the dynamite politics thread

[Villain]

Uh, I guess I should have had another smiley in my previous post...

Anyways, to avoid further misconceptions: There's nothing in this conflict that makes me happy in any way - I simply can't see anything positive in it whatsoever. Thus, my previous comment was made 100% in jest (and I really thought that was obvious, but I guess I was wrong). Humour, even that of most poor quality, is, after all, a way for a human being to cope with all the negative things happening around.

However, to be perfectly honest, if I heard that Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld had just died, I would most probably laugh a long and relieved laughter. And I believe a majority of the world's population would do the same.

I just saw a nice picture about the subject - I guess I'll try to post it here...

-Villain

 

[Villain]

Let's see if this works...

 

[Villain]

It appears to be working. The best part of it is definitely the text at the top. Tells about all of this current situation, in my honest opinion.

Although I think the text Send them to Nüremberg would have fit better (or perhaps, Hang 'em High).

-Villain

 

[rahvin]

Although I think the text Send them to Nüremberg would have fit better (or perhaps, Hang 'em High).

what about come on, punk, make my day?

rahvin. (shot the sheriff)

 

[Thanatos]

@ville:

 

[Villain]

Oh, in the view of the recent news, I must comment here:

on one hand, i can't stand the idea that british and american soldiers are dying because of the shitey peace marches in well-off western countries and their effect on the american administration's resolve.

If those peace marches and protests with their effect on the American administration's resolve save ONE of the hundreds of innocent civilians currently mercilessly slaughtered by triggerhappy fascist soldiers, its worth more than a thousand killed servants of the Oil and Military industries of America.

-Villain

 

[hyena]

@ville: of course, being that you are not stupid, you know that soldiers on either side have families, friends etc. i don't see how loss on someone's part is better or worse than loss on someone else's part. and you might also know that the manoeuvres needed to keep in check civilian casualties are far too often the ones that make them rise in the long-run. let me make this clear: if you bomb baghdad, kill 10,000 and get in, the war might end. if you drag along, this will not result in the war being stopped, but in 50,000 dead, civilians and otherwise, in 6 months. so there.

 

[rahvin]

let me make this clear: if you bomb baghdad, kill 10,000 and get in, the war might end. if you drag along, this will not result in the war being stopped, but in 50,000 dead, civilians and otherwise, in 6 months. so there.

however, that's how things are right now since they planned it very badly before. at some point, someone ought to pay for massive civilian losses on either side. not pay with their lives, no, but how about an overpaid job they're not really competent at?

rahvin.

 

[Villain]

@ville: of course, being that you are not stupid, you know that soldiers on either side have families, friends etc. i don't see how loss on someone's part is better or worse than loss on someone else's part.

The difference here being that every single American soldier there had a choice not to go and fight - very few of the Iraqi civilians had any choice ever. In my book, every American (and British) soldier in Iraq is willing to die (and kill) for a fascist cause, and thus deserves no pity. If the Iraqis kill 10 000 Americans now, there is that much less Americans attacking the next country their fascist leaders tell them to attack - be it Iran, China, France, Finland or Italy. Every American soldier killed now is a small step towards a better world, IMHO.

And with your math of the less people killed the better, if you go and shoot Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and about a dozen or so American generals, the war is over with minimal losses.

Or, if you kill about a hundred American oil and military industrialists now, in ten years you have probably saved thousands of lives.

Or if you nuke every major city in the USA now, killing about 200 million people, in hundred years or so you might have saved the whole mankind!

-Villain (dead serious on the first two, almost serious in the last one)

 

[rahvin]

The difference here being that every single American soldier there had a choice not to go and fight - very few of the Iraqi civilians had any choice ever. In my book, every American (and British) soldier in Iraq is willing to die (and kill) for a fascist cause, and thus deserves no pity. If the Iraqis kill 10 000 Americans now, there is that much less Americans attacking the next country their fascist leaders tell them to attack - be it Iran, China, France, Finland or Italy. Every American soldier killed now is a small step towards a better world, IMHO.

i'm not convinced that every american soldier went there on the spur of fascist motivations or a violent nature. american citizenship is way different from us europeans, and in my opinion - from what i've seen - the vast majority of them has a deep-set belief that they are bringing a betterment in the living conditions of other ppl every time they step on foreign ground while led by ppl who have all those cynical reasons i sure wouldn't want to deny. we can discuss whether this is true, partially true, or false, but i'm convinced the actual soldiers feel it, and i've been told by my favourite teddy that i should not hope for the death of someone who's not consciously trying to do evil. just that.

And with your math of the less people killed the better, if you go and shoot Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and about a dozen or so American generals, the war is over with minimal losses.

i don't think this would work at all, sorry. but you should see it yourself. first you spend some time trying to prove that the war is something that stems from the states' imperialistic attitude (i agree, btw), then you seem to fall for the "let's single out the guy at the top" scam. in regards to bush, in particular, i think we should be aware that throught the whole history of the usa, there was no president who got elected with such a small advantage in terms of valid votes that was not a total puppet in the hands of his administration. the very same thing happened with kennedy. so we can joke about bush and use it in curses and swearwords, but if he goes down, another identical puppet will come to divert attention from the real decisions and the corridors where they are taken.

Or, if you kill about a hundred American oil and military industrialists now, in ten years you have probably saved thousands of lives.

same as above. as if there ever was a shortage of would-be industrial managers. possibly you mean to say the whole economic system should be reformed, because you're definitely too smart to believe this is a consequence of malignant little bald men blinded by greed. i mean, of course they are blinded by greed, but there's no option to put the "good guys" at the top. you either make do with the bad ones or revolutionalize everything. and maybe that's the best choice, but i'd like to hear suggestions as to how. and suggestions that do not include slaughtering half of the population of the planet then living happily everafter. suggestions that foster a different political configuration, different relationships between countries, and so on. otherwise - as i suspect - the only part you have got planned is the one where you do the damage.

Or if you nuke every major city in the USA now, killing about 200 million people, in hundred years or so you might have saved the whole mankind!

not only do i think we have no way to know what will save mankind in ten years, let alone one hundred. not only do i think that the assumption of knowing such a thing is - with due respect for your opinions - as blindly fanatical as any flag-waving imperialism can be and more. but i'm also convinced that no matter how much we can dislike the entirety of the american politics of the past fifty years, hoping for a victory of the other side in this war just plain shows a limited grasp of international politics, which has one of its manifestation in a tendency to see things in either black or white, instead of the thousands of shades of grey that we are forced - have i stressed forced? - to accept as part of complex economical, military, and social relations.
it is my belief that many, many things can be done to make it better, to reduce friction and find a way for some healthy progress to set in, but this is not gonna happen by denying that these shades of gray exist right now, and that they are a heritage of humankind that you cannot dismiss by nuking thousands of people of whatever persuasion.

rahvin.

 

[zodi]

OMG this is a change. On the other webboards where I care to read about the war, anyone who doesn't support Bushs war politics and USAs rigth to defend themselves against this threat, to take back Iraqs oilresources to its people and free them from tyranny (etc), gets flames by large american mob who knows english much better than, err... me.

It's also fun to read about their boycotts against France and the hate againts all the igorant stupid terroist supporting french All of them are much more PO on the French people then on Saddam.

Is that how most americans think -- even the ones who litsen to DT?

 

[Salamurhaaja]

let me make this clear: if you bomb baghdad, kill 10,000 and get in, the war might end. if you drag along, this will not result in the war being stopped, but in 50,000 dead, civilians and otherwise, in 6 months. so there.

Or gee, lets make this crystal, lets not attack Iraq at all and kill
anyone. See, this is what me and Ville are driving at, this whole
war is totally pointless.

@rahvin
If you think killing the US leaders doesn't help, then how in the FUCK
is killing the Iraqi leaders supposed to help make Iraq better?

The only way, replace them with pro-US leaders and well, after this
attack, I don't think there are many who will, in the end, be tolerated
by the Iraqi people, your argument is thus null and void, kinda like
Bushes brain is of brain cells.

 

[rahvin]

@rahvin
If you think killing the US leaders doesn't help, then how in the FUCK
is killing the Iraqi leaders supposed to help make Iraq better?

in fact, i don't think it will, i don't think this is the real purpose of this war, i don't think iraqi leaders are even there to be killed anymore.

this war is certainly part of a plot to control the middle-east. i'm also sure more will follow (syria, for once). please stop with the inference that if i do not condemn the very idea of this conflict and instantly side with petty dictators this means i can't see through rhetorical schemes such as "bringing freedom and democracy to the xyz people".
on the other hand, i think that despite what the real intentions of the usa are, freedom and democracy are still easier obtained this than allowing freelance criminals to burn oil resources in order to threaten the west. the stress here is not on the threat, or the west.

@zodi: opeth off-topic is largely anti-american, and there's a considerable quantity of bashing. care to take a look?

rahvin.

 

[Thanatos]

I don't think Salmy is siding with Saddam or any other dictator, I think it's pretty clear he's one of the bad guys (Saddam, not Salmy ), but it doesn't give Bush (baddest guy of them all) the right to bomb his country, and I don't think freedom and democracy will be reached trhough the ruling of a country like the US that censors it's own news agencies and violates human rights and any international treaty that crosses it's path, sure, maybe it favors "democracy" and "freedom" to a certain extent, as long as it doesn't get to be real democracy or real freedom, because that would eventually harm it's ruling over the world.

 

[Malaclypse]

it was nearly on page 2...

tsts

 

[wildfyr]

Chameleon, Villain, & Salamurhaaha: fuck you sideways for wishing Americans dead.

zodi: Pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon?

rahvin: the off-topic Opeth forum is largely adolescent too.

 

[rahvin]

rahvin: the off-topic Opeth forum is largely adolescent too.

when it comes to political opinions, it seems to me not many of them on either side address the problem in any other way beside easy declarations based on "good" and "evil". the funny thing is, this over-simplification is far more widespread among those who criticize the bush administration the most, and among those who are a part of the bush administration.

btw, chameleons does not exist, so it might be harder to fuck her sideways.

rahvin.

 

[wildfyr]

rahvin,

i agree that there doesn't seem to be an agreeable solution for everyone. i understand that opinions and emotions regarding this issue are volatile and extreme but wishing all Americans dead because of the actions of our current government administration is absurd. and, i will tell those who feel that way to go fuck off sideways regardless of their gender.

 

[rahvin]

rahvin,

i agree that there doesn't seem to be an agreeable solution for everyone. i understand that opinions and emotions regarding this issue are volatile and extreme but wishing all Americans dead because of the actions of our current government administration is absurd. and, i will tell those who feel that way to go fuck off sideways regardless of their gender.

and what has this to do with anything i said about the childishness of opinioners? i thought i was agreeing with you, actually... well, i better stop meddling.

btw, chameleons can be hard to fuck off sideways because she does not exist, not because of their gender. does that help?

rahvin.

 

[wildfyr]

and what has this to do with anything i said about the childishness of opinioners?

i don't know. what did you say about it? i'm not so sure i understand you very well lately. you write a lot of words but i must get lost in the translation somewhere.

i thought i was agreeing with you, actually... well, i better stop meddling.

huh? i thought i was agreeing with you as well about there being no good solution for all.

btw, chameleons can be hard to fuck off sideways because she does not exist, not because of their gender. does that help?

rahvin.

? ok. you got me on this one too it seems. i'm sorry did i not spell the name correctly or something? did i forget to pluralize? sorry about that if i did. i was addressing 3 people (gender unimportant) who wished Americans dead. i hope that's clear now.