(Close Window)
Topic: One of the best ways to keep peace is to be prepared for war. - General George Washington
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 6, 2010 04:54PM)
Do you agree?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 6, 2010 05:06PM)
Yes.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 6, 2010 05:08PM)
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill

Agreed.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 6, 2010 05:23PM)
And besides, nukes make fine furniture when you add the glass tops or cushions - and also great ways to teach the kids to program computers. It's the new art-deco. Look for the glowing triangle logo at finer housewares suppliers. I hear Jhane Barnes is even doing special runs of inspired fabric designs for this new "arm your home for nuclear peace" initiative.

ahem ;)
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Sep 6, 2010 05:30PM)
Yes.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 6, 2010 06:17PM)
Yes.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 6, 2010 06:27PM)
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90

"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 6, 2010 06:41PM)
"One of the best ways to keep peace is to be prepared for war."

The statement is vague enough that it would be hard for me to disagree that it is probably true at least some of the time, in some situations.

But I have to observe that a nation undergoing militarization, or getting to be prepared for war, must be one of the best ways to induce other nations to attack it. Lots of examples of this throughout history.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 6, 2010 06:44PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-06 18:08, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill

Agreed.
[/quote]
Love those rough men in the night. So manly with their big guns. Surely the Prince of Peace smiles at the thought of them.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 6, 2010 06:46PM)
Continuing my earlier message, as my attempted edit was too slow to take, ...

I think the truer statement is "One of the best ways to keep another nation from attacking is to be prepared for war".

Another is "Being prepared for war means that you are more likely to declare one yourself".
Message: Posted by: Josh the Superfluous (Sep 6, 2010 07:01PM)
My mom ran into my attorney, and told him how well things were going after my divorce. He told her that I should be taking notes. His experience confirms the saying.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 6, 2010 07:21PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-06 19:46, balducci wrote:
Continuing my earlier message, as my attempted edit was too slow to take, ...

I think the truer statement is "One of the best ways to keep another nation from attacking is to be prepared for war".

Another is "Being prepared for war means that you are more likely to declare one yourself".
[/quote]


"A man feared that he might find an assassin;
Another that he might find a victim.
One was more wise than the other."

-Stephen Crane
Message: Posted by: Josh the Superfluous (Sep 6, 2010 07:39PM)
How do you interpret that one, Lobo? It doesn't make sense to me....
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 6, 2010 07:40PM)
Poor GDW, pulling suitable quotes from Jefferson while ignoring what the fellow was saying. He believed EVERY male (even you lil' guy if you were alive then) should be trained as a defensive militia and be obligated to have weapons in order to fight should the country be invaded. He, of course, was not stupid enough to think this was enough and he realized a standing army was needed for foriegn expeditions and he was very much in favor of a strong and well equiped navy. You imply that Jefferson was a pacifist and anti military, uh uh. He did not approve of a military over the civil govt which a republic such as the US has never had. Jefferson would have shot a knife welding whittler had he approached him.

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation." --Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

"Militia do well for hasty enterprises but cannot be relied on for lengthy service and out of their own country." --Thomas Jefferson to North Carolina Assembly, 1781. FE 2:480, Papers 5:54

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261

"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.

"Against great land armies we cannot attempt defense but by equal armies. For these we must depend on a classified militia, which will give us the service of the class from twenty to twenty-six, in the nature of conscripts,... to be specially trained. This measure, attempted at a former session, was pressed at the last, and might, I think, have been carried by a small majority. But considering that great innovations should not be forced on a slender majority, and seeing that the general opinion is sensibly rallying to it, it was thought better to let it lie over to the next session, when, I trust, it will be passed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Armstrong, 1808.

"Convinced that a militia of all ages promiscuously are entirely useless for distant service, and that we never shall be safe until we have a selected corps for a year's distant service at least, the classification of our militia is now the most essential thing the United States have to do. Whether on Bonaparte's plan of making a class for every year between certain periods, or that recommended in my message, I do not know, but I rather incline to his." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1807. ME 11:202

more quotes available since Jefferson was rather yappy....
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 6, 2010 07:55PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-06 20:39, Josh the Superfluous wrote:
How do you interpret that one, Lobo? It doesn't make sense to me....
[/quote]

I believe that Crane's first guy had the commonplace that something horrible would happen to him, whereas the second (wiser) guy was afraid with the (less common, but wiser) concern that one might himself victimize someone in the course of his day.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 6, 2010 08:41PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-06 20:40, MagicSanta wrote:
Poor GDW, pulling suitable quotes from Jefferson while ignoring what the fellow was saying. He believed EVERY male (even you lil' guy if you were alive then) should be trained as a defensive militia and be obligated to have weapons in order to fight should the country be invaded. He, of course, was not stupid enough to think this was enough and he realized a standing army was needed for foriegn expeditions and he was very much in favor of a strong and well equiped navy. You imply that Jefferson was a pacifist and anti military, uh uh. He did not approve of a military over the civil govt which a republic such as the US has never had. Jefferson would have shot a knife welding whittler had he approached him.

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation." --Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

"Militia do well for hasty enterprises but cannot be relied on for lengthy service and out of their own country." --Thomas Jefferson to North Carolina Assembly, 1781. FE 2:480, Papers 5:54

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261

"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.

"Against great land armies we cannot attempt defense but by equal armies. For these we must depend on a classified militia, which will give us the service of the class from twenty to twenty-six, in the nature of conscripts,... to be specially trained. This measure, attempted at a former session, was pressed at the last, and might, I think, have been carried by a small majority. But considering that great innovations should not be forced on a slender majority, and seeing that the general opinion is sensibly rallying to it, it was thought better to let it lie over to the next session, when, I trust, it will be passed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Armstrong, 1808.

"Convinced that a militia of all ages promiscuously are entirely useless for distant service, and that we never shall be safe until we have a selected corps for a year's distant service at least, the classification of our militia is now the most essential thing the United States have to do. Whether on Bonaparte's plan of making a class for every year between certain periods, or that recommended in my message, I do not know, but I rather incline to his." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1807. ME 11:202

more quotes available since Jefferson was rather yappy....
[/quote]

"Jefferson would have shot a knife welding whittler had he approached him." The knife wielder was approached by the cop, not the other way around. If that''s gonna be enough of a justification for you then the cop should be the one bleeding in the streets.

And jesus ******* christ how ingnorent are you.

"He believed EVERY male (even you lil' guy if you were alive then) should be trained as a defensive militia and be obligated to have weapons in order to fight should the country be invaded."

He believed they should be allowed to be armed and defend themselves, not that they are obligated to.

And in regards to the quotes you imply I cherry picked, I literally googled "Jefferson" and "standing army" and then copied and pasted.

I am well aware of views on a militia, and the point is there is a difference between a militia and a standing army.

I said absolutely nothing about people not being prepared to defend themselves, in fact I did not say a good god ***** thing. Again, merely copied and pasted, and did so to simply provide another person's view point on defending one's "country."
Never said anything to even imply that it was a contrary one. Simply more insight into what is possible, rather than parroting pro military propaganda.

How about you try not assuming so much next time.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 6, 2010 08:56PM)
Noooo. he felt they were obligated to do so. He said it pumpkin'. I thought the point you were making is that Jefferson was the man and his word was rule?

see this quote?

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261

Not much gray area there slick, the whole, meaning in its entirety, all of 'em, danglers trained, innies not, got it? Danglers with the soul of an innie trained, innies who wanted to be danglers....no training....cool huh?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 6, 2010 09:15PM)
Seems to me that being prepared for war is only one very small part of what it means to keep peace.

John
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Sep 6, 2010 09:20PM)
An army is like life insurance.

Its something you should have and then strive *mightily* never to use.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 6, 2010 09:30PM)
That was beautiful Jeff....
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 6, 2010 09:37PM)
Lets just quote people back and forth and try to out-fancy ourselves!!

But really (and I hate saying this phrase) "in todays world" I think it is true.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 6, 2010 09:39PM)
"Lets just quote people back and forth and try to out-fancy ourselves!!"
kcg5
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 6, 2010 10:13PM)
I agree. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Knowledge.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 6, 2010 10:54PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-06 20:55, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-06 20:39, Josh the Superfluous wrote:
How do you interpret that one, Lobo? It doesn't make sense to me....
[/quote]

I believe that Crane's first guy had the commonplace that something horrible would happen to him, whereas the second (wiser) guy was afraid with the (less common, but wiser) concern that one might himself victimize someone in the course of his day.
[/quote]
Was the second guy carrying a gun by any chance? Or did he only gain his knowledge after he fired?
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Sep 6, 2010 11:44PM)
As to the original post. Nope, it's all pretty Machiavellian.

War comes about due to a loss of hope. Hope is lost because there is no faith. If there is no faith in peace then there is no hope for peace.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Sep 7, 2010 12:17AM)
They don't make weapons NOT to be used.

If you humans are going to murder each other, at least have the good taste to not bring some god's name or another in to it. Do it for money...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 7, 2010 12:31AM)
Either be prepared for war, or be friends with people who are prepared for war.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 7, 2010 01:13AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-06 22:39, MagicSanta wrote:
"Lets just quote people back and forth and try to out-fancy ourselves!!"
kcg5
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 7, 2010 03:58AM)
I must have hit a nerve...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 7, 2010 11:04AM)
There's always the "Be nice to Hitler, and he'll be nice to you" philosophy.
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (Sep 7, 2010 11:23AM)
I'm inclined to agree with the initial quote that Pakar posted. However, few things are so cut-and-dried. Yes, as Magnus pointed out it's one small part of keeping the peace, but it is a crucial part. A helicopter has 30,000 pieces to it - 300 are critical. Any one of those fail and the chopper goes down. I suppose, however, if we didn't have a military resistance there would be no war - there wouldn't be peace either.

A lesson from the Cold War may be in order. We had ICBMs and so did the Russians, it was a race to see who could stockpile more. The idea was if one country fired theirs, the other would certainly retaliate causing the end of the world. If we didn't stockpile any, would we have been attacked? Maybe, maybe not. BUT preparing FOR that eventuality prevented it and kept a semblance of peace.
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Sep 7, 2010 11:57AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-07 12:23, Josh Chaikin wrote:
A lesson from the Cold War may be in order. We had ICBMs and so did the Russians, it was a race to see who could stockpile more. The idea was if one country fired theirs, the other would certainly retaliate causing the end of the world. If we didn't stockpile any, would we have been attacked? Maybe, maybe not. BUT preparing FOR that eventuality prevented it and kept a semblance of peace.
[/quote]

Nuclear weapons have been around for approximately 70 years. Not even one, long, human lifetime. It seems pretty short sighted to me to use such a tiny, fleeting measure of time as a basis of comparison.

Those things WILL be used at some point in the future, perhaps sooner than one might think.

http://www.takepart.com/countdowntozero
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (Sep 7, 2010 12:13PM)
True enough...the United States won the Revolutionary War, but in 1812 the country was back at war with England - showing that even going to war won't guarantee peace. I have no doubt that if the terrorists got their hands on a nuclear device they would have no compulsions about using it, threat of doomsday be ***ed (but the war on terror is vastly different than any other conflict the country has been engaged in).

Another example may work to help my case...in high school, someone thought he could push me around and bully me, until I broke his nose by smashing his face into a locker. I was prepared to fight him and he didn't expect that. As a result, those four years went by without incident.

It works on a small-scale, for sure...does it work on a larger scale, preventing war? Maybe...maybe not, the example I cited shows it stopped war with the Soviet Union. Was it an end-all? No, but, unless I'm mistaken, Washington wasn't referring to that when he said what he did.

As long as there is some line of defense in place, there will be some
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Sep 7, 2010 12:14PM)
Gaddy with the cold war now over the use of nuclear weapons by those that have them is even more of a likely hood as you point out. Yes during the cold war both Russia and the U.S. seemed much more than poised to start a nuclear attack a couple of times. Look at the invasion of Cuba that happened 48 years ago. That may have almost did it right there.

But the U.S. and Russia should up the production of such weapons since there are so many out there now that have them or will very soon.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 7, 2010 01:36PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-07 13:13, Josh Chaikin wrote:
True enough...the United States won the Revolutionary War, but in 1812 the country was back at war with England - showing that even going to war won't guarantee peace. I have no doubt that if the terrorists got their hands on a nuclear device they would have no compulsions about using it, threat of doomsday be ***ed [b](but the war on terror is vastly different than any other conflict the country has been engaged in). . . .[/b]
[/quote]

The war on drugs, war on abortion, war on (teen)sex. Ok, really only the "war on drugs" was ever really "officially declared" if you will.

Point is, not really all that different. All these "wars" have produced more people engaging in the activities they were trying to stop.

Can you really have a war against a concept anyways?
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (Sep 7, 2010 01:57PM)
That's my point. Gaddy seemed to imply that George Washington committed a fallacy. I interpreted his reply to mean that peace is only peace if it is long-lasting, if I misunderstood please correct me...which may be true to an extent. My point is/was, that in the Cold War we had a definable enemy in the Soviets. Their armies were identifiable. It was a nation. The arms race tactic did work, or expedite things...Reagan was certainly some sort of catalyst there. Preparing for war with Russia prevented war with Russia.

Will that work with the terrorists? No. I kno that, I'm not an idiot. Gaddy mentioned that the Nuclear arms where there 70 years ago ( WW II), continue to exist today along with their threat. I was conceding the point that yes, the threat does exist with a different enemy that won't be deterred by the threat of a Nuclear holocaust. He drew the dots and that's the way I connected them

If that single line was all you took from my post, then I either need to really start making things more concise or you missed my point completely.
Message: Posted by: muse (Sep 7, 2010 02:15PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-07 14:36, gdw wrote:

Can you really have a war against a concept anyways?
[/quote]

We need a war against war against concepts
Message: Posted by: muse (Sep 7, 2010 02:18PM)
And on the original post, does the Swiss model suggest that it might be correct? This is if we define "preparing for war" as being a very different thing to "preparing to wage war".
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 7, 2010 02:49PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-07 15:15, muse wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-07 14:36, gdw wrote:

Can you really have a war against a concept anyways?
[/quote]

We need a war against war against concepts
[/quote]

LOL, brilliant.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 7, 2010 03:05PM)
There's no peace for the wicked.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Sep 7, 2010 03:18PM)
So let me get this right. Peace, and I would really love to hear the definitions for that word, can only be achieved through:

1. Force
2. Perceived ability to execute force
3. Destrution of another
4. The threat of destruction to another

Am I the only one to see how paradoxical that sounds. And yet, history shows time and again this doesn't work.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Sep 7, 2010 03:21PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-07 14:57, Josh Chaikin wrote:
The arms race tactic did work, or expedite things...Reagan was certainly some sort of catalyst there. Preparing for war with Russia prevented war with Russia.

[/quote]

And how did that work for Afghanistan?

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (Sep 7, 2010 03:31PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-07 16:21, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-07 14:57, Josh Chaikin wrote:
The arms race tactic did work, or expedite things...Reagan was certainly some sort of catalyst there. Preparing for war with Russia prevented war with Russia.

[/quote]

And how did that work for Afghanistan?

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

Yes...well...times change and so do allies. There is no simple answer to the question posed here. I'm neither philosopher, historian nor military strategist. For every argument, there's a counterargument. And for every example there's one to counter that too.

The question is old and so are the arguments and scenarios, all that changes are the players. Is it an important discussion to have? Absolutely, and I can see both sides of the issue. I just don't expect us to find any greater truth here. I'm going to step out of this discussion before things become too heated.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 7, 2010 03:35PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-07 16:18, Dreadnought wrote:
So let me get this right. Peace, and I would really love to hear the definitions for that word, can only be achieved through:

1. Force
2. Perceived ability to execute force
3. Destrution of another
4. The threat of destruction to another

Am I the only one to see how paradoxical that sounds. And yet, history shows time and again this doesn't work.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

What Dreadnought said.
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Sep 7, 2010 04:04PM)
Meh, whatever... You all seem pretty content waiting for your self-fulfilling prophesy of nuclear armageddon, so have at it.

Hopefully, Tommy's " hidden secret masters" will complete their Great Work and achieve their goals before you hairless apes turn this beautiful gem of a world to radioactive cinders and ash.

Enjoy the short time you have left.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 7, 2010 04:44PM)
Dreadnaught, are you refering to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? If so I'm not sure I get your point on this one.

In the bad ol' days we would 'show the flag' in areas the Soviets operated in and do all kinds of training people. Then the Soviets would show their flag and train people....then the Brits, then the French, it was interesting.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Sep 7, 2010 06:11PM)
Yup, CCCP vs Afghanistan.

My point was that if the arms's race b/w the U.S and the Soviets was the key to keeping peace then that peace did not extend to Afghanistan or to other places of conflict during that time. Therefore, the "peace" only existed between the United States and the former Soviet Union. In fact, my argument would be that peace didn't exist as it was just no overt exchange of violence between the two.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Sep 7, 2010 06:35PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-07 19:11, Dreadnought wrote:
Yup, CCCP vs Afghanistan.

My point was that if the arms's race b/w the U.S and the Soviets was the key to keeping peace then that peace did not extend to Afghanistan or to other places of conflict during that time. Therefore, the "peace" only existed between the United States and the former Soviet Union. In fact, my argument would be that peace didn't exist as it was just no overt exchange of violence between the two.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote] So true. In fact I'm not sure there has been a moment in the past 70 years + that the US has not ben engaged in warfare on some level, somewhere in the world.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Sep 7, 2010 06:40PM)
So true. My degree is in History with an MA in Archaeology. I had a professor who once said that it is generally agreed in academic circles that in the entire history of the world, from the point where man first climbed out of the trees and started walking upright, there has only been approximately 200 years of total peace, five minutes here, thirty seconds there etc...

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 7, 2010 07:51PM)
That was one of our proxy wars.....
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Sep 7, 2010 10:44PM)
Yup.
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Sep 8, 2010 11:10AM)
http://m.io9.com/5632549/the-great-atomic-bomb-cake-controversy-of-1946
[img]http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/09/atomic_cake.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 8, 2010 11:24AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 12:10, gaddy wrote:
http://m.io9.com/5632549/the-great-atomic-bomb-cake-controversy-of-1946
[img]http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/09/atomic_cake.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
Wow, that's kinda funny, and terrible. Is this true?
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Sep 8, 2010 03:04PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 12:24, gdw wrote:

Wow, that's kinda funny, and terrible. Is this true?
[/quote]
Apparently it's true, although I wasn't there...
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 8, 2010 04:35PM)
Come on now....hats were different back then.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 8, 2010 05:38PM)
Does anyone here really believe that the world would be a safer and maore peaceful place if the "United States of America" disbanded its Armed Forces and its weapons arsenal? When answering this question do not add your, "if the U.S. did not do this or that yada, yada, yada".
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 8, 2010 06:03PM)
Absolutely not.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 8, 2010 06:47PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 18:38, acesover wrote:
Does anyone here really believe that the world would be a safer and maore peaceful place if the "United States of America" disbanded its Armed Forces and its weapons arsenal? When answering this question do not add your, "if the U.S. did not do this or that yada, yada, yada".
[/quote]

How about if the united states just disbanded . . .
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 8, 2010 07:06PM)
GDW, congrats, you have official made every leftest seem a bit more to the right.
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Sep 8, 2010 08:34PM)
That's not leftist... that's Texan :P
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Sep 8, 2010 08:41PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 18:38, acesover wrote:
Does anyone here really believe that the world would be a safer and maore peaceful place if the "United States of America" disbanded its Armed Forces and its weapons arsenal? When answering this question do not add your, "if the U.S. did not do this or that yada, yada, yada".
[/quote]

Safer for who?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 8, 2010 08:41PM)
Icky....OU! OU! OU!
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 8, 2010 09:09PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 20:06, MagicSanta wrote:
GDW, congrats, you have official made every leftest seem a bit more to the right.
[/quote]

Lol, I used to be so far left, I fell off the end.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 9, 2010 04:03PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 21:41, Cyberqat wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 18:38, acesover wrote:
Does anyone here really believe that the world would be a safer and maore peaceful place if the "United States of America" disbanded its Armed Forces and its weapons arsenal? When answering this question do not add your, "if the U.S. did not do this or that yada, yada, yada".
[/quote]

Safer for who?
[/quote]

If you have to ask there is no sense in trying to explain. Are you really that naive or are you just stirring the pot like some people I know. Wait I think I know the answer. Those of you who respond to a question like that are both of the aforementioned. Thanks for your insightful input.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 9, 2010 04:04PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 22:09, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 20:06, MagicSanta wrote:
GDW, congrats, you have official made every leftest seem a bit more to the right.
[/quote]

Lol, I used to be so far left, I fell off the end.
[/quote]

Unfortunately you did not keep falling.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 9, 2010 04:08PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 19:47, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 18:38, acesover wrote:
Does anyone here really believe that the world would be a safer and maore peaceful place if the "United States of America" disbanded its Armed Forces and its weapons arsenal? When answering this question do not add your, "if the U.S. did not do this or that yada, yada, yada".
[/quote]

How about if the united states just disbanded . . .
[/quote]

Please tell me you are not an American citizen. At least than I could understand your post...maybe.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 04:20PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 17:04, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 22:09, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 20:06, MagicSanta wrote:
GDW, congrats, you have official made every leftest seem a bit more to the right.
[/quote]

Lol, I used to be so far left, I fell off the end.
[/quote]

Unfortunately you did not keep falling.
[/quote]

Ouch, a bit uncalled for perhaps?

[quote]
On 2010-09-09 17:08, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 19:47, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 18:38, acesover wrote:
Does anyone here really believe that the world would be a safer and maore peaceful place if the "United States of America" disbanded its Armed Forces and its weapons arsenal? When answering this question do not add your, "if the U.S. did not do this or that yada, yada, yada".
[/quote]

How about if the united states just disbanded . . .
[/quote]

Please tell me you are not an American citizen. At least than I could understand your post...maybe.
[/quote]

Are you saying you can (maybe) understand why non american's would advocate this, but not actual americans?

So, those who are watching the actions of america (not that a country can act) from the outside are excusable for having such an opinion, but if your an american you have to have blind un questioning patriotism?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 04:46PM)
I know one of the best ways to not be a victim of a crime, is to not look like you are an easy victim to perpetrate a crime on.

I know one of the best ways to protect your house is to make it tougher to get into your house than others.

I know the best way to protect anything from being taken is to make it more expensive to steal it from you than what they want to steal is worth.

All of these examples involve a certain amount of deliberate preparation.
ALL of them are non aggressive ways of dealing with the problem we can agree right?

I should imagine that if you do not want to go to war, these things would seem to hold true as well.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 05:05PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 17:46, Dannydoyle wrote:
I know one of the best ways to not be a victim of a crime, is to not look like you are an easy victim to perpetrate a crime on.

I know one of the best ways to protect your house is to make it tougher to get into your house than others.

I know the best way to protect anything from being taken is to make it more expensive to steal it from you than what they want to steal is worth.

All of these examples involve a certain amount of deliberate preparation.
ALL of them are non aggressive ways of dealing with the problem we can agree right?

I should imagine that if you do not want to go to war, these things would seem to hold true as well.
[/quote]

I completely agree, except that none of those examples are things out your control of the individual, nor can they be used against the individual.

Also, none of those examples involved arming yourself, which, by the way, I do support as well. However, there is a difference between arming yourself for protection, and arming yourself in such a way that you are prepared to invade.

How many times has the usa used the idea that another country was making itself prepared for war as an excuse to invade? Iraq was not the first. So, building up and army and weapons can also paint a target on you.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 05:16PM)
Really? Tell me how many times, and tell me exactly what the reason given for the invasion of Iraq.

Are you saying that no army removes the target? According to your form of arguement this is a logical assumption.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 9, 2010 05:53PM)
Gdw quotes the following:

"Are you saying you can (maybe) understand why non american's would advocate this, but not actual americans?"


No "gdw" that is not what I am saying. I am saying that I hope you are not a citizen of "The United States of America" because if you are, you obviously do not care for any of those who have made the ultimate sacarifice so the likes of you can sit back and say the things you say and think you are clever. That is what I am saying. Is there anything there you do not understand?

I will say it again, "I hope you are not an American Citizen" and if you are. Shame on you and your kind for taking and not giving or showing respect.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 9, 2010 06:00PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 18:05, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 17:46, Dannydoyle wrote:
I know one of the best ways to not be a victim of a crime, is to not look like you are an easy victim to perpetrate a crime on.

I know one of the best ways to protect your house is to make it tougher to get into your house than others.

I know the best way to protect anything from being taken is to make it more expensive to steal it from you than what they want to steal is worth.

All of these examples involve a certain amount of deliberate preparation.
ALL of them are non aggressive ways of dealing with the problem we can agree right?

I should imagine that if you do not want to go to war, these things would seem to hold true as well.
[/quote]

I completely agree, except that none of those examples are things out your control of the individual, nor can they be used against the individual.

Also, none of those examples involved arming yourself, which, by the way, I do support as well. However, there is a difference between arming yourself for protection, and arming yourself in such a way that you are prepared to invade.

How many times has the usa used the idea that another country was making itself prepared for war as an excuse to invade? Iraq was not the first. So, building up and army and weapons can also paint a target on you.
[/quote]



Please use capital letters when writing USA (see above in your post) the same way you use them for Iraq even though it is the first letter of a sentence. You really are a nasty person and it shows.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 08:01PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 18:53, acesover wrote:
Gdw quotes the following:

"Are you saying you can (maybe) understand why non american's would advocate this, but not actual americans?"


No "gdw" that is not what I am saying. I am saying that I hope you are not a citizen of "The United States of America" because if you are, you obviously do not care for any of those who have made the ultimate sacarifice so the likes of you can sit back and say the things you say and think you are clever. That is what I am saying. Is there anything there you do not understand?

I will say it again, "I hope you are not an American Citizen" and if you are. Shame on you and your kind for taking and not giving or showing respect.
[/quote]

Wow, nothing like "people died for you to be able to be an ***, so show some respect." I suppose you think we'd all be speaking german if not for those men?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 08:03PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 19:00, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 18:05, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 17:46, Dannydoyle wrote:
I know one of the best ways to not be a victim of a crime, is to not look like you are an easy victim to perpetrate a crime on.

I know one of the best ways to protect your house is to make it tougher to get into your house than others.

I know the best way to protect anything from being taken is to make it more expensive to steal it from you than what they want to steal is worth.

All of these examples involve a certain amount of deliberate preparation.
ALL of them are non aggressive ways of dealing with the problem we can agree right?

I should imagine that if you do not want to go to war, these things would seem to hold true as well.
[/quote]

I completely agree, except that none of those examples are things out your control of the individual, nor can they be used against the individual.

Also, none of those examples involved arming yourself, which, by the way, I do support as well. However, there is a difference between arming yourself for protection, and arming yourself in such a way that you are prepared to invade.

How many times has the usa used the idea that another country was making itself prepared for war as an excuse to invade? Iraq was not the first. So, building up and army and weapons can also paint a target on you.
[/quote]



Please use capital letters when writing USA (see above in your post) the same way you use them for Iraq even though it is the first letter of a sentence. You really are a nasty person and it shows.
[/quote]

Actually, the ONLY reason I used the capital in iraq was because it was the start of a sentence. I'm surprised this is the first time anyone's called me on it. And, sorry, but no, I won't.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 9, 2010 09:21PM)
Do you think the USA will ever win a war?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 9, 2010 10:04PM)
Dreadnaught,

I often don't agree with you, but I must say I admire your commitment to your Christian values.

Bravo.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 9, 2010 10:06PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 21:34, Cyberqat wrote:
That's not leftist... that's Texan :P
[/quote]
Zing!!
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 9, 2010 10:07PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-07 12:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:
There's always the "Be nice to Hitler, and he'll be nice to you" philosophy.
[/quote]
As well as the "We had to destroy the village in order to save it, Sir" philosophy.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 9, 2010 10:30PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 22:21, tommy wrote:
Do you think the USA will ever win a war?
[/quote]

There are no winners in war you fool. There are victims, there are casualties there is suffering and death, and to answer your next question before you ask, the answer is yes they are necessary. If you think otherwise you are a bigger fool than I thought.

I hope that answers your "baited question". And please do not ask me to elaborate. Just ponder it a while and I am sure you will understand.

You can sleep well tonight the guardians are looking over you.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 10:31PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 18:16, Dannydoyle wrote:
Really? Tell me how many times, and tell me exactly what the reason given for the invasion of Iraq.

Are you saying that no army removes the target? According to your form of arguement this is a logical assumption.
[/quote]

You know what, I have provided you with enough numbers, and you've either ignored them, or dismissed them as a minority and thus not worth acknowledging the issue behind them.
You have moved your self well beyond troll status.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 9, 2010 10:42PM)
Gdw,

Is your not using caps for USA because you have no respect for the USA and it is your way of showing it? Or are you just as I stated before a nasty person? Or is it a combination of both? There must be a reason and I would as I am sure others here would like to know what that reason is because you stated that you would not which obviously means you have a reason. So I do not find it unreasonable to ask. What is it? As long as you are willing to voice your beliefs here why not share it with us? Why not use caps? Come on fuss up and tell us.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 9, 2010 10:43PM)
I have to say I'm a bit dissappointed that some of the usual suspects in Canada are not supporting Glenn.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 10:44PM)
Wow was that name calling or did I "infer" something wrong?

You have provided not one thing except a clear view of your agenda LOL. Thank you.

So logically arguing your way if there is no standing army, there is no target and no need for one. According to your theory the only reason to need an army is if you have one in the first place.

Go ahead elaborate on why we went into Iraq for us. I am interested.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 10:52PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 23:42, acesover wrote:
Gdw,

Is your not using caps for USA because you have no respect for the USA and it is your way of showing it? Or are you just as I stated before a nasty person? Or is it a combination of both? There must be a reason and I would as I am sure others here would like to know what that reason is because you stated that you would not which obviously means you have a reason. So I do not find it unreasonable to ask. What is it? As long as you are willing to voice your beliefs here why not share it with us? Why not use caps? Come on fuss up and tell us.
[/quote]

I do have a reason. I am curious why you would say being a nasty person is a reason separate from not respecting it.

To answer your question though, I try to reserve my respect for actual people, not "entities" which have no cohesive self to respect. Also, I try not to show undue respect for "concepts" and such "entities" (can't really think of the right word for it right now) that have not earned my respect.

The same reason I try not to capitalize islam, or christianity. It's a real !@#$% with the spell checker I have on my browser though, lol.

I will respect individuals who may call themselves muslims, or christians, but not an amorphous umbrella group that has no material existence.

Show me the usa without showing me individual people, or pointing to land defined by invisible lines. For that matter, show me the state/government without the individual people. Show me the thing that has this power that the individuals on their own do not. Does said thing loose it's "power" when one person leaves it? Twenty people? How many people have to be present to form a "state" and give it power over the other people inside the invisible lines?

Can you respect a concept unto itself?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 10:53PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 23:44, Dannydoyle wrote:
Wow was that name calling or did I "infer" something wrong?

You have provided not one thing except a clear view of your agenda LOL. Thank you.

So logically arguing your way if there is no standing army, there is no target and no need for one. According to your theory the only reason to need an army is if you have one in the first place.

Go ahead elaborate on why we went into Iraq for us. I am interested.
[/quote]

I have given you plenty in other threads and you have shown your intent there, I will no longer attempt to placate you.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 10:54PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 23:43, MagicSanta wrote:
I have to say I'm a bit dissappointed that some of the usual suspects in Canada are not supporting Glenn.
[/quote]

What usual suspects?
I am well aware that I may stand on my own with my views. At the very least I can stand knowing I call for force and violence on no one. If I am too be considered a fool for it, and attacked with harsh words (ohhh so hard to bare) then so be it.

Again, at least I am not the one advocating violence and killing as solutions.

To the mods, sorry for the multiple posts. I realized it with this one, and so edited at least it to include my additional thoughts.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 9, 2010 11:12PM)
Gdw quote:

I do have a reason. I am curious why you would say being a nasty person is a reason separate from not respecting it.

Because one can be a nasty person, which I believe you are, along with some other issues which I am not qualified to comment on, and still respect someone or something. Do you find that a difficult concept?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 11:32PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 00:12, acesover wrote:
Gdw quote:

I do have a reason. I am curious why you would say being a nasty person is a reason separate from not respecting it.

Because one can be a nasty person, which I believe you are, along with some other issues which I am not qualified to comment on, and still respect someone or something. Do you find that a difficult concept?
[/quote]

No, not a difficult concept at all. Why do you think I am a nasty person?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 10, 2010 09:11AM)
I really have to decline answering the above question as I feel that anyone who reads your posts can come to their own conclusion, mine being that you are a nasty person.

Not everyone can be nice nor can everyone be nasty. I feel you choose the later and that is fine. Everyone has their own personality. However and I am sure it does not bother you as it would not bother me, it is just how you are... but I could never call you a friend. However I am sure you have many friends and may be a different person in the flesh, but I can only judge from what I see and read here.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 09:15AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 10:11, acesover wrote:
I really have to decline answering the above question as I feel that anyone who reads your posts can come to their own conclusion, mine being that you are a nasty person.

Not everyone can be nice nor can everyone be nasty. I feel you choose the later and that is fine. Everyone has their own personality. However and I am sure it does not bother you as it would not bother me, it is just how you are... but I could never call you a friend. However I am sure you have many friends and may be a different person in the flesh, but I can only judge from what I see and read here.
[/quote]

"There must be a reason and I would as I am sure others here would like to know what that reason is because you stated that you would not which obviously means you have a reason. So I do not find it unreasonable to ask. What is it? As long as you are willing to voice your beliefs here why not share it with us? Why [do you consider me nasty?] Come on fuss up and tell us. "
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 10, 2010 10:18AM)
OK here is pat of my reasoning for labeling you a nasty person.

Your total disregard for peoples feelings, which you like to attack at a very personal level. That in itself makes one a nasty person which you definitely qualify. Such as belittleing either a person's religion or country. While you probably believe that you are very clever, you expose yourself as to what you really are, and that is a nasty person with a few ideas and I say ideas not ideals (you may or may not know the difference). You would rather incite rather than discuss.

Do you see yourself as a nice person or do you see yourself as an argumenative person with a nasty streak?

You do not have the common courtesy to respect someones beliefs. I say respect, not believe in them just show them the respect that they deserve for they have deep feelings about such things. But you would rather just hurt that person and belittle their beliefs saying that something has to earn your respect before you would use captial letters in printing that name...and who the heck are you that you are going to change the rules of grammer?

Just as in your footnotes you like to incite by saying "Man has evolved, God is Extinct". You did surprise me with the capitilazation of God...guess you had a mental lapse there. Probably not your quote anyway but you think it is clever and know it disturbs the masses which you enjoy.

I would like to end this by quoting your last footnote in your AV..."Don't worry, I have not forgotten". I will not forget you as it is unfortunate that distsurbing things linger in the mind more than the good.

Hope I answered your question as to why I consider you a nasty person.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 11:02AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 11:18, acesover wrote:
OK here is pat of my reasoning for labeling you a nasty person.

Your total disregard for peoples feelings, which you like to attack at a very personal level. That in itself makes one a nasty person which you definitely qualify. Such as belittleing either a person's religion or country. While you probably believe that you are very clever, you expose yourself as to what you really are, and that is a nasty person with a few ideas and I say ideas not ideals (you may or may not know the difference). You would rather incite rather than discuss.

Do you see yourself as a nice person or do you see yourself as an argumenative person with a nasty streak?

You do not have the common courtesy to respect someones beliefs. I say respect, not believe in them just show them the respect that they deserve for they have deep feelings about such things. But you would rather just hurt that person and belittle their beliefs saying that something has to earn your respect before you would use captial letters in printing that name...and who the heck are you that you are going to change the rules of grammer?

Just as in your footnotes you like to incite by saying "Man has evolved, God is Extinct". You did surprise me with the capitilazation of God...guess you had a mental lapse there. Probably not your quote anyway but you think it is clever and know it disturbs the masses which you enjoy.

I would like to end this by quoting your last footnote in your AV..."Don't worry, I have not forgotten". I will not forget you as it is unfortunate that distsurbing things linger in the mind more than the good.

Hope I answered your question as to why I consider you a nasty person.
[/quote]

Well, thank you very much, I really do appreciate it. Also, thanks for pointing out the capitalization in my signature, I did miss that. As far as I know someone else may have said it before, but I did not get it from anyone, not that I remember.

As for "respecting" other's beliefs? Why should I? Why should you? There are many who believe people of different races are lesser people, should I "respect" that belief? Not talking about believing it, the question is what merits it any respect?

I fully respect someone's RIGHT to their own opinions, but I, and no one else for that matter, has any obligation to RESPECT the beliefs themselves.

Many of the beliefs I do not show respect for have shown far less respect for me long before I said anything. According to most of these beliefs I DESERVE to burn for eternity for simply not believing them as well. They don't just say I WILL burn, as if it is a matter of fact, they assert that I deserve it. The individuals may not believe this, and as I said, I am MORE than willing to respect these individuals, but the umbrella beliefs of christianity, islam, etc, explicitly state in their doctrine these things which show exactly why I show no respect to them.

Now, if my lake of capitalization on certain words is the extent of my "personal" attacks on individuals, then I have done far less than many here. Even far less than just calling someone nasty. That would be a direct attack on a person.

That's not to say I ave NOT "attacked" people in other ways. I think the technical limitations of that have been a post calling someone ignorant, and another calling someone a troll. These are probably not the only things I have said, and I have used my fair share of colourful language, but I do not recall calling anyone a bad word. Said colourful language has been as adjectives usually.

People may be offended by certain words, but that's their prerogative. I don't use them to specifically offend them. If you don't like the word "moist" and I use it, and I being a nasty person? Perhaps if I use it repeatedly, and explicitly because I know it bothers you.

But, alas, it seems my views on certain beliefs is what makes you consider me "nasty." I will not respect any belief that propagates ***ation for not agreeing with it. Heck, I won't respect any belief that divides, ***s, or encourages delusions. However I will always maintain that your belief, and the imaginary lines you live within simply do NOT define you. You, and you alone, is what I will gauge my respect for you on.

And as for the part in my signature, it is not to incite, but to provoke thought.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 10, 2010 12:00PM)
Well I see where you changegd the "G" in God to a small letter. Good for you.

I did not ask you to respect in what people believe in but rather to respect their right to do so and treat them accordingly and you answer with "Why should I?" It is not about you. You know that what I posted was to respect the right for someone to believe in something and for you to show them the respect they deserve as it is what they believe. No one is asking or telling you to believe in someones elses belief. In reading your post I am wonderinig just what The USA has done to you that you have no respect for it. Pretty gutsy stand on your part, of course this is on the internet and not in person.

Why would you care what others believe? Why would that bother you? Is it because you believe in nothing no God, no form of religion? Perhaps you feel empty and just want to strike out at those who do. I do not know your reason and that is why I mentioned in one of my posts that I am not able to comment on some of your remarks as I do not know what your motivation is. But this is getting off topic as the topic that you and I were discussing was your lack of respect for others and their deepest beliefs. If it makes you feel better to not capatilize certain words then go ahead and do so. Even though it shows disrespect in this case to The "USA" and its citizens and more so to those who have given their life for what they believe in. I am sure that you would not want me to disrespect Robert would you? Yet if he has the same views as you it gives me the right to do do accordinig to you. Wow the shoe does not feel so good now does it? Do you see my point? I would never disrespect Robert because I have the decency to respect your point of view. Not agree with it just respect it and your right to do so.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 12:44PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 13:00, acesover wrote:
Well I see where you changegd the "G" in God to a small letter. Good for you.

I did not ask you to respect in what people believe in but rather to respect their right to do so and treat them accordingly and you answer with "Why should I?" It is not about you. You know that what I posted was to respect the right for someone to believe in something and for you to show them the respect they deserve as it is what they believe. No one is asking or telling you to believe in someones elses belief. In reading your post I am wonderinig just what The USA has done to you that you have no respect for it. Pretty gutsy stand on your part, of course this is on the internet and not in person.

Why would you care what others believe? Why would that bother you? Is it because you believe in nothing no God, no form of religion? Perhaps you feel empty and just want to strike out at those who do. I do not know your reason and that is why I mentioned in one of my posts that I am not able to comment on some of your remarks as I do not know what your motivation is. But this is getting off topic as the topic that you and I were discussing was your lack of respect for others and their deepest beliefs. If it makes you feel better to not capatilize certain words then go ahead and do so. Even though it shows disrespect in this case to The "USA" and its citizens and more so to those who have given their life for what they believe in. I am sure that you would not want me to disrespect Robert would you? Yet if he has the same views as you it gives me the right to do do accordinig to you. Wow the shoe does not feel so good now does it? Do you see my point? I would never disrespect Robert because I have the decency to respect your point of view. Not agree with it just respect it and your right to do so.
[/quote]

"You do not have the common courtesy to respect someones beliefs." You did not come across like you were focusing on their RIGHT to believe what they want, and as I said , I FULLY respect that. Show me one time I said anything showing disrespect for their RIGHT to believe? A right to believe what you want is NO a right to be immune to criticize, or to hurt feelings.

Respecting someone's right to believe says not one thing about respecting WHAT they believe.

You can believe what ever you want, but if it's something contradictory, or bigoted, then I have every right to call you on it. Are you not going to respect MY right to do that? My right to SAY what I want? You criticize what I say, I criticize what some believe. I show as much respect for what some believe as you do for what I say.
Also, most of my critiques tend to be focused on what people advocate doing, or being done. These things are informed by their beliefs. It is when they advocate doing something, or condemning someone based on their beliefs that I may have a problem. Believe what you want, but if your belief says, implicitly, or explicitly, something like that then I will criticize your belief. If you act on it, then I will criticize you.

You can say what ever you want about Robert, or anyone for that matter. You can think what ever you like about them as well.

As for the usa, again, I criticize no ONE with that. I respect individuals on their own merits, not that of the bounds of the land the reside on.
As for people who give their lives for what they believe in, if I DON'T AGREE with what they gave their lives for, what they BELIEVE, then they are the LAST people that deserve my respect. Or do you suggest we show the same respect for those that flew the planes on 9/11?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 10, 2010 01:29PM)
Give it up. You are what we say double talking. I am finished discussing this with you.

Your quote: As for the usa, again, I criticize no ONE with that. I respect individuals on their own merits, not that of the bounds of the land the reside on.

As I said double talk. You never said what The USA did or did not do that has you so bitter aganist what it stands for. Do you care to elaborate?

I repeat "You are a nasty person" and as you say "I will not forget."

Enjoy yourself by spouting some more hurtful and inciteful remarks about things that people have deep feelings for. However expect no more on this thread from me pertaining to your comments.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 10, 2010 01:39PM)
You know the old cliche about the big tough guy with a heart of gold who never starts fights because he's confident in himself? It's a cliche for a reason. It's usually true.
There are exceptions, but for the most part it's the little guy who feels weak that is out to prove something. You can call it the "Napolean complex," the "yappy dog syndrome," whatever.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 02:21PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 14:29, acesover wrote:
Give it up. You are what we say double talking. I am finished discussing this with you.

Your quote: As for the usa, again, I criticize no ONE with that. I respect individuals on their own merits, not that of the bounds of the land the reside on.

As I said double talk. You never said what The USA did or did not do that has you so bitter aganist what it stands for. Do you care to elaborate?

I repeat "You are a nasty person" and as you say "I will not forget."

Enjoy yourself by spouting some more hurtful and inciteful remarks about things that people have deep feelings for. However expect no more on this thread from me pertaining to your comments.
[/quote]

You say you're finished discussing with me and then asked me to elaborate on something I said. I bit odd, but I will attempt to.

I do not have respect for those who claim that have a right to dictate what others do with their own bodies, and their own property, no respect for someone who comes a long and takes someone's property because they think they know how to use it better. These people who call themselves the usa government, or any government for that matter, do not get my respect. The "usa" itself does not exist. The closet there is to it is the people who call themselves the "government," and these people, in this context, have not earned my respect.

And no, I am not "double talking," I am saying this as clearly as I can, and using words to mean what they mean. You may have your illusions about what certain things are, and think that you, or numerous individuals, are are somehow tied to an illusion to the extent that to disrespect your "country" is to attack you directly. Aside from the millions of contradictions that creates as you will all have different ideas of what exactly "america" stands for and so to "respect" one view is to insult another.

[quote]
On 2010-09-10 14:39, critter wrote:
You know the old cliche about the big tough guy with a heart of gold who never starts fights because he's confident in himself? It's a cliche for a reason. It's usually true.
There are exceptions, but for the most part it's the little guy who feels weak that is out to prove something. You can call it the "Napolean complex," the "yappy dog syndrome," whatever.
[/quote]

Just curious if you could clarify who you were talking about? That sounds insecure doesn't it . . . ;)
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Sep 10, 2010 02:33PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 18:38, acesover wrote:
Does anyone here really believe that the world would be a safer and maore peaceful place if the "United States of America" disbanded its Armed Forces and its weapons arsenal? When answering this question do not add your, "if the U.S. did not do this or that yada, yada, yada".
[/quote]

NO
Message: Posted by: muse (Sep 10, 2010 03:37PM)
Depends on what parts of the world are under consideration I guess
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Sep 10, 2010 04:28PM)
It doesn't depend on anything. This says it best. "Speak softly and carry a big stick. When both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R did that the world was safer regardless of if you don't think that is true.
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Sep 10, 2010 05:17PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 22:21, tommy wrote:
Do you think the USA will ever win a war?
[/quote]

Of course we have won wars before and will win more.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 08:28PM)
Imagine how terrible it is to not respect the idea of a country, or religion . . .


Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Man, what a nasty person.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 08:36PM)
Here come old flattop he come grooving up slowly
He got joo-joo eyeball he one holy roller
He got hair down to his knee
Got to be a joker he just do what he please

He wear no shoeshine he got toe-jam football
He got monkey finger he shoot coca-cola
He say "I know you, you know me"
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me

He bag production he got walrus gumboot
He got Ono sideboard he one spinal cracker
He got feet down below his knee
Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease
Come together right now over me

He roller-coaster he got early warning
He got muddy water he one mojo filter
He say "One and one and one is three"
Got to be good-looking 'cause he's so hard to see
Come together right now over me
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 08:45PM)
When I get to the bottom
I go back to the top of the slide
Where I stop and turn
and I go for a ride
Till I get to the bottom and I see you again
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Do you don't you want me to love you
I'm coming down fast but I'm miles above you
Tell me tell me come on tell me the answer
and you may be a lover but you ain't no dancer

Go helter skelter
helter skelter
helter skelter
Yeah, hu, hu
I will you won't you want me to make you
I'm coming down fast but don't let me break you
Tell me tell me tell me the answer
You may be a lover but you ain't no dancer

Look out
Helter skelter
helter skelter
helter skelter
Yeah, hu, hu
Look out cause here she comes

When I get to the bottom
I go back to the top of the slide
Where I stop and turn
and I go for a ride
Till I get to the bottom and I see you again
Yeah, yeah, yeah

Well will you won't you want me to make you
I'm coming down fast but don't let me break you
Tell me tell me tell me the answer
You may be a lover but you ain't no dancer

Look out
Helter skelter
helter skelter
helter skelter
Yeah, hu,

Helter Skelter
She's coming down fast
Yes she is
Yes she is
coming down fast
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 08:56PM)
GLAG (that is new computer talk I invented, stands for Giggling Like A Girl)
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 09:05PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 21:56, MagicSanta wrote:
GLAG (that is new computer talk I invented, stands for Giggling Like A Girl)
[/quote]

LOL, sorry, I couldn't think of a unique one. I'm glad I could make you GLAG. It's awesome, in fact, it's SWEsome! Ok, that was just sad. I'm still gonna try and make it catch on though.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 10, 2010 09:28PM)
According to acesover the USA never wins a war and the point of them having wars is so I can sleep at night. Apparently the USA isnít aware that I run a poker game all night and sleep all day. So at the next intelligence briefing perhaps someone should inform the chief of that.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 09:29PM)
Tommy, you be the devil...you know what ol' Acesover meant.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 10, 2010 09:32PM)
Whatever throwing up in my mouth becomes as a computer slang let me know because I just did it.

Do you REALLY think your Utopian visions will ever manifest themself in any way? My lord you are naive.

You are lucky my friend that there are people who fight for your security whether you ask them to or want them to or not.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 09:52PM)
True...
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 10, 2010 10:09PM)
I leave this thread for a day and look what it's become... :)

Anyway, some interesting views here I must say...
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 10, 2010 10:17PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 21:36, MagicSanta wrote:
Here come old flattop he come grooving up slowly
He got joo-joo eyeball he one holy roller
He got hair down to his knee
Got to be a joker he just do what he please

He wear no shoeshine he got toe-jam football
He got monkey finger he shoot coca-cola
He say "I know you, you know me"
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me

He bag production he got walrus gumboot
He got Ono sideboard he one spinal cracker
He got feet down below his knee
Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease
Come together right now over me

He roller-coaster he got early warning
He got muddy water he one mojo filter
He say "One and one and one is three"
Got to be good-looking 'cause he's so hard to see
Come together right now over me
[/quote]

For you Santa... Two legends meet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsaDu6m2XMI

:online:
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 11, 2010 02:43PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 22:32, Dannydoyle wrote:
Whatever throwing up in my mouth becomes as a computer slang let me know because I just did it.

Do you REALLY think your Utopian visions will ever manifest themself in any way? My lord you are naive.

You are lucky my friend that there are people who fight for your security whether you ask them to or want them to or not.
[/quote]

Nothing about utopia.

And nothing better than what we have will happen with people like you advocating for "necessary" evils. Just means more and more evil, especially considering most governments only ever grow, until they collapse or are consumed by another government.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 11, 2010 04:09PM)
[quote]

Nothing about utopia.

And nothing better than what we have will happen with people like you advocating for "necessary" evils. Just means more and more evil, especially considering most governments only ever grow, until they collapse or are consumed by another government.
[/quote]

I am sorry where did I say "necessary evils" again?

You make up things and then apply them to others.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 11, 2010 11:48PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 17:09, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]

Nothing about utopia.

And nothing better than what we have will happen with people like you advocating for "necessary" evils. Just means more and more evil, especially considering most governments only ever grow, until they collapse or are consumed by another government.
[/quote]

I am sorry where did I say "necessary evils" again?

You make up things and then apply them to others.
[/quote]

I didn't say you did, I am saying what you seem to think is necessary, I think is evil.

You advocate government being necessary. Government is, by definition, a monopoly on force. A monopoly on force is evil.

I happen to also think that it is simply NOT necessary.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 12:04AM)
It is but you keep the faith baby!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 12, 2010 12:22AM)
So we don't cure the common cold just in case the martians invade?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 12:29AM)
Finally someone who understands.....that is why I always loved you Jon.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 12, 2010 09:27AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 01:22, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
So we don't cure the common cold just in case the martians invade?
[/quote]

This does sum up his position pretty darn well. Again more posts of Utopia.

He is a true believer. Havn't run into that thought since I asked a 10 year old.
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Sep 12, 2010 11:11AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 00:48, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 17:09, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]

Nothing about utopia.

And nothing better than what we have will happen with people like you advocating for "necessary" evils. Just means more and more evil, especially considering most governments only ever grow, until they collapse or are consumed by another government.
[/quote]

I am sorry where did I say "necessary evils" again?

You make up things and then apply them to others.
[/quote]

I didn't say you did, I am saying what you seem to think is necessary, I think is evil.

You advocate government being necessary. Government is, by definition, a monopoly on force. A monopoly on force is evil.

I happen to also think that it is simply NOT necessary.
[/quote]

Wow. A genuine anarchist... or a far right libertarian which amount to the same thing.

Aint many of them around any more. Nice to meet you.

(im just the opposite, but its nice to see another generally unpopular view honestly expressed :) )
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 12, 2010 12:19PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 01:22, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
So we don't cure the common cold just in case the martians invade?
[/quote]
Any serious person is clear that trillions [i]must[/i] be spent to stop the invading hordes. No way are we going to spend it on foolish things like medical care. So don't touch that stash unless you're going to give it to my protector buddies.

And have you seen their books? The ones that say To Serve Man? It's a cookbook--burn it!
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 12, 2010 12:26PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 10:27, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 01:22, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
So we don't cure the common cold just in case the martians invade?
[/quote]

This does sum up his position pretty darn well. Again more posts of Utopia.

He is a true believer. Havn't run into that thought since I asked a 10 year old.
[/quote]

Actually, I find that to be more accurate a description of your point of view. Keep around something we can strive to fix just because you think it is needed to defeat an apparently worse threat.

How am I the one saying DON'T cure one problem so that we can use it to potentially fix another, meanwhile making said other problem continually worse.

I'm just saying we CAN get ride of the "common cold" which you are saying is needed to defend against the other "evils."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 12, 2010 01:15PM)
It is fun to drag you guys out into the sunlight once in a while. At least it shows people your true ideas. Cool.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 12, 2010 01:17PM)
And what are my "true" ideas?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 03:08PM)
The @(#$(&@ if we can figure it out.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 12, 2010 03:29PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 14:17, gdw wrote:
And what are my "true" ideas?
[/quote]

Well you stated a lack of need for government. I think that qualifies. Now you want to act coy?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 03:30PM)
I call it anarchist.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 12, 2010 09:25PM)
"It is fun to drag you guys out into the sunlight once in a while. At least it shows people your true ideas. Cool."

I took this as saying you liked to drag anarchist's into the light and show their true ideas.

And you are saying the "true idea" shown are . . . support of anarchy? Now' that's a surprise. How is that showing the true colours of an anarchist?

By the by, Cyberqat, you compared far right libertarian as being essentially the same as an anarchist, though that can be true, that would be an anarcho capitalist. Interestingly enough there are as many variations of anarchists, and libertarians, as there are other political views. From anarcho capitalist to anarcho socialists.

Then there are those "F everybody" anarchists like the jerks who trashed places in toronto during the g20.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 09:26PM)
Let's face it, Toronto wasn't that attractive in the first place.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 12, 2010 09:36PM)
Another good way to keep peace is abject appeasement and surrender. Usually, you can avert a war by giving those who would instigate it everything they want. That has other downsides, though.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 09:43PM)
Worked for the guys who surrendered to the Japanese in the Philippines.....

I can picture it with some of these guys "Welcome by Taliban brother! No, I'm not an Muslim, I don't believe in God but (swack goes the sword)"
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 14, 2010 08:16AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 13:00, acesover wrote:
Well I see where you changegd the "G" in God to a small letter. Good for you.

I did not ask you to respect in what people believe in but rather to respect their right to do so and treat them accordingly and you answer with "Why should I?" It is not about you. You know that what I posted was to respect the right for someone to believe in something and for you to show them the respect they deserve as it is what they believe. No one is asking or telling you to believe in someones elses belief. In reading your post I am wonderinig just what The USA has done to you that you have no respect for it. Pretty gutsy stand on your part, of course this is on the internet and not in person.

Why would you care what others believe? Why would that bother you? Is it because you believe in nothing no God, no form of religion? Perhaps you feel empty and just want to strike out at those who do. I do not know your reason and that is why I mentioned in one of my posts that I am not able to comment on some of your remarks as I do not know what your motivation is. But this is getting off topic as the topic that you and I were discussing was your lack of respect for others and their deepest beliefs. If it makes you feel better to not capatilize certain words then go ahead and do so. Even though it shows disrespect in this case to The "USA" and its citizens and more so to those who have given their life for what they believe in. I am sure that you would not want me to disrespect Robert would you? Yet if he has the same views as you it gives me the right to do do accordinig to you. Wow the shoe does not feel so good now does it? Do you see my point? I would never disrespect Robert because I have the decency to respect your point of view. Not agree with it just respect it and your right to do so.
[/quote]

This summarizes some of my vies nicely. Not 100%, but close.
http://revision3.com/pennpoint/groundzeromosquegaybar
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Sep 14, 2010 09:54PM)
Muslim gay bar? Woah... That's crazy!
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 14, 2010 11:18PM)
Not really....I believe many of the suicide bombers are gay Muslims trying to get around it. Give 'em a bar where they can do their thing and not blow 'up' things. I say that not letting Muslims be gay and lesbian in public and in their cultural garb is a violation of their civil rights! I demand all mosques have a gay room where gay muslims can go, do whatever they want, or take away the mosques tax exemption.

Making
Us
Samesex
Lovin'
Individuals
Miserable
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 14, 2010 11:44PM)
Not that I haven't been a part of it in past, but these threads quickly devolve into nasty personal attacks.

I thought the common cold was a virus, there are no cures for viruses. Right?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 15, 2010 12:01AM)
I only read posts from people from California, who attacked who?

I can't even remember what this thread was suppose to be about.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 15, 2010 08:16AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-15 00:44, kcg5 wrote:
Not that I haven't been a part of it in past, but these threads quickly devolve into nasty personal attacks.

I thought the common cold was a virus, there are no cures for viruses. Right?
[/quote]

It quickly does because I think most of us (I include me in this at times.) tend to forget that there are other valid opinions. I have been part of it in the past as well.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 15, 2010 08:59AM)
I've created a monster. ;)