Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: PaperLuigi on June 23, 2008, 09:05:53 PM
-
Inspired by the recent surge of touchy subject type threads. The current war (Iraq) is stupid, but I believe we should take pride in the fact that we were involved in WWII and WWI for specific reasons (some of which include stopping Hitler, aiding our allies and liberating captured civilians). I can also sympathize with certain groups who fight for freedom and battle in order to protect their homeland (Spartans, South Vietnamese, Allies, Muslims) against the dictators/kings/leaders of the past (King Richard, Hitler, Khan) even though they obviously knew they'd be killing the opposite side. In my opinion, war is something that can't be helped at times, and if you take a look at the history of mankind, some wars were needed to keep the balance of good and evil in tact (WWII, WWI, Civil War, American Revolution). Of course, I can also see where war was a poor option (Spanish-American, Vietnam, Iraq) and wasn't needed. I'm not a hawk when it comes to waging war because I always try to look for other possible options. In any case I respect the troops (at least the ones who do the job they're supposed to do). It bothers me when liberals like Rosie Odonnell accuse our troops of being terrorists but I'm also disturbed by conservatives like Bill Oreilly who think the Iraq war is justifiable. Like I said in another thread, war is sometimes necessary and sometimes it isn't, but never is it never necessary or always necessary.
Anyway, that's my take on war, and if you guys have any opinions on what could have/should have been done instead of fighting in a specific war (even if it was WWII or WWI), say them here.
-
Pride in something that was, unfortunately, simply necessary at the time and caused innumerable casualties? No. And I'm just talking about WWII.
-
Well, it was either that or we surrender to Hitler.
Really, I doubt telling the Spartans to surrender to the Persians would be wise. I wouldn't like it if some guy from another country wanted to take over my home.
-
Read my post more carefully next time.
-
I read your post, and I also spoke about the Spartans. I doubt the Muslims wanted to surrender to the Crusaders either.
Some other examples include the Civil War and American Revolution. Can you imagine what might of happened if we didn't take part in those wars?
-
The American Revolution wasn't about good and evil, by the way. It was about taxes.
-
Well, so what if it was? We'd still be under British rule if we didn't fight.
-
And the Civil War was primarily about states' rights. Slavery only became forefront after the Emancipation Proclamation. i.e. it was a political move more than an ethical one.
-
Well, so what if it was? We'd still be under British rule if we didn't fight.
That's not a certainty. Most British colonies are no longer controlled by the British. In any case, things might be very different with a different balance of power or without the ideas that were fostered through the writings that came out of the war.
-
PL Smells.
Actually, I voted "War aint pretty. but sometimes it's necessary"
-
Pride in something that was, unfortunately, simply necessary at the time and caused innumerable casualties? No. And I'm just talking about WWII.
There are other wars besides WWII btw. Take a look at what the Spartans, Muslims, South Koreans and South Vietnamese fought to protect. Yeah, there were casualties, but they were fighting in what they believed in and for their own civilians (and it was a good cause). Are you saying they should've tried to make peace with the invaders?
-
My stance on the War in Iraq is that the war isn't over yet, so you shouldn't really form too strong an opinion on it. Nearly every war is unpopular when it's being fought, but decades later, people say "At the time, it was necessary." So too, in the future, there will be a lot more people saying "The Iraq War was necessary. If we hadn't invaded that nation back then, Al Qaeda would've been supported and struck again with a new attack and blah blah blah..."
Really though, the thing that bothers me the most about this war is that many people who are against it, turn around five minutes later and ridicule the United States for not sending military force into Sudan for Darfur.
-
My view is that war is never necessary and is always fought for a stupid reason; just how stupid the reason is, is the question. My view is that WWII would've probably ended without our help; although America was sort of pushed to join after Pearl Harbor, I doubt Hitler would've attempted an invasion of the U.S. or something of the sort. My view is that the Iraq war is a primarily commercial war, fought for primarily commercial reasons, and that things would be a lot better if America didn't have its current attitude, which is that of sticking its nose into everyone else's business all the time.
-
My stance on the War in Iraq is that the war isn't over yet, so you shouldn't really form too strong an opinion on it. Nearly every war is unpopular when it's being fought, but decades later, people say "At the time, it was necessary." So too, in the future, there will be a lot more people saying "The Iraq War was necessary. If we hadn't invaded that nation back then, Al Qaeda would've been supported and struck again with a new attack and blah blah blah..."
Al Qaeda is spread throughout most of the middle east. We went to Iraq because of Saddam and establish democracy. Saddam's obviously no longer a problem, and democracy just doesn't work sometimes. I don't think this will be one of the wars we look back on and regard as necessary. I certainly won't.
-
Al Qaeda is spread throughout most of the middle east. We went to Iraq because of Saddam and establish democracy.
This sounds like it could be the intro to the raddest arcade beat-em-up ever.
-
Thanks Ambulance Y for arguing a point I never made. I'm not defending the war or supporting it. I was just using that line as an example.
-
Understood. I'm only know about that subject because I took "Middle East/North African Conflict" as an elective this year.
-
It's all good. Is that a college class, or are you in high school?
-
The latter.
-
Huh. Weird. I'm a Politics major in college, and we barely have any courses that event specific, hahaha.
-
My town is privileged with a very nice public school system.
-
I think wars should never have to be fought by any country and that all conflicts should be able to have a peaceful resolution. Unfortunately, this will not be even remotely possible until all countries have equal natural and economic resources. Even then, the various countries would have to be able to put down their religious and ideological differences to be able to stop war.
-
PaperLuigi apparently still hasn't read my first post here because he didn't notice that I had to concede that I thought the USA entering WWII was necessary. It was also terrible because it led to atomic weaponry. Also, as for WWI, it was definitely not necessary. It was just a chain of alliances.
-
My town is privileged with a very nice public school system.
Where might your town be? You're lucky.
-
I think the current war (Iraq) should never have happened. We aren't the policemen of the world.
But some wars are necessary for protecting our way of life.
-
"It should never be fought even when innocent lives are threatened by the opposing side" Who can define "necessary", anyway? Back-and-forth killing creates more animosity.
"Dad, how do soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?"
"..."
"I think grown-ups just act like they know what they're doing."
-
I don't think war is ever necessary. If two countries have a disagreement, they should just negotiate in a mature way.
I especially think the war in Iraq is really dumb. The US has no right to tell other countries what to do.
In fact, I think this whole "war on terror" is just an excuse to take away our rights (and to take the Arabs' oil). I believe that the government either planned or allowed the events of 9/11 to happen just so they'd have an excuse to start wars and do stupid stuff like the Patriot Act.
-
War is sometimes necessary, and is also a fact of life. It's not pretty, but sometimes it's the only way.
I don't think war is ever necessary. If two countries have a disagreement, they should just negotiate in a mature way.
I especially think the war in Iraq is really dumb. The US has no right to tell other countries what to do.
If we tried that on Hitler and the Japanese instead of fighting and defeating them, the world might be completely under a single dictatorial rule, and commanded by Germany, Italy and Japan. You can't negotiate with some people - because some people believe they are beyond normal rules and have the right to rule other other countries. Just look at people like Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jong II. Do you honestly think that negotiation with these scum is going to stop them from killing their own people and destroying their countries for the pursuit of military strength and domination?
In fact, I think this whole "war on terror" is just an excuse to take away our rights (and to take the Arabs' oil). I believe that the government either planned or allowed the events of 9/11 to happen just so they'd have an excuse to start wars and do stupid stuff like the Patriot Act.
Oh no, don't get started on conspiracy theories. There is almost no evidence whatsoever that the US themselves did this, and many Muslim prisoners of war have already testified to planning these attacks for the purpose of Jihad. Personally, I think people usually believe this junk just because they want to blame everything on their leaders, as always. It's always the President's fault - the US has no enemies but the ones that are only trying to defend themselves from the insidious rule of Bush the Tyrant. I can't stand stuff like that.
Note: Please realize that the above is my opion as well, and I am not trying to insult anyone in this topic. Thank you.
-
In fact, I think this whole "war on terror" is just an excuse to take away our rights (and to take the Arabs' oil). I believe that the government either planned or allowed the events of 9/11 to happen just so they'd have an excuse to start wars and do stupid stuff like the Patriot Act.
First sentence = Fairly accurate.
Second sentence = Fairly unlikely.
-
My reason for believing that is this:
There's no way the towers collapsed from getting struck by planes. They were designed to withstand getting hit by planes. There were explosives in the basement. Several survivors have said that they heard explosives going off in the basement. Of course, you never hear from them on the news because they don't conform to the official story of how it happened.
Also, the owner of the WTC pretty much confirmed it in a PBS interview.
They wanted a war, and they knew that causing a crisis would make it more likely. It's all a part of their plan to take away our rights and create the New World Order.
-
While I don't want to just agree and look like a fool, I don't think that something like this is entirely out of the realm of possibility. As for explosives in the basement, that makes no sense because the tops of the buildings fell on the bottoms. It's not like the bases collapsed or something. The buildings were designed to withstand the impact (from smaller planes), but there was no way to guard against the heat that weakened the structures.
-
So... then why did the explosion happen where the plane(s) hit? Just to reiterate, I'm perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that the whole thing was a conspiracy, but we've all got to lay out the facts and look at them first.
-
Why isn't there an option for "War is unavoidable"?
I mean, even if we didn't have large powerful countries and nations at each others necks, we'd still probably have smaller civil wars around the world, probably caused by resource disputes and genocide through corrupt rule.
-
There will always be hate and violence, my friend.
-
9/11 conspiracists... ughhhhh... my most unfavorite people. Seriously, give me one factually accurate argument describing why our own government, all of a sudden after centuries decides to kill 3000 of its own citizens and start a war? War is incredibly costly on so many levels. Why would our government want to do that? Tell me, please. I really want to hear your reasoning behind that. "Because they want to take our rights away" is not a valid argument either. You have no proof of that. It's arbitrary speculation. Seriously, it's one thing to be against the war and the aftermath of September 11th, but to call the entire thing a setup by our own government? Please. Spare me. Come back and tell me when you've actually lost someone or something to that attack, then you can talk alllll about conspiracies.
And as for people saying war is never necessary, go live in la la land with the rest of the other idealists. War is essential in international politics. It's a realist world. Nations and humans alike are self motivated. If one country truly wants more power than anyone else, then the only way to stop them is by crippling them so that they physically cannot continue what they were doing. See, many people don't understand that. Most people just see war as a big spiteful way to get back at a nation who ****ed you off. That's not how it works. The goal of a war is to physically halt your opponent so that they:
a) Become low on military personnel.
b) Cannot afford the money to fight anymore.
c) Are spiritually broken and lose the support of others.
When this happens, they are FORCED to stop whatever it was that incited conflict in the first place. Wars aren't fought for the sake of fighting. They're fought to get something done.
-
"Was 9/11 a conspiracy? My answer: yes, it was...19 members of Al Qaeda secretly working to crash planes into buildings constitutes a conspiracy, but it was not an "inside job" that the 9/11 "truthers" think it was; in fact, do you know how we know that the Bush administration did not orchestrate 9/11? Because it worked."
- Commencement Speech
Friday, May 23, 2008
Dr. Michael Shermer
-
^ I don't necessarily agree with all of that quote, but it still made me lol.
-
PaperLuigi apparently still hasn't read my first post here because he didn't notice that I had to concede that I thought the USA entering WWII was necessary. It was also terrible because it led to atomic weaponry. Also, as for WWI, it was definitely not necessary. It was just a chain of alliances.
Yeah, I read it, but you didn't make it too obvious that's what you meant. I apologize for missing it.
Has anyone actually found time to smell me before? Apparently four people on the board have.
-
I've smelled you too, but I liked it, so I didn't vote for that one.
-
9/11 conspiracists... ughhhhh... my most unfavorite people. Seriously, give me one factually accurate argument describing why our own government, all of a sudden after centuries decides to kill 3000 of its own citizens and start a war?
Then I guess you would hate me. Why would Bush do this. Money and power.
-
Money: Yeah, because spending billions of dollars on a war really puts a lot of money in the president's pocket. Please explain how losing money to pay for military budgets gives Bush more money.
Power: This one's even more laughable. Power? You kidding me? This isn't a video game. Power doesn't mean anything in a democracy with a system of checks. Regardless of what anyone thinks about federal wiretapping programs or the patriot act (I'm not defending or supporting either of these) they don't really do much for this grandiose image you have of Bush harnessing power over the United States. OH NO! THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS WHAT I DID LAST FRIDAY! Yes, it's illegal. But is this really a form of "power"? What is Bush going to do with this supposed influx of power you're saying he gained from killing innocent civilians? Okay, he started a war. Now what? Where does he go from there? Oh wait, logically of course, he's going to take over the entire nation and become a dictator before he leaves office in 6 months.
-
All 9/11 conspiracists should watch 9/11: Fact or Fiction? on the History Channel. I was a conspiracist of sorts too until I saw the video.
-
Thing about documentaries is, they're biased and will want you to agree with the viewpoint they're presenting so you can never trust them fully.
-
Ive seen 9/11: fact or fiction. Has anyone else seen Loose Change?
Money: There was hundreds of billions of dollars of gold stored under the WTC. Bush and his buddies wanted it for themselves.
Power: Because of how there was such a high terrorist alert, Bush has been granted more power than he should have so he can deal with the terrorists.
-
Ive seen 9/11: fact or fiction. Has anyone else seen Loose Change?
Yeah, I saw Loose Change. And then I saw 9/11: Fact or Fiction. And that's why I find Loose Change to be a complete load.
Also, I find 9/11: Fact or Fiction to be fairly unbiased. Loose Change was severely biased towards their point of view. They hardly considered other possibilities, and some of their explanations were pretty far fetched.
-
The main reason I heard Bush caused 9/11 was that he could start a war over oil to...get more...oil. Or some such.
-
Which basically means he failed (if he had anything to do with 9/11 at all) because we have no oil and gas prices are severely high.
-
Money: There was hundreds of billions of dollars of gold stored under the WTC. Bush and his buddies wanted it for themselves.
Power: Because of how there was such a high terrorist alert, Bush has been granted more power than he should have so he can deal with the terrorists.
Well, hate to break it to you, but what gold wasn't recovered was destroyed by the, you know, flames that melted solid steel and destroyed entire buildings. And lawl at you writing "Bush and his buddies".
And like I said, what powers are you talking about? What exactly do you expect him to do with these crazy new powers he's supposedly gained? You're just repeating yourself. Just like all conspiracists.
-
Oh and yeah, as PaperLuigi said already, the whole "He did it to acquire oil from the middle east" is a load of bull crap. Yep, that's exactly why I'm paying $4.25 a gallon for gas now.
-
While I do lean toward several conspiracy theories, the idea that Bush would destroy the Twin Towers just to have more expensive gas and see what I check out from the library (last week I borrowed Endless Ocean, if you must know) is a bit too far-fetched even for me.
-
I used to be totally against the War on Iraq, but I have partially changed my mind. My father thinks that we should just nuke Iraq, my mom has no comment, my brother says if we didn't, al-Quada would set up another attack. My sister has no comment. I kind of agree with my brother. And, I picked:
War isn't pretty, but sometimes, its neccasery.
-
Anyone who thinks we should "just nuke Iraq" is, I'm sorry to say, a total idiot.
-
What did Iraq even do to us, anyway? The whole 9/11 thing was supposedly the Afghanistan guys, so why are we at war with Iraq?
-
What about Iran?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7354M1QmGYQ
-
I think war is good, because if there wasn't guns and killing and stuff a lot of my favorite video games probably would never exist.
-
That is the only good thing about war.
-
I think war is good, because if there wasn't guns and killing and stuff a lot of my favorite video games probably would never exist.
I so wanted to make that point earlier in this topic.
-
*remembers the April Fools Game Informer article about video game companies demanding World War 3 to start because World War 2 had been done to death*
"EA can have France."
-
What did Iraq even do to us, anyway? The whole 9/11 thing was supposedly the Afghanistan guys, so why are we at war with Iraq?
We're not at war with Iraq. Currently, the big issue is that we liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein, however there are many Muslim extremists who do not want the U.S. to change the nation. Now insurgent groups are trying to rid the place of all U.S. prescence. With a democracy in place in the government, supposedly you may call the invasion a success and thus there's less and less need for military action. But as mentioned, the problem is that insurgents are still attacking. Because of this, the U.S. government faces a dilemma of how fast to withdraw American troops. Too quickly, and the insurgent groups overthrow the infant democracy, making all the past years of fighting pointless. Too slowly however, and it prolongs the war.
So no, we're not at war with Iraq. And no, there's no need to "nuke" Iraq either, as that defeats the purpose of overthrowing Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and forcing a democracy in the first place.
-
What did Iraq even do to us, anyway? The whole 9/11 thing was supposedly the Afghanistan guys, so why are we at war with Iraq?
Well, I think we've been told that it was either because Osama high-tailed it to there and/or Saddam and his mysteriously unfindable WMDs were there.
The general belief is that... it was for oil (I think I'm going to preface all my statements on threads like this because that I completely lost my ability to know who to believe about a year ago).
-
Also, a lot of reasoning that Iraq was invaded in the first place, it was mainly justified by research showing that Hussein funded Al Qaeda. So if you cut off a main supporter of it, it should go down, right? Well, apparently not. Tough luck. Oh and yeah, there were the faulty claims of nuclear weapons and such, that could possibly be funneled into terrorist groups.
-
Still, that doesn't change the fact that nuking Iraq shouldn't even be considered. Killing millions of innocent civilians and causing years of cancer-inducing nuclear fallout to get to a few terrorists is never the answer.
-
We're considering that?
-
No, but some people think it's a viable idea, and it makes me angry.
-
Another thing: I remember watching on NBC nightly news a story about an interagator that interviewed Saddam Hussein before his trial. Saddam actually revealed that he had faked possesion of WMD's to impress Islamic nations like Iran (I may be hazy on the details a bit, but I think that was the general gist).
Basically, this means that George Bush had a good reason to invade Iraq, and that it wasn't his fault that he found now WMDs.
No, but some people think it's a viable idea, and it makes me angry.
I agree with that. It's stupid to bomb anywhere with a weapon of that power unless it will have a major affect on the world and will bring peace. That is why - terrible as it was - bombing Japan in WWII was necessary, IMO.
-
Just a reminder: Use the quote button ((https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkoopaslaya.googlepages.com%2Fquote.gif&hash=b594ffd6e15c5830f612a609a94a76eb)) to quote another's post.
-
Oh please. Iraq had NOTHING to do with spreading democracy. Why do you think we haven't invaded Zimbabwe yet?
The U.S. govinmit estimates the value of a human life at ~$100k. multiply that by 4,200 or whatever the U.S. death toll in Iraq is (never mind the death toll of the Iraqis, they aren't real people in the govinmit's eyes anyways) and you get about 420 million. Where did that money go? Or more accurately, who got the money from these "sales" of U.S. soldiers' lives?
Remember, gas was ~1.40 a gallon when Dubya declared war on Iraq. A dollar was worth about 1.15 euros. Now gas is over $4 and the dollar is worth 0.64 euros. But what's 4,000 lives and an economic collapse if your buddies get rich, right?
-
You do realize it's the Arabic companies who are inflating oil costs, right? America has no control over foreign prices, so blaming Bush for high oil prices, claiming he's funneling it back to "buddies" in the oil industry here is completely fruitless. Hell, if freakin congress would allow drilling in an American reservoir, gas prices would drop almost instantly.
-
...And people would lose their motivation to find alternate methods of travel. While I don't deny the fact Bush isn't primarily responsible for the rise in gasoline prices, keep in mind how much gasoline the military uses. Who's the Commander in Chief?
-
na, oil is the result of rampant speculation.
Drilling in ANWR or whereever in the US would drop oil prices and have zero effect on the price of a gallon of gas.
-
Hell, if freakin congress would allow drilling in an American reservoir, gas prices would drop almost instantly.
Thank you for making that point.
-
na, oil is the result of rampant speculation.
Drilling in ANWR or whereever in the US would drop oil prices and have zero effect on the price of a gallon of gas.
Thank you for making that point.
-
Thank you for making that point.
Thank you for making that point.
-
What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'. Say it againnn!
I apologize if anyone made that joke before in this thread.
-
I was surprised that wasn't a poll option.
-
I was toying with the idea of using that joke when I first saw the thread, but then I decided not to because I'm lazy like that.
-
na, oil is the result of rampant speculation.
Drilling in ANWR or whereever in the US would drop oil prices and have zero effect on the price of a gallon of gas.
How does that work, exactly?
-
Well, see, the people that run gas stations sell gasoline exactly as it is drill from the earth, with no middlemen or refining processes to deal with at all. Even if there -were- other people handling the oil from rig to pump in some off the wall bizarro world, it's not like they'd ever be tempted to sell their refined product for anything more than the refining costs. And, certainly not at an excessive profit. Also, the oil barons who run gas stations are about as rich as pro athletes and wouldn't need to mark up gasoline any higher than it has to be because they all have money oozing out their wazoos.
Also, oil is really easy to extract from places with new refineries (owned by the gas stations, of course) and there's no lag whatsoever between building an oil rig and getting all the oil in America at once. And there's definitely plenty of oil in America, certainly enough to power all our cars for decades to come. And even if it weren't, I highly doubt oil exporting countries would ever artificially shorten supply to raise gas prices. I mean, with America's favorable world image, why would you want to do that?
In conclusion, I really have no clue what I'm talking about and drilling in ANWR will drop gas to $1.10 a gallon. iViva la revolucion!
-
So has this basically become the unofficial, generic political discussion thread now?
-
I really wish we could've reflected on war history or something like that (sort of what I had in mind when I created this topic). But sadly, it looks like someone got their panties in a tightwad and now it's turned into a full blown political argument.
-
Well all the points presented in the opening post were wrong.
-
No they weren't.
-
I thought they were valid points...
-
I don't see arguing here. I see valid political discussion. Arguments usually contain a lot of exclamation points. Big difference.
-
Well, see, the people that run gas stations sell gasoline exactly as it is drill from the earth, with no middlemen or refining processes to deal with at all. Even if there -were- other people handling the oil from rig to pump in some off the wall bizarro world, it's not like they'd ever be tempted to sell their refined product for anything more than the refining costs. And, certainly not at an excessive profit. Also, the oil barons who run gas stations are about as rich as pro athletes and wouldn't need to mark up gasoline any higher than it has to be because they all have money oozing out their wazoos.
Also, oil is really easy to extract from places with new refineries (owned by the gas stations, of course) and there's no lag whatsoever between building an oil rig and getting all the oil in America at once. And there's definitely plenty of oil in America, certainly enough to power all our cars for decades to come. And even if it weren't, I highly doubt oil exporting countries would ever artificially shorten supply to raise gas prices. I mean, with America's favorable world image, why would you want to do that?
In conclusion, I really have no clue what I'm talking about and drilling in ANWR will drop gas to $1.10 a gallon. iViva la revolucion!
-
You mean there wasn't enough sarcasm oozing out of that post and people still took it seriously?
*headdesk*
(well, *headchair*, there's no desk in this apartment)
-
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that we probably shouldn't be drilling for oil anyway. We should be looking for alternative sources of energy rather than use the same crap that's screwing up our atmosphere.
-
1.
Why not? see #3
2. We are, but the stupid government/oil companies won't let us use them. *coughcoughhydrogencoughcough*
3. It's not screwing up our atmosphere. *prepares to take bashing about caring for the environment*
-
For the first time in human history (2008), the polar ice caps will not have snow during the summer. You don't think that's a huge problem? Our world continues to heat up due to increased carbon emissions and it doesn't look like anyone wants to do anything about it.
-
Guns should be destroyed.
-
Because a gun acts of its own accord to shoot people, not the person handling it.
For the first time in human history (2008), the polar ice caps will not have snow during the summer. You don't think that's a huge problem? Our world continues to heat up due to increased carbon emissions and it doesn't look like anyone wants to do anything about it.
Summer ain't over yet, kiddo. By the way, show me scientific proof that CO2 has anything at all to do with global warming. Or that global warming is more than just a figment of someone's imagination, for that matter.
Actually, don't. I don't want to argue about it, especially in a topic it doesn't belong in.
-
Carbon Dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere and doesn't let it radiate back out into space! How hard is that to grasp?
PaperLuigi is wrong though. In about the 1400s, the ice caps were not nearly so large and it was pretty warm all over.
-
If we hadn't invented guns, we wouldn't need them. But now that they're out there, we need to let the good guys have guns, because the bad guys are going to have them anyway.
-
So how about we prevent bad guys from having guns by outlawing guns for civilians all over? Second amendment by butt; I doubt British troops are going to come in and camp in our houses any time soon.
-
So how about we prevent bad guys from having guns by outlawing guns for civilians all over?
Black market. Bad guys don't follow the law, that's why they're bad guys.
Second amendment by butt; I doubt British troops are going to come in and camp in our houses any time soon.
Murderers, rapists, school kids on killing sprees, etc.
-
Yeah. School kids which also have no business having guns.
-
Summer ain't over yet, kiddo. By the way, show me scientific proof that CO2 has anything at all to do with global warming. Or that global warming is more than just a figment of someone's imagination, for that matter.
First of all, I'm older than you, so don't call me a kid please. Second of all, CO2 going up equals a warmer world because (like Chup said) it traps in the sun's heat. It isn't that hard to figure out.
Guns should be destroyed.
I seriously doubt that this is going to happen. Try telling that to an angry drug dealer and see what kind of response you get. If we wanted to get rid of all the guns, we'd have to use guns to take them away from other people who have guns.
But sadly, it looks like someone got their panties in a tightwad and now it's turned into a full blown political argument.
NOTE: I realize the hypocrisy of this statement.
-
I watched Charlie Wilson's War (http://"http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/charlie_wilsons_war/") Friday. I debated posting in the July 4th thread, but thought this would be a more productive place to mention it. I liked the movie even though it went a little overboard promoting the Soviets as brutal murderers. I should also warn you that it has some nudity and a lot of vulgar language and innuendo. With a few minor historical inaccuracy it's pretty much a true story. I really liked it for what it was. Anyone else here seen it?
-
Second amendment by butt
I know this isn't a thread anyone should be saying "LOL" in, but...
I can't remember the last thing I posted here--or what never-ending tangent people were bickering about at that point--so I'll just end it with this: Everything I do I try to do with rationality and everything I believe I try to believe with evidence. Besides, the only true way to figure out who is "right" is to wait until it's too late.
-
Guns should be destroyed.
Oh man, I don't even know where to start.
So you're telling me this why, because theyre bad? because they kill people? Yeah, they kill people when someone uses one improperly.
So tell me something, what if I told you that there was a machine people use all the time that can kill you in the blink of an eye? They're made of jagged metal, filled up with combustible fuel and are can travel at speeds of up to 150 mph. They're one of the leading causes of death in America and many other countries. Guess what it is yet? That's right, buddy, it's a car! And just like guns, they're DEADLY when used incorrectly.
Do you think cars should be destroyed too? What about knives?
-
Well, that's the thing. Cars and knives (as well as hammers, chainsaws, and baseball bats) are all tools used for primarily constructive purposes. When used incorrectly, they can kill. However, what are guns designed for? To kill, or at the very least, maim. Don't give me some bull about self-defense. The point of a gun is to fire a metal object into a target, usually a living thing. What's target practice for? For training to shoot living things. I'm sorry, but when you kill someone with a gun you're using it the way it was meant to be used.
Tell me, what practical use does a gun have? Can you cook with it? Build stuff with it? Drive places with it? Really, can you use it for any constructive purpose?
-
Dude, self defense is a practical use. Why do you think they were invented in the first place? Yes, the point of a gun is to fire a metal object into a target. But that's not its purpose. It's a weapon to protect yourself with. If you have a robber enter your home, what can you do to stop him? Tell him you're going to call the police? Oh yeah, that's gonna stop him. If you shoot him in the leg first, you win.
Oh and please, school kids with gun, yawwwwn. These so called 'safe zones' where guns are forbidden. I.e. schools, colleges, public places, etc... Where do all these school shootings and massacres take place? Oh thats right, on school grounds! So while the one basket case who breaks the rules is shooting the place up, the perfectly normal gun enthusiast COULD be taking him out before he kills anyone else, if only he were allowed to bring his gun with him. Please. Guns are no less practical than a fork.
-
Mentally unbalanced student with gun in school = bad! They kill people!
Perfectly mentally balanced gun enthusiast with gun in school = good! They kill bad people with guns!
So, you're allowed to bring guns into school as long as you promise you won't kill anyone without being provoked. As opposed to no one having any guns to kill anyone with in the first place, period. Oh, well, at least playground arguments can be resolved a lot quicker.
Guns don't grow into people's hands; they buy them legally/illegally, or steal them from people who have bought them legally/illegally, or are given them by people who have bought them legally/illegally. The point is, if we stop guns at their source, no one gets any guns, so the self-defense issue becomes a moot point.
It's like little kids with slingshots. You, as an authority figure, can give it to the supposedly-more-responsible kid as opposed to the one who runs around shooting at windows and puppies. But then maybe that kid somehow gets ahold of it and breaks a window, or puts someone's eye out, or kills a pet. Then what? You can't simply say "I told him not to do it". This can be prevented by not giving the slingshot to either kid; they may cry and moan, but in the end, things are a lot safer.
-
No dude, you're a dreamer. Making all guns illegal won't solve anything. Marijuana is illegal, but how many people freaking smoke it? Everybody, that's who. All those drugs are illegal. They still kill people. Go watch that episode of The Simpsons where they melt all of the guns in the town, only to be attacked by zombies who have their own guns, leaving them defenseless. (It was one of the Treehouse of Horror ones) Point and case, people would still get guns from a million places if they were illegal, thus it DOESN'T fix the problem of self defense.
And don't pull hyperbole garbage on me. I never advocated letting kids bring guns to school. There's a reason you need to be a certain age to get carrying permits for guns in the first place.
-
True, outlawing all guns won't stop gun violence everywhere, but it will drastically reduce it. If you can't legally obtain a gun at all, then you'll be less inclined to own one, and less inclined to use one. With current gun laws, a cop can find a gun on you and you'll be let off the hook if you have a permit. That's fine; that's how the law works. But then you use the gun to kill someone; well, doesn't that suck? Sure, there's always the possibility that some nutjob will pop out of nowhere and shoot at you. But does that mean anything, really? Simply owning a gun won't mean you'll be strapped with two six-shooters and instantly pop a cap in the guy. You'll probably get gunned down regardless, because that guy had easy access to a gun.
My view is essentially this: It's possible to have a utopian society where everyone owns a gun and yet is responsible enough only to use them for, say, target practice. But we don't live in that society. The way humans are right now, we don't really deserve to have guns. When people outright stop shooting others because they insulted them, or their beliefs are different, or their actions were misinterpreted, or they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, then we can safely have guns in our society. But that's just not the case.
-
Glorb, if you don't like guns, you shouldn't be playing Metal Gear.
-
I know, I feel so dirty. I always try to do a tranquilizer run anyway.
-
You didn't exactly have that option in the first game you know.
-
That's because all the Shadow Moses guards really had it coming.
-
Yeah, I suppose you're right. It's just too bad Ocelot survived his supposedly lethal gun fight and not Sniper Wolf.
-
Money: There was hundreds of billions of dollars of gold stored under the WTC. Bush and his buddies wanted it for themselves.
Yeah, they just wanted to blow the buildings to bits because they couldn't figure out how to go to the basement floor and get the gold.
People who say "Bush dun it and bush is the worst cuz the war" just bother me. You know, it just sucks for Bush because 9/11 happened like 10 seconds after he took office... and everyone in our country was like "ah hell nah we goin to war man" at that time, so of course, what will Bush want to do? Kick their assets, exactly! Now that people are complaining about everything Bush can't even take a crap without someone protesting it or setting up a peaceful rally about it saying "wrong wrong wrong." Everyone thinks he's the worst president ever just because of that poll that says "Only 14% think the country is going in the right direction." I hear people say THEN THAT MEANS 86% OF PEOPLE HATE BUSH!!!" Not necessarily. I remember going to Crawford with my parents on their motorcycles to check out the ranch and the town (about 20 minutes northeast of my city) and then a few weeks later I heard about that one lady rallying outside Bush's ranch about her son dying in the service. I think that's when then general public starting hating the war because it kind of seemed to uproar from then on.
And the gun thing... whoever thinks firearms should be banned should be used for target practice. Yeah, firearms are made to shoot living things with. Do you think we were just gonna have a friendly game of arm wrestling to solve the world's disputes? Nah. Do you think banning weapons from here on out will prevent hundreds of thousands from still bearing arms, like Forest Guy said? Nah.
I dunno... this country has just been kinda in the gutter. Nothing good to say about literally anything. A person can't speak without it meaning something offensive (read: Obama thinking "articulate" is a hidden slur). Someone is always trying to make the other person look dumber than they actually are instead of focusing on their smarts and applying it. Credit card debt, foreclosure, social security, Bush this Bush that, Obama is about change and "yes we can" bullcrap, floods here, lightning-created wildfires there, oil prices this oil prices that, that old man looked at me wrong I'm suing, "Think of the caribou!!" (haha only one will get that), reality shows ugh, just everything. Hell, even our newspapers in Bell County are reporting doom and gloom constantly now.
-
Someone is always trying to make the other person look dumber than they actually are instead of focusing on their smarts and applying it.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpics.livejournal.com%2Fjfboyd%2Fpic%2F0017s4fp&hash=766dfdb5271df1c75fffbd685de50617)
-
This discussion has gone so far as to begin making political ads appear here.
-
Whudathunk a topic on war would attract politics?
-
At first I didn't like the politics brought on by the topic (I really just wanted to talk about war history or something like that) but now I kinda like the discussion. Actually, I should've expected it because I made a poll where you had to give your opinion on war itself. :/
-
Instead of doing it here, we should just make an obligatory politics discussion thread so we can go back and forth about whatever, and not just war.
-
From now on all political discussion is banned.
-
Are we still allowed to post in this topic and/or the abortion topic?
-
Money: There was hundreds of billions of dollars of gold stored under the WTC. Bush and his buddies wanted it for themselves.
Yeah, they just wanted to blow the buildings to bits because they couldn't figure out how to go to the basement floor and get the gold.
畢桳栠摩琠敨映捡獴Are we still allowed to post in this topic and/or the abortion topic?
I believe I speak for Chupperson when I say that Chupperson decided the ban was a joke after the fact.
-
I believe I speak for Chupperson when I say that Chupperson decided the ban was a joke after the fact.
It's not a joke. He locked my Obligatory Political topic and then said that Deezer approved it. If it is a joke, it's a really, really good joke.
-
Why, Chup?
-
I didn't lock that thread, so just consider that for a moment.
-
I guess it was solely Deezer's decision then. Pardon me for placing the blame on you.
-
Well, it's someone's fault! Let's knock something over!
But in all seriousness, locking potentially good topics for personal reasons = not cool, in my book.
-
You might say it's a ... political decision.
-
But in all seriousness, locking potentially good topics for personal reasons = not cool, in my book.
I honestly thought we were all mature enough to talk about politics. In my opinion, the political topics in general chat made for some of the best conversations this board has had in a while.
-
Indeed. True, there might be one or two people that aren't mature enough for this (which is a problem hardly exclusive to TMK), but for the most part I think that the people here are very respectful.
-
Well, obviously the reason Deezer doesn't want political discussion is because when he was 7 years old, he saw a gang of politicians raping somebody in an alley. Ever since then, he's had nightmares about homeland security and economic differentiation. From that day forward, he swore that he could never ever engage in politics. Ever. (except voting)
-
Well, obviously the reason Deezer doesn't want political discussion is because when he was 7 years old, he saw a gang of politicians raping somebody in an alley. Ever since then, he's had nightmares about homeland security and economic differentiation. From that day forward, he swore that he could never ever engage in politics. Ever.
Until the day they came for his family.
DEEZER II: FISTS OF VENGEANCE
THIS TIME, IT'S POLITICAL - SUMMER 2009
Fixed.
-
Further hints: the ban of political discussion had nothing to do with what was generally considered by the powers that be as being a stupid thread, and Deezer hasn't decided anything in roughly two years.
-
I still think there's no real ban. I'll test it:
George Bush is not a good president.
Let's see what happens.
-
Well, which George Bush are you talking about? There are two of them you know. And I'm not talking about George W. Bush's good and evil side.
-
I see George W. Bush as a pretty okay president. He's not great, but not as bad as people make him out to be. The way I see it, he got dealt a REALLY really crummy hand what with September 11th happening nine months into his presidency. Jabs at his intelligence are unfounded and I actually feel a little bad for him considering he runs a country in which most people consider him as dumb as a chimp. You can say what you want about the war on terrorism, that's fine, that's your own political beliefs. However, the one thing I respect about him is that he stands for what he believes in. For him to continue such an unpopular military operation because he believes it's the best decision, even though it's cost him his dignity, says something about his character, which so many people unfairly denounce for ignorant reasons.
Oh and, hahahaha, he says "nucular". those crazy southerners and their accents.
-
Oh crap. It was just a generic political-sounding comment, people.
-
POLITICS!!
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcomics.drunkduck.com%2FPowerup_Comics%2Fpages%2Fb3cca4154b176137b34ed93032a0085a.png&hash=a7379782216089569b129c8a50b35798)
MOAR POLITIX!!
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcomics.drunkduck.com%2FPowerup_Comics%2Fpages%2Fb706c04afa96d7487faad1cad0cb513d.png&hash=d3d7c9f558581c45ed8401c4370a835f)
-
You know, people die at war. Violently, too. It's pretty scary and depressing.
-
And it's morbid forcing you're beliefs and ideas on innocent people and killing them if they reject them. Why do I hate war?
-
War is fought because there are people who want to force their beliefs on other people. Forcing your beliefs on other people is just that. It may cause war, but without two sides fighting each other, it isn't war. It's just oppression. Also, you seriously need to fix your grammar. It's not "you're" as in "you are over there," it's "your" as in "your beliefs."
Also, what the heck is this about?
Now they want to get rid of our gun rights so they can control us and are doing much worse things to this once and still grand country.
And then about a month later you say this:
Guns should be destroyed.
So I guess you're all right with Bush and his apparent "plan" to take over and control Americans?
-
That first comic annoys me, not because of the political stance it takes, but by the design of the character in the first cell.
But yeah, um, see, thing is that there are two sides in the Iraqi war, U.S. troops/happy Iraqi civlians, and insurgents (a.k.a. people who liked to be raped by dictators). Reason Bush doesn't want to, and logically shouldn't is because there's still random jerkoffs who just drive into buildings and set off car bombs. That's why it's really much a fruitless campaign, considering terrorist organizations and Iraqi insurgents don't seem to know how to play by the rules. It's kind of hard to fight a war, let alone win it when combatting a faceless enemy. It really is a shame. Modern war is far less interesting and attractive than good old fashioned trench warfare.
-
Happy Xmas (War is Over)