Poll

Syria?

Yes
6 (23.1%)
No
20 (76.9%)

Total Members Voted: 26

Author Topic: Politics  (Read 527167 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SmileyMan

  • Star Wars Padawan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #150 on: November 15, 2008, 11:37:53 am »
i think kim jong-il is a pretty cool guy. eh make people clap and doesn't afraid of anything

Offline Inkling

  • Strider Hiryu
  • *****
  • Posts: 8126
  • Not a Squid.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #151 on: November 15, 2008, 02:26:52 pm »
i remember i while back i was talking with my dad about the first gulf war. I thought it was wrong of the west to interfere with saddam's invading Kuwate because the only reason Kuwate isn't part of Iraq anyway is because we devided it up to start with. It was basically a country re-uniting itself.
Except that you're wrong.  Kuwait was an autonomous region regognised by the British and Ottomans, not a chunk carved out for colonial purposes.  And even if it was a country reuniting itself, Kuwait didn't want to be united.

A bit of infighting with nearby countries is what is ultimatly neccesary for democracy and peace to advance. Think about it.  If it wasn't for WW2 we wouldn't have the E.U and the U.N. If it wasn't for the cold war we wouldn't have NATO. Fear of war makes peace and the best way to develop a good fear of war is to suffer through it.

What?  We had WWII to stop the actions you seem to say are okay.  You almost seem to be saying we should let countries destroy each other because it builds character.  There's no need to have a people 'suffer through it' if war can be avoided or intervened.
Probably not a Goat, either.


Offline Josasa

  • Commando Soldier
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #152 on: November 15, 2008, 02:45:50 pm »
i remember i while back i was talking with my dad about the first gulf war. I thought it was wrong of the west to interfere with saddam's invading Kuwate because the only reason Kuwate isn't part of Iraq anyway is because we devided it up to start with. It was basically a country re-uniting itself.
Except that you're wrong.  Kuwait was an autonomous region regognised by the British and Ottomans, not a chunk carved out for colonial purposes.  And even if it was a country reuniting itself, Kuwait didn't want to be united.

A bit of infighting with nearby countries is what is ultimatly neccesary for democracy and peace to advance. Think about it.  If it wasn't for WW2 we wouldn't have the E.U and the U.N. If it wasn't for the cold war we wouldn't have NATO. Fear of war makes peace and the best way to develop a good fear of war is to suffer through it.

What?  We had WWII to stop the actions you seem to say are okay.  You almost seem to be saying we should let countries destroy each other because it builds character.  There's no need to have a people 'suffer through it' if war can be avoided or intervened.

If you're going to get into a debate over WWII with Brutus, prepare to be amazed...

Offline Brandonazz

  • All Your Base Zero Wing
  • *****
  • Posts: 8908
  • Everything ends.
    • View Profile
    • My Internet Treasure Trove
Re: Politics
« Reply #153 on: November 15, 2008, 03:04:59 pm »
Brutus, don't source your dad. Any and all arguments beginning with "My dad told me that..." are automatically disqualified.

Offline Krakow Sam

  • Moderator
  • Dungeon Sieger
  • *****
  • Posts: 24493
  • Stern dissaproval
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #154 on: November 15, 2008, 04:21:06 pm »
Unless your dad is a special military envoy or something  :P
Sam is basically right, he's just cranky.

Offline Andrew Ryan

  • Simon Belmont
  • *****
  • Posts: 5361
  • A man has a choice, I chose the impossible!
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #155 on: November 15, 2008, 06:41:58 pm »
Unless your dad is a special military envoy or something  :P

Doesn't anyone read around here?
His father was a legatus to Pompey the Great; his mother was the half-sister of Cato the Younger, and later became Julius Caesar's mistress.  ;D

Wow, Brutus must be really special considering he has parents from different time periods.  ;)
"Don't worry 'bout me. I wouldn't worry about me. Don't you worry about me. Don't you worry 'bout me!" - Talking Heads, Don't Worry About the Government

Offline Josasa

  • Commando Soldier
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #156 on: November 15, 2008, 10:01:48 pm »
Unless your dad is a special military envoy or something  :P

Doesn't anyone read around here?
His father was a legatus to Pompey the Great; his mother was the half-sister of Cato the Younger, and later became Julius Caesar's mistress.  ;D

No wonder he's an expert on WWII and the Persian Gulf War!

Offline Brutus

  • Ice Climber
  • *****
  • Posts: 4140
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #157 on: November 16, 2008, 05:59:09 am »
Wait, When did i claim to be an expert on WW2 or the gulf war? The gulf war reference in my argument is not an important part. It is simply an introductory statement in an argument against interfering with smaller countries such as the Iraq war or the war in Afghanistan or any other poor nation thats been invaded by the most powerful countries on the planet. I am NOT quoting my dad as an information source and if your saying that i am then your completely misunderstanding me. I was saying something my dad said got me thinking then saying my argument. Honestly i think some of you guys purposefully misunderstand things sometimes .

Brutus, don't source your dad. Any and all arguments beginning with "My dad told me that..." are automatically disqualified.

with all due respect would you go back and actually read my post before saying that. I wasn't even agreeing with my father let alone sourcing him as information. I didn't even say the rest of the argument i had with my father. I was arguing against a hypothetical situation and at the same time criticising many real wars that are happening now.

Except that you're wrong.  Kuwait was an autonomous region recognised by the British and Ottomans, not a chunk carved out for colonial purposes.  And even if it was a country reuniting itself, Kuwait didn't want to be united.

What?  We had WWII to stop the actions you seem to say are okay.  You almost seem to be saying we should let countries destroy each other because it builds character.  There's no need to have a people 'suffer through it' if war can be avoided or intervened.

after reading into it i see in the example of Kuwait i was incorrect but my argument still stands as colonial powers did chop up countires before giving them Independence and then call them evil invaders when the country starts to unite itself back to how it was.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Since when does "a little bit of fighting" become "LET THEM DESTROY EACH OTHER!!!".

What right does a first world power have to directly intervene through military means with a political disagreement or even a war between 2 much smaller countries that represent no threat to them whatsoever?
If you give them a right to invade any country they see as a threat to its neighbors then your giving them that great excuse to invade anyone they feel like aslong as they tell everyone its to stop the fighting.

Small countries fighting wars with eachother is always going to happen wether or not you invade and interfere. What i am saying is that the only way peace can be maintained is through vast interdependance between countries. Quarreling and fighting leads to unification over time either as sides agree to come togather (like with early Germany) or when one province or nation conquers the rest (like most other countries). ultimatly the only way you are going to stop people from fighting wars is to let them grow tired of it. Then the problem is gone for good.

i guess what i'm trying to say put simply is. . . .   several large countries that are dependant upon each other are not going to go to war with eachother but many small nations are going to constantly fight. Ultimatly fighting does lead to unification, interdependance and peace. But thats not in the interest of the most powerful nations is it? no they want them small and divided so they try and keep them that way.

WW2 was not fought to stop anything but the expansion of a rival (the fact that that rival just happened to be evil had nothing to do with it). It was just a war between 2 sets of Allies. Thats it. WW2 started because Hitler started to represent a direct and large threat to the allies. The last straw was invading poland. It wasn't a war fought on the basis of Good Vs Evil although it does appear that way.

if the countries that interfere with others affairs were actually trying to stop wars they would be making an effort to make the people in the countries feel like they're part of a bigger picture and startuniting into blocks and depending on each other by setting up organisations similar to the E.U or A.U and encouraging similar groups and countries that are culturally similar and speak the same langauge (like Iraq and Kuwait) to unite.

imagine if some far more pwerful country was stopping the allies and axis from going to war during WW2. we'd still be in this situation of hating each other and wanting to go to war. but now for the first time in history Europe is getting along really well  and war is unthinkable! all because we are tired of fighting eachother.

i apologise for making a long post but you don't really have a right to cpmplain about the post being long unless someone if forcing you to read it. a long post is what is required to explain what i'm trying to say without sounding as though i think war and killing are good.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2008, 06:14:16 am by Brutus »
Never mind your own business.

Offline /lurk

  • Dragon Warrior Slime
  • *****
  • Posts: 5251
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #158 on: November 16, 2008, 09:45:19 am »
Wait a minute. Countries never come together peacefully (and seldom split apart peacefully) and conquering them only causes more grief for the winner.

Also, Kuwait and Iraq hated each other. That was why they were fighting in the first place. I suppose you think that Serbia should have kept Kosovo and that China can do whatever the hell they like in Tibet, just so long as you only have to learn the name of one country?
Not a winner anymore.

Offline Josasa

  • Commando Soldier
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #159 on: November 16, 2008, 11:52:52 am »
I told you you'd be amazed!

Offline Brutus

  • Ice Climber
  • *****
  • Posts: 4140
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #160 on: November 16, 2008, 01:56:42 pm »
Wait a minute. Countries never come together peacefully (and seldom split apart peacefully) and conquering them only causes more grief for the winner.

Also, Kuwait and Iraq hated each other. That was why they were fighting in the first place. I suppose you think that Serbia should have kept Kosovo and that China can do whatever the hell they like in Tibet, just so long as you only have to learn the name of one country?

Tibet is better off in the hands of the chinese anyway. The Lama (as i call him) treat his country like his own personal bitch with the entire people living under his iron rule as his slaves and him and a few of his friends living in absoloute wealth. No wonder he wants it back. The Lama or china is a bad choice but China is the lesser of two evils. Remember though that the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

you kinda missed my point. anyone who feels their is more to gain that to lose by going to war will always go to war. So if you up the stakes of going to war by uniting fractured regions into blocks and then have them develop interdependance they are far far less likely to go to fight with each other. The key to peace is to never have one dominating power. Just lots of Equals, all depending on each other and everyone always shunning and shaming attackers aswell as imposing sanctions but never actually ganging up one one another with armies.

Thats why i beleive that Nuclear weapons have saved untold millions of lives. If you up the stakes of warfare fewer are willing to take the risk.

the truth is that War will ultimatly breed peace as people become tired of fighting, regions unite and interdependancy develops.

Stop two countries from fighting and you only put the problem on hold for a year or so.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2008, 02:06:53 pm by Brutus »
Never mind your own business.

Offline Plank of Wood

  • Final Fighter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8436
  • Ka-Boom!
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #161 on: November 16, 2008, 02:09:58 pm »
Tibet is better off in the hands of the chinese anyway. The Lama (as i call him) treat his country like his own personal bitch with the entire people living under his iron rule as his slaves and him and a few of his friends living in absoloute wealth. No wonder he wants it back. The Lama or china is a bad choice but China is the lesser of two evils. Remember though that the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

I'm calling Poe's law on this guy.
the real saviour of this forum

Offline Brutus

  • Ice Climber
  • *****
  • Posts: 4140
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #162 on: November 16, 2008, 02:22:30 pm »
Tenzin Gyatso was Dictator of Tibet. He presents himself as this humble, spiritual man but he isn't like that. He ran a regime that had Torture, execution and even disembowelment as relatively common punishments with him and a few of his friends living in paradise and the rest of the country in absolute misery.

According to a state department internal memo the lama once took over 100 thousand dollars a year for his living expenses and over 1 and a half million to train covert guerrillas to fight against china. Thats him denouncing violence is it?

should he really be returned to power?

He's an ex-dictator who wants his slaves and life of luxury back.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2008, 02:33:54 pm by Brutus »
Never mind your own business.

Offline Plank of Wood

  • Final Fighter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8436
  • Ka-Boom!
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #163 on: November 16, 2008, 03:03:52 pm »
Sorry, it's just the way you wrote it made it look like satire of some biast american news show or something.
the real saviour of this forum

Offline Andrew Ryan

  • Simon Belmont
  • *****
  • Posts: 5361
  • A man has a choice, I chose the impossible!
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #164 on: November 16, 2008, 08:23:02 pm »
Tenzin Gyatso was Dictator of Tibet. He presents himself as this humble, spiritual man but he isn't like that. He ran a regime that had Torture, execution and even disembowelment as relatively common punishments with him and a few of his friends living in paradise and the rest of the country in absolute misery.

According to a state department internal memo the lama once took over 100 thousand dollars a year for his living expenses and over 1 and a half million to train covert guerrillas to fight against china. Thats him denouncing violence is it?

should he really be returned to power?

He's an ex-dictator who wants his slaves and life of luxury back.

An ex-dictator? He was spiritual leader of the country of Tibet, which was forcibly conquered by the Chinese. Besides, he only had political power for about a month before the Chinese invaded of which since then he was slowly being conquered by the Chinese. If anything, he wasn't a dictator, he was a theocratic leader, much like the Ayatollah of Iran. While I do not agree with his spiritual beliefs and even though I do not agree with everything he has said or done I do believe that having Tibet under a theocratic rule is better than it being held hostage by Chinese Communist Imperialism.   
"Don't worry 'bout me. I wouldn't worry about me. Don't you worry about me. Don't you worry 'bout me!" - Talking Heads, Don't Worry About the Government