GUNWOUNDS Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Your response has been duly noted.No, I'm not explaining myself again. I shouldn't have needed to the first time. It is too often that the moderator's actions that are called into question before the offender considers that he or she might have been at the slightest bit at fault.*sigh* Dont play the martyr.I will admit that my comments may have been unappropriate ... but the "last sentence" you objected to where i joked about a certain music band was meant to add some humor to "lighten up" the rebuke i gave him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUNWOUNDS Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 My 'personal distaste' for you, as a moderator, extends only insofar as you are repeatedly abusive. It is my view that repeat offenders do not begin with a clean slate in any given thread.I went back and checked my post history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted September 29, 2004 Author Share Posted September 29, 2004 What a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUNWOUNDS Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 But back on topic sounds like fun so we don't get into another hate thread.Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 I just want to note that I did not flame christianity. As a matter of fact, I am christian myself. I simply expressed my anger towards the people who try to spread and force it upon others. If you want to argue that people who do that are great and are in the right, go ahead, but I doubt you can put up a good enough point. This was relevant because I was comparing it to spreading democracy. You wouldn't really want some muslim leader coming in into your country for example and telling you to worship Allah now, would you? Then how about someone coming into your country, destroying your present government (no matter how hated it is) and telling you that everything will be great and amazing and freedom will reign? And in the end, the things and traditions that you cherished will be outlawed as barbaric for example and your country will be in a constant state of strife, with no real democracy at all as is right now in Iraq. Because I don't see a stabilized free and democratic Iraq, I see a nation torn apart by many forces, including the hatred of the foreigners who invaded them. This is very similar to european imperialism and the "White Man's burden". It is NOT your decision what government other countries will have or what future life they will lead. By taking away their own ability to make those choices you are taking away their main freedom - freedom to decide what they want. Maybe they want a dictator, a leader they can look up to and raise their children in his likeness? Not all dictators are horrible and vile people. There are actually those that care about the people and they have been seen throughout history, I will give you examples if you request them. In this case, yes, Saddam was a bad leader. But if you let this reaction to get out of hand, soon the leaders that aren't half bad will be overthrown for the greater good of democracy. It's time to stop with the democratic crusades. Â Haha, and do you truly think that US has 100% freedom? You're naive if you do. Only anarchy is 100% freedom, and plus, a lot of countries have more freedom than US - for example Canada. What takes away our freedoms are the acts that were passed in the past and even now - the Patriot act, the banning of certain abortion methods, the past Sedition and Espionage acts, banning of marijuana and other drugs. Whatcha going to think if someone for example links you to supporting terrorism through your computer and then you spend many years going through the court systems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUNWOUNDS Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUNWOUNDS Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Because I don't see a stabilized free and democratic Iraq, I see a nation torn apart by many forces, including the hatred of the foreigners who invaded them. Rome wasnt built in a day ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUNWOUNDS Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Maybe they want a dictator, a leader they can look up to and raise their children in his likeness? Not all dictators are horrible and vile people. There are actually those that care about the people and they have been seen throughout history, I will give you examples if you request them. In this case, yes, Saddam was a bad leader. But if you let this reaction to get out of hand, soon the leaders that aren't half bad will be overthrown for the greater good of democracy. It's time to stop with the democratic crusades. Sure.. the good old black slaves in the Southern states loved their masters too.... many of them were treated well.... fed well... some even slept with the master. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 So what? When the British, French and Germans established colonies in Africa and Asia they spread their modern technology and christianity. They thought they were helping those countries but in the end they were just hated for destroying native cultures. They carved China into spheres of influence and gave them technology, improved education, but guess what? All you really have to do is take a look at the Boxer rebellion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Have you a feeling that boxer rebellion, Gandhi, mahdists or whoever had support of whole country? I wouldn't say so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Did I say they did? That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 I wanted to explain, that hatred against foreign invaders in those countries was led only by a minority. Most of people were unaffected or took it as new. Whatever, loud voice is always easiest to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUNWOUNDS Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 exactly .... the loud minority is always trumpeting over the silent majority. And so people mistake them for the majority... be careful not to be fooled is what Caid is saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 The US is structured so that the majority wins, but insofar as they don't trample over the minority. Correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 You're american... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Actually, in the case of Boxer rebellion, the majority of the population were against the foreigners - but it's always the minority that does something about it. And think about it, at first they were just rebels and criminals, but then they gain the Empress' support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 You know when Jews wanted that murderer Barabbas to be freed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 "The US is structured so that the majority wins, but insofar as they don't trample over the minority. Correct?"That is the democratic intention.Whether that applies in the US is a different question. And when you look at it, the economic impetus behind the two main candidates means a decision is granted indeed to the majority, but with the effective choices limited by just a minority - the interests of those who own the media, those who own all facilities which are crucial to elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted October 6, 2004 Author Share Posted October 6, 2004 Ok, so Report: No WMD stockpiles in IraqSays that there was no WMD in Iraq.But Iran Readies Uranium for Enrichment, UN Watching basicly says that Iran can possibly make nuclear weapons with what they ARE doing, which they admitted to doing (not the bombs, but the enriched uranium).So USA should invade Iran immediately before the can make Nuke bombs and threaten USA security. ::)And Iran will obviously give the nuke bombs to terrorists if they make any. ::) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordos45 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Actually Andrew, not so much a joke. The Iranians have done some sword rattling about launching a pre-emptive strike against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've also got missiles to hit Europe now, which means all of Israel. Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if Bush Gets Re-Elected-->Bush Declares Iran to be doing something wrong-->Bush invades Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 I think Iran would have made a lot more sense to invade. It is much much more dangerous than Iraq was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exatreide Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Iran wouldnt fall like a house of cards though, those boys would fight for every inch of land... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUNWOUNDS Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Iran wouldnt fall like a house of cards though, those boys would fight for every inch of land...a few "daisy cutters" would fix that. no one is gonna stay and fight when they can feel the earth tremble miles away from a bomb blast. I believe Rumsfeld said it had a "demoralizing" effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 What is "daisy cutter" against nuclear weapons... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Iran has pretty advanced technology compared to Iraq - including chinese Silkworm missiles that can be used against US ships. China is obviously backing Iran against the US' possible invasion. It would be incredibly stupid to invade Iran and many americans would die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.