Fight fire with fire and what happens? Everything gets burned.Try fighting it with water maybe.
-
What's With the Hate?
-
In reply to: but im done with this thread, have fun with it! See, this is the problem with making that statement and then returning to read and respond...3 posts later your still hereIf your going to say it then dont go back and read what was posted after, that or dont say itf fto begin with.
-
if water is bullets then yes. we use water.
-
lol. There isn't too much point arguing with you GODZILLA. Killing people doesn't get to the root of the problem.So yea... how about that weather. Heh! We didn't start the fire - Billy Joel has just come on my playlist, how appropriate.
-
killing doesn't get to the root of the problem it uses dynamite and gets rid of it.
-
kill everythingkill everythingbomb the living beejeepers out of those forces
-
In reply to: Killing people doesn't get to the root of the problem. I'm afraid your very mistaken. Throughout history a great deal has been resolved by bloodshed.
-
yes like the salem witch trials. you don't see too many witches in New England
-
My grandmothers minister went somewhere out east.. somewhere where the main belief is to be muslim. One of the muslims over there was studying to become christian and they were going to kill him for doing so. When my G-ma's minister came home he phoned them and begged them not to kill him.. so they agreed on a punishment of him being mentally unstable.. How sad eh?
-
In reply to:I'm afraid your very mistaken. Throughout history a great deal has been resolved by bloodshed. Very true, so long as they are actually killing the threat. Unfortunately, Iraq was not a major source of terrorism. It was actually very minor by comparison to many other countries. Afghanistan was a major terrorist training ground and if the purpose is the "War on Terror" then they are truly attacking the terrorists in that situation. By attacking Iraq, they haven't done anything significant towards terrorism except further the hate towards us. The only upside I could see is creating fear of America in the Middle East, if that's really what the US is aiming for. Fear is a very effective tactic, but it's not humanitarian. It resembles the tactics of dictatorial regimes trying to keep their people in line and the idea of scaring other countries with your might as was seen in the Cold War. Sorry if I'm rambling, but the US is not directly targetting the major threats. If they wanted the terrorists and dangerous nations then they should attack Pakistan and Iran in my opinion. Of course, those may be the next targets. Another country worth notin is North Korea, but invading it would be dangerous since they have nuclear weapons (like Pakistan and most likely soon to be Iran).
-
How about Hitler and the Nazis?That was a HUGE problem.Got solved by war.
-
Yah... Medicare doesn't work. Look at the people who can't afford health care but aren't eligible for Medicare, that means it should be scrapped right?And more specifically to your points. Anti-semitism still being around is far better than rule by a European (or possible global, who knows how far it could have gone) anti-semitic state. Sure, there was the holocaust. But are you saying that the war didn't end the holocaust? There still is and will always be anti-semitic feelings, but I think the war did a pretty good job of preventing the persecution they went through (in much of Europe). It could be a lot worse. Not only that, but if you value democracy, WWII was mostly a fight (with exceptions of course) of humanitarian countries versus non-humanitarian countries; the primary exception being the Soviet Union.Intervention through may not 100% put an end to something, but it does usually decline the problem in question. There are questions with the current war as to the motivations of going into Iraq, and to the effectiveness of their attempts to take out terrorist groups that fight guerilla style warfare through out the middle east. That doesn't mean that in every other situation war doesn't solve problems.A nation can either choose to become involved in an issue or not. In not becoming involved it will not influence the later outcome of that issue. It's a straight forward idea. Also, the nation must choose how it is going to become involved. War, for example, may not always be the best solution - I'm not completely convinced that going into Iraq was the best decision - but it is often a very successful way of dealing with things. If an issue can be solved without fighting then the peaceful way should be the first way to be tried. If peaceful attempts at resolving an issue fail, than fighting is often necessary to accomplish a goal.
-
Actually, I think you're smarter than this (and sexier too).Solving the Nazi problem doesn't mean eliminating every single Nazi and never having any exist again. There are neo-Nazis to be sure. But they aren't executing Jews by the millions.Same with Communists. There are not only Communists living in Korea, but here in the US. But they are no longer the threat that they used to be. They aren't mass murdering people by the tens of millions.Are you blind to the fact that World War II ended the mass murder of millions of people? Do you really think that because there are a few skinheads and neo-Nazis still in existance that we weren't successful in defeating Naziism?The same can be said of Iraq.Afghanistan? Tell the millions of people who are now free to play soccer, or the millions of women who are now free to get an education that our efforts in Afghanistan had no effect.What do you think a rational response to 9/11 would have been?
-
In reply to:
What do you think a rational response to 9/11 would have been?
Afghanistan, not Iraq. No evidence for direct involvement from the Iraqi government has been shown for 9/11, unlike Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban regime.
-
Damien. Firstly, there was no mass murder murder until world war 2 actually started. And yes I agree war is OCCASIONALLY a good tool to SOLVE problems. But it doesn't get to the root of the problem, which is the matter we are debating."The root of the problem" is peoples' ideas and reasonings. We should try to understand how these came about in order to best combat and nullify them.Here's an example of how war solved a problem to some degree, but didn't really deal with it.Antisemitism - Caused by racial stereotypes etc.While WWII may have killed or imprisonned many anti-semites, it didn't eliminate the idea. Some might argue there has been less of it since WWII, but that is more due to the fact that there is a large degree of sympathy due to the genocide jews endured, not the actual war itself. Jewish stereotypes and slurs still occur all over the world. Problem solved? No.
-
If I am "very mistaken" would you mind explaining how killing people GOT TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM in these killings...Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69) 49,000,000 ("great leap forward" and "cultural revolution") Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1934-39) 13,000,000 (the purges) Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII) Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians WWII) Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps) Menghitsu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000 Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915) 1,200,000 Armenians Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000 Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000 Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000 Suharto (East Timor, 1976-98) 600,000 Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000 Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1971) vs Bangladesh 500,000 Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000 Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000 Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000 Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000 Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ? Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000 Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000 Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-96) 180,000 Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000 Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000 Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79) ? Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) 70,000 (vietnamese civilians) Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71) 60,000 Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990) 40,000 Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947) 30,000 (popular uprising) Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 (dissidents executed) Francisco Franco (Spain) 30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war) Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968) 30,000 Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000) 25,000 Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89) 20,000 Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957) 10,000 (war in Algeria) Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997) 6,000 Osama bin Laden (worldwide, 1991-2001) 4,000 Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973) 3,000 Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala) 2,000 Now you will probably come back and say that these were all done by bad people or something. But who decides whos good or bad? They probably thought that their reasoning for killing those people was just. What makes you so sure your reason is just? edit please note Richard Nixon is on that list.
-
Argh. I'm in a pretty bad mood at the moment. People just look at problems and think "how can I deal with this". We need to think "what caused this" more.Addressing the original issue (I think, I've got very lost). Terrorism is not going to be solved by force alone, unlike the Nazis, it's not a problem that can be isolate and destoyed, so getting to root of the problem (yep, there I go again) is more essential than before.My head is spinning, too many assignments, why am I on here, why, why, why. I think I'm going to do a vietnamese monk and set myself on fire in protest.
-
WE ARE NOT IN IRAQ TO FIGHT TERRORISMOf course thats the reason thats been given buit its not the truth. We are not to in Iraq for...terrorismdemocracyThe Iraqi PeopleOilIslamWe are in Iraq for one reason.IranWe have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq so that we can invade Iran. Thats why they have tried to build up sentiment for invading Iran. It wont happen immediately, probably wont happen under Bush now, but in a decade or so I rekcon it will happen. And then we would have defeated a genuine threat to our security and Western power. Iraq and Afghanistan are just a stepping stone, not their resources or their people are the prime issue in the grand scheme of things.
-
In reply to: Damien, you are smarter than this. I really hope you don't think that mass killings resolve issues. If so, you really need to a history lesson. On the contrary, you need one. We won World War 2, it has left the West as the most powerful cultural group in the world.Just a few examples of wars that have resolved disputes by killing...The second Punic War - Never again would cathage be a problem for Rome, on account of it being slaughtered and re-populatedf with good Roman citizens, who would make it re-grow into the great mercantile city it had been under its previous owners. Who would dominate the mediteranean was resolved.The Reconquesta - The christian Spanish successfully killed nad conquered the Muslims who had stolen their land, thoroghly and eternally resolving which faith and culture would remian dominant in Spain. To this day it is a christian country.The Wars of the Roses - This war very successfully resolved the dispute over who would rule England and Wales, the Tudars got the throne and that was that,the dispute was resolved.The Glorious Revolution - Resolved religeous issues in Britain, establishing a Protestant monarchy and the Catholics would neever again pose a serious threat to British protestantism. Resolved.Mexican-American War - Resolved who would rule the American south-west. if you dont think that resolved naything just look at a map of AmericaBoer War - Britain wanted the diomends in the Boer states. The Boers didnt want to give up the land. The War resolved who would get the land and the diamends.World War 2 - not fought to "make sure theres no nazis in Germany". It was fought to stop Germany and its allies conquering the world. Germany, Japan, and Italy do not rule the world. Resolved.The Falklands War - Argintina wont try taking them islands off Britian again in a while now will they!
-
In reply to: There is a genocide going on in Sudan right now and that isn't solving anything. I suspect it really is solving something for the people commiting the genocide.
