Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

halonachos wrote:Everyone is oppressed economically and religiously, but otherwise everyone is equal. Much better than stoning women in my opinion, unless you would rather stone women than suffer economic oppression.

Incorrect. Communists equally kill...everyone. Thats better only in the land of coockoo birds.

Stalin killed everyone, not communism. Its far easier to change a political ideal than it is a theological ideal anyways. Stoning women has its base in radical Islamic faith while murdering in Communism is still a crime.

Two farmers make little money and only just get by, however one of them manages to buy a goat which helps improve his quality of life by a little bit. In capitalism the other farmer would steal the man's goat, in communism the farmer kills the goat so both are equally miserable. In radical islam the goat has more rights than a woman.

Melissia wrote:Why don't we start stoning men instead?

[/troll]

twas done already

theres a lot of archaeological proof that way back matriarchal societies were more commonplace and women held greater power than men. Im sure stoning happened then "He was premature! He is worthless!"

it was just during the time we started recording history that the POV changed and the power balance shifted. Matriarchal societies were demonized (Amazons), female leaders were evil (cleopatra) and propaganda for female subservience started showing up (Bible)

they say history is cyclical though so maybe the time of stoning men will be around the corner

BuFFo wrote:America helps, foreigners complain that we should stay out.

America doesn't help, foreigners complain that we should intervene.

Foreigners didn't start this thread. In fact I don't really see any foreigners calling for the US to intervene at all. Must be nice in that magical land of yours.

halonachos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

halonachos wrote:Everyone is oppressed economically and religiously, but otherwise everyone is equal. Much better than stoning women in my opinion, unless you would rather stone women than suffer economic oppression.

Incorrect. Communists equally kill...everyone. Thats better only in the land of coockoo birds.

Stalin killed everyone, not communism. Its far easier to change a political ideal than it is a theological ideal anyways. Stoning women has its base in radical Islamic faith while murdering in Communism is still a crime.

Two farmers make little money and only just get by, however one of them manages to buy a goat which helps improve his quality of life by a little bit. In capitalism the other farmer would steal the man's goat, in communism the farmer kills the goat so both are equally miserable. In radical islam the goat has more rights than a woman.

Must be nice in that magical land of yours.

biccat wrote:

Karon wrote:3. Yeah, he is weak for not spending even more money to enlarge our fething 13+ trillion deficit.

WHOAAAAAA Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. He is spending more money to enlarge oour 13+ trillion [dollar] deficit. He's just not spending it in Libya.

Mostly he's spending it on social programs that have little purpose but to bloat the federal workforce to create the perception that he's "doing something" about jobs.

They might have "little purpose" to you, but not to everyone.

What about my other points?

@halonachos

youre the only person i know who would say that MORE people suffering is better than less people suffering.

congrats. you've earned a place in my memories.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

BuFFo wrote:America helps, foreigners complain that we should stay out.

America doesn't help, foreigners complain that we should intervene.

Foreigners didn't start this thread. In fact I don't really see any foreigners calling for the US to intervene at all. Must be nice in that magical land of yours.

to be fair...what he said does happen. *points at my flag* happened in my country

Bakerofish wrote:@halonachos

youre the only person i know who would say that MORE people suffering is better than less people suffering.

congrats. you've earned a place in my memories.

I'm saying that suffering economically is better than suffering due to a theological belief. I would rather be poor and destitute than stone a woman due to some 'holy' man's concept of relgious justice.

halonachos wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@halonachos

youre the only person i know who would say that MORE people suffering is better than less people suffering.

congrats. you've earned a place in my memories.

I'm saying that suffering economically is better than suffering due to a theological belief. I would rather be poor and destitute than stone a woman due to some 'holy' man's concept of relgious justice.

You think you'd only be poor and destitute under communists?

Bakerofish wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

BuFFo wrote:America helps, foreigners complain that we should stay out.

America doesn't help, foreigners complain that we should intervene.

Foreigners didn't start this thread. In fact I don't really see any foreigners calling for the US to intervene at all. Must be nice in that magical land of yours.

to be fair...what he said does happen. *points at my flag* happened in my country

Am I confusing your flag with the Philipines or is it something else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

You think you'd only be poor and destitute under communists?

What are you getting at, comrade?

Frazzled wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@halonachos

youre the only person i know who would say that MORE people suffering is better than less people suffering.

congrats. you've earned a place in my memories.

I'm saying that suffering economically is better than suffering due to a theological belief. I would rather be poor and destitute than stone a woman due to some 'holy' man's concept of relgious justice.

You think you'd only be poor and destitute under communists?

Doesn't matter.

@emperor

Philippines it is.

halonachos wrote:
I'm saying that suffering economically is better than suffering due to a theological belief. I would rather be poor and destitute than stone a woman due to some 'holy' man's concept of relgious justice.

In the case of the stoning you don't suffer in any meaningful sense.

Mmm... home of some fine .45ACP pistol makers. Excellent.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
I'm saying that suffering economically is better than suffering due to a theological belief. I would rather be poor and destitute than stone a woman due to some 'holy' man's concept of relgious justice.

In the case of the stoning you don't suffer in any meaningful sense.

Please elaborate.

Operation Iraqi Liberation wasn't about WMD or justice. It was about securing enough resources to take on korea or china when that kicks off.

That failed worse than my all warrior tyranid army. In both cases the leader was terrible.

Phototoxin wrote:Operation Iraqi Liberation wasn't about WMD or justice. It was about securing enough resources to take on korea or china when that kicks off.

Wow you've managed to neatly incorporate a wingnut theory with a total lack of strategic knowledge. I am impressed.

Bakerofish wrote:@emperor

Philippines it is.

I can't remember a time when foreigners looked favourably on Philipine intervention. And the corroboration of my own government shames me in this matter.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@emperor

Philippines it is.

I can't remember a time when foreigners looked favourably on Philipine intervention. And the corroboration of my own government shames me in this matter.

huh?

Philippine intervention? I dont think the Philippines has the power to intervene on anything! lol

I was supporting what Buffo wrote about foreigners complaining about American Intervention, whether it happens or not. People do complain about what america does one way or another.

Bakerofish wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@emperor

Philippines it is.

I can't remember a time when foreigners looked favourably on Philipine intervention. And the corroboration of my own government shames me in this matter.

huh?

Philippine intervention? I dont think the Philippines has the power to intervene on anything! lol

Gosh darn it, no wonder I failed my History Assignment on Indonesia and Australian relations with South East Asia.

I was supporting what Buffo wrote about foreigners complaining about American Intervention, whether it happens or not. People do complain about what america does one way or another.

I don't see anyone complaining about the US not intervening here. Apart from someone from the US.

@Emperor

i was talking about military intervention...was there a military action by the Philippines in east timor? i have no clue and id be suprised if we did.

and not seeing anyone complain in your country doesnt make what boffo said any less true. like i said its already happened here. political pundits in the news and media and all that. im sure if we dig up some political themed message boards from other countries youd find a few comments here and there.

again people like to talk and complain

edit:

oh you mean here in dakka? i guess we just dont have a lot of middle eastern folks around im sure if we had a north korean person here theyd start saying stuff. hehehe

Phototoxin wrote:Operation Iraqi Liberation wasn't about WMD or justice. It was about securing enough resources to take on korea or china when that kicks off.

Then why did we invade a barren desert country?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@halonachos

youre the only person i know who would say that MORE people suffering is better than less people suffering.

congrats. you've earned a place in my memories.

I'm saying that suffering economically is better than suffering due to a theological belief. I would rather be poor and destitute than stone a woman due to some 'holy' man's concept of relgious justice.

The crowds aren't made to stone, they do it willingly. If your life was spent under such governance then you would likely speak differently about your preferences, just look at pakistan or Iran. Harsh islamic justice laws are popular in those countries while economic failure isn't.

Bakerofish wrote:@Emperor

i was talking about military intervention...was there a military action by the Philippines in east timor? i have no clue and id be suprised if we did.

No, no. I t was honestly my mistake. I somehow managed to get Indonesia and the Philippines mixed up when talking about military intervention (which in South East Asia is a bit complicated).

oh you mean here in dakka? i guess we just dont have a lot of middle eastern folks around im sure if we had a north korean person here theyd start saying stuff. hehehe

There are plenty of posters here that are of the opinion that the US should pretty much feth off in the nicest way possible. I don't see many posters apart from sexiest_hero actively calling for the US to intervene in Libya, and I don't think people from the Mid-east would support that.

@emperor

ah darnit. you got me all excited for nothing lol.

we still have vietnam era military equipment for crying out loud.

Redbeard wrote:
This is so ridiculous, I don't even know where to start. Are you so completely out of touch with reality that you think the US needs to open another military conflict? We cannot even pay for the ones we're already engaged in, and you think we should go play policeman to the rest of the world? What about the problems at home, the unemployment and underemployment? Real wages for Americans (compared to inflation) have not increased in the last fifty years (Source). And you think we need to go tell some other country what to do?

Wars are expensive. Sending troops overseas is expensive. I think I read something yesterday that said that China actually owns more of our debt than previously thought, though I cannot find a link to it now. Our Government is operating on stop-gap funding (Source) and you want us to go invade Libya out of some misplaced sense of duty? Get a grip.

A colossal piece of common sense, reposted to reinforce.

The United States is trillions in debt, primarily to China, because in a sizeable part of it's simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. War on two fronts has done nothing but damage.

Using the lack of warmongering to lambaste a president is a fairly odd thing to do. The US needs to rebuild and enjoy some 'me time' and I think Obama's helped that rebuilding, given that the nation hasn't fallen into a depression and we are now, finally, seeing an upturn and regrowth of the economy.

I seriously don't understand the whole "We can't handle another Iraq/Afghan" argument. This isn't similar in the least - there is a popular revolt against some asshat the people don't like. They are doing okay, just dying to do it. We could take out a few airbases and/or shoot down any jets that are bombing civilians, provide a little help etc. We don't need to smash the country flat and spend a decade rebuilding, just help the poor bastards out against their own dickish government. Y'know, do something good? The sort of thing we ought to be doing, right? As for the UN, if we need corrupt useless politicians, we have plenty already, no need to bring any more into the equation.

Bromsy wrote:I seriously don't understand the whole "We can't handle another Iraq/Afghan" argument. This isn't similar in the least - there is a popular revolt against some asshat the people don't like. They are doing okay, just dying to do it. We could take out a few airbases and/or shoot down any jets that are bombing civilians, provide a little help etc. We don't need to smash the country flat and spend a decade rebuilding, just help the poor bastards out against their own dickish government. Y'know, do something good? The sort of thing we ought to be doing, right? As for the UN, if we need corrupt useless politicians, we have plenty already, no need to bring any more into the equation.

There's the issue, if you remove a dickish dictator you have yourself a nice power vacuum. Nature, political nature as well, abhors vacuums so its going to be filled. The question is who's going to fill it? Will Europe or another western nation intervene and try to implant a pro-western leader which the Libyans will hate, will the Libyans put in an anti-western leader on their own, or will another radical outside group move in and take control much like Afghanistan after the Russians left?

We did something good with Afghanistan and Iraq by removing their dickish dictators and look at the quagmire we're dealing with right now. The UN is fully capable of taking care of the Libyan air force, when my dad sailed through the area while he was in the NAVY they had to take a lot of precautions to avoid the Libyan's advanced air force, by precautions I mean they turned the lights off at night and the Libyans couldn't see them.

If anything we could support a carrier group to stay in the area because we usually do have a group over there.

Frazzled wrote:You think wrong.

Given the nature of the average repug locally, I think not.

biccat wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:If my support for a peoples' freedom "gives us a worse image" then times are really bad. Look sorry world I personally wish I could take back the Iraq war (that I was and still am against). It was based on a lie, and you all, being good honest folk, fell for it.

If we enter Libya, start killing the troops, take out Ghadaffi, and then find out that there never were any orders to attack civilians, what would be your response?

I dunno... whats your response to IRAQ? there were no WMDs

frgsinwntr wrote:

biccat wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:If my support for a peoples' freedom "gives us a worse image" then times are really bad. Look sorry world I personally wish I could take back the Iraq war (that I was and still am against). It was based on a lie, and you all, being good honest folk, fell for it.

If we enter Libya, start killing the troops, take out Ghadaffi, and then find out that there never were any orders to attack civilians, what would be your response?

I dunno... whats your response to IRAQ? there were no WMDs

Saying that there were no WMDs in Iraq is like saying that recessive genotypes never show in a phenotype.

Letting the people of Libya try to come up with someone better to run their country is the part of this we ought to leave up to them. If that person is worse, start another revolt. We could do limited interventions til the proverbial cows come home, as long as we don't let ourselves get bogged down, as we have done, in drawn out garrison and police actions. Give people a hand when they need it, but tone down the occupation and telling them how to set things up parts.

I really don't want to get into the UN aspect. Do they have the ability to help? Maybe. Do they have the will? No. Emphatically.