I don't think you're a dumb guy, NCFan, but you see things in the small right now. All the time, it seems, at least when you post here. That's all political rhetoric, and politcal rhetoric is fleeting. Be the warrior you want to be in this, and I have no problem with that, but at least pick your game up a bit. The way i see it, you're just talking to yourself. Sure, oil is strategy, oil is power, but oil isn't gonna make the cut for much longer. In fact, I think what we are seeing in this world conflict going on right now is witness to the death throes of Oil as King. It's ugly. The truth is, there is no future in oil. At least not in the traditional sense. Those days are gone. And with it the numbered days of those that can control it. They're having violent fits over it.
masturbation is free.
We'll create our own economic strength, like we always have. Even before oil.
I'm gald you don't think I'm a dumb guy, it's quite a relief actually. But I'm not the one thinking in the small here. And if for some reason I am, then the vast majority around the world are on the same page with me. I would agree though, that I am probably just talking to myself on this particular message board, but that's okay with me.
Oil is surely going to be a major player for a long, long time to come. Three of the current Fortune top 10 are oil companies and their profits last year were higher than the other 7 combined. That trend doesn't look to be going anywhere for the forseeable future as first quarter results in 07 can testify.
So let's say Iran develops a nuke in 3 years and overthrows the government of Syria - Saddam style. Who is going to liberate them? Who wants to play nuclear poker with Iran, a country whose leader seems to welcome the "end of days"?
Let's say Al-Sadr becomes the new strong man in Iraq after we leave and is propped up by a nuclear Iran. Amadenijad will have one finger on the oil spigots of Iraq and the other on a nuclear trigger. Who will stop him if he demands the US remove all military assests from the Middle East or he will cut off the supply of oil to countries X,Y and Z? Or maybe he could demand that the US quit supplying Israel with military hardware and economic aid to ripen them for an invasion.
The scenarios are endless. So let me ask you, what good will talk of oil's demise do when a scenario like one of these unfolds anywhere in the next 3 to 5 years?
Is the next president supposed to say "Ha ha ha Tehran, we don't give a shit about Middle Eastern oil, becuase in the next decade we will be self-sufficient for our energy needs?"
Forgive me if I'm not so optimistic that our pampered society could suffer total economic collapse. But I will make no apologies for favoring the use of military force to preserve our economic strength and in turn keep the democratic way of life safe from religious zealots.
I'm gald you don't think I'm a dumb guy, it's quite a relief actually. But I'm not the one thinking in the small here. And if for some reason I am, then the vast majority around the world are on the same page with me. I would agree though, that I am probably just talking to myself on this particular message board, but that's okay with me.
Oil is surely going to be a major player for a long, long time to come. Three of the current Fortune top 10 are oil companies and their profits last year were higher than the other 7 combined. That trend doesn't look to be going anywhere for the forseeable future as first quarter results in 07 can testify.
So let's say Iran develops a nuke in 3 years and overthrows the government of Syria - Saddam style. Who is going to liberate them? Who wants to play nuclear poker with Iran, a country whose leader seems to welcome the "end of days"?
Let's say Al-Sadr becomes the new strong man in Iraq after we leave and is propped up by a nuclear Iran. Amadenijad will have one finger on the oil spigots of Iraq and the other on a nuclear trigger. Who will stop him if he demands the US remove all military assests from the Middle East or he will cut off the supply of oil to countries X,Y and Z? Or maybe he could demand that the US quit supplying Israel with military hardware and economic aid to ripen them for an invasion.
The scenarios are endless. So let me ask you, what good will talk of oil's demise do when a scenario like one of these unfolds anywhere in the next 3 to 5 years?
Is the next president supposed to say "Ha ha ha Tehran, we don't give a shit about Middle Eastern oil, becuase in the next decade we will be self-sufficient for our energy needs?"
Forgive me if I'm not so optimistic that our pampered society could suffer total economic collapse. But I will make no apologies for favoring the use of military force to preserve our economic strength and in turn keep the democratic way of life safe from religious zealots.
Then teach yourself to be safe from your zealot self.
what precedents do you have for your scenarios?? ... there is at least evidence to say that if iran does not develop nukes that it risks being bombed back a few decades along with forgoing their sovereignty ..
what precedents do you have for your scenarios?? ... there is at least evidence to say that if iran does not develop nukes that it risks being bombed back a few decades along with forgoing their sovereignty ..
Hizbollah has continually tried to undermine the democratic government in Lebanon. Assad wreaks of suspision in the assasination of their president in 05. Last summer Hizbollah engaged in a war with Israel. Iran is the puppet master behind both of these groups whose aim it is to destroy democracy.
The fiasco in Iraq should be more than sufficient to assure the mullahs that the American people have no interest in additional military ventures in the Middle East, especially against a much tougher opponent. I would say that Iraq has been a very sobering experience for Americans, especially those that support or supported the war.
Again, you said if they do not develop nukes. If they keep on their current course, I gurantee without a doubt that Israel will act alone if they have to. The children of the holocuast are not going to sit idle and let another madman boast of the "one-bomb" Jewish state a mere 60 years after their families were murdered on an industrial scale.
So it really becomes quite clear to me the mindset of the Iranian leadership. Nearly every significant country in the world has sided against Iran. They are being sanctioned by the UN. They have been in years of negotiations with dozens of countries including the UN and eventually we will probably see the US enter direct talks as well. They have been offered numerous compromises including their own reactor! They have been warned that developing a nuclear weapon or getting close will result in military action. With the world's spotlight cast upon their leadership, how do they respond????? By hosting a fucking holocaust denial conference and having their leader repeated, REPEATEDLY talk about or allude to the nuclear annhialtion of Isreal. So we're afraid that you may be developing nukes and how do you assure us you're not? But talking about wiping out Isreal with one bomb and holding a holocaust denial conference.....
Hizbollah has continually tried to undermine the democratic government in Lebanon. Assad wreaks of suspision in the assasination of their president in 05. Last summer Hizbollah engaged in a war with Israel. Iran is the puppet master behind both of these groups whose aim it is to destroy democracy.
The fiasco in Iraq should be more than sufficient to assure the mullahs that the American people have no interest in additional military ventures in the Middle East, especially against a much tougher opponent. I would say that Iraq has been a very sobering experience for Americans, especially those that support or supported the war.
Again, you said if they do not develop nukes. If they keep on their current course, I gurantee without a doubt that Israel will act alone if they have to. The children of the holocuast are not going to sit idle and let another madman boast of the "one-bomb" Jewish state a mere 60 years after their families were murdered on an industrial scale.
So it really becomes quite clear to me the mindset of the Iranian leadership. Nearly every significant country in the world has sided against Iran. They are being sanctioned by the UN. They have been in years of negotiations with dozens of countries including the UN and eventually we will probably see the US enter direct talks as well. They have been offered numerous compromises including their own reactor! They have been warned that developing a nuclear weapon or getting close will result in military action. With the world's spotlight cast upon their leadership, how do they respond????? By hosting a fucking holocaust denial conference and having their leader repeated, REPEATEDLY talk about or allude to the nuclear annhialtion of Isreal. So we're afraid that you may be developing nukes and how do you assure us you're not? But talking about wiping out Isreal with one bomb and holding a holocaust denial conference.....
is there a country that has more sanctions against it then israel?? ... if it wasn't for the us veto - i would suspect not ...
having said that - proxy wars are what america is synonomous with ... you can't possibly call the events of last summer a war - can you even compare the damage in lebanon vs israel?? ... hardly ...
i understand you choose to not accept the conditions by which these groups exists whether it be hamas or hezbollah but at least outwardly - they are fighting against occupation ...
yeah - i've heard all the talking points about how evil iran is ... it's great for the PR war ... just like iraq, just like everything else - you can choose what you want to hear ...
do you honestly think iran would go and nuke israel the first chance it gets?? ... the country is being run by hardline right wingers yes but learn about the people ... they have no interest in the destruction of israel ...
but hey - when you put right wing extremists in power ... this is what you get ...
is there a country that has more sanctions against it then israel?? ... if it wasn't for the us veto - i would suspect not ...
having said that - proxy wars are what america is synonomous with ... you can't possibly call the events of last summer a war - can you even compare the damage in lebanon vs israel?? ... hardly ...
i understand you choose to not accept the conditions by which these groups exists whether it be hamas or hezbollah but at least outwardly - they are fighting against occupation ...
yeah - i've heard all the talking points about how evil iran is ... it's great for the PR war ... just like iraq, just like everything else - you can choose what you want to hear ...
do you honestly think iran would go and nuke israel the first chance it gets?? ... the country is being run by hardline right wingers yes but learn about the people ... they have no interest in the destruction of israel ...
but hey - when you put right wing extremists in power ... this is what you get ...
The bottom line is that Amadenijad and the Mullahs obtaining a nuclear weapon is an extremely dangerous situation. There is no way to intelligently argue otherwise. And Israel is going to act regardless of what you or anybody else thinks, and who can blame them?
If people don't want that - if the Iranian leadership doesn't want that, then they need to shut the fuck up with their rhetoric and holocaust denial conferences and come to the table and acept a fair offer. Otherwise we're headed toward military conflict.
Gue said: "Sure, oil is strategy, oil is power, but oil isn't gonna make the cut for much longer."
What do you mean by much longer? Couple years, a decade...?
I must agree with NCfan in saying that oil still has quite awhile before it rides off into the sunset. Our entire market runs on it and any attempts so far to find an alternative has been a drop in the ocean. Until that occurs, it's imperative that our military still remain abroad to secure our interests.*
*No, I am not implying that I support the Iraq war and it's "surge".
Gravel and Kuncinich are compete idiots. I'm convinced they would attempt to disband our military or come close to it if they were president. Gravel kept talking about how we have no enemies. That resonates with just about nobody in our country.
I have to admit the "we have no enemies" comment was problematic without a full explaination.
the full text is:
Brian Williams: Other than Iraq, (what are the) three most important enemies to the United States?
Mike Gravel: We have no important enemies. What we need to do is treat the rest of the world as equals and we don't do that. We spend more as a nation on defense than all the rest of the world put together. Who are we afraid of? Who are you afraid of, Brian? I'm not. And Iraq has never been a threat to us. We invaded them. I mean, it is unbelievable. The military industrial complex not only controls our government lock stock and barrel, but they control our culture.
He goes on to better explain his views:
We are mischaracterizing terrorism. Terrorism has been with civilization from the beginning and it will be there til the end. We're going to be as successful fighting terrorism as we are fighting drugs, with the war. It doesn't work. What you have to do is begin to change the whole foreign policy. The Republicans, who are charging Democrats about not going for the defense of this country, my God, this invasion brought about more terrorists... Osama bin Laden must've been rolling in his blankets... how happy he was over our invading Iraq.
So what all of that says to me is that we must stop treating people as "enemies". People everywhere are people. We have to deal with what drives people to acts of terrorism. And at this moment in time, it is the wars of conquest that are launched by the military industrial complex.
Terrorists are reacting to U.S. imperialism, and this "war on terror" is another act of imperialism. The only winners are the war profiteers!!!! And they are the ones we need to fight to end terrorism and war!!
I'm gald you don't think I'm a dumb guy, it's quite a relief actually. But I'm not the one thinking in the small here. And if for some reason I am, then the vast majority around the world are on the same page with me. I would agree though, that I am probably just talking to myself on this particular message board, but that's okay with me.
Oil is surely going to be a major player for a long, long time to come. Three of the current Fortune top 10 are oil companies and their profits last year were higher than the other 7 combined. That trend doesn't look to be going anywhere for the forseeable future as first quarter results in 07 can testify.
So let's say Iran develops a nuke in 3 years and overthrows the government of Syria - Saddam style. Who is going to liberate them? Who wants to play nuclear poker with Iran, a country whose leader seems to welcome the "end of days"?
Let's say Al-Sadr becomes the new strong man in Iraq after we leave and is propped up by a nuclear Iran. Amadenijad will have one finger on the oil spigots of Iraq and the other on a nuclear trigger. Who will stop him if he demands the US remove all military assests from the Middle East or he will cut off the supply of oil to countries X,Y and Z? Or maybe he could demand that the US quit supplying Israel with military hardware and economic aid to ripen them for an invasion.
The scenarios are endless. So let me ask you, what good will talk of oil's demise do when a scenario like one of these unfolds anywhere in the next 3 to 5 years?
1) this could be avoided if we diverted the money from iraq into alternative energy. in the 60s we said we'd be on the moon by the end of the decade and then we fucking did it. if we make it a priority, we can have workable alternative fuels in a few years and jump start a brand new technology industry that everyone would want and would put us right back on top of the world again, instead of making us fawn over dickheads like iran. and if iran laid down some ultimatum, we'd tell them to go fuck themselves, and drill in alaska to hold us until our alternative were up an running. or we'd buy it from venezuela by making nice with chavez who would be all too happy to play ball with an america that's not going to look down its nose at him or assassinate him if he steps out of line. or where-the-fuck-ever. but we wont do any of this, cos dick cheney and his buddies make FAR too much off oil to let that happen. they WANT instability in oil-producing nations... it drives up prices and makes them fabulously wealthy.
2) if iran started invading people, we'd step in with 80% of the world of the world and bomb that country back to the stone age and kill every godamn fundie who dreams about holding an ak-47. that's how we won ww2... by making sure it was a just fight, bringing our buddies, and having open season on a deserving enemy with the support of the american people. we did it in iraq in 91 too. we fucked up big this time around though. if you wanted saddam, you should done it in 91 or let it fucking go. now here we sit, with our dick in our hands wondering what the fuck to do about iran becos our military is tied up in iraq and our citizens are tired of dead bodies and wondering if it's worth it. and this is why you dont fight "strategic" wars. they destroy your ability to fight necessary wars.
I have to admit the "we have no enemies" comment was problematic without a full explaination.
the full text is:
Brian Williams: Other than Iraq, (what are the) three most important enemies to the United States?
Mike Gravel: We have no important enemies. What we need to do is treat the rest of the world as equals and we don't do that. We spend more as a nation on defense than all the rest of the world put together. Who are we afraid of? Who are you afraid of, Brian? I'm not. And Iraq has never been a threat to us. We invaded them. I mean, it is unbelievable. The military industrial complex not only controls our government lock stock and barrel, but they control our culture.
He goes on to better explain his views:
We are mischaracterizing terrorism. Terrorism has been with civilization from the beginning and it will be there til the end. We're going to be as successful fighting terrorism as we are fighting drugs, with the war. It doesn't work. What you have to do is begin to change the whole foreign policy. The Republicans, who are charging Democrats about not going for the defense of this country, my God, this invasion brought about more terrorists... Osama bin Laden must've been rolling in his blankets... how happy he was over our invading Iraq.
So what all of that says to me is that we must stop treating people as "enemies". People everywhere are people. We have to deal with what drives people to acts of terrorism. And at this moment in time, it is the wars of conquest that are launched by the military industrial complex.
Terrorists are reacting to U.S. imperialism, and this "war on terror" is another act of imperialism. The only winners are the war profiteers!!!! And they are
the ones we need to fight to end terrorism and war!!
I didnt see the debate, and dont know much about Gravel. But, Kucinich was on Maher tonite, and 90% of what he said I agreed with. But where he completely lost me was, when he more or less said he was never for war. So Maher asked him if he would be for the assassination of Bin Laden, and he said assassination isnt a good policy and more or less said he wouldnt be for killing Bin Laden. I think he is great in most issues, but to more or less completely remove war or assassination from the table is just a naive thought process IMO.
I didnt see the debate, and dont know much about Gravel. But, Kucinich was on Maher tonite, and 90% of what he said I agreed with. But where he completely lost me was, when he more or less said he was never for war. So Maher asked him if he would be for the assassination of Bin Laden, and he said assassination isnt a good policy and more or less said he wouldnt be for killing Bin Laden. I think he is great in most issues, but to more or less completely remove war or assassination from the table is just a naive thought process IMO.
I wish I could have watched that...I've given up tv and it sucks from time to time. Maybe it will end up on youtube before long.
But I'm with him on the principle of not killing to make "progress". I think that humans have more potential to solve our problems than to simply kill one another...that's part of the barbaric mindset we are still trying to shake as a species, imo. We teach children to not fight and strike at one another but some how can't seem to follow our own good advice. War and killing should only be used as a last resort in order to defend oneself. Only fear guides preemptive aggression and to me, fear and doubt are the worst vices we have to overcome in order to advance.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Thank you! Sounded like he had a lot of support to me. And honestly, I don't care if I was the only one supporting him....I'm gonna stand up for what I feel is right and true...and Dennis is where it's at!
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Comments
I'm gald you don't think I'm a dumb guy, it's quite a relief actually. But I'm not the one thinking in the small here. And if for some reason I am, then the vast majority around the world are on the same page with me. I would agree though, that I am probably just talking to myself on this particular message board, but that's okay with me.
Oil is surely going to be a major player for a long, long time to come. Three of the current Fortune top 10 are oil companies and their profits last year were higher than the other 7 combined. That trend doesn't look to be going anywhere for the forseeable future as first quarter results in 07 can testify.
So let's say Iran develops a nuke in 3 years and overthrows the government of Syria - Saddam style. Who is going to liberate them? Who wants to play nuclear poker with Iran, a country whose leader seems to welcome the "end of days"?
Let's say Al-Sadr becomes the new strong man in Iraq after we leave and is propped up by a nuclear Iran. Amadenijad will have one finger on the oil spigots of Iraq and the other on a nuclear trigger. Who will stop him if he demands the US remove all military assests from the Middle East or he will cut off the supply of oil to countries X,Y and Z? Or maybe he could demand that the US quit supplying Israel with military hardware and economic aid to ripen them for an invasion.
The scenarios are endless. So let me ask you, what good will talk of oil's demise do when a scenario like one of these unfolds anywhere in the next 3 to 5 years?
Is the next president supposed to say "Ha ha ha Tehran, we don't give a shit about Middle Eastern oil, becuase in the next decade we will be self-sufficient for our energy needs?"
Forgive me if I'm not so optimistic that our pampered society could suffer total economic collapse. But I will make no apologies for favoring the use of military force to preserve our economic strength and in turn keep the democratic way of life safe from religious zealots.
Then teach yourself to be safe from your zealot self.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
what precedents do you have for your scenarios?? ... there is at least evidence to say that if iran does not develop nukes that it risks being bombed back a few decades along with forgoing their sovereignty ..
Hizbollah has continually tried to undermine the democratic government in Lebanon. Assad wreaks of suspision in the assasination of their president in 05. Last summer Hizbollah engaged in a war with Israel. Iran is the puppet master behind both of these groups whose aim it is to destroy democracy.
The fiasco in Iraq should be more than sufficient to assure the mullahs that the American people have no interest in additional military ventures in the Middle East, especially against a much tougher opponent. I would say that Iraq has been a very sobering experience for Americans, especially those that support or supported the war.
Again, you said if they do not develop nukes. If they keep on their current course, I gurantee without a doubt that Israel will act alone if they have to. The children of the holocuast are not going to sit idle and let another madman boast of the "one-bomb" Jewish state a mere 60 years after their families were murdered on an industrial scale.
So it really becomes quite clear to me the mindset of the Iranian leadership. Nearly every significant country in the world has sided against Iran. They are being sanctioned by the UN. They have been in years of negotiations with dozens of countries including the UN and eventually we will probably see the US enter direct talks as well. They have been offered numerous compromises including their own reactor! They have been warned that developing a nuclear weapon or getting close will result in military action. With the world's spotlight cast upon their leadership, how do they respond????? By hosting a fucking holocaust denial conference and having their leader repeated, REPEATEDLY talk about or allude to the nuclear annhialtion of Isreal. So we're afraid that you may be developing nukes and how do you assure us you're not? But talking about wiping out Isreal with one bomb and holding a holocaust denial conference.....
is there a country that has more sanctions against it then israel?? ... if it wasn't for the us veto - i would suspect not ...
having said that - proxy wars are what america is synonomous with ... you can't possibly call the events of last summer a war - can you even compare the damage in lebanon vs israel?? ... hardly ...
i understand you choose to not accept the conditions by which these groups exists whether it be hamas or hezbollah but at least outwardly - they are fighting against occupation ...
yeah - i've heard all the talking points about how evil iran is ... it's great for the PR war ... just like iraq, just like everything else - you can choose what you want to hear ...
do you honestly think iran would go and nuke israel the first chance it gets?? ... the country is being run by hardline right wingers yes but learn about the people ... they have no interest in the destruction of israel ...
but hey - when you put right wing extremists in power ... this is what you get ...
The bottom line is that Amadenijad and the Mullahs obtaining a nuclear weapon is an extremely dangerous situation. There is no way to intelligently argue otherwise. And Israel is going to act regardless of what you or anybody else thinks, and who can blame them?
If people don't want that - if the Iranian leadership doesn't want that, then they need to shut the fuck up with their rhetoric and holocaust denial conferences and come to the table and acept a fair offer. Otherwise we're headed toward military conflict.
What do you mean by much longer? Couple years, a decade...?
I must agree with NCfan in saying that oil still has quite awhile before it rides off into the sunset. Our entire market runs on it and any attempts so far to find an alternative has been a drop in the ocean. Until that occurs, it's imperative that our military still remain abroad to secure our interests.*
*No, I am not implying that I support the Iraq war and it's "surge".
I have to admit the "we have no enemies" comment was problematic without a full explaination.
the full text is:
Brian Williams: Other than Iraq, (what are the) three most important enemies to the United States?
Mike Gravel: We have no important enemies. What we need to do is treat the rest of the world as equals and we don't do that. We spend more as a nation on defense than all the rest of the world put together. Who are we afraid of? Who are you afraid of, Brian? I'm not. And Iraq has never been a threat to us. We invaded them. I mean, it is unbelievable. The military industrial complex not only controls our government lock stock and barrel, but they control our culture.
He goes on to better explain his views:
We are mischaracterizing terrorism. Terrorism has been with civilization from the beginning and it will be there til the end. We're going to be as successful fighting terrorism as we are fighting drugs, with the war. It doesn't work. What you have to do is begin to change the whole foreign policy. The Republicans, who are charging Democrats about not going for the defense of this country, my God, this invasion brought about more terrorists... Osama bin Laden must've been rolling in his blankets... how happy he was over our invading Iraq.
So what all of that says to me is that we must stop treating people as "enemies". People everywhere are people. We have to deal with what drives people to acts of terrorism. And at this moment in time, it is the wars of conquest that are launched by the military industrial complex.
Terrorists are reacting to U.S. imperialism, and this "war on terror" is another act of imperialism. The only winners are the war profiteers!!!! And they are the ones we need to fight to end terrorism and war!!
1) this could be avoided if we diverted the money from iraq into alternative energy. in the 60s we said we'd be on the moon by the end of the decade and then we fucking did it. if we make it a priority, we can have workable alternative fuels in a few years and jump start a brand new technology industry that everyone would want and would put us right back on top of the world again, instead of making us fawn over dickheads like iran. and if iran laid down some ultimatum, we'd tell them to go fuck themselves, and drill in alaska to hold us until our alternative were up an running. or we'd buy it from venezuela by making nice with chavez who would be all too happy to play ball with an america that's not going to look down its nose at him or assassinate him if he steps out of line. or where-the-fuck-ever. but we wont do any of this, cos dick cheney and his buddies make FAR too much off oil to let that happen. they WANT instability in oil-producing nations... it drives up prices and makes them fabulously wealthy.
2) if iran started invading people, we'd step in with 80% of the world of the world and bomb that country back to the stone age and kill every godamn fundie who dreams about holding an ak-47. that's how we won ww2... by making sure it was a just fight, bringing our buddies, and having open season on a deserving enemy with the support of the american people. we did it in iraq in 91 too. we fucked up big this time around though. if you wanted saddam, you should done it in 91 or let it fucking go. now here we sit, with our dick in our hands wondering what the fuck to do about iran becos our military is tied up in iraq and our citizens are tired of dead bodies and wondering if it's worth it. and this is why you dont fight "strategic" wars. they destroy your ability to fight necessary wars.
I didnt see the debate, and dont know much about Gravel. But, Kucinich was on Maher tonite, and 90% of what he said I agreed with. But where he completely lost me was, when he more or less said he was never for war. So Maher asked him if he would be for the assassination of Bin Laden, and he said assassination isnt a good policy and more or less said he wouldnt be for killing Bin Laden. I think he is great in most issues, but to more or less completely remove war or assassination from the table is just a naive thought process IMO.
I wish I could have watched that...I've given up tv and it sucks from time to time. Maybe it will end up on youtube before long.
But I'm with him on the principle of not killing to make "progress". I think that humans have more potential to solve our problems than to simply kill one another...that's part of the barbaric mindset we are still trying to shake as a species, imo. We teach children to not fight and strike at one another but some how can't seem to follow our own good advice. War and killing should only be used as a last resort in order to defend oneself. Only fear guides preemptive aggression and to me, fear and doubt are the worst vices we have to overcome in order to advance.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
thanks
do you have a link?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7ZKnPKR--4
Thank you! Sounded like he had a lot of support to me.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde