?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Not work safe.

Look at even one page of these and then justify this "War on Terror" to me.

Page 1.

Page 2.

Page 3.

Page 4.


_X

Comments

( 45 comments — Leave a comment )
fanlain
Feb. 3rd, 2005 02:01 am (UTC)
is that the "war" that's "over"?
digitalgoth
Feb. 3rd, 2005 02:19 am (UTC)
No, it's the 'war' that "we"'re going to "be fighting for quite some time"... at least according to this government...

_X
fanlain
Feb. 3rd, 2005 09:06 am (UTC)
ugh. we need to reconsider our "government" - i would never want any future generations to think that what we're doing right now is remotely acceptable with our failure of a president and the failure of the majority of the american people to oust him from office.
tcharazazel
Feb. 3rd, 2005 06:30 am (UTC)
simple
Don't need to read it to tell ya. BTW this isn't directed at you Xan it’s more of a general statement.


Are you the type of person who likes to hide away in your house from all the dangers of life? Or are you the type of person who stands up for what you believe in and goes out of your house to deal with those who have threatened it?

We have been hiding in our house, thanks to past leadership, for much too long. It’s time to take a stand.

They have already destroyed part of our house! Are you going to wait for them to break into our house again? Then what? Let them burn down our house? I say it is time we take the fight out of our house!

It is time for us to go out and hunt down these elusive enemies. When we catch them we shall either turn them or kill ‘em. Personally, I prefer killing them as they deserve it for disrupting world order and peace, sides it costs less. **

Now, if all you liberals are interested in bringing world peace and creating a global government what the hell are ya'll complaining about!?!?!?

There is no way you can hope to achieve world order and peace without first clearing out those who are going to do their best to stop it. I know people are not foolishly naive enough to think that one day, everybody is just going to hold the hand of the person next to them and start singing... this isn't some old Coke commercial.

It's nice to have the high ideals, however, if you are unwilling to deal with what needs to be done then don't ask questions or complain and let us handle it.

If you say you are willing to deal with it, then you better know what you are getting into, and even then seeing the darkness within humanity will likely leave you scarred and your high ideals will likely no longer seem worth keeping… it’s easy to preach when you haven’t walked through the valley.

So, in conclusion you can see that this is not simply about defending our house, a house our forefather started working on centuries ago. A house we are still working on today, as we all are apart of the process of modernizing and fixing the house. This is about defending those high ideals that our forefathers used as the foundation for our house and that we still hold dear today. This is about creating a new foundation for an even bigger house that will one day include everyone. If our forefathers were able to lay the foundation of our house while under pressure and in a short timetable, I’m certain that with the help of our neighbors we too can lay the foundation for a new house that will include all of us.

**Side note: Then of course that is the main reason I support the death penalty, cause even though I agree with the Democrats, who prefer to give them life (I do agree with torturing them for the rest of their lives), it is not a fiscally wise choice.**
smws
Feb. 3rd, 2005 07:45 am (UTC)
Re: simple
This is about creating a new foundation for an even bigger house that will one day include everyone.

I followed your analogies, I think, until this one. What exactly do you mean by this? Some sort of world government? Or what was on your mind?

Just trying to clarify your opinion in my mind, thanks.

tcharazazel
Feb. 3rd, 2005 10:13 am (UTC)
Re: simple
Meaning World order and peace found in a global government. Taking the UN much further essentially, and establishing it as the central government of the world. The name will likely change, as the concept of nations will go to the history books, however, it's just a matter of time.

Of course, there will still need to be smaller governments for each general area, however, it would be wise to slowly remove the concept of nations and nationalism from them and have it bleed over to global. Of course, as humans have a difficult time easily relating to larger and abstract concepts, it will take some time.

*sings* Time is on my side... *remembers the movie Fallen*

Heheh, once there is world order it will begin to make it easier to lead the people toward looking beyond themselves. A task which really will never be accomplished, however, they can better understand the value of working for a cause again; working with a sense of real purpose, to bring that far away concept of world order and peace closer.

*Comes back after prolonged time working and having just remembered that he was writing this*

So, yeah basically, to achieve a global government, you need to clean and pave the way to lay the new foundation. Hence, cleaning out those who would oppose this obviously is the first step.
lafinjack
Feb. 3rd, 2005 08:45 am (UTC)
Re: simple
...that's all well and good, except the 'neighbors' we're protecting our house from, the ones that already toasted part of our home, are across the street - and we're blowing up the house next to that. Then we give money to the two guys who always let their Rottweiler loose in the neighborhood.

Analogies aside, why aren't we going after Afghanistan full-bore? They get lip service while Iraq, who most likely had nothing to do with 9/11, gets an invasion/occupation force. Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers came from, haven't had anything happen to them. China, with decades of civil rights violations in the face of the UN, gets billions of dollars of business from the States every year while Cuba is still sanctioned all to hell. China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India all claim to have nuclear weapons and the desire to try them on their neighbors, yet no action is being taken to change that.

So my question is, why did we go after Iraq with barely a hint of WMDs while so many other places deserve our wrath? I have a good idea of what the true answer is, but I'd like to hear what you think.
tcharazazel
Feb. 3rd, 2005 10:43 am (UTC)
Re: simple
*chuckle* I wouldn't call nomads neighbors, I was referring to other nations not terrorist groups, who don't officially have any nations (though Iran is damn close).

I have friends who are in Afghanistan right now and yeah they are fighting plenty over there also. However, it's highly unlikely that Laden is over there still, so what's the point of occupying it? Besides, their current system of government is a democracy.

As for the rest... heheh, if we were to try to clean every single country at once we would fail. It's as simple as that. The only way to do it and succeed is to take it at about one country at a time.

We definitely do not want to make it a multi-front war. Incase you've forgotten, in WWII we didn't try to attack Japan until after we dealt with Germany. You can't win if you are spread to thin, and there is no way to easily support units that are on opposite sides of the world.

What this means, is that as we were going into Afghanistan already, and we had some of our troops and support there, it was not a difficult choice to invade Iraq and finish what should have been done years ago. Sure, there were political interests involved; however, can you name any conflict in history that wasn't at least partially motivated by political interests? Of course not! In fact most conflicts were fought purely for political interests and gain.
At least we have some concept of nobility added to this as we are helping to free Iraq from a cruel dictator and install a democratic government. Additionally, from watching the news it seems that the majority of the Iraqi people like and want.

From a military stand point, before you launch into a war you need to secure your supply depots. Oil is one of the most important supplies needed for tanks, ships, and jets. Hence, you need to secure the oil supply before you go and launch invasions into other countries, like North Korea, Pakistan ect.

Honestly, if it were up to me, we should go attack Iran next as they are one of the largest supporters of terrorists. We will get around to those other little nations waving the few WMD they have. However, seriously, they are not that stupid to use them as they know damn well what will happen to them if they do. If anything it would help bring in more nations, maybe the entire EU, and we could see what can be achieved by having a common enemy to unite against.

As for China, heh, well they are for another day.
fanlain
Feb. 3rd, 2005 09:05 am (UTC)
Re: simple
This is about creating a new foundation for an even bigger house that will one day include everyone

How solid of a foundation do you think you can build when you have to be at war and kill everyone in order to have that house? Doesn't that sound exactly like Hitler's house to you? It does to me.
tcharazazel
Feb. 3rd, 2005 11:14 am (UTC)
Re: simple
*chuckle* after reading history 101 you can see that nearly every nation, if not all, has been formed on foundations involving war, conflict and blood shed.

If you can think of a better way to make a house that will work, then state it otherwise, like I said before, leave it to us and don't ask questions or complain.
kragen
Feb. 3rd, 2005 09:39 am (UTC)
Re: simple
Tcharazael, would you mind rephrasing your post in terms of concrete statements rather than windy high-sounding rhetoric? Arguing with someone who refuses to say anything that might be true or false is a waste of time. I can throw other high-sounding rhetoric back at you, but it won't convince anybody of anything they weren't already sure of.

Photos of dead and dismembered people themselves don't prove much, except that people are dying and being dismembered. We knew that. The question is, what should we do? The ideology behind this invasion says that conquering Iraq will prevent despotism abroad and terrorism at home. I think that if this were true, it would justify the actions we are taking; but not only does it seem unlikely, the people directing and executing the invasion do not seem to believe it either. Knowing that people are being burned to death does not help to judge the truth or falsity of this prediction, or of its opposite, that invading Iraq amounts to throwing our future in the trash bin.
kragen
Feb. 3rd, 2005 09:42 am (UTC)
Re: simple
Doh! Sorry to misspell your name. That's TcharazaZel.
tcharazazel
Feb. 3rd, 2005 12:42 pm (UTC)
Re: simple
You can call me T'Char or Azazel, I'll respond to either.

Like I said before I didn't look at the links cause I didn't need to, sides I thought they were text. Now I know they are pics I did look at them. Pain, suffering and death are a part of life, so if anyone fails to realize this, they have been sheltered for much too long. It's time they got their asses out of the house.

What's sad to me is that people seem to think that pictures like those really make a difference, all they do is show you a little of those peoples' lives and those aren't the worst parts. The worst parts are the slow deaths from disease and famine, knowing that you are going to die, however, that animal instinct to survive drives you to continue the struggle, the hopeless struggle that you will lose, in time. *sighs* Ah the sweet memories... I still have a bet going, however, I am bound to help… *chuckle* we shall see.

Heheh, anyway, this windy high-sounding rhetoric, was actually very simple and its purpose was twofold. First, to get you to answer the questions, to see what kind of person are you. If you are hide in your house type, then really it doesn't matter what I say or what anybody else says, and it's good to know that cause I sure as hell wouldn't want to have that kind of person as a friend, would you? How could you count on them for anything? What use are they really? It’s even worse when they don’t even try to keep the house clean.

The second purpose is to give you an idea of where this war on terror leads and give some perspective. It leads to a likely and eventual future for our planet, namely a centralized global government. The war on terror is just the first step to create this government. The other issues that people seem to think are so important, are generally short term and more hype than real significance. It's what sells newspapers.

I rarely bother with the small picture unless people ask me to show them how to do something step by step, especially when I am at work and have 6 other things I am working on. The justifications of each step don't really matter in the big picture, because really, over the years people have used all types of crazy justifications to achieve their goals. However, if we were to try using something like globalization as a justification, it is still too big of a concept for people to grasp and truly relate to. So, we use simpler and easier concepts for people to grasp and relate to, like preventing terrorism at home**, and thus convincing them and getting them to agree with us. It's rather sad, however, that's just the way most people are and it has been proven over and over again as people don’t like sudden changes they need slow and gradual changes to come to accept them.

Sure, this may not appear to be something any politician is going to tell you about or be willing to mention. However, if you take a big picture view of the causes and effects of the decision to begin a war on terror you can see where it will likely head and what part it has to play in the entire process. It will lead to globalization. So really, you are looking at the small picture when you say it throws our future into the trash bin.

**I have noticed this one fact, that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on our nation since we started the war on terror. So, while people may believe that it isn't working to prevent terrorism at home, the fact of the matter is, so far it has. We have taken it out of our house and into someone else’s ;)

As for preventing/eliminating dictatorships ect., not very likely, however, it certainly will make them nervous. If they see us start to take it other countries... like Iran, Pakistan ect... then they will likely start to get the picture and realize their time will be up sooner rather than later. We need to establish a pattern first, and freeing 1 country isn't a pattern, while freeing 2, 3, 4 ect is a pattern.
anemone
Feb. 3rd, 2005 12:58 pm (UTC)
Re: simple
This was more or less my thought--though I couldn't have phrased it as well.

I'm pissed at Bush because I think he willfully ignored facts and in doing so, caused more death and suffering than otherwise would have existed. But these pictures don't show that.

They don't even show that he accidentally caused more death and suffering than would have otherwise existed.

tcharazazel
Feb. 3rd, 2005 01:36 pm (UTC)
Re: simple
Hmm, so you think allowing the pain, suffering, and death (PSD) to continue as it was before a good thing? I certainly doubt it. Then of course the Buddhists already view life as PSD, so from their stand point, quantifying it for them is pointless. It's really a matter of perspective.

It seems to me like you are forgetting that to restore order there certainly will be a higher amount of PSD in the short term. However, in the long term there will be less! That is the whole point! If conflict only resulted in continual conflicts and nothing will ever get resolved why the hell, would conflict even exist as a word? Life would be perpetual conflict then when someone said life, they would mean conflict.

Of course this isn't the case, as people strive to find a way to resolve conflicts. Sure some ways work better than others, and some result in less PSD, however, no matter what way you choose, once negotiations are no longer an option then you can expect there to be PSD.

It's your right to have the opinion that Bush caused more PSD, however, to believe that he caused more PSD than would have existed is rather limited. There are much worse things than these pics going on right now, and have been for centuries and will likely continue on, until someone takes a stand to stop them. At least this prez has decided to take a stand. While, I certainly don't think hes ideal, I do agree with him in that taking the fight to the enemy is a hella lot better than hiding and waiting. It also serves the 2nd purpose I have mentioned in other posts, namely clearing the way for a globalization.

So, don't get caught up in how much PSD there is, get caught up in how much PSD there will be. And that answer is simple, there will be less.
anemone
Feb. 3rd, 2005 01:57 pm (UTC)
Re: simple
There were many things about the invasion of Iraq done very badly that didn't have to be done badly.

I think not looking at the evidence (which, IMO, is something that Bush did, but I'm not prepared to make that argument in a comment in someone else's journal) is not a good thing. When you are in a position of power, it irresponsible.

Second, it's always a little worrisome to me when the goverment is deliberately misleading. Sometimes it might be needed for the greater good, but it still worries me.

The above reason assumed that invading Iraq was a good thing. Though the pre-war situation was bad for many reasons, here are two reasons why I think the value of the invasion is questionable:

1. Iraq was not involved in the attacks on the US, and now we've turned it into a giant recruiting poster for al Qaeda. Even people willing to enter into a violent and bloody conflict believe that invading Iraq was a net benefit to al Qaeda.

2. There is certainly more PSD now (according to a report in the Lancet, 100,000 extra deaths can be laid at our door), and I'm not as confident as you that it will only be short term.
tcharazazel
Feb. 3rd, 2005 02:57 pm (UTC)
Re: simple
And what war has ever gone smoothly? No major ones come to mind... The only real example we could use for that is the last time we invaded Iraq, but then we only went halfway, so can't really use that as a comparison.

Misleading: Heheh, those in power have always misled the masses, that has been a staple since civilization. To believe that you will ever get the whole truth from the government is a belief you had best let go of. Even when we manage to achieve globalization, I seriously doubt that the whole truth will ever come from a leading politician's mouth.


Point 1: Heheh, really a net benefit to the al Qaeda? Who believes that? And yet they do not continue their attacks on US soil, only over in Iraq. So, while they may get some more recruits, in the short term, they will eventually run out of people willing to fight for their cause as the majority oppose it. The majority want order and peace, such as found in democracy. In case you haven't noticed the huge support by the Iraqis to have a democracy.

point 2) 100,000 heh, how many died in WWI, ~15 million and WWII, ~55 million? Hell in the 80s, the Iran-Iraq war killed about 1 million. So, if you think every life is precious, you're correct, however, if you think that there is such a thing as a war without bloodshed.R, you're wrong. Really, considering that the population is at ~6.5 billion even a million lost is just ~.015%. That's definitely worth it to achieve world order and peace. Hell, 55 million deaths is just ~.85% and that would even be worth it to achieve world order and peace.

Now really, PSD is to be expected, it often goes hand in hand with change (though not all of it usually). Especially, change from one form of government to another. Look at all the revolutions in the past, can you name one that didn't involve PSD?

I'm talking about some crazy fascist government either, I'm talking about creating a global democracy that actually has real power, unlike the current UN. I'm talking about something that would

Now, this starts to lead to another subject that I didn't get into as religion is to me, just an opiate for the masses. However, there is the Christian idea of helping ones neighbor. For example, if at your neighbor's the father was physically abusing the mother and kids would you do something about it or would do nothing? That is the thing I am talking about, are supporting the continual abuse of those weaker than the head of their house or are you going to go over there and bring some justice to the house?

What kind of person are you? Will you take a stand for your beliefs? Because, it's obvious you have the belief of caring others, as you don't want to see people getting hurt, so do you think it's better to sit in your house and just listen to the father beat the mother and kids? Is that caring what happens to them? Of course not!

So, just keep that in mind when you see these types of pictures and hype from the media as it's their job to sell newspapers and what sells is PSD. And remember to think about it for yourself, instead of just listening to what they say and taking it as truth, because leading politicians aren't the only ones who are deliberately misleading.
anemone
Feb. 3rd, 2005 03:50 pm (UTC)
Re: simple
Wars often go badly, and even when they go "well", they are still brutal and ugly things. But there are some kinds of stupid that you don't have to be. And I think Bush's habit of surrounding himself with yes-men led to being the kind of stupid he didn't have to be. It's still a question, in my mind, whether Iraq will be left better off. The election was hopeful.

Heheh, really a net benefit to the al Qaeda? Who believes that?

Michael Scheuer, former CIA analyst and author of Imperial Hubris, for one.
tcharazazel
Feb. 3rd, 2005 04:30 pm (UTC)
Re: simple
Of course, Iraq will be better off in the long run, provided they are able to maintain their democracy. It sure beats having a dictator making hit lists and torturing and killing people. Now, it's not like this kind of behavior is going to stop completely, every government uses some strong arm tactics to maintain power. However, it will certainly be less than it used to be.

And how can you really put a price on the happiness that those Iraqis had when they were going to vote? Or the sense of peace from not having to constantly worry about getting taken to be tortured and killed by their ruler?

And once the insurgents realize they are only prolonging the inevitable, they will stop and likely make some other small minded plans to attempt to grab a little bit of power... damn small minded fools... anyway, in time they will have to accept the fact that Iraq is a democracy and thus it will become more peaceful and people will be no longer afraid to go out.

al Qa-eda: Well, the al Qa-eda are still alienating themselves from other muslims and still at war with them, so where is the proof that they are really improving from the war? I mean, they have been attacking the Muslims and now, with the successful elections in Iraq, it goes to show how impotent they really are. Sure, they can kill some people, but anybody can do that. And it also shows how weak and stupid they are if they continue think they can stop the people from getting a democratic government. So, if anything, it just shows how pathetic the al Qa-eda really is, and just how much they need to grow up and start playing the new game, ie form a political party, because, they obviously are loosing the game they are currently playing.
tcharazazel
Feb. 3rd, 2005 04:54 pm (UTC)
Re: simple
Additionally, once we withdraw from Iraq, and bring the focus of the war back to the terrorists, ie the al Qa-eda, they will likely see a loss in support again. Then we can continue the fight even when it takes us to other nations that house them, until no nation shall willingly house them. It may take time, however, once we have them cleaned out, it is the first step toward globalization.
threadwalker
Feb. 4th, 2005 11:56 am (UTC)
Re: simple
Right, like you actually believe in that whole "axis of Evil" league of terrorists" bs? You know better.

Any 15 year old who's played with fire is a potential terrorist- from any country. All that needs to happen is that they have enough motivation, and that they care more less about the consequences than pursuing that motivation.

What Bush has done, is piss the entire rest of the world off, and a lot of people in his own country. If there had never been terrorists after this administration, there would be now. Terrorism is dead easy when you don't care anymore. And he's pushed people to the brink.

Of course, it will only give him further excuse to pursue his war-based economy and to go after natural resources in other countries. Sure, even to take over the world if anyone let him get that far. I'm still amazed that people have let him get as far as they have. I'm sure he'd welcome more terorism. 911 was certainly a lucky break for his popularity ratings. Wartime presients always get more support (and power).
tcharazazel
Feb. 4th, 2005 02:19 pm (UTC)
Re: simple
You obviously are suffering the same problem that several others were. You are being short sighted, and looking at this like Bush would even stand a chance of accomplishing globalization in his life time, let alone his presidency. Sweetie, of all the people here, you should know how I judge time and what I consider short and long term and Small and Big Picture. Then of course you are likely just trying to use psych 101 to get me to make it clear for those who totally don't understand my concept of time.

I'm rather surprised that you think a few years mean much anymore, sure a lot can happen, though how much of it bares any real significance on the growth of humanity? I'd guess no more than .01%. Hell, how many people remember what it was like when we were under Regan? The Iran contra? What about Carter? What about McKinley (he was elected pres in 1896 and 1900)? Really, how many great minds and fascinating things have been swept away with time? Plenty, and what is really going to change that? The Internet, our new and better way of keeping track of information? It may slow the process, however, it won’t stop it. Humanity will continue to forget the events of the past years, it will continue to forget those who have helped it to grow and become what it is today, it will continue to forget its foundations. Unless, we decide to make the foundation solid! A foundation that will remain a guiding light for humanity as it continues to grow. A foundation for all humanity to be proud of.
threadwalker
Feb. 4th, 2005 11:37 am (UTC)
Re: simple
**lol*** thanks, that first paragrapgh was especially needed :)

tcharazazel
Feb. 4th, 2005 04:13 pm (UTC)
Re: simple
To go back to the first part then. You want examples and facts? There are couple problems with that idea. First, it can waste more time if the philosophical grounding of the entire argument is completely false. Sure, it's easy to point out how many people have been killed over the centuries to further the political gains of individuals and nations, hundreds of millions easily. However, is this a good or bad thing? *shrug* It certainly seems bad, however, what if all these deaths meant something? What if they were for the cause of Life, Liberty and Happiness? Would they seem good? Probably not, though they certainly wouldn't seem as bad as before.

The other problem is that trying to rephrase a discussion about the future into concrete statements is impossible! The only things that are concrete are past events, and even then people have been arguing over some of them for centuries... And the past was not the topic I was talking about.

However, if there were past examples of globalization to site, then I would have used them and show you what its early stages look like. Lacking any real previous examples of creating a global government, I could use past examples of the creation of other nations and governments. In general they were all rather bloody and there was definitely a cost associated with their creation. Examples: US, Japan, every European nation.


Now, what has surprised me is that not a single person here even mentioned the EU. I mean really, if there was an example of negotiations leading to globalization there is one. It counters my basic premise that there will be Pain, Suffering and Death when achieving globalization. So, really, why wasn't it mentioned?

Simple, ya'll know that it's not an appropriate example, because the EU still mainly consists of nations that have similar backgrounds, history, and are willing to work together to resolve their differences. Sure they have some people, who don't approve; however, those people were not trying to blow up banks when the Euro was made. The EU is an example of how much better globalization could be, if only we didn't have all these pesky and violent terrorists who were trying to trying to disrupt elections. Hence, there is a need to clean them out.

Now, we can do it the way Europe did by having them be educated and capitalist, which may take a much longer time as they really are doing their best to resist Westernization. Or we can just accept them for who they are, respect their beliefs and bring the war to them. While, I don't mind waiting for them to warm up to Westernization, it is like dealing with teenagers. Sometimes, just giving the kids a smack upside the head works better than you sitting them down and discussing the benefits of not blowing up the house.


In any event, globalization has been occurring for a while, thanks to our Corporations and the Internet for example. So, really the process started a while ago, and I just didn't count it as the first step, because without communications you cannot hope to unite a nation, let alone the world.

What other kind of "concrete" proof do you need to see that the world is leading toward globalization, and that cleaning out terrorists is a first step?

Do you want an in depth analysis of human nature? A discussion about how humans still have the herd mentality and prefer order and structure? Thus, showing that the masses will go along with the idea of world order and peace, even though they will likely fail to grasp it as their lives generally will revolve around, family, home, friends, and work. *Shrug* what’s really the point of discussing the obvious?

Or are you really looking for a list of all the events that have led up to current situation? And then compare it to a list of events leading up to the birth of other nations and then the EU? Heh, why would we want to type out those big lists just to show we know it already? Now, that would be a waste of time really, however, it would be concrete.
elvendude
Feb. 3rd, 2005 12:02 pm (UTC)
Re: simple
So, protecting our home justifies this?
tcharazazel
Feb. 3rd, 2005 12:55 pm (UTC)
Re: simple
Do you believe in the good of the many out weighs the good of the few?

If yes, then you really shouldn't even need to ask that question as the answer is yes.

If no, then you are a moralist/idealist. Idealists are great people, however, when you want something done, do you go to an idealist? Nope, you go to someone who will get the job done, not someone who will philosophise the various points about how something should be done. This can be a good way to achieve understanding about a method and figure out ways to improve the method. However, the majority of people will tell you, if it ain't broke don't fix it, so implementing such changes, especially on a large scale, isn't easy, and it's another factor the idealist needs to include in their calculations. So, using the idealist we eventually end up with a plan of action that looks perfect on paper, but when it comes time to implement it, all hell can break loose, unless they have some solid grounding from previous uses of the method.

Those people are just acceptable losses, in a war that has been going on for quite some time. Bush just decided to have us join in finally to try and settle it, once and for all.
threadwalker
Feb. 4th, 2005 11:26 am (UTC)
Re: simple
You are so full of shite, bunny-boy. You just love provoking argument. ***thbbbbt!***
tcharazazel
Feb. 4th, 2005 01:38 pm (UTC)
Re: simple
So, wanting to bring about world order and peace is shite? So, wanting to help the world be a better place is shite? So, wanting to show ya'll where the future lies is shite?

*chuckle* There was no argument, as you can see from the posts. Until you, this was a discussion about the war on terror, and it's place in achieving globalization.
smws
Feb. 3rd, 2005 07:51 am (UTC)
Those were extremely difficult images to look at. I stopped looking because I don't want to dull my reaction to violence and pain too much. Where did the images come from, exactly? I mean, are there any captions or context? How do they relate to the War (on) Terror?
lafinjack
Feb. 3rd, 2005 08:11 am (UTC)
They're from my journal. There aren't any captions because I don't know the stories behind the pictures. Most speak for themselves, regardless.

And if you haven't, at least check out page four. Those are some of the best (objectively - there's no way anything like this can be 'good') in the group.
digitalgoth
Feb. 5th, 2005 03:27 pm (UTC)
And I am grateful to you for enabling me to bring this perspective of the death and suffering to people that might otherwise have been rather ignorant of it.

There was another site up for a bit with some of the same pictures that had allowed the soldiers to post comments and captions beneath them. It was a bare and harsh thing to see so many of our "nation's best" were so insensitive to the death that they, themselves, were causing. My roommate had posted links to that in his journal a while back. I'll go find a link and post it in a bit.

_X
seaside_ghosts
Feb. 3rd, 2005 11:19 am (UTC)
And most bloodthirsty Americans (I say most since I live in conservative, head-up-their-asses Oklahoma, so I feel surrounded by them) seem to be thriving on horrific situations like these. There is no justification for this "War on Terror" bullshit; Bush has no sufficient grounds for this to continue, eliminating the fact that he can rely on the overwhelming stupidity of the United States.
lafinjack
Feb. 3rd, 2005 12:36 pm (UTC)
Oklahoma? I'm sorry.
seaside_ghosts
Feb. 3rd, 2005 01:47 pm (UTC)
Yeah, me too.
digitalgoth
Feb. 5th, 2005 03:30 pm (UTC)
me three. When can I convince you to get out of Oklahoma? I think that almost anywhere might be a better place for you to find creative outlet than there... I keenly feel your pain hon. That's why I left New Mexico.

X_
seaside_ghosts
Feb. 7th, 2005 10:10 am (UTC)
You don't need to convince me.
I'm already quite sure I need to leave.
tcharazazel
Feb. 3rd, 2005 01:15 pm (UTC)
Stupidity
Heheh, well that reminds me of a joke I heard once. Paraphrasing, the US is like a class of 30 students with 5 people being the smartest and 5 the dumbest and the rest are in between. What makes me wonder even more is that the average IQ is 100 (using the old method, not including all these new ways to determine IQ or different types of IQ, ie emotional IQ ect). And the fact that most people don't have an IQ of 100. Thus, most people are below 100 and some are above it. Rather scary thought... Threadwalker put up a link to some of the most amusing posters, several relate to stupidity also, so I bet you would like 'em heres the link:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/cubegoodies/posters/despair/


If you don't like stupid people, I'm really surprised that you don't like war. It's one of the best means of eliminating stupid people. Ship them over seas to fight and die for a cause they don't really understand, but they do understand that they will get paid for it. *chuckle* The lack of a war is one of the defining things about our generation as every generation for quite some time has had at least 1 war during their life time. Without some means of eliminating the weak, how do you propose we remove the stupid people?

As for the war, well, it seems to me that you are looking at the small picture. So, maybe if you keep an open mind and look at the probable outcomes and eventual result of a war on terror, ect then you may begin to see a larger plan at work.

*chuckle* If you only look at how people string along the sheep, you are getting blinded yourself from seeing what can happen.
threadwalker
Feb. 4th, 2005 11:49 am (UTC)
Re: Stupidity

Yeah, and guess who that five percent voted for ? Not Bush :)

Lovely "Big Picture". MacCarthyism with even more power.

Same scare tactics the Nazis used. The same propoganda Hitler used top get elected- get people afriad enough to be desperate, then appeal to their sense of nationalism. Say that anyone who disaggrees with your methods is against the country and use it as a reason to eliminate them. Lovely.

Do it in the name of the betterment of humanity, then go for the money while they're watching the other hand. Protect your friends, let the next generation deal with the mess (closed schoools, crappy education, etc.). Fuck taking care of people who can't ake care of themselves right? Great to include children in that too.

Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness? Sure, we can spread it around. We're doing such a great job of preserving those things at home (examples of each: cuts to public health and medicine in every aspect, loss of privacy/the patriot act, banning gay marriage)

That's the sort of Goverment we want unifying the world, really.


Don't you love to rile up, Bunny-boy?
tcharazazel
Feb. 4th, 2005 01:35 pm (UTC)
Re: Stupidity
ROFL!! 5%!!! This is the reason Artists will never rule the world... I hope you got an accountant to do your taxes, sweetie. If not you can pay ogre. Anyway, I figure you meant the 5% that's the dumbest of the dumb, eh? *chuckle* Thanks for the laugh :D (BTW 5/30 = ~17%)

Heheh, so you compare globalization with McCarthy and Nazis... Now, is it just me or are you bitter? It's rather typical of disillusioned young people, though I was surprised to see you act in such a manner. It seems you have lost all hope of achieving world order and peace, and yet you stated one of the most important things to you was to help the world… so world order and peace isn’t helping?


It's safe to say that you don't want globalization, right? Heheh, too bad as the Corporations and Internet already began the process. Our ideas and views about Life, Liberty and Freedom are being blasted to nearly every country in the world thanks to them. The "propaganda" stared years ago and it wasn't started by the government, and it had nothing to do with nationalism. It was about capitalism; you got it being an ism right at least.

Heheh, people get ripped off every day, however, on a national level, it won't make any sense to try to rip off other nations, once we're globalized as you would only be stealing from yourself! There won’t be any nations! They are a part of your globe too, you get it?

Besides, what do you think will eventually become of money once globalization gets implemented? There would be 1 currency... no more exchange rates, no more hassles at the bank, no more getting ripped off when on vacation.


*chuckle* If you dislike it you are still free to leave. However, you won't. Why? Because the US is the best example of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, if it wasn’t then there would be more people leaving the country every day than coming to it. Did I ever even imply that we were perfect? Of course not! All I was saying was that these ideals are things that we should use as foundation for globalization. This foundation has proven the strongest and most effective to date.

So, true it's not perfect, however, inherent in the system is the power to change it. If you don't like something go start a club and get like minded people together and form a voting block you can use to convinced politicians to support your views or elect new ones who do. If you don't like the current guy, then tough shite, grow up and deal with it. When it's time to push for change again, get your voting block up once more. If you can't get your views out that way, then try running yourself. If you still fail, then you have to make the choice, to accept the reality of the situation, go commit yourself or leave the country. Anyway, you ought to know that historically, the power swings like a pendulum from one party to the other.

Besides, a multiparty system will likely come with globalization. So, you will be able to actually vote for a party that better represents your beliefs, as opposed to the 2 generics we currently have.


As for me riling up, I wasn't the one who put those pictures on a post, and asked the question, now was I? Besides, I was curious to see what a bunch of young "liberals" would think about someone actually having a different viewpoint and about globalization. It's quite obvious from the arguments presented in rebuttal that they don't think much of it, with 1 person being the exception. Rather ironic, heheh, I guess open minded and liberal are still pretty much unrelated.
digitalgoth
Feb. 5th, 2005 04:15 pm (UTC)
Re: Stupidity
...I was curious to see what a bunch of young "liberals" would think...


Out of idle curiosity, would you care to guess the ages of these 'young' liberals that you've so carelessly branded?

I've found that I've garnered a reader base with an average age of about 30... In today's age of modern medicine, those people are no longer considered middle aged, but neither are they "young" anymore.


What I find amusing is how many people read my journal on a regular basis (about 100), and how many people actually comment on my posts that cause strife. Don't get me wrong, I apprecaite the high-winded rhetoric as much as I do the single line deeply thought out sentence fragment.


As for open-minded and liberal being unrelated... Well... that's just one more generalization in a long string of them, none of which I really see any reason to respond to until now.

The term "open minded" causes many different ideas to materialize in the minds of different people, but when you get right down to it, it's a matter of degree and longevity. Most of the "young liberals" that have been commenting on this entry are fairly open minded in my opinion. But, then again, I'd like to think that I, myself, am fairly open minded. But you did say that they were unrelated, not non-inclusive. And you're right, they aren't necessarily related. Some of the most closed-minded people I've met have some very 'liberal' points of view. But when you take into account the general attitude of the sheer numbers of of each side (liberal/conservative), I find that I would much rather be included in the "liberal" side of the party than otherwise.

I appreciate your long-winded explanation that pointless death and suffering will eventually turn out to be the means to a better end. I simply happen to disagree on them being the best means to acheive that end. I'm not about to suggest that I know of a better way to acheive peaceful globalization, because I don't. But I quite firmly do not believe that a "War On Terror" being conducted in a sovereign nation that didn't attack us is the way to do it. Especially in light of the many other nations/terror groups around the globe that -have- threatened/attacked us. North Korea and Iran spring to mind initially...


You say that you want to see the UN grow and become more like a global government, yet you also approve that the U.S. went and defied UN Code when we invaded Iraq. I find those two attitudes to be slightly opposed...
--more--
digitalgoth
Feb. 5th, 2005 04:16 pm (UTC)
Re: Stupidity



I've found that my main problem with the War on Terror has nothing at all to do with government, nor UN sanctions, nor even the ideal of globalization.

My problem is quite simple. Bush has stated on numerous occasions that one of the main reasons for this war is that "...they oppose our way of life, our belief in freedom, and our faith..."

"The very first act of the new Bush administration was to have a Protestant Evangelist minister officially dedicate the inauguration to Jesus Christ, whom he declared to be 'our savior.' Invoking 'the Father, the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ' and 'the Holy Spirit,' Billy Graham's son, the man selected by President George W. Bush to bless his presidency, excluded the tens of millions of Americans who are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists from his blessing by his particularistic and parochial language.
"The plain message conveyed by the new administration is that George W. Bush's America is a Christian nation and that non-Christians are welcome into the tent so long as they agree to accept their status as a tolerated minority rather than as fully equal citizens. In effect, Bush is saying: 'This is our home, and in our home we pray to Jesus as our savior. If you want to be a guest in our home, you must accept the way we pray.'"
-- Alan M. Dershowitz, in "Bush Starts Off by Defying the the Constitution," Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2001

I have a very very serious issue with Bush taking -his- faith and branding the entire country with it. If his job is to represent the American people's interest in the global community, then he is doing a piss-poor job at it in my opinion. By representing that we are all of the same 'faith', and that we have the same beliefs/religion as himself is not being true to what he was elected to do.
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner

If you still believe that he is doing his 'job' and representing the American people and our "faith", then maybe you ought to stop and think what our "founding fathers" defined his job as:
I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.
-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756, explaining how his independent opinions would create much difficulty in the ministry, in Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 88



There ought to be limits to freedom.
-- George W. Bush, complaining about a website critical of him, at an Austin Press Conference, May 21, 1999, quoted from www.gwbush.com.



Now really... I can understand how you have been misled like many of the American people about what this "War on Terror" is based on, but I think that there might be some things that you are mistaken about. If you approve of the war because of the eventual ends that you see it acheiving, then that's one thing. But don't presume to say that the people running the war have the same ends in sight...

_X
digitalgoth
Feb. 5th, 2005 04:25 pm (UTC)
Re: Stupidity
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
-- George W. Bush, according to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, from minutes acquired by Haaretz from cease-fire negotiations between Abbas and faction leaders from the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular and Democratic Fronts (circa, June, 2003), quoted from Arnon Regular, "'Road map is a life saver for us,' PM Abbas tells Hamas" (Haaretz.com: June 27, 2003), quoted from EvilOz (The Iterative Record)


I'd also like to point out that since that quote from Bush was quoted on those two sites, they have since then been shut down...

_X
tcharazazel
Feb. 7th, 2005 08:56 pm (UTC)
Re: Stupidity
I have more work to finish tonight, though I need a break.

Young Liberals: Heh, "careless" I guess Threadwalker hasn’t told you that much about me then. Incase you missed it in the earlier posts, I don't view time the same as other people, thus why would you think age has anything to do with how I determine what is young or old? I view young people as those who generally haven’t had enough experience to become realists; rather they are generally optimists or pessimists. It is rather obvious that most who responded were not optimists as they didn’t bother too look at the potential benefits or the bright side of the situation. If they had more experience then they would probably be more like those who did not respond, seeing that some things are permanent while some things are only temporary and which is more important to work towards.

Rhetoric: Well, I've commented on several of your posts and this is the first time that I caused "strife." Of course, if your reader base was conservative it wouldn’t have been strife, though they would have likely misunderstood me as easily as ya'll seemed to, drawing false conclusions with out really asking what I mean, with 1 exception.

As for being long winded :D It is an old habit from college, as I had to explain a lot of stuff to my friends for them to understand me (a few concise words always ended them up somewhere way off target), and I also believe in being thorough, so as to not leave too many loopholes for other to use.

As for it being generalized, I can only offer an explanation not an excuse, I generally work about 14-24 hours a day 7 days a week, and the past two weeks have been more difficult, 18-24 hrs, so I don’t really have the time to go searching for many examples like you did. However, I did find one rather quickly for another section. It’s also the reason I like to take a bit of time to just think about something different than learning and using VB 6 code (plus the sales program bastardization of it), learning and using Crystal Reports (and how it incorporates into sales program), learning and Administering the sales program, managing childish/computer illiterate sales execs and elusive/difficult IT people, being the resident IT guy for minor issues (ie fixing computer problems to keeping the printer working) maintaining cost controls, keeping us on budget, reviewing the balance sheet and its sub parts, keeping track of all the new programs offered (ie town homes to condos), and those are major categories that I’m dealing with atm, though when we start up working on publications again I will probably be helping with that. To give you a better idea I keep an ever increasing to do list that went from 24 to 34 today and now it’s at 26. These are just the ones I write down, so not including what I normally take care of, ie cost controls and budget, which I do nearly automatically now.

Open-minded: I'm glad you caught that, and yes most conservatives are not as open-minded as liberals. Now, if most of the people commenting on my post had been open minded they would have seen that my point was really that the war on terror is just a step toward globalization and has nothing to do with Bush or his policies, cause really, some of them are infringing on the constitution, and upholding the law is important to me.
tcharazazel
Feb. 7th, 2005 08:56 pm (UTC)
Re: Stupidity
UN: I said “Meaning World order and peace found in a global government. Taking the UN much further essentially, and establishing it as the central government of the world.” I did not say that I wanted to see the UN grow; I was using the growth of the UN’s power as an example for a means of establishing world order and peace. There is a difference, an important one actually, as I am aware that US, amongst others, have violated the UN code. However, the fault with the UN is not that others don’t always respect its code, rather that it lacks any power to really enforce its code.

Like I just said above law is important to me and this seems contradictory again, however, what really makes a law, a law? Is it the fact a bunch of people wrote it down and all agreed it was a law? Then what is to stop people from wanting to break it when it suits them? Nothing, unless included in the law is some form of punishment and the others who helped to make the law are willing to enforce the punishment. So, when nobody follows the law and nobody punishes them, then it really comes into question the worth of the law, rather like it fails the test, and thus it must be changed and improved to become an effective law. Again, the way for this to happen on a global level is if there is a global government with the power to really enforce laws, which currently does not exist. Of course, there are better ways to test laws, however, there are many laws that remain even though they make no sense anymore or need to be revised. A better means is the way we do it in the US by having the judges determine if it is constitutional, however, why do we listen to these judges decision? We do, because their decision is backed up by the power of the US government.

Crusade: Hey, I totally agree with you, as Bush seems to be stealing the idea from the terrorists who call it a jihad. I don’t agree with combining Church and State and it certainly is unconstitutional to do so. So, this makes me happen to particularly relish the fact that we are setting up a democracy and not a theocracy in Iraq, don’t you think that is ironic then?

As for representing the American people, did Clinton do that when he got caught in an affair? Or Nixon when he tried to rig the election? Heh, or what about Carter when he pardoned Nixon? Or Bush Sr. when he puked in the lap of Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa? That was a funny one.

There are hundreds upon hundreds of examples of presidents not doing what everyone wants, because they all know it is no way to lead. To lead you have to make decisions based upon what the many want, and as presidents are political animals, what the majority of your voting supporters want. Thus, as the major group that elected Bush is Christian, then why are you surprised that he shows such a strong support for Christianity vs the other religions? It’s what got him reelected.

Misled: Where did you get the idea I was misled? Heh, where in what I said shows that I believe that the justifications Bush used for the war? The closest example you could point to is when I said, “… if we are trying to use globalization as a justification, it is still too big of a concept for people to grasp and truly relate to. So, we use simpler and easier concepts for people to grasp and relate to, like preventing terrorism at home, and thus convincing them…” Now, it’s quite clear here that I am stating that the justifications used are just a means of convincing the people, and I pointed out that the reason of preventing terrorism has been effective so far.

Here is a link to 27 reasons used in the beginning, 2001-2002, to justify the war in Iraq:
http://homepage.mac.com/akitzmil/iblog/C119883728/E177251803/

Rather amusing to see how many they used in a couple years. However, it’s clear that the reasons they offer for war mean nothing, thus proving my point that they will say anything to use as justification to convince the people.
tcharazazel
Feb. 7th, 2005 08:57 pm (UTC)
Re: Stupidity
Finally, I never said that any politician was working towards globalization. I said, “… if we…” You know that I am no politician, and to assume that I refer to me and Bush would be rather a stretch as I’m not in his cabinet. So, if you go over what I said again, you will see that I never believed that the people running the war have globalization as the end in sight. If you check that list again, you will see that world order and peace and globalization are definitely not on it and in your examples the same holds true. I am well aware of this, and what I truly found amusing is the young liberals jumped on it assuming that Bush ever mentioned globalization as a reason for having a war on terror. When in fact it was my own justification for the war! What surprised me even more is that ya’ll didn’t seem to want globalization… or even world peace… or even consider achieving it to be a good thing after looking at the pictures…very fascinating. Instead you wanted to jump on the idea that it could be something evil and bad and automatically assumed that achieving world order and peace was bad because a republican mentioned it, and instead of debating on how it should be done, as I acknowledged there are better ways, you decided to debate on the more unimportant things like, trying to show there never is any good justification for war and nobody really wins in war, which as we all know is true. And like any true or false statement is pointless to discuss.
( 45 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2008
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30