The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
One of the things you have to come to terms with is that humans are fundamentally selfish creatures. That's how we've evolved to the level that we have done, by serving our own interests as much as we can. The thing is, at some point we realized that it is in our interest to co-operate with other people - not for some abstract greater good, but because it makes life easier for us. There's this philosopher bloke called Hobbs who I've heard a little bit about - his idea is that people are essentially loners. We're only nice to each other because at a primitive level, we really really don't want to get into a fight because it will hurt.
The next thing you have to come to terms with is that this is not just an observation you can make about the rest of the world. You are not exempt from this. That's one of the most crushing realizations you can make - you are not a beautiful or unique snowflake, you're based on the same principles and evolution as everyone else.
The reason we don't help people with nothing is because we manage to keep them invisible. What we can't see cannot disturb us. The closest we will probably ever get to poverty is on television, and if something disturbs us there we can just switch over and watch The Simpsons. Dump the 800,000 Rwandans that were killed in 1994 in Chelsea, London, or New York, then something will be done about them because they're visible. You just don't go looking for things like this - you don't go looking for problems, it is not in your interests.
Again, it's oh so hard to include yourself in these generalizations.
We just want to lock ourselves in big houses and have the nicest looking kids and the best CD collection and the nicest hair, with movies and constant entertainment to occupy ourselves, so we can completely shut out the nasty world. The world can be a beautiful place - but you'll only notice that if you're not starving.
Everything is fragile. Nothing is going to last forever. Look around you, look at the grass and the sunset and the way light attaches itself to your face, creating flickering shadows that use your nose and eyes and mouth as a play park. Look at the power and beauty of your youth, look at how we think we can change the world. Then look at our parents. Look at anyone over the age of thirty. Look into their eyes, and maybe it's just an inner peace, but they're so often dead, as though the world has sapped out all of the energy slowly but constantly throughout the years.
I know I can get so wound up about stupid little things, things like guitars and people and Coldplay. But you have to realize that that stuff just doesn't matter. All it takes is one innocent decision, like choosing to go to school 5 seconds earlier, and you can be hit by a car. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping anyone you know killing you. Nothing.
But then…I don't know. Maybe this fragility is the very thing that is beautiful. And the world is beautiful.
In the shadow of Gods unwavering love, I am a fortunate son.
The next thing you have to come to terms with is that this is not just an observation you can make about the rest of the world. You are not exempt from this. That's one of the most crushing realizations you can make - you are not a beautiful or unique snowflake, you're based on the same principles and evolution as everyone else.
The reason we don't help people with nothing is because we manage to keep them invisible. What we can't see cannot disturb us. The closest we will probably ever get to poverty is on television, and if something disturbs us there we can just switch over and watch The Simpsons. Dump the 800,000 Rwandans that were killed in 1994 in Chelsea, London, or New York, then something will be done about them because they're visible. You just don't go looking for things like this - you don't go looking for problems, it is not in your interests.
Again, it's oh so hard to include yourself in these generalizations.
We just want to lock ourselves in big houses and have the nicest looking kids and the best CD collection and the nicest hair, with movies and constant entertainment to occupy ourselves, so we can completely shut out the nasty world. The world can be a beautiful place - but you'll only notice that if you're not starving.
Everything is fragile. Nothing is going to last forever. Look around you, look at the grass and the sunset and the way light attaches itself to your face, creating flickering shadows that use your nose and eyes and mouth as a play park. Look at the power and beauty of your youth, look at how we think we can change the world. Then look at our parents. Look at anyone over the age of thirty. Look into their eyes, and maybe it's just an inner peace, but they're so often dead, as though the world has sapped out all of the energy slowly but constantly throughout the years.
I know I can get so wound up about stupid little things, things like guitars and people and Coldplay. But you have to realize that that stuff just doesn't matter. All it takes is one innocent decision, like choosing to go to school 5 seconds earlier, and you can be hit by a car. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping anyone you know killing you. Nothing.
But then…I don't know. Maybe this fragility is the very thing that is beautiful. And the world is beautiful.
In the shadow of Gods unwavering love, I am a fortunate son.
Page:
Dr Duck wrote:
> 'Noble' characteristics, as we may generalise them, are only followed
> because we chooses to, we want to.
Good word "noble". And "What is noble?" is an interesting question. How each individual answers it defines their personal morality. And it's a difficult question to answer.
For instance: is it noble to help those in need, or is it more noble to let them fend for themselves and overcome their problems with their own will-power?
> 'Noble' characteristics, as we may generalise them, are only followed
> because we chooses to, we want to.
Good word "noble". And "What is noble?" is an interesting question. How each individual answers it defines their personal morality. And it's a difficult question to answer.
For instance: is it noble to help those in need, or is it more noble to let them fend for themselves and overcome their problems with their own will-power?
i just think the whole universe is a big fat fluke.
I believe that man will never know exactly what our role is on the planet or in the universe. the way things have turned out, just think about WHY. WHY is what we want to know. WHY is what we crave. HOW is only secondary. our curiosity is much bigger than our interest.
i'll leave you to make sense of that
i'll leave you to make sense of that
im sorry, did i just wander into a philosophers' corner?
now, back to my point.
there is no. god. anymore.
now, back to my point.
there is no. god. anymore.
Star Fury wrote:
>
> From the standpoint of regime change, and stopping a dictator, I'd
> argue it's a success, on finding WMD it's so far a rather miserable
> failure. But, I still believe the stuff is there, and that Syria is in
> this up to it's neck unless it starts providing answers quickly as to
> how it failed to notice several trailers worth of currency being
> driven into it's border area....
Shouldn't various French, US, UK, and Russian businesses have to answer questions about how Iraq was able to arm and then re-arm itself in the first place too? Why should we just limit the scope of this to countries that the west wants to see a regime change in?
>
> Whilst I don't want to be seen as side stepping the WMD part of why
> the war began, I think that those members of the Iraqi public who
> wanted Saddam gone will not care about WMD.
Agreed, but it wasn't the Iraqi public who wanted this war for WMD. They didn't give the faintest toss about them in the first place, being more concerned with eking out a living. With the current cholera outbreak, that is more true than ever.
>
> What is even sadder, and speaks volumes for the failure of the whole
> world, are the mass graves and scores of Iraqi's who were killed by
> the regime over the years whilst we sat back and issued sanctions and
> spoke words.
Quite so. And what is sadder even than that is the 10 years the west armed Iraq, and provided cash to fund Saddam's war against Iran and persecution of his own people in the form of dissidents, Kurds, and Marsh Arabs.
>
> We undeniably failed them, they had no one else to protect them or
> save them, and we did nothing.
Not true; we gave Saddam the means to carry out the atrocities in the first place. One could go further and say that the UK in particular failed Iraqi's more than anyone else by sustaining up a puppet kingdom with a weak leader during a time when Arab Nationalism was ascendent thanks to Nassar of Egypt. A fool could have foreseen the coming revolution in Iraq. The fools of the UK government did not, and so Iraq was plunged into anarchy and then oppression.
>
> I know you disagree on this Light, and I can partly understand why,
> but I still agree with the doctrine the US administration has adopted
> of first strike and immediate intervention.
That doctrine in itself is not such a bad idea. However, when adopted for the most questionable of motivations then it reeks of Imperialism. And that is not a good thing for the stability of the world.
>
> My only criticism is that it should be taken further, under the UN, so
> that the world can react immediately to situations like that which
> began the moment we left Iraq in 1991.
In which case, we would have to declare war against almost the whole of Africa, much of Central America (which would be easy enough seeing as the US "School of the America's" in Georgia is responsible for training most of the Central American dictators and thugs in positions of power), and large swathes of Asia (including Russia, as we in the west have turned a blind eye to the atrocities in Chechnya).
>
> Everywhere that governments engage in unlawful killings, atrocities,
> and oppression, everywhere that the rule of law is dictated by those
> who have grabbed power by force, should know that they either cease
> and desist or they will be held to account.
Again; how are you going to hold that much of the world to account?
>
> And we have to stretch that to make sure that EVERY nation understands
> that, that it counts for everyone, not just Iraq, Iran, Syria, but
> Israel, America, the UK, France, Russia, everyone. If the council
> unites then it is unassailable and poweful, like it was in 1990/1991,
> divided it achieves little than internation point scoring between
> countries.
It's difficult to unite when faced with arrogant American unilateralism and belligerant French obstruction.
>
> The time that we can justify one countries actions by looking at
> anothers is fast running out. How many people use the example of
> Guantanamo Bay and the iffy legal situation of those held there as a
> counterpoint to something bad that one of America's enemies have done,
> as if it excuses it. Same goes for the Israel / Palestine situation. A
> Palestinian blows up a bus, but that's okay because last week Israel
> fired a rocket at a car.
You're entirely missing the point; every person I've ever talked to, regardless of what 'side' they take in the Palestinian civil war (because that is basically what it is) abhors the killings on both sides. Don't assume that, just because someone is pro Israeli or pro Palestinian, that they support the murders commited by them
>
> You don't get peace by playing one sides actions against another, you
> just get an endless cycle.
Never a truer word said. But if you have a long hard look at every countries foreign policy, US and UK included, that is EXACTLY what the did and continue to do.
>
> From the standpoint of regime change, and stopping a dictator, I'd
> argue it's a success, on finding WMD it's so far a rather miserable
> failure. But, I still believe the stuff is there, and that Syria is in
> this up to it's neck unless it starts providing answers quickly as to
> how it failed to notice several trailers worth of currency being
> driven into it's border area....
Shouldn't various French, US, UK, and Russian businesses have to answer questions about how Iraq was able to arm and then re-arm itself in the first place too? Why should we just limit the scope of this to countries that the west wants to see a regime change in?
>
> Whilst I don't want to be seen as side stepping the WMD part of why
> the war began, I think that those members of the Iraqi public who
> wanted Saddam gone will not care about WMD.
Agreed, but it wasn't the Iraqi public who wanted this war for WMD. They didn't give the faintest toss about them in the first place, being more concerned with eking out a living. With the current cholera outbreak, that is more true than ever.
>
> What is even sadder, and speaks volumes for the failure of the whole
> world, are the mass graves and scores of Iraqi's who were killed by
> the regime over the years whilst we sat back and issued sanctions and
> spoke words.
Quite so. And what is sadder even than that is the 10 years the west armed Iraq, and provided cash to fund Saddam's war against Iran and persecution of his own people in the form of dissidents, Kurds, and Marsh Arabs.
>
> We undeniably failed them, they had no one else to protect them or
> save them, and we did nothing.
Not true; we gave Saddam the means to carry out the atrocities in the first place. One could go further and say that the UK in particular failed Iraqi's more than anyone else by sustaining up a puppet kingdom with a weak leader during a time when Arab Nationalism was ascendent thanks to Nassar of Egypt. A fool could have foreseen the coming revolution in Iraq. The fools of the UK government did not, and so Iraq was plunged into anarchy and then oppression.
>
> I know you disagree on this Light, and I can partly understand why,
> but I still agree with the doctrine the US administration has adopted
> of first strike and immediate intervention.
That doctrine in itself is not such a bad idea. However, when adopted for the most questionable of motivations then it reeks of Imperialism. And that is not a good thing for the stability of the world.
>
> My only criticism is that it should be taken further, under the UN, so
> that the world can react immediately to situations like that which
> began the moment we left Iraq in 1991.
In which case, we would have to declare war against almost the whole of Africa, much of Central America (which would be easy enough seeing as the US "School of the America's" in Georgia is responsible for training most of the Central American dictators and thugs in positions of power), and large swathes of Asia (including Russia, as we in the west have turned a blind eye to the atrocities in Chechnya).
>
> Everywhere that governments engage in unlawful killings, atrocities,
> and oppression, everywhere that the rule of law is dictated by those
> who have grabbed power by force, should know that they either cease
> and desist or they will be held to account.
Again; how are you going to hold that much of the world to account?
>
> And we have to stretch that to make sure that EVERY nation understands
> that, that it counts for everyone, not just Iraq, Iran, Syria, but
> Israel, America, the UK, France, Russia, everyone. If the council
> unites then it is unassailable and poweful, like it was in 1990/1991,
> divided it achieves little than internation point scoring between
> countries.
It's difficult to unite when faced with arrogant American unilateralism and belligerant French obstruction.
>
> The time that we can justify one countries actions by looking at
> anothers is fast running out. How many people use the example of
> Guantanamo Bay and the iffy legal situation of those held there as a
> counterpoint to something bad that one of America's enemies have done,
> as if it excuses it. Same goes for the Israel / Palestine situation. A
> Palestinian blows up a bus, but that's okay because last week Israel
> fired a rocket at a car.
You're entirely missing the point; every person I've ever talked to, regardless of what 'side' they take in the Palestinian civil war (because that is basically what it is) abhors the killings on both sides. Don't assume that, just because someone is pro Israeli or pro Palestinian, that they support the murders commited by them
>
> You don't get peace by playing one sides actions against another, you
> just get an endless cycle.
Never a truer word said. But if you have a long hard look at every countries foreign policy, US and UK included, that is EXACTLY what the did and continue to do.
I wouldn't call it hypocritical, just being frank.
That the world's most powerful nations were divided by a small middle eastern country, and that that one country evaded and divided the council for 12 years, is a failing of every member of the UN; not just Russia, not just America, everyone.
In a sense war is always a failure, because that is what the decision to take military action is always prompted by, failure in all else. When you look at it from that perspective it's hard to judge whether the results of the war are good or bad. Certainly I think it would be hard to say that the results are all bad because clearly a great number of the Iraqi people appear to have hated Saddam, and it is undeniably clear now that the allies accusations of the regime diverting oil for food money to themselves were true.
From the standpoint of regime change, and stopping a dictator, I'd argue it's a success, on finding WMD it's so far a rather miserable failure. But, I still believe the stuff is there, and that Syria is in this up to it's neck unless it starts providing answers quickly as to how it failed to notice several trailers worth of currency being driven into it's border area....
Whilst I don't want to be seen as side stepping the WMD part of why the war began, I think that those members of the Iraqi public who wanted Saddam gone will not care about WMD.
What is even sadder, and speaks volumes for the failure of the whole world, are the mass graves and scores of Iraqi's who were killed by the regime over the years whilst we sat back and issued sanctions and spoke words.
We undeniably failed them, they had no one else to protect them or save them, and we did nothing.
I know you disagree on this Light, and I can partly understand why, but I still agree with the doctrine the US administration has adopted of first strike and immediate intervention.
My only criticism is that it should be taken further, under the UN, so that the world can react immediately to situations like that which began the moment we left Iraq in 1991.
Everywhere that governments engage in unlawful killings, atrocities, and oppression, everywhere that the rule of law is dictated by those who have grabbed power by force, should know that they either cease and desist or they will be held to account.
And we have to stretch that to make sure that EVERY nation understands that, that it counts for everyone, not just Iraq, Iran, Syria, but Israel, America, the UK, France, Russia, everyone. If the council unites then it is unassailable and poweful, like it was in 1990/1991, divided it achieves little than internation point scoring between countries.
The time that we can justify one countries actions by looking at anothers is fast running out. How many people use the example of Guantanamo Bay and the iffy legal situation of those held there as a counterpoint to something bad that one of America's enemies have done, as if it excuses it. Same goes for the Israel / Palestine situation. A Palestinian blows up a bus, but that's okay because last week Israel fired a rocket at a car.
You don't get peace by playing one sides actions against another, you just get an endless cycle.
That the world's most powerful nations were divided by a small middle eastern country, and that that one country evaded and divided the council for 12 years, is a failing of every member of the UN; not just Russia, not just America, everyone.
In a sense war is always a failure, because that is what the decision to take military action is always prompted by, failure in all else. When you look at it from that perspective it's hard to judge whether the results of the war are good or bad. Certainly I think it would be hard to say that the results are all bad because clearly a great number of the Iraqi people appear to have hated Saddam, and it is undeniably clear now that the allies accusations of the regime diverting oil for food money to themselves were true.
From the standpoint of regime change, and stopping a dictator, I'd argue it's a success, on finding WMD it's so far a rather miserable failure. But, I still believe the stuff is there, and that Syria is in this up to it's neck unless it starts providing answers quickly as to how it failed to notice several trailers worth of currency being driven into it's border area....
Whilst I don't want to be seen as side stepping the WMD part of why the war began, I think that those members of the Iraqi public who wanted Saddam gone will not care about WMD.
What is even sadder, and speaks volumes for the failure of the whole world, are the mass graves and scores of Iraqi's who were killed by the regime over the years whilst we sat back and issued sanctions and spoke words.
We undeniably failed them, they had no one else to protect them or save them, and we did nothing.
I know you disagree on this Light, and I can partly understand why, but I still agree with the doctrine the US administration has adopted of first strike and immediate intervention.
My only criticism is that it should be taken further, under the UN, so that the world can react immediately to situations like that which began the moment we left Iraq in 1991.
Everywhere that governments engage in unlawful killings, atrocities, and oppression, everywhere that the rule of law is dictated by those who have grabbed power by force, should know that they either cease and desist or they will be held to account.
And we have to stretch that to make sure that EVERY nation understands that, that it counts for everyone, not just Iraq, Iran, Syria, but Israel, America, the UK, France, Russia, everyone. If the council unites then it is unassailable and poweful, like it was in 1990/1991, divided it achieves little than internation point scoring between countries.
The time that we can justify one countries actions by looking at anothers is fast running out. How many people use the example of Guantanamo Bay and the iffy legal situation of those held there as a counterpoint to something bad that one of America's enemies have done, as if it excuses it. Same goes for the Israel / Palestine situation. A Palestinian blows up a bus, but that's okay because last week Israel fired a rocket at a car.
You don't get peace by playing one sides actions against another, you just get an endless cycle.
Star Fury wrote:
> Shock and awe was anything but the "caveman and his stick"
> analogy, but that's a whole new topic.
Then start the topic.
>
> The fact is that divisions within the world, and an inability on ALL
> sides to back down at some point or agree to certain things which were
> not 100% in their interests meant that some countries felt the only
> way they could solve a situation was a military campaign.
Except that a military campaign was always the first resort of the coalition, not the last.
>
> If you view this Gulf War rerun as a failure of American Foreign
> Policy then you have to see it also as a failure of Foreign Policy for
> just about every nation on the Security Council whatever their
> individual stances.
Okay, so it's a failure for everyone. That still makes this war a failure.
>
> Tied with that was/is a
> determination of each side in the debate over Iraq to metaphorically
> rub the other sides face in the mud when/if they were proven wrong,
> 'cause that is what I feel the whole UN debate over Iraq prior to the
> conflict became, the actual objective became lost and turned into a
> "We're right because of this" "No you're wrong because
> of this" e.t.c. diplomatic slanging match.
Point taken, but don't you think you're being just a smidge hypocritical when you say this?
> Shock and awe was anything but the "caveman and his stick"
> analogy, but that's a whole new topic.
Then start the topic.
>
> The fact is that divisions within the world, and an inability on ALL
> sides to back down at some point or agree to certain things which were
> not 100% in their interests meant that some countries felt the only
> way they could solve a situation was a military campaign.
Except that a military campaign was always the first resort of the coalition, not the last.
>
> If you view this Gulf War rerun as a failure of American Foreign
> Policy then you have to see it also as a failure of Foreign Policy for
> just about every nation on the Security Council whatever their
> individual stances.
Okay, so it's a failure for everyone. That still makes this war a failure.
>
> Tied with that was/is a
> determination of each side in the debate over Iraq to metaphorically
> rub the other sides face in the mud when/if they were proven wrong,
> 'cause that is what I feel the whole UN debate over Iraq prior to the
> conflict became, the actual objective became lost and turned into a
> "We're right because of this" "No you're wrong because
> of this" e.t.c. diplomatic slanging match.
Point taken, but don't you think you're being just a smidge hypocritical when you say this?
Shock and awe was anything but the "caveman and his stick" analogy, but that's a whole new topic.
The fact is that divisions within the world, and an inability on ALL sides to back down at some point or agree to certain things which were not 100% in their interests meant that some countries felt the only way they could solve a situation was a military campaign.
If you view this Gulf War rerun as a failure of American Foreign Policy then you have to see it also as a failure of Foreign Policy for just about every nation on the Security Council whatever their individual stances.
The worst thing is that, whatever a person's individual stance, a nation's leader's stance, even the stance of those in the UN, everyone thinks they're acting for the same outcome, it's how we got the outcome that people could not resolve. Tied with that was/is a determination of each side in the debate over Iraq to metaphorically rub the other sides face in the mud when/if they were proven wrong, 'cause that is what I feel the whole UN debate over Iraq prior to the conflict became, the actual objective became lost and turned into a "We're right because of this" "No you're wrong because of this" e.t.c. diplomatic slanging match.
The fact is that divisions within the world, and an inability on ALL sides to back down at some point or agree to certain things which were not 100% in their interests meant that some countries felt the only way they could solve a situation was a military campaign.
If you view this Gulf War rerun as a failure of American Foreign Policy then you have to see it also as a failure of Foreign Policy for just about every nation on the Security Council whatever their individual stances.
The worst thing is that, whatever a person's individual stance, a nation's leader's stance, even the stance of those in the UN, everyone thinks they're acting for the same outcome, it's how we got the outcome that people could not resolve. Tied with that was/is a determination of each side in the debate over Iraq to metaphorically rub the other sides face in the mud when/if they were proven wrong, 'cause that is what I feel the whole UN debate over Iraq prior to the conflict became, the actual objective became lost and turned into a "We're right because of this" "No you're wrong because of this" e.t.c. diplomatic slanging match.
Black Glove wrote:
> Spiritualy, the ultra-violenc of 'shock and awe' was just like the
> caveman with a biggest club announcing his irrestistible authority.
Heh, George Bush as Captain Caveman.
> Spiritualy, the ultra-violenc of 'shock and awe' was just like the
> caveman with a biggest club announcing his irrestistible authority.
Heh, George Bush as Captain Caveman.
Light wrote:
> As a side point, why does humanity feel the need for a divine spirit
> to guide it? The manmade organisations that claim to represent the
> divine are always the most depressing examples of the banal and petty
> evil that humanity can stoop to. Why not accept the flaws of the human
> spirit and, in accepting them, learn to live with them and grow
> stronger because of it?
I don't have a problem with a belief in a divine spirit/being - sometimes when people find themselves in a traumatic situation drawing on such a belief can sometimes be the only thing that pulls them through. But like you say, when official instituions grab hold of the 'divine' and claim to be its mouth-piece, that's when it all goes sadly wrong.
I often think that even though humankind has evolved in many ways - physically, technologically, socially - the one thing that's missing is spiritual evolution: the capability to connect with and have compassion for all living things.
And this is what fundamentally depressed me about the recent war. Whether it was right or wrong isn't really the issue, it's the fact that the current state of human affairs is this: we don't like you, we don't like what you're doing, you're in our way, so we're gonna hit you with our bigger stick and get what we want.
Spiritualy, the ultra-violenc of 'shock and awe' was just like the caveman with a biggest club announcing his irrestistible authority.
> As a side point, why does humanity feel the need for a divine spirit
> to guide it? The manmade organisations that claim to represent the
> divine are always the most depressing examples of the banal and petty
> evil that humanity can stoop to. Why not accept the flaws of the human
> spirit and, in accepting them, learn to live with them and grow
> stronger because of it?
I don't have a problem with a belief in a divine spirit/being - sometimes when people find themselves in a traumatic situation drawing on such a belief can sometimes be the only thing that pulls them through. But like you say, when official instituions grab hold of the 'divine' and claim to be its mouth-piece, that's when it all goes sadly wrong.
I often think that even though humankind has evolved in many ways - physically, technologically, socially - the one thing that's missing is spiritual evolution: the capability to connect with and have compassion for all living things.
And this is what fundamentally depressed me about the recent war. Whether it was right or wrong isn't really the issue, it's the fact that the current state of human affairs is this: we don't like you, we don't like what you're doing, you're in our way, so we're gonna hit you with our bigger stick and get what we want.
Spiritualy, the ultra-violenc of 'shock and awe' was just like the caveman with a biggest club announcing his irrestistible authority.
Page: