US is going to war tomarrow... dang...
Sunday, March 16, 2003 by IPlural | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
opps
 |
|
Page 23 of 85 | |
|
|---|
paxx
Reply #442 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:43 PM
Reply #442 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:43 PM
sig: I never said differently about the French revolution. We agree 100%.
About "the Americas" it may be a language thing. In French we just say "L'Amérique" (singular) to describe the whole continent (North and South), maybe it's the same in Spannish.
About wars. How about if nationnal armies were outlawed? Only have an International Law Enforcement forces that would be deployed only when necessary, that is when a country shows any sign of enroling a local militia. I'm sure that would keep most countries quiet and peaceful.
About "the Americas" it may be a language thing. In French we just say "L'Amérique" (singular) to describe the whole continent (North and South), maybe it's the same in Spannish.
About wars. How about if nationnal armies were outlawed? Only have an International Law Enforcement forces that would be deployed only when necessary, that is when a country shows any sign of enroling a local militia. I'm sure that would keep most countries quiet and peaceful.
Green Armani
Reply #444 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:48 PM
Reply #444 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:48 PM
That wouldn't be feasible...for one and it just comes to me as the first thought is that an international force would have to reside in each conutry because an attack can occure in a matter of hours, a la Blitzkrieg.
You need to have a sustainable force defending your borders because ordering an army to go with super size fries like your at Burger King won't work.
You need to have a sustainable force defending your borders because ordering an army to go with super size fries like your at Burger King won't work.
JollyFE
Reply #447 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:53 PM
Reply #447 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:53 PM
Green Armani,
Another one that comes to mind is when only one side is allowed to be armed, then absolute power, corruption and genocide follow.
JollyFE
Another one that comes to mind is when only one side is allowed to be armed, then absolute power, corruption and genocide follow.
JollyFE
kthxbye
Reply #448 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:58 PM
Reply #448 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:58 PM
"I feel for you paxx because the day your faced with a life or death situation you would rather die then defend yourself even if it meant killing someone. If you have a girlfriend or wife I suggest you tell them that you plan on wimping out before hand so that if your ever faced with a life or death situation you'll turn and run."
I'm sorry Green - I like you as a person and all - but that statement shows some disgustedly narrowminded thinking. Because a person has ideals or views that differ from your own that instantly makes them a coward or a wimp? Personally, I think in today's world where violence is a glorified ratings-grabbing thing, that it's good to see people who still possess personal ideals such as these. In case you forget, these same ideals were held by other notables throughout history: Ghandi, The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr... Oh, and these other two that you just might know. Jesus and Buddha.
Just my 2 cents... one other quick post and I'm done - I really hate getting involved in threads like these.
I'm sorry Green - I like you as a person and all - but that statement shows some disgustedly narrowminded thinking. Because a person has ideals or views that differ from your own that instantly makes them a coward or a wimp? Personally, I think in today's world where violence is a glorified ratings-grabbing thing, that it's good to see people who still possess personal ideals such as these. In case you forget, these same ideals were held by other notables throughout history: Ghandi, The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr... Oh, and these other two that you just might know. Jesus and Buddha.
Just my 2 cents... one other quick post and I'm done - I really hate getting involved in threads like these.
kthxbye
Reply #449 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:01 PM
Reply #449 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:01 PM
alo_cmr - I don't think anyone's noted this yet - but you're both right and wrong when you keep stating that the US is not America.
The US /is/ America at the same time it isn't. America !== America. I know in Spanish (at least Mexican spanish, I assume you call it the same in Spain,) that the name of the US is Estados Unidos (pardon any possible horrible spelling, I haven't studied the tongue in 11 years,) but the full name of the country is "The United States of America" - and consequently, in addition to shortening it to US, we (and others,) often simply shorten it to "America" - however, we do not imply that we mean the bulk of North and South America when we say it.
Just a little harmless clarification.
The US /is/ America at the same time it isn't. America !== America. I know in Spanish (at least Mexican spanish, I assume you call it the same in Spain,) that the name of the US is Estados Unidos (pardon any possible horrible spelling, I haven't studied the tongue in 11 years,) but the full name of the country is "The United States of America" - and consequently, in addition to shortening it to US, we (and others,) often simply shorten it to "America" - however, we do not imply that we mean the bulk of North and South America when we say it.
Just a little harmless clarification.
Buzz_Hog
Reply #450 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:03 PM
Reply #450 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:03 PM
"About wars. How about if nationnal armies were outlawed? Only have an International Law Enforcement forces that would be deployed only when necessary, that is when a country shows any sign of enroling a local militia. I'm sure that would keep most countries quiet and peaceful."
Isn't that what Hitler wanted to do?
And obviously the UN isn't effective in being any type of deterant to the likes of Saddam Hussain and Bin Laden and his rag tag crew...
It's ok though... France never has to pick up a weapon and stand up for itself or for any other body of people in need. Once again, the onus is on us. I mean hey, France basically gave Iraq the means and methods to produce nuclear weapons to Iraq.
And it was the Iranians who initially bombed it, and the Isreali's finished the job. In a one breath sentence, the Iranians had more common sense than the French did. and isn't it good to know that good ole Chirack is still in control of France and trying to be dictator, of the EU.... (Over my dead body he will)
Providing Iraq with Nuclear capabilities, and people are supposed to listen to that idiot? I was born on a day, but it sure as hell wasn't yesterday.
Isn't that what Hitler wanted to do?
And obviously the UN isn't effective in being any type of deterant to the likes of Saddam Hussain and Bin Laden and his rag tag crew...
It's ok though... France never has to pick up a weapon and stand up for itself or for any other body of people in need. Once again, the onus is on us. I mean hey, France basically gave Iraq the means and methods to produce nuclear weapons to Iraq.
And it was the Iranians who initially bombed it, and the Isreali's finished the job. In a one breath sentence, the Iranians had more common sense than the French did. and isn't it good to know that good ole Chirack is still in control of France and trying to be dictator, of the EU.... (Over my dead body he will)
Providing Iraq with Nuclear capabilities, and people are supposed to listen to that idiot? I was born on a day, but it sure as hell wasn't yesterday.
sig101
Reply #452 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:04 PM
Reply #452 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:04 PM
Alo, and as you should know there was a moratorium on capital punishment in the US in the 70's. I believe even today not all US states have capital punishment. Not everyone in the US supports capital punishment for the reasons you cited.
Despite apparent assumptions based on rhetoric, the population of the USA is not monolithic in its views and positions.
Paxx.
Ah, but that's the thing, which countries are going to give up their arms? They'll do so by unanimous agreement? And for those who don't and won't? Who will comprise the international swat team? The UN? Couldn't even rouse itself (for many reasons, including lack of US support) to stop the genocide in Rwanda when given advance notice by the Canadian commander of UN forces on the ground. Maybe in some future time, but not in our lifetime.
Despite apparent assumptions based on rhetoric, the population of the USA is not monolithic in its views and positions.
Paxx.
Ah, but that's the thing, which countries are going to give up their arms? They'll do so by unanimous agreement? And for those who don't and won't? Who will comprise the international swat team? The UN? Couldn't even rouse itself (for many reasons, including lack of US support) to stop the genocide in Rwanda when given advance notice by the Canadian commander of UN forces on the ground. Maybe in some future time, but not in our lifetime.
Bangkokboy
Reply #453 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:08 PM
Reply #453 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:08 PM
"Only have an International Law Enforcement forces that would be deployed only when necessary" -paxx
Scary!
the problem with any law "enforcement forces" is that they always follow someone's orders. we like those "someones" to be locals since they're far more accountable to us than a distant person or persons in the "world community".
i'm always surprised to see people who won't trust a country government as far as they can throw it, but appear to be willing to trust a world government. that seems illogical.
Scary!
the problem with any law "enforcement forces" is that they always follow someone's orders. we like those "someones" to be locals since they're far more accountable to us than a distant person or persons in the "world community". i'm always surprised to see people who won't trust a country government as far as they can throw it, but appear to be willing to trust a world government. that seems illogical.
Buzz_Hog
Reply #454 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:10 PM
Reply #454 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:10 PM
Illogical, but hey, it's idealistic.... (Bravo!!!!!!)
alo_cmr
Reply #455 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:13 PM
Reply #455 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:13 PM
kthxbye your Spanish is well, but when you have conflicts calling something you have to say the entire thing. You can't call America at USA because America is North America, South America and Central America, eventhought you can't call USA North America (many newspapers and other mass media do) becase there is another country called Canada.
(My applauses were for your first post not for Buzz_Hog one.)
(My applauses were for your first post not for Buzz_Hog one.)
Buzz_Hog
Reply #456 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:15 PM
Reply #456 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:15 PM
(My applauses were for your first post not for Buzz_Hog one.)
Oh, you mean that you are happy that France provided Saddam Hussain with the ability to produce nuclear weapons?
It's a simple yes or no question.
Oh, you mean that you are happy that France provided Saddam Hussain with the ability to produce nuclear weapons?
It's a simple yes or no question.
IPlural
Reply #457 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:15 PM
Reply #457 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:15 PM
I know, make it against international law to make bullets
then all you've got is a really crappy club...
then all you've got is a really crappy club...
Bangkokboy
Reply #458 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:15 PM
Reply #458 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:15 PM
i was once chewed out by a Canadian friend for the US's monopolization of the term American. I asked: When the man with the uzzi on the plane directs everyone with an American passport to come forward, what are you going to do? He advised me that he would stay in his seat. 
Green Armani
Reply #459 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:16 PM
Reply #459 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:16 PM
Maybe my example isn't that clear.....maybe this is better.....There's people who believe in relativism, where it's up to you on what is right and wrong, good or bad, and it clearly would seem that they have no morals. But when they themselves are tested against their beliefs they fail. Why? Because everyone has morals, everyone knows what is right or wrong (unless they plea insanity) it's only if they choose to do so.
If I offended you paxx that was not my intention but I do have the right to express my opinion and that is what it was at the time.
If I offended you paxx that was not my intention but I do have the right to express my opinion and that is what it was at the time.
alo_cmr
Reply #460 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:16 PM
Reply #460 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:16 PM
I hate you have Nuclear weapons, russias ones, chinas ones ...
I hate NUKES.
I hope this answers u.
I hate NUKES.
I hope this answers u.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 23 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Reply #441 Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:40 PM
But not kill them.
The newspapers have demonstrated that some people that your system judge were inocent but as you fried/kill/gassed/whatever them you can not rectify.