Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stryke 9 on June 21, 2003, 09:58:36 pm
-
"Liberation".
(http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/06/18/international/IRAQ.enlarge.jpg)
I hear we're almost down to 20 a day now. Apparently, those cursed savages don't appreciate the full benefits of an American-installed democracy. Oh, wait, did I say "democracy"? Certainly not, they'd probably vote for someone we wouldn't like, and we can't have that. Let's just install another bloody militaristic dictatorship, a more effective puppet government this time, but one that doesn't sound too imperialistic... oh! I've got it! Viceroy! Very nice, very Victorian feel to it, eh? Well, at least we can keep those bloody Shias from speaking their piece, electing some pagan Mussulman, what ho!
Maybe it should have been three words- "Told you so."
-
Certainly makes a point doesn't it?;)
-
Maybe we should hand out sunglasses also...
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I hear we're almost down to 20 a day now. Apparently, those cursed savages don't appreciate the full benefits of an American-installed democracy. Oh, wait, did I say "democracy"? Certainly not, they'd probably vote for someone we wouldn't like, and we can't have that. Let's just install another bloody militaristic dictatorship, a more effective puppet government this time, but one that doesn't sound too imperialistic... oh! I've got it! Viceroy! Very nice, very Victorian feel to it, eh? Well, at least we can keep those bloody Shias from speaking their piece, electing some pagan Mussulman, what ho!
Maybe it should have been three words- "Told you so."
Those who do not remember history, are doomed to repeat it
sad case of american polititians with very short memories
-
Dunno about that, imperial governments generally do pretty well for a while, and the short term is clearly all Bush and co. gives a flying pig **** about.
-
I've been living in a media-saturated culture too long and am too well educated in critical thought not to be cynical about every side of any such debate. I am as cynical about arguments against the Iraq invasion as I am about arguments in favour of it.
-
Well, isn't that nice for you. You have nothing left to care about. Good work on that not shriveling up and dying apathetically.
*pat pat*
-
Cynical, not apathetic. I care very much. I just don't trust the media or its pundits to tell the truth. Spin, soundbites, and simplicity sell much better that the complexities of truth.
-
Well, that's much more reasonable. However, given that then it's one's job to read between the lines and try to see what's going on behind all the bull****. The statistics and photos are a fair indicator.
-
it's ironic really,
Iraqi's protesting about the us troops stifling thier freedom, not realising, that the coalition, gave them that EXACT freedom to protest..
under saddam, they would've been put down at the first hint of protest..
-
Which is pretty much what's happening now.
And to my recollection, there were no protests Saddam's troops opened fire in. It's entirely likely he would have given the order if given the chance from what I know about him, but since all I know about him is filtered through the magic glass of American media, I have my reservations about it. Most of the "protest" in his time involved taking to arms and heading for the trenches, which would naturally inflate the dissident bodycount, for one thing... but that's irrelevant. He made few pretenses of being a savior, and never cynically exploited a nation under the pretext of some lofty ideal. He was also never in a position to do same to the entire rest of the planet, and clearly gearing up to do just that.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Well, that's much more reasonable. However, given that then it's one's job to read between the lines and try to see what's going on behind all the bull****. The statistics and photos are a fair indicator.
Yes, it is one's job to do so. But I don't trust the stats of the media (or the governments', for that matter) and photos are extremely selective and easily spun. Take this one: how common are these demonstrations really? What exactly is being protested? Who and what are the soldiers ordered to defend? What are the larger goals behind their actions? The protestors? Are the bayonets merely standard precautionary procedure, or is there a substantial threat to the soldiers safety? Perhaps neither, and the American military is taking an aggressive posture: who knows by looking at that? Has any actual violence broken out? If so, was it an isolated incident, or is it common? Who are the aggressors in those incidents, and what is their reason for resorting to violence? Are they at all representative of the larger population's feelings on the issue, whatever it is? Etc., etc., etc....
The photo tells us nothing about this, and it could be spun in any way. All we know for sure is that something happened, and tensions were running high between some Iraqis and some American soldiers. The media reports won't be totally baseless, of course, but there is always spin and selection and concern for ratings. The news is a commercial enterprise, just like every other television show.
-
looks to me they're just trying to keep the protesters off the razor wire..
-
They are wrong only in predictable ways, though. They say 20 a day, that means at least 20 a day- and it's safe to assume they're mostly at demonstrations, hence daily demonstrations. That picture doesn't show actual violence, so there probably wasn't any fighting (better photo op), but definitely gives off the mood of what must be going on now. The American soldiers are certainly at risk, I think more have died postcampaign than during the war (but that's without checking the numbers, which would be accurate), and are taking "security measures" to go along with that, which frighten and upset a populace already becoming painfully aware that their "liberation" is really just oppression with a new name.
-
I saw that picture in the WP a few days ago; they said that this was a group of former Iraqi soldiers who were now without jobs and were demanding compensation by demonstrating at a local US outpost, so the guards were trying to keep them out; it seemed to be all peaceful and there were no injuries from what that article said.
To tell the truth, I am both cynical and apathetic about the situation; I have more important things to worry about. :D
And Stryke, sorry but I could never make any sense out of your posts on this topic; the thick sarcasm and random rants really degrade your arguments. :p
He made few pretenses of being a savior, and never cynically exploited a nation under the pretext of some lofty ideal. He was also never in a position to do same to the entire rest of the planet, and clearly gearing up to do just that.
I haven't seen much evidence of that, but suppose it were true, so what? It would be a good thing if the world gets under one government, right? :D
-
I'll really like to ask everyone here to talk a few minutes to read through the following links. I've read them and I think that they really do a good job of summing up the my opinions. The only people (ok mostly) who dont want to read opposing viewpoints are scared that they might be convinced. I'de rather see people being too cynical than too trusting (alot of Americans)
The Ten Planks of the Freedom Manifesto (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0306j.asp)
Paragons of Empire: Balkans Protectorates Celebrated as Exemplary (http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m-col.html)
-
Well, I overstated a bit on that latter part; he was a big fan of equating himself with Nasser, but he was pretty explicitly a dictator, as opposed to a dictator in representative's clothing.
And saying world government is a good or bad thing is like saying, say, cake is good. Sometimes that's true, but what if it was a **** cake? Would you want to eat that? I thought not. I suppose there are ways a global government could be done right, but having an evil, greedy, self-interested creep holding absolute power is not one of them.
-
But are most Iraqis frightened and feeling oppressed? These ones are obviously upset about something, but demonstrative minorities get all the limelight when the majority are not. For you or I to say that the general Iraqi populace are or are not feeling in such-and-such a way about the situation is unsupportable. I'll trust the words of individual Iraqis far more than the reports of CNN, and much more so if they come by other channels than the mass media. To be blunt, I'll wait for several historians to write some books before I really start trusting. Until then, I'll pay attention and do my best, but I'll take generous amounts of salt with any portrayal of the situation I encounter.
-
The Ten Planks of the Freedom Manifesto
Actually he got the first part wrong there; as I have been saying all along, it was never supposed be a war between freedom and authoritarianism, but rather a war of competing US and Iraqi interests, and that right there justifies it. :p
Paragons of Empire: Balkans Protectorates Celebrated as Exemplary
don't have time to read all that; can you summarize it?
-
You trust historians? They're worse than the reporters!
And, to be honest, the silent majority isn't for ****. You could put in place a tyrant whose first job was to pass the "Let's Mash Everyone Up In a Giant Meat Grinder Act", and 80% of people wouldn't care. They're irrelevant. It's the other ten or twenty percent that aren't just walking furniture that matter, and they're the ones politics are made of and for.
-
And saying world government is a good or bad thing is like saying, say, cake is good. Sometimes that's true, but what if it was a **** cake? Would you want to eat that? I thought not. I suppose there are ways a global government could be done right, but having an evil, greedy, self-interested creep holding absolute power is not one of them.
But that is the only realistic and practical way it can work; in fact, I remember you yourself saying (or maybe it was an0n) that this is not a world in which everything is perfect, and you have to work with what is plausible. It would still be better than the current situation of competing nations though, so it doesn't matter anyway. :D
-
Not necessarily. Compare, say, Afghanistan or Somalia in their current anarchies to Russia under Stalin. Which has the higher proportional bodycount? Lower overall quality of life? At least in a warring anarchy you're not a slave.
The worst-case scenario should not be what is feasible- if it is, it's time to throw the whole idea out the window. Me, I think a multilayered government is possible, and the best possible outcome under the circumstances.
-
CP: Again, you manage to be too logical. You claim that absolutist rule is a good thing, and so is a one government world. Howveer, what you dont consider is, what if this government that ruled the world was not to your liking? What if the Chinese took over the forced their beliefs on you, forced you to live their way. Would you like that? You always support something until it bites you in the ass. Well, assume it has bitten you in the ass right now, becuase by the time it does it'll be too late.
The Balkans article is about an article in the New York Times (I think it was the times) about how American imperialism in Bosnia has really benefited all involved. The authour (of the counter articel, not the original one) goes on to say how thats a crock of ****. Specifically, it ttalks about the town of Brcko , which the US claims has prospered under its rule. It talks about how the three religions are forced to attend the same school, as if forcing them into unity is helping. It talks about the peace between the ethnic groups, as if the US is to credit. In fact, Brcko is located on such a spot so as to escape the rule of the Bosnian government and the people really are more interested in other matters than killing each other. Essentially, the Times article claims that outright imperialism in Bosnia is a great thing. The counter article shoots that premise down..
edit: The world isnt perfect, but thats all the more reason you should always strive to make it perfect. Thats like saying "My shirt is red, but I really want a blue shirt. Oh well, nothing I can do about it, despite the fact that I have a blue shirt in my closet."
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
You trust historians? They're worse than the reporters!
And, to be honest, the silent majority isn't for ****. You could put in place a tyrant whose first job was to pass the "Let's Mash Everyone Up In a Giant Meat Grinder Act", and 80% of people wouldn't care. They're irrelevant. It's the other ten or twenty percent that aren't just walking furniture that matter, and they're the ones politics are made of and for.
They make their living by doing proper research instead of finding sensational images and soundclips, and you will notice I used the plural. Their opinions I evaluate critically (see original post), and would point out that they always present nuanced interpretations that are rarely black-and-white. The primary reason I turn to historians more than reporters is that their books contain far more comprehensive accounts of the facts with which I can draw my own conclusions.
As for the "silent majority", I would point out that your argument is setting up a straw man and then knocking him over. Further, while it is the politically active that make up the constituents of the political arena (by definition), the very idea of freedom and liberal democracy that you are pulling for quite explicitly looks towards the greater good of the majority, even if in practice non-participation makes that an ideal that cannot fully be realised. If you are going to dismiss the majority, you are being inconsistent with your own protest. Besides, anyone happy to have the Americans there would not protest precisely as a sign of their happiness, so the argument goes bust there, too.
Anyway, I'd love to continue this conversation, but I've papers to write, so I'm outta here. :D
-
CP: Again, you manage to be too logical. You claim that absolutist rule is a god thing, and so is a one government world. Howveer, what you dont consider is, what if this government that ruled the world was not to your liking? What if the Chinese took over the forced their beliefs on you, forced you to live their way. Would you like that? You always support something until it bites you in the ass. Well, assume it has bitten you in the ass right now, becuase by the time it does it'll be too late.
Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't matter in that situation since my opinions would not be relevant. Anyway, all that is happening right now as we speak, even in the most democratic countries in the world, so it wouldn't change anything. Persuation is a form of forcing if you think about it, and in fact the most "evil" form since it alters people's minds themselves, and obviously this has been happening since the beginning of civilization and continues today. Here is an interesting scenario: suppose that in the future a new technology comes out that allows patterns in the human brain to be modified and governments use this system to "persuade" their populaces to do whatever, do you think this would be a good thing and why or why not? Remember that the people would all want to do whatever the government has them doing, so they would not think the government is "evil."
Also, you can never be too logical in an argument. :p :D
The Balkans article is about an article in the New York Times (I think it was the times) about how American imperialism in Bosnia has really benefited all involved. The authour (of the counter articel, not the original one) goes on to say how thats a crock of ****. Specifically, it ttalks about the town of Brcko , which the US claims has prospered under its rule. It talks about how the three religions are forced to attend the same school, as if forcing them into unity is helping. It talks about the peace between the ethnic groups, as if the US is to credit. In fact, Brcko is located on such a spot so as to escape the rule of the Bosnian government and the people really are more interested in other matters than killing each other. Essentially, the Times article claims that outright imperialism in Bosnia is a great thing. The counter article shoots that premise down..
Well I'm not familiar with the situation there, but how exactly is having one school for the religions a bad thing? Also, you could say that the US can take some credit for the peace there if the people are now united against the US, since then they are temporarily friendly with each other. :D
edit: The world isnt perfect, but thats all the more reason you should always strive to make it perfect. Thats like saying "My shirt is red, but I really want a blue shirt. Oh well, nothing I can do about it, despite the fact that I have a blue shirt in my closet."
That's a silly example in this context; I like the original example about "living on the moon with butterfly wings and having everyone happy" or whatever it was that I read a few days ago at this place. :D You cannot immediately try for totally unrealistic things especially when the workings of human nature do not allow for them.
-
Yes but you should not embrace human short commings. You should try to alter human perception, so that the world is as good as it can be. Look at the situation 1000 years ago? Havent things improved. Havent people become more tolerant, more peacufull, more logical? So why do you think that cannot continue? What you state about human nature is conjecture. History is all the proof we have, and that proof says that people will continue to better themselves
Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't matter in that situation since my opinions would not be relevant. Anyway, all that is happening right now as we speak, even in the most democratic countries in the world, so it wouldn't change anything. Persuation is a form of forcing if you think about it, and in fact the most "evil" form since it alters people's minds themselves, and obviously this has been happening since the beginning of civilization and continues today. Here is an interesting example: suppose that in the future a new technology comes out that allows patterns in the human brain to be modified and governments use this system to "persuade" their populaces to do whatever, do you think this would be a good thing and why or why not? Remember that the people would all want to do whatever the government has them doing.
Bad thing. Because we should strive for the ideal human condition, and the oppression of the majority is not going in that direction. Your whole rational is based on the greater good. But the greater good is not that if the majority are not satisfied. The inability to think for yourself is doing just that. Might does not, or should not, make right..
-
Yes but you should not embrace human short commings. You should try to alter human perception, so that the world is as good as it can be. Look at the situation 1000 years ago? Havent things improved. Havent people become more tolerant, more peacufull, more logical? So why do you think that cannot continue? What you state about human nature is conjecture. History is all the proof we have, and that proof says that people will continue to better themselves
I certainly do not see any such trend; all things considered I would say we have stayed more or less the same in those matters. The levels of tolerance and peace have gone up and down over the centuries and human thought has always been "equally" logical for whatever the task at hand was. Things might in the future if the individual human is fundamentally altered, but they have not so far.
Bad thing. Because we should strive for the ideal human condition, and the oppression of the majority is not going in that direction. Your whole rational is based on the greater good. But the greater good is not that if the majority are not satisfied. The inability to think for yourself is doing just that. Might does not, or should not, make right..
No no, there is no opression there. All the people would like the situation perfectly and are fully satisfied, more than they ever they ever liked their freedom situation.
-
Okay, I know I said I was leaving, but I have to reply to this:
Originally posted by Rictor
Look at the situation 1000 years ago? Havent things improved. Havent people become more tolerant, more peacufull, more logical?
:wtf: ... No! Certainly not. Technology has advanced, which has allowed us to help or harm each other more effectively than before. Which one we are more likely to do has not changed at all.
As a Christian, I believe we should certainly strive to let goodness increase in the world, but do not for a moment think that "progress" is somehow going to eradicate the self-serving, destructive impulses that riddle human nature.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I certainly do not see any such trend; all things considered I would say we have stayed more or less the same in those matters. The levels of tolerance and peace have gone up and down over the centuries and human thought has always been "equally" logical for whatever the task at hand was.
No no, there is no opression there. All the people would like the situation perfectly and are fully satisfied, more than they ever they ever liked their freedom situation.
When has humanity ever been more tolerant or more peaceful than it is today? I'de like to know, cause I dont see it. As for logic...please tell me you're kidding. Science was rejected as heresy, superstition reigned supreme. Your precious math was rejected when it went against religion.
Oppression is still opression even if you dont know it happening. The inability to have your own opinion is oppression of the worst kind.
-
When has humanity ever been more tolerant or more peaceful than it is today? I'de like to know, cause I dont see it. As for logic...please tell me you're kidding. Science was rejected as heresy, superstition reigned supreme. Your precious math was rejected when it went against religion.
You think today's humanity is tolerant and peaceful? :p (and that wouldn't necessarily any better or worse anyway) As for logic, how about before that in the period when humans were the cave-dwelling hunter-gather types? They had to be logical enough to perform the tasks needed to survive with whatever they had. It goes up and down over long periods of time.
Oppression is still opression even if you dont know it happening. The inability to have your own opinion is oppression of the worst kind.
Why? It wouldn't matter anymore since you would no longer care. And about the opinion, I really should keep that statement as a quote. :D Sure that is oppression of the worst sort, but we are living through it as we speak and it is inescapable since we are in the same universe. Have you ever been persuaded by someone else to do change your opinion on something? This is exactly what the government is doing in that example I gave, so it should cause no trouble unless you consider persuasion by talking to be oppressive (which would actually make some sense).
-
Pathetic.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
When has humanity ever been more tolerant or more peaceful than it is today?
When has it ever been less? It has always been a mixture of blood and blessing.
Besides, since when is tolerance the chief value? Tolerance is just apathy. Love is much greater.
As for logic...please tell me you're kidding. Science was rejected as heresy, superstition reigned supreme. Your precious math was rejected when it went against religion.
Please tell me you are kidding. Logic is as old as the human mind, and the rules have always been the same. Science was not rejected as heresy by any religion at any time: certain theories were rejected at certain times because people thought they were wrong. That whole speil you just regurgitated is merely so much spin doctoring by those who have thier own agenda and want to claim scientific investigation as their own property in support of it.
Edit: Wow, CP and I on the same side of an argument. How unusual.
-
Edit: Wow, CP and I on the same side of an argument. How unusual.
Maybe we can get back to that last religion argument sometime. :D I have a nice response to your last one but it would take me a couple of hours to type it all up and I don't have that much free time anymore. :(
-
Me neither. Actually, I really do have to go get back to work. Later. :)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
You think today's humanity is tolerant and peaceful? :p (and that wouldn't necessarily any better or worse anyway) As for logic, how about before that in the period when humans were the cave-dwelling hunter-gather types? They had to be logical enough to perform the tasks needed to survive with whatever they had. It goes up and down over long periods of time.
Why? It wouldn't matter anymore since you would no longer care. And about the opinion, I really should keep that statement as a quote. :D Sure that is oppression of the worst sort, but we are living through it as we speak and it is inescapable since we are in the same universe. Have you ever been persuaded by someone else to do change your opinion on something? This is exactly what the government is doing in that example I gave, so it should cause no trouble unless you consider persuasion by talking to be oppressive (which would actually make some sense).
You still havent answered the question. Tell me a period in time when humanity has been more tolerant and more peaceful. I dont think there is. What is logic? The ability to observe an event with objectivity. Thats about the jist of it imho. Since the beggining of civilized man, I dont think there has ever been a time when humanity has been more logical. I dont see how your caveman thing applies.
Can you really be so set in your mindframe that you are willing to support something that would ultimately rob YOU of your will so that OTHERS can prosper? You talk about human nature, but one of the basic human instincts is self survival. You talk about all this, but I doubt you would be willing to implement your theories in real life. Anyone can talk. Mostly people are just talking, they would not actually like it if it came around. Thats the thing, VERY few people are willing to implement extremist systems, even if it benefits them..and particularly if it does not benefit you..
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
When has it ever been less? It has always been a mixture of blood and blessing.
Besides, since when is tolerance the chief value? Tolerance is just apathy. Love is much greater.
Please tell me you are kidding. Logic is as old as the human mind, and the rules have always been the same. Science was not rejected as heresy by any religion at any time: certain theories were rejected at certain times because people thought they were wrong. That whole speil you just regurgitated is merely so much spin doctoring by those who have thier own agenda and want to claim scientific investigation as their own property in support of it.
Edit: Wow, CP and I on the same side of an argument. How unusual.
When has it been less? If the witch hunts were to happen today, they would be condemned by most people. Why? Either because people are kinder than before, or more logical becasue they dont believe in superstition. Both are admirable traits.
Yes, love is good too, and also applicalbe. Kindness too.
When people put more weight in religion, which cannot be proven, than if scientific fact, which can be proven, I call all illogical. No religion has outright rejected all science, just those theories that contended with religion. If all theories overlapped, and threated to destabilize, religious teaching, they would all be condemned. Its not that they accepted science, they simply didnt have a quarrel with it. Today, people are more tolerant, or atelast keep their intolerance under control. Look at race relations. The Crusades pitted one religion against another. The slave trade in America and worldwide. The Inquisition. 400 years of imperialistic rule. Can you claim that those people were more tolerant, or kinder, or gentler, or had more love for their fellow man, than today?
-
Ses: What? No, if the majority doesn't give a **** either way, **** them. They don't matter, because it's all the same to them. Now, if they actually want to get up and do something about their situation, say something, that's a different story. But it's ridiculous to dismiss the majority of the voices you hear under the assumption that there's a "silent majority" that disagrees with them and says nothing about it. That's not democracy, that's perverting representation to further one's own views.
Rictor: So, the crusader going out to defend an allied empire is intolerant, yet the yokel who beats up a black guy, chains him to the rear fender of his pickup, and drags him to death is a kind, tolerant, accepting, peaceful person? Is Hitler that much nicer than, say, Pope Urban II or Cortez? Are the guys who ran Buchenwald or are running Guantanamo better than any of those moldy old characters from history? Is Osama?
People are people. That doesn't change. If anything, the bodycount from psychotics and bigots and their capability to influence other psychotics and do damage has increased over the years, but that's because of better transit and communication, not an increase in intolerance. And that's pretty far in the left field of OT, so unless you and CP would rather tie this back in to merciless America-bashing or statements of sympathy for the Empire, hush.
CP: You claim to be logical and objective, and yet you consistently rule out the most important factors in the human equation, claiming that they're irrelevant because you personally don't believe they should exist. In the future, I request that you correct this inconsistency. But as for most of your other stuff, aight. And what I said to Rictor.
Mik: More pathetic than snide one-word jabs at nothing in particular, or more pathetic than a guy who takes the time to sneer at a bunch of people he's never met online for wasting their time without his ever contributing anything, when he could be doing something useful? Enlighten us,
-
We've got one pissed of asshole, one guy who pushes logic to the limits and one guy who just doesnt give a damn, yet participates anyway...my moderate viewpoints just cant compete with such extreme characterisitcs
Stryke: look at the proportion of people who are doing, or more importantly supporting, the injustices. Then and now. Since most people arent in a sitation to actually commit the injustices themselves, I'll take all the supporters as one group. So, in proportion to the number of people on the planet, then and now, how many people support race discrimination, religious intolerance, superstition, imperialism, exploitation...There are always madmen with power. Cortez, Hitler, Stalin. But, if anything, I think that their ability to kill has decreased. Why? Becuase people wont stand for it. They have the technology, but people would not be willing to support such killings. If today, even against Iraq,m the US suffered half a million casualties, would even the mpost right-wing hawks still support the invasion? In Iraq, several thousand civilians died, as opposed to the several million killed in WW2, Vietnam etc. The Thirty Years War wiped out 1/4 of Europe's population. Would anything like that be acceptable today? I dont know the numbers, but now many million Africans were sent to America to work as slaves during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries? That number cannot compare to the relatively few blacks (uhm, should I capitalize or not?) that are exploted or killed today. 300 years ago, the KKK was the norm. Is it today?
Good point about CP. You cant just discount something cause it shouldnt exist. It does.
Also, good point about the silent majority. If you arent willing to take a stand, then you leave your fate in the hands of others.
-
You still havent answered the question. Tell me a period in time when humanity has been more tolerant and more peaceful. I dont think there is. What is logic? The ability to observe an event with objectivity. Thats about the jist of it imho. Since the beggining of civilized man, I dont think there has ever been a time when humanity has been more logical. I dont see how your caveman thing applies.
How about a decade ago? Some people say that 9/11 and subsequent events have made people less tolerant of others than they used to be. Also, your defition of logic is very strange; the logic concept is related more to thought processes than observation. You are right about the last sentence, but the converse also holds; over long periods of time, there has not been any time when they have been less logical either, since they have remained the same.
Can you really be so set in your mindframe that you are willing to support something that would ultimately rob YOU of your will so that OTHERS can prosper? You talk about human nature, but one of the basic human instincts is self survival. You talk about all this, but I doubt you would be willing to implement your theories in real life. Anyone can talk. Mostly people are just talking, they would not actually like it if it came around. Thats the thing, VERY few people are willing to implement extremist systems, even if it benefits them..and particularly if it does not benefit you..
Of course I would not go out of my way to do that and would likely resist any attempts for the time that my mindset is the same that it is now. But you still have not gotten the whole point of my posts; your will cannot be "robbed" any more (or any less) than it already is being so because you already exist in society.
As for the rest of that, I have no theories that need implementing; if I have come up with them, it is because I think that they will occur without any efforts from myself or anyone else. Like I said earlier, I don't care much for politics other than as a source of amusement, so I wouldn't bother wasting any effort with that. :D In this particular thread however, I haven't said anything at all about implementing theories and "what should happen." :p
CP: You claim to be logical and objective, and yet you consistently rule out the most important factors in the human equation, claiming that they're irrelevant because you personally don't believe they should exist. In the future, I request that you correct this inconsistency. But as for most of your other stuff, aight. And what I said to Rictor.
What exactly are these factors? I never said anything "should" happen; in fact, I have always spoken heavily against arguing in terms of absolute shoulds and should nots. (that sounded funny :D)
Good point about CP. You cant just discount something cause it shouldnt exist. It does.
Again, what are these factors? Also, this is exactly what I was saying to you in the last political argument. :D
-
1. War was a lot more lethal back in the days when a good arm wound would mean gangrene and death in days. And the Thirty Years' War is hardly a prime example of bigotry, being as it was a conflict between several closely related neighbors. They hated each other, but it was on national-ideological grounds, not ethnic or religious.
And if you think Cortez killed more people (not counting inadvertent smallpox victims) than Hitler or Stalin, I recommend you check your history. If you think more people died in the Crusades than in the Cold War, once again, you're sadly mistaken. Quite the reverse is true, we're talking thousands as opposed to millions- but when you factor in the increase in population and broader global reach increasing the warring nations' killing power, comparable.
Last I checked, just about everyone I met on the street passionately hated France for opposing the Iraq invasion and thought camel-humping jokes were funny. Doesn't seem more of an accepting, cosmopolitan society to me. At the moment, it's true, we're in a slight decrease in the general hatred and bigotry, but it's rocketing back up and it was just a temporary dent in a long, historical line that's full of dents but more or less a straight course.
-
CP: Try your statements about "oppression". There's a good starting point.;)
-
oppression is the "one of the most important factors in the human equation" you were talking about? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
1. War was a lot more lethal back in the days when a good arm wound would mean gangrene and death in days. And the Thirty Years' War is hardly a prime example of bigotry, being as it was a conflict between several closely related neighbors. They hated each other, but it was on national-ideological grounds, not ethnic or religious.
And if you think Cortez killed more people (not counting inadvertent smallpox victims) than Hitler or Stalin, I recommend you check your history. If you think more people died in the Crusades than in the Cold War, once again, you're sadly mistaken. Quite the reverse is true, we're talking thousands as opposed to millions- but when you factor in the increase in population and broader global reach increasing the warring nations' killing power, comparable.
Last I checked, just about everyone I met on the street passionately hated France for opposing the Iraq invasion and thought camel-humping jokes were funny. Doesn't seem more of an accepting, cosmopolitan society to me. At the moment, it's true, we're in a slight decrease in the general hatred and bigotry, but it's rocketing back up and it was just a temporary dent in a long, historical line that's full of dents but more or less a straight course.
Ok, the first paragragh I dont really have any strong disagreements with
I never said Cortez killed more than Stalin. I put them in the same category. That means anything upwards of several thousand people. This includes Pinochet and includes Bush. I never said more. There are 2 main causes of death. 1 is wars between nations. 2 is the killing of civialians by other civilians due to race, religion etc. In the past 20 years, both of these are, as far as I can see, at an all time low. Maybe there were stretches of time when there was virtually no killing, but the mindset was still there so they never laster. Whaat is different today is that the mindset has changed.
A simple question: If Bush were to bring back slavery, would there be more than a handful (a few thousand) people on the entire planet that would support it? If America were to nuke Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands, would any more than a handful of people not condemn it (I dont mean pooh-pooh, I mean violently vocally disagree)? The massive loss of human life, be it Iraqi or French or American, is no longer a widely accepted concept.
So people make a few French jokes. Those people who tease the French and make camel jokes, would anyone of them cheer at the prospect of 500,000 dead Iraqis? Frenchmen? Russians? Chinese? Nope. People talk, big whoop. During the bombing of Yugoslavia, I ****ing hated the Americans. Still do (though not the as many and not as much...uhm) (see endnote). That doesnt mean that I wanted to kill them.
endnote: When I says I hate Americans, that doesnt mean I hate the people. I'm pissed at them for supprting the government, for living in luxury while the world lives in poverty. I hate them for specific things, but not overall.
-
double post
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Ses: What? No, if the majority doesn't give a **** either way, **** them. They don't matter, because it's all the same to them. Now, if they actually want to get up and do something about their situation, say something, that's a different story. But it's ridiculous to dismiss the majority of the voices you hear under the assumption that there's a "silent majority" that disagrees with them and says nothing about it. That's not democracy, that's perverting representation to further one's own views.
:wtf: Who said anything about discounting them? I said what I said, and only what I said. You are reading other ideas into my words. I argued that because some group of protestors gets on television is not a sufficient reason to think that the majority agree. They may or may not, we don't know.
But in the case under discussion, the liberation of the populace of Iraq is the issue, not the views and interests of one band of protestors. If you are going to talk about the entire country, talk about the entire country. If you are going to talk about the one band of protestors, talk about the one band of protestors. If you believe the protestors are representative of the entire country, provide some substantiation for that claim. Otherwise, pick one or the other to talk about.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
So people make a few French jokes. Those people who tease the French and make camel jokes, would anyone of them cheer at the prospect of 500,000 dead Iraqis? Frenchmen? Russians? Chinese? Nope. People talk, big whoop. During the bombing of Yugoslavia, I ****ing hated the Americans. Still do (though not the as many and not as much...uhm) (see endnote). That doesnt mean that I wanted to kill them.
I think that's more due to the development of laws and strict society rather than a change of aggression or emotion. Back in pre-Babylonian days there probably weren't explicit laws all over the place forbiding or punishing aggression (I'm not sure if they were present in Babylon either) and people would be more free to express whatever they thought (not just like "I hate you") through force.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
When has it been less? If the witch hunts were to happen today, they would be condemned by most people. Why? Either because people are kinder than before, or more logical becasue they dont believe in superstition. Both are admirable traits.
Instead we've recently painted Communists as evil, or more recently had a rash of people thinking Muslims are evil, or conversely that America is the Great Satan, and kill each other that way. Nazis killed Jews just because they were Jews. At least the witch hunters had a good reason.
Yes, love is good too, and also applicalbe. Kindness too.
Well, there are implications to that. Love wants the best for another, which entails that there is a particular best for the other. Love, therefore, will not be willing to say that anything goes like apathetic tolerance will, but will insist on actually caring about people and trying for their best even when they don't like it. So where you say we need to be more tolerant, letting people do whatever the heck they want because we don't give a damn about them, I say that kind of apathy is the most disgusting, soggy, slimy excuse for an ethical value ever devised. Love is not tolerant. It is self-sacrificial, and patient, and kind, and in the last resort will always allow the other the freedom to destroy himself, but only with agony and tears and a hell of a lot of "intolerant" attempts to get him not to.
When people put more weight in religion, which cannot be proven, than if scientific fact, which can be proven, I call all illogical. No religion has outright rejected all science, just those theories that contended with religion. If all theories overlapped, and threated to destabilize, religious teaching, they would all be condemned. Its not that they accepted science, they simply didnt have a quarrel with it.
1) You claim such theories exist. Present them.
2) Your atheism (I assume you are an atheist) is every bit as much an "unprovable" belief as a Buddhist's or Muslim's or Christian's or Jain's or Taoist's or what have you. If I say the universe behaves in an orderly fashion because God maintains it that way, and you say it behaves in an orderly fashion because it just somehow does, neither claim can be "proven". All we can "prove" is that we have observed orderliness in the universe's behaviour.
Can you claim that those people were more tolerant, or kinder, or gentler, or had more love for their fellow man, than today?
Neither more, nor less. You leave out the monks who brokered peace between warring factions, the doctors who tended the sick despite knowing that, however this mysterious plague was transferred, they were surely going to catch it, the teachers who devoted themselves to educating others, the unnamed, unknown billions who lived quiet lives helping their neighbours at harvest time and lending them a cup of suger when they needed it.
And even those Crusades you mention were not quite the horror show of hatred you imagine. Those who sent out on those quests did not say "Let's go kill us some Arab bastards!" but rather saw themselves on a quest against injustice and evil being perpetrated by other men. And at the same time as the Second Crusade was underway, you also have St. Francis of Assisi travelling to Egypt to meet the Sultan to try to end the war and bring him the most wonderful gift of joy and love he knew: his faith. These sorts of arguments you are making are based entirely on skewed "history" and a whole huge pile of half-baked characters of reality.
*Bunch of stuff to me and Stryke about 1) madmen getting power, 2) people opposing hypothetical reinstatements of slavery or nuking Iraq, 3) supposed "all-time lows" in rates of people killing one another, 4) the argument that killing a few thousand people is in a different category of evil on its own*
Regarding 1 and 2, may I bring back the classic 20th c. example of Nazi Germany? Sure, Hilter was an evil madman, but what did the people do? Mostly, they went along with it. Lots and lots of otherwise perfectly normal people became guards in the camps or processors of extermination forms or any of a myriad of jobs that supported the Nazi bureaucracy. And this was in a nation that is universally regarded as having been at the very peak of human culture at that time. They were the most developed, most civilised, most intellectual, most artistic bunch of people around. And they did this. And so could any of us. Anyone who denies this is lying to himself.
Regarding 3, :wtf:. That is so fantastically wrong, I can't believe it. Take what is goin on in the Sudan right now. What, you haven't heard about that? That's because it has been going on for decades, so it is old news, and old news doesn't get ratings on TV. People in South Sudan are regularly captured as slaves, killed, raped, and pillaged by those from North Sudan. It is standard practice. And no one cares. Because it doesn't get ratings, and we don't really want to think about it anyway. We are slaughtering each other all the time. But the news only shows us shocking snippets, and then we forget that it happened and go back to our daily lives. It is all we can do, perhaps, but that is the only reason why you would think our mutual slaughter is at any sort of a low.
Regarding 4, would 1999 people killed be a different category from 2000? How about 1998? 1598? How many do I have to kill before I am a full-fledged madman instead of merely a not-very-nice-fellow? If I kill 756 people, torture 16 kittens, and pull the wings off of 7 flies, does your contention that the world is improving still hold?
-
All that picture shows is some former iraqi soldiers want some pay or their job back, which they'll get soon when the new Iraqi army is formed.
Thing people don't seem to realise is, you can't rebuild a country in a week, or a month, or in two months.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Instead we've recently painted Communists as evil, or more recently had a rash of people thinking Muslims are evil, or conversely that America is the Great Satan, and kill each other that way. Nazis killed Jews just because they were Jews. At least the witch hunters had a good reason.
Yes, but although Americans hate the Muslims and Muslims hate the Americans, there are few on either side that believe so strongly in the mindset that they are willing to kill each other. Out of about 1 billion Muslims (I'm guessing, but there abouts) on Earth, how many have commited terrorist acts? Or killed Americans? or killed eachother? Not many. If someone says "I hate the Great Satan, but I dont hate them so much as to kill them", then to me thats not real hatred, only anger, frustration or a certain degree of social conditioning.
Well, there are implications to that. Love wants the best for another, which entails that there is a particular best for the other. Love, therefore, will not be willing to say that anything goes like apathetic tolerance will, but will insist on actually caring about people and trying for their best even when they don't like it. So where you say we need to be more tolerant, letting people do whatever the heck they want because we don't give a damn about them, I say that kind of apathy is the most disgusting, soggy, slimy excuse for an ethical value ever devised. Love is not tolerant. It is self-sacrificial, and patient, and kind, and in the last resort will always allow the other the freedom to destroy himself, but only with agony and tears and a hell of a lot of "intolerant" attempts to get him not to.
I dont see how you regard tolerance as apathy. Maybe you misunderstand me. Tolerance is not as full-blown as love, but it is better than hatred or even neutrality. If I tolerate you, to me that means that I ackowledge the valididity of your opinion even though I disagree. How can you see that as apathy? Opinions will differ. Tolerance allows people to ackowledge that you cant force everyone into your own mindset, and that you have to accept them even though they may be different.
1) You claim such theories exist. Present them.
2) Your atheism (I assume you are an atheist) is every bit as much an "unprovable" belief as a Buddhist's or Muslim's or Christian's or Jain's or Taoist's or what have you. If I say the universe behaves in an orderly fashion because God maintains it that way, and you say it behaves in an orderly fashion because it just somehow does, neither claim can be "proven". All we can "prove" is that we have observed orderliness in the universe's behaviour..
It has been proven that the Earth revolves around the sun. It has been proven that Earth is not flat. It has been proven that the universe is filled with billion of stars and galaxies, and that when we look upwards, we see the universe and not heaven. I could go on and on. When faith and reason cross paths, you must chose one. To this day, people have commited more acts of brutality in the name of faith than in the name of reason. I regard reason as "better", simply becuase it can be disproven. If a man believes in God, theres nothing you can do that will change his mind. If he says, "God is telling me to kill", you cant talk him out of it. However, if he says "I want to kill all Arabs because they are terrorists", that theory can easily be shot down with easy to obtain facts. And I'm not an athiest.
Neither more, nor less. You leave out the monks who brokered peace between warring factions, the doctors who tended the sick despite knowing that, however this mysterious plague was transferred, they were surely going to catch it, the teachers who devoted themselves to educating others, the unnamed, unknown billions who lived quiet lives helping their neighbours at harvest time and lending them a cup of suger when they needed it. .
Yes, but those same monks later travelled to America and imposed their culture and religion on the natives. At the end of a gun. Faith compels great acts of kindness in individuals, but also great acts of violence in groups. A monk is kind, compassionate and caring. The Church is anything but. It is the latter that has had more influence, as far as I know. Those living quietly, giving crops to their neighboors, well at best they're neutral. At worst they directly or indirectly furthered the cause of their Church and their government, which more or less killed people as it saw fit. When before has the concept of charity existed? Or the antiwar movement. A hundred years ago, these were outrageous ideas. Look at how widespread they are now.
And even those Crusades you mention were not quite the horror show of hatred you imagine. Those who sent out on those quests did not say "Let's go kill us some Arab bastards!" but rather saw themselves on a quest against injustice and evil being perpetrated by other men. And at the same time as the Second Crusade was underway, you also have St. Francis of Assisi travelling to Egypt to meet the Sultan to try to end the war and bring him the most wonderful gift of joy and love he knew: his faith. These sorts of arguments you are making are based entirely on skewed "history" and a whole huge pile of half-baked characters of reality..
I dont pretend to have studied in great depth (beyond the scope of highschool history class and my own research into subjects that interested me) any of the people or events which you mention. However, what I can tell you is that the motivation for both the Crusaders and for St.Francis of Assisi was their faith. The one group killed becuase of it, the other brought peace because of it. Would one man's struggle for peace be more important than the actions of thousands, at the hands of which tens if not hundreds of thousands of people died? I'm sure that in Nazi Germany, there were a few individuaals who fought against the Nazis, who protected the Jews even at the expense of their own lives. As I've said, a person is good, people are bad. The actions of a few do not excuse the actions of many.
Regarding 1 and 2, may I bring back the classic 20th c. example of Nazi Germany? Sure, Hilter was an evil madman, but what did the people do? Mostly, they went along with it. Lots and lots of otherwise perfectly normal people became guards in the camps or processors of extermination forms or any of a myriad of jobs that supported the Nazi bureaucracy. And this was in a nation that is universally regarded as having been at the very peak of human culture at that time. They were the most developed, most civilised, most intellectual, most artistic bunch of people around. And they did this. And so could any of us. Anyone who denies this is lying to himself.
Thats exactly what I'm saying. Why dont the Nazis have any serious power today? 50 years ago, the people of Germany, and the world, supported the exermination of the Jews. Today, no such thing could happen. If killings persists, it is because the majority of the world does not know about it, not becuase they support it. I doubt that any significant number of people would support an extremists regime, be it Christian or Muslim or whatever. Yes, there are mass killings in Sudan and in other places, but what part of the populace supports this? I would guess that most of the people suffer at the hands of such regimes, and thefore do not suport them. Take Iraq. Or Yugoslavia. The dictators did not stay in power because the people supported them. They stayed in power becuase people did not have the strenght to overthrow them. In Yugoslavia, the people overthrough Milosevic as soon as they were able. And Yugoslvia wasnt even that extreme, it wasnt a police state. You think that just becuase someone is in power, he must have the support of the people. You think that if Saddam decides to go gas some Kurds, that all the people support it. Do you support the war in Iraq? Does everyone in the US support it? No.
Regarding 3, :wtf:. That is so fantastically wrong, I can't believe it. Take what is goin on in the Sudan right now. What, you haven't heard about that? That's because it has been going on for decades, so it is old news, and old news doesn't get ratings on TV. People in South Sudan are regularly captured as slaves, killed, raped, and pillaged by those from North Sudan. It is standard practice. And no one cares. Because it doesn't get ratings, and we don't really want to think about it anyway. We are slaughtering each other all the time. But the news only shows us shocking snippets, and then we forget that it happened and go back to our daily lives. It is all we can do, perhaps, but that is the only reason why you would think our mutual slaughter is at any sort of a low..
The news shows us what the government wants us to see. Thats why it is our duty to look beyond that, and to find the facts. Yes, there is terrible stuff in the Sudan, in Chechnyia etc. However, the more I learn about these situation, the more I see that they are caused not by some freaky, scary hatred, but rather by the conditions that exist. And in alot of the cases, many of the conditions exist due to some powerful country (US, Russia etc) creating hositle condiitions so they can profit from it. For example, when you saw "coverage" of the war in Kosovo (you know the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs back in '99), you must have though that those people were savages. That is becuase that is the outlook that the US governemnt wanted you to have, and becuase CNN spun it that way. They were talking about 400,000 dead people. Thats pretty bad. You know what the number of bodies that has been found to date is? Around 3000. Thats bad, but not catastrophic. And among those 3000, there are many Serbs too. So instead of genocide, we find the effects of a geurilla war fought between two enemies of comparable might. And on a side note, do you doubt that the US has killed as much or more Iraqis in the war? So when the Serbs do it, its prtrayed as the next Nazi empire, but when the US does it, no one flinches.
Regarding 4, would 1999 people killed be a different category from 2000? How about 1998? 1598? How many do I have to kill before I am a full-fledged madman instead of merely a not-very-nice-fellow? If I kill 756 people, torture 16 kittens, and pull the wings off of 7 flies, does your contention that the world is improving still hold?
You're intentionally misunderstanding my point. You know what I meant.
-
Ses: I talk about the active protestors in Iraq as tjhe people of Iraq because they evidently outnumber the active pro-US Iraqis (and are growing), and they're all I can ever find news about. Shall I pretend there's an active majority supporting occupation I just never hear of? That's taking a rather long leap of faith just to arrive at a possible alternate conclusion. Hence my previous post.
Zeronet: Uh-huh. You do realize that Afghanistan has had more than months, that Karzai can't get out of Kabul (nor can anyone under his control), that the entire nation has gone right back into the violent warlord anarchy that was there before, that it's the same old Taliban boys who are running everything? Bush hasn't even gotten his first try right, and this one's going in the same direction his Afghan policy did. How much blind faith in Bush is one expected to have, eh?
Rictor-At random:
So, it's not the Sudanese that are enslaving people, it's the US. But the US doesn't have any problem with the Sudanese and is doing it in the most egalitarian way possible?
And have you seen the Earth orbit the Sun? Or do you take that for granted as an article of faith?
You don't pretend to know much about it, yet you make a lot of assumptions. Religion was closely tied to politics back then (even more so than now), but politics was the prime motivator behind the Crusades. The retaliation for the siege of Constantinople, and eventual counterattack, were completely political in nature, and were turned into some religious holy war in order to get the attention of the masses- the same way Bush goes on about God being on our side to get support here. And another thing- make another post like that, without referring to the Crusades or conquistadors once, and see if you can carry your thesis on that people are more tolerant than ever. Those are two major events over centuries of time, as opposed to the many that have been enumerated now, in the past century.
Now, are you done yet? Can I have my thread back? Go spam somewhere else, I'm not in the mood.
All: Don't talk to him. If you ignore him, he'll go away, or at least maybe try to make sense and get back on topic.
-
Okay, I'm terribly pissed at some of the narrow-mindedness I've seen in the last few posts in this thread, so I'll just take up Stryke's first post.
I hear we're almost down to 20 a day now. Apparently, those cursed savages don't appreciate the full benefits of an American-installed democracy. Oh, wait, did I say "democracy"? Certainly not, they'd probably vote for someone we wouldn't like, and we can't have that. Let's just install another bloody militaristic dictatorship, a more effective puppet government this time, but one that doesn't sound too imperialistic... oh! I've got it! Viceroy! Very nice, very Victorian feel to it, eh? Well, at least we can keep those bloody Shias from speaking their piece, electing some pagan Mussulman, what ho!
We have been saying this since day 1, haven't we? I mean, why did you US'ns invade Iraq in the first place? Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Now, that the US control Iraq, how many WoMD's have been found?
0. None. Zilch. Zap. Null.
Okay, now that we've proven that attacking Iraq had nothing to do with the safety of the world, let's see how the war made the Iraqi people better.
Some ten thousand were killed. Cities laid in ruins. The economy pushed back some twenty years. Of course, this is all totally acceptable, because, now the Iraqis live in a peaceful democratic state.
Except, of course, they don't.
And as my last point, I'd like to state, that the US HAVEN'T EVEN FINISHED WITH AFGANISTHAN! It's back to what it was before the US invaded them. Except before it was ruled by Taliban, now it's ruled by former Taliban warlords.
-
There was a war?
-
Or a Hollywood blockbuster, depending on how you look at it.
You know, it occurs to me... this is not gonna be one of those wars they make a war movie out of in ten years. I could just see it now... "Whack-an-Arab 2003: The Revenge"
-
Kinda like why the germans haven't made a lot of WW2 movies, is it not?
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Or a Hollywood blockbuster, depending on how you look at it.
You know, it occurs to me... this is not gonna be one of those wars they make a war movie out of in ten years. I could just see it now... "Whack-an-Arab 2003: The Revenge"
Why not, Three Kings anyone?
I dunno, I find it incredibly difficult to have an opinion, not due to apathy but because of the conflict between good journalism and a good story that most news companies seem to suffer nowadays and I don't have time to read between the lines and find out more for myself.
To be honest, while I normally try to keep tabs on what's going on in the world and keep myself informed, I find it very difficult to believe anything I read anymore because you never seem to have a full truth on anything where there happens to be money involved.
-
Stryke: do you ever read my posts, or do you just assume what I'm going to say. It doesnt sound like you read them at all.
So whatever you disagree with is spam? whatever you feel is not a valid arguement is spam? I dont think so. And BTW I am on topic. The topic was the US occupation of Iraq. As you read the subsequent posts, you see how that goes from a specific case to arguements about the general case. Should I pretend that the rest of history is not at all related to this subject, just so you can feel as though if you've stayed on topic. Being more angry does not make you more right.
I take it that you're one of those people who believes in the overall crapiness of the human race? That we are all opportunistic killers, religious fanatcis and that theres very little hope of changing that. Well them, let me ask you this. Other than some strange sense of irony and a contempt for almost everyone around you, why do you bother sticking around? Why do you bother living if you believe that all those around you are and will always be evil, greedy, intolerant etc?
I could probably make the same arguement as I already have without refering to historical facts. But thats what my whole arguement is based on, comparison between modern times and history. When you compare a and b, you can't simply not use b in your arguement. If my points so far do not make sense to you, please ask me to clarify specific things. Dont just write me off a an inferior asshole, beside whom your majesty is even grander...or something. If my arguements dont make sense, then either you're not tying hard enough (cause they make sense to me) or ask me to clarify. Otherwise, shut up.
No I have never seen the sun revolve around the Earth. However, I have never seen God. Atleast the Sun theory follows a logical train of thought. Atleast it tries to be proven, even if the evidence may be wrong (small chance of that, but still a chance). I have never seen anyone try to logically explain religion, nor have I seen evidence. Some evidence, however
Governments are killers, opportunists, greedy sumbags whom play of peoples fears and desires to gain power. I am not contending that fact. They are as much of that today as ever. However, what I meant was the people are better. You fail to accept a simple truth. The horrors of the past: The Holocaust, the Vietnam War, Stalinist rule, slavery, 300 years of imperialist rule, the Crusades (you can ignore the Crusades if you want, my arguement can stand without ithem) etc etc. would NOT be accepted, tolerated, embraced today. If you think otherwise, thats your thing, but I doubt you do. If someone were to try to openly reinstate any such rascist, religious, murderous policies, they would not get very far. You can argue that Bush has done exaclty that, however there are two main differences. One, is that the new American nationalism crap is much less in both quantity (how many people embrace it) and quantity (how far they're willing to go) than before. The second difference is that he is not openly advocating hate against Muslims. He is doing it sneakily. The intention matters.
Now whether or not people are more gulible is another topic, but I think that with the Internet and alternate sources, people are FAR more skeptical than ever. You take the US as a model of the world view. This is simply not the case. Europe for example, is about half-way between the US and what could be considered an achievable degree of idealism (well, more like 1/4 of the way there, but you get the point). In matter of religion, political awareness, culture, tolerance of other viewpoints etc, I consider Europe to be far better off than the US. The US is among the worst examples of humanity, dont take it to be the standard.
And keep that ego under control, you're not superior to anyone, including me.
-
Full truth in journalism is by definition impossible. That would require objectivity in the article.
There is no way anyone can be that objective.
-
Full truth's kinda boring, anyway. So many qualifying statements, so much gray area.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
No I have never seen the sun revolve around the Earth. However, I have never seen God. Atleast the Sun theory follows a logical train of thought. Atleast it tries to be proven, even if the evidence may be wrong (small chance of that, but still a chance). I have never seen anyone try to logically explain religion, nor have I seen evidence. Some evidence, however
oh well, n/m. I begin to see Stryke's point.
-
I said ignore him. He wants to babble on for a page and a half at a time, let him make his own thread.
And yeah, he's one of the people who treats science as another religion. They're far from uncommon. They are not the sort of people to have a philosophical argument with, since by defintion they're anything but.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Full truth's kinda boring, anyway. So many qualifying statements, so much gray area.
Not necessarily full truth because that takes the fun out of analysis and opinion, but when everything is money orientated or operates on a personal bias, news should be objective. I don't have time (or patience to be fair) to sift through half assed and biased news articles gold digging for truth nuggets if you see what I mean.
-
Contempt is a very nice thing, eh Stryke?
Feel sorry for you. Like most people, when you realize that you're about to lose the arguement, you turn into *****y mode and throw a tantrum, and pretend like the other person isnt even worth your time
You dont have to admit it to me, only yourself:D
And if you only want to have an ego match, with no real arguements involved, than I'm afrad that I have neither the will nor the way to beat you at that. The more I talk, the more your ego inflates, and I have no desire to see it any bigger than it already is..:D
-
Originally posted by 01010
Not necessarily full truth because that takes the fun out of analysis and opinion, but when everything is money orientated or operates on a personal bias, news should be objective. I don't have time (or patience to be fair) to sift through half assed and biased news articles gold digging for truth nuggets if you see what I mean.
That would be every piece of news ever written.
-
Objective and yet having a personal bias?
Maybe I misread your post, but, uh...
But I get what you mean. It is a time-consuming sport.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Objective and yet having a personal bias?
Maybe I misread your post, but, uh...
But I get what you mean. It is a time-consuming sport.
Sorry, I meant that news should be the reporting the facts of what happened rather than "Money Inc presents (it's spin on) THE NEWS"
I wouldn't be suprised if it came across wrong. My brain is pretty fried today.
-
As is proven here.
-
The Iraqis can elect whoever they want, without fear now. Of course, they won't actually be able to do anything,seeing as the US has already planned out the rebuilding of Iraqs economic and political structures - and you couldn't trust the natives with that, could you?
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Okay, I'm terribly pissed at some of the narrow-mindedness I've seen in the last few posts in this thread, so I'll just take up Stryke's first post.
We have been saying this since day 1, haven't we? I mean, why did you US'ns invade Iraq in the first place? Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Now, that the US control Iraq, how many WoMD's have been found?
0. None. Zilch. Zap. Null.
Okay, now that we've proven that attacking Iraq had nothing to do with the safety of the world, let's see how the war made the Iraqi people better.
Some ten thousand were killed. Cities laid in ruins. The economy pushed back some twenty years. Of course, this is all totally acceptable, because, now the Iraqis live in a peaceful democratic state.
.
Ten thousand you say? Proof hmmm?
http://www.nctimes.com/news/2003/20030611/55908.html
That says around 3000 and provides some insight on to why some casualties were caused by Saddamn, garrisoning hospitals and schools etc, putting surface to air missiles next to residential areas.
Show me your proof that cities were laid in ruins? Your making it sound like Stalingrad, the damage isnt that severe, cities were not carpet bombed.
Wheres your proof for the "economy pushed back 20 years" statement hmm?
You do realise, under Saddamn, the economy was ruined, Iraq used to be the richest country in the middle-east, Saddamn ruined that with the war with Iran among other things. So don't start sprouting your nonsense that the economy has somehow been damaged, truth is, its going to get the chance to improve back to its former state before Saddamn. Without sanctions, without mass amounts of money spend developing WMDs.
Truth is, Saddamn had months to hide his weapons, considering they've still got thousands of sites to search, you'd be a fool if you expected them to find everything within a month. It took the inspecters quite a few months to find them the last time.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The Iraqis can elect whoever they want, without fear now. Of course, they won't actually be able to do anything,seeing as the US has already planned out the rebuilding of Iraqs economic and political structures - and you couldn't trust the natives with that, could you?
Yeah, by political structures they mean the interim government, to organise a valid election, you need civilian infrastructure fixed etc and everything and for the county to be safe.
-
Hmm... OK, hands up all those who think Iraq was better off with Saddam in power. And you best raise your hand, Stryke.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Yeah, by political structures they mean the interim government, to organise a valid election, you need civilian infrastructure fixed etc and everything and for the county to be safe.
The point is, that the people should at least have a say in how their country is going to run and rebuilt - in essence, the future of their country is being dictated to them..... how can the future government be effective in any way, if the people feel it is one that has effectively been dictated to them.
Whilst none would say the Iraqis were free-er under Saddam, they still have no say in how their country is run, or will be run. In promising to rebuild Iraq, the US (as providors of the funding) have also removed any impression of control from the Iraqi people.
Whilst they have free speech, it stands for nothing. That's why you see the riots, stoning, etc - and why it's likely to intensify. Of course, it's easier to see flaws than give solutions, but i think the uS running of Iraq has been somewhat naive in terms of what they expected the Iraqi response to be .
-
The point is, that the people should at least have a say in how their country is going to run and rebuilt - in essence, the future of their country is being dictated to them..... how can the future government be effective in any way, if the people feel it is one that has effectively been dictated to them.
Whilst none would say the Iraqis were free-er under Saddam, they still have no say in how their country is run, or will be run. In promising to rebuild Iraq, the US (as providors of the funding) have also removed any impression of control from the Iraqi people.
Once again, that would be nice and ideal, but the world is not perfect. If the authority is handed over to the local populace and to whatever is left of the old government structure in the current situation, what would likely happen is that the country would gradually split apart into three or four sections, each controlled by some local leader from that location's ethnic majority, some secular and others radical. Even now some of the provinces are pushing for their own independent states and are only holding off because of the US military presence. The remains of the old government simply do not have the resources to hold things together and enforce any laws they make.
As for the finding of WMDs, as I said here about a month ago, I would sooner bet on a Freespace 3 coming out this year (Volition surprise :D) than anything being found regardless of whether or not they actually exist; the world is a big place and any such things are extremely easy to hide, especially when nearly six months are given to do so.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Yes, but although Americans hate the Muslims and Muslims hate the Americans, there are few on either side that believe so strongly in the mindset that they are willing to kill each other.
It would appear that many do support it on both sides. If the situation were as you say, these movements wouldn't get off the ground.
I dont see how you regard tolerance as apathy. Maybe you misunderstand me. Tolerance is not as full-blown as love, but it is better than hatred or even neutrality. If I tolerate you, to me that means that I ackowledge the valididity of your opinion even though I disagree. How can you see that as apathy? Opinions will differ. Tolerance allows people to ackowledge that you cant force everyone into your own mindset, and that you have to accept them even though they may be different.
If both opinions are equally valid, neither one is any more true than the other. If opposite values are equally valid, neither one is actually any better than the other. If there is no true and no best, there is no opportunity to care about what happens to another. Love cares passionately because it has something to care about. Mere tolerance eliminates any basis for love. Love will not finally force the other into choosing rightly, since such force would be destructive to the other's very being, but it will insist that a wrong choice is wrong. You see, what is good in tolerance is subsumed under love, but from love's perspective, tolerance is hardly better than hatred, since neither one is working towards the best for the other.
It has been proven that the Earth revolves around the sun. It has been proven that Earth is not flat. It has been proven that the universe is filled with billion of stars and galaxies, and that when we look upwards, we see the universe and not heaven. I could go on and on.
And any one of those runs contrary to religious belief how? The question of the Earth revolving around the sun was a debate between those who followed Aristotle and those who followed Copernicus. The flat earth bit is a myth: the Greeks had already demonstrated the sphericality of the Earth long before Christianity came on the scene (and the Bible says nothing on the subject anyway). How does the existence of billions of stars and galaxies contradict anything in religious belief? I can't even imagine what you think that one is supposed to conflict with. :wtf:
To this day, people have commited more acts of brutality in the name of faith than in the name of reason.
Nazism justified itself with plenty of rational explanation. You are making an unsupportable generalisation based on nothing more than your own opinion.
When faith and reason cross paths, you must chose one. ... I regard reason as "better", simply becuase it can be disproven. If a man believes in God, theres nothing you can do that will change his mind.
:lol: What you need are some proper philosophy classes. Reason is a process which moves from a given premise to a conclusion. What first posits that premise is always some sort of faith.
The process of reasoning always runs thus: "I am going to take it on faith that A and B are true. If A and B are both true, then C must also be true." So this whole business about faith and reason crossing paths is a red herring. There is only one path, which moves from faith through reason to a conclusion. If people come to different conclusions it is either because someone has a faulty reasoning process, or else because they did not start out with the same premises.
But if they start from different premises, which is to say they believe different things initially, they can either try to find some common belief to work from and see whether they can from there move on to justify one or the other of their original premises, or else they can simply say to each other "I think you are wrong, and there is no way to bridge the gulf between us." However, when you get right down to the bottom of it, we all have beliefs that are foundational, that we just plain believe. God's existence or non-existence is one of those foundational beliefs: you can neither prove nor disprove it on the basis of any other belief. The only thing you can do is explore the consequences of each option and see which one confroms better to reality as you experience it.
And I'm not an athiest.
Ah, my bad. What are you?
...Faith compels great acts of kindness in individuals, but also great acts of violence in groups. A monk is kind, compassionate and caring. The Church is anything but. ...
Religious beliefs also compel great acts of kindness in groups and great acts of violence in individuals. The Church is also kind, compassionate, and caring, and many a monk anything but. As I said, you will find both good and bad mixed thoroughly together anywhere that humans are found this side of Judgement Day.
When before has the concept of charity existed? Or the antiwar movement. A hundred years ago, these were outrageous ideas. Look at how widespread they are now.
:wtf::lol: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:43-44) "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:29-31)
I dont pretend to have studied in great depth (beyond the scope of highschool history class and my own research into subjects that interested me) any of the people or events which you mention.
Then I suggest you learn more before you begin theorising, because as you may have noticed, those who have all disagree with you.
As I've said, a person is good, people are bad. The actions of a few do not excuse the actions of many. ... If killings persists, it is because the majority of the world does not know about it, not becuase they support it. ... Yes, there are mass killings in Sudan and in other places, but what part of the populace supports this? I would guess that most of the people suffer at the hands of such regimes, and thefore do not suport them. ... The news shows us what the government wants us to see. ... stuff in the Sudan, in Chechnyia etc. ... caused not by some freaky, scary hatred, but rather by the conditions that exist. ... So instead of genocide, we find the effects of a geurilla war fought between two enemies of comparable might. ... So when the Serbs do it, its prtrayed as the next Nazi empire, but when the US does it, no one flinches.
You make my argument for me. There is evil and good in abundance to be found on the earth, still and always.
I might also point out that your window for when we suddenly started getting better is getting smaller and smaller. A few hundred years ago, then 100 years ago, then a few decades... Soon you'll reach the point when you are arguing that humanity has been improving since lunchtime.
Would one man's struggle for peace be more important than the actions of thousands, at the hands of which tens if not hundreds of thousands of people died? ... You're intentionally misunderstanding my point. You know what I meant.
I know precisely what you meant. I am pointing out that it is rationally incoherent. Evil is not numerical. Bigger numbers are more spectacular, not more evil. One single murder is an unspeakable abomination.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Ses: I talk about the active protestors in Iraq as tjhe people of Iraq because they evidently outnumber the active pro-US Iraqis (and are growing), and they're all I can ever find news about. Shall I pretend there's an active majority supporting occupation I just never hear of? That's taking a rather long leap of faith just to arrive at a possible alternate conclusion. Hence my previous post.
Given that a majority in support would not be out protesting, and the news only reports that which is spectacular, it means that the possibility is there. Whether it is the case I have no idea, and I am not arguing that it is. All I am saying is that it might or might not be, and I will assume neither until I feel I have sufficient grounds to do so.
All: Don't talk to him. If you ignore him, he'll go away, or at least maybe try to make sense and get back on topic.
Hmm, that might be a good idea. Reading ahead now, he does seem quite intractable. His posts that lie between the one I am replying to and the one I am writng are devoid of arguments and filled with ad hominem attacks instead. :ick
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The point is, that the people should at least have a say in how their country is going to run and rebuilt -
Yeah, its the business its called a interim government.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Yeah, its the business its called a interim government.
I've seen very little that would lead me to believe that the interim governemnt has any degree of support from, or contact with, ordinary Iraqis. Certainly, I doubt there is any input from the muslim clerics, who will be a vital part of any future Iraq.
I remember a big debate on the Uni newsgroups at the time of the war starting, and I remeber a Muslim posting about how their religion plays a major part in all facets of life, including government and law. Whilst I'm not - and never will be - a fan of governmental systems which enforce a strict religious code (as it's opressive to non believers IMO), there needs to be some form of representation to help gain some form of confidence in the interim government.... the other thing is that the US should, IMO, invite the clerics, etc who are oppossed to them (but not, of course, the more despotic or former regime members) to try and work with them.
The US seems to be treating opposition / protests by denying their validity, rather than actively responding to them and trying to react to their causes.
-
There isn't a proper interim government yet.
-
Who said there were going to be free elections? Bush never did. Nor did anyone worth listening to in the government, at least since the war ended. They're quite open about the fact that they'd sooner invite Castro to a tea party than give the Iraqis free elections, at least until they've been properly indoctrinated in American consumerism a decade from now. Right now, there's too great a risk (roughly 100%) that the Shias will turn out in huge numbers and elect a theocratic government aligned more with Iran than the US. And self-determination is only acceptable when they decide amongst themselves to agree with the US.
Ses: Yeah, I suppose so. But given the ultra-patriotic bent of the news these days, I suspect if the support was there they would refer to it more often.
CP: And what's wrong with them splitting up the artificial borders created by European colonists who didn't give a rat's arse about traditional ethnic borders or which groups hated each other? Hell, if the entirety of Africa was allowed to split up and reform itself more naturally on its own, I can guarantee you'd see about half as many wars as now.
DG: Read. I said it's rapidly progressing to being more of the same. Saddam killed Iraqi dissidents by the dozen and forced his idea of what the country should be like on an unwilling populace. Bush is killing Iraqi dissidents by the dozen and forcing his idea of what the country should be like on an unwilling populace. Is there something I'm missing? All told, I'd probably personally prefer a homemade tyrant who at least had some connection to the people to one that ruled from afar and knew only that the country was foreign and smelled oddly. But that's just me, and that doesn't factor in here.
-
Id point out that the picture doesnt really tell you all that much except that American troops have little or no idea how to effectively control a crowd.
Theres no eye contact because of the shades and at least another 4 mental and physical barriers between the Iraqis and the Americans.
Whatever officer told them to fix bayonets should be court martialled for incompetence.
-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-721823,00.html
thats a good article for guaging the true climate in Iraq, slightly lower than the doomsday image Stryke is painting.
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
Id point out that the picture doesnt really tell you all that much except that American troops have little or no idea how to effectively control a crowd.
Theres no eye contact because of the shades and at least another 4 mental and physical barriers between the Iraqis and the Americans.
Whatever officer told them to fix bayonets should be court martialled for incompetence.
They aren't trying to control a crowd, they are just protecting the building.
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-721823,00.html
that I will beleve, brits are doing a much better job, we are takeing far too long, and over the last few weeks it seems like we have been doing a bunch of stupid things.
-
CP: And what's wrong with them splitting up the artificial borders created by European colonists who didn't give a rat's arse about traditional ethnic borders or which groups hated each other? Hell, if the entirety of Africa was allowed to split up and reform itself more naturally on its own, I can guarantee you'd see about half as many wars as now.
Because half of these new countries would get anti-US regimes in power, so it would essentially be a return to the original situation; from the US point of view it makes no sense to allow such a breakup. Also, you seem to be thinking that this split (and such others) will come along as a peaceful mutual agreement, which is quite far from the truth; it would probably turn into a long-lasting civil guerilla-type conflict with lots of fighting over various territories that each of several factions claim is theirs and the usual genocides that occur when the ethnic groups have merged territories over time.
-
Not necessarily. Established orders like to retain their power, so under Saddam it would never have happened, but the Sunnis in the Baghdad area don't want the Kurds any more than the Kurds want the Sunnis.
-
But they have migrated to each other's territories over the years anyway since it was within the same country at that time. There have been very few such ethnic or religious breakups of a nation throughout history (none that I can think of atm actually) that have not ended up with the massacres on both sides that I mentioned earlier.
-
Technically speaking, that massacre already has been and is going on. But yeah, I more or less agree that it's not likely to happen in this case. If nothing else, Turkey would never let the Kurds have an independent state.
-
Something that occoured to me today - the Japanese don't seem to have suffered from an American occupation and their subsequent embrace of American culture. In the long run, they became of the most sucessful nations on Earth.
-
oh, you're just a tool of the imperialist capitalist arastocracy!!!
(also note Germany)
-
Well let's see... I'm white and I like hoarding money. So I guess I must be. Go me!
-
Japan succeeded because they finally decided to beat us at our own game. No country that has not embraced the takeover of their culture and state has ever succeeded- and that's almost all of them, naturally.
-
Japan's culture hasn't been wiped out, though. Indeed, it always fascinates me to see American influences and the old Samurai traditions attempt to co-exist. Seems to me that Japan took enough of American culture onboard to become succesful on the global market whilst retaining most of their native values.
-
Yep.
-
But you don't see that happening in, oh I dunno, pick a country at random, Iraq?
Different pre-occupation circumstances, of course, but if it can happen in one place...
-
No, I don't. Iraq is not embracing US occupation, it lacks the military and industrial capacity of Japan (for a long time the only fringe nation to have beaten a European superpower in a war), and doesn't have a proper niche right now. All it has is its oil, and that's a rapidly depleting resource- nevermind one we're being very quick to grab for ourselves.
There are many nations that are much closer parallels than Japan to Iraq's current situation. A good deal of Africa, for example...
-
Iraq has a very well educated population, if the oil can sustain them for five-ten years they could become the tech center of the Arab world
-
Which is like becoming the most cosmopolitan part of Mississippi. Won't help you anywhere else, won't get you very far there. Hell, look at Israel- it's got some of the best tech centers in the world (looking at the inventions that come from there recently), doesn't mean they sell all that well. Uzis and some computer programs, that's about it.
-
don't forget IMI desert eagles;)
-
well Israel seems to be doing fairly well (I buy bell peppers from Israel every other day, not realy important just thought I'd mention that:)),
I realy don't know any figures but pound for pound it seems to be doing better than most European contries, if Iraq could replicate the level of succes that Israel has, they could posably become more powerfull than Germany or some such equivlelnt nation that is generaly considered world class.
but I realy don't know any numbers so I'll just leave it at I think they could realisticly become a world class (1st world) nation
-
It's doing pretty well because it's had trillions of dollars poured into it. Sure, Iraq would probably do fine, too, if it was cushioned by a few billion dollars a year in contributions, but the likelihood of that happening are about the same as the likelihood of the entire population being captured and dragged off by walrus-people from deep beneath the Earth's crust.
That's not very, by the way.
-
note to self; walrus plan has been compromised, revert to plan c
-
:shaking:
<-- ph34rs teh walrus
-
Isreal ain't doing all that well economicly right now, but then agian no one is.
Iraq, or any arab country, will never become a 1st world nation. They don't want it. Their governments don't want it; then they loose control. The people don't want it; they want their religion over everything else. And the west don't want it; just want them stable enough to buy oil at a decent price and to provide a marketplace.
-
Originally posted by tEAbAG
any arab country, will never become a 1st world nation... Their governments don't want it; then they loose control. The people don't want it; they want their religion over everything else.
:wtf:
-
Well, he's right.
Besides, ARIEL SHARON IS A ****ING DIP**** MORON WHO SHOULD HAVE HIS BODY DRAGGED NAKED THROUGH THE STREETS, WHILE CHILDREN PISS ON HIS SCREAMING, WRITHING BODY!
I mean, ****!!!!!!!!!! Bush had a peace plan settled, both sides agreed to it, then THAT ****ING IDIOTIC MORON GOES ALL ****ING GUNG-HO AGAIN, AND RE-IGNITES THE STUPID-ASS ****ING WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
:wtf:
Whats the question?
UT: Wooooah, easy big fella... Everybody in the situation hates everyone. I'm reasonably sure even if sharon had done nothing the extreme palastinians or the jewish settlers would have.
-
History doesn't remember the if's or but's. History remembers the who's and what's.
-
Teabag: Yeah, the governments want to remain poor and powerless pawns of the core states, and the people want to be drinking water with **** in it out of a filthy stream and trying to catch the neighbor's cat for food for the rest of their lives. Sounds reasonable to me.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Teabag: Yeah, the governments want to remain poor and powerless pawns of the core states, and the people want to be drinking water with **** in it out of a filthy stream and trying to catch the neighbor's cat for food for the rest of their lives. Sounds reasonable to me.
Sounds like an average weekend for me.
-
They would rather sit in their fantasy land where they can do no wrong. To become 1st world they would have to abandon and modify much of their ideals and cultural mores which severly limit progress. If they even want a chance they would have to adopt large aspects of the western culture. They don't want to. Why should they? Thier culture is sooooo much beter than the infadels. They will remain stagnated for the near future.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Well, he's right.
Besides, ARIEL SHARON IS A ****ING DIP**** MORON WHO SHOULD HAVE HIS BODY DRAGGED NAKED THROUGH THE STREETS, WHILE CHILDREN PISS ON HIS SCREAMING, WRITHING BODY!
I mean, ****!!!!!!!!!! Bush had a peace plan settled, both sides agreed to it, then THAT ****ING IDIOTIC MORON GOES ALL ****ING GUNG-HO AGAIN, AND RE-IGNITES THE STUPID-ASS ****ING WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree completely...and it seems like he almost never gtes blamed for any of the problems, its always the suicide bombers
-
dunno, about the rest, but sure, the poor suicide bombers, they always get blamed :doubt:
joke aside, just look at what you just said :rolleyes:
-
Yes but the scuicide bombers are doing it because of Sharon's attacks. And he's attacking them because of the their bombs. And they're bombing Israel because of Israeli aggression. And Israel is raiding because of ***DIAMOND GEEZER HAS PERFORMED AN ILLEGAL ERROR AND IS SHUTTING DOWN***PLEASE TELL GEEZERSOFT ABOUT THIS PROBELM***
-
Originally posted by YodaSean
I agree completely...and it seems like he almost never gtes blamed for any of the problems, its always the suicide bombers
[Drill Sergeant voice]Well no ****.[/Drill Sergeant voice]
I wonder why SUICIDE BOMBERS would get the blame for anything, i mean, they only blow themselves up with the intent of killing innocent people.
-
Hamas isn't bombing in response to this Sharon ****, at least not entirely. Hamas doesn't do ceasefires- Hamas wants Israel gone, plain and simple- no peace, no negotiations, no compromise, just jihad 'till you're blue in the face. All this **** with the IDF riding out, shooting up a few civvies, and heading off into the sunset (where do they learn this crap from? America?) is merely a way to legitimize more bus bombings, etc. to the rest of the Palestinian populace. And, frankly, it works for me- I'd be pissed, too.
-
'where do they learn this crap from? America?'
actualy, I think they trained us.
-
Nah, we've been doing it since the 1800s. Look how effectively we took care of our Indian population, and then forgot about it.
-
and i think you guys learned that trick from the british..
-
Hmm... I think the closest precedent would be the Belgians, actually. The British, wankers though they were, weren't really into wholesale slaughter. They preferred to enslave the natives.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
. The British, wankers though they were
:rolleyes:
-
Oh, yeah, you guys sure were a lovely bunch in India. And South Africa. And North America. If you can't bear to consider the fact that your country has a less than sterling history, it's nigh time to pull your head out of your ass and invest in shampoo.
-
:rolleyes: It was more the use of language i found unfavourable.
-
It was intentional.
-
Well, i doubt it was a mistake.
-
name one contry that doesn't have a less than sterling history.
-
South Africa, post-apartheid.
-
there's a point there...
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
South Africa, post-apartheid.
Your eliminating part of its history, which invalidates the whole point.
-
ya, that's like saying America, post Iraq
-
No, it's not. We're talking government, not fucking geographic location. Britain's government is effectively the same system as it has been for centuries. South Africa's is emphatically not.
"Ooh! This place is evil! 400 years ago, there was a nasty dictator in charge in this general area and he banned the toothbrush on penalty of death! Sure, it's a libertarian democracy where all everyone does is pick flowers and sing little songs nowadays, but that's besides the point!"
-
Er... Stryke, you do realise you're talking bollocks, right? I mean, usually your arguments are intelligent and justified if contraversial, but your last few post here have just been plain stupid. This is just an impartial observation BTW, I'm not angling for a flame war. Hopefully you're not losing your powers like Zylon has.
I mean, the english thing. I realise that Mel Gibson has made a lot of films featuring the Evil English™ in recent years, but there are some of us who aren't wankers these days. David Beckham is of course an exception.
Lastly, I've got to question the wisdom of telling people to 'open your eyes and aknowledge your status as a genocidal wanker along with all your fellow countrymen'. Of course I know that you don't give a flying fuck about popularity, especially as far as this lot goes, but come on - people haven't come to HLP to be asked to admit to being a wanker :)
-
Stryke's right in a way though, we English were wankers and that's the reason why we had such a huge empire. As far as I recall, we were pretty much the biggest exploiters of the slave trade.
I could write more things we've done bad in the past but I'm a lazy, lazy man. Still, a bad history is better than no history.
-
and the Americans never did anything bad ever did they :doubt:
-
So you and I are wankers because of the events of two hundred years ago, 01010? You know, plenty of Americans complain that people stereotype them based on their government's foreign policy. Governments past and/or present do not represent the wanker or non-wankerness of a country's people.
Now, I'm wondering if Petrarch will concede to being a northern wanker, cos that's something entirely different :nod:
Originally posted by Zeronet
and the Americans never did anything bad ever did they :doubt:
Ah, see, now this what Stryke seems to be arguing about - he says everyone needs to admit to being a wanker from a nation of wankers unless you're South African. He reckons that Americans are just as much wankers as the rest of the world. Might just be best to call yourself a wanker and keep him happy :)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Now, I'm wondering if Petrarch will concede to being a northern wanker, cos that's something entirely different :nod:
Cockney! :p
-
*sings* He's a nifty 50's bin man, oh yes!
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
So you and I are wankers because of the events of two hundred years ago, 01010? You know, plenty of Americans complain that people stereotype them based on their government's foreign policy. Governments past and/or present do not represent the wanker or non-wankerness of a country's people.
Ah see but I never said that, I said we WERE wankers. However I'd fully own up to being one today. In the literal sense at least.
-
Being inside my mother would put you right off, believe me
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Being inside my mother would put you right off, believe me
Disclaimer:
I want to **** your mother, it's it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it well.
-
She's short and fat and nearly fifty. Your call.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
She's short and fat and nearly fifty. Your call.
Even fat women need love, they just have to pay for it.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
[Drill Sergeant voice]Well no ****.[/Drill Sergeant voice]
I wonder why SUICIDE BOMBERS would get the blame for anything, i mean, they only blow themselves up with the intent of killing innocent people.
I'm not saying that the suicide bombers aren't to blame, just that Sharon isnn't doing much better than they are
-
All English: Dude(s?), I didn't call you wankers, I said some of your ancestors were bastards for doing hideous things to the locals in English colonies. That has nothing to do with now. Fuck, a good number of Americans way back in the day were far worse than the Nazis ever were (Which I also said in there)- that doesn't reflect on all Americans now. This whole thing descended from trying to trace back where the Israeli settlers and such got the assumption that anyone different is inferior and really doesn't have any major objection to being slaughtered wholesale- if you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd see that the "wankers" post was where I pointed out that the British were far from historically the worst people around.
Honestly, y'all just want to be offended, I'll be happy to comply. You don't need to get *****y over half-read posts that have nothing to do with what you're talking about.
-
All English: Dude(s?), I didn't call you wankers, I said some of your ancestors were bastards for doing hideous things to the locals in English colonies. That has nothing to do with now. Fuck, a good number of Americans way back in the day were far worse than the Nazis ever were (Which I also said in there)- that doesn't reflect on all Americans now, though I do personally think it's high time we gave the Indians their land back and called it quits. This whole thing descended from trying to trace back where the Israeli settlers and such got the assumption that anyone different is inferior and really doesn't have any major objection to being slaughtered wholesale- if you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd see that the "wankers" post was where I pointed out that the British were far from historically the worst people around.
Honestly, y'all just want to be offended, I'll be happy to comply. You don't need to get *****y over half-read posts that have nothing to do with what you're talking about.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
All English: Dude(s?), I didn't call you wankers, I said some of your ancestors were bastards for doing hideous things to the locals in English colonies. That has nothing to do with now. Fuck, a good number of Americans way back in the day were far worse than the Nazis ever were (Which I also said in there)- that doesn't reflect on all Americans now, though I do personally think it's high time we gave the Indians their land back and called it quits. This whole thing descended from trying to trace back where the Israeli settlers and such got the assumption that anyone different is inferior and really doesn't have any major objection to being slaughtered wholesale- if you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd see that the "wankers" post was where I pointed out that the British were far from historically the worst people around.
Honestly, y'all just want to be offended, I'll be happy to comply. You don't need to get *****y over half-read posts that have nothing to do with what you're talking about.
I knew what you meant.
-
That you did. It was more directed at the small army of people screaming at me for saying the word "English" and a derogatory term in the same sentence. Which really doesn't help their case, even if it is irrelevant.:D
-
Anyway, back on topic...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html
Mmm hmm. Honestly, it's more than I expected them to find, but it's still been sitting at the bottom of a rainbarrel for 12 years, since the last Gulf War. I'm mildly impressed that Bush isn't trying to hype this as a "smoking gun", but at this point I think he realizes he no longer needs any evidence, that the national attention span has firmly shifted away from Iraq. Case in point, I would never have heard of this if someone hadn't pointed it out, where as a few weeks back it woulda been headline news.
-
you hadn't herd about it?
I was going to post but I figured everyone else knew about it (and was going to wait so it didn't turn out to be a smoke alarm in someones back yard)
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Anyway, back on topic...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html
Mmm hmm. Honestly, it's more than I expected them to find, but it's still been sitting at the bottom of a rainbarrel for 12 years, since the last Gulf War. I'm mildly impressed that Bush isn't trying to hype this as a "smoking gun", but at this point I think he realizes he no longer needs any evidence, that the national attention span has firmly shifted away from Iraq. Case in point, I would never have heard of this if someone hadn't pointed it out, where as a few weeks back it woulda been headline news.
he was ordered to hide to be ready to rebuild the bomb program.
would have constituted violations of Security Council regulations
Also, its not scrap metal. It wasn't a rainbarrel. It was a barrel, buried under the ground, containing perfectly usable equipment for use in enriching uranium to produce a nuclear weapon.
Obeidi also said he was not the only scientist ordered to hide that type of equipment.
So, as the scientist himself says, there are other such materials elsewhere in Iraq.
-
Quit shrieking. It doesn't make you any less wrong, it only calls to mind the image of some hyperventilating drag queen.
Gee, you know, if I was in a fairly impoverished country, and had equipment worth well over the million-dollar mark, I wouldn't just toss it out because some foreign twits said so. I'd either wait until things cooled down and they found something else to freak out about, or try to sell the stuff. We already know they had the stuff- that's not news, no matter how much the government tries to make it sound like we never even suspected. The **** hasnt. been. used. in. 12. years. Meaning. no. bomb. program. since. the. last. war. Meaning this one was utterly baseless, built on a nonexistent pretext, in other words, a War Crime.
Thank you, and goodnight.
-
NOTHING will ever turn up. (unless the CIA "finds" it)
One ore more of these things happened:
A) He buried it out in the middle of the desert which means you'll never see it with out a treasure map, Yarrrrr!
B) I was sold or just given away (a wonderful thought by the way)
or
C) He hasn't had anything since 1996
I wonder if they'll try to impeach once they find that the WH falsified or embiggened the threat. Doubtful, but its the only way I see of avoiding annother 4 years of the Cheany/Rumsfeld administration.:(
-
Originally posted by tEAbAG
embiggened
... you sure that's a cromulent word?
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
image of some hyperventilating drag queen.
.
That would be mirror image of yourself i take it?
-
hey Stryke, just read the first post, so don't say i'm going Off-topic or anything...
thought you might find this interesting, found it in a paper called the "Houston Press" a few months ago:
(http://www.swooh.com/lorenzo/liberation.jpg)
i thought that the first 'cartoon' of the four is appropriate. from what we hear in America anyway, i know the rest of the world sees a true, and non-biased view of all world events, whereas the American public is given a biased-by-the-media view.
thought it was pretty funny though :)
-
rest of the world with a non biased view? I don't think there is such a thing as a non biased view. Seriously, have you ever even heard of Al-Jazira?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
rest of the world with a non biased view? I don't think there is such a thing as a non biased view. Seriously, have you ever even heard of Al-Jazira?
:D OK, so maybe i should have said a "less-biased" view. have you ever lived in any other country (other than Mexico and Canada, which are influenced by the US)? if you lived in any other country, the whole war on Iraq would be in a different perspective. for example, in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia, they cover everything to do with the "war with Iraq". they show on TV the people dying, the massive riots against the Americans coming in and setting up a government. however, in America, all you see on TV is people crying in relief that the Americans have come in, and the public gets the picture that everyone in Iraq is happy that America's setting up a government. the rest of the world knows that's not true, because they don't just see what the government wants them to see, they see everything. good and bad.
same thing goes with newspapers and other events. America's public doesn't know what's going on in the world except what the media wants them to know. and it's true, don't say it's not, because you've never lived in another country, so you wouldn't know.
-
British TV station the BBC is currently in conflict with our Government because they reported that the arms documents were "sexed up". During the war the Govt. loved them but now they're questioning the proof suddenly they're bad folk. :rolleyes:
-
I've posed this question several times now, and no-one has answered me yet: do you think Iraq and the Iraqis were actually better off under Saddam?
-
yeah, see what i mean?
Britan doesn't really count anyway though, because the US and Britain are allies, and most of what America does Britain does too regarding media and vice versa
DG: I'm not saying a definite "yes" or "no", but from what i've heard (not from American media) most people were happy with Saddam's rule. and even if they weren't completely satisfied, look what's happened now: Iraq is virtually in ruins because of America's interfering... what did Iraq really do to America? nothing at all! (see the cartoon strip a few posts above). perhaps Afghanistan needed help, because the people of Afghanistan were oppressed to an extent, but certainly not the people of Iraq! And look what's happened as soon as America's troops left Afghanistan... if you live in America you probably won't know (yes, because of media, and what the government wants people to know) but the warlords have taken over already, and they're in an even worse position (the people of Afghanistan) than they were!
-
You realise Iraq had the world record for unexplained disappearences under Saddam? The people he locked in cupboards for ten years would probably disagree with you, Stealth.
-
Well sure I've seen a fair share of good news from tv and such, but it's not like our news coverage is the complete happy candy land people make it out to be either, at least where I live.
When I do happen to pick up a newspaper or watch the news (prolly twice a week..) There's usually 2 personal war stories, a story on Darth Rumsfield, a story on rebels still fighting, and a story on the poverty of the people. When I read it, I don't really get a one sided view. Of course our newspapers wouldn't go around supporting the America haters or the ba'ath party members, that'd make for bad business because the majority of Americans aren't ba'ath party members or America haters. But I still get the feeling like both sides of the story are being told. (Yes, one side is going to be biased, that's a given.) but like I said, it still ain't the Fairy-Candy American Land everyone makes it out to be.
About the war: I don't know if it was completely right or wrong, but I think the reasons Bush used for starting the war weren't the best or right ones. But the people of Iraq deffinitly weren't happy i'd say under Saddam, nor safe. Yeah, they are kind of ****ed now, and would be in a better position if their country wasn't in shambles, but they still weren't safe under his rule.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
You realise Iraq had the world record for unexplained disappearences under Saddam? The people he locked in cupboards for ten years would probably disagree with you, Stealth.
note what i said:
but from what i've heard ... most people were happy with Saddam's rule
i didn't say "all"... it's impossible for a government on this earth to be perfect. i said "MOST people"
now back to what you said:
true, but you're going by what the media's said, right? i can tell. look what the people are going through now... look what everyone's going through now, not just a few people "locked in cupboards for ten years". sure there were conspiracies and corrupt government dealings with the people, but that happens in every country, even (believe it or not) in the US *gasps*
i dunno, see, it would make sense that the US goes into Iraq after Saddam, and at the same time helping the people, but many people (ok, MOST people) don't want the US to establish a government there, they were (are) for the most part happy with what they had.
Well sure I've seen a fair share of good news from tv and such, but it's not like our news coverage is the complete happy candy land people make it out to be either, at least where I live.
you live in America, therefore it is. unless you watch news programs from other countries via satellite etc.
But I still get the feeling like both sides of the story are being told. (Yes, one side is going to be biased, that's a given.) but like I said, it still ain't the Fairy-Candy American Land everyone makes it out to be.
you're right, but you see you don't see the other side. you may see part of the other side, but my point is you don't see the WHOLE other side, unless you live in another country, then you will, because the media tells everything, what the government wants the public to see, and what they don't... because in America the government controls the media.
Don't think i'm saying i don't like or support the United States... ****, if i hated it so much i wouldn't be living here :) i'm just saying what the media portrays isn't the whole story
-
I was writing a reply to this... but I decided against it. Political discussions in this forum are useless.
-
very good point Tiara, but realize we're not arguing, we're discussing. everyone knows (apparently everyone but KT) that American media is biased, because the government controls it. DG is asking my opinion on something, which i gave him. no arguing.
(http://www.swooh.com/lorenzo/mailbag.jpg)
-
Especially with Stealth's new "You don't know what it's like, you live in America.... even though I do too..." stance..
I was never said we do see the other sides view on things. As I said, that would make for bad business for the media. Why would Americans want to see themselves as bad guys? Iraq's media is just as biased as ours dude, just in the opposite direction...
Where have you been during the war? :wtf:
and on a side note: Yes I know I live in America. And I wasn't disputing the biased-ness of our media, I was disputing wether or not everything our media shows about Iraqi civilians is happy-go-lucky.
Originally posted by Stealth
very good point Tiara, but realize we're not arguing, we're discussing. everyone knows (apparently everyone but KT) that American media is biased, because the government controls it. DG is asking my opinion on something, which i gave him. no arguing.
Originally posted by Tiara
I was writing a reply to this... but I decided against it. Political discussions in this forum are useless.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Especially with Stealth's new "You don't know what it's like, you live in America.... even though I do too..." stance..
1) it's never been new, i've always said this
2) i've lived in other countries, you never have, so you wouldn't know
I was never said we do see the other sides view on things. As I said, that would make for bad business for the media. Why would Americans want to see themselves as bad guys? Iraq's media is just as biased as ours dude, just in the opposite direction...
why wouldn't they?
Where have you been during the war? :wtf:
America mostly. Italy for a bit, then in England for a little too
and on a side note: Yes I know I live in America. And I wasn't disputing the biased-ness of our media, I was disputing wether or not everything our media shows about Iraqi civilians is happy-go-lucky.
so you admit that American media is biased? uhhh ok.
the media does show Iraqi civilians as happy, American-loving people, since America "helped" them set up a new government. my whole point is they're not as "happy" as the media makes out. trust me, my brother was stationed there till the end of May, a handful of civilians are happy with what America's done, but the majority are NOT. that's the point i'm making
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
:rolleyes:
heeey you can read! good job!
I wasn't saying she said "arguments". i know she said "discussions", i'm just saying there's nothing wrong in my opinion with discussing something as opposed to arguing it
-
However, the media is fickle- now they're starting to notice that the whole WMD thing was a blatant lie. Now they're starting to pay attention to the fact that Halliburton is getting more attention than the Iraqi populace.
See, in the US and industrialized West, the news media more or less tells the people what the people want to hear- no more. In places like Iraq, it generally tells the people what the government wants to hear. There are concessions towards the government here (no particularly pointed questions during White House press conferences, because the newspaper/show wants to get invited to the next one), and the result is often similar, but ours has the advantage of being a pain in the ass for the government as well as doubly one for those who resist the government.
-
I don't know about Iraqi media, since i have never watched/listened to/read it ;) so i'll take your advice on it :D
-
You saw the clips of the Information Minister, yes? I don't have sattelite, but I've seen some of the propoganda, and it's not like it's anything special. Half the friggin' world has it, and the other half did until relatively recently.
-
Why wouldn't they? So you mean, you'd pay to watch a tv show or subscribe to a news paper that shows the America that you live in and love so dearly portrayed as Murderers and butchers? You'd want to see a media broadcast that names your brother as an evil murderer? I doubt most Americans would...
the media does show Iraqi civilians as happy, American-loving people, since America "helped" them set up a new government. my whole point is they're not as "happy" as the media makes out. trust me, my brother was stationed there till the end of May, a handful of civilians are happy with what America's done, but the majority are NOT. that's the point i'm making
Well then why are you being picky with me? I know our media is biased. Like I've said, duh. What my point is is that from my news coverage (perhaps yours is different in Republican Texas?) is that everything I see on the Iraqi Civilian faces ain't all smiles and lollypops. If you're here to say that I'm wrong, that's not what I see, then there isn't much I can do about that then, is there?
And how do you know so much about me and where I have or haven't lived in my life? Makes me wonder.. :doubt:
-
What are you watching? Something scary?
:p
-
OK well right now i'm going to work, and after work i'm not going to check replies in this thread, because i usually don't take part in political discussions like this (hence why i only started on page 7, and only to post a comic strip). let me just say what i've been trying to say, the reasons i've replied in this thread so far.
1) to post the comic strip, thought you guys might get a kick out of it
2) defending my belief against KT's that the media in America is biased, whereas the rest of the world's (most of it anyway) is only somewhat, if any. in many other countries the media doens't give a damn what the government or people want them to show, whereas in America they do
3) Saddam did terrible things, yes, and America is justified in going after him perhaps, but look at Iraq now! Would you say they were better with a leader that tortured and killed its subjects secretely, but still ran the government; or at the moment, with a government that the majority of Iraqi civilians want to reject, but can't because of America's troops. they're in a bad situation either way.
of course there were probably reasons for what America's done and/or is doing that we don't know about.
Well then why are you being picky with me? I know our media is biased. Like I've said, duh.
i refuse to argue with you. see the above picture i posted
What my point is is that from my news coverage (perhaps yours is different in Republican Texas?)
uhhh. ok. :rolleyes:
...
is that everything I see on the Iraqi Civilian faces ain't all smiles and lollypops.
but how often do you see that since America's set up the Iraqi government? since then all you see (mostly) is smiling Iraqis, happy about what America has done. it's purely your opinion, but i'm just saying that it's a biased view.. don't believe what you watch on American television or read on newspapers.
If you're here to say that I'm wrong, that's not what I see, then there isn't much I can do about that then, is there?
uhhh. :rolleyes:
now go away. you can post what you want in here kid, but i'm not going to listen or argue with you.
-
ah, another thread resurrection; this is the third one in the last few days. :D
I wasn't saying she said "arguments". i know she said "discussions", i'm just saying there's nothing wrong in my opinion with discussing something as opposed to arguing it
Like there is a difference. :p
why wouldn't they?
I don't even know what to say to this one... :D
the media does show Iraqi civilians as happy, American-loving people, since America "helped" them set up a new government. my whole point is they're not as "happy" as the media makes out. trust me, my brother was stationed there till the end of May, a handful of civilians are happy with what America's done, but the majority are NOT. that's the point i'm making
I see about an equal amount of pro-US and anti-US articles in the WP these days and they don't appear to be heavily biased at first glance. What particular media service are you referring to? (I mean, of course they are biased, but that's because they are written by people; it is the same anywhere in the world)
But as I said before in this thread, it hardly matters whether or not the common people there are happy or not; their happiness or lack thereof would not alone provide or invalidate any justification for the war.
-
:lol: I like how the one topic Stealth chooses to take against me (and only me) is the one that I agree with him on :D
-
yeah, well you have your opinions, i've got mine.
i'm done in this thread anyway. i come in to post a comic strip, and a 15 year old kid jumps out trying to argue a few minutes later. *shrugs*
I like how the one topic Stealth chooses to take against me (and only me) is the one that I agree with him on
nope, you said that no one has a non biased view. that's true, because it's actually impossible to have a non biased view, but that wasn't the point i was trying to make. i was saying that America has a more biased view (the media anyway) than probably any country in the world.
like i said,
peace out
-
You think the media in the US serves the government? So... all that stuff about the whole media-generated Clinton "scandal" never happened? The Watergate story never broke? Nobody ever pointed out, before the war, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
The media in an open market tells people what they want to hear. Just because a large number of those people happen to be screaming, goose-stepping nationalists doesn't mean that the newspapers are entirely a government mouthpiece. Moreover, before the war in the few European newspapers (who I imagine you must be talking about, seeing as the likes of China and Nigeria don't have the best journalistic track record) I saw pretty much solely papers that reflected the government line; The Economist couldn't stop editorializing about how awful Saddam was or how buddy-buddy France and Germany were in trying to take over the world... Now they jump on Blair like pirahnas on a one-legged cow but I think it's safe to chalk that up to the fact that some estimated 80% of the country can't stand him...
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
You think the media in the US serves the government? So... all that stuff about the whole media-generated Clinton "scandal" never happened? The Watergate story never broke? Nobody ever pointed out, before the war, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
The media in an open market tells people what they want to hear. Just because a large number of those people happen to be screaming, goose-stepping nationalists doesn't mean that the newspapers are entirely a government mouthpiece. Moreover, before the war in the few European newspapers (who I imagine you must be talking about, seeing as the likes of China and Nigeria don't have the best journalistic track record) I saw pretty much solely papers that reflected the government line; The Economist couldn't stop editorializing about how awful Saddam was or how buddy-buddy France and Germany were in trying to take over the world... Now they jump on Blair like pirahnas on a one-legged cow but I think it's safe to chalk that up to the fact that some estimated 80% of the country can't stand him...
what are you saying!?
i agreed with you!
i wasn't disputing what you said!
-
okay, now you're confusing me... :wtf:
-
i'm still trying to find where i said (according to Stryke) that the media is being fed by the government
-
Originally posted by Stealth
nope, you said that no one has a non biased view. that's true, because it's actually impossible to have a non biased view, but that wasn't the point i was trying to make. i was saying that America has a more biased view (the media anyway) than probably any country in the world.
Well duh.. :lol: why would anyone else be more biased to an American view than America?:D
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Well duh.. :lol: why would anyone else be more biased to an American view than America?:D
:D
well in Italy, and many other countries i've been to, the media doesn't take sides with anyone, they just say what's going on
-
well hey i really got to go now. keep up the discussion, i think i'll probably stop in when i have the time. my car also needs a carburator, so i'm going to spend a good hour and a half after work removing the old one, refitting the jets, etc. and installing it again... so i'll probalby check back tomorrow.
peace out guys :D
-
Originally posted by Stealth
i'm still trying to find where i said (according to Stryke) that the media is being fed by the government
Here, let me help you. :)
Originally posted by Stealth
very good point Tiara, but realize we're not arguing, we're discussing. everyone knows (apparently everyone but KT) that American media is biased, because the government controls it.[/u]DG is asking my opinion on something, which i gave him. no arguing.
I think you are going to be late for work. :nod:
-
Whole lotta miscommunication goin' on.
I blame Stealth.:D
-
Originally posted by Stealth
i said "MOST people"
By which you mean 51% or more of the population, I can only assume.
Millions of people 'went missing' in Iraq under Saddam. That may represent a small percentage of the total populace and obviously it means that 'most' people were relatively happy - but it's still unacceptable in my own view.
I say **** the WMD debate - there was reason enough to take the guy out without him threatening the region with chemical missiles. I know that UN law prohibits the invasion of a country for the express purpose of regime change, but allowing Saddam to continue to rule his evil little empire would be like ignoring the guy down the road who beats up his wife and kids. Just because he does it on private property doesn't make it tolerable. I'd be the guy organising the lads to go kick his door down and drag him to the cop shop :nod:
-
Hoo boy. And I bet you believe in tracking down and lynching murderers who don't get convicted, eh?
Yep, it's ol' Wild West all over again.
-
Incidentially, how many of you who think it's okay we invaded the country on false pretexts wanted Clinton to go down for lying about sex?
-
nay.
-
:eek2:
In my entire stay here on HLP I have never seen so many miscommunications, arguments unsupported by facts and just plain dumb arguments. :blah:
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Hoo boy. And I bet you believe in tracking down and lynching murderers who don't get convicted, eh?
Yep, it's ol' Wild West all over again.
Stryke, I don't mean the people need to take the law in to their own hands all the time, but sometimes you have a situation where nothing will be done if you don't take action yourself. Saddam was, frankly, and evil man who needed removing from power - and if you don't agree with that statement than I won't bother continuing to debate this with you.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Stryke, I don't mean the people need to take the law in to their own hands all the time, but sometimes you have a situation where nothing will be done if you don't take action yourself. Saddam was, frankly, and evil man who needed removing from power - and if you don't agree with that statement than I won't bother continuing to debate this with you.
oooh, so you think the reason America invaded Iraq was to help the poor, oppressed people? really?
OK, so how about the many other times where thousands were dying and the US didn't bat an eye. how about Rwanda a few years ago, where MILLIONS were being slaughtered, and what did the US do? nothing. i'm sorry, but believe it or not the US did not invade Iraq to help the people. this is what i mean by American media. from what you hear and see on TV in America, this is what you see, but if you live ANYWHERE else in the world, and watch TV or news, you'll find it pretty obvious that that's not why America invaded Iraq.
in case you don't know, it's because of the oil.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
in case you don't know, it's because of the oil.
:blah: Not... again... :blah:
-
Yep, it's ol' Wild West all over again.
Exactly, and it has always been so. Those with power have enough sense to wield it to their advantage, duh. :p
well in Italy, and many other countries i've been to, the media doesn't take sides with anyone, they just say what's going on
But that's impossible, because then they would go out of business. As Stryke said, the media services are just commercial enterprises like any others; they write whatever the majority of the people want to hear. There is no such thing as unbiased news service, even relatively speaking among the "free" countries.
In my entire stay here on HLP I have never seen so many miscommunications, arguments unsupported by facts and just plain dumb arguments.
lol, you haven't seen anything yet; this is fairly good compared to some of the other stuff around here. :D
in case you don't know, it's because of the oil.
I must have dealt with this argument about five times now and said why it made no sense. Do you have a short memory or something? :p
They did it neither for saving people nor for oil, but purely for their geopolitical interests, which is why every single war in history has been fought.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
lol, you haven't seen anything yet; this is fairly good compared to some of the other stuff around here. :D
Ok, the religion and Iraqi war threads beat this one.... :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I must have dealt with this argument about five times now and said why it made no sense. Do you have a short memory or something? :p
They did it neither for saving people nor for oil, but purely for their geopolitical interests, which is why every single war in history has been fought.
OK, what fantasy world are you living in... Why else would America attack Iraq? Not to help them, so Iraq must have had something they wanted, right? Right... Oil. We all know America didn't invade Iraq just to help their people or their government, because what would America get out of that?
Once again, the media says nothing about America not being interested in Iraq's oil, and you therefore think they're not interested in it. so tell me why America invaded Iraq? What did Iraq do to America?
You know, if you read around, you'll find that throughout this war in Iraq, there's been so much looting of places. You know the dozens of hospitals, museums, historical districts, etc. that were looted in front of American troops' eyes while they stood there and did nothing? Do you REALLY think they're interested in the country? did you also know that the only buildings and places that were NOT looted (were protected by American troops) were those involved with oil? funny coincidence?
But that's impossible, because then they would go out of business. As Stryke said, the media services are just commercial enterprises like any others; they write whatever the majority of the people want to hear. There is no such thing as unbiased news service, even relatively speaking among the "free" countries.
No, believe it or not, some people want media to report the truth about events, not the biased, "what the people want" view. seriously, have you gone to any other European country CP? obviously not, because what you're telling me has no fact behind it, it's what you think, not what you've experienced.
-
Stealth, the US invaded Iraq for their own reasons I'm sure. But Saddam got kicked out and that was the result I was looking for. That was the reason I supported the war.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Stealth, the US invaded Iraq for their own reasons I'm sure. But Saddam got kicked out and that was the result I was looking for. That was the reason I supported the war.
yeah, that's cool. i supported it too, but i didn't really support the reasons they did it. i guess to an extent they had good intentions, and Saddam wasn't a good ruler, in fact he was terrible, sure, but look at the condition the people are in now. hostpitals, museums, everything's destroyed, and if it's not destroyed, it's looted. i'm sure America's going to help them rebuild, but i really feel sorry for those people.
-
OK, what fantasy world are you living in... Why else would America attack Iraq? Not to help them, so Iraq must have had something they wanted, right? Right... Oil. We all know America didn't invade Iraq just to help their people or their government, because what would America get out of that?
I think you are the one living in a fantasy world, one where people forget what they hear in a month. :D Look at the amount of money they have spent with this war already and then compare it to the currently estimated worth of all of the Iraqi oil (there are various stats on this on the internet, although I cannot remember the exact numbers right now). Then tell me why they did not invade Saudi Arabia instead, which has twice the amount of oil and a tenth of the military power. And now find me a single war in history that has been fought purely for money. The oil thing is a pretty silly excuse, maybe only given for lack of anything better.
Now try to remember this for a month until the next argument, okay? :D
Once again, the media says nothing about America not being interested in Iraq's oil, and you therefore think they're not interested in it. so tell me why America invaded Iraq? What did Iraq do to America?
On the flip side, since the media says nothing about oil (which is not quite true, by the way, as before the war the oil is about all they talked about), you therefore think that they are interested in it. Yeah, that makes sense. :D
Anyway, we invaded Iraq because its political interests ran contrary to ours in some way or another. The exact reasons are unknown to us (for that you will need to ask some high foreign policy officials), but we can say with certainty that they are political, because nothing else would make any sense. For example, Iraq was the only country in the world after 9/11 to officially say that they supported the "terrorist" actions (even Afghanistan went with everyone else). Of course, this does not say anything about their involvement, but it shows that they are willing to operate against us in the open and therefore makes them dangerous. This alone would not be enough of course; perhaps there was some evidence that they had the WMDs as well. And if you tell me that our not finding any WMDs is any evidence whatsoever that they did not have them, I will really be convinced that you are amnesiac or something. :D
You know, if you read around, you'll find that throughout this war in Iraq, there's been so much looting of places. You know the dozens of hospitals, museums, historical districts, etc. that were looted in front of American troops' eyes while they stood there and did nothing? Do you REALLY think they're interested in the country? did you also know that the only buildings and places that were NOT looted (were protected by American troops) were those involved with oil? funny coincidence?
Where exactly did I say that they are interested in the welfare of Iraq? Of course they are not. They are interested in their own goals. It's just that these goals have nothing to do with oil.
Also, what exactly can be easily stolen inside an oil refinery? If you had a choice between raiding an oil plant containing heavy processing machinery weighing hundreds of tons and a museum containing ancient artifacts worth millions on black markets, where would you go?
No, believe it or not, some people want media to report the truth about events, not the biased, "what the people want" view. seriously, have you gone to any other European country CP? obviously not, because what you're telling me has no fact behind it, it's what you think, not what you've experienced.
Actually, I don't have to, since my dad subscribes to a bunch of these international economics newspapers (mostly british, french and swedish ones) which I occasionally take a look at since they also have some political stuff. Anyway, what "some people" want is not important; what the majority wants is what counts, since they are the ones who will bring in the most profits. At the moment, maybe the majority wants news that shows how evil the US is, but that does not say anything about the news service or what is actually happening. Once again, you seem to be forgetting that the media services are just companies and their sole aim is to make money, not provide accurate information. Now if you met a random guy on the street and told him what you thought of him, do you think he would like it if you called him a intelligent and good man or if you called him an evil moron? The same applies to people reading news about their country and its stance on things.
Well, that was fun. Let's keep those arguments coming. :D
-
And now find me a single war in history that has been fought purely for money. The oil thing is a pretty silly excuse, maybe only given for lack of anything better.
and tell me, CP, what is oil? what's it worth?
it's like saying gold isn't money. i mean c'mon, use your head.
Look at the amount of money they have spent with this war already and then compare it to the currently estimated worth of all of the Iraqi oil
i think the US underestimated Iraq's resistance. remember that before they attacked they made sure Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, i think they thought there'd be little fight.
Then tell me why they did not invade Saudi Arabia instead, which has twice the amount of oil and a tenth of the military power
as far as i know America already gets oil from Saudi Arabia, so attacking it would be pointless. Iraq, because of Saddam, they
weren't getting any oil from. it makes sense i think.
And if you tell me that our not finding any WMDs is any evidence whatsoever that they did not have them, I will really be convinced that you are amnesiac or something.
no, i'm not saying that, but Iraq was in quite a fix too though.
If they say they had WMDs, America attacks them.
If they say they don't have WMDs, America attacks them.
Also, what exactly can be easily stolen inside an oil refinery
the point isn't whether they tried, because they did, but they weren't successful thanks to the troops protecting them. also tell me what can be sold in the "black market" from a hospital... a lung machine?
Once again, you seem to be forgetting that the media services are just companies and their sole aim is to make money, not provide accurate information.
and that's waht i've been saying... don't believe everything you hear on the media, because they are biased! and you're agreeing with me!
-
Originally posted by Stealth
also tell me what can be sold in the "black market" from a hospital... a lung machine?
First rule of looting - loot first, think later
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
First rule of looting - loot first, think later
hahahahhaa yeah, that's what i was thinking.
but if you think about it, there's always computers and stuff they could've stolen from those oil places.
-
And so it continious... For every unsubtantiated argument, there is a counter-argument. An endless loop here at HLP or so it seems...
-
No you shut up!
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
No you shut up!
:blah: No...
Unless you guys decide to get some actual facts with your arguments... Its not a philosophical debate here you know.
-
:wtf:
Don't you watch Futurama?
-
she's right though.
we've all got our opinions, i've got mine, and so therefore i resign from this argument :D
god bless America :)
-
and tell me, CP, what is oil? what's it worth?
it's like saying gold isn't money. i mean c'mon, use your head.
okay...what does that have to do with what you quoted? :wtf: Of course it's worth a lot, but it is one market out of many and cannot really be compared with national war spending for a much, much larger country.
i think the US underestimated Iraq's resistance. remember that before they attacked they made sure Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, i think they thought there'd be little fight.
You mean for the military aspect of this Iraq operation? That was actually said to be one of the most one-sided large scale offensives in recent history; the US lost something like 200 men in total and completed the takeover in three weeks.
as far as i know America already gets oil from Saudi Arabia, so attacking it would be pointless. Iraq, because of Saddam, they
weren't getting any oil from. it makes sense i think.
No, how we can take all their oil just like that? They will sell the oil to us, but they obviously claim the profits. The US has an agreement with the royal family to allow the usage of their territory for military bases in that region in exchange for cash, but the government is doing that because they don't want to get on the Americans' bad side; they actually do not like the US at all and have made any official statements to that effect.
no, i'm not saying that, but Iraq was in quite a fix too though.
If they say they had WMDs, America attacks them.
If they say they don't have WMDs, America attacks them.
Yeah, but that is alright; it was not expected that they would admit that they had WMDs even if they did (I mean, why should they?). If they did not have them, then it is okay too, since it is not a huge cost to us and it's better to be safe than sorry in such situations.
the point isn't whether they tried, because they did, but they weren't successful thanks to the troops protecting them. also tell me what can be sold in the "black market" from a hospital... a lung machine?
What is a lung machine? :wtf: But anyway, hospitals at least contain some medical equipment that can carried around and all of which is quite expensive. Oil refineries contain maybe a few tables and chairs, but not much else that can be just picked up and taken (unless you are some kind of superman who can tear hundred-ton oil processing units off the ground and carry them to your home :D).
and that's waht i've been saying... don't believe everything you hear on the media, because they are biased! and you're agreeing with me!
Exactly! But what you have been saying is that some of the media companies are less interested in making money than others, which is what I am countering.
And so it continious... For every unsubtantiated argument, there is a counter-argument. An endless loop here at HLP or so it seems...
Hey, it's fun. :D I finally solved this math problem last night that had been nagging at me for some weeks; I have to celebrate by posting some crap here, right? :D
Unless you guys decide to get some actual facts with your arguments... Its not a philosophical debate here you know.
Everything is a philosophical debate here (or can easily be turned into one). If you want actual facts, you need to look in math books. :nod:
-
sorry kid, you can play with yourself now, because like i said, i've got my opinions, you've got yours, and nothing i can say will get you to change your mind. so i'm out
EDIT:
oh and one more thing before i go:
What is a lung machine?
you didn't hear about those Iraqis that stole lung machines from hospitals? let me brief you, if you don't know what a lung machine is then perhaps you should stop reading math books and get a life.
a lung machine is what people are put in when their lungs don't function right. usually they spend the rest of their lives in it.
But anyway, hospitals at least contain some medical equipment that can carried around and all of which is quite expensive.
like lung machines!? :wtf:
Oil refineries contain maybe a few tables and chairs, but not much else that can be just picked up and taken (unless you are some kind of superman who can tear hundred-ton oil processing units off the ground and carry them to your home ).
well lung machines weigh thousands of pounds you know, and they figured out a way to steal them :D :D
kthx. bye.
-
ah come on, I wanted some more entertainment... :p
j/k :D
-
it's not entertainment, i hate it.
enjoy.
oh, and see my above post, i edited it :)
-
and another thing... now i know why the people that take part in these kind of threads (argumentative) often have such high post counts! (i.e. Knight Templar, CP, Stryke, DG, etc.)... because you make a post every minute :D
-
Hey, if I want to boost my post count I'll get in to a spamming race with Petrarch - not argue with the likes of you
:ha:
-
you didn't hear about those Iraqis that stole lung machines from hospitals? let me brief you, if you don't know what a lung machine is then perhaps you should stop reading math books and get a life.
a lung machine is what people are put in when their lungs don't function right. usually they spend the rest of their lives in it.
well yeah, I know that, but they are called lung machines? I thought there was some weird technical name for those...
well lung machines weigh thousands of pounds you know, and they figured out a way to steal them
like lung machines!?
Well, thousand-pound units can at least be lifted by several people working together and be loaded onto trucks. You cannot exactly do that with oil processors, which are as large as houses and weigh much more (and are bolted to the ground to connect with oil pipelines anyway).
it's not entertainment, i hate it.
enjoy.
um, then why were you taking part in it? :wtf: of course all of us enjoy it, including you, or else you wouldn't post. :D
and another thing... now i know why the people that take part in these kind of threads (argumentative) often have such high post counts! (i.e. Knight Templar, CP, Stryke, DG, etc.)... because you make a post every minute
ah crap, you found our secret...
-
Originally posted by CP5670
well yeah, I know that, but they are called lung machines? I thought there was some weird technical name for those...
no, they're called lung machines, or Iron lung machines. they help paralyzed people breathe, by inflating and deflating the lungs. (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/galleryguide/E3333.asp)
Well, thousand-pound units can at least be lifted by several people working together and be loaded onto trucks. You cannot exactly do that with oil processors, which are as large as houses and weigh much more (and are bolted to the ground to connect with oil pipelines anyway).
they weigh like 4,000 pounds each, and not one was stolen, it said a FEW were stolen :D :D. it's incredible ;)
have you ever been into an oil refinery? OK, for one, i didn't say the oil REFINERIES were looted, i said the buildings, or offices, i can't remember, but i definately didn't say refineries.
oh, and i was just kidding diamondgeezer :) :)
-
you said my name, and i got the understanding you were being sarcastic. thank you anyway though.
(http://swooh.com/peon/diamondgeezer/images/spineyes.gif)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
you said my name, and i got the understanding you were being sarcastic. thank you anyway though.
(http://swooh.com/peon/diamondgeezer/images/spineyes.gif)
:lol: fuck you. :lol:
:D OK, i admit, you got me ;)
-
Id also like to point out that the oil refineries are located several hundred miles from population centres, the hospitals are at the end of someone street.
-
they weigh like 6,000 pounds each, and not one was stolen, it said a FEW were stolen . it's incredible
If you have enough looters it should be possible; maybe they decided to split up the profits. :D
On a side note, I have seen these scenes in India where a freight truck has toppled over on its sides near road turns due to being overloaded with cargo and like 15 people are tugging on a rope to pull it back upright; they actually do manage to it after a while. :D
have you ever been into an oil refinery? OK, for one, i didn't say the oil REFINERIES were looted, i said the buildings, or offices, i can't remember, but i definately didn't say refineries.
I have seen pictures of the insides. Looks pretty cool actually, but even a forklift or mobile crane would not be to pick up those machines. The oil administration was just run directly by the government though, and the government buildings were certainly sacked.
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
Id also like to point out that the oil refineries are located several hundred miles from population centres, the hospitals are at the end of someone street.
and i'd also like to point out that in none of my posts did i say "oil refineries".
-
Originally posted by CP5670
If you have enough looters it should be possible; maybe they decided to split up the profits. :D
On a side note, I have seen these scenes in India where a freight truck has toppled over on its sides near road turns due to being overloaded with cargo and like 15 people are tugging on a rope to pull it back upright; they actually do manage to it after a while. :D
ooooh yeah! i've seen those pictures too! *goes to find one*
but think about it. what are they going to do with an Iron Lung? :lol: :D
i mean, it doesn't even work on the voltage they have in their house, assuming they even HAVE electricity
-
Melt them down and use the iron to build weapons of mass destruction
-
I guess they could just sell it to some other hospital that is still in operation; even if they only sell it at a fifth of the original price, it will come out to quite a bit of money. :D
Melt them down and use the iron to build weapons of mass destruction
That's always an option. ;7
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Melt them down and use the iron to build weapons of mass destruction
heeey, now there's a plan! but i don't even think they have iron in them nowadays, i think they did when they were invented, but nowadays it's probably aluminum and plastic :D :D :D
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Hey, if I want to boost my post count I'll get in to a spamming race with Petrarch - not argue with the likes of you
:ha:
That sounds like a challenge, sah!
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
That sounds like a challenge, sah!
you never thanked me for that Flash and Photoshop CD i sent you like, *checks* a year ago.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
you never thanked me for that Flash and Photoshop CD i sent you like, *checks* a year ago.
That's because I never recieved it.:)
-
!?
but i sent it twice :(
-
I know.
The ship carrying it was probably torpedoed by that Japanese sub in the Gulf of Mexico.:D
-
do you want me to send it again Petrarch?
-
Nah, there's not a lot of point now, as I have..ahem..acquired both photoshop and Flash through... other means..
:D
-
wow, that came out of nowhere :wtf: