war hawks ( coreyRIT and venom ) please read...

emily · Post by **emily** » 2/20/2003, 4:30 pm

do you mean as in Confederates and Yankees?

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 2/20/2003, 4:31 pm

i mean, like, amerikans.

because some of them are like nazis.

emily · Post by **emily** » 2/20/2003, 4:32 pm

why do we spell with a "k"?

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 2/20/2003, 4:33 pm

it's more fascist that way. :freak:

Post by **faninor** » 2/20/2003, 6:39 pm

maninthemarble wrote:right now the united states of amerika is killing arabs by the thousands and has in custody over three thousand men of middle eastern dessent who are being denied their rights to communicate with their own governments or families. they are being held in a concentration camp where they are tortured and harassed.

Show me facts to back that up.

Post by **faninor** » 2/20/2003, 7:13 pm

There is a philosophical difference than civilian deaths during a war and events like September 11th. Those terrorists were specifically targeting civilians and there was no negotiation beforehand. The US will have military targets.

And yes, call me cold, but I would rather have a relatively small number of innocent civilians die in a war than a combination of continued sanctions weakening and killing the same innocent people and a government controlled by Saddam with chemical and biological weapons.

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 2/20/2003, 8:29 pm

circles in your concrete wrote:the people whose homes are going to get 'hit by stray missiles' are minding their own business too. killing innocents is wrong. period.

that's right they are minding their own buisness. but understand that there is sufficient amount of warning here, where as the attack on the towers wasn't. if given this time and warning anyone would seek help or simply move from that area. there was a huge influx of refugees into turkey and other surrounding countries last time we did this, so obviously you can get moving. Sadam isn't going to hunt these people down this time because he won't be in power after this. and if given the proper time and warning, i would go out, load my guns and wait for who ever is going to attack me.

concentration camps you say? well, where are they? gitmo? you think that's a fucking concentration camp? i can tell you that there have been camps in the U.S. hisotry but the people detained wern't being tortured. there was one in Crystal City, Texas, back in world war 2, and there are decendants that still live there that say it was a place where the government looked over your actions. they were allowed into the city to get food and what not, they were given jobs (with del monte), and were being paid. they had to sleep in barrack sytle buldings, wern't allowed to write anyone without the mail being checked. they got the real crappy jobs too, but that was back in the days of ignorance, we are alot smarter and more humane now a days. wait till a few soilders get caught in Iraq, let's see if the geneava codes mean anything to sadam.

But yeah, lets blame the US for those sanctions. nevermind the real cause. let's forget that Iraqi oil is suppose to be traded in return for humanitarian aid, food, and medicine. we don't need to spend any money feeding and clothing other contries people, that's not MY problem. those people in need of that aid probably never got it at all anyway. take that back, i bet it did get there, however the Iraqi Government probably sold it to their own dying people. of course all this is suppose to be under certain conditions that Sadam never really quite achived. that's why the sanctions took place, and his people die, all while he has 100's of palaces. because he's not fit to rule, and when someone is fit to rule takes control of that country, those people will get the aid they need, their economic status will be alot better, and and after the re-building takes place, the world will understand why this was done.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 2/20/2003, 9:05 pm

no human alive is fit to rule over another human being. if you believe that then you are mistaken.

Post by **faninor** » 2/20/2003, 11:31 pm

maninthemarble wrote:no human alive is fit to rule over another human being. if you believe that then you are mistaken.

Nobody is perfect, but whether not they're fit to rule, somebody (or some body) must be in charge, and there are some people who are more fit to have power than others. If you believe anarchy would work, you have too much faith in other human beings.

Ray 2 · Post by **Ray 2** » 2/21/2003, 7:31 am

Human nature creates a heirarchy, just like any other animal. Some are meant to rule over others; there's always a leader in a pride of lions, a gaggle of geese; they've been put in that position by the rest of their group.

There is a reason why we elect officials in this country. We want someone to rule over us. To have more power than we do. We want to be guided. The complete theory that no human alive is allowed to rule over another human being is like saying everything that humanity has evolved to up to this point was simply wrong. And that can't be. One wrong evolutionary step, and the race would be dead, right? You only get one chance when you evolve.

And why is it that people have such a bug up their ass about the accidental deaths of civilians in wars today? Fuck. The "Great Wars" had no such qualms about civilian deaths. People die, ladies and gentlemen. Shit happens. A war can't be fought without a few idiots getting in the way. Suppose a soldier has a shot at Saddam; is it worth it, if a civilian steps in the way, to still fire? The bullet and gun may be strong enough to go through the civilian, hit and kill Saddam. Or do you try to make as much noise as possible to scare the person out of the way, which collapses the probability of Saddam staying where he is?

Until you've put yourself in the shoes of other people, don't turn into a hippie. If you can take nearly any angle of war, and still find that it is wrong... by all means... go ahead and protest. But don't P&M about how ruling over others is wrong and that no civilian should ever be killed, period.

Venom · Post by **Venom** » 2/21/2003, 8:16 am

i can't "get over it". we are talking about people's lives. i can never "get over" how you and your ilk are so quick to just dismiss the lives of totally innocent people. it's amazing.

the people whose homes are going to get 'hit by stray missiles' are minding their own business too. killing innocents is wrong. period.

So if you ran a country you would just let the rest of the world kill all your people without doing a thing about it because "that would be morally and ethically wrong"??? Are you stupid??? There will never be a "world peace"!! Its a fantasy. Its human nature to disagree and to fight and no one is going to think like you and just let themselves be eradicated. You anti-war people that say "no war is justified" are, to say it lightly, idiots! I can't believe that even though someone came into your country and/or house and started killing people that you wouldn't feel the need to fight back. Thats insane.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 2/21/2003, 10:15 am

venom, you're one of those idiot guys who makes no attempt to understand the opponent's position and then babbles endlessly about what you have decided the other person thinks. as such, i will waste no more time with you. you're just not living in reality.

ray2 - i believe in individual rights. i don't care if killing one person would save 1 million lives, you still don't have the right to do it, so no, you dont' shoot through that civillian to hit saddam.

people dying is not "shit happens". that's incredibly hypocritical coming from an american, a country which was founded on the concept of individual rights.

not only is going to war with iraq morally reprehensible it's politically idiotic, too. there is no reason to do it.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 2/21/2003, 10:37 am

give me a break.

demos & ray - so it is your belief then that all people are not created equal? That some are better then others?

And what is the criteria? Who decides who is better? Is it based on skin color? gender? Have the KKK been right all along?

I do have faith in human beings, because this is a race of survivors, and I'm sure if you gave man back his freedom he would excel to heights never seen before. Who was it that taught you that man needs the state to survive? the state. doesn't it make sense for the body that needs you to exist to try and convince you that it's the other way aronud? how can you say people couldn't survive without big brother when we've never tried it before?

ray - you are irrational. i cannot argue with you about an issue when you don't wish to argue.

venom - you are irrational. this has stopped being an argument long ago and now transformed into my argument against your opinion. you cannot defend your beliefs and you have no idea why you believe them except for the inane notions put in your head by your nazi masters. you don't even bother to respond to the points we make, instead you resort to flames and acting like an asshole.

you amerikans. sheesh.

Venom · Post by **Venom** » 2/21/2003, 10:44 am

venom, you're one of those idiot guys who makes no attempt to understand the opponent's position and then babbles endlessly about what you have decided the other person thinks. as such, i will waste no more time with you. you're just not living in reality.

When the opposition has a valid point I acknowledge that.....but you don't, so yes, you're and idiot. You don't wanna "waste anymore time with me" because you can't defend your position on allowing millions of people to die because you believe its morally wrong to kill one. Well tell me how its morally right to allow that one to kill millions. You allowing that to happen is a million times worse than killing that one man. If you wouldn't kill Saddam to save a million lives you are an idiot. I bet if your entire family was in that million lives you would sing a different tune. Its easy for you to play hippie when you think its not gonna effect you in any way isn't it?

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 2/21/2003, 10:50 am

venom.

if you're not going to read our arguments, then don't bother us with your bullshit. it's like we say something to you, and you know you can't contest it, so you put words in our mouths and then bitch about the stuff you just made up.

you just want to go to war. you don't know why you think saddam is evil, you can't justify the murder of innocents, and you refuse to deabte this issue. like i said, now it's my argument against your opinion. so instead of trying to argue this rationally, i'm going to sink to your level and make fun of you from now on.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 2/21/2003, 10:54 am

sorry venom, is this better?

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

now do i have a valid point?

i really think you should go enlist.

Venom · Post by **Venom** » 2/21/2003, 10:58 am

I don't argue your points??? I just asked a question and guess what.....you didn't acknowledge it. Probably because you can't. When someone can't argue (like you can't) they dodge the questions and turn it around on the other person being irrational. You have never once acknowledged my point on how the rest of the world would allow the US to do all these horrible things you say they do. Why is more than half the world behind the American government if they are wrong? Why did resolution 1441 pass unanimously??

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 2/21/2003, 11:12 am

whose going to stop the us?

that's why you can get away with it.

not to mention, you lie and cover it up.

the un is in amerikas back pocket.

Venom · Post by **Venom** » 2/21/2003, 11:15 am

So you're saying that if the rest of the world stood up to America and put sanctions on us that we wouldn't back down?? Boy you really think our country is great and powerful don't you. You see to have more faith in our economy and government then I do. Truth is the US couldn't make it without the rest of the world and we don't run the rest of the world.

Ray 2 · Post by **Ray 2** » 2/21/2003, 11:17 am

Part I:

I do have faith in human beings, because this is a race of survivors, and I'm sure if you gave man back his freedom he would excel to heights never seen before. Who was it that taught you that man needs the state to survive? the state. doesn't it make sense for the body that needs you to exist to try and convince you that it's the other way aronud? how can you say people couldn't survive without big brother when we've never tried it before?

Well, for one thing, an unfocused rebellion against the loss of freedom would not amount to much. We've seen what happens when battles go down to chaos. The stronger survive. Who would be stronger in this case? The state or the people? The state, of course. Trained soldiers, weaponry we don't have access to. If someone were to lead this, though, if a council of people were to, plans could be made. Someone would have to lead such an expedition, though.

so it is your belief then that all people are not created equal? That some are better then others?

And what is the criteria? Who decides who is better? Is it based on skin color? gender? Have the KKK been right all along?

Quite simply, it's charisma and smarts that decides whether or not you're going to be a leader. Some had more charisma than smarts (Nixon, GW Bush), and more smarts than charisma (Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt), while some have had an even-handed amount of both (Washington, FDR).

In every culture, in every prosperous culture, at least, there's been leaders.

Why do you think we don't know what it's like to have a leaderless, all-equal society? Because, most likely, ancient mistakes were made and we acquired the knowledge (evolved) that having leaders works much better than being leaderless. The other part of human nature -- to be prejudiced against those different -- is how the KKK views the world. Their prejudice has mixed with their idea of what is a good leader, creating the ideal of white supremacy.

Part II:

i believe in individual rights. i don't care if killing one person would save 1 million lives, you still don't have the right to do it, so no, you dont' shoot through that civillian to hit saddam.

So you're saying that one person is more important than one million people? One million individuals? Each of these people would die. Individual rights would be broken for one million people, rather than just one. Now... can you explain how that works?

people dying is not "shit happens". that's incredibly hypocritical coming from an american, a country which was founded on the concept of individual rights.

The Bill of Rights is a system that states what the government cannot do. It is not a grouping of individual rights. It applies to everyone. A mass, not an individual. You have to deal with other people, correct? That's the right of everyone -- not the right of individuals, but the entire populace.

Individual - 1. particular; seperate, esp. from similar things.

Everyone has the same rights. Nobody has individual rights. We have equality.

Equality - 1. the state or quality of being equal.

Equal - 1. of the same in quantity, degree, merit, etc.

Now, to go back to part I for a second: as a populace, we vote for who we think is most representative, who is the best for the job, as a leader. This is a person that we believe was born with the needed ingredients to be a good leader. It's like someone being born with the talent to run faster, jump higher. They were born better than the rest in that way. So, no, not everyone is created equal.

I don't really know what else to say, based off that.

it's politically idiotic, too. there is no reason to do it.

Oil. Control. A war lust that Bush has. And, of course, "unfinished business". If only Bush would actually tell the truth, instead of using scare tactics (which, admittedly, are working rather well). I could rest easier knowing that at least our leader is being truthful in reasoning. But, he isn't. He makes this seem like the US is the hero, when it's an imperialist grab. I do believe we shouldn't be going into the war -- if anything, we should have at least pointed out the human rights violations that Saddam has done. We'd probably have more support then (even if the UN cannot dictate how a person can run his citizens).