Why did M4ko get banned?

[Commie]

If there is a reason which im pretty sure of there is please tell it or is just because he is a left-wing liberal?

[DarkCypher]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=52254

It's not because he's a liberal, it's because he's scum.

[Commie]

oh, can respect that. Thanks.

[EasyC]

oh thankgod that stupid fag got banned, CAG147 would be so happy. Pity he's ****ing gone.

[Jani.R]

He was my hero.

[Flagg]

Wahoo!

I'm starting to like this thinning of the herd trend :P

[scm77]

http://img10.echo.cx/img10/6049/takeanapmother****er9wo.jpg
Look at these lazy asses taking a nap while their workplace is up in flames.

:bash: Glad that f*ckers gone.

[sergey31]

Agree. Totally uncalled for on his part.... Especially the first picture he posted... What a sad photo :(

[VISTREL]

yeah, it doesn't matter whether it's Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan, or Vietnam - posting **** about dead soldiers is a faggot thing

[Drako]

Surely I won't miss him.

[Rantanplan]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=52254

pwnt

[Harrelson]

good riddance, my only wish was that he was banned immediately he posted that pic

[Drunkensquid]

what a piece of ****!!! glad to see him and his kind gone!!!

[mack pl]

RIP



wait....nevermind :lol:

[Digital Marine]

what an asshole

[Morboute]

uhm, that was kinda lame but he did say something i have to agree on.


*cut* And dont forget that whenever someone posts a pictures of a insurgent on the floor with a pool of blood around his head or when another one gets shot from the back by a machine gun all you hear on this board is "yea you f***", "good riddance", "hahaha that was funny, lets see more" - So am i inhuman to laugh at death? - NO, look at your selves first before you judge someone.

:| cant say im a big fan of people behaving like that, but anyways he did deserve to get banned for posting those pictures (with those comments)

[Lokos]

Interesting point, Morboute, and I happen to agree. Those who take pleasure in the deaths of others (although, they probably are taking pleasure in the idea of those deaths, rather than the deaths themselves) are just as despicable as the individual in question.

Maybe some here should, upon reflection, restrain themselves from posting asinine comments in threads about insurgent/terrorist/generic-people-your-country-considers-enemies dead. It's never funny, and it's never a good thing, even when it's necessary.

Lokos

[Drunkensquid]

uhm, that was kinda lame but he did say something i have to agree on.


*cut* And dont forget that whenever someone posts a pictures of a insurgent on the floor with a pool of blood around his head or when another one gets shot from the back by a machine gun all you hear on this board is "yea you f***", "good riddance", "hahaha that was funny, lets see more" - So am i inhuman to laugh at death? - NO, look at your selves first before you judge someone.

:| cant say im a big fan of people behaving like that, but anyways he did deserve to get banned for posting those pictures (with those comments)

there is a difference between terrorists, who cut innocent people's heads off getting killed and soldiers getting hurt while risking their lifes to bring peace in Iraq.

[Morboute]

yes, but not all insurgents go around and blow civilians up.

[nagant_m44]

what a piece of ****!!! glad to see him and his kind gone!!!

What do you mean by "his kind"?

[gaz]

What do you mean by "his kind"?

People who put numbers into words in place of letters.

The only bloke who can get away with that is David Fincher with Se7en, anyone else who does is an 4rsehole.

[Lexi]

What do you mean by "his kind"?

People who put numbers into words in place of letters.

The only bloke who can get away with that is David Fincher with Se7en, anyone else who does is an 4rsehole.

rofl

Damnit, I nearly choked on my pasta... rofl

[Rantanplan]

What do you mean by "his kind"?

People who put numbers into words in place of letters.

The only bloke who can get away with that is David Fincher with Se7en, anyone else who does is an 4rsehole.

rofl

Damnit, I nearly choked on my pasta... rofl

The OT is not the kitchen, little miss.

[Lokos]

there is a difference between terrorists, who cut innocent people's heads off getting killed and soldiers getting hurt while risking their lifes to bring peace in Iraq.

Yes, of course, because those darned insurgents get up in the morning and knowingly dedicate themselves to evil and dastardly deeds, chanting prayers to Satan and all else that is Bad.

Someone once said 'The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.'

When they cut off a person's head, it is an abominable act, worth every condemnation that can be levelled against it. Yet, to the perpetrators, it is a means to a righteous end. Do you think these people are the only ones to kill innocents and consider it an acceptable method of waging a post-modern war? NATO, in the name of humanitarianism, killed hundreds of innocents in two months, including women, children and the elderly in 1999. I've seen decapitated children, and worse, if such a thing is possible - killed by bombs dropped for a 'good cause'. They called it 'collateral damage'.

In Iraq, it's the same thing all over again. An insurgent stronghold rests near a village, the resulting bombardment damages the village and kills half a dozen members of the same family, including children, and it's COLLATERAL DAMAGE. Then you act SURPRISED, when these people choose to not quite see eye to eye with you about what's right and good in this world. When they pick up weapons - some in a quest for personal vengeance, others motivated by ideals they hold dear - you label them terrorists, for daring to do what you yourselves would surely do in their situation.

I am NOT a supporter of their cause or their methods. I detest both. But that doesn't make it right to degrade them as something less than human, and to celebrate the ended lives of people who had mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives - maybe even children. Explain to THEM how their husbands/sons/brothers/fathers were evil incarnate. Tell them they should celebrate, too.

How do you face your own hypocricy, man? How do you do it?

[Silverdragon]

yes, but not all insurgents go around and blow civilians up.

I dont know about that :| Scare tactics can work extremely well for an insurgency. It either makes the people want to help them to ensurethey stop thier attacks or it makes people too scared to make a diffrence for the country. But I cant really say things like all insurgents do or do not attack civilians because I havent been there

[PeterRJG]

The bottom line is this forum/website is owned by an American, hosted in America, about Americans and for the benefit of Americans. Any other viewpoint is going to be highly unfashionable or irrelevant.

You either have to work within those narrow little parameters or step outside the circle. M4ko chose to do the latter and got owned for it.

Time for me to step outside the circle too. Forums come and go people; it's means jack **** if this one goes **** up, no great loss, just move on to the next one.

Good luck to you all

[Aerosoul]

Holy ****. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

[Weasel]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.

[CONSERVATIVE53]

Wow. What a complete prick, sadistic sense of humor too. I don't care which way you lean, thats horrible.

[TuNeRsHaRk]

that guy was a **** he diserved to get more than a ban

[Aerosoul]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.

Nay.

[Howie Kaluha]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.

No, it's not the same. And if you actually believe that crap which you just said, you are the most dense person on these forums and you should consider suicide.

[California Joe]

That tagline was meant to be inflammatory as hell and he knew that. It was a stupid thing to do.

I think everyone should read and think about what Lokos wrote. It's the kind of thing that Tane used to speak about from personal experience. Everyone's perception IS their reality.

And Johnny I don't think the parameters are that narrow pal. I've enjoyed your posts and your sense of humor.

[Aerosoul]

I see now...I needed that kind of reply. Thanks Joe & Lokos.

Anyway though. Nuff said here I think. Could we maybe stop making threads pertaining to one's departure, be it your own or another individual's banning. The answer is always found by looking at their most recent posts.

[operaattori]

Hey Guys


Do i have to remind you again??????

Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that **** just goes right out the window.



p-)

[Aerosoul]

Hey Guys


Do i have to remind you again??????

Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that **** just goes right out the window.


p-)

I watched that last night. p-)

[TuNeRsHaRk]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.

no not exactly if you think about it the insurgents deserve to get their charred bodies pricked at becasue of all the terrible things they do to innocent people, whilst the US soldiers are just trying to bring order to the country, you get the point?

[Weasel]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.

no not exactly if you think about it the insurgents deserve to get their charred bodies pricked at becasue of all the terrible things they do to innocent people, whilst the US soldiers are just trying to bring order to the country, you get the point?

You mean gods own country versus the big evil? :P

[Virus]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.

no not exactly if you think about it the insurgents deserve to get their charred bodies pricked at becasue of all the terrible things they do to innocent people, whilst the US soldiers are just trying to bring order to the country, you get the point?

Maybe its because the kind of order the soldiers are bringing is something they dont want? Maybe some of these guys want saddam back, even though he did terrible things to his countrymen. But I think there are more than just these types in the insurgency, there are those who are the criminals(blowing up their own countrymen for starters, and killing foreign aid workers, NONCOMBATANTS who are there to help the iraqi people, and have nothing to do with any occupation)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I have submitted this thread for the 2005 Moral Relativism award.

I have no doubt that some insurgents have fought honorably. I'm also sure some insurgents have been lied to, or don't understand what's going on, are delusional, or are mentally incompetent - or are otherwise fighting us for the wrong reasons.

But we cannot lose sight of the fact that they are fighting for something. They have a goal, as do we. And the goal they fight for is not in question, and they have not misunderstood it. They are fighting for an fundamentalist Islamic state. A state where questioning the Quran=death. Where you are beaten for missing prayers or not having a beard. Where they cut off your mousing hand for looking at Internet ****. They are not fighting for individual choice, or for the right of self-determination - they fight to force others to participate in the realities they have in their heads. There is not a single insurgent that I'm aware of who is figthing for democracy or liberty or freedom but just under a different flag.

So I have very little trouble knowing which pile of dead humans deserves my respect and thanks, and which one deserves my scorn.

[TuNeRsHaRk]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.

no not exactly if you think about it the insurgents deserve to get their charred bodies pricked at becasue of all the terrible things they do to innocent people, whilst the US soldiers are just trying to bring order to the country, you get the point?

Maybe its because the kind of order the soldiers are bringing is something they dont want? Maybe some of these guys want saddam back, even though he did terrible things to his countrymen. But I think there are more than just these types in the insurgency, there are those who are the criminals(blowing up their own countrymen for starters, and killing foreign aid workers, NONCOMBATANTS who are there to help the iraqi people, and have nothing to do with any occupation)

most of the insurgents dont want saddam back they look at this as an oppertunity to create their own islamic nation wich WILL NOT Happen

[Weasel]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.

no not exactly if you think about it the insurgents deserve to get their charred bodies pricked at becasue of all the terrible things they do to innocent people, whilst the US soldiers are just trying to bring order to the country, you get the point?

Maybe its because the kind of order the soldiers are bringing is something they dont want? Maybe some of these guys want saddam back, even though he did terrible things to his countrymen. But I think there are more than just these types in the insurgency, there are those who are the criminals(blowing up their own countrymen for starters, and killing foreign aid workers, NONCOMBATANTS who are there to help the iraqi people, and have nothing to do with any occupation)

most of the insurgents dont want saddam back they look at this as an oppertunity to create their own islamic nation wich WILL NOT Happen

At the moment it looks not that bad for them. ;) As a result of american foreign policy Iran got back a ultra conservative government. Congratulations.

[Lokos]

2Sheds:

You're an absolutist, and I respect the steadfastness with which you stick to your guns. But absolutism, taken far enough, is not an admirable thing. Especially when it comes to excusing behaviour such as the celebration of a person's death.

Scorn them for their ideology and their actions - don't scorn their humanity.


They are fighting for an fundamentalist Islamic state.

You forget what sort of people constitute the insurgency. Most are Iraqi nationalists - and Sunnis at that. The fundamentalist Islamic state you speak of is more likely to be founded by the Shiites currently supporting the Coalition's stay in Iraq.


A state where questioning the Quran=death.

There are states where this holds true that are US allies. Is it alright, in that case?


There is not a single insurgent that I'm aware of who is figthing for democracy or liberty or freedom but just under a different flag.

You assume that these are things inherently desirable for all people everywhere - and that is difficult to construe as an intuitive approach. They may be fighting for something you don't like. Nevertheless, they believe they are fighting for Good, just as you believe the US is fighting for Good. Neither side believes it is, in fact, the Evil one. Why should the labels of either stick on each other? What makes one label more legitimate than the other?

Lokos

[Rifleman]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.

no not exactly if you think about it the insurgents deserve to get their charred bodies pricked at becasue of all the terrible things they do to innocent people, whilst the US soldiers are just trying to bring order to the country, you get the point?

You mean gods own country versus the big evil? :P

Weasel, sometimes I wonder if youare tring to get banned :roll:

[abncougar]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.

no not exactly if you think about it the insurgents deserve to get their charred bodies pricked at becasue of all the terrible things they do to innocent people, whilst the US soldiers are just trying to bring order to the country, you get the point?

Maybe its because the kind of order the soldiers are bringing is something they dont want? Maybe some of these guys want saddam back, even though he did terrible things to his countrymen. But I think there are more than just these types in the insurgency, there are those who are the criminals(blowing up their own countrymen for starters, and killing foreign aid workers, NONCOMBATANTS who are there to help the iraqi people, and have nothing to do with any occupation)

most of the insurgents dont want saddam back they look at this as an oppertunity to create their own islamic nation wich WILL NOT Happen

At the moment it looks not that bad for them. ;) As a result of american foreign policy Iran got back a ultra conservative government. Congratulations.


they got it back?? so they were re-elected?? if you do some research, there was a lot of fear of the administration rigging the elections, because 74% of Iranians support America's actions in Iraq. So I don't know what foreign policy you are talking about....

[b33f]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.

No, it's not the same. And if you actually believe that crap which you just said, you are the most dense person on these forums and you should consider suicide.

Damn, Measle, even though this is an online forum you could move forward a little. The insurgents are the enemy, and in this case it's not even "just the enemy" but a very cruel form of people who don't know honor, commitment or anything else that would raise their "level".

If an enemy dies we cheer.

If one of our own dies we cry.

That's it, now STFU.

[walford]

2Sheds: You're an absolutist, and I respect the steadfastness with which you stick to your guns. But absolutism, taken far enough, is not an admirable thing. Especially when it comes to excusing behaviour such as the celebration of a person's death.Actually 2 Sheds is describing consistent, universal principles. 'Absolutism' is a buzzword thrown around by moral relativists who hold that there is no real right and wrong. Given that morality is in essence a code of survival, to hold that it doesn't matter which side wins is to compromise with life and death.

It is the 'insurgents' who are the true absolutists. Whether they advocate for a resurrection of Saddam's dictatorship or a totalitarian theocracy, their position is that their side is the only correct one. They must use force to impose their will because reason is not on their side -- indeed it is their enemy.

Scorn them for their ideology and their actions - don't scorn their humanity. It is not reasonable to respect the humanity of those who have none. They deliberately target civilians. They aspire to create a state in which men are hired to rape women [as was the case under Saddam] and children are imprisoned in order to apply pressure upon suspected dissidents. They slaughter men, women and children wholesale.

I shall be so bold as to presume that 2 Sheds and others who despise the insurgents do not 'celebrate' their deaths. For me, the death of an avowed civilian killer is the same as that of any mass-murderer. There is a solemn sense of justice served, but with a twinge of sadness for a wasted life that required being terminated for the good of all.

You forget what sort of people constitute the insurgency. Most are Iraqi nationalists - and Sunnis at that. The fundamentalist Islamic state you speak of is more likely to be founded by the Shiites currently supporting the Coalition's stay in Iraq.I don't see how you can be so certain of the ratios of foreign-born to natives and Ba'athists to Islamists. I do not pretend to. I do take issue with any suggestion that they are nationalists, however.

They are doing everything they can to disrupt the development of limited representative government -- which is far more nationalistic than what the 'insurgents' have in mind.

If they want the occupation to end, if they want their country back, all they need to do is stop the killing and find a peaceful means to have an influence that is proportionate to their numbers. Of course they do not want that. They want to have a disproportionate influence by means of force and terror.

You assume that these are things inherently desirable for all people everywhere - and that is difficult to construe as an intuitive approach. They may be fighting for something you don't like. Nevertheless, they believe they are fighting for Good, just as you believe the US is fighting for Good. Neither side believes it is, in fact, the Evil one. Why should the labels of either stick on each other? What makes one label more legitimate than the other? Here is where the moral relativism comes out clearly. There are some indeed who hold that freedom, slavery, oppression, tyranny are simply points of view -- equally valid alternate lifestyles. These same people also allege that there is a cadre of 'neo-cons' out there who hold that American values are universal and as such, should be forcibly imposed upon all mankind.

Those of us who have closely studied the intellectual development that led to the founding of the United States -- particularly the Enlightenment -- know differently. In fact, the United States was founded upon universal principles -- not the other way around.

The Framers and their predecessors developed the precursors for the modern social sciences [political theory, economics, psychology, etc.] and discerned that there is indeed an optimal condition for all mankind. For a society to maximize its best potential, the power of the state must be vested in the people. People must be able to criticize policy and officials without fear of state-sanctioned retribution. If arrested, there must be a crime and probable cause. Property cannot be taken without due process of objectively defined laws that apply equally to all.

There is no culture on earth that is not compatible with freedom [which can take many forms under the above general parameters]. There is also no nation that can only function well under some sort of 'benevolent' tyranny. That was possible only in a primitive agrarian economic system in which land was the key to power and wealth.

The above absract ideals and others like them are applicable everywhere. Those states that embody tyranny are aberrational to the human condition and tend to spread their effects outside the borders, because tyranny is a cancer that cannot be lived with peacefully at home or abroad.

Until and unless this is understood throughout the world, there will always be war, tyranny and poverty. Those who argue that we should instead find a way to contain or appease bloodthirsty dictators are tacitly advocating for the suffering to continue.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well dang there walford you got it covered pretty well. I'd just add -



You assume that these are things inherently desirable for all people everywhere - and that is difficult to construe as an intuitive approach. They may be fighting for something you don't like. Nevertheless, they believe they are fighting for Good, just as you believe the US is fighting for Good. Neither side believes it is, in fact, the Evil one. Why should the labels of either stick on each other? What makes one label more legitimate than the other?

Here is where the moral relativism comes out clearly. There are some indeed who hold that freedom, slavery, oppression, tyranny are simply points of view -- equally valid alternate lifestyles. These same people also allege that there is a cadre of 'neo-cons' out there who hold that American values are universal and as such, should be forcibly imposed upon all mankind.

Those of us who have closely studied the intellectual development that led to the founding of the United States -- particularly the Enlightenment -- know differently. In fact, the United States was founded upon universal principles -- not the other way around.

The Framers and their predecessors developed the precursors for the modern social sciences [political theory, economics, psychology, etc.] and discerned that there is indeed an optimal condition for all mankind. For a society to maximize its best potential, the power of the state must be vested in the people. People must be able to criticize policy and officials without fear of state-sanctioned retribution. If arrested, there must be a crime and probable cause. Property cannot be taken without due process of objectively defined laws that apply equally to all.

There is no culture on earth that is not compatible with freedom [which can take many forms under the above general parameters]. There is also no nation that can only function well under some sort of 'benevolent' tyranny. That was possible only in a primitive agrarian economic system in which land was the key to power and wealth.

The above absract ideals and others like them are applicable everywhere. Those states that embody tyranny are aberrational to the human condition and tend to spread their effects outside the borders, because tyranny is a cancer that cannot be lived with peacefully at home or abroad.

Until and unless this is understood throughout the world, there will always be war, tyranny and poverty. Those who argue that we should instead find a way to contain or appease bloodthirsty dictators are tacitly advocating for the suffering to continue.

Lokos - IMHO you are on wobbly ground with this. Are you saying that freedom and self determination are not good for everybody everywhere? That a child born into Iraq or A-stan or I dunno - North Korea is not as deserving of a free life than a kid born in the US or UK etc.?

Because once they are born there, they do not get to choose to live under oppression or not. Their life, values, everything - is given to them by the state. A person in the West can choose to abandon our ways and run off to live in a cave. If they want to, I'm fine with it. But they get to choose. What has happened that these very simple, elemental concepts of freedom, liberty and self-determination, which are the cornerstone not of American thought - but of Western thought - stemming probably from ancient Greece (if memory serves), are now up for debate? Isn't freedom always better than tyranny? Isn't liberty always better than oppression?




A state where questioning the Quran=death


There are states where this holds true that are US allies. Is it alright, in that case?

Yep, it's wrong there too. Should we invade, just to be consistent? ;)

[usa320]

He was my hero.

Then join him in banland. I think a good blanket banning is needed for anyone who has ever rooted for the freakin scumbags.

[ibstolidude]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.
that makes it no more correct.

[Erik2a4]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.

no not exactly if you think about it the insurgents deserve to get their charred bodies pricked at becasue of all the terrible things they do to innocent people, whilst the US soldiers are just trying to bring order to the country, you get the point?

Maybe its because the kind of order the soldiers are bringing is something they dont want? Maybe some of these guys want saddam back, even though he did terrible things to his countrymen. But I think there are more than just these types in the insurgency, there are those who are the criminals(blowing up their own countrymen for starters, and killing foreign aid workers, NONCOMBATANTS who are there to help the iraqi people, and have nothing to do with any occupation)

most of the insurgents dont want saddam back they look at this as an oppertunity to create their own islamic nation wich WILL NOT Happen

At the moment it looks not that bad for them. ;) As a result of american foreign policy Iran got back a ultra conservative government. Congratulations.

Weasel:

Do not confuse sarcasm and wit with an intelligent argument. You have a good mind; you seem to have a strong system of beliefs. But you come across as such an @ssclown with the heavy dose of sarcasm, man! :lol:

It's like Dorian Grey or Andy Warhol were alive and well and posting on this forum...all subtle hints intended ;)
;)

[Erik2a4]

2Sheds:

You're an absolutist, and I respect the steadfastness with which you stick to your guns. But absolutism, taken far enough, is not an admirable thing. Especially when it comes to excusing behaviour such as the celebration of a person's death.

Scorn them for their ideology and their actions - don't scorn their humanity.


They are fighting for an fundamentalist Islamic state.

You forget what sort of people constitute the insurgency. Most are Iraqi nationalists - and Sunnis at that. The fundamentalist Islamic state you speak of is more likely to be founded by the Shiites currently supporting the Coalition's stay in Iraq.


A state where questioning the Quran=death.

There are states where this holds true that are US allies. Is it alright, in that case?


There is not a single insurgent that I'm aware of who is figthing for democracy or liberty or freedom but just under a different flag.

You assume that these are things inherently desirable for all people everywhere - and that is difficult to construe as an intuitive approach. They may be fighting for something you don't like. Nevertheless, they believe they are fighting for Good, just as you believe the US is fighting for Good. Neither side believes it is, in fact, the Evil one. Why should the labels of either stick on each other? What makes one label more legitimate than the other?

Lokos

Extremely well argued! This is why I come to MP.net. For discussions between people like 2Shed and Lokos.

Lokos, I understand the argument against absolutism...but complete moral relativism is no better. I agree with 2Sheds...I can understand another's viewpoint, I can see why he thinks this way, and that he is certain that he is correct...I understand that there are many different solutions to a common problem. But, often, there is a solution that is better than the others. Just because I understand him does not make his argument as good as mine.

I rejoice when insurgents are killed. Why? Because I'm going back to Iraq. It's a very basic "us" versus "them" argument. Not pretty, not a civil or social as we would like...but essential for survival. In fact, such feelings are ingrained into us, as a biological and psychological need to sustain our own lives.

There must be a common denominator for all men, otherwise, there is no hope for advancing our own communities.

As I've said so many times before, using Iraq as an example, what is the end-state if the US loses? What if the US wins?

I think any person here would be hard-pressed to believe that Iraq would be a better place if the US leaves and it decends into chaos and civil war. Which is most certainly the road it would take.

[Laworkerbee]

There must be a common denominator for all men, otherwise, there is no hope for advancing our own communities.

Thats a good line Bud, I intend on using it next time I'm drunk on a soapbox woot

[abncougar]

2Sheds:

You're an absolutist, and I respect the steadfastness with which you stick to your guns. But absolutism, taken far enough, is not an admirable thing. Especially when it comes to excusing behaviour such as the celebration of a person's death.

Scorn them for their ideology and their actions - don't scorn their humanity.


They are fighting for an fundamentalist Islamic state.

You forget what sort of people constitute the insurgency. Most are Iraqi nationalists - and Sunnis at that. The fundamentalist Islamic state you speak of is more likely to be founded by the Shiites currently supporting the Coalition's stay in Iraq.


A state where questioning the Quran=death.

There are states where this holds true that are US allies. Is it alright, in that case?


There is not a single insurgent that I'm aware of who is figthing for democracy or liberty or freedom but just under a different flag.

You assume that these are things inherently desirable for all people everywhere - and that is difficult to construe as an intuitive approach. They may be fighting for something you don't like. Nevertheless, they believe they are fighting for Good, just as you believe the US is fighting for Good. Neither side believes it is, in fact, the Evil one. Why should the labels of either stick on each other? What makes one label more legitimate than the other?

Lokos

Extremely well argued! This is why I come to MP.net. For discussions between people like 2Shed and Lokos.

Lokos, I understand the argument against absolutism...but complete moral relativism is no better. I agree with 2Sheds...I can understand another's viewpoint, I can see why he thinks this way, and that he is certain that he is correct...I understand that there are many different solutions to a common problem. But, often, there is a solution that is better than the others. Just because I understand him does not make his argument as good as mine.

I rejoice when insurgents are killed. Why? Because I'm going back to Iraq. It's a very basic "us" versus "them" argument. Not pretty, not a civil or social as we would like...but essential for survival. In fact, such feelings are ingrained into us, as a biological and psychological need to sustain our own lives.

There must be a common denominator for all men, otherwise, there is no hope for advancing our own communities.

As I've said so many times before, using Iraq as an example, what is the end-state if the US loses? What if the US wins?

I think any person here would be hard-pressed to believe that Iraq would be a better place if the US leaves and it decends into chaos and civil war. Which is most certainly the road it would take.


Iraq needs a civil war. Its the natural course a country makes while it grows up. England, USA, did Russia?? anyway, civil war would allow the shiites to go gangsta on all the sunnis anyway. they do outnumber them quite a bit, and the kurds would help the shiites.

[walford]

Iraq needs a civil war. Its the natural course a country makes while it grows up. England, USA, did Russia?? anyway, civil war would allow the shiites to go gangsta on all the sunnis anyway. they do outnumber them quite a bit, and the kurds would help the shiites.It has been extremely rare in human history that a civil war resulted in freedom. In Iraq, it would be the most ruthless, heavily armed faction that takes power. If it were consequent to a precipitous US pullout, Syria and Iran would provision proxies to determine which type of dictatorship would be installed. Maybe Turkey would become involved also, perhaps resulting in Iraq being dismembered.

The massive humanitarian/refugee crisis that was predicted following OIF would likely come to pass also.

One 'good' thing, though: it would mean that all of the blood and treasure spent upon removing Saddam, rebuilding the country and fighting the insurgents would have been for nothing. Then we could say 'I told you so' to Bush -- which is the most important thing.

[abncougar]

Iraq needs a civil war. Its the natural course a country makes while it grows up. England, USA, did Russia?? anyway, civil war would allow the shiites to go gangsta on all the sunnis anyway. they do outnumber them quite a bit, and the kurds would help the shiites.It has been extremely rare in human history that a civil war resulted in freedom. In Iraq, it would be the most ruthless, heavily armed faction that takes power. If it were consequent to a precipitous US pullout, Syria and Iran would provision proxies to determine which type of dictatorship would be installed. Maybe Turkey would become involved also, perhaps resulting in Iraq being dismembered.

The massive humanitarian/refugee crisis that was predicted following OIF would likely come to pass also.

One 'good' thing, though: it would mean that all of the blood and treasure spent upon removing Saddam, rebuilding the country and fighting the insurgents would have been for nothing. Then we could say 'I told you so' to Bush -- which is the most important thing.


oh.............ok then.......

[Drunkensquid]

what a piece of ****!!! glad to see him and his kind gone!!!

What do you mean by "his kind"?

the drunken I love the cccp, I hate America kind :roll:

[nagant_m44]

what a piece of ****!!! glad to see him and his kind gone!!!

What do you mean by "his kind"?

the drunken I love the cccp, I hate America kind :roll:

Ironic, seeing how you are the exact opposite. :roll:

[Kilgor]

what a piece of ****!!! glad to see him and his kind gone!!!

What do you mean by "his kind"?

the drunken I love the cccp, I hate America kind :roll:


Love the CCCP, never lived under communism, hates the US but works there and enjoys the economic comforts.

[usa320]

what a piece of ****!!! glad to see him and his kind gone!!!

What do you mean by "his kind"?

the drunken I love the cccp, I hate America kind :roll:


Love the CCCP, never lived under communism, hates the US but works there and enjoys the economic comforts.


word. I have 2 coworkers that are brothers... They actually lived under communism in what is now Belarus... They finally left the hellhole because they got sick of the bull**** and move to America.

It seems all these goofy kids in the west that think communism is a great system wouldnt last a day without all the comforts of capitalism. If they had to go one day in a communist state, they wouldnt last.

[Drunkensquid]

what a piece of ****!!! glad to see him and his kind gone!!!

What do you mean by "his kind"?

the drunken I love the cccp, I hate America kind :roll:

Ironic, seeing how you are the exact opposite. :roll:

nothing more ironic than hearing an exsoviet person complaining about the lack of feedom of speech in the US. rofl rofl rofl

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/ripinby/Smileys%20and%20stuff/017ek.gif

[Weasel]

Holy f***. I cannot believe he typed what he did under that picture [on the first page). Son of a bitch! WTF?

It´s the same what others write under pictures of dead iraqis.

no not exactly if you think about it the insurgents deserve to get their charred bodies pricked at becasue of all the terrible things they do to innocent people, whilst the US soldiers are just trying to bring order to the country, you get the point?

Maybe its because the kind of order the soldiers are bringing is something they dont want? Maybe some of these guys want saddam back, even though he did terrible things to his countrymen. But I think there are more than just these types in the insurgency, there are those who are the criminals(blowing up their own countrymen for starters, and killing foreign aid workers, NONCOMBATANTS who are there to help the iraqi people, and have nothing to do with any occupation)

most of the insurgents dont want saddam back they look at this as an oppertunity to create their own islamic nation wich WILL NOT Happen

At the moment it looks not that bad for them. ;) As a result of american foreign policy Iran got back a ultra conservative government. Congratulations.

Weasel:

Do not confuse sarcasm and wit with an intelligent argument. You have a good mind; you seem to have a strong system of beliefs. But you come across as such an @ssclown with the heavy dose of sarcasm, man! :lol:

It's like Dorian Grey or Andy Warhol were alive and well and posting on this forum...all subtle hints intended ;)
;)

I´ll take it as a compliment. ;)

[Lokos]

Walford:


Actually 2 Sheds is describing consistent, universal principles.

These 'consistent', 'universal' principles, apparently, are not nearly as consistent or universal as their definition implies.


'Absolutism' is a buzzword thrown around by moral relativists who hold that there is no real right and wrong. Given that morality is in essence a code of survival, to hold that it doesn't matter which side wins is to compromise with life and death.

Absolutism is as much a 'buzzword' as 'relativism'. Why is morality a code of survival? It is as much a product of its times and context as any other social factor out there. Modern humanitarianism, the model of freedom you're describing and individualistic liberty have been around but for a blink of a historical eye. Nine tenths of humanity do not see them as the most vital facets of everyday life and existence in general. It seems to me that you're simply trying to apply what YOU hold to be important (and, granted, I too hold these tenets to be truistic) to EVERYONE else, whether they like it - and/or respect it - or not.


It is the 'insurgents' who are the true absolutists.

They surely are absolutists. What makes your absolutism better than theirs? Why is your argument better than theirs (once again, I am disregarding the fact that, under normal circumstances, I'd personally agree with you that freedom and liberty of the individual are of the utmost importance)?


It is not reasonable to respect the humanity of those who have none.

This kind of reasoning opens the door to places where, after certain relatively recent historical developments, one would hope we'd never be able to go again. I hate to use this example, but, the Germans took your point of view over mine. And we know what resulted.


They deliberately target civilians.

At times, yes. American forces, on the other hand, kill civilians by mistake, claim that it is justified by the ends achieved, and move on. Do the relatives of the killed accept that argument, moreso than relatives of those killed by the insurgents would accept that what was done was only done for 'the greater glory of Allah'?


They aspire to create a state in which men are hired to rape women [as was the case under Saddam] and children are imprisoned in order to apply pressure upon suspected dissidents.

I'm sorry, this line of argument holds no weight. Very few of the insurgents are outright Bathaists, who wish to resurrect the Iraq of yesteryear. What they do wish to create is bad enough; let's not add obvious fallacies to the mix.


There is a solemn sense of justice served, but with a twinge of sadness for a wasted life that required being terminated for the good of all.

Then perhaps I am not being understood. I don't ask you to be unhappy over their deaths. They were necessary. But all death is abhorrent. Which is exactly why I posted, originally, protesting against celebratory messages from certain members of this forum in regards to horribly maimed and/or dead insurgents. They are the enemy, but they were also human.


I do take issue with any suggestion that they are nationalists, however.

It seems obvious to me that most are nationalists, but seeing as there's no real way to dispell doubt over the issue one way or the other, you can accept what I assert or not.


They are doing everything they can to disrupt the development of limited representative government -- which is far more nationalistic than what the 'insurgents' have in mind.


Perhaps they see this 'limited representative government' as a product of US interference? It's certainly not inconceivable. Perhaps these Sunni gentlemen are nationalists of an Iraq that no longer exists - an Iraq where 'limited representative government' means that they will become the fringe of mass society, scorned and rejected by the Shiites now in power?

I'm just guessing, here.


If they want the occupation to end, if they want their country back, all they need to do is stop the killing and find a peaceful means to have an influence that is proportionate to their numbers.

I heard this argument in regards to Kosovo, too. I'm sorry, but 'influence proportionate to their numbers', for us, meant that we had none - as it would most likely for the Sunnis, too. Yet, we, like the Iraqi Sunnis, were certainly not used to that arrangement, and didn't see the justice in accepting the new status quo.

I can understand their point of view, even as I reject their methods and eventual aims.


In fact, the United States was founded upon universal principles -- not the other way around.

The United States was founded on an assertion of universal principles. In practice, ideals always take on a bit of a tan.


The Framers and their predecessors developed the precursors for the modern social sciences [political theory, economics, psychology, etc.] and discerned that there is indeed an optimal condition for all mankind.

And what is this optimal condition? Has it ever been achieved? Can it ever be achieved? Should it ever be achieved? What authority are the last two answers derived from?


For a society to maximize its best potential, the power of the state must be vested in the people. People must be able to criticize policy and officials without fear of state-sanctioned retribution.

This, to me, seems extremely chauvanistic. Why must the power of the state be vested in the people for a society to 'maximize its best potential'? How is this potential 'maximized' as such? You're asserting things you hold to be True, and making them universally applicable, when they are anything but. How should this be taken in light of the continuing dominance of the Confucian ideals in Asian societies - which are emerging as the new epicenter of world economic power?


There is no culture on earth that is not compatible with freedom [which can take many forms under the above general parameters].

Yes, there are. The Russians, for example, have (due to socio-economic, political and, not least of all, geographic factors) always required a strong, extremely centralized ruling party (be it individual or otherwise) - ever since Muscovy became Russia. They have a political culture more concerned with security than freedom, strength over liberty.

This can (and maybe should) change. But, at this point in time, democracy is an experiment for the Russians. If the world's geostrategic climate dictates that they must be democratic, then they may very well become a country under a Western system of (truly) representative government. Yet, they're not changing due to the desirability of democracy as some sort of all encompassing universal ideal, but due to cold necessity in a world dominated (economically, militarily and culturally) by the United Staets.


Those states that embody tyranny are aberrational to the human condition and tend to spread their effects outside the borders, because tyranny is a cancer that cannot be lived with peacefully at home or abroad.

The United States lives peacefully with a number of tyrannies abroad. I ask you; if your nation is the manifestation of the ideals you hold to be true, why is this the case?

Of course it is only practical. And few are the instances in history when practicality was overridden by ideology.


Until and unless this is understood throughout the world, there will always be war, tyranny and poverty.

I don't want to go to the Global Village theory just now. It's too time consuming to get into. But, basically, it seems to me that poverty, tyranny and war are - at this point in time - continuing long term inevitabilities due to factors quite removed from ideologies shaped by everyday realities in any case.


Lokos - IMHO you are on wobbly ground with this. Are you saying that freedom and self determination are not good for everybody everywhere?

Actually, what I'm saying is that not everybody on this planet agrees with you, Walford and me on this issue. I think this is also quite self-evident. Freedom and self-determination are NOT seen by all people to be the most important factors of everyday existence. I am also saying that, noble as we see them, perhaps these concepts should not be pushed on to those who do not seem to want to have anything to do with them - those who may in fact feel that their views are being invalidated by our monolithic perception of a reality system which is anything but.


What has happened that these very simple, elemental concepts of freedom, liberty and self-determination, which are the cornerstone not of American thought - but of Western thought - stemming probably from ancient Greece (if memory serves), are now up for debate?

They have always been up for debate - everywhere. The birth of human societies evolving from familial groupings in turn resulted in the birth of the struggle between the State and the Individual. I cannot, reasonably, assert that what I believe is Fact, is True and is the End of the Debate. My beliefs are my own. There are others out there with beliefs and value systems that differ. I refuse to attack them because their social development and value endowment has differed from my own. I choose to respect their perception of social reality, because, deep down, I know that I may be as wrong as I believe them to be.


Yep, it's wrong there too. Should we invade, just to be consistent?

Yes, if the desire to create a socio-culturally homogenous world is truly there. Otherwise, you will always be open to attacks consisting of 'They attacked because of oil! It was just pragmatism! Hussein was a dictator, but so is Musharraf!'. As unjust as such attacks are, the United States cannot ignore North Korea and claim to be ideologically motivated.

Yet, what if the attacked North Koreans don't respond with a popular pro-US movement? What if they fight you tooth and nail? Will you kill them all to make them free?

Erik:


...but complete moral relativism is no better.

Indeed! Anything taken to an extreme is harmful. I try to remain balanced, walking the tightrope of ideology and flexibility of perception.


I rejoice when insurgents are killed.

I don't think any reasonable human being rejoices when another is killed. I think you, in fact, rejoice in the idea of one less Enemy trying to kill you. Such abstractions can be harmful in the long run, too, yet they are far more palpable than: 'They weren't even human, so why should we care about their deaths, except to take joy in them?'


I think any person here would be hard-pressed to believe that Iraq would be a better place if the US leaves and it decends into chaos and civil war. Which is most certainly the road it would take.

Oh, I agree with you. If the US left today, I'd throw up my hands in disgust. Whatever the faulty reasoning behind the invasion was, however many international conventions and laws were broken, the US is there now - and it must not leave until Iraq is used to the new status quo. Otherwise, it will just be another Yugoslavia.

Lokos

[EasyC]

Mate your like a human encyclopedia.

[Lokos]

If, by that, you mean I spend a lot of time typing up ultimately subjective arguments - then yes, yes I am.

p-)

Lokos

[EasyC]

How the hell do you have the time? Or are you good at thinking on your feet.

Im the kind of person that needs to have the facts laid out for me.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Good posts guys, nice to see it not turn into a flame war of epic perportions.

Sometimes when I come to the site I get mixed feelings. Sometimes pissed off, sometimes saddened...and every once in awhile laughing. But when I walk away from it all at the end, its given me perspective on current issues. Every day, no matter what I can always say I've learned something new from visiting.

bc.

[Knutsen]

I'm 100% with Lokos. It's the attitude that made a lot of americans insult me. Glad to see nobody flamed this time.

[walford]

Absolutism is as much a 'buzzword' as 'relativism'. Why is morality a code of survival? It is as much a product of its times and context as any other social factor out there. Modern humanitarianism, the model of freedom you're describing and individualistic liberty have been around but for a blink of a historical eye. Nine tenths of humanity do not see them as the most vital facets of everyday life and existence in general. It seems to me that you're simply trying to apply what YOU hold to be important (and, granted, I too hold these tenets to be truistic) to EVERYONE else, whether they like it - and/or respect it - or not. There are laws of Nature that operate consistently no matter whether we agree with them or not. If we devise and implement social systems that are not in accordance with these laws, we will perish. That is the ultimate standard.

I certainly concede that it is not possible to have absolute knowledge of what is optimal. The Law of Cause and Effect will sort us out. It is no accident that the Industrial Revolution took off after limited representative government was put into place. If exploitation were the standard for success, the Spanish Empire would have prevailed.

Freedom is the optimal human condition because it works. Of course the implementation has not been perfect. The closer we come to DISCOVERING it and putting into practice, the better chance mankind has to live in peace, freedom and prosperity.

If we instead live according to the premise that freedom and slavery are morally equivalent, the cancer of tyranny -- and its consequences of war and poverty -- will continue to plague us all. It is that simple.


It is not reasonable to respect the humanity of those who have none.This kind of reasoning opens the door to places where, after certain relatively recent historical developments, one would hope we'd never be able to go again. I hate to use this example, but, the Germans took your point of view over mine. And we know what resulted.
The NAZIs held that Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc. were subhuman by birth. I assert that those who deliberatley slaughter men, women and children wholesale in order to impose a bloodthirsty dictatorship deliberately abdicate their humanity because they deny that of others by their actions/intentions.

To assert a moral equivalence between the two positions is beyond slander.

[Kilgor]

Lokos, why do you associate a "strong" russia with dictatorships or a police state ? Do you think that if a man or party came to power tommorrow that it could reverse the decay ?

To me it sounds like you believe the propaganda and have nostalga for a period of Russian history that was grossly glorified.

Whilst I might add you enjoy the comforts of probably the most livable country in the world (Australia).

[Lokos]

Kilgor:


Lokos, why do you associate a "strong" russia with dictatorships or a police state ? Do you think that if a man or party came to power tommorrow that it could reverse the decay ?

I associate a 'strong' Russia with authoritarian rule because history has shown that to be the case. Russia is strongest when the strongest men are at its helm. I can show this is the case, empirically speaking. Can you show otherwise?


To me it sounds like you believe the propaganda and have nostalga for a period of Russian history that was grossly glorified.

To me it sounds like you think I'm a Communist and/or a Stalinist. I am not. Stop inferring that I am, because my professed belief in regards to Russia is not Communism-specific. For example, Russia was immensely powerful (proportionally) when Peter the Great was leading it. He was a very authoritarian ruler, who advocated extremely centralized rule. It worked.


Whilst I might add you enjoy the comforts of probably the most livable country in the world (Australia).

Seeing as I'm not Russian, I don't feel the need to live in Russia. I can say that I believe Russia is strongest when under an authoritarian fist, without wanting that for Australia, where that is not the case. Do you get me?

Walford:


There are laws of Nature that operate consistently no matter whether we agree with them or not. If we devise and implement social systems that are not in accordance with these laws, we will perish. That is the ultimate standard.

All we have to go by, when it comes to politics, socio-economics and other such semi-intangible, society-encompassing concepts is historical precedent. What I garner from my perception of said precedent is that your point of view in regards to this issue is incorrect. So-called 'Laws of Nature' are far less absolute than some would have one believe. Besides, who is to say that any particular system is against the 'Laws of Nature'? Why is your perception of the 'Laws of Nature' more correct than a differing one? Where is your authority for this?


It is no accident that the Industrial Revolution took off after limited representative government was put into place.

The Industrial Revolution was not limited to the United Kingdom, and was most certainly not limited to nations ruled by limited representative governments. I do not see how you can back the above statement up on any empirical, factual basis.


If exploitation were the standard for success, the Spanish Empire would have prevailed.

The Spanish Empire failed for a number of complicated, multi-faceted reasons. I fail to see how it can be argued that limited representative government (or lack thereof) was the sole reason for its decline.


Freedom is the optimal human condition because it works.

It worked for the Romans, until it stopped working for the Romans. It worked for the Athenians, until it stopped working for the Athenians. Arguing that the United States is the end-product of historical socio-political development is, at best, naive. For all we know, today's democracies could easily become tomorrow's empires. Freedom is a tradition, like any other. And, just like all traditions, it can be destroyed with enough persistence.

Furthermore, 'freedom', as a key component of the Western value system, is NOT shared universally by all humans on this planet. Not even by a majority. To argue that what works for you will also work for everyone else simply BECAUSE it works for you strikes me as culturally imperialistic.


If we instead live according to the premise that freedom and slavery are morally equivalent, the cancer of tyranny -- and its consequences of war and poverty -- will continue to plague us all. It is that simple.

The above assumes that our moral standard is the benchmark of morality in all corners of the world. Morality is a contextual product. It cannot be made everlasting and/or universal because the context cannot be everlasting and/or universal.

You seem to be arguing the legitemacy of our moral code, when that line of argument is besides the point, IMHO. I am not saying any given moral code is 'right'. I am saying that they're all contextual. If another individual happens to adhere to a different moral code, which one of you is 'right'? I say neither. There is no 'right' and there is no 'wrong', there is what there is - except for individuals, whose interpretation of right and wrong is their own to construct and have constructed for them by their environment.


I assert that those who deliberatley slaughter men, women and children wholesale in order to impose a bloodthirsty dictatorship deliberately abdicate their humanity because they deny that of others by their actions/intentions.

An interesting stance. What of those who deliberately slaughter men, women and children wholesale in order to impose a benevolent democratic regime? For example; the Dresden bombings. Or was the situation so dire as to allow some leeway with this 'universal' moral code? What of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is wholesale slaughter alright, as long as it's impersonal and for a 'good cause'? And who can say what is a 'good cause'?

Did the Nazis believe they were the manifestation of Satan? Did Wehrmacht soldiers feel that they were demons, gleefully doing evil deeds simply because they were evil?

Lokos

[walford]

...So-called 'Laws of Nature' are far less absolute than some would have one believe. Besides, who is to say that any particular system is against the 'Laws of Nature'? Why is your perception of the 'Laws of Nature' more correct than a differing one? Where is your authority for this?The results. Free countries are prosperous and peaceful. Dictatorships are not.

It worked for the Romans, until it stopped working for the Romans. It worked for the Athenians, until it stopped working for the Athenians. As I explained earlier, when civilization was agrarian, power and wealth was gained by seizing land. Freedom was not an issue, control was. There was however, a limit to potential development under those societies. Once the Enlightenment heralded the advent of intellectual power to be the key to wealth, freedom was the optimal way for this power to be released. You cannot whip people to invent anywhere near as effectively as is possible when people are doing so for their own self-interest.


If we instead live according to the premise that freedom and slavery are morally equivalent, the cancer of tyranny -- and its consequences of war and poverty -- will continue to plague us all. It is that simple. The above assumes that our moral standard is the benchmark of morality in all corners of the world. Morality is a contextual product. It cannot be made everlasting and/or universal because the context cannot be everlasting and/or universal. Nope. I assert that the Founding Fathers sought to find what the optimal human condition is and devised a system to put it into practice. It was not perfect, but it was the best application of limited representative government yet implemented in human history. The results speak for themselves.

The Laws of Nature -- especially the Law of Cause-and-Effect -- are inescapably universal, just as are the physical laws. The best way to judge if an individual life or an entire nation is closest to be in accordance with these laws is whether the person or society is healthy.

For example, in another thread (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=50903&highlight=) there was a discussion about the spread of HIV in Africa. The way it is being dealt with is to give them shots to live longer while infected [thus infecting more] and passing out rubbers to give them a false sense of security while they continue the dangerous behavior. The causes -- promiscuity and cultural practices such as the superstition that raping virgins will remove the infection -- are not being addressed. Consequently, these societies are marked for extinction until a dramatic turn is undertaken.


I assert that those who deliberatley slaughter men, women and children wholesale in order to impose a bloodthirsty dictatorship deliberately abdicate their humanity because they deny that of others by their actions/intentions.An interesting stance. What of those who deliberately slaughter men, women and children wholesale in order to impose a benevolent democratic regime? For example; the Dresden bombings. Or was the situation so dire as to allow some leeway with this 'universal' moral code? What of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is wholesale slaughter alright, as long as it's impersonal and for a 'good cause'? And who can say what is a 'good cause'?Oh, we cannot get past discussing the killing of civilians w/o bringing up Dresden and the atomic bombings of WWII, can we? Always we must look back upon the technology of the 1940s and judge them from the present. There was no precision bombing in those days. In order to destroy a factory, heavy civilian casualties were the norm. Debates still rage as to whether strategic bombing hastened the end of the war. In the end, wars are still won and lost by taking territory.

Unconditional surrender was used by the NAZIs and Tojo's sychophants to tie the survival of the regime with that of the people. They successfully made the people believe that if the dictatorship fell, the entire race would perish. It was seen at the time necessary to make it clear to the civilians of the Axis powers that they will indeed perish if they continue to fight to keep their oppressors in power.

My former employer, Reed Irvine (http://www.aim.org/special_report/2205_0_8_0_C/) (RIP) explained that he was among the troops waiting to be sent in to assault the main island while his future wife was in Nagasaki when it was nuked. They both survived that, but Mr. Irvine was adamant that neither of them would have survived an invasion.

We can only stand back in hindsight and argue over what was the right thing to do 60 years ago.

Did the Nazis believe they were the manifestation of Satan? Did Wehrmacht soldiers feel that they were demons, gleefully doing evil deeds simply because they were evil?The relevance of what someone who is DOING evil FEELS about it is less than nil.

[Lokos]

The results. Free countries are prosperous and peaceful. Dictatorships are not.

Augustan Rome was both prosperous and, relatively speaking, peaceful. By that same token, the United States is prosperous, yet has also been in five major wars in the past century. The UK has been involved in some form of conflict every year post 1960. It seems to me, empirically, that this line of argument is, at best, flawed.


As I explained earlier, when civilization was agrarian, power and wealth was gained by seizing land. Freedom was not an issue, control was. There was however, a limit to potential development under those societies.

Yet reading texts from the eras in question, it seems that the fundamental question for the Athenians WAS freedom, as it was for the Republican Romans, who rebelled against their monarchs because of that very issue - freedom. As for the limit to potential development... The Athenians were far closer to the ideal democracy, at one point, than any government in the West currently is.


Once the Enlightenment heralded the advent of intellectual power to be the key to wealth, freedom was the optimal way for this power to be released.

The Enlightenment was surely an intellectual awakening. For the rising middle class, that is. It was in their interest that government be representative. As they were not aristocrats, they had very little potential to exert control over a nation as individuals before the French Revolution and what followed it. As you well know, the French Revolution and the liberal revolutions that followed throughout the 19th century were instigated, controlled and propagated by disaffected bourgeouis who sought more power.

The key question to me seems to be power and its distribtution, not freedom.


You cannot whip people to invent anywhere near as effectively as is possible when people are doing so for their own self-interest.

You are using an EXTREMELY broad brush, and one I cannot respond to effectively without a similarly broad brush. And I don't want to do that. Saying something like 'People are most inventive when they invent for their own self-interest!' is meaningless. It cannot be proven, and is most difficult to evidence empirically. At best, it's your own opinion and perception of the historical development of technological improvement. I don't accept it.


It was not perfect, but it was the best application of limited representative government yet implemented in human history.

No, not really. The most democratic societies were, ironically, the earliest ones. Russian zadrugas, for example, were far more democratic than any form of Western limited representative government. There have been hundreds of human societies that were more 'democratic' than the United States. But history has nearly forgotten most of them.


The Laws of Nature -- especially the Law of Cause-and-Effect -- are inescapably universal, just as are the physical laws.

What constitutes a 'Law of Nature'? Who defines its constitution, who creates the criteria? And what makes it true? Everything you're saying here relies on the other party simply accepting your truth as their own. None of the 'Laws' you speak of are tangible, nor can they be explored on a factual basis. Some may be convinced by such arguments because they are beautiful and simple. I am not. Give me historical precedent, give me empirical basis, and this can be discussed at more length.


The causes -- promiscuity and cultural practices such as the superstition that raping virgins will remove the infection -- are not being addressed. Consequently, these societies are marked for extinction until a dramatic turn is undertaken.

These societies are not 'marked for extinction'. All African populations are growing, despite the high proportion of AIDS in the general population. Perhaps HIV is nature's way to control the population? Or, perhaps, it is not up to us to tell these people right from wrong, because our own version of right and wrong is, ultimately, subjective. Worse; it is limited to the context it was given birth in. Translating moral codes to societies that are not ready to accept them is like starting the process of democracy from the top down.

Democratic traditions and traditions of morality must begin at the grass roots level and must BECOME traditions. The Australian Constitution, for example, does not have a Bill of Rights. Technically, Australian citizens don't have a right to any of the things Americans take for granted. Of course, what we have is an unspoken tradition of an unwritten 'Bill of Rights'. Giving democracy to a people who are not capable of retaining it, or are not willing to retain it, because it is not part of their socio-political tradition, is like giving Utopia to modern man. It would be an abortive experiment.


Oh, we cannot get past discussing the killing of civilians w/o bringing up Dresden and the atomic bombings of WWII, can we?

We can get past it, as soon as the question the issue brings up is addressed.


Always we must look back upon the technology of the 1940s and judge them from the present.

I'm afraid not. These people were not 'collateral damage'. Bomber Harris WANTED massive civilian deaths in German cities. He called the policy 'de-housing' or something stupid like that. The point was to break Germany's back by killing her civilians. History has shown this to be true. They didn't just 'miss' because of their 40's era technology. They hit what they wanted to hit. Big targets. Cities.


In order to destroy a factory, heavy civilian casualties were the norm.

Dresden and Hamburg were not hit because of their industrial sectors. The cities were, literally, saturated by munitions, just like Berlin. The imperative was destruction. Not of industry, but of everything. The added 'ingredients' (incendiaries) were not meant to destroy heavy industry, but to wipe out residential areas, just like the US raids on Tokyo were meant to annihilate the Japanese capital (and they did).


Unconditional surrender was used by the NAZIs and Tojo's sychophants to tie the survival of the regime with that of the people. They successfully made the people believe that if the dictatorship fell, the entire race would perish. It was seen at the time necessary to make it clear to the civilians of the Axis powers that they will indeed perish if they continue to fight to keep their oppressors in power.


You are trying to explain away and excuse what your professed ideology does not allow to be explained away and/or excused. And you are not dealing with the fundamental questions I raised above.


My former employer, Reed Irvine (RIP) explained that he was among the troops waiting to be sent in to assault the main island while his future wife was in Nagasaki when it was nuked. They both survived that, but Mr. Irvine was adamant that neither of them would have survived an invasion.

I've heard every argument in favour of the nuclear bombings. I agree that the nuclear bombings were for the best. What you are saying, in terms of ideals, however, does not ALLOW for such arguments. The means cannot and do not justify the ends in a context of universal, absolute ideals.


The relevance of what someone who is DOING evil FEELS about it is less than nil.

Correct. So, when NATO was killing the women and children of my friends back in '99, and thought it was doing the right thing, their feelings on the issue are irrelevant, yes? They were Satan's minions, and that is that. Oh, they didn't know that they were killing civilians? Or maybe they did, but it was their duty for the greater good... But what if the average Landser thought that what they were doing was also for the greater good?


We can only stand back in hindsight and argue over what was the right thing to do 60 years ago.

Yes, but the relevance of this line of argument is undiminished by the remoteness of the historical fact it springs from. The same issues can be seen today, albeit less dramatically.

Lokos

[Kaze]

what a piece of ****!!! glad to see him and his kind gone!!!

What do you mean by "his kind"?

the drunken I love the cccp, I hate America kind :roll:

Communism is good on paper, but it won't work in real life. Communism will only work if there was no greed in humans. Since greed will always be a part of humans, this system will never work.

[walford]

Augustan Rome was both prosperous and, relatively speaking, peaceful.It was as prosperous and peaceful as a land-based agrarian society could be. The vast majority of the people had no influence upon the choosing of rulers or the setting of policy. The key to prosperity was forcibly taking land from others and enslaving the local populations. It was a plutocracy. Only a minority benefitted while everyone else was dirt poor.

It truly was the society that Marx described when he tried to caricature the market economies that were emerging around him. Market economies can only emerge when the majority of the people can benefit from from their own innovation and hard work. That simply did not occur until true limited representative government emerged for the first time in the 18th century. This did indeed enable the emergence of a significant middle class, the key to a free society to function.

By that same token, the United States is prosperous, yet has also been in five major wars in the past century. The UK has been involved in some form of conflict every year post 1960. It seems to me, empirically, that this line of argument is, at best, flawed.The 20th century wars were caused by statism [e.g. Marxism, Fascism, absolute Monarchism]. Countries that declare war upon their own citizens are bound to export aggression. The US was involved in fighting against the spread of these dictatorships. This is nothing to be ashamed of.

The key question to me seems to be power and its distribtution, not freedom.The key question is whether people are benefitting from their own work or being forced to do so for someone else. The former is by far more productive. That is why the health of a given economy is in inverse proportion to the amount of government control.

What constitutes a 'Law of Nature'? Who defines its constitution, who creates the criteria? And what makes it true? Everything you're saying here relies on the other party simply accepting your truth as their own. None of the 'Laws' you speak of are tangible, nor can they be explored on a factual basis. Some may be convinced by such arguments because they are beautiful and simple. I am not. Give me historical precedent, give me empirical basis, and this can be discussed at more length.Natural Law requires no agreement. If you think that government control works just as well, than by all means live in a country that has as much as you like and see how well you live. Good luck with that.

[Lokos]

It was as prosperous and peaceful as a land-based agrarian society could be.

Indeed. But the limits were technical and practical, not conceptual.


The vast majority of the people had no influence upon the choosing of rulers or the setting of policy.

The very point I was making. Augustan Rome was not known for its representative government - it was a dictatorship - but it was known for the relative peace of Augustus' reign and the prosperity the Romas enjoyed in comparison to other peoples.


The key to prosperity was forcibly taking land from others and enslaving the local populations.

Like I said; Augustan Rome was remarkably peaceful, even when compared to the largely democratic Republican Rome of prior centuries.


It was a plutocracy.

Excuse me, Walford, but none of the presidents of Western nations are poor men, and their families most certainly were not without funds. Neither are the financial backers behind their political campaigns. The divide between rich and poor is alive and well in modern democracies - just as it has aways been alive and well.


Only a minority benefitted while everyone else was dirt poor.


Translate what you're saying to the Global Village, and it is still the absolute truth.


Market economies can only emerge when the majority of the people can benefit from from their own innovation and hard work.

Another stroke with the broad brush. And, again, I will not reciprocate.


This did indeed enable the emergence of a significant middle class, the key to a free society to function.

Significant middle classes evolved long before limited representative governments, historically. This is easily verifiable. Present evidence to the contrary, if you are so able.


The US was involved in fighting against the spread of these dictatorships. This is nothing to be ashamed of.

I don't think I said it was something to be ashamed of. What it is, however, is an obvious flaw in your statement regarding the inherent peacefulness and prosperity of countries with limited representative governments. And, you fail to address, for example, the fact that Britain had been fighting conflicts all around the world non-stop since 1960, that France fought a brutal war to retain a COLONY, that the United States sponsored terrorists to harm a political rival (again with the means -> ends issue) etc. So much historical fact can be levelled against what you're saying, and so little for.


The key question is whether people are benefitting from their own work or being forced to do so for someone else

I'm sorry, at this point we're just getting silly. Are we still discussing relativism vs absolutism or has the discussion evolved into one about The Way Things Should Be? I'd like to return to the former, without going off on what are ultimately inconsequential tangents, if at all possible.


Natural Law requires no agreement.

And what is Natural Law, conceptually speaking? Can you lay it out for me? I'd like to know what I'm abiding by without knowing it, if that's alright.

(This, of course, ignores the fact that you're saying the same thing over and over again, without actually answering the questions I ask in this regard. Please do so, before continuing down this line of argument.)


If you think that government control works just as well, than by all means live in a country that has as much as you like and see how well you live. Good luck with that.

That's just facetious and unnecessary.

Lokos

[Ghostwolf]

I noticed another user with the name "Anonymosity" who got banned after only 73 posts, what happend and did I missed any action?

[walford]

And what is Natural Law, conceptually speaking? Can you lay it out for me? I'd like to know what I'm abiding by without knowing it, if that's alright. It consistently operates whether we like it or not. We suffer when we try to go outside the rules and benefit when we follow them. Socio-politico-economic systems that adhere most closely to them provide peace and prosperity. Those that instead rely upon man-made fiat or try to force people to adhere to an arbitrary ideal bring war, poverty and tyranny. There is no exception. Thus for example, if Putin continues to entrench himself as de facto dictator, Russia will be brought to ruin. Guaranteed.

These examples you bring of how centuries ago tyrannical societies were relatively prosperous are non-sequiturs. They would be considered Third World nations today. The tyranny prevented technological development. If they would have embraced freedom then, the innovation would have started at that time and place instead.

Such an explosion of invention and economic prosperity was held back until people were free to benefit from their own efforts. Such an environment did not exist until limited government was institutionalized -- we all know when and where.

Freedom works. Period.

[Silverdragon]

I noticed another user with the name "Anonymosity" who got banned after only 73 posts, what happend and did I missed any action?

He was a Nazi or somthing

[Lokos]

It consistently operates whether we like it or not.

And what is this thing that consistently operates whether we like it or not? I ask you, one last time, to define it for me specifically, rather than vaguely, and practically, rather than theoretically.


Socio-politico-economic systems that adhere most closely to them provide peace and prosperity.

You've said this several times now. I ask you to provide authority and factual basis for this statement - otherwise it is nothing but your word, and I'm hesitant to accept it as the Truth and Nothing But The Truth.


Thus for example, if Putin continues to entrench himself as de facto dictator, Russia will be brought to ruin. Guaranteed.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. How can you guarantee this? On what basis? Explain this guaranteed downfall to me step by step. If Musharaff hasn't brought Pakistan to ruin, but has instead been adopted as the poster boy of a Muslim Ally, I do not understand what Putin is in danger from.

Russia IS in ruin. It is currently struggling to salvage itself. The system that affords Russians the opportunity to do this best may or may not be limited representative government. I wouldn't assume to make a judgement in regards to this either way. But I would also not assume to dogmatically reject any alternative out of hand simply because I like my own world view too much to see past it.


They would be considered Third World nations today.

And maybe the US will be considered a Third World nation by the standard of civilizations a thousand years from now. My point is undiminished by the temporal obscurity of my evidence.


The tyranny prevented technological development.

That's the third time you've repeated the same thing, and the third time I will ignore it as a totally irrelevant opinion and nothing else.


Such an explosion of invention and economic prosperity was held back until people were free to benefit from their own efforts.

Which is exactly why liberal representative governments began springing up after the Renaissance and the onset of the Industrial Revolution (and accompanying technological development), right? Which was the product, and which the machinist?


Freedom works. Period.

This is one of those tangents I was talking about.

Lokos

[BadMerlin]

M4ko,

Unless given by the men that you mocked in your disgusting pictures, there is no freedom of speech for you.

This board needs more moderators so you can clean up garbage like M4ko more rapidly. Vote for me as your moderator, and I promise within 24 hours more then 75% of people that post here, will be banned.

Someone make me a campaign banner too.

[Erik2a4]

M4ko,

Unless given by the men that you mocked in your disgusting pictures, there is no freedom of speech for you.

This board needs more moderators so you can clean up garbage like M4ko more rapidly. Vote for me as your moderator, and I promise within 24 hours more then 75% of people that post here, will be banned.

Someone make me a campaign banner too.

Shady, shady... 6 posts?..:roll:

[walford]

It consistently operates whether we like it or not. And what is this thing that consistently operates whether we like it or not? I ask you, one last time, to define it for me specifically, rather than vaguely, and practically, rather than theoretically. What you're asking would require a substantial volume to explicate. There is little motivation to go through the trouble with someone with virtually no common point of reference. However, there is plenty of material on my website that explores the subject from a theological point of view as well as a social science point of view.

The essential question is between seeking the objective or using human fallibility as proof that such a quest is impossible, so we must instead resign ourselves to the subjective. Those who profess utopian ideology hold that their arbitrary ideal can work if enough people believe in it. Those who do not -- just as with dogmatic religion -- are mortal threats and as such must be eliminated.

I am among those who hold that this is not only immoral, but impractical. I maintain that there is an optimal human condition that must be deliberately sought rather than artificially constructed. I further hold that freedom rather than tyranny is closer to that optimal condition.

If you do not agree, go and live in Cuba or North Korea. I tire of this wall-bashing. Forgive me if I drop out.

[Pandy]

I need a beer

[Lokos]

What you're asking would require a substantial volume to explicate.

Indeed.


here is little motivation to go through the trouble with someone with virtually no common point of reference.

Quite an assumption. The no common point of reference thing, that is. You're free to make it, however.


However, there is plenty of material on my website that explores the subject from a theological point of view as well as a social science point of view.

If your site explains the issue in the manner in which you are trying to explain it, I believe I've already heard the arguments made in favor of such a stance and have chosen to not accept them.


The essential question is between seeking the objective or using human fallibility as proof that such a quest is impossible, so we must instead resign ourselves to the subjective.

Rather, I see the question as one of a realism based on precedent and an idealism based on... nothing. 'The way things should be' must somehow correlate with 'The way things are'. Communism is despised as an ideal that does not take into account human nature. But you are not really presenting an ideal for me, or an argument against ideals - you're presenting a way of perceiving reality, and I do not believe it is necessarily the 'right' way, and most certainly not the only way.


I maintain that there is an optimal human condition that must be deliberately sought rather than artificially constructed.

Artifical construction of the 'optimal human condition' aside, why is your interpretation of the 'optimal human condition' more righteous, more correct than any other? Where is your authority for this? These are the questions you must answer. Otherwise, the debate boils down to 'No, you're wrong, and I'm right, and that's all there is to it' over and over again.


I further hold that freedom rather than tyranny is closer to that optimal condition.

Without getting into concepts such as the tyranny of freedom, I once again point out that this is nothing but opinion. Provide precedent.


If you do not agree, go and live in Cuba or North Korea. I tire of this wall-bashing. Forgive me if I drop out.

No more of this nonsense. I live in Australia and love the freedom this country provides. I'd never swap it for anything else. But that is MY feeling on the matter. I would not presume to tell the entire human race how to feel about it, nor would I presume to state that my feeling is typical of that of the rest of humanity.

Lokos

[vampireuk]

Freedom of speech? This is a privately owned message board hence freedom of speech does not apply. It amazes me how so many people talk about freedom of speech when they are using somebody elses private property.

[BadMerlin]

Shady, shady... 6 posts?..:roll:

7 now... besides, you want quality, or quantity?