COMMENTS:
Voted : Encourage terrorism
The only thing I've ever heard of capable of stopping terrorism is common sense. Ergo, sit back, all. We're in for a long wait.
Voted : Stop terrorism
Steel did the Allied bombings of Germany and Japan during WW2 help spread fascism or stop it?At the end of the day terrorist are just soldiers in civilian cloths are subject to morale.With an agressive military campaigne you can break the morale of the terrorist and thus win the war.
"anti-government, fundamentalist christians"
Did they commit a terrorist action that killed hundreds or thousands?
Depends. Are the people in the town sane rational people, or also religious fanatics? Did the terrorists commit acts of violence killing thousands of innocent men and women? Were the decent people of the town given the oppurtunity to do something about the terrorists in their midst and instead chose to support them to the best of their ability?
Many factors here.
But of course you're using the old 'violence never settles anything' rhetoric. I thought we'd dispelled this lie? Look, just because it's a good thing to tell kids to get them to behave doesn't mean it's a good basis for national policy (we likewise shouldn't use threats of the boogey man, or 'if you keep doing that you will get stuck that way' routine).
Violence has solved more problems than probably any other single method.
Evidence to support this: the nazis are hardly a going concern, japan no longer rules the pacific with an Iron-fist, slavery in the US is over, the british no longer rule the US, the communist north koreans are not running the south in to the ground as they have their own country, and the Iraqis do not currently control kuwait, saudia arabia, or any other country.
Violence solves problems huh?
Yet more and more youbg people are running into the arms of terror groups?
Youre logic, Herzog is impeccable (sic)
So in essence you agree violence solves problems so when those you make war on retaliate, youre against it, and if your town was bombed from above, you would br sanguine about it?
Very odd logic indeed
'Violence solves problems huh?'
Yes, I believe I provided enough examples so that must concede that point.
' Yet more and more youbg people are running into the arms of terror groups?'
Can you prove it? And can you prove that they are replacing dead terrorists at a rate to increase their total numbers or at least keep them constant?
Besides which, we killed german soldiers, forcing them to conscript more, it didn't prove that they were winning. Eventually they ran out and we occupied their country and crushed their fascist ideology. Can you prove that finding new recruits mean a fighting force isn't also suffering?
' Youre (sic) logic, Herzog is impeccable'
And based on unbiased observations from the last several centuries.
Can you use unbiased evidence from history to prove the violence never settles any disputes?
'So in essence you agree violence solves problems'
Often, yes, and history shows them again and again.
'so when those you make war on retaliate, youre against it, and if your town was bombed from above, you would br sanguine about it? '
Huh? Does that make any sense even to you? Or were you just really stretching on that one?
Answer me this: do we still have slavery in the US, yes or no. ANd if 'no' was this a result of conflict, or peaceful chats? Is europe still occupied by germans throwing every jew they can get their hands on into the ovens? If 'no' then were they politely talked out of their plans, or were they forcefully stopped using violence and massive casualties?
Hmmmm so fascism has beed eradicated has it?
Hmmm so you believe that slavery is gone do you?
Hmmm you don't believe that young people in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan are flocking to the terrorist banner.
Hmmmm and your brain does explode when your logic is caught in a weird dichotomy?
OK people, stand back he may blow anytime...
'Hmmmm so fascism has beed eradicated has it?'
In germany, as their government? Um, yes.
Saying that because fascism still exists in countries that we didn't invade to crush fascism, so this proves violence never works is like 'proving' penicillin doesn't work because it does nothing to help the people who aren't taking it. Come on steel, surely even you can admit that the war to crush nazism was a success. Are the nazis in charge of germany (and most of europe with it) are they rounding up the zionists (or is it jews?) at an alarming rate? Don't embarass yourself by clinging to this fanatasy that violence solves nothing but reaching to such ridiculous extremes to try to prove it. Germany was crushed, nazism was crushed the war was a success, and not by idle chatting was this accomplished.
' Hmmm so you believe that slavery is gone do you?'
In america (ie the only country that went to war to end it) yes. Absolutely. Oh but people still have to work to earn a living, they can't simply lie on the couch and expect the government to provide everything they need, so we're all still slaves, right? That's what you were getting at. No, steel this is not slavery.
' Hmmm you don't believe that young people in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan are flocking to the terrorist banner.'
Can you prove that they are? I thought terrorists were an extreme minority who represented no one really. But you're saying they're flocking, so all arabs are terrorists, or most?
' Hmmmm and your brain does explode when your logic is caught in a weird dichotomy?'
Hmm, where's cath to bitchslap you for using the word dichotomy?
Best tell the Neo-Nazis in Germany they have been eradicated... they didnt get the memo.
If you think living on minimum wage or less isnt slavery, good luck with flipping those burgers.
Finally, answer the question, would any US citizen not take arms against a foreign aggressor on their soil?
Has nothing to do with being muslim or arab, its about resistance.
You may need to re-evaluate your 'all arabs/ blacks/ nonwhite/ non republican hatemonger' stance a little
'Best tell the Neo-Nazis in Germany they have been eradicated... they didnt get the memo. '
Like I said, you need to stop doing this to avoid embarassing yourself. That you would stoop so low as to compare neo-nazis who commit perhaps a half dozen protest a year to the actual nazis who killed 12 million people in addition to the millions they killed in open combat merely shows how flimsy your argument is. Yes or no steely, are nazis a going concern anymore, or have they lost all power? Please, stop making a fool of yourself in this ridiculous attempt to deny reality.
' If you think living on minimum wage or less isnt slavery, good luck with flipping those burgers.'
slave
adj : held in servitude; "he was born of slave parents" slave(a) free n 1: a person who is owned by someone 2: someone who works as hard as a slave striver, hard worker 3: someone entirely dominated by some influence or person; "a slave to fashion"; "a slave to cocaine"; "his mother was his abject slave" v : work very hard, like a slave break one's back, buckle down, knuckle down
So no, but the definition they aren't slaves.
But I'm sure you have your own definition where everyone is a slave, everyone except those free and happy workers living in socialist republics like North Korea or Cuba. Of course they're free and happy, the government insists that they are and the government owns them, so it must be true.
But by the real definition, no they are not slaves.
' Finally, answer the question, would any US citizen not take arms against a foreign aggressor on their soil? '
Depends on the cause, like I said. If they really were weeding out people who were a threat to us and were generally evil bastards then no I don't think they would. Americans didn't take up arms when the government killed off a bunch of religious nuts in waco. Nor did we mind when they went after Mcveigh and those who supported him.
In general americans aren't fond of terrorism or terrorists.
Deflecting isnt answering the question, but thats par for the course for you.
If you really believe that the evil that creates Fascism is dead, you truly are living in a cocoon.
As for your tired arguments about socialism, its obvious you cannot understand the basic dialectic of socilaism, or you wouldnt show your ignorance with the myths you spin.
People see the troops in Iraq and Lebanon as invaders, you say it would depend wether you fought back. Proves the theory that you are the collaborating sort.
I can't say I'm tutally surprised given your ;lets send troops, just as long as it isnt me' neocon attitude.
I shall return to B&W tomorrow night, need to sleep, working tomorrow.
"I can't say I'm totally surprised given your 'lets send troops, just as long as it isn't me' neocon attitude."
Truer words never spoken!
Steel: true/false, fascists still run most of europe? Answer this and we can move on to disproving the rest of your argument.
A simple yes or no (or true or false) will suffice, again, do fascists run europe as they did in the early 40s?
Voted : Encourage terrorism
IMO, direct, tried-and-true methods of warfare when fighting terrorism rarely (but sometimes do) decrease its threat.
While the fascists of WWII-era Europe could be called terrorists, they were not the same kind of terrorist that I think this ballot is talking about (correct me if I'm wrong). Because they are not connected to a government, and are not necessarily eliminated if their host country{ies} is/are captured, bombing to stop modern terrorism is ineffective, and indeed only fosters more resentment.
However, I agree with herzog that violence is indeed capable of solving some conflicts, and WWII is a perfect example, just not for the purposes of proving that bombing stops this modern brand of terrorism.
"Violence solves problems huh?"
It got rid of Hitler.
Case Closed.
One feeble example does not an argument make.
The tactics employed in Iraq and Lebanon were tried in Vietnam, what was the outcome of that excursion?
I suggest some balloters get themselves fitted for jackets with extra room in the sleeves, so they can put their hands in the air quicker, when invaded.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my point in the "war that we my live in peace" debate is that violence is useful for solving *some* problems. Clearly, Iraq, Vietnam, and the War on Terror are examples of problems violence does not solve.
I'll take that as a reluctant admission that I'm right. And don't lie to yourself and everyone else by claiming there's only one example of violence solving a problem. I simply picked on at random.
Ok, so now that we've established your 'violence never solves anything' line is false it is simply a matter of deciding the best application of violence when a situation demands it.
When did you establish that?
Saying so doesn't make it so.
Alright steel, we'll go around in a circle once more.
You claim violence solves nothing. I present a factual case where it does. You must either amend your statement or stick your fingers in your ears and loudly denounce historical fact.
Which is it?
For example, let's say I make the claim that mankind has never once set foot on the moon. Ah but wait, there are a few examples where men have set foot on the moon. I'd either have to change my initial statement to something like, most people have never set foot on the moon, or else be caught in an obvious lie.
You've claimed violence has never solved anything, historically there is plenty of evidence to say that it has, how do you respond?
The only thing it solves is the overpopulation problem
Actually not true, populations tend to go up during a war, if you look at the stats.
Now, are you still unwilling to admit reality? Because this is getting rather tedious. I present the evidence to you in small, bite sized pieces that are easy to digest and quite clear, and you just ignore them.
No, what you do is serve up opinion, try not to confuse it with hard facts.
How exactly does war increase the population?
Next you will be saying "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."
Acknowled gements to Eric Blair for that quote
Type world population growth in to google and do some researc. You'll find that it's a geometric climb upwards with the only negative blip being the black plague years, at no other time does the world population drop. I never said war increased the population, merely that we've never had a war that effectively countered the natural population growth. You add ten new people every second but kill off 8 you are still moving upwards, does that mean killing 8 people for every 10 born creates more people? Simple math steel, I know you had to bury that knowledge when you took up communism, but go find it again and look at the numbers.
And you still haven't acknowledge facts.
PS: Your rant there proves again why it is unfortunate that liberals are allowed to read 1984 without a proper education, they simply parrot the lines over and over again in situations that do not apply, all the while cheering the all encompassing state that this book was speaking out against.
|
