User Tag List

First 4567 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 65

  1. #51
    Senior Member Joehobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    I guess I don't see nations different from people. Nations are people.


    So, again I'll run through a quick list: Pol-Pot in Cambodia, Rwanda, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Israel, Bosnia... am I forgetting anything I've mentioned yet?

    All of the situations that occurred in these nations, would they have developed favorably for the citizens had we not provided influence? Or are you saying we shouldn't care?
    You should add a list of all the countries where the United States have been sponsors of the destruction and repression of said countries people. Funding arms to dictatorships, financial support and political support for their own agenda while they violated the very laws they sought to establish - all because it helped their own interests at the expense of lives.
    Business is business I guess right?

    Also, I'm not really sure why you added Japan. They where an enemy of the US in WW2, did some bad shit to countries they occupied but their empire wasn't exactly any more or less evil than any other country at the time. Except for perhaps the whole Third Reich they where allied with. Did you forget that the US unleashed one of the most destructive forces known to man on the country, and poisoned the land? Atleast it ended the war, but shit man. It's a bit of a long shot to add japan in that list. Oh and also considering that the western influence brought in by the US nearly destroyed their culture and brought the end of samurai's. Those guys were cool, maybe egocentric in some cases but cool.

    Iran
    • The US was a major player in a plot to depose a democratically elected government. After which they put in place a puppet government. Sometime later the iranian revolution kicks in which ousts the puppet government, thus giving birth to todays Islamic republic of Iran. This resulted in the US cutting all ties with the newly formed government and continued demonizing of the country for the foreseeable future. So in summary, you can happily thank the deeds of US leadership which had created the Iran that now exists today, compared to one which was based on democratic freedom before the coup. There is a reason why many older persians will speak of the liberties they once had prior to the revolution.
    • During the Iran/Iraq war which occured shortly after the revolution, the US supplied Iraq with weapons during their invasion of iran, they also turned a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations and also helped Iraq pick out targets and encouraged attacks against civilian populations in major cities. This being part of many other countries in an attempt to destroy the revolutions influence in Iran which threatened stability in the region (Or atleast it was percieved by the countries neighbours that way.) Noting that the revolution would have never happened in the first place had the US not supported the coup of the previous democratic government.
    • During this war the US had directly launched a military operation against Iran, they had also shot down a civilian airliner carrying 290 passengers - not all persians, and this includes women and children. The attack was claimed to have mistaken the plane as a warplane. However this story has proven to be untrue.
    • After the war continued sanctions and military operations within Iran by the US government. Mainly espionage and operations attempting to destabilize the country further, as well as violations against diplomatic personal.
    • "The Grand Bargain" proposal, in which Iran attempted to resume diplomatic relations with the US, offering to withdraw all support for terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, and to shutdown its nuclear program. Which unfortunately was ignored by good ol' George W Bush at the time who was too busy demonizing the country.

      And nations seem to wonder, or atleast make the people wonder why Iran hates them and the west so much. Now they have a disgusting government which should not be in power, based a deep fear of its existence because of external aggression. This is a sad tale, and the people suffer greatly for it. Funny thing is, the youth still love America for its ideals - but they are too young to know of the wrongs that where committed against their country. The old are bitter, they remember the war and threats it had to endure.


    Now I was going to list some info of more countries but my time is spent and my main focus lately has been on the situation going on today as opposed to history lessons.
    I encourage people looking up things for themselves, the US is based on great ideals, but in action alot of it is just business with agenda's behind it. Atleast with the Obama administration some of the US's foreign policy has taken a lighter tone, although it has entirely stopped. Right now the state is arming rebels in syria.. now this on the surface sees great and all.. on the surface your arming a revolution against an totalitarian government. But in truth it is actually creating more instability in the country at the cost of civilian lives, and backing terrorist organizations which are working with the rebel groups because they share the same interests. The fact remains that Al Qaeda is operating in Syria and it is being armed with munitions while it supports the rebel movement in Syria. This is just creating a breeding ground for radical groups right now. The chief aim appears to be at taking away more power from Iran who is the even bigger player in that region in todays age. I'm all for downing the Iranian regime, but not through the methods the US employs. Which is just creating an even more impoverished country. The one thing I can commend the US on right now is holding back to let tensions defuse. For those that are not aware, im talking about the whole Israel/Iran/Saudi arabia drama going on right now, and israel wanting to drag you guys into another war (one which would play out alot worse than Iraq ever did.) because THEY feel a little insecure.

    Heres some wiki references because im lazy to go shuffling around for more articles, but feel free to search them up yourselves and cross reference the information.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_%E...ates_relations
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war

    This is just one country.

    Consider these also. Just from the top of my head. Different stories, some against the country, some for. Saudia arabia is listed in particular because even though the countries commits some of the worse offenses against humanity it is still supported, even more so than most of the US' allies. It's a little like a love relationship where you can't see your partners flaws.
    Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt and Syria.

    And this is just the middle east/north africa.

    The United States of America never had the role of playing peace keeper in the middle east, just like every single other country in the world. It's always been about the financial gains and protecting business interests. Not even helping afghanistan was good when the USSR invaded it back in the day. That help founded the taliban as well as the CIA funded Al Qaeda group. (atleast it was back then - not now though... well.. sort of. They technically still get some indirect help given recent events.)

    To summarise, the middle east has every reason in the world to hate not only the US but countries such as the UK, Israel, Germany, France, China, Russia, and so on. Though saying they have a reason doesn't imply they actually do - because they don't. However with that being said the end result has been that alot of the problems in the middle east today have been created because of foreign interests, and the US as well as Britain being the two major players who got it all started.

    I love American Ideals, but in practice.. so very little of it has proven to ring true in its foreign policy, and I hope atleast on the home front that isn't on the decline.
    It's got a little too much of "Live the western life or don't live at all!" Maybe they don't want massive pipelines sucking all the resources from their country to fuel your SUV guzzlers back at home. Not that they don't if they where to be compensated fairly for said resources, but atleast being treated a little differently might not of created the situation that there is today.
    The US only polices its own interests, and not so much the humanitarian needs of people.

    Gotta love greed.

    Its a sad world, and it could be better.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Joehobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    I guess I am saying john that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to use modern examples were not done out of a sense of moral obligation, but because the united states felt threatened and was acting to mitigate that threat. that's a completely normal reaction, but let's not color it as some sort of heroic victory in the epic battle between the forces of good and evil. Also, those conflicts did have a huge negative impact on the lives of many of the people within those countries. I mean over 60,000 CIVILIAN deaths is nothing to sneeze at. Saying it's being done for freedom and democracy is disingenuous at best and is reminiscent of claims that the motive for entering world war 2 was to rescue the Jewish people. In other words, these kinds of beliefs are after the fact rationalizations to make us all feel warm and fuzzy so we don't have to look at ourselves and question our own morality.
    It was actually around a million Iraqi deaths as a result of the conflict. This includes violent deaths, hunger, exposure, illness and whatever else that could of caused death due to war conditions.

  3. #53
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    @Joehobo We get less than fifteen percent of our oil from the Middle East. I believe the Asian countries are the largest importer of Middle Eastern oil.


    I still view much of what you speak of to be non-black and white, I prefer to think of global operations as some gray scale zone of non-good and non-evil, much like battle and war. I've seen all this before, and it always comes in the same flavor: villainizing of puppet governments and rebel funding and shady dealings and things of the like.


    I believe belief in the philosophy I hold is as stark as belief/nonbelief in god, to be honest. You're like... on one side, or you aren't?

    It's hard to say. Though I laud you for the first legitimately informational post in this entire thread, thank you. I will be analyzing this post for days to come. If you wish to contribute more, I would very much enjoy the reading.

  4. #54
    Senior Member Joehobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    @Joehobo We get less than fifteen percent of our oil from the Middle East. I believe the Asian countries are the largest importer of Middle Eastern oil.


    I still view much of what you speak of to be non-black and white, I prefer to think of global operations as some gray scale zone of non-good and non-evil, much like battle and war. I've seen all this before, and it always comes in the same flavor: villainizing of puppet governments and rebel funding and shady dealings and things of the like.


    I believe belief in the philosophy I hold is as stark as belief/nonbelief in god, to be honest. You're like... on one side, or you aren't?

    It's hard to say. Though I laud you for the first legitimately informational post in this entire thread, thank you. I will be analyzing this post for days to come. If you wish to contribute more, I would very much enjoy the reading.
    I am unsure myself as to how much it is, but I'll take your word for it. Even 15% though, considering the US is the largest consumer of oil, thats ALOT of money and right now the oil is starting to run dry, I can see that amount growing in future. I am unsure as to how much of the actions in the middle east are motivated by oil in specific, I think just as much of it has to do with politics and even personal business' of politicians who can make money from being in positions of power.

    It's definitely not and black and white, nothing in life is it seems. Alot of it involves personal ambitions, and playing the part as well as forwarding agenda's of allies and providers. The whole thing in Iran started because a british oil company was being boycotted because of its exploitative measures, now look at the state of the country because of foreign intervention. Oh. Something you might want to know, this company is infact now known as BP (I loled a little.). I'm just going off wiki here in this instance. I havn't done any cross referencing beyond knowing that the coup did happen and it was to put in a US backed head of state.

    We all like to hold true to our philosophies. Hm no I'm not one sided but I can see why I'm giving off that impression. I'm just portraying a darker side, as they say for a person to grow they need to be in touch with the flaws in themselves. This isn't anti US or conspiracy theories im throwing out, im not speculating, just giving a history lesson to US involvement in that particular country. It is one sided on the basis it only counts the actions of the US. I will say however, it was started by them helping out the british.
    All I wish to convey is that although alot of US citizens would like to believe that their country are peace keepers of the world and police the bad guys, the case is that majority of the time it isn't and it is creating more problems than good. The frustrating thing is that the US CAN take that role and lead, but it still hasn't transcended human nature and greed of people. Its divided in a sense, different people pulling at the power reins if you think about it.
    It still contributes to crimes against humanity in the end, it may or may not try to prevent it but this is the reality of the situation.
    I just see it as a lesser evil, but not a necessary one. The point I wish to make is that it could do better to be true to its founding values.

    I would say undemocratic regimes should go, but not with this new found love of "intervention" which may prove to be making things worse. Saddam was bad and it was good that he was gone, but he would of never been as powerful as he was if he didn't have the support he did before the war from the rest of the western world and saudi arabia. Atleast the mistake was corrected, but how many had to die because of that support in the first place? In the end a civilian population which had little say to begin with had to suffer a ridiculous loss of life and at the expense of young foreign soldiers fighting a war because some dumb ass politician wanted to tear down a fuck up he made, all the while I wouldn't be surprise he actually profited from. There is too much abuse of power from a country that was ment to built on freedom. Thats why the US gets held on such a higher standard because it is capable of such a higher standard than that of the rest of this world. Or atleast it was.

    EDIT: On revised reading, some of what I said is speculating, in regard to the actually causes and effect by particular actions. It's rather difficult to measure whether or not said things have worsened the overall picture. History will tell, the modern era is still rather recent, its too soon to tell what kind of effect todays actions would have.

  5. #55
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joehobo View Post
    I am unsure myself as to how much it is, but I'll take your word for it. Even 15% though, considering the US is the largest consumer of oil, thats ALOT of money and right now the oil is starting to run dry, I can see that amount growing in future. I am unsure as to how much of the actions in the middle east are motivated by oil in specific, I think just as much of it has to do with politics and even personal business' of politicians who can make money from being in positions of power.

    It's definitely not and black and white, nothing in life is it seems. Alot of it involves personal ambitions, and playing the part as well as forwarding agenda's of allies and providers. The whole thing in Iran started because a british oil company was being boycotted because of its exploitative measures, now look at the state of the country because of foreign intervention. Oh. Something you might want to know, this company is infact now known as BP (I loled a little.). I'm just going off wiki here in this instance. I havn't done any cross referencing beyond knowing that the coup did happen and it was to put in a US backed head of state.

    We all like to hold true to our philosophies. Hm no I'm not one sided but I can see why I'm giving off that impression. I'm just portraying a darker side, as they say for a person to grow they need to be in touch with the flaws in themselves. This isn't anti US or conspiracy theories im throwing out, im not speculating, just giving a history lesson to US involvement in that particular country. It is one sided on the basis it only counts the actions of the US. I will say however, it was started by them helping out the british.
    All I wish to convey is that although alot of US citizens would like to believe that their country are peace keepers of the world and police the bad guys, the case is that majority of the time it isn't and it is creating more problems than good. The frustrating thing is that the US CAN take that role and lead, but it still hasn't transcended human nature and greed of people. Its divided in a sense, different people pulling at the power reins if you think about it.
    It still contributes to crimes against humanity in the end, it may or may not try to prevent it but this is the reality of the situation.
    I just see it as a lesser evil, but not a necessary one. The point I wish to make is that it could do better to be true to its founding values.

    I would say undemocratic regimes should go, but not with this new found love of "intervention" which may prove to be making things worse. Saddam was bad and it was good that he was gone, but he would of never been as powerful as he was if he didn't have the support he did before the war from the rest of the western world and saudi arabia. Atleast the mistake was corrected, but how many had to die because of that support in the first place? In the end a civilian population which had little say to begin with had to suffer a ridiculous loss of life and at the expense of young foreign soldiers fighting a war because some dumb ass politician wanted to tear down a fuck up he made, all the while I wouldn't be surprise he actually profited from. There is too much abuse of power from a country that was ment to built on freedom. Thats why the US gets held on such a higher standard because it is capable of such a higher standard than that of the rest of this world. Or atleast it was.

    EDIT: On revised reading, some of what I said is speculating, in regard to the actually causes and effect by particular actions. It's rather difficult to measure whether or not said things have worsened the overall picture. History will tell, the modern era is still rather recent, its too soon to tell what kind of effect todays actions would have.

    I should first start off by stating my intent on this thread was not to focus on the Middle East, but as the the United States as a whole enforcing human rights violations across the globe. The one thing I turn to is the Bosnian affair - that we had absolutely no obligation or entitlement or invested interest or anything to protect that country, but literally nobody was doing anything about it. The question I would like to pose is would situations develop favorably in the grand scheme for the citizens of these countries that are enveloped in oppressive situations? Do these people even want to be 'saved'? These are questions I ask myself with fair frequency, as did Che Guevara in much of his writings on the theory of revolution.


    Having said that, yes, the Middle East is a fucked up situation. I think we got drug into it during the cold war under shitty pretense and by the time we knew it we were up to our foreheads in shit and can no longer find the door out.

    -but-

    Are they better now than they would have been had we not started wading in the shit? I'd like to think so, that the people are more 'free' because of our influence.

  6. #56
    Senior Member Joehobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    I should first start off by stating my intent on this thread was not to focus on the Middle East, but as the the United States as a whole enforcing human rights violations across the globe. The one thing I turn to is the Bosnian affair - that we had absolutely no obligation or entitlement or invested interest or anything to protect that country, but literally nobody was doing anything about it. The question I would like to pose is would situations develop favorably in the grand scheme for the citizens of these countries that are enveloped in oppressive situations? Do these people even want to be 'saved'? These are questions I ask myself with fair frequency, as did Che Guevara in much of his writings on the theory of revolution.


    Having said that, yes, the Middle East is a fucked up situation. I think we got drug into it during the cold war under shitty pretense and by the time we knew it we were up to our foreheads in shit and can no longer find the door out.

    -but-

    Are they better now than they would have been had we not started wading in the shit? I'd like to think so, that the people are more 'free' because of our influence.
    I'm sorry for derailing the thread.
    I don't know too much about US involvement in Bosnia, and if any of its bad I wouldn't know. That war was all sorts of fucked up, the ethnic cleansing and bad blood between the ethnic groups.
    As proven by the situation in Iraq, it seemed that half the people did want to be saved, and there are countries now that wish it. In terms of tried and done when it comes to those cases there definitely are times where outside intervention is called for so they could have a better quality of life. People are returning to the balkan region, immigration is slowly increasing from what I know. So that worked out.

    Iraq? It's hard to say. They are better with saddam gone. But who's to say how it would of been if saddam never had the support he had in the first place, given the loss of life and the amount of radical groups which formed and now are terrorizing the country. If the US where to truly take on the mantle of bringing democracy to people, I believe it could truly do it also, but there is much it would need to do away with.

    Chaos is something which should be cautiously fed, it can be a breeding ground for just as much bad as good. Depending on how you look at it, some places are more free, others are less, because of that influence. Its a balancing act. If you where to list the amount of countries that America supports financially and politically which people are oppressed in, and compare to how many countries they've freed.. the results would be interesting I imagine. I don't know enough of US involvement over the last 100 years to cite enough specific detail though. But perhaps you will find yourself interested enough to know the answer to seek it out.

    The influence and ideals certainly have given people something to look at for an example for democracy and freedom though, that is something which the US definitely has claim too.

  7. #57
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joehobo View Post
    I'm sorry for derailing the thread.
    I don't know too much about US involvement in Bosnia, and if any of its bad I wouldn't know. That war was all sorts of fucked up, the ethnic cleansing and bad blood between the ethnic groups.
    As proven by the situation in Iraq, it seemed that half the people did want to be saved, and there are countries now that wish it. In terms of tried and done when it comes to those cases there definitely are times where outside intervention is called for so they could have a better quality of life. People are returning to the balkan region, immigration is slowly increasing from what I know. So that worked out.

    Iraq? It's hard to say. They are better with saddam gone. But who's to say how it would of been if saddam never had the support he had in the first place, given the loss of life and the amount of radical groups which formed and now are terrorizing the country. If the US where to truly take on the mantle of bringing democracy to people, I believe it could truly do it also, but there is much it would need to do away with.

    Chaos is something which should be cautiously fed, it can be a breeding ground for just as much bad as good. Depending on how you look at it, some places are more free, others are less, because of that influence. Its a balancing act. If you where to list the amount of countries that America supports financially and politically which people are oppressed in, and compare to how many countries they've freed.. the results would be interesting I imagine. I don't know enough of US involvement over the last 100 years to cite enough specific detail though. But perhaps you will find yourself interested enough to know the answer to seek it out.

    The influence and ideals certainly have given people something to look at for an example for democracy and freedom though, that is something which the US definitely has claim too.

    Ah, you didn't even appear to attempt to derail it, I just wanted to gain the perspective I am now gaining from you


    I like that word in this context, chaos. Yes, I suppose we intentionally create chaos in hopes order will rise from it. Doesn't always work though, like in the case of Saddam...

    I've always thought the attempt at establishing a democratic stronghold in the Middle East was more of having a beacon of hope for the surrounding area to look for... to establish something that the neighbors could look to and envy, and strive for, ya know? Sure, we increase trade routes and I'm sure the rich get richer... but I view the gain as a side dish of democracy, not the main course. It would increase regional stability, decrease human rights violations, alleviate 9/11ish incidents, all kinds of good perks to be had from democracy. But Saddam fucked it up, and fucked up our image in the process, as well as millions of lives. The sentiment can be carried to Vietnam, a country still to this day of impoverished human rights and inequality of income. I guarantee, if the US had its way during the war, that country would be experiencing the same things Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all benefit from.

    Yes, chaos.



    So how would you handle the delicate situations presented in the Middle East, barring revolutionary insurrection and guerrilla funding and counter-insurgency?

  8. #58
    Senior Member Joehobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    Ah, you didn't even appear to attempt to derail it, I just wanted to gain the perspective I am now gaining from you


    I like that word in this context, chaos. Yes, I suppose we intentionally create chaos in hopes order will rise from it. Doesn't always work though, like in the case of Saddam...

    I've always thought the attempt at establishing a democratic stronghold in the Middle East was more of having a beacon of hope for the surrounding area to look for... to establish something that the neighbors could look to and envy, and strive for, ya know? Sure, we increase trade routes and I'm sure the rich get richer... but I view the gain as a side dish of democracy, not the main course. It would increase regional stability, decrease human rights violations, alleviate 9/11ish incidents, all kinds of good perks to be had from democracy. But Saddam fucked it up, and fucked up our image in the process, as well as millions of lives. The sentiment can be carried to Vietnam, a country still to this day of impoverished human rights and inequality of income. I guarantee, if the US had its way during the war, that country would be experiencing the same things Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all benefit from.

    Yes, chaos.
    Glad to of been some benefit then.

    Create chaos in hope of order, well, we can't live without it. It's just as often exploited for self serving reasons. hm.

    Well, just to clarify.. saddam was never given international support so that he could bring in democracy, that was never the intention.. that needed someone to contain and wage a proxy war against the Iran which emerged from the revolution, thats how he got his power, and he used all that wealth and military aid he received to consolidate his power while the rest of the world ignored. He didn't really ruin any image, although the US was one of the biggest supporters of Saddam initially, it wasn't the only one, alot of the world supported him. But never for democracy. That only came after taking him out.

    The ideals you have are truly noble.. there are so many people there, namely the young who are trapped in countries there and having no way out, no say or freedom of speech. They have some freedoms but nothing like the US. It's just hard to say how much of that is reality, not to say that there hasn't been good deeds. The way it conducts itself in war is certainly respectable compared in comparison to others, but war is never pretty. The problem isn't how war is conducted itself though, it's the reasons why they goto war that irks me and alot of others who dig into this kind information. It's uncomfortable to know, and it makes you question alot.
    If somehow a person managed to get put in power where they pushed the country to follow through with such ideals, then you'll see alot more improvements from it - provided it doesn't go bankrupt from doing so. But I would be careful to say that majority of things done overseas are really in the name of democracy. Its more a fight for survival, and threats will continue to stay. The US needs to stay strong, if russia and/or china ever felt like it could take the lead in world affairs they will, but they can't while US influence is so deeply ingrained in world politics. This is a good thing for us living in the western world, but it mostly only serves us.
    Also, those countries where alot more open to western culture compared to countries which are being dealt with now, that does make it alot harder, especially when a reputation has been built up for self serving motives in the form of "help" by the rest of the world. I'm hoping though that the recent trend is shifting to righting the wrongs.. but I'm not sure if it will actually ring true in the long run. I doubt people back in 1980's knew they supported a country which gladly dispensed mustard gas on several hundred thousand innocent people in a war as brutally similar to the warfare in WW1. Now with the internet we see alot more, but in a way we still don't see the hidden motives as easily, there are just too many players on the field.

    Alot of chaos, and alot of people taking advantage of it. You could to, and try to play that democratic drum, hopefully people here and pass the message along.

    So how would you handle the delicate situations presented in the Middle East, barring revolutionary insurrection and guerrilla funding and counter-insurgency?
    How would I handle it? I wouldn't, this is something that needs to be sorted by the people. History has shown that tyranny never lasts unless the culture permits it. Lead by example, let the people know that they can have faith in a democratic system. There is really no other way beyond neutrality and offering asylum. Apart from what they do already anyway.
    With the balkans, Korea, and such it was easier because the problem lay in external aggression, not civil war. They knew exactly what to do, its like breaking two kids up from a fight.
    To be honest, I'm not sure if there is any other way possible, not with how our society is. We don't GENUINELY act in defense of our beliefs as much as we do for some sort of gain or upper hand in power. I think to achieve the things you believe in, and even I, it will be a long way away. Best that can be done is we promote our beliefs, and practice it so as to set an example.

  9. #59
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joehobo View Post
    It was actually around a million Iraqi deaths as a result of the conflict. This includes violent deaths, hunger, exposure, illness and whatever else that could of caused death due to war conditions.
    I was looking at civilian casualties because often those that are pro-military do not consider the deaths of enemy combatants to be noteworthy. I was also using the low estimate.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  10. #60
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    Okay, are you implying the events that I and Cim have posted were falsities generated by the American government?
    i didnt look what you were talking about
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-08-2015, 09:08 PM
  2. United States of America, 2012 Political Positions of Two Major Parties
    By Beargryllz in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-22-2012, 08:16 PM
  3. Ideological Makeup of the Supreme Court of the United States
    By Jonny in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-27-2012, 01:11 AM
  4. What Is The Future Of The United States?
    By highlander in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 04:20 AM
  5. Who are you in the future police state?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-28-2009, 09:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO