quote from Lebanon's paramount Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who, after siding with Syria for decades (he didn't have much choice; they killed his father) and opposing the U.S. war in Iraq, has become the leading figure in the anti-Syrian Lebanese opposition: "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world . The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

Pretty powerful stuff.

Bullshit, or not? You make the call.

http://www.reason.com/links/links022405.shtml

Could it be a positive indicator? Surely the road will not be smooth, but this guy has a positive attitude. I like it. It's hope.

Or maybe he realizes its best to side with the giant while he is strong.

Just you wait. The day the giant stumbles. Stumbles for a second.

All his so called friends will pounce on him and rob him. Rob him clean.

If you want to call it hope, call it so. But he's not stupid. He went public for a reason.

Maybe Bush has agreed to set Jumblatt up with a CIA protected heroin franchise.

Thanks to the vision of George Bush and the power of the US military, democracy is breaking out all over the middle east. It won't be easy, but ultimately the chaotic middle-eastern cesspool that gave birth to the September 11 terrorists will be cleaned up making the world a better place for us and them.

And predictably there is no mention of American style 'democracy' being forced on Saudi Arabia or Kuwait ! The only 'democracy' America recoginises in the region is the "Democracy for Jews only Israel " . And this sham election in Iraq tell me how can democracy be measured within the realm of military subjugation of occupation ? So my answer is BULLSHIT .............

we'll see. Remember that American democracy wasn't very democratic for a long time.

But what is our children learning from this experience? Absolutely nothing. (Say it again!)

The defeat of 1948 and 1948 was seen to be the consequence of Arab lack of preparation and Israeli preparation of a fresh arms supply from Czechoslovakia (despite the armistice stipulation against such acquisition by either party). It signialled the end of the democratic experiment in Arab Muslim countries. The parliamentary systems were tested by this war and found inadequate. Imitation of the West had not brought parity with the West.

It had become evident for some time that although the Arab countries had constitutions and elected parliaments, these institutions were not effective. Some Western observers have blamed the failure of the parliamentary systems on the alien nature of consultative democracy to the Arab mind. Clearly their failure was also hastened by the attitude of the colonial rulers towards such institutions. Whenever foreign governments or their representatives disliked what the democratically elected deputies decided, they tried to countermand their wishes by a variety of means such as seeking their dismissal or applying relentless direct pressure, blackmail or bribery. When Arab governments attempted to use European law to assure freedom and the implementation of the will of the people, it was these same colonial rulers who ridiculed them and treated them as upstarts.

Haddad (http://www.ameu.org/summary1.asp?iid=120)

Let us hope it goes better this time around.
____________________

Notes:

Haddad, Yvonne Y. "The Islamic Alternative". The Link, v. 15, n. 4. Sept.-Oct., 1982. See http://www.ameu.org/summary1.asp?iid=120

war can NEVEr be good for any body, or anything.
Theses warr-ists are the patriarchs. their middle NAME Is war. they LOVE it. and if there is some kind of dodgy so-called 'peace' they actually CREATE wars. you are naive to think otherwise

they war against YOUr frredom for spiritual expression. so dont believe all this 'democracy' crap ...actually that very idea originally didn't include women or slaves!....has anything really changed?

Actually war can be good for a small number of people who profit from it. in the iraq case , bush and his oil company friends. In general moral terms war is always bad because the mass murder and destruction over weigh the profitable terms.

Ture in one way--ie., about it only being good for a small elite. but those peopleare completely ignorant. they believe they aren't a part of Nature, and thus their actions have no consequence for them. SUCH a dangeous idea, and drags uss--including all other species'-- down. As it is doing

What is war good for? They make great movies and songs.

Actually war can be good for a small number of people who profit from it. in the iraq case , bush and his oil company friends. In general moral terms war is always bad because the mass murder and destruction over weigh the profitable terms.

War can profit the entire world. Why do you think only a few can profit from it?

In general moral terms war is not good nor bad. Good and bad require a "to whom". They don't make sense outside of a context. War a symptom of commited, incompatable world-views.

War is the primary way things can be changed outside one's borders when the other side isn't going to comply with your 'asking nicely'. This change can be for the better just as easily as it can be for the worse. It is often necessary.

War can profit the entire world. Why do you think only a few can profit from it?

In general moral terms war is not good nor bad. Good and bad require a "to whom". They don't make sense outside of a context. War a symptom of commited, incompatable world-views.

The whole (to whom) part is crap , both sides loose people in a war so it maintained either bad for both or neutral.

and please name me a war where everyone on one side profited, sure future generations might profit from a certain war.. but for now i have never seen a war where a majority profited... they usually turned everything to shit.

war can NEVEr be good for any body, or anything.

Brilliant. I'm sure the Jews would have been better off if we hadn't fought WW2 and had just let Hitler kill them all.

War is good as long as the benefits outweigh the costs, and Iraq has not done that and won't, NK will not either, neither will Iran. War is justified if your attacked, which is a warning to Americans who naively think they won't be attacked. Pick ur fights wisely...

It is a matter of religious faith. The left will never and cannot endorse freedom or true democracy anywhere. It didn't when America fought the Soviet Union and it won't as America tries to reform the mideast.

Expect the left to fight every inch of the way and then, if the battle is won or improvements are made, to declare fighting it was pointless.

The whole (to whom) part is crap

That's not a very strong argument.

, both sides loose people in a war so it maintained either bad for both or neutral.

losing people sucks, but it doesn't necessarily outweigh the gains. wwII for instance got rid of hitler. it sucked before the war and during it, but it is great that the war was won by those other than hitler. everyone in the world gained from it in that capacity.

and please name me a war where everyone on one side profited, sure future generations might profit from a certain war..

just did.

but for now i have never seen a war where a majority profited... they usually turned everything to shit.

then perhaps it's your attitude that's shit.

ar is good as long as the benefits outweigh the costs, and Iraq has not done that and won't,

The benefits? The benefits? My God man, we're talking about bringing Democracy to millions, and you want the benefits?

More importantly, people in neighboring countries feel it. They were moved by the Iraqis going out to vote. That is profit IMO. I think it's wrong to discount their newfound hope - hope garnered through war.

duendy - If no one benefited from war, it wouldn't be fought.

WWII: Hitler and his Germans stood to gain Europe and all the resources that came with it. The Allies stood to gain peace. You can't tell me that it would have been better to stay out of this war. (this'll be that war where the majority, ie, the rest of teh planet, profits. we survived)

Mexican-American War: The Americans stood to gain, and did gain, territory.

Vietnam War: The way they saw it, North Veitnamese (and the Viet Cong) stood to gain independance. They got it.


There must be a beneficial reason, imaginary or otherwise, in order for people to agree to fight a war. If people didin't get saftey, goods, industry, slaves, independance, honour, or whatever from war, they wouldn't fight it. Sure, there are times when both sides loose so much for so little that there's really no point. But there sure as hell have been wars for freedom (we tend to call them resolutions) and peace (we call this defeating tyranny).

Brilliant. I'm sure the Jews would have been better off if we hadn't fought WW2 and had just let Hitler kill them all.


Oh dear.....and how did 'we' GET to that?
don't you see the ongoing pattern of war?
that how we are living in so-called peace inevitably has to lead to war, and of course manipulated by the top echelons. you are all so naive.

The reason you here who back that horror, i s propbably due to you see yourself, idenitifying your self with A group. the 'good guys' a religious belief, a nationalistic, ideological belief. So doing so you imagine thaT THAT JUSTIFIES WAR. AND ALSO YOU CANT SEE BEYOND WAr PRECISLY BECAUSE YOU IDENTFY WITH 'GROUPS that carry out war
Well i am looking at it as an individual. i am seeing the the group-consensus or herd mentality. this means you are on your won--if eveyone is loving war, but at LEAST i wont kill

Regarding the Jews and the Holocaust. did they learn from such suffering. no many started Isreal and have become involved in a non-ending conflict with others.
In Germany and other places you have neo-nazis

so see. this pattern is inherent in how we are living. i am calling this the patriarchy, because war is loved by the patriarchy and there will be no end of wars and wars to end wars as long as you keep to that mindset

also i am curious. the people who seem to think war is alright on this thread. which of you have actuall fought in a war?

Well, i didn't fight in a war pe se. I grew up in Indonesia, and when i moved there four different wars were happening. Timor was just winding down. However, a new Jihad against westerners was soon (and is still) underway, and I've lost many friends to terrorism and the general stigma surrounding it. Trust me, when you become a target, war becomes okay.

Regarding Jews and the Holocaust (I can't wait until otheap shows up), a supreme court judge in Israel recently compaired a suffering Palestinian woman to his grandmother who'd died in the Holocaust. Some Isreali airmen refuse to take part in airstrikes. The Isreali's are individuals as well, and many have differing opinions on the issue at hand.
Furthermore, the majority of people 'backing war' on this thread keep bringing up examples where defensive measures brought peace. Defense. That's right, we're the group that carries out war. I admire your grasp of this delightful language.

Duendy

We do not think war is a good thing, but sometimes it is necessary. The absence of war is not necessarily peace. No war can mean enslavement, and tyranny. There are things that are much worse than war just like there are things worse than death. Wars will always be necessary as long as there are people that seek to take our freedom and all that we hold dear away from us.

bt this ISN'T peace. i know you think it is Brutus cause i have heard you past views about things. but this isn't peace fror me, and yet i understand that me doing war on it, or being part of a bloody revolution wont work. they never do

speaking out does. for exampple the Black civil rights movement with Martin Luther King, is a good example of peaceful protest

But what i am saying is that we now HAVEto see through war. it is not just spears no more, we are talking weapons that can nuke us out of existence or at least poison the whole planet making it impossible to live

so we have to look V E R Y deep. much far much deeper than you seem prepared to look Brutus, considering your belief system.
we have to look the very ROOTS of this nver-ending warfare. and like i said, i am seeing it is patriarchal

the fact that i maybe the only one here seeing this, means i am not part of A group doesn't it? so if you lot suddenly decided to make war with another forum, i would say no, right? because i see the pointlessness of 'fighting for peace' cause i dont feel i am LIVING in real peace.

millions exploitied. War against Nature. wars being made up via propaganda by your fave, WBush, etc etc.....are you jokin me?

War = ignorance par excellance!

I really REALLY wish this seething ball of spam and all conected to it would just die by autoerotic asphixiation.

And Duendy... whats wrong with continued warfare on and off for all eternity? If we are fighting, it must mean we are still alive at least. Practice beating ourselves over our heads should make us VERY tough in the long run in all respects. It would be a good thing to be once we find some less than pleasant competition out there.

War is the only way to relieve stagnation on every level. Without it, we rot and atrophy.

Pat Buchanan disagrees. As the saying goes, even a stopped watch is correct twice a day.

But Bush has gone Wilson one better. He is not only going to make the world safe for democracy, he is going to make the world democratic. Where Lincoln abolished slavery in the South, Bush is going to abolish tyranny from the earth: “So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”


A conservative knows not whether to laugh or weep, for Mr. Bush has just asserted a right to interfere in the internal affairs of every nation on earth. Why? Because the “survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.” But this is utterly ahistorical. The world has always been afflicted with despots. Yet America has always been free. And we have remained free by following the counsel of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams and staying out of foreign quarrels and foreign wars.

Who is feeding the president this interventionist nonsense?

The president now plans to hector and badger foreign leaders on the progress each is making toward attaining U.S. standards of democracy. “We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and nation—the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.” This is a formula for “Bring-it-on!” collisions with every autocratic regime on earth, including virtually every African and Arab ruler, all the “outposts of tyranny” named by Secretary Rice, most of the nations of Central Asia, China, and Russia. This is a prescription for endless war. Yet as Madison warned, “No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”....

..... The 9/11 killers were over here because we are over there. We were not attacked because of who we are but because of what we do. It is not our principles they hate. It is our policies. U.S. intervention in the Middle East was the cause of the 9/11 terror. Bush believes it is the cure. Has he learned nothing from Iraq?

In 2003, we invaded a nation that had not attacked us, did not threaten us, and did not want war with us to disarm it of weapons it did not have. Now, after plunging $200 billion and the lives of 1,400 of our best and bravest into this war and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, we have reaped a harvest of hatred in the Arab world and, according to officials in our own government, have created a new nesting place and training ground for terrorists to replace the one we lately eradicated in Afghanistan.......

.... America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy,” said John Quincy Adams, “She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” Under the tutelage of Jacobins who call themselves idealists, Bush has repudiated this wise core doctrine of U.S. foreign policy to embrace Wilsonian interventionism in the internal affairs of every autocratic regime on earth. We are going to democratize the world and abolish tyranny.
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_28/buchanan.html

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

The benefits? The benefits? My God man, we're talking about bringing Democracy to millions, and you want the benefits?

Democracy? Please don’t give me that load, if it were truly democratic you would have let the Iraqi people decide on their own what they would have wanted prior to your invasion, which was illegal and undemocratic in the sense it totally ignored the democratic institution of the UN. Secondly how many democracies in the past has the US overthrown quite a bit, so give me more of this bull shit about democracy. Thirdly democracy could be the worst thing that could have happened to a country who doesn’t have a sense of unity or nationalism, democracy in that country could very well kill it, because you genius’ politics in that part of the world is not “conservative/liberal” its “Sunni/Shi’a”, “Arab/Kurd”, I smell civil war. So while you genius’ pretend to be spreading “democracy” to people who’s opinions were ignored in the first place history has a place for you don’t worry about it.

Democracy? Please don’t give me that load, if it were truly democratic you would have let the Iraqi people decide on their own what they would have wanted prior to your invasion, which was illegal and undemocratic in the sense it totally ignored the democratic institution of the UN. Secondly how many democracies in the past has the US overthrown quite a bit, so give me more of this bull shit about democracy. Thirdly democracy could be the worst thing that could have happened to a country who doesn’t have a sense of unity or nationalism, democracy in that country could very well kill it, because you genius’ politics in that part of the world is not “conservative/liberal” its “Sunni/Shi’a”, “Arab/Kurd”, I smell civil war. So while you genius’ pretend to be spreading “democracy” to people who’s opinions were ignored in the first place history has a place for you don’t worry about it.

Yup, gotta love people who don't realize what's going on. All they need to hear are a few buzzword phrases such as "freedom" or "democracy" and that's all that matters. Not to mention hearing about it over.. and over.. and over.. again. So long as those keywords are happening, it's a-okay. But they don't know jack shit about the politics actually going on in the region where so-called "good" will wreak havoc, but it doesn't matter because we're trying to impose "freedom" and "democracy". One works for one person or group, doesn't always work for another. Remember that, blind idiots.

- N

Like Hitler said the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. These sheeple show that to a TEE!

You know how freedom and democracy could have come to Iraq? If the Iraqies managed to have their own revolution, toppled Saddam themselves, and choose their own brand of democracy.

It would have come at the end of ten years of constan bloodshed and then been temporary. A revolutionary general would almost certainly seize power for himself and be just as bad as Saddam.

It would have come at the end of ten years of constan bloodshed and then been temporary. A revolutionary general would almost certainly seize power for himself and be just as bad as Saddam.

Who said that won't happen now? If the situation in Iraq deteriorates so much so, that the "democratic" experiment ends up a failure, which chances are more likely then not it will a despot is more then likely to be put in power. Also in a democratic Iraq you will have a constant Shi’a power base, which will forever alienate the non-Shi’a through simple demographics, so really the only democracy in Iraq may be for those 60% who are part of the majority Shi’a, alas a democratic dictatorship. Remember the US didn’t have a problem with Saddam until Saddam didn’t play by the rules, a dictatorship is good for the US as long as it follows the US’ rules.

Yup, gotta love people who don't realize what's going on.

How is it that you are qualified to make such an observation. How are you so "in the know"? You must presume everyone is much much less intelligent than you. It must be hell all alone in your glass tower of intellect. Thanks for nodding to the peasants.

I really REALLY wish this seething ball of spam and all conected to it would just die by autoerotic asphixiation.

And Duendy... whats wrong with continued warfare on and off for all eternity? If we are fighting, it must mean we are still alive at least. Practice beating ourselves over our heads should make us VERY tough in the long run in all respects. It would be a good thing to be once we find some less than pleasant competition out there.

War is the only way to relieve stagnation non every level. Without it, we rot and atrophy.

errrm, let me see. war or play?
hehe, i know yer bein darkly sarcastic......

if you were as smart as you seem to think you are, you'd realize he wasn't being darkly sarcastic at all. just painfully truthful.

if you were as smart as you seem to think you are, you'd realize he wasn't being darkly sarcastic at all. just painfully truthful.

ad hominem and absolute objectivity? well done. you must be even smarter than ME?

Does Wes have an argument? Stay tunned...

ad hominem and absolute objectivity? well done. you must be even smarter than ME?

Yeah, probably so. I looked V E R Y deep. much far much deeper than you seem prepared to look, and that's what I saw.

It would have come at the end of ten years of constan bloodshed and then been temporary. A revolutionary general would almost certainly seize power for himself and be just as bad as Saddam.

Maybe. But America's revolution didn't go that way.

Yeah, probably so. I looked V E R Y deep. much far much deeper than you seem prepared to look, and that's what I saw.

what? neverending war?!....call that deep? huh

what? neverending war?!

No, that I'm smarter than you. :p

....call that deep? huh

Coming to the conclusion that war is a consequence of patriarchy is pretty shallow IMO. War is a consequence of competing value systems and commitment to premise. As such, until we become creatures other than human, we're stuck with it. Even at that point, it's still likely. How boring would a species of absolutely consistent value be anyway? I'm pretty sure that as long as any two entitites value different things more than their lives, or value their lives and percieve a need for something they have no access to but another entity does, war will happen.

The profit from any war is resolution of whatever dispute led to it. Sure there are other ways to solve disputes, but not if the values and commitement of the involved parties dissallow it. If I want your sandwich but you want it too and won't give it to me, there's only one way I can get it. If I'm completely committed to getting it and you're completely committed to keeping it, we're at war. War will resolve the issue, though one party is sure to be disappointed (and perhaps... hungry). This is where clockwood's point comes in. It's the same as being "in shape".

That's not a very strong argument.



losing people sucks, but it doesn't necessarily outweigh the gains. wwII for instance got rid of hitler. it sucked before the war and during it, but it is great that the war was won by those other than hitler. everyone in the world gained from it in that capacity.



just did.



then perhaps it's your attitude that's shit.

MAybe you should have read the whole sentence, and ye loosing people over weighs the gain , ww2 was not a good war , a destroyed europe and millions dead just dont seem to make a happy image in my mind.Hitler started the war and the war ended from his death, if he had not started it then no one would have required his death, there was no point to ww2

no you didnt.

no its war that is shit

I agree that war is shit, but who do you know that doesn't have to shit?

I agree that war is shit, but who do you know that doesn't have to shit?

Jamaica :eek: :m:

shit 2 pages of argument in 1 day ... atfirst i thought i traveled in time.

No, that I'm smarter than you. :p

d__yur pretty arrogant aren't you?

Coming to the conclusion that war is a consequence of patriarchy is pretty shallow IMO.

d__yes in your opinion, which i am not valuing. have you looked even AT the history of patriarchy?

War is a consequence of competing value systems and commitment to premise. As such, until we become creatures other than human, we're stuck with it.

d__oh, this is your idea of thinkin deep is it? what you say is ridiculous and SHALLOW. not ALL humans--me included think like you. so your 'smart' assertion isn't thought out is it?

Even at that point, it's still likely. How boring would a species of absolutely consistent value be anyway? I'm pretty sure that as long as any two entitites value different things more than their lives, or value their lives and percieve a need for something they have no access to but another entity does, war will happen.

d__so you see boredom as the need for way, cause you assume a monoculture if we dont kill each other?,,,,,sad. people CAN sort out difference without nukin each other you know?

The profit from any war is resolution of whatever dispute led to it. Sure there are other ways to solve disputes, but not if the values and commitement of the involved parties dissallow it. If I want your sandwich but you want it too and won't give it to me, there's only one way I can get it. If I'm completely committed to getting it and you're completely committed to keeping it, we're at war.

d__yeahm so see through this need you have for the 'sandwitch'. see the consequences. see how it is a neverending process if you dont. this involves looking and feeling deep. can you do it?




War will resolve the issue, though one party is sure to be disappointed (and perhaps... hungry).

d__and dead, and limbs blown off, and psychologically scarred for life, and dehumanized, and ...etc

This is where clockwood's point comes in. It's the same as being "in shape".

you could do with shaping your intuition. seeing through the game, and then you may not even see the point in playing it. if you dont see the point in the goal, you wont play.

d__yur pretty arrogant aren't you?

Pot, kettle, black.

d__yes in your opinion, which i am not valuing. have you looked even AT the history of patriarchy?

Ah, see how value works? You don't care what I say. Good, you have demonstrated my point exactly. I'm aware of the history of patriarchy, I just think it's irrelevant. Any other system would eventually result in the same thing. It's a human thing.

d__oh, this is your idea of thinkin deep is it? what you say is ridiculous and SHALLOW. not ALL humans--me included think like you. so your 'smart' assertion isn't thought out is it?

What is ridiculous and shallow is to simply call it ridiculous and shallow rather than pointing out a flaw in the reasoning. It doesn't matter if you think like me, my point stands regardless of your objection. You argue like a teenager.


d__so you see boredom as the need for way, cause you assume a monoculture if we dont kill each other?,,,,,sad.

You drew a ridiculous conclusion from what was written. Sort it out for yourself.

people CAN sort out difference without nukin each other you know?

Sure they could, but not if they're commited to a premise that completely conflicts with the potential target of the nuke. If I think killing you is a good thing and I'm completely committed to the premise, you can't change my mind. You are arrogant to presume you can change the value systems of those that completely conflict with your own. Can? Sure can, but why? I don't want to kill you and I'm not particularly committed to a particular premise. That doesn't mean that the people who start wars aren't. It's foolish to think that they aren't. Certainly one can chip away at premise or value in hopes of averting war, but ultimately if success is not met, war will happen. Success cannot always be met in that regard.

d__yeahm so see through this need you have for the 'sandwitch'. see the consequences. see how it is a neverending process if you dont. this involves looking and feeling deep. can you do it?

Man are you really this slow? What if I say no? Why can't you share your sandwich you bastard? You can't control what I think or value, though it's obvious you're under the impression that somehow what YOU value should be what I value. Talk about arrogance.

d__and dead, and limbs blown off, and psychologically scarred for life, and dehumanized, and ...etc

I know. It's disgusting. It sucks that life can be so visceral and disturbing. That doesn't make it any less that way. Then again you're coming at this from the angle of a weak pussy. Some would say there's no such thing as dehumanization or being scarred. They wear their wounds as a badge of honor. It's they who wound pussies like you (as they see it) for the sport of it. You simply don't like that we're little more than animals. You find it distasteful and deny it, formulating grandiose BS to avert the harsh truth.

you could do with shaping your intuition. seeing through the game, and then you may not even see the point in playing it. if you dont see the point in the goal, you wont play.

"yes in your opinion, which i am not valuing." You're blinded by your arrogance and distaste for grim realities.

What is war good for? Freedom for Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Lebanon. Freedom is sprouting all over and liberals in this country and around the world are proving once again that they are always on the wrong side of history.

Wes Morris.....i am not here to do a 'logic battle ego trip' wid yu. i am against war. you seem to justify it for ever and ever. so live with your dream. not for me thank you

Brutus...your 'devil' is your 'liberals' you constantly demonize. you wouldn't know freedom if you fell over it. you are in a straighjacket and dont even know it. i CAN see it however, and i know what freedom is too. it isn't what you are claiming it is

What is war good for? Freedom for Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Lebanon. Freedom is sprouting all over and liberals in this country and around the world are proving once again that they are always on the wrong side of history.

War has nothing to do with the current situation in Lebanon. I wouldn't call continuous suicide bombings and beheadings freedom in Iraq. And as for Afganistan, I'm not really sure of the situation they're in right now, haven't heard or read much about them lately.

One more thing: "liberals on the wrong side of history"? Wasn't one of your greatest president's ever, the only president to have more than two terms, a liberal? I'm referring to FDR btw.

I prefer Teddy myself. A Republican and a Bullmoose.

liberals in this country and around the world are proving once again that they are always on the wrong side of history.

Absolutely ridiculous.

The definitions of ‘liberal’ and conservative change depending on time period and nation. As an example, we Canadians consider your Democrats rather conservative. Furthermore, a Classical Liberal looks more like a modern-day conservative – liberals like John Stuart Mill.

And what did he have to do with history (note: sarcasm)

Both liberal and conservative parties have produced outstanding leaders and thinkers. Such a statement misunderstands the nuances of history and ideology.

"you seem to justify it for ever and ever"

I don't condone it, I merely recognize its inevitability. Given that we're stuck with it, I try to recognize its function and utility.

If war weren't inevitable, there wouldn't be any. (anthropic principle)

What is, is for good reason - even if it seems ridiculous or we don't like the smell of it. There is utility in the ridiculous and attrocious, just ask a politician or a terrorist.

I picture war kind of like it was portrayed in the matrix, to quell growing divergences in the fundamental social systems of humanity.

I don't condone it, I merely recognize its inevitability. Given that we're stuck with it, I try to recognize its function and utility.

Where do we find the line between recognizing inevitability and surrendering to it?

I ask because--

If war weren't inevitable, there wouldn't be any. (anthropic principle)

What is, is for good reason - even if it seems ridiculous or we don't like the smell of it. There is utility in the ridiculous and attrocious, just ask a politician or a terrorist.

--what can we say, then, of the fact that moral assertions exist at all? Or, to be more specific, what is the human inclination to disown war, to disdain it while recognizing the necessity? After all, the necessary is the necessary, and carrying it as a disdainful burden is something we choose, just like we can look forward to the day or lament the coming hours. It's often said that rare is the person who enjoys their job, and this is often anecdotally observable in the society around us. Every once in a while, someone rolls out a statistical assertion to that tune, as well. Hey, do bad studies exist for a reason? Of course they do. Much like Hemingway's critics, at least it (generally) keeps the people doing those studies working and out of jail. Whether that's the sole reason, or even a good reason, is a separate question.

The heart of war, conflict, brings some healthy results. Disagreement and diversity of perception and comprehension prevent the human species from blindly leaping over the edge. But the degree of conflict seems to be what people disdain. War is anathema, a "last resort" according to conventional rhetoric. Why? If it's necessary, why not make it fun? And no, that's not entirely flippant. What is the warring equivalent of dress-down Friday, or an office party?

Even I acknowledge a certain necessity about armed conflict. The discouraging part is the declining standards for warfare after a fairly arduous struggle for civility. It creates an increasing discord in the public discourse about war, until something like Iraq happens, setting a new standard that was unthinkable only twenty years ago.

I recognize, for instance, your right to pick up a bottle and get loaded. Sure, it's not the best for you, but human beings and other animals are known to occasionally bend their brains artificially, and thus intoxication has a place in society: it is self-evident according to its existence. (Hell, we can become intoxicated without poisoning ourselves to death in the first place.) But what do we say of the person who gets drunk so poorly as to visit the disaster on others? And here I don't just mean drunk-driving deaths. I've ducked barfights before. I've spewed all over the interior of a '67 Mustang. I've made my apologies the next week.

I recognize there are reasons I drink or smoke dope. Obviously, though, we wouldn't construe those reasons as persuasive enough to justify an utter surrender to dependency.

War may be inevitable because of certain factors. What happens when those factors change? Do we recognize that any of those factors have changed? Are those changes significant? Does "last resort" mean "last resort", or "the line drawn when other results require a remarkable change in our way of life"? Is war an inevitable response to factors affecting humanity, or an inevitability of human character?

What is the inevitability of Queer Eye? The reason I ask is because we can choose to wear what we wear. We can also choose to give over to the inevitability of bad fashion, or devote some resources to avoiding it.

(Which visits another, unrelated political discussion about hate: lynching the Fab Five for their flaming fashion flatulence might actually be justifiable, so why lynch them for being gay? The point of this parenthetical digression is to clarify what constitutes bad fashion for the purposes of the preceding paragraph.)

I recognize a certain inevitability about mortal human conflict on both the local and larger scales, but I don't see that this condition is entirely out of our hands. It just requires more attention than we are, as diverse cultures or as a cohesive species, accustomed to giving. I would assert that, collectively, humanity has an active and effective opinion pertaining to the inevitability of warfare.

Hence the question: Where do we find the line between recognizing inevitability and surrendering to it?

Your answer:

There is no line. It's cost-benefit on each situation. You know the deal.

If a series of cost-benefits leads you to addiction for instance, your analysis is crap because you're failing to consider the long term cost (unless of course you subjectively positively value addiction). *shrug*

Objection?

(Withdrawn for reconsideration: it seems I focused wrongly on the point. I finally figured out one of those nagging questions that is only answered by what I don't see.)

what we can see is a war between imperialism and the creative mind...

Brutus here is a page from future history that might help you:

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3950&stc=1 :rolleyes:

War is not necassary so long as the weak are willing to bend to the will of strong. Since the USA is thee strongest nation we would call all the shots. Duendy that is the only way in which war is not going to be necessary becuase people will always disagree...if you haven't noticed we don't live in dream land. Duendy you should listen to Wesmorris maybe then you'll comeback to reality.

If we all listened to you and wes morris humanity would collapse, there should be total power equallity among nations.. that way everyone is too scared to fight with eachother and they get on with their damn lives.. or even better get rid of military power... no more wars but wait you the creative geniouse of the new century didnt think of that... you were too busy playing with your erection about americas military capability... hope you enjoyed it.

If we all listened to you and wes morris humanity would collapse,

What a wonderful conjecture. As evidenced below, you're an idealist - meaning you have your head in the clouds.

there should be total power equallity among nations..

How fundamentally flawed is this statement? Who says there should be? Do you honestly think it's possible? How is it possible? You say that something should be a way that is impossible to be. Power is NEVER equally distributed amongst nations. No matter what, there will always be something that one nation has that another nation needs. If their not willing to give it up, war. More directly, VALUE is not a constant among humans. Neither is power. Nor could it be. To assert that it should be is the most vile criminal thought against the beauty and diversity of humanity that I can think of. Talk about backwards. If all nations were of the same power, there would be no nations because the lacking diversity. Chaos would ensue. Why do you think nature yeilds the systems in already in play? Because they work.

that way everyone is too scared to fight with eachother and they get on with their damn lives..

LOL. How unbelievably naive. First there is no way to allocate power equally amongst them, and you assume all players are rational in the sense that you think rationality should be. That is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

People value different things to different degrees and those values are always changing to some degree. Those who are capable of attaining what they value will do so. Their behavior will be governed by their morality/ethics vs. the desire for that which they value. It's a sure bet that many will always value something more than their own lives and take humongous risks in that regard to get what they want. If you have to die as a result of that, so be it as they see it. The only way to squelch it is with the distractions that societies offer.

or even better get rid of military power...

How do you propose to do that? Sorry, but again you're spouting "let's do the impossible!". You can't get rid of it. Say you get rid of EVERY WEAPON in the world by magic tomorrow. You'd see the biggest arms race in human history directly following the loss. Military power is a necessity for stability/security. "getting rid of it" is synomous with saying "how about anarchy?". You cannot change what other people value by force. As long as they value their security, they'll seek weapons with which to defend themselves based on the premise that someone else is probably making weapons in order to come take what they have. History shows it's a valid premise.

no more wars but wait you the creative geniouse of the new century didnt think of that...

how presumptuous. it seems you haven't really put much thought into this outside of satisfying your own self-involved idealism. sure it sounds nice "there shouldn't be wars!". I agree, but it's a silly silly thing if you actually consider the circumstances people have to navigate to maximize the probability of their survival as they see it.

you were too busy playing with your erection about americas military capability... hope you enjoyed it.

What a snotty, childish thing to say. Very typical of the stereotypical anti-war whiner to think that people who recognize the neccessity of war somehow find the idea appealing. How insulting.

1. I didnt say it was possible I said I liked the idea
2. my last statment is as insulting as your love for war.

1. I didnt say it was possible I said I liked the idea

WRONG. Please don't try to pretend you didn't say what you did. You said "this is how things should be" as if you, who apparently doesn't understand much regarding the issues involved should be considered an authority in the matter. I was kind enough to illuminate the errors in your thinking.

2. my last statment is as insulting as your love for war.

More insults do not cancel previous insults. How do you conclude that since I observe something and see its utility and necessity - I must LOVE it? Eh? That's INSULTING. You sound like a fool. Are you a kid? If you're under 30, I tend to understand misguided idealism.

would you two mind terribly if i asked you to both summerize your viewpoints (minus insults) so that the rest of us could also comment?

WRONG. Please don't try to pretend you didn't say what you did. You said "this is how things should be" as if you, who apparently doesn't understand much regarding the issues involved should be considered an authority in the matter. I was kind enough to illuminate the errors in your thinking.



More insults do not cancel previous insults. How do you conclude that since I observe something and see its utility and necessity - I must LOVE it? Eh? That's INSULTING. You sound like a fool. Are you a kid? If you're under 30, I tend to understand misguided idealism.


how about you stop spewing ignorance all over me. and yes "this is how things should be" thats my fucking opinion thats what I think should happen , if you dont agree fuck off and think what you want , whatever it is I probably wont agree , cause your not changing my damn opinion.

well crimson, I hate war. I hate greed , and I hate war caused by greed.

What I said , that wesmorris found insulting is that who ever it was bitching about america's military superiority should find another intrest in life as no one really gives a shit.

And war isnt fucking needed ,if people learned to cooperate then they could be avoided , but when fucking fools rule the world , its not going anywhere.

I also think wes has never been in a war where the blood doner supplys were so low that soliders had to get artificial blood pumped into them to keep them alive, easy for a paper pusher who never got out of boot camp to think war is great, wait till you have gulf war syndrome. or even better if you love it so much get off the fucking computer and go to iraq.

how about you stop spewing ignorance all over me.

Ignorance? Are you a fucking moron? Ignorance means I don't know something. You don't like what I have to say so you whine about it like a little bitch. That it offends your delicate sensibilities is YOUR fucking problem. If anything, I've motivated you to parade YOUR ignorance.

and yes "this is how things should be" thats my fucking opinion thats what I think should happen

Because you apparently don't understand how things work. Open your eyes to reality as it IS, not as YOU command it to be. Reality doesn't care if it offends you.

When considering "how should things be", "what can be" is imperative to your answer. Rebutt my illumination of your impracticality if you can.

cause your not changing my damn opinion.

So you came into this thread to preach eh? How intellectual of you to ensure your mind is static on this issue. I thought this was a discussion board. You sound like someone in denial, hanging onto jesus with an emotional death grip.

What I said , that wesmorris found insulting is that who ever it was bitching about america's military superiority should find another intrest in life as no one really gives a shit.

No it wasn't dipshit. You said "your love for war" as if recognizing its utility and function is "love" for it. You're obviously irrational about this.

And war isnt fucking needed ,if people learned to cooperate then they could be avoided

And if I didn't have to eat, I wouldn't have to shit to stay alive. Keep dreaming. People cooperate all the time, yet there are still wars. Hmmm. This is obviously confusing to you.

, but when fucking fools rule the world

How incredibly arrogant to call the most successful people in the world "fools". Insolence eh? You don't have to obey them, but you should respect them for what they've accomplished. You think it's easy? You think they're stupid? Then why aren't you in charge?

*waits for pathetic list of excuses*

its not going anywhere.

It can't help but go somewhere. Sheez. Someone qualified to discern the stupidity of every leader in the world should be smart enough to know that. Why don't you engage your brain on this problem instead of letting your emotions flow uncontrollably?

I also think wes has never been in a war where the blood doner supplys were so low that soliders had to get artificial blood pumped into them to keep them alive

Who has? Some people I'm sure, but have YOU? *awaits lies* I've been in a couple of wars, never saw any combat.. but have attended the theater. I went down to panama during the invasion (while in the army) and I was at the first gulf war for 8 months.

easy for a paper pusher who never got out of boot camp to think war is great

Easy for some dipshit kid on the internet to talk shit he knows nothing about too eh? FYI, I made it through bootcamp. It was brutal, but "ain't no hill for a stepper".

wait till you have gulf war syndrome.

How do you know I don't, jackass?

or even better if you love it so much get off the fucking computer and go to iraq.

You're really not paying attention, apparently because your head is buried deep in your rectum. Maybe you're distracted by the smell or icky, pooey texture. WHERE DID I SAY I LOVE IT? Why are you acting like such a punk over this? If you disagree, it's easy to say so without acting like such a jackass about it.

Get your shit together and get cordial. If you have something intelligent to say, I'm waiting. I have a feeling you have little to offer but emotionally charged whining about your idealism.

would you two mind terribly if i asked you to both summerize your viewpoints (minus insults) so that the rest of us could also comment?

If you're interested, read the thread please. Is that too much trouble?

(Withdrawn for reconsideration: it seems I focused wrongly on the point. I finally figured out one of those nagging questions that is only answered by what I don't see.)

Fair enough. I'm interested to see what you come up with upon reconsideration.

wesmorris - I have, but I thought that maybe you two could move into rebuttal instead of the cross-ex. But please continue however you like.

wesmorris - I have, but I thought that maybe you two could move into rebuttal instead of the cross-ex. But please continue however you like.

Okay. In this thread I've stated my understanding of the inevitability, function and utility of war more than once I think.

I'll summarize per your request and ask that you rebutt if you feel so inclined:

inevitability:

War is based on value and commitment to premise. Value is subjective. Thus, conflicting values are inevitable. Hence, conflict.

Function and utility:

To resolve divergence of value.

What it means to me:

Nobody likes war. It's horrifying and terrible. I don't like it, but recognize it as an unfortunate necessity. Though it comes at a terrible cost, such divergence must be resolved if there is strong commitment to premise (e.g. if you want my sandwich and I don't want to give it to you and we're both absolutely commited, one of us must die)

That's a somewhat simple summary. The detail justifying the conclusions was presented in my prior posts in this thread.

Maybe a simple summary, but a good one. I'm hopeing that Odin'Izm will also rebutt.

I've now got a few questions for wesmorris:

In resolving a divergence of value, do we call a war 'good' because it supports our values? The values of the majority? The values most in line with our survival as a civilization?

Would you agree with Robert McNamara, who's said 'you can't change human nature' (in reference to war and conflict)?

In resolving a divergence of value, do we call a war 'good' because it supports our values? The values of the majority?

IMO, that's a highly complicated issue.

First, you have to consider that "we" don't call it good. Each calls it what they will. Then you have to consider the circumstance of the individuals who must make the decisions to undertake war. They'd have to see it as "good" considering the alternatives, or they wouldn't undertake it. Do they truly respresent the interest of those who they represent? How good are they at interpreting that interest, or formulating a plan that attains the related goals? I think human nature in general must dictate that the war is "good" in the context of the perceived circumstance that led to the related decisions if it's to be undertaken, as in "the best option". I doubt though that a person I would consider "decent" would think it "good" outside that context. It seems to me that if a person is thinking rationally, the decision for war must be the best option in a cost-benefit analysis.

The values most in line with our survival as a civilization?

Well, it comes out as the will of the people in the positions to make the related decisions. They represent "the will of the people" and are basically bound by their circumstance to "sell" their position on it. This is where language gets fuzzy and politics comes into play. Given that every person has at least a slightly different take on language, and there is large risk in misinterpretation, the decision for war becomes a PR war between those who've performed their cost-benefit and those they represent. It seems to me that marketing strategy becomes inevitably relevant to the process. Again, that's basically based on the fact that everyone is different in language and you must present your case to them in a way they can relate to.

Would you agree with Robert McNamara, who's said 'you can't change human nature' (in reference to war and conflict)?

Well, if you were to change human nature, you wouldn't have humans would you? I do agree, yes.... at least at this time. I think however, we closing on a singularity of sorts - a time in which "all bets are off". With technology at its current pace, I can't see how AI could be more than 100 years away, more likely it will come in less than half that time. At that point, I think it's tough to predict what might happen to human nature.

I see a cycle. You have a population of inviduals, each with their own values. In a peace time type situation, the value of petty shit becomes basically much higher than in times of danger, when people must huddle together to overcome a larger threat. As these values become more and more important over time, people are more and more willing to make sacrifices to attain their objectives. They become more and more important because there's no reason to huddle together because everything is "okay". Egos get out of check because there's nothing to fear and with no fear, people can "do anything". They take what they want if they can manage it. Someone gets hurt. The situation escalates. The divergence gets purged but leaves remnants which create further divergences down the road. It's almost like the evolution of a galaxy. It's tranquil, then BRUTAL and perverse, cannibalistic and then tranquil again until the energy in the system comes to equilibrium.

War is part of a process. Obviously it can lead to dire consequences for the individuals and entities who are subjected to it. It is however, a door. Think of all the things that would not be were it not for wars. It's a terrifying reality, but reality none the less. Thankfully, there is more to the process than war. I'll leave that for another thread.

Excellent. Odin'Izm?

man im having trouble catching up with all the threads i post on... hold on ill counter the bullshit in a few mins when i read it all.

Wesmorris , to make things clear:

* You are the one who is fucking bitching , I whine alot less then you do look back at your post, you have to resort to swearing because you are having trouble getting your pathetic blood thirsty idealism across.
*Im not commanding anything should happen im saying I would like things that way , Of course I know it wont happen due to human nature BUT ITS BETTER THAN WAR? are you denying that? yes you are bacuase your a stupid fool who cant think outside the box.
*I didnt come here to preach! im not asking for you to agree im stating what I think! learn to read!
*Fuck jesus.

Ok here is where you show in ability to link facts: "if I didnt eat i would have to shit"
you have to eat to stay alive, you dotn have to go to war to stay alive thats what iv been trying to say since fuck knows when , If humans lived in a war free world things would be better(which wont happen and i know it) ... do you understand now? good.

I wasnt talking about people ,I was hinting on bush, who is by far is the most successful person in the world and I agree, as it is a miracle that a stupid dolt like that managed to get so much power.

lets see why am i not incharge... 1. I have other ambitions in life rather than ruleing people, 2. I cant run for president of the united states as i wasnt born there, 3. Im too young to run for president. Doies that clear shit up for you ?

"it going somwhere" ye it is... to hell trust me when the time comes I will try to change it instead of complaining to some "ex military ,pro war dude on sciforums, who workes for an insurance firm?"..

Who was on artificial blood? alot of soliders in the first afghan war.

See you called me a "kid" shows how eagar you are to discuss things like a normal person instead of rushing to insults, I could easily call you the same.

How do I know you dont have gulf war syndrome? well Ok I take back that statment.. seeing your stupid and pointless replys you must suffer from some sort of mental dis-function.. gulf war syndrome mite be the case? and wow I guess i was right about you never seeing any war time action, maybe Im right about this aswell?

So you dont love war? why do you act like it then.

I have my shit together but you are rejecting to look at my ideology in anyway!

Ok I got tired of reading ... I have other things to do but that covers my reply to that attack on me by the Veteran warrior from panama, who spent his time out of action...maybe he thinks that since he got through boot camp he needs to support war as otherwise his time and suffering there would be wasted?

Basically wes morris, I agree in current times war cannot be avoided , but can you atleast consider my idea that If it COULD BE AVOIDED the world would be a better place?

This is how you avoid war: BY NOT FIGHTING IN ONE!.....what dont you understand about this mr Morris?

This is how you avoid war: BY NOT FIGHTING IN ONE!.....what dont you understand about this mr Morris?

I think the Jews in Germany in the 1930's tried not fighting, didn't they? How well did they do? And is that what you'd suggest?

Baron Max

I think the Jews in Germany in the 1930's tried not fighting, didn't they? How well did they do? And is that what you'd suggest?

Baron Max

They didn't have the benefit of fast communications as we do today. Most of them only learned about the existance of the camps around 43/44. Even then, Jewish leaders BEGGED allied leaders to destroy Auschwitz/Belsen etc as they were bombing Dresden, but the UK/USA refused, claiming the camps had little "strategic" value compared to German military targets.


Jaybee.

I think the Jews in Germany in the 1930's tried not fighting, didn't they? How well did they do? And is that what you'd suggest?

Baron Max

Yes, i understand what you are saying. that if we dont defend ourselves, we too could end up in concentation camps, etc?

But you dont look deep enough Baron Max. The very seeds are sown for such horrors as that when we continue to follow its pattern. which is, identifying with a group and not with Nature, and ALL human beings. When you begin exploring that, the roots of it, you will get to the insight that there is INTELLIGENCE in playing that game, cause it just perpetuates itself. As we are seeing. And as we speak the nukes are multiplying, and theyt are speaking us using 'mini-nukes' and fuk knows what. so this war game is really showing us we HAVe to begin questioning our involvement with it, as INDIVIDUALS.

I would wish that if the atomosphere was to arise that was similar to nazi Germany, etc., then i would have the intuition to move me and famly and anyone who'd listen the hell out

meant to ssay that there is "NO Intelligence in playing that [war] game"

I think the Jews in Germany in the 1930's tried not fighting, didn't they? How well did they do? And is that what you'd suggest?

Baron Max

In that scenario one side was attacking and starting a war , in the "utopia of non violence scenario :bugeye: " No one attacks anyone else... so no wars or genocides would start.

If for any reason I find myself in a utopia, -I- will go ahead and start a war if nobody else will.

why ? that reminded me of "The Hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy" it was very (out of the box) and funny... good job I can imagine a guy sitting at a lecture somwhere and shooting the guy next to him with the words "im tired of this bullshit harmony". :p

Utopia would lead to nothing other than stagnation and eventual human extinction. We would become softer and less adaptable until even what would normally be a relatively minor problem would bring everything crashing down. On top of that, a world without conflict would be stripped of any meaning.

cause "Utopia" is a false idea coming from Platonic philsopher which believed in slaves, and land ownership and fascist states run by 'philosopher-kings' including him......He was an Idealist and denigraTED Nature

what we NEEd is a seeing THROUGH such myths as that. when you SEe through a game, then you dont have to play it. if you'd seen through the propaganda of the Nazis you wouldn't have joined up. though admittedly doing so would have been very dangerous. but noone said it is easy to not conform

Utopia would lead to nothing other than stagnation and eventual human extinction. We would become softer and less adaptable until even what would normally be a relatively minor problem would bring everything crashing down. On top of that, a world without conflict would be stripped of any meaning.

Then that isn't a true Utopia, just this world +5/10/50 etc. years. Gene engineering would eliminate that lust for blood you're suffering long before we reach Utopian levels.


Jaybee.

Listen to the Intelligence of NATURE...not some long dead farty old philosopher with his dodgy dream of 'utopia'. NOt depending on a ridiculous notion of utopia does not mean we cant all live togther and treat Nature with repsect

Listen to the Intelligence of NATURE...not some long dead farty old philosopher with his dodgy dream of 'utopia'. NOt depending on a ridiculous notion of utopia does not mean we cant all live togther and treat Nature with repsect

In nature, there is more violence and killing than you can shake a stick at!!

The gazelle, for example, seems to exist specifically to provide food for the lions, leopards, cheetahs and hyenas.

What "nature" are you talking about??

Baron Max

...in the "utopia of non violence scenario ... " No one attacks anyone else... so no wars or genocides would start.

If so, do you realize that that would mean that everyone would agree about everything? Because disagreements lead to conflicts and violence and wars.

It would also mean that talking to anyone would be like talking to yourself ...all of his thoughts are your own thoughts. If not, there might be disagreement ....and we can't have that in Utopia, can we.

Baron Max

Then that isn't a true Utopia, just this world +5/10/50 etc. years. Gene engineering would eliminate that lust for blood you're suffering long before we reach Utopian levels.


Great... zombies. I would then gengineer some to be more violent and dangerous... forcing everyone else to keep pace. Everything must be done to keep the game playing for as long as possible.

In nature, there is more violence and killing than you can shake a stick at!!

The gazelle, for example, seems to exist specifically to provide food for the lions, leopards, cheetahs and hyenas.

What "nature" are you talking about??

Baron Max

the one yu and your mindset is fkin up BIG time.
the one your midset wants to escape from--hates, justifies its own degradation Of it by callin it completely violent, but it isn't JUSt that. yes the leopard, lion, kills to EAT. that is natrual. what people do AINt as its based on ridculous and VERy dangerous belief-systems which divide you FROM Nature

...that is natrual. what people do AINt as its based on ridculous and VERy dangerous belief-systems which divide you FROM Nature

But just where do you think those "...dangerous belief-systems" come from? Yep, that's right ...human nature, human characteristics. Greed, selfishness, ego-centricism, violence, ...among others.

Baron Max

If we were being "natural", Odin and duendy would have their skullz bashed in for being weaklings.

Yeah, Wes, that's true. But watch how "violently" they post retorts of our posts! ...LOL!

Baron Max

oh dear....listen: not ALL of our species are caught up in the same self-destructive belief systems you seem to promote and then laugh a lot about. as is your wont

your attitude about these serious issues is actually pre-adolescent--though i am sure 11 year olds would contribute much more intelligent suggestions and insights


so where are we...? you love war and love concreting over Nature....?

if people werent insistent on being such dicks there wouldnt be any need for war.we need to start screening people who want to have babies.i'll make judgements.

if people werent insistent on being such dicks there wouldnt be any need for war.

That's a mighty big IF. "being a dick" is subjective. At least the person who is "being a dick" generally does not see their actions as such. They feel justified in their actions. You add to my argument regarding divergence of value.

we need to start screening people who want to have babies.i'll make judgements.

Seems like a bad idea. Are you going to be a dick about it if people don't let you?

i would think that being a dick can be summed up as not treating others as you would like to be treated,although their are exceptions to this (masochists for example).im gonna be dictator so no one will have a choice.and if not i will run around infecting people with clamedia.

but that would start a war.

so what your implying is that you see the need for war sos why cant we let you be, cause if we cant ..do we wanna war with you, right? thus contradicting ourselves.....this is what you beieve--or i am reading it--not me

i really despair ou dont see it and want you too. i dont want to shoot your head off, cuase that's be silly. war is VERy VERy ignoreant. but you aren't seeing it is. you assume its writ into 'our' genes. THAt is the belief that keeps you believing its the right course of action

you wont step out of the box. let them kill YOU,,,,,why not. have you ever killed anyone wes morris? just curious. just that you seem to promote war..anall, wonder if you KNOW what it feels like to kill. i am very interested

so what your implying is that you see the need for war sos why cant we let you be, cause if we cant ..do we wanna war with you, right?thus contradicting ourselves.....this is what you beieve--or i am reading it--not me

NO. I'm saying that value is subjective and that diverging value leads to war. You don't read what I write. You read what you want to hear. You apparently take whatever spin allows your mind to support its presumption "people who contradict me regarding the topic of war are stupid".

i really despair ou dont see it and want you too.

Your presumption rears its ugly head eh? Because you ignore what I'm saying, you presume it's ME with a comprehension problem. I understand exactly what you're saying. The problem with your assertions is that they are unfounded - based in pure idealism. I'm the dose of realism your mind pretends isn't valid. You feign superior comprehension in order to justify your denial.

i dont want to shoot your head off, cuase that's be silly.

No, that would be BRUTAL and VISCERAL, and you're too much of a pussy for that kind of shit. For the most part, I am too. I don't like that aspect of life, but can adapt to it when necessary.

war is VERy VERy ignoreant.

You make this assertion with absolutely no rational support for it. War is not a person and therefore cannot lack knowledge. It is not necessarily an act FROM ignorance either.

but you aren't seeing it is.

Why should I? I think the assertion "war is ignorant" is a non-statement. It's like saying "the plumbing is dumb". How stupid is that? I think the problem is that war is thought of as something by itself... as if it's somehow detached from the situation that leads to it. War is part of nature's cycle of what generally appears as brutality to humans and should be taught as such.

you assume its writ into 'our' genes.

How do you know? Have I said that? What I've said is that war resolves divergence of value. You don't seem to remotely comprehend what that means.

THAt is the belief that keeps you believing its the right course of action.

That it is the right course of action is highly circumstantial and dependent on perspective.

you wont step out of the box.

LOL. I can't step out of a box that only exists in YOUR mind.

let them kill YOU,,,,,why not.

Do you want to die? I don't. I have a family to care for, plus I like my life. I would kill to protect my family, don't doubt it.

have you ever killed anyone wes morris?

Not that I know of and I hope I never do, but I can't say it could never happen. Threaten my family and all bets of civility are off.

just curious.

Happy to oblige.

just that you seem to promote war

Talk about ignorance. You are stuck in the box you've made for others. It's funny that people who don't SHUN war cart blanche are apparently "promoting it" in your mind. It's quite telling. Perhaps you'll reflect on that for a few moments.

..anall, wonder if you KNOW what it feels like to kill.

No, I have no desire to kill or be killed. That doesn't mean I wouldn't to protect that which I value, like my family.

i am very interested

Yes, but not apparently very able to comprehend what I've said.

whay do you sue terms like 'pussy' to dmean people you consider weaker than yourself. that kind of lingo is jail-lingo is..macho, strutting yout yer tits lingo, what med or WARRR DOOOO.......am i warm clever dick

yes. i ruined it with my fkin spellin. 'med of war'....??

look morris. if you cmae to my house. and began bad muthin my family and attackthing thm, i'd probably cripple you if not kill you. self defense. of course i would try and reason with you first, etc. but i wouldn't let you harm my loved ones

but we aren't talking about that, and about self-defending ourselves walking on the street. we are talking organized war.

can you not see the difference?

I called myself a pussy too, so obviously I don't reserve the term for "those weaker than myself". "pussy" is common term. resorting to criticizing that choice of terms further exposes your denial and apparently inability to deal with reality.

I called myself a pussy too, so obviously I don't reserve the term for "those weaker than myself". "pussy" is common term. resorting to criticizing that choice of terms further exposes your denial and apparently inability to deal with reality.


okay, you've stopped callin my pussy for two secs....but THEN 'begin' to patronize me by claiming i have an inability to deal with reality. so i then ask you...cause your the accuser....can YOU deal wid it?

can you deal with your reality? what would that mean? do you think?

yes. i ruined it with my fkin spellin. 'med of war'....??

look morris. if you cmae to my house. and began bad muthin my family and attackthing thm, i'd probably cripple you if not kill you. self defense. of course i would try and reason with you first, etc. but i wouldn't let you harm my loved ones

but we aren't talking about that, and about self-defending ourselves walking on the street. we are talking organized war.

can you not see the difference?

It's the same shit on a larger scale, all complicated by culture, interaction of related individual perspectives, mandates and all kinds of shit.. but ultimately it's the same thing.

To a state, their "family" is the populous. They have a mandate to protect them. When they percieve a threat, they are bound by their mandate to take action to avert it. Sometimes that calls for war.

okay, you've stopped callin my pussy for two secs....but THEN 'begin' to patronize me by claiming i have an inability to deal with reality.

I'm not patronize you at all. It seems from what you present here, that your idealism severely clouds your ability to comprehend the conversation

so i then ask you...cause your the accuser....can YOU deal wid it?

As far as I can tell, yeah.

can you deal with your reality?

In what capacity? My comment about not dealing with reality was in reference to your idealism.

what would that mean? do you think?

I think it would mean reaching an understanding of how things ARE, rather than how I insist they should be. I used to be an idealist too, which makes it easier for me to recognize now. It's the arrogance of youth and all. It's hard to understand that no matter how much you don't like reality, pretending it isn't that way doesn't change it. Acceptance of some of the more grim realities of life is not easy to attain. What would good be though, were it not for bad?

well dudey, you are not talkin to a youth....though by saying that i am not putting youths' potential for intelligent insight, and life experience, down

you are callin my an idealist, because i will not accept the way things ARE. right? for who?....for you? why whats the matter? are you starving to death? what's the matter?

i know people are starving in this world. should i just accept that or speak out about it?...isn't it more REAL to be NOt happy about exploitation of people, and trashing of Nature and the whole schbangle that A mindset is doing to others and Nature?......its written in your myth. in ypur presumptions. i am exploring it. and pointing you to it. are you interested in finding out or are YOU an idea-list. stickin to the IDEa of the myth spun to you by the warring brigade

shit dude. to me, seriously, you are naive. you dont know the HALF what you heroes are doing have done intend to do. and you call ME an idea-list

also. whatabout your MIND. what about exploring it. ....ooops i forgot. they're doin a 'WAR against 'drugs' aren't they?

tell me....what DONT they war against?.....shittin on the poor. do they war against THAT?

you are callin my an idealist, because i will not accept the way things ARE. right?

Well, I don't know about him, but I think you're an idealist because you can't UNDERSTAND the way things are - the realities of the world. Understanding and accepting are two different things.

Idealism is a wonderful fantasy ...but that's all it will be unless one can make it work within the realm of the realities of the world. To say that wars should stop is also to say that all conflict should stop and that's also saying the all disagreements should stop. And yet, here you are disagreeing! And, disagreeing with a tone of aggression and anger.

>"i know people are starving in this world. should i just accept that or speak out about it?..."<

Well, hell, everyone is SPEAKING OUT about it ....that won't do anything to solve the problem. DOING something about it will. Everyone knows that people are starving all over the world ...and the reason those people are starving is because NO ONE WILL DO anything about it. And just look at you/your post .....you think typing a bunch of words on a screen will somehow help those starving people!

I would also point out, like I did before, that the obvious tone of anger in your post is the very thing that begins conflicts. If you want to stop wars and conflicts, then angry retorts are not the way to do it.

Baron Max

Baron Max...

"Well, hell, everyone is SPEAKING OUT about it ....that won't do anything to solve the problem. DOING something about it will. Everyone knows that people are starving all over the world ...and the reason those people are starving is because NO ONE WILL DO anything about it."

I know what you're saying and agree with it to some extent, but I wanted to comment. There are a TON of people DOING something about it, but doing SOMETHING isn't good enough. Throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it, because it's corruption that jacks the process. Somewhere along the line of intention and action, someone steals what is given. As I see it, that TOO is an inevitable side-effect of human nature. Those starving in africa will always be starving in africa until they rise up and kick the asses of those who would steal their food, or someone does it for them. Here imperialism might be good if it weren't for the fact that taking over most african countries would probably have a larger down side than up side. It's a problem with culture, not lack of action... but lack of effective action. The problem is in this case that as far as I can see, there is no possibility for effective action... as warlord types are a facet of the culture. You get rid of one, another stands up and starts shooting at you in the name of soveriegnity.

*sigh*

So if they don't want their children to starve, they're going to have to kick someone's ass for their sandwich.

If we were being "natural", Odin and duendy would have their skullz bashed in for being weaklings.

I am far from a weaking nor do I have a problem with violence, so I would like to see someone try.

This thread has lost all meaning let me try and sumarise the 2 sides...

side 1: War is unavoidable as somthing will always cause it?

side 2: If nothing caused war in a perfect world there would be no war?

Correct me if im wrong.

I am far from a weaking nor do I have a problem with violence, so I would like to see someone try.

How confused does one have to be in order to be a violent pacifist?

So if they don't want their children to starve, they're going to have to kick someone's ass for their sandwich.


there is wesmorris' ideology in a nutshell... this explains alot.

ok so to get food they need to kick someones ass to get it. so someone will end up dead as the sandwich cant provide for the 2 of them? well how about people up north give them their sandwiches as they have a surplus of them?

a world in which rich countries help sustain the poor ones would be ideal , world resources are shared and wars are avoided. Im not saying its possible im saying it would be good.
;)

How confused does one have to be in order to be a violent pacifist?

Im not a pacifist :eek: :bugeye: I just dont like war.

Man im actually really tired of this discussion can we come to a climax of ideas...it dosnt seem like wer going anywhere.

Wesmorris sumarise your Ideology concerning war and ill elaborate mine into it, then you can tell me if it sounds good or not.

How confused does one have to be in order to be a violent pacifist?

Confusion unnecessary. Put me into a kill-or-be-killed situation from which I cannot escape, and I will preserve my own life with whatever violence necessary.

A pacifist worthy of the appellation will not knowingly place himself in said situation. In contrast, a bloodthirsty psychopathic Marine hungers for little else than murdering those people his superiors order him to.


Jaybee.

Wouldn't you think that a bloodthirsty psychopathic Marine who is Put into a kill-or-be-killed situation from which he cannot escape might preserve his own life with whatever violence necessary ?
.....Oh wait... I get it, you're a marine ;)

Wouldn't you think that who is might ?

The difference is that he VOLUNTEERED. And did so knowing full well his job might entail committing state-sponsored Murder.


Jaybee.

I joined this late Jaybee are you a pacifist or not?

I joined this late Jaybee are you a pacifist or not?

Yes, why?

Yes, why?
Just curious

Do you believe, with an eye on history, a standing army is neccesary?

The difference is that he VOLUNTEERED. And did so knowing full well his job might entail committing state-sponsored Murder.

But Those marines didn't volunteer to be in a situation like the one you cited. They certainly had some concept that their volunteering could mean that they might one day be in a combat situation but never a certainty. They are also for the most part quite young and certain large scale concepts like this are difficult to actually grasp realistically before it is time to pay the piper, I personally am reminded of my taking out a student loan at 19 with no basis in reality to let me know exactly what it meant to be thousands of dollars in debt.
In the circumstance you mentioned a marine would behave in the exact same manner as yourself, a professed pacifist.

Just curious

Do you believe, with an eye on history, a standing army is neccesary?

I do, but it MUST be an all-volunteer force, and then must only be used for strictly defending the land of the nation which created it.

It should therefore not be projected as an attack force, but must be a formidable, and effective deterrent; therefore, if the nation is attacked, the army has already failed in it's primary goal.

So yes, armed forces are a necessary evil. The key word, however, is evil.



Jaybee.

But Those marines didn't volunteer to be in a situation like the one you cited. They certainly had some concept that their volunteering could mean that they might one day be in a combat situation but never a certainty.

Their gambling on not having to go to war makes no material difference. If they wanted to ENSURE never having to murder innocent civilians, they would have found alternative employment. The fact remains that they agreed to fight and kill when, or if called to do so.

They are also for the most part quite young and certain large scale concepts like this are difficult to actually grasp realistically before it is time to pay the piper,

Cannon fodder is best when young, impressionable, and unquestioning.

I personally am reminded of my taking out a student loan at 19 with no basis in reality to let me know exactly what it meant to be thousands of dollars in debt.

Ok...and?

In the circumstance you mentioned a marine would behave in the exact same manner as yourself, a professed pacifist.

Like I said, I will do everything I can not to get into such a situation. The Marine signs up KNOWING that doing so might get him into that situ.


Jaybee.

I do, but it MUST be an all-volunteer force, and then must only be used for strictly defending the land of the nation which created it.


So yes, armed forces are a necessary evil. The key word, however, is evil.



Jaybee.
I fully agree that armed forces are a necessary evil, hopefully one day we can move beyond that.

It should therefore not be projected as an attack force, but must be a formidable, and effective deterrent;

I am with you here in your theory. This next bit however...

therefore, if the nation is attacked, the army has already failed in it's primary goal.

Is where things get sticky, how do you ensure in this day and age that you won't be attacked? it has happened in dozens of countries in the past year alone. In those cases have the armed forces failed? and if they have are they necessary?

I fully agree that armed forces are a necessary evil, hopefully one day we can move beyond that.



I am with you here in your theory. This next bit however...



Is where things get sticky, how do you ensure in this day and age that you won't be attacked? it has happened in dozens of countries in the past year alone. In those cases have the armed forces failed? and if they have are they necessary?

Ok, whether we're talking about small African nations in guerilla style war, or countries that are larger, then the UN OUGHT to be playing peace-enforcer. Each nation allots a small percentage of it's armed forces for UN usage, and if trouble breaks out, the UN troops act to SEPARATE the combating parties.

Separate - making it impossible or unprofitable to continue hostilities.

Man im actually really tired of this discussion can we come to a climax of ideas...it dosnt seem like wer going anywhere.

Wesmorris sumarise your Ideology concerning war and ill elaborate mine into it, then you can tell me if it sounds good or not.

Uhm, you missed your chance there sport.

For your convenience, I'll repost the two more important posts that summarized my comprehension:

FIRST POST: (in response to crimson scribe's request to summarize)

Okay. In this thread I've stated my understanding of the inevitability, function and utility of war more than once I think.

I'll summarize per your request and ask that you rebutt if you feel so inclined:

inevitability:

War is based on value and commitment to premise. Value is subjective. Thus, conflicting values are inevitable. Hence, conflict.

Function and utility:

To resolve divergence of value.

What it means to me:

Nobody likes war. It's horrifying and terrible. I don't like it, but recognize it as an unfortunate necessity. Though it comes at a terrible cost, such divergence must be resolved if there is strong commitment to premise (e.g. if you want my sandwich and I don't want to give it to you and we're both absolutely commited, one of us must die)

That's a somewhat simple summary. The detail justifying the conclusions was presented in my prior posts in this thread.

SECOND POST:

“ Originally Posted by Crimson_Scribe
In resolving a divergence of value, do we call a war 'good' because it supports our values? The values of the majority? ”


IMO, that's a highly complicated issue.

First, you have to consider that "we" don't call it good. Each calls it what they will. Then you have to consider the circumstance of the individuals who must make the decisions to undertake war. They'd have to see it as "good" considering the alternatives, or they wouldn't undertake it. Do they truly respresent the interest of those who they represent? How good are they at interpreting that interest, or formulating a plan that attains the related goals? I think human nature in general must dictate that the war is "good" in the context of the perceived circumstance that led to the related decisions if it's to be undertaken, as in "the best option". I doubt though that a person I would consider "decent" would think it "good" outside that context. It seems to me that if a person is thinking rationally, the decision for war must be the best option in a cost-benefit analysis.

“ The values most in line with our survival as a civilization? ”


Well, it comes out as the will of the people in the positions to make the related decisions. They represent "the will of the people" and are basically bound by their circumstance to "sell" their position on it. This is where language gets fuzzy and politics comes into play. Given that every person has at least a slightly different take on language, and there is large risk in misinterpretation, the decision for war becomes a PR war between those who've performed their cost-benefit and those they represent. It seems to me that marketing strategy becomes inevitably relevant to the process. Again, that's basically based on the fact that everyone is different in language and you must present your case to them in a way they can relate to.

“ Would you agree with Robert McNamara, who's said 'you can't change human nature' (in reference to war and conflict)? ”


Well, if you were to change human nature, you wouldn't have humans would you? I do agree, yes.... at least at this time. I think however, we closing on a singularity of sorts - a time in which "all bets are off". With technology at its current pace, I can't see how AI could be more than 100 years away, more likely it will come in less than half that time. At that point, I think it's tough to predict what might happen to human nature.

I see a cycle. You have a population of inviduals, each with their own values. In a peace time type situation, the value of petty shit becomes basically much higher than in times of danger, when people must huddle together to overcome a larger threat. As these values become more and more important over time, people are more and more willing to make sacrifices to attain their objectives. They become more and more important because there's no reason to huddle together because everything is "okay". Egos get out of check because there's nothing to fear and with no fear, people can "do anything". They take what they want if they can manage it. Someone gets hurt. The situation escalates. The divergence gets purged but leaves remnants which create further divergences down the road. It's almost like the evolution of a galaxy. It's tranquil, then BRUTAL and perverse, cannibalistic and then tranquil again until the energy in the system comes to equilibrium.

War is part of a process. Obviously it can lead to dire consequences for the individuals and entities who are subjected to it. It is however, a door. Think of all the things that would not be were it not for wars. It's a terrifying reality, but reality none the less. Thankfully, there is more to the process than war. I'll leave that for another thread.

Gonna miss the boat again eh?

you are naive because you think in the box--the matrix, the paradigm. this is revealed to me when you vision AI. which says to me you have a limited view of consciousness. you haven't looked in to it...aren't seemingly prepared to look into it. so...hey presto you will equate cosmic 'violence'--as you call it, with 'human' violence. you reduce all humans to you assumption we are the natrual image of a violent universe

i am saying that we should look at what is fueling this myth of conflict. that is is Deep and needs exploring. are YOU prepared to explore it and maybe see through the myth that has war as its central impetus

you believe thay wars are just. it is known the war on Iraq wasn't--though i know you dont agree....but look. all war is wrong. once you see it yu see it theres no turning back. you wont join up, you wont want your kids joining up

and what 'values'? i dont feel i can express My values. i feel like the Earth's occupied by a menace. a mindset that divides itself from Nature. we MUSt be more intelligent that what you envision. the waepons being used now can make the whole Earth unlivable. it aint spears no mo
so. who HAVe that as your vision? cause everyone eles does?

could you try ENGLISh is you're going to type stuff? I can barely read that crap. goddamn hippy doofus.

hah.....go read chinese dude...you'll be callin me a tree hugger next.

could you try ENGLISh is you're going to type stuff? I can barely read that crap. goddamn hippy doofus.


is that an excuse for not being able to counter the ideas?

is that an excuse for not being able to counter the ideas?

No, it's a cry for clarity... just a smidge. I'm serious, I can barely read that shit.

Thus, I see no idea to counter. Just idealistic hippy jargon and a superiority complex.

BTW, where are YOUR ideas?

you are naive because you think in the box--the matrix, the paradigm. this is revealed to me when you vision AI.

Baseless personal attack.

which says to me you have a limited view of consciousness. you haven't looked in to it...aren't seemingly prepared to look into it.

Again, baseless personal attack. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

so...hey presto you will equate cosmic 'violence'--as you call it, with 'human' violence.

I didn't exactly equate it, I simply noted the similarity. You fail to explain your problem with the analogy.

you reduce all humans to you assumption we are the natrual image of a violent universe

No, it's not an assumption, it's an observation. The universe is an incredibly violent place. There is also peace, but it doesn't exist without violence eventually unsettling it. Eventually even our sun will become a red giant and engulf the earth.

i am saying that we should look at what is fueling this myth of conflict.

But you fail to address ANY point that has been made. You simply label them as wrong, attack ME and tell me I'm "stuck in the box". You fail to address the core argument: Subjective value leads to conflict. You call it a myth, yet have not shown in any capacity how that is so.

that is is Deep and needs exploring.

But you haven't presented anything to consider besides unfounded assertions. You claim "conflict is a myth" yet haven't shown HOW or WHY besides that you don't like it. Not liking it and pretending it isn't real is exactly the definition of denial. Hence I assert you are in total denial regarding the nature of conflict.

are YOU prepared to explore it and maybe see through the myth that has war as its central impetus

Are YOU prepared to offer an argument to that end?

you believe thay wars are just.

From where do you gather this? I believe wars are just in the minds of those who wage them, but that is not equivalent to the flat statement "wars are just".

it is known the war on Iraq wasn't

You say that as if you are some sort of absolute authority on what is and isn't fair or right. Value is subjective, thus your statement is flatly false.

--though i know you dont agree....but look.

Look at what? You don't have an argumentative leg to stand on.

all war is wrong.

To someone, yes.

once you see it yu see it theres no turning back.

Well of course, but that doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you... hence you have no point.

you wont join up, you wont want your kids joining up

Join up for what?

and what 'values'?

Whatever value is relevant to the conflict.

i dont feel i can express My values.

You just did.

i feel like the Earth's occupied by a menace.

So your "feeling" is your substitute for reason?

a mindset that divides itself from Nature.

You apparently don't understand nature at all, given that you object to the considerable violent aspect of the universe.

we MUSt be more intelligent that what you envision.

Yes, it would be nice if you were more intelligent than my vision of you, but it's not looking like that way. How do you think yourself privy to my vision of humanity's intelligence? I've made no remarks here in that regard that I remember.

the waepons being used now can make the whole Earth unlivable. it aint spears no mo

You're just catching that?

so. who HAVe that as your vision?

Is that english? I have no idea what you asked.

cause everyone eles does?

What? You really think that everyone else thinks the way I do about the topic of war? Please, grow a brain and use it before you post.

No, it's a cry for clarity... just a smidge. I'm serious, I can barely read that shit.

Thus, I see no idea to counter. Just idealistic hippy jargon and a superiority complex.

BTW, where are YOUR ideas?


i stated my ideas a few pages back in a summary but you havent replied to them

War is just a test between 2 nation who are seeing who has more resouces, people, and technology. Also to see who is more modernized. Of course it's bullshit though, they both lose in the long run.

i stated my ideas a few pages back in a summary but you havent replied to them

"Wesmorris sumarise your Ideology concerning war and ill elaborate mine into it, then you can tell me if it sounds good or not."


You're not very bright eh?

Also to see who is more modernized. Of course it's bullshit though, they both lose in the long run.

Oh?

Howso?

Perhaps they both WIN in the long run?

Is THIS the mess you refer to as your ideas? Are you SURE you want me to respond to it and waste both of our time? Instead, why don't you trying to rationally address the arguments I've provided? I guess that's asking too much eh?

Wesmorris , to make things clear:

* You are the one who is fucking bitching , I whine alot less then you do look back at your post, you have to resort to swearing because you are having trouble getting your pathetic blood thirsty idealism across.
*Im not commanding anything should happen im saying I would like things that way , Of course I know it wont happen due to human nature BUT ITS BETTER THAN WAR? are you denying that? yes you are bacuase your a stupid fool who cant think outside the box.
*I didnt come here to preach! im not asking for you to agree im stating what I think! learn to read!
*Fuck jesus.

Ok here is where you show in ability to link facts: "if I didnt eat i would have to shit"
you have to eat to stay alive, you dotn have to go to war to stay alive thats what iv been trying to say since fuck knows when , If humans lived in a war free world things would be better(which wont happen and i know it) ... do you understand now? good.

I wasnt talking about people ,I was hinting on bush, who is by far is the most successful person in the world and I agree, as it is a miracle that a stupid dolt like that managed to get so much power.

lets see why am i not incharge... 1. I have other ambitions in life rather than ruleing peop