RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!"

RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/13/2006 12:11:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Level, Shit happens in war, I agree. Funny thing is, we only want to call it "war" when it suits us. We firebomb cities and kill millions, we killed millions in Vietnam and Laos, we have done a lot killing in Iraq. That's okay though, it was "war". We talk about terrorists declaring "war" on us, but it is only "war" when we drop the bombs from airplanes, it isn't "war" when they drop whole airplanes. We are really really lucky that they can't fight us on equal terms because we have flattened entire cities, we have made a third world shithole an even more fucked up place to live. We have killed 10s if not 100s of thousands of people in a place that has a population less than that of California. You want to "win" this by killing them all off. I would rather "win" by finding common ground, stop supporting brutal dictators, and allow them to have a little peace and prosperity. Clearly we see this all a bit differently. I've never said anything about "killing them all off", mainly because I have never believed that. Did you even read post #91? It is all about "finding common ground.... and allowing them to have a little peace and prosperty." Or so it seemed to me when I wrote it...... Nor did I "skate around" your question... I answered it with a "no" if it meant intentionally killing women and children.

CrappyDom -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/13/2006 12:18:10 PM)
Level, Okay, I see you weren't as far out as I thought. However, all the arabs have to do is start trying to hit military targets and you would support them, even if their missles hit civilians and they only killed them by accident?

Level -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/13/2006 12:31:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Level, Okay, I see you weren't as far out as I thought. However, all the arabs have to do is start trying to hit military targets and you would support them, even if their missles hit civilians and they only killed them by accident? Crappy, I think it would be more a case of understanding them than "supporting" them, and I only mean the Palestinians. I don't get up and cheer when Israel strikes against them, so it's not really a matter of my "supporting" them either, though I understand that it may look as if I do. Your army takes my home, so I strike back at your army. Sad that any of it happened, but yes, understandable. This would remove the Palestinians from the ranks of terror groups in my mind. Now, Hezzbollah is a different kettle of fish...

incognitobynight -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/13/2006 1:12:49 PM)
I think one of the saddest things is none of the fighting in the past 50 years has had anything to do with democracy, or freedom, or elevating the liberties of humanity. If you just take the time to follow the money and see who it is that benefits the most from the conflicts that the west has involved itself in (always at the expense of the poorest, least educated countries) the "reasons" for all this human suffering will become evident. And if you still don't "get it", just hang around with your head in the sand a little bit longer, because particulary here in the US, our goverment's meddling in the affairs of others is being visited upon us right now as we speak, and little by little you are seeing the ever strengthening power of corporations and the ever weakening liberties and rights of the common citizen. And the saddest part about THAT particular dynamic is that many of you here will be cheering it on. Pretty soon, you are going to understand a little better the anger, resentment, frustration and hopelessness of the oppressed and you are going to want to fight back against those who would render you powerless. Think about it.

Level -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/13/2006 1:20:54 PM)
Yeah, incognito, we cleaned up big in Haiti, Grenada, and Bosnia. You make it sound like the West has been involved in every military conflict in the last 50 years; if that is indeed what you mean, let me know how that sand tastes.

caitlyn -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/13/2006 1:37:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom quote: the path to amelioration is hyper-destruction of civilians Uh, I hate to break it to you but if you piled all the skulls of all the victims of terrorists over the last 50 years, you wouldn't get a pile as big as the one we left in Vietnam and arguably smaller than the pile of dead we have created in Iraq. Again, I have the same question for you that level skated around. If the choice facing you was permanent servitude/slavery or using terrorism to win your freedom, which would you choose? The post above takes half a line, out of context, presented far from its original meaning. You even presented as a statement, what was really just a question. "The issue then becomes, do we want to send a message as a superpower, that if you don't like the things we are doing, and are not getting what you want from us, the path to amelioration is hyper-destruction of civilians?" This is weak CrappyDom, and nothing more. In answer to your question; I don't blame the terrorists. I don't blame the west. I don't blame anyone. I've said that until I'm blue in the face ... this is a dispute between parties with alternate agendas. To sit and think we can "work this out" is foolish, in my opinion. Each side thinks the other is a terrorist, and each has a good point of view. You won't get me to skate around the issue, and you won't get me to use your weak debate tools. We are stronger, and they are weaker. The strong should win, and the weak should lose. That just is, what it is ... the world we live in. Just because some people accept the world for what it is, doesn't make them responsible for it ... in spite of what some here want to present.

SirKenin -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/13/2006 2:22:19 PM)
I have done some thinking about this Myself.. I think incogito is closer than everyone else so far.. The US economy depends on oil to survive and world resources are dwindling. Plants are shutting down and prices are being driven up because the oil refineries know what is coming. The US government knows what is coming, so they are acting in the best interests of the country. Instead of conserving energy, US demand increases dramatically every year with such wastes as SUVs and luxury cars. The USA has 21 billion barrels of proven reserve. In other words after factoring in all the geological and engineering data, that is what you have available to be extracted for use from all your wells. The world has 900 billion barrels left. That means you only control 2.3% of the world's oil. At your current usage, you have enough oil to last you another 8 years. Unfortunately your usage will not remain the same. The USA uses up 21 million barrels of oil a day. They produce 7 million barrels a day. That means they IMPORT 14 MILLION barrels of oil a day. The world has enough oil left for another 30 years, give or take. The US' foreign policy dictates that countries that control the oil have to have a US friendly government. Democracy. With a US friendly government, under protection of the US, the price of oil is kept in check, because it is no longer sold to the highest bidder. Unfortunately many of these countries are Arab. Why did the US move against Iraq in 1992 or whatever that was during Operation Desert Storm? Because Iraq moved into Kuwait. What is in Kuwait? Oil. Never mind the fact that the Arab Sunnis were torturing and mass murdering 10's of thousands of Iraqi citizens. They didn't care. They were protecting their interests. They could have ousted Saddam right then and there, but they didn't. Suddenly Iraq is a threat once again. This time it is because intelligence tells them that Iraq is amassing a stockpile of WMDs. They get there, it is too late. The WMDs are already shipped off to Syria. But this time they oust Saddam for crimes against humanity and try to restore democracy, conveniently a US friendly government. The Arab Sunnis fight back with a vengeance, because they, along with Saddam, controlled the country. There are atrocities taking place all over the eastern world on a grand scale, but the USA does nothing. Why? Because 1) there is no oil and 2) the country does not pose a threat. As for some atrocities and crimes against humanity: Nepal Somalia (still) Sudan For some older ones where the USA did nothing: Rwanda Nigeria Burundi India Croatia Uganda Algeria To name a few. This has got sweet bugger all to do with the fact that the western world is predominantly Christian. The Arabs are trying to unite and stockpile their own weapons and govern their own countries. The US doesn't want this. In their eyes, WMDs in the wrong hands can be deadly. Sooo, the USA invades them and takes them out. In the USA's endeavour to gain and maintain control they have pissed off a LOT of people. Why do you think that the USA is the most hated country in the world? Because they are Christian? hahaha. I do not think so. It is because you have a habit of sticking your noses where they have no business being. The terrorists numbers are limited in comparison to the USA, but they have one vision. To defend what is theirs. They feel they are fighting on behalf of the Arab people, having been brain washed with propaganda. Their message is basically back off and leave us alone or we are going to blow up your planes, your people, your infrastructure, your buildings and anything else we can get our hands on. We are going to hit you where it hurts the most. Instead of backing off, the US and her allies move into Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and start picking off the terrorists. Their message is simple. We will not back down. Soo... you have a war, and you are not fighting it on your terms. Maybe that is why you are losing.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/13/2006 3:23:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin The US economy depends on oil to survive and world resources are dwindling.The world has 900 billion barrels left. That means you only control 2.3% of the world's oil. At your current usage, you have enough oil to last you another 8 years. Unfortunately your usage will not remain the same. The USA uses up 21 million barrels of oil a day. They produce 7 million barrels a day. That means they IMPORT 14 MILLION barrels of oil a day. The world has enough oil left for another 30 years, give or take. The US' foreign policy dictates that countries that control the oil have to have a US friendly government. Certainly, FDR saw the need for secure access to oil 60 years ago when he signed the oil-for-security pact with the Saudi king. As to the basic forces that you are describing - diminishing world supply, increasing demand, excessive US dependence - that has been the focus of a fair amount of analysis. What's more, the remaining supplies exist largely in unstable developing nations. Oil in and near advanced countries was the low hanging fruit and has been largely used up already. There was a nice discussion on this very issue on "On Point" that I heard while ago. The thesis of the book author is that the future holds an increasingly desperate struggle for the remaining oil, which will lead the US into further military conflicts. I found the link: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/10/20041018_b_main.asp ...and reproduce the abstract for the discussion, below: *Blood for Oil?* In his new book, "Blood and Oil," Professor Michael Klare argues and the American military has become a global petroleum security force. Iraq is just the latest example in a string of conflicts based on the need to secure a steady supply of oil. But, Klare asserts, the United States has chosen the course of "securitizing" oil rather than making a concerted effort to cut back consumption and develop alternatives. Klare says that this decision will be the dominate factor in U.S. foreign policy in the coming decades, condemning the U.S. military to perpetual struggle against hostile indigenous forces attempting to control their own resource. Hear a conversation with Professor Michael Klare about oil, America's foreign policy, and alternative fuel supply resources. *Guests:* · Michael T. Klare, Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies, based at Hampshire College, author of "Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency" · Robert Ebel, chairman of the Energy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, co-director of the Caspian Sea Oil Study Group, author of numerous books on the oil industry, served with the CIA for 11 years. P.S. There is about 5 mins of news at the start - scroll past that.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/13/2006 3:53:22 PM)
P.S. How many people think that Hugo Chavez is considered such a great threat to world security by the US government just because he calls GW Bush "an asshole"? [8\|] He also just happens to be sitting on one of the world's greatest remaining oil resources, in a country with a weak military, and he seems very willing to sell this oil to China instead of the US - obviously he's a great threat to world security! [;)] Regime change, anyone?

incognitobynight -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/13/2006 5:16:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut P.S. How many people think that Hugo Chavez is considered such a great threat to world security by the US government just because he calls GW Bush "an asshole"? [8\|] He also just happens to be sitting on one of the world's greatest remaining oil resources, in a country with a weak military, and he seems very willing to sell this oil to China instead of the US - obviously he's a great threat to world security! [;)] Regime change, anyone? BINGO!!!!

NorthernGent -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/13/2006 6:43:49 PM)
Not sure which poster mentioned dwindling oil resources but oil is not actually dwindling and demand has remained stable for years. The policy of the US Government has been to restrict the supply of oil in order to maintain high prices/profits. The real threat for the US economy is that more oil is produced (pushing prices down) and this is very probable if the US Government doesn't control oil producing areas - hence, the rush to get into Afghanistan and control the oil supply from the Caspian Sea region.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/13/2006 7:18:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Not sure which poster mentioned dwindling oil resources but oil is not actually dwindling and demand has remained stable for years. That would be me. I think that perhaps there may be a misunderstanding/miscommunication about resources versus production? Production is actually increasing, but that's just the rate of exploitation of what is there. Noone is actually "making" any more oil, they are just getting it out of the ground faster than before. Resources, meaning how much oil is actually left, are dwindling, or declining, if you prefer that verb. Noone knows precisely how much is left. But, on the other hand, people have been prospecting for oil on just one earth for over a century, and with increasingly sophisticated methods for the last few decades, so I would guess they have a pretty good idea of the situation. The principle areas of uncertainty as I understand it seem to be projection of how demand/production will change in the coming decades - that is, at what rates will the existing oil actually be drawn down? The answer to that question is very complex. Here are the projections from the US Department of Energy, based on an analysis from the year 2004, using various parameter settings in the place of the demand growth, as well as different values for the total recoverable amount of oil based on US Geological Survey estimates at the mean, 5% confidence limit and 95% confidence limit. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent The policy of the US Government has been to restrict the supply of oil in order to maintain high prices/profits. The real threat for the US economy is that more oil is produced (pushing prices down) and this is very probable if the US Government doesn't control oil producing areas - hence, the rush to get into Afghanistan and control the oil supply from the Caspian Sea region. This may be so, but how does the US restrict the market supply of oil when we are but a minor producer of oil and a net oil importer? I was under the impression that as the oil exporters, the OPEC countries and Russia control the market supply of oil, albeit with some negotitiations with the larger customers so as to avoid depressing the world economy. Are you saying that it's actually the US who simply controls the world's oil supply at any given time on the market? Please provide references.

CrappyDom -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/13/2006 11:47:36 PM)
Caitlyn, You are sick, really really sick. If you ever get raped, I hope we can sit down and discuss your "might makes right" theory. I am curious if you will treat it the same way you so cavalierly treat the lives of others. I would of course assume you would not want any charges brought against the rapist, because being stronger and you weaker...well it is the way of the world, isn't it?

caitlyn -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/14/2006 3:12:49 AM)
I've no intention of responding here, and since you have no profile there is no way to respond offline ... so I guess this will have to stay where it is.

philosophy -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/14/2006 3:41:10 AM)
"If you ever get raped, I hope we can sit down and discuss your "might makes right" theory. I am curious if you will treat it the same way you so cavalierly treat the lives of others. I would of course assume you would not want any charges brought against the rapist, because being stronger and you weaker...well it is the way of the world, isn't it?" "I've no intention of responding here, and since you have no profile there is no way to respond offline ... so I guess this will have to stay where it is" sorry Caitlyn, but that's a massive cop-out. You've used the 'might makes right' doctrine a couple of times here and all CD has done is to throw up an example where it is applied to you. To utterly duck the point while using the same doctrine to justify or explain the mass murder of others is cowardly.

caitlyn -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/14/2006 4:08:04 AM)
Think what you want. I'm not ducking the question. I'm more than willing to answer it ... I'm just not going to answer it here, where it will absolutely turn into a flame. I haven't justified anything. Once again ... just because some people accept the world for what it is, doesn't make them responsible for it ... in spite of what some here want to present. In case you haven't noticed, everyone's innocent victim, only seems to apply to the one's on their side of the argument. The Israeli's are very concerned about the innocent victims of rocket attacks in their country ... but civilians in Lebanon shouldn't be supporting terrorists. The government in Lebanon is very concerned about the innocent civilians victims of Israeli bombing and shelling, but civilians in Israel shoudn't be supporting the Zionist government that is out to destroy them. But of course, I'm "sick", because I choose to see things as they are ... not how I wish they were. Go figure.

philosophy -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/14/2006 4:17:08 AM)
"just because some people accept the world for what it is, doesn't make them responsible for it" .......true as far as it goes Caitlyn, but that wasn't the point of the last few posts. You have used the argument that 'might makes right' on more than one occasion. CD postulates a situation where that principle is applied to you, as opposed to foreigners in a country far, far away. It is fair to ask you to respond publically to that....and there is no reason for it to turn into a flame. Does might make right apply to you, or just to other people? If the latter, then do you see where people see your description of the world as hypocritical?

caitlyn -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/14/2006 5:04:16 AM)
This whole thread is just twisting words to make a meaning that was never intended. Am I supposed to supply more ammo, by answering a hypothetical question? How do you suppose that is going to go? Might makes right is not an argument ... it's just the way things are. History shows us few, if any instances, where that is not the case. Understanding that doesn't mean you support it, in spite of what some here with to present. I wish we lived in a world where people would wake up and decide that loving was better than killing ... a world where those with food would share with those without ... a world where parents wouldn't harm their own children. Sadly, wishing that was our world, doesn't make it so. So, I'm not going to answer the hypothetical question here. Not because I can't do it without flaming, but because it is quite obvious that anyone that gives an honest answer to real question will have their meaning twisted. Answering a hypothetical, is handing bullets to those with guns. If you must have answers, get them offline.

philosophy -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/14/2006 5:13:31 AM)
"Might makes right is not an argument ... it's just the way things are." ........Caitlyn, you know i'm going to disagree....lol i believe you are mistaken in your premise. The concept of 'right' is a human artefact, not one naturally occuring in the environment. We, as a species, choose what is right for us at the time. We, as a species, can choose that might does not make right......in fact we can choose to view those who espouse such a notion as atavistic. CD was right to call the notion of might making right in such a way, because Caitlyn the example he gave was totally valid in the context. If might makes right, then rape is not wrong. Surely you can see how self evidently false that is. If might making right does not apply to rape then it doesn't apply to countries either.

IronBear -> RE: "Mass Murder on an Un-Imaginable Scale!" (8/14/2006 5:32:50 AM)
Mass Murder/Executions/Collateral Damage (Human) has happened time after time in war. Let's not be blinded by modern convenient labels, but accept when any person or persons start to attack others or the property of others there exists a state of armed conflict otherwise called War. The side which uses Mass Murder/Executions/Collateral Damage (Human) will see the killings as necessary and acceptable in their view of things where as the loosing side sees it as atrocities and unnecessary. World opinion will see such actions according to their political standing with the conflict.. It is indeed hard for any of us to be so removed from humanity to be able to look at such things from a cold logical point of view..I remember some long conversations with a friend over a couple of bottles of excellent vodka, that during his time in the Spentsnaz (Russian Special Forces), that they had an unofficial motto that when operating against an enemy: “Kill one of ours and we destroy a village of yours.” I don’t have to agree, condone or even like it, but by Jove I can understand it.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625