Quake3World

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: Again, I'd ask what evidence you have that invading those 'other' countries would be any less deadly to kids and would be any more effective than in Afghanistan or Iraq? Either way, your eagerness for war belies your 'us vs them, good vs bad' narrative imo.

Again, I'd ask what your big plan is for effecting change without violence.

Again, I'm not condoning another invasion or encouraging violence...

It's on Homeland so it must be true!

Eraser wrote:It's on Homeland so it must be true!

Exactly!

Really good season btw...

feedback wrote:Dopey kids thinking that you can heal the world and make everything better by singing kumbaya. You need force, or at least the threat of force. Without it, you get rwanda.

This, and what looks like what ryo is saying.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Again, I'd ask what evidence you have that invading those 'other' countries would be any less deadly to kids and would be any more effective than in Afghanistan or Iraq? Either way, your eagerness for war belies your 'us vs them, good vs bad' narrative imo.

Where do you get this idea i'm advocating an invasion of two countries because it's 'less deadly to kids'? And evidence, what evidence? I clearly state in that first post that there's no way of knowing don't i? And then you accuse me of a black and white vision and eagerness for war? Jesus Puff, fuck off

Look, i'm all for having a rational discussion about this little thought experiment but you continue to completely miss the point i'm trying to make and i'm not sure how i can explain it more clearly...

xer0s wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: Again, I'd ask what evidence you have that invading those 'other' countries would be any less deadly to kids and would be any more effective than in Afghanistan or Iraq? Either way, your eagerness for war belies your 'us vs them, good vs bad' narrative imo.

Again, I'd ask what your big plan is for effecting change without violence.

Maybe he doesn't have one. That wouldn't mean he's wrong about resorting to violence being a bad idea.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Are you being intentionally obtuse just to try and win this point?

http://www-pub.naz.edu/~aamghar6/Histor ... aliban.htm

But Puffy, that link supports my claim! Did you even read it yourself..?

Ryoki wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Again, I'd ask what evidence you have that invading those 'other' countries would be any less deadly to kids and would be any more effective than in Afghanistan or Iraq? Either way, your eagerness for war belies your 'us vs them, good vs bad' narrative imo.

Where do you get this idea i'm advocating an invasion of two countries because it's 'less deadly to kids'? And evidence, what evidence? I clearly state in that first post that there's no way of knowing don't i? And then you accuse me of a black and white vision and eagerness for war? Jesus Puff, fuck off

Look, i'm all for having a rational discussion about this little thought experiment but you continue to completely miss the point i'm trying to make and i'm not sure how i can explain it more clearly...

I know you probably don't want to have anything in common with me, but I'm getting the same responses...

Ryoki wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Again, I'd ask what evidence you have that invading those 'other' countries would be any less deadly to kids and would be any more effective than in Afghanistan or Iraq? Either way, your eagerness for war belies your 'us vs them, good vs bad' narrative imo.

Where do you get this idea i'm advocating an invasion of two countries because it's 'less deadly to kids'? And evidence, what evidence? I clearly state in that first post that there's no way of knowing don't i? And then you accuse me of a black and white vision and eagerness for war? Jesus Puff, fuck off

Look, i'm all for having a rational discussion about this little thought experiment but you continue to completely miss the point i'm trying to make and i'm not sure how i can explain it more clearly...

Are you advocating for the invasion of two countries in this thread? (SA and Pakistan)? You seem to be missing the point I'm trying to make...

Eraser wrote:
Maybe he doesn't have one. That wouldn't mean he's wrong about resorting to violence being a bad idea.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

xer0s wrote:So no ideas then?

Yes I've been talking about a big idea

But right here he claims to have a big idea. All I wanted was to have it explained. I admitted I have no alternative solution, and I don't want an invasion or violence either. So I'd love to hear this big idea...

Look. This is my whole point. If your aim is to protect kids, you don't do it through war.

xer0s wrote: So I'd love to hear this big idea...

Okay get ready! Are you excited!

First of all you don't use violence. That's counter to your whole purpose here.

So let's see. What else can be done...

Long term, the Iraq war is going to cost the USA 6 trillion dollars. So, let's take a fraction of your budget for this next war, say 1 trillion dollars and spend it on things that will increase literacy and quality of life. Also, how about diplomacy and targeted sanctions?

The above reflects the reality that war tends to CREATE not destroy radical groups who use desperate and despicable tactics.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Look. This is my whole point. If your aim is to protect kids, you don't do it through war.

I agree. And 130+ children were killed without an invasion. Sounds like they're fucked either way...

Oh yeah and never fund and support these guys in the first place. That might be helpful.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Are you advocating for the invasion of two countries in this thread? (SA and Pakistan)? You seem to be missing the point I'm trying to make...

I'm saying it should have been done 10 years ago, instead of those other places we invaded. I think this is about the third time i've repeated that, maybe this time you'll believe i'm not actually calling for two brand new invasions? You didn't take my little joke about China seriously did you?

PS (targeted) sanctions have never ever achieved their goals, anywhere. If i were really mean this is where i could accuse you of advocating soulless child murdering practices, but i'm in a good mood so i won't!

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Oh yeah and never fund and support these guys in the first place. That might be helpful.

Tell that to the Saudi's and the Pakistani's, who have been doing exactly that for decades.

xer0s wrote:I know you probably don't want to have anything in common with me, but I'm getting the same responses...

It's all this work in healthcare i've been doing, it's somehow warped me into an extreme rightwinger who wants to kill little kids with brown skin! Ye gods, what happened...

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

xer0s wrote: So I'd love to hear this big idea...

Okay get ready! Are you excited!

First of all you don't use violence. That's counter to your whole purpose here.

So let's see. What else can be done...

Long term, the Iraq war is going to cost the USA 6 trillion dollars. So, let's take a fraction of your budget for this next war, say 1 trillion dollars and spend it on things that will increase literacy and quality of life. Also, how about diplomacy and targeted sanctions?

The above reflects the reality that war tends to CREATE not destroy radical groups who use desperate and despicable tactics.

It was a valiant effort, but I'm a little disappointed in your big plan. Throwing money into these countries to increase literacy and quality of life will only infuriate these groups. Remember, they hate westernized education, especially for girls. They kill young girls that want to learn. It doesn't matter what we do, wether it be through violence or aid, they don't want us involved. Sanctions? For what? Food? So we starve the people we're trying to help? There's no good solution...

xer0s wrote:
It was a valiant effort, but I'm a little disappointed in your big plan. Throwing money into these countries to increase literacy and quality of life will only infuriate these groups. Remember, they hate westernized education, especially for girls. They kill young girls that want to learn. It doesn't matter what we do, wether it be through violence or aid, they don't want us involved. Sanctions? For what? Food? So we starve the people we're trying to help? There's no good solution...

I said targeted sanctions. Google it. And I believe you are incorrect in your assessment. The more stable an environment you create, the less oxygen these groups have.

Or more ammo

Lots of neo tea bagging dipshits in here...

So its not ok to give weapons to countries but its ok to give money so they can buy themselves ?

Ryoki wrote:

seremtan wrote:yeah those place would now be glorious beacons of enlightenment in the Middle East, just like Iraq, and no kids would have died, honest

Pff, glorious beacons of enlightenment? Yeah that'll happen. No, i'd settle for good old fashioned secular dictatorships (the key word there being secular).

good luck creating secular dictatorships in the ME that aren't obvious Western puppet states. that ship sailed when Arab nationalism/socialism bit the dust. Assad is the last of that kind, and we're busily trying to oust him. go figure

Memphis wrote:
maybe you're just becoming an older cunt, like my good self

the more I read about fucked shit, the more I'd probably be satisfied with certain elements of humanity under lock and key, or the guillotine.
it's like there's 2 subspecies of humans, and one is just predisposed to utter fuckness of the head. at some point, something's gotta be done about them

Are you suggesting a Wolfenstein tournament?