Nobel Peace Prize

[Peregrine]

Well the definition also sais you can betray a cause, and since it's everyones duty to make this world a better place the US betrays that cause.

 

Except that a nation's first duty is to itself and its own people. Idealistic causes like "making the world a better place" are nice in theory, but unfortunately reality says otherwise.

 

Since when equals active opposition armed violence? Terrorism to fight a terrorist state? Doesn't make much sense. There are a couple of things you can do: Leave your country. Go protesting or organize protests. Stop paying taxes (best to get a group together to do this first). Spread information about the crimes your leaders commit.

 

Oh now there's a good idea, I should give up my life (by getting arrested for not paying taxes, or having to leave it all behind to move out) because I don't agree with my current government.....

 

Tell that nonsense to the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or tell it to my grandaunt, who was in Dresden when it got firebombed. I can tell you plenty of nasty things about that. Not only is the US the nation with the most WMD, it also hasn't shunned to use them on civilian targets.

 

Have you even looked at the facts? At the predicted casualties (civilian and military) of invading Japan?

 

Fine, I agree Dresden was a mistake. But I like how you conveniently ignore all the other targets/battles that were legitimate military targets.

 

I don't see what you can call the threat of invading Iraq and the actual invasion and occupation of it, for instance, other then blatant terrorism.

 

Are you illiterate or do you just choose to ignore my arguments? There's a big difference.... terrorism targets civilian targets, and picks its attacks based on the fear it can create. With absolutely zero concern for who is innocent or not.

 

Now compare this to a military invasion, where the attacks are (intended to be) directed against legitimate military targets. If the US invasion of Iraq is a terrorist act, where are the intentional attacks on civilian targets?

 

And since you love the "make the world a better place" argument, can you honestly claim Saddam in power was a good thing?

 

And how about that little thing in my signature?

 

Concession accepted. By your own definition terrorism involves political motive. Since the war in Afghanistan was for oil, it can not be a terrorist act.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

The war in iraq was for oil. the war in afghanistan was for retaliation. :angry:

[Shakkara]

When you call America "the biggest terrorist state on the damn planet.", it is logically assumed that when referring to America you are referring to the people of America, not the actual landmass, and not merely the government. I am a citizen of the state, so yes in fact, you did call me a terrorist.

 

Side Note:

3rd World: pre-industrial, mostly post-colonial states

 

Last time I checked I had a convertible in my heated garage. That doesn't seem very "pre-industrial" to me.

I said STATE. Last time I checked you weren't a state. Since you live there and support it, you are a supporter a terrorist state. If you're a soldier in your cowardly army I might call you a terrorist though.

 

And I call the US a third-world nation because of the unmeasurable gap between rich and poor (a typical feature of 3rd world nations), it's soaring crime rates, because it still has capital punishment (and using inhumane forms of execution, also has CP for the mentally retared, the US is only one of two nations in the world still legally doing that), it's lack of moral values, and diseases like cancer and "welfare-related :blink: " diseases running rampant.

[Shakkara]

Well the definition also sais you can betray a cause, and since it's everyones duty to make this world a better place the US betrays that cause.

 

Except that a nation's first duty is to itself and its own people. Idealistic causes like "making the world a better place" are nice in theory, but unfortunately reality says otherwise.

Selfishness and egocentrism is no excuse.

 

Since when equals active opposition armed violence? Terrorism to fight a terrorist state? Doesn't make much sense. There are a couple of things you can do: Leave your country. Go protesting or organize protests. Stop paying taxes (best to get a group together to do this first). Spread information about the crimes your leaders commit.

 

Oh now there's a good idea, I should give up my life (by getting arrested for not paying taxes, or having to leave it all behind to move out) because I don't agree with my current government.....

Glad to see your self-interest outweights your concience.

 

Tell that nonsense to the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or tell it to my grandaunt, who was in Dresden when it got firebombed. I can tell you plenty of nasty things about that. Not only is the US the nation with the most WMD, it also hasn't shunned to use them on civilian targets.

 

Have you even looked at the facts? At the predicted casualties (civilian and military) of invading Japan?

 

Fine, I agree Dresden was a mistake. But I like how you conveniently ignore all the other targets/battles that were legitimate military targets.

 

And why INVADE mainland Japan in the first place? This lame excuse is brought up over and over, but the fact is, that there was no reason to, since Japan was beaten already. The US just had some new toys and couldn't wait to test them out. And there are plenty of other instances of the US attacking non-military targets to get a few militants, if that. I just gave a few famous examples. Vietnam? Korea?

 

I don't see what you can call the threat of invading Iraq and the actual invasion and occupation of it, for instance, other then blatant terrorism.

 

Are you illiterate or do you just choose to ignore my arguments? There's a big difference.... terrorism targets civilian targets, and picks its attacks based on the fear it can create. With absolutely zero concern for who is innocent or not.

 

Now compare this to a military invasion, where the attacks are (intended to be) directed against legitimate military targets. If the US invasion of Iraq is a terrorist act, where are the intentional attacks on civilian targets?

 

Where does it say terrorists HAVE TO attack/threaten only civilians? Plus, the US simply has the luxury to cause fear in other ways besides blowing up a few innocents. The people that you call terrorists have NOT got those means.

 

And since you love the "make the world a better place" argument, can you honestly claim Saddam in power was a good thing?

 

Last time I checked the US was more then happy to have Puppet Saddam fighting the evil Iran for them. Where was the US when Saddam attacked those Kurds? Oh, little background info. The Kurds were actively supporting Iran during that war, and were carrying out terrorist and guerillia attacks on Iraqi targets (civilian and otherwise). Saddam gassed that village in retaliation. No-one in our so-called civilized world gave a poo at that time, hmm?

 

And how about that little thing in my signature?

Concession accepted. By your own definition terrorism involves political motive. Since the war in Afghanistan was for oil, it can not be a terrorist act.

Let me get it again:

"Def of Terrorism:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, OFTEN for ideological or political reasons."

 

Guess you missed the 'often'. And it was a threat to use violence intended to intimidate/coerce, was it not?

 

I never concede, since I am always right. Arguing with me is pointless. ^_^

[Peregrine]

The war in iraq was for oil. the war in afghanistan was for retaliation. :angry:

I'm refering to it as described in his signiature. Even if you grant him every word as truth, he's still wrong.

[Luxar]

When you call America "the biggest terrorist state on the damn planet.", it is logically assumed that when referring to America you are referring to the people of America, not the actual landmass, and not merely the government. I am a citizen of the state, so yes in fact, you did call me a terrorist.

 

Side Note:

3rd World: pre-industrial, mostly post-colonial states

 

Last time I checked I had a convertible in my heated garage. That doesn't seem very "pre-industrial" to me.

I said STATE. Last time I checked you weren't a state. Since you live there and support it, you are a supporter a terrorist state. If you're a soldier in your cowardly army I might call you a terrorist though.

 

And I call the US a third-world nation because of the unmeasurable gap between rich and poor (a typical feature of 3rd world nations), it's soaring crime rates, because it still has capital punishment (and using inhumane forms of execution, also has CP for the mentally retared, the US is only one of two nations in the world still legally doing that), it's lack of moral values, and diseases like cancer and "welfare-related :blink: " diseases running rampant.

You've never actually BEEN to America, have you?

[Peregrine]

You've never actually BEEN to America, have you?

 

Somehow I doubt he has.....

 

And I call the US a third-world nation because of the unmeasurable gap between rich and poor (a typical feature of 3rd world nations)

 

And you ignore the fact that even the "poor" are far better off than people in many 3rd world nations.

 

it's soaring crime rates

 

Since we all know crime doesn't exist in any other "civilized" nation.....

 

because it still has capital punishment (and using inhumane forms of execution, also has CP for the mentally retared, the US is only one of two nations in the world still legally doing that)

 

Fine, this I'll agree with. Our system of execution is seriously flawed. But one problem does not make us a 3rd world nation.

 

it's lack of moral values

 

Just what moral values do we lack? Please, tell me which moral standards you feel should be enforced on us.

 

and diseases like cancer and "welfare-related  " diseases running rampant.

 

Oh I see, since we haven't found a cure for cancer (of course nobody else has, but that doesn't matter to fanatics), we're an uncivilized nation. And please, define what exactly these "welfare-related" diseases are.

[Shakkara]

You've never actually BEEN to America, have you?

Plenty of family members and friends have been there multiple times, and I pray I never have to set foot on that accursed piece of earth myself.

[Shakkara]

And I call the US a third-world nation because of the unmeasurable gap between rich and poor (a typical feature of 3rd world nations)

And you ignore the fact that even the "poor" are far better off than people in many 3rd world nations.

 

Absolute bull. Better of then people in slums (in case they find work they will work to death for a slave wager), yes, that's what I can agree on. But they sure haven't got a better life then people that still live independantly there, such as village farmers (which do not work for mulitnationals) or even the old tribes still living like hundreds of years ago, for instance.

 

it's soaring crime rates

 

Since we all know crime doesn't exist in any other "civilized" nation.....

 

I guess you missed the 'soaring' part of my statement.

 

it's lack of moral values

Just what moral values do we lack? Please, tell me which moral standards you feel should be enforced on us.

Unwillingness to share wealth, people having to pay for healthcare, insanely long prison sentances (unless for extreme cases, maximum sentance here is 15 years, for your knowledge), exploitation of the rest of the world by multinationals, people able to sue eachother's ass off, pollution, corporate and governmental corruption, and I can probably think of plenty of other things if I was in the mood.

 

and diseases like cancer and "welfare-related  " diseases running rampant.

Oh I see, since we haven't found a cure for cancer (of course nobody else has, but that doesn't matter to fanatics), we're an uncivilized nation. And please, define what exactly these "welfare-related" diseases are.

Sorry, we use something like 'welfare-related-diseased' here and it doesn't translate well. It refers to fat or cholestorol-based illnesses and such things, usually caused by eating too much or too unhealty things or living unhealthy due to other reasons, causing heart or kidney failure or bloodveins getting messed up.

 

As for cancer, that occurs much more in 'western' nations then other nations. Wouldn't surprise me if radiation caused by cellphones, electromagnetic disturbances caused by electrical equipment or powerlines, or GM food / hormones in meat increase the risks of getting it.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

^ that's gonna illicit a BUNCH of flaming, I assure you.

 

I pray I never have to set foot on that accursed piece of earth myself. 

 

Well, if you ever do, and things actually get as bad as you mention, then a mugger will rob you as soon as you get off the plane, shooting you on sight, stealing all of your clothing and money. Believe me, It is much worse elsewhere. And I would know because I actually have the balls to experiance it myself instead of writing things out of hatred for a nation that works for both good and evil.

 

Absolute bull. Better of then people in slums (in case they find work they will work to death for a slave wager), yes, that's what I can agree on. But they sure haven't got a better life then people that still live independantly there, such as village farmers (which do not work for mulitnationals) or even the old tribes still living like hundreds of years ago, for instance.

 

actually, most of the poor people here have cars and liquer (AND FOOD), which is much more than most poor people in 3rd world, undeveloped nations.

 

I guess you missed the 'soaring' part of my statement.

 

which is why we try to prevent it. Most nations don't have to because the dictator takes care of it with PENALTY OF DEATH for ALL CRIMES.

 

Unwillingness to share wealth, people having to pay for healthcare, insanely long prison sentances (unless for extreme cases, maximum sentance here is 15 years, for your knowledge), exploitation of the rest of the world by multinationals, people able to sue eachother's ass off, pollution, corporate and governmental corruption, and I can probably think of plenty of other things if I was in the mood.

 

The faults of the few do not garder the elimination of the many.

 

As for cancer, that occurs much more in 'western' nations then other nations. Wouldn't surprise me if radiation caused by cellphones, electromagnetic disturbances caused by electrical equipment or powerlines, or GM food / hormones in meat increase the risks of getting it.

 

so your saying that: 1. people are better without easier communications, 2. People are better without power? I agree with the hormone/food thing, that is a little bad. but the other two are bs.