The 9/11 WTC attack was just another military operation as far as I am concerned; the civlians help the military survive and the military helps the civilians survive, so an attack on one is automatically an attack on the other. These distinctions don't really mean anything.
Not really, it aroused patriotism, national unity and with it Xenophobia and bloodlust. It trivialized internal political conflicts. As I said before, what is good for the national ideology (Perpetuated by the class to which the upper echelon of the government belongs (the very rich)), isn't at all in the interests of the rest of the people in that said nation. 9/11 blinded the huge majority of people to that fact.
Here we go again; I have already told you many times why we are completely dependent on this "upper echelon." That is just the way the current capitalist economy is set up; if they get rich, the rest of us do too (the middle classes, that is), and if they suffer, so do we. It is quite possible for them to get rich at our expense, but that doesn't happen in this case. It caused all those things plus what I said.
Generally just to make yourself appear smarter or better in some way. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean anything at all, but all's fair in love, war, and stupid political debates on internet message boards.
You used too many periods. You're supposed to only use three.
You had an extra comma in there! So you don't know anything and all your arguments are wrong!
Unfortunately I have to disagree with you there - Individuality is something I cherish very much in human nature, and the so-called "holy grail" is not a group mentality but rather a company of individuals who can work together. I beleive in the group as much as you do, although my methods are inherently more difficult to succeed with.
Alright, you are entitled to your opinion there, but if your goal is to take down everything then obviously you would support the alternative action of leaving Iraq alone. If we are arguing about anything we must at least start with the same assumptions/goals.
Actually, one thing I don't understand is why there is not something like a "quarkism" or "stringism" idea (in contrast to individualism), where the elementary units are the most important rather than the collective.
I'd devote my life to stopping the progress of such a monster.
You can do that if you like, but it will be a pretty fruitless waste of time.
I wasnt saying we were. I've certainly never resorted to terror tactics, although many of the things I see today make me wish I had. To use a cliche - there's only one weapon, which at the end of the day is compassion.
My point is that using "terror tactics" does not make a person/institution/whatever any "better" than another. For that matter, no action makes any person any better or worse than any other person. At the "end of the day," compassion, terror and whatever else are all really the same thing. (heck, if you think about it a little, compassion is a form of terror and terror is a form of compassion)
I wouldnt call todays suicide rate prospering. Its just a simple case of the privelaged few treading on heads to get where they are. In a world where science all but removes the need to place value on material possessions the continuing material/commercial culture is morally inexcusable. But then again morals are the least of your concerns (no, that wasn't a personal jab).
"Suicide rate?" Come on, there are much better arguments for your position than that.
What I meant is that all of us here are definitely benefitting enormously from capitalism: computers, internet, HLP/gamespy, FS2, 3D programs and all the other things we use come from the corporations. As for "morally inexcusable," it is entirely a matter of opinion; I could say that sitting in chairs is "morally inexcusable," and it would be just as true as anything else.
(actually, why not? I think I like this one...
)
It would, but since saudi arabia are our "friends" it makes much more sense to attack iraq (which also happens to be bang next to Kuwait...) and since they already have an excuse. As I said before, i dont think military action will solve anything except publicity. What it will do is topple a remarkably anti-western dictatorship.
The same could have been said about Iraq before 9/11 though. Besides, the US is fairly good at propaganda; I don't think it would have much trouble making Saudi Arabia into a rogue state if it wanted to.
And the last sentence there is exactly what wants solving by the US, so nothing more is needed from their perspective.
I wouldnt call that a bad thing - it's always struck me as rather hilarious that a nation dedicated to globilisation has proven so against it by having the largest free-standing army in the world and being so tight on immigration....but you can nitpick for hours.
Sure you wouldn't, just like many others (including European governments), but the US government would, and so it will act accordingly. And "being tight on immigration?"
Also, globalization can take many forms; if the US army somehow took over the entire world by force and brought everything together under one banner, that would certainly qualify, right?
My beef is and always has been the base structure of the way we live lives today, one cannot deny that it wrecks as many lives as it engenders - hows that for "progress". We're doing well but we're not doing well enough.
Sure, but that is simply the way the universe is; this in many ways parellels the natural selection theory, where the prosperity of one competing unit automatically implies the destruction of the others. While I kind of agree with the last sentence, in the absolute sense we are simply doing; we could do no better or worse.
bah, this politics is a bit boring; i'm going back to math for now...
