Support our troops.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-09-2011, 06:08 PM
 
RE: Support our troops.
(25-09-2011 05:31 PM)BnW Wrote:  Maybe it's saying the same thing, but we formed that alliance because of our interests.

I think we are saying the same things -- I only use a lot more words! Big Grin
Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2011, 01:06 AM
RE: Support our troops.
(24-09-2011 07:39 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  *LONG POST*

You live in a fantasy world. If 100 people in a room wanted peace and one of them had a machine gun and wanted death, then there would be death. Peace does not exist, and cannot exist, ever. The best you can hope for is a state where those who wish war are incapable of successfully engaging in it. If you attempt to create a world without war you will create a world of petty dictators and warmongers easily picking the bones of a civilization incapable of defending itself. 99% of people can never control the 1% who want war and they never have, throughout history. Why? Because the 99% are not prepared to fight. They are not prepared to kill. They are not prepared to strike first.

Do you think wars are started by massive numbers of people? A few barbarians with a fierce temperment can bring a nation to its knees. One charismatic man can conquer half the world. You will never have a world where every single solitary human being is a happy, peaceful turd. You will always have warmongers, petty tyrants, brutal empires, and every other form of cruelty and destruction you can imagine.

The best periods in human history, the most peaceful, have not been times when everyone sat around and sang koombya, but rather when a few massive powers prevented all the smaller powers from fighting. Even then there was war, but it was on a much smaller and more contained scale. There has never, since the dawn of human history, a single day when there was not a war being engaged somewhere on this planet, and there never will be. The goal of making a giant peaceful planet will lead you to your own death and ruin as you blindly disarm yourself and leave yourself easy prey to those who find your ideals meaningless and who hold human life in no more esteem than they do the life of a bug.

You either deal with the world as it IS or you try to create a world that will never be and doom yourself in the process.

[Image: 81564_gal-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2011, 05:16 AM
 
RE: Support our troops.
(26-09-2011 01:06 AM)17thknight Wrote:  You live in a fantasy world.

For related reading I recommend the "Options in a mental institution" thread.

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I will let others reply, should they wish to do so. I think you and I have reached the point of diminishing returns.

No offense intended, only recognition of futility.

Smile
Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2011, 05:05 PM
RE: Support our troops.
(26-09-2011 05:16 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I will let others reply, should they wish to do so. I think you and I have reached the point of diminishing returns.

No offense intended, only recognition of futility.

Smile

For our next debate, we should each just hammer our heads against a brick wall for 10 minutes and then call it a day Big Grin

[Image: 81564_gal-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2011, 02:55 PM
 
RE: Support our troops.
(26-09-2011 05:05 PM)17thknight Wrote:  For our next debate, we should each just hammer our heads against a brick wall for 10 minutes and then call it a day Big Grin

We won't have a next debate and you sound like you already have! Big Grin

Seriously, I gave up on you because you seem to be missing the essence of most of my points and I am tired of having to repeat them over and over again. Others on this forum did not seem to have any problem picking up my meaning, you on the other hand seem to be ignoring them and keep repeating your own line.

I honestly don't think we could get anywhere without trying to understand where the other is coming from.

I don' think you are doing that in a serious, honest way. Sometime you seem to be arguing both sides of an issue, but my suspicion is that it is a strategy: trying to sound balanced while advocating extremist views like supporting Guantanamo Bay, trashing government, embracing outdated militarism, etc.

See why I find our 'debates' futile?

Again, no offense intended, just telling it the way I see it.

Smile
Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2011, 05:08 PM
RE: Support our troops.
(28-09-2011 02:55 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Seriously, I gave up on you because you seem to be missing the essence of most of my points and I am tired of having to repeat them over and over again. Others on this forum did not seem to have any problem picking up my meaning, you on the other hand seem to be ignoring them and keep repeating your own line.

I honestly don't think we could get anywhere without trying to understand where the other is coming from.

I apologize for jumping into an argument that has nothing to do with me but after reading your post, I have a question: why do you think he did not understand your point? I thought he understood your point exactly. He just disagreed with you. And, when you made the same argument, he made the same rebuttals.

What am I missing?

I ask because I see this all the time. Someone says X, another person disagrees and counters with Y. The first person concludes that the problem must not be a disagreement but simply a misunderstanding. Is it just me here? Does anyone else notice this?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2011, 05:17 PM
 
RE: Support our troops.
(28-09-2011 05:08 PM)BnW Wrote:  What am I missing?

He did not answer any of the points I raised in Post #11 -- and that post covers the entire topic as far as I am concerned. Smile
Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2011, 06:59 PM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2011 07:04 PM by 17thknight.)
RE: Support our troops.
(28-09-2011 05:17 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  He did not answer any of the points I raised in Post #11 -- and that post covers the entire topic as far as I am concerned. Smile

Did you ever think that I simply never saw them? I'll answer them in detail:


(23-09-2011 03:38 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  The issue is very simple: The USA and her allies are strong enough to destroy the entire planet with half of their nuclear arsenal. They don’t need any more defense against any sane opponent that does not have a death wish.

When it comes to defense against people who have nothing to lose and are willing to die in order to take as many Americans/Westerners with them as they can (as the 9/11 attackers), you have no defense whatsoever, as was proven 10 years ago.
You're right, we don't need more nuclear weapons, which is why we're content with what we have. You act like we're still building up like it's the Cold War, we're not.
Precisely, but they aren't as serious a threat as an actual nation. Your strength against such an opponent is irrelevant, but they cannot engage in the kind of warfare that a nation (like the Soviet Union during the Cold War) could engage in. The original arguments for MAD and similar policies was to prevent mass-land invasions of one nation by another and those theories have held to be true.


(23-09-2011 03:38 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Proliferation is a fact and there is nothing that you could do to stop it. Nuclear weapons will get into the hands of desperate people, sooner or later, no matter what you do. I am surprised it has not happened yet.

But it HAS NOT happened yet. You say it is an inevitability: Then why has it not happened yet? We live in an age of declining nuclear warfare.

Most importantly: The USA or its allies having nuclear weapons will not prevent or cause an enemy like you describe from attaining them. If the USA had ZERO nuclear weapons it would still be just as possible for a "desperate" person to obtain one from another nation. Furthermore, if the USA had no nuclear weapons, that would only be an incentive for itts enemies and the enemies of its allies to hold onto their own, thus giving them an immense strategic advantage. Rather than bringing the world away from war, it would bring us significantly closer.

(23-09-2011 03:38 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  The only thing you can do is to remove the reasons why these people want to kill you (and don’t give me that bullshit that they hate you for your freedoms). That means showing goodwill and removing the injustices that the American/Western Empire has perpetrated around the Globe since WW2. They are all very well documented.
That is highly highly vague. What specific "injustices"? You say they don't want to kill us because of "our freedom" but many people have been killed because of exactly that.

Do you not remember Theo Van Gogh? His great injustice was making a movie about the horrors that women face in many Muslim nations (as demonstrated by this lovely news story Pakistan Girl). They do hate us because we do not follow their cultural norms and they do wish to kill us, and you, and everyone else for it.

The people who engage in these activities (Al-Qaed, et al) are not interested in peaceful negotiation. There is no "injustice" you could "cure". You have bought into the excuses used to wage the modern version of a war that has been ongoing since 1,500 BCE and earlier. It is new propaganda, same war.

List for me every "injustice" that caused this. (I also note that you are blaming the victims of the attacks, and have accepted the "you deserve this" line of reasoning).

(23-09-2011 03:38 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  As far as “humanitarian intervention” is concerned, it sounds awfully like the “White Man’s Burden”.
While I was in the Navy I, and my friends, and Fiancee were involved in dozens of humanitarian missions that involved sending hospital ships and moving entire fleets to nations that needed medical help. We did it at no cost to the nations we visited. There was no strategic benefit. Thousands of lives were saved, thousands of surgeries done. Probably more. You can sneer at this all you like, but I very pointedly ask: why is this a BAD thing and why do you condemn it and sneer at it?

(23-09-2011 03:38 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Most of the problems that require intervention are caused by the parties who want to intervene.
Irrelevant. 1. You can't prove that, you're turning thousands of years of history and complex cultural dynamics into a single sentence, and when you simplify something that complex you're probably wrong. 2. Even it was true that only means the onus lies all the more on the offender to correct the problem they caused.

(23-09-2011 03:38 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  The cycle of death and destruction will end only one way: the countries that are causing it have to back down, retreat to their own territory (from their hundreds of military bases around the world) and allow the rest of the world to work out their problems, without intervention, without egging them on, without supplying them with deadlier weapons (and getting filthy rich doing it)
You act as though this hasn't happened before.

Can you think of two times in history that the United States refused to intervene in foreign affairs until things had reached a near-catastrophic boiling point? World War 1 and 2.

Non-intervention does not solve anything, and you're talkilng out of both sides of your mouth. So if we intervene, we're evil bad guys who are sticking our noses where they don't belong. Yet you've said that proliferation of nuclear arms to a dangerous madman is INEVITABLE and your solution is to...be isolationist? Just let people slaughter, kill, and massacre each other as they wish when those who have the power to stop them sit back and do NOTHING??

Isolationsim nearly destroyed the world. Twice. Isolationism does not work.

MOST IMPORTANTLY I'd like you to justify this lovely bit of non-intervention:
Rwanda. That's what happens when we don't intervene. We DID intervene in Kosovo and the Balkans and prevented what could have been Rwanda 2.0.

Are you really going to tell me that the world doesn't need someone to keep them from slaughtering each other? Because you are, quite obviously, wrong.


(23-09-2011 03:38 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  The cycle of death and destruction will end only one way: the
The cycle of death won't end ever. It can be mitigated, it can be curbed, it can be held in check. The idea that you can prevent humans acting violently towards each other is ludicrous. The idea that disarming yourself will make you more safe is even more ludicrous. You can demonstrate zero instances of this actually working in human history, but I could dump thousands of instances of a nation that tried to be isolationist or peaceful and it being annihilated. The only countries that can successfully disarm themselves are the ones under the wing of a patron nation, safe in the knowledge that their patron prevents them from being destroyed entirely.

[Image: 81564_gal-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2011, 07:19 PM
 
RE: Support our troops.
As I said before: I disagree with almost everything you said on the issue. Including your last post.

I could go over your answers one by one and refute them, then you would go over every line of my refutations and attempt to refute them and on, and on, and on.

It is just too much work!

I have to rely on my gut feeling that tells me: we will never see eye to eye on most things, especially politics and military.

Only one LAST brief comment:

Most of the violence in human history involved fighting over limited resources and the ancillary violence that was incited by some of the chess players to get an advantage over the others. The pawns in the middle got slaughtered.

You say that war is inevitable, we will always have them. This is an unproven assertion. History has never reached a point yet where we had limitless resources, when money can disappear, where people don’t have to kill each other for food or oil.

Our existing science and technology would make it possible NOW – we just have to deal with the deadly residue of our violent history. If we survive the process, we will have peace. I know this is another unproven assertion, however, it is MY unproven assertion, in total opposition of yours.

That is why I think that further discussions between us are pointless, because I will not budge from mine and, I am sure, you will not budge from yours.

Let’s just leave it at that.
Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2011, 07:25 PM
RE: Support our troops.
(28-09-2011 07:19 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Most of the violence in human history involved fighting over limited resources and the ancillary violence that was incited by some of the chess players to get an advantage over the others. The pawns in the middle got slaughtered.

You say that war in inevitable, we will always have them. This is an unproven assertion. History has never reached a point yet where we had limitless resources, when money can disappear, where people don’t have to kill each other for food or oil.

Our existing science and technology would make it possible NOW – we just have to deal with the deadly residue of our violent history. If we survive the process, we will have peace. I know this is another unproven assertion, however, it is MY unproven assertion, in total opposition of yours.
I agree, the primary impetus for war has been:
1. Land
2. Resources
3. Personal power, which is directly related to the first two

Yet, even if we had unlimited resources we would still not have unlimited land. And we still would not have people who do not desire personal power.

Some of the most endless wars had nothing to do with resources. Alexander the Great conquered simply because he could.

EDIT: How can you disagree with everything in my post? Rwanda happened. It is the perfect example why non-intervention is a strategy that only results in innocent deaths.

[Image: 81564_gal-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: