This is probably the first post of Lummox's in this thread that I agree with. Keep it clean and non-personal, Dago. =)
| |
Lummox, that's exactly what it sounds like. If you don't like my opinion on it, too damn bad. That's what it sounds like. If you want to go ahead and delete my opinions about your statements, that's YOUR RIGHT as an administrator to do so. Makes no difference to me.
I won't say anything like that again. You got it once. That's plenty. -Dagolar | |
Crispy wrote:
Lummox JR wrote: I promote democracy, but the entire world does not function as a democracy, nor is there any rule that says it must. Very clearly the international order does not operate on the same principles as a single state--similar, to be sure, but not the same. And tyranny of the majority is a recognized flaw in democracy; it's not a perfect system. Furthermore if the majority would vote it out of existence, it cannot be stably applied to a given situation without force. The majority of the world, at least as represented by their dictators, oppose democracy--but that doesn't mean I'll abandon it because there was a vote to do so. Remember, at one time there were majorities insisting slave holding should be legal, or interracial marriage was wrong. Were those positions any more valid for being held by a majority? And there's also the question of whether a thing is right to do. The US getting involved in WWII was the right thing to do, history has judged; yet many in the country were extremely isolationist and wanted no part of what they perceived to be Europe's war. Was that majority decision the right one? No; they changed their minds when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and the results showed that the second decision was correct. I do believe in democracy. Yet I believe it doesn't apply everywhere equally. Is the "world" right now in "its" opposition? It looks like we'll find out. Lummox JR | |
I apologize if it was insulting. I suppose when I posted it I was just expressing exactly what I felt about it. Sometimes these things really get to me and hearing certain opposing views riles me up more than it should. I'll just read from now on...
-Dagolar | |
and forget to look at things with an open mind.
I believe it was either Aristotle or Plato who said something about how a truely intelligent person is someone who can juggle more then one thought in his mind, without taking a strong opinion on either. To be honest, none of us TRUELY know all the facts, and know what's going on, since a lot could be blown out of proportion, bias, propaganda or lies... It seems everyones either pro war, or against it. I myself, am both. I do admit that the war seems stupid in a lot of ways like how many civilians will die, if it goes to house to house warfare that there will be a 33% american casualty rate (remember reading that somewhere, could be wrong), and I for one will not go to war because I believe no man has the right to play god and take anothers life. I see there's a lot of bad things about not going to war, like... ok for instance, when you and your family are dieing in your beds 10 years from now, wouldn't you just take back all those years, just for one chance to stop it ever from happening? Sometimes in life, you only get one chance at things and that's it. The war also seems good in a lot of ways, since to me emotions have nothing to do with what is right or wrong. Wether the rest of the world agrees with the US or not it doesn't matter we have the RIGHT no matter what anyone else says if Iraq DIRECTLY threatens the US with any ties, once so ever to terrorists. Gotta remember this is for our OWN security, not for the rest of the world, and according to the UN we don't need their OK or anyone elses to go to war with Iraq. That has been clarified, atleast to me from articles I have read in opinionated and bias newspapers in my area. I don't really wanna talk about this, and express my opinions too much because most likely my opinions aren't right since I'm not a professional at dealing with this stuff, and I'm only 18 and I'm far too young to have a strong opinion on any matter, although I do have opinions and I like to keep an open mind as I constantly read new things my opinions continue to change. I would like it though if all these people who post "anti Iraq war" would take them down, and post "alternatives to war" signs, that would be much more helpful then bickering and whining about it. What we need is suggestions and alternatives not depressing signs that pretty much say we're going to war but hey I don't like that idea. | |
Lummox JR wrote:
Remember, at one time there were majorities insisting slave holding should be legal, or interracial marriage was wrong. Were those positions any more valid for being held by a majority? That's a valid point, but I believe it's irrelevant. How do you know if a position is valid without the benefit of hindsight? It's a matter of opinion. So now we return to the underlying issue; why do we need a war? And there's also the question of whether a thing is right to do. The US getting involved in WWII was the right thing to do, history has judged; yet many in the country were extremely isolationist and wanted no part of what they perceived to be Europe's war. Was that majority decision the right one? No; they changed their minds when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and the results showed that the second decision was correct. And this leads me to repeat my previous question: How exactly is WWII relevant to the impending war in Iraq? I really don't see the connection. | |
communism is the right way, depending on how people go about it, yet too many people are selfish and want their way, or want to be better or have something more than someone else.
this is why communism is viewed as evil, it shows everyone else just how evil they are being. so they plug their ears and destroy it. | |
what of supremecist groups? they are generally ignorant and wont listen to a single word of reason.
these things would still be causing trouble in the future, even if our governments all across the world collaborate and work creatively. | |
Crispy wrote:
That's a valid point, but I believe it's irrelevant. How do you know if a position is valid without the benefit of hindsight? It's a matter of opinion. I think that's the wrong question: War was declared on the US, and was opened in earnest on September 11. We're already in a war, a long-term war against terrorism. Obviously we'll never wipe it out entirely, but equally obviously the only way to achieve real security is to damage the infrastructure of terror so badly that it will have difficulty recovering for a long, long time: we have to go at the root. The real question to ask is not why a war is needed, but how to win the war we're in. To that end, Iraq is a patch of extremely diseased soil we need to dig up to get at some of the roots. One of the biggest roots is Wahabbism spread and funded by Saudi Arabia. There are zillions of political reasons why taking on the root directly at this time wouldn't work, but it's a long-term war and this is a goal that will have to be approached in stages. And there's also the question of whether a thing is right to do. The US getting involved in WWII was the right thing to do, history has judged; yet many in the country were extremely isolationist and wanted no part of what they perceived to be Europe's war. Was that majority decision the right one? No; they changed their minds when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and the results showed that the second decision was correct. In many ways it's by direct analogy: There were many who strongly opposed doing anything about Adolf Hitler, and after letting him keep existing conquests unchallenged, and appeasing him with even more conquests, he repaid their good intentions by overrunning France. Hindsight, as you said, is sometimes the only way to tell if a decision was right, and the world made the wrong decisions about Hitler until it was too late. Understandable reluctance to act, translated into policy, gave a monster time to grow and become strong. In the modern world the monster is not so much just Saddam, but also other leaders of terror states, and the terror network itself. When the United States first went to Europe in WWII, we went in through Morocco and conquered it. At the time it was a colony of Vichy France, and not a direct enemy as such. Yet it was held by an ally of the enemy, and was needed strategically in order to confront a more pressing danger. Going through Iraq is a stage on the path to confronting Wahabbism. And if Morocco posed not even an indirect threat to the US in WWII, what is to be said now of Iraq which does pose some meaningful level of threat (even though reasonable people can disagree on that level)? It's a shame that in this kind of venue, the best we can do is touch on the surfaces of our arguments. That, and the posts preceding this, are about as detailed as I can get without dragging this out any further. I'd like to try to wrap things up here, understanding that there are plenty of people who disagree for reasons of their own and neither side is very likely to convince the other of anything. Hindsight will have to tell. Lummox JR | |
FuZzY DiCe wrote:
Well i doubt there will ever be a saint to lead a good communist community...it's human nature. Doesn't matter how good the leader is; The problem is the followers would also all have to be saints. Beyond saints even. The ideals of Communism defy human nature and instincts, however nice they may sound. If we were all robots following a simple set of rules and reactions, perhaps it would work. Alas, our minds are a tad more complicated than that. | |
FuZzY DiCe wrote:
Well i doubt there will ever be a saint to lead a good communist community...it's human nature. That's an excellent point, because Communism is rooted in the idea that human nature is mutable and that, given the proper time and education, it is possible to make every citizen a "model citizen" (or "New Soviet Man"). But to accomplish this goal requires the complete elimination of all "bourgeois prejudices" -- which means not only eliminating private property, but also religion, marriage, and all other distractions which might potentially result in a person's first loyalties belonging to anything other than the State and the Communist project. In short, the goal is to transform humanity's understanding of its highest values, so that the ideal human is no longer the creative, effective individual, but rather, the placid, undiscriminating herd animal. But this is difficult to implement when the implementers themselves retain ambitions of their own; and in any event, even if it were possible to implement, it would hardly be a step forward for humanity. | |
Lummox JR wrote:
I think that's the wrong question: War was declared on the US, and was opened in earnest on September 11. We're already in a war, a long-term war against terrorism. Obviously we'll never wipe it out entirely, but equally obviously the only way to achieve real security is to damage the infrastructure of terror so badly that it will have difficulty recovering for a long, long time: we have to go at the root. The real question to ask is not why a war is needed, but how to win the war we're in. There will always be terrorist groups, and attacking sections of them can only provoke the others further. As you say, it's impossible to completely eliminate terrorism. Wouldn't taking military action against them cause them to hate the US and its allies even more? It's a shame that in this kind of venue, the best we can do is touch on the surfaces of our arguments. That, and the posts preceding this, are about as detailed as I can get without dragging this out any further. I'd like to try to wrap things up here, understanding that there are plenty of people who disagree for reasons of their own and neither side is very likely to convince the other of anything. Very true, we probably should wrap this up. =) It seems rather pointless anyway, given that the Bush administration is all but saying they'll go to war regardless. Hindsight will have to tell. It always does. | |
It seems everyones either pro war, or against it. I'm neither pro-war nor against war, though I do slant towards wanting to find a peaceful resolution. (It's just the kind of person I am -- I'm the same kind of guy that you see protesting cutting down the rainforest.) I would be happy to see Saddam Hussein dethroned. However, I don't want to see him dethroned this way. He's no threat to the United States right now; if the United States is going to pre-emptively get rid of every potential enemy they can think of, then they might as well replace the Chinese government by force as well. India and Pakistan might be nice targets too. Incidentally, my belief that governments do not represent their citizenry -- but rather their own interests -- is only more affirmed than ever before. Over 83% of the British Columbian population that answered a poll set out by Citytv would prefer to find a diplomatic solution to the war in Iraq. Yet the Liberals in the Canadian government gladly support Bush and his cabinet. The scary part is that I'm a liberal-minded sort of person. | |
Every communism will have greed and corruption, someone who isn't greedy and doesn't care about supreme power is not going to become a supreme ruler. Think about it, someone who has no want will not want to be a ruler, mainly because they probably have some level of wisdom which will think it through and then shun it, and the other is they know the dangers of being a ruler, such as assassination and what not. This basically makes the point that communism will most likely always be evil, well in the moral sense. If you think about it, nobody can define what is evil, it's all based on how people think about things, and moral issues.
<<>>Kusanagi<<>> | |
Wow, isn't that the same as watching a news station in another country? Such as a country that dislikes the U.S. but is generally nice the U.S. for the sake of not becoming an enemy, but staying an allie? Most other countries seem to spend all their time trying to make the states look horrible, just so their citizens will hate the U.S.. It is rather pathetic as to how many people will cuss at me when in a game, for being Texan(Mild accent on the microphone) because Bush is a Texan, and he is "evil"(These people have been Germans who speak very bad english, and Australians, I even got banned from a server ran by Australians for having the accent).
I am rather saddened by how other people from other countries can call themselves better than Americans, even though they themselves act barbaric and reckless, sticking to their own facts with a closed mind. I am also angry at how many people take the war into daily things, and it's not just people from nations besides my own, but even some people in the states! It's a complete outrage, but it seems there is nothing anybody can do about it. <<>>Kusanagi<<>> | |
Yeah that's really lame. People who equate government policies in a country with the people living in that country...that's pretty weak. I have absolutely nothing against the American people. When Palestinians were cheering on the event of September 11th, that was sick. These were HUMAN BEINGS here. These were human beings that died, and NOBODY, ANYWHERE, should be cheering for something like that. And I still maintain that nearly all people, whether American or European or Asian or anything, want to do good.
I have nothing against the American people. I think they're a great bunch, very diverse from region to region, the accents are great, and they're generally fun to hang around. Yanks know how to have a good time. It's the U.S. government that most people living outside of the United States have a problem with, including myself, as if the Canadian government was any better. People who form the same opinion about the people as they do about the government are...well, prejudicial. The U.S. government has had a very controversial foreign policy. Nobody should equate that with the people who live in the country. They have no direct say in that. It's prejudicial. And it sucks. -Dagolar | |
So a minority is justified in overriding the opinion of the majority, because they feel that the majority's opinion is invalid?
Call that democratic? I don't. If that's an argument for a war that is going to "promote democracy", I have to accuse anyone who makes that argument of hypocrisy. Violating democratic principles in order to do something that you say will promote democratic principles is not only hypocritical, it is self-defeating anyway. It's impossible to promote something by rejecting it.