NationStates Jolt Archive

So? According to the pre-emptive strike advocates, the destruction of the attackers don't matter to them when they get nuclear arms.

So either they're telling the truth and the advocates should be wiped off the face of the planet before they put everyone else at risk, or they're peddling a load of feel good bullshit.

The US already has nukes, and has since WWII. We're not getting rid of ours. The main reasons, that I can see, that we don't want nukes spreading are because terrorists or rogue regimes might get their hands on them, and because we simply don't want others to have them. Challenges to power, you see.

Make of that what you will.

So? According to the pre-emptive strike advocates, the destruction of the attackers don't matter to them when they get nuclear arms.

So either they're telling the truth and the advocates should be wiped off the face of the planet before they put everyone else at risk, or they're peddling a load of feel good bullshit.
I know which one I'd guess. It's like watching little kids show off their wee-wee's, waving them at everyone in the playground.

Unlike little kids, though, there's nothing cute about it, especially how we are still standing in the mess they made as they pretend that mess doesn't even exist.

Hmm, taking out a tyrant isn't a crime. And US soldiers don't routinely go and shoot civilians for lulz. Its the mujhadeen or whatever they're called. Though Iraq seems to have been stabilizing recently, from what I've seen.

Iraq was a clusterfuck, yes, but taking out Saddam and his sons will pay off for Iraq in the future, well barring larger conflicts that will most likely affect every nation in the near future.
Bullshit.

1) Taking a tyrant most certainly is a crime if it is done by launching an unprovoked attack, an act of war against another nation, according to both US law and the international treaties that the US signed (and drafted) and which, by such signing, became US law, too. If you know different, I challenge you to prove it. Either that or realize that you can only spit out so much BS before it turns into deliberate lies.

2) Your pie-in-the-sky predictions of what will happen when the sun comes out tomorrow are not convincing.

The US already has nukes, and has since WWII. We're not getting rid of ours. The main reasons, that I can see, that we don't want nukes spreading are because terrorists or rogue regimes might get their hands on them, and because we simply don't want others to have them. Challenges to power, you see.

Make of that what you will.
What I make of it is a justification for other countries to either attack us or to undermine our government by internal interference and destroy our ability be effective in the world.

You know, like we've been doing to others, making that same argument.

What is there to deal with? Nothing but the lies and bravado of a rightwing puppet, some kid (or someone who acts like a kid) who merely parrots heroic-sounding bullshit without putting any thought of their own into it. I'm tired of these empty pissing demonstrations.

Lies and bravado? Lies no, bravado, somewhat.

And I'm tired of the endless left wing lovefests on NSG.

I'm tired of people who simply don't get that a nations military might is what earns respect on the international stage, and that superpowers do whatever the fuck they want to further their interests around the world.

Everyone in the US benefits from our meddling. To decry the very methods that have given us such prosperity is laughable.

I know which one I'd guess. It's like watching little kids show off their wee-wee's, waving them at everyone in the playground.

Unlike little kids, though, there's nothing cute about it, especially how we are still standing in the mess they made as they pretend that mess doesn't even exist.


Bullshit.

1) Taking a tyrant most certainly is a crime if it is done by launching an unprovoked attack, an act of war against another nation, according to both US law and the international treaties that the US signed (and drafted) and which, by such signing, became US law, too. If you know different, I challenge you to prove it. Either that or realize that you can only spit out so much BS before it turns into deliberate lies.

2) Your pie-in-the-sky predictions of what will happen when the sun comes out tomorrow are not convincing.

1. Laws and treaties are bullshit.
Might makes right in international relations. It always has. It always will.

2. Ha! Fine. I'd pay to see looks on many a NSGer's faces when shit starts hitting the fan hard.

And I'm tired of the endless left wing lovefests on NSG.

Then why are you still here?

I'm tired of people who simply don't get that a nations military might is what earns respect on the international stage, and that superpowers do whatever the fuck they want to further their interests around the world.

There's a certain level of irony here, but I doubt you can appreciate it.

Everyone in the US benefits from our meddling. To decry the very methods that have given us such prosperity is laughable.

And yet, what you seem to fail to understand is that not everyone in the US thinks the only people that count are only the people in the US.

What I make of it is a justification for other countries to either attack us or to undermine our government by internal interference and destroy our ability be effective in the world.

You know, like we've been doing to others, making that same argument.

They have every justification and right to do whatever the fuck they want to do!

They are sovereign countries, competing for power! It is only natural that they'll want to increase their power by eroding ours!

Its our job to stay on top, by whatever means necessary!

It isn't hard to grasp!

The world is a jungle, with every country competing for survival, while some compete for dominance. The dominant power always has challengers that must be combated and kept down as long as possible.

That is the lesson of history.

Lies and bravado? Lies no, bravado, somewhat.

And I'm tired of the endless left wing lovefests on NSG.

I'm tired of people who simply don't get that a nations military might is what earns respect on the international stage, and that superpowers do whatever the fuck they want to further their interests around the world.

Everyone in the US benefits from our meddling. To decry the very methods that have given us such prosperity is laughable.
In other words, you're tired of people not just taking your word for whatever you say, no matter how badly it conflicts with observable reality. Well, gosh, it must suck to be you then.

1. Laws and treaties are bullshit.
Might makes right in international relations. It always has. It always will.
Spoken like 6 year old.

2. Ha! Fine. I'd pay to see looks on many a NSGer's faces when shit starts hitting the fan hard.
If you really wanted that to have some impact, you'd hold your breath until it happens.

They have every justification and right to do whatever the fuck they want to do!

They are sovereign countries, competing for power! It is only natural that they'll want to increase their power by eroding ours!

Its our job to stay on top, by whatever means necessary!

It isn't hard to grasp!

The world is a jungle, with every country competing for survival, while some compete for dominance. The dominant power always has challengers that must be combated and kept down as long as possible.

That is the lesson of history.
I agree with Mur. Spoken like a six year old who gets his understanding of geo-political dynamics from too many episodes of 24 and not nearly enough understanding of the actual real world.

They have every justification and right to do whatever the fuck they want to do!

They are sovereign countries, competing for power! It is only natural that they'll want to increase their power by eroding ours!

Its our job to stay on top, by whatever means necessary!

It isn't hard to grasp!

The world is a jungle, with every country competing for survival, while some compete for dominance. The dominant power always has challengers that must be combated and kept down as long as possible.

That is the lesson of history.
No, it isn't -- unless you get all your "history" from da comix. I'm bored with you. You offer no arguments -- neither facts nor reasoning -- just a certain kind of "fest" of your own that is not fun for anyone but you.

They have every justification and right to do whatever the fuck they want to do!

You know, let me ask a very simple question here. Was Bin Laden and Al Qaeda justified in launching the terrorist attacks of September 11th? Just a yes or a no please. Were those terrorist attacks, that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents, justified?

Will you, right here right now, defend the attacks of terrorists as a justified action?

Then why are you still here?



There's a certain level of irony here, but I doubt you can appreciate it.



And yet, what you seem to fail to understand is that not everyone in the US thinks the only people that count are only the people in the US.

Dunno. NSG is a habit.

Of course other people *count*, but Americans come first.

By god we're the biggest and baddest around! We don't believe in democracy or any of that bullshit. It's all lies anyway. We're the master race and you are all unterschmen. You think to challenge us? US? WE'RE THE ALMIGHTY! YOU TRYING TO BE AS POWERFUL? WE KILL YOU!!!

If we look at it honestly, that's about what you said in a nutshell.

Ugh, we still debating this shit?

Dunno. NSG is a habit.

You know what they say, best way to break a habit is quit cold turkey.

Of course other people *count*, but Americans come first.

why?

Of course other people *count*, but Americans come first.

No, they do not.

I agree with Mur. Spoken like a six year old who gets his understanding of geo-political dynamics from too many episodes of 24 and not nearly enough understanding of the actual real world.

I've never watched an episode of 24.

I understand the world damn fine. Its you who don't. You don't have the stomach to accept the lessons of history.

No, it isn't -- unless you get all your "history" from da comix. I'm bored with you. You offer no arguments -- neither facts nor reasoning -- just a certain kind of "fest" of your own that is not fun for anyone but you.

See above.

You know, let me ask a very simple question here. Was Bin Laden and Al Qaeda justified in launching the terrorist attacks of September 11th? Just a yes or a no please. Were those terrorist attacks, that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents, justified.

Will you, right here right now, defend the actions of terrorists?

Everything can justified.

I disagree with their actions most strongly, as they killed my countrymen, but honestly, it can be justifed by mindset of Al Queda.

Our meddling in the Middle East plus their fundamentalism flamed their hatred into attacks.

Our job is, and should be to exterminate Al Queda, as revenge and a warning to others.

1. Laws and treaties are bullshit.
Might makes right in international relations. It always has. It always will.

It's that attitude that has gotten us into every major foreign policy crisis of the last 233 years that we have been involved in. And pretty much every foreign policy crisis ever.

It's an interesting thing that when you don't respect others they, you know, get upset. Bit of a problem when one's entire foreign policy just ends up upsetting people. Backlash is quite fun, after all. Just not for us.

Our meddling in the Middle East plus their fundamentalism flamed their hatred into attacks.

Our job is, and should be to exterminate Al Queda, as revenge and a warning to others.

So the solution is to meddle some more?

I disagree with their actions most strongly, as they killed my countrymen, but honestly, it can be justifed by mindset of Al Queda.

You're shifting goalposts. I didn't ask whether they thought they were justified according to their mindset. Of course they were. I asked you if their actions were justified according to yours.

Lies and bravado? Lies no, bravado, somewhat.

And I'm tired of the endless left wing lovefests on NSG.

I'm tired of people who simply don't get that a nations military might is what earns respect on the international stage, and that superpowers do whatever the fuck they want to further their interests around the world.

Everyone in the US benefits from our meddling. To decry the very methods that have given us such prosperity is laughable.

These very methods gave you rubble and three thousand dead.

If we look at it honestly, that's about what you said in a nutshell.

Oh well. Those in power fight to stay in power. Challengers are defeated until the day comes when a new power rises.

Its a cycle.

Rise. Climax. Decline. Fall. New power.

Repeat.





why?

Because they're my countrymen.

No, they do not.

Yes, they do. They're my countrymen, my extended tribe. I'd see millions of dead across the world if that would save American lives and preserve our strength and prosperity.

I wouldn't shed a tear about, either.

My family, friends, and countrymen come before everyone else.

These very methods gave you rubble and three thousand dead.

Because the war wasn't handled properly. Like I said, it was a clusterfuck.

I've never watched an episode of 24.

I understand the world damn fine. Its you who don't. You don't have the stomach to accept the lessons of history.



See above.


Oh, really? Then show us how much stomach for your version of reality you've got, and answer NA's question:

You're shifting goalposts. I didn't ask whether they thought they were justified according to their mindset. Of course they were. I asked you if their actions were justified according to yours.

If you follow your own argument, then you should support the actions of the terrorists who attacked the US as entirely justified and right BY YOUR OWN STANDARD. Not theirs. Yours -- or at least the one you claim to believe in because it's so realistic. Let's see if you really believe what you've been spouting -- or even if you understand it.

Oh well. Those in power fight to stay in power. Challengers are defeated until the day comes when a new power rises.

Its a cycle.

Rise. Climax. Decline. Fall. New power.

Repeat.

And the rise and fall of empires is measured in bodies. You see no problem with that?

Because they're my countrymen.

So non americans aren't people? Is that what you're saying?

Yes, they do. They're my countrymen, my extended tribe. I'd see millions of dead across the world if that would save American lives and preserve our strength and prosperity.

I wouldn't shed a tear about, either.

Yes yes, everybody on the internet is a cowboy.

My family, friends, and countrymen come before everyone else.
Same for me, but that doesn't mean we need to go fight because it'll preserve our power.

Let's look at the nations that had to rely on fighting to keep power.

Rome: collapsed because it over-expanded
Great Britain: Over-expanded
Soviet Union: Did not give attention to the people, collapsed.

I'm tired of people who simply don't get that a nations military might is what earns respect on the international stage, and that superpowers do whatever the fuck they want to further their interests around the world.

Its a cycle.

Rise. Climax. Decline. Fall. New power.

Repeat.

Now, I *wonder* if, by your logic, there's a correlation there. :p

(and that's assuming that everything you have said is true, which is empirically denied in a historical sense multiple times over, in that not every superpower has "fallen" totally and not every superpower does "whatever" it wants)

So the solution is to meddle some more?

To meddle 1000% times harder.

You're shifting goalposts. I didn't ask whether they thought they were justified according to their mindset. Of course they were. I asked you if their actions were justified according to yours.

Hmm.

In a sense, yes, as they are just another rival trying to undermine our power.

Oh well. Those in power fight to stay in power. Challengers are defeated until the day comes when a new power rises.

Its a cycle.

Rise. Climax. Decline. Fall. New power.

Repeat.



Because they're my countrymen.



Yes, they do. They're my countrymen, my extended tribe. I'd see millions of dead across the world if that would save American lives and preserve our strength and prosperity.

I wouldn't shed a tear about, either.

My family, friends, and countrymen come before everyone else.
I'm your countryman (well, -woman), and I would see you in prison for the rest of your life for that, if you'd ever have the balls to try to act on it.

Because the war wasn't handled properly. Like I said, it was a clusterfuck.

I referred to 9/11.

To meddle 1000% times harder.



Hmm.

In a sense, yes, as they are just another rival trying to undermine our power.
Do you envision the world as a board divided into octagons?

And the rise and fall of empires is measured in bodies. You see no problem with that?
Nope.


So non americans aren't people? Is that what you're saying?
No, they're people, but they don't concern me as much as Americans.


Yes yes, everybody on the internet is a cowboy.
So you like to say, Tex.

Oh well. Those in power fight to stay in power. Challengers are defeated until the day comes when a new power rises.

Its a cycle.

Rise. Climax. Decline. Fall. New power.

Repeat.



Because they're my countrymen.



Yes, they do. They're my countrymen, my extended tribe. I'd see millions of dead across the world if that would save American lives and preserve our strength and prosperity.

I wouldn't shed a tear about, either.

My family, friends, and countrymen come before everyone else.
Using that standard, we might as well nuke all of our enemies and call it a day.

No, they're people, but they don't concern me as much as Americans.

Okay then, let's play what if. What if there were 10 million people's lives at stake, non-Americans, and to save them, one American had to die. Would you do it?

Using that standard, we might as well nuke all of our enemies and call it a day.

Of course. Then we would be able to rename the Earth "Glassland", claim it in the name of the good old USA, and give regions cool names, like, the Valley of Mirrors.

To meddle 1000% times harder.

"The problem, as posted, is there has always been a crucial step missing in the neocon equation. Some part between "drop bombs" and "bring democracy". It's been the neocon philosophy, at a fundamental level, that democracy and peace can be brought to a nation with the clever application of high explosives. Just blow the bad bits of a country to smithereens and the good parts will grow to replace the hole.

Unfortunately, when faced with the grim reality of "gee, we've been bombing them for six months straight and they haven't become a democracy yet" the revelation is never "you know, maybe this isn't the best way to be doing this", but instead is, invariably "bomb harder!""

Trollgaard and others, know this: If you pursue this "might makes right" ideological crap, the result will be more terrorist attacks on your soil. Not by me, not by Al Qaeda. By whoever it is whose toes you stepped on. That's not even fair, as your countrymen have nothing to do with it, but it is the fact. So, if you DO care about your countrymen, pursue a more responsible policy that DOESN'T amount to "we're the übermenschen, screw everyone else", lest your countrymen die. Again, not by my hand or necessarily by Al Qaeda's, but by the victims du jour of an arrogant foreign policy that you support.

That simple.

I'm your countryman (well, -woman), and I would see you in prison for the rest of your life for that, if you'd ever have the balls to try to act on it.

Well, I would see you deported, if I had my way, so we're even!

Trollgaard and others, know this: If you pursue this "might makes right" ideological crap, the result will be more terrorist attacks on your soil. Not by me, not by Al Qaeda. By whoever it is whose toes you stepped on. That's not even fair, as your countrymen have nothing to do with it, but it is the fact. So, if you DO care about your countrymen, pursue a more responsible policy that DOESN'T amount to "we're the übermenschen, screw everyone else", lest your countrymen die. Again, not by my hand or necessarily by Al Qaeda's, but by the victims du jour of an arrogant foreign policy that you support.

That simple.

You know, I don't mind his "ideological crap" really. And you want to know why? Because there's a term for this angry internet warrior ranting. And that term is "impotent rage".

And it's amusing as fuck.

And thus, the thread descends into madness. Not that I didn't expect such, but still.

You know, I don't mind his "ideological crap" really. And you want to know why? Because there's a term for this angry internet warrior ranting. And that term is "impotent rage".

And it's amusing as fuck.

Problem is it became quite potent back when Bush was the president.

"The problem, as posted, is there has always been a crucial step missing in the neocon equation. Some part between "drop bombs" and "bring democracy". It's been the neocon philosophy, at a fundamental level, that democracy and peace can be brought to a nation with the clever application of high explosives.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c288/Goliath07/Democracy-Bomb-1.jpg

If only it were that easy...

Well, I would see you deported, if I had my way, so we're even!
Ah, so when you say you care about Americans, you are lying. You only care about Americans who are like you -- warmongering chickenhawks who enjoy talking hate about others.

Now, I *wonder* if, by your logic, there's a correlation there. :p

(and that's assuming that everything you have said is true, which is empirically denied in a historical sense multiple times over, in that not every superpower has "fallen" totally and not every superpower does "whatever" it wants)

Oh yes, of course there is. I fully understand and accept that our actions cause reactions, and that one day we will fall from power. Its our job to cling to power as long as we can.

Using that standard, we might as well nuke all of our enemies and call it a day. Radiation and all that jazz is bad, though.

Trollgaard and others, know this: If you pursue this "might makes right" ideological crap, the result will be more terrorist attacks on your soil. Not by me, not by Al Qaeda. By whoever it is whose toes you stepped on. That's not even fair, as your countrymen have nothing to do with it, but it is the fact. So, if you DO care about your countrymen, pursue a more responsible policy that DOESN'T amount to "we're the übermenschen, screw everyone else", lest your countrymen die. Again, not by my hand or necessarily by Al Qaeda's, but by the victims du jour of an arrogant foreign policy that you support.

That simple.

As I said, I'm sure we'll fall one day. That knowledge should make us fight all the harder to stave off that day as long as possible.

"The problem, as posted, is there has always been a crucial step missing in the neocon equation. Some part between "drop bombs" and "bring democracy". It's been the neocon philosophy, at a fundamental level, that democracy and peace can be brought to a nation with the clever application of high explosives. Just blow the bad bits of a country to smithereens and the good parts will grow to replace the hole.

Unfortunately, when faced with the grim reality of "gee, we've been bombing them for six months straight and they haven't become a democracy yet" the revelation is never "you know, maybe this isn't the best way to be doing this", but instead is, invariably "bomb harder!""
Can you imagine how bad they are in bed with that mindset?

Can you imagine how bad they are in bed with that mindset?

I used to be in bed with that mindset for quite a while. Then I woke up and realized how damn ugly it was.

Now, that doesn't mean I'm all "Peace and love, weee!", but I understand if one really wants to change a region, force is the last resort.

Ah, so when you say you care about Americans, you are lying. You only care about Americans who are like you -- warmongering chickenhawks who enjoy talking hate about others.

I care about correct thinking Americans, yes.

I also do care about all Americans, but those with polar opposite views are infuriating at times. It stretches my already thin compassion.

Ah, so when you say you care about Americans, you are lying.

You expected different?

You only care about Americans who are like you -- warmongering chickenhawks who enjoy talking hate about others.

No Mur, you missed a step. warmongering chickenhawks who enjoy talking hate about others, in the comforts of their own homes, shrouded in the protection of internet anonymity, free to say things they'd never have the courage to say in a place where they may be held accountable for their views. They're not "politically savvy" they're not "historians", they're not "open to the realities of the world", or whatever it is they try to tell themselves (and others) to try to convince themselves (and others) that their positions come from a place of rationality and intelligence, and not fear and bigotry. They're not any of that.

They're just cowards.

As I said, I'm sure we'll fall one day. That knowledge should make us fight all the harder to stave off that day as long as possible.

Again, the way you support is the wrong way. It's the way Germany used from 1933 to 1945, and we all know how that turned out. Yes, I brought that up. Because it's pertinent.

Oh yes, of course there is. I fully understand and accept that our actions cause reactions[...].

Oh, good! Maybe we should stop pursuing an inflammatory foreign policy (instead of what you seem to suggest) and give rise to less backlash, then?

Its our job to cling to power as long as we can.

Oookay...

So, to *keep* power, we will give rise to reactions by opposing forces, that lead to an *end* of our power? Seems rather backwards, no? A more logical approach might be to, you know, prevent aggressive reactions by giving little that can lead to backlash?

Because there is really a jump in your chain of logic and it's slightly frightening that you, as well as many of the conservatives who just got out of power, have trouble seeing it...

Well, I would see you deported, if I had my way, so we're even!

The difference being, you would have actually committed a crime deserving of the punishment.

You're not remotely even. In fact, I'd wager you're quite unbalanced.

You know, I don't mind his "ideological crap" really. And you want to know why? Because there's a term for this angry internet warrior ranting. And that term is "impotent rage".

And it's amusing as fuck.

We'll see who's laughing in oh, we'll guesstimate 20 years.

I care about correct thinking Americans, yes.

So... You're a very selfless person?

As I said, I'm sure we'll fall one day. That knowledge should make us fight all the harder to stave off that day as long as possible.
You have been told that doing more of what you propose only brings about the fall of a nation FASTER. Not "stave it off." HASTEN it. And yet you cannot wrap your brain around it. Neo hit the nail on the head.

Someone in a conversation I had once acted out the mindset of "not getting it" as a person banging themselves in the head over and over with a rock and saying, over and over, "Ow, that hurts. Ow, that hurts. Ow, that hurts," etc. That's an image of you.

We'll see who's laughing in oh, we'll guesstimate 20 years.

I'm sure you need to believe that.

I care about correct thinking Americans, yes.

I also do care about all Americans, but those with polar opposite views are infuriating at times. It stretches my already thin compassion.

Although I am socially and economically conservative, I find your mindset appalling. Although I have disagreed with Muravyets on nearly everything under the sun, I have never felt a little joy when something bad happens to Murv or anyone else on this forum. I don't know how they feel about me, but I consider them to be friends. If you want to be a true American, realize that while you think you are correct and you might even be sometimes, you shouldn't let politics get in the way of how you treat your fellow citizens.

Oh, good! Maybe we should stop pursuing an inflammatory foreign policy (instead of what you seem to suggest) and give rise to less backlash, then?



Oookay...

So, to *keep* power, we will give rise to reactions by opposing forces, that lead to an *end* of our power? Seems rather backwards, no? A more logical approach might be to, you know, prevent aggressive reactions by giving little that can lead to backlash?

Because there is really a jump in your chain of logic and it's slightly frightening that you, as well as many of the conservatives who just got out of power, have trouble seeing it...

I'm well past conservative on foreign policy. Well, past it.

Yes, we should prevent backlash. By leaving our enemies in no condition to respond. Ruthlessness and boldness. Blood and iron.


And thus, the thread descends into madness. Not that I didn't expect such, but still.

The entire world is mad, my friend.

Radiation and all that jazz is bad, though.

Oh pish posh. We have oceans on either side of us to keep the nasty radiation away.

Yes, we should prevent backlash. By leaving our enemies in no condition to respond. Ruthlessness and boldness. Blood and iron.

Yeah, I think I'll stop trying now. It's clearly not worth it.

I care about correct thinking Americans, yes.
That comment is just too assinine for words.

I also do care about all Americans, but those with polar opposite views are infuriating at times. It stretches my already thin compassion.
No, seriously, do not put yourself out like that on our behalf. Really, we don't want you to strain yourself. Please.


You expected different?

Of course not. I just like throwing it at them.

No Mur, you missed a step. warmongering chickenhawks who enjoy talking hate about others, in the comforts of their own homes, shrouded in the protection of internet anonymity, free to say things they'd never have the courage to say in a place where they may be held accountable for their views. They're not "politically savvy" they're not "historians", they're not "open to the realities of the world", or whatever it is they try to tell themselves (and others) to try to convince themselves (and others) that their positions come from a place of rationality and intelligence, and not fear and bigotry. They're not any of that.

They're just cowards.
You don't have to tell me. I have a lot of other words to describe them, too, but I don't want to start flames.

You have been told that doing more of what you propose only brings about the fall of a nation FASTER. Not "stave it off." HASTEN it. And yet you cannot wrap your brain around it. Neo hit the nail on the head.

Someone in a conversation I had once acted out the mindset of "not getting it" as a person banging themselves in the head over and over with a rock and saying, over and over, "Ow, that hurts. Ow, that hurts. Ow, that hurts," etc. That's an image of you.

It doesn't have to. That's the whole point of doing what we're doing 1000 times harder.

I'm sure you need to believe that.

I believe that you believe I need to believe.

We'll see who's laughing in oh, we'll guesstimate 20 years.

Me.

Me, me, me, me, me.

Not you.

Me.

Yes, we should prevent backlash. By leaving our enemies in no condition to respond. Ruthlessness and boldness. Blood and iron.

And then the nuke blew up New York due to the fact that said ruthlessness created backlash. Pity, I liked the restaurant on 57th and 8th.

That comment is just too assinine for words.

It's people like him that make me embarassed to be a conservative sometimes.

A
And we'll always have hatred directed against, no matter what we do. Better to give them actual reasons to hate, and better yet, fear us.

This is sort of like saying we'll all die in the end, so it's better to play Russian Roulette, and, indeed, to make sure the gun is loaded with as many bullets as it can fit!

This is sort of like saying we'll all die in the end, so it's better to play Russian Roulette, and, indeed, to make sure the gun is loaded with as many bullets as it can fit!

Nice move!

And then the nuke blew up New York due to the fact that said ruthlessness created backlash. Pity, I liked the restaurant on 57th and 8th.

And then our nukes blow up every major city in the middle east.

What then?

And then our nukes blow up every major city in the middle east.

What then?

Then everyone has fucking died, and there is no real victory.

You understand that the terrorists want us to kill them, right? They want to die, because they think it'll get them 72 virgins.

And then our nukes blow up every major city in the middle east.

What then?

what then? Then tens of millions of innocent people die. But you knew that, of course, didn't you, Mr. Internet Tough Guy?

And then our nukes blow up every major city in the middle east.

What then?

Then Washington, Los Angeles, Boston and others follow. And then America is a nuclear wasteland and China has the world for itself.

Congratulations, you just crashed your empire into the ground.

what then? Then tens of millions of innocent people die. But you knew that, of course, didn't you, Mr. Internet Tough Guy?

Something tells me that, unfortunately, he didn't honestly think about it.

Then Washington, Los Angeles, Boston and others follow. And then America is a nuclear wasteland and China has the world for itself.

Congratulations, you just crashed your empire into the ground.

Not to mention that the radiation would probably spread into China, which is close proximity to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

So really, not just the United States falls, but the world.

Then Washington, Los Angeles, Boston and others follow. And then America is a nuclear wasteland and China has the world for itself.

Congratulations, you just crashed your empire into the ground.

Well, maybe.

Unless China was nuked, too.

Something tells me that, unfortunately, he didn't honestly think about it.

No. He does. He wants to pretend that he doesn't, because I guess that being that way on the internet makes you cool, or something.

But he does.

We'll see who's laughing in oh, we'll guesstimate 20 years.
I'll take that bet.


I'm sure you need to believe that.
Well, yeah. I mean, it's not like he can rely on past or present reality.


I'm well past conservative on foreign policy. Well, past it.

Yes, we should prevent backlash. By leaving our enemies in no condition to respond. Ruthlessness and boldness. Blood and iron.
Okay, that's it. I've had enough. The word I was not going to use before is "wanker." You're just wanking off, just masturbating all over this thread with this bullshit. Zip it up, Peckerwood -- nobody's impressed.


The entire world is mad, my friend.
No, not the world...

It doesn't have to. That's the whole point of doing what we're doing 1000 times harder.

Oh, forget the bet about who'll be laughing 20 years from now. I'm laughing right now, watching you hit yourself in the head with that rock over and over.

Not to mention that the radiation would probably spread into China, which is close proximity to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

So really, not just the United States falls, but the world.

Well, actually, with Europe falling itself (proximity) and Brazil not taking much of the brunt... The new axis of power would be Brazil, Japan and Australia.

No. He does. He wants to pretend that he doesn't, because I guess that being that way on the internet makes you cool, or something.

But he does.

Being cool has nothing to do with it.

We get nuked, what do we do?

Sit back and cry?

No! We strike back harder than ever.

Well, yeah. I mean, it's not like he can rely on past or present reality.

True. I mean, when the past doesn't validate your theory, and the present doesn't validate your theory, your only hope is to pray that somehow, somehow you'll be proven right, eventually.

The only other alternative is to actually consider you might be wrong, and re-evaluate your thinking. Well fuck that. BOMB HARDER!

Well, maybe.

Unless China was nuked, too.

Brazil would become the superpower.

And trust me, if you DARED to strike here, the Arabs and the Chinese would be the LEAST of your worries.

Being cool has nothing to do with it.

I'm sure you think saying that makes you seem even cooler.

Well, actually, with Europe falling itself (proximity) and Brazil not taking much of the brunt... The new axis of power would be Brazil, Japan and Australia.

Yeah, that's true.

Of course, the odds of Japan escaping Chinese nuclear missiles is highly unlikely, considering the two nations' rivalry.

I'll take that bet.



Well, yeah. I mean, it's not like he can rely on past or present reality.



Okay, that's it. I've had enough. The word I was not going to use before is "wanker." You're just wanking off, just masturbating all over this thread with this bullshit. Zip it up, Peckerwood -- nobody's impressed.


No, not the world...


Oh, forget the bet about who'll be laughing 20 years from now. I'm laughing right now, watching you hit yourself in the head with that rock over and over.

Oh, just keep on laughing! Just keep on laughing!

Being cool has nothing to do with it.

We get nuked, what do we do?

Sit back and cry?

No! We strike back harder than ever.

And then they strike back harder than ever.

Don't you understand? This is exactly what the US and the USSR tried to prevent (Thank God they were successful) over a span of nearly half a century!

It's called Mutually Assured Destruction. Nobody wins, everyone dies, the world turns to ashes.

I'm sure you think saying that makes you seem even cooler.

I'm sure you think that, Rico Suave.

Brazil would become the superpower.

And trust me, if you DARED to strike here, the Arabs and the Chinese would be the LEAST of your worries.

Oh please. Will you stop inhaling from the nationalist hookah for a moment? I don't agree with Trollgaard even remotely, but the only thing dumber than his prick-waving is that he goads you into your own unique brand of it. Come on.

Is it National Feed the Obvious Troll Day and nobody told me?

Et tu, NA?

And then they strike back harder than ever.

Don't you understand? This is exactly what the US and the USSR tried to prevent (Thank God they were successful) over a span of nearly half a century!

It's called Mutually Assured Destruction. Nobody wins, everyone dies, the world turns to ashes.

Doubtful. Would Russia nuke us if say, Kabul was nuked, for example?

Oh please. Will you stop inhaling from the nationalist hookah for a moment? I don't agree with Trollgaard even remotely, but the only thing dumber than his prick-waving is that he goads you into your own unique brand of it. Come on.

I'm sorry, but to lighten the mood, I always found the phrase "prick-waving" to be very funny. Just the idea of some douche waving his pecker around always gives me a chuckle.

It's people like him that make me embarassed to be a conservative sometimes.
He's not a conservative. He's a troll. He's come close to admitting as much in this thread. Don't concern yourself with him.

As you said, you and I disagree on most everything but one thing we do have in common is that we can see reality and take reality seriously. What's so annoying about his playacting is that it is just playacting, but it's about something so serious.

Is it National Feed the Obvious Troll Day and nobody told me?

Et tu, NA?

I told you, impotent rage amuses me.

Doubtful. Would Russia nuke us if say, Kabul was nuked, for example?

Someone would, it doesn't matter who. Either way, we all die.

I'm sorry, but to lighten the mood, I always found the phrase "prick-waving" to be very funny. Just the idea of some douche waving his pecker around always gives me a chuckle.

Hey, don't knock it til you've tried it.

Brazil would become the superpower.

And trust me, if you DARED to strike here, the Arabs and the Chinese would be the LEAST of your worries.

*fights back laughter*

And why, pray tell, should we fear, Brazil?

Oh please. Will you stop inhaling from the nationalist hookah for a moment? I don't agree with Trollgaard even remotely, but the only thing dumber than his prick-waving is that he goads you into your own unique brand of it. Come on.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about the abilities of my country. I'm talking about mine own.

Doubtful. Would Russia nuke us if say, Kabul was nuked, for example?

um...yes. Probably. Kabul is about a mere 400 miles from the Russian border and sovereign nations REALLY don't like it when you start dropping nukes in their backyard, well within the range of being effected by fallout. Not to mention the old cold war era mentality defense systems that target, lock, and arm if they see anything that even looks like a nuclear launch.

*fights back laughter*

And why, pray tell, should we fear, Brazil?

You shouldn't.

You should fear ME if Brazil were ever attacked.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about the abilities of my country. I'm talking about mine own.

Which makes your machismo all the more sad. Rise above, man. He's a troll. It's in his bleeding NAME.

Is it National Feed the Obvious Troll Day and nobody told me?

Et tu, NA?

And who the FUCK is trolling?!

Yeah, Intangelon is right. Although I suspected trolling from the beginning, I thought it would be fun to give it a try.

It's been fun, Trollgaard. See you in the locked threads area.

You shouldn't.

You should fear ME if Brazil were ever attacked.

Are you the Brazilian Chuck Norris?

But seriously, why would Brazil be attacked?

I told you, impotent rage amuses me.

Fair enough. At least you can't be accused of troll-baiting. TG baits himself.


*waits for any attempt to make that last bit into an innuendo*

And who the FUCK is trolling?!

You.

True. I mean, when the past doesn't validate your theory, and the present doesn't validate your theory, your only hope is to pray that somehow, somehow you'll be proven right, eventually.

The only other alternative is to actually consider you might be wrong, and re-evaluate your thinking. Well fuck that. BOMB HARDER!
"Ow, that hurts. Ow, that hurts. Ow, that hurts..."

And who the FUCK is trolling?!

Shit fire and save matches, son -- you are. Thing is, even if you DO genuinely subscribe to your nonsense, you present it so poorly that it still reeks of under-bridge.

Fair enough. At least you can't be accused of troll-baiting. TG baits himself.


*waits for any attempt to make that last bit into an innuendo*

it doesn't count when you do it yourself.

Are you the Brazilian Chuck Norris?

No.

And neither is Bin Laden Saudi Arabia's.

Oh, just keep on laughing! Just keep on laughing!
Keep talking and I will.

You.

Bullshit!

You find my imperialistic views disturbing, so you call me a troll.

This thread is fast deteriorating into flaming.

While its open I want to say that the US should act more like Assyria. Yes, it eventually fell, BUT that is the fate of all nations and empires. Though some don't fall as hard.

it doesn't count when you do it yourself.

Tell that to the sock.

True. I mean, when the past doesn't validate your theory, and the present doesn't validate your theory, your only hope is to pray that somehow, somehow you'll be proven right, eventually.

The only other alternative is to actually consider you might be wrong, and re-evaluate your thinking. Well fuck that. BOMB HARDER!

You obviously are no student of history. Nations and empires rise and fall. That's a fact.

Bullshit!

You find my imperialistic views disturbing, so you call me a troll.

This thread is fast deteriorating into flaming.

While its open I want to say that the US should act more like Assyria. Yes, it eventually fell, BUT that is the fate of all nations and empires. Though some don't fall as hard.

Said the pot to the kettle.

Bullshit!

You find my imperialistic views disturbing, so you call me a troll.

This thread is fast deteriorating into flaming.

While its open I want to say that the US should act more like Assyria. Yes, it eventually fell, BUT that is the fate of all nations and empires. Though some don't fall as hard.

I don't find your imperialistic views disturbing. Indeed, I find them quite amusing.

I also find them pitiful, baseless, misguided, impotent, useless, and a slew of other adjectives.

Imperialism is bullshit. Plain and simple. It's what Germany did from 1933 to 1945.

Said the pot to the kettle.

This time I'm not even flaming him, so it's really "said the pot to the sun".

"The problem, as posted, is there has always been a crucial step missing in the neocon equation. Some part between "drop bombs" and "bring democracy". It's been the neocon philosophy, at a fundamental level, that democracy and peace can be brought to a nation with the clever application of high explosives. Just blow the bad bits of a country to smithereens and the good parts will grow to replace the hole.

Unfortunately, when faced with the grim reality of "gee, we've been bombing them for six months straight and they haven't become a democracy yet" the revelation is never "you know, maybe this isn't the best way to be doing this", but instead is, invariably "bomb harder!""

The Neocon philosophy is more along the lines of you remove all the oppressors(with explosives), then you have a oppressorsless society that naturally becomes a democracy.

The problem arises that in reality, you remove all the oppressors and people just see job opening at the top of the ladder.
Democracy building works great in theory.

You obviously are no student of history.

And now you will try to convince us you are.

Bullshit!

You find my imperialistic views disturbing, so you call me a troll.

This thread is fast deteriorating into flaming.

While its open I want to say that the US should act more like Assyria. Yes, it eventually fell, BUT that is the fate of all nations and empires. Though some don't fall as hard.

Why not pick a more modern example, like Nazi Germany?

You obviously are no student of history. Nations and empires rise and fall. That's a fact.
So do hemlines. But bullshit is a constant. You prove that.

I'm tired of you. I'm going to wash my hair and go to bed. I expect this offensive waste of a good topic to be locked by morning.

So do hemlines. But bullshit is a constant. You prove that.

I'm tired of you. I'm going to wash my hair and go to bed. I expect this offensive waste of a good topic to be locked by morning.

Have a good night, Murav!

The Neocon philosophy is more along the lines of you remove all the oppressors(with explosives), then you have a oppressorsless society that naturally becomes a democracy.

The problem arises that in reality, you remove all the oppressors and people just see job opening at the top of the ladder.

I'm not a neocon. I don't give a damn about democracy abroad. I care about keeping the US on top of the heap by knocking everyone else down.

I'm not a neocon. I don't give a damn about democracy abroad. I care about keeping the US on top of the heap by knocking everyone else down.

I like knocking down bowling pins. You should give that a try. Much less controversial.

Although, I will say, the one good thing about MAD is that it pretty much prevents people like Trollgaard from doing what they advocate. It has been the official policy of the US military to conform to a doctrine called "launch on warning". Russia had, and has, a similar policy. The theory is, if you see a nuclear attack that could be directed at you, launch. Don't risk that the attack will neutralize your capacities. If it looks like you're being nuked, launch.

Would russia care? Damn fucking right they would. As I said, Kabul is a mere 400 miles away from Russia. Any ICBM track to Kabul would either go over or towards Russia. The minute that the Russian defense sattelite network picks up what looks like a nuclear missle plume coming from the US and towards Russia, they have target locks on every single major US city and military installation.

At that point we're lucky, we're damned lucky if there aren't dozens of nuclear weapons headed our way before they have a chance to realize we weren't aiming at them, we were aiming next to them.

And even if we got that lucky, we'd have to be a whole hell of a lot more lucky if Russia doesn't decide to detonate a bomb or two 400 miles off the coast of California, just to see how much we like it.

At that point we're lucky, we're damned lucky if there aren't dozens of nuclear weapons headed our way before they have a chance to realize we weren't aiming at them, we were aiming next to them.

Those have fail-safes. What we have to worry about is the Doomsday Device. Balthorium-G has a radioactive half-life of a thousand years!

I'm not a neocon. I don't give a damn about democracy abroad. I care about keeping the US on top of the heap by knocking everyone else down.

I study the nature of reality itself.

And reality couldn't care less about your cares, your wants or your beliefs. The reality is, you're wrong. The reality is, imperialism is baseless. And the reality is, you so far have not argued like someone who knows what they are talking about.

I study the nature of reality itself.

And reality couldn't care less about your cares, your wants or your beliefs. The reality is, you're wrong. The reality is, imperialism is baseless. And the reality is, you so far have not argued like someone who knows what they are talking about.

Obviously you fail, as you can't realize that being nice doesn't work in international politics. For the strong nations, anyways. And it only buys the weak nations time.

Those have fail-safes.

Yes and no. While true we can remote deactivate nuclear missiles now, it's more a matter of time. This isn't the cold war anymore, it's not about Russia launching ICBMs from Siberia and we get to watch them slowly track across the arctic, giving us time for the red phone to ring.

They get launched out of submarines, and are in US airspace in minutes.

Obviously you fail, as you can't realize that being nice doesn't work in international politics. For the strong nations, anyways. And it only buys the weak nations time.

Your theory worked in 2009 B.C., as weak nations could not respond back.

This is 2009 A.D. There's such thing as nukes.

Obviously you fail, as you can't realize that being nice doesn't work in international politics. For the strong nations, anyways. And it only buys the weak nations time.

I kind of lost my ability to take someone who claims to understand international politics seriously after he questioned if Russia would really care if we dropped a nuclear bomb 400 miles from their border.

I kind of lost my ability to take someone who claims to understand international politics seriously after he questioned if Russia would really care if we dropped a nuclear bomb 400 miles from their border.

You haven't taken me seriously, ever, so I don't give a damn!

I kind of lost my ability to take someone who claims to understand international politics seriously after he questioned if Russia would really care if we dropped a nuclear bomb 400 miles from their border.

Yeah. Someone request a lock on this thread.

You haven't taken me seriously, ever, so I don't give a damn!

yeah you so don't give a damn that you keep replying to me.

You tried to argue with us that you understand international politics, yet you appear so fundamentally dense as to actual realistic conditions of the world that you felt the need to state that you didn't think Russia would mind if we nuked a neighboring country.

The fact is, there are times when someone claims to have a particular insight in a topic, then goes on to state something that can only be described as so profoundly and unmistakeably ignorant that not only does it make it painfully obvious that they don't understand the topic, it calls into question their ability to dress themselves. Tonight was that night for you.

yeah you so don't give a damn that you keep replying to me.

You tried to argue with us that you understand international politics, yet you appear so fundamentally dense as to actual realistic conditions of the world that you felt the need to state that you didn't think Russia would mind if we nuked a neighboring country.

The fact is, there are times when someone claims to have a particular insight in a topic, then goes on to state something that can only be described as so profoundly and unmistakeably ignorant that not only does it make it painfully obvious that they don't understand the topic, it calls into question their ability to dress themselves. Tonight was that night for you.

But would Russia respond to the nuking of Kabul? ]

Let them know that Kabul (or any other city) is being nuked in retaliation for the hypothetical nuking of a US city.

Of course they'd be concerned, but would they respond if they new that they weren't the target?

But would Russia respond to the nuking of Kabul? ]

Let them know that Kabul (or any other city) is being nuked in retaliation for the hypothetical nuking of a US city.

Of course they'd be concerned, but would they respond if they new that they weren't the target?

Ok, let's make this simple.

One nukes flies, all nukes flies, All life on Earth = fucked.

Ok, let's make this simple.

One nukes flies, all nukes flies, All life on Earth = fucked.

I'm sorry, but could you dumb that down a little bit?

I'm sorry, but could you dumb that down a little bit?

Nukes = Bad.

:D

But would Russia respond to the nuking of Kabul? ]

Let them know that Kabul (or any other city) is being nuked in retaliation for the hypothetical nuking of a US city.

Of course they'd be concerned, but would they respond if they new that they weren't the target?

....yes.

Do you think MAD is sandbox play fights? are you under the impression that if we ask nice they won't mind? Do you really think that major nuclear powers are going to accept bombs going off next to their border because we pinky swore that we don't mean to hurt them?

Ok, let's make this simple.

One nukes flies, all nukes flies, All life on Earth = fucked.

That's the crux of it, Wilgrove!

If Russia knows they aren't the target, would they still launch knowing it would mean their ruin?

That's the crux of it, Wilgrove!

If Russia knows they aren't the target, would they still launch knowing it would mean their ruin?

Hell yea they would launch. EVERYONE would launch, despite where the first missile was heading.

....yes.

Do you think MAD is sandbox play fights? are you under the impression that if we ask nice they won't mind? Do you really think that major nuclear powers are going to accept bombs going off next to their border because we pinky swore that we don't mean to hurt them?

Doesn't hurt to ask. :p

....yes.

Do you think MAD is sandbox play fights? are you under the impression that if we ask nice they won't mind? Do you really think that major nuclear powers are going to accept bombs going off next to their border because we pinky swore that we don't mean to hurt them?

"But, in Command & Conquer, you can do that!"

I expect that to be Trollgaard's next arguing point.

Command & Conquer is a fine series of games by the way.

"But, in Command & Conquer, you can do that!"

I expect that to be Trollgaard's next arguing point.

Command & Conquer is a fine series of games by the way.

You know what game I want to try? I think it's called Defcon.

"But, in Command & Conquer, you can do that!"

I expect that to be Trollgaard's next arguing point.

Command & Conquer is a fine series of games by the way.

Never played those games. Nice thinly veiled flame, btw!
Great job!

You haven't taken me seriously, ever, so I don't give a damn!

Why should anyone? And if you don't give a damn, why keep posting?

Never played those games. Nice thinly veiled flame, btw!
Great job!

Take it to Moderation. Oh, wait, you won't. Because you know you're wrong.

Predicting your next line of argument given all previous lines is hardly a flame. Sorry.

That's the crux of it, Wilgrove!

If Russia knows they aren't the target, would they still launch knowing it would mean their ruin?

The question isn't "would russia be willing to respond to an attack that they know is not directed at them, even if they know they'd be obliterated?" the question is "is America willing to launch that first attack, knowing that they will be destroyed if they do?"

You seem to be under the impression that nuclear bombs are just big firecrackers. They're not. They're big explosions, with big radioactive fallout that is very capable of traveling several hundred miles and doesn't give a fuck about national borders. They're also big explosions, with big radioactive fallout, that cause civilian causalities on such an unprecedented scale that their use demonstrates that any national leader so callous and crazy as to actually be willing to use them means that he's willing to use them against your country, and your civilians.

In which case that whole uber realist attitude of yours dictates that you remove this threat, before he comes after you.

The whole idea about nuclear weapons is the theory that if you are so depraved, so callous, so utterly removed from your humanity that you are willing to use them against anybody, then you are willing to use them against me or my neighbors. And I can not allow that threat to exist.

That's why MAD is so brilliant. People fall into two catagories, roughly. Humanists and sadists. Humanists won't want nuclear weapons used because of the mass casualties they'd inflict. sadists don't care about the casualties, they just care about their own. But "their own" also gets blown away in the nuclear obliteration that follows the first bomb.

Obviously you fail, as you can't realize that being nice doesn't work in international politics. For the strong nations, anyways. And it only buys the weak nations time.

And the dickwaving you propose in international politics results in 9/11 or in atomic bombs falling on your cities.

That simple.

Which is of course what people have been saying this entire time, and why positions like Trollgaard's are so nonsensical. his whole position seems to be "kill them before they kill you, and make them fear you so much that they won't think of attacking you back".

The problem with that, despite the massive humanitarian problem, is that it just doesn't fucking work. Forget arguing humanity, it doesn't work with people like this that have none. Argue practicality. It's simply not practical to try to keep everyone down all at once. We can't. We just can't. Those nukes? Great levelers. And the more you try to push, and control, and dominate, and threaten, and destroy, the more the other people who think just like you do begin to consider that pushing that little red button might just be the only option.

You become the tyrant? Let's not forget what history has done to tyrants. If your goal is to survive, forget all the happy hippy "let's all hold hands and sing" bullshit, but if your goal is survival? Then you learn that when there are societies that can and will destroy you if you give them reason to do so, peaceful coexistence is the only long term strategy. The only one.

It's that or death. Your death. And your loved ones. And your family. And everyone you've ever known.

All dead.

Which is of course what people have been saying this entire time, and why positions like Trollgaard's are so nonsensical. his whole position seems to be "kill them before they kill you, and make them fear you so much that they won't think of attacking you back".

The problem with that, despite the massive humanitarian problem, is that it just doesn't fucking work. Forget arguing humanity, it doesn't work with people like this that have none. Argue practicality. It's simply not practical to try to keep everyone down all at once. We can't. We just can't. Those nukes? Great levelers. And the more you try to push, and control, and dominate, and threaten, and destroy, the more the other people who think just like you do begin to consider that pushing that little red button might just be the only option.

You become the tyrant? Let's not forget what history has done to tyrants. If your goal is to survive, forget all the happy hippy "let's all hold hands and sing" bullshit, but if your goal is survival? Then you learn that when there are societies that can and will destroy you if you give them reason to do so, peaceful coexistence is the only long term strategy. The only one.

It's that or death. Your death. And your loved ones. And your family. And everyone you've ever known.

All dead.

No, we can't keep everyone down all at once. That's why you use intimidation and play potential rivals against one another.

The US no longer looks for survival, but dominance, and dominance is not for those with weak constitutions.

Which is of course what people have been saying this entire time, and why positions like Trollgaard's are so nonsensical. his whole position seems to be "kill them before they kill you, and make them fear you so much that they won't think of attacking you back".

The problem with that, despite the massive humanitarian problem, is that it just doesn't fucking work. Forget arguing humanity, it doesn't work with people like this that have none. Argue practicality. It's simply not practical to try to keep everyone down all at once. We can't. We just can't. Those nukes? Great levelers. And the more you try to push, and control, and dominate, and threaten, and destroy, the more the other people who think just like you do begin to consider that pushing that little red button might just be the only option.

You become the tyrant? Let's not forget what history has done to tyrants. If your goal is to survive, forget all the happy hippy "let's all hold hands and sing" bullshit, but if your goal is survival? Then you learn that when there are societies that can and will destroy you if you give them reason to do so, peaceful coexistence is the only long term strategy. The only one.
Konjiki Ashisogi Jizou
It's that or death. Your death. And your loved ones. And your family. And everyone you've ever known.

All dead.

>.>

*Adds "Konjiki Ashisogi Jizou" to the quote, in white.*

No, we can't keep everyone down all at once. That's why you use intimidation and play potential rivals against one another.

The US no longer looks for survival, but dominance, and dominance is not for those with weak constitutions.

If the US looks for dominance like you propose, it will lose survival.

That simple.

If the US looks for dominance like you propose, it will lose survival.

That simple.

That is the fate of everyone superpower. It is a fate that must be accepted, and yet postponed for as long as possible.

No, we can't keep everyone down all at once. That's why you use intimidation and play potential rivals against one another.

The US no longer looks for survival, but dominance, and dominance is not for those with weak constitutions.

and what a great job we're doing too, I mean just look at Iraq....

....

Well surely the Taliban fear us.....

Afghanistan....?

That is the fate of everyone superpower. It is a fate that must be accepted, and yet postponed for as long as possible.

And it won't be postponed if what you propose ever comes to pass.

Again, that simple.

And it won't be postponed if what you propose ever comes to pass.

Again, that simple.

Wouldn't it actually be sped up?

No, we can't keep everyone down all at once. That's why you use intimidation and play potential rivals against one another.

It's cute that you seem to think that world leaders have the intelligence of children. Or perhaps puppets to be made to dance for amusement. This is the problem of the uber national. The presumption that we're great and everyone else is stupid. .

The US no longer looks for survival, but dominance, and dominance is not for those with weak constitutions.

See, hedgemonic stability theory was a great idea, until...say...1945. After that, not so much. When the nations you try to assert dominance over are capable of bringing you to your knees if you push them far enough, hedgemonic stability theory tends to go out the fucking window.

or as was said above, if you try to get dominance, you lose survival. You can't try to dominate nations that can destroy you.

and what a great job we're doing too, I mean just look at Iraq....

....

Well surely the Taliban fear us.....

Afghanistan....?

No shit man! I said it was a clusterfuck god, I don't even know what page it was on now.

Wouldn't it actually be sped up?

Indeed.

That is the fate of everyone superpower. It is a fate that must be accepted, and yet postponed for as long as possible.

then why do you advocate doing everything you possibly can to speed it up?

Your head must be killing you. Ever think to put the rock down?

or as was said above, if you try to get dominance, you lose survival.

Whee! Neo respects me! :D

No shit man! I said it was a clusterfuck god, I don't even know what page it was on now.

God, you know you've lost the fight when Wilgrove gets the better of you. The point was, for all our "power" and "dominance" and "strength" we can't even get two sandbox countries under our thumb. How the hell do you propose we "dominate" countries like France or Russia or The United Kingdom, countries with significantly more powerful militaries and who can, if they really wanted to, send us all to hell?

God, you know you've lost the fight when Wilgrove gets the better of you.

I don't know if I should take this as an insult or compliment right now.

But it is 2 in the morning, and my pain meds are about to wear off, so compliment.

And it won't be postponed if what you propose ever comes to pass.

Again, that simple.

Now I'm not proposing nuking anyone, unless we're nuked first, which falls under MAD.

I am however, proposing increasing or meddling by a lot, but also being more thorough and effective with our meddling.

God, you know you've lost the fight when Wilgrove gets the better of you. The point was, for all our "power" and "dominance" and "strength" we can't even get two sandbox countries under our thumb. How the hell do you propose we "dominate" countries like France or Russia or The United Kingdom, countries with significantly more powerful militaries and who can, if they really wanted to, send us all to hell?

As I fucking said earlier: it a clusterfuck that should have been done better.

Now I'm not proposing nuking anyone, unless we're nuked first, which falls under MAD.

I am however, proposing increasing or meddling by a lot, but also being more thorough and effective with our meddling.

ya know, in the '60s the US military came up with several hypothetical scenarios that could lead to nuclear war. Other than the "oops" scenario, how do you think pretty much every single one of them began?

I'll give you a hint: fucking around in sovereign nations. It tends to piss off other sovereign nations. Sovereign nations that can be just as mean and nasty as we can.

Now I'm not proposing nuking anyone, unless we're nuked first, which falls under MAD.

I am however, proposing increasing or meddling by a lot, but also being more thorough and effective with our meddling.

Yea, because meddling just works sooooo well.

Tell me, do you like it when your parents meddle in your business? I personally don't, I hate it when other people meddle in the private affairs of my life.

Now take that example, and apply it to International relations.

Now I'm not proposing nuking anyone, unless we're nuked first, which falls under MAD.

I am however, proposing increasing or meddling by a lot, but also being more thorough and effective with our meddling.

Listen to me.

If the United States of America wishes to prolong its survival as a power, and its literal survival as well, it will not meddle.

Ever again.

That's not a threat, that's not even a promise.

That's reality. Plain and simple.

Not by nuking. Not by sponsoring coups. Not by invasions. Not by nothing.

Or else, other Al Qaeda-like groups will be born. In other places. Just like Al Qaeda was. Because of US meddling. And then they will figure out a way to do something. Just like they did in 9/11.

Again, because of your meddling.

To put in simpler terms:

More meddling = less survival. Both as a superpower and physical.

You know what game I want to try? I think it's called Defcon.

That is a damned fine game. Getting to play one's own General Jack D. Ripper. :D

As I fucking said earlier: it a clusterfuck that should have been done better.

exactly, it's the "wave a magic wand and make us better at everything" answer. We can't even manage to pull off two fronts, yet you propose doing that everywhere.

Because, despite the fact that it is, as you admit, a clusterfuck, that somehow it just "should have been done better". Somehow.

Which lies at the center of the flaws of your argument. That despite not demonstrating any actual capacity to "do it better" or even prove that we could do it, we just should. Do it better. Somehow.

You just don't have a fucking clue how.

ya know, in the '60s the US military came up with several hypothetical scenarios that could lead to nuclear war. Other than the "oops" scenario, how do you think pretty much every single one of them began?

I'll give you a hint: fucking around in sovereign nations. It tends to piss off other sovereign nations. Sovereign nations that can be just as mean and nasty as we can.

Well no shit. We don't have to be picking fights with Russia (for example) for the lulz, you know. Use our power to secure our prosperity: cheap energy. Which at the moment is oil, which means the middle east.

Yea, because meddling just works sooooo well.

Tell me, do you like it when your parents meddle in your business? I personally don't, I hate it when other people meddle in the private affairs of my life.

Now take that example, and apply it to International relations.

but you see, if your parents beat you with a stick while meddling in your business, you'd be too afraid to ever stop them.

That is, at least, according to Trollgaard here. Unfortunately for him, he hasn't thought his theory far enough ahead to consider what happens when in response to the stick, you manage to get your hand on a gun.

Well no shit. We don't have to be picking fights with Russia (for example) for the lulz, you know. Use our power to secure our prosperity: cheap energy. Which at the moment is oil, which means the middle east.

So we kill their people to cheapen our oil?

As I fucking said earlier: it a clusterfuck that should have been done better.

The reason it's a clusterfuck is that 1. In the case of Iraq, we severely underestimated what was needed to win that war. 2. The Taliban, Al Queda and those we are fighting in Iraq, they are guerrilla fighters. They don't wear uniforms, and they have no qualms using women and children as shields, or in traps.

The US Military so far (from what I've seen, I could be wrong) found a way to counter-act the guerrilla warfare.

exactly, it's the "wave a magic wand and make us better at everything" answer. We can't even manage to pull off two fronts, yet you propose doing that everywhere.

Because, despite the fact that it is, as you admit, a clusterfuck, that somehow it just "should have been done better". Somehow.

Which lies at the center of the flaws of your argument. That despite not demonstrating any actual capacity to "do it better" or even prove that we could do it, we just should. Do it better. Somehow.

You just don't have a fucking clue how.

Hmm, by giving the military free reign to end the wars how they see fit, perhaps.

Just a thought.

but you see, if your parents beat you with a stick while meddling in your business, you'd be too afraid to ever stop them.

That is, at least, according to Trollgaard here. Unfortunately for him, he hasn't thought his theory far enough ahead to consider what happens when in response to the stick, you manage to get your hand on a gun.

As seen by The Menedez Brothers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Menendez)

Well no shit. We don't have to be picking fights with Russia (for example) for the lulz, you know. Use our power to secure our prosperity: cheap energy. Which at the moment is oil, which means the middle east.

I do get the impression that you think warfare is about rolling dice and moving brightly colored pieces of plastic across a fold-able cardboard table.

Hmm, by giving the military free reign to end the wars how they see fit, perhaps.

Just a thought.

Their response would be, approximately:

"Who the fuck thought we could fight on 100 fronts at once? Screw this, let's defect!"

I do get the impression that you think warfare is about rolling dice and moving brightly colored pieces of plastic across a fold-able cardboard table.

Or it's like a computer game with a reset button.

Hmm, by giving the military free reign to end the wars how they see fit, perhaps.

Just a thought.

now didn't we have that whole discussion a few pages back about what happens when you let your military have free reign on civilian populations, and how other countries don't really like that too much?

Did you miss the consequences of some of those activities? Do you not understand that if you let your military have free reign on civilian populations, then that leaves other powerful nations considering the fact that it might just be time to get rid of you, permanently?

We have a term for militaries that decide to have "free reign" on all fronts, thus prompting in neighboring factions into response. That term is "surrounded"

I do get the impression that you think warfare is about rolling dice and moving brightly colored pieces of plastic across a fold-able cardboard table.

And even under THAT notion, attacking all nations that border you will tend to overextend your military and leave it quite open for other hits the next turn.

now didn't we have that whole discussion a few pages back about what happens when you let your military have free reign on civilian populations, and how other countries don't really like that too much?

Did you miss the consequences of some of those activities? Do you not understand that if you let your military have free reign on civilian populations, then that leaves other powerful nations considering the fact that it might just be time to get rid of you, permanently?

We have a term for militaries that decide to have "free reign" on all fronts, thus prompting in neighboring factions into response. That term is "surrounded"

I don't think he understand cause and effect Neo. *snickers*

I don't think he understand cause and effect Neo. *snickers*

More importantly, he seems unable to comprehend why anyone should give a shit about the life of "foreigner".

More importantly, he seems unable to comprehend why anyone should give a shit about the life of "foreigner".

I wonder if his opinion would change if he studied why past empires fell.

The problem is, for someone who seems to talk a big talk about understanding IR, he seems utterly ignorant of the fact that national events don't happen in a vaccuum. Yeah, we might be able to glass afghanistan without much fear of reprisal from Afghanistan. But what exactly happens when we give our soldiers "free reign" to burn Afghanistan to the ground, and Russia, who is much much harder to intimidate than Afghanistan, gets a little weary of the issues on the boarder and tells America, under no uncertain terms, that play time is over, and to knock it the fuck off.

Then what? You want to go unleash "free reign" on Russia? Or do you do the smart move and tuck tail between legs and slink off, recognizing that while it might be all fun and good to pick on third world shitholes, major military superpowers have a tendency to hit back

The problem is, for someone who seems to talk a big talk about understanding IR, he seems utterly ignorant of the fact that national events don't happen in a vaccuum. Yeah, we might be able to glass afghanistan without much fear of reprisal from Afghanistan. But what exactly happens when we give our soldiers "free reign" to burn Afghanistan to the ground, and Russia, who is much much harder to intimidate than Afghanistan, gets a little weary of the issues on the boarder and tells America, under no uncertain terms, that play time is over, and to knock it the fuck off.

Then what? You want to go unleash "free reign" on Russia?

Don't forget about the countries in the Middle East that do have nuclear weapons. They may not be able to attack the home soil, but attack our men and women who are there, oh yea. Hell I am willing to bet everyone in this thread $5 that Iran would have no problem selling uranium to terrorist if we started acting the way Trollgaard thinks we should.

Their response would be, approximately:

"Who the fuck thought we could fight on 100 fronts at once? Screw this, let's defect!"

I do get the impression that you think warfare is about rolling dice and moving brightly colored pieces of plastic across a fold-able cardboard table.

And even under THAT notion, attacking all nations that border you will tend to overextend your military and leave it quite open for other hits the next turn.


Nope.

I never said we should attack everybody at once. I'm saying use our power to secure our prosperity, ruthlessly, if needs be. More ruthlessly than we have ever been, again, if needs be.

Its 1:30 am here, I'm going to bed. I've got to work all too soon, so farewell for now.

Nope.

I never said we should attack everybody at once. I'm saying use our power to secure our prosperity, ruthlessly, if needs be. More ruthlessly than we have ever been, again, if needs be.

Prosperity is not worth mass-murder.

I never said we should attack everybody at once. I'm saying use our power to secure our prosperity, ruthlessly, if needs be. More ruthlessly than we have ever been, again, if needs be.

That's nice. And what happens when...say..Russia, or China, or any other actual military power decides they don't like you "ruthlessly securing our prosperity" in their back yard? I'll tell you exactly what they'd do, which is the same thing we would do. Move tanks and portable SAMs and mortars on to the border line and inform us that if any military force crosses into sovereign territory it will cease to exist.

And then some crazy fucknut soldier high on meth and bloodlust will drive or fly or sail or run over the border and be turned into a red mist. And then all hell breaks lose.

Nope.

I never said we should attack everybody at once. I'm saying use our power to secure our prosperity, ruthlessly, if needs be. More ruthlessly than we have ever been, again, if needs be.

Its 1:30 am here, I'm going to bed. I've got to work all too soon, so farewell for now.

Why shouldn't we use I dunno...diplomacy to secure our prosperity and our assets?

There is something to be said for "You scratch my back, I scratch yours."

And to forestall the inevitable "what would russia actually do?" I'll tell you exactly what they'd do, which is the same thing we would do. Move tanks and portable SAMs and mortars on to the border line and inform us that if any military force crosses into Russia it will cease to exist.

And then some crazy fucknut soldier high on meth and bloodlust will drive or fly or sale or run over the border and be turned into a red mist. And then all hell breaks lose.

Kinda depressing to think that one high or drunk solider could end the lives of millions if not billions.

I don't think he understand cause and effect Neo. *snickers*

I fully understand.

Past empires fell because overextended, pissed off too many rivals, and became weak.

As long as you are smart about, you can last a while. Just don't become indolent and attack everyone, as some seem to think I suggest, and you should be okay, with a bit of luck.

More importantly, he seems unable to comprehend why anyone should give a shit about the life of "foreigner".

I care, but not as much as I care about, honestly, most, of my fellow citizens. Especially my friends and family.

I don't value everyone as equals. I value some people more than others, as everybody in the damn world does. I don't deny it.


Anyways, I'm going to sleep.

See y'all scrups later. ;)

Why shouldn't we use I dunno...diplomacy to secure our prosperity and our assets?

There is something to be said for "You scratch my back, I scratch yours."

I never denied that option.

Anyways, later fo realz this time.

Political godwin?

I have a feeling that if Gingrich becomes Republican nominee in 2012, we'll get another 4 years of Obama.
*several pages too late*
Palin/Gingrich 2012!
w00t!~

<.<
>.>

Republican NOTHING + Democratic Pres + Further Left Congress = Good.

Risottia Pres + Heikoku 2 Speaker = Gooder. ;)

Now, seriously, The Grinchrich is just an idiot. Why are so people worried by him? He isn't that influential anyway.

*several pages too late*
Palin/Gingrich 2012!
w00t!~

<.<
>.>

NO! No! Bad poster bad! *hits on the nose with a rolled up newspaper*

You better hope the leaders of the GOP isn't reading this.

I care, but not as much as I care about, honestly, most, of my fellow citizens. Especially my friends and family.

I don't value everyone as equals. I value some people more than others, as everybody in the damn world does. I don't deny it.

You value a foreign life barely at all--not just a little less there your friend's life. You consider a loaf of good bread in this country to be worth more than the lives of a dozen children in another. You are fully willing to murder millions to make supplies cheaper, here. I find that disgusting.

Risottia Pres + Heikoku 2 Speaker = Gooder. ;)

Now, seriously, The Grinchrich is just an idiot. Why are so people worried by him? He isn't that influential anyway.Well, he's kinda cute in those commercials with him on the park bench talking about global climate change.

Oh yeah, that and the whole "Contract On America" coup.

NO! No! Bad poster bad! *hits on the nose with a rolled up newspaper*

You better hope the leaders of the GOP isn't reading this.Eh, she probably already blew her way into their good graces a few times by now ... maybe more on the way this weekend.
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/140924
Certain grotesquely expensive outfits come to mind, as well.

Ok, he wants to destroy sites that hold nuclear missiles, no?
And that is making a bastard of him?

About the regime change, future will tell if Bush was right about Iraq. 2009 is still to soon to evaluate the situation. We will talk back in 2030 or something.

2030? I'll probably be dead by then. :tongue:

He was never really good. Someone in the American Millitary said it best, "If only they could both lose."* When he was asked about the Iran-Iraq War.

*Rough paraphrase, can't remember who said, it, but it was something along these lines.

It was Kissinger.

And if the US hadn't meddled, Iraq wouldn't have HAD Saddam in the first place, remember?

Yes, it probably would have. Not that we helped matters, but still.

I do get the impression that you think warfare is about rolling dice and moving brightly colored pieces of plastic across a fold-able cardboard table.

The trick is start in Australia so that you can't be flanked. Once you have that continent secured, you build up your forces and move in on Asia, then the world. Works every time.

I'm sure reality would be quite different for the people who worked at the WTC if the US didn't pick allies of convenience like Saddam and Al Qaeda.

The U.S. supported both (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war) sides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war) during the Iran-Iraq War. Furthermore, compared to the aid provided by other countries, U.S. aid to Iraq was extremely minuscule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRI_Arms_Transfers_Database,_Iraq_1973%E2%80%931990) compared to that provided by many other countries. Not that I'm defending (or ever would defend) the U.S., of course, but it's important to know.

There is something to be said for "You scratch my back, I scratch yours."

Does "You fight them godless commies, give us your natural resources and I'll give you many shiny weapons plus a bucket of cash to do it" count?

Ah, so when you say you care about Americans, you are lying. You only care about Americans who are like you -- warmongering chickenhawks who enjoy talking hate about others.

Mur, I love you. :fluffle:

Well, he's kinda cute in those commercials with him on the park bench talking about global climate change.

Oh yeah, that and the whole "Contract On America" coup.

Contract on America... reminds me of...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIcSlkWWCtg
:eek:
"...contratto con gli italiani..."

Are you the Brazilian Chuck Norris?

But seriously, why would Brazil be attacked?

It wouldn't. Why? Brazil isn't governed by dick-waving jingoistic blowhards who wish to bomb other countries into conformity and impose their own warped parody of "democracy" upon people they care nothing about (see, for example, George W. Bush, et. al.).

I fully understand and accept that our actions cause reactions, and that one day we will fall from power. Its our job to cling to power as long as we can. ... That knowledge should make us fight all the harder to stave off that day as long as possible.

I'll godwin a bit and ask "perhaps for 1000 years?" :tongue:

Prosperity is not worth mass-murder.

Nothing is.

I'll godwin a bit and ask "perhaps for 1000 years?" :tongue:

Touche.

Yep just done that. God must be pretty pissed at this fella, coz the reply came back quick. God says 'Fuck no!'. BTW.

Which is of course what people have been saying this entire time, and why positions like Trollgaard's are so nonsensical. his whole position seems to be "kill them before they kill you, and make them fear you so much that they won't think of attacking you back".

The problem with that, despite the massive humanitarian problem, is that it just doesn't fucking work. Forget arguing humanity, it doesn't work with people like this that have none. Argue practicality. It's simply not practical to try to keep everyone down all at once. We can't. We just can't. Those nukes? Great levelers. And the more you try to push, and control, and dominate, and threaten, and destroy, the more the other people who think just like you do begin to consider that pushing that little red button might just be the only option.

You become the tyrant? Let's not forget what history has done to tyrants. If your goal is to survive, forget all the happy hippy "let's all hold hands and sing" bullshit, but if your goal is survival? Then you learn that when there are societies that can and will destroy you if you give them reason to do so, peaceful coexistence is the only long term strategy. The only one.

It's that or death. Your death. And your loved ones. And your family. And everyone you've ever known.

All dead.
This.^^

This is the actual realistic assessment. History proves it. Logic supports it. Playground aguments like Trollgard's are an insult to a serious issue that shapes the lives of everyone in the world, for real.

And since I see that not only is Trollgard still playing his wargames while the rest of us are trying to discuss reality, and I further see that he has not said anything new since a few pages before I left last night, he's on ignore. I am tired of having to scroll through such tripe.