• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Results 1 to 25 of 209

    Hybrid View

    1. #1
      "O" will suffice. Achievements:
      1 year registered Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Gold Veteran First Class Populated Wall Tagger First Class 25000 Hall Points Vivid Dream Journal
      Oneironaut Zero's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2005
      LD Count
      20+ Years Worth
      Gender
      Location
      Central Florida
      Posts
      16,083
      Likes
      4032
      DJ Entries
      149
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      The one involving rival militaries and the term "large scale". I was not talking about conflicts between treehouse forts. I also did not use the word "wars" to mean "(mere) lack of unity", "prejudice", "ethnocentrism", or "rape" or most of the other terms you threw in there.
      Yeah. I didn't think I had to specify that the words I was using were meant to illustrate the things that can lead to large-scale war. The Civil War (also) was not a war between treehouse forts. "Rival military" means nothing more than "rival militias," at a fundamental level. Are you trying to imply that, if every nation in this world had democracy, there would not exist militias and/or "militaries" that could/would propose what you're referring to as a "large scale" war? I think you're wrong.

      "War" can be started for any number of idiotic things, as long as there is a big enough following to present some sort of large-scale conflict. I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to say, with this one. Think about the war we are fighting now. Is this not a small (on a global scale) faction of people versus a wide-spread ideology of anti-Islamic-extremism? On what scale are you talking that "war" is supposed to just "not exist," in a "liberated world?" Please explain that to me. As far as I see it; as long as the concepts that I mentioned (and more) exist, the basic components for war exist, given a large-enough base. So enlighten me on how even a world-wide democracy is supposed to eliminate "war" (even by your definition. I'm talking about large-scale war, here, as I have been). How does liberation, automatically, cancel out the possibility of war?
      Last edited by Oneironaut Zero; 11-03-2007 at 08:02 AM.
      http://i.imgur.com/Ke7qCcF.jpg
      (Or see the very best of my journal entries @ dreamwalkerchronicles.blogspot)

    2. #2
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      What I am saying is that countries that are true democracies and have the major benefits that come with having been true democracies are not going to go to war with each other. They will also not have civil wars within themselves. Every war that has ever happened on this planet involved at least one side that was not a true and developed democracy, at least since the Industrial Revolution. At this point in time, there is no way the United States is going to go to war with Canada. France is not going to have a war with Japan. Australia will never go to war with Israel. None of those countries will ever be at war with another one of them. That is because the civility and prosperity that come with such governments take away the motivations for war between and among them.

      That was not true at one time, but now we are well beyond the Industrial Revolution, which resulted in a great social advancement in democracies, partly because of the increases in prosperity and educational perspective. So when the whole world has been fully democratized and the benefits of that democratization have come about, countries will no longer go to war with each other.

      I do agree that they will always have social problems within themselves, but not civil wars. The ignorance and primitivism that exist in people who feel hate towards entire races and religions and so forth are not widespread enough in the mainstream power structures of democracies for such goverments to go to war in the name of that ridiculousness. Also, governments truly run by the people do not have the people rising up against them, so such countries do not have civil wars at this stage in social evolution.

      In other words, there is at least one major asshole in every fight. When no countries are major assholes, they no longer fight each other and their citizens no longer rise up in significant numbers and fight them.
      You are dreaming right now.

    3. #3
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      930
      DJ Entries
      9
      It sounds like you're arguing for a world Government, UM. Do you honestly believe that invading countries and forcing a form of government on them has anything to do with freedom? Do you believe that the countries we are "freeing" with our invasions appreciate largely American owned companies building pipelines through their countries (Afghanistan) or American companies profiting off of their oil supplies (halliburton)? Tell me, do you think we should invade China? They are not a democratic nation. When are we going to invade England? How about Vatican City?

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    4. #4
      Member
      Join Date
      Apr 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      5,964
      Likes
      230
      Thank you, Sky.


      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      Do you believe that the countries we are "freeing" with our invasions appreciate largely American owned companies building pipelines through their countries (Afghanistan) or American companies profiting off of their oil supplies (halliburton)?
      Yes, the invasion into Afghanistan was planned before 911 happened, for the pipeline. That gave them a completely legitimate reason to go in there then.

    5. #5
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      It sounds like you're arguing for a world Government, UM. Do you honestly believe that invading countries and forcing a form of government on them has anything to do with freedom? Do you believe that the countries we are "freeing" with our invasions appreciate largely American owned companies building pipelines through their countries (Afghanistan) or American companies profiting off of their oil supplies (halliburton)? Tell me, do you think we should invade China? They are not a democratic nation. When are we going to invade England? How about Vatican City?
      A world government? No. Where did you get that?

      You obviously need to read the thread you are posting in if you are asking me if we should invade China. We have covered that several times. Make sure you read what I have already written in this thread before you decide to argue with me again. (That goes for others too.) I said that some countries would not be worth invading because of the fallout that would result. China is one of them. An invasion of China could pretty easily lead to the end of life on Earth.

      England is a true democracy. As a result, it is one of the greatest countries in the world. Vatican City is not a country. It is a voluntary living quarters.

      Do countries appreciate big businesses in them? They do when they get prosperous off them. Backward ass poor countries that are fresh out of dictatorship could use a great deal of that.

      What do you think the world community should do with majorly oppressed dictatorships? What should be done about the situation in Sudan?

      Quote Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
      The transcript is widely published; the truth of it is actually occurring is not in question as far as I know. It wasn't denied; it was just spun later that she totally screwed up.
      No, it is very much in question. I showed you that with the link. What the Hussein regime reported cannot be trusted. I am surprised you don't agree with that. Here is another link.

      Quote Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
      Who knows? Some people think it was a sting operation; Saddam was set up to invade Kuwait just so we could get rid of him, since we were done with him. You refuse to admit this, but at one time, Saddam was looked at very favorably; he modernized his society, got rid of Islamic law, freed women, got people educated, etc. I don't know if the whole time he was doing horrible things to his enemies, probably so--but that was not the image of him shown to us. Why did they want to get rid of him? You can think of reasons (and probably not that Washington suddenly realized he was evil; they work with lots of evil people wiht no problem)--like maybe he was doing too good; maybe those countries are better kept ignorant and primitive and not in control of their own resources; the better for our corps to get what they want from them. Maybe we are paying the price for that now.
      It was not that he was merely evil. It was that he became a huge threat. His government and his legacy became a huge threat. It's not like we could just ignore that.

      Quote Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
      Yes--but they are always such goofs like that. I'm just absent minded; I didn't even try to hide it. If someone really wanted to hide something, I don't think it would be too hard. Oh yea, a friend of mine's wife went to somewhere in Central America, and bought like this doll thing, but when you pull the doll's head off, a big machete is hidden in the body, and she got on the plane with it. That was before the really strict screening I think. I'm just saying that they don't do what they should, that's why I think the terrorists must be really ineffective.
      If that happened to everybody, I would agree. But the fact that it happens once in a while is not proof. We have caught a lot of terrorists in the act of trying junk at airports. We and England have stopped some major plots at airports. I also think there actually is a lot of profiling going on, though they want to make it look like there is not.

      Quote Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
      Well, I don't think they should have started the war, but it was not good to encourage those people to rebel, then just let them get gassed. If they hadn't started the war, it might not have happened. Does that seem like such an incompatible thing to think?
      No, but it is beside the point. I was illustrating the fact that the Hussein regime was a WMD terrorist organization. The gas attack on the Kurds was determined to be an act of "genocide" by Human Rights Watch. It was the largest scale gas attack on a civilian population in history. The majority of the people who were gassed were women and children. It was an unnecessary act of WMD terrorism.

      Quote Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
      Well, being deluded could explain your thinking, so my insult makes more sense. So there.
      Only a booty-head would think that.

      Quote Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
      We are creating a never-ending supply.
      I disagree, but your point does not refute the fact that we are attracting and killing terrorists.

      A few weeks ago, there were zero U.S. military casualties in Iraq. Think about that. Our casualties are now lower than they have been since the war started. A lot of the areas of Iraq are now safe to live in. The terrorists are being reduced in number. That was the idea.

      Quote Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
      UM, I think it is very easy to find out about the conditions of the Palestinians. If you want to be ignorant on the subject, be that way, but it would be very easily remedied. I don't know what you're talking about, I don't know if they give them welfare or not, just that they are not allowed to travel, etc. Of course I know if they let them go where they want, they start blowing themselves up in crowded places, so that's not good either. I think Israel is part of the problem too tho; and they are not a free secular society, that's what I'm saying.
      I was asking you about the points you made, and it turns out you were ignorant on your own points. If Palestinians are not allowed to work, then they are either getting welfare or some other charity or hunting for their food. Are they not allowed to visit their relatives in Palestine? Let me know when you figure out what you were saying.

      Quote Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
      The world is sick of us. They may not be sick of our aid, but they are sick of our wars. I say eliminate both, unless there is a place that is actually trying to help itself to become an actual secular free society and just needs help doing it. Of course we may not have that here forever; we may have to help ourselves.
      There are too many innocent people in the world who need our help for us to abandon the world.

      Quote Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
      How long a time limit do you expect for some progress to be made in Iraq? You do read the news about what is going on over there, right? When do we get to say we told you so? Or do you expect this to take several lifetimes, so you can always just say "we're making progress"?
      It is already being made, as I illustrated. They have a democratic government that is getting closer and closer to the ability to be independent, they vote in higher percentages than we do, they have turned against the insurgents in large numbers, they have lots of safe regions of the country, and all of that is in a position to grow and grow. As far as the "I told you so" thing, the people who have been rabidly against this war are NEVER going to face the progress Iraq is going to keep making. Even if Iraq ended up being the richest nation in the world per capita with the lowest murder rate in the world and has the best education system of all time, the haters will still be saying, "The war was bullshit! Screw Bush! He lied about WMD's even though that intelligence came from five other goverments and the U.N. plus the previous administration, CIA, and Senate! The people of Iraq don't want to be free! They want to be oppressed! Screw Bush! I hate Bush!" That mentality is going to live on for the rest of the time our generation is alive... NO MATTER WHAT.

      My guess is that we will be able to see very, very astounding differences in Iraq in the next fifteen to twenty years. The children of the people living there now are going to have a very different perspective on life and make major changes, and the grandchildren are going to turn Iraq into a Hell of a good country.

      Quote Originally Posted by skysaw View Post
      Remember "Mission Accomplished!"?
      The overthrowing of the Hussein regime was a mission that was accomplished.

      Quote Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
      Yes, the invasion into Afghanistan was planned before 911 happened, for the pipeline. That gave them a completely legitimate reason to go in there then.
      So, did the convenient excuse of the biggest terrorist attack on American soil in history just happen to happen and the government harboring the perpetrators just happened to be the terrorist government running Afghanistan? Or do you claim 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy?
      You are dreaming right now.

    6. #6
      Member
      Join Date
      Apr 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      5,964
      Likes
      230
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      Even if Iraq ended up being the richest nation in the world per capita with the lowest murder rate in the world and has the best education system of all time, the haters will still be saying, "The war was bullshit! Screw Bush! He lied about WMD's even though that intelligence came from five other goverments and the U.N. plus the previous administration, CIA, and Senate! The people of Iraq don't want to be free! They want to be oppressed! Screw Bush! I hate Bush!" That mentality is going to live on for the rest of the time our generation is alive... NO MATTER WHAT.
      I don't think that is going to happen, I don't think that's really what the people in charge here want, and I'll always think Bush is a morally bankrupt moron that is being controlled by other people, but if Iraq does turn out like that, I'll admit that I was wrong about a lot of things. I guess time will tell.


      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      So, did the convenient excuse of the biggest terrorist attack on American soil in history just happen to happen and the government harboring the perpetrators just happened to be the terrorist government running Afghanistan? Or do you claim 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy?
      The thought that it was an inside job is too horrible; I surely hope that something that evil is beyond even our government's capabilities. I wonder a little bit, given the connections between the bin Laden family and the Bush family and his administration, but I sure hope not, and I don't think the evidence is there. I don't know--maybe a pre-emptive strike by bin Laden? Did bin Laden think it would freak us out so much we wouldn't invade, or destroy our economy? I really don't know.

    7. #7
      On the woad to wuin R.D.735's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Mostly in my right hemisphere
      Posts
      340
      Likes
      0
      15, 20, 30 years on, we'll see just how wrong we were. A whole generation of Iraqis will have grown up without ever knowing peace...

      When the war started, it was less than six months that we would have to wait. If you ask me, UM, if the prosperity we seek is being pushed farther into the future, things are getting worse and not better.

      The Pentagon has reported consistently over the past few months that, politically, Iraq is as bad as it was when we invaded. There is no effective national government, and the weak one that is in control of the green zone is corrupt. Incidentally, it is a Shiite-dominated, pro-Iran government, the kind that wouldn't mind helping the country you've named the source of global terrorism, UM. It reminds one of the Democratic victories of Hamas and Hezbollah.

      Elections don't always mean Democracy and Democracy doesn't always mean peace. Pakistan is an excellent example of both phenomena. Musharraf abused the Democracy that elected him and is unwilling to allow his political opponents to challenge him. Why? His political opponents are Islamic Fundamentalists who want to convert Pakistan to a Saudi-style theocracy. If Democracy takes hold once again, we may have a radicalized government with nuclear weapons to deal with. What could go wrong?

      When the Democratically-elected Shah government of Iran was overthrown by radicals backed by the US, the motivation was ostensibly to eliminate a government that was using force to undermine political opposition(though many would say it was because Iran nationalized its oil resources). The political opposition was full of radicalized fundamentalists, like Khomeini, who is now the Supreme Leader of Iran. This is widely known as a foreign policy blunder, but it was supposed to promote Democracy. 15, 20, 30 years down the line, it was still a blunder.

      Saying that we wouldn't go to war with nations that have acquired nuclear weapons(France, Britain, etc) isn't a statement that supports the idea that Democracies are so peaceful. It neglects these situations and the fact that economic warfare has largely replaced formal military conflict: sanctions instead of bullets; starvation and sickness instead of mutilation. Democracies do tend to do better in negotiating benefits to enemies who agree to reform themselves, but this is another liability if I understand your position on the issue, UM.

      The writers of the constitution made it clear that the republic was no panacea for war with other nations. It is only an instrument of providing the best governance possible to people who are supposed to be guardians of their own freedom. It provides no guard against spontaneous revolutions that come from domestic strife or the neglect of government institutions. Just because it is the best system available doesn't mean that we should attribute to it powers that it does not have. To have too much faith in Democracy is as bad as having too little.
      Last edited by R.D.735; 11-04-2007 at 01:03 AM.

    8. #8
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      I was not saying that every country that has elections is a true democracy. Even the Hussein regime had elections, but Hussein got 100% of the votes. I am talking about real democracies, and I am talking about after they have had time to reap the benefits of being true democracies. There will be some corruption in all of them. There is corruption in ours. But that corruption will diminish over time.

      When I said we should not try to liberate nuclear nations, I of course was not talking about Britain and France. There is no reason to go to war with them in the first place. It would be absurd. We benefit each other instead.

      Meet me here in 30 years, everybody. That will be November 3, 2037. Always remember that date. November 3, 2037. I am completely serious. Let's have a review of what ended up happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then let's have another one on November 3, 2067. At that point, we can all very much know how good or bad of an idea the beginning of the liberation of the Middle East was.
      You are dreaming right now.

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •