Thread: F**k the Troops

That's lovely. Now tell me your answer to my question. Did war stop Nazi conquest?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That's lovely. Now tell me your answer to my question. Did war stop Nazi conquest?

You're forgetting something.

When you assert that "war creates peace," you need to look at both sides of the coin. Sure, applying the statement one side of the equation will give you desirable results, but what about the other side? It's like a mathematical equation.

So when you say "war creates peace," and apply it to the Nazi's, look at the other side. Did the Nazi conquest create peace for the Allied forces? They were in a fairly peaceful state before the conquest. The statement "war creates peace" is false if you apply it to everyone.

Not to mention that peace wasn't exactly created since we replaced their tyranny with our own.

And most agree that if World War I wasn't fought (which is pretty much what lead to the rise of Nazism), there would have been no Nazi conquest (as I stated before, I think). Therefore, it would be more honest to say that peace would've prevented war.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That's lovely. Now tell me your answer to my question. Did war stop Nazi conquest?

Fighting for peace is like fucking for your virginity.

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.



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.

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.

Don't attack me personally just because I have the capacity to recognize this reality.

Im glad you brought Germany into this. Germany is currently one of the worlds most prosperous nations. How can this be? 70 years ago they were ripped to shreds by the most violent war in the worlds history. All you have to do is study the aftermath of each of the World Wars to find the answer. Each war was handled differently. The Allied forces carry much of the responsibility for the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party due to the neglect of Germany following the first World War. We allowed Germany to fall into such an economic rut that a man like Hitler and his German nationalism could gather a following. They were vulnerable. Hitler could never rise to power in a happy, prosperous Germany. We basically told Germany to fuck themselves. We forced them to pay reparations, confiscated a lot of their machinery, and then left them to fend for themselves. We left prematurely. Now look at the difference after World War II. Not only did we not leave them to fend for themselves, but we are still there today. We are also in Japan, which is another prosperous nation. This serves as an invaluable lesson for any future military endeavor, including Iraq.

This is not just an anomaly. It holds true for every invasion in the history of the United States. In every instance of failure, we left before we should have. In every instance of success, we are still there today. We still have military bases along the east coast following the revolution, we have bases in the southern states as a result of the civil war, we have a presence in Japan, Germany, and Korea. That is the goal in Iraq, not imperialistic aspirations. We don't control Germany, Japan, or South Korea. They are free countries. Ten years from now, Iraq could potentially be a peaceful nation as a result of a coalition presence and continued support. This is vital if you consider the opposite end of the spectrum and analyze the failures. We invaded Cuba and promptly left, we were rewarded with Fidel Castro. We invaded Somalia and promptly left, Somalia continues to be one of the biggest shit holes on the planet. We left Vietnam, the result was more violence and the worst genocide since the Holocaust. That region still has problems. So what is the future for Iraq? Is it really a good idea to wipe our hands of this whole mess? Don't you see the pattern? Without war, the bad people of this planet could freely impose their will on the rest of us. There must be a force for good to oppose them. This rule applies to both Vietnam and Iraq regardless of your feelings about us being there is the first place. (I beat you to the punch.)

"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."

You are very closed-minded. War is much more sophisticated than an "ooga booga caveman mentality."

Originally Posted by cygnus

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.

I guess I did miss your point. Either your logic is going over my head or you aren't making any sense. I know there are two sides to every story, but even to a German, Hitler was a bad man. There is no effort to cover up history. Politicians and Generals don't write history, historians do. Where there is controversy, it is noted. How is this supposed to prove the futility of war? I did make some logical arguments about the inherent violent nature of humans and reasons why war will never end. Why don't you respond to those instead of writing this gibberish? I don't need a history lesson.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Fighting for peace is like fucking for your virginity.

That's the worst analogy I have ever heard.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You're forgetting something.

When you assert that "war creates peace," you need to look at both sides of the coin. Sure, applying the statement one side of the equation will give you desirable results, but what about the other side? It's like a mathematical equation.

So when you say "war creates peace," and apply it to the Nazi's, look at the other side. Did the Nazi conquest create peace for the Allied forces? They were in a fairly peaceful state before the conquest. The statement "war creates peace" is false if you apply it to everyone.

Not to mention that peace wasn't exactly created since we replaced their tyranny with our own.

And most agree that if World War I wasn't fought (which is pretty much what lead to the rise of Nazism), there would have been no Nazi conquest (as I stated before, I think). Therefore, it would be more honest to say that peace would've prevented war.

Is that a yes or a no? All I see you doing is morally equating the Allies with the Axis, which is highly inaccurate. Do you know what the Nazis were trying to do? Do you know what they had already done by the time we got to them? I'll put it this way... What they were doing to Europe was much, much further away from your anarchist ideal than what we gave Europe after the war. That is a fact.

World War I happened because Austria declared war on Serbia (because they thought Serbia might have been behind the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand) and Germany sided with Austria and declared war on Russia for preparing themselves in case they had to get involved. Germany and Austria were the problem. Were we supposed to wave a magic wand and make them change their minds or something?

Now please answer the question.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Fighting for peace is like fucking for your virginity.

So is walking to a couch to sit down.

You dodged my question too. Did war stop Nazi conquest? What is your answer?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Don't attack me personally just because I have the capacity to recognize this reality.

You are advocating violence. You are a violent individual. If you take that as an attack, oh well. I am merely speaking the truth.

Im glad you brought Germany into this. German is currently one of the worlds most prosperous nations. How can this be?

Better economic policies, and no Treaty of Versailles (which would've taken up until roughly the 1980s, by some estimates, to pay off).

70 years ago they were ripped to shreds by the most violent war in the worlds history. All you have to do is study the aftermath of each of the World Wars to find the answer. Each war was handled differently. The Allied forces carry much of the responsibility for the rise of Hitler and Nazi party due to the neglect of German following the first World War. We allowed Germany to fall into such an economic rut that a man like Hitler and his German nationalism could gather a following. They were vulnerable. Hitler could never rise to power in a happy, prosperous Germany. We basically told Germany to fuck themselves. We forced them to pay reparations, confiscated a lot of their machinery, and then left them to fend for themselves.

I agree so far. War does not create peace in this instance, at least not for the Germans. Peace for us, but not for them?

We left prematurely. Now look at the difference after World War II. Not only did we not leave them to fend for themselves, but we are still there today. We are also in Japan, which is another prosperous nation. This serves as an invaluable lesson for any future military endeavor, including Iraq.

So a lack of crushing reparations had nothing to do with their current prosperity? How about the shift to freer market economic policies? Notice how with the Treaty of Versailles, the German government was forced to print off money like crazy in order to pay off the insane amount of reparations required. That lead to severe hyperinflation and economic collapse.

Yet after WW2, Germany, specifically West Germany, shifted to more prosperous economic policies. You can not tell me that the mere presence of an army lead to their prosperity. Look at Iraq; they have a foreign army in their lands, coupled with poor economic policies. Wouldn't the presence of an army lead them to prosperity? They're still a dirt-poor country with a fledgling "democratic" (as if that is preferable) government confined to green zones. Not to mention that we had no reason to be there in the first place.

This is not just an anomaly. It holds true for every invasion in the history of the United States. In every instance of failure, we left before we should have. In every instance of success, we are still there today. We still have military bases along the east coast following the revolution, we have bases in the southern states as a result of the civil war, we have a presence in Japan, Germany, and Korea. That is the goal in Iraq, not imperialistic aspirations. We don't control Germany, Japan, or South Korea. They are free countries. Ten years from now, Iraq could potentially be a peaceful nation as a result of a coalition presence and continued support. This is vital if you consider the opposite end of the spectrum and analyze the failures. We invaded Cuba and promptly left, we were rewarded with Fidel Castro. We invaded Somalia and promptly left, Somalia continues to be one of the biggest shit holes on the planet. We left Vietnam, the result was more violence and the worst genocide since the Holocaust. That region still has problems. So what is the future for Iraq? Is it really a good idea to wipe our hands of this whole mess? Don't you see the pattern? Without war, the bad people of this planet could freely impose their will on the rest of us. There must be a force for good to oppose them. This rule applies to both Vietnam and Iraq regardless of your feelings about us being there is the first place.

But don't you see the problem? We didn't need to invade any of those countries. Most of them posed threats to us. If they did indeed pose a threat, it was almost ALWAYS due to the fact that we had been meddling in their country beforehand. Japan: They did not attack us out of sheer maniacal hatred; they had their reasons, such as our embargoes against them. Vietnam: We wanted to "contain Communism?" Seriously? How did that pose a threat to us at all? How is that anything other than silly imperialistic tendencies? Iraq? Mystical weapons of mass destruction and "terrorists?"

Whether or not we left prematurely is irrelevant. You stated that war creates peace, yet you listed off countless examples of how war prevented peace because of imperialism under the guise of "stopping Communism" or "stopping the terrorists." Do you see the problem here? Most of these problems were caused by us!

You are very closed-minded. War is much more sophisticated than an "ooga booga caveman mentality."

How is it any different? The technology is a little more advanced, so that makes killing less bad, more mature, and more glorious?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That's the worst analogy I have ever heard.

I think it's pretty accurate actually. This of course is because PEACE would be the absence of fighting and VIRGINITY (or abstinence) would be the absence of fucking. So when you fight or fuck for these things you're not really getting anywhere.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So is walking to a couch to sit down.

What?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You dodged my question too. Did war stop Nazi conquest? What is your answer?

I wasn't aware that I was asked, but yea I guess war stopped Nazi conquest, but really, is this world peaceful now? Did fighting them create peace?

No. Now we have nuclear fucking weapons scattered across the surface of this planet and the largest militaries this planets ever seen. THANK GOD for the spread of the US Army. Do you think there's no more fascism because the Nazi's are gone?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is that a yes or a no? All I see you doing is morally equating the Allies with the Axis, which is highly inaccurate. Do you know what the Nazis were trying to do? Do you know what they had already done by the time we got to them? I'll put it this way... What they were doing to Europe was much, much further away from your anarchist ideal than what we gave Europe after the war. That is a fact.

My statements still stand. Those wars of yours only further prevented peace.

World War I happened because Austria declared war on Serbia (because they thought Serbia might have been behind the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand) and Germany sided with Austria and declared war on Russia for preparing themselves in case they had to get involved. Germany and Austria were the problem. Were we supposed to wave a magic wand and make them change their minds or something?

So a military dispute between Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia meant the United States and other western nations had to get involved? Did our involvement in the war create peace for everyone further down the line? Or did it cause the rise of Nazism and MORE war? As I said, when you apply "War creates Peace" all around, it falls apart.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

So a military dispute between Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia meant the United States and other western nations had to get involved? Did our involvement in the war create peace for everyone further down the line? Or did it cause the rise of Nazism and MORE war? As I said, when you apply "War creates Peace" all around, it falls apart.

and yet all the nations involved in WW2 (save us) are peaceful prosperous nations. WW1 didnt cause MORE war...bad treaties and economic policy did.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I think it's pretty accurate actually. This of course is because PEACE would be the absence of fighting and VIRGINITY (or abstinence) would be the absence of fucking. So when you fight or fuck for these things you're not really getting anywhere.

except virginity is a one time deal...peace can come about again after war is over, virginity cant. Thats why the analogy is terrible. The way in which war can create peace is stopping an aggressive attacker from taking over. Or it can be the opposite. Look at warring china before all the areas were unified under one ruler. This is another example of war creating peace.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

and yet all the nations involved in WW2 (save us) are peaceful prosperous nations. WW1 didnt cause MORE war...bad treaties and economic policy did.

The bad treaties and economic policies were offspring of the war, were they not? Certainly that is not peaceful.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The bad treaties and economic policies were offspring of the war, were they not? Certainly that is not peaceful.

they were offspring but they were not directly because of the war, seeing as not every war results in such things.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You are advocating violence. You are a violent individual. If you take that as an attack, oh well. I am merely speaking the truth.



Better economic policies, and no Treaty of Versailles (which would've taken up until roughly the 1980s, by some estimates, to pay off).



I agree so far. War does not create peace in this instance, at least not for the Germans. Peace for us, but not for them?



So a lack of crushing reparations had nothing to do with their current prosperity? How about the shift to freer market economic policies? Notice how with the Treaty of Versailles, the German government was forced to print off money like crazy in order to pay off the insane amount of reparations required. That lead to severe hyperinflation and economic collapse.

Yet after WW2, Germany, specifically West Germany, shifted to more prosperous economic policies. You can not tell me that the mere presence of an army lead to their prosperity. Look at Iraq; they have a foreign army in their lands, coupled with poor economic policies. Wouldn't the presence of an army lead them to prosperity? They're still a dirt-poor country with a fledgling "democratic" (as if that is preferable) government confined to green zones. Not to mention that we had no reason to be there in the first place.



But don't you see the problem? We didn't need to invade any of those countries. Most of them posed threats to us. If they did indeed pose a threat, it was almost ALWAYS due to the fact that we had been meddling in their country beforehand. Japan: They did not attack us out of sheer maniacal hatred; they had their reasons, such as our embargoes against them. Vietnam: We wanted to "contain Communism?" Seriously? How did that pose a threat to us at all? How is that anything other than silly imperialistic tendencies? Iraq? Mystical weapons of mass destruction and "terrorists?"

Whether or not we left prematurely is irrelevant. You stated that war creates peace, yet you listed off countless examples of how war prevented peace because of imperialism under the guise of "stopping Communism" or "stopping the terrorists." Do you see the problem here? Most of these problems were caused by us!



How is it any different? The technology is a little more advanced, so that makes killing less bad, more mature, and more glorious?

"You are advocating violence. You are a violent individual. If you take that as an attack, oh well. I am merely speaking the truth."

The two are completely separate. The fact that you would make such claims about my personal life is a testament to your own personality.

"So a lack of crushing reparations had nothing to do with their current prosperity? How about the shift to freer market economic policies? Notice how with the Treaty of Versailles, the German government was forced to print off money like crazy in order to pay off the insane amount of reparations required. That lead to severe hyperinflation and economic collapse.

Yet after WW2, Germany, specifically West Germany, shifted to more prosperous economic policies. You can not tell me that the mere presence of an army lead to their prosperity. Look at Iraq; they have a foreign army in their lands, coupled with poor economic policies. Wouldn't the presence of an army lead them to prosperity? They're still a dirt-poor country with a fledgling "democratic" (as if that is preferable) government confined to green zones. Not to mention that we had no reason to be there in the first place."

Do you think we just stood there with our arms crossed and watched? We were a little bit more involved. Without our guiding hand they were doomed to suffer the same fate as before. As for Iraq, we are seven years into the conflict. Germany has had 70 years to recover. That is the typical "instant gratification" mind set. "Well we gave it out best shot, lets pack up and head home." These things take time, the world will be better because of it.

"But don't you see the problem? We didn't need to invade any of those countries. Most of them posed threats to us. If they did indeed pose a threat, it was almost ALWAYS due to the fact that we had been meddling in their country beforehand. Japan: They did not attack us out of sheer maniacal hatred; they had their reasons, such as our embargoes against them. Vietnam: We wanted to "contain Communism?" Seriously? How did that pose a threat to us at all? How is that anything other than silly imperialistic tendencies? Iraq? Mystical weapons of mass destruction and "terrorists?""

You're missing the point but you are wrong anyways. The goal of communism is to destroy capitalism. There were countries in Indochina that did not want to become communist nations, but had no choice. It was in our best interest to assist them. Obviously we do not want a large communist alliance to form. In retrospect it is easy for you to say that we didn't need to contain communism because it was contained. It had the potential to pose a real threat to our way of life. As for Japan, the attack wasn't completely unprovoked, but that is irrelevant. They attacked us first and it was absolutely necessary to fight back.

"Whether or not we left prematurely is irrelevant. You stated that war creates peace, yet you listed off countless examples of how war prevented peace because of imperialism under the guise of "stopping Communism" or "stopping the terrorists." Do you see the problem here? Most of these problems were caused by us!"

Wrong again. The fact that we left prematurely is the whole point. There is an unmistakable trend in history and what good is history if we can't learn from it? Each example I provided was an instance of poor foreign policy decisions, this happens to be a line of poor decision making that you support. Both communists and terrorists pose a threat not only to us but to any free nations in their vicinity. The entire Middle East region is being held in the grips of this Islamofacist movement, a failure here holds ramifications for the entire region, not just Iraq. Each of those failed invasions had the potential for great things, but it was the mindset cultivated by people such as yourself that caused it to fail. I do not support imperialism. Imperialism does not create peace. I believe neither Vietnam nor the current conflict in Iraq constitutes imperialism. A good war plan will bring peace, a failed war plan will bring more violence. With that said, none of the aforementioned countries were peaceful before we invaded.

"How is it any different? The technology is a little more advanced, so that makes killing less bad, more mature, and more glorious?"

You would think I was talking about technology. Open your mind.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

My statements still stand. Those wars of yours only further prevented peace.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I I wasn't aware that I was asked, but yea I guess war stopped Nazi conquest, but really, is this world peaceful now? Did fighting them create peace?

No. Now we have nuclear fucking weapons scattered across the surface of this planet and the largest militaries this planets ever seen. THANK GOD for the spread of the US Army. Do you think there's no more fascism because the Nazi's are gone?

The world is soooooooo much better off than it would be if the Nazis had not been stopped. Do you two know what kind of government the Nazis were running and how much they were spreading it? Imagine a holocaust many, many times bigger than what happened. Imagine a truly severe absence of freedom. You both seem to feel pretty safe posting negative comments about the U.S. government on the internet. If the Nazis were running your things, you would not feel safe at all with it. You would not have the internet in the first place, but if you did have it and talked like you talk, you would be found, shipped off to a concentration camp, and killed. The world is not close to perfect now, but imagine how much worse it would be if the Nazis had taken over Europe and beyond. They had to be stopped, and it was war that stopped them.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

So a military dispute between Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia meant the United States and other western nations had to get involved? Did our involvement in the war create peace for everyone further down the line? Or did it cause the rise of Nazism and MORE war? As I said, when you apply "War creates Peace" all around, it falls apart.

Yes, the Triple Alliance / Central Powers were nutty land thieves and had to be stopped.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

What?

Saving your virginity for later sex is like partying to be passed out.



With that in mind...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The world is soooooooo much better off than it would be if the Nazis had not been stopped. Do you two know what kind of government the Nazis were running and how much they were spreading it?

No, No and NO!

IF the us had left the nazies alone and not intervened to stop the spread of communism then pot would be legal, we would have world peace and we would all be having massive interracial orgiefests all over the world right now.

FUCK YOU AMERKA!, YOU IMPERIALIST FUCKERS!

:peace:

rofl, just in case dumb people dont get it..../sarcasm.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The two are completely separate. The fact that you would make such claims about my personal life is a testament to your own personality.

I can see what you are saying, but the two are not completely separate. Thought leads to action. If large masses of people where not scared into holding the same or similar opinions as yourself(that we MUST have government and we MUST have war in order to survive) the world would be a much better place. If there were not structures in place that these power hungry demons you speak of could take advantage of how would they take away our freedom? We need to restructure our government and society if we want to survive.

I have the same personality disorder that blueline does. I have this fear that people won't ever stop blindly following the government and it will one day kill our species. War creates Armageddon, not peace.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

They attacked us first and it was absolutely necessary to fight back.

Why is this? We couldn't talk to them first and try to understand what it is that would anger them to the point of attacking us(this is more of a statement showing how related 9/11 and pearl harbor really are? Maybe settle our differences?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The world is soooooooo much better off than it would be if the Nazis had not been stopped. Do you two know what kind of government the Nazis were running and how much they were spreading it? Imagine a holocaust many, many times bigger than what happened. Imagine a truly severe absence of freedom. You both seem to feel pretty safe posting negative comments about the U.S. government on the internet. If the Nazis were running your things, you would not feel safe at all with it. You would not have the internet in the first place, but if you did have it and talked like you talk, you would be found, shipped off to a concentration camp, and killed. The world is not close to perfect now, but imagine how much worse it would be if the Nazis had taken over Europe and beyond. They had to be stopped, and it was war that stopped them.

The Nazi's would not have been able to take America or Russia. There are other ways to stop a country from doing as it pleases with human life then attacking it. We could have at the very least stopped trading with them.

But either way the argument is completely useless. We can't base our policies on fear of how terrible things could be. If we do we are just running from reality(which is what our government is doing right now; either that or they are intentionally running us into the ground). The fact that war put a temporary stopper on fascism proves nothing. We still have fascism, war, genocide, prejudice etc etc throughout the planet. War has not solved our problems on a large scale. Any of the "problems" that we solve by fighting simply reemerge, as we have no real knowledge of the problem(the cause, the solution to such problems). Problems can only be resolved when the have been faced and understood.

For example crime is a problem in our society. But rather than fix the cause of this problem(poverty, ignorance) we fight the symptoms. We put people in jail and punish them for being bad. We call the people bad so we can ignore the fact that it is our society that is "bad"(the cause of the problem). I'm not saying that we should get rid of jails, but punishment is obviously not a solution to the problem of crime. If we were to work with people rather than against people we might be able to arrive at some kind of real solution.

This is just one example, but this way is present in so much of our culture. This is the way of war. We feel that in order to get past our problems we must defeat them, which is a ridiculous way to look at the world. We have culturally imprinted one way of dealing with our problems, and that is fighting them. War on drugs, war on crime, war on terrorism.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Saving your virginity for later sex is like partying to be passed out.

You really can't understand this metaphor? Try this, fighting for peace is like fucking for abstinence. Except fucking for abstinence is more fun; illogical statements that result in fucking are much better than illogical statements that result in killing.

War is a symptom of an unhealthy society. If we need war to ensure our survival as a society then it is because we are weak as a society. If we have a weak society, we ought to strengthen it rather than worrying about what other people are doing.

Originally Posted by stonedape

You really can't understand this metaphor? Try this, fighting for peace is like fucking for abstinence. Except fucking for abstinence is more fun; illogical statements that result in fucking are much better than illogical statements that result in killing.

he doesnt understand the metaphor because it doesnt make sense, I already explained how.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I I have the same personality disorder that blueline does. I have this fear that people won't ever stop blindly following the government and it will one day kill our species. War creates Armageddon, not peace.

Do you think it is possible you are blindly opposing the government?

I disagree with the U.S. government on a great deal. Have you read any of my posts about drug laws, mixing church and state, or social programs? So, not everybody who often agrees with U.S. war policy is blindly following the government.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I The Nazi's would not have been able to take America or Russia. There are other ways to stop a country from doing as it pleases with human life then attacking it. We could have at the very least stopped trading with them.

America and Russia are not my only concerns, and the Nazis could have eventually had both countries if they had not been stopped early enough. It would have taken a while, but it could have happened. They took over lots of countries and took control of their militaries. In time, they could have raised and brainwashed those countries' kids and made them maniacal Nazis. By doing that over and over to more and more countries, they could eventually become powerful enough to take over the entire world. Also, we were not trading with the Nazis during the war. It was not enough to stop them. We had to go to war with them.

You said that the Nazis could not have taken over America and Russia. Is that because we could have defended ourselves against them? Are you okay with such self defense? Well, that is what the European countries were doing, and we helped them. Isn't that justifiable?

Originally Posted by stonedape

You really can't understand this metaphor? Try this, fighting for peace is like fucking for abstinence. Except fucking for abstinence is more fun; illogical statements that result in fucking are much better than illogical statements that result in killing.

I was mocking the metaphor because it is absurd. You didn't understand my satire?

Blackwater. We're screwing the pooch.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I can see what you are saying, but the two are not completely separate. Thought leads to action. If large masses of people where not scared into holding the same or similar opinions as yourself(that we MUST have government and we MUST have war in order to survive) the world would be a much better place. If there were not structures in place that these power hungry demons you speak of could take advantage of how would they take away our freedom? We need to restructure our government and society if we want to survive.

I have the same personality disorder that blueline does. I have this fear that people won't ever stop blindly following the government and it will one day kill our species. War creates Armageddon, not peace.

Why is this? We couldn't talk to them first and try to understand what it is that would anger them to the point of attacking us(this is more of a statement showing how related 9/11 and pearl harbor really are? Maybe settle our differences?


The Nazi's would not have been able to take America or Russia. There are other ways to stop a country from doing as it pleases with human life then attacking it. We could have at the very least stopped trading with them.

But either way the argument is completely useless. We can't base our policies on fear of how terrible things could be. If we do we are just running from reality(which is what our government is doing right now; either that or they are intentionally running us into the ground). The fact that war put a temporary stopper on fascism proves nothing. We still have fascism, war, genocide, prejudice etc etc throughout the planet. War has not solved our problems on a large scale. Any of the "problems" that we solve by fighting simply reemerge, as we have no real knowledge of the problem(the cause, the solution to such problems). Problems can only be resolved when the have been faced and understood.

For example crime is a problem in our society. But rather than fix the cause of this problem(poverty, ignorance) we fight the symptoms. We put people in jail and punish them for being bad. We call the people bad so we can ignore the fact that it is our society that is "bad"(the cause of the problem). I'm not saying that we should get rid of jails, but punishment is obviously not a solution to the problem of crime. If we were to work with people rather than against people we might be able to arrive at some kind of real solution.

This is just one example, but this way is present in so much of our culture. This is the way of war. We feel that in order to get past our problems we must defeat them, which is a ridiculous way to look at the world. We have culturally imprinted one way of dealing with our problems, and that is fighting them. War on drugs, war on crime, war on terrorism.


You really can't understand this metaphor? Try this, fighting for peace is like fucking for abstinence. Except fucking for abstinence is more fun; illogical statements that result in fucking are much better than illogical statements that result in killing.

War is a symptom of an unhealthy society. If we need war to ensure our survival as a society then it is because we are weak as a society. If we have a weak society, we ought to strengthen it rather than worrying about what other people are doing.

"I can see what you are saying, but the two are not completely separate. Thought leads to action. If large masses of people where not scared into holding the same or similar opinions as yourself(that we MUST have government and we MUST have war in order to survive) the world would be a much better place. If there were not structures in place that these power hungry demons you speak of could take advantage of how would they take away our freedom? We need to restructure our government and society if we want to survive.

I have the same personality disorder that blueline does. I have this fear that people won't ever stop blindly following the government and it will one day kill our species. War creates Armageddon, not peace."

War doesn't end civilization, anarchy does. Rules and regulation are the order of civilization, that is how it rose and if it falls it will be at the hands of anarchists or possibly from the destruction of the Earth. War is just a fact of human life, it has been around in one form or another since before civilization. A continuous cycle of war and peace. Civilization has just allowed it to grow into massive, world-wide conflicts.

"Why is this? We couldn't talk to them first and try to understand what it is that would anger them to the point of attacking us(this is more of a statement showing how related 9/11 and pearl harbor really are? Maybe settle our differences?"

And then maybe unicorns will dance on rainbows as it rains sugar plums and gum drops down upon our ginger bread homes. That's a lovely thought stonedape but it isn't reality. Would you really want to live in a world where extreme and unprovoked acts of violence go unpunished? Who is to stop them from doing it again? "2,350 people are dead, but we'll let it slide this time Japan, just don't do it again!" Do you want to have a powwow and talk about our feelings? That won't fly. Japan just bombed the shit out of an unsuspecting town and something has to be done about it. Not just because they need to be reprimanded, but because you would otherwise lose the respect and support of your own people. The time for diplomatic talk is before war, it is meant to prevent war. Once bombs drop, the gloves need to come off. If we are attacked and we do nothing about it, it shows the world we are spineless, it makes them think they can walk all over us. Anybody can march past our borders and impose their will. Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan proved to the world that we mean business. The world's view of us as a strong, no-nonsense country is our greatest defense. Most people don't appreciate the incredible value of having this security blanket because they have never lived in a world where we didn't have it. No country will enter conflict with us lightly because they know they will pay dearly. How about that for national defense?

"The Nazi's would not have been able to take America or Russia. There are other ways to stop a country from doing as it pleases with human life then attacking it. We could have at the very least stopped trading with them."

This is a very bold statement considering they almost took both at the same time along with England. WWII was not an overwhelming victory for the Allies. Germany controlled most of mainland Europe, it would take more than to stop trading with them and hope that eventually they give up. That would take years, during which time they would have probably taken over the world. Then it would become the Nazi Empire.

"But either way the argument is completely useless. We can't base our policies on fear of how terrible things could be. If we do we are just running from reality(which is what our government is doing right now; either that or they are intentionally running us into the ground). The fact that war put a temporary stopper on fascism proves nothing. We still have fascism, war, genocide, prejudice etc etc throughout the planet. War has not solved our problems on a large scale. Any of the "problems" that we solve by fighting simply reemerge, as we have no real knowledge of the problem(the cause, the solution to such problems). Problems can only be resolved when the have been faced and understood."

Who says we don't understand our problems before we go to war? Nobody takes war lightly. There is a law of human civilization that you just unknowingly hinted at, as long as there are trouble makers in this world, war can never end. There will always be trouble makers.

"You really can't understand this metaphor?"

Not a metaphor, just a failed attempt at analogy.

Also, Japan, like Germany, was well on their way to taking over an entire continent. They bombed us because we started making that difficult for them by giving them demands and sanctions. That told us once and for all how they were going to have to be dealt with. Ignoring them would have led to horrific nightmares that would still be going on right now.

Stonedape, we are not talking about good folks who just had misunderstandings withus or wanted legitimate things and happened to have conflicts with our interests. It's not like they wanted peace and what was best for the world but had a different idea of it. They were rotten as Hell scum bags who were committing very large scale armed robbery of land and imposing the very kinds of government you have said yourself that you despise. I will say it again... They had to be stopped.

Originally Posted by Bearsy

You say you support the troops? Bring them the fuck home and give everyone who wants it an honorable discharge so they can get back to taking care of America in person. Then everyone here could support them in ways that aren’t a twisted piece of jingoism tied to bumpers with yellow ribbons.

The troops are not protecting me, my family, or my country. Iraq was no threat to the US. The President and his puppeteers, filtered, distorted, and manipulated the information at hand to suggest otherwise. It was lies. You heard half of them yourself. The whole incident, the whole cabal, will be remembered as a horrifying joke. Historians will run races against James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and George W Bush to select the worst US President in history.

The troops are hurting Iraq. Hussein was a beast but he was, of late, a stable and relatively innocuous one. The Baghdad morgue is taking in more than 1,000 murder victims a month and the number has been steadily rising since the war started. It’s also a minimum because many murders go unreported and unrecognized. This is a single city in Iraq where 20,000 civilians will be murdered this year. It will be called civil unrest but 20,000 dead in one city is a combination of anarchy and civil war. In New York City, 1.6 times more populous than Baghdad, there will be around 600 murders this year.

Excerpts from here.

Thank you for posting this. If I could thank posts more than once, your post there would get fivehundred million+.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

. It's not like they wanted peace and what was best for the world but had a different idea of it. They were rotten as Hell scum bags who were committing very large scale armed robbery of land and imposing the very kinds of government you have said yourself that you despise. I will say it again... They had to be stopped.

Sounds a lot like America to me. But then again, wherever European man goes slavery, land-robbery, and culture-wrecking goes with him.

Is it really hard for you to see that humans are still living in colonial ages? America is just the current empire. I think it's kind of self-righteous to think that humans are out of their disgusting empire-building habits but the truth is, it just got more efficient. We're just better at it now.

Before I finish typing, I'd like to leave a definition:

Empire - a nation-state that dominates other nation-states and exhibits one or more of the following characteristics:

1) Exploits resources from the land it dominates
2) Consumes large quantities of resources- amounts disproportionate to the size of it's population, relative to those of other nations
3) Maintains a large military that enforces its policies when more subtle measures fail
4) Spreads it's language, literature, art, and various aspects of its culture throughout it's sphere of influence
5) Taxes not just its own citizens, but also people in other countries
6) Imposes it's own currency on the lands under its control.
7) An empire is ruled by an emperor or king who has control over the government and media, is not elected by the people, is not subject to their will, and whose term is not limited by law.

Points 1 and 2 : The US represents less than 5 percent of the world's population yet it consumes more than 25 percent of the world's resources. This is done mainly by exploiting developing countries resources.

Point 3: The US maintains the world's largest and most sophisticated military. Although empire building is done primarily through economics, it should be easy to understand that whenever other measures fail, the military will be deployed, as it has been done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Point 4: Hard to dispute that the English language and American culture dominates the world.

Point 5 and 6: The US doesn't tax other countries directly, and in a lot of cases currency in local markets have not been replaced by the dollar, but the dollar is in fact the standard currency for world commerce.

This process began after world war II when the gold standard was modified; individuals could no longer convert their dollars, only governments.

When international business men and other governments try to buy goods or services from America they find that inflation reduced their dollars worth, in effect taxing people all around the world that wish to trade with the worlds most powerful and influential country.

Point 7: At first glance, this might seem to set America apart from any other pre-existing empire, but the appearance is illusory. This empire is ruled by a group of people who collectively act very much like a king or emperor. They run our largest corporations and through them, our government too. Because they fund political campaigns and own the media (Or atleast control it through advertising and sponsoring) they control elected officials and the information we receive. Politicians, congress and the media have been long bought off.

These men and women are in control whether or not Republicans or Democrats are in the White House or Congress. They are not subject to the peoples will and their terms are not limited by law.

I think it's pretty clear that America is an empire. And empire-building is always dirty, nasty, brutal, and secretive. Don't you think so?

The United States might be an empire, but if you think we are like imperial Japan or Nazi Germany, you haven't looked hard enough at the facts. You would not DARE insult either of those countries on the internet if it were the most powerful country in the world. You can do that to the United States and feel perfectly safe. Let that be the starting point that gets the "understand the difference" ball rolling. Also understand that we could own a whole Hell of a lot more of the world than we currently do if we had wanted to. Western Europe was ours after WW2, and what did we do with it? We helped clean it up and gave its nations their sovereignty. What did the Soviets do with Eastern Europe? They ruled it with Communist fascism. What did Nazi Germany do with Western and Eastern Europe? They ruled them with fascism and imposed genocide. Are you starting to see the difference yet? Who leads the world in giving foreign aid? The United States. Did Nazi Germany or imperial Japan ever do that? Japan is in second place and the second richest country in the world now because we rewrote their constitution... instead of making them a state. Have we taken over Canada or Mexico? No.

Why do we consume so much of the world's resources? Because we can afford to. Our economic system is extremely effective.

You are preaching to the Pope when you say the world is not out of its empire building habits. The tendency is exactly what I use to argue that we have to have an extremely powerful military. How much of this thread have you read? I have made your point multiple times.

Your argument is rooted in our success, not our evil.