrupts the
conversation, saying how pleased and proud he is to have them in his
establishment. He then asks, "Without being too presumptuous, may I ask the
topic of your conversation?"
G.W.: "Not at all, we are discussing the solution to the Iraqi situation."
Owner: "That's great, what have you decided?"
Colin: "It looks like we are going to have to kill 40 million Iraqis and
one large-breasted blonde."
The owner mulls this answer over for a moment, and then asks, "Why do you
have to kill the blonde?"
G.W., poking Powell in the ribs: "See, I told you no one would give a damn
about those 40 million Iraqis!"
-
lol, that is quite funny actually...
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Bout the ppl being two checks from $ hell :
Heh that's 98% the credit companies. Not three weeks after I was out of High School I would get at LEAST 3 credit cards in the mail. Not applications for them, full cards ready to go. Most of the problem is they don't teach kids how to really handle cash. While I was in the Army half the younger guys and gals seriously looked at finaces like "Well ... I'm out of cash...but I've got plastic and checks!" It's easy as hell to get into debt,...tough has hell to get back out.
Yeah, funny how schools refrain from teaching you important things like survival (cooking and GOOD DIET!), economy and finance . Rather they spend time failing miserably to teach you history, language, science and math. Some of it is hideously biased as well.
Another travesty: the "education" system
(@PhReAk's post)
:lol: