Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
13
... LastLast
  1. #41
    The Unstoppable Force RICH816's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Posts
    22,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerfiend View Post
    Navy buddy told me I couldn't dive. Wisdom Teeth yo.
    Wisdom teeth? What do they have to do with it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbes View Post
    I do sympathize with these so called terrorist organisations. As far as I'm concerned, at least they are fighting for something they believe in, and for what they see to be the greater good. They're not fighting to line the pockets of statesmen, governors and oil barons. I wish we could the same about the people on this side of the planet.
    Hobbes talking about Al Qaeda and ISIS.

  2. #42
    who cares? honestly after Egypt-revolution they kicked down a dictator and bring up in charge another one this time a fondamentalist and now the sharia is in the costitution law, ill foresee that syria will end up in the same way, they probably kick out Assad and bring up another fondamentalist.
    Let them do as they please and don't get involved and if they look at you in a funny way just nuke them down.

  3. #43
    Brewmaster Banzhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Considering the Iranians are currently running a uranium enrichment program, I'd say no, the likeliness is vastly more than that of your WWIII scenario.

    World powers need to be concerned with what is happening around the world.

    What defines a "normal western person"?
    So a country that runs an enrichment program for atomic energy must have the intent of obtaining a nuclear arsenal, is that your logic?

    I hate to break it to you, but not everyone is a warmongering fanatic like the US (Not claiming that every single American is, there are some sane players also), "world powers" needs to be concerned about what is happening in the world?, there's a huge difference between being interested in what's going on in the world, and actually running surveillance and gathering intel 24/7 on nations appointed as "evil" by the same nation who is constantly seeking a war.

    That's not speculation as everything you've "presented" so far, that's fact based on history!

    What defines a normal western person?- the ability to see things for what they are, not what you might be able to fantasise / fabricate it into.
    Last edited by Banzhe; 2012-12-24 at 12:55 PM.

  4. #44
    No wonder they are there, Russia don't want US next to their front door. Good thing cold war ended
    Time is on our side
    Brutal Gladiator Enhancement Shaman *rawr*

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    If they could get away with it being the primary thing, given that the US has a leash on Israel. Even so, I'm not really concerned with the fates of secondary players on the international stage.
    Just going to say, i'm glad you have no power whatsoever, and for the good of mankind, I hope your opinion continues to be irrelevant in the big picture. It's this kind of arrogance that has gotten the US in debt and hated by many. Not to mention the terrible cost of human lives, which you probably don't care about.

    I always try to imagine what it would be like to have a loved one ripped from you because someone decided it was an acceptable loss, or a meaningless consequence of a greater agenda, it's not much, but at least i'm able to acknowledge others as human beings, and would rather leave them the hell alone before imposing what I feel is "correct".

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Banzhe View Post
    So a country that runs an enrichment program for atomic energy must have the intent of obtaining a nuclear arsenal, is that your logic?

    I hate to break it to you, but not everyone is a warmongering fanatic like the US (Not claiming that every single American is, there are some sane players also), "world powers" needs to concerned about what is happening in the world?, there's a huge difference between being interested in what's going on in the world, and actually running surveillance and gathering intel 24/7 on nations appointed as "evil" by the same nation who is constantly seeking a war.

    That's not speculation as everything you've "presented" so far, that's fact based on history!

    What defines a normal western person?- the ability to see things for what they are, not what you might be able to fantasise it into.
    No its not that logic, but when a country says that the other country next to him has no right at all to exist, and the prime minister says himself, he dosen't acknowledge that country, then that nuclear program gets a bit scarry.

    Its like if Romania would come and say "We don't approve of Hungary, we think their ideals, religion and overall culture is a sickness and we are the doctors, we will cleanse the ground with holy fire, etc etc" Then trust, me, i would want to stop Romania at any cost, if they start a nuclear program too
    Last edited by Darksoldierr; 2012-12-24 at 12:57 PM.
    Time is on our side
    Brutal Gladiator Enhancement Shaman *rawr*

  7. #47
    Scarab Lord JfmC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Antwerp City
    Posts
    4,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Hence the existence of idealists to balance people like myself off. Besides, domestic politics are an entirely different animal from international politics for a number of reasons, so the "realists holding things back" argument does not wash.

    The goal of realism is to preserve balance while the necessary social changes to facilitate progression towards the ideal occur.
    Balance? The point of realists is to analyze how things are going on, while progression will try to improve.
    And there is no reason you can not be realistic and not think progressive at the same time, infact in most cases its better to combine the 2. If you only think realistic you'll get nowhere, if you only think progressive, you get your head stuck in the clouds.

    Only thinking realistic like you claim you do (and I think you don't, you just think you are a realist while you are just a pessimist) is like thinking black-white.
    I know its hard not to be pessimistic, because I read the newspaper daily.

  8. #48
    Brewmaster Banzhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Darksoldierr View Post
    No its not that logic, but when a country says that the other country next to him has no right at all to exist, and the prime minister says himself, he dosen't acknowledge that country, then that nuclear program gets a bit scarry.
    How come?- present the facts of when the last time was that Iran invaded another country.

  9. #49
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Emerald City
    Posts
    18,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Banzhe View Post
    So a country that runs an enrichment program for atomic energy must have the intent of obtaining a nuclear arsenal, is that your logic?
    No. But Iran is not just 'a country', and even the IAEA consensus is that Iran's program is geared with the goal of producing weapons grade fissile material. Even if it is not, better safe than sorry when it comes to states hostile to multiple great powers.

    I hate to break it to you, but not everyone is a warmongering fanatic like the US (Not claiming that every single American is, there are some sane players also), "world powers" needs to concerned about what is happening in the world?, there's a huge difference between being interested in what's going on in the world, and actually running surveillance and gathering intel 24/7 on nations appointed as "evil" by the same nation who is constantly seeking a war.
    I'm not American, actually. Furthermore, said surveillance is necessary. We even do it on our allies, and they do it to us. It's a reality and organic requirement of international politics.

    As for America 'constantly seeking a war', you are confusing willingness with motive.

    That's not speculation as everything you've "presented" so far, that's fact based on history!
    America is more willing to commit to armed engagements precisely because of the idealistic crap that ignores power structures on the international scene.

    What defines a normal western person?- the ability to see things for what they are, not what you might be able to fantasise it into.
    You don't appear to qualify as one, then.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-24 at 05:01 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JfmC View Post
    Balance? The point of realists is to analyze how things are going on, while progression will try to improve.
    And there is no reason you can not be realistic and not think progressive at the same time, infact in most cases its better to combine the 2. If you only think realistic you'll get nowhere, if you only think progressive, you get your head stuck in the clouds.

    Only thinking realistic like you claim you do (and I think you don't, you just think you are a realist while you are just a pessimist) is like thinking black-white.
    I know its hard not to be pessimistic, because I read the newspaper daily.
    There is, actually. Progressives formulate policy on their ideal goal, realists formulate it based upon the status quo. The 'via media' tripe only leads to dangerous mistakes and miscalculations.

    Realism is fundamentally pessimistic, so go figure.
    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
    - Thucydides

    There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.
    - Eugen Weber

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Banzhe View Post
    How come?- present the facts of when the last time was that Iran invaded another country.
    Don't missunderstand me, i dont think Israel any better, but i would rather live in a world, where Iran dosen't have nuclear weapon, let in the observers, let them check everything, if its safe, i see no problem letting they go with their program.
    Time is on our side
    Brutal Gladiator Enhancement Shaman *rawr*

  11. #51
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Emerald City
    Posts
    18,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
    Just going to say, i'm glad you have no power whatsoever, and for the good of mankind, I hope your opinion continues to be irrelevant in the big picture. It's this kind of arrogance that has gotten the US in debt and hated by many. Not to mention the terrible cost of human lives, which you probably don't care about.

    I always try to imagine what it would be like to have a loved one ripped from you because someone decided it was an acceptable loss, or a meaningless consequence of a greater agenda, it's not much, but at least i'm able to acknowledge others as human beings, and would rather leave them the hell alone before imposing what I feel is "correct".
    Funnily enough, it's actually the opposite mode of thinking which has gotten the US into trouble. The US plays world police precisely -because- it is working towards an ideal goal, not out of calculation of power structures and relation of means to ends. If the US was more realist in its foreign policy, Iraq and Afghanistan may never have happened.

    Conflating individual consequences with that of countries only leads to tragedy for more people.
    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
    - Thucydides

    There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.
    - Eugen Weber

  12. #52
    Bloodsail Admiral soulcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    A Black Land of Sorcery and Nameless Horror
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    No. But Iran is not just 'a country', and even the IAEA consensus is that Iran's program is geared with the goal of producing weapons grade fissile material. Even if it is not, better safe than sorry when it comes to states hostile to multiple great powers.
    no it doesnt. show me one IAEA statement that says that. as for better safe than sorry. for whom? we said that about iraq and 1.5 million dead iraqis would disagree with you. from your rhetoric im assuming your israeli. israel is a far more likely candidate to use nuclear weapons. it certainly wages wars of aggression on its neigbours. hostile to great powers? weve been destabilising and attacking them for years. if theyre hostile who can blame them.

  13. #53
    Brewmaster Banzhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    No. But Iran is not just 'a country', and even the IAEA consensus is that Iran's program is geared with the goal of producing weapons grade fissile material. Even if it is not, better safe than sorry when it comes to states hostile to multiple great powers.
    Wrong! It's got the capability of making weapons grade material if it got updated further, if it was the goal they'd have it by now!

    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    I'm not American, actually. Furthermore, said surveillance is necessary. We even do it on our allies, and they do it to us. It's a reality and organic requirement of international politics.

    As for America 'constantly seeking a war', you are confusing willingness with motive.
    America is more willing to commit to armed engagements precisely because of the idealistic crap that ignores power structures on the international scene.
    Have you considered pulling your head out of your ass?- do I even need to point out Iraq and Afghanistan, both those cases had nothing to do with willingness, and everything to do with motive, I see very little difference in what's playing out in Syria, and potentially coming in Iran pending on who is taking over from Obama.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    You don't appear to qualify as one, then.
    I guess in your world, the normal person is the one who can manufacture the most elaborate scheme.

  14. #54
    Scarab Lord JfmC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Antwerp City
    Posts
    4,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Realism is fundamentally pessimistic, so go figure.
    definitions:
    pessimism:
    thefreedictionary .com/pessimism
    (there is no reference to realism btw)
    realism:
    thefreedictionary .com/realism

    Also a typical trait of pessimists(also optimists) is that they call themselves realists

  15. #55
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Emerald City
    Posts
    18,312
    Quote Originally Posted by soulcrusher View Post
    no it doesnt. show me one IAEA statement that says that. as for better safe than sorry. for whom? we said that about iraq and 1.5 million dead iraqis would disagree with you. from your rhetoric im assuming your israeli. israel is a far more likely candidate to use nuclear weapons. it certainly wages wars of aggression on its neigbours. hostile to great powers? weve been destabilising and attacking them for years. if theyre hostile who can blame them.
    Read the November 2011 IAEA report. And better safe than sorry for US, and a lesser extent European interests.

    I'm Australian, of French and Greek heritage, actually.

    Waging conventional wars does not automatically entail the use of nuclear weapons.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-24 at 05:17 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Banzhe View Post
    Wrong! It's got the capability of making weapons grade material if it got updated further, if it was the goal they'd have it by now!
    If they are trying to develop weapons grade fissile material in secret, they'd have to waste a lot of uranium masking it with attempts at legitimate nuclear power.

    Have you considered pulling your head out of your ass?- do I even need to point out Iraq and Afghanistan, both those cases had nothing to do with willingness, and everything to do with motive, I see very little difference in what's playing out in Syria, and potentially coming in Iran pending on who is taking over from Obama.
    You imply the US go to war for war's sake, which is not the case. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by interests, as all wars are, but not because of this idea that the US enjoy tramping over small countries jst to call mayhem.

    I guess in your world, the normal person is the one who can manufacture the most elaborate scheme.
    Let me explain it to you.

    The United States is a country with a mission. It believes in the inherent goodness of mankind, and furthermore that its democratic principles represent the correct method by which to obtain peace and prosperity. "Spreading democracy" sounds like a propaganda device, but it is one of the core foundations of US foreign policy since Wilson.

    When the US goes to war, it always carries this in mind.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-24 at 05:17 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JfmC View Post
    definitions:
    pessimism:
    thefreedictionary .com/pessimism
    (there is no reference to realism btw)
    realism:
    thefreedictionary .com/realism

    Also a typical trait of pessimists(also optimists) is that they call themselves realists
    You're attempting to define the two terms in the same way that defining the color red makes reference to a red car.
    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
    - Thucydides

    There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.
    - Eugen Weber

  16. #56
    Titan Kangodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    13,072
    Seriously, stop derailing a thread. I've already reported it..

    To the real topic: I think it's good that they've set up a defence that stops foreign meddling.
    Countries should deal with civil wars themselves.

  17. #57
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Emerald City
    Posts
    18,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Seriously, stop derailing a thread. I've already reported it..

    To the real topic: I think it's good that they've set up a defence that stops foreign meddling.
    Countries should deal with civil wars themselves.
    Depends, really. In Syria's case, yes.
    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
    - Thucydides

    There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.
    - Eugen Weber

  18. #58
    Brewmaster Banzhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    You imply the US go to war for war's sake, which is not the case. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by interests, as all wars are, but not because of this idea that the US enjoy tramping over small countries jst to call mayhem.
    I didn't not imply anywhere that they do it just for the sake of war, you said I was confusing willingness with motive and then progressed onwards with you're fairytale about US.., fact on both these cases is that the US went to war for strategical reasons, it had absolutely nothing to do with willingness due X conflict, and everything to do with motive, but this wouldn't be the first time you're contradicting yourself, so I'm leaving it at this as I can't be bothered any more.

    I suggest you actually start reading the very reports you linked earlier.., they might actually enlighten you, though I highly doubt it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    To the real topic: I think it's good that they've set up a defence that stops foreign meddling.
    Countries should deal with civil wars themselves.
    Precisely! IF foreign intervention would be required, let the bodies involved call out for aid.

  19. #59
    Scarab Lord JfmC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Antwerp City
    Posts
    4,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    You're attempting to define the two terms in the same way that defining the color red makes reference to a red car.
    You amuse me, this makes no sense at al. I didn't define anything, I linked 2 definitions and also said:
    a typical trait of pessimists(also optimists) is that they call themselves realists
    if a pessimists admits that he is a pessimists, then he would be a realist, but only about the fact that he is a pessimist.

    Silly Didactic, this has nothing to do with cars and colors (not even as an example, you are saying you are yellow while you are blue, that you are a BMW when you are an audi), only with logic

    And since we drifted waaaaaaaay oftopic, I will leave now.
    Last edited by JfmC; 2012-12-24 at 01:35 PM.

  20. #60
    Herald of the Titans Beavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    2,836
    I like how the idea of the Russians acting as an impediment for Western strikes into Syria was so laughable that the thread got derailed into UK sub talk and the Iranian nuclear program.
    When survival is the goal, it's into the spider hole!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •