Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on February 10, 2004, 07:05:42 AM
-
Who exactly is their enemy now?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/10/sprj.nirq.main/index.html
-
Sounds like the start...
-
Most of this terrorism is hate based more than religion based, religion is just used as the rallying point to convince weak minded gullible young people to sacrifice themselves. If "martyring" yourself is such a great idea, why aren't the big shots in Al Queda doing it? Instead they continue to run and hide like scared mice, convincing the weak of mind to do their bidding.
At its heart, terrorism is more about hate, about envy and feelings of inferiority than anything else.
dago
-
I started reading the Qu'ran but didn't get very far. Religious texts are a real bore. But Mohammed's wife was seemed pretty liberated compared to the fundamentalist ideal. She owned her own business for one - can't imagine her wearing a burka. Makes you wonder where the nutjobs get their ideas. I would imagine if Mohammed returned for a day and was asked by the Taliban types "Are you pleased with what we've done?" he wouldn't be too positive in his reply. Same could be said of Jesus too I expect.
-
with every bombing the world grows less tolerant and their "cause" loses steam. Can't help but think the pool of nutcases dries up just a little with every explosion/death.
It will not be tomorrow or the day after but terrorism will go the way of "World Wars" - fight themselves dry ...
-
the world wars ceased to be after we fixed the root of their source.
And dont worry eagler, everytime a muslim man dies his children grow up with hate in their hearts. there we always an endless supply of terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
the world wars ceased to be after we fixed the root of their source.
And dont worry eagler, everytime a muslim man dies his children grow up with hate in their hearts. there we always an endless supply of terrorists.
no matter how he dies? who killed him? these 50+ dead are the US fault right? maybe the CIA planted bomb to get locals turned againsts the iraq terroists? get a life kid..
the world wars stopped when they figured out they could not win - the crazy world conquerors are no longer tolerated
-
Your assuming that religious nuts can think critically eagler. Untill their religion makes it into the 18th century or they lose their inferiority complex these people will continue to bomb everything they deam evil.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Who exactly is their enemy now?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/10/sprj.nirq.main/index.html
If we're talking about the car bomb: anyone who works for or with the Americans.
If we're talking about the al Qaeda letter, the Americans, but anyone in the way is expendable.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Your assuming that religious nuts can think critically eagler. Untill their religion makes it into the 18th century or they lose their inferiority complex these people will continue to bomb everything they deam evil.
[img]
Wow, something we agree on. Prepare! this is an omen that the end is near!
-
The world wars were not won by the axis seeing they couldnt win, we had to physically go over there lose lives and kill them until we got to berlin, and japan, if we woulda just stopped half way after countless lives on both sides have been lost, hitler and tojo would still be around, and tons more people would be dead.
The terrorist people will always believe what they are doing is "right" yes if their dad gets killed fighting those "evil" americans, they are gonna join some organization and follow in his foot steps. It is an endless supply, even if we do get Osama Bin Laden, nothing will change, people will fill in his place and it will alll continue.
IMHO, i agreed with the war on Iraq, as them pepople didnt need to suffer under Saddam and that guy was about worthless, i agree with that war as long as we give them some help and show them how to set up and fair and equal country.
The war on terror however, it seems like another vietnam to me, 100s/1000s of lives on boths sides will be lost, and for nothing, there will always been someone to take the place of the man who just fell before him, they will set more and more bombs up killing americans, jump back into the bushes, we will hunt some down kill em, and just and endless battle.
IMHO, more lives will be lost going over and trying to stop them all, then will be lost without the whole war in the long run. Until people live at "peace" with EVERYONE the world will not be a safe place, youll still have to worry somewhat when you get on an airplane, or in your car etc etc.:(
all this is just MHO you dont have to agree or disagree.
-
Originally posted by LWACE
IMHO, i agreed with the war on Iraq, as them pepople didnt need to suffer under Saddam and that guy was about worthless, i agree with that war as long as we give them some help and show them how to set up and fair and equal country.
This is what alot of people that support the war believe in. And in a sane world it would work. I question if the people in the middle east are even ready for a fair and equal country. If they can even grasp that idea without it conflicting with their religion. I would love to be proved wrong and see these people become agnostic and create a flourishing capitalist paradise. I still dont think its worth our troops sitting over there getting shot at 50 times a day for another year.
-
IMHO, western civility and justice has no place in Iraq until the war is completely over, the infra structure is replaced, and a NEW Iraqi government is chosen by Iraqi's. Doing anything else such as internment and that ilk only shows the terrorists that they will not die if caught, and that more than likely they will be freed. There only true worry is dying in the initial combat, if they survive that, they will eventually walk. Hard choice, Huh? Die in a fight for allah, or get caught, eventually released, and try it again! If we treated it like midle eastern justice, these people would have some fear, and riskm being forever shamed by some of the punishments, the attacks go down, and the Iraqi's can choos their own government and move on. I only hope something like this can work, because until then, more coalition, and Iraqi civilians continue to die, because there is not stop gap.
-
Originally posted by LWACE
yes if their dad gets killed fighting those "evil" americans, they are gonna join some organization and follow in his foot steps.
Kinda like how all the children of German soldiers killed by Allies joined together to form the Fourth Reich and invaded Poland? Oh... wait....
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I started reading the Qu'ran but didn't get very far. Religious texts are a real bore. But Mohammed's wife was seemed pretty liberated compared to the fundamentalist ideal. She owned her own business for one - can't imagine her wearing a burka. Makes you wonder where the nutjobs get their ideas. I would imagine if Mohammed returned for a day and was asked by the Taliban types "Are you pleased with what we've done?" he wouldn't be too positive in his reply. Same could be said of Jesus too I expect.
Dowding....you ever read Ephesians in the New Testament?
-
Can't help but think the pool of nutcases dries up just a little with every explosion/death.
And the gene pool improves with the death of each one who self detonates.
dago
-
GRUNHERZ: Who exactly is their enemy now?
A pickup truck detonated as recruits stood in line to apply for jobs with the Iraqi police...
I'd say collaborators with authorities and their puppet government.
Dowding: I started reading the Qu'ran but didn't get very far...
Are you reading original arabic or translation?
Eagler: with every bombing the world grows less tolerant and their "cause" loses steam. Can't help but think the pool of nutcases dries up just a little with every explosion/death.
That is wishfull thinking. Even in common crime the copy-cat follow-up is common. With terrorism it's even more pronounced. Every successfull and spectacular terror act is presented as a victory and draws more recruits, not less.
no matter how he dies? who killed him?
Right. Those chldren of dead suni will be blowing shi'ites and americans while shi'ites will be blowing suni and americans.
are the US fault right? maybe the CIA planted bomb to get locals turned againsts the iraq terroists? get a life kid..
How hard is it for iraiqis to believe that US is not interested in stabilisation in Iraq? The more mayhem, the more reasons to keep troops there. It's not as much of a stretch as the belief that 9/11 was caused by Mossad/CIA to justify the invasion - and plenty of them believe that.
Frogm4n: Untill their religion makes it into the 18th century or they lose their inferiority complex...
Funny that I hear about that mysterious "inferiority complex" so much but every one of them thinks their culture is superior and cite many agruments in their support.
Like the argument that their daughters are not barren potatos like western women and their nations are not going extinct like ours.
LWACE: we will hunt some down kill em, and just and endless battle
Not endless. The hostilities keep their growing nations united and hostile to adoption of the western ways while we diminish in numbers and get replaced with democrat-voting mexicans in US (or muslims in Europe).
miko
-
As Miko posted their enemy are "collaborators with authorities and their puppet government."
But then this target is hardly new...
Tronsky
-
everytime a muslim man dies his children grow up with hate in their hearts. there we always an endless supply of terrorists
frog..u are a moron
I guaren-god-dam-tee....the japanese and Germans//especially the japanese..commited FAR more atrocities then the waked out muslims right now..AND i god-dam-guarentee that the Japanses were taught much more hate for the"gaizon" ...true they teach there muslim kids to hate...but on the standrad that japan taught..hell no ...
So..funny...I dont see these Japanese and Germans continuing the fight?
You really make me laff...dummofo
getting shot at 50 times a day
why do you LIE?
-
You simply can't compare the German/Japanese to terrorists. One fought a war out in the open, the other sneaks up behind your back and then relies on the subsequent fear for their war.
They just aren't the same thing, and neither is their resolve.
-SW
-
"The war on terror however, it seems like another vietnam to me, "
Wrong analogy. More like the anti-pirate campaigns of the 17 and 1800's.
-
BGBMAW: frog..u are a moron
BGBMAW, I will try to explain it to you without using big words.
Japanese and germans individuals did not attack other people on their own initiative. Japanese and Germans were not buying tickets and travelling to other countries to blow themsleves up and kill the inhabitants.
Their governments made them do it - drafted, equipped and sent abroad. Most of them would have been happy not to fight and not to risk dying. So they had no problem to stop fighting when the war ended.
The "bloodthirsty" germans who are so intimidating in uniform would rather allow you kill them than litter on the street.
Unlike the law-obedient citizens of Japan and Germany, terrorists actually want to fight and do not mind dying. They personally and individually join groups that help them get equipped and then blow up the enemy.
The Japan's and Germany's militarism came from their governments and removing governments solved the problem.
That is not the case with muslim militants who often act against their government's wishes. Removing their governments will not change their motivation.
Maybe some day that will stop. But it has nothing to do with Japan and Germany.
miko
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
"The war on terror however, it seems like another vietnam to me, "
Wrong analogy. More like the anti-pirate campaigns of the 17 and 1800's.
and where are the pirates today? the same place terrorists will be in the future - erased from mainstream
-
Originally posted by Eagler
and where are the pirates today? the same place terrorists will be in the future - erased from mainstream
Err sorry to burst your fuzzy "hey we can win this one" feelings bubble but piracy is alive, well and on the rise, and no, I'm not talking about Col. Depp's latest movie.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Err sorry to burst your fuzzy "hey we can win this one" feelings bubble but piracy is alive, well and on the rise, and no, I'm not talking about Col. Depp's latest movie.
What he said...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2994013.stm
-
The germans and japanese did not fight for God. They fought for the state. You cannot compare apples and oranges. At least the Germans and Japanese on average were far more educated and were not religious fanatics. Sure you can make a arguement with Hirohito being considered a god, but he did renounce his devinity. I dont mythical characters our of storys are capable of such even when it is to save a people from a terrible fate.
Miko, the inferiority complex i talk about is different then you think it is. They believe that they are the chosen people, and that God has granted them the best way of living and that everything they do is far superior to the infidals. So when secular states have superior economics culture and freedoms it kind of speaks against what they believe. And therefor is satans doing.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Err sorry to burst your fuzzy "hey we can win this one" feelings bubble but piracy is alive, well and on the rise, and no, I'm not talking about Col. Depp's latest movie.
I was talking to some old navy buddies, and we don't remember any problems with pirates.....
(http://www.dd841.com/images/pg_11.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
The germans and japanese did not fight for God. They fought for the state. You cannot compare apples and oranges. At least the Germans and Japanese on average were far more educated and were not religious fanatics. Sure you can make a arguement with Hirohito being considered a god, but he did renounce his devinity. I dont mythical characters our of storys are capable of such even when it is to save a people from a terrible fate..
I think you could easily compare the typical jap fighter's mindset in ww2 with the average joe nutbag terrorist of today... the germs on the other hand showed much better judgement in the c.y.a. department
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
I was talking to some old navy buddies, and we don't remember any problems with pirates.....
(http://www.dd841.com/images/pg_11.jpg)
Well maybe things have changed a bit since then - heck, they invented colour photography and hairstylists for a start. ;)
-
Rude - does Ephesians deal with the return of Christ? I've read the New Testament, but it was a long time ago, when I went to Church.
Miko - unfortunately I don't read Arabic, and if you're going to argue the English translation is edited for PCness or something, I like you to name one religious text that hasn't.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Miko - unfortunately I don't read Arabic, and if you're going to argue the English translation is edited for PCness or something, I like you to name one religious text that hasn't.
He's probably going to argue - and most muslims will, IIRC, back him up on this - that if it isn't in Arabic it isn't the Qu'ran.
-
OK. Well, then I started reading a very long book about a series of events that closely mirror the events described in a religious text associated with a major religion founded in the Middle East whose spiritual centre of gravity is inextricably linked with a charming ancient city containing a lump of meteorite which is the destination of an important pilgrimage.
Insert rolleyes thing
-
Originally posted by Dowding
OK. Well, then I started reading a very long book about a series of events that closely mirror the events described in a religious text associated with a major religion founded in the Middle East whose spiritual centre of gravity is inextricably linked with a charming ancient city containing a lump of meteorite which is the destination of an important pilgrimage.
Insert rolleyes thing
:D
-
Eagler: and where are the pirates today? the same place terrorists will be in the future - erased from mainstream
Pirates were never "mainstream", except in adventure books.
Pirates are still there - in some areas.
Goods are cheap no manufacture now unlike in old times. The majority of the price of the goods is distribution and retail - which would cost a pirate even more than usual. So stealing goods in bulk is out. Nobody transports chests of gold anymore for compact portable treasure.
Piracy is just not cost-effective on a large scale.
Frogm4n: least the Germans and Japanese on average were far more educated and were not religious fanatics.
Many palestinians are well eduated. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were well educated - western educated and thoroughly familiar with western way of life. The terrorism is not caused by ignorance and failure to understand that means a huge mistake in knowing your enemy.
Miko, the inferiority complex i talk about is different then you think it is.
You raise an interesting topic that deserves examination - maybe even as a separate thread. I believe you are mistaken about their feeling of inferiority, unless you drastically redefine that term. Here it goes.
They believe that they are the chosen people, and that God has granted them the best way of living and that everything they do is far superior to the infidals.
People always feel their culture is superior - otherwise they would not be practicing it and switch to another one. Everybody does that, including westerners. Some westerners actually profess hate for western culture and denigrade it, but that is also part of their culture - feling superior over the culture of the "unwashed masses".
Western people are willing to believe their (socialist) culture is superior in view of incontrovertible evidence of decay and corruption of morals and social institutions (family, marriage, parenthood) and self-inflicted extinction that culture imparts on those afflicted. They are blind to it but the arabs see that.
So when secular states have superior economics
You mean consumption? It's one of major hyppoctritical tents of even our civilisation that materialism is bad and consumerism is bad and spiritual, moral and educational aspects are much more important than flashy gadgets. Most western people beieve that "free markets do not work" and are root fo all evils - even though it's solely to the free markets that west - and humanity - owes the progress of the last 300 years. That is being dismantled even as we speak.
Arabs have children who love and respect their parents while westerners have neutered dogs and gadgets. If "economics" says that western way is "superior", it just shows how twisted and false mainstream western economics is.
Did you include superior military might in superior economics? Most would, so I will address it here.
One might readily acknowlege someone's superior strength while beliving himself superior in terms of civilisation.
An underclass bum can beat up a nobel laureate, a desease can kill the best of us, a barbarian invasion can overwhelm a civilisation. That does not mean that undeclass, desease-causing germs and barbarians are superior.
...culture...
:D :D :D Oh, you were serious? :( :( :(
You think arabs and muslims want their daughters behave like Britney Spears or janet Jackson? Want they daughers to be valued for appearance like cattle?
Want their sons abandon God and traditions in pursuit of matirial wealth? Just tell me, what superior qualities do they see in our culture? It's spreadabilirty due to pandering to the lowest instincts?
...and freedoms...
There are plenty of freedoms that they enjoy that we do not. there are also freedoms that they do not have - and many of them are fine with it.
But most westerners are also fine with losing many freedoms to the government - they do not mind curtailment of their rights at all.
The westerner may have more freedom to speak nonsense to strangers or show boobs on TV but they have no freedom to raise their children they way they see fit - the government mandates strict guidelines and can take children away on a whim.
it kind of speaks against what they believe. And therefor is satans doing.
It does nothing of a sort. They believe we are corrupt and headed towards the inevitable downfall. They are fighting against being contaminated, corrupted and subjected to the same fate.
Dowding: Miko - unfortunately I don't read Arabic, and if you're going to argue the English translation...
Nothing of that kind - no implied meaning in my question. I was only looking for a study-buddy. My arabic is way too lousy to dare communicating with a native speaker at this point.
miko
-
I was not talking about america miko.
-
Frogm4n: I was not talking about america miko.
Me neither. I was talking about the western and westernised world in general. America is doing pretty well compared to the rest - our native population reproduces below replacement but way better than most europeans and we are more tolerant of cultures and religions, unlike french.
Whom did you mean by "secular states" that have "superior economics culture and freedoms".
miko
-
yea western in general. and i salute the french for not allowing religious symbols in school.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
I question if the people in the middle east are even ready for a fair and equal country.
Many slave owners said something very similar thus justifying their ownership.
-
not really akiron. Is there even 1 muslim country that is a democracy?
-
There will be two soon. Will Islam fight it tooth and nail? Most likely.
-
two? You think palestine will end up not being a theocracy?
-
Afghanistan and Iraq.
-
The Islamic terrorist are just like the pirates of the 1700's. Many nations, including France, pay them tribute through money, goods, or services. Much like the protection racket.
Their culture has been in decline since the middle ages. They are pissed and need an external enemy to blame it on. Their culture is capable of great things. Heck, they gave us algebra (thanks alot ):(
They obviously have not read Yamamoto's text on the perils of awakening the sleeping giant.
They have no comprehension of the force we can bring to table. Nor do they understand the resolve with which we will do it. They think they can stalemate us, given their success with the bogus Palestine situation.
If I had been President, I would have authorized the use of nukes in the anaconda valley.
-
they have a king in afghanistan, and the local warlords are already reinacting the old burca laws.
Dont get me wrong, i really hope democracy works out over there, but it looks more and more like the fake democracy we tried to get going in vietnam.
Untill they realize that religion should not be mixed with a system of government; i doubt that any former theocracy will work out.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
they have a king in afghanistan, and the local warlords are already reinacting the old burca laws.
Dont get me wrong, i really hope democracy works out over there, but it looks more and more like the fake democracy we tried to get going in vietnam.
Untill they realize that religion should not be mixed with a system of government; i doubt that any former theocracy will work out.
Well said. I agree with you. Except PADI is better :)
-
Democracy in Afghanistan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3238271.stm
Never said it would be easy.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Afghanistan and Iraq.
AKIron,
Afhganistan is Persian, not arab... go over there and call them arabs... you'll come home in a small envelope.
-
Bodhi: AKIron,
Afhganistan is Persian, not arab... go over there and call them arabs... you'll come home in a small envelope.
The question was "Is there even 1 muslim country that is a democracy?"
What does it have to do with arabs?
miko
-
Frogm4n: Dont get me wrong, i really hope democracy works out over there,...
Democracy works by destroying the afflicted society or at best results in tyrany. It also causes society to be much more aggressive.
It's the constitutional republic that gives a society a chance to develop.
Shia theocrats are the ones who want democracy in Iraq - because they have clear majority.
Nobody wants democracy in Afghanistan except for US puppet government because there is no clear majority there.
Now a word from Founding Fathers:
Alexander Hamilton:
"a clear sacrifice of great positive advantages, without any counterbalancing good; administering no relief to our real disease, which is democracy, the poison of which, by a subdivision, will only be more concentrated in each part, and consequently the more virulent."
-- Letter to Theodore Sedgwick,July 10, 1804
"It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
-- Speech on June 21,1788
Elbridge Gerry (Declaration, Constitution, governor, vice president):
The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want [do not lack] virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots.
-- Madison's Convention Notes, May 31st
John Adams:
"Democracy will envy all, endeavour to pull down all, and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand, it will be revengeful, bloody and cruel."
-- Letter to Jefferson, July 16, 1814
"Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- Letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814
John Quincy Adams:
"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.
-- Speech April 30, 1839
Fisher Ames (Author of the House Language for the First Amendment):
"A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way."
-- Speech on Biennial Elections, delivered January, 1788.
The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.
-- "The Dangers of American Liberty," February 1805.
"Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism."
"..democracy that pollutes the morals of the people before it swallows up their freedoms."
James Madison:
"...Government capable of protecting the rights of property against the spirit of Democracy"
-- Letter to Jared Sparks, April 8, 1831.
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Thomas Jefferson:
"The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say, that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?"
-- Letter to John Adams, October 28, 1813
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America":
"After having successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power [of democracy] then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent and guided…men are seldom forced to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting…Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people…
Thus, their spirit is gradually broken…gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves. People then console themselves at the loss of their liberties by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians."
Also:
H. L. Mencken:
"Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."
John Adams:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
miko
-
Actually, what is being established (at least attempted) in Afghanistan is a Republic. A Republic must have officals and leaders. What better way to appoint them than by democratic process?
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
If I had been President, I would have authorized the use of nukes in the anaconda valley.
Given your post and the ideas expressed therein, you're quite clearly not presidential material. Bush lowered the bar but not by that much. :lol
-
AKIron: Actually, what is being established (at least attempted) in Afghanistan is a Republic. A Republic must have officals and leaders. What better way to appoint them than by democratic process?
Hmm... I don't know. Natural nobility? Negotiations between major power factions? Having them fight it out once and for all? Have one imposed on them - provided he is backed up with some kind of power? Restore a heir to previous monarch? Invite someone of noble blood (descendant of the Prophet) to rule over them? Double-blind essay competition? Have the 5% of the wealthiest people vote?
What worse way to appoint them than by democratic process?
It's much less important who is the ruler than making sure that ruler's power is really constrained by the Constitution and the people.
miko
-
Ruler? As I'm sure you know Miko, a republic is ruled by law. Surely you aren't arguing the need for officials? Who will see to it that the law is applied fairly to all? I stand by appointing these officials democratically.
To be more accurate, Afghanistan is looking to become an Islamic Republic, which may deny the whole democratic process.
-
AKIron: Ruler? As I'm sure you know Miko, a republic is ruled by law. Surely you aren't arguing the need for officials? Who will see to it that the law is applied fairly to all? I stand by appointing these officials democratically.
Right. By "ruler" I ment a person or a commitee that is charged/empowered with administering the Law.
There are huge problems with democratically- elected officials administering the law. When they inevitably attempt usurping the power to create the law - and thus place the government above the law - the population is much less likely to stop them than in the case where the "rulers" are appointed otherwise. In short, democratic constitutional republics tend to degrade into totalitarian democracies fairly quickly.
Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America":
"Thus, their spirit is gradually broken…gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves. People then console themselves at the loss of their liberties by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians."
People are much more jelous of their liberties when they do not have false hope that they could also end up in power and then steal from everyone else.
I guess once the existing order is destroyed, there is not much choice - either a democratic process or clear power domination by some faction.
Their government will probably get too much power to start with - nowhere near as little as US Government when US was created - and will go downhill from there.
Too bad.
miko
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
not really akiron. Is there even 1 muslim country that is a democracy?
Turkey?
-
haahh frog so you cant..say you are not a LIAR!!!!!!!!
and like the waked out muslims..so were the Japanese...
the westerners are ..subhuman..blah blah..we are superior,,,same thing...
its all in the education....getting shot at 50 times a day
this is the sam ekind od BS CNN and the ohter anti-amercan CRAP that gets spewed out an dtakn for 'Fact"..
stop inflating claims of Amercian Deaths..you Liek it huh?? I think you are scum
Our Soldiers get shot at 50 times a Day>?
i mean WTF are you saying... Its cool..no one else is saying anything to you about it ..I guess they already knwo you are a fool...why dont you guys see the good we do in the World..WE ARE THE LEADERS..of FREEDOM ...
We spent American Blood and Dollars in the Armpit of Eurupe TWICE in one century to save there asssses..
and what do we get now.....Ohhh vietnam..blah blah..We are horrible baby killers...
Just tell me, what superior qualities do they see in our culture?
You know what Miko...Kill them..F it...If they wont take the tiem to read about History..Screw them..So..I guess you can agree that America is not the Beacon of FREEDOM!!?? And the Beacon for Human Rights...??We have done more positive for humans then any other "hole on this earth
What were we doing When 55 Million peopl were being systematically slaugheted in the late 30s early 40's?? Did we run away and say ..ahh we dont care? ( we almost did)
Are you one of those guys who said we killed mass amounts people for no reason in Japan and Germany?
blahh..
Love
BiGB
xoxo
-
BGBMAW: You know what Miko...Kill them..F it...If they wont take the tiem to read about History..Screw them..
Unlike japanese who have never seen an american except through gunsites, the terrorists in question are living and moving among us - and thus familiar with our way of life.
So..I guess you can agree that America is not the Beacon of FREEDOM!!?? And the Beacon for Human Rights...??
Who the heck cares about freedom? Certainly not americans and those "terrorist" guys do not have much either, so why would I talk about it in this thread? I was not saying anything about relative freedoms.
I am saying that americans as a nation are going extinct - literally, as in "in a few generations there will be a fraction of the former population left". And europeans are doing that even faster.
Are you one of those guys who said we killed mass amounts people for no reason in Japan and Germany?
I do not see how it is relevant to anything we talk about in this thread, so I will wait untill more relevant thread comes along. If you disagree with some point I actually made here, adress it, rather than attributing to me some nonsense of your own manufacture or guess what I could be saying on unrelated topics.
miko
-
I am saying that americans as a nation are going extinct
?????
umm explain further please
-
Originally posted by Dago
Most of this terrorism is hate based more than religion based, religion is just used as the rallying point to convince weak minded gullible young people to sacrifice themselves.
At its heart, terrorism is more about hate, about envy and feelings of inferiority than anything else.
dago
i do not agree
Terrorism is not about religion.
Terrorism is based on Economical needs, whitch should be hidden behind religion.
history of christians, jews are nice examples. I dont fear that islam is somehow imune to abuse.
Everybody have some profit from various situation.
Money ruled it before and they rule it now.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
not really akiron. Is there even 1 muslim country that is a democracy?
No.
I realy do not know sutch country.
But i know a lot of country, whitch belive that htey are best of the best.
I know some country, where they call it democracy and they cant even have a beer on the street.
I know some country, where one tit on the TV screen cause bigger problem that thousands of suffering people on the other continent.
Well i saw a lot of country, whitch run as you call it democracy and i saw a lot of diferent countries, whitch run something diferent.
It doesnt matter whats your political system in your country, until it respect its owen people and people respect that system.
Iranian impressed it very well. When i were asking them what do they want about 90% of them said. We need political change badly. But if US will step on out land, we will go and fight them.
Even people whitch hate islam spoke like that. And you can only wonder, what made them think like this.
In fact that every country is very well organized terrorist group, whitch put terror uppon minority, i do not see anything special on your meaning of democracy.
-
miko: I am saying that americans as a nation are going extinct
BGBMAW: ???? umm explain further please
In order for population to stay stable - not decline, there should be 2.1 children born per woman.
That is not the case in US and Europe - mostly as a result of socialist policies pervading the lives of those nations for the last century.
The native population is declining in numbers and whatever growth is displayed in government statistics is due to direct immigration and to procreation of the non-assimilated first-generation immigrants.
The US population is declining and being replaced by people of different ethnicity, history and culture - which in the latest decades are prevented from assimilation into mainstream american culture.
Population Profile of the Unites States: 2000
Birth per woman by age 44
Hispanic women - 2.5
Black women - 2.1
White non-hispanic women - 1.8
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01-170.html
- Women nearing the end of their childbearing years had an average of 1.9 children, which is below the level required for the natural replacement of the population (about 2.1 births per woman).
- About 1 in 5 births in the United States was to a Hispanic women.
- Births to foreign-born women made up 17 percent of all births in 2000.
Those numbers do not reflect the fact that there is much greater rate of reproduction among the genetic and cultural underclass and much greater rate of decline among the intellectual/professional elite and middle class.
How long would US be able to maintain it's technological and economic competitiveness? How long would US maintain its cultural/political continuity in the face of such demographic changes?
It's even worse in European counties where some have 1.4 births per woman - less for white women and much more for muslim women. In a couple of generations most european countries may be muslim-dominated while US will be another Mexico, only more divided and indebted.
The descendants of ours staying in the same geographical area will live as a minority among a strange nation in a third-rate third-world and/or muslim country. All the wanton destruction we dole on the world now will be just storing trouble and hate for them in the future.
Same in Israel where arabs will be a majority of voters in forseeable future.
Japan and Russia are declining but they have no immigration, so they have a chance to preserve their nations' cultural and political identities once the populations stabilise. Their economic significance will certainly diminish. At least russians have the decency of dying in their 50s and not placing burden on their young like japanese do.
China and India seem to be the raising powers.
The world militant islamists will win by default against the west - unless they also get corrupted by democracy and socialism.
I thought they made huge error attacking US instead of just waiting for the western socialism downfall. Apparently they did not - they have caused us to waste much more resources to speed up our downfall while they slowed the process of contamination of their culture by ours.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
In order for population to stay stable - not decline, there should be 2.1 children born per woman.
That is not the case in US and Europe - mostly as a result of socialist policies pervading the lives of those nations for the last century.
Are you sure ?
I remember strong critic of Malthus by Marx.
btw you were perhaps speaking of Neo-malthusianism ?
-
straffo: Are you sure ?
I remember strong critic of Malthus by Marx.
btw you were perhaps speaking of Neo-malthusianism ?
What does Neo-malthusianism have to do with anything I said? Malthusianism and Neo-malthusianism are about the population growth outsripping the growth of food production and slowing down/ceasing to accomodate the food production.
The western nations go extinct not because they lack food or other resources but because of plain unwillingness to live. They fail to reproduce among the incredible material abundance.
They can have children - they just do not want to, or more correctly have allowed themselves to be dissuaded from it by the socialist policies and prevailing culture. At the same time the institutions that promoted national biological survival - family, enterprise, parenthood, traditions, natural laws, even religion - have been deliberately dismantled or negated by socialists.
Only the promiscuously breeding subcidised underclass and minority groups with (sub)cultures different from the mainstream procreate at replacement of growth rate.
miko
-
There is perhaps a translation problem by saying : "socialist policies" you mean the politic system (socialism) or something else ?
In french "politique sociale" (independent of a politic system) is completly different of "politique socialiste" (applied socialism)
-
I always thought that the reason why westerners were having fewer children was because children are expensive and parents would prefer to give what they consider a high quality of life to fewer children rather than a lower quality of life to more.
Added to this, western parents these days (IMHO) have become more wedded to the consumer culture which means that having children leaves them (the parents) with less money to spend and less time to do the things they want to do.
I am not sure why you think socialism comes into it.
Ravs
-
straffo: There is perhaps a translation problem by saying : "socialist policies" you mean the politic system (socialism) or something else?
I fully appreciate the difference between the terms socialist (socialiste) and social (sociale).
I ment socialist policies as in Auguste Compte-Seint Simon-Marx-Keynes political philisophy characterised by increased predominance of state in economic and social spheres.
Economically, the costs of raising good children has been kept mostly private while benefits have been mostly socialised. Also, the economic burden on demographic elite - people most able to raise good children - was disproportionately increased.
The traditional and natural economic insentives of having and raising good children have been eliminated.
In social sphere, the increasingly-centralised state took over parenting, education and indoctrination of the children with state-approved culture while opposing the traditional cultural influences and local traditional limits on what children could be exposed to by commertial media.
Such children grow into adults - and do not care for children of their own.
ravells: westerners were having fewer children was because children are expensive and parents would prefer to give what they consider a high quality of life to fewer children rather than a lower quality of life to more
That does not make sense. As we get more wealthy due to natural increase in productivity, we should afford more things that we want, not less. In a free market, every innovation is voluntarily adopted because it makes things cheaper and more accessible, not harder. Every investment is made if it is expected to bring profit, not loss. Manufactured stuff (unlike some cases of land and non-replenishable resources) gets cheaper, not more expensive. And children are manufactured with ever-cheaper goods and services used as inputs. At the same time the productive value of children constantly increases - they produce more every year as productivity grows further.
The most expensive single part of raising children is education - but education is an investment and nobody would be making it if it was not paying off with profit. The more children you raise and educate (with borrowed money), the wealthier your family end up, not poorer - in a non-socialist society where the concept of family is not destroyed.
It is due to the state intervention that families have to pay much more for their physical security from crime - by living in expensive communities.
It is due to the state politics that families have less money to invest into expensive education and upbriging of their children. If you have to pay a lot of money to subcidise retirement of some childless drone, you have less money to invest on your children.
Added to this, western parents these days (IMHO) have become more wedded to the consumer culture which means that having children leaves them (the parents) with less money to spend and less time to do the things they want to do.
And the social policies destructive to family have everything to do with it - from child labor laws to forced schooling. For a common parent, a child is a stranger whom he sees two hours a day, whom he does not understand and who mutually do not respect each other because they cannot work together, over whom he is not allowed to exercise most of traditional parenting methods and who is expected to leave and never look back. Also who is likely to be lost in mid-childhood as a result of divorce that in 99.99% cases assigns children to the mother. As if there can be a viable parenting culture in which a man is not a dominant parent.
Naturally, who would find pleasure in such "parenting" and consider it worth the effort? Only people with strong cultural beliefs that oppose the prevailing dogma. There are few of those.
miko
-
Originally posted by maslo
No.
I realy do not know sutch country.
But i know a lot of country, whitch belive that htey are best of the best.
I know some country, where they call it democracy and they cant even have a beer on the street.
I know some country, where one tit on the TV screen cause bigger problem that thousands of suffering people on the other continent.
Well i saw a lot of country, whitch run as you call it democracy and i saw a lot of diferent countries, whitch run something diferent.
It doesnt matter whats your political system in your country, until it respect its owen people and people respect that system.
Iranian impressed it very well. When i were asking them what do they want about 90% of them said. We need political change badly. But if US will step on out land, we will go and fight them.
Even people whitch hate islam spoke like that. And you can only wonder, what made them think like this.
In fact that every country is very well organized terrorist group, whitch put terror uppon minority, i do not see anything special on your meaning of democracy.
Shadup.......loser
-
maslo: But if US will step on out land, we will go and fight them.
Even people whitch hate islam spoke like that. And you can only wonder, what made them think like this.
Monk: Shadup.......loser
Great and illustrative responce, Monk. :aok
Maslo, are you still wondering why people hate us? :D
miko:aok
-
In the case of children becoming more expensive for their parents, I think it is more a case of the child's material expectations having changed radically to what they were, say 20 years and 40 years ago.
My parents were perhaps in the top 10% income bracket when I was growing up, but I didn't have half of the possessions that children even from relatively lower middle class backgrounds have today.
Their parents tell me that there is a class room culture where the children get teased at school if they don't wear 'cool trainers' have the right mobile phone etc etc. To me, it is this that makes children far more expensive to have today than when I was a kid, and even more so whem my parents were kids.
I agree it is unhealthy for parents to be strangers to their children as many are today, because both parents are out working. I think the main reason for this is that maximising income is more important to those parents (whether to spend the money on education of thier children or their next holiday) than spending time with their children. There is something of a backlash to this which seems to be developing. Many parents are 'downshifting' to lower paid jobs which allow them to spend more time with their children.
I'm not sure how much it has to do with economics, I just think that people these days just want to own more stuff and are prepared to work longer hours to get it.
Ravs
-
"genetic underclass"
been visiting stormfront?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Rude - does Ephesians deal with the return of Christ? I've read the New Testament, but it was a long time ago, when I went to Church.
Miko - unfortunately I don't read Arabic, and if you're going to argue the English translation is edited for PCness or something, I like you to name one religious text that hasn't.
Negative....is relevant to this thread.
-
ravells: In the case of children becoming more expensive for their parents, I think it is more a case of the child's material expectations having changed radically to what they were, say 20 years and 40 years ago.
I thing it's more complex.
The costs of (good) parenting are much greater than they should be - because of state intervention in education, childcare, healthcare, etc. So the parents do not have a fortune that is required to have another child but they have plenty left to buy cheap trinkets to the one they have.
I do not think that it is lavish children's demands that are breaking the family budget - and I bet the statistics woudl agree with me.
Their parents tell me that there is a class room culture where the children get teased at school if they don't wear 'cool trainers' have the right mobile phone etc etc. To me, it is this that makes children far more expensive to have today than when I was a kid, and even more so whem my parents were kids.
All people strive for status and respect. In real world people are getting it based on actual accomplishments. Children - and prisoners in jails are not allowed to have any accomplishments, so they develop a twisted culture where the main requirement for getting popularity is the ability to get popularity.
It is very damaging to child's phyche, especially to those smarter ones that are not s motivited to participate in the competition. Sure, they (nerds) got on top when they leave school into real world - while the former "popular" students find out they are worthless. But the damage to both is done.
I agree it is unhealthy for parents to be strangers to their children as many are today, because both parents are out working.
In all times and culture there was a lot of rapport and respect between children and parents because children saw the work parents did, appreciated the effort and skill that it took. That earns respect.
At the same time children participating in their father's or other businesses as apprentices/trainees/laborers did real work and earned the respect of the adults and their own self-respect.
With the child-labor laws, mandatory schooling, etc. it's all gone now.
I think the main reason for this is that maximising income is more important to those parents (whether to spend the money on education of thier children or their next holiday) than spending time with their children.
All humans strive for status and respect.
They cannot spend quality time with children. The good family children are no more a badge of status and respect in society. Something has to replace the vaccuum of values. Here comes the sports-car...
I'm not sure how much it has to do with economics, I just think that people these days just want to own more stuff and are prepared to work longer hours to get it.
Here is a basic economic example. All of us save a lot of money for our returement - via savings plans, taxes, etc.
That kind of money could be as easily invested to have an extra child or two - a nature's retirement plan.
Except that it is discouraged. Your childen will not have money to pay for your retirement because they will be forced to pay much of their income for other (childless) people's retirement. And your expenses on children are artificially inflated while your expenses of yourself are often artificially subcidised.
Costs are private while benefits are socialised.
General level of wealth has nothing to do with it - or at least no direct and necessary connection.
Wealthy people in old times had plenty of children.
stiehl: "genetic underclass"
been visiting stormfront?
Health, intellugence, the trait of phsychoticism - all are highly inheritable (in all species, not just humans) and affect a person's success in life. The highly socially-mobile american society has long ago separated itself socially and geographically into genetic elite and genetic underclass.
Any smart and motivated individual born to underclass is promptly whisked away to his due rewards - and moves to better community. The least cabable have more children. There is a vicious negative selection going on among the underclass - a so called dysgenic effect.
What's "stormfront", anyway?
miko
-
Until recently, a lot of people weren't allowed to participate in mainstream culture so they had to create their own subcultures within the main one. Now those cultures are growing and there are problems. I'm 25 so I'll just blame it on you old people:D
Sorry about the stormfront comment but when you post stats on nonwhites outbreeding whites and then claim them to be the genetic underclass....that's something I expect from a stormfront member
-
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 2Slow
If I had been President, I would have authorized the use of nukes in the anaconda valley.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given your post and the ideas expressed therein, you're quite clearly not presidential material. Bush lowered the bar but not by that much. "
What is the point of having irresitable force, if you don't use it and they know you won't? If you don't want the big dog to bite, then don't screw with him.
I don't give a rat if any citizen of any other nation likes us. I want them to fear us enough to never screw with us again. A few well placed nukes will instill that fear.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Great and illustrative responce, Monk. :aok
Maslo, are you still wondering why people hate us? :D
miko:aok
no mate im not wondering
im only laughing because its very easy to predict, what they gonna miss in my posts writen in crappy english :)
-
2 Slow:
I seriously hope that your fellow countryment think that your point of view is, marginal, extremist and utterly stupid. If you represent the view of the 'common man' in your country then God help us all.
Virtually every nation has porous borders, the US included. A few 'well placed nukes' would probably result in a world economic meltdown, a hithterto unprecedented spiral of violent retribution against innocent Americans in the US and abroad and scant sympathy from the rest of the planet.
Ravs.
Miko - I think your idea of children working in their parent's busineses and of apprenticehip are great, but that relies on a 'small is beautiful' Shumacker (spelling?) scale of economics. Right now, production is on a massive scale and many more people then ever before work in service industries where apprenticeship doesn't really serve.
More and more parents in the UK are 'opting out' out sending their children to school and educate them at home without the knowledge of the authorites. Some for religious reasons but many because they just don't believe that classroom education is sufficent and that their children will be exposed to negative influences. Because these people fly 'under the radar' there are no official figures, but I think the percentage is tiny, but increasing.
Don't forget that wealthy people in old times had plenty of children, partly because child mortality, even for the wealthy, was much higher.
Ravs
-
ravells: Miko - I think your idea of children working in their parent's busineses and of apprenticehip are great, but that relies on a 'small is beautiful' Shumacker (spelling?) scale of economics. Right now, production is on a massive scale and many more people then ever before work in service industries where apprenticeship doesn't really serve.
Not even close. Modern job market, service-based economy and automated/mechanised industry created enourmous variety of safe, non-physically demanding jobs that children could easily perform - and wish to perform and would perform more if not for idiotic regulations that severely restrict their working hours, kinds of occupations and impose huge paperwork.
As a part of my school's monthly "practice", at 15 I worked the lathe on the plant, making cylinder inserts for huge engines. The next year I worked on brick-making factory. Working on the fields was common as well. I learned a lot from that.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I fully appreciate the difference between the terms socialist (socialiste) and social (sociale).
I ment socialist policies as in Auguste Compte-Seint Simon-Marx-Keynes political philisophy characterised by increased predominance of state in economic and social spheres.
Economically, the costs of raising good children has been kept mostly private while benefits have been mostly socialised. Also, the economic burden on demographic elite - people most able to raise good children - was disproportionately increased.
The traditional and natural economic insentives of having and raising good children have been eliminated.
In social sphere, the increasingly-centralised state took over parenting, education and indoctrination of the children with state-approved culture while opposing the traditional cultural influences and local traditional limits on what children could be exposed to by commertial media.
Such children grow into adults - and do not care for children of their own.
[/B]
I was not questionning you ability to differentiate social and socialism it was just not clear for me , obvioulsy ifnot I won't have written about Malthus.
I can't disagree with you about the social influence but I completly disagree about the "state approved" effect ...
I sincerely prefer having the time to educate my 2 kids than having to send them to the coal mine.
I'm pretty tired tonight I'll try today to make a real post.
-
As a part of my school's monthly "practice", at 15 I worked the lathe on the plant, making cylinder inserts for huge engines. The next year I worked on brick-making factory. Working on the fields was common as well. I learned a lot from that.
miko
I agree with that. Kick out the troublemakers, send the stupid kids to trade/tech school, leave HS to the kids that actually want to learn and want to go to a Uni.
-
straffo: I sincerely prefer having the time to educate my 2 kids than having to send them to the coal mine.
That is a totaly not true what you've just said. You totally confuse cause and consequence.
If your children were allowed to work in the coal mine or elsewhere, that still would not mean that you woule "have to" send them to work in the coal mine.
In fact you do send children to work every day - hard work accumulating intellectual capital to use in the future. While families in the past sent children to work every day to invest in getting food for the next week and avert starvation.
Schooling children only makes sense if investing in intellectual capital is more profitable than investing into current consumption/preservation of life.
Sending children to work was the best option available to the families at the time. However hard the conditions were, the alternatives - work in the field, starvation, etc. - had to be worse, otherwise the family would not have done that.
The need for families to send children to work in industry disappeared as a result of natural increase in productivity due to accumulation of capital.
With increased wealth, it became possible and profitable to invest child's labor in education instead of ensuring immediate survival.
The state had nothing (positive) to do with the natural process that made child labor unnecesary - though it certainly claims the credit.
miko
-
Great and illustrative responce, Monk.
Maslo, are you still wondering why people hate us?
Err......who's us?
-
Who do you think it is?
miko
-
As a part of my school's monthly "practice", at 15 I worked the lathe on the plant, making cylinder inserts for huge engines. The next year I worked on brick-making factory. Working on the fields was common as well. I learned a lot from that.
Miko, I'm curious, What did you learn, apart from how to make a cylinder insert, bricks and digging / growing stuff in fields?
For me the idea of apprenticeship is one where people learn a skill which involves more than flipping burgers or putting the heads on dolls in a production line. Carpentry, plumbing etc were the sorts of apprenticeships I was thinking of.
I'm not sure it would be a great idea having children operating a iron foundry or working in other heavy industry. I would imagine the accident rate would be quite high unless there was plenty of adult supervision.
Isn't the idea behind education to allow children to learn enough so that they can have the wherewithall to choose what they want to be in later life? If they spend all their time working on a field they won't be qualified to do anything else later on.
Ravs
-
ravells: Miko, I'm curious, What did you learn, apart from how to make a cylinder insert, bricks and digging / growing stuff in fields?
I learned:
- how the tractor engines are actually made/food is grown and harvested
- what are the working conditions at a factory/collective farm
- what it is to work an 8-hour day (or night - we had 3 shifts)
- whether I could do that kind of work if needed (say, prevented from working as an engineer for having big mouth)
- whether I would want to do that kind of work (a worker was paid 1.5-2.5 times the salary of an engineer)
- what kind of people are working at the factory/farm
- what is involved in running a factory/farm
I also unloaded freight cars on the railroad, worked as a draftsman, and probably few others.
Those jobs I did were not apprenticeships - they did not have a goal of giving me expertise and speciality for life. Rather it served as invaluable life experience helping me extend my horizons. Also I made some money.
I'm not sure it would be a great idea having children operating a iron foundry or working in other heavy industry. I would imagine the accident rate would be quite high unless there was plenty of adult supervision.
Common sense must be used by adults, as usual.
Isn't the idea behind education to allow children to learn enough so that they can have the wherewithall to choose what they want to be in later life?
There are a lot of things one cannot possibly learn through theoretical studies. Also, you may know how something is made in general but you will never know if you would like to do that yourself, unless you see the real process.
If they spend all their time working on a field they won't be qualified to do anything else later on.
Children have plenty of time in the summer or they could work some nights or weeknds. Also, if a child is not motivated to learn, his time is wasted. On the other hand he could go and work and then return to learning once he knows he wants it.
I am not talking here about the government making children work, jut about the government not preventing them from work.
miko
-
"2 Slow:
I seriously hope that your fellow countryment think that your point of view is, marginal, extremist and utterly stupid. If you represent the view of the 'common man' in your country then God help us all.
Virtually every nation has porous borders, the US included. A few 'well placed nukes' would probably result in a world economic meltdown, a hithterto unprecedented spiral of violent retribution against innocent Americans in the US and abroad and scant sympathy from the rest of the planet."
Extremist? Yes it is. Pragmatic? Yes. Simple fact is, if we had nuked the anaconda valley everyone would have said, to themselves anyway, "Wow, they are serious!"
Don't go to a gun battle with a knife. Once we used the nuke, the rest of them would have to figure they couldn't come to this battle, they only have knifes compared to our guns.
Yes we must be extreme. We will not win the hardcases over with kindness or good will. We must annihilate them.
-
The Final Solution, 2Slow??
Scary...
-
hehe its not solution kappa
he is only trying to bring some justice for extremists
he only said, that he consider extermist / terrorist acctions to be quite Ok from his point of view.
hey 2slow do you know 1941 movie ?
-
2Slow: Yes we must be extreme. We will not win the hardcases over with kindness or good will. We must annihilate them.
It's not the US operating doctirine to annihilate the hardcases with nuclear weapons.
US operating doctirine is to annihilate the cities full of innocent civilians with nuclear weapons in order to make hardcases fill bad.
miko
-
Originally posted by AKIron
To be more accurate, Afghanistan is looking to become an Islamic Republic, which may deny the whole democratic process.
can you be more accurate ?
What shouldnt be in Islamic republic, if it were non Islamic Rep.
and what kind of rep. should it be, when 90% of people are muslim whitch belive in Islam ?
-
Interesting life, you have had, Miko.
I really hope to meet you sometime.
Ravs
-
In case you hadn't noticed, 2 slo...the game has changed. It is not chess anymore, it's go.
Where do you drop your nukes when the enemy is amorphous and doesn't have one nationality or one leader?
Ravs