GENIUS FORUMS

Scott wrote:

What are you saying? You could easily fall in love with me?

Sure, why not? From what I understand, you’re in good physical shape and shouldn’t have any performance issues; none that can’t be easily remedied, that is. You have a good enough mind for some decent conversation to take place. One issue here, though. I don’t believe some of the questions I raised were idiotic. And I don’t believe they were boring, either. In fact, I consider them to have been legitimate questions. Perhaps you might like to review them and grant a response. Naturally, if after such a review you still find them idiotic or unjustified, then I will have to satisfy myself with your say so for now, I reckon.

I hate Pink Floyd.

Now, see? Our relationship is doomed before it’s even started. :)

Love is something really interesting to me...something I don't understand at all. What causes girls to go bipolar on guys who love them. What causes guys to love girls. How married couples go on in life...it's actually very interesting since divorce rates seem to be constantly on the rise. I wonder what will happen.

It’s not that hard to understand, really. Not when you’re prepared to accept the truth of its fundamentals, which are: imagination/fantasy and pragmatism.

Because “love” itself actually is entirely fantasy, it can’t be pinned down to any one manifestation. Now, that’s not to say that this fantasy isn’t very powerful. Obviously, humanity itself is its greatest testimony. But, nonetheless, it is nothing more than a concocted dream and has no existence beyond that. That's why it's something people have to "constantly work on." If the dreams stop, so does love.

People who manage to align mutually beneficial love fantasies could go on forever. Then there are those who have allowed the fantasy to give way and who live for and off the pragmatism -- and habit. Then there are those content to compromise their fantasies for each other; and those who are not. There are those who create their own fantasies, and those who borrow from others -- sometimes changing them several times in a day; who knows, perhaps several times in a moment.

James wrote:

Take me...lol

Are you Asian. Intelligent westernised asians give me the horn, and Leyla is one of my fav names (I think because the Layla from the Clan of the Cave Bear series was sexy to me when I was a kid). That you used to be involved with a criminal dude is also sexy - means you have the right sort of open mind and are likely to be attractive.

I am a full-blooded Turk (which makes me Asian, yes), born in England: a conquest and concubine of the West. Yeah, I’m sure that turns a few on. Myself included, at times.

Of course I’m attractive. I think that stands out well enough. Good, attractive genes. But, that’s only good for one thing.

Plus I think you might be going crazy.

I'm not going anywhere I haven't been already. That’s not an uncommon utterance in my direction. I’ve grown to take it as a compliment of sorts given my idea of the general level of sanity around me. I’m surprised you’re only just seeing it now?

A cloud of eiderdown draws around me softening the sound
Sleepy time when I lie
With my love by my side
And she’s breathing low
And the candle dies…

Course, you could be right in one sense. Usually, around the three-year celibacy mark, I get a bit edgy -- and Floyd does tend to temporarily make me crawl the walls and dart across the ceiling like a Francis Ford Coppola vampire lusting for blood.

But, no need to worry. I got a pretty good handle on it.

Breathe, breathe in the air
Don't be afraid to care

That's all I know. Hell, it was worth a shot.

Ah, nice choice. Don't mind if I do... :)

I have my doubts.
People believe this war may be over in a reasonable period of time, but Bush has always known that the terrorist war will go on and on with no end in sight.
People believe American troops are now there to provide security for Iraqies until such time as Iraq can protect itself, but Bush has always known that the boys are required to attract and anihilate as many Islamist rebels as possible, and will stay put until such time as the people protest and force their return.
People believe there is some small hope these two religions will some day come to terms despite their differences, but Bush has always known he must eventually destroy everyone who hates and disagrees with him.

You could be right, but in my opinion the troops will soon depart - starting with the National Guard. The Navy and Air Force will most likely be the majority of troops over there, as well as a couple of Army units. I'm sure they'll set up Marine camps. It won't be the same way, though. Right now we see Army, National Guard and Marines primarily leading the way, rebuilding and providing security...waiting til the Iraqi military is ready...which they are according to the majority of the military leadership. We will watch the waters, the skies and the ground...but for the most part we'll be out of the way. If something goes out of hand (which it probably will), we will respond, but we won't be "occupying" as we're doing now.

That's my prediction for the next couple of years.

Now, see? Our relationship is doomed before it’s even started. :)

Our relationship!? We haven't even met, Leyla!

I'll review what you said.

Our relationship!? We haven't even met, Leyla!

[slap!] Pay attention. That's not important when it comes to love. Love can do amazing things, including influencing chemistry. Powerful shit.

Now, marriage is an entirely different kettle of fish. If I don't fit your ideal image, I'm sure I can gratify you with a temporary substitute, at least.

I'll review what you said.

Cool.

I said:
"Well the truth is, Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons because the Mid East is full of terrorists."

Leyla said:
Oh, really?

I said it. Really.

I said:
Any thoughtful person who watches the news knows this.

Leyla said:
Yes, any "thoughtful" person who watches the news knows what the news "thinks."

That's exactly why I used the word "thoughtful". Someone who thinks for themselves, reading between the lines and putting the pieces together. Of course the entire media, beyond ABC versus CNN versus FOX. Beyond Wall Street Journal. Everyone puts a spin on what's actually happening. It's like competition between fast food restaurants. Everyone's just trying to put the best news out, and no one in the media can really stray from the top stories of the day. So they report very little worthwhile most of the time. If you're thoughtful, though, you can pick up some key events which mean something greater.

Such as President Bush decreasing the National Guard budget, as well as increasing the Navy's and Air Force's. I watch tv and see more commercials for those two branches, and see less and less of the Army commercials. A few months ago it was primarily Army commercials. Every time you'd watch a show you'd see an Army commercial. Those commercials were so stupid.

There are also a few key things which I can't really talk about, which causes me to think that the National Guard will soon be pulled out of Iraq.

That's an example of reading between the lines. They will even have briefings on news programs, where they ask "Is the National Guard leaving Iraq within the year?" (I just saw one the other day on CNN) This expert said "not anytime soon". I wonder to myself where he got this information...is he just pulling it out of his ass?

I think so.

I said:
You see suicide bombings constantly.

Leyla said:
Would you say you saw more suicide bombings or more Americans shooting/killing each other in the homeland? Do you think there is such a thing as “peak reporting season” for such things? Like, have Americans suddenly stopped shooting each other?

Did you get that question from Michael Moore's movie? Americans will always kill eachother, it seems. Mostly, those killings aren't more than one or two at a time...even in "gang wars" which have seemed to die down lately (although they're probably still happening as much). Do you hear about wedding suicide bombings in America, though? Is there a group attached to any of the American killings? No. No. It's mostly just a few bad eggs. In the Middle East, we have tribes attacking tribes attacking Americans who are reporting on other tribes that are attacking American Soldiers. It all has to do with differing cultures, differing viewpoints, different groups which think they're right and the other has to go. We don't see that in America. In America we have detectives and cops and whoever else to take care of the "small killings" that occur.

To get to your other question, there IS a time for the media to report on American killings. The local news usually does it now. It's still in the papers. If something is big enough, of course the main news programs will air it. The media focuses on people's emotions. People will care more about a serial killer in the US than about the war, so the news would definitely report on that and put the war on the backburner.

Leyla said:
Just the other day, around the corner from my mother’s place, a man stabbed his wife 12 times in front of their children, to death.

I'm sure it was reported in your news.

I said:
It almost doesn't make any sense. Why would you want to undermine your government? Fear of being governed? Is it because these terrorists enjoy being free of the Democratic type oppression (which isn't oppression compared to Saddam Hussein)? To me, it doesn't make sense.

Leyla said:
It doesn’t make any sense to you because you don’t think and, therefore, you lack sufficient information.

Obviously, you have no idea how many warring religious and political factions there are in Iraq. God damn it, Scott! Be a man and take your own advice.

First of all, I don't like your tone. I don't like it when someone tells me that I don't think. I don't like liars. Things that don't make sense, I don't like.

I don't have an idea of how many warring religious and political factions there are in Iraq. Or the MIDDLE EAST! If I knew the number would I be better informed, and then maybe be able to think? No, I don't think so. 5-100 factions, it doesn't matter. The point is still the same - it's a LOT.

By the way, how am I not taking my own advice?

I said:
All I know is that there are people in this world who harm innocent people. These are violent people, who are terrorists.

Leyla said:
Well, on the face of it, you do make it seem like you know something. But then, in light of the above, what is the profound and meaningful use of the following that caused you to emphasise a difference:

I said:
There's a difference between a terrorist and a violent person. A violent person will attack by DEFENDING (themselves, or others). A terrorist will attack by OFFENDING (themselves, or others).

So, Leyla said:
Are these violent people who harm innocent people terrorists (offenders) or violents (defenders)?

A person who harms an innocent is an offender. They're taking action in the first place, in order to harm innocent people. They're causing terror...the key word.

A violent person doesn't necessarily harm innocent people. A person can be violent and a terrorist, just a terrorist, just violent, and a non violent non terrorist. So the "defenders" are just violent.

I said:
I believe in the truth. I believe in what I see; what happens to me in life. What I know.

Leyla said:
To me, it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense for me to believe in the truth. To believe in what I see for myself...to believe in what has happened to me and what is happening to me. To believe in what I know for myself.

Aren't you the same way I am?

So, you know nothing on this subject, obviously. What happened, then, to this truth that you believe in? What truth is it, again?

Truth is what isn't false. Nothing happens to truth.

I wrote:
It must be stressed that these aren't the missions of the US military.

Leyla said:
What are you, a wind-up political-military toy boy? Is that what you call high calibre thought?

I'm not actually a soldier type. I stand out from everyone in my unit (which isn't very good!) I'm independent, stubborn, and pissed off at the military life in general.

I don't know what you mean by high calibre thought. Thought is finding the truth. Any "thought" beyond that isn't thought at all, it's just...programming. So I do think, and have high calibre thought because all real thought is the same. Thinking about one truth isn't any better or worse than thinking about another truth.

Don't quote me on that.

I said:
These cases are soldiers taking out their war related stress on the masses, who don't deserve it. These people aren't "soldiers" in the true sense of the word, they're just human beings being placed in circumstances that they can't handle (or circumstances which cause them to make the wrong choices.

Leyla said:
OK, so we shall reserve such rights to stress ventilation only for American "soldiers."

I wonder, are you saying since American soldiers have done the wrong thing...that we should let terrorists in the Middle East do those things? It's not as if we LET fucked up soldiers commit war crimes. They just did it. There's not an excuse for it, like "I was stressed out and I wanted to burn this village, so I did it". That's just a reason, not an excuse. If some did get away with war crimes, then that's just too bad I suppose. Not as if I'd wish imprisonment on someone, but someone who can't handle the stress shouldn't be in the military. They possibly shouldn't be allowed citizenship either. Think that's unfair? How unfair would it be to all their neighbors if they flipped out again and killed some fellow countrymen? So, my view: I don't want people being punished, but it's better to punish than to let bad things continue.

Everything I believe about justice comes down to one principle: weigh out good vs bad and choose the greater good.

Satisfied?

By the way, what about "love"? Like I said, we don't even know eachother. Is it as easy as being in shape and being able to talk, for you to love a man? If love is that easy, it can't be good.

Scott,

I don't like liars. Things that don't make sense, I don't like.

We certainly do have something in common, then. I would like to say that everyone doesn’t like things that don’t make sense. But, that has not been my experience.

Exploring things that don’t make sense:

I said:
"Well the truth is, Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons because the Mid East is full of terrorists."

Leyla said:
Oh, really?

I said it. Really.

So, when you say full, what do you suppose the ratio is? I mean, you must have some idea when you imply that the population of an entire and huge land mass such as the Middle East is “full of terrorists” or “it’s a LOT.”

Further:

Scott: A person who harms an innocent is an offender. They're taking action in the first place, in order to harm innocent people. They're causing terror...the key word.

A violent person doesn't necessarily harm innocent people. A person can be violent and a terrorist, just a terrorist, just violent, and a non violent non terrorist. So the "defenders" are just violent.

I’m still trying to figure out how you know that the majority of the members of all the warring factions of Iraq are terrorists who specifically take action to harm innocent people in the first instance and not violent people who don’t necessarily harm innocent people but are defending themselves. You seem to be just satisfying yourself with the idea that since there is a LOT of violence, there are a lot of (your brand of) terrorists. This does not make sense to me -- it has gaps in expressed logic.

Scott: You see suicide bombings constantly.

Do you not consider an important piece of accurate analysis to lie in identifying what factions these people belong to? Do you not need to decide who the innocents really are, since both terrorists and violents resort to violence. I mean, are they not doing the same as you in that they have labelled a particular group of people as terrorists (in your case, a much larger group: the Middle East) and are therefore taking defensive action?

Scott: There are also a few key things which I can't really talk about, which causes me to think that the National Guard will soon be pulled out of Iraq.

When one is privy to information that others are not, their understanding of a situation cannot be considered as reading between the lines: in such cases, they have lines to read that others do not. However, reading between the lines that I do have, I would agree that it is more than likely that the National Guard will soon be pulled out. The Bush Administration has made a right shambles of the whole affair, starting with Old Man Bush. If he does not do this, then the US will indeed be acting as a peace keeping force until such time as democracy is established. And I don’t think that was ever the intention.

Scott: Did you get that question from Michael Moore's movie?

[laughs] No. I thought that one up all on my little lonesome. I think the only substantial amount of Michael Moore I’ve seen was his Columbine documentary. Now, I don’t mind that you have an aversion to the man but I wouldn’t mind seeing you provide a critical analysis of his ideas to back it up.

I think you must get over calling other people by other people’s names and get to the root of the issue: the ideas themselves. I mean, I don’t call you G Dubbya just because you’re a Republican. Or, wouldn’t you mind?

Scott: Americans will always kill eachother, it seems. Mostly, those killings aren't more than one or two at a time...even in "gang wars" which have seemed to die down lately (although they're probably still happening as much). Do you hear about wedding suicide bombings in America, though? Is there a group attached to any of the American killings?

Well, yes, there is a group attached to the killings in America. You call it “American killers.” I would imagine that, to remain consistent, you identify them as terrorists killing terrorists. For you, there is no risk of your local terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. What, then would you call those people who sell nuclear arsenal to the terrorist-packed Middle East?

Considering all this, it seems to me that you are in favour of the US acting as a peace-keeping (policing) force in the Middle East for the sake of protecting innocents worldwide and -- in line with your utilitarian inclination -- at the cost of (what you consider to be) a minimal loss of innocents in the Middle East.

My issue with this, Scott, is not really with your utilitarianism. Don’t you think that it would be both wiser and economically more sound to -- since the Middle East is full of terrorists -- have left them to kill themselves and to have spent more time rounding up the points of access to nuclear arsenal outside of the Middle East? Do we not have intelligence and policing agencies competent enough to assist in this direction, instead?

More on love, war and satisfaction, later.

So, when you say full, what do you suppose the ratio is?

You want numbers, it seems. Why would I make up some ratio. Why would I come up with a number for the warring factions? What would that do besides waste my time?

When I say full, it means there's too many murders, and too many different groups committing them and claiming it was for their cause.

I mean, you must have some idea when you imply that the population of an entire and huge land mass such as the Middle East is “full of terrorists” or “it’s a LOT.”

I want to make one thing clear. The Middle East isn't a big group of terrorists. There are many there, but I'm sure there are also many innocent people there who want no part of all of the violence.

I’m still trying to figure out how you know that the majority of the members of all the warring factions of Iraq are terrorists who specifically take action to harm innocent people in the first instance and not violent people who don’t necessarily harm innocent people but are defending themselves.

Defending themselves against....what? A new government, where the people vote? The idea that American troops and some reporters have entered their country? It must really be threatening!

Nope. The people blowing themselves up, creating IEDs, using RPGs and shooting people aren't threatened. They're generally fearless people that need to die, because they're murderous.

You seem to be just satisfying yourself with the idea that since there is a LOT of violence, there are a lot of (your brand of) terrorists. This does not make sense to me -- it has gaps in expressed logic.

Of course some of it is tribe versus tribe...violent people versus violent people. It becomes terrorism when you involve innocent people. If you walk into a marketplace and blow yourself up in order to kill a Sunni, and you kill an innocent person in the process, you're a terrorist. Even the fact that you blow yourself up in a marketplace makes you a terrorist. Wouldn't you say that's an accurate definition? If someone walked down your peaceful street and blew themselves up while everyone was out walking in daytime...isn't that terrorism as well? Doesn't it cause terror?

Do you not consider an important piece of accurate analysis to lie in identifying what factions these people belong to?

That'd be helpful, but not necessary. A terrorist needs to be removed. A murderer needs to be removed.

Do you not need to decide who the innocents really are, since both terrorists and violents resort to violence.

Violence is one thing. Causing terror is another.

I mean, are they not doing the same as you in that they have labelled a particular group of people as terrorists (in your case, a much larger group: the Middle East) and are therefore taking defensive action?

That could be the case sometimes. There are better ways to do it than sending a strapped child up to American troops, though. There are better ways than planting IEDs in the middle of the night. There are better ways than walking into a wedding and detonating yourself...or going to Spain and setting off bombs in the train station. Or hijacking multiple airplanes and running them into the American World Trade Center.

Besides, it's not my job to know all of the details of the war. That's up to the military leadership and their informants. I hardly have time to post here, or to clean my kitchen or bathroom...how could I possibly have the intel to know what's actually happening in Iraq?

They're saying the newest Operation Swarmer, the largest air assault mission since the beginning of the war, has been just for politics. That it was a fraud mission used to make the public think...something? Apparently the Iraqi Army tipped off our military and they both were inserted into a certain region of the country. I bet very few people in this world actually know what was going on. It could most possibly have actually been faulty intel on the part of the Iraqi Army, or like they say...something else. Who knows? I don't. I doubt I will know. There's a lot of shit no one will ever know, no matter how smart or knowledgeable.

When one is privy to information that others are not, their understanding of a situation cannot be considered as reading between the lines: in such cases, they have lines to read that others do not.

Before I'd heard what I've heard, I had already made the prediction...about two months ago now.

I stand by my previous statement that scott is a moron.

[sigh] Well, that makes two subjects that we don't agree on: Pink Floyd and politics. I will reply to your post if you really want me to, but I don't think you're really willing to open yourself up to my thoughts since you did not respond to what I consider to be the most salient point of my last post. Now, it's worthy to note that I said "open yourself up to," not mindlessly agree with.

Let's have another look at love -- and if we can't get this right, on the off-chance that we somehow did end up having sex, I'd have to tape your mouth shut! :)

First, I have to say, though, that if you are still looking for a wife and a family, I think you should look for a wholesome, Christian-ish girl. I don't mean that to be sarcastic, it's just my honest observation, which you may discard at once as you wish!

By the way, what about "love"? Like I said, we don't even know eachother. Is it as easy as being in shape and being able to talk, for you to love a man? If love is that easy, it can't be good.

I get the impression you are confusing what might be known as "pure love" with romantic love. Yes, I endeavour to love every person in this pure way (course, I sometimes have my problems with "pretty" boys and rugged men), which has nothing to do with sex or emotional attachment or pragmatism -- quite the opposite, in fact.

Stock, standard romantic love isn't good by any measure against such a thing. There is nothing needed or wanted or expected from the other for self -- nothing.

You can't get more selfless and loving than that.

[sigh] Well, that makes two subjects that we don't agree on: Pink Floyd and politics. I will reply to your post if you really want me to, but I don't think you're really willing to open yourself up to my thoughts since you did not respond to what I consider to be the most salient point of my last post. Now, it's worthy to note that I said "open yourself up to," not mindlessly agree with.

Okay, I think I couldn't get the computer to work in midpost, so I will continue on.

No. I thought that one up all on my little lonesome. I think the only substantial amount of Michael Moore I’ve seen was his Columbine documentary. Now, I don’t mind that you have an aversion to the man but I wouldn’t mind seeing you provide a critical analysis of his ideas to back it up.

[That takes too much time, seriously. Plus I'd actually have to read a book of his or watch one of his movies. They're all boring and mostly false...so why even do it?

I think you must get over calling other people by other people’s names and get to the root of the issue: the ideas themselves. I mean, I don’t call you G Dubbya just because you’re a Republican. Or, wouldn’t you mind?

Although it makes no sense to call me G Dubbya, I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't mind if you called me Kerry, T. Kennedy or whatever. I don't need to get over anything I do, I don't think. I'm a pretty good guy overall.

Well, yes, there is a group attached to the killings in America. You call it “American killers.” I would imagine that, to remain consistent, you identify them as terrorists killing terrorists.

They can be defined as terrorists largely killing innocent people.

For you, there is no risk of your local terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. What, then would you call those people who sell nuclear arsenal to the terrorist-packed Middle East?

There is a chance that an American citizen could get his or her hands on nuclear weapons...perhaps make some. It is a threat.

Considering all this, it seems to me that you are in favour of the US acting as a peace-keeping (policing) force in the Middle East for the sake of protecting innocents worldwide and -- in line with your utilitarian inclination -- at the cost of (what you consider to be) a minimal loss of innocents in the Middle East.

In the beginning of the war, it could have been that our bombings killed innocent people...although I'm not sure if it happened or the numbers of innocents. It seemed stupid to just drop bombs on Baghdad. I know that the bombings were pretty accurate, precisely targeting specific buildings. The fact remains that I don't know, though.

I am in favor of the US being a peacekeeping force, along with any other country which fights for the people's freedom. I don't think our force should be provided at the expense of innocent lives, though.

My issue with this, Scott, is not really with your utilitarianism. Don’t you think that it would be both wiser and economically more sound to -- since the Middle East is full of terrorists -- have left them to kill themselves and to have spent more time rounding up the points of access to nuclear arsenal outside of the Middle East?

It's not just about our protection, but about the good people's protection in Iraq. There, we have terrorists killing good people...even before taking out Saddam's regime. The oppressors versus the oppressed. Who would win without our intervention? A fighter versus a non fighter. Sorry, but in the real world the terrorists defeat the citizens. That's why the US and our allies needed to intervene, and also why we built and trained the Iraqi Army...so that the good people have a chance to live free.

Do we not have intelligence and policing agencies competent enough to assist in this direction, instead?

Our intelligence and policing agencies have been the military intelligence and military police. As well as local informants and private security agencies.

Satisfied?

Let's have another look at love -- and if we can't get this right, on the off-chance that we somehow did end up having sex, I'd have to tape your mouth shut! :)

I think you need to get some. 3 years is a long time. I usually don't talk about or perform sex until I've at least had a good time with someone. Yes, we're having a nice discussion on the net, but that's not enough for me.

First, I have to say, though, that if you are still looking for a wife and a family, I think you should look for a wholesome, Christian-ish girl. I don't mean that to be sarcastic, it's just my honest observation, which you may discard at once as you wish!

Thanks for your observation. I agree with it actually, although it seems tough to marry a Christian girl because most of the ones I've met don't want to marry non-Christian guys. I thought about lying, but then I've decided that my beliefs are close enough to Christianity that it just could work.

Note that marriage would only be to make my parents happy. It seems like such a demoralizing thing to me to get married. I never want to have to change my mind, because most of the time I'm right about things. Women, and in particular, wives, seem to have a single goal for their men...change them into something else. I don't want that shit. It would take a lot of "love" for me to finally marry a girl, or else just a big lie.

I get the impression you are confusing what might be known as "pure love" with romantic love. Yes, I endeavour to love every person in this pure way (course, I sometimes have my problems with "pretty" boys and rugged men), which has nothing to do with sex or emotional attachment or pragmatism -- quite the opposite, in fact.

I don't understand.

Stock, standard romantic love isn't good by any measure against such a thing. There is nothing needed or wanted or expected from the other for self -- nothing. You can't get more selfless and loving than that.

I would rather call romantic love - infatuation. I'd rather call pure love - delusion.

Scott,

Okay, I think I couldn't get the computer to work in midpost, so I will continue on.

Alright.

That takes too much time, seriously. Plus I'd actually have to read a book of his or watch one of his movies. They're all boring and mostly false...so why even do it?

Indeed. Why would anyone consider in depth a person’s thoughts whose viewpoints in general appear to oppose their own? They wouldn’t, unless something about their own viewpoint started not making sense -- or, they considered other people's thoughts as having at least something to do with reality.

I'm a pretty good guy overall.

Sure, I think you are. You definitely have idealism going for you; even if I think it might be unwittingly misfired now and then.

In the beginning of the war, it could have been that our bombings killed innocent people...

Not to mention the significance to Iraqi innocents of Bush (and, therefore, US) affiliations with Saddam Hussein.

…although I'm not sure if it happened or the numbers of innocents. It seemed stupid to just drop bombs on Baghdad. I know that the bombings were pretty accurate, precisely targeting specific buildings. The fact remains that I don't know, though.

OK.

My philosophy is, you don’t sleep with the devil and then pretend to be shocked and horrored at the fact that he later gets cocky and pokes you in the arse with his pitchfork. God knows, I’ve slept with enough devils to have learned this rather quickly.

One of the problems with utilitarianism is scope. If all the wining and dining and smiling and handshaking with Saddam was to ensure oil supply, for example, and all goes well until the man gets a bit too cocky in some way, what then? You enforce trade sanctions, which have more of a detrimental impact on the innocents who Saddam couldn’t give a fuck about than on Saddam himself. I mean, all he has to do is order anyone who opposes him in his country killed. Where, actually, is the utilitarianism scope in that?

I am in favor of the US being a peacekeeping force, along with any other country which fights for the people's freedom. I don't think our force should be provided at the expense of innocent lives, though.

Yes, you are an idealist. But I think it would be wise for you to recognise (if you haven’t already -- and, to me, it’s not clear that you have) that this is one of the points where you and G Dubbya greatly differ.

More soon.

Leyla wrote to Scott:

I get the impression you are confusing what might be known as "pure love" with romantic love. . . . There is nothing needed or wanted or expected from the other for self -- nothing.

You can't get more selfless and loving than that.

Is this the kind of "pure love" that is equal towards everything in the Universe?

Indeed. Why would anyone consider in depth a person’s thoughts whose viewpoints in general appear to oppose their own? They wouldn’t, unless something about their own viewpoint started not making sense -- or, they considered other people's thoughts as having at least something to do with reality.

I could play things safe, like a woman, and try to broaden my horizons....yet I know that I don't need to. Sometimes it's nice to hear what liberals think, just to get some perspective. I don't need to learn everything they think though, because the little I hear is so completely backwards that I begin to wonder if they have brains at all. I'm sure they'd think the same thing of me if they heard or read what I think. Is that reason to listen to what they say? No. If I were weary of my own knowledge then what kind of knowledge would that be? Not anything worthwhile in my opinion.

Not to mention the significance to Iraqi innocents of Bush (and, therefore, US) affiliations with Saddam Hussein.

I don't understand what you're saying.


My philosophy is, you don’t sleep with the devil and then pretend to be shocked and horrored at the fact that he later gets cocky and pokes you in the arse with his pitchfork. God knows, I’ve slept with enough devils to have learned this rather quickly.

Just as those Muslim fundamentalists did to the United States on September 11th? We let them sleep in our country and the whole time they were planning their attack...to make a point? To destroy a symbol of the West? We are foolish. We shouldn't have listened to the liberal minded hippies trying to sway us from "being racist", and accepting diversity in our country. For some reason, unity always sounds good. I wonder why it just doesn't work.

One of the problems with utilitarianism is scope. If all the wining and dining and smiling and handshaking with Saddam was to ensure oil supply, for example, and all goes well until the man gets a bit too cocky in some way, what then? You enforce trade sanctions, which have more of a detrimental impact on the innocents who Saddam couldn’t give a fuck about than on Saddam himself. I mean, all he has to do is order anyone who opposes him in his country killed. Where, actually, is the utilitarianism scope in that?

Well, it appears he isn't in power anymore.

Yes, you are an idealist. But I think it would be wise for you to recognise (if you haven’t already -- and, to me, it’s not clear that you have) that this is one of the points where you and G Dubbya greatly differ.

How could I recognize that when I don't know him? I've never spoken to him. It's not as if he's some war monger, out to kill everyone. It's not as if he wants to kill innocent people, in my opinion. I think he's a good guy. It shows in what he does. You can say he seems to just want war, but if you were the president after 9-11 then what would you do? Just sit back and wait for another attack? Don't you agree that a good president would choose to fight back and defend his country? If not, then I'm glad you haven't been elected into a position of power. If so, then where has Bush done wrong? Where has he wanted to use force at the expense of innocent lives? Where has he done that? Can you tell me that it actually happened in Baghdad, because as far as I know it was just assumed...since they were bombs.

More soon.

It's all right, I've had enough.

Kevin,

Is this the kind of "pure love" that is equal towards everything in the Universe?

Yes. It is equal towards everything since it has no emotional attachment to anything. The world love is probably suitable to it only because it implies intimacy. In “pure love,” the intimacy is intellectual. Course, I don’t think “pure love” implies anything to do with emotional value.

If I have come to hate something, I stand very little chance of understanding it.

I’d be too busy worrying about how to kill it off, I reckon.

Funny how most relationships seem to turn out that way.

sschaula wrote:For some reason, unity always sounds good.

If a people took cultural unity to its final conclusion they would have to destroy all non-conforming people on the planet. Americans would have to destroy all non-Americans in the world, to preserve unity, before turning on the sub-cultures within their own culture.

sschaula wrote:Everything I believe about justice comes down to one principle: weigh out good vs bad and choose the greater good

Scott, do you still think this Iraq adventure was a good idea?

Yes, Saddam is out of power, but at the cost of 2300 American lives, possibly 30,000 Iraqi lives, $200 B spent, and a country on the verge of civil war. And a complete lack of WMD found in Iraq.

It becomes terrorism when you involve innocent people. If you walk into a marketplace and blow yourself up in order to kill a Sunni, and you kill an innocent person in the process, you're a terrorist. Even the fact that you blow yourself up in a marketplace makes you a terrorist. Wouldn't you say that's an accurate definition? If someone walked down your peaceful street and blew themselves up while everyone was out walking in daytime...isn't that terrorism as well? Doesn't it cause terror?

Isn't all that warring violence with its various bombs and weapons terrifying to just about everyone? Many a soldier has pissed his pants at the awful sounds of those booms and bangs.

To get you to kill them, you are brainwashed to believe the suicide bombers are evil, crazy people without a conscience who act indiscriminantly and kill so-called innocent people. But they're outgunned, so they either raise the white flag and betray their own beliefs, or they do whatever works and is necessary to achieve their goals. Americans would do the same thing were the tables turned, patriotic as they are.
They are not killing many innocent people. American armies have probably killed many more innocent people than all suicide bombers combined. You've been brainwashed, its necessary to make you a good team player without feelings of guilt and with a whole lot of motivating get-evenness.

You got to give them credit, though.
"Lets tell them exactly what we will destroy, so that when we do, someone by the grace of God, just one infidel might think "hey, if they can so effectively take out those buildings, even though we knew that was their plan, just imagine how easily they can do far worse in some unknown place!"

But instead of heeding a word to the wise, since there are no wise ones there in DC, they decided instead to lock up evryone even marginally suspect. And it has worked wonders thus far. But sooner or later......

Scott, do you still think this Iraq adventure was a good idea?

According to the Iraqi military, the war in Iraq was a good idea. They said the bombs were probably there and transported out. I mean, what were the empty buildings for? I won't argue that there were WMDs there. I don't know if they were or not. I just don't think people should assume that there weren't any if they didn't report finding any on the news. I mean, everyone on this forum seems to despise the media. Why trust it for that information, then?

The war cost many lives. It seems that the situation was just dormant. Did the US military kill 30,000 Iraqis? Maybe a number of them. But the majority of killers were the Iraqis themselves. Lets say the US killed half of that death toll, say 15,000...which is a lot more than I assume. That is STILL 15,000 deaths done to Iraqis by Iraqis. What does that say about the need for the war? For democracy in that region...instead of a murderous dictator?

Am I being stupid, facing the fact that 2300 of my comrades died...still thinking the war was good? Lets look at what I mean by "good". I think effectiveness is good. Changing the world for the better is good. Defending our own country against attacks is good.

How was the US military effective? Well look at wars throughout history, and look at the death tolls of those wars. This has to be the lowest death toll by far. We've been there three years as of now. 2300. How is that bad? I'm not one to say bluntly "Sometimes you have to sacrifice an egg to make an omelette" or however that saying goes...but I do think the US action was very EFFECTIVE.

How is the US military changing the world? It was a big defeat to take out Saddam, although the cost for Iraq was high. If only the majority of Iraqis took action against the terrorists living in their land. Maybe some of them don't want freedom...why? Maybe Saddam seemed like a protector, so that these people were guaranteed jobs. Maybe he seemed like a peacekeeper in the country, before all of this happened. Possibly these terrorists are fighting to have the good old days again. I personally don't understand it clearly enough. I don't know who does. Yet, the freedom is there for their taking. If they stop killing eachother over the varying cultures and religion, and not necessarily but accept them, then they can live in peace. The few that attacked the US ruined everything for these terrorists, who are blowing themselves up and planting IEDs. If we hadn't been attacked, this wouldn't be such a big deal to our country. We would probably watch, and assist a little, but not this 139,000 troops deployed crap (I think that's the number, or at least close to it?).

Overall, I believe that taking out Saddam gives good people in Iraq freedom over their own government...like we have in America. It's nice here. Beyond the cops and the taxes, no one really bugs you. It's a peaceful and free place most of the time. Your children don't have to grow up seeing people walk the streets with AKs. You don't just automatically assume that there will be a bomb going off down the street at 4am...or seeing a bloody dead Iraqi laying in the street surrounded by soldiers wearing dark sunglasses.

You don't have to worry about your government's military raiding your house and taking you, while your family cries. You don't have to be frisked at "checkpoints". It's nice here.

$200 B spent, and a country on the verge of civil war.

The country isn't on the verge of civil war. It's always been that way. Don't listen to the news and just believe it. It's been that way since Muhammad was alive, with the four tribes fighting over the stone. What we need is another Muhammad, to show the tribes to share the stone.

Why do people always misunderstand intelligent people, making their lives into religions with way too much dogma? No one seems to get what the original thought was caused by. Anyway, it's understandable I suppose. Seekers are stupid and teachers are wise.

Isn't all that warring violence with its various bombs and weapons terrifying to just about everyone? Many a soldier has pissed his pants at the awful sounds of those booms and bangs.

Yeah. If you think that's terrorism you should probably take a trip to Fallujah. You should probably talk to some more soldiers, and talk to the family members of the captured Americans (not troops).

To get you to kill them, you are brainwashed to believe the suicide bombers are evil, crazy people without a conscience who act indiscriminantly and kill so-called innocent people.

I'm not brainwashed about that. I'm brainwashed only to be able to kill. I wasn't brainwashed well either, though. I'm sure a few kills and I'd need counselling.

But they're outgunned, so they either raise the white flag and betray their own beliefs, or they do whatever works and is necessary to achieve their goals. Americans would do the same thing were the tables turned, patriotic as they are.

Maybe some Americans would send their children into a FOB asking for candy while they were strapped with explosives. You think these things are good ideas to promote your cause? What fucking cause anyway? Where do people like you come up with this? Psychology 101?

What country are you from? What do you like to do for fun? Do you have any friends...if so, how often do you see them and hang out? Do you have a family? A job which requires responsibility? What's the best thing you've done in your life?

Until you answer those question for me, I'll assume you're a misinformed (brainwashed) liberal piece of shit.

They are not killing many innocent people. American armies have probably killed many more innocent people than all suicide bombers combined. You've been brainwashed, its necessary to make you a good team player without feelings of guilt and with a whole lot of motivating get-evenness.

Give me some worthy proof. I think you are making that up.

You got to give them credit, though.
"Lets tell them exactly what we will destroy, so that when we do, someone by the grace of God, just one infidel might think "hey, if they can so effectively take out those buildings, even though we knew that was their plan, just imagine how easily they can do far worse in some unknown place!"

We've done far worse, huh? Do you think I'm bored enough to respond to your slithering words after this? I joined because I am patriotic. I think America is good. I wasn't brainwashed into believing what I believe. Before I joined, I was more patriotic than I am now. Now I hate the military, after learning what it is. Yet I still believe in what we do. If I had another chance, before signing up, I probably would've chosen a more effective job...probably private security, like Blackwater...I would've found a loophole which could get me in without a military background. I wish I could be in the shit...seeing what you don't see when you listen to whatever inaccurate news reports you read or hear. I wish I could understand the minds of the terrorists, as well as the minds of the innocent good people in Iraq...then come back and tell your punk ass what's happening over there.

I doubt you'd believe any word I said.

But instead of heeding a word to the wise, since there are no wise ones there in DC, they decided instead to lock up evryone even marginally suspect. And it has worked wonders thus far. But sooner or later......

You think that's true, huh? Show me one person, besides the three in Guatanamo Bay who CHOSE TO STAY despite the news reports, who has been wrongfully accused and is still locked up.

Of course if someone's suspect they'll be arrested...but once found okay they are released.

Anyway, lenny, I seriously question where you get thoughts like you do. Oh yeah, probably everyone reporting the news and everyone at this forum. The people who don't live in the real world!

Scott,

The country isn't on the verge of civil war.

It's always been that way.

Possibly these terrorists are fighting to have the good old days again.

The good old days that never left, the good old days when the country was always on the verge of civil war? I think, given your reasoning, you might have to rethink that.

How is the US military changing the world? It was a big defeat to take out Saddam, although the cost for Iraq was high.

Overall, I believe that taking out Saddam gives good people in Iraq freedom over their own government...like we have in America.

Yet, the freedom is there for their taking. If they stop killing eachother over the varying cultures and religion, and not necessarily but accept them, then they can live in peace.

You don't have to worry about your government's military raiding your house and taking you, while your family cries.

According to the Iraqi military, the war in Iraq was a good idea.

Is that the military before or after Saddam?

If the country has always been on the verge of civil war, what difference does it make whichever government is in power?

Will the big defeat that was the removal of Saddam guarantee peace, freedom and democracy, or not? If not, what is the real good that has been done by it, Scott? If they have been given freedom like you have in America, why does G Dubbya simply not just pull out now?

I'm not brainwashed about that. I'm brainwashed only to be able to kill. I wasn't brainwashed well either, though. I'm sure a few kills and I'd need counselling.

I wish I could understand the minds of the terrorists, as well as the minds of the innocent good people in Iraq...then come back and tell your punk ass what's happening over there.

Why do people always misunderstand intelligent people, making their lives into religions with way too much dogma?

But you understand their minds enough from over here to hold such a certain view of right and wrong action? To put your faith entirely in G Dubbya? Or are you being dogmatic? Define “way too much dogma.”

Dogma 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Tenet : a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession

Tenet: the Middle East is the axis of evil.

I think the problem must be in the landmass itself, then. You know, like the ground is possessed by the devil. Yeah, stuff the real world’s made of.

I doubt you'd believe any word I said.

Why would he?

sschaula wrote:According to the Iraqi military, the war in Iraq was a good idea.

What do you think of the Iraqi military? There was a quick, vague blurb on CBS news last night that, from the point of view of the Iraqi citizens, the Iraqi military was "a hundred times worse" than the American military. I didn't know what to make of that.

They said the bombs were probably there and transported out. I mean, what were the empty buildings for? I won't argue that there were WMDs there. I don't know if they were or not. I just don't think people should assume that there weren't any if they didn't report finding any on the news. I mean, everyone on this forum seems to despise the media. Why trust it for that information, then?

It is possible that there were WMDs that were transported out, although the question of where they went and why they weren't used puzzles me.

Am I being stupid, facing the fact that 2300 of my comrades died...still thinking the war was good? Lets look at what I mean by "good". I think effectiveness is good. Changing the world for the better is good. Defending our own country against attacks is good.

Well, that's the central issue, I think. Is the world better off now? It looks like the Iraq invasion has been used pretty effectively as a recruiting tool for militant extremists. If so, then Iraq may have increased the chances of further future attacks against the US.

Also, what do you think the effect has been on, say Iran? They seem very eager to be able to protect themselves from any potential action from the US. Since the US (Bush) has declared a policy of pre-emptive action, I think that's pretty understandable.

Overall, I believe that taking out Saddam gives good people in Iraq freedom over their own government...like we have in America.

It's hard to say, at this point, how well that will work out. The new government is still in its infancy.

You don't have to worry about your government's military raiding your house and taking you, while your family cries. You don't have to be frisked at "checkpoints". It's nice here.

I agree, it is nice. But the US is pretty well insulated. There's not any big threat from Canada or Mexico. Iraq is in a different situation. Will it ever be that calm and peaceful in that part of the world? I think it would take a lot more than the change of one country's government.

But they're outgunned, so they either raise the white flag and betray their own beliefs, or they do whatever works and is necessary to achieve their goals. Americans would do the same thing were the tables turned, patriotic as they are.

Maybe some Americans would send their children into a FOB asking for candy while they were strapped with explosives. You think these things are good ideas to promote your cause? What fucking cause anyway?

The cause of resisting western philosophies of life which destroy utterly
their own ways of living. The cause of not becoming like hedonistic Americans. The cause of not advancing the whole of womankind far more quickly than benefits the whole of society. The cause of avoiding mistakes and disasters that more advanced cultures have not avoided. The cause of not being similarly overthrown by the most complaining yet least wise among them.

You got to give them credit, though.
"Lets tell them exactly what we will destroy, so that when we do, someone by the grace of God, just one infidel might think "hey, if they can so effectively take out those buildings, even though we knew that was their plan, just imagine how easily they can do far worse in some unknown place!" "

We've done far worse, huh?

Re-read it. Dont think you got it right. "They (terrorists) can do far worse.."

Do you think I'm bored enough to respond to your slithering words after this? I joined because I am patriotic. I think America is good.......

Scott, dont get me wrong. Bush seems to be very good at this kind of thing. Chances are his plan is the second best thing we could possibly do. I beleive it is. If a military solution is necessary then damn, he's doing great! Besides finding a wise, more peaceful solution to freedom and world peace there is probably no better solution than the one you are part of, and for that I must thank you.

I wish I could understand the minds of the terrorists, as well as the minds of the innocent good people in Iraq..
.

I can.

Did you hear, Bush just stated troops will be there at least beyond his term in office.
No surprise to me.