TBH, William Munny ends thread over 100 years before it began.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-05-09 04:05:08)
TBH, William Munny ends thread over 100 years before it began.
It's easy to say that they have better grounds to build a whole new and better nation when we just killed plenty of their relatives.Turquoise wrote:
Nation building is supposed to result in improving a country beyond its previous state. It's supposed to result in creating a just government with reasonably progressive laws.
What is progressive for us might not be progressive for them. Do we know what is better for them and that's why we should help them by bombing the shit out of everything? Besides are "we" "building" a nation in Iraq for us or for them?Turquoise wrote:
Granted, getting anything progressive done in the Middle East is usually a fool's errand. Instead of nation building Iraq, I think we should've just bombed the shit out of the place and left it for Iran to have fun with.
At OP, as unnamednewbie13 put it, deserves has nothing to do with it.
Compare the evolution of post war Germany with the evolution of post war Iraq so far. Clearly, one culture is much more productive than the other.BLdw wrote:
It's easy to say that they have better grounds to build a whole new and better nation when we just killed plenty of their relatives.Turquoise wrote:
Nation building is supposed to result in improving a country beyond its previous state. It's supposed to result in creating a just government with reasonably progressive laws.
Both. What is progressive for us is progressive for them, but unfortunately, we have to take baby steps in this process because of how far behind us they are. But you bring up a good point. Ideally, the nation building of Iraq should serve both their needs and ours.BLdw wrote:
What is progressive for us might not be progressive for them. Do we know what is better for them and that's why we should help them by bombing the shit out of everything? Besides are "we" "building" a nation in Iraq for us or for them?Turquoise wrote:
Granted, getting anything progressive done in the Middle East is usually a fool's errand. Instead of nation building Iraq, I think we should've just bombed the shit out of the place and left it for Iran to have fun with.
That's what Pandora did when it picked Sigourney's brain.AussieReaper wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WxAlIPSxlE
/avatar
Guys, someday all this nonsense will be justified (as to if we deserve to exist, though I still hold to Clint Eastwood's version). However disagreeable we are now, perhaps one day we'll save the species on this planet from annihilation. Certainly not with current technology, but far into the future.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-05-09 09:44:21)
Yeah, if you compare our cultures directly and think that they should want the same things as we do. What if they want to live simple life in clay huts? What if they don't want work for 12 hours a day so they have money to buy some freedom?Turquoise wrote:
Compare the evolution of post war Germany with the evolution of post war Iraq so far. Clearly, one culture is much more productive than the other.
How progressive are we? We live in 21st century indefinable capitalist despotism where money controls our freedom, needs, what we want and what we can do. How can you say we are making so slow process with them, when we (first world) are making very slow process here whilst still raping almost half of the world resources to keep us mildly satisfied? Could it be that they just want us to slow down because they think our way is not the right way?Turquoise wrote:
Both. What is progressive for us is progressive for them, but unfortunately, we have to take baby steps in this process because of how far behind us they are. But you bring up a good point. Ideally, the nation building of Iraq should serve both their needs and ours.
But what you said in the end is true, but that's just ideally.
People only want that out of ignorance. They want what we have once they've actually been exposed to it -- at least, most of them end up that way. Generally speaking, younger people are more open to our creature comforts than the older ones. The old are simply set in their ways, but most of their children will grow toward wanting a better life.BLdw wrote:
Yeah, if you compare our cultures directly and think that they should want the same things as we do. What if they want to live simple life in clay huts? What if they don't want work for 12 hours a day so they have money to buy some freedom?
Being economically imperialist and living in democracy is still more advanced and better living than being poor and under the thumb of a theocratic government.BLdw wrote:
How progressive are we? We live in 21st century indefinable capitalist despotism where money controls our freedom, needs, what we want and what we can do. How can you say we are making so slow process with them, when we (first world) are making very slow process here whilst still raping almost half of the world resources to keep us mildly satisfied? Could it be that they just want us to slow down because they think our way is not the right way?
But what you said in the end is true, but that's just ideally.
I'm not saying our current status is the end-all be-all destiny of humanity, but it's surely better than the primitive lifestyles of places like Afghanistan.
My clay hut reference was bad as I wasn't trying to tell what comforts they might want.Turquoise wrote:
People only want that out of ignorance. They want what we have once they've actually been exposed to it -- at least, most of them end up that way. Generally speaking, younger people are more open to our creature comforts than the older ones. The old are simply set in their ways, but most of their children will grow toward wanting a better life.
I'm interested of what makes people to think it's better to work so hard every day that it leaves them very little free time to enjoy of their achieved small dose of freedom, yet achieving nothing else than being able keep the same quality of life they had yesterday. We are trying to push our way of life to their society as a better way of living, while it's us who have work so hard to do nothing.
Can't we just let them have the way they want (granted that's not very wise idea anymore)? Why can't we let them make progress of their own way? Why do we have to be so altruistic that we rather blow their whole nation and people so they can finally understand how much better people we are and how much better our way of living is?
You may also ask what made us economically imperialists. Do you think they could just form a democratic nation, vote however they want without us intervening and spread their economical imperialism like we do?Turquoise wrote:
Being economically imperialist and living in democracy is still more advanced and better living than being poor and under the thumb of a theocratic government.
I'm not saying our current status is the end-all be-all destiny of humanity, but it's surely better than the primitive lifestyles of places like Afghanistan.
Errm.... do we?Mekstizzle wrote:
Dude you get this shit in the USA, UK... everywhere.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I thought the whole point of blowing that country to bits and installing a new government was to STOP that sort of stuff.
This basically. Might as well be using arsenic or mercury tipped bullets.Spark wrote:
Which makes it, as far as radioactivity goes, pretty much harmless.The water, soil and air in large areas of Iraq, including Baghdad, are contaminated with depleted uranium that has a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years.
A common misconception - it's DU's extreme chemical toxicity in dust form, not its radioactivity which as I said is negligible, that causes cancer.
Fuck Israel
You need to remember pursuit of money, wealth and comfort are basically ruled out by their religion.Turquoise wrote:
People only want that out of ignorance. They want what we have once they've actually been exposed to it -- at least, most of them end up that way. Generally speaking, younger people are more open to our creature comforts than the older ones. The old are simply set in their ways, but most of their children will grow toward wanting a better life.BLdw wrote:
Yeah, if you compare our cultures directly and think that they should want the same things as we do. What if they want to live simple life in clay huts? What if they don't want work for 12 hours a day so they have money to buy some freedom?
Trying to spread 'freedom' in the form of capitalism, greed and overwork is not going to work too well in the ME, as it doesn't work in the Mediterranean....
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-10 06:18:33)
Fuck Israel
A better standard of living means more work. That's just a fact of life. The few of us that don't operate that way inherit wealth.BLdw wrote:
My clay hut reference was bad as I wasn't trying to tell what comforts they might want.
I'm interested of what makes people to think it's better to work so hard every day that it leaves them very little free time to enjoy of their achieved small dose of freedom, yet achieving nothing else than being able keep the same quality of life they had yesterday. We are trying to push our way of life to their society as a better way of living, while it's us who have work so hard to do nothing.
The only time we have to do this sort of thing is when we've blown a place to shit. Obviously, we don't do this sort of thing to countries we don't invade. The reason we try to mold these countries to our design is with the hope that they don't revert to what made them our enemies in the first place.BLdw wrote:
Can't we just let them have the way they want (granted that's not very wise idea anymore)? Why can't we let them make progress of their own way? Why do we have to be so altruistic that we rather blow their whole nation and people so they can finally understand how much better people we are and how much better our way of living is?
Well, for the most part, we are allowing Iraq to operate like a functional democracy. Afghanistan is a bit trickier, not because of us, but because it's such a corrupt country to begin with.BLdw wrote:
You may also ask what made us economically imperialists. Do you think they could just form a democratic nation, vote however they want without us intervening and spread their economical imperialism like we do?
Not really. Look at the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, etc.Dilbert_X wrote:
You need to remember pursuit of money, wealth and comfort are basically ruled out by their religion.Turquoise wrote:
People only want that out of ignorance. They want what we have once they've actually been exposed to it -- at least, most of them end up that way. Generally speaking, younger people are more open to our creature comforts than the older ones. The old are simply set in their ways, but most of their children will grow toward wanting a better life.BLdw wrote:
Yeah, if you compare our cultures directly and think that they should want the same things as we do. What if they want to live simple life in clay huts? What if they don't want work for 12 hours a day so they have money to buy some freedom?
Trying to spread 'freedom' in the form of capitalism, greed and overwork is not going to work too well in the ME, as it doesn't work in the Mediterranean....
And for the countries in the ME that don't have a decent standard of living and a somewhat Western economy... Well, look at their rulers. The average Saudi Arabian isn't that decadent, but the Saudi family surely is.
The pursuit of capitalism and greed are present in every significant economy, and capitalism itself is a staple for having a decent standard of living. Unfortunately, some of these countries just hoard all the wealth at the top, but that's primarily the fault of their governments.
If all of the countries of the Middle East were democratic republics with secular laws, the people would live much better lives than they currently do. As long as they cling to their outdated government designs and dogmatic beliefs, they're going to continue living in a relative state of poverty and without basic, important freedoms.
Now, I'm not saying our intervention has exactly been oriented toward actually spreading the wealth, but that's a different discussion....
Islam pretty much invented capitalism... They were trading like CRAZY for profit during 15th-17th century...
I would point out that the reason DU is used is because it is astonishingly easy to manufacture and mold, but very, very, very dense hence very useful as a penetrator. Now the alternative, I believe, is a tungsten alloy which is much harder to work with, much harder to manufacture, and takes the word "carcinogen" to a whole new level. Because whilst DU's carcinogenic nature is strongly suspected but not so much as to be definite, if you get anywhere near this stuff you will die promptly in a horrible, horrible manner.Dilbert_X wrote:
This basically. Might as well be using arsenic or mercury tipped bullets.Spark wrote:
Which makes it, as far as radioactivity goes, pretty much harmless.The water, soil and air in large areas of Iraq, including Baghdad, are contaminated with depleted uranium that has a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years.
A common misconception - it's DU's extreme chemical toxicity in dust form, not its radioactivity which as I said is negligible, that causes cancer.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
we do not deserve to survive we should all just die
I wan't aware there was a big issue with Tungsten or Tungsten alloys, certainly not compared with DU which is well known (but denied).
Searching briefly
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8062F2B1 … review.pdf
Searching briefly
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8062F2B1 … review.pdf
There is insufficient evidence presently available to conclude whether the HMTAs used in UK or USA munitions are, or are not, carcinogens in humans.
Tungsten and iron are of low toxicity and exposure to these metals by implantation or by inhalation has not been positively associated with long term toxic effects.
Nickel compounds are toxic to the lungs and kidneys dependent upon route of exposure and have established long term toxicities. Nickel compounds are human carcinogens, though the pure metal is only a "possible carcinogen" to humans. Nickel is a proven sensitiser and must therefore be considered as a potential immunotoxicant.
Cobalt is toxic to the lungs by inhalation, and a possible human carcinogen after inhalation and implantation in muscle.
The evidence points to the metals only being toxic orally in high doses and there is no evidence of significant systemic toxicity after percutaneous exposure, except for irritation and sensitisation by nickel and cobalt.
Fuck Israel
Tungsten in and of itself is not (imagine if it were... lightbulbs), but the tungsten alloy used (in fact I believe they may be alloys of some of the above materials like nickel and cobalt, which as your source points out are not nice materials, like most heavy metals). And it is nasty, far moreso than DU which is basically just another heavy metal in terms of toxicity.Dilbert_X wrote:
I wan't aware there was a big issue with Tungsten or Tungsten alloys, certainly not compared with DU which is well known (but denied).
Searching briefly
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8062F2B1 … review.pdfThere is insufficient evidence presently available to conclude whether the HMTAs used in UK or USA munitions are, or are not, carcinogens in humans.
Tungsten and iron are of low toxicity and exposure to these metals by implantation or by inhalation has not been positively associated with long term toxic effects.
Nickel compounds are toxic to the lungs and kidneys dependent upon route of exposure and have established long term toxicities. Nickel compounds are human carcinogens, though the pure metal is only a "possible carcinogen" to humans. Nickel is a proven sensitiser and must therefore be considered as a potential immunotoxicant.
Cobalt is toxic to the lungs by inhalation, and a possible human carcinogen after inhalation and implantation in muscle.
The evidence points to the metals only being toxic orally in high doses and there is no evidence of significant systemic toxicity after percutaneous exposure, except for irritation and sensitisation by nickel and cobalt.
Tumor yield was 100% in both the low- and high-dose WA groups.
I mean - you get this stuff near you, you stand a strong chance of having your life expectancy cut by an order of magnitude or two. This is precisely why science is not done by blog/media hype.The search for munitions that are considered environmentally friendly yet still retain their military effectiveness has led to the appearance of many unique alloys on the modern battlefield. Often, decisions on the health consequences of exposure (inhalation, ingestion, wound contamination, etc.) to these specific alloys are based on studies that investigated only one specific metal of the alloy rather than the particular alloy in question. Tungsten-based munitions are a recent addition to many countries' arsenals, primarily in response to the continuing concerns regarding the potential environmental and health effects of DU in kinetic-energy penetrators and of lead in small-caliber ammunition. For years, exposure to tungsten was thought to be of little consequence to health. In fact, tungsten is occasionally found as a minor component in some of the various alloys used to produce medical implant devices such as artificial hips and knees. The tungsten concentration in these alloys ranges from 5% to 15%. Because the alloy used in WA munitions usually contains > 90% tungsten, along with smaller amounts of other metals, it was also assumed that exposure to these alloys would present little or no health risk. As we have shown here, this is not the case in our rodent model. Embedded WA pellets not only resulted in aggressive, metastatic, pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcomas, but also caused significant hematopoietic changes well before the carcinogenic effect was observed. It seems unlikely that these adverse health effects can be attributed solely to the small amounts of Ni and/or Co present in the alloy. The tumors induced by the 100% Ni implants occurred later than those induced by the alloys containing 6% Ni. However, recent invitro studies have demonstrated a synergistic effect in terms of damage when tungsten is present with these metals
There are other reasons for not using these alloys as well - practical ones, and I think military as well.
Also, there is also the fact that very few studies have actually been done on the health effects of DU or its associated oxides in dust form, so we don't actually conclusively know whether it is a carcinogen - I do not take statistical correlation as conclusive (in health- or biological-related fields) unless it is exceptionally strong. And even then...
Last edited by Spark (2010-05-11 01:19:16)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Some of us have to work 14 hours a day in a shitty job just to be able to live, for these people standard of living isn't good and it doesn't seem to change despite how hard/long they work. They are the people who have to run very fast to stay still. Some of us do absolutely meaningless work (in regards of progress*) yet these are the ones gaining abundant amounts of money.Turquoise wrote:
A better standard of living means more work. That's just a fact of life. The few of us that don't operate that way inherit wealth.
There's an ignorance in me who fails to see how our way of living is good enough to be spread elsewhere -- and if necessary, we do it by force. To me, it seems that the people who make progress and push our race forward aren't rewarded as well as the people who simply make money. This leads us to a problem where people aim their innovation and time in better ways of gathering money instead of making progress. It feels like we're trying very hard to close ourselves in a circle where best way of making progress is the best way of making money.
What do you think made them "our" "enemies" in the first place?Turquoise wrote:
The only time we have to do this sort of thing is when we've blown a place to shit. Obviously, we don't do this sort of thing to countries we don't invade. The reason we try to mold these countries to our design is with the hope that they don't revert to what made them our enemies in the first place.
Functional democracy, eh. Are we going to allow them to make decisions that might cause more damage to our international corporations and actually "free" people from our control? What if they democratically become our enemies again, can we allow that?Turquoise wrote:
Well, for the most part, we are allowing Iraq to operate like a functional democracy. Afghanistan is a bit trickier, not because of us, but because it's such a corrupt country to begin with.
We are so permissive and urge everyone else to be too. I find it ironical though, if someone points a flaw in our democracy, we just say "that's just the way it is". In the meantime we're strongly correcting other countries for their lack of democracy and tell them how things should be.
(*depends what you define as progress. I see progress as a way of gathering knowledge and pushing towards unknown territories -- eventually us being in a very god-like situation.)
Last edited by BLdw (2010-05-11 09:21:18)
Democracies rarely fight other democracies... Correct me if I'm wrong I don't think there were any wars between two democracies =/
Democaries?Cybargs wrote:
Democracies rarely fight other democracies... Correct me if I'm wrong I don't think there were any wars between two democracies =/
There are NO democracies
Yeah, neither do I. But I didn't mention anything about democratic nations fighting against each other.Cybargs wrote:
Democracies rarely fight other democracies... Correct me if I'm wrong I don't think there were any wars between two democracies =/
Though, considering how short time we have had democratic nations, and how many democratic nations there is up to this day, we have already had incidents where foreign nation supported coup d'état against democratically elected government(s).
Besides I don't see any reasons why democratic nations would not fight against each other. It's true that democratic nations probably have higher tendency to ally with one another but war is about interests in a first place. Or... no?
True, no argument here.BLdw wrote:
Some of us have to work 14 hours a day in a shitty job just to be able to live, for these people standard of living isn't good and it doesn't seem to change despite how hard/long they work. They are the people who have to run very fast to stay still. Some of us do absolutely meaningless work (in regards of progress*) yet these are the ones gaining abundant amounts of money.
No argument here either.BLdw wrote:
There's an ignorance in me who fails to see how our way of living is good enough to be spread elsewhere -- and if necessary, we do it by force. To me, it seems that the people who make progress and push our race forward aren't rewarded as well as the people who simply make money. This leads us to a problem where people aim their innovation and time in better ways of gathering money instead of making progress. It feels like we're trying very hard to close ourselves in a circle where best way of making progress is the best way of making money.
Well, in the case of Afghanistan... harboring extremists.BLdw wrote:
What do you think made them "our" "enemies" in the first place?
We can... granted, it's not very convenient.BLdw wrote:
Functional democracy, eh. Are we going to allow them to make decisions that might cause more damage to our international corporations and actually "free" people from our control? What if they democratically become our enemies again, can we allow that?
Well, I'll agree that we have plenty of problems at home. I generally lean against interventionism and nation building. I think the last decade would've turned out better if we had never invaded Iraq and instead focused our efforts on securing the border.BLdw wrote:
We are so permissive and urge everyone else to be too. I find it ironical though, if someone points a flaw in our democracy, we just say "that's just the way it is". In the meantime we're strongly correcting other countries for their lack of democracy and tell them how things should be.
(*depends what you define as progress. I see progress as a way of gathering knowledge and pushing towards unknown territories -- eventually us being in a very god-like situation.)