| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
Comments:
<0> yup!!!
<0> where you at AzRedneck?
<1> I bet Arizona.
<1> You yayo.
<0> well duh, I know AZ
<0> i mean are you a Sedona new age hippy, or a glitzy phoenix yuppy?
<2> Who runs this channel Liberals or smart people?
<0> smart ppl
<2> :P
<3> mawst, "neither"
<3> :P
<2> aww
<0> what would you say if libertarians run this channel?
<2> That it's ironic that people that want the liberty to do anything they want are in charge of something and willing to take a responsibility role.
<2> :D
<0> on good thing about hosting a party... you don't have to woory about driving home drunk... you're already home!
<0> hey bud
<2> So who wants to argue.
<2> I'm in the mood.
<0> i'll take you on
<3> mawt, u l0z l0lz
<4> hi panini
<0> any side, any position
<2> Yeah?
<0> yeah
<2> Ok you start then.
<0> ok.... abortion is cool
<2> Then why not abort yourself? It would solve the problem of me having to argue with you.
<5> 10 seconds ago he wanted an argument.
<0> it's choice, man
<2> Choice?
<2> What;s good about choice?
<3> Without it there is no life?
<2> Other than complete and utter lack of responsibility?
<0> freedom of thought... freedom of choice
<3> And life is inherently good from a survivalist angle.
<2> Freedom of thought... Good. Freedom of choice, as in "free will" is good. Freedom to act how one wishes is an irresponsible selfish wish.
<3> Freedom to act how you wish is reality.
<0> freedom of choice is essential to any enlightened modern philosophy
<3> If I punch someone in the face becasue I wished it so, then I have done it.
<2> How one acts has consequences though.
<3> I'll just face the consequences for it.
<3> mawst, doesn't mean there is no freedom though.
<3> Everything has consequences
<3> yet people act.
<2> I suppose scientifically speaking.
<2> THe question is should you be allowed to do what you want regardless of how it affects others?
<0> well my freedom stops at the tip of your nose... but it extends to my uterus (if I had a uterus)
<3> lol
<3> mawst, should you? No. But the question is moot cause people do it all the time.
<2> It's just as feasable that if you had a uterus, the tip of my nose would begin there (as in being inside of it) and it's my opinion, aborting me is worse than a punch.
<3> Everyone has freedom of choice and action and thought.
<5> Ewww... mawst is inside panini's uterus.
<3> lol
<2> P_O, doing things or accepting things because "people do it all the time" Is that freedom? Or is it just following the herd?
<2> Doesn't sound like free will.
<3> Where did I say to do or accept things that people do all the time?
<0> lol
<3> I'm saying that asking whether it should be done is moot cause people will continue to do it.
<2> Some will, some will not.
<2> The question is should it be allowed.
<2> :D
<3> I think it depends entirely on the situation.
<3> If people didn't act when it would affect others
<3> there'd be no action.
<2> Exactly. And we'd all be left to someone else's decision.
<2> Which isn't very freedom like.
<2> I'll live if you choose not to kill me.
<2> Doesn's sound very promising.
<2> So I say, Bomb Iran.
<2> Bomb North Korea, Syria while we're at it.
<2> Nuke Russia and China.
<2> :D
<2> And drop an EMP on Germany for fun.
<2> Ok ok ok. No bombing.
<0> yer pretty cavalier about dropping bombs
<2> But seriously, regime changes need to take place in several countries.
<0> but it doesn't sound like you'vethought it through
<2> Well.
<2> I think typically when people say things like "bomb them" they see a problem that they want to go away. But if someone thinks about it I think they'll realize that just blasting someone off the planet isn't the answer.
<2> I'll concede though that we need a better system for getting rid of certain regimes.
<5> Every regime is different, hard to have a 'system' to counter them.
<2> True. But I don't think we had a sufficient plan when it came to Iraq.
<0> corect
<2> I do get angry about opposition to the war though.
<0> we (bush) expected *much* more enthusiasm and cooperationfrom the iraqi ppl
<2> It also bothers me that people seem to think we went in there for "weapons of m*** destruction".
<0> that's didn't happen
<0> no, we didn't
<5> WMDs were the big headlines... not surprising that people gravitated to that concept.
<0> we went in for regime change
<2> It's amazing how many people believe that though.
<5> violating ceasefire agreements and such aren't much for a grabbing headline.
<2> 10 years of shooting at our planes wasn't a big enough deal I guess.
<5> Well we were flying over their country.
<0> well, clinton ignored it for a decade
<5> It's not like we'd let Iraqi fighter jets fly over cleveland.
<2> We fly over countries all the time. But if someone ELSE shot at several of our planes, it would have been war instantly.
<5> We fly over countries we have permission to fly over.
<3> No Fly Zone has a pretty clear meaning.
<2> Indeed.
<5> It was still Iraqi airspace as far as Iraq was concerned.
<6> when you lose a war, there are conditions given by the winner
<6> such was the case with Iraq following the Gulf War
<5> Well the no-fly zones weren't one of the conditions... those came later.
<6> those were immediate
<5> They were a result of Iraq's violation of the post-war conditions.
<6> no-fly zones went in place even during the war
<6> we won,we set the rules of the post-war
<6> "you fly, you die" was one saying
<5> Technically the UN set the rules of the post-war.
<5> The no fly zones weren't approved until later.
<6> well a coalition, of which we were the leader
<6> not the UN itself
<6> the UN didn't set no-fly zones
<6> the USA set them during the war itself
<6> and we didn't need approval
<5> The UN was technically running the show... no matter how much the US was running it.
<6> that's exactly reverse
<5> The ceasefire agreement was between Iraq and the UN.
<6> trh USA was technically running it, no matter how much the UN thought they were
<6> General Schwatzkopf ran the war
<6> +r
<6> and Powell
<5> With the blessings of the UN.
<6> no the UN does not engage in war
<5> But the entire conflict wasn't US vs Iraq... it was UN vs Iraq.
<6> the UN is not a combatant
<5> The US played the lead nation of the coalition.
<6> no it was a coalition vs Iraq
<6> a coalition built by Bush's dad , not the UN
<6> and the coalition was not the UN
<5> Unfortunately the m***ive US influence means little in the grand scheme of things... it was a UN show, even though the US was the lead actor.
<6> only to the extent that Bush allowed it
<6> which he did
<5> After the war the US put the UN in the back seat because the UN wasn't enforcing its own resolutions on the matter.
<6> but he didn't "have to"
<5> Well, the important fact is that he did.
<5> As you said.
<6> well, even the Gulf War itself was a result of the inability of the UN to enforce anything
<6> they begged us to do it fore them, so we set the rules of engagement
<6> for
<6> Bush backed off from Baghdad, in hindsight it would have been good had he not
<6> but he desired to follow the UN's wishes
<5> It wasn't until after the war had been over for many months that the US finally made it official policy to enforce the ceasefire agreement ourselves in light of the UN not enforcing it.
<6> it was off and on, but those no-fly zones were dynamic as well
<6> they changed as we needed them to
<5> We may have 'let them' be in charge to the extent that we 'let them.' But that doesn't change the fact that they were in charge.
<6> Iraq was essentiually occupied by air since then
<6> well, no, since we "let them" we were in charge
<5> If you let someone else be in charge, they are in charge.
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#red
#windows
#gamedev
#politics
geforce_7600 test
#windows
windowsxp 64bit for intel
delphi lock a form
#solaris
make a realtime flash
|
|