[Stunaep]

Originally posted by an0n

See, so love destroys.

All it does is serve to make you place the survival of others above your own. Which, by anyones standards, is ****ing stupid.

Girlfriend dumped you recently?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by an0n
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Catergorically: No.

Kids as young as 1, left to fend for themselves in decaying urban areas have been known to survive. The adapt.

Sure, they can't talk and ****, but they survive.

And as for parental love, the children would be cared for as once they reach maturity they would become a possible source of a mutual-defence kinda deal. And if not that, then the child would become the defender of the parent upon realising that it could benefit from the knowledge of the parent. So it becomes the muscle behind the parents brains. There's no love, just a lust for more abilities which could aid its own survival.

Lately (universally speaking) this has been perverted somewhat by the 'need' that people have to bestow their knowledge on their children so that they will, in some way, live on after death.

And as for the 'isolation' thing, just because you lack love doesn't mean you're doomed to isolation.

People cluster together for protection. They group together under an unspoken deal saying "I'll defend you if you defend me". And this was extended to things like trust and honour, which are fairly good qualities if they're applied properly. But then trust and honour were combined and perverted to form love. Which can be summed up in one sentence: "No greater love hath a man, than that he would lay down his life for his brother".

See, so love destroys.

All it does is serve to make you place the survival of others above your own. Which, by anyones standards, is ****ing stupid.

Love, honour, trust, etc are the fundamental building blocks of human social relationships.   Name one relationship built on hate that actually works to the mutual benefit of both?

By the same context which you say love destroys, love saves.  It's just that you're a bitter husk of a man unable to see beyond himself.

[an0n]

Love, honour, trust, etc are the fundamental building blocks of human social relationships.

No. Selfishness is. Be it the selfish lust for knowledge or the selfish lust for self-preservation.

Name one relationship built on hate that actually works to the mutual benefit of both?

I cite every last one of Husseins generals as evidence that you need no 'good' emotions in order to form a relationship with other human beings. They all ****ing hated him and he was always one little smart-ass remark from killing them, but they realised that they would all be better off if they just put up with it and focused on mutual-defence.

Girlfriend dumped you recently?

I don't 'do' girlfriends (or boyfriends, before someone gets clever). I view all relationships as stupid, transitory and trivial.

[aldo_14]

so the constant threat of death is mutually beneficial?

 Does that include the time & effort required to spy on (in this example) Saddams military commanders to confirm their loyalty, or the complete lack of an organized command structure because Saddam couldn't trust anyone with overall control?  

And did their mutual hatred work for the defense of Iraq during the war?  No, becuase it failed miserably.

[an0n]

...............Don't. Smoke. Crack.

I was going to respond to your comments but the last little sentence was enough to stop me caring.

Go buy a clue, then I'll debate politics and philosophy with you.

[magatsu1]

Originally posted by aldo_14
And did their mutual hatred work for the defense of Iraq during the war?  No, becuase it failed miserably.

er, i think the defence of Irag failed 'cos Iraq had soliders and the occasional T72, where as the Allies had Troops, APCs, Tanks, Fighter Planes, Bombers, Ships, etc etc.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by magatsu1


er, i think the defence of Irag failed 'cos Iraq had soliders and the occasional T72, where as the Allies had Troops, APCs, Tanks, Fighter Planes, Bombers, Ships, etc etc.

The point being, they never even tried.  Yes, they'd have lost regardless.  But they could have inflicted far heavier casualties when it came to the US going into Baghdad, for example - everyone knows the one thing that the US feared was a pitched battle from street to street.  Not to mention that, if they did have chemical weapons, there was no effective command structure to authorise the firing - and those were one of the few 'advantages' the Iraqis had.

  No-one rallied to defend Baghdad, they all buggered off and left.  They didn't even try to save Saddams regime, they just ****ed off and left him to fend for himself in a rathole.  The only people who gave Saddam any sort of chance were those who genuinely believed he was the dogs bollocks - i.e. those of his tribe.  Those that hated him and each other were mostly captured or killed, and eventually - if we are to believe the story - sold him out.

Thus, Saddams survival in a key moment - a crisis - was dependent on who he could trusts.  Any relationship based on hatred breaks down the moment pressure is applied.  Thus, it is not mutually beneficial and serves no purpose.

Oh, and anon - shut the **** up if you aren't going to respond sensibly.    Or would that defeat the point of you being registered here?

[an0n]

No-one rallied to defend Baghdad, they all buggered off and left.

Oh and what would 'love' have gotten them?

That's right: KILLED!

Because Saddam was weak and everyone decided that he could no longer hold up his end of the mutual-defence deal.

Thus, survival of the fittest prevails, love is cast aside and all is well for the human race.

[aldo_14]

They're either
a/ dead
b/ in captivity for life
or
c/ in a stinking cell for 5 years then executed by an iraqi trial

Now, consider this (it may be tough).

Saddam Hussein was a benign dictator.  He instigated social & economic policies that benefitted the whole population.  He remained peaceful, and worked to encourage loyalty and trust.

He would have had no need for WMD, and either Gulf War would have been uneccessary.  He may not have even needed to stage elections if he did this right.

Thus, he would be alive, Iraq would be a stable, peaceful & civiliised country.

Instead, Saddam took the power, used opression, violence, etc to maintain control.  Thus, his power totally collapsed the instant it was no longer absolute.  Had Iraq been a benign dictatorship or - as i bleieve Mexi effectively is - a one party democracy, there would have been no war and - even if there was - it would have been impossible to wage because the civillian populaiton would have posed a massive barrier in terms of open and covert rebellion.

[magatsu1]

yeah but if you were in a platoon with ak47's and the odd RPG and you saw tank colums, fighter jets, tomahawks and mobile infanty, wouldn't you bugger off ?

Everyone talks of fighting to the last man, but only the japs do it

us marine ( i think) Pacific War.

EDIT: The first Gulf War was liberating Kuwait, not WMDs

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by magatsu1
yeah but if you were in a platoon with ak47's and the odd RPG and you saw tank colums, fighter jets, tomahawks and mobile infanty, wouldn't you bugger off ?
 

Take cover & regroup probably.  There are ways to overcome technological and numerical superiority - street fighting being an obvious example.

  But if someone was invading Scotland, then no, I wouldn't just bugger off and surrender.

[an0n]

Time for some corrective surgery:

Originally posted by aldo_14
They're either
a/ [drifting back into the crowd]
b/ [Living in Iran]
or
c/ [Living it up in the Caribbean using all the money they 'earned' while serving Hussein]

Now, consider this (it may be tough).

Saddam Hussein [was] a benign dictator.  He instigated social & economic policies that benefitted the [Hussein-loyal parts of the] population.  He remained peaceful, and worked to encourage loyalty and trust [except in Kuwait where the 'royal family' annexed the territory so they could keep all the formerly Iraqi oil for themselves].

He [|] had no need for WMD [until the US started pushing him to invade Iran], and [if they hadn't, n]either Gulf War would have been uneccessary.  He may not have even needed to stage elections if he did this right.

Thus, he [still is] alive, Iraq would [not be occupied by hostile troops], [and would be a ]peaceful & civiliised country [like it was getting before America stuck its oar in].

Instead, Saddam took the power, used [American weapons, American tactics and American chem-weapons] to maintain control [until he tried to reclaim what had been wrongfully taken from Iraq and America turned on him].  Thus, his power totally collapsed the instant it was [in flames, the victim of a massive bombing campaign using vastly superior technology and bullying tactics].  Had Iraq been a [pro-America] dictatorship or - as i bleieve Mexi effectively is - a one party [genocidal] democracy [with no oil to steal], there would have been no war and - even [though] there was [mass-genocide going on] - it would have been impossible to wage because the [Americans wouldn't have given a **** and the ]civillian populaiton would have [remained subjected to Husseins will]

Also, you can't wage a guerilla war against an invading army until they're already on your territory and you can't win till they've settled in and start suffering some 'complancency loses'.

[vyper]

Said it all an0n, except to point out Hussein built world class hospitals and schools for his people at one time before war and sanctions.

[an0n]

I wouldn't mind so much if he'd just been a ****ty leader to start with, but they cut all the money going into his country then use Iraqi's crappy economy, the starvation and ****, as a reason why he should be deposed.

[diamondgeezer]

Um. Just because he spent his oil revenue on schools and hospitals doesn't mean he wasn't imprisoning and torturing folk on the side you know

[an0n]

.........You don't honesty believe that's uncommon, do you?

The Commonwealth and Japan are probably the only people who don't do it.

[vyper]

[q]Um. Just because he spent his oil revenue on schools and hospitals doesn't mean he wasn't imprisoning and torturing folk on the side you know[/q]

I didn't say that, but what I am saying is that when our sanctions kill half a million Iraqi children we are hardly in the position to take a moral high-ground. If Bush wanted to take Iraq for strategic reasons he should have had the guts to admit this wasn't about WMD or rights.

EDIT: fixed typo

[Setekh]

To my knowledge, no one can take moral high ground these days. Not that anyone will own up to that, which is half the problem.

[Rictor]

Well, maybe the Swedes or something. Yeah, thats about right though. Almost no country can take the moral highground, since they all have something on their hands. However, I think this does not apply to individuals or non-government organizations. Of course, a percentage of each of those have commited such acts as to place them in the same category as government, but not all. Not even all of the "humanitarian" organizations (Amnesty Internation etc) are guilt free. To my knowledge, they have in the past supported efforts by governments to manufacture humanitarian crisies (sp?) and so forth. As well, selective distribution of aid based on nationality, religion etc.

I don't know if that made very much sense to any of you...

[SadisticSid]

Originally posted by vyper
I didn't say that, but what I am saying is that when our sanctions kill half a million Iraqi children we are hardly in the position to take a moral high-ground. If Bush wanted to take Iraq for strategic reasons he should have had the guts to admit this wasn't about WMD or rights.

EDIT: fixed typo

Huh, if you believe the loss of trade Saddam incurred by the sanctions against him would have gone to the starving masses you need a lesson in reality mate.