600,000 Dead Civilians, financed by me and you

josevolution

gue_barium wrote:

Actually, you don't HAVE to, if you're willing to face the consequences. Three years without paying taxes for me and nothing has happened.

I do plan on filing this year.

oh ok that is the answer let me try that ,will look for your thread wich will be named "GESS WHAT I'VE BEEN AUDITED BY THE IRS "...pay back is a bitch though......

Abookamongstthemany

Personally, I don't see a problem with showing the effects of bad decisions. It may not matter to the strong pro war posters on this board but to average people who aren't defending a previous stance, it could be enough for them to say 'this just isn't worth it' and maybe start speaking out and watching more closely who and what they will support in the future.

gue_barium

josevolution wrote:

oh ok that is the answer let me try that ,will look for your thread wich will be named "GESS WHAT I'VE BEEN AUDITED BY THE IRS "...pay back is a bitch though......

I'm not here to give you answers.

jeffbr

my2hands wrote:

ok, lets invade Sudan and China. your logic would support it, actually your logic would support the invasion of half the fucking planet.

Now I have no idea what you're talking about. I never supported the war in Iraq. Why would I support one in China or the Sudan? And why does questioning causality mean that logic supports other invasions? Is logic really the word you were looking for?

josevolution

gue_barium wrote:

I'm not here to give you answers.

i'm not looking for any ...

my2hands

soulsinging wrote:

you say "oppose the war or you like murdering innocents." neither is true.

actually, i think that is true.

collateral damage and civilian deaths are unavoidable in a war, so to support military action is to concede that you are comfortable with, or willing to justify, civilian deaths. in other words, a pro war supporter believes "the ends justify the means"... considering that civilian casualties are inevitable in war.

soulsinging

my2hands wrote:

actually, i think that is true.

collateral damage and civilian deaths are unavoidable in a war, so to support military action is to concede that you are comfortable with, or willing to justify, civilian deaths. in other words, a pro war supporter believes "the ends justify the means"... considering that civilian casualties are inevitable in war.

and war itself is inevitable. humans have been fighting them since we figured out if we killed someone else we have more for ourselves. and we will continue to fight wars until the sun implodes and swallows the earth. trying to fight only just wars is admirable and trying to minimize civilian deaths is imperative, but if you think that somehow protesting george bush will end innocent deaths in wars you are unqualified for any sort of intelligent debate. it has always happened and it always will.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

soulsinging wrote:

and war itself is inevitable. humans have been fighting them since we figured out if we killed someone else we have more for ourselves. and we will continue to fight wars until the sun implodes and swallows the earth. trying to fight only just wars is admirable and trying to minimize civilian deaths is imperative, but if you think that somehow protesting george bush will end innocent deaths in wars you are unqualified for any sort of intelligent debate. it has always happened and it always will.

has happened and always will would imply knowledge of the future. Change starts with one mind. Good thing scientists don't think that way. We'd be faacked!

soulsinging

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

has happened and always will would imply knowledge of the future. Change starts with one mind. Good thing scientists don't think that way. We'd be faacked!

what has science ever changed about human nature?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

soulsinging wrote:

what has science ever changed about human nature?

That there's no intelligent reason for blindly accepting what appears to obvious.

soulsinging

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That there's no intelligent reason for blindly accepting what appears to obvious.

wow, that sounds really deep. how has that changed human nature? sounds to me like it's just a fancy way of saying "we're still curious."

RolandTD20Kdrummer

soulsinging wrote:

wow, that sounds really deep. how has that changed human nature? sounds to me like it's just a fancy way of saying "we're still curious."

the problem is not about science. It's really more about the defeatist mindset you outlined.

To say man has not changed emotionally upstairs in just in the past 100 years is incorrect.

soulsinging

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

the problem is not about science. It's really more about the defeatist mindset you outlined.

To say man has not changed emotionally upstairs in just in the past 100 years is incorrect.

emotionally, we are still the same. intellectually we have changed. but we are still the same emotional and hormonal and instinctual creatures we have been for the last 10,000 years.

there is nothing defeatist in my mindset. there is realism in it. im not saying be passive and let war happen. im saying pick your battles. we cant undo iraq. move forward and learn from the xp. war should be a last resort and maybe this time we will have learned our lesson.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

soulsinging wrote:

emotionally, we are still the same. intellectually we have changed. but we are still the same emotional and hormonal and instinctual creatures we have been for the last 10,000 years.

there is nothing defeatist in my mindset. there is realism in it. im not saying be passive and let war happen. im saying pick your battles. we cant undo iraq. move forward and learn from the xp. war should be a last resort and maybe this time we will have learned our lesson.

Interesting how we can sucessfully suppress our instincts like hunger, anger, and assorted other bodily functions. One could argue definite change has happened in this regard. I agree with the rest.

Open

soulsinging wrote:

it is if you're mother nature. we're a scourge on this planet. and we've always slaughtered each other. if it wasnt us killing 600,000 iraqis it would be someone else killing 600,000 other people. im so tired of hearing about iraq. we fucked up, we're there, and we can't take it back. let it go.

Spoken like a true American.

Open

chromiam wrote:

so you're saying that US soldiers killed 600,000 Iraqi civilians???? sorry but that's not what your pretty little article is saying...

Coalition of the willing led by the good ol USA.

Abookamongstthemany

soulsinging wrote:

emotionally, we are still the same. intellectually we have changed. but we are still the same emotional and hormonal and instinctual creatures we have been for the last 10,000 years.

there is nothing defeatist in my mindset. there is realism in it. im not saying be passive and let war happen. im saying pick your battles. we cant undo iraq. move forward and learn from the xp. war should be a last resort and maybe this time we will have learned our lesson.

Man has greatly evolved from our primitive, animalistic behavior in the beginings. We used to be ok with so much that is unthinkable to support and carryout nowdays. We grown at a constant rate away from violence over time. Remember burning people at the stake, gunfights/duels in the streets, medieval torture, etc? We will continue to evolve past the thinking that killing each other is any kind of answer to our problems....and war will phase itself out as we evolve into more intelligent beings with better methods of communication and problem solving.

soulsinging

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Interesting how we can sucessfully suppress our instincts like hunger, anger, and assorted other bodily functions. One could argue definite change has happened in this regard. I agree with the rest.

e can't suppress them. we still have to eat, we still have to shit, and if that anger doesn't come out we end up in therapy or shooting people from belltowers. we can find more appropriate places and outlets for them from time to time, but war is a fact of life. humans and animals fight for resources all the time. and so it will continue. we're not special.

Ahnimus

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Man has greatly evolved from our primitive, animalistic behavior in the beginings. We used to be ok with so much that is unthinkable to support and carryout nowdays. We grown at a constant rate away from violence over time. Remember burning people at the stake, gunfights/duels in the streets, medieval torture, etc? We will continue to evolve past the thinking that killing each other is any kind of answer to our problems....and war will phase itself out as we evolve into more intelligent beings with better methods of communication and problem solving.

I actually believe that social and biological evolution work in tandem. Because I think our biology is suited largely for social interaction, the whole idea that the brain develops according to what is expected of it. This means that there is no hard distinction between biological evolution and social evolution, although it does seem that we evolve faster socially. Some things like our ability to hibernate is not completely gone biologically, but we don't actually need to do it anymore.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

e can't suppress them. we still have to eat, we still have to shit, and if that anger doesn't come out we end up in therapy or shooting people from belltowers. we can find more appropriate places and outlets for them from time to time, but war is a fact of life. humans and animals fight for resources all the time. and so it will continue. we're not special.

Or in elevators
http://shoutfile.com/v/Q3d4XDYZ/Crazy_Guy_in_an_Elevator