"TSA will grope less children"
- Thread starter Rascal
- Start date
I dont think you can say that North Korea's policies worked well for them. They are shunned by most of the world, close to bankruptcy and the people are starving, not to mention that their macho behavior has brought them to the brink of a war they have no chance to win. No, if one country does not understand the principles of real politik, its North Korea. The people that run that place are completely out of their minds and have absolutely no contact with the real world.
And well, the UN is a voluntary organization. You dont expect them to start a potential nuclear conflict now do you? Besides, with no army of their own, all they can do is talk.
Eh, what dictators are investing in terrorism? Most of the dictators are on the payroll of the US, at least in the Middle East, because they promise to crackdown on groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and other supposed terrorist organizations. Why else do you think the US only reluctantly supports the Arab spring?
Besides, unleashing a nuclear holocaust against dictators because they violate human rights? Hmm yes, that seems like an exercise in pointlessness. Besides, I thought you would understand the principles of real politik, you would know that nuclear attacks against anyone are extremely damaging, potentially suicidal even, for America.
Really though, dictators are generally very predictable in their behavior. They only care for their own power and position, and because of that, they are paranoid. It is why they ruthlessly deal with rivals, even if these rivals are staunch supporters of these dictators. It is why Dictator administrations are inefficient. Only idiots get to the top because idiots are unlikely to become a rival to the dictator. So, as America, why would you care? They make for good allies, especially when it comes to anti terrorism because dictators would see terrorists as a potential rivals and fear their destabilizing influence. And if you dont want to be involved with them, you can just ignore them as long as they keep their craziness to their own country. Once in a while you have to bomb one when in a hallucinatory state they invade a neighbor, but other then that, they pose no problem.
And as for terrorism, it has become transnational. Only more reason not to bomb individual nation state actors, since you would only be wasting your time. Counter terrorism operations done by groups like the CIA are probably way more effective against these kind of terrorists then full scale conflicts.
And well, the UN is a voluntary organization. You dont expect them to start a potential nuclear conflict now do you? Besides, with no army of their own, all they can do is talk.
Eh, what dictators are investing in terrorism? Most of the dictators are on the payroll of the US, at least in the Middle East, because they promise to crackdown on groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and other supposed terrorist organizations. Why else do you think the US only reluctantly supports the Arab spring?
Besides, unleashing a nuclear holocaust against dictators because they violate human rights? Hmm yes, that seems like an exercise in pointlessness. Besides, I thought you would understand the principles of real politik, you would know that nuclear attacks against anyone are extremely damaging, potentially suicidal even, for America.
Really though, dictators are generally very predictable in their behavior. They only care for their own power and position, and because of that, they are paranoid. It is why they ruthlessly deal with rivals, even if these rivals are staunch supporters of these dictators. It is why Dictator administrations are inefficient. Only idiots get to the top because idiots are unlikely to become a rival to the dictator. So, as America, why would you care? They make for good allies, especially when it comes to anti terrorism because dictators would see terrorists as a potential rivals and fear their destabilizing influence. And if you dont want to be involved with them, you can just ignore them as long as they keep their craziness to their own country. Once in a while you have to bomb one when in a hallucinatory state they invade a neighbor, but other then that, they pose no problem.
And as for terrorism, it has become transnational. Only more reason not to bomb individual nation state actors, since you would only be wasting your time. Counter terrorism operations done by groups like the CIA are probably way more effective against these kind of terrorists then full scale conflicts.
Not to be extremely facetious here but can you please put some substance in your posts x.x
Even I had -some- substance. And why? cause im racist? I dont actually agree with zero... you understand that right?
Nevermind flame on <3
Edit: Prolly the ones that go Yallalalalalhalalal right before they do something
And my response will be so short and simple to all this. Phoenix has a point the US can go bombs away and still have enough left for a few rounds more. but all i say is 9-11 <.< an act that went so easy it's a joke in security business (not that i know)
Imagine the chaos that would ensue after you had that little bombs away party. It's going to be the ultimate world war starter cocktail and it's going to make WW1 and 2 look like a kindergarten fight between 2 year olds!!
Imagine the chaos that would ensue after you had that little bombs away party. It's going to be the ultimate world war starter cocktail and it's going to make WW1 and 2 look like a kindergarten fight between 2 year olds!!
Everything is a game to Zero... He doesnt actually believe anything he says. Anyway.
Why can no one see my Whack-a-mole reference!?
Moles=Terrorists
Player=Country
Country puts money in the machine for fun. Terrorists pop-up everywhere. Countries whack the terrorists. Countries put more money in the machine... and terrorists pop-up again.
Its kinda brilliant come on
Well which are the noisy terrorists with the virgins and the yelling?
Oh come on, I will admit, not my best, But you have to admit that Zero is just making a mockery of the entire thread.
Blind ignorance to dealing with a problem through brute force doesnt solve any problem. It just leads to more problems.
Thats why I used the whack-a-mole. References.. The more money you pump into that machine the more might you will need to combat it. Therefore the root of the problem is the US itself for fucking up the endgame back in 1988 and you know it.
They wouldnt have anyone to hate if you had just spent 1m of that billion to build them a goddamn school.
So yea. You want my opinion? Its cause and effect. I am not saying either side is right. I am not condoning terrorism. But it is the fault of the US ignorance to let others fight their wars that lead to the status quo in the first place.
And now this yahoo suggests more goddamn violence? I dont care if it wasnt my best post. The fact that you even for a second entertain the notion of just nuking everything out of the sky is absolutely ridiculous lex.
Cause and effect. If you stop being the cause. Your country will stop feeling its effects. But you want to be the cause.. and the effect. Well look how that turned out.
Now you got to pass the patriot act and a whole bunch of little laws and reasons why the US should have more control. Oh yes the world is coming along nicely now.
When are you people going to stop analyzing the EFFECTS as the CAUSES. Terrorism is NOT a cause. ITS an EFFECT.
Lol i think core is onto something here. I mean just trying to count up the amount of sponsoring the US puts into the bad guys so that they can sell on the black market would make the my head spin. And like you said your self most dictators are on the US payroll you ditch the US and suddenly there is a large hole no other country can fill in would solve a huge amount of problems in the world not to mention the way corruption would decrease just by removing the US. Of course on other sectors there would be drawbacks but hey we still have China and Russia. And those countries have gotten their asses kicked enough times to know that it's not worth the time to try something stupid.....for now
Really you think so? You think everyone is gonna be happy now after you occupied their countries for the last decade? Are you sure Mr Politician sir?
Sorry I am in a bit of a foul mood atm. But if history teaches you anything. Terrorism is just another word for rebel.. and how many rebels have there been in the past.. how many revolutionists... I mean COME ON It wont ever end. The more might you show the craftier they become. Please forget the IDEA of killing terrorism... WHICH IS AN EFFECT.
If I kick a bear enough times... it will attack me. If i kick a human enough times, it will attack me.
Dont think for a second that nuclear weapons will stop it. Even if only 2 men remain alive on this planet... they will be rebels and terrorists to one another just because they disagree over which one is the hottest Jetson.
A cause is not always followed by an effect but thats when you need to worry about it.
Sorry I am in a bit of a foul mood atm. But if history teaches you anything. Terrorism is just another word for rebel.. and how many rebels have there been in the past.. how many revolutionists... I mean COME ON It wont ever end. The more might you show the craftier they become. Please forget the IDEA of killing terrorism... WHICH IS AN EFFECT.
If I kick a bear enough times... it will attack me. If i kick a human enough times, it will attack me.
Dont think for a second that nuclear weapons will stop it. Even if only 2 men remain alive on this planet... they will be rebels and terrorists to one another just because they disagree over which one is the hottest Jetson.
A cause is not always followed by an effect but thats when you need to worry about it.
OH YES CAUSE REBELS NEVER USE THE INNOCENTS AS SHIELDS
Theres a reason why the word rebel is so freaking ambigious and even a rebel terrorizes those he wants to terrorize. I think you might not have your definition of terrorism correctly. Cause even though Terrorists can target the innocent not all terrorists do(True IRA for instance).
Please read the definitions for both Terrorist, Terrorism, Rebellion and Rebels.
Rebel = Freedom Fighter <-> Terrorist
Its how the world has worked for the longest time now. Realism instead of idealism. Obviously, at times, it nearly got us all killed, but then again, the league of nations and the UN also have nicely discredited the idea that idealism is effective. And well, using brute force in certain situations most certainly solves problems. You just gotta be careful that you dont think brute force is the solution to everything.
Right now, you cant say that they wouldnt hate us if we had done this and that differently. Besides that, it is also very pointless, because we havent done those things differently. We didnt build them schools and they do hate us for various reasons, and thats the reality we have to work with. Thats just hindsight bias.
.
Read my post again, I didnt entertain the notion of nuking everything. Its a suicidally dumb idea. And was it their fault? Oh yes, sure. But really, whats the purpose of blaming past US administrations? Like they knew that funding partisans in Afghanistan who fought against the Soviets would cause them to turn on them a decade later.
No, cause and effect is an ever on going chain. You are right when you say its cause and effect. However, terrorism IS a cause, of new effects. You could try to examine the causes of terrorism today, but that would be a historical study.
Right now, you cant say that they wouldnt hate us if we had done this and that differently. Besides that, it is also very pointless, because we havent done those things differently. We didnt build them schools and they do hate us for various reasons, and thats the reality we have to work with. Thats just hindsight bias.
.
Read my post again, I didnt entertain the notion of nuking everything. Its a suicidally dumb idea. And was it their fault? Oh yes, sure. But really, whats the purpose of blaming past US administrations? Like they knew that funding partisans in Afghanistan who fought against the Soviets would cause them to turn on them a decade later.
No, cause and effect is an ever on going chain. You are right when you say its cause and effect. However, terrorism IS a cause, of new effects. You could try to examine the causes of terrorism today, but that would be a historical study.
there is just about no "never" in any situation.... =___= ofc some rebels use innocents as shields... which makes them terrorists .... and terrorism just means to use terror as a means to accomplish something, in modern language it has a societal meaning, which I cannot define because I do not speak for all of society. But terrorism in general means to attack the innocent. Any justified act of war could not be called terrorism, because then every soldier and every nation would be terrorists.
-.- Just no.
YES I KNOW ITS A HINDSIGHT BIAS THATS WHY I USED IT!
You cant solve the problems of today if you just quickfix everything like you people are oh-so famous for doing, a bandaid here a quick patch there without actually doing anything to change policy and just gripping that ice cold hand that used to represent justice and equality now simply represents might.
.
You said my post was worse than Zero's cause you didnt call his post bad ya mook. Even though his post was simply inflammatory.
Fallacy of a single cause. IF that were even remotely true that we need to view terrorists of today as the cause of the problems and all the new effects you are simply casting blame away from YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS THE STRONGEST.
YOU CAUSED IT.... AND NOW ITS THE CAUSE YOU ARE FIGHTING CONGRATULATIONS. YOU FUCKED UP. ADMIT IT AND MOVE ON!
YES I KNOW ITS A HINDSIGHT BIAS THATS WHY I USED IT!
You cant solve the problems of today if you just quickfix everything like you people are oh-so famous for doing, a bandaid here a quick patch there without actually doing anything to change policy and just gripping that ice cold hand that used to represent justice and equality now simply represents might.
.
You said my post was worse than Zero's cause you didnt call his post bad ya mook. Even though his post was simply inflammatory.
Fallacy of a single cause. IF that were even remotely true that we need to view terrorists of today as the cause of the problems and all the new effects you are simply casting blame away from YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS THE STRONGEST.
YOU CAUSED IT.... AND NOW ITS THE CAUSE YOU ARE FIGHTING CONGRATULATIONS. YOU FUCKED UP. ADMIT IT AND MOVE ON!
Read a history book. In particular, a European History book.
Right, are you really that naive. Justice and equality are all nice, except when they go against the interests of the state, and in extend, against the interests of the nation. And a state has only one duty, and that is to act in the best interests of the country. Thats why any politician that is worth something, will let justice and equality slide when they have too. So at best, you can see that justice and equality are some guiding principles that are followed when they are not to much of a bother, and can be sidetracked when its suits them.
I wouldnt say that an armed intervention in a country is a simple quickfix. Anyways, politicians must do what they think is in the best interest of the country, and they have to do that with imperfect information. They arent aware of all the factors that might play a role nor do they have the ability to see into the future and see what their policies lead too. So, while it might be simple for someone standing on the sideline to say that the entire policy must be change just like that, politicians have to take a lot more into account then the most effective solution for a problem, simply because such solutions may not be in the best interest of the country. Politicians are still humans, so their choices can still turn out to be bad choices. But yeah, like the rest of us, they cant tell when they have to make that choice.
Well, he didnt came up with such non arguments like 'lets get rid of the US and all will be fine'. Although nuking everything that stands in your path is a dumb idea, the rest of his post touches on classical realist international relations theory. And how stupid it may sound, but nuking all that stands against you was a real option some 40 years ago. Full scale nuclear war was a serious threat and both the US and USSR treated it as a serious option they could take against the other.
Dont deny the fact that terrorism is the cause of many short and long time effects on all kinds of levels.
And well, if America really caused terrorism, then in that case, they arent shying away from their responsibility to clean up their mess. Although you can ask yourself if what youre doing is the most effective way to clean up your shit.
Right, are you really that naive. Justice and equality are all nice, except when they go against the interests of the state, and in extend, against the interests of the nation. And a state has only one duty, and that is to act in the best interests of the country. Thats why any politician that is worth something, will let justice and equality slide when they have too. So at best, you can see that justice and equality are some guiding principles that are followed when they are not to much of a bother, and can be sidetracked when its suits them.
I wouldnt say that an armed intervention in a country is a simple quickfix. Anyways, politicians must do what they think is in the best interest of the country, and they have to do that with imperfect information. They arent aware of all the factors that might play a role nor do they have the ability to see into the future and see what their policies lead too. So, while it might be simple for someone standing on the sideline to say that the entire policy must be change just like that, politicians have to take a lot more into account then the most effective solution for a problem, simply because such solutions may not be in the best interest of the country. Politicians are still humans, so their choices can still turn out to be bad choices. But yeah, like the rest of us, they cant tell when they have to make that choice.
Well, he didnt came up with such non arguments like 'lets get rid of the US and all will be fine'. Although nuking everything that stands in your path is a dumb idea, the rest of his post touches on classical realist international relations theory. And how stupid it may sound, but nuking all that stands against you was a real option some 40 years ago. Full scale nuclear war was a serious threat and both the US and USSR treated it as a serious option they could take against the other.
Dont deny the fact that terrorism is the cause of many short and long time effects on all kinds of levels.
And well, if America really caused terrorism, then in that case, they arent shying away from their responsibility to clean up their mess. Although you can ask yourself if what youre doing is the most effective way to clean up your shit.
Dance puppets dance! :hohoho:
For the record, I would like for @Faux Angel to check her gotdamn tone when she speaks to me. Also, it should be noted that I was not joking for all of the idiots people who didn't understand that. I was citing benefits of taking a militaristic standpoint to the situation facing America. Of course that doesn't mean that I agree with everything I post. That's the beauty of playing devil's advocate. While I do not subscribe to the methods I laid down my endorsement thereof was meant to spark controversy so that we might explore the pros and cons of militarism.
@Core : Everything is not a game to me Core. You're a game. Your entire existence is little more than a way for me to entertain myself. The only reason you exist Core is to entertain me. You're like a dog or a cat. You have no other purpose than to entertain your master and in return you feed on the scraps I cast you. I do not make a mockery of this thread but yes I do aim to make a mockery of you. But come on, you make it so easy. You're an attention needy piece of trash who isn't shit in real-life and doesn't have anything going for him so you flee to the online world to try and make a name for yourself but there is nothing to hide the fact that you're just as much of a loser online as you are offline. You would better serve us all if you just, well, died.
Getting back to the actual discussion... to reiterate, while I do not subscribe to the approaches I endorsed, I was quite serious in bringing them to the table. Because you all let this thread get away from you I'll make this exceedingly simple. :smart:
Suppose you are the leader of a country. You could be a president, dictator, king, whatever you see fit to call yourself for the sake of the argument. Now, you are in a situation wherein 3/4 world despise your nation. You have the means to make allies out of some of them but not all of them. Given that you cannot be friends with everyone do you: A) Continue to seek peaceful co-existence where none will ever be found or B) Use every means in your military to destroy those countries that refuse to co-exist with you.
I'm curious.
For the record, I would like for @Faux Angel to check her gotdamn tone when she speaks to me. Also, it should be noted that I was not joking for all of the idiots people who didn't understand that. I was citing benefits of taking a militaristic standpoint to the situation facing America. Of course that doesn't mean that I agree with everything I post. That's the beauty of playing devil's advocate. While I do not subscribe to the methods I laid down my endorsement thereof was meant to spark controversy so that we might explore the pros and cons of militarism.
@Core : Everything is not a game to me Core. You're a game. Your entire existence is little more than a way for me to entertain myself. The only reason you exist Core is to entertain me. You're like a dog or a cat. You have no other purpose than to entertain your master and in return you feed on the scraps I cast you. I do not make a mockery of this thread but yes I do aim to make a mockery of you. But come on, you make it so easy. You're an attention needy piece of trash who isn't shit in real-life and doesn't have anything going for him so you flee to the online world to try and make a name for yourself but there is nothing to hide the fact that you're just as much of a loser online as you are offline. You would better serve us all if you just, well, died.
Getting back to the actual discussion... to reiterate, while I do not subscribe to the approaches I endorsed, I was quite serious in bringing them to the table. Because you all let this thread get away from you I'll make this exceedingly simple. :smart:
Suppose you are the leader of a country. You could be a president, dictator, king, whatever you see fit to call yourself for the sake of the argument. Now, you are in a situation wherein 3/4 world despise your nation. You have the means to make allies out of some of them but not all of them. Given that you cannot be friends with everyone do you: A) Continue to seek peaceful co-existence where none will ever be found or B) Use every means in your military to destroy those countries that refuse to co-exist with you.
I'm curious.