Thread: F**k the Troops

Originally Posted by stonedape

Why? Why can't we just create a strong free society and flourish. If we do this then other countries will want similar things. The thing is we don't really have a free society, we have a consumer society and the Iraqi community relates that with democracy. If we want democracy to be preserved, maybe we ought to preserve for ourselves first. Our electoral process is in the toilet and we are running around playing cowboys and Indians.

It would be great if they were democratic, but how the hell does that warrant us going into their country and starting a war?

If all we wanted was to preserve democracy, then why did we start a war?

It was one goal of many. The war has been about a long list of reasons. Islamofascists hate democracy on a major level, not just consumerism. They think the only law book for a country should be the Koran, which isn't exactly big on human rights. However, most of the Iraqi people are not fascists or fundamentalists. They love democracy and vote in even higher percentages than we do, despite death threats from insurgents.

Our society could definitely be more free, but compared to what the Islamofascists want, we barely have any rules.

Originally Posted by stonedape

War is people in uniforms acting inhumanly. I consider the military to be a gang. They are people who use violence to achieve political goals. Why is it that a different morality applies to life in the great ritual of battle?

Originally Posted by stonedape

The way I see it, killing is killing. It's a very fucked up thing to do. People should avoid doing it unless they have to. There's no reason at all that we need to kill people in war. If these people realize that they don't need to go around killing people and still do it they are terrible people. If they don't then they are naive. If you think that killing in the name of freedom makes sense you are very naive in my opinion.

You said you believe in having militias. How are they different?

Originally Posted by stonedape

Why? Why can't we just create a strong free society and flourish. If we do this then other countries will want similar things. The thing is we don't really have a free society, we have a consumer society and the Iraqi community relates that with democracy. If we want democracy to be preserved, maybe we ought to preserve for ourselves first. Our electoral process is in the toilet and we are running around playing cowboys and Indians.

It would be great if they were democratic, but how the hell does that warrant us going into their country and starting a war?

If all we wanted was to preserve democracy, then why did we start a war?

War is people in uniforms acting inhumanly. I consider the military to be a gang. They are people who use violence to achieve political goals. Why is it that a different morality applies to life in the great ritual of battle?

The way I see it, killing is killing. It's a very fucked up thing to do. People should avoid doing it unless they have to. There's no reason at all that we need to kill people in war. If these people realize that they don't need to go around killing people and still do it they are terrible people. If they don't then they are naive. If you think that killing in the name of freedom makes sense you are very naive in my opinion.

"War is people in uniforms acting inhumanly. I consider the military to be a gang. They are people who use violence to achieve political goals. Why is it that a different morality applies to life in the great ritual of battle?"

That is the way it has worked for the entire duration of human civilization. Some of histories greatest minds were military leaders, do you honestly think you are better than those men? Don't you think they would have protested war if they thought it was avoidable? There are men who devote their life to studying the philosophy and psychology of war, and they don't presume that war can be ended. There is a separate morality for war, it is a necessary evil. It is something that is built into human psychology, it is something that cannot be overcome by consciousness. There are too many people. If all countries were to lay down arms this very moment, someone, somewhere would eventually take advantage of the situation. A smart man knows this, which is why he would never give up his power in the name of some pipe dream.

"The way I see it, killing is killing. It's a very fucked up thing to do. People should avoid doing it unless they have to. There's no reason at all that we need to kill people in war. If these people realize that they don't need to go around killing people and still do it they are terrible people. If they don't then they are naive. If you think that killing in the name of freedom makes sense you are very naive in my opinion."

Yes, we should avoid killing unless we have to. We have very strict rules of engagement, so strict in fact that they endanger the lives of our soldiers. Our rules of engagement are a tactical hinderance that serve no other purpose than to appease people like you. These rules commonly state that we are not allowed to fire unless fired upon. There are cases where the enemy is standing in the open, and we know its the enemy, and we know they are gathering intelligence for the best way to kill us, but we can't do anything about it. The killing in Iraq is initiated by the insurgents, it is therefore necessary for us to kill them. We can't walk away and let these people be, because they WILL follow us home. You and I both know that they won't give up until we either conform to their standards or cease to exist, whichever comes first. Can you not see the necessity of this conflict? Now I will submit that maybe it didn't need to take place in Iraq in particular, but we can't go back in time. I am not crazy enough to believe Islamofacists are going to take over our country, but I'll be damned if Im going to sit around and watch their attacks happen. Where is the justice in that? Maybe if we ignore them they'll go away right?

War is old, rich, white businessmen sending young middle and lower class to go and die so they can protect or expand their property. That's all it's ever been.

I said this to my mom before and explained to her why soldiers are not my heroes like we're told to believe. Later I found out from my sister that my mom said if dad found out about this I'd be kicked out of the house. Now, I highly doubt my dad would have cared, but my mom was clearly super offended. She didn't want to talk to me for like a week. It just goes to show how people have been conditioned by government and media to praise soldiers like heroes. It makes sense though, they need to lie to people or else who's gunna fight their wars?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It was one goal of many. The war has been about a long list of reasons. Islamofascists hate democracy on a major level, not just consumerism. They think the only law book for a country should be the Koran, which isn't exactly big on human rights. However, most of the Iraqi people are not fascists or fundamentalists. They love democracy and vote in even higher percentages than we do, despite death threats from insurgents.

Our society could definitely be more free, but compared to what the Islamofascists want, we barely have any rules.

So what? If we are going to spread democracy, we ought to get it right ourselves first. Our government is a miserable failure. Don't forget the bailout.

There's no fucking way that these fools are going to be successful in creating a one world theocracy. Their ludicrous threats do not justify a war.

How can we stop them by stooping to their level? If we believe in human rights, how can we go into someone else's country and start a war? How would you feel if some aliens came down to this planet and started a war because they thought that we were fools who could not liberate themselves?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You said you believe in having militias. How are they different?

Militia's are used only in times of need. Militia's aren't used to invade other countries. Self defense is the only kind of justified violence. They also, at least to my understanding, don't recruit and brainwash people. If you don't understand what I mean by brainwashed, watch the first 2 minutes of the 2nd video I posted. This guy did not come to those conclusions on his own.

Would one of you 2 mind stating under what conditions you believe that invading another country is justified? I seem to remember talking about this before and coming to the conclusion that you(UM) have a number of weak arguments for why we should invade and the combined pressure justifies the war for you. I really don't see how this works. Unless there is at least one major threat, how is a preemptive strike justified?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That is the way it has worked for the entire duration of human civilization. Some of histories greatest minds were military leaders, do you honestly think you are better than those men? Don't you think they would have protested war if they thought it was avoidable? There are men who devote their life to studying the philosophy and psychology of war, and they don't presume that war can be ended. There is a separate morality for war, it is a necessary evil. It is something that is built into human psychology, it is something that cannot be overcome by consciousness. There are too many people. If all countries were to lay down arms this very moment, someone, somewhere would eventually take advantage of the situation. A smart man knows this, which is why he would never give up his power in the name of some pipe dream.

A man who grasps after power is a fool. All you have done is assert that war is a necessary part of life. That's a pretty fucking big order, mind explaining? In what way is it necessary for men to dress up uniforms and shoot each other?

Not all societies have used war, therefore it is not necessary for humans to do this to survive. It may be unlikely that we will see an end to war, but that is because we have a very corrupt government.

Do you really think that because we have always fought wars we will always have to? This isn't the way things work. Their is no inherent human nature other than simply existing. We have a culture that glorifies war and thus we continue on fighting like morons.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Yes, we should avoid killing unless we have to. We have very strict rules of engagement, so strict in fact that they endanger the lives of our soldiers. Our rules of engagement are a tactical hinderance that serve no other purpose than to appease people like you. These rules commonly state that we are not allowed to fire unless fired upon. There are cases where the enemy is standing in the open, and we know its the enemy, and we know they are gathering intelligence for the best way to kill us, but we can't do anything about it. The killing in Iraq is initiated by the insurgents, it is therefore necessary for us to kill them. We can't walk away and let these people be, because they WILL follow us home. You and I both know that they won't give up until we either conform to their standards or cease to exist, whichever comes first. Can you not see the necessity of this conflict? Now I will submit that maybe it didn't need to take place in Iraq in particular, but we can't go back it time. I am not crazy enough to believe Islamofacists are going to take over our country, but I'll be damned if Im going to sit around and watch their attacks happen. Where is the justice in that? Maybe if we ignore them they'll go away right?

I completely disagree with this statement. We both know that threats have been made. You assume that those who pose these threats can do what they say, I know they cannot.

Obviously not. Would you mind giving me some concrete reasons, like what would have happened if we didn't and why that would be so bad.

So you really think that we should police the world? I'm sorry, but I gotta now...


Do you not realize that you are projecting your violent attitude onto the world and then saying that violence is an inherent part of life? You only see violence as necessary because you yourself are violent.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That is the way it has worked for the entire duration of human civilization. Some of histories greatest minds were military leaders, do you honestly think you are better than those men? Don't you think they would have protested war if they thought it was avoidable?

are you kidding me???

you are familiar with history's "greatest minds" because those were the people whose might suffocated any alternative perspective! you have an incredibly cross-eyed view of what the history of the human condition has been; you have no clue of what "great minds" came before because the cultures which cultivated them were marginalized by the military strategists, unscrupulous leaders and misguided troops who were so backward that their way of life was the only one they could imagine.

Originally Posted by stonedape

So what? If we are going to spread democracy, we ought to get it right ourselves first. Our government is a miserable failure. Don't forget the bailout.

There's no fucking way that these fools are going to be successful in creating a one world theocracy. Their ludicrous threats do not justify a war.

How can we stop them by stooping to their level? If we believe in human rights, how can we go into someone else's country and start a war? How would you feel if some aliens came down to this planet and started a war because they thought that we were fools who could not liberate themselves?

We don't have to have a perfect democracy ourselves before we clean up shit holes that breed backward ass Islamofascists who think they are making Allah happy by killing masses of Americans. The Middle East in most places is centuries behind us, and we are trying to change that. We don't have to be Utopia ourselves to do that. Our concern is terrorism, not one world theocracy. We are just concerned about the insane shit they will do in their efforts to create one world theocracy.

If we had a government like the Hussein regime, I would hope every day that aliens would come and liberate us.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Militia's are used only in times of need. Militia's aren't used to invade other countries. Self defense is the only kind of justified violence. They also, at least to my understanding, don't recruit and brainwash people. If you don't understand what I mean by brainwashed, watch the first 2 minutes of the 2nd video I posted. This guy did not come to those conclusions on his own.

What would American militias have done to stop the Nazis in Europe?

Originally Posted by stonedape

Would one of you 2 mind stating under what conditions you believe that invading another country is justified? I seem to remember talking about this before and coming to the conclusion that you(UM) have a number of weak arguments for why we should invade and the combined pressure justifies the war for you. I really don't see how this works. Unless there is at least one major threat, how is a preemptive strike justified?

First of all, the current war in Iraq was not preemptive on our part. It was a continuation of the first Gulf War. The Hussein regime did not meet the conditions of the ceasefire, so we went back to war. The Gulf War was started by the Hussein regime when they invaded Kuwait. They were the problem. If you will read the post I linked in the second post of this thread, you will see the other reasons for justification.

An international terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism and other terrorism that is historically our enemy is a threat in 100% of cases. However, the list of justifications for the war goes far beyond that.

Read post #3 in this thread...

http://dreamviews.com/community/show...%27s+ceasefire

Originally Posted by stonedape

A man who grasps after power is a fool. All you have done is assert that war is a necessary part of life. That's a pretty fucking big order, mind explaining? In what way is it necessary for men to dress up uniforms and shoot each other?

Not all societies have used war, therefore it is not necessary for humans to do this to survive. It may be unlikely that we will see an end to war, but that is because we have a very corrupt government.

Do you really think that because we have always fought wars we will always have to? This isn't the way things work. Their is no inherent human nature other than simply existing. We have a culture that glorifies war and thus we continue on fighting like morons.

I completely disagree with this statement. We both know that threats have been made. You assume that those who pose these threats can do what they say, I know they cannot.

Obviously not. Would you mind giving me some concrete reasons, like what would have happened if we didn't and why that would be so bad.

So you really think that we should police the world? I'm sorry, but I gotta now...


Do you not realize that you are projecting your violent attitude onto the world and then saying that violence is an inherent part of life? You only see violence as necessary because you yourself are violent.

"A man who grasps after power is a fool. All you have done is assert that war is a necessary part of life. That's a pretty fucking big order, mind explaining? In what way is it necessary for men to dress up uniforms and shoot each other?"

"A man who grasps after power is a fool." Is this you trying to crack an egg of wisdom on my head? Of all the things you have said thus far, this may be the most illogical. I assume you support Obama (forgive me if Im wrong.) Well, is he a fool for running for president? What would the world be like if the brightest and most qualified men thought it was foolish to vie for a position of power where they could truely be a positive influence? The world needs good leaders, but you say it is foolish for them to lead?

"Do you really think that because we have always fought wars we will always have to? This isn't the way things work. Their is no inherent human nature other than simply existing. We have a culture that glorifies war and thus we continue on fighting like morons."

Yes, no matter how many good natured people there are, you can't influence all of them. You can't control everyone. Somebody will inevitably take advatage of the worlds docile nature. I like to compare it to chimpanzees and bonobos. Both are closely related to humans, one is violent while the other is not. We are much more like the chimpanzees, the violent ones. We have psychological constructs that make us prone to violent behavior unless we can control our emotions.

"I completely disagree with this statement. We both know that threats have been made. You assume that those who pose these threats can do what they say, I know they cannot."



There are myriad others. You really disagree with that statement? They are like a gnat in our face, they will continue to bug us. If we don't swat it now, it has to potential to grow into an eagle with razor sharp talons. Or possibly a raging taradactle. It cannot simply be ignored.

"So you really think that we should police the world?"

I never said anything about policing the world.

"Do you not realize that you are projecting your violent attitude onto the world and then saying that violence is an inherent part of life? You only see violence as necessary because you yourself are violent."

You know nothing about me, so don't judge me. It isn't a violent attitude, it is a sensible attitude. Maybe I just have the rare ability to disconnect my emotions from my logical mind.

Originally Posted by cygnus

are you kidding me???

you are familiar with history's "greatest minds" because those were the people whose might suffocated any alternative perspective! you have an incredibly cross-eyed view of what the history of the human condition has been; you have no clue of what "great minds" came before because the cultures which cultivated them were marginalized by the military strategists, unscrupulous leaders and misguided troops who were so backward that their way of life was the only one they could imagine.

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I think your perception of history has been skewed by your bleeding heart. What phantom minds are you talking about? Is there some kind of massive conspiracy to cover up any anti-military attitude? Because I could name a dozen famous scholars off the top of my head who spoke out against war. I don't think any of them actually thought they could end war all together. The fact that you call these men unscrupulous proves to me your ignorance. Some may have been, but the greatest are not.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That is the way it has worked for the entire duration of human civilization. Some of histories greatest minds were military leaders, do you honestly think you are better than those men? Don't you think they would have protested war if they thought it was avoidable?

Originally Posted by cygnus

are you kidding me???

you are familiar with history's "greatest minds" because those were the people whose might suffocated any alternative perspective! you have an incredibly cross-eyed view of what the history of the human condition has been; you have no clue of what "great minds" came before because the cultures which cultivated them were marginalized by the military strategists, unscrupulous leaders and misguided troops who were so backward that their way of life was the only one they could imagine.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I think your perception of history has been skewed by your bleeding heart. What phantom minds are you talking about? Is there some kind of massive conspiracy to cover up any anti-military attitude? Because I could name a dozen famous scholars off the top of my head who spoke out against war. I don't think any of them actually thought they could end war all together. The fact that you call these men unscrupulous proves to me your ignorance. Some may have been, but the greatest are not.

well, i have a good idea of what i'm talking about because i don't have an ethnocentric education of culture or history. all of your arguments against what i've been saying have been an exercise in inflexible thinking and high praise for those whose actions perpetuate a backward and unnatural way of life. my perception of history has been no more "skewed by my bleeding heart" than yours has been warped by those who wrote the books. there is no "massive conspiracy to cover up any anti-military attitude" aside from (as i already hinted at) centuries of marginalization and genocide of those cultures who contradicted your military-centered way of being.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"A man who grasps after power is a fool." Is this you trying to crack an egg of wisdom on my head? Of all the things you have said thus far, this may be the most illogical. I assume you support Obama (forgive me if Im wrong.) Well, is he a fool for running for president? What would the world be like if the brightest and most qualified men thought it was foolish to vie for a position of power where they could truely be a positive influence? The world needs good leaders, but you say it is foolish for them to lead?

LOLOL I don't support Obama. Obama is an ass. So is McCain. The only candidate that I had any respect for in the last election was Ron Paul. The world already is such that the brightest think it is foolish to vie for power, that's why they work as scientists, doctors, engineers etc. They do things that actually do help our society rather than working for the war machine. I stand by my conviction that men who seek power are fools.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Yes, no matter how many good natured people there are, you can't influence all of them. You can't control everyone. Somebody will inevitably take advatage of the worlds docile nature. I like to compare it to chimpanzees and bonobos. Both are closely related to humans, one is violent while the other is not. We are much more like the chimpanzees, the violent ones. We have psychological constructs that make us prone to violent behavior unless we can control our emotions.

There's no such thing as good nature vs bad nature. People aren't inherently violent, it is a technique that is learned in life. Why can't we control our emotions? I think that we can. I have learned how to, so I assume that others can do the same. You still have absolutely no evidence for your assertion that humans are inherently violent creatures who must fight in battles. Why must we fight? Give me one good reason. Your basically saying that we have to fight because we as a species are to lazy to make sense of our own feelings.

Controlling people is exactly the problem. People who are controlled by others have no control over themselves. People who are autonomous rather than controlled are able to process their emotions and resist that urge to smash peoples face in. People take advantage of the weak moral fiber of our society, not some docile nature. Are humans docile or violent, make up your mind?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

There are myriad others. You really disagree with that statement? They are like a gnat in our face, they will continue to bug us. If we don't swat it now, it has to potential to grow into an eagle with razor sharp talons. Or possibly a raging taradactle. It cannot simply be ignored.

Gnats evolving into pterodactyls, interesting. But They are a group of terrorists. They are not representatives of Iraq(fuck they aren't even from Iraq if I recall). They will continue to bug us regardless of weather or not we swat. We can't kill all the terrorists, because if we did someone would just start being a terrorist again. It's just like your argument about putting all the guns down. We can't beat people into submission, but we can create a society where people do not feel alienated from each other. If we had such a society these people wouldn't be attacking us because they wouldn't see us as a threat to their way of life.

I'm in no way suggesting that we ignore terrorism, only that we try understanding rather than fighting those that we share this planet with. Not starting wars=/=ignoring the problem. Starting wars=ignoring the fact the killing people is not a good way to deal with your problems.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I never said anything about policing the world.

What is going halfway across the world to fight the terrorists if not policing the world?

You really think that we should fight terror? That is the way you deal with fear, by fighting it?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You know nothing about me, so don't judge me. It isn't a violent attitude, it is a sensible attitude. Maybe I just have the rare ability to disconnect my emotions from my logical mind.

I know that you are advocating war. War is violence. Therefore you are advocating violence. Violence is not sensible. We cannot sustain a society built on bones. You still haven't shown me any reason that the human race cannot go beyond the struggle of the jungle and live in a civilized manner.

Originally Posted by cygnus

well, i have a good idea of what i'm talking about because i don't have an ethnocentric education of culture or history. all of your arguments against what i've been saying have been an exercise in inflexible thinking and high praise for those whose actions perpetuate a backward and unnatural way of life. my perception of history has been no more "skewed by my bleeding heart" than yours has been warped by those who wrote the books. there is no "massive conspiracy to cover up any anti-military attitude" aside from (as i already hinted at) centuries of marginalization and genocide of those cultures who contradicted your military-centered way of being.

How did you know I go to school at Richwhiteman University? I thought everybody in a free society learned the same history, since there can only be one and there is usually a consensus on the truth. How did you avoid this ethnocentric education? If my history books are flawed, how did you get your information and why is it better than mine? Who are you to say war is unnatural? Humans have been taking part in premeditated violent acts since the beginning of time, one tribe against another. You aren't reading history with an open mind, you are squeezing it through a filter in your head. You are only hearing the things you want to hear.

Originally Posted by stonedape

LOLOL I don't support Obama. Obama is an ass. So is McCain. The only candidate that I had any respect for in the last election was Ron Paul. The world already is such that the brightest think it is foolish to vie for power, that's why they work as scientists, doctors, engineers etc. They do things that actually do help our society rather than working for the war machine. I stand by my conviction that men who seek power are fools.


There's no such thing as good nature vs bad nature. People aren't inherently violent, it is a technique that is learned in life. Why can't we control our emotions? I think that we can. I have learned how to, so I assume that others can do the same. You still have absolutely no evidence for your assertion that humans are inherently violent creatures who must fight in battles. Why must we fight? Give me one good reason. Your basically saying that we have to fight because we as a species are to lazy to make sense of our own feelings.

Controlling people is exactly the problem. People who are controlled by others have no control over themselves. People who are autonomous rather than controlled are able to process their emotions and resist that urge to smash peoples face in. People take advantage of the weak moral fiber of our society, not some docile nature. Are humans docile or violent, make up your mind?


Gnats evolving into pterodactyls, interesting. But They are a group of terrorists. They are not representatives of Iraq(fuck they aren't even from Iraq if I recall). They will continue to bug us regardless of weather or not we swat. We can't kill all the terrorists, because if we did someone would just start being a terrorist again. It's just like your argument about putting all the guns down. We can't beat people into submission, but we can create a society where people do not feel alienated from each other. If we had such a society these people wouldn't be attacking us because they wouldn't see us as a threat to their way of life.

I'm in no way suggesting that we ignore terrorism, only that we try understanding rather than fighting those that we share this planet with. Not starting wars=/=ignoring the problem. Starting wars=ignoring the fact the killing people is not a good way to deal with your problems.


What is going halfway across the world to fight the terrorists if not policing the world?

You really think that we should fight terror? That is the way you deal with fear, by fighting it?



I know that you are advocating war. War is violence. Therefore you are advocating violence. Violence is not sensible. We cannot sustain a society built on bones. You still haven't shown me any reason that the human race cannot go beyond the struggle of the jungle and live in a civilized manner.

"LOLOL I don't support Obama. Obama is an ass. So is McCain. The only candidate that I had any respect for in the last election was Ron Paul. The world already is such that the brightest think it is foolish to vie for power, that's why they work as scientists, doctors, engineers etc. They do things that actually do help our society rather than working for the war machine. I stand by my conviction that men who seek power are fools."

So basically you are an anarchist. No goverment and no military. Sounds like the life. Do you enjoy washing your clothes down by the river?

Science is the only respectable career for a man with brains huh? You do realize there are other types of intelligence don't you? Lets make a short list of some of the men and women you consider to be foolish: Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Martin Luther King jr., Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Cosimo di Medici, Alexander the Great, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Mahatma Ghandi, Susan B. Anthony, Jesus, Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, Ulysses S. Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, James Mattis, James Doolittle, John Adams, John Hancock, Alexander Hamilton, Bill Gates, James Madison, Leonardo Da Vinci, Caesar Agustus, Winston Churchill, and even your beloved Ron Paul.

Now, with a straight face, I want you to tell me that none of those individuals made a positive contribution to society.

"There's no such thing as good nature vs bad nature. People aren't inherently violent, it is a technique that is learned in life. Why can't we control our emotions? I think that we can. I have learned how to, so I assume that others can do the same. You still have absolutely no evidence for your assertion that humans are inherently violent creatures who must fight in battles. Why must we fight? Give me one good reason. Your basically saying that we have to fight because we as a species are to lazy to make sense of our own feelings."

There is such thing as good and bad natured. There are bad people on the Earth, do you not realize that or are you in denial? Im not saying they are born that way, Im saying they learn it. Bad upbringing or any number of things can cause it. And people are inherently violent, it takes a conscious effort on our part to avoid physical conflict. Individual people can control their emotions, Im very good at controlling mine, but others are not. That's the problem with large populations of people, they are filled with people who can't control their emotions and are prone to panic. I don't need evidence, you are a human, you should know. How is a jealous boyfriend likely to treat the man his girlfriend is cheating on him with? How do you react to a man setting up camp on your front lawn and living there? What if he refuses to leave after you ask him? Either you or the police must force him to leave. People aren't always agreeable. It is obvious to me that you are living in a Utopian fantasy, so wake up and come back to reality.

"Controlling people is exactly the problem. People who are controlled by others have no control over themselves. People who are autonomous rather than controlled are able to process their emotions and resist that urge to smash peoples face in. People take advantage of the weak moral fiber of our society, not some docile nature. Are humans docile or violent, make up your mind?"

What on Earth are you talking about? Humans are violent and we rule the Earth. A docile planet ruled by violent creatures will not remain docile.

"Gnats evolving into pterodactyls, interesting. But They are a group of terrorists. They are not representatives of Iraq(fuck they aren't even from Iraq if I recall). They will continue to bug us regardless of weather or not we swat. We can't kill all the terrorists, because if we did someone would just start being a terrorist again. It's just like your argument about putting all the guns down. We can't beat people into submission, but we can create a society where people do not feel alienated from each other. If we had such a society these people wouldn't be attacking us because they wouldn't see us as a threat to their way of life."

They may feel threatened by us, but they don't want a peace agreement. They want us to conform, comform or else! That is why your plan will not work. It's quite the predicament we are in, one that certainly does warrant violent force.

"I'm in no way suggesting that we ignore terrorism, only that we try understanding rather than fighting those that we share this planet with. Not starting wars=/=ignoring the problem. Starting wars=ignoring the fact the killing people is not a good way to deal with your problems."


I personally have spent quite bit of time studying these people and Middle Eastern culture. That fact that you think we can reach a diplomatic solution shows me that you do not understand them, so take your own advice. And what exactly am I supposed to understand about them knocking down my countries two tallest buildings while they were filled with people?

"What is going halfway across the world to fight the terrorists if not policing the world?

You really think that we should fight terror? That is the way you deal with fear, by fighting it?"

This conflict happens to be very relevant to our well-being. It's not policing the world but policing ourselves.

How else do you deal with terrorism? Appeasment? Compliance? That's what got us WWII. You can't treat terrorism like a personal emotion, because it isn't one.

"I know that you are advocating war. War is violence. Therefore you are advocating violence. Violence is not sensible. We cannot sustain a society built on bones. You still haven't shown me any reason that the human race cannot go beyond the struggle of the jungle and live in a civilized manner."

Fighting in a war and having a violent personal life are completely different. You called me a violent person, which happens to be untrue. I feel like I have thoroughly illustrated the nature of our predicament. We can live in a civilized manner, but not without war.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

We can live in a civilized manner, but not without war.

War is Peace, right?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

War is Peace, right?

Sometimes you have to kill weeds to grow lawn grass. Does that mean killing plants is growing plants?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Science is the only respectable career for a man with brains huh? You do realize there are other types of intelligence don't you? Lets make a short list of some of the men and women you consider to be foolish: Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt...

There are two types of people in the world. People who think Abraham Lincoln and FDR are the worst presidents in history, because they abused their power, ignored laws and expanded government to extreme sizes. And people who think Abraham Lincoln and FDR are the greatest presidents in histroy, because they abused their power, ignored laws and expanded governments to extreme sizes.

Originally Posted by Alric

There are two types of people in the world. People who think Abraham Lincoln and FDR are the worst presidents in history, because they abused their power, ignored laws and expanded government to extreme sizes. And people who think Abraham Lincoln and FDR are the greatest presidents in histroy, because they abused their power, ignored laws and expanded governments to extreme sizes.

What about ended slavery and brought the country back together? What about took on the Nazis and the imperial Japanese?

By the way, what do you think should have been done with slavery, secession, Nazi conquest, and Japanese conquest? Should they have all just been ignored?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Sometimes you have to kill weeds to grow lawn grass. Does that mean killing plants is growing plants?

Honestly, did the United States have problems with the Middle East prior to the creation of Israel or even up until the 1960's?

Even further, maybe the Middle East has been so distrustful of the West since Britain, for example, tried to take over Afghanistan in the early 20th Century, which was further supplemented by American fuck-uppery in the whole region?

If the United States were so concerned over protecting themselves, wouldn't it make sense to build a strong defense instead of spreading its army over the entire world?

A few good things doesn't excuse the horrible things both of them did. I am not going to go into it, since there are entire books on why both suck. Though most are related to expanding government to insane levels. Examples include social security, suspending habeas corpus, income tax, arresting and detaining innocent civilians, and both generally thought the consitution was worth more as toilet paper than as a legal document.

And the secession, that was a horrible thing. We should not have had a war over it. States are totally within their rights to leave if they want.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

How did you know I go to school at Richwhiteman University? I thought everybody in a free society learned the same history, since there can only be one and there is usually a consensus on the truth. How did you avoid this ethnocentric education? If my history books are flawed, how did you get your information and why is it better than mine? Who are you to say war is unnatural? Humans have been taking part in premeditated violent acts since the beginning of time, one tribe against another. You aren't reading history with an open mind, you are squeezing it through a filter in your head. You are only hearing the things you want to hear.

i don't know where to start and where to begin. how about let's work backwards through this.

history isn't written with an open mind, it is filtered; what is taught in public school is what those who need it to be taught that way want to hear. though there have been violent acts throughout human history it is not indicative of all humans at all times in all cultures (nor inherent to human nature). by studying culturally relativistic anthropology either transmitted from an unbiased researcher or directly from a source (once again, the source whose voice was stifled for centuries) i have learned that excessive military spending, invading other countries, and other activities done at the expense of potentially improving the state of human life and freedom is not the only possible way of life. if we are all learning the same history, the same consensus on what is and what is not, then we are not living in a free society.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

War is Peace, right?

War creates peace.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Honestly, did the United States have problems with the Middle East prior to the creation of Israel or even up until the 1960's?

Even further, maybe the Middle East has been so distrustful of the West since Britain, for example, tried to take over Afghanistan in the early 20th Century, which was further supplemented by American fuck-uppery in the whole region?

If the United States were so concerned over protecting themselves, wouldn't it make sense to build a strong defense instead of spreading its army over the entire world?

First of all, stop living in the past, it won't do you any good to dwell on past mistakes unless you are learning from them. In this case our situation is completely unrelated to Israel other than the fact that we are allied with them. But they hate all of our allies so it makes no difference. You are just bashing America for the sake of bashing America.

Second of all, national security is of the utmost importance to the U.S. government. You can see this at any international airport.

Originally Posted by cygnus

i don't know where to start and where to begin. how about let's work backwards through this.

history isn't written with an open mind, it is filtered; what is taught in public school is what those who need it to be taught that way want to hear. though there have been violent acts throughout human history it is not indicative of all humans at all times in all cultures (nor inherent to human nature). by studying culturally relativistic anthropology either transmitted from an unbiased researcher or directly from a source (once again, the source whose voice was stifled for centuries) i have learned that excessive military spending, invading other countries, and other activities done at the expense of potentially improving the state of human life and freedom is not the only possible way of life. if we are all learning the same history, the same consensus on what is and what is not, then we are not living in a free society.

Boy, this is sounding more and more like a conspiracy. Don't tell me my historians are working for big brother. I study anthropology as well and the only societies that are free from war are the ones that are completely isolated from civilization. We don't live in that world. We are not all so fortunate to live on a remote island in the South Pacific. And of the societies that have yet to advance past the stone age, some are peaceful while others are remarkably violent.

"if we are all learning the same history, the same consensus on what is and what is not, then we are not living in a free society."

What does this mean? There can be only one history, it is either accurate or not. Much work and contemplation goes into forming a consensus of a true history, there is always debate but still a consensus is formed. It would be awfully confusing if we were to start teaching children that one history is as equally valid as another history that completely contradicts the first. Who are you to say which is right? Did you have a spiritual experience during which the truth was revealed to you?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

War creates peace.

Good lord. You truly are a violent individual.

How did war create peace for Germany after WWI? Economic destruction, the rise of a dictator, a second world war?

Honestly I don't even know how to respond. Your statement was so full of shit.

First of all, stop living in the past, it won't do you any good to dwell on past mistakes unless you are learning from them. In this case our situation is completely unrelated to Israel other than the fact that we are allied with them. But they hate all of our allies so it makes no difference. You are just bashing America for the sake of bashing America.

Second of all, national security is of the utmost importance to the U.S. government. You can see this at any international airport.

It would seem that you are the one living in the past, what with your caveman "ooga booga fight fight fight" mentality.

And I was using the creation of Israel as a timestamp rather than an example, yet it fits anyway.

Do you honestly believe that by further meddling for years and years, spending countless billions of dollars, wasting innocent lives, that we will "create" peace in the Middle East? If so...

You're ridiculous.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Good lord. You truly are a violent individual.

How did war create peace for Germany after WWI? Economic destruction, the rise of a dictator, a second world war?

Honestly I don't even know how to respond. Your statement was so full of shit.

If war didn't stop Nazi conquest, what did? That is just one example of hundreds. The freedom you enjoy right now was achieved through war, for another example.

Germany was sanctioned heavily after World War I for being the instigator of it. What about the Allied nations?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Boy, this is sounding more and more like a conspiracy. Don't tell me my historians are working for big brother. I study anthropology as well and the only societies that are free from war are the ones that are completely isolated from civilization. We don't live in that world. We are not all so fortunate to live on a remote island in the South Pacific. And of the societies that have yet to advance past the stone age, some are peaceful while others are remarkably violent.

"if we are all learning the same history, the same consensus on what is and what is not, then we are not living in a free society."

What does this mean? There can be only one history, it is either accurate or not. Much work and contemplation goes into forming a consensus of a true history, there is always debate but still a consensus is formed. It would be awfully confusing if we were to start teaching children that one history is as equally valid as another history that completely contradicts the first. Who are you to say which is right? Did you have a spiritual experience during which the truth was revealed to you?

i'm not talking about conspiracies. you missed the whole point of my last post. history is multi-faceted; it is not completely objective because people have divergent perspectives on the world, different experiences and relationships within a society's hierarchy. you can't relate every single detail of every single moment of every person's life in a history book - you're going to miss a lot, and what you miss is most likely going to be elements on the fringes of the world at large.

you believe war creates peace regardless of the situation - i think you're nuts and backwards like everyone else who thinks like you do, and your beliefs aren't going to change because of anything i say, so i'm done responding to your posts.

Originally Posted by cygnus

you believe war creates peace regardless of the situation

He does? Where did he say anything like that?

i was referring to the belief that war is a fact of life.

i threw that in at the end and would've said "in more cases than it actually does," but you quoted me too quickly.