A True Hero

[paulk]

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/10400736.htm

In the meanwhile, Battle's high school has planned a banquet in his honor next week.

"We need to make more David Battles," said Daniel Pierce, the school's assistant head coach. "He is one amazing guy."

Yeah, way to go, every kid in the 05 graduating class should aspire to his example.

A celebration of stupidity.

[Whois]

So now he has a severed finger and no ring....BRILLIANT!

Leave it to a Marine... :rolleyes:

Q: How do you get four Marines on one barstool?

A: Turn it upside down.

[Qdrop]

Leave it to a Marine... :rolleyes:

Q: How do you get four Marines on one barstool?

A: Turn it upside down.

why do you say shit like that?
i understand/share the disdain for much of our gov't...
but why the hatred of US military personel?

[yeahwho]

why do you say shit like that?
i understand/share the disdain for much of our gov't...
but why the hatred of US military personel?

It is odd, I really don't understand it either....policy wanks get a free ride, yet foot soldiers take the blame, sounds like a page out of Rudy Guliani's book (http://www.americanfamilyvoices.org/projects/DailyRealityCheck.asp?ID=263).

"The president was cautious, the president was prudent, the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"

[Whois]

Qtip is whining about what?

How is criticizing one stupid Marine equal to hatred of US military personel??

Ass...

[Qdrop]

Qtip is whining about what?

How is criticizing one stupid Marine equal to hatred of US military personel??

Ass...


Originally Posted by Whois

"Leave it to a Marine...

Q: How do you get four Marines on one barstool?

A: Turn it upside down."


this ain't the first time you've written this shit.

[dublirie04]

"Can't we all just hit a bong?" :rolleyes:

[Ace42]

Yeah, how dare people hold the murderers responsible, and let the people who merely told them to do it off the hook.

Of course, if Bush told them to jump off a bridge, they'd no doubt do it.

[Whois]

I know I'm going to regret this but...I'll taking Qdrip off ignore long enough to see what his latest whine is about.

(Pause)

Jesus what a moron...

Hey Qtip, here's a little hint:

US Army 1986 - 1994
MOS 98C

The Army and the Marines have ALWAYS made fun of each other.

Now go fuck off and play with a dud ya civi puke...

[100% ILL]

Yeah, how dare people hold the murderers responsible, and let the people who merely told them to do it off the hook.

Of course, if Bush told them to jump off a bridge, they'd no doubt do it.

Well, that wouldn't be a lawful order.

[yeahwho]

It really isn't Apples and Oranges
It's Catalyst and reactions
One is not going to exsist without the other.


Word History: Why do soldiers fight? One answer is hidden in the word soldier itself. Its first recorded occurrence is found in a work composed around 1300, the word having come into Middle English (as soudier) from Old French soudoior and Anglo-Norman soudeour. The Old French word, first recorded in the 12th century, is derived from sol or soud, Old French forms of Modern French sou. There is no longer a French coin named sou, but the meaning of sou alerts us to the fact that money is involved. Indeed, Old French sol referred to a coin and also meant “pay,” and a soudoior was a man who fought for pay. This was a concept worth expressing in an era when many men were not paid for fighting but did it in service to a feudal superior. Thus soldier is parallel to the word mercenary, which goes back to Latin mercnnrius, derived from mercs, “pay,” and meaning “working for pay.” The word could also be used as a noun, one of whose senses was “a soldier of fortune.”

Policy; A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters: American foreign policy; the company's personnel policy.

[Qdrop]

I know I'm going to regret this but...I'll taking Qdrip off ignore long enough to see what his latest whine is about.

(Pause)

Jesus what a moron...

Hey Qtip, here's a little hint:

US Army 1986 - 1994
MOS 98C

The Army and the Marines have ALWAYS made fun of each other.

Now go fuck off and play with a dud ya civi puke...

first off, you haven't had me on ignore ever....maybe for one day, than you took me off- you missed me too much.
you've been conversing with me for some time on various threads, thus you have not had me on ignore.
you're simply fiening it to impress Ace and Assmen.....you are their #1 groupie after all.

I know I'm going to regret this but...I'll taking Qdrip off ignore long enough to see what his latest whine is about.

(Pause)

Jesus what a moron...


yes, a cunning bullshit ruse.....

you're reading this right now, because you don't have me on ignore.



back on topic: are you stating that you are an enlisted army soilder....or have been one at one time?
or are you simply a civilian, using the competative jibbing between those 2 military branches as an excuse to mock them?

that's like saying: i can call black people n*ggers....cause they call each other that.

[D_Raay]

I think they should have a hotline that never answers, for people who never follow advice in the first place.

[D_Raay]

Two soldiers get into a fight. Two other soldiers pull them apart and tell them not to fight. Then they all pick up their guns and go kill people.

[yeahwho]

Maybe it's just me, I'm a hell of alot more concerned about those giving orders than those obeying orders. (legal or illegal)

Do you propose we blame the economically challenged for our countries policies? Are all of these soldiers truly volunteers? Are all these soldiers happy about their predictament? The re-up numbers speak volumes about that question.

I'm not going to blame some kid because our education system failed and his socio economic situation reflected few choices. Pointing fingers (pun intended :D ) at everything but the catalyst is silly.

[Ace42]

Maybe it's just me, I'm a hell of alot more concerned about those giving orders than those obeying orders. (legal or illegal)

While it is of great concern, and easily the most accessible issue, it overlooks a broader flaw with society. Until society is improved, leaders that can garner an army can and will wage illegal wars.

Do you propose we blame the economically challenged for our countries policies? Are all of these soldiers truly volunteers?

They made a choice to go kill people for money. How is that different to an assassin, or a mafioso? Some would argue soldiers are not paid to kill, per sé, the killing is a by product of their role as deterrant and pseudo-force. Well, that is like justifying drug-dealing by saying "the murdering and stealing that goes with it are a by-product of the dealing."

Would you say a drug-dealing gangsta shouldn't be blamed for his choice of occupation because of the socio-economic conditions he found himself in? Are all drug dealers doing so truly voluntarily?

I'm not going to blame some kid because our education system failed and his socio economic situation reflected few choices. Pointing fingers (pun intended :D ) at everything but the catalyst is silly.

"Where I came from, you either joined the army, or became a drug dealer. I didn't want to be a soldier." - from some "street" film.

[Funkaloyd]

They made a choice to go kill people for money. How is that different to an assassin, or a mafioso?

There isn't half as much propaganda regarding either trade as there is regarding "serving your country."

[yeahwho]

They made a choice to go kill people for money. How is that different to an assassin, or a mafioso? Some would argue soldiers are not paid to kill, per sé, the killing is a by product of their role as deterrant and pseudo-force. Well, that is like justifying drug-dealing by saying "the murdering and stealing that goes with it are a by-product of the dealing."

"Where I came from, you either joined the army, or became a drug dealer. I didn't want to be a soldier." - from some "street" film.

When Gomer Pyle tells the President and the Pentagon who he wants to kill and they say, OK, then I'll target Gomer....it isn't really a two way street, one commands the other obeys.

But if you get your rocks off targeting the worker bees, have at it. I'm sticking to the Policy Makers....they don't have to physically do anything but keep up a good front.

[paulk]

That's an unfortunate and seemingly self-righteous attitude. Do you think individuals have no personal moral responsibility to oppose what is wrong? Yes, 90% of humans are mindless drones--and I for one fully blame them for choosing to live their lives as such. No one can be forced to do anything.

[paulk]

I found some relevant material from POS 100, which can now be found in my thread Excerpts from POS100 (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=40541).

[yeahwho]

That's an unfortunate and seemingly self-righteous attitude. Do you think individuals have no personal moral responsibility to oppose what is wrong? Yes, 90% of humans are mindless drones--and I for one fully blame them for choosing to live their lives as such. No one can be forced to do anything.

You know what, I think it's unfortunate that we have to have a military, but we do. Many join the military without a clue what will happen next. The statistics show they will go through drills and defend the homeland....who is anybody to flip shit to a guy because it didn't turn out that way?

On the other hand I have a seemingly self-righteous attitude because I would rather ask questions of the policy makers about why they decided to start a war? I should ask some 21 year old from LA who just started drinking beer legally WTF his problem is? yeah, I've got it all mixed up, I'll start asking more 18 to 26 year olds why their fighting for Halliburton. That makes more sense than asking the policy-makers why 18 to 26 year olds are fighting for them.

[Ace42]

Many join the military without a clue what will happen next. The statistics show they will go through drills and defend the homeland....who is anybody to flip shit to a guy because it didn't turn out that way?

Many become drug dealers without a clue what will happen next. The statistics show that they will run shipments, make contacts. Who is anybody to flip shit to a guy because it didn't turn out that way [when they ended up having to uzi down mofos cutting in on their turf]?

In the eyes of my law and your law, ignorance is no defence. The same should be said of joining the army. I mean really "I joined the army, but I didn't expect to have to kill people. I thought guns were toys!"

[yeahwho]

Many become drug dealers without a clue what will happen next. The statistics show that they will run shipments, make contacts. Who is anybody to flip shit to a guy because it didn't turn out that way [when they ended up having to uzi down mofos cutting in on their turf]?

In the eyes of my law and your law, ignorance is no defence. The same should be said of joining the army. I mean really "I joined the army, but I didn't expect to have to kill people. I thought guns were toys!"

I don't think the energy in arguing why I prefer to be critical of the current administration is going to ever make sense to some. If you feel as though bashing the troops is going to make a valid case for your cause I have sorely mis-judged many a posters ability to read the current political climate.

But you have the freedom to do so. It just isn't going to help anybody anywhere. I have an inkling that 99% of the troops and their families don't want them there either. That doesn't mean they will conform to some preconcieved thought in somebodies head and revolt against their superiors.

Odd thing to argue, Rage Against The Cogs.

[Mic-Logic]

Everywhere a nigga look paulk is dropping knowledge. Ace also. Sad to think that most of the people who comprise the military, the army, the marines, or the navy today are kids who are either uncertain of their future, need money for college, or kids who were suckered into believing the government's propaganda (i.e. tv commercials, pamphlets, etc.). Is it just me or is "war hero" an oxymoron?

And Whois don't front. There is that option to view an individual post. You don't have to go through the whole process of taking someone off of ignore.

[D_Raay]

Yeahwho, I would certainly not argue with you that the powers that be are to blame for the most part, and they should be the ones to we go after. However, having once had a thought as a young lad to join the military because of the benefits accrued towards college, I decided not to for the simple reason that I would not kill anyone. Why so many don't have that very same moral agenda I don't know, but as Ace said, therein lies another problem. One as poignant as the latter I would guess.

[yeahwho]

The argument if we should or should not have a military is not really an option in reality. Maybe in a few 100 years with advances in mind control, but as a group of humans on this earth today, No. Because really isn't what your saying is the military is not a necessity?

Or are we saying that the foot soldier should have his own moral compass and know when to not obey an order....which is pretty much saying we should not have a military.

[D_Raay]

Well, speaking for just me, I am saying they wouldn't ever have a military if everyone were like me. Before anyone calls me a coward, I would most certainly defend my home. However, the government has proven time and time again over history that it goes to war for reasons other than for our survival. And me personally, I am a little too smart for that nonsense.

[Ace42]

The argument if we should or should not have a military is not really an option in reality. Maybe in a few 100 years with advances in mind control, but as a group of humans on this earth today, No. Because really isn't what your saying is the military is not a necessity?

Armies are necessary to fight wars. Wars are unnecessary, which means armies are too. It is only when there is no army to fight that an army becomes unnecessary. There can only be no army to fight if:

1. Other armies are eradicated by force. (The Hitler solution)
2. Armies are disbanded voluntarily.

As no-one is willing to disband their army, we must consider that everyone must have an army.

This applies to nuclear weapons also. "The argument if we should or should not have nuclear weapons is not an option in reality."

By that argument, Saddam, Osama, every nation or group should have Nukes, and it is tyrannical for the US to deny them that security.

So it comes down to: How do you want it to work out?

Do you:-

Want equality, with everyone having no capability to inflict mass destruction.

Want equality with everyone having enough nukes to wipe out the world.

Want inequality that maintains your current position as the beneficiary of massive destructive forces, which cause mass suffering, misery, torture, death, purportedly for your peace of mind.

Hmmm?

If you want the former, you can't expect everyone else to put the gun down first. If you have the courage of your convictions, then you should take a leaf out of Gandhi's book: "Blah blah is not worth killing for, only worth dying for or something."

If you want the second, then you cannot complain when an accident results in the entire world being destroyed.

If you want the latter, then you cannot complain when irate people attempt to correct this injustice.

The former is the only viable solution as far as I can see, and I think it is incredibly hypocritical to support this ideology whilst expecting everyone else to be the first to adopt it.

As one of Arafat's potential sucessors said, it is by denying the Palestinians the gun-ships etc that the Israelis receive from the US, that they are forced to turn to terrorist acts such as suicide bombing.

When an Army is making life more dangerous for the population it is supposed to be protecting, it should be fighting itself.

To put it another way:

Two men argue without guns, they both get black-eyes.
One man needs a gun for "protection" which means the other man needs a gun for "Protection.
Two men argue with guns, one (maybe both) get shot.

Which do you think is worse? Want to throw "one man doesn't have a gun, gets shot" into the mix?

Well, that's no different than them both having guns, but with one less gun in the world, which means one less risk of shooting, one less chance of it being played with by a kid, one less chance of it being stolen, etc etc.

You can't have an accident with a gun if there is no gun, you can't have war crimes if there is no war, you cannot have wars without armies.

You can have a war without generals or politicians, you cannot have a war without "soldiers".

To put it yet ANOTHER way:

I play video games online. There are plenty of cheaters in various games that make them "not fun" to play. In the same way that you need an army to protect from other armies, I would need to download aimbots, etc to protect myself from these people. To play without an aimbot would put me at a disadvantage. And of course, that means everyone else needs an aimbot.

Well, guess what, I don't play with an aimbot or any cheats, and yeah quite often I probably get my ass kicked by a lame-ass cheater which ruins my game and puts me in a bad mood, but I don't then think "hey, I should have an aimbot too, just incase!" In the same way I don't feel the need to carry a gun or a knife to protect myself from the very real threat of criminals, and because of this, the people around me don't feel the need to carry a gun or a knife. And if I met someone with a gun or a knife, would I feel the need to get a gun or a knife? No.

Violence leads to violence, and armies are only violent. Me, Ghandi and Jesus are in agreement on this one.

I think it is naive of you to think that while there is a standing army obliged to obey a leader, there will not be people who will do everything in their power to gain control of this force and use it for their own ends. The leader the US got rid of in Iraq was Saddam. Has that effected Iraqi militancy? No.

For no man well of such a salve can speak, / That heals the wound, and cures not the disgrace

Shakespeare, Sonnet XXIV

[Ace42]

I am saying they wouldn't ever have a military if everyone were like me. Before anyone calls me a coward, I would most certainly defend my home.

"War is capitalism with the gloves off and many who go to war know it butthey go to war anyway because they don't want to be a hero. It takes courage to sit down and be counted." - Tom Stoppard Travesties

[drobertson420]

I know I'm going to regret this but...I'll taking Qdrip off ignore long enough to see what his latest whine is about.

(Pause)

Jesus what a moron...

Hey Qtip, here's a little hint:

US Army 1986 - 1994
MOS 98C

The Army and the Marines have ALWAYS made fun of each other.

Now go fuck off and play with a dud ya civi puke...


You Snoopin' Bastid! :D

[Ali]

It really isn't Apples and Oranges
It's Catalyst and reactions
One is not going to exsist without the other.


Word History: Why do soldiers fight? One answer is hidden in the word soldier itself. Its first recorded occurrence is found in a work composed around 1300, the word having come into Middle English (as soudier) from Old French soudoior and Anglo-Norman soudeour. The Old French word, first recorded in the 12th century, is derived from sol or soud, Old French forms of Modern French sou. There is no longer a French coin named sou, but the meaning of sou alerts us to the fact that money is involved. Indeed, Old French sol referred to a coin and also meant “pay,” and a soudoior was a man who fought for pay. This was a concept worth expressing in an era when many men were not paid for fighting but did it in service to a feudal superior. Thus soldier is parallel to the word mercenary, which goes back to Latin mercnnrius, derived from mercs, “pay,” and meaning “working for pay.” The word could also be used as a noun, one of whose senses was “a soldier of fortune.”

Policy; A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters: American foreign policy; the company's personnel policy. There's the difference: US soldiers, fighting for money (in many senses) 'Insurgents' fighting for something else...

Any idea who's going to win?

[Qdrop]

Well, speaking for just me, I am saying they wouldn't ever have a military if everyone were like me.

pipedream ideology.


....However, the government has proven time and time again over history that it goes to war for reasons other than for our survival. And me personally, I am a little too smart for that nonsense.

everytime we have gone to war or "police action", it has been for our survival in one way or another.

economic/military stategic "satellites" are for survival.
stopping the spread of a rival gov't is survival.

these are simply less glamorous and seem "immorral" to many.....

but that is the reality of it.

[Ali]

these are simply less glamorous and seem "immorral" to many...... manny

[Qdrop]

manny

mayonaise

[Ali]

everytime we have gone to war or "police action", it has been for our survival in one way or another.

economic/military stategic "satellites" are for survival.
stopping the spread of a rival gov't is survival.

these are simply less glamorous and seem "immorral" to many.....

but that is the reality of it. So, by your logic, 9/11 was an act of survival. Al-Queda was just trying to 'survive'.

Or is it only 'morral' when the US govt does it?

[Qdrop]

So, by your logic, 9/11 was an act of survival. Al-Queda was just trying to 'survive'.

Or is it only 'morral' when the US govt does it?

yes, Al-Queda felt that their way of life and religion was being threatened (still is) and attacked us.
Now we feel threatened and retaliate.

we feel our way of life (civil rights, equality, secularism, capitalism) is better and look to spread that by any means necessary and set up profitable/stategic "outposts" in the process.

Al-Queda (and the muslim nations of the world really) feel their system is better (religious zealotry, male dominated, kleptocratic x10) and see us (rightly so) as a threat to that.

there is nothing new here.

pick a side.
there is no room for middle ground really.


*and yes, you can look at what i wrote for the american way of life (civil rights, equality, secularism, capitalism) and attack each one as not being held up to it proper regard (bush and jesus, big business monopoly, ect), but the "model" is there....and in my opinion- superior.

[Ali]

yes, Al-Queda felt that their way of life and religion was being threatened (still is) and attacked us.
Now we feel threatened and retaliate.

we feel our way of life (civil rights, equality, secularism, capitalism) is better and look to spread that by any means necessary and set up profitable/stategic "outposts" in the process.

Al-Queda (and the muslim nations of the world really) feel their system is better (religious zealotry, male dominated, kleptocratic x10) and see us (rightly so) as a threat to that.

there is nothing new here.

pick a side.
there is no room for middle ground really.


*and yes, you can look at what i wrote for the american way of life (civil rights, equality, secularism, capitalism) and attack each one as not being held up to it proper regard (bush and jesus, big business monopoly, ect), but the "model" is there....and in my opinion- superior.

A very unbiased description :rolleyes:

and I would define your system as also being based on religious zealotry, is completely male dominated, and as for kleptocratic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kleptocratic)... you win there, too

How's the old foot doing? I tmust be difficult to walk with all those holes.

[Qdrop]

A very unbiased description :rolleyes:

well.....i am an american.....and loyalty is biological. but i strive to be objective.


and I would define your system as also being based on religious zealotry, is completely male dominated, and as for kleptocratic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kleptocratic)... you win there, too


as i ALREADY addressed in my previous post....yes, one can point to each of those points and lay them over our american society and see much to be desired...if not out right hypocracy.
but they are NOT tantamount.....and you know this.

with all the Bush and jesus shit....and christian coalition BS in our country....it is nowhere NEAR that of most muslim nations (where there is practically NO separation of church/state).

perfect civil rights for all?....of course there are issues with minorities and gays,ect in america society.
But again, NOWHERE NEAR that of our mulsim rivals.
we have civil liberties built into our system of law....and yes, those liberties get attacked and ignored from time to time. but AT LEAST THERE IS A SYSTEM TO CHALLANGE IT!
if any american woman or gay or <insert minority> or ANYONE takes issue with how their personal rights are being upheld, they can take to court--among other things.

what can minorities or women in muslim countries do?... what system do they have? complain and get stoned to death or humiliated in some extreme manner?
yeah...good times. that works well.
there simply does not exist a system to support them.

and YOU cannot support that.....


for ever one black man/homosexual that gets dragged from a pick-up truck by his neck in america.....there are countless women/minorites killed, maimed, harrassed, surpressed, ect in any other muslim based country.
american propaganda?......if that helps you sleep at night, fine.

at least our "imperfect system" has checks and balances in place.


as far as our capitalistic system: history has proven what works best and what doesn't.....
no, it isn't egilatarian......that would not work as it is not compatible with human nature.
capitalism does not mean "riches for all" or even "decent money for all".....but it does gives that oppurtunity to most.
(and before you even start - YES...IT....FUCKING....DOES!...please don't even debate that aspect.)
it is the best system for an imperfect world.

and with all the flack we get (3% of the american population has 90% of the wealth - a bullshit stat btw) our system is no where near the kleptocracy of saudi arabia, ect.

i'm not telling you anything new....these are all things you are well aware of....
you just choose not to see them.

perhaps your view ain't so "unbiased" either.....eh?
:rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

yes it was stupid. But I would also say it was quite sweet.

then again...im a girl :o

??- wrong thread?

[Qdrop]

nope.

you all just forgot wha thte original subject was.

Guy who cut off his finger to honor his wife. :)

wow....you're right.
how self-centered i've become. :D


sorry.

[Ali]

what can minorities or women in muslim countries do?... complain and get stoned to death or humiliated in some extreme manner?
yeah...good times.
there simply does not exist a system to support them.

and YOU cannot support that..... But YOUR government supports countries like Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia), does it not?

Double standards, buddy. Your 'argument' holds no water. You are so proud of your government and you claim that your society is so much better than 'evil', 'backward' societies, but yours is no better. You are just too ignorant to know. Do a bit of research before you post, it might save you a bit of embarrassment.

[Qdrop]

But YOUR government supports countries like Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia), does it not?

this is true.......it bodes well for us financially because of our dependance on oil.
not proud of it, but that is the reality of the situation.

if a child's stepfather is a complete asshole, yet still give him the food and shelter he requires.....that kid ain't goin anywhere.
it's hard to bite the hand that feeds you.
hypocracy?....or reality?


Double standards, buddy. Your 'argument' holds no water.

okay....read my post again.
are you simply saying "your backyard is messy......so don't tell anyone else to clean up thier toxic garbage dump!"


You are so proud of your government and you claim that your society is so much better than 'evil', 'backward' societies, but yours is no better.

i think i already answered that in previous posts.....did you even read them?

You are just too ignorant to know. Do a bit of research before you post, it might save you a bit of embarrassment.
look who's talking......try reading my entire posts and digesting the points before you retort.


see, i know what you are doing...you're just skimming my replies and saying "bullshit....bullshit...blah blah..whatever"....you're not really reading or taking anything to heart because it doesn't jive with your views....
you just quickly dismiss them....

if you are just going to do that....don't bother replying.....and don't bother debating with me.

[Whois]

There isn't half as much propaganda regarding either trade as there is regarding "serving your country."

"My friend, you would not tell with such high zest,
to children ardent for some desperate glory,
the old lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori."

One of my favorites...

[Whois]

You Snoopin' Bastid! :D

Yeah...I got to read some VERY weird intercepts.

[Ali]

this is true.......it bodes well for us financially because of our dependance on oil.
not proud of it, but that is the reality of the situation. oh, well in that case I guess it's OK, then.

[Qdrop]

oh, well in that case I guess it's OK, then.

it's not about being "ok" or "moral" or "right".......

it's about what works for a country or a society PRAGMATICALLY.

the muslim worlds civil rights and religious zealotry is not practical.....it does not work well. it hinders their society and holds them back....even those in power. if not for thier georgraphic luck with their oil reserves, they would likely not have survived into this millenium......
it is only through thier oil wealth that allows them to conduct thier society, gov't, and economic framework they way they do...in such a backward, middle-ages manner.
that wealth will not last...the oil dependanc of the world will not last.
their "business model" is not sustainable......

our system is...or at least far more so than theirs. it would make pracitical sense for them to adopt this system....even with it's flaws.


and yes, ideally we will get off the "dope" that is middle east oil. but until then, we must walk the tight-rope.

[Ali]

if not for thier georgraphic luck with their oil reserves, they would likely not have survived into this millenium......
it is only through thier oil wealth that allows them to conduct thier society, gov't, and economic framework they way they do...in such a backward, middle-ages manner.
that wealth will not last...the oil dependanc of the world will not last.
their "business model" is not sustainable......

our system is...or at least far more so than theirs. it would make pracitical sense for them to adopt this system....even with it's flaws.

and yes, ideally we will get off the "dope" that this middle east oil. but until then, we must walk the tight-rope. um, did you know that 'they' have been civilised for thousands of years longer than 'you'? Mesopotamia (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook03.html) is the cradle of civilisation (http://www.arab.net/iraq/iq_cradle.htm). People were behaving in a civilised manner there while your ancestors were still hitting each other over the heads with clubs. Oil has nothing to do with it, and as for the oil dependence of the world not lasting, it looks pretty much like it will!

You gonna start whining about me refuting your points? I read your post. It was crap. You are a bigot and you can't argue for shit.

Edit: another gem

their "business model" is not sustainable......

our system is...or at least far more so than theirs. it would make pracitical sense for them to adopt this system....even with it's flaws.

and yes, ideally we will get off the "dope" that is middle east oil. but until then, we must walk the tight-rope. so, your system is sustainable, but it's based on dependence on middle eastern oil?

You think it' make more sense for the Middle East to adopt your system: being entirely dependent on another country for energy?

[Qdrop]

um, did you know that 'they' have been civilised for thousands of years longer than 'you'? Mesopotamia (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook03.html) is the cradle of civilisation (http://www.arab.net/iraq/iq_cradle.htm). People were behaving in a civilised manner there while your ancestors were still hitting each other over the heads with clubs. Oil has nothing to do with it.

well aware of the history of human devopement, thanks.
you "point" made....well,...no point.
the fact that complex civilization began their bears nothing in this debate.
i'm talking about TODAY.


You are a bigot and you can't argue for shit.

were do you get the "bigot" from?
i can see you calling me ethnocentric.....you could make a point on that i suppose. i don't agree......but you could at least make the argument.

but not biggot.

"why do you keep using that word? i do not think it means what you think it mean...
- the Priness Bride

you're still not debating any of my points very well.....or with any depth.
you seem distracted.
perhaps we should contiue this another time when you can put more effort into it.

and stop being so angry and hostile......
one can debate without getting angry....try it.

[Ali]

well aware of the history of human devopement, thanks.
you "point" made....well,...no point.
the fact that complex civilization began their bears nothing in this debate.
i'm talking about TODAY.



were do you get the "bigot" from?
i can see you calling me ethnocentric.....you could make a point on that i suppose. i don't agree......but you could at least make the argument.

but not biggot.

"why do you keep using that word? i do not think it means what you think it mean...
- the Priness Bride

you're still not debating any of my points very well.....or with any depth.
you seem distracted.
perhaps we should contiue this another time when you can put more effort into it.

and stop being so angry and hostile......
one can debate without getting angry....try it. is English your first language?

[Qdrop]

so, your system is sustainable, but it's based on dependence on middle eastern oil?

You think it' make more sense for the Middle East to adopt your system: being entirely dependent on another country for energy?


our system is not BASED on dependance on middle eastern oil.
that is a strawman....i did not say that.
we import it ,we do not export.....
we use oil for our industry...but our ecomomic framework is not based it.

the middle east main export is.....yes, that's right: oil.
they completely depend on the export and sale of it.
that is their artery...

again, you don't seem to understand the concepts we are debating.

we are dependant to a certain degree (approx. 25% or our oil comes form the middle east) on oil to run american industry and run our ecomomic framework.
we could survive without it.....but it would be costly.
hence our continued involvment with the saudi's, ect.


as i said, it is not a sustainable system they have.

[Qdrop]

is English your first language?

THAT'S your retort?

a canned response used by countless other posters on this board?


Ali, get some sleep. we'll talk later. :rolleyes:

[Schmeltz]

It's ridiculous to claim an industrialized economy, especially America's, could survive without fossil fuels. Oil and coal are what drives the American industrial production juggernaut and there's absolutely no getting around it - what do you think is behind all those stats that consistently demonstrate the manner in which America consumes a level of energy out of all proportion to the size of its population? What do you think would happen to the American economy if that energy supply was suddenly cut off? How would you propose to maintain a standard of living and industrial production when energy sources that do not depend on fossil fuels constitute only a tiny fraction of America's energy consumption?

Face it, you're just as complicit in the oil dependence system as the Saudis are. It's not you who has them over a barrel, it's quite the other way around. Here's hoping the Saudis don't suddenly decide to withdraw that trillion dollars they have invested in your economy - that would certainly jerk the rug out from under your self-sustaining ass in a bad way.

As for your social Darwinist idiocy - your troops went and died in the Second World War tp prove that it was bullshit. Anyone with half a brain knows that the only "pragmatic" future for humanity lies in cooperation, not this immature notion of society as a war of all against all. Your childish ideas about "survival" will lock humanity into a destructive cycle of Iraqs and 9/11s if people keep buying into them. Fortunately, not everybody does.

[yeahwho]

Face it, you're just as complicit in the oil dependence system as the Saudis are. It's not you who has them over a barrel, it's quite the other way around. Here's hoping the Saudis don't suddenly decide to withdraw that trillion dollars they have invested in your economy - that would certainly jerk the rug out from under your self-sustaining ass in a bad way.

As for your social Darwinist idiocy - your troops went and died in the Second World War tp prove that it was bullshit. Anyone with half a brain knows that the only "pragmatic" future for humanity lies in cooperation, not this immature notion of society as a war of all against all. Your childish ideas about "survival" will lock humanity into a destructive cycle of Iraqs and 9/11s if people keep buying into them. Fortunately, not everybody does.

Your first paragraph reminds me of this discussion from the Oscar winning 1976 movie "Network",

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it. Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal? That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations; there are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast, interwoven, interacting, multivaried, multinational dominion of dollars.

Your last paragraph is a bit too mean spirited toward your fellow man to take seriously.

[Qdrop]

It's ridiculous to claim an industrialized economy, especially America's, could survive without fossil fuels. Oil and coal are what drives the American industrial production juggernaut and there's absolutely no getting around it - what do you think is behind all those stats that consistently demonstrate the manner in which America consumes a level of energy out of all proportion to the size of its population? What do you think would happen to the American economy if that energy supply was suddenly cut off? How would you propose to maintain a standard of living and industrial production when energy sources that do not depend on fossil fuels constitute only a tiny fraction of America's energy consumption?

yes....the american industry DOES depend on fossil fuel to power it's economy. i do not disagree per say.
that was not the point of contention.
it was how much we rely on mideast oil- specifically saudi arabia.
please read more thouroghly next time before you retort.

Face it, you're just as complicit in the oil dependence system as the Saudis are.

well.....that is true to an extent.
but think of it this way: america has various sources for oil....saudi and the middle east make up barely 25%.
Saudi has numerous buyers of their oil....america is only one customer.
so far, so even.

america requires fuel to power it's industry. not oil, fuel.
at this point...the main fuel is oil.
as technology increases, that will change.
our industry will continue with another form of fuel.

where does that leave the middle east?...what else do they have beyond oil to offer the world?...what industry?
that is what i mean by sustainable business model.


Here's hoping the Saudis don't suddenly decide to withdraw that trillion dollars they have invested in your economy - that would certainly jerk the rug out from under your self-sustaining ass in a bad way.


yes, that would suck......but that will never happen.

As for your social Darwinist idiocy - your troops went and died in the Second World War tp prove that it was bullshit. Anyone with half a brain knows that the only "pragmatic" future for humanity lies in cooperation, not this immature notion of society as a war of all against all. Your childish ideas about "survival" will lock humanity into a destructive cycle of Iraqs and 9/11s if people keep buying into them. Fortunately, not everybody does.
*sigh*
you act as if this is "my" idea...."my" philososphy.
i did not think up or create this system that the nature of the world operates....i just recognize it.
do you think it makes me happy to have to think of things as "practical or not practical"?...to give little or not bearing to morality?
no....it does not.
it sucks......nature sucks.
human suck supreme.

but i didn't make the rules.....neither did america.
we just abide by them.

ONCE again: ideology does not trump all!

you can't win a basketball game with a field goal.
that's not the rules.
you can't make up your own rules on how the world works.
no matter how "moral and logical" you think that "field goal" is.....

[D_Raay]

Man, Q you are a typical complicit American. Not much use for thinking outside the box is there? And in your own argument you contradict yourself. Earlier post, "this is true.......it bodes well for us financially because of our dependance on oil.
not proud of it, but that is the reality of the situation." Then, "our system is not BASED on dependance on middle eastern oil.
that is a strawman....i did not say that.
we import it ,we do not export.....
we use oil for our industry...but our ecomomic framework is not based it."
Which is it man?
What exports btw?
As far as my pipedream ideology goes, it is reality for me, as you like to say. And I don't make any attempt to swing anyone to my ideology.

On a lighter note, here's something you can't practice on your own, shaking hands.

[Qdrop]

Earlier post, "this is true.......it bodes well for us financially because of our dependance on oil.
not proud of it, but that is the reality of the situation."

Then,
"our system is not BASED on dependance on middle eastern oil.
that is a strawman....i did not say that.
we import it ,we do not export.....
we use oil for our industry...but our ecomomic framework is not based it."

Which is it man?
What exports btw?


why is this so hard for people to understand?
the first post speaks of our general dependance on oil.

the second post i am referring to the fact that, while we are dependant on oil, only 25% of that comes from Saudi/middle east fields.

we import the oil for our industries fossil fuel. we do not sell it (export) or depend on it's sale to support our economy.

the middle east exports oil for sale. that is the staple of there economy.

if an alternative fossil fuel can be garnered....the american industries and economy would continue without much of a hitch...

if an alternative fossil fuel can be garnered....the middle east (it's only staple indusrty being the export and sale of oil) would be FUCKED.

i really don't know how many more times i can write this.



As far as my pipedream ideology goes, it is reality for me, as you like to say. And I don't make any attempt to swing anyone to my ideology.

On a lighter note, here's something you can't practice on your own, shaking hands.

D....you're my best friend.

[D_Raay]

Here's a little something that i think applies to your response Q;

To the owner of the Ford Excursion who implores us to "Support Our Troops" I say this: You, sir (or madam), are a monumental jackass. At this moment, American troops are risking their lives to protect your inalienable right to live your life in an impenetrable fog of selfishness and stupidity. If not for the need to service this grotesque monstrosity on which you squander your money and that of the taxpayers who subsidize your comfortably numb life, those troops you support would not be getting killed and maimed in a country I doubt you could find on a map.

What difference does it make what the percentages are? We, as a country, are just fat little piggies rolling around in the stuff.
Where is the sense of responsibility from our government? Why are we involved in such matters? We hate them, but damnit we need their oil. It's the whole "capitalist pig" thing. Our government cares more about Ford Lincoln Mercury than it's own citizens, who, by the way, pay most of the taxes and should have more say than some goddamn car manufacturer.
Are we to think they have no viable solutions to the energy concerns?
I am still wondering when an actual presidential campaign will be held that addresses the real problems in this country, but that will never happen. It will rain frogs before that happens (for our spiritual friends).

[Qdrop]

Here's a little something that i think applies to your response Q;

To the owner of the Ford Excursion who implores us to "Support Our Troops" I say this: You, sir (or madam), are a monumental jackass. At this moment, American troops are risking their lives to protect your inalienable right to live your life in an impenetrable fog of selfishness and stupidity. If not for the need to service this grotesque monstrosity on which you squander your money and that of the taxpayers who subsidize your comfortably numb life, those troops you support would not be getting killed and maimed in a country I doubt you could find on a map.

What difference does it make what the percentages are? We, as a country, are just fat little piggies rolling around in the stuff.
Where is the sense of responsibility from our government? Why are we involved in such matters? We hate them, but damnit we need their oil. It's the whole "capitalist pig" thing. Our government cares more about Ford Lincoln Mercury than it's own citizens, who, by the way, pay most of the taxes and should have more say than some goddamn car manufacturer.
Are we to think they have no viable solutions to the energy concerns?
I am still wondering when an actual presidential campaign will be held that addresses the real problems in this country, but that will never happen. It will rain frogs before that happens (for our spiritual friends).

are you ready for this?
i am in almost total agreement.

i hate our oil addiction....
i hate SUV's...
i hate that we have not made enough strident effort to invest in/further research other viable forms of energy that would not require trade with backwards, terrorist nations and the slow destruction of the environment.

but we won't get that with a republican in office....

[D_Raay]

That's where the activism comes in Q. Not complicity. We need to take our country back. It's a long hard road to travel, but it has to begin.

[Qdrop]

That's where the activism comes in Q. Not complicity. We need to take our country back. It's a long hard road to travel, but it has to begin.

agreed.
i'll start slashing the tires of every SUV i see.
you start marching on DC.....
we'll meet at the Monument.
bring some slim jims.....




i'm not sure why you paint me as complacent.
i vote in every election i can. i engage in every debate i can on any platform i can.

i am not happy with how this country is being handled.
i understand it....but that does not mean i agree with everything that is being done.

one can be progressive without being liberal.
really, it's true.

[yeahwho]

Violence leads to violence, and armies are only violent. Me, Ghandi and Jesus are in agreement on this one.

I think it is naive of you to think that while there is a standing army obliged to obey a leader, there will not be people who will do everything in their power to gain control of this force and use it for their own ends. The leader the US got rid of in Iraq was Saddam. Has that effected Iraqi militancy? No.

For no man well of such a salve can speak, / That heals the wound, and cures not the disgrace

Shakespeare, Sonnet XXIV

Am I naive? Or is my cognitive thinking on reality (http://www.bullatomsci.org/) naive?

The arms race (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/survival/) is reality. Mankind has accelerated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon) this to the point that no matter what vision one may have about peace on earth, reality is one must stop proliferation (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_12/default.asp) first.

This is but one ingredient I use in my opposition to the current administration's Iraq war. I am on the same page with you and your thought processes are beautiful, really. But I am standing by what I say when the troops who are doing the bidding of this administration are not all that happy about being there, so why should I bash them too? Not today will I. When your thrown into a situation such as theirs, all of a sudden basic human survival skills do not vanish.

It is IMO the wrong way to gain support for your vision, which is light years away from the average American....unfortunately.

Just because I'm not going to agree with your premise that the troops are a major source of the problem, doesn't mean that I'm going to say you are naive. I think in the realm of world peace, insults negate progress. I have my way and you have your way. Together it may work.

I try not to think in terms of, "is the glass half full or is it half empty, looks to me to be exactly half.....till we add or drink."

blah blah woof woof

[Whois]

"Jihad, durka, durka..."

[Ace42]

Am I naive? Or is my cognitive thinking on reality (http://www.bullatomsci.org/) naive?

I said "It is naive [of you] to think." That is quite different from calling you a naive person.

But I am standing by what I say when the troops who are doing the bidding of this administration are not all that happy about being there,

And they weren't [whilst] in 'Nam, either. And nothing has changed but the faces. In the words of The Who (who themselves lifted the quote) "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

'Nam was gorier and had less popular support than this war in Iraq, and it still did not prevent the same shit happening again. The leaders have changed, and we thought that (with the anti-war movements and civil-rights movements) it was for good. Nope, same shit, different day. Censuring the leaders made no difference whatsoever.

When your thrown into a situation such as theirs, all of a sudden basic human survival skills do not vanish.

I am sure the same can be said of a bar-fight. And self-defence is a mitigation for all manner of physical violence. However, I do not put myself into a situation where "it is either me or them" like so many football hooligans, drunk trouble makers, etc do. So when people like the BNP start stirring up trouble in Bradford, I do not say "they were only defending themselves against physical attacks, caused by them exercising their right to free speech" when it all kicks off.

You don't go around in ethnic communities chanting racial slurs unless you want a ruck, and you don't join an organisation which gives you a gun and whose sole purpose is to kill people unless you want to kill people.

Anyone who says "I didn't expect to have to go into combat" gets no sympathy from me. It's like a fireman saying "I didn't expect to have to run headlong into a fire." - yeah there are days when firemen sit around not getting called out, but that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to not expect to get called out.

As I believe I said earlier, ignorance is no defence.

I think in the realm of world peace, insults negate progress. I have my way and you have your way. Together it may work.

I am sorry that you took my criticism of your conceit ["idea", I am not calling you conceited] personally. I did not mean it in a pejorative sense.

[Schmeltz]

I guess you come off as complacent, Q, because you seem fanatically devoted to the idea that what you have labelled "reality" can never be changed. It isn't very progressive to consider that nothing can be done to ameliorate profoundly destructive behaviour, if you ask me.

[yeahwho]

Ace42 Quote:

I said "It is naive [of you] to think." That is quite different from calling you a naive person.

I know you know I'm not naive. I do not readily accept soldiers in the US military want to fight this war, that is why I reserve my criticism for the administration which put them there.

These guys (http://www.vvaw.org/) were soldiers in Vietnam. I have met a few of these fellows and one is a very close family friend. They have the wisdom and know the difference. Not a bunch of jarheads, as far from it as I know. Ron Kovics book, Born on the 4th of July goes over the tragedy of that war and what one soldier did about it.

Meet the new Boss, Same as the old Boss.....I actually think the "Boss" the Who speak of in that song is our system of perpetual greed and false entitlement, a series of propaganda that sadly, many of the kids from, "My Generation" accepted, rather than rejected. How else does a book like "Unfit for Command, Swiftboats for Truth" become a NYTimes Bestseller? It was proven total Bullshit within 30 days of being published yet many of The Who's Generation ate it up.

Maybe Kurt Cobain was onto something when he said he hopes he dies before he becomes Pete Townsend.

Will the Beasties Boys generation do the same?

Cheers and on to more pressing issues! Wage Peace. Biatch!

[Ace42]

http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4050

[yeahwho]

http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4050

OK, my real name is Neil Dawson.......and I'm a farmworker, owned, damn.

[Ali]

are you ready for this?
i am in almost total agreement.

i hate our oil addiction....
i hate SUV's...
i hate that we have not made enough strident effort to invest in/further research other viable forms of energy that would not require trade with backwards, terrorist nations and the slow destruction of the environment.

but we won't get that with a republican in office.... But that's the reality of the situation, so why bother discussing it at all, Mr Realist?

[drobertson420]

Yeah...I got to read some VERY weird intercepts.

I was just a lowly Medic. ;)

[Qdrop]

I guess you come off as complacent, Q, because you seem fanatically devoted to the idea that what you have labelled "reality" can never be changed. It isn't very progressive to consider that nothing can be done to ameliorate profoundly destructive behaviour, if you ask me.

that is a good point. and i understand why you think that.

perhaps i should elaborate:
i say i am a progressive in the sense that i believe in innovation and upgrade with technology, tolerance and acceptance within society, and breaking the shackles of religious and spiritual dogma.

this is what i believe in...in my heart. i am a progressive in that sense.

however, many of the things i believe in and want to see come to fruition in this world, likely won't happen.....at least not in my lifetime.
that belief is just based on an understanding of social biology, history, and psychology.
that is why i am a realist, as you say.

now understand this: it's not FUN to see that war, racism, famine, poverty, ect....will likely never be completely obliterated.
that doesn't make me happy.....but that doesn't make it untrue either.
i must balance my ideological beliefs and "wants" (let's be honest, that's what they are) with what the world and all it's history is showing us what is likely to be.

and yes, it can be quite depressing.

cry for me......
:(

[Qdrop]

But that's the reality of the situation, so why bother discussing it at all, Mr Realist?

i thought you had me on ignore?





if not change, discussion at least gives to understanding........

[Whois]

I was just a lowly Medic. ;)

Yeah, but when people get wounded you're an instant STAR!
:eek: