Originally posted by StarValleyWySo you think that Iran's focus is on Israel and no longer on its age
A "rebuilt" Iraq has a lot of definitions, or more accurately a lot of 'potential outcomes'. I don't think we can know for at least a quarter century. Will it be rebuilt as an Islamic state? Will it be quasi-secular and have to fight the islamo-facists for the next hundred years? Will it revert to socialism under the socialist batthist party?
I sure ...[text shortened]... and hard then paid the grizzly price (demanded of us to destroy) fanaticism.
old enemy Iraq?
There's an old saying that I don't know is entirely true
'For pain in the stomach, look to the heart. For pain in the heart,
look to the stomach'.
I have a simple rule not to believe anything politicians say is 'true'.
I find it hard to believe that the massive changes in Iraq won't impact
Iran eventually. If there is no definition for Iraq then surely there'll
be a scramble to inject influence to the region?
As for 'I can't think of anything more evil than fanatics who cut
peoples heads off because god told them it was good.'
I return again to the US's view on corporal punishment.
Don't throw stones when you own a death chamber 🙂
(sorry, just can't help myself)
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIran should have been "killed" at that time. But... it's never too late. Hopefully we can get it done before the "Hitler dilema" kicks in.
A "rebuilt" Iraq has a lot of definitions, or more accurately a lot of 'potential outcomes'. I don't think we can know for at least a quarter century. Will it be rebuilt as an Islamic state? Will it be quasi-secular and have to fight the islamo-facists for the next hundred years? Will it revert to socialism under the socialist batthist party?
I sure ...[text shortened]... and hard then paid the grizzly price (demanded of us to destroy) fanaticism.
This is frightening though... You already pointed out that Irans current
leadership is a petty dictatorship, are you referring to killing them or
their people??
As far as I see, the Iranian people need help expressing their own
disapproval at their government on the world stage and not further
threats towards them.
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckIf there is no definition for Iraq then surely there'll
So you think that Iran's focus is on Israel and no longer on its age
old enemy Iraq?
There's an old saying that I don't know is entirely true
'For pain in the stomach, look to the heart. For pain in the heart,
look to the stomach'.
I have a simple rule not to believe anything politicians say is 'true'.
I find it hard to believe that the massive chan n't throw stones when you own a death chamber 🙂
(sorry, just can't help myself)
be a scramble to inject influence to the region?
The rush is on and has been since the US crossed the border and rolled to Bagdad in the opening month of the current war. Planning for this eventuality has no doubt been in progress for fifteen years. That was the moment that the Islamo-facists first realized the opportunity that would be offered WHEN the US took down their enemy... Saddam.
Every Muslim nation in the middle east is now sending "Heros" to die for the cause. We just have to recognize what their "cause" is. I find it interesting that people have such a hard time studying the Brotherhood Of Islam and discovering their "cause". What do you suppose is the goal of the islamic facists?
As for 'I can't think of anything more evil than fanatics who cut
peoples heads off because god told them it was good.'
I return again to the US's view on corporal punishment.
Don't throw stones when you own a death chamber 🙂
(sorry, just can't help myself)
This is why I am pessimistic about the future of our world civilization. I am sure you mean this. I am also sure that you equate the terrorists deeds of cutting off heads with dull knives to the deeds of destroying and killing the most heinous killers, rapists and psychopathic human garbage on earth. This explains why you see the US as wrong in going to war to kill terrorists AND of killing human garbage. I can't change your mind because you lack a certain human decency that nobody can impart to you. Sorry. To me this is a pretty good indicator of YOUR worth as a human. But that isn't something I can't know until I have looked into your eyes.
Since you resorted to a very unrelated gasto-intestinal metaphor, let me indulge in another irrelevancy... "People tend to sympathize with those ‘others’ who most closely match their own thoughts and actions. You can tell what a person is like by those with whom they hang.” -- or "Birds of a feather, hang together."
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI hold people responsible for their governments. I am also not very sympathetic to people who allow dictators to threaten me and my kids. So -- to hell with them. I hold ALL islamo-facists as my enemies and would as soon nuke em' as talk to them. If the "people" of Iran are not facists... then why have they had facist leaders and government since 1979? Or have I missed something?
Iran should have been "killed" at that time. But... it's never too late. Hopefully we can get it done before the "Hitler dilema" kicks in.
This is frightening though... You already pointed out that Irans current
leadership is a petty dictatorship, are you referring to killing them or
their people??
As far as I see, the Iranian people need help expre ...[text shortened]...
disapproval at their government on the world stage and not further
threats towards them.
But this "drastic" view won't hold in the current war until the nukes start going off. Then my current point of view will be the norm for both sides of the war.
Of course... If this really isn't a war, then there is nothing to worry about. Is there? BTW... just wondering... What is so "frightening" about facing reality? It is the only one we have.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe purpose of war is to create the truth.
The purpose of war is to create the truth.
To deny that one is at war is to capitulate before battle.
A victory without blood is the sweetest of all wars, but only for the victor. The vanquished have no rights. The highest power owns the highest ground and has created deadly ground on which to meet the enemy.
Could you expand on this a bit?
Originally posted by vistesdPerhaps...
[b]The purpose of war is to create the truth.
Could you expand on this a bit?[/b]
In Thequick's post he equated the killing of murderers etc. -- to killing terrorists in war.
Taken logically he may be right because from his point of view, I am a killer for killing EITHER and it becomes a zero sum game of which set of killers he prefers.
So.. Two drastically differing points of view exist.
Thequick believes that all life is to be preserved. He can't justify war to kill terrorists or the death penalty for killers. HIS problem is that he has aligned himself with the preservation of evil people. HIS strength of argument is that if nobody was a killer then nobody would be killed.
I believe that killers, rapists, child molesters and terrorists need to be killed. I can justify death for killers and terrorists. MY problem is that I have become a killer. MY strength of argument is that as my side wins, there become fewer and fewer "bad guys" except for my type of bad guy.
In HIS world view, the garbage just keeps building up and there will be no limits to it's depth.
In my world view, I take out the garbage, but get really dirty doing it.
War is a neutral tool that allows a chimp village to endulge in "righteous anger" and taking out the garbage becomes a communal effort, thus innoculating the individual from becoming the same garbage as was removed.
War creates "the truth" in the sense that the winning village (or chimp troop) can mourn their dead as heros while acknowledging that "war is hell". This is a universal truth born of our rather violent nature.
It is a fools quote to believe that "might makes right". It very seldom does. I think that "lowering evil" makes right. Now... this is where one must really put on the thinking cap, because I'm about to propose that we ALL MUST MAKE A CHOICE and live with it.
As an atheist it becomes my duty to make a choice, divorced from religious morality. Do I support all life or do I support "my kind" of life? I can't make this choice for fear of punishment or for want of reward.
Am I willing to support a guy who rapes and kills a ten year old girl? I say that I am not so inclined. Am I willing to support the continued survival of people who send mentally retarded kids to their death with bombs strapped to their chest? I say that I will not. So I have to CHOOSE. I must become a terrible thing. I must lose all rights as a pacifist. I have just become a killer and a not too good person.
I am willing to do that in support of what I HOPE TO HELL will become a better world. The single most important REASON that I am willing to become a killer is that in the long history of my species, UNPUNISHED EVIL ALWAYS LEADS TO GREATER EVIL, UNTIL THE WORLD BURNS IN EVER GREATER WARS.
It is a horrible price to have to pay, and I resent the hell out of evil facist nuts and child rapist killers who have forced me to become everything that I abhore. BUT... I WILL NEVER ALLOW AN INNOCENT TO BE INJURED. I WILL GIVE MY LIFE IF NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT. So though I am a killer and have become an object of less than spotless character and moral composition, I am MY KIND of killer who kills the guilty, not the innocent.
All thanks to the terrible maker of truth... WAR.
BTW... small war is preferable to large war. Putting off war has ALWAYS allowed it to grow. This is known as the "Neville Snivle" axiom.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThanks, SVW. I’m just kind of popping thoughts out here to shamelessly tap your historical understanding (my own being woefully lacking—reading suggestions always welcome; I already have 4 translations of Sun Tzu).
Perhaps...
In Thequick's post he equated the killing of murderers etc. -- to killing terrorists in war.
Taken logically he may be right because from his point of view, I am a killer for killing EITHER and it becomes a zero sum game of which set of killers he prefers.
So.. Two drastically differing points of view exist.
Thequick believes tha ...[text shortened]... has ALWAYS allowed it to grow. This is known as the "Neville Snivle" axiom.
Your underlying point seems to be that our increasing unwillingness (over a long history) to engage in small wars of practical necessity (which can cover a lot of territory: the old Celtic “cattle raids” come to mind), leads inexorably to larger and larger wars—I might add, with less and less concern for, say, children in the way. Nietzsche I think would argue that some of this unwillingness stems from the expansion of Christian morality.
On the other hand, some would argue that the rise of monotheism was a large cause of conflicts of ideological expansion—which I would think would also lead to “bigger” wars. This is not to say simplistically that “religion causes war,” but that a particular kind of “monotheistic thinking” (or singular ideology) leads to expanded theories of war: i.e., wars of conversion (religious or philosophical), in which the ultimate goal is either conversion or extermination of the enemy. Since ideological wars are not fought over land, resources (“cattle” ), the gene pool, etc., they tend to be more brutal and destructive.
Again, I’m must fishing for your thoughts to stimulate my own.
______________________________
I admit that I’ve been of divided mind (or hypocritical, if you prefer) on these, and related, issues over most of my life. On the one hand, for example, I’ve opposed the death penalty; on the other, I long ago committed myself to protecting my loved ones—and myself—from harm by any means necessary (without even admitting—once the threat is there—such concepts as “right,” “justifiable,” minimum necessary force, etc.). That is, if I have any reason to believe you are going to harm my wife in any way, I will whatever action I believe is necessary to ensure that you don’t.
I only say all that so you know exactly where your thinking challenges that “divided mind”—a good thing for me, eh? 🙂
There is a scientist here in florida that discovered how to burn water..that's right water, and he even has engineered a car that goes 2oo miles on 4 ounces of H2O! He even can weld with it and showed this. this was 6 months ago and nothing since! I think the oil companies bought him off and are supressing this knowledge as it would cut into their profits. go figure. Big gummint/ special interests
Originally posted by vistesdI'm stepping very late into this discussion, and without reading the preceding posts - so I apologise in advance for any goof-up in what follows.
Thanks, SVW. I’m just kind of popping thoughts out here to shamelessly tap your historical understanding (my own being woefully lacking—reading suggestions always welcome; I already have 4 translations of Sun Tzu).
Your underlying point seems to be that our increasing unwillingness (over a long history) to engage in small wars of practical necessity (wh ...[text shortened]... you know exactly where your thinking challenges that “divided mind”—a good thing for me, eh? 🙂
I'd like to remind you of the longest (and, in many ways, the most costly) ideological war of the previous century - and it had nothing to do with monotheism or religion. The Cold War was fought between two competing economic ideologies that were fundamentally incompatible with each other.
As long as men think differently, there will always the positions that are mutually incompatible. And, when there are two more-or-less equally powerful entities backing those positions, a war is possible (if not likely).
Originally posted by lucifershammerWe’ll have fun talking about this stuff in Ragnarok’s thread. 🙂
I'm stepping very late into this discussion, and without reading the preceding posts - so I apologise in advance for any goof-up in what follows.
I'd like to remind you of the longest (and, in many ways, the most costly) ideological war of the previous century - and it had nothing to do with monotheism or religion. The Cold War was fought between t ...[text shortened]... -or-less equally powerful entities backing those positions, a war is possible (if not likely).
My question is (and again, Ragnarok’s thread will go directly to this), “What gave rise, and when, historically, to that ‘mono-ideological’ mindset coupled with the drive to convert anyone/everyone to it? Historically, did monotheism have anything to do with it?” There seems to be little evidence that tribal cultures with animistic religions waged wars of ideology. I thought I was clear in not simply making all ideological wars religious wars—but my phrase “monotheistic thinking” may have been confusing.