NationStates Jolt Archive

Easy, sport. I will gladly debate any factual considerations with you as long as you do not resort to puerile, profane, ad hominem arguments.

Tough shit. You want to be the architect of the world? Don't be surprised when I kick the shit out of your foundations and make it collapse on itsaelf - all pleasant debate to one side, I don't put up with fascist claptrap, no matter how high-minded or well-intentioned. And don't even bother trying to employ a familiar term like 'sport'.

I have no desire to be on familiar terms with your sort, so go look to make nice somewheres else.

*edit: Keep pushing it in deeper, just like Mr. Bush likes doing to the rest of the planet.

We would only slaughter the Muslim people in the countries that have implicitly declared war against by refusing to combat terrorism in their own countries. We will leave countries that can do us no harm well enough alone.

So countries that harbor terrorists deserve to have their people massacred? That will really get the world on our side.

Easy, sport. I will gladly debate any factual considerations with you as long as you do not resort to puerile, profane, ad hominem arguments.

I guess it's not as superior a logical debating tactic as whining in every third post about "liberals" and "typical liberals" and "traitors," etc. ;)

Or is that a "factual consideration" you're willing to accept only so long as it angers others and gives you attention?

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW09-27-06.jpg

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW09-27-06.jpg

That cartoon is funny and depressing at the same time. :D :(

Note the classic bait and switch tactics. MeansToAnEnd enrages posters, then quickly shifts gears, taking a defensive stance, trying to look like the aggrieved party.

Note the classic bait and switch tactics. MeansToAnEnd enrages posters, then quickly shifts gears, taking a defensive stance, trying to look like the aggrieved party.

Meh. It's called baiting. Any idiot can do that, QED Means.

According to Kos, and the US senate website, the torture bill passed the Senate 65-34-1 (The one was Snowe, the only remaining sane Republican). Luckily enough, the courts will probably strike it down, but this is just disgusting. Torture, suspension of Habbeus Corpus, and removal of judicial oversite all wrapped up into one. It's like a stir-fry of "Tyrants needed, speak to manager for application" signs.

I'm all for the War on Terror, when it isn't commiting attrocities, but this is a step too far. Not only do we unbalance the checks and balances system, but we also subject US troops to torture as well, by making it a morally acceptable choice.

*Grabs passport*

I'm off to Canada. Cya!

*Grabs passport*

I'm off to Canada. Cya!

I'd run farther than Canda if I were you.

*Grabs passport*

I'm off to Canada. Cya!

Long as I can get U.S. cable I might go to Canada as well. :)

So countries that harbor terrorists deserve to have their people massacred? That will really get the world on our side.

I don't care if the world agrees with us or not. The course of action we should take is the one which will best serve the interests of humanity in the long run.

I'd run farther than Canda if I were you.

Yeah, I was leaning towards either Switzerland or Austrailia instead.

I don't care if the world agrees with us or not. The course of action we should take is the one which will best serve the interests of humanity in the long run.

The U.S. doesn't get to decide what is good for humanity. If we decide to start using our military power to start invading countries and killing their people then it is the duty of the rest of the world to stop us. We do not own sole ownership to morality. The idea that what the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant is such an arrogant belief that will only bring trouble down the road.

I don't care if the world agrees with us or not. The course of action we should take is the one which will best serve the interests of humanity in the long run.

By torturing people?

If we really cared about what was good for humanity, then we wouldn't have let RWANDA happen.


500,000 to 1,000,000 people dead. And we let it happen because our government was racist and had nothing to gain by fighting there.

The U.S. doesn't get to decide what is good for humanity.

If it did get to do that, the world would be a better place. I want the world to be a better place, and it is the prerogative of the sole superpower to make it so via any means necessary. If it involves invading anti-progressive countries who sponsor terror, so be it.

I don't care if the world agrees with us or not. The course of action we should take is the one which will best serve the interests of humanity in the long run.

Maybe all of humanity should have a say in what's best for humanity? Stop me if you've heard about this idea before, it's something new a revoluntionary, democracy.

If it did get to do that, the world would be a better place. I want the world to be a better place, and it is the prerogative of the sole superpower to make it so via any means necessary. If it involves invading anti-progressive countries who sponsor terror, so be it.

No.


Didn't I dispatch you last night with the Forum Troll Holy Water?

I don't care if the world agrees with us or not. The course of action we should take is the one which will best serve the interests of humanity in the long run.

So how does killing millions and millions of innocent people serve the best interests of humanity?

If we really cared about what was good for humanity, then we wouldn't have let RWANDA happen.

Clinton let the genocide happen, not Bush. However, I agree that Democrats (those in power especially) do not care about what's good for humanity in the long run, but only think in the short term.

If it did get to do that, the world would be a better place for the people in power. I want the world to be a better place for the people in power, and it is the prerogative of the sole superpower to make it so via any means necessary. If it involves invading anti-progressive countries who sponsor terror, so be it. Human rights? Sovergienty? Hah! Who cares about such things? We can just kill everyone who disagrees with us!

Fixed.

Fixed.

Yup, I'm sigging that.

So how does killing millions and millions of innocent people serve the best interests of humanity?

Because we can re-colonize the region with Americans. Sure, millions of people dead isn't fun. In the grand scheme of things, however, it's insignificant. Eventually, the area will become more economically powerful and have an increased standard of life, in all perpetuity. After hundreds of years, people won't even think of the murder that occurred but only the good that came out of it -- a stable civilization that is extremely well-off.

Yup, I'm sigging that.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v439/BlackChain73/Banana.gif

Because we can re-colonize the region with Americans. Sure, millions of people dead isn't fun. In the grand scheme of things, however, it's insignificant. Eventually, the area will become more economically powerful and have an increased standard of life, in all perpetuity. After hundreds of years, people won't even think of the murder that occurred but only the good that came out of it -- a stable civilization that is extremely well-off.

Of course the natives you missed will be slightly miffed that you killed their countrymen and women, so they'll go about engaging in guerilla warfare against your colonists. So the area won't really become anything but wartorn.

Yup, I'm sigging that.

I request that you do not use that quote in your sig unless you quote Ifreann and not me. Otherwise, I shall report it to the moderators. You are free to use the original quote, however.

Of course the natives you missed will be slightly miffed that you killed their countrymen and women, so they'll go about engaging in guerilla warfare against your colonists. So the area won't really become anything but wartorn.

That's what happened in America during the 1600s. However, we easily defeated the natives and built a great and prosperous country in the desolate wilderness. The same will hold true for the Middle East -- they will bend to the will of the US, and their country will be improved as a result.

Because we can re-colonize the region with Americans. Sure, millions of people dead isn't fun. In the grand scheme of things, however, it's insignificant. Eventually, the area will become more economically powerful and have an increased standard of life, in all perpetuity. After hundreds of years, people won't even think of the murder that occurred but only the good that came out of it -- a stable civilization that is extremely well-off.

Jesus Godalmighty.....that is the most horrible thing I've ever heard anyone say. What makes you think that Americans are the best people in the world, and that we have some God Given Mandate to conquer the world and colonize it with Americans? How will that make the world better?


You remind me tonns of Adolf Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic, and every other genocidal maniac that has ever plagued this world.

That's what happened in America during the 1600s. However, we easily defeated the natives and built a great and prosperous country in the desolate wilderness. The same will hold true for the Middle East -- they will bend to the will of the US, and their country will be improved as a result.

I RESENT THAT YOU SONOFABITCH! I'm part CHEROKEE INDIAN!

That's what happened in America during the 1600s. However, we easily defeated the natives and built a great and prosperous country in the desolate wilderness. The same will hold true for the Middle East -- they will bend to the will of the US, and their country will be improved as a result.

Ah, but America(such as it was) wasn't at war with most of the world because of acts of genocide at the time. Do you really think your troops can defend your colonies and the homeland all at once with the whole world turned against you?

Oh, and the Middle East is closer to modern America, technologically speaking, than the Native American Indians were.

I RESENT THAT YOU SONOFABITCH! I'm part CHEROKEE INDIAN!

And aren't you happier in your modern country than you would have been had you been frolicking in the grass, hunting for your food with bows and arrows? Would you be more content without access to any of the conveniences of modern life, like a computer, sanitation equipment, and medicine? You should be thanking the Europeans.

Jesus Godalmighty.....that is the most horrible thing I've ever heard anyone say. What makes you think that Americans are the best people in the world, and that we have some God Given Mandate to conquer the world and colonize it with Americans? How will that make the world better?


You remind me tonns of Adolf Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic, and every other genocidal maniac that has ever plagued this world.

I wonder when this thread was first Godwined?


Oh, and you should bold the parts I bolded in that quote. It's funnier that way.

If the US Government began Imperialist aims, I would leave the country, and speak out so vigerously against the US that it would be legendary.

I wonder when this thread was first Godwined?


Oh, and you should bold the parts I bolded in that quote. It's funnier that way.


Yeah, I'll do that now.

Because we can re-colonize the region with Americans. Sure, millions of people dead isn't fun. In the grand scheme of things, however, it's insignificant. Eventually, the area will become more economically powerful and have an increased standard of life, in all perpetuity. After hundreds of years, people won't even think of the murder that occurred but only the good that came out of it -- a stable civilization that is extremely well-off.

You know for a war criminal in the making you should know from past events that the rest of the world will not take this. It is getting pretty repetetive but it needs to be said again. Should such an attempt be made it will be stopped. Nice to be an apologist for mass killings of people because the future will be better anyway. Get rid of those primitives, massacre them, and get some people in power who know what they are doing. We after all are Americans who are destined to rule the world and anyone who goes against us is our enemy. Never mind our supposed respect for the freedom of peoples, they don't deserve it. So we will impose our will on others and anyone who objects we can call them terrorist symphathizers and invade them to. Thanks for further disgusting me.

And the people living in the region will have better technology then the Native Americans did and will be much more determined to fight. Americans would suffer greatly for "our" imperial ambitions.

And aren't you happier in your modern country than you would have been had you been frolicking in the grass, hunting for your food with bows and arrows? Would you be more content without access to any of the conveniences of modern life, like a computer, sanitation equipment, and medicine? You should be thanking the Europeans.

What proof do you have that the Native Americans wouldn't have developed those things of their own accord, or that they would not have had a good quality of life if they had remained in control of North America*?


*or however much of it they did control

Because we can re-colonize the region with Americans. Sure, millions of people dead isn't fun. In the grand scheme of things, however, it's insignificant. Eventually, the area will become more economically powerful and have an increased standard of life, in all perpetuity. After hundreds of years, people won't even think of the murder that occurred but only the good that came out of it -- a stable civilization that is extremely well-off.

It's never insignificant when people are massacred, and the desire to improve their country to be more like your ideal of what a country should be like is not justification for genocide.

And aren't you happier in your modern country than you would have been had you been frolicking in the grass, hunting for your food with bows and arrows? Would you be more content without access to any of the conveniences of modern life, like a computer, sanitation equipment, and medicine? You should be thanking the Europeans.


Yeah, like the British who exiled my family here because did not hail the King (We were the Scottish Royals!!!)? Or the French who Exiled my family here because we weren't Catholic, and honored Protestantism??


The only group of my family that came voluntarily was the Prussians.

I may not be full Cherokee, but damnit I hate how you say that we didn't deserve to live the way we wanted to, just because you claim to know whats best for us.

As a represetative for the MUN, and possibly future UN, I look forward to attending your trial at the Hague.

Thanks for further disgusting me.

My logic is actually quite simple. I take the following into consideration:


The quality of life in the US is much higher than that in the Middle East.
It is a desirable trait for a country to have a high quality of life.
Countries should work on improving their quality of life.
Any action taken which increases the quality of life in the future, permanently (ie, is not a temporary solution), is justified in the long run.
Thus, Americanizing the quality of life of the Middle East is justified.

What proof do you have that the Native Americans wouldn't have developed those things of their own accord, or that they would not have had a good quality of life if they had remained in control of North America*?

Because they were extremely technologically backward -- they arrived in America and didn't invent anything new for hundreds of years. Europeans, on the other hand, were constantly innovating. Most Native Americans didn't even have a written language -- that's pathetic.

My logic is actually quite simple. I take the following into consideration:


The quality of life in the US is much higher than that in the Middle East.
It is a desirable trait for a country to have a high quality of life.
Countries should work on improving their quality of life.
Any action taken which increases the quality of life in the future, permanently (ie, is not a temporary solution), is justified in the long run.
Thus, Americanizing the quality of life of the Middle East is justified.



Ha asshole! You're wrong. The Standard of living in the United States is decreasing rapidly, and is actually quite low on the Industrialized nation scale. Hell, in some parts of the US, things are scarcely better than they are in the Middle East (Compton, inner Detroit, the LA Battlefield as my police buddies call it)

Because they were extremely technologically backward -- they arrived in America and didn't invent anything new for hundreds of years. Europeans, on the other hand, were constantly innovating. Most Native Americans didn't even have a written language -- that's pathetic.


That was by design. WE LIKED IT THAT WAY.

My logic is actually quite simple. I take the following into consideration:


The quality of life in the US is much higher than that in the Middle East.
It is a desirable trait for a country to have a high quality of life.
Countries should work on improving their quality of life.
Any action taken which increases the quality of life in the future, permanently (ie, is not a temporary solution), is justified in the long run.
Thus, Americanizing the quality of life of the Middle East is justified.


People should get to decide for themselves if they wish for the honor of being Americanized. It is hard to say that countries standard of living will rise if you massacre the populace anyway. They won't exactly get to enjoy it. No matter how much you try the ends justifying the means doesn't work.

And you know, the rich are continuing to hold more and more of our wealth with the poor classes growing. Sounds as if our standard of living is under attack as we speak.

And if you think we can institute such a horrific policy and still maintain the freedoms we currently hold then you are delusional.

My logic is actually quite simple. I take the following into consideration:


The quality of life in the US is much higher than that in the Middle East.

You fail at the first hurdle. The Middle East is a large and diverse region, much more diverse than America, so comparing the quality of life in the Middle East to the quality of life in America is not a proper comparisson.

Also quality of life is not a measurable, quanifiable property of a country or region. It is highly subjective.

Because they were extremely technologically backward -- they arrived in America and didn't invent anything new for hundreds of years.

I guess most of their inventors were too busy being slaughtered by disease and European aggression to Al-Gore the internet.

Europeans, on the other hand, were constantly innovating.

For example, they came up with the Inquisition. Yay moral superiority!

Most Native Americans didn't even have a written language -- that's pathetic.

You support pedophiles. That's more pathetic.

You fail at the first hurdle. The Middle East is a large and diverse region, much more diverse than America, so comparing the quality of life in the Middle East to the quality of life in America is not a proper comparisson.

Also quality of life is not a measurable, quanifiable property of a country or region. It is highly subjective.

Not to mention that our quality of life is among the lowest of the Industrialized nations, and is ever decreasing.

I guess most of their inventors were too busy being slaughtered by disease and European aggression to Al-Gore the internet.



For example, they came up with the Inquisition. Yay moral superiority!



You support pedophiles. That's more pathetic.


PWND! You win the cookie contest! *Gives a jar of cookies*

My logic is actually quite simple. I take the following into consideration:


The quality of life in the US is much higher than that in the Middle East.
It is a desirable trait for a country to have a high quality of life.
Countries should work on improving their quality of life.
Any action taken which increases the quality of life in the future, permanently (ie, is not a temporary solution), is justified in the long run.
Thus, Americanizing the quality of life of the Middle East is justified.



You forgot 6. Thus, ending peoples lives in the name of increasing their quality of life is justified.

Except it isn't. Only a dumbass psychopath would think it is.

My logic is actually quite simple. I take the following into consideration:


The quality of life in the US is much higher than that in the Middle East.
It is a desirable trait for a country to have a high quality of life.
Countries should work on improving their quality of life.
Any action taken which increases the quality of life in the future, permanently (ie, is not a temporary solution), is justified in the long run.
Thus, Americanizing the quality of life of the Middle East is justified.


No, improving the quality of life in the Middle East is justified.

Whether or not that has anything to do with "Americanizing" the place is a seperate question.

Because they were extremely technologically backward -- they arrived in America and didn't invent anything new for hundreds of years. Europeans, on the other hand, were constantly innovating. Most Native Americans didn't even have a written language -- that's pathetic.

Technology isn't everything. And you're leaving out how adaptive the Native Americans were. They mastered horse riding and breeding not long after they captured horses from the Europeans. They bred Appaloosa horses back to their Arabian roots, superior to the European horses they were bred from.

That was by design. WE LIKED IT THAT WAY.

Wander, calm down. You'll make the troll happy, he's akin to a nazi talking to a jew. He WANTS you angry. Just inform him that his worldview will never happen, that the dystopia he wants so badly will never exist, and that, if he wants to remove you from where you are for disagreeing with him, he'll be dead.

Wander, calm down. You'll make the troll happy, he's akin to a nazi talking to a jew. He WANTS you angry. Just inform him that his worldview will never happen, that the dystopia he wants so badly will never exist, and that, if he wants to remove you from where you are for disagreeing with him, he'll be dead.

Ifreann approves of this advice. Ifreann also approves of the third person, cookies, free beer, and platypi.

Ifreann approves of this advice. Ifreann also approves of the third person, cookies, free beer, and platypi.

I don't drink beer, can I have some mountain dew? I never tasted it, it's not made in Brazil, but I'm pretty sure Means would be willing to kill everyone in Brazil so it existed here.

Ifreann approves of this advice. Ifreann also approves of the third person, cookies, free beer, and platypi.

I don't. That advice is really not much more than, "allow stupid ideas to go unchallenged."

Allowing stupid ideas to go unchallenged is kind of a major problem, one that leads to things like this bill being passed.

I don't drink beer, can I have some mountain dew? I never tasted it, it's not made in Brazil, but I'm pretty sure Means would be willing to kill everyone in Brazil so it existed here.

I never had it either. I hear it is damn good though.

People should get to decide for themselves if they wish for the honor of being Americanized

I'm sure that the Native Americans would not want to be Europeanized, but they were an obstacle to progress and it needed to be done. You have to break a few eggs if you want to make that omelet, and when you do finally make that omelet, it's going to taste mighty good. They do not want to be Americanized, but it would benefit the world, in the end, if they were.

I don't. That advice is really not much more than, "allow stupid ideas to go unchallenged."

Allowing stupid ideas to go unchallenged is kind of a major problem, one that leads to things like this bill being passed.

I though it was more 'Don't start shouting at trolls since they jerk it faster when they get someone angry'

Oh, and no idea should go unchallenged.

I don't. That advice is really not much more than, "allow stupid ideas to go unchallenged."

Allowing stupid ideas to go unchallenged is kind of a major problem, one that leads to things like this bill being passed.

No, no: I'm not telling him NOT TO reply to Genocidal Moron here. I'm telling him not to get angry, and to humiliate Genocidal Moron with style and panache - which will be ever remembered as a pwning of bigger proportions than anger.

Indeed, if you check the thread, you'll see that I'm humiliating him for his stupidity for some 5 pages or more now.

I'm sure that the Native Americans would not want to be Europeanized, but they were an obstacle to progress and it needed to be done. You have to break a few eggs if you want to make that omelet, and when you do finally make that omelet, it's going to taste mighty good. They do not want to be Americanized, but it would benefit the world, in the end, if they were.

May that logic be applied to your mother someday.

I'm sure that the Native Americans would not want to be Europeanized, but they were an obstacle to progress and it needed to be done. You have to break a few eggs if you want to make that omelet, and when you do finally make that omelet, it's going to taste mighty good. They do not want to be Americanized, but it would benefit America, in the end, if they were.

Fixed. Again. Yup. Sentence fragment. Another. Another. Again. Good device. Use later.

Ifreann approves of this advice. Ifreann also approves of the third person, cookies, free beer, and platypi.

You're right. I'll buy you round.

You're right. I'll buy you round.

As long as it's a square one.

I'm sure that the Native Americans would not want to be Europeanized, but they were an obstacle to progress and it needed to be done. You have to break a few eggs if you want to make that omelet, and when you do finally make that omelet, it's going to taste mighty good. They do not want to be Americanized, but it would benefit the world, in the end, if they were.


You know what, I quit. Fire the IGNORE Cannon!


*Fires cannon*

If it did get to do that, the world would be a better place. I want the world to be a better place, and it is the prerogative of the sole superpower to make it so via any means necessary. If it involves invading anti-progressive countries who sponsor terror, so be it.

Your own nation's batting record for "progressiveness" is appalling - and not only that, but your nation's leadership actively undermines progress among its' so-called "allies" - or to be more accurate, among its' "interests".

Don't stop 'til you reach the backs of your tonsils, sunshine.

Indeed, if you check the thread, you'll see that I'm humiliating him for his stupidity for some 5 pages or more now.

And you call me arrogant. Please. Utracia is the only one who is actually putting a modicum of thought and logic into his/her arguments. You're just ballooning off your ego in this thread. I applaud Utracia for actually bothering to construct coherent and well-thought-out argument. You, on the other hand, fail.

I'm sure that the Native Americans would not want to be Europeanized, but they were an obstacle to progress and it needed to be done. You have to break a few eggs if you want to make that omelet, and when you do finally make that omelet, it's going to taste mighty good. They do not want to be Americanized, but it would benefit the world, in the end, if they were.

Who the fuck cares what anyone else think, is that it? If you are in the way then we will destroy you. Who the fuck made you God? To decide the fate of others? Deciding that they aren't worth living? I suppose such racism suits you well doesn't it? Obviously they can not take care of themselves and needs America to come in and save them from themselves. If they object, killing them doesn't cost us anything right? Nice to see your thoughts on fellow human beings. They are just eggs to be cracked to benefit others.

Well you know, I bet Asia, Europe would love to become powerhouses as well. And you know what? America is hogging all the resources. I think that perhaps they should try to take it from us. After all, we are blocking THEIR progress. Dividing up the wealth from our stranglehold would benefit the world also.

In the end taking from others is just down in the bones morally WRONG. If you want something you don't break into a neighbors house and take it for yourself. You find a way to earn it. If America wants to do better, perhaps it should try cutting taxes to the rich and actually help our poor try to make something of themselves? The economy can only benefit if education is improved so kids in this country grow up not being idiots. That will help us better ourselves without any invasions of other nations. Of course that is the easy way which is always prefrable to people. Better then making changes in your own house and getting it in order.

And you call me arrogant. Please. Utracia is the only one who is actually putting a modicum of thought and logic into his/her arguments. You're just ballooning off your ego in this thread. I applaud Utracia for actually bothering to construct coherent and well-thought-out argument. You, on the other hand, fail.

This thread doesn't require logic at all. After all, at one stage you suggested wiping out all Muslims to stop terrorism. And then there was the time you were talking about destroying entire countries so that the next country on your list will be more likely to surrender, ala the mongol horde.


Oh, and you are arrogant.

Who the fuck made you God?

We made ourselves God by winning the Cold War. We can use our God-like powers to do what is in the best interest of the world. One of the things that is in the best interest of the world is increasing the global quality of life index. To accomplish this goal, we must command the government of less successful countries and steer them towards what makes America great. In the meantime, however, we should simply go after countries that sponsor terror.

We made ourselves God by winning the Cold War. We can use our God-like powers to do what is in the best interest of the world. One of the things that is in the best interest of the world is increasing the global quality of life index. To accomplish this goal, we must command the government of less successful countries and steer them towards what makes America great. In the meantime, however, we should simply go after countries that sponsor terror.

Want to know what makes America great? The fact that it's supposed to be the bastion of freedom and justice in the world. You want to take it away. You are anti-American. You hate the U.S. You are our enemy.

We made ourselves God by winning the Cold War. We can use our God-like powers to do what is in the best interest of the world. One of the things that is in the best interest of the world is increasing the global quality of life index. To accomplish this goal, we must command the government of less successful countries and steer them towards what makes America great. In the meantime, however, we should simply go after countries that sponsor terror.

I don't know much about history, hows about informing me as to how America won the Cold War?

Did you miss the part about America having a poor quality of life for a 1st world country? Or did your brain filter that out because you couldn't fix it by killing things? Having a relatively low quality of life kinda disqualifies you from deciding what a good quality of life is.

Want to know what makes America great? The fact that it's supposed to be the bastion of freedom and justice in the world. You want to take it away. You are anti-American. You hate the U.S. You are our enemy.

Exactly! I don't want to take that liberty and freedom away -- I want to spread it. However, there are countries which are resistant to progressive change. Thus, we must compromise with our values to take care of them prior to turning them into beacons of freedom and justice. It's for the greater good, in the end.

We made ourselves God by winning the Cold War. We can use our God-like powers to do what is in the best interest of the world. One of the things that is in the best interest of the world is increasing the global quality of life index. To accomplish this goal, we must command the government of less successful countries and steer them towards what makes America great. In the meantime, however, we should simply go after countries that sponsor terror.

As I said above we should concentrate on our own country without worrying about others. We have our own problems to deal with and we should get on with the business of fixing them. There are always going to be people who hate us. If we try to go after them all directly it will only prove their point that we are oppressive, deserving of the term Great Satan. Perhaps if we show them the greatness of democracy they will act themselves. I don't care for the arguements that they LIKE being oppressed. Foolish that. Broadcast into their nations like we did into Soviet countries about the greatness of America. It may take time and like I said above it won't be easy but we need to learn patience. We want to convert these people into seeing us as good. Dropping bombs on their heads and sending in troops is not the way to do that.

Btw, I'd say that the Soviets beat themselves in the Cold War. Conservatives want to give Regan the credit but all he did was keep us the pressure that all the previous presidents did. By the 1980's it was clear the Soviets were done, it was just a matter of waiting for their economy to implode. The people inside saw what great wealth Western Europe had and wanted to share in it. Trying to say we "won" is simplistic.

Exactly! I don't want to take that liberty and freedom away -- I want to spread it. However, there are countries which are resistant to progressive change. Thus, we must compromise with our values to take care of them prior to turning them into beacons of freedom and justice. It's for the greater good, in the end.

Which is why you want to remove the writ of habeus corpus, murder dissenters, and commit motherfucking genocide, you anti-American filth.

And you call me arrogant. Please. Utracia is the only one who is actually putting a modicum of thought and logic into his/her arguments. You're just ballooning off your ego in this thread. I applaud Utracia for actually bothering to construct coherent and well-thought-out argument. You, on the other hand, fail.

I never called you arrogant. I called you genocidal, a moron, megalomaniac, stupid, ignorant, murderer, uncoherent...

But I never called you arrogant.

And considering you so far failed to reply to any FACTS I pointed out, it's not hard to see who is "actually putting a modicum of thought and logic into his/her arguments" here.

Further, don't flatter yourself. Beating you in an argument does not inflate my ego any more than beating the mentally retarded in a game of chess would.

Exactly! I don't want to take that liberty and freedom away -- I want to spread it. However, there are countries which are resistant to progressive change. Thus, we must compromise with our values to take care of them prior to turning them into beacons of freedom and justice. It's for the greater good, in the end.

You love freedom so much you want to sacrifice it so you can kill as many innocent people as it takes to force freedom on everyone who doesn't surrender to your will?

Exactly! I don't want to take that liberty and freedom away -- I want to spread it. However, there are countries which are resistant to progressive change. Thus, we must compromise with our values

Then "our" (meaning your) values are shit. Why should anyone uphold to a value they themselves can throw out the window? Such a value is not worth having in the first place.

turning them into beacons of freedom and justice.

Oh, is THAT what Iraq and Afghanistan are.

We made ourselves God by winning the Cold War. We can use our God-like powers to do what is in the best interest of the world. One of the things that is in the best interest of the world is increasing the global quality of life index. To accomplish this goal, we must command the government of less successful countries and steer them towards what makes America great. In the meantime, however, we should simply go after countries that sponsor terror.

You're god now?

And you complained I called you arrogant? Well, if you're not arrogant while claiming yourself as GOD, that's somewhat contradictory.

Compared to YOU, I'm a god.

We made ourselves God by winning the Cold War. We can use our God-like powers to do what is in the best interest of the world. One of the things that is in the best interest of the world is increasing the global quality of life index. To accomplish this goal, we must command the government of less successful countries and steer them towards what makes America great. In the meantime, however, we should simply go after countries that sponsor terror.

Good job I don't believe in God, then. Makes smashing your would-be empire to pieces all the more worthwhile, not just for the immediate thrill, but in the knowing we are lancing a boil off the face of humanity - not to mention the face of history.

With luck, by the 31st century, no-one will remember your nation - period. And good riddance to bad rubbish.

If it did get to do that, the world would be a better place. I want the world to be a better place, and it is the prerogative of the sole superpower to make it so via any means necessary. If it involves invading anti-progressive countries who sponsor terror, so be it.
So then, why aren't you over in Iraq putting your money where you mouth is rather then wasting your time spreading your brand of fascism here on NS?

I can only guess that you have a medical condition which prevents you from helping those who have the same ideals as you? You are quite willing to let others fight your battles, so that you don't have to get your hands dirty?

My father and his brothers went to war to stop people such as yourself dead in their tracks. They succeeded. You too shall fail.

Exactly! I don't want to take that liberty and freedom away -- I want to spread it. However, there are countries which are resistant to progressive change. Thus, we must compromise with our values to take care of them prior to turning them into beacons of freedom and justice. It's for the greater good, in the end.

How can we preserve and spread freedom when we deny that very freedom to people?

With luck, by the 31st century, no-one will remember your nation - period. And good riddance to bad rubbish.

Come on be reasonable. His beliefs are hardly the majority in this country, not even any significant minority. Please don't confuse him with the rest of us. I find it rather insulting.

Heikoku: I have added you to my ignore list. Your egocentricity knows no depths.

Heikoku: I have added you to my ignore list. Your egocentricity knows no depths.

You're one to talk.

How can we preserve and spread freedom when we deny that very freedom to people?

We only deny that freedom temporarily. We force people to leave their homes, etc., then proceed to take over the government of their country. They can then choose to re-immigrate to their country, gaining more freedom than they ever had before. No death required.

Heikoku: I have added you to my ignore list. Your egocentricity knows no depths.

Hey, while you're stuffing your head in the sand, would you care to ignore everyone who disagrees with you? That way you could just talk to yourself and not have to worry about egocentric liberal terrorist traitors who hate freedom.

Heikoku: I have added you to my ignore list. Your egocentricity knows no depths.

Says the guy that CALLED HIMSELF A GOD, that CLAIMED TO KNOW WHAT WAS BEST FOR THE WHOLE HUMANITY WITHOUT SAID HUMANITY GETTING ITS SAY IN IT, and that PROPOSES GENOCIDE!

Come on, now, don't run away, I'm not through disemboweling you in this argument!

Hey, while you're stuffing your head in the sand, would you care to ignore everyone who disagrees with you? That way you could just talk to yourself and not have to worry about egocentric liberal terrorist traitors who hate freedom.

I wish he'd just go back to his blog or whatever it is that fills his days with unfettered bliss.

Hey, while you're stuffing your head in the sand, would you care to ignore everyone who disagrees with you? That way you could just talk to yourself and not have to worry about egocentric liberal terrorist traitors who hate freedom.

No, that's alright. I will only ignore those who resort to ad hominem attacks instead of engaging in actual debate. Half his posts were simply intended as insults without possessing an iota of ration or reason.

We only deny that freedom temporarily. We force people to leave their homes, etc., then proceed to take over the government of their country. They can then choose to re-immigrate to their country, gaining more freedom than they ever had before. No death required.

The idea that you can deny freedom "temporarily" is ludicrous. Once a government has power it won't give it up. Like I said on the last page, we can use other methods then direct action to change the hearts and minds of people who don't like us. Invading, kicking out the "undesirables" and then letting back in who WE feel deserves our precious freedom is hardly the way to go. Not at all the way to prove that we are indeed a great nation.

No, that's alright. I will only ignore those who resort to ad hominem attacks instead of engaging in actual debate. Half his posts were simply intended as insults without possessing an iota of ration or reason.

You propose genocide, call yourself a god and insult (and propose the death of) whoever disagrees. Not hard to see who uses ad hominem here.

By the way, can someone quote my messages so moron sees them?

No, that's alright. I will only ignore those who resort to ad hominem attacks instead of engaging in actual debate. Half his posts were simply intended as insults without possessing an iota of ration or reason.

Which would be what - the complete antithesis of your stated positions?

It is to laugh most heartily. Does it itch when the bridge of your nose is placed so firmly beneath the sand?

The idea that you can deny freedom "temporarily" is ludicrous.

Luckily for me, Bush seems to side with my position more than he does with yours. Objectively, Iraq didn't turn out so well yet, but it will flower if we continue to attend to it. Hopefully, there are a few more invasions slated prior to 2009.

You propose genocide, call yourself a god and insult (and propose the death of) whoever disagrees. Not hard to see who uses ad hominem here.

By the way, can someone quote my messages so moron sees them?

For all the good it will do - I'm fairly certain I'm also being blithely ignored by Mr. would-be-American-God.

Hopefully, there are a few more invasions slated prior to 2009.

Yeah, like the American people invading Washington and deposing their strong-man. Hopefully.

Luckily for me, Bush seems to side with my position more than he does with yours. Objectively, Iraq didn't turn out so well yet, but it will flower if we continue to attend to it. Hopefully, there are a few more invasions slated prior to 2009.

Luckily for the world, Bush won't succeed at getting the congress to go through with your plans of genocide, rape and murder.

For all the good it will do - I'm fairly certain I'm also being blithely ignored by Mr. would-be-American-God.

Indeed. I do not wish to converse with Heikoku any longer, as the putrid stench of his arrogance is overpowering. While I have no problem with you, I shall similarly ignore you if Heikoku wishes to communicate via another medium. Furthermore, I said America (not I) was God in response to a post asking who made America God.

Indeed. I do not wish to converse with Heikoku any longer, as the putrid stench of his arrogance is overpowering. While I have no problem with you, I shall similarly ignore you if Heikoku wishes to communicate via another medium. Furthermore, I said America (not I) was God in response to a post asking who made America God.

Okay, anyone that is laughing like a maniac after seeing HIM calling ME arrogant while claiming America is God, say Ukulele!

Ukulele!

Does it itch when the bridge of your nose is placed so firmly beneath the sand?

If my head were stuck in the sand, I would suffocate. As I'm alive and well, the logical conclusion is that my head is not, in fact, enveloped in the sand.

Indeed. I do not wish to converse with Heikoku any longer, as the putrid stench of his arrogance is overpowering. While I have no problem with you, I shall similarly ignore you if Heikoku wishes to communicate via another medium. Furthermore, I said America (not I) was God in response to a post asking who made America God.

Would you still advocate the most powerful country changing the world any way it sees fit if it wasn't the USA?

No, that's alright. I will only ignore those who resort to ad hominem attacks instead of engaging in actual debate. Half his posts were simply intended as insults without possessing an iota of ration or reason.

Which is odd, since you respond most to 'attacks.' And give them out - you've called me "moron," at least, and of course your favorite is to dismiss people as "traitorous" or "liberal."

It seems you think it's OK for you to insult, but for others, the offense to your delicate sensibilities is just too much for you to tolerate.

Hypocrisy. Just as how you claim to value freedom of speech (and use it to justify pedophilia), but are absolutely willing to throw that freedom out when you think it's for the "greater good." Just like any Communist.

It's ironic, you know, since you talk about "written language" and not having it being pathetic... but for all that will get through your thick skull, you don't know jack shit about the english language.

Gonna ignore me for that? Or respond with more idiocy? I guess you could try to do both.

Would you still advocate the most powerful country changing the world any way it sees fit if it wasn't the USA?

If Great Britain, France, Germany, etc., changed the world for the better in the method which I proposed, I would be a proponent of such action, yes.

Luckily for me, Bush seems to side with my position more than he does with yours. Objectively, Iraq didn't turn out so well yet, but it will flower if we continue to attend to it. Hopefully, there are a few more invasions slated prior to 2009.

Luckily I don't see Bush having the political capital to push through another unlawfull invasion. He will have to live with the mess he has in Iraq only. We really should fix that problem first before adding another anyway don't you think?

Yeah, like the American people invading Washington and deposing their strong-man. Hopefully.

Wow, I started laughing when I read that! I really need the amusement, thanks. :D

If Great Britain, France, Germany, etc., changed the world for the better in the method which I proposed, I would be a proponent of such action, yes.

And if the USA changed the world in a way that didnt mimic your opinions?

If Great Britain, France, Germany, etc., changed the world for the better in the method which I proposed, I would be a proponent of such action, yes.

So, you'd advocate them destroying people who advocate genocide? Because that'd certainly make the world a better place.

We made ourselves God by winning the Cold War.
There is only ONE God Almighty and you are not Him. Kaiser Wilhelm failed. Adolf Hitler failed and you too shall fail.

If my head were stuck in the sand, I would suffocate. As I'm alive and well, the logical conclusion is that my head is not, in fact, enveloped in the sand.

Let's test that out, why don't we? Go literally stick your head in the sand, and, while you're at it, STUDY WHAT THE WORDS "FIGURATIVE SPEECH" MEAN!

I'm not a native speaker and I know English more than you do!

If Great Britain, France, Germany, etc., changed the world for the better in the method which I proposed, I would be a proponent of such action, yes.

And so who's the rampant egotist here this afternoon?

Yeah, like the American people invading Washington and deposing their strong-man. Hopefully.

Now that is downright treason. Freedom of speech does not cover attempting to overthrow the government. Uncle Sam should give you a visit, in this case. I am contemplating calling the authorities.

We only deny that freedom temporarily. We force people to leave their homes, etc., then proceed to take over the government of their country. They can then choose to re-immigrate to their country, gaining more freedom than they ever had before. No death required.

But before you said that all the people in the region should be killed, so there would be death required.

If Great Britain, France, Germany, etc., changed the world for the better in the method which I proposed, I would be a proponent of such action, yes.

Ah, so you would be supportive if one of those nations invaded the Middle East and other such poor areas undeserving of local leadership and created their own empire? The U.S. might find itself in a bit of a quandary in that case. Might end up challenging that theory that democracies never go to war with each other.

Now that is downright treason. Freedom of speech does not cover attempting to overthrow the government. Uncle Sam should give you a visit, in this case. I am contemplating calling the authorities.

He's not from the U.S. you fool.

And so who's the rampant egotist here this afternoon?

I am simply trying to differentiate between what I outlined and other things. For example, I would not advocate France showering Syria with wine and cheese. However, I would advocate replacing their government with a better one in a method similar to mine.

Now that is downright treason. Freedom of speech does not cover attempting to overthrow the government. Uncle Sam should give you a visit, in this case. I am contemplating calling the authorities.

You know, I don't even think he's American and whether you are joking or actually serious, such talk does not help here. Especially as you are claiming to be the one who is still debating rationally.

But before you said that all the people in the region should be killed, so there would be death required.

I was referring to governments that sponsor terrorism and are unwilling to let the US aid their country in implementing a more equitable form of government. In that case, those who resist will have to be killed. Those who do not shall live.

Now that is downright treason. Freedom of speech does not cover attempting to overthrow the government. Uncle Sam should give you a visit, in this case. I am contemplating calling the authorities.

GO FOR IT.

MAKE MY MILLENIUM.

Now that is downright treason. Freedom of speech does not cover attempting to overthrow the government. Uncle Sam should give you a visit, in this case. I am contemplating calling the authorities.

Do it. I'm sure they'll be perfectly happy that you called them on an Internet post made by a Canadian.

He's not from the U.S. you fool.

His location is unspecified in his profile.

I was referring to governments that sponsor terrorism and are unwilling to let the US aid their country in implementing a more equitable form of government. In that case, those who resist will have to be killed. Those who do not shall live.

Would you be in favour of any negotiation at all before the killing began? any compromise? or does it have to be your way or the highway?

I am simply trying to differentiate between what I outlined and other things. For example, I would not advocate France showering Syria with wine and cheese. However, I would advocate replacing their government with a better one in a method similar to mine.

And what form of government should the people of France look forward to, then?

His location is unspecified in his profile.

Then the default assumption would be that he isn't from the U.S., as he used the phrase "your strongman". But I'm guessing literacy isn't your strong suit.

Would you be in favour of any negotiation at all before the killing began? any compromise? or does it have to be your way or the highway?

If they are able to reform their government by themselves, that is acceptable. Otherwise, that task shall fall to us to be executed properly.

GO FOR IT.

MAKE MY MILLENIUM.

Actually, I took the liberty of calling the mods on this threat - especially since he obviously favors torturing dissidents too.

Then the default assumption would be that he isn't from the U.S., as he used the phrase "your strongman". But I'm guessing literacy isn't your strong suit.

Actually, he never said "your strongman." However, it is likely literacy isn't your strong suit. On the other hand, you excel at hypocrisy.

If they are able to reform their government by themselves, that is acceptable. Otherwise, that task shall fall to us to be executed properly.

Well how about economic sanctions, etc instead of flat out war? Seems like it would help you maintain your position of power by staying clear of costly and demoralising wars when there are other choices

I am simply trying to differentiate between what I outlined and other things. For example, I would not advocate France showering Syria with wine and cheese. However, I would advocate replacing their government with a better one in a method similar to mine.

I say if it is proven absolutely that they are a threat, we remove the Syrian government and then leave it to the people there what government should be formed. Putting in a puppet U.S. gov't isn't going to have them look at us in the best light. ...then again you said we will be killing them so the land can be colonized by Americans so I guess this is a moot point...

His location is unspecified in his profile.

Well assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups, something which I'm guessing you're altogether familiar with, you nasty little person. It's people like you who sent their Jewish neighbours to the gas-chambers back in the day.

You want to send info to the authorities on what you consider 'traitorous' statements? Well, it works both ways. There could just as easily be someone making notes of what you're saying here, so that come the day - assuming that day comes - that Americans take back their government, it'll be informants like you who could just find themselves among the first up against somebody's wall for what they consider treasonous. Just saying.

Well how about economic sanctions, etc instead of flat out war?

Economic sanctions in Iraq have killed many more people than the war. They only hurt the people, not the power structure. Look what's happening in North Korea, for example.

Actually, he never said "your strongman." However, it is likely literacy isn't your strong suit. On the other hand, you excel at hypocrisy.

Their, your, each is a third-person pronoun. Which would exclude him by definition. You fail at the English language.

Anyone else notice how this whole Bush admin seems like its based off starwars(the prequels)

You mean a once great republic lead down the path of ruin by a greed, evil, power hungry bastard. Ya i get that impression.

Actually, he never said "your strongman." However, it is likely literacy isn't your strong suit. On the other hand, you excel at hypocrisy.

You really shouldn't talk about hypocricy when at the same time you profess your love of freedom you also advocate the invasion and slaughter of other peoples. For the better of us all of course. Supposively along with fighting terrorism we are supposed to be promoting freedom and democracy. That seems to be forgotten however in the bloodlust felt by the people who voted for this awful legislation.

Economic sanctions in Iraq have killed many more people than the war. They only hurt the people, not the power structure. Look what's happening in North Korea, for example.

But if the USA is a force to change the world for the better, and economic sanctions cause more harm than good, do you back the use of sanctions by the USA in the past? Cuba for example

Actually, I took the liberty of calling the mods on this threat - especially since he obviously favors torturing dissidents too.
err... not a threat. 1) unless he knows where Dobbsworld is and WHO dobbsworld is, who's he going to call?

Now if Dobbsworld was dumb enough to post his personal information... :rolleyes:

I was referring to governments that sponsor terrorism and are unwilling to let the US aid their country in implementing a more equitable form of government. In that case, those who resist will have to be killed. Those who do not shall live.

Before you said that all Muslims should be killed, because that would stop terrorism. I don't feel that the US should take it upon itself to decide how other countries should be. Trying to improve the quality of life in other countries is one thing, but killing much of the population to "Americanize" the them is another thing entirely, and I don't think it should be done.

Now that is downright treason. Freedom of speech does not cover attempting to overthrow the government. Uncle Sam should give you a visit, in this case. I am contemplating calling the authorities.

I know it's been done, but I can't help it. You're going to call the authorities? And tell them what exactly? "Help help officer, someone on the internet doesn't love America"

err... not a threat. 1) unless he knows where Dobbsworld is and WHO dobbsworld is, who's he going to call?

Now if Dobbsworld was dumb enough to post his personal information... :rolleyes:

"J.R" Bob Dobbs, my namesake - is dumb; He's as dumb as they come. What Dobbs has going for him is luck - Bob cruises the Luck Plane like an idiot savant plays Chopin flawlessly.

But I'm not half the man Bob is. In every respect. ;) And anyone who knows me knows just how true that statement really is.

But if the USA is a force to change the world for the better, and economic sanctions cause more harm than good, do you back the use of sanctions by the USA in the past? Cuba for example

No, I would not support sanctions. An invasion -- maybe.

No, I would not support sanctions. An invasion -- maybe.

You're big on invasions aren't you?

Before you said that all Muslims should be killed, because that would stop terrorism. I don't feel that the US should take it upon itself to decide how other countries should be. Trying to improve the quality of life in other countries is one thing, but killing much of the population to "Americanize" the them is another thing entirely, and I don't think it should be done.

He did advocate the Muslims being killed to stop terrorism.

Anyway, we obviously don't have the right to force our systems on anyone. The claim that they "will thank us later" doesn't really work. That arguement is what aggressors fall back on. There are plenty of places out there that could certainly use improvement but the idea that the U.S. can force such improvement is wrong and impossible anyway.

No, I would not support sanctions. An invasion -- maybe.

Maybe you have a point. If America invaded everywhere, it'd be that much easier for the citizens back home to overthrow their crooked regime. What with all the soldiers being elsewhere, and all.

"J.R" Bob Dobbs, my namesake - is dumb; He's as dumb as they come. What Dobbs has going for him is luck - Bob cruises the Luck Plane like an idiot savant plays Chopin flawlessly.

But I'm not half the man Bob is. In every respect. ;) And anyone who knows me knows just how true that statement really is.
you know.. I was going to try to be the voice of reason... but I think several posters here are already hearing too many "voices"... :rolleyes:

I'm thinking troll...

JuNii - I hope I haven't put you off of being a voice of reason with that last quip...

Voices of reason are a rare thing these days. I know; I gave up all that a long, long time ago.

Maybe you have a point. If America invaded everywhere, it'd be that much easier for the citizens back home to overthrow their crooked regime. What with all the soldiers being elsewhere, and all.

I have hope that before any such policy would take place, sheer public outrage will force an impeachment. The idea that people would actually accept us turning conquerer...

There is only ONE God Almighty and you are not Him. Kaiser Wilhelm failed. Adolf Hitler failed and you too shall fail.

So then, why aren't you over in Iraq putting your money where you mouth is rather then wasting your time spreading your brand of fascism here on NS?

I can only guess that you have a medical condition which prevents you from helping those who have the same ideals as you? You are quite willing to let others fight your battles, so that you don't have to get your hands dirty?

My father and his brothers went to war to stop people such as yourself dead in their tracks. They succeeded. You too shall fail.

Do you really think that the US can dictate to the world? What happens when Pakistan (one example) doesn't want to play your game? Are you willing to risk MAD?

I cannot see why you would fear Nazis when it appears that you embrace a totalitarian approach to government.

As far as Iraq is concerned, your country sure has made one hell of a mess out of a country that was no threat to the US. There are now more terrorists plotting against Americans than ever before. If you think that the terrorism will stay localized in Iraq indicates that you do not have a good grasp on the circumstances. You can see the results in the UK, Spain, and other coalition countries. How long before another successful terrorist action in the continental US, spawned by the inappropriate actions of your government? It is only a matter of time?

And if you think that the US is safer now, why does your Homeland Security advisory remained peg at ELEVATED? Keeping the populace afraid works for the election of the pro war Republicans?

Heikoku: I have added you to my ignore list. Your egocentricity knows no depths.
You also seem to be ignoring my posts as well, and I can understand why.

No big deal.... RealAmerica didn't last long here either. :p

The bill is un fucking believable imo. What a crock of shit. But what governments aren't.

JuNii - I hope I haven't put you off of being a voice of reason with that last quip...

Voices of reason are a rare thing these days. I know; I gave up all that a long, long time ago.
no... it's the other guy... wotsname? Meanstoanend...

he seems rather touched in the head tho.

He did advocate the Muslims being killed to stop terrorism.

Anyway, we obviously don't have the right to force our systems on anyone. The claim that they "will thank us later" doesn't really work. That arguement is what aggressors fall back on. There are plenty of places out there that could certainly use improvement but the idea that the U.S. can force such improvement is wrong and impossible anyway.

That's what I thought he said.

I agree that the U.S. cannot force other countries to improve, and shouldn't try to force them to, anyway.

no... it's the other guy... wotsname? Meanstoanend...

he seems rather touched in the head tho.

I was thinking more dropped on the head rather than touched in the head.

you know.. I was going to try to be the voice of reason... but I think several posters here are already hearing too many "voices"... :rolleyes:

I'm thinking troll...
I think you are right. Realamerica posted for a couple of days and got deleted and viola, the next day we have MeansToAnEnd. Extremely similar in substance and style.

I have hope that before any such policy would take place, sheer public outrage will force an impeachment. The idea that people would actually accept us turning conquerer...
How can he be impeached on this Bill when the Senate ratified it?

How can he be impeached on this Bill when the Senate ratified it?

Not on this bill, on some hypothetical. Not sure what.

How can he be impeached on this Bill when the Senate ratified it?

Not on this bill, on some hypothetical. Not sure what.

What Ifreann said. :)

This is on some future action where Bush or whoever his replacement is decides to turn us into an expansionist nation. Impeachment should occur.

Look at the post I made at the top of the page. Looking at that and Dobbsworld's post I was responding to should shake any confusion from you.

I was thinking more dropped on the head rather than touched in the head.

well, if you want him to be able to blame someone else... :p

you know.. I can't seem to find it... can anyone put up a link to the Actual Bill itself?

You know, for the longest time, I called my dad insane or just plain misguided for thinking the current administration is attempting to remove all liberties. That he was just misinterpreting this and that, and that he was just wrong. And he still is, on certain issues(oil companies have no control over gas prices you Funky Winkerbein.) But, for the most part, I was wrong. This bill only proves it.

Now, let's not be TOO hasty. Let's not forget that this bill also has to pass in the HoR and then be voted on again to be passed into law. Of course, it's probably going to happen, but that's not the point.

I think, when I can, I may start purchasing several weapons and store them in a secure location...just in case.

I have hope that before any such policy would take place, sheer public outrage will force an impeachment. The idea that people would actually accept us turning conquerer...

We can use the land more effectively than they can. It should be our land, pure and simple.

We can use the land more effectively than they can. It should be our land, pure and simple.

:confused: Who could use whose land more effectively?

:confused: Who could use whose land more effectively?

The US has proved that it is extremely viable economically and that it is extremely resourceful. We could manage the Middle East far more aptly than the current government can. Thus, it would be better if the US were in control of that land. This end justifies the means necessary to achieve it.

*raises hand* I'm close to being a red stater, and this scares ME, am I welcome?

Um, I am a red-stater (mostly, anyways). (Last time I took the compass test I was around 2.somthing, -8.something), and it scares me.

I think, when I can, I may start purchasing several weapons and store them in a secure location...just in case.

Unless they decide to curb your Second Amendment rights, like so many want to do.

We can use the land more effectively than they can. It should be our land, pure and simple.

So what? It is not ours. I am not interested in the theft of lands from others.

The US has proved that it is extremely viable economically and that it is extremely resourceful. We could manage the Middle East far more aptly than the current government can. Thus, it would be better if the US were in control of that land. This end justifies the means necessary to achieve it.

Meh, you're just too steeped in this bogus Pax Americana schtick of yours to take seriously. Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

So what? It is not ours. I am not interested in the theft of lands from others.

But it would be better for the world if the most capable nation controlled the land. If it were so, then the entire world would be more productive and efficient, which is certainly a desirable quality. Hopefully, they'd give it up willingly, but we shouldn't shy away if we don't.

Meh, you're just too steeped in this bogus Pax Americana schtick of yours to take seriously. Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

*Grabs fork*

:D

nah, perferre chopsticks...

BTW.. can anyone link the actual bill?

But it would be better for the world if the most capable nation controlled the land. If it were so, then the entire world would be more productive and efficient, which is certainly a desirable quality. Hopefully, they'd give it up willingly, but we shouldn't shy away if we don't.

And who says you're the most capable country?

But it would be better for the world if the most capable nation controlled the land. If it were so, then the entire world would be more productive and efficient, which is certainly a desirable quality. Hopefully, they'd give it up willingly, but we shouldn't shy away if we don't.

One nation having all the wealth doesn't help others. We are plenty wealthy yet have an unacceptable rate of poverty of such a rich nation. I am not going to let greed get in the way of the fundamental rights of people to choose for themselves who they want to be ruled by. Neither the United States nor anyone else has any right to force their decision. If the U.S. should try to take those lands it should be resisted by any force needed for them to remain free from U.S. oppression.

We can use the land more effectively than they can. It should be our land, pure and simple.

Of course, since Canada has a better life quality than the US, it should attack the US, kill everyone (including your family) there and take the US for itself.

I could make a somewhat gorier comparison involving rape, were I not forbidden from it by the rules.

And who says you're the most capable country?

Considering the KNOWN FACT that Canada has better living standards, only the voices in his head.

And who says you're the most capable country?

I don't recall saying that most capable -- simply more so than the current government. If Canada or Ireland want the first shot, they can have it if they are militarily powerful enough to overthrow the government.

I don't recall saying that most capable -- simply more so than the current government. If Canada or Ireland want the first shot, they can have it if they are militarily powerful enough to overthrow the government.

And, as it happened to Germany, with all its military might, it STILL got beaten by the rest of the world, much like the dystopia you want to create would be. In such an event, I'd only hope it was me who had the opportunity to gouge out your eyes (for starters) for daring to invade my city.

Of course, since Canada has a better life quality than the US, it should attack the US, kill everyone (including your family) there and take the US for itself.

I could make a somewhat gorier comparison involving rape, were I not forbidden from it by the rules.
Indeed. The US should be happy that they're getting Canadised, since it will be better for them in the long run.
Considering the KNOWN FACT that Canada has better living standards, only the voices in his head.
Goold old voices :)
I don't recall saying that most capable -- simply more so than the current government. If Canada or Ireland want the first shot, they can have it if they are militarily powerful enough to overthrow the government.
Well lets go and have a look at the post I quoted, shall we?

Linky (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11752040#post11752040)
But it would be better for the world if the most capable nation controlled the land.

I don't recall saying that most capable -- simply more so than the current government. If Canada or Ireland want the first shot, they can have it if they are militarily powerful enough to overthrow the government.

So you have no patriotic feeling towards who should have the land, just a basic feeling that the strong should command the weak. That people you feel are undeserving should not be allowed to choose their own destiny and need guidence from their "betters".

So you have no patriotic feeling towards who should have the land, just a basic feeling that the strong should command the weak. That people you feel are undeserving should not be allowed to choose their own destiny and need guidence from their "betters".

We now have to wonder just who those supposed "betters" are. I figure he's going to say America.

So you have no patriotic feeling towards who should have the land, just a basic feeling that the strong should command the weak. That people you feel are undeserving should not be allowed to choose their own destiny and need guidence from their "betters".

Hey, it's okay! When his mother is raped, he'll be happy, for the "strong" comanded the "weak" as well, no? I mean, he'll also think his mother should be glad for giving in to someone stronger...

Hey, it's okay! When his mother is raped, he'll be happy, for the "strong" comanded the "weak" as well, no? I mean, he'll also think his mother should be glad for giving in to someone stronger...

That's pushing it a bit Heikoku.

That's pushing it a bit Heikoku.

Actually, it just looks like pushing. Genocide is much, much worse than rape, and Means is a strong proponent of it. So, I figure this will either shock him straight or pass under the bar (a bar that's been set not with rapists, but with Hitler).

I want Canada to take over the U.S.

Actually, it just looks like pushing. Genocide is much, much worse than rape, and Means is a strong proponent of it. So, I figure this will either shock him straight or pass under the bar (a bar that's been set not with rapists, but with Hitler).
Again I wonder when this thread first got hit with the Godwin stick
I want Canada to take over the U.S.

That really would be awesome.

Considering the KNOWN FACT that Canada has better living standards, only the voices in his head.

err... Living Standard and Effective Land Use are two different things. :p

I want Canada to take over the U.S. That really would be awesome.
No it wouldn't. it would just make Canada a target.. then you will see Canada start adopting the same methods as the US.

err... Living Standard and Effective Land Use are two different things. :p

Now I feel stupid for not noticing that. Don't do that.

err... Living Standard and Effective Land Use are two different things. :p

In which case I'm guessing Japan here.

DAIJOBU DESU! :D

Now I feel stupid for not noticing that. Don't do that.

sowwy :(

sowwy :(

Apology accepted :fluffle:

Again I wonder when this thread first got hit with the Godwin stick

There's a corollaire to Godwin's law that voids it when the comparison is valid. I mean, we ARE talking about an evil genocidal maniac here.

We now have to wonder just who those supposed "betters" are. I figure he's going to say America.

Well anyone who has a strong enough militry to conquer is obviously better then the ones they beat right? I mean it stands to reason. Strong being a synonym for "better". So I suppose America would qualify. Of course strong and moral do not go together. By that idea, the Nazis had every right to conquer as they did for they were just taking over their inferiors, using the land more efficiently, whatever.

Indeed. The US should be happy that they're getting Canadised, since it will be better for them in the long run.

If Canada's system of government was more effective and it was more militarily powerful, I would hold no grudges and enjoy the maple syrup and hockey.

Well lets go and have a look at the post I quoted, shall we?

I never said the US was the most capable country in that post.

If Canada's system of government was more effective and it was more militarily powerful, I would hold no grudges and enjoy the maple syrup and hockey.



I never said the US was the most capable country in that post.

Would that still stand if you were one of the people killed to make room for the Canadian colonists?

I know. You said you didn't recall saying most capable. I showed that you did say most capable.

If Canada's system of government was more effective and it was more militarily powerful, I would hold no grudges and enjoy the maple syrup and hockey.



I never said the US was the most capable country in that post.

You know, that belief of yours that the weak should give in to the strong at any costs DOES explain why you seem to be so fierce on defending a paedophile.

That people you feel are undeserving should not be allowed to choose their own destiny and need guidence from their "betters".

The evolution of nations is necessary just like the evolution of various species -- those which are more capable will win out and create increasingly more adept systems of government. To quote from that bane of liberal propaganda, The Beatles:

"you tell me that it's evolution. Well, you know, we all want to change the world, but when you talk about destruction...it's gonna be all right."

Would that still stand if you were one of the people killed to make room for the Canadian colonists?

I wouldn't be killed -- I would flee before the bombings, and I would seek to re-immigrate once the area was under the control of the Canadian government.

I know. You said you didn't recall saying most capable. I showed that you did say most capable.

Ah, sorry, I thought you meant that I said the US was the most capable country, which I did not. However, I did say "most capable" in general.

The evolution of nations is necessary just like the evolution of various species -- those which are more capable will win out and create increasingly more adept systems of government. To quote from that bane of liberal propaganda, The Beatles:

"you tell me that it's evolution. Well, you know, we all want to change the world, but when you talk about destruction...it's gonna be all right."

I know that song, and you defaced it by ommiting the "when you talk about destruction, you can count me out" part.

But, then again, it does stand to reason that your pressure for the strong to prey on the weak comes from someone so devoted to defending a paedophile in another thread. Speaks volumes about you, indeed.

The evolution of nations is necessary just like the evolution of various species -- those which are more capable will win out and create increasingly more adept systems of government. To quote from that bane of liberal propaganda, The Beatles:

"you tell me that it's evolution. Well, you know, we all want to change the world, but when you talk about destruction...it's gonna be all right."
Invading countries and replacing their government doesn't really count as evolution. It's more, well, replacing them.
I wouldn't be killed -- I would flee before the bombings, and I would seek to re-immigrate once the area was under the control of the Canadian government.
Assuming that is possible. Who's to say there would be any warning?


Ah, sorry, I thought you meant that I said the US was the most capable country, which I did not. However, I did say "most capable" in general.

Glad that's all cleared up :)

Assuming that is possible. Who's to say there would be any warning?

I would give warning. I don't want to mindlessly slaughter people, commit genocide, or do any similarly inappropriate acts. And, since you were attempting to use my example against me, it stands to reason that Canada would also give warning.

The evolution of nations is necessary just like the evolution of various species -- those which are more capable will win out and create increasingly more adept systems of government.

If it comes down to a fight for resources then of course it will be the stronger who will win. It does not mean that the "stronger" should go out starting wars to conquer. The very idea is what a dictator would do to gain more territory and resources. Besides a democracy like the U.S. would never, ever, have the view that we are better so have the right to invade whoever we wish just because we can. Such actions are not done by those who are in the right. It is only done by evil people motivated by greed.

I would give warning. I don't want to mindlessly slaughter people LIKE I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID I WANT TO, commit genocide, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE BEEN PROPOSING IT THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE THREAD, or do any similarly inappropriate acts, LIKE PAEDOPHILIA. And, since you were attempting to use my example against me, it stands to reason that Canada would also give warning.

Fixed.

Fixed.

Quite so. I just hope for his sake that America never gets itself in a weak position thereby getting taken over by a stronger, "better" power.







Well, in that case it would be for all of our sakes that that didn't happen but still, you get the point.

Quite so. I just hope for his sake that America never gets itself in a weak position thereby getting taken over by a stronger, "better" power.







Well, in that case it would be for all of our sakes that that didn't happen but still, you get the point.given his namesake... :rolleyes:

given his namesake... :rolleyes:

Then he should be supportive if it should happen. At least until the oppression begins then you know he will be joining the other "weaklings" in resisting the "stronger" ones who are holding the nation. When the shoe is on the other foot it is a bit more difficult to keep that "By any means" philosophy. The invaders will be resisted just like anywhere else.

Too bad we won't realize it will be for our own good... :rolleyes:

I want Canada to take over the U.S.

We don't want it - ! Not now that it's all knicked and dented and dog-eared, anyway.

Too bad we won't realize it will be for our own good... :rolleyes:

I'll call Means a hypocrite in this case unless he drops his pants and bends over to the first invader he sees...

We don't want it - ! Not now that it's all knicked and dented and dog-eared, anyway.

you couldn't handle the USA. ;)

I'll call Means a hypocrite in this case unless he drops his pants and bends over to the first invader he sees...

you mean forced to drop his pants and bend over... it will have to be PROVEN that the other is stronger.


classic S&M complex... :p

you mean forced to drop his pants and bend over... it will have to be PROVEN that the other is stronger.


classic S&M complex... :p

You know... This is the VERY ESSENCE of the ideology the Party from 1984 has.

You know... This is the VERY ESSENCE of the ideology the Party from 1984 has.

Think the Party would be considered the strongest and deserves to rule over all the weaker peoples and governments?

Think the Party would be considered the strongest and deserves to rule over all the weaker peoples and governments?

I'm sure Means would find this doubleplusgood...

I'm sure Means would find this doubleplusgood...

I suppose that the conquerer would bring a new language. Why not Newspeak?

I suppose that the conquerer would bring a new language. Why not Newspeak?

Well, considering the amount of doublethink Means has spouted so far, I would find it doubleplusunsurprising to see newspeak being implemented.

Well, considering the amount of doublethink Means has spouted so far, I would find it doubleplusunsurprising to see newspeak being implemented.

Heh. I should probably read 1984 again, brush up on my Newspeak.

It would be a good way to subjugate the new people though. Get out those pesky independent thoughts that might lead to things like "freedom".

I'm sure Means would find this doubleplusgood...

He does. He's RealAmerica, who started a thread stating that he liked the world of 1984. He also started a thread stating that he liked the world of Fahrenheit 451.

Think the Party would be considered the strongest and deserves to rule over all the weaker peoples and governments?

No, because the quality of life under the Party was lower than it previously was, so it would be morally bankrupt to support the Party.

No, because the quality of life under the Party was lower than it previously was, so it would be morally bankrupt to support the Party.

Ah, finally read 1984, did we?

Ah, finally read 1984, did we?

What do you mean? When did I ever comment on 1984 before this?

What do you mean? When did I ever comment on 1984 before this?

When you were RealAmerica.

When you were RealAmerica.

You assert that without a shred of proof. I do agree with RealAmerica on many issues, but our views are distinct.

No, because the quality of life under the Party was lower than it previously was, so it would be morally bankrupt to support the Party.

So you have to be stronger then those you conquer but you also have to be improving their lives as well? If the conquerer doesn't improve the lives they now control then the invader is in the wrong and should be resisted?

So you have to be stronger then those you conquer but you also have to be improving their lives as well? If the conquerer doesn't improve the lives they now control then the invader is in the wrong and should be resisted?

If the stronger power either improves the quality of life of the previous inhabitants or re-colonizes the area with a new population which enjoys a greater quality of life than the previous one, there should be no resistance. Otherwise, there should be.

If the stronger power either improves the quality of life of the previous inhabitants or re-colonizes the area with a new population which enjoys a greater quality of life than the previous one, there should be no resistance. Otherwise, there should be.

And, of course, that applies to you and your family as well. Good to know.

I'm all for the War on Terror, when it isn't commiting attrocities, but this is a step too far. Not only do we unbalance the checks and balances system, but we also subject US troops to torture as well, by making it a morally acceptable choice.

Please, those who don't obey the geneva convention aren't going to start just because we do. And yes, history, both recent and distant supports me on this. If you're going to make an arguement against torture, try to make it a sound arguement.

No, because the quality of life under the Party was lower than it previously was, so it would be morally bankrupt to support the Party.

Okay, so he favors genocide, but he WILL STOP at voicing support for a given group.

THAT'S ethics for you... :p

Please, those who don't obey the geneva convention aren't going to start just because we do. And yes, history, both recent and distant supports me on this. If you're going to make an arguement against torture, try to make it a sound arguement.

How about "it doesn't work, it only yields false info, it wastes time and money, it is morally wrong and it is stooping to the level of your enemy, an enemy over which you claim superiority"?

You won't. I, and the WORLD, won't let you. Get used to it.

By the way, Brazilian here.

If the USA ever tried to do that, I would fight tooth and nail against the Government, until the blood no longer flowed through my veins, and until my heart full of rage stopped beating.



And I am an American!

And I am an American!

Not to me. You assume the role of an American, but you cannot be any further away from the spirit of an American.

Not to me. You assume the role of an American, but you cannot be any further away from the spirit of an American.

Fuck you. My family has fought in every american war, since the Revolution, to Vietnam.

My Uncle won every medal the united states Army could give at least twice except for the Medal of Honor, and was shot nine times and gassed twice in WWI.

My Cousin was General George S. Patton, the 3rd Army Commander in World War Two.

My Great (however many greats) Grandfather fought in the Revolution and then in The War of 1812 at the battle of Baltimore

I am related to Marywether Lewis, of the Lewis and Clarke expedition

and hundreds of other Veterans of every war.


I come from a family of patriots, who want what is best for our country. We hate what is happening, and people like you make us sick. You don't deserve to be called an American. You are a war criminal in the making, and as previously stated by myself, I look forward to seeing your trial at the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague.

Cheers.

If the stronger power either improves the quality of life of the previous inhabitants or re-colonizes the area with a new population which enjoys a greater quality of life than the previous one, there should be no resistance. Otherwise, there should be.

Well I guess there are some standards somewhere. It would be nice if no one attacked anyone to begin with though. We really don't need nations having power trips thinking that they can attack anyone they think they can take.

People have a right to live anyway they choose even if they are having a lower quality of life then other nations. Unless they choose to be aided by others, no one deserves to take away their rights to live as they choose.

I am related to Marywether Lewis, of the Lewis and Clarke expedition

Yet you can't even spell his name (it's Meriwether Lewis, for your information). Also, even if what you say is true, I never said your family wasn't composed of patriotic Americans -- just that you are not one of them. Too bad we can't disown people anymore.

Not to me. You assume the role of an American, but you cannot be any further away from the spirit of an American.

That's because, as far as you're concerned, the Nazis were real Germans.

But, then again, you're certifiable.

Yet you can't even spell his name (it's Meriwether Lewis, for your information). Also, even if what you say is true, I never said your family wasn't composed of patriotic Americans -- just that you are not one of them. Too bad we can't disown people anymore.

oo...I'm sorry I couldn't spell an uncommon name. Regardless, it is true, and frankly I don't care what you think.


My family is quite proud of me, and until recently I planned on attending Annapolis to join the Marine Corps.

Then I did a project, and read the PATRIOT ACT, which changed my mind completely.

If the USA ever tried to do that, I would fight tooth and nail against the Government, until the blood no longer flowed through my veins, and until my heart full of rage stopped beating.



And I am an American!

Oh, I'm aware that in the dystopia Means jerks off imagining there would be even American (REAL American, unlike Means) dissidents fighting from inside to make the craziness stop. You'd help it end faster.

Oh, I'm aware that in the dystopia Means jerks off imagining there would be even American (REAL American, unlike Means) dissidents fighting from inside to make the craziness stop. You'd help it end faster.

Thank you. :)

Oh, I'm aware that in the dystopia Means jerks off imagining there would be even American (REAL American, unlike Means) dissidents fighting from inside to make the craziness stop. You'd help it end faster.

Actually, I'm sorry. By your previous posts on paedophilia, it's not dystopias you jerk off imagining...

Thank you. :)

No need to thank me for stating a fact. Could you help me out and quote my messages to Means? Poor guy seemed to think he'd get rid of me by ignoring me...

Yet you can't even spell his name (it's Meriwether Lewis, for your information). Also, even if what you say is true, I never said your family wasn't composed of patriotic Americans -- just that you are not one of them. Too bad we can't disown people anymore.

He knows that taking away the freedom of a few to protect the freedoms of the many is not the way to go. Never mind your other extreme views but argueing that taking away the rights of suspected terrorists is going to protect the freedom of everyone else is an arguement that doesn't work. Once you rid someone of one right it is very easy to take away another. How can we claim we are better then the terrorists when we treat them less then we would someone else?

Hell, normal murderers, rapists, pedos get rights no matter how disgusting they may be. Terrorists should get the same. No matter who you are you are innocent until proven guilty.

Then I did a project, and read the PATRIOT ACT, which changed my mind completely.

I don't doubt that. You were prepared to be a patriot until you saw that it would cost you something, whether is be privacy or something else. The burden of responsibility falls upon all of us to fight against terrorism any way we can, whether it be by joining the army or being civilly obedient and listening to the government. You have done neither.

I don't doubt that. You were prepared to be a patriot until you saw that it would cost you something, whether is be privacy or something else. The burden of responsibility falls upon all of us to fight against terrorism any way we can, whether it be by joining the army or being SHEEP and FORSAKING THE RIGHT TO DISSENT. You have done neither.

Fixed. Now bow down. There is no higher authority than me.

How can we claim we are better then the terrorists when we treat them less then we would someone else?

Hmm, let's see, why are we better than the terrorists? Oh, yeah, because we don't intentionally target civilians and calculate our strikes to kill as many innocents as possible. Our unwillingness to let innocent civilians die drives us to use any means whatsoever to extract information from those who plot the deaths of innocents. If that means sinking to their level, so be it. If you want to sling mud at the US, don't expect to stay clean.

I don't doubt that. You were prepared to be a patriot until you saw that it would cost you something, whether is be privacy or something else. The burden of responsibility falls upon all of us to fight against terrorism any way we can, whether it be by joining the army or being civilly obedient and listening to the government. You have done neither.

I still am a Patriot. I will stand by what this country stands for until I die: Freedom. You seem to think otherwise.

I don't doubt that. You were prepared to be a patriot until you saw that it would cost you something, whether is be privacy or something else. The burden of responsibility falls upon all of us to fight against terrorism any way we can, whether it be by joining the army or being civilly obedient and listening to the government. You have done neither.


This is the key phrase. By your logic, I should go shoot all the nuns at the local convent. The nuns are meek and terrorists may easily manipulate them. Also, they are theists, and all the terrorists who have killed people in the last few decades have done so for religious reasons. So nuns would be susceptible in that respect too.

They are an obvious weak point. Since the burden of responsibility falls upon all of us to fight against terrorism any way we can, I have no choice but to eliminate this weak point.

Thank you for showing me how to be a real American.

Hmm, let's see, why are we better than the terrorists? Oh, yeah, because we don't intentionally target civilians and calculate our strikes to kill as many innocents as possible. Our unwillingness to let innocent civilians die drives us to use any means whatsoever to extract information from those who plot the deaths of innocents. If that means sinking to their level, so be it. If you want to sling mud at the US, don't expect to stay clean.

Do whatever it takes. Just the words of a dictatorship. A free nation follows the rules it lays down of what is acceptable in the interagation and imprisoning of prisoners. A truly free nation truly treats everyone equal no matter what they are accused of. There is no limit, the rights apply to all. Justifying your actions in taking them away simply is reducing ourselves to their level. I love how conservatives claim the only reason terrorists hate us is because they hate our freedom. Like they want everyone to be oppressed. And of course the way to fight them is to reduce our freedom and they are scared of those reductions so we can catch them. Interesting contradiction. I think the terrorists will hear about this Torture Bill and smile, knowing they have struck a blow against our freedom. They have succeded. We are afraid. And we are willing to sacrifice what makes us great to get our illusion of safety.

Again I wonder when this thread first got hit with the Godwin stick
When MeansToAnEnd started talking about his Fascist Fantasy.

Ok MeansToAnEnd, answer this tough guy:

Are you willing to die for the ideals you propose? Would you go to war for Imperialist America, and even if it meant you would certainly die?

If you say yes, I will acknowlege you are completely insane.

How about "it doesn't work, it only yields false info, it wastes time and money, it is morally wrong and it is stooping to the level of your enemy, an enemy over which you claim superiority"?

So it's morally wrong to bring them to justice properly? Who are you to dictate morality? I would argue it's morally wrong to allow them to torture innocent people without fear of having the same happen to them. I don't give a shit about interrogation. And no, it doesn't only yield false info, does it sometimes? Maybe, certainly not always. I know if I was subject to torture, then subject to even more torture if my interrogaters checked out what I said and found it to be false, I'd be more than sure to get it right the first time. I'm certainly not the only one.

To claim we're not superior just because we torture them is just plain silly. We are far more intelligent, don't use suicide bombings, are more technologically advanced, have a better economy, etc. Torturing them will not reset any of that.

If you say yes, I will acknowlege you are completely insane.

I am a rational man. I am unwilling to die, period.

So it's morally wrong to bring them to justice properly? Who are you to dictate morality? I would argue it's morally wrong to allow them to torture innocent people without fear of having the same happen to them. I don't give a shit about interrogation. And no, it doesn't only yield false info, does it sometimes? Maybe, certainly not always. I know if I was subject to torture, then subject to even more torture if my interrogaters checked out what I said and found it to be false, I'd be more than sure to get it right the first time. I'm certainly not the only one.

To claim we're not superior just because we torture them is just plain silly. We are far more intelligent, don't use suicide bombings, are more technologically advanced, have a better economy, etc. Torturing them will not reset any of that.

1 - SUSPECTED terrorists. If just ONE of them happens to be innocent, yes, you stoop to their level. And MANY people in Gitmo. turned out to be innocent.

2 - Every report by every expert that ever bothered to write about the subject points out that there are quicker and more effective methods than torture.

So, be open with me: It's sadism, sheer, pure and simple, and it's not about seeing terrorists suffer, it's about seeing people suffer because SOMEONE CLAIMED they were terrorists.

I am a rational man. I am unwilling to die, period.

So that makes you only very insane and a coward, not completely insane.

err... not a threat. 1) unless he knows where Dobbsworld is and WHO dobbsworld is, who's he going to call?

Now if Dobbsworld was dumb enough to post his personal information... :rolleyes:

Hey someone got deleted recently for threatning me . . . ya know it seems like if people are going to go whining to the mods when they get pissed they can at least let the person "threatened" decide if THEY want to report it to the mods or not instead of taking it upon themselves . . .

So it's morally wrong to bring them to justice properly?

When the FUCK did torture become bringing someone to justice properly, can someone explain this "logic" to me?

When the FUCK did torture become bringing someone to justice properly, can someone explain this "logic" to me?

Oh, sorry, I missed that part, but good point, when the FUCK did torture become bringing someone to justice properly, can someone explain this "logic" to me as well?

1 - SUSPECTED terrorists. If just ONE of them happens to be innocent, yes, you stoop to their level. And MANY people in Gitmo. turned out to be innocent.

2 - Every report by every expert that ever bothered to write about the subject points out that there are quicker and more effective methods than torture.

So, be open with me: It's sadism, sheer, pure and simple, and it's not about seeing terrorists suffer, it's about seeing people suffer because SOMEONE CLAIMED they were terrorists.

1 - I do disagree with torturing suspected ones yes. Proven ones no.

2 - Every single report? By every single person? I doubt that. In any case I'm more for torturing them as punishment than for interrogation. As far as interreogation I have no problem with less sadistic practices being used in place.

In any case, I was just argueing that the person's arguement against torture was a poor one. Not that he was neccessarily wrong. At least we agree that suspected individuals shouldn't be tortured.

When the FUCK did torture become bringing someone to justice properly, can someone explain this "logic" to me?

When the "FUCK" did it not? I see no problem with achieving justice by eye for an eye punishments, so long as it's solidly proven an individual is guilty first. It does to them what they did to others, it's not unreasonable.

1 - I do disagree with torturing suspected ones yes. Proven ones no. (...)

In any case, I was just argueing that the person's arguement against torture was a poor one. Not that he was neccessarily wrong. At least we agree that suspected individuals shouldn't be tortured.


Which makes your whole point go down the proverbial drain: You know fully well that no justice system is perfect, so someone innocent is bound to fall into the psychopatic, sadistic hands of the torturer one day.

I am a rational man. I am unwilling to die, period.
Yet you are willing to let others die for your cause. You are willing to let others kill to grow your fascist state. You would promote a police state to protect your sorry ass. There is a hole in your soul that only God can fix.......may you find Him soon.

I see no problem with achieving justice by eye for an eye punishments, so long as it's solidly proven an individual is guilty first. It does to them what they did to others, it's not unreasonable.
You don't seek justice by this methodolgy.......you seek revenge, and that is a never ending process.