The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I have decided to begin this thread so that we can all predict the future in our own little way. Basically we will all pick a topic/subject etc and predict how long it will take to happen and why/how it will come about. I'll get the ball rolling -
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
Page:
Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> My God. This gets boring after the 110th thread.
So does reading posts from someone who's main contribution to the threads is "This is boring", but hey; you're forgiven!
> My God. This gets boring after the 110th thread.
So does reading posts from someone who's main contribution to the threads is "This is boring", but hey; you're forgiven!
Peace? That's the dull bit between wars.
Heh. I know it isn't one obviously, but that sounds like a Bushism. A good one at that.
Light wrote:
> That doesn't change your original point; an enforced peace by one
> nation isn't real peace.
True, in a sense, but for those living in peace because of force of arms it's really irrelevant. Realisitically, at this point in time, peace can only be achieved through force. I'm not saying that is how it will always be, because no one knows, but I'm saying - bar any major event - that's how its going to be for the next 10 years at least.
> Which other nation has declared a war of aggression that has
> increased the risk of terrorism in the last year? Just the US and UK
> I believe.
But September 11 - the worst act of terrorism in the western world ever, occurred before any major action was ever taken against the terrorists. And since 9/11 no terrorists have hit any major western city again. Sure, there are threats, but no actual attacks take place. The terrorists, after such a short time, are being forced to their last stand by hitting weak targets such as Bali, Baghdad, Kenya, and every month more and more are killed or captured. Yes, there will be potential terrorists to take their place, but not forever - you yourself said that nothing is forced to stay the same just because it has before.
> Right...so Dubya, by declaring a war on Iraq, a nation with exactly
> NO ties to Al-Quaida, and using lies to justify it...that's peace is
> it? A war that Rumsfield himself admits may well create more
> terrorists than it destroys...you're happy with that?
Of a vague sorts yes. World peace ? Nope, but a lot of people live their lives right now without ever being caught in a war, or seeing a gun fire, an explosion, and so on. For some people that is all the peace that's needed. Iraq was about war on Saddam's regime, you know as well as I do that everyone concerned made that clear, it was war on Saddam and the regime. It appears some of the intelligence used to justify action was wrong, but that doesn't remove the fact that Saddam needed taking out of power ASAP. We did that, and we'll get his followers bit by bit. I'm happy that Saddam is at last out of power and on the run. That more terrorists will be created...well that much was obvious, but they were going to emerge someday and to say "No we won't go give Saddam a damn good kicking because some people won't like it and will become terrorists" is pathetic. Right now I'd say the situation in Iraq - from news reports anyway - is improving. Food, water and electricity are being restored or are already, the #1 problem is security and the last UN resolution authorised more foreign troops and money, but it'll take time to get in place. As it is the last wave of bombings seem a stupid idea on the part of the terrorists in Iraq - by hitting the Red Cross they turn more Iraqi's against them, as well as by hitting the Iraqi policemen as well. The moment they stopped exclusively attacking the US troops was the moment they lost, all it is now is how long they'll take to lose.
> True enough, and whilst you have the US riding roughshod over
> everyone else so that they get what they want, it's not likely to be
> either.
In the US, and it's allies, I see countries that act, that do things. Yes, they usually have their own interests as part of that action, but when you look around the UN Security Council the rest of the table is pretty much as bad or worse. Right now I'd be more concerned with China, North Korea and Russia.
> That doesn't change your original point; an enforced peace by one
> nation isn't real peace.
True, in a sense, but for those living in peace because of force of arms it's really irrelevant. Realisitically, at this point in time, peace can only be achieved through force. I'm not saying that is how it will always be, because no one knows, but I'm saying - bar any major event - that's how its going to be for the next 10 years at least.
> Which other nation has declared a war of aggression that has
> increased the risk of terrorism in the last year? Just the US and UK
> I believe.
But September 11 - the worst act of terrorism in the western world ever, occurred before any major action was ever taken against the terrorists. And since 9/11 no terrorists have hit any major western city again. Sure, there are threats, but no actual attacks take place. The terrorists, after such a short time, are being forced to their last stand by hitting weak targets such as Bali, Baghdad, Kenya, and every month more and more are killed or captured. Yes, there will be potential terrorists to take their place, but not forever - you yourself said that nothing is forced to stay the same just because it has before.
> Right...so Dubya, by declaring a war on Iraq, a nation with exactly
> NO ties to Al-Quaida, and using lies to justify it...that's peace is
> it? A war that Rumsfield himself admits may well create more
> terrorists than it destroys...you're happy with that?
Of a vague sorts yes. World peace ? Nope, but a lot of people live their lives right now without ever being caught in a war, or seeing a gun fire, an explosion, and so on. For some people that is all the peace that's needed. Iraq was about war on Saddam's regime, you know as well as I do that everyone concerned made that clear, it was war on Saddam and the regime. It appears some of the intelligence used to justify action was wrong, but that doesn't remove the fact that Saddam needed taking out of power ASAP. We did that, and we'll get his followers bit by bit. I'm happy that Saddam is at last out of power and on the run. That more terrorists will be created...well that much was obvious, but they were going to emerge someday and to say "No we won't go give Saddam a damn good kicking because some people won't like it and will become terrorists" is pathetic. Right now I'd say the situation in Iraq - from news reports anyway - is improving. Food, water and electricity are being restored or are already, the #1 problem is security and the last UN resolution authorised more foreign troops and money, but it'll take time to get in place. As it is the last wave of bombings seem a stupid idea on the part of the terrorists in Iraq - by hitting the Red Cross they turn more Iraqi's against them, as well as by hitting the Iraqi policemen as well. The moment they stopped exclusively attacking the US troops was the moment they lost, all it is now is how long they'll take to lose.
> True enough, and whilst you have the US riding roughshod over
> everyone else so that they get what they want, it's not likely to be
> either.
In the US, and it's allies, I see countries that act, that do things. Yes, they usually have their own interests as part of that action, but when you look around the UN Security Council the rest of the table is pretty much as bad or worse. Right now I'd be more concerned with China, North Korea and Russia.
Light wrote:
> Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> My God. This gets boring after the 110th thread.
>
>
> So does reading posts from someone who's main contribution to the
> threads is "This is boring", but hey; you're forgiven!
Thankyou for your forgiveness. I forgive you too Light.
As Jebus would say 'do unto others as you would have done unter you.'
Or something.
> Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> My God. This gets boring after the 110th thread.
>
>
> So does reading posts from someone who's main contribution to the
> threads is "This is boring", but hey; you're forgiven!
Thankyou for your forgiveness. I forgive you too Light.
As Jebus would say 'do unto others as you would have done unter you.'
Or something.
Emperor Xerxes wrote:
>
> Thankyou for your forgiveness. I forgive you too Light.
> As Jebus would say 'do unto others as you would have done unter
> you.'
> Or something.
Heh. Personally, I think he would have said "Get me the ^&£% down from this plank of wood you Roman &*%^%".
>
> Thankyou for your forgiveness. I forgive you too Light.
> As Jebus would say 'do unto others as you would have done unter
> you.'
> Or something.
Heh. Personally, I think he would have said "Get me the ^&£% down from this plank of wood you Roman &*%^%".
Belldandy wrote:
>
> True, in a sense, but for those living in peace because of force of
> arms it's really irrelevant. Realisitically, at this point in time,
> peace can only be achieved through force. I'm not saying that is how
> it will always be, because no one knows, but I'm saying - bar any
> major event - that's how its going to be for the next 10 years at
> least.
Irrelevant? Do you really think so? Look at Iraq; there is peace there by force of arms. The people killing US soldiers every day don't seem to find that irrelevant.
Peace can only be achieved through force of arms? Then why did Apartheid end peacefully in South Africa? Why did the British Empire end peacefully, and with elections in those countries we no longer occupied, and with a remarkable (though not total) lack of bloodshed? Why is it that the best chance of peace in northern ireland is coming through negotiation and not bloodshed?
>
> But September 11 - the worst act of terrorism in the western world
> ever, occurred before any major action was ever taken against the
> terrorists.
There you go again; trying to play the emotional "this was so terrible!" card. B******t. Sorry Bell, but you lost the right to wring your hands in dismay about 9/11 when you wailed about Goatboy disagreeing with you, and demeaned his loss because his opinions conflicted with your own.
> And since 9/11 no terrorists have hit any major western
> city again.
Erm...before 9/11, no terrorists had hit any major western city for a while. We didn't feel the need to bomb civilians to mush then...the only major attacks before then were those by the IRA (funded mainly by rich Americans...), ETA (yet no war against them; funny that...), and Chechen rebels (and curiously, the more Russia pours troops into that nation, the more terrorists pour out of it).
> Sure, there are threats, but no actual attacks take
> place.
And how about the Bali nightclub bomb? Does that not count? What about the acts of terrorism in Iraq as we speak? Are they somehow different
> The terrorists, after such a short time, are being forced to
> their last stand by hitting weak targets such as Bali, Baghdad,
> Kenya, and every month more and more are killed or captured. Yes,
> there will be potential terrorists to take their place, but not
> forever - you yourself said that nothing is forced to stay the same
> just because it has before.
Weak targets?! Right...so that's a comfort to those who died or who lost loved ones? "Hey, at least they didn't die in a major attack on a major city!" Could you maybe stop trying to redefine a terrorist atrocity in order to avoid backing down from what is a manifestly absurd argument.
Every month more are killed? Well guess what; every month a lot more are created thanks to the policies of the west. Not forever? So when do you think it will stop? Will the citizens of oppressive regimes just decide "Ah well, we'd best just accept our lot in life"? Or do you maybe think that as long as the US supports oppressive regimes, there will be people hating the US for doing so?
And last stand?!? What, d'you think that all terrorism will stop if you just kill enough people? Might I ask what gives you that idea?
>
> Of a vague sorts yes. World peace ? Nope, but a lot of people live
> their lives right now without ever being caught in a war, or seeing a
> gun fire, an explosion, and so on.
Yes. A lot of WESTERN people live like that. An awful lot of people in the developing world don't. They live in fear, under oppression, and in danger. And they look at the western world, living in peace thanks to the labour of the developing world. And they get angry. And funnily enough, terrorists can prey on that anger and use it to their advantage. Only way that will stop is if we stop giving them reason to be angry. Bombing them doesn't strike me as the best way to do that.
> For some people that is all the
> peace that's needed.
Yes; the minority of people in the world. What I am saying is, don't be surprised at the neverending stream of terrorists from the middle east, Africa, Asia. What, d'you think they'll just give up?
> Iraq was about war on Saddam's regime, you know
> as well as I do that everyone concerned made that clear, it was war
> on Saddam and the regime. It appears some of the intelligence used to
> justify action was wrong, but that doesn't remove the fact that
> Saddam needed taking out of power ASAP.
Really? So how come Paul Wolfowitz, a very senior Neo-Con, admitted that "removing the regime is pretty much the 4th reason on the list. And it's more of a supplemental reason. I mean, removing Saddam is a good thing, but it's not worth risking American lives for"
You're swallowing the lies you've been told, AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN THINKING ABOUT THEM! They made it clear? Utter, total cr@p. It was about WOMD. Then it was about Al-Quaida. Only after both of these reasons had been exposed as total and complete fabrication did Dubya...well, actually he just kept repeating them. But he also said it was for "the iraqi people".
> We did that, and we'll get
> his followers bit by bit. I'm happy that Saddam is at last out of
> power and on the run. That more terrorists will be created...well
> that much was obvious, but they were going to emerge someday and to
> say "No we won't go give Saddam a damn good kicking because some
> people won't like it and will become terrorists" is pathetic.
Sorry, let me get this straight; you're saying that terrorists would just appear to destroy the US, even if the US WEREN'T responsible for their way of life being so demeaning to human dignity? Uhh...and what's your evidence for that please?
Also, you show a misunderstanding of disapproval for the war (as you always do; you always misrepresent the opposing viewpoint, and that is another reason why I abhor you as a fundamentalist). Some did indeed say that the creation of more terrorists would be a bad thing (including Dubya himself; how can you say that the war on terror is a good thing when it increases terrorists?! Isn't that like saying "There are more enemy soldiers every day! Their forces have doubled! What a great victory for us!!"). The majority said that the war was a bad thing because it was an ugly grab for resources, it would destabilise the region, and it would lead to more terror attacks. So far, all of that has proved true. Yet the Iraqi people don't seem very happy to have America there. Do they?
And if you're going to give Saddam a good kicking, why aren't you demanding that other regimes get a good kicking? Other regimes equally as brutal, if not more so? Oh, that's right; they're pro-western. Or, like China, too big, right? But you think THIS war was about removing a bad guy. That's the only reason?
Jesus...THINK will you?
> Right now I'd say the situation in Iraq - from news reports anyway -
> is improving. Food, water and electricity are being restored or are
> already, the #1 problem is security and the last UN resolution
> authorised more foreign troops and money, but it'll take time to get
> in place. As it is the last wave of bombings seem a stupid idea on
> the part of the terrorists in Iraq - by hitting the Red Cross they
> turn more Iraqi's against them, as well as by hitting the Iraqi
> policemen as well. The moment they stopped exclusively attacking the
> US troops was the moment they lost, all it is now is how long they'll
> take to lose.
They turn more Iraqi's against them? Really...then why are the Iraqi's protesting against the occupying American and British troops?
That was the moment they lost? You think so? Why? Explain yourself beyond a blank assertion please.
>
> In the US, and it's allies, I see countries that act, that do things.
> Yes, they usually have their own interests as part of that action,
> but when you look around the UN Security Council the rest of the
> table is pretty much as bad or worse. Right now I'd be more concerned
> with China, North Korea and Russia.
Jesus, there you go AGAIN..."Yeah, it's bad; but look at what EVIL RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE DOING!!" FORGET about them for a moment; you're trying to justify the Land of the Free doing all manner of deeply unpleasant things by saying that other countries do them...yet you don't see the contradiction in continuing to insist that the US are the best. How can they be a better nation if they do the same as what you consider to be the bad guys?!
Christ almighty...how many times do I have to say that ALL nations are as bad as each other before you get it? Say all you want about other nations being international floating t*rds; you won't get me flying to their defence. But STOP trying to distract attention away from the godawful actions of the US and UK.
They act, they do things. So did Osama bin Laden. He is responsible for thousands of civilian deaths. So is Dubya. Both of these actions had their own interests as the whole of the action. So what's the difference?
You say only 'part' of the action. Which part? Can you carefully divide it up and tell me? Or are you only trying to see the best of the US and the worst of everyone else?
>
> True, in a sense, but for those living in peace because of force of
> arms it's really irrelevant. Realisitically, at this point in time,
> peace can only be achieved through force. I'm not saying that is how
> it will always be, because no one knows, but I'm saying - bar any
> major event - that's how its going to be for the next 10 years at
> least.
Irrelevant? Do you really think so? Look at Iraq; there is peace there by force of arms. The people killing US soldiers every day don't seem to find that irrelevant.
Peace can only be achieved through force of arms? Then why did Apartheid end peacefully in South Africa? Why did the British Empire end peacefully, and with elections in those countries we no longer occupied, and with a remarkable (though not total) lack of bloodshed? Why is it that the best chance of peace in northern ireland is coming through negotiation and not bloodshed?
>
> But September 11 - the worst act of terrorism in the western world
> ever, occurred before any major action was ever taken against the
> terrorists.
There you go again; trying to play the emotional "this was so terrible!" card. B******t. Sorry Bell, but you lost the right to wring your hands in dismay about 9/11 when you wailed about Goatboy disagreeing with you, and demeaned his loss because his opinions conflicted with your own.
> And since 9/11 no terrorists have hit any major western
> city again.
Erm...before 9/11, no terrorists had hit any major western city for a while. We didn't feel the need to bomb civilians to mush then...the only major attacks before then were those by the IRA (funded mainly by rich Americans...), ETA (yet no war against them; funny that...), and Chechen rebels (and curiously, the more Russia pours troops into that nation, the more terrorists pour out of it).
> Sure, there are threats, but no actual attacks take
> place.
And how about the Bali nightclub bomb? Does that not count? What about the acts of terrorism in Iraq as we speak? Are they somehow different
> The terrorists, after such a short time, are being forced to
> their last stand by hitting weak targets such as Bali, Baghdad,
> Kenya, and every month more and more are killed or captured. Yes,
> there will be potential terrorists to take their place, but not
> forever - you yourself said that nothing is forced to stay the same
> just because it has before.
Weak targets?! Right...so that's a comfort to those who died or who lost loved ones? "Hey, at least they didn't die in a major attack on a major city!" Could you maybe stop trying to redefine a terrorist atrocity in order to avoid backing down from what is a manifestly absurd argument.
Every month more are killed? Well guess what; every month a lot more are created thanks to the policies of the west. Not forever? So when do you think it will stop? Will the citizens of oppressive regimes just decide "Ah well, we'd best just accept our lot in life"? Or do you maybe think that as long as the US supports oppressive regimes, there will be people hating the US for doing so?
And last stand?!? What, d'you think that all terrorism will stop if you just kill enough people? Might I ask what gives you that idea?
>
> Of a vague sorts yes. World peace ? Nope, but a lot of people live
> their lives right now without ever being caught in a war, or seeing a
> gun fire, an explosion, and so on.
Yes. A lot of WESTERN people live like that. An awful lot of people in the developing world don't. They live in fear, under oppression, and in danger. And they look at the western world, living in peace thanks to the labour of the developing world. And they get angry. And funnily enough, terrorists can prey on that anger and use it to their advantage. Only way that will stop is if we stop giving them reason to be angry. Bombing them doesn't strike me as the best way to do that.
> For some people that is all the
> peace that's needed.
Yes; the minority of people in the world. What I am saying is, don't be surprised at the neverending stream of terrorists from the middle east, Africa, Asia. What, d'you think they'll just give up?
> Iraq was about war on Saddam's regime, you know
> as well as I do that everyone concerned made that clear, it was war
> on Saddam and the regime. It appears some of the intelligence used to
> justify action was wrong, but that doesn't remove the fact that
> Saddam needed taking out of power ASAP.
Really? So how come Paul Wolfowitz, a very senior Neo-Con, admitted that "removing the regime is pretty much the 4th reason on the list. And it's more of a supplemental reason. I mean, removing Saddam is a good thing, but it's not worth risking American lives for"
You're swallowing the lies you've been told, AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN THINKING ABOUT THEM! They made it clear? Utter, total cr@p. It was about WOMD. Then it was about Al-Quaida. Only after both of these reasons had been exposed as total and complete fabrication did Dubya...well, actually he just kept repeating them. But he also said it was for "the iraqi people".
> We did that, and we'll get
> his followers bit by bit. I'm happy that Saddam is at last out of
> power and on the run. That more terrorists will be created...well
> that much was obvious, but they were going to emerge someday and to
> say "No we won't go give Saddam a damn good kicking because some
> people won't like it and will become terrorists" is pathetic.
Sorry, let me get this straight; you're saying that terrorists would just appear to destroy the US, even if the US WEREN'T responsible for their way of life being so demeaning to human dignity? Uhh...and what's your evidence for that please?
Also, you show a misunderstanding of disapproval for the war (as you always do; you always misrepresent the opposing viewpoint, and that is another reason why I abhor you as a fundamentalist). Some did indeed say that the creation of more terrorists would be a bad thing (including Dubya himself; how can you say that the war on terror is a good thing when it increases terrorists?! Isn't that like saying "There are more enemy soldiers every day! Their forces have doubled! What a great victory for us!!"). The majority said that the war was a bad thing because it was an ugly grab for resources, it would destabilise the region, and it would lead to more terror attacks. So far, all of that has proved true. Yet the Iraqi people don't seem very happy to have America there. Do they?
And if you're going to give Saddam a good kicking, why aren't you demanding that other regimes get a good kicking? Other regimes equally as brutal, if not more so? Oh, that's right; they're pro-western. Or, like China, too big, right? But you think THIS war was about removing a bad guy. That's the only reason?
Jesus...THINK will you?
> Right now I'd say the situation in Iraq - from news reports anyway -
> is improving. Food, water and electricity are being restored or are
> already, the #1 problem is security and the last UN resolution
> authorised more foreign troops and money, but it'll take time to get
> in place. As it is the last wave of bombings seem a stupid idea on
> the part of the terrorists in Iraq - by hitting the Red Cross they
> turn more Iraqi's against them, as well as by hitting the Iraqi
> policemen as well. The moment they stopped exclusively attacking the
> US troops was the moment they lost, all it is now is how long they'll
> take to lose.
They turn more Iraqi's against them? Really...then why are the Iraqi's protesting against the occupying American and British troops?
That was the moment they lost? You think so? Why? Explain yourself beyond a blank assertion please.
>
> In the US, and it's allies, I see countries that act, that do things.
> Yes, they usually have their own interests as part of that action,
> but when you look around the UN Security Council the rest of the
> table is pretty much as bad or worse. Right now I'd be more concerned
> with China, North Korea and Russia.
Jesus, there you go AGAIN..."Yeah, it's bad; but look at what EVIL RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE DOING!!" FORGET about them for a moment; you're trying to justify the Land of the Free doing all manner of deeply unpleasant things by saying that other countries do them...yet you don't see the contradiction in continuing to insist that the US are the best. How can they be a better nation if they do the same as what you consider to be the bad guys?!
Christ almighty...how many times do I have to say that ALL nations are as bad as each other before you get it? Say all you want about other nations being international floating t*rds; you won't get me flying to their defence. But STOP trying to distract attention away from the godawful actions of the US and UK.
They act, they do things. So did Osama bin Laden. He is responsible for thousands of civilian deaths. So is Dubya. Both of these actions had their own interests as the whole of the action. So what's the difference?
You say only 'part' of the action. Which part? Can you carefully divide it up and tell me? Or are you only trying to see the best of the US and the worst of everyone else?
Light wrote:
> They act, they do things. So did Osama bin Laden. He is responsible
> for thousands of civilian deaths. So is Dubya. Both of these actions
> had their own interests as the whole of the action. So what's the
> difference?
This by NO means makes the actions right, but I think the fundamental differance is that Osama was an individual where as Dubya was technicall acting through the apparatus of a state. From what I understand is that a state is something that monopolises the legitamate use of force. However, this is refering to within ones nation, outside who can possibly say what is the legitamate use of force? Especially when the major powers just do what the want anyway. Thats the differance, but whether you find that morally right or wrong is your decision.
> They act, they do things. So did Osama bin Laden. He is responsible
> for thousands of civilian deaths. So is Dubya. Both of these actions
> had their own interests as the whole of the action. So what's the
> difference?
This by NO means makes the actions right, but I think the fundamental differance is that Osama was an individual where as Dubya was technicall acting through the apparatus of a state. From what I understand is that a state is something that monopolises the legitamate use of force. However, this is refering to within ones nation, outside who can possibly say what is the legitamate use of force? Especially when the major powers just do what the want anyway. Thats the differance, but whether you find that morally right or wrong is your decision.
Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> Light wrote:
> They act, they do things. So did Osama bin Laden. He is responsible
> for thousands of civilian deaths. So is Dubya. Both of these actions
> had their own interests as the whole of the action. So what's the
> difference?
>
> This by NO means makes the actions right, but I think the fundamental
> differance is that Osama was an individual where as Dubya was
> technicall acting through the apparatus of a state. From what I
> understand is that a state is something that monopolises the
> legitamate use of force. However, this is refering to within ones
> nation, outside who can possibly say what is the legitamate use of
> force? Especially when the major powers just do what the want anyway.
> Thats the differance, but whether you find that morally right or
> wrong is your decision.
Hmm...yeah, fair point. I'll go with that.
If anything, it kinda makes Dubya out in a worse light; bin Laden used his own resources to further his aims. Dubya used the resources of an entire nation to further his, and lied to that nation in order to get approval for the use of those resources.
For the record, the actions of BOTH men are utterly reprehensible. Frankly, I'd be glad to see both of them in front of a criminal court.
> Light wrote:
> They act, they do things. So did Osama bin Laden. He is responsible
> for thousands of civilian deaths. So is Dubya. Both of these actions
> had their own interests as the whole of the action. So what's the
> difference?
>
> This by NO means makes the actions right, but I think the fundamental
> differance is that Osama was an individual where as Dubya was
> technicall acting through the apparatus of a state. From what I
> understand is that a state is something that monopolises the
> legitamate use of force. However, this is refering to within ones
> nation, outside who can possibly say what is the legitamate use of
> force? Especially when the major powers just do what the want anyway.
> Thats the differance, but whether you find that morally right or
> wrong is your decision.
Hmm...yeah, fair point. I'll go with that.
If anything, it kinda makes Dubya out in a worse light; bin Laden used his own resources to further his aims. Dubya used the resources of an entire nation to further his, and lied to that nation in order to get approval for the use of those resources.
For the record, the actions of BOTH men are utterly reprehensible. Frankly, I'd be glad to see both of them in front of a criminal court.
Light wrote:
> Irrelevant? Do you really think so? Look at Iraq; there is peace
> there by force of arms. The people killing US soldiers every day
> don't seem to find that irrelevant.
And the "peace" before we went in was what exactly ? Peaceful for the people in the ever rising tally of unmarked graves ? Or would that be peaceful for those being executed for speaking against Saddam ? Or those being gang raped in prisons by Iraqi military forces ? I'm having difficulty locating this peace that existed before we went in. Sure, the terrorists may find it irrelevant, but that's because they've lost what little power and purpose they had. There is no place for them anymore in Iraq and they will fight to the death to regain it.
> Peace can only be achieved through force of arms? Then why did
> Apartheid end peacefully in South Africa?
After years of violence ? Okay.
> Why did the British Empire
> end peacefully, and with elections in those countries we no longer
> occupied, and with a remarkable (though not total) lack of bloodshed?
Because the UK no longer had the military forces to maintain rule by force, plus you may want to look up the idea of neo-colonialism if you think that most gained true independence, in many cases those who were elected were little better than us, or indeed worse in many cases. Plus if you want to call it a remarkable lack of bloodshed then Iraq, by comparison, is a negligible amount of bloodshed.
> Why is it that the best chance of peace in northern ireland is coming
> through negotiation and not bloodshed?
These would be the negotiation that have been going on for decades, whilst all the time various groups still kill, maim and terrorise yes ? I'm sure those in Canary Wharf, Manchester, Omagh and such were heartened to know that the peace process was ongoing.
> There you go again; trying to play the emotional "this was so
> terrible!" card. B******t. Sorry Bell, but you lost the right to
> wring your hands in dismay about 9/11 when you wailed about Goatboy
> disagreeing with you, and demeaned his loss because his opinions
> conflicted with your own.
And there you go playing the counter-emotional bulls"it.=, last time I looked this was a democracy, with a reasonable freedom of speech, I have as much right as you to discuss it and noticeably you avoid the actual point that the worst act of terrorism EVER was comitted before overt action against the terrorists.
> Erm...before 9/11, no terrorists had hit any major western city for a
> while. We didn't feel the need to bomb civilians to mush then...the
> only major attacks before then were those by the IRA (funded mainly
> by rich Americans...), ETA (yet no war against them; funny that...),
> and Chechen rebels (and curiously, the more Russia pours troops into
> that nation, the more terrorists pour out of it).
REally ? Well gather up your evidence about the IRA because I'm sure 6 would like to look it over, as would the FBI and such, heck it's been looked for for ages so I'm glad you've got it ! Plus if you've got the Pentagon plans which say "Objective: Bomb Civilians" there's a pile of Democrat Senators and Liberal Democrat MP's who'll be interested, ETA is supposedly in negotiations (like the IRA peace process you hold up earlier on) and again with reference to Russia we see this peculair "leave the terrorists alone and they'll leave us alone" idea. USS Cole anyone ? First WTC bombing ? And many more...
> And how about the Bali nightclub bomb? Does that not count? What
> about the acts of terrorism in Iraq as we speak? Are they somehow
> different
Yes, they're soft targets and show that in order to cause damage they are going for low rate weak targets in peripheral regions. Sure, Osama and his buddies keep making these tapes saying he's going to strike, but oh dear, no strikes.
> Weak targets?! Right...so that's a comfort to those who died or who
> lost loved ones? "Hey, at least they didn't die in a major
> attack on a major city!" Could you maybe stop trying to redefine
> a terrorist atrocity in order to avoid backing down from what is a
> manifestly absurd argument.
See above, they are weak targets, which whilst providing little comfort for those left behind in such attacks, it does show a gradual move towards the end.
> Every month more are killed? Well guess what; every month a lot more
> are created thanks to the policies of the west. Not forever? So when
> do you think it will stop? Will the citizens of oppressive regimes
> just decide "Ah well, we'd best just accept our lot in
> life"? Or do you maybe think that as long as the US supports
> oppressive regimes, there will be people hating the US for doing so?
No, but as you well know, the terrorists come from a small minority in certain countries. Earlier this week the Red Cross was hit. Now if you're a parent in Iraq, and your kid dies because the Red Cross goes or was damaged, I'd guess you're not going to give a toss about the "holy cause" and you're going to act against the terrorists. Saddam's sons were found because the guy whose place they took didn't like them anymore, the information to extract Private Lynch was obtained because an Iraqi lawyer did not like what he saw, in Afghanistan Afghani's are helping us to find the terrorists because they don't want the life they had for their children.
> And last stand?!? What, d'you think that all terrorism will stop if
> you just kill enough people? Might I ask what gives you that idea?
No,, read above. Also you remove the means, and you harden security to prevent possible attacks.
> Yes. A lot of WESTERN people live like that. An awful lot of people
> in the developing world don't.
That's a very simplified way of looking at it, unless the entire continents of Asia and Africa suddenly erupted in open warfare this morning then that's not the case - you'll find people in all nations live in varying conditions and the division is not on the grounds of nationality or country, usually it's class.
>They live in fear, under oppression,
> and in danger. And they look at the western world, living in peace
> thanks to the labour of the developing world.
Well they'd do well to look at their own leaders who sold them out, not the western world. Why was colonialism possible in the past ? Because most of the elites in the colonies were easily bought or willingly joined in.
> And they get angry. And
> funnily enough, terrorists can prey on that anger and use it to their
> advantage. Only way that will stop is if we stop giving them reason
> to be angry. Bombing them doesn't strike me as the best way to do
> that.
That's one view, but not the only one. Remove those who put them in that position - their own leaders. Right now Mr Mugabe's running Zimbabwe into the ground, which I guess is our fault for not acting ? But if we act then his supporters will get angry and shoot at our people, so using your logic we should sit back and do zilch.
> Yes; the minority of people in the world. What I am saying is, don't
> be surprised at the neverending stream of terrorists from the middle
> east, Africa, Asia. What, d'you think they'll just give up?
Except they're not from whole continents, and the average terrorist is well educated - usually in the west - and from a middle class background. Yes, suicide bombers aren't, but the people controlling the terrorist groups are, in fact many have rich families and vast personal wealth. Strangely none seem to bothered about these people you're saying are angry. I mean, it's almost like people like Osama are using those people to justify their own little crusades eh ? So we find them, and we remove them. And we keep on doing that, and hope that those places where people are being badly treated by their own leaders and such get rid of them, and I'm sure that in the shadows we'll be all too happy to give the little push now and then.
> Really? So how come Paul Wolfowitz, a very senior Neo-Con, admitted
> that "removing the regime is pretty much the 4th reason on the
> list. And it's more of a supplemental reason. I mean, removing Saddam
> is a good thing, but it's not worth risking American lives for"
Becaue Paul Wolfowitz is the president now ? And the context that quote is taken from is the reason why Saddam's 4th on the list. But you forget to mention that.
> You're swallowing the lies you've been told, AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN
> THINKING ABOUT THEM! They made it clear? Utter, total cr@p. It was
> about WOMD. Then it was about Al-Quaida. Only after both of these
> reasons had been exposed as total and complete fabrication did
> Dubya...well, actually he just kept repeating them. But he also said
> it was for "the iraqi people".
So you're the holder of the truth then eh ? It's all lies ? Okay.
> Sorry, let me get this straight; you're saying that terrorists would
> just appear to destroy the US, even if the US WEREN'T responsible for
> their way of life being so demeaning to human dignity? Uhh...and
> what's your evidence for that please?
See back to who these terrorists generally are.
> And if you're going to give Saddam a good kicking, why aren't you
> demanding that other regimes get a good kicking?
Probably to keep people like you happy ? You want the world to change but you want to do it peacefully, that will not happen and you're a fool to think otherwise.
> Jesus...THINK will you?
Ah, of course, back to the "Light says it so it's thinking, Belldandy says it and it's parrot food" theory ? Okay.
> They turn more Iraqi's against them? Really...then why are the
> Iraqi's protesting against the occupying American and British troops?
Because we went in and gave them the ability to protest about what they care about without fear of being dragged away in the night with their families and killed ?
> That was the moment they lost? You think so? Why? Explain yourself
> beyond a blank assertion please.
Because it shows they want the Americans out of the country and will kill anyone and anything that stands in the way, including NGO's. Generally most people don't care who delivers the food and medical care if they need it so I doubt most Iraqi's want the NGO's out of there - but the terrorists do, so they can control the food and such as they did before the war and regain status and power.
> Jesus, there you go AGAIN..."Yeah, it's bad; but look at what
> EVIL RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE DOING!!" FORGET about them for a
> moment; you're trying to justify the Land of the Free doing all
> manner of deeply unpleasant things by saying that other countries do
> them...yet you don't see the contradiction in continuing to insist
> that the US are the best. How can they be a better nation if they do
> the same as what you consider to be the bad guys?!
But hang on ? You're complaining earlier that you want action against regimes like this ? You even name China ! Now you're complaining about someone saying they are a risk ? Okay. I don't actually say they're evil, I'm just saying that the UN should be more concerned about North Korea and it's ongoing "what can we say to get people's attention" ploy, China's little military jaunts which have gone unmentioned for the most part, and Russia's inability to control WMD stores in it's own territory, to name but a few things. But hey, if you feel the greatest world threat right now is the US led coalition trying to destory the remains of one evil regime then that's cool.
> Christ almighty...how many times do I have to say that ALL nations
> are as bad as each other before you get it? Say all you want about
> other nations being international floating t*rds; you won't get me
> flying to their defence. But STOP trying to distract attention away
> from the godawful actions of the US and UK.
Again this strange double logic, that all nations are as bad as each other and should be viewed equally, yet the most criticism and attention should be reserved for the ones taking down dictator and terrorist regimes ?
That's why all the other ones get away with it...don't you see that ? So many put so much effort into demonising and criticising a few nations and they get all the press coverage and public attention, so all the other nations carry on because they know that most Westerner's are far too busy attacking a few nations to bother with them. Maybe you need to look a little at yourself and those who criticise a few countries as much as you do those who oppose your views...
> Irrelevant? Do you really think so? Look at Iraq; there is peace
> there by force of arms. The people killing US soldiers every day
> don't seem to find that irrelevant.
And the "peace" before we went in was what exactly ? Peaceful for the people in the ever rising tally of unmarked graves ? Or would that be peaceful for those being executed for speaking against Saddam ? Or those being gang raped in prisons by Iraqi military forces ? I'm having difficulty locating this peace that existed before we went in. Sure, the terrorists may find it irrelevant, but that's because they've lost what little power and purpose they had. There is no place for them anymore in Iraq and they will fight to the death to regain it.
> Peace can only be achieved through force of arms? Then why did
> Apartheid end peacefully in South Africa?
After years of violence ? Okay.
> Why did the British Empire
> end peacefully, and with elections in those countries we no longer
> occupied, and with a remarkable (though not total) lack of bloodshed?
Because the UK no longer had the military forces to maintain rule by force, plus you may want to look up the idea of neo-colonialism if you think that most gained true independence, in many cases those who were elected were little better than us, or indeed worse in many cases. Plus if you want to call it a remarkable lack of bloodshed then Iraq, by comparison, is a negligible amount of bloodshed.
> Why is it that the best chance of peace in northern ireland is coming
> through negotiation and not bloodshed?
These would be the negotiation that have been going on for decades, whilst all the time various groups still kill, maim and terrorise yes ? I'm sure those in Canary Wharf, Manchester, Omagh and such were heartened to know that the peace process was ongoing.
> There you go again; trying to play the emotional "this was so
> terrible!" card. B******t. Sorry Bell, but you lost the right to
> wring your hands in dismay about 9/11 when you wailed about Goatboy
> disagreeing with you, and demeaned his loss because his opinions
> conflicted with your own.
And there you go playing the counter-emotional bulls"it.=, last time I looked this was a democracy, with a reasonable freedom of speech, I have as much right as you to discuss it and noticeably you avoid the actual point that the worst act of terrorism EVER was comitted before overt action against the terrorists.
> Erm...before 9/11, no terrorists had hit any major western city for a
> while. We didn't feel the need to bomb civilians to mush then...the
> only major attacks before then were those by the IRA (funded mainly
> by rich Americans...), ETA (yet no war against them; funny that...),
> and Chechen rebels (and curiously, the more Russia pours troops into
> that nation, the more terrorists pour out of it).
REally ? Well gather up your evidence about the IRA because I'm sure 6 would like to look it over, as would the FBI and such, heck it's been looked for for ages so I'm glad you've got it ! Plus if you've got the Pentagon plans which say "Objective: Bomb Civilians" there's a pile of Democrat Senators and Liberal Democrat MP's who'll be interested, ETA is supposedly in negotiations (like the IRA peace process you hold up earlier on) and again with reference to Russia we see this peculair "leave the terrorists alone and they'll leave us alone" idea. USS Cole anyone ? First WTC bombing ? And many more...
> And how about the Bali nightclub bomb? Does that not count? What
> about the acts of terrorism in Iraq as we speak? Are they somehow
> different
Yes, they're soft targets and show that in order to cause damage they are going for low rate weak targets in peripheral regions. Sure, Osama and his buddies keep making these tapes saying he's going to strike, but oh dear, no strikes.
> Weak targets?! Right...so that's a comfort to those who died or who
> lost loved ones? "Hey, at least they didn't die in a major
> attack on a major city!" Could you maybe stop trying to redefine
> a terrorist atrocity in order to avoid backing down from what is a
> manifestly absurd argument.
See above, they are weak targets, which whilst providing little comfort for those left behind in such attacks, it does show a gradual move towards the end.
> Every month more are killed? Well guess what; every month a lot more
> are created thanks to the policies of the west. Not forever? So when
> do you think it will stop? Will the citizens of oppressive regimes
> just decide "Ah well, we'd best just accept our lot in
> life"? Or do you maybe think that as long as the US supports
> oppressive regimes, there will be people hating the US for doing so?
No, but as you well know, the terrorists come from a small minority in certain countries. Earlier this week the Red Cross was hit. Now if you're a parent in Iraq, and your kid dies because the Red Cross goes or was damaged, I'd guess you're not going to give a toss about the "holy cause" and you're going to act against the terrorists. Saddam's sons were found because the guy whose place they took didn't like them anymore, the information to extract Private Lynch was obtained because an Iraqi lawyer did not like what he saw, in Afghanistan Afghani's are helping us to find the terrorists because they don't want the life they had for their children.
> And last stand?!? What, d'you think that all terrorism will stop if
> you just kill enough people? Might I ask what gives you that idea?
No,, read above. Also you remove the means, and you harden security to prevent possible attacks.
> Yes. A lot of WESTERN people live like that. An awful lot of people
> in the developing world don't.
That's a very simplified way of looking at it, unless the entire continents of Asia and Africa suddenly erupted in open warfare this morning then that's not the case - you'll find people in all nations live in varying conditions and the division is not on the grounds of nationality or country, usually it's class.
>They live in fear, under oppression,
> and in danger. And they look at the western world, living in peace
> thanks to the labour of the developing world.
Well they'd do well to look at their own leaders who sold them out, not the western world. Why was colonialism possible in the past ? Because most of the elites in the colonies were easily bought or willingly joined in.
> And they get angry. And
> funnily enough, terrorists can prey on that anger and use it to their
> advantage. Only way that will stop is if we stop giving them reason
> to be angry. Bombing them doesn't strike me as the best way to do
> that.
That's one view, but not the only one. Remove those who put them in that position - their own leaders. Right now Mr Mugabe's running Zimbabwe into the ground, which I guess is our fault for not acting ? But if we act then his supporters will get angry and shoot at our people, so using your logic we should sit back and do zilch.
> Yes; the minority of people in the world. What I am saying is, don't
> be surprised at the neverending stream of terrorists from the middle
> east, Africa, Asia. What, d'you think they'll just give up?
Except they're not from whole continents, and the average terrorist is well educated - usually in the west - and from a middle class background. Yes, suicide bombers aren't, but the people controlling the terrorist groups are, in fact many have rich families and vast personal wealth. Strangely none seem to bothered about these people you're saying are angry. I mean, it's almost like people like Osama are using those people to justify their own little crusades eh ? So we find them, and we remove them. And we keep on doing that, and hope that those places where people are being badly treated by their own leaders and such get rid of them, and I'm sure that in the shadows we'll be all too happy to give the little push now and then.
> Really? So how come Paul Wolfowitz, a very senior Neo-Con, admitted
> that "removing the regime is pretty much the 4th reason on the
> list. And it's more of a supplemental reason. I mean, removing Saddam
> is a good thing, but it's not worth risking American lives for"
Becaue Paul Wolfowitz is the president now ? And the context that quote is taken from is the reason why Saddam's 4th on the list. But you forget to mention that.
> You're swallowing the lies you've been told, AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN
> THINKING ABOUT THEM! They made it clear? Utter, total cr@p. It was
> about WOMD. Then it was about Al-Quaida. Only after both of these
> reasons had been exposed as total and complete fabrication did
> Dubya...well, actually he just kept repeating them. But he also said
> it was for "the iraqi people".
So you're the holder of the truth then eh ? It's all lies ? Okay.
> Sorry, let me get this straight; you're saying that terrorists would
> just appear to destroy the US, even if the US WEREN'T responsible for
> their way of life being so demeaning to human dignity? Uhh...and
> what's your evidence for that please?
See back to who these terrorists generally are.
> And if you're going to give Saddam a good kicking, why aren't you
> demanding that other regimes get a good kicking?
Probably to keep people like you happy ? You want the world to change but you want to do it peacefully, that will not happen and you're a fool to think otherwise.
> Jesus...THINK will you?
Ah, of course, back to the "Light says it so it's thinking, Belldandy says it and it's parrot food" theory ? Okay.
> They turn more Iraqi's against them? Really...then why are the
> Iraqi's protesting against the occupying American and British troops?
Because we went in and gave them the ability to protest about what they care about without fear of being dragged away in the night with their families and killed ?
> That was the moment they lost? You think so? Why? Explain yourself
> beyond a blank assertion please.
Because it shows they want the Americans out of the country and will kill anyone and anything that stands in the way, including NGO's. Generally most people don't care who delivers the food and medical care if they need it so I doubt most Iraqi's want the NGO's out of there - but the terrorists do, so they can control the food and such as they did before the war and regain status and power.
> Jesus, there you go AGAIN..."Yeah, it's bad; but look at what
> EVIL RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE DOING!!" FORGET about them for a
> moment; you're trying to justify the Land of the Free doing all
> manner of deeply unpleasant things by saying that other countries do
> them...yet you don't see the contradiction in continuing to insist
> that the US are the best. How can they be a better nation if they do
> the same as what you consider to be the bad guys?!
But hang on ? You're complaining earlier that you want action against regimes like this ? You even name China ! Now you're complaining about someone saying they are a risk ? Okay. I don't actually say they're evil, I'm just saying that the UN should be more concerned about North Korea and it's ongoing "what can we say to get people's attention" ploy, China's little military jaunts which have gone unmentioned for the most part, and Russia's inability to control WMD stores in it's own territory, to name but a few things. But hey, if you feel the greatest world threat right now is the US led coalition trying to destory the remains of one evil regime then that's cool.
> Christ almighty...how many times do I have to say that ALL nations
> are as bad as each other before you get it? Say all you want about
> other nations being international floating t*rds; you won't get me
> flying to their defence. But STOP trying to distract attention away
> from the godawful actions of the US and UK.
Again this strange double logic, that all nations are as bad as each other and should be viewed equally, yet the most criticism and attention should be reserved for the ones taking down dictator and terrorist regimes ?
That's why all the other ones get away with it...don't you see that ? So many put so much effort into demonising and criticising a few nations and they get all the press coverage and public attention, so all the other nations carry on because they know that most Westerner's are far too busy attacking a few nations to bother with them. Maybe you need to look a little at yourself and those who criticise a few countries as much as you do those who oppose your views...
Page: