Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/28/05 04:26 PM, i-hope-you-die wrote: First off: nice first posts. Congrats.

Thank you.

At 1/28/05 11:39 AM, Ryo89 wrote:

Fighting for peace is a paradox itself. You can't win peace like that, because people will oppose any violent acts. Iraq has really become more peaceful the last two years, have it?

A paradox almost. There is an end, when one side prevails.

And I know where we differ in this also: I believe the "war on terror" can be won. Some believe it cannot.
The war will not be won on military power alone, but diplomacy and compassion as well.

Tell me, how do you think it's even possible today? The war on terror will be lost by the US, exactly as the vietnamese won the vieatnam war.

I suggest reading Hobbes' Leviathan. It's very informative and philosphical.

Thanks.

Please. Tell the 100,000 innocent, civilian iraqi that lost their lives because of the US military and the US military only that they died willingly. Tell the 4 million civilian japanese who were nuked. Please do so.

Life isn't fair, and neither is death. This war, as with any war, will take innocent lives. But like I said before, the reasoning is righteous and not malicious.
Imagine terrorism as a gangrene, slowly eating an injured arm, and threatening to infect your entire body and kill you. Medicines and antibiotics may slow the progression, but the only cure is to amputate. Along with the gangrene-infected parts of the arm, healthy parts will also be lost. That is a metaphor for our war. Some would have you believe the arm is entirely healthy and doesn't need to be cut off. Terrorism needs to be amputated.

I think that any war with any casualties at all is a total failure, for both sides. Terror can be fought by peace and peace only. The so-called 'terrorist's' wouldn't have any reasons to hate america, if it wasn't for the americans themselves.

I hope I've helped.

You have, and I'm grateful for that. I still stand for my opinions, but you've helped me see it a from another point of view. I wish more people where like you, instead of just opposing. I thank you for being the one you are.
/Ryo

At 1/28/05 04:38 PM, i-hope-you-die wrote: I choose not to rely on NG for the attitude of mainstream America.

Sorry, I made a mistake. But it's hard to think the opposite.

At 1/28/05 04:55 PM, Ryo89 wrote:

And I know where we differ in this also: I believe the "war on terror" can be won. Some believe it cannot.
The war will not be won on military power alone, but diplomacy and compassion as well.

Tell me, how do you think it's even possible today? The war on terror will be lost by the US, exactly as the vietnamese won the vieatnam war.

I believe it's different in the fact of sheer statistics. Viet Nam was fought under the premise of "fight communism". It failed because communism was, and still is, a strong form of government supported by countries who have arguably successful nations. Terrorism, however, is not widely supported, or widespread. The majority of the world realizes killing innocents is wrong and needs to be halted.

I think that any war with any casualties at all is a total failure, for both sides. Terror can be fought by peace and peace only.

I wish that were true. However, peace itself, not accompanied by power (which America seems to be losing more and more every day [not necessarily military or economic, but influence]) cannot defeat terror.

The so-called 'terrorist's' wouldn't have any reasons to hate america, if it wasn't for the americans themselves.

That's why they want to see the streets flood with our "pigs blood". It's already happened, and now they problem must be addressed.

I hope I've helped.

You have, and I'm grateful for that. I still stand for my opinions, but you've helped me see it a from another point of view. I wish more people where like you, instead of just opposing. I thank you for being the one you are.
/Ryo

Thanks.

At 1/28/05 05:04 PM, i-hope-you-die wrote:

At 1/28/05 04:55 PM, Ryo89 wrote: Tell me, how do you think it's even possible today? The war on terror will be lost by the US, exactly as the vietnamese won the vieatnam war.

I believe it's different in the fact of sheer statistics. Viet Nam was fought under the premise of "fight communism". It failed because communism was, and still is, a strong form of government supported by countries who have arguably successful nations. Terrorism, however, is not widely supported, or widespread. The majority of the world realizes killing innocents is wrong and needs to be halted.

It's a difference in the battlefield. USA fought communism in one single country, while they fight 'terror' all over the world.

I think that any war with any casualties at all is a total failure, for both sides. Terror can be fought by peace and peace only.

I wish that were true. However, peace itself, not accompanied by power (which America seems to be losing more and more every day [not necessarily military or economic, but influence]) cannot defeat terror.

Tell me, how can military power EVER defeat terrorism? Military actions is a form of terror, at least it's what the US military has done to Iraq.

The so-called 'terrorist's' wouldn't have any reasons to hate america, if it wasn't for the americans themselves.

That's why they want to see the streets flood with our "pigs blood". It's already happened, and now they problem must be addressed.

Well, didn't you wan't to see muslim blood after 9/11? I can tell you that I wanted, and I'm not even american.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

At 1/28/05 05:23 PM, Ryo89 wrote:
It's a difference in the battlefield. USA fought communism in one single country, while they fight 'terror' all over the world.

On the contrary, the Cold War never broke out into any physical fighting (excluding Cuba), but was fought worldwide.

I think that any war with any casualties at all is a total failure, for both sides. Terror can be fought by peace and peace only.

I wish that were true. However, peace itself, not accompanied by power (which America seems to be losing more and more every day [not necessarily military or economic, but influence]) cannot defeat terror.

Tell me, how can military power EVER defeat terrorism? Military actions is a form of terror, at least it's what the US military has done to Iraq.

I disagree. Military actions are not a form of terror. They are a means of manipulation when dipolmacy fails. Since terrorism has no diplomacy or concept of peace, military action must be taken before peace can prevail. I never said military actions alone could defeat terror. An acceptance from everyone that terrorism is wrong, and a renounciation of the concept of terrorism is what will defeat terror. If you think military action, by established countries, is terror, then when President Bush claimed, "In the war on terror, you're either with us, or against us" --- he was right.

The so-called 'terrorist's' wouldn't have any reasons to hate america, if it wasn't for the americans themselves.

That's why they want to see the streets flood with our "pigs blood". It's already happened, and now they problem must be addressed.

Well, didn't you wan't to see muslim blood after 9/11? I can tell you that I wanted, and I'm not even american.

Well, I didn't want to see muslim blood spillt needlessly after 9/11. I wanted those responsible for the attacks, and those who supported the 'reasons' for the attacked to be brought to justice. Justice being held for trial, or killed while resisting capture.

Hell, 1/3 of my friends are muslim, and they want the same thing I do. It's not a religious war, but that's what those who hold terrorist ideals would lead you to believe. By claiming to act under the name of Allah and Muhammed, they gain support from people who would never normally support slaughtering other human beings.

At 1/28/05 05:38 PM, i-hope-you-die wrote:

I disagree. Military actions are not a form of terror. They are a means of manipulation when dipolmacy fails. Since terrorism has no diplomacy or concept of peace, military action must be taken before peace can prevail. I never said military actions alone could defeat terror. An acceptance from everyone that terrorism is wrong, and a renounciation of the concept of terrorism is what will defeat terror. If you think military action, by established countries, is terror, then when President Bush claimed, "In the war on terror, you're either with us, or against us" --- he was right.

The principals are right, but one single question: Do you actually think that this will happen for the next 1000 years or so? Think of it. The USA can't do this. They can't win this war. And it's hard for them to get allies, because of one, specific reason: You may have your speeches about freedom, but it doesnt change the fact that the US wasn't build by free people. It was build by slaves. Isn't THAT ironic? You speak of giving people freedom, and helping the world, but you declined to help the world through the Kyoto treaty. I think it's this double-morale that is the main cause for all the anti-americanism.

The principals are right, but one single question: Do you actually think that this will happen for the next 1000 years or so? Think of it. The USA can't do this. They can't win this war.

You are correct: the US cannot win this war alone. However, we aren't in this alone. We already have nearly 100 other countries who support us and a position you can not fight against politically. We have been making a large amount of headway.

And it's hard for them to get allies, because of one, specific reason: You may have your speeches about freedom, but it doesnt change the fact that the US wasn't build by free people. It was build by slaves.

No, it wasn't. What gave you this idea? The Southern Plantation owners? They made up less than 0.5% of the US population, and still less than 5% of the population in the South. Slaves did nothing to build the US; it was built by free men and women.

At 1/28/05 06:00 PM, Ryo89 wrote:
The principals are right, but one single question: Do you actually think that this will happen for the next 1000 years or so?

What would you propose we do, if not act on our principles?

Think of it. The USA can't do this. They can't win this war.

Not without widespread support. But we'll continue to try.

And it's hard for them to get allies, because of one, specific reason: You may have your speeches about freedom, but it doesnt change the fact that the US wasn't build by free people. It was build by slaves. Isn't THAT ironic?

That's bullshit, and you know it. Give me proof, sources.

You speak of giving people freedom, and helping the world, but you declined to help the world through the Kyoto treaty. I think it's this double-morale that is the main cause for all the anti-americanism.

This relates back to the hypocrisey argument from another thread. If the Kyoto treaty supercedes the war on terror, then the alliances we've held were weaker than we could have ever imagined.

The United States is ALWAYS expected to be the one country to stand on top. In everything. Everywhere. ESPECIALLY when it comes to helping the world, or some other isolated place when disaster strikes. We need the benefit of the doubt sometimes, even if that means going against the grain and supporting us. Doesn't being a leader in world affairs for years come with at least that perk?

I think what America needs to do is stop stepping into other affairs. I don't think the best way to introduce democracy is by force. The best thing America could do is instead of spending billions to bomb the middle east, invest in it. If your partenrs in business with someone I doubt you'll hate them or bomb them. Though it may not be fact I think the reason for most hatred of AMerica is the fact they have the most wealth and some think america doesn't share it (Though the US imports more than it exports). The best thing America could do is bemore open about the money they invest in other countries. There should be a list of every country and the amount of money they invest in other countries and how much wealth that money creates.

At 1/28/05 06:10 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

At 1/28/05 06:00 PM, Ryo89 wrote:

Think of it. The USA can't do this. They can't win this war.

Not without widespread support. But we'll continue to try.

And you WILL countinue, take my word for it.

And it's hard for them to get allies, because of one, specific reason: You may have your speeches about freedom, but it doesnt change the fact that the US wasn't build by free people. It was build by slaves. Isn't THAT ironic?

That's bullshit, and you know it. Give me proof, sources.

So, the slave owners maybe was 0,5% of the americans, but I was talking about the slaves. Think of it: Do you really (and I hope not) think that the reason that there are many 'black'/afroamerican people in the US is because they emigrated there by their own free will? Ever heard of the triangle trade? I'm not saying that it's the entire nation, but I think slavery is one of the causes to your high economy.

You speak of giving people freedom, and helping the world, but you declined to help the world through the Kyoto treaty. I think it's this double-morale that is the main cause for all the anti-americanism.

This relates back to the hypocrisey argument from another thread. If the Kyoto treaty supercedes the war on terror, then the alliances we've held were weaker than we could have ever imagined.

The idea of the Kyoto treaty is to make sure that we humans won't kill ourselves. Isn't that something to support? Or is your 'war on terror' more important than humanity itself?

The United States is ALWAYS expected to be the one country to stand on top. In everything. Everywhere. ESPECIALLY when it comes to helping the world, or some other isolated place when disaster strikes.

I can only say that the US goverment had that coming for acting superior. Say what you wan't, by in my opinion, most of them act like they are 'chosen ones' or something. And with great powers come great responsibility, doesn't it?

At 1/28/05 06:18 PM, snail_262001 wrote: The best thing America could do is bemore open about the money they invest in other countries. There should be a list of every country and the amount of money they invest in other countries and how much wealth that money creates.

That's a good point.

At 1/28/05 06:30 PM, Ryo89 wrote:
So, the slave owners maybe was 0,5% of the americans, but I was talking about the slaves. Think of it: Do you really (and I hope not) think that the reason that there are many 'black'/afroamerican people in the US is because they emigrated there by their own free will? Ever heard of the triangle trade? I'm not saying that it's the entire nation, but I think slavery is one of the causes to your high economy.

You had good posts up to this one. It's still bullshit. I still want sources.

The idea of the Kyoto treaty is to make sure that we humans won't kill ourselves. Isn't that something to support? Or is your 'war on terror' more important than humanity itself?

The environment, from America's standpoint, can wait longer than terrorism will. I'ts priorities, not absolutes. Understand?

The United States is ALWAYS expected to be the one country to stand on top. In everything. Everywhere. ESPECIALLY when it comes to helping the world, or some other isolated place when disaster strikes.

I can only say that the US goverment had that coming for acting superior. Say what you wan't, by in my opinion, most of them act like they are 'chosen ones' or something. And with great powers come great responsibility, doesn't it?

So don't whine if once you turn your back on us for being superior, we kill you and occupy your country then.

At 1/28/05 06:37 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

You had good posts up to this one. It's still bullshit. I still want sources.

But it's still a fact that slaves were imported, used, and killed and that should be enough, shouldn't it?

The environment, from America's standpoint, can wait longer than terrorism will. I'ts priorities, not absolutes. Understand?

Do you americans even understand that right now, the biggest cause that terrorism even exists is because of you? It sure doesn't seem that way.

So don't whine if once you turn your back on us for being superior, we kill you and occupy your country then.

Sorry, what did you say? Man, you're even worse than terrorists! They at least have a good cause for what they do, wich is better than I can say for Bush.

At 1/28/05 06:50 PM, Ryo89 wrote:

At 1/28/05 06:37 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

You had good posts up to this one. It's still bullshit. I still want sources.

But it's still a fact that slaves were imported, used, and killed and that should be enough, shouldn't it?

No, it's not enough. Not enough to claim our country was founded upon it. You know better.

The environment, from America's standpoint, can wait longer than terrorism will. I'ts priorities, not absolutes. Understand?

Do you americans even understand that right now, the biggest cause that terrorism even exists is because of you? It sure doesn't seem that way.

What's your point? Were you about it say, "deal with it?"

Well shit, that's what we're doing. If you're not with us, you're against us.

So don't whine if once you turn your back on us for being superior, we kill you and occupy your country then.

Sorry, what did you say? Man, you're even worse than terrorists!

They at least have a good cause for what they do, wich is better than I can say for Bush.

If you think they have a good cause, then you yourself are an enemy of the United States. Beware.

RADICAL SOLUTION TIME!

Secrtly arm the terrorists with nukes, and then cover it all up by making it seem like they came up with it themselves!
That'll get America's goddamn arses into gear, and get a whole lotta countries on their side with 100% co-operation!

I tells ya, just have some spies monitoring the weapons (with toxic gas emmitters just in case things get out of hand) watching them closely. Once the Special Forces storm them, smash the fuck out of them! Terrorism crushed with the entire power of the West (and some of the East as well). EVRYONE reacts to nuclear threats with proof.

At 1/28/05 08:54 AM, metalhead676 wrote: holy shit, you have been fed so much american propoganda it makes me almost want to puke! you dislike Germany and France? well, i dont because they actually want peace FUCK americas world agenda FUCK IT TO HELL!!!. France and Germany want peace not war all over the place, your world agenda is fucking world domination thats all that idiot son of an asshole wants.

You are really the biggest idiot on these boards. I never said I personally hated Fance or Germany numbnuts. I was generalizing American sentiment. And when has any nation not had world domination, whether its economic, militaristic, or territorial at mind? Just when? France still has its illusions of grandeur. So does Germany. So does Russia. So does Africa. So does Rome. From the Phoenicians to the Soviet Union, they have all wanted it. They would all love to supplant us if they could. And when they do, you can bet your ass we will be a big a thorn in their side as they are to us now. It is all a matter of power. That is all it is about. And the goverment feeds its propaganda down to its reporters to fire up nationalism and anti american sentiment (through leaks, actions, and straigh out lies and falsifications). The more I think about all this shit, the more I really think we are sheeple.

At 1/28/05 08:44 AM, bcdemon wrote: Thats the american ego talking.

Well, I worded what I wanted to say, and actyually your own words proved my point.

I think the anti-american sentiment comes from americas lack of respect for the world as a whole. It does what it wants, when it wants and how it wants. And the americans say that that is thier right as americans, to do what is best for america. Yet they slam other countries for doing the exact same thing. Not to mention the total lack of respect for world organisations(UN, WTO).

Thats what I was saying. Thats why every country hates eachother. We hate countries that stand in the way of our agenda. France, Germany, Russia (all traditional enemies) hate us now because we stand in their world agenda. But people hate us because we can muscle past their bullshit. They cant. So all they can do is sit on the sidelines hating us. Hating our power. And also, what is the motivation for Bin Laden to hate us more than any other Western Nation? Hell, we even helped him in Afghanistan? Thats another reason I like to factor jealousy into the equation.

At 1/31/05 01:29 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: The more I think about all this shit, the more I really think we are sheeple.

It's good to hear someone else say it. My goodness, the amount of "facts" people on here post that they get from the evening news, it's sickening. How many people here know that one of our big reasons for going to war was human rights abuses in Iraq. The government released several documents that stated this before the war, and yet everything you hear from the news is "WMDs, WMDs, WMDs." I'm merely using this as an example and not to justify the war in Iraq, but I think the point really makes itself. If you want to be informed, don't watch the evening news, it's just sad.

At 1/31/05 01:29 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Thats what I was saying. Thats why every country hates eachother. We hate countries that stand in the way of our agenda. France, Germany, Russia (all traditional enemies) hate us now because we stand in their world agenda. But people hate us because we can muscle past their bullshit. They cant. So all they can do is sit on the sidelines hating us. Hating our power. And also, what is the motivation for Bin Laden to hate us more than any other Western Nation? Hell, we even helped him in Afghanistan? Thats another reason I like to factor jealousy into the equation.

Hmm, okay I think your swinging this from the civilian POV to the political POV. Which then you would be correct. But I dont think the ciitizens of France and Germany or Russia really even consider your military might. As a Canadian it's one of the last things I think of when thinking of USA. Thats not to say that we are ignorant to your power, it's just, when the question is raised "Why do you dislike america?", I doubt "military strength" comes to mind before "military usage" or "ego" would.
Bin Laden explained his hatred for usa in his "election day" speech, he had a real moment when the US 6th fleet helped out israel in attacking Lebanon. Not to mention hes not a very big fan of your military bases on his holy land in Saudi Arabia.

I think that we as humans are fed so much propaganda from the goverment that its impossible to distinguish the civilian and political agenda. We are manipulated to go along with whatever the goverment wants. Thats where my idea of us being sheeple comes into play. If the goverment doesnt like another goverment, they leak shit or intentionally go out of their way to demean the other goverment. And this sentiment trickles down to the masses through the loyal agents of the press. Lol, I bet the Press Secretarys just laugh their asses off at the press. Lol, free and whatever. They are so totally manipulated by the goverment it is crazy.

And one example of citzens doing this hatred of nations standing in the way of their own nations policy without (much) help of the press. Look at Americas "Freedom" fries. The average citzens got pissed at Frances precieved meddeling and boycoted them. I mean, we have no real reason to hate any nation except for the fact that they stand in the way of their own national agenda in one way or the other.

At least, thats what I think.