You could try. I never said it would work.CameronPoe wrote:
We hold no cards.
Hypotheticals are tough, if you watch 30 Rock...
"I don't believe in hypotheticals. It's like lying to your brain."
Hypotheticals are tough, if you watch 30 Rock...
"I don't believe in hypotheticals. It's like lying to your brain."
Because I don't believe in bad people getting bad luck just because.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Also what makes you think the mistakes Hitler did can't be considered as "karma" anyway?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Okay, you let karma try to work things out, I'll do it myself kthx.CameronPoe wrote:
All you can really do is make sure you are acting in a right and just manner yourself. Ultimately karma will bite the shitheads in the ass (e.g. Roman Empire, Nazi Empire, etc.).
Also, you realize the Roman Empire rules for nearly 1000 years and you would be speaking German if Hitler wasn't a tactical retard?
What makes you think, if Hitler wasn't a tactical retard that:
a) Germany would've won
b) Germany would've taken over the whole of Europe and forced the German language upon everyone
c) The USA would somehow be spared of all of this, not be attacked by Germany and even if they were, they would have defeated Germany because even though Hitler was awesome enough to take over Europe, he would have never taken over the USA/Other countries outside of Europe
Pretty stupid statements in this topic, if you ask me.
a) Germany was the premiere military power of Europe. If Hitler didn't do things like, say, opening up a front with fucking Russia things would have gone very differently.
b) rhetoric as far as the language, but there was no one in Europe to stop them period.
c) This goes back to Hitler would have have to have not been a retard. Once Hitler had proved to be a threat to the American homeland (controlling all of Europe, and the Nazis were very close to developing long range bombers that could have hit New York) chances are we would have drawn up a treaty and said fuck it, let's worry about ourselves. Even had Hitler made another blunder of trying an overseas invasion across the Atlantic, the logistics just weren't there for the Nazis.
1) I am not going to continue to explain it, especially as you didn't continue to reply on the other thread. You can't tell me I'm being stupid on a subject I wasn't even talking about.CameronPoe wrote:
1. You failed to understand that reason is 'the thought process' and there is not 'one true right answer' to every question.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
1) You failed to understand the point where many others did. It certainly had nothing to do with living in harmony.
2) Stop trying to bring up irrelevant points in your apparent death throes.
3) No shit it sucks morally. The rest of us live in the real world however, where that is pretty much the only rule.
2. Death throes? Not familiar with the 67 page Israel thread that is #2 on Google it would seem.
3. I prefer to aspire to a better world. You can give the immoral elements real world a pass if you must, that is your prerogative.
2) I really can't believe you keep throwing this irrelevant shit in here, you're trying to make this a matter of ethos and not logos. I don't care how long you can talk, I care about what you say.
3) You aspire to a better theoretical world, a theoretical world without enough grounding in reality to make it of any use. Get your head out of the clouds.
bluffCameronPoe wrote:
We hold no cards.
With respect to your other thread - you didn't really seem to offer up any concrete argument. It was just a watery idea about reason being superseded by some fantastical enigma that man has yet to uncover. I could hypothesise similar equally pointless things. And I don't think you're stupid thank you very much.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
1) I am not going to continue to explain it, especially as you didn't continue to reply on the other thread. You can't tell me I'm being stupid on a subject I wasn't even talking about.
2) I really can't believe you keep throwing this irrelevant shit in here, you're trying to make this a matter of ethos and not logos. I don't care how long you can talk, I care about what you say.
3) You aspire to a better theoretical world, a theoretical world without enough grounding in reality to make it of any use. Get your head out of the clouds.bluffCameronPoe wrote:
We hold no cards.
No I don't aspire to 'a better theoretical world', I aspire to 'a better real world' based on ideals (i.e. the theoretical). How is that achieved? Parity of esteem and minding your own business unless provoked and cooperating where mutually beneficial and consenting. An ideal to be reached, never to be attained: because humans are imperfect.
Bluff?
You don't score so well on European history do you FM?
Hitler had to invade Russia to seize the very important oilfields in the Kaukasus so he could continue the war on the other fronts, without that oil he would have crumbled anyway, without the attack on Russia the war could maybe have lasted a few additional years but he would have lost it ...
WW2 was the first war for resources but certainly not the last ...
All empires will crumble and the interval for doing so gets shorter each time, you say the roman empire lasted a 1000 years but all of them after that has lasted shorter and shorter etc etc ...
So will also the empire of the US, it is already shaking in it's foundation ... can't even fight a couple of wars without being on the brink of bankruptcy ...
Get down from your high horse, you have obviously not learned jack shit from history if you think might makes right ... karma will come bite you in the ass, no question about that ...
Hitler had to invade Russia to seize the very important oilfields in the Kaukasus so he could continue the war on the other fronts, without that oil he would have crumbled anyway, without the attack on Russia the war could maybe have lasted a few additional years but he would have lost it ...
WW2 was the first war for resources but certainly not the last ...
All empires will crumble and the interval for doing so gets shorter each time, you say the roman empire lasted a 1000 years but all of them after that has lasted shorter and shorter etc etc ...
So will also the empire of the US, it is already shaking in it's foundation ... can't even fight a couple of wars without being on the brink of bankruptcy ...
Get down from your high horse, you have obviously not learned jack shit from history if you think might makes right ... karma will come bite you in the ass, no question about that ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Yeah, a few more years in which time he could have finished off Europe instead of prematurely running into the Russian winter. If there's one thing to learn from European history: don't invade Russia in the winter. It never turns out well. Hitler needed to focus on one thing at a time, that's what his military advisers were telling him, and he didn't do it. He was a politician, not a strategist.Varegg wrote:
Hitler had to invade Russia to seize the very important oilfields in the Kaukasus so he could continue the war on the other fronts, without that oil he would have crumbled anyway, without the attack on Russia the war could maybe have lasted a few additional years but he would have lost it ...
WW2 was the first war for resources but certainly not the last ...
All empires will crumble and the interval for doing so gets shorter each time, you say the roman empire lasted a 1000 years but all of them after that has lasted shorter and shorter etc etc ...
So will also the empire of the US, it is already shaking in it's foundation ... can't even fight a couple of wars without being on the brink of bankruptcy ...
Get down from your high horse, you have obviously not learned jack shit from history if you think might makes right ... karma will come bite you in the ass, no question about that ...
I sincerely hope you're kidding about WWII being the first war from resources. It was the first war where the acquisition and logistics of then novel resources like oil were important in the European and Pacific front, but people have been fighting for resources ever since the tribe across the river had more food.
It hasn't even been 2000 years since the Roman Empire. The next long lasting empire doesn't pop up right after the first one falls.
Lord bring it the fuck on world. This is not a conventional war and it has been mismanaged, and we're still not "on the brink of bankruptcy".
Alexander the Great. Look him up. Even besides him, it's incredibly naive to think might doesn't make right. Look at what has shaped global politics in the last 100 years.
It wasn't a concrete argument. It was an interesting theory to think about. I was putting off college essays, and I thought it would be an interesting read for some. "and Serious Talk"CameronPoe wrote:
With respect to your other thread - you didn't really seem to offer up any concrete argument. It was just a watery idea about reason being superseded by some fantastical enigma that man has yet to uncover. I could hypothesise similar equally pointless things. And I don't think you're stupid thank you very much.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
1) I am not going to continue to explain it, especially as you didn't continue to reply on the other thread. You can't tell me I'm being stupid on a subject I wasn't even talking about.
2) I really can't believe you keep throwing this irrelevant shit in here, you're trying to make this a matter of ethos and not logos. I don't care how long you can talk, I care about what you say.
3) You aspire to a better theoretical world, a theoretical world without enough grounding in reality to make it of any use. Get your head out of the clouds.bluffCameronPoe wrote:
We hold no cards.
No I don't aspire to 'a better theoretical world', I aspire to 'a better real world' based on ideals (i.e. the theoretical). How is that achieved? Parity of esteem and minding your own business unless provoked and cooperating where mutually beneficial and consenting. An ideal to be reached, never to be attained: because humans are imperfect.
Bluff?
Yet working from reality to theory gets you so much farther than theory to reality, because you start with the ideal that people don't completely suck instead of people aren't perfect.
It doesn't matter if you hold any cards, it only matters what cards people think you hold.
That is arguable. Despite being an atheist I do hold that many of the principles laid of by the likes of Jesus are idealisms to be aspired to. And that's exactly what they were: ideals. Either approach will have pros and cons. One cannot simply say one or other of our approaches is indisputable better.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yet working from reality to theory gets you so much farther than theory to reality, because you start with the ideal that people don't completely suck instead of people aren't perfect.
Both America and Russia know they have us over a barrel. Russia doesn't like what we think: turn off 40% of our feul supplies. US don't like what we think: big deal to USA, carry on regardless.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It doesn't matter if you hold any cards, it only matters what cards people think you hold.
Yet you are wrong FM, he couldn't have won the war for many reasons, that has been stated in many historical writings ... about invading Russia during the winter you are also incorrect, how was Russia founded you think ?
It is incredibly naive to think that might makes right in the days we live in with technology so easily accessible to more than just the empire builder hence why an empire today can't possibly last as long as it did 2000 years ago where the one state having the latest tech was ruler of the known world ...
But then again historical blunders have a tendency to repeat itself ...
Not on the brink of bankruptcy ? ... how do you explain your enormous debt as not on the brink, the very financial system we have now is perfect for making countries go bankrupt ...
About the war for resources you are partially right, what i meant was that it was the first war where it made the difference for the outcome of the war ...
It is incredibly naive to think that might makes right in the days we live in with technology so easily accessible to more than just the empire builder hence why an empire today can't possibly last as long as it did 2000 years ago where the one state having the latest tech was ruler of the known world ...
But then again historical blunders have a tendency to repeat itself ...
Not on the brink of bankruptcy ? ... how do you explain your enormous debt as not on the brink, the very financial system we have now is perfect for making countries go bankrupt ...
About the war for resources you are partially right, what i meant was that it was the first war where it made the difference for the outcome of the war ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Except to compare outcomes. Historically realists get more done than philosophers.CameronPoe wrote:
That is arguable. Despite being an atheist I do hold that many of the principles laid of by the likes of Jesus are idealisms to be aspired to. And that's exactly what they were: ideals. Either approach will have pros and cons. One cannot simply say one or other of our approaches is indisputable better.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yet working from reality to theory gets you so much farther than theory to reality, because you start with the ideal that people don't completely suck instead of people aren't perfect.
You don't think that even a tiny part of the problem is because of this defeatist mentality?CameronPoe wrote:
Both America and Russia know they have us over a barrel. Russia doesn't like what we think: turn off 40% of our feul supplies. US don't like what we think: big deal to USA, carry on regardless.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It doesn't matter if you hold any cards, it only matters what cards people think you hold.
Perhaps the U.S. and Russia have themselves positioned like that over Europe because of their outlook on the issue, not actual power they hold over Europe.
Just as many talk about how Hitler very well could have won the war. Germany was in a superior tactical position in the late 1930s, that's all there is to it.Varegg wrote:
Yet you are wrong FM, he couldn't have won the war for many reasons, that has been stated in many historical writings ... about invading Russia during the winter you are also incorrect, how was Russia founded you think ?
It is incredibly naive to think that might makes right in the days we live in with technology so easily accessible to more than just the empire builder hence why an empire today can't possibly last as long as it did 2000 years ago where the one state having the latest tech was ruler of the known world ...
But then again historical blunders have a tendency to repeat itself ...
Not on the brink of bankruptcy ? ... how do you explain your enormous debt as not on the brink, the very financial system we have now is perfect for making countries go bankrupt ...
About the war for resources you are partially right, what i meant was that it was the first war where it made the difference for the outcome of the war ...
I don't even know wtf you're talking about. How does founding have anything to do with invading?
Yeah, like nuclear weapons. Those certainly haven't made an impact on foreign policy in favor of nuclear powers in the last 60 years.
Right, talk to me when our economy actually collapses and I'm burning American Dollars for warmth, not when doomsayers say it did.
...
Logistics have been and always will be perhaps the most important deciding factor in a war.
You don't really understand what Europe is - it's an overcrowded resource-dependent resource-shy collection of disparate nations that are not always in agreement with each other. USA is an underpopulated economic powerhouse semi-rich in resources and Russia is a resurgent nation unbelievably rich in resources. These are hard facts. The sum total of our 'penalty' actions amount to self-defeating trade embargoes/sanctions and UN vetoes (France/UK). The US didn't give one fucking shit whether they had to go in to Iraq alone or not: managing to get the likes of the UK on board was just window dressing. You overestimate how influential we can be. And I don't have a defeatist mentality. I like what Europe usually is right now (we will always have the likes of the Blairs, Berlusconis and Aznars upsetting the apple cart). Until someone poses us a meaningful threat we need only be true to the principles we have been adhering to for the last few decades.CameronPoe wrote:
You don't think that even a tiny part of the problem is because of this defeatist mentality?
Perhaps the U.S. and Russia have themselves positioned like that over Europe because of their outlook on the issue, not actual power they hold over Europe.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-08 13:45:57)
Poe's really lost it - now he's arguing with himself.
You have to work with what you have, and you're not looking at what you do have. No you are not as influential as other countries, but that doesn't mean you can't use what influence you do have.CameronPoe wrote:
You don't really understand what Europe is - it's an overcrowded resource-dependent resource-shy collection of disparate nations that are not always in agreement with each other. USA is an underpopulated economic powerhouse semi-rich in resources and Russia is a resurgent nation unbelievably rich in resources. These are hard facts. The sum total of our 'penalty' actions amount to self-defeating trade embargoes/sanctions and UN vetoes (France/UK). The US didn't give one fucking shit whether they had to go in to Iraq alone or not: managing to get the likes of the UK on board was just window dressing. You overestimate how influential we can be. And I don't have a defeatist mentality. I like what Europe usually is right now (we will always have the likes of the Blairs, Berlusconis and Aznars upsetting the apple cart). Until someone poses us a meaningful threat we need only be true to the principles we have been adhering to for the last few decades.
Arguing with myself? How, pray tell???Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Poe's really lost it - now he's arguing with himself.You have to work with what you have, and you're not looking at what you do have. No you are not as influential as other countries, but that doesn't mean you can't use what influence you do have.CameronPoe wrote:
You don't really understand what Europe is - it's an overcrowded resource-dependent resource-shy collection of disparate nations that are not always in agreement with each other. USA is an underpopulated economic powerhouse semi-rich in resources and Russia is a resurgent nation unbelievably rich in resources. These are hard facts. The sum total of our 'penalty' actions amount to self-defeating trade embargoes/sanctions and UN vetoes (France/UK). The US didn't give one fucking shit whether they had to go in to Iraq alone or not: managing to get the likes of the UK on board was just window dressing. You overestimate how influential we can be. And I don't have a defeatist mentality. I like what Europe usually is right now (we will always have the likes of the Blairs, Berlusconis and Aznars upsetting the apple cart). Until someone poses us a meaningful threat we need only be true to the principles we have been adhering to for the last few decades.
PS Europe is NOT a country and never will be.
PPS Where did I say we shouldn't use what influence we have? I'm all for influence as long as it isn't patronising, disrespectful, insolent, arrogant or imperialistic.
What scares me FM is that you are growing up to be lowing
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I noticed that myself. Even doing a lowing against the likes of reasonable old Kmar.Varegg wrote:
What scares me FM is that you are growing up to be lowing
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-08 13:53:49)
Check your quote in your response above.
Didn't say it was a country, only that it is less influential as other countries. Or are you going to argue that any one country in Europe is more influential than the U.S. or Russia?
In that you aren't agreeing with the OP.
Didn't say it was a country, only that it is less influential as other countries. Or are you going to argue that any one country in Europe is more influential than the U.S. or Russia?
In that you aren't agreeing with the OP.
1. No. Explain how I contradict myself with my quote please.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Check your quote in your response above.
Didn't say it was a country, only that it is less influential as other countries. Or are you going to argue that any one country in Europe is more influential than the U.S. or Russia?
In that you aren't agreeing with the OP.
2. What now?? No.
3. Was I ever agreeing with the OP?????? No.
Why don't we just filter the forums so that "lowing" turns into "the devil", that would save everyone a lot of time.
"reasonable ol' Kmarion", lol. People are wrong. People are wrong a lot. No one is exempt, it's only a question of having the brains or balls to be able to call it out most of the time.
2. You were trying to say I said Europe is a country. I didn't, I only compared the overall influence of Europe to other countries.
3. That's the point. You don't agree with the OP, which is saying Europe should actually do something to influence political events, not sit on the sidelines.
"reasonable ol' Kmarion", lol. People are wrong. People are wrong a lot. No one is exempt, it's only a question of having the brains or balls to be able to call it out most of the time.
I'm just screwing with you. You quoted me but had "CameronPoe" instead of "Flaming_Maniac", thereby arguing with yourself. Now you went and ruined it by me having to explain it.CameronPoe wrote:
1. No. Explain how I contradict myself with my quote please.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Check your quote in your response above.
Didn't say it was a country, only that it is less influential as other countries. Or are you going to argue that any one country in Europe is more influential than the U.S. or Russia?
In that you aren't agreeing with the OP.
2. What now?? No.
3. Was I ever agreeing with the OP?????? No.
2. You were trying to say I said Europe is a country. I didn't, I only compared the overall influence of Europe to other countries.
3. That's the point. You don't agree with the OP, which is saying Europe should actually do something to influence political events, not sit on the sidelines.
That was your analogy not ours, just for the record ...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Why don't we just filter the forums so that "lowing" turns into "the devil", that would save everyone a lot of time.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
sarcasmVaregg wrote:
That was your analogy not ours, just for the record ...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Why don't we just filter the forums so that "lowing" turns into "the devil", that would save everyone a lot of time.
ref: A less passive Europe
Forgive me for not conforming to any PC journalistic effort utilizing the Quote function, all the proper " "s, '...'s or necessarily any author recognitions, et al. My intent is to not take items out of context and we all know or can check who said what so PCje should not be required.
"European leadership should step up and take a more active role in the international community" -
Absolutely: We need only to reflect back to 1930ish era wherein the leadership concept was either ignored or wimpishly implemented (Chamberlin anyone ?, Wilson ? Passivity ? Isolationists ? Appeasement [read: don't upset OUR apple cart but you can certainly toss THEIRS]) to understand the dire and dastard consequences.
"a wonderfully pluralistic world should develop from within not from without." -
Well, unfortunately, that only occurs when the 'withins' have a clue about what's 'without' and until such time occurs, that just ain't gonna happen. Make no mistake, much of the 'no clue' is directly and irrefutably the result of centuries ago European colonial intervention (British, Dutch, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, et al - how much more European can you get?)
Actually, they are to this day morally bound to provide leadership just for that reason.
"Patronisingly offering/imposing moral and political 'leadership' on alien peoples is about as arrogant and doomed to failure as you could probably get. I completely disagree with your attitude of spreading your will and being forcefully or aggressively influential." -
Say what ? Speaking of arrogant ... the entire statement flies in the face of how societies are formed and belies deep seated ultra leftist denial of anarchist feelings.
Societies initially retain cohesion by force and aggressive influence whether admitted to or not, the entire root of law and is the only alternative to anarchy.
Could anyone refute fact that societies are the result of trickle down forceful or aggressive influence ? Certainly the Taliban operate on the "please, please please" rule don't they ? PRC? DPRK? PRVN? So you don't wanna wear your burka or habib ? Not that we care but can you actually prove you were a rape victim ? NO? OK ! Have we got a deep pit and a lot of stone throwers for you, sweetheart !
"I find it arrogant, patronising and a complete double-standard that the rest of the world must have their military capabilities curtailed in favour of the incumbent military powers." -
Can anyone seriously entertain the concept that access to 'the ultimate button' should be laizze-faire ? I'm sorry but I must suggest you seek a mental health professional.
"- but quite frankly Iran have copious amounts of oil and we know what that means." -
Just what does that mean ? I hope there's not the suggestion that it means "gimme yer oil 'n I'll give ya' the button".
"Well, I suppose you see why much of the world distrusts us then." -
Nah, not really. It's human nature to rebel against authority figures, mostly ignorance, "don't trust anyone over xx" syndrome. Granted we have made best of intentions errors but who has not ?
"We defeated the evil empire only to become one ourselves." -
Pawleez, gimme a break. It's oh so too easy to be a parrot. It's still one of the best, and if you should decide to leave because it is so evil, there is a never ending supply of replacements for your place in the overall scheme of things.
Forgive me for not conforming to any PC journalistic effort utilizing the Quote function, all the proper " "s, '...'s or necessarily any author recognitions, et al. My intent is to not take items out of context and we all know or can check who said what so PCje should not be required.
"European leadership should step up and take a more active role in the international community" -
Absolutely: We need only to reflect back to 1930ish era wherein the leadership concept was either ignored or wimpishly implemented (Chamberlin anyone ?, Wilson ? Passivity ? Isolationists ? Appeasement [read: don't upset OUR apple cart but you can certainly toss THEIRS]) to understand the dire and dastard consequences.
"a wonderfully pluralistic world should develop from within not from without." -
Well, unfortunately, that only occurs when the 'withins' have a clue about what's 'without' and until such time occurs, that just ain't gonna happen. Make no mistake, much of the 'no clue' is directly and irrefutably the result of centuries ago European colonial intervention (British, Dutch, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, et al - how much more European can you get?)
Actually, they are to this day morally bound to provide leadership just for that reason.
"Patronisingly offering/imposing moral and political 'leadership' on alien peoples is about as arrogant and doomed to failure as you could probably get. I completely disagree with your attitude of spreading your will and being forcefully or aggressively influential." -
Say what ? Speaking of arrogant ... the entire statement flies in the face of how societies are formed and belies deep seated ultra leftist denial of anarchist feelings.
Societies initially retain cohesion by force and aggressive influence whether admitted to or not, the entire root of law and is the only alternative to anarchy.
Could anyone refute fact that societies are the result of trickle down forceful or aggressive influence ? Certainly the Taliban operate on the "please, please please" rule don't they ? PRC? DPRK? PRVN? So you don't wanna wear your burka or habib ? Not that we care but can you actually prove you were a rape victim ? NO? OK ! Have we got a deep pit and a lot of stone throwers for you, sweetheart !
"I find it arrogant, patronising and a complete double-standard that the rest of the world must have their military capabilities curtailed in favour of the incumbent military powers." -
Can anyone seriously entertain the concept that access to 'the ultimate button' should be laizze-faire ? I'm sorry but I must suggest you seek a mental health professional.
"- but quite frankly Iran have copious amounts of oil and we know what that means." -
Just what does that mean ? I hope there's not the suggestion that it means "gimme yer oil 'n I'll give ya' the button".
"Well, I suppose you see why much of the world distrusts us then." -
Nah, not really. It's human nature to rebel against authority figures, mostly ignorance, "don't trust anyone over xx" syndrome. Granted we have made best of intentions errors but who has not ?
"We defeated the evil empire only to become one ourselves." -
Pawleez, gimme a break. It's oh so too easy to be a parrot. It's still one of the best, and if you should decide to leave because it is so evil, there is a never ending supply of replacements for your place in the overall scheme of things.
better than growing up to be a euroweenie.CameronPoe wrote:
I noticed that myself.Varegg wrote:
What scares me FM is that you are growing up to be lowing
ya i went there.
Oooooooooooooohhhhhhh hard manusmarine wrote:
better than growing up to be a euroweenie.CameronPoe wrote:
I noticed that myself.Varegg wrote:
What scares me FM is that you are growing up to be lowing
ya i went there.
go fly a kitejord wrote:
Oooooooooooooohhhhhhh hard man
go drink some beerusmarine wrote:
go fly a kitejord wrote:
Oooooooooooooohhhhhhh hard man
send me a can also