Programming C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB
Computer Science Canada 
Programming C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB  

Username:   Password: 
 Derek's Philosophy
Index -> Off Topic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic Printable versionDownload TopicSubscribe to this topicPrivate MessagesRefresh page View next topic

(No ending time set)
 20%  [ 3 ]
 20%  [ 3 ]
 40%  [ 6 ]
Did you really say live long and prosperous???
 20%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 15

Author Message

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:07 am   Post subject: (No subject)

haha, jesus horses. did you mean can't say evolution or can, because can't you use evolutuion everywhere, unless its a really uptight christian school. i kow this guy who has actually called me an ignorant heathen for believing in evolution and not the genesis versions (there are 2).

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:07 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

I said "can" and so did

I think because before it was controversial to say so because religious parents who had their kids in the public school system didn't want the bias. "Jesus horses..." Not even Jimmy Fallon could keep a straight face.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:14 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Ok, I signed up a while ago to this site because Derek was here, I haven't been here in a while and I just dropped in to check things out, I found this massive thread and I have just finished reading it. Here is Ryan's perception of what has been said so far.

We as human beings made society for the way the majority of us wanted it to be. If we wanted it changed, it would have to be a gradual change that the majority of us wanted to change. Some of us in this thread view that today's society is "corrupt" in our eyes. But the Wall Street CEO does not view todays society to be corrupt, he/she views it to be their life.

My heritage is of a third world country, but I was born and raised here in Canada. So I see myself as having a unique view. I've been blessed with a top notch education so far, I've had excellent medical care, and as a diabetic I know that I have had it good in medical care. I've travelled back to Sri Lanka twice in my life, the first time I went, it was amazing, I was an ignorant little kid who had only seen 1st-world countries. Visiting a third world country opned me up to see the world for what it really is, not all of us have access to the internet, or a computer, or medical care. That was what I learned in my first trip. In my second trip back, I expanded my knowledge of third world countries, plus I found out that the world isn't made of good samaritans. We were ending our vacation and packing for our flight back to Canada in 2 days. There was a terrorist attack, 2 days before our flight, on the only international airport in the country. The attack involved around 10 suicide bombers who packed machine guns and explosive vests. If I remember correctly all 10 of them died. For the next 2 days my whole family paid attention to the news as we were essentially stranded. I saw, on TV, a mutilated body of a terrorist who blew himself up as TV there was not censored, luckily, the airport re-opened and we were the 3rd flight out of the country. When we arrived at the airport I saw things that would change my life. I saw countless bullet holes in the windows that soldiers were taping up to try to hide, I saw at least 4 destroyed jetliners. As I stood, looking out through the bullet-ridden windows at the destroyed jets and I thought. Why would somebody do such a thing? Sacrifice their life to damage an airport? I thought, maybe they didnt know what they were doing in life, but I realized that at the time I didn't know what I was doing in my life either. So why didn't I commit suicide like those young terrorists did? I still don't know what made them do it, and I probably never will. That week changed my view on the world forever and I still think about it to this day.

So basically my view on the world, life, society, religion, gods, human beings is all together inconclusive. I'm learning new things every day and the only moment I'll be able to give you a final answer is the moments before I die.

I've seen many things in my life, good and bad, I am only 15 and I consider myself lucky to see all the things that I've seen but at the same time unlucky to see the graphic nature of the things I've seen. I may be getting dramatic here, but that's the way I see it.

Onto the question of religion that you've been throwing around, I'm technically a buddhist because of my parents. I frankly aren't very keen on religion as I believe I am Me. I don't think anybody is up there watching over everything. If somebody is up there, why not make everything perfect? If I had omnipotence, which a god should, I would kill myself. Knowing everything, seeing everything from every angle would, without question, overload the human brain. So does that mean god is not human? Was Jesus Christ not human? I don't wish to delve much into religion but that is how I see it. I accept the philosophy of Buddism where as there is nobody looking over us per se, but one can achieve enlightenment. Enlightenment doesn't attract me and it never has, thus resulting in my reluctance when it comes to religion.

I already have a basic idea of what I wish to get done in life, become an engineer, meet my soulmate, have kids, raise them and present them to society as the best they can be. Then I have other objectives I wish to complete, cliff jumping, travelling on the ground at a speed over 200km/h and others. I think these objectives are realistic, but after thinking about it, can having an objective list like this, for life be simple minded? But I'm sure, doesn't everybody have a desire in life? Does that mean humans in general are simple minded? I think Yes.

That concludes my perception, as you see, I call it a perception because we are all individuals. Simple minded yes, but still individuals.

Please, don't take any offense at me calling everybody simple-minded, but in the grand scheme of things. I think that is true.

I also realize that I've been going in circles as I type, jumping from one idea to another, but it's pretty hard turning your perception of life into a matter of letters. Neutral [/quote]

PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:41 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Nice post ryan, anywasy my view on this whole thing is that, is that there is no such thing as good or evil there is mearly diffrent view points, example my cat hunts down the kills mice, now the mice (if they could think) probably find that evil but im sure my cat doesnt. All the talk about whya re we here and does god(s) exist dosnt really matter does it? Just do the best you can in the time your given and dont worry about what might happen after you die and so on. Also who ever was talking about miracles and if they do ahppen. What makes it a miracles to you? does there have to be a heavenly choir and sunlight streaming down from the sky, or is the fact that we have a chance to grow up with out fear and starvation a miracles?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:37 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

:p I don't believe anyone said anything about good and evil; this was originally about the roots of why the world is as wrong as it is in the greater scheme.

As for robots being the next dominant species, aren't humans just meat-robots anyways? A robot as we think of it is a metal-human. So basically, I guess robots could have the potential to be the next dominant species. Robots can have stainless steel bodies so they need less maintenance, some sort of crazy power source that doesn't run out and runs under any condition, etc. But to have all that technology, and to be able to make better-than-human AI would require that society be really advanced technologically; if we were smart enough to make something like that, I'm sure we'd be smart enough to keep it under control too.
Conversely, the way things look today with great leaders like Bush and Sharon, we probably will be dumb enough to do anything.

But in my view (clearly you must have seen this coming, and it's gonna be "pessimistic") unless people make a change in the way the world is going we won't be around to see that. In the future, the world is going to be a dangerous place, and the government's going to have to do something about it. I'm guessing it'll probably be something extreme that gets out of hand. Call me a doomsayer, but tell me why I'm wrong.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 10:12 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Well, robots that have stainless steal bodies will need maintenance because that metal still requires maintenance, so until we discover some alloy similar to adamantium, I don't think maintenance-free robots are possible. In a book by CS LEWIS called Out of the Silent Planet, humans must learn to capture the power of the sun in order to have an infinite power source (BUCKY by the guy who wrote the chrysalids also said something about this).
The way things look now with great leaders like Arafat, Fahd, Kim Jong-Il, Paul Martin, Ali Hoseini-Khamenei, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and Castro (just to name a few), as well as many terrorist leaders that Bush and Sharon must get rid of, this is not possible at this moment in history.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:52 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Jonos, stop acting like such a political expert. I'd like to hear you break down what each of the abovementioned political leaders are doing wrong, and how they should be doing things. Then try debating the other side, by breaking down what George Bush and Ariel (sic) Sharon are doing wrong too...

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 3:47 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

actually im not acting like an expert, im trying to give my point of view, but if you want to debate politics don't do it by saying im ignorant to this subject, please.

-what bush is doing wrong: the jobs issue, but there are more jobs coming; debt, hes not realy acting fiscally conservative; iraq war, though i agree with the iraq war i think that the original reason may have been based on false/incorrect intelligence, i do not believe that it was a big conspiracy to get back at hussein for trying to assasinate bush sr.
-what sharon is doing wrong: the assassination of the hamas leader was a good idea but there should have been an ultimatum for him to give himself up or at least to try to imprision him, because then they could extract information about hamas from him; the bribery scandal, i don't know much about it, but he shouldn't haven't gotten himself into it, i think it involves his son also
-what arafat is doing wrong: he called for the three days of morning for a !!!terrorist!!! leader that ordered/asked people to go blow themselves up, or manipulate mentally challenged kids to blow themselves up; though elected democratically, he rules like a dictator; as far as i know with reading newspapers and such, he hasn't really done anytying to stop the attacks on isreal and jewish people, which is why the israelies have to retaliate; harbours terrorists
-what fahd is doing wrong: he is a king and if he were really caring about his people he would at least try to introduce democratic elections, but it seems that he has not realized that the ruling monarchy is not the best form of government; though saudi arabia has a large amount of the world's oil, they still seem to have a large national debt, with mismanagement of money
-what jong-il is doing wrong: he is practically blackmailing countries to keep them giving his country aid by threatening wmd; his government is researching more dangerous weapons, and he is a madman so this is very dangerous; his people are starving, and he doesn't seem to be doing much about that
-what paul martin is doing wrong: considering the sponsorship scandal, he has to stop the infighting in the liberal party on this issue; he needs to fess up for his at least knowing of it - he was finance minister, thats like second in command in the government, how would he not have known, even heard rumours
-what khamenei is doing wrong; theocracy is not cool; he allows major anti-semitism to take place in his country in the form of daily prayers of "kill the jews, kill the christians" as the opening
-what zapatero is doing wrong: he is showing the terrorists that they can succeed in changing the outcome of an election to a more left government, that will not take a stand against them; he is not going after the source of the terrorism, at least not yet, so he could still do that; he is withdrawing from iraq, which is just stupid, even if you don't believe in the war, becase spain sent the troops to help out, they've been trusted with an area and they are just going to pull them out - that is going against your word and not a good show of your national ideals, how would spain have felt if the us and britain had pulled out of wwII, they would still be fascist
-what castro did wrong: he doesn't want to make the leap to democracy, though he did bring cuba up to a certain point from where it was, it just kind of stopped there and the standard of living hasn't really gone up

my name is jonos not Jonos

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 4:26 pm   Post subject: (No subject)


Democracy isn't for everyone and it really isn't anybody else's choice how a country runs itself. The U.S doesn't even go by the Monroe Doctrine anymore, and it shows; it is hardly isolationist when it comes to getting campaign votes.

Sharon's approach to Palestine is completely wrong; how can there be peace if he is constantly running over Palestinians? There is no way that they are going to stop the killing with more killing, the way they are approaching the matter right now. Don't tell me they've already tried to negotiate; so what if they have, maybe with the death of the Hamas leader things will be different. Anything is better than just fighting, and really, if they wanted to do it right they could just crush the Palestinians :p

If you want to talk blackmail, basically the U.S. was acting like a big brat when they pressured Spain into the war; they know that nobody can afford to have bad international relations with them, and Spain was probably one of the countries more inclined to join the war anyways. And besides, the terrorists had nothing to do with Spain before they joined the war, so technically they were justified, if you believe that Sharon is one of the better leaders.

WMD; why is it that the U.S. is one of the only countries that are deemed okay to have them? Does G. Bush even know he has them too? Would he freak out if he did? Seriously, what would the smaller countries with no WMD do if they didnt have them...They haven't used them yet...So why did the U.S. attack Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, Afghanistan had no WMD, and the UN didn't find any in Iraq basically neither had WMD. It seems to me that if you attack a non-democratic country it is ok, since their political views are different (different = bad, obviously). Don't even tell me that Iraq was justifiable. Why doesn't the US invade countries that actually have WMD? Because they would get nuked; WMD are deterrents too, not just weapons. Honestly, Iraq was under a declining regime, and Korea has one of the biggest armies in the world; so the U.S. picked the knockover, old grudge, target which they've had experience in, versus Korea, which would be like a new Vietnam (not good for votes, unlike Iraq).

The American people, confident that they can topple dictators now, will be not be sated in their quest to democrify the world, simply because dictatorships don't make great places to sell Americana. Hell, if the U.S. gets a missile shield, what's to stop them from taking out ICBM armed countries? Then everyone can have the joy of liberation and trade with the U.S.! And it'll be a great world, for the U.S. Gotta love that Manifest Destiny.

(Sorry about the name mixup, jonos. And I never said you were ignorant, though it might have seemed implied.)

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:45 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Korea's massive army is also not the best equipped army. South Korea and the US could easily take out North Korea considering N.K has almost no airforce or navy. And probably a lot of the soldiers in N.K would not even want to fight, they are fighting for a dictatorship, and most likely they were forced into the army. A major reason that the US didn't attack N.K instead of Iraq was that there is the existence of China, which looks at N.K as it's little cousin. China has a giant population and a giant military, and a rapidly growing economy which will most likely be equal to the US's in 50 years, even under the communist system. Also, China is currently working on making their military more technonological equal to a modern fighting force, of course leaving many people hungry but thats besides the point. If the US were to attack N.K how would China react? No one wants China as an enemy, hell, even the Israelies are working out deals with the Chinese concerning advanced radar technology and bettering their relations. I think that was a major reason why the US didn't go after N.K. Also, N.K has weapons that could reach Seoul (is that right? - the capital of S.K), and that could cause some problems.

I think concerning the Israel/Palestine conflict one cannot blame everything on the shoulders of the Israelies who are basically defending themselves. I highly doubt the Israelies would continue to attack Palestinian terrorists and others dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews if radical Palestinians discontinued their suicide bombing, or manipulating others into suicide bombing Israelies. Like you said, if Israel really wanted to crush all the Palestinians, they could do it in less than a day. Even in the 7 days war (is that the right name?), though outnumbered greatly and being attacked from different sides by 2 (is that the right figure?), they still managed to defeat the attacking countries through better organization and training. It would be easier than if the Americans were to take over Canada. Israel wants to protect their citizens and their country which has been in jeopardy since it was created. In biblical times they were governed by foreign leaders, and now they are governing themselves for onee. Even before the creation of Israel during the 1st/2nd/3rd Aliyahs of the Jews returning to their homeland, they only attacked the Arabs when they were attacked themselves or when pogroms took place and defence was necessary to stop the killing. If the Palestinians want peace, they must get rid of Hamas but it seems that everyone is part of it so that would entail mass genocide and no one wants that - even us war-mongerers!

WMD; Whether one believes that Iraq never had any WMD and the US Government knew it, that is their's to decide. There was faulty intelligence as they have admitted to, and if their was sufficient what seemed to be reliable intelligence to justify the going to war with Iraq, then you can't hold that against them. Hypothetically, if you had intelligence concerning your mother having an affair with your best friend, would you wait to actually observe this or witness this before confronting your mother and your best friend? I know I wouldn't. (no offence to your mom or best friend, of course). WMD were found in Syria and now it has come out that Iran was starting a nuclear program (now what does that tell you about the "religious" leaders of that country). And now Libia too I think... Those countries are close to Iraq, what would have stopped Hussein from contacting some of his friends from Syria and Iran, or Pakistan because we now know what was happening there.

Basically whether you believe America is in this for Imperialism or to fulfill their Manifest Destiny, or they want control of the world, is all an opinion. Frankly, I`d rather live in a world of democracies than in a world of dictatorships, you know those things containing very little human rights and opposition (we wouldn`t be having this debate, would we). If it takes the US to democrify the world, then I`m all for the US.

I also highly doubt that the US would threaten the world and blackmail other countries with their nuclear weapons like Iraq, N.K, or many other countries would; as well the bombs are left over from the arms race with the Soviet Union, which is now just in the form of Russia, but that is just my opinion. You can`t always blame the present on the past and keep hauling out the sins of the fathers, Bush had nothing to do with the nuclear bombs being made during the Cold War. I`m sure many US citizens would like to forget about their nuclear weapons. They are not needed, so why do other countries want them. Frankly, if the US had not tried to counter the Soviet Union, we`d have the world full of countries with leaders like Kim Jong-Il and Saddam Hussein.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:10 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

In response to your

First paragraph:
Like I said...the U.S. went for a pushover target with no real justification...The U.S. wouldn't want to bring one of its trade partners into a war... That would mean less money for them.

Second paragraph:
The reason the Palestinians have suicide bombers still is because people are pissed that their relatives have been killed by Israelis... Israel isn't just defending, its encroaching, in Palestine's eyes. So Israel needs to back off, if they really wanted peace they could afford to give up some land, at least make a compromise. Remember, Sharon was elected because he promised to be more warlike against the Palestinians as opposed to the former Israeli PM.

Third paragraph:
Have you ever read Othello? Tragic. If everybody has the same logic as you used, its no wonder that people believe we are brainwashed by the media. If you're going to believe everything you hear and act on it like it was truth because it affects you, because you don't like the sound of it? You forget that in your metaphorical situation, if you were the U.S., you would've killed your friend because of your suspicions, and then you would've admitted publicly that, yes indeed, you made an oopsie cuz we had wrong information. Dude...The UN found nothing, and if the U.S. doesn't believe them, what good is it for? Who cares if WMD were found in Syria or Iran...nuclear programs dont always mean nuclear weapons anyways...Canada has nukes...Nuclear power plants, that is. Nuclear power is not a NATO only privilege, as you or your Americans may think. Also, weren't Iraq and Iran at odds with each other anyways? Why didn't America's vaunted satellites catch the conspiratorial Syria exodus?

Fourth paragraph:
That's the height of selfishness and arrogance; to put your wants above the wants of other people. Yeah, you may rather live in a world of democracies, but I'm sure there's people who'd rather live in a world with no black people, or Jews, or Asians...etc. If they had a big rich country with a big rich military, I suppose they would be right to have that desire. Because they are a majority and hold a lot of power. You also forget that China is slowly becoming less communist by itself, and it did not get as powerful as it is today by the same ways the U.S. did.

Fifth paragraph:
The U.S., blackmail other countiries with their nuclear weapons like Iraq? Your logic just tripped and fell...Iraq didn't have any nuclear weapons. Also, do conventional ICBMs count as WMD? It seems that if they didn't, it wouldn't be a matter of the fear of losing American lives, it'd just be the shock value of nukes; with all the stuff we've heard about how we can destroy the world hundreds of times over with the nukes we've had, how Hiroshima was eradicated in an instant leaving nothing but burning straw, and how today's nukes are about 50 gazillion times more powerful...It just seems like if they U.S. government warned their people that Iraq had had conventional ICBMs people would be What are those? How exactly did the US counter the Soviet Union anyways? Other than the laughable Bay of Pigs operation, what did they do? Bring the world to the state it is today, with two heavily armed countries from two different political doctrines? The US sure showed them.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 9:32 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

First Paragraph: nothing to say, I think i agree with you there but im not sure, i think i said that in my previous one, did i?

second paragraph: The reason the palestinians are bombing israelies is not because israelies are killing their relatives. Muslims have always hated jewish people, maybe its because israel, the jewish state, is the most prosperous in the middle east, maybe its because they did more with the land in the 1/2/3 aliyahs than the arabs did since biblical days. maybe the palestinians are angry at the israelies for killing their relatives, who were terrorists. if you've wathced the news then you ahve probably heard the new hamas leader saying they will never stop making war upon israel. if israel backs off, hamas will keep doing it. if the middle eastern countries would stop harbouring anti-semitism and letting those murderous thoughts run loose, then id bet my penis that israel would stop. isreal [the modern one] has been at war practically since its creation, im sure it would want to put less emphasis on its armed forces, but it is forced to.

third paragraph: In my metaphorical situation I did not say anything about killing my friend, apples to apples, i meant i would confront my mom and my friend, which i stated. the fact that you just said that i believe everthing i hear is just lack of thinking on your part. if that were true, then i would believe that there were wmd and that there weren't, that bush is the best of america and that kerry is the best for america. it would alos seem that i would believe that jewish people are the cause of all our problems, and that dell makes the best computers. actually syria did have wmd, and would you really want to trust a dictatorial theocracy with nuclear toys? that is a hell of a responsibility. iraq and iran !were! at odds, they were rebuilding their "relationship". america's vaunted satellites cannot see everything and know everything - which is a concept both of us should by now thoroughly understand.

forth paragraph: i did not say anything about living without races, i said living without dictatorships, a form of government not very particular about human rights. but maybe your right, people may want to live in a country and experience very few human rights and not have the right to speak in opposition of the rulers, or right to a fair trial, but most likely those people would be rich and in the favour of the rulers, not the lowly peasants who make 100 dollars a year and have to live with dissapearing parents and siblings. maybe i am selfish and arrogant when it comes to governments which i think are right, (remember im talking about governments, not races). but if you'd rather live in a dictatorship, then go ahead. yes yes china is becoming less communist and amending their constitution and allowing free-enterprise and what not but they are still a "communist" nation and that practically means they are a dictatorship, which is the only practice of communism used on this eart (if only the mensheviks had succeeded). america has never had the large population of china to feed its economy, so china has an edge over america in that respect. but please tell me how america became as pwoerful and rich as it did, and please don't say imperialism and stealing oil and whatnot, ive heard that too much.

fifth: you seem to forget that i did not only mention iraq, i said some other countries too, but maybe that didn't support your allegations of my insane logic tripping and falling or whatever. as to the us countering the su: they showed that a democratic country can still look after its people, and use only 8% of their gdp on the military and still outlast a communist country which did not take care of its people and had to use 30% of the gdp on the military. it also showed that at least one country in the world is willling to counter a menace.

lastly, you seem to think that im american, refering to a large military. unfortunately im canadian, and we certainly don't have a large military, haveing a rather laughable excuse for one, but i assure you, as soon as i am old enough, you can be sure of my moving to the us, or maybe israel, we'll have to see.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2004 5:40 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Think about your metaphor; I didn't think I'd hafta simplify it so much:

1)America believing there are WMD in Iraq is like hearing a rumour that your friend is banging your mom
2)The UN investigating and finding nothing is like having your other friend investigate and have him tell you nothing is going on
3)The US attacking and "liberating" Iraq is like killing your friend to save your mom.
a) There was no WMD, but you went through with it anyways...
b) You killed your friend even though the reason you wanted to wasn't even valid.

Another thing, I didn't say you believed everything you heard; I said if you acted on everything you heard as if it was truth... Also, you point out the most obvious forms of propaganda, but its the subtler stuff that changes us... Most, not even all, people can tell that a Dell ad is pretty blatantly pro-Dell...But when the government of the US, someone the people trust and believe in, tell you that Iraq was behind 9/11 as well, and that they probably have WMD...People don't see it like an ad, people see it as a truth; they're so scared of terrorism they'll believe their Big Brother on tons of things... Imagine catching Saddam too, that must have been the icing on their cake.

And about the "living without races" bit? Do I really have to make my comparisons so glaring that you can't refute them anymore?

I know you mentioned other countries, but the US didn't invade any other countries...they invaded the harmless one, the one that they had bad blood with, the one thay had experience fighting...

The US became what it is today because of the geography of it; with a nation that size, not only did they have a lot of room to grow but also plenty of natural resources. What other country can match that? When Europe was in the middle of World War I, America was growing; when Europe was in the middle of World War II, the US was making money off of it. Even the war in the Pacific never reached American soil with the exception of Hawaii. It is a big country in a warm climate, with plenty of different geographical regions; what other country can match that? There was no imperialism; the U.S. never expanded outside of North America. Stealing oil is a modern habit; gasoline was hardly the black gold it was today back in earlier years.

I never thought you were American. Your manner and beliefs and ways of thinking are definitely American in their brutish stance. In this day and age, its not might that make right, so what does it matter if we have a laughable excuse? It just prevents us from having to invade people to justify a cash-guzzling military machine. Just think what the US economy would be like without the massive military it has.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:03 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

this is taking a lot of my time, i can't take the time to read all this. but i will just defend something and hopefully not make you say something else that i will have to rebuke.

my metaphor did not involve killing the friend. i thought i said that.

another thing, i didn't say i believed that iraq was behind 9/11, further proof that i don't act or belive upon everything i hear from the states.

hawaii was outside na actually.

whether you think my manners and beliefs are brutish in stance is for you to think. your second last sentence is kind of disturbing, disturbing in the way that you actually think that the americans went to war to justify it's military machine. if the americans don't strive to develop better weaponry, then what are we to use if we have a war with aliens? if aliens were to make contanct with us (and wish to attack us), then certainly they would have better weaponry which we wouldhave to counter.

and the us haven't invaded other countries... yet. would you justify a war on north korea if they suddenly decided to bomb soeul.... or japan...?

the un question of not finding wmd: the state of the un is laughable. look at how long it is taking to bring the rwandan criminals to justice for the massacres. jewish people cannot advance in the un because of the blatant anti-semitism present. its the league of nations all over again, then un has just lasted longer. the un is highly capable of making mistakes, and so is america too.

but anywask i have to go play morrowind.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:14 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

It has to involve killing your friend/enemy; cuz thats the parallel in reality; the US invaded Iraq, which is the parallel of killing your friend.

Well, ok, I'll give that one to you...But its not like Hawaii is a big part of the corporate machine :p

I'm just saying its not something we can count out of the equation; when the US was in a depression in 1811 because of the Embargo Act (i think), they went to war to end the depression. And they came out stronger. So maybe it taught them something along the lines of war being good.

And basically, if aliens came down and conquered us, we wouldn't appreciate it, and EVEN if the aliens thought they were liberating us it still wouldnt be comforting, right?

If North Korea bombed somewhere else, yeah that would justify action. But Iraq made no offensive action; they might have provoked it... The U.S. took pre-emptive action.

I totally agree that it is the league of nations, except this time America basically controls the UN; my teacher told me about some major proposal that was struck down, which had the majority's support, but was denied because of the US's opposition to it. But still, they US agreed to accept the results of the UN's search, didn't they?

And in response to your scathing last paragraph....That Morrowind is a good game eh?
Display posts from previous:   
   Index -> Off Topic
View previous topic Tell A FriendPrintable versionDownload TopicSubscribe to this topicPrivate MessagesRefresh page View next topic

Page 4 of 5  [ 68 Posts ]
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Jump to: