• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

President May be in Trouble

Nova_C said:
I think you'll find Starsevol specifically said 'radicals'.

I appreciated that, though radicals exist in every corner of the world, and are not just Muslim. Most faith's have a long history of violence, even within it's own peoples. Ideology is another source of radicalism.

The problem isn't war, the problem is people. The problem is nature. Nature isn't peaceful. It's bloody and isolating. It's full of starvation, fear and danger. Plants and animals are constantly battling each other for survival.

Humans have managed to include esoteric concepts like religion and ideology, but the results are the same. To pretend that the world isn't like this is not only naive, but dangerous all on its own.
Click to expand...

I agree full on.

Unless you change the core nature of every living being on the planet, you are going to have war, conflict and strife. It's survival. It's nature.

Mother Nature is the world's greatest supervillain, and her cruelty is only outweighed by her deviousness. Animals and plants wage epic wars right under our noses at all times.

Humans just take it to another level because we have technology, language and better thumbs. ;)

Give a person a gold watch and have them stand on the street. 1,000 people may pass them without incident, but person number 1,001 gets the radical idea they want that watch and stabs them for it.

Same deal with religion 1,000 people may read the same text then person number 1,001 reads it and interprets another way. Boom, a radical off-shoot idea is born.

Unless we become soulless, mindless robots, there will be conflict on some scale. Anything capable of free thought is capable of an act that can be deemed evil.
 
Probably a lot. No actually definitely a lot. Hitler was a very sick and twisted man and I sure am glad he was stopped.
But that is not was I was trying to say here. I tried to say that if he didn't make such a fatal mistake about not deploying enough soldiers to France the situation would have been a lot different. Many more people would have been killed in gas chambers and many more Americans would have died on French soil.

Did you know that Hitler "only" killed a sixth of the people that Stalin killed? Whose still in people's mouths more Stalin or Hitler? Mao Zedong killed between 40-70 million Chinese, did you know that?

And those are not just my facts, those ARE facts.
 
Evil doesn't even really come into it.

Animals aren't 'evil', though they are merciless and brutal. Evil is a construct of morality, which is, itself, a construct of human thought. Even if you believe in a creator and that morality was handed down by it, I've never heard of the actions of predators being described as 'immoral' (Which is why I give animal rights radicals the biggest WTF).
 
Actually, the end of WWI set the stage for WWII. I believe it was the treaty of versailles that put so many restrictions on Germany and the German people that when Hitler rose in power with the The National Socialist German Workers' Party it seemed like a good solution to the hell they had been living in.

America joined WWII after the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was only after we joined, did we find the camps and horrors that Hilter and the Nazi party was doing. I believe it was the Soviet Union who was our ally during WWII that found the camps first.
 
Which why I said "deemed evil." ;)

Bleeding heart nut jobs think Lions are "evil" for killing Zebra, when it is no different from how "evil" it is for a human to kill a deer for food. It's survival.
 
The deaths Stalin is responsible for is a number much debated, but most people agree it's greater than the 6 million that died in the concentration camps.

Not sure why that's relevant to this notion that pacifism is a realistic goal.

I would think it's proof that pacifism, as noble a goal as it is, is foolish.
 
Bonkers_Scar2011 said:
Probably a lot. No actually definitely a lot. Hitler was a very sick and twisted man and I sure am glad he was stopped.
But that is not was I was trying to say here. I tried to say that if he didn't make such a fatal mistake about not deploying enough soldiers to France the situation would have been a lot different. Many more people would have been killed in gas chambers and many more Americans would have died on French soil.

Did you know that Hitler "only" killed a sixth of the people that Stalin killed? Whose still in people's mouths more Stalin or Hitler? Mao Zedong killed between 40-70 million Chinese, did you know that?

And those are not just my facts, those ARE facts.
Click to expand...

Yes, Hitler made a fatal mistake, and yes Stalin and Mao killed more people. But regardless of that, the US ARMY risked and lost their own lives and HELPED. So when you say that you wish there were no more armies, please remember that. Without troops from the US and the UK things would (not could, but WOULD) have been so so so so much worse.
 
I agree, Stalin was a murdering overachiever. The only reason Hitler was used for comparison in this thread is because it was a common knowledge background.

All it proves is we are one wild idea away from someone going on a million man murder spree at any time. Good thing there are military forces on standby to stop them.
 
Nova_C said:
The deaths Stalin is responsible for is a number much debated, but most people agree it's greater than the 6 million that died in the concentration camps.

Not sure why that's relevant to this notion that pacifism is a realistic goal.

I would think it's proof that pacifism, as noble a goal as it is, is foolish.
Click to expand...

We agree again!!!!!!!
This is one scary-azz day, lemme tell you!!! :)
 
BloodyBaroness said:
I agree, Stalin was a murdering overachiever. The only reason Hitler was used for comparison in this thread is because it was a common knowledge background.

All it proves is we are one wild idea away from someone going on a million man murder spree at any time. Good thing there are military forces on standby to stop them.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you! I am also glad to be in America, where we actually do have more freedoms than other countries.

I know I have said it a thousand times but for those that have traveled the world, they will tell you that there is no place like America.
 
You know, I almost don't care where this thread goes at this point. I got to use the phrase "murdering overachiever" in the context of a discussion.

This is a good day.
 
beautifullywild77 said:
America joined WWII after the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was only after we joined, did we find the camps and horrors that Hilter and the Nazi party was doing. I believe it was the Soviet Union who was our ally during WWII that found the camps first.
Click to expand...

The Red Army knew about those camps long before they did anything, they just took ages to respond. Lots of Germans died in Stalingrad cause it was all on big waiting game and they weren't equipped for -30 degree Russian winter. They died a slow death and the Soviets did finally do something, Nazis were so weak they couldn't even fight back. Thanks to Hitler again.

starsevol said:
Yes, Hitler made a fatal mistake, and yes Stalin and Mao killed more people. But regardless of that, the US ARMY risked and lost their own lives and HELPED. So when you say that you wish there were no more armies, please remember that. Without troops from the US and the UK things would (not could, but WOULD) have been so so so so much worse.
Click to expand...

This may very well be. Thank you for that. And thank God Hitler didn't decide to attack the Brits properly.

BloodyBaroness said:
I agree, Stalin was a murdering overachiever. The only reason Hitler was used for comparison in this thread is because it was a common knowledge background.

All it proves is we are one wild idea away from someone going on a million man murder spree at any time. Good thing there are military forces on standby to stop them.
Click to expand...

Military forces that help but also cause more fatalities nonstop.
 
Bonkers_Scar2011 said:
Military forces that help but also cause more fatalities nonstop.
Click to expand...

So you would rather let a Stalin-like villain run wild and murder people at will, with no military or some kind of force to stop him?

That is the most unbelievably naive thing I have ever heard.

So you would rather lay down and die, than try to protect your family or loved ones?

I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from. I can not wrap my mind around that concept.
 
I am for a world without Stalin's, Hitler's, Mao Zedong's, Al Qaeda, Gaza, etc. so we would not need military to stop them. I know it may be naive but one can hope. If not for me, maybe for generations to come.

I am not saying we should stop armies of one kind (like America, Britain) but let other armies (Al Qaeda, etc) roam free. ALL OF IT NEEDS TO STOP. But we will defo eventually destroy ourselves. If there were no groups causing trouble, no armies would be needed. Just look at the Iraq war - so pointless. All of this for OIL!

Is this really so hard to understand?
 
Bonkers_Scar2011 said:
I am for a world without Stalin's, Hitler's, Mao Zedong's, Al Qaeda, Gaza, etc. so we would not need military to stop them. I know it may be naive but one can hope. If not for me, maybe for generations to come.

I am not saying we should stop armies of one kind (like America, Britain) but let other armies (Al Qaeda, etc) roam free. ALL OF IT NEEDS TO STOP. But we will defo eventually destroy ourselves. If there were no groups causing trouble, no armies would be needed. Just look at the Iraq war - so pointless. All of this for OIL!

Is this really so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Unless you can surgically alter every single infants brain at birth cutting away all violent tendancies, that will never happen. Fill the world with nice calm lobotomized creatures.
And no, we will not destroy ourselves. If that were true, nothing would be alive today. As was said previously, it is nature.

Perhaps your time would be better spent hoping for something achievable...?
 
And the world is steadily getting worse. Crime rates rise everywhere. The world today is definitely not a better place compared to say a hundred years ago. If anything it's gotten worse and will continue to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top