231 réponses à ce sujet

[pablodurando]

SandTrout wrote...

Psychopaths getting into positions of power is why many people do not like to give government any more power than is necessary to perform specific duties. Considering the seemingly limited authority of the Alliance and that it is, at least nominally, a democratic republic, it is something that I would be willing to fight for.

If it were a tyrannical and oppressive government, I would probably join a militia on one of the terminus colonies. This is not the apparent case.

The Alliance is primarily arranged as a defensive force where most of its actions are retaliatory. All known wars that it has participated in were the result of being attacked, not preemptive action on the SA's part. The First Contact War was due to Turian occupation of Shanxi. In the Batarian Conflict, the Batarians funded pirates and other criminals to attempt to force the Alliance out of the Skyllian Verge. In each case, the Alliance was not the first to resort to the use of force.

This is why government fails from the start, and here is evey major society in the world, in an infinite loop of betrayl, lies, and tyranny.

[pablodurando]

Yakko77 wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...


It's always been wonderfully convenient for guys like you that you don't actually have to do any fighting in order to comment on war.

If they commit or sacrifice nothing then they have nothing to lose.  Those of us who enlist or at least appreciate those who enlist can understand first hand what it takes to defend peace.  My sig goes back to ancient Rome but is stil relevant today.

To defend peace, war is illogical.  I know that there are many quotes like the following statement, but fighting fire with fire doesnt work.  Are you truly seeking peace if you engage war.   Do you not question the means by which you acquire said peace.  Your sig is a false dichotomy.  

My sig is reality.  Peace just doesn't happen because some enlightened and overeducated pacifist wishes it.  Peace has to be fought for and defended.  To deny otherwise is to deny reality.  It'd be nice if peace just was.... but that's not the real world.

Then in reality peace is not genuine.  This is exactly why your version of peace is unattainable.  Humanity is destined to be in endless violence unless us educated folks actually try to change people's perspective.

[Yakko77]

pablodurando wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Who was manipulated? No, honestly, please, tell me. WHO manipulated a war that killed tens of millions? Was it the Templars? Or the Grand Order of Assasins? Maybe a brokerage of powerful buisnessmen intent on world domination? Or some aliens assessing our capabilities for an invasion that is yet to come? Please, share your knowledge. You're a joke.

It's not a joke, it's a common pattern in war.  Generals manipulate soldiers to try to win a battle knowing people are going to die.  It's sad but soldiers are tools.

That's called....wait for it....THE REALITY OF COMMAND. It's accepted up and down the line. Soldiers trust their senior officers to come up with the best battle plan possible, and they'll fight like hell to carry out that battle plan, though they'll modify it on the frontline in accordance with tactical situations. But they know they might have to die to do it.

No one goes to the front line who hasn't volunteered to do so. Any pacifist who doesn't want to fight is removed from his unit and sent to the rear echelon positions. The battlefield is no place for cowards.

I changed one word, unfortunatly it makes sense.

Changed it to make more sense. Generals know they have to send men to die to accomplish an objective, to prevent more lives from being lost. The really good ones, like General Morsehead, General Patton, or The Magnificent Bastard himself: General Rommel, love their men, but they still have to fight on, and send those same men into harms way.

Beat me to it.  General Patton understood this.  He'd send 100 men to die to win a battle in a day that another general would win losing 50 men a day but takes a week to win.

I question your morals.  You would willingly send 100 men to their death instead of seeking a peaceful resolve.  At what point does the blood end I ask you.  No matter how you try to justify it, it will be manipulation by defenition.

General Patton fought the ****s.  An undeniably evil entity.  He fought to win and in doing so seemingly cost more lives initially but saved more lives in the end. 

The same can be said for lots of acts of war.  The atom bomb for example.  Killed tens of thousands.  Horrific.  However.  it saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese by preventing the need for an invasion let alone the tens if not hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers who were also saved by preventing the need for invasion.

[Yakko77]

pablodurando wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...


It's always been wonderfully convenient for guys like you that you don't actually have to do any fighting in order to comment on war.

If they commit or sacrifice nothing then they have nothing to lose.  Those of us who enlist or at least appreciate those who enlist can understand first hand what it takes to defend peace.  My sig goes back to ancient Rome but is stil relevant today.

To defend peace, war is illogical.  I know that there are many quotes like the following statement, but fighting fire with fire doesnt work.  Are you truly seeking peace if you engage war.   Do you not question the means by which you acquire said peace.  Your sig is a false dichotomy.  

My sig is reality.  Peace just doesn't happen because some enlightened and overeducated pacifist wishes it.  Peace has to be fought for and defended.  To deny otherwise is to deny reality.  It'd be nice if peace just was.... but that's not the real world.

Then in reality peace is not genuine.  This is exactly why your version of peace is unattainable.  Humanity is destined to be in endless violence unless us educated folks actually try to change people's perspective.

Peace is like perfection. Unobtainable but we strive for it anyways... as we should.

[pablodurando]

Yakko77 wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...


Beat me to it.  General Patton understood this.  He'd send 100 men to die to win a battle in a day that another general would win losing 50 men a day but takes a week to win.

I question your morals.  You would willingly send 100 men to their death instead of seeking a peaceful resolve.  At what point does the blood end I ask you.  No matter how you try to justify it, it will be manipulation by defenition.

General Patton fought the ****s.  An undeniably evil entity.  He fought to win and in doing so seemingly cost more lives initially but saved more lives in the end. 

The same can be said for lots of acts of war.  The atom bomb for example.  Killed tens of thousands.  Horrific.  However.  it saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese by preventing the need for an invasion let alone the tens if not hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers who were also saved by preventing the need for invasion.

Well I could bring in objective morality here but I'll digress. I hate talking about wars, it's just an endless loop that is almost predestined to never end. Let's agree to disagree.:innocent:

[Yakko77]

pablodurando wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...


Beat me to it.  General Patton understood this.  He'd send 100 men to die to win a battle in a day that another general would win losing 50 men a day but takes a week to win.

I question your morals.  You would willingly send 100 men to their death instead of seeking a peaceful resolve.  At what point does the blood end I ask you.  No matter how you try to justify it, it will be manipulation by defenition.

General Patton fought the ****s.  An undeniably evil entity.  He fought to win and in doing so seemingly cost more lives initially but saved more lives in the end. 

The same can be said for lots of acts of war.  The atom bomb for example.  Killed tens of thousands.  Horrific.  However.  it saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese by preventing the need for an invasion let alone the tens if not hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers who were also saved by preventing the need for invasion.

Well I could bring in objective morality here but I'll digress. I hate talking about wars, it's just an endless loop that is almost predestined to never end. Let's agree to disagree.:innocent:

Sometimes, that's the best we can do and  there's nothing wrong with that.  I think I disagree with you in the strongest of terms when it comes to war and conflict but I respect your views and see your POV but simply see it differently.  Thank you for being honest and genuine in your viewpoints. 

[Made Nightwing]

Perhaps it is best that we do have guys like them around. Keeps the guys like us checked from turning into a police state.

[SandTrout]

[quote]To defend peace, war is illogical. I know that there are many quotes like the following statement, but fighting fire with fire doesnt work[/quote]. Are you truly seeking peace if you engage war. Do you not question the means by which you acquire said peace. Your sig is a false dichotomy. [/quote] You apparently are not familiar with how firefighters actually go about fighting wildfires, forest fires, and oil-well fires. You stop forest fires and brush fires from spreading by using controlled burns to remove fuel from their paths. You use explosives to put out an oil-fire.

Also, the pricipal that Yakko and I both share in our signatures is one that has been largely proven by history. Basically, if you want to get invaded, the best way to do it is to make your enemies think that your military is weak enough for them to invade largely unopposed. Disarmament leads to conquest.

Conversely, if you don't want to go to war, Make all of your enemies think that you are too strong for them to have a possibility of gaining any territory. Maintaining a powerful military that is ready to respond to provocation ensures that no one is stupid enough to invade you.

Sun Tzu also realized these concepts independently and recorded them in his Art of War, though in a slightly different manner.

While a military buildup may instigate preemptive action on the part of your enemies, weakening your military will never deter invasion.

[quote]This is why government fails from the start, and here is evey major society in the world, in an infinite loop of betrayl, lies, and tyranny.[/quote] You are too broad in your definition of the 'failure' of a government. If governments are to be judged by the standards of living of their citizens, then there have been many highly successful governments, and very few that have failed so horrifically that its citizens would have higher standards of living under anarchy. Historically, the worst failures of governments, under this standard of judgement, are the communist nations, the fascist nations, and most of Africa.

Most of the Western nations have magnificent standards of living and most of their citizens do not need to worry overly-much about having their property or lives taken by marauding bandits. Since they are better off with their governements than they would be without, those governments are not 'failures', but successes. They are imperfect, yes, but they are typically a net good for their citizens.

Modifié par SandTrout, 17 juillet 2011 - 08:06 .

[mauro2222]

Made Nightwing wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Who was manipulated? No, honestly, please, tell me. WHO manipulated a war that killed tens of millions? Was it the Templars? Or the Grand Order of Assasins? Maybe a brokerage of powerful buisnessmen intent on world domination? Or some aliens assessing our capabilities for an invasion that is yet to come? Please, share your knowledge. You're a joke.

You can´t ignore that federal banks are in your country, my country, and in every capitalist country. From where the goverment gets his money? The central bank, the central bank creates this money out of nowhere and is shared to the goverment with interest (debt), this interest gets bigger with the ammoun of money required. When you are at war, you need money, from where the money comes from? Who gets more money = power as long the conflict last?

The Federal Banks are responsible for the safe keeping of money. The money is created by the GOVERNMENT, in mints, or is generated by the GOVERNMENT in accordance with inflation, public spending, natural resources, or other factors. War BANKRUPTS countries. In a war, governments will buy from weapons manufacturers. You don't buy weapons from a banker. I didn't see bankers exempt from conscription during WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam.

You are not an economist, do not try to be one.

Emm the goverment doesn´t create money they decide how much money is required and is solicited to the central bank, I´didnt say that the banquers sell weapons... and they don´t care if they bankrupt a country, they still gain power of it. If you are from USA and you don´t know how FED works, well...

[mauro2222]

Yakko77 wrote...

Sometimes, that's the best we can do and  there's nothing wrong with that.  I think I disagree with you in the strongest of terms when it comes to war and conflict but I respect your views and see your POV but simply see it differently.  Thank you for being honest and genuine in your viewpoints. 

And this is the kind of people that actually can change the world. I don´t share your opinions too, but I clearly respect your sincerity and formal respect to others.

[sartt]

 Yeah.. THE REAPER MILITARY. IMORTALITY. 

[SandTrout]

Our government has gotten so convoluted that the people running the FED probably don't know how it works.

BTW, the Government does print money. They control the mints and determine how much currency in given to the FED to distribute. Because of how the FED is set up, it can get really screwy, though.

[Yakko77]

Made Nightwing wrote...

Perhaps it is best that we do have guys like them around. Keeps the guys like us checked from turning into a police state.

I guess idealists who live outside reality at least give us something to strive for.

Again, perfection, like peace, is unobtainable IMO but it is something to strive for.

There's a conversation between Legion and Shep about individualality and what it leads to which Legion is unfamiliar with which seems appropriate to this discussion.

[Yakko77]

mauro2222 wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

Sometimes, that's the best we can do and  there's nothing wrong with that.  I think I disagree with you in the strongest of terms when it comes to war and conflict but I respect your views and see your POV but simply see it differently.  Thank you for being honest and genuine in your viewpoints. 

And this is the kind of people that actually can change the world. I don´t share your opinions too, but I clearly respect your sincerity and formal respect to others.

I think we want the same thing.  We just take different paths to get to the same destination.

Modifié par Yakko77, 17 juillet 2011 - 07:45 .

[mauro2222]

[quote]SandTrout wrote...

Are you truly seeking peace if you engage war. Do you not question the means by which you acquire said peace. Your sig is a false dichotomy. [/quote] You apparently are not familiar with how firefighters actually go about fighting wildfires, forest fires, and oil-well fires. You stop forest fires and brush fires from spreading by using controlled burns to remove fuel from their paths. You use explosives to put out an oil-fire.

Also, the pricipal that Yakko and I both share in our signatures is one that has been largely proven by history. Basically, if you want to get invaded, the best way to do it is to make your enemies think that your military is weak enough for them to invade largely unopposed. Disarmament leads to conquest.

Conversely, if you don't want to go to war, Make all of your enemies think that you are too strong for them to have a possibility of gaining any territory. Maintaining a powerful military that is ready to respond to provocation ensures that no one is stupid enough to invade you.

Sun Tzu also realized these concepts independently and recorded them in his Art of War, though in a slightly different manner.

While a military buildup may instigate preemptive action on the part of your enemies, weakening your military will never deter invasion. You are too broad in your definition of the 'failure' of a government. If governments are to be judged by the standards of living of their citizens, then there have been many highly successful governments, and very few that have failed so horrifically that its citizens would have higher standards of living under anarchy. Historically, the worst failures of governments, under this standard of judgement, are the communist nations, the fascist nations, and most of Africa.

Most of the Western nations have magnificent standards of living and most of their citizens do not need to worry overly-much about having their property or lives taken by marauding bandits. Since they are better off with their governements than they would be without, those governments are not 'failures', but successes. They are imperfect, yes, but they are typically a net good for their citizens.[/quote]

He meant to say that if you try to be peaceful and your solution is war, then you become what you are fighting.

History and mass opinion doesn´t mena that is correct, if 3/4 of the population want something that doesn´t make them right, the same goes for history mostly because is written by those who win.

Most of western nations like or not live at the expense of others, capitalism makes wealth in a place by the cost of lives in another. Adam Smith stated that selfishness and insane competition are the keys for a sucessfull capitalism.
I don´t like capitalism or communism, my hopes lives on the venus project and a resource based economy, if I have to choose between those two, I would always choose communism because in theory is more human than capitalism.

EDIT: What the hell happened to the quote system?

Modifié par mauro2222, 17 juillet 2011 - 07:55 .

[mauro2222]

Really off topic but for those who want more info or want to make a change visit this sites:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
http://www.thevenusproject.com/

Always remember this "analize the data, make critics and research for yourself, please don´t eat all that you hear"

Modifié par mauro2222, 17 juillet 2011 - 08:06 .

[SandTrout]

History is typically relatively accurate on the major points such as 'Rome went to war with Carthage', and troop sizes and deployment are generally recorded accurately b/c they serve more use to the person doing the recording if they are accurate, victor or looser. It is improper to claim that history cannot be used in this discussion b/c one side claims that the other is evil. Understanding history requires one to be able to differentiate between fact and opinion.

I agree completely with "analize the data, make critics and research for yourself, please don´t eat all that you hear", though we seem to draw different conclusions from the data that we are using. Granted, each of our collections of facts will be somewhat different, but that is the kind of exchange that forums were made for.

Also, I don't know why the quote system is acting screwy on you, I've not been having any problems.

[mauro2222]

SandTrout wrote...

History is typically relatively accurate on the major points such as 'Rome went to war with Carthage', and troop sizes and deployment are generally recorded accurately b/c they serve more use to the person doing the recording if they are accurate, victor or looser. It is improper to claim that history cannot be used in this discussion b/c one side claims that the other is evil. Understanding history requires one to be able to differentiate between fact and opinion.

I agree completely with "analize the data, make critics and research for yourself, please don´t eat all that you hear", though we seem to draw different conclusions from the data that we are using. Granted, each of our collections of facts will be somewhat different, but that is the kind of exchange that forums were made for.

Also, I don't know why the quote system is acting screwy on you, I've not been having any problems.

Yeap I understand your point.

Is just that it hates me , well it happens very often....

[DaringMoosejaw]

Oh for the love of God, please do not talk about politics here. It will inevitably result in a rage-induced shouting match more suited to a playground than polite discourse and I'm shocked this thread hasn't been locked already.

[Guanxi]

History shows us that most people join the military not out of choice but in the absence of choice. You don't get to choose between working for Goldman Sachs or getting shot at by peasants in the desert for burger king grade benefits 'clearing the way for the oil brigade', etc to pay for your college tuition - if you ever live to see it.

Edit: If you had the opportunity to make potentially thousands-millions of credits in privately funded research groups traded on NAX you would and you would get to see a lot more of the universe then a common soldier. Soldiers are like taxpayers - the suckers of last resort. A public works program for useful idiots who propagate forced transfer of wealth.

Modifié par Guanxi, 17 juillet 2011 - 11:46 .

[Nizzemancer]

Guanxi wrote...

History shows us that most people join the military not out of choice but in the absence of choice. You don't get to choose between working for Goldman Sachs or getting shot at by peasants in the desert for burger king grade benefits 'clearing the way for the oil brigade', etc to pay for your college tuition - if you ever live to see it.

Edit: If you had the opportunity to make potentially thousands-millions of credits in privately funded research groups traded on NAX you would and you would get to see a lot more of the universe then a common soldier. Soldiers are like taxpayers - the suckers of last resort. A public works program for useful idiots who propagate forced transfer of wealth.

Yeah...maybe in the US...

[Photobomb]

mauro2222 wrote...


And that's why education is the pinnacle of freedom.

Let's see you try to think your way out of fission.

[Han Shot First]

History shows us that most people join the military not out of choice but in the absence of choice

This is a lie propagated by selfish people in the Age of Me, who can't fathom why anyone would actually put their country before self-interest.

It is a myth that people join the military in the West because of a lack of options. In the US for example, the military is overwhelmingly made up of people from middle class backgrounds who never went a day wondering where the next meal would come from. The poor are nearly as underrepresented in the ranks as the wealthy. The average recruit also scores higher on standardized intelligence tests than the general population that he is drawn from.

These aren't poor people joining for 'three hots and a cot' or the unintelligent joining for a lack of career options or an inability to move on to higher education.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 17 juillet 2011 - 05:56 .

[Photobomb]

Han Shot First wrote...

History shows us that most people join the military not out of choice but in the absence of choice

This is a lie propagated by selfish people in the Age of Me, who can't fathom why anyone would actually put their country before self-interest.

It is a myth that people join the military in the West because of a lack of options. In the US for example, the military is overwhelmingly made up of people from middle class backgrounds who never went a day wondering where the next meal would come from. The poor are nearly as underrepresented in the ranks as the wealthy. The average recruit also scores higher on standardized intelligence tests than the general population that he is drawn from.

These aren't poor people joining for 'three hots and a cot" or the unintelligent joining for a lack of career options or an inability to move on to higher education.

To piggy back off of this, it always disgusts me that people think everyone in the military are the bottom 10% of last year's graduating high school class. In my OSUT platoon of 60 people over half had college degrees or some college. Oh and it was an infantry platoon, the supposed lowest of the low.

So take you propaganda bull**** and cram it.

Modifié par Photobomb, 17 juillet 2011 - 06:01 .