Take it easy guys.

[Stillwater]

I think that is part of the issue too though, politics is not a binary issue, despite what our 2-party system has drilled into people in the U.S., and politicians don't have clear-cut party lines voting records. If they do, they are yes-people who worship the soveigrnity of their controling groups.

Obama, for instance, is far from a party-lines sort of person. His ideas in many areas are really quite conservative, when it comes to military action and corporate law and iterests. At best, he is a middle of the road moderate; he is one of the most plain vanilla politicians out there today. So if you branded yourself a hardcore liberal, that means there still would not have been a candidate that represented your views in the 2008 election. And when you don't have someone who represents your views, you look around at others; you find the other major party's candidate has very little in common with your ideas, and you are placed on the fence about voting for either the generic person your favored party has put up, or throwing away your vote making a statement voting for an unknown party that will get .3% of the vote.

Yes- most of the political ads are aimed at simpletons who have no rational basis for voting for one person or another, and will vote for the person who's ads show them the shiniest lies at the critical moment; but that absolutely does mean once you figure out your core beliefs, you should step out of an evalulative mind-set, and align your votes to the group that best approximates those beliefs. I think a better solution would be to break away from our party-identity system, and have literally 10 or more candidates who have radically different views; that system would have its own issues too, since it would sometimes have potential for giving power to the largest minority of radicals, but it would have many advantages as well.

[personalreality]

This political system is useless to me.  I'm not represented by anyone.  I don't vote and I don't involve myself in it, aside from verbally assaulting annoying liberals (it's not even worth talking to the conservatives).  Lol.  jk, i would never do such a thing.

[Rudolph]

Or maybe when Congress decides to go to war, they shoot every tenth congressman, so they are sure they really mean it.

So when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor we should have shot every tenth member of Congress after they voted to declare war?

When terrorists flew airplanes into building and killed thousands of innocent people ... we should have shot every tenth representative after funding the war on terror?

?

Are you a pacifist?

[personalreality]

America did both of those things.  If not personally (9/11 was totally done by the US gov), then it was at least instigated by them.  Pearl Harbor is a great example.  Before Japan and the US were even in the war, the US and her allies were making moves to cut off exports to and imports from japan, putting a lock down on Japan. (which we are also doing to China right now with Russia, we are instigating WWIII)  Japan retaliated.  Every time we've been "attacked" we had it coming and then some.  These kinds of attacks give congress justification to start wars, because we are a warring country.  no one makes money during peace-time.  This most recent attack on US soil (9/11) is part of a much bigger plan to take the rights of the US citizens so that a dictatorial state can be instituted and no one can argue when it's time to start WWIII.  I think that tactic was used once before......Nazi Germany....ring any bells (muslims/jews)?

If you have any inkling that your government is there to defend you and your rights, you might as well bend over and kiss your butt goodbye now, cause they already got you.

[Rudolph]

oooo kaaayyyyy....

"the US and her allies were making moves to cut off exports to and imports from japan, putting a lock down on Japan."

Do you have any idea why they might have been doing this? (Does aggressive Imperial war of expansion sound familiar? Does the "Rape of NanKing" mean anything to you?

[Stillwater]

When terrorists flew airplanes into building and killed thousands of innocent people ... we should have shot every tenth representative after funding the war on terror?

Every 40th soldier or so on the ground was shot (and hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed and injured), why not shoot some of the guys who sent them? They can dish it out, but they can't take it? Some members of congress are a bit too distanced from the realities they help bring to fruition when they make their decisions.

[Rudolph]

Every 40th soldier or so on the ground was shot (and hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed and injured), why not shoot some of the guys who sent them? They can dish it out, but they can't take it? Some members of congress are a bit too distanced from the realities they help bring to fruition when they make their decisions.

So...
(assuming your bs propaganda is true)
If going to war means people will get hurt,

...

"why not shoot some of the guys who sent them? They can dish it out, but they can't take it?"

Are you kiddin me?!

Other than the fact that that schoolyard logic makes no sense at all...

Do you have a serious question?

60 year old men are usually physically incapable of doing the tasks required of soldiers in battle. Seriously, get a grip here. Many of the men in Congress are retired military. They KNOW what they are asking the troops to do.

Again,

Are you a pacifist?

[personalreality]

oooo kaaayyyyy....

"the US and her allies were making moves to cut off exports to and imports from japan, putting a lock down on Japan."

Do you have any idea why they might have been doing this? (Does aggressive Imperial war of expansion sound familiar? Does the "Rape of NanKing" mean anything to you?

Are you serious?  You're talking about Japan trying to expand it's empire?!  We're worse than the bloody Romans!  We have a foothold (military base) in nearly every country in the world.  Not to mention economic control as well (not really true, China owns us all which is why the US along with Russia are instigating WWIII with China).

Do you have any idea how america treats the rest of the world?  Firstly, we only do the queen's bidding (we never revolted, it was an act, we are just a british franchise; that's not speculation, the queen owns the land in the US, international banks own our economy, check out the stock market, the US is a publicly traded company as is the UK, not a country.  You are not an individual, you are a product of USA Corp), secondly we rape and pillage more than anyone else.  Just because our masters have developed a more subtle (and devious) way of oppressing the world, doesn't mean we're better, it means we're more sophisticated.

They did it because of our Imperial Expansion, the American Empire (aka The British Empire).  I don't know if you think that the world is balanced and everyone is working toward equality and sovereignty or what, but that is certainly not the plan.  We obviously aren't doing that, we invade at the drop of a hat and we manipulate and instigate to make sure that hat drops when we want it to.  The end game isn't world peace among individual and sovereign nations.  The end game is one world power ruling over all. 

On a side note, this thread is awesome.  I don't even know how we ended up talking global politics!  lol.

It's cool though Rudolph.  I'm sure you can agree, all else aside, global politics are a mess.  When it came down to push and shove, I would probably be just as likely to seek vengeance.  I'd like to think that I wouldn't, but if it's my life or theirs I suppose the natural reaction is toward self preservation.  Anyway, I don't see any "meeting in the middle" on this topic, so we should let it go and part ways as friends.  I bid you good day sir.

[Rudolph]

"Do you have any idea how america treats the rest of the world?"

Yes.

Better than any other World Power in the history of the world.

that simple.

If you have even half a clue you must admit that that much is blatantly, obviously true. Face facts. I know that the clueless can't deal with this reality but I am (hopefully) not dealing with the totally clueless here.

right?

[SomeRandom]

Hey ruddy, can you ever have a debate without being so aggressive? 

[Rudolph]

Hey ruddy, can you ever have a debate without being so aggressive?  

I like to kick it up a notch.
(but I always keep it civil)

I have no patience for the "let's pretend the ignoratti actually have a valid viewpoint" crew.
(they are destroying Western Civilization)

There really is such a thing as a "fact"

There really is something called truth.
(It is NOT all just a matter of opinion)

Time to man up.

[Xanth]

(but I always keep it civil)

Let's try to kick the civility up a notch too please. 

We're all friends here. 

That really goes for everyone here.  I know discussions of this nature can get... heated.  But let's just keep in mind that we're all friends. 

[Stillwater]

If going to war means people will get hurt,

Yes... yes it does . Is there really a question, with hundreds of thousands of heavily armed men shooting at one another constantly, that someone will be hurt?

(assuming your bs propaganda is true)

Where does propaganda enter into this? Every 170th soldier that has ever served in the Iraqi and Afghan wars has been killed there(1.3 million have served, 7600 have died); the number of very serious injuries is approxiamately 3 times this number, and around every 40th soldier has been shot. The number of reported civilain deaths between the wars is somewhere between 200,000 to over a million, depending on which reporting body you ask. These stats are presented to us by the U.S. government. These are very cold facts. Propaganda implies incendiary statements with clear intended bias to persuade; presenting the very figures the government has given us can hardly be considered propagand against the government.

60 year old men are usually physically incapable of doing the tasks required of soldiers in battle. Seriously, get a grip here. Many of the men in Congress are retired military. They KNOW what they are asking the troops to do.

It was a joke, keeping in mind the discussion it was contextual to. But that does still does not mean that 60-year-old men should be so capricious with the lives of so many soldiers and civilians, regardless of who they are.

[Summerlander]

Hey ruddy, can you ever have a debate without being so aggressive? 

LMAO!

I don't even know how we ended up talking global politics!  lol.

I know...

*Points the finger at Stillwater*

[Rudolph]

Where does propaganda enter into this? Every 170th soldier that has ever served in the Iraqi and Afghan wars has been killed there(1.3 million have served, 7600 have died)[...]. These are very cold facts. Propaganda implies incendiary statements with clear intended bias to persuade; presenting the very figures the government has given us can hardly be considered propagand against the government.
...
It was a joke, keeping in mind the discussion it was contextual to. But that does still does not mean that 60-year-old men should be so capricious with the lives of so many soldiers and civilians, regardless of who they are.

Wow. your own propaganda disproves your own final statement. (Note: propaganda does not necessarily imply anything incendiary, just one-sided). I do not believe the 'civilian casualty' numbers repeated by pacifists.

Every 170th soldier dies? That's like half a percent. I think relative to past wars that is almost zero. Ipso facto, the Congress providing the soldier with the best training and equipment pays off in lower casualty rates. Nothing capricious about that.

Pacifism is tantamount to suicide.

The invasion of Aghanistan was not only COMPLETELY justified but probably necessary. Harboring a terrorist who flies airplanes into buildings is a bad thing to do and if those who do so suffer a karmic backlash... well, so be it. That's the way things are.

There are those who look within in order to find truth and those who turn within as an escape. The truth seekers learn and realize the true nature of planet earth and recognize the inevitability of war. Conflict is built-in to the system.

[Summerlander]

Yes. War is inevitable with the system we've got! GO RUDOLPH!

[personalreality]

Wow. your own propaganda disproves your own final statement. (Note: propaganda does not necessarily imply anything incendiary, just one-sided). I do not believe the 'civilian casualty' numbers repeated by pacifists.

Every 170th soldier dies? That's like half a percent. I think relative to past wars that is almost zero. Ipso facto, the Congress providing the soldier with the best training and equipment pays off in lower casualty rates. Nothing capricious about that.

Pacifism is tantamount to suicide.

The invasion of Aghanistan was not only COMPLETELY justified but probably necessary. Harboring a terrorist who flies airplanes into buildings is a bad thing to do and if those who do so suffer a karmic backlash... well, so be it. That's the way things are.

There are those who look within in order to find truth and those who turn within as an escape. The truth seekers learn and realize the true nature of planet earth and recognize the inevitability of war. Conflict is built-in to the system.

so why wait?  if the inevitability is that war is never-ending for us, lets just blow everyone up right now and save ourselves the trouble.  you and the "terrorists" must have the same holy books of ideology.

brilliant.

[Summerlander]

LOL

I don't think that's what Rudolph meant. We shouldn't blow ourselves up. UNFORTUNATELY, with the system that we've got, wars work quite well for the powers that be and certain markets are assured to continue. It's just the way things are (at the moment). Perhaps it will change one day but this is a reflection of who the human being is intrinsically. A lot of people believe in capital punishment, for example.

A child can say: "Daddy, can you smack Igor cuz he's just stolen my chocolate egg" - and this is a reflection of the child's feelings.

[Rudolph]

so why wait?  if the inevitability is that war is never-ending for us, lets just blow everyone up right now and save ourselves the trouble.  you and the "terrorists" must have the same holy books of ideology.

brilliant.

Sheesh! I did not say "everything blowing up" was inevitable.

How can you extrapolate to "you and the "terrorists" must have the same holy books of ideology" from anything I said? Logically you can't.

I said conflict is inevitable because it is built in to the system. All in the physical universe is a balance of opposing forces, positive vs negative. The negative is not going to go away just because someone wrote a song about it not being real. It IS real and a Deep Denial La-La attitude is not going to make it go away. That is not to say that one can't create micro-spaces of peace in their immediate surroundings. And enlightened societies can minimize negativity in a closed system -- for a period of time.

[Stillwater]

Quote from: personalreality on Today at 03:20:03

I don't even know how we ended up talking global politics!  lol.

I know...

*Points the finger at Stillwater*

Yeah... probably is my fault.

Pacifism is tantamount to suicide.

This is the third or fourth time you have decried pacifism; I have not seen anyone else mention pacisfism or advocate it yet. I am advocating not getting involved in unecessary wars, that does not at all equate to pacisfism, but rather a rejection of a jingoist outlout; you are speaking so adamently about propaganda, and one form of propaganda is to distort the statements and opinions of others into much more extreme versions of what they purport.

I do not believe the 'civilian casualty' numbers repeated by pacifists.

These are reported by the U.S. government. I don't know who these shadow pacifists are who are curiously enough out to get you. The most liberal studies by groups like the New York Times put the numbers into the millions of civilian casualties; going by the official government numbers (which are the most conservative of all the reports) still brings us to 200,000 or so between the two wars.

Every 170th soldier dies? That's like half a percent. I think relative to past wars that is almost zero. Ipso facto, the Congress providing the soldier with the best training and equipment pays off in lower casualty rates. Nothing capricious about that.

Saying that these wars were not as bad as Vietnam or any other recent conflict is not an argument sufficient to justify them. An analogy would be to say that I would not mind getting AIDS since it is not nearly as bad as the Ebola virus. And these are only the U.S. losses we are talking about in this particualr statement. The civilian numbers are horrendous by the most conservative of any reports. Potentially 1 out of every 30 Iraqi civilians has been injured or killed.

[personalreality]

Sheesh! I did not say "everything blowing up" was inevitable.

How can you extrapolate to "you and the "terrorists" must have the same holy books of ideology" from anything I said? Logically you can't.

I said conflict is inevitable because it is built in to the system. All in the physical universe is a balance of opposing forces, positive vs negative. The negative is not going to go away just because someone wrote a song about it not being real. It IS real and a Deep Denial La-La attitude is not going to make it go away. That is not to say that one can't create micro-spaces of peace in their immediate surroundings. And enlightened societies can minimize negativity in a closed system -- for a period of time.

If war is perpetual and inevitable, the only logic end it total annihilation, simple as that.  So, just cut to the chase.

The commonality between you and the "terrorists" (by the way, to them, you are the terrorist), is that you both seem to believe that killing eachother is the only solution to our discrepancies.  That's a logical conclusion to me.  But I'm coming from a perspective of total non-violence, not because I'm a pacifist hippie, I am just following the old adage "be the change you want to see" and ensuring that my personal environment is a "peaceful" one (as you suggested).   

[Rudolph]

Stillwater, nearly every reply you made to my quotes was a response to something I never said. I think I mentioned pacifism twice, because your comments sounded like pacifism. But I didn't want to put words in your mouth so I asked you directly, out of courtesy, twice -- and you still won't give a direct answer. Why do you say "I am advocating not getting involved in unecessary wars"? No one is advocating for such insanity. Why advocate against something no one has said?

And I wasn't "speaking so adamantly about propaganda". I merely mentioned that is what it was when I saw you present it. Please reply honestly to what I say and not a gross exaggeration.

I don't know who these shadow pacifists are who are curiously enough out to get you.

There you go again. I never said anything about any pacifists out to get me. Just fyi - I have noticed that people who reply to something no one has said are talking to themselves about what is bouncing around in their own heads. Now the question arises, "Who are *you* afraid of"?

The New York Times!? 
They are the biggest Left wing-nut, phony, yellow journalistic rag in the country.

Saying that these wars were not as bad as Vietnam or any other recent conflict is not an argument sufficient to justify them.

There you go again. I did not say that these wars were not as bad as Vietnam or any other recent conflict and I presented no such argument to justify them. I replied to your reported numbers showing extremely low casualty rates. Please reply to what I actually said. Your AIDS/Ebola analogy applies to nothing I have said here.

Civilian casualties are usually going to be high whenever combatants hide behind their women and children after staging an attack. These cowards bring that sort of karma upon themselves and their families by their own choice.

[Rudolph]

If war is perpetual and inevitable, the only logic end it total annihilation, simple as that.  So, just cut to the chase.

The commonality between you and the "terrorists" (by the way, to them, you are the terrorist), is that you both seem to believe that killing eachother is the only solution to our discrepancies.  That's a logical conclusion to me.  But I'm coming from a perspective of total non-violence, not because I'm a pacifist hippie, I am just following the old adage "be the change you want to see" and ensuring that my personal environment is a "peaceful" one (as you suggested).   

Please explain how, "the only logic end it total annihilation". I don't think that is true.

Terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilians and innocents and I do not do that. People who climb over village walls and stab a random family to death in the middle of the night, including infants, are terrorists. People who fly airplanes into buildings are terrorists. People who kill a man who would do such things are simply fighting back in self defense. If the terrorist hides behind his wife and they both get killed -- that does not make the self-defender a terrorist. If the wife knew her husband was a psychopathic terrorist and went along with it she is not so innocent.

You are free to be all the change you want to be. But pacifist's die an early death. If you are okay with that, that's your business. But those who force others to be pacifists by law and policy are tyrannically forcing suicidal behavior on an entire community and that is really bad karma.

[personalreality]

I'm really trying to keep my cool, but it's people like you that make war inevitable.

Your first reaction to a threatening situation is to kill, to retaliate.

The people that you keep referencing as terrorists are not terrorists.  They are EXACTLY like you.  We instigated, they are defending themselves.  End of story.

And if we are naturally inclined to war, how is the end scenario anything but total annihilation? 

[SomeRandom]

Because we made it this far, war has always been in the universe. Its in animals and always will be.
After all how would we grow if nothing is challenging us?