[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by 01010
I have a (maybe) slightly controversial plan for world peace.

Get every single person on this planet in a centralised location. Have the hugest ****ing party where anything goes, drugs, sex, drugs, alcohol, drugs and sex.

Then just as it's starting to get too much, launch all the ****ing nukes and whatever survives inherits the planet.

Nihillism > everything.

Yes, Nihilism is good (individually that is)

My controversial plan:

Have intelligence/sensibility/usefulness tests
all who fail are killed and processed as food (genetic failures as well)

So the useful humans live and are productive while dumblings all get eaten, very effective system.


The thing is my human side of me fervently denies the existence of such a plan and tries to suppress such inhuman, cruel and suchlike thoughts.

So I say: go communist democracy!

The war would cost more than any gain from oil. There ancient way of life would not be destroyed , rather improved by being able to feed themselves and live in a rich country which would no longer have tough sanctions imposed.
The reason the US is protecting the oil, is so the new Iraqi government can use it to start rebuilding the country after years of dictatorship.

Do you honestly buy that kind of propaganda crap that's meant to make the gov't look like a nice, giving figure? People are greedy things that only care about their own profit, go disillusion yourself.

Actually, one thing that was good about 9/11 is that it hardened the society and woke up people to the harsh reality of the world.

I notice that the only thing that people I know are doing is scream "oh no, all muslims are out to kill  us gaaaah." I don't think that's the way to a mature global society.

Unfortunately the british govornment will do almost anything the US asks (tells?) it to.
I have no particular alleigance to this country, or any other to be honest. They all fail miserably in the end....

Yeah, too bad humanity has founded a deep rooted society of exchange and greed (no country will be able to meet ideals anytime soon). You can see it in the way kids embrace a capitalistic society in which you live as inescapable slaves (to money/companies). A dumb kid I was talking to said this in reply to my talk about virtual slavery, "so? it doesn't matter if we're slaves anyway." <--- great sign of brainwashing imo.

What the?!? Tell me when innocent civilians, guilty of doing nothing but going about their lives the same as the day before becomes a viable MILITARY target?

Civilian casualties are almost a given in most mass military encounters, don't try to cover up the gov't's actions with trash ideals.

 When we(the USA) take a military action it is and will be against a MILITARYtarget.
By Military, I mean an organized fighting force dedicated to doing another group harm.
Al-Quaeda = Military.
Two 96 story towers full of accountants and secrataries = Civilian.
Could someone please tell me why being the prosperous nation on the planet makes it okay for others to take whatever action they see fit against us and prevents us from acting in retaliation?

"Okay" is highly subjective you know.

besides that, it doens't matter if it's "okay" or not, they just can, and will (because they are "terroists", they don't have to abide by rules of society.). However retaliatory action which is brash and harmful is immature, and should not be accepted from even the US (a proper and supposedly "mature" nation).

I wouldnt call that a bad thing - it's always struck me as rather hilarious that a nation dedicated to globilisation has proven so against it by having the largest free-standing army in the world and being so tight on immigration....but you can nitpick for hours.
My beef is and always has been the base structure of the way we live lives today, one cannot deny that it wrecks as many lives as it engenders - hows that for "progress". We're doing well but we're not doing well enough.

To copy a certain law (not government laws): "things will always not be enough, even when you count this law"

But it is true that our current system of society sucks and most people are culture not to care too.

Deep down, humans are violent, petty, stubborn, and selfish. If you can't appreciate these traits as part of the greater whole, and can't accept that the good and bad qualities of mankind, as in everything, are largely inseparable, you can't legitimately like humans.

Extending on this, I think it quite comical that a bunch of overgrown (brain) apes are hooting around beating each other, all claiming that they are "civilized" or "more civilized" than the other. Technology evolved faster than humans it seems.

 humanity = travesty  (odd that we can be a travesty to our own invention but oh well )

[Falcon X]

"There are plenty of good ways to get rid of Saddam. War is not one of them. And yet, the government's already set a date. Forget Hussein, I think we know who the real mass murderer is."

Really?  What else would you suggest we do?  Let him continue to give the run around?


"I consider it fair to still blame a country for something it did 20 years ago and never even had the common decency to try to make a token effort to make up for. The same does not apply to 70-100 years, since generally everyone alive and fully conscious at that time is now dead, and there are now other people."

Really?  Who started the whole middle east fiasco?  The UN.  We supported Israel for a number of reasons, one they were being invaded/threatened by countries that were supported by the USSR.

"Right now, as we speak, the US is profiting from billions of dollars worth of oil that it controls from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If Iraq were all of a sudden allowed to trade its oil, the price of oil would go down, thus reducing American profits. You can now see why the cost of a few missiles and bombs is worth it, not to mention 2 million dead and 22 million starving.

Hell, I'm only American cause my parents ****ed here.."

Then go ahead and leave it's your choice.  

As I said before, if Saddam is kept in power France and Germany profit.  Why do you think they don't want us to invade?  


"The WTC assault was a message- the deaths were collateral damage, not the intent. The symbol of the WTC and the Pentagon in flames were what those who hijacked the planes and their bosses wanted Americans to see, to wake 'em up and make 'em realize that their old crimes were gonna come back to bite them in the ass, and that we couldn't do that **** to other countries any more. You think they could have just politely mailed a signed petition to Bush? It was the only way they could really succeed in a meaningful way in shaking the country's sense of invulnerability and making it aware that it's part of the ****ing planet, too.

And technically, all the Afghan villages we carpet-bombed and killed next to every last person in were civilian, too. War is hell, it's not a civilized, tea-sippingly chivalrous thing. It's mass murder between two consenting parties and a large third nonconsenting victim of the civilian masses."

About Japan... that's another story.  I hope you look up in history what would have happened if we had invaded.

9/11 was terrorism pure and simple.  What do you think of the locherby (sp?) plane bombing?

About Afghanistan:

Really?  Who destroyed that country in the first place?  Russia.  We couldn't find much to bomb there chief.  And the only place the buffs carpet bombed was on Tora Bora.

One more thing...  there's a quote by Blair that I thought was very good.  It goes something like, When America strikes out by itself people say they are unilateralists, when she looks for allies everyone steps back.

[Falcon X]

"I wouldnt call that a bad thing - it's always struck me as rather hilarious that a nation dedicated to globilisation has proven so against it by having the largest free-standing army in the world and being so tight on immigration....but you can nitpick for hours.
My beef is and always has been the base structure of the way we live lives today, one cannot deny that it wrecks as many lives as it engenders - hows that for "progress". We're doing well but we're not doing well enough."


Let's see here... let's learn from history.  What happened when Britain scaled back here military?  Hitler rose to power.  I can go on, but history has shown that when that occurs, someone gets an army and wishes to kick some ass.

Immigration eh?  Last time I checked Europe was shrinking in population.  Is it that bad to make sure we don't have ILLEGAL people here?  Or heavan forbide know if guests are in our country?  God forbid that.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Falcon X

Immigration eh?  Last time I checked Europe was shrinking in population.  Is it that bad to make sure we don't have ILLEGAL people here?  Or heavan forbide know if guests are in our country?  God forbid that.

Erm, he's talking about the US. And the point is that the US is too strict on it, which never instigates globalisation does it?

Anyway, the US' thought of globalisation is this:

US (corps and figureheads) at top of world organizing it all

-----

everybody underneath slaving away under US rule and oppression

[wEvil]

Originally posted by StrykeIX
What, you think you're any better?

Deep down, humans are violent, petty, stubborn, and selfish. If you can't appreciate these traits as part of the greater whole, and can't accept that the good and bad qualities of mankind, as in everything, are largely inseparable, you can't legitimately like humans.

I am quite a bit better, im not that violent, what violence I do have is very well contained, thankyou very much.. Im certainly not petty and nobody has ever had a rational reason to call me selfish.

My point is if people aspired to something a little greater then the world would be a better place.

[Solatar]

If the US let all the immigrints that wanted to come into our country in, then there would be no jobs for more than half the population. And many people from Mexico would swarm to the US. If our population increases too mcuh, then we'll face the same propblems as China, not good for a Superpower.

And Kamikaze, I don't think going into a country, taking out the dictators and "bad guys":D, and then establishing a government and giving the people ful reign of their country is "opression".

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Hades
And Kamikaze, I don't think going into a country, taking out the dictators and "bad guys":D, and then establishing a government and giving the people ful reign of their country is "opression".

It's not meant to seem like it, doi.
You'll notice (if at all) that oppression (yes, it's two "p"s) is much more subtle.

Also keep in mind I never pointed at the Iraq case in particular.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by Hades
If the US let all the immigrints that wanted to come into our country in, then there would be no jobs for more than half the population. And many people from Mexico would swarm to the US. If our population increases too mcuh, then we'll face the same propblems as China, not good for a Superpower.

And Kamikaze, I don't think going into a country, taking out the dictators and "bad guys":D, and then establishing a government and giving the people ful reign of their country is "opression".

I do think giving your corporations full reign, however, is.

[Alikchi]

What about Guatemala, Hades? Tonkin Gulf? Who says the government we establish will be a good government? I mean, look at Afghanistan. We bombed it and left it out to dry.

People full reign of their country? What the hell is that supposed to mean? If you mean that they're confined to their homes or something, hell, the Iraqi army is too small to do anything but the occasional police action.

Let's see here... let's learn from history. What happened when Britain scaled back here military? Hitler rose to power. I can go on, but history has shown that when that occurs, someone gets an army and wishes to kick some ass.

Uhh..and those two events are connected how? Hitler never intended to go to war with Britain. It was an ACCIDENT. Hitler believed that Britain and France wouldn't respect their treaty with Poland, and he was mistaken.

Besides, America's standing army was smaller than nearly any other country's at the start of WWII. I don't remember hearing about America being conquered by the Canadians or the Mexicans.

The Japanese don't apply, either, since the Imperial Army and Navy were never intended, in the long term, to fight the U.S. on real terms.

Really? Who destroyed that country in the first place? Russia. We couldn't find much to bomb there chief. And the only place the buffs carpet bombed was on Tora Bora.

Yeah, speaking of Russia. If we were so high and mighty, why didn't we kill off the Soviet Union during the Cold War? Because they were powerful enough to kill us back. Of course we're happy little cavaliers when we're dealing with countries like Iraq, Guatemala, and all the other little nations we've shoved around over the past 50 years or so. But when it comes to people who might be an actual threat, oh no, too messy. Too many American lives lost. This applies to China too, in the view of American foreign policy. We fight for freedom, as long as we only lose half a dozen soldiers.

As I said before, if Saddam is kept in power France and Germany profit. Why do you think they don't want us to invade?

Back that up with facts, please?

About Japan, sure, a ground-based invasion would be messy, but we didn't have to drop them on cities. Industrial complexes, harbors, tank factories - Japan had plenty of those. Of course, you can't be sure that Japan would surrender without the Hiroshima-style of mass murder, but would you gamble tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives on a "maybe"? Could you be that heartless?

[wEvil]

Originally posted by Alikchi
Could you be that heartless?

Yes they can, and Yes they are.

Which gives you some idea of what we're dealing with here.  Slaughter by remote control removes the one obstacle to efficient killing - the conciense (yes i prolly misspelt that but its late)

[Alikchi]

Push-button warfare, et all.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by wEvil

Which gives you some idea of what we're dealing with here.  Slaughter by remote control removes the one obstacle to efficient killing - the conciense (yes i prolly misspelt that but its late)

Though indirectly related this remote thing is important. Western culture and globalisation continually make people more remote to each other, the sense of community is greatly lacking recently. Humans are a tribal animal, they weren't meant to be cultured to be remote and individualistic (not that individualism is bad, it's when it's taken too far).

[Solatar]

Just wondering, whenever we're having a debate, why do people bull**** about spelling.....

[Knight Templar]

Because, it's a defensive measure when people are worked up, angry and have no other defense at that moment.

[Alikchi]

Generally just to make yourself appear smarter or better in some way. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean anything at all, but all's fair in love, war, and stupid political debates on internet message boards.

You used too many periods. You're supposed to only use three.

[Stryke 9]

To make onself sound like a smartass, with the actual result of just making you sound like a jackass. Basically, the same reason anyone argues online period.

[StratComm]

I know this is a little old, but it needed some response.  

Originally posted by StrykeIX
Hiroshima and Nagasaki=civilian

Ok, we've been here before and the thread was locked.  I don't care what you have against this country (and granted there is a lot wrong with it) that is simply not comparing things evenly.  When two countries are devoting their entire national product to a war (and I'm not going into the ethics of total war) then all of its assets become legitimate targets.  Japan was at war with us, and we bombed them.  End of story.  It just turns out (in hindsight) that it may have been unnecessary and that it had some pretty serious and lasting implications.  The prospect of using nukes now, when we know what they are and what they do in terms of radiation, is completely different.

It's not just soldiers who die in a war. And much of the middle east has been more or less in a state of permanent civil war since the US helped to **** it up during the Cold War. The WTC assault was a message- the deaths were collateral damage, not the intent. The symbol of the WTC and the Pentagon in flames were what those who hijacked the planes and their bosses wanted Americans to see, to wake 'em up and make 'em realize that their old crimes were gonna come back to bite them in the ass, and that we couldn't do that **** to other countries any more. You think they could have just politely mailed a signed petition to Bush? It was the only way they could really succeed in a meaningful way in shaking the country's sense of invulnerability and making it aware that it's part of the ****ing planet, too.

Bull, the deaths were the purpose of the attacks.  Yes, they were a statement, but those hijackers wanted to slaughter American civilians.  It wasn't purely symbolic; Al-Qieda doesn't want a change in US policy, they want the ultimate destruction of the United States and its people.  Whether you agree with the country's government or not, every man, woman and child in America became targets in a gurella war ment to exploit the weaknesses of an open society and breed fear and suffering on 9-11.  Does the US need to change its policies abroad to be more sensitive to other nations' and peoples' sovernity?  Yes.  Does it need to stand by and do nothing to respond to a hostile and unapeasable organization?  No.  The reasons for the war with Iraq are complex, and the mouthpieces of the government are doing nothing to explain those complexities to the public, but they are present and I honestly think war against Saddam is justified.  You just have to dig a little bit past the rhetoric to see it, as it doesn't lie in what is being said to the American people or to the world.

And technically, all the Afghan villages we carpet-bombed and killed next to every last person in were civilian, too. War is hell, it's not a civilized, tea-sippingly chivalrous thing. It's mass murder between two consenting parties and a large third nonconsenting victim of the civilian masses.

The US never carpet-bombed Afghan cities, nor will we blindly bomb Iraq's population centers.  We did not do so in Desert Storm ten years ago, and we won't do it now.  Believe it or not, Western armed forces (and that includes all of Westarn Europe) have specifically avoided targeting civilians for the past 30 years.  Civilians die, yes, as they have in war since the dawn of civilization, but it isn't like we're going in with the intent of killing innocent bystanders.  If you want someone to blame for the absolute devastation that is Afghanistan, blame the Russians.  They are the ones who mined 50% of that country's land area, including air-dropping mines that looked like toys (you can guess what those were for).  The US had a part in that conflict too, if only for arming the rebels, it is true.  But you can't just say we carpet-bombed civilians to force a regime change, because we did not.

How ironic that this is my 500th post

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Because, it's a defensive measure when people are worked up, angry and have no other defense at that moment.

That's quite funny.

[Knight Templar]

You know it

(watch )


[size=8][glow=yellow]lEv'IaThEn[/glow][/size]

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Zeronet
Also Stealth, with exception to Sandwich, soldiers join the Army, they arent forced into it.

yes, but when the US goes to war (which it will) then ultimately most of us will be forced to... we'll be drafted... i know I will