Bombing the fuck out of hyena
- Thread starter Thanatos
- Start date
rahvin
keeper of the flame
there goes an interesting thread about politics... 
you see, salmy, nobody argues over politics here, they're too busy playing love games.
rahvin.
you see, salmy, nobody argues over politics here, they're too busy playing love games.
rahvin.
Originally posted by rahvin
there goes an interesting thread about politics...
you see, salmy, nobody argues over politics here, they're too busy playing love games.
rahvin.
I guess so, oh well, I wouldn't care right now anyway (about politics) or anything else for that matter.
Holy bubu, I was forgetting I had to answer this thread. But tonight I saw "Dr. Strangelove" at Wolfy's and it came back to my mind.
I will try to expose my point of view in a reduced number of lines so I do not bore you to death. Let's address the questions in no particular order.
1)Why am I pro-war? I am pro-war because I think that there is evidence of hostile intentions directed towards the USA and the rest of the Western world on the part of a number of countries, and I also think it is not in my interest to support such intentions or even advocate a behavior that does not conduct to eradication of political support for them.
When I mention "evidence", I refer to several reports about the repeated efforts of nations such as North Korea and Iraq in order to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Of course people can read, say, the Report of the National Commission for Missile Defense and decide it's partial, but I tend to believe such documents. It is pretty obvious that destitute populaces guided by fundamentalists, either islamic or marxist, would want to be aggressive towards those who are clearly better off and, according to their prevailing doctrine, living in corruption. It is pretty obvious that leaders who feel antagonistic towards the West, both for ideological and economic reasons, would want to keep arms that are as powerful as possible.
Now, suppose such "rogue states" are here and they have extensive firepower. Of course they don't have the firepower of the United States, but we've seen a lot of times in history that you don't need to know that you can defend yourself before deciding to attack. We have seen that deviated Muslims have no problems in deciding to attack New York and kill thousands, why shouldn't we try to prevent a second strike? My "bombing the fuck out of Iraq" point was of this sort: this country has repeatedly disobeyed international orders, it has invaded its neighbor ten years ago, it is led by a dictator who doesn't seem able to cope with the UN or anything different from his own regime. I have no appreciation toward the possibility of innocent people being bombed by Saddam Hussein, and I tend to think that dictators should be removed. Therefore I support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, before they do something none of us would like. Remember that Al Qaeda might not have H bombs, Saddam possibly has them, and bad ones at that, old weapons whose effects are difficul to gauge.
The point that the American government might have vested interests in pursuing this goal might be valid, I honestly do not know, but it does not disprove the necessity of keeping potentially aggressive military juntas at bay.
2) Why do I support the Bush administration/team/agenda? Now that is a long one, because it equates to going into the detail of my political persuasion. It's quite late now so I will pass on that for the moment, but I promise that I will get back soon.
3) The freedom of speech point. I think rahvin had a very good response here. There's national or even just plain general security issues that demand certain restrictions of personal freedom: nobody is saying that those restrictions are good, they are a necessary evil (did you hear me, o tr00 black metallers? i said "necessary evil", am i trendy or what?). It's a bit like stop-and-search: I reckon there's a good use and a misled use of such a prerogative of law enforcement agencies, but on a conceptual basis I am not against it. Same goes for censorship: I don't endorse its use, but potential coded messages for terrorists and grindcore lyrics should be subject to it anytime.
Enough for now, will go on one day.
hyena
I will try to expose my point of view in a reduced number of lines so I do not bore you to death. Let's address the questions in no particular order.
1)Why am I pro-war? I am pro-war because I think that there is evidence of hostile intentions directed towards the USA and the rest of the Western world on the part of a number of countries, and I also think it is not in my interest to support such intentions or even advocate a behavior that does not conduct to eradication of political support for them.
When I mention "evidence", I refer to several reports about the repeated efforts of nations such as North Korea and Iraq in order to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Of course people can read, say, the Report of the National Commission for Missile Defense and decide it's partial, but I tend to believe such documents. It is pretty obvious that destitute populaces guided by fundamentalists, either islamic or marxist, would want to be aggressive towards those who are clearly better off and, according to their prevailing doctrine, living in corruption. It is pretty obvious that leaders who feel antagonistic towards the West, both for ideological and economic reasons, would want to keep arms that are as powerful as possible.
Now, suppose such "rogue states" are here and they have extensive firepower. Of course they don't have the firepower of the United States, but we've seen a lot of times in history that you don't need to know that you can defend yourself before deciding to attack. We have seen that deviated Muslims have no problems in deciding to attack New York and kill thousands, why shouldn't we try to prevent a second strike? My "bombing the fuck out of Iraq" point was of this sort: this country has repeatedly disobeyed international orders, it has invaded its neighbor ten years ago, it is led by a dictator who doesn't seem able to cope with the UN or anything different from his own regime. I have no appreciation toward the possibility of innocent people being bombed by Saddam Hussein, and I tend to think that dictators should be removed. Therefore I support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, before they do something none of us would like. Remember that Al Qaeda might not have H bombs, Saddam possibly has them, and bad ones at that, old weapons whose effects are difficul to gauge.
The point that the American government might have vested interests in pursuing this goal might be valid, I honestly do not know, but it does not disprove the necessity of keeping potentially aggressive military juntas at bay.
2) Why do I support the Bush administration/team/agenda? Now that is a long one, because it equates to going into the detail of my political persuasion. It's quite late now so I will pass on that for the moment, but I promise that I will get back soon.
3) The freedom of speech point. I think rahvin had a very good response here. There's national or even just plain general security issues that demand certain restrictions of personal freedom: nobody is saying that those restrictions are good, they are a necessary evil (did you hear me, o tr00 black metallers? i said "necessary evil", am i trendy or what?). It's a bit like stop-and-search: I reckon there's a good use and a misled use of such a prerogative of law enforcement agencies, but on a conceptual basis I am not against it. Same goes for censorship: I don't endorse its use, but potential coded messages for terrorists and grindcore lyrics should be subject to it anytime.
Enough for now, will go on one day.
hyena
Its all a matter of how far your prepared to go to see how safe you are.
Having lived in London all my life, I'm fairly keen on the idea of no terrorists.
I don't have the neccesary knowledge to say whether this means a pre-emptive strike against Iraq is neccesary for this aim, or whether it would even be a misfire move, bringing the Fundamentalists of Islam even closer together against us and making it a state of neccesary war.
Personally, I feel that the Western Countries should try a little more effective stamping down at home before we go after anyone else.
Oh, and this made me laugh...
Amen!
Having lived in London all my life, I'm fairly keen on the idea of no terrorists.
I don't have the neccesary knowledge to say whether this means a pre-emptive strike against Iraq is neccesary for this aim, or whether it would even be a misfire move, bringing the Fundamentalists of Islam even closer together against us and making it a state of neccesary war.
Personally, I feel that the Western Countries should try a little more effective stamping down at home before we go after anyone else.
Oh, and this made me laugh...
Amen!
Dark_Jester
Unrepentant sentient
This seems like an ongoing thing between the 'Love' party and the 'War' party
'Make love not war'...no? No-one going for that idea?
Bah, fine, I'll just get back to launching cannon balls at random oil tankers then...
And as far as the pro-war stance goes, I feel by now it is a case of grim necessity. I may not like it, but I accept that it may have to happen...although I agree with WanderingBlade in tackling it at home first...case in point for anyone that knows it is Oldham...you know what I'm talkin bout Blade-dude?
'Make love not war'
...no? No-one going for that idea?Bah, fine, I'll just get back to launching cannon balls at random oil tankers then...
And as far as the pro-war stance goes, I feel by now it is a case of grim necessity. I may not like it, but I accept that it may have to happen...although I agree with WanderingBlade in tackling it at home first...case in point for anyone that knows it is Oldham...you know what I'm talkin bout Blade-dude?
I'm not in the army, I'm not doing the killing, I'm free to make love as I wish
Anyway, wasn't Oldham the place with race riots a while back? I remember somewhere up north had them, but not exactly which town (they're all just northern shitholes in my book)
Anyway, wasn't Oldham the place with race riots a while back? I remember somewhere up north had them, but not exactly which town (they're all just northern shitholes in my book
)
rahvin
keeper of the flame
most of the times i like making love better than war myself, but i reckon there's a need to prevent some ppl from deciding how and when and why and with whom i should make love. unfortunately, islamic sexual habits differ a lot from those i'm used to, and i have no intention of bending to other ppl's will on the subject, unless it's just one specific individual and of the female persuasion.
rahvin.
unfortunately, islamic sexual habits differ a lot from those i'm used to, and i have no intention of bending to other ppl's will on the subject, unless it's just one specific individual and of the female persuasion. rahvin.
Misanthrope
Latin, NOT Mexican.
Do you wanna exchange lives with me? Because you know, im fucking tired of being aware of the reality, i rather have your " i belive everything U.S.A. and the press they control" attitute for a change, it must be very relaxing to watch innocents die for the greed of fucking oil without caring about it.
no thanks. one of the advantages of my uneducated, propaganda-prone approach is that i succumbed to one principle taught by evil, conspiring schools and books, ie answer a detailed argument in kind and not with generic accusations. this is, of course, representative of how much i swallow what the system directs at me, but i have seen in several situations that is is pretty helpful when it comes to proving a point.
hyena (they practice exclusions on the masses every day)
I tend to agree with you on this...
well, it's not like they were so bored that they decided that that far away country known as the US was evil and had to be vaporized, and don't get me wrong, I acknowldege that the main reason of their poverty is their own fault, as is with most mid-eastern, african and latin american countries, BUT don't tell me that the US is a peaceful, sovereignity (is the word right?)respecting, gentle country... I bet you know what "american imperialism" is, as opposed to european capitalism...they still screw people with their sweatshops, but not as much as the fucking USA, I think they earned those countries hatred towards them, and I don't see either why would europeans support that kind of policies, speaking of Sept. 11, the US has improved it's defence and surveillance systems (yadda yadda) so now that it is harder to set up nice fireworks inside it's borders the terrorists will turn their eyes to the more vulnerable, though less evil than US Europe (maybe).
About freedom speech I admit that your argumentation is right so...nothing to tell about that here..I still have a lot to comment about your reply and hyena's...to come later
Thanatos (not knowing why is he discussing such things, when he'd rather nuke the fuck out of everybody)
the sweatshop argument lacks perspective. the sweatshop economy has been, so far, a necessary phase in the development of all nations. italian children worked 15 hours per day 100 years ago, and i'm just lucky i was born in the post-industrial phase. now i could write a short essay on this but i have to work, will do if anyone is interested.
and no, i do not think that fundamentalists are going to bomb europe (or at least my country) anytime soon. i am more concerned with what silliness could pervade no-global activists, especially since their anger seems to be more and more focused on EU institutions.
hyena
and no, i do not think that fundamentalists are going to bomb europe (or at least my country) anytime soon. i am more concerned with what silliness could pervade no-global activists, especially since their anger seems to be more and more focused on EU institutions.
hyena
Similar threads
