Is this a valid argument? The soviets also had nukes. It's a little one-sided too - for all we know now (and, more importantly, the Russians knew then!), if the USSR hadn't had atomic weapons, the Allies may well have invaded them instead.
It's going to be interesting (and probably rather messy) when we finally reach the point where further advances in military technology are impossible, and everyone's back on an even footing.
Tom
If there had been no nukes, then showing restraint and not invading, given such overwhelming conventional superiority, would have been something really new.
Without nukes the Russians would have been at risk, They had just expanded their borders and were obviously going to be a problem. However, no country with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked.
Whatever happens, we have got The Maxim gun, and they have not.
The USSR didn't detonate their first A-bomb until 1949.... There was a span of 5 years where the West still could have invaded...
"Everything that can be invented - has already been invented"
right?
Your point of view is ignorant and offensive.
At least tell us where you are from so that we may have context?
Especially for the innocents whose blood Yank "Freedom" is grounded on - a bit like the poor wretches who were buried under the foundation stones of buildings.
We should never forget those murdering hypocrites who, knowing that killing their fellow humans is wrong, set out to go around the World deliberately to kill their fellow humans. That they got killed themselves is social justice. The Yanks currently being killed in Iraq are an example of such hypocrites receiving their just deserts.
So it's OK to kill innocent people, but not OK to cause you offence?
What a strange morality you have.
Self-indulgent emotions such as the taking of offence are gone in a few minutes. Death is somewhat more permanent.
Where am I from? I am from the Human Race, a race that bleeds easily and objects to being burnt to death because someone unconnected with me has different politics to someone else unconnected with me.
This is not a NG c> > Many innocent people had to die so that Yankland
Gentleman
I recognise this literary style, we are obviously communicating with a Thrall from planet Zog. Do try not to alarm him as he may be willing to trade his advanced technology for cheap ballpoint pens and week old peach flavoured yoghurt.
Damn, I've done it again. A single moment of philosophical thought sparks a massive round of mud-slinging. At least we haven't quite got a massive flame war yet, although ignition doesn't seem that far away...
Tom
It's interesting that you will not say where you are from.
Since you didn't understand the depth of my comment I will expand.
By "ignorant" I meant that the comment you made is ignorant of all the issues and realities at play in the world, both from a historical and current perspective. It is also ignorant because the effects of September
11th. are still being felt worldwide and affected people of all races to the tune of hundreds or thousands, not the few thousand that died due to the attacks.Ignorant because it is a prevalent (foreign) point of view that minimizes the world to the United States on one side and everyone else on the other. Ignorant because it proves a lack of understanding of what freedom means (not just US freedom, but in general) and what it takes to obtain, secure and maintain it. Ignorant because you directly equated the unfortunate (and, yes, unnecesary) deaths of people (in Iraq, I presume) to freedom in the United States. That's truly ignorant.
And, while this isn't en exhaustive list at all, ignorant because you don't seem to understand that humanity still has a long way to evolve until violence, death, war, murder and all sorts of unfortunate and barbaric methods of conflict resolution are erradicated from our very DNA. This is a species that has had many GENOCIDEs in recent history, resulting in millions upon millions of people dead. How much of that history do you want repeated? It takes a great deal of intestinal fortitude, determination and, yes, today, sophisticated and powerful weapons to ensure that the thugs on this planet don't take us back to the stone age. It might get uglier before it gets better ... but it will get better.
I said "offensive" because voicing such strong opinions based on the level of ignorance you display can only be characterized as such in the context of a polite conversation. I can think of better ways to describe it, but that would bring this down to your level.
It is also offensive because those of us in the US do not want war, do not want innocent people killed (anywhere) and do not want to have to be a police force to the world. But for one reason or another we are in the situation we are. And we devote a great deal of our tax dollars to protect, educate, liberate and assist all sorts of people all over the world. I don't think there is one nation on this planet that provides so much aid to others as this country. So, yes, my quick-to-reach-conclusions-friend, it is offensive. I rather not have anything to do with death and destruction. I rather have my money go towards educating my children and my neighbor's children instead of buying bullets to go hunt down Saddam or Bin Laden or a sect of brainwashed idiots willing to pile an airliner full on innocent people into a building.
Ignition won't come from we pacifists; but possibly from the warmongers who desperately seek justification and forgiveness for their acts of murder.
No. You are wrong in your opening statement.
I did not read further.
...
...
I find that the whole "pacifist" thing breaks down real fast (and, of course, there are exceptions) when you bring the issue down to the most basic atom of human interaction: two people. Hopefully this won't happen to you ever. It happened to me. Imagine finding yourself in front of another human being who has a knife aimed at your heart. He will kill you, whether you give him your wallet or not. Imagine if your family and kids are there too. Now, use your pacifist mojo to get out of that one. Now multiply that by thousands and thousands of people. Big problem, right? I'm not making light of it. It's a horrible situation to be in.
War is a horrid, despicable, disgusting affair. I don't like it. I don't want it. But I do understand that humankind has a long way to go before it will be erradicated. I don't have all the answers, I wish I did.
The pacifist movement has a purpose. It should be supported and respected. However, and this is critical, you must understand that FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE VERY FREEDOM TO BE A PACIFIST SOMEONE HAD TO FIGHT FOR IT.
That's the irony. The very existance of a pacifist movement required millions of people to fight and die throughout history for our current world order to provide the option and freedom to say that you don't want war. Funny how things work, isn't it?
Go back in history and read-up on the various revolutions and wars that shaped the world we live in today. The real question is: Had you been born
100, 200 or 500 years ago, would you be willing to fight, put down your life, kill or be killed so that those in your future may have the option, freedom and opportunity to say "enough is enough"?Be a pacifist. That's great. But not at the exclusion of reality. That will take a long, long time to change. And, by the way, I sincerely hope that your guys win.
Ahh, but the internet is a wonderful place if one knows what to look for. There's an unclas .pdf of a Powerpoint from NSWC Indian Head that shows a nominal gun launch acceleration profile that ramps up nicely to about twice that value. That ERGM has one seriously cool EGI... ';-)
I say we build a gun that shoots pacifists, not as targets, but as ammo! Kind of like those giant air powered pumpkin launchers. It could be an international competition, but it should be held in the UK. That way we can shoot them over the channel where they belong, in France!
Game on!
--------------------------- They already caused "offence", British Twit, now it's OUR turn! God help them DIE!
A nation or culture is responsible for its effectsright down to its INFANTS!
------------------------------ Evil must be killed by Good, obviously.
--------------------------- Excellent.
------------------------------- Their politics were wrong, and Evil, even to themselves. The whole world must be freeed from the Yoke!
-------------------------------- Let's create robots who read minds and hunt down mentally defective cretins like you and drag you out to the curb by the scruff of your shitty little pacifistic neck and shoot you through the head and leave you for the garbage!
-Steve
------------------------ That's because you're a deluded brainless little shit. Steve
---------------- Good, you'll be easier to kill.
-Steve
Grow up, OM.
Why? What right do you have to pass judgement? Good and Evil is a matter of opinion, not absolute fact. And what causes people to be "evil" in the first place? Often it's mental damage. Often it's an incompetent, neglected or abusive upbringing. Every mind has the potential to become well-adjusted and to contribute positively to society. If, however, it is damaged or restricted in it's development, it may become prone to selfish, malicious or just plain deranged actions ("evil"). By your reasoning, they should at this point be immediately terminated, but this is simply a continuaton (and finalisation) of the damage (and hence cruelty) that has caused the maladjustment of that mind in the first place. All possible effort should instead be made to repair the damage, and hence benefit society by increasing the number of positive contributors.
As for the rest of your post (which is too long and incoherent to bother quoting):
You have no right to decide what things people should believe, religious or political. It is for them, and them alone, to decide. I agree religions should not be forced upon people (which some cultures do have a tendency to do), but banning organised religions altogether would accomplish nothing. The one thing I think absolutely must be done is the dissociation of religion, politics and law. If the legal system and government of a country are based upon religion, it means first that people of a differing faith (not necessarily a different religion, but a different branch of the same religion) will not recognise the authority of that state over them and be less inclined to conform to the laws of that country, and second, it stifles the democratic process, as if a majority supported a motion in conflict with religion, conflict would start between them.
You also mentioned how great democracy is. I've got news for you, Stevie-boy. In a democracy, you have to respect and consider (i.e. not abuse, insult, ignore or condemn) the rights and opinions of EVERYONE, not just the people you happen to agree with. That includes people with religious or political beliefs that you personally don't like.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.