Total Motorcycle Community Forums

So basically, you have no arguement to my statement, besides an attempt at an insult? As I have said before, I'm not conservative, and don't like the conservative party anymore than I like the liberal party.

That's all I'm going to say until you give an actual argument.

sv-wolf wrote:

"I believe human beings are a profoundly social and co-operative species"

Well, you do seem to preface your arguments with that notion quite a bit. Perhaps that is a problem. You've built your massive fortress of prejudice and bigotry, self-justified by your own reasonings, on a foundation of shifting sands, because you began your construction on a belief, and not on reason.

People are not profoundly social and co-operative. Most people associate for personal gain, not because they particularly enjoy each others' company. Most people co-operate in the attainment of common goals to which each ascribes as an individual, not for the sake of empowering others except as empowering that leads to a shared gain. Still, is this not selfishness?

Yes, many people are profoundly social and co-operative, but they usually outgrow that behavior by 17. Are you suffering from arrested development, maybe?

sv-wolf, you sure seem to have a lot to criticise, but you've yet to propose a reasoned solution.

sv-wolf wrote:

These are all institutional, economic and ideological pressures, not natural ones. Nothing to do with 'human nature'

If I were given a gun and sent out to the battle front, without any of these pressures on me, I know what I would do - I'd run like dodo.

Large scale violence is not a consequence of 'human nature.' It is a constructed act.

Again, sv-wolf, you've extrapolated your own supposition to the entire numan population.

If you and I were on opposite sides of an armed conflict, and you turned to run, I would shoot you in the back, down low so as not to kill you. Two of your mates would drop their attack and drag you to safety. That makes three less shooting at me. Your mates would witness your pain and agony, which would throw the concern of their own mortality into their minds, distracting them for the duration from 100% mental focus on killing me. That's called psychological warfare, and it is indeed brutal.

By the way, if I had a chance to shoot your mates in the back while they were dragging you off, I would do so, down low, so as not to kill them, for then there would be nine less shooting at me.

I know I would do these horrible things in battle, because it wouldn't be the first time. Surviving is my nature, and I am human. Therefore, my actions were "human nature". I will agree the violence was a "constructed act" as I formulated the plan of action long before the execution of the plan was necessary.

Peace and joy.

qwerty wrote:People are not profoundly social and co-operative. Most people associate for personal gain, not because they particularly enjoy each others' company. Most people co-operate in the attainment of common goals to which each ascribes as an individual, not for the sake of empowering others except as empowering that leads to a shared gain. Still, is this not selfishness?

Indeed, people do often associate for personal gain, but I also see daily acts of kindness and empathy and self-sacrifice. If this is alien to you, maybe you should just get some new friends.

But you are right, I also see people acting in 'selfish' ways. I see this all the time.

However, one very big reason for this lies not in our genetic or biological makeup but in the economic strutures of our society. From the moment we are born our world stuffs us into separate and isolated economic units and creates a rigid set of competing interests among us. And once we become rigidly separated, co-operation becomes much more difficult. So it is harldy surprising that we regularly behave in a "you vs me", "them vs us" way. Economic divisions are not born in us. They are built into the external institutions of our modern capitalist world. That world reflects in our minds as we grow and we become the things our institutions demand.

And our economic isolation into individual and family units, is just the beginning. The divisions go all the way up and all through our society.

And despite all this, human beings still perform daily acts of kindness, empathy and self-sacrifice.

qwerty wrote:If you and I were on opposite sides of an armed conflict, and you turned to run, I would shoot you in the back, down low so as not to kill you

.


You wouldn't get the chance. I would adopt a different survival strategy to you. I would refuse to fight. I'm not about to go killing other people, or even shooting them in the legs (:roll:) in the interests of some multi-billionaire back in the City of London.

I feel no need in my life to identify with or worship power. I'll leave the arse-licking to others. For those that are fooled by it - what can you do except grieve...

Life is sacred. All of it.

Jerry56 wrote:Based on what I've read, I think an 8 year time frame untill the mullahs have a bomb is far too rosy a scenario. I think the outside is far closer to the 2 years then the 8.

The Israelis don't have near the capability to do an attack on Iran's nuclear sites. It's just a tad too far away and their delivery systems don't have the capacity.



The situation in the world today is a textbook example of why the US can't disarm: How long does anyone think the US would be able to ensure its freedom, let alone the life style we enjoy, with the likes of North Korea, Iran, the USSR(sorry freudian slip, Russia), and the terrorists looking for an opportunity to do us in.

The US has to decide to get serious about fighting the War on Terror the way WW ll was fought. Our adversaries do not respect restraint, they will resplect our power, if we us it.

This does not mean bombing everything in sight. Application of appropriate power would be different depending on the objective.

I've gone on too long already.

Sorry if I've bored anyone.

The Isrealis are saying that Iran should be on song for haivng Nukes in 2008 and they are also saying that they are prepared to commit a tatical strikes (including Nuclear - they do have those loverly F-16's tooling around not doing much) against the facilities this year if things don't change.

If I were part of the Leadership of Iran I'd be looking at supporting Palastinian operations just to keep the Isreali forces busy right now.

Your post fails on internal logic for me. If every Muslim that dies in battle with the infidel goes to heaven with 72 virgins then there is nothing on earth, certainlly not the threat of being turned into a glassy plain that would stop them from doing so. Mutually assured Destruction only works if neither side wishes to avoid complete destruction.

If one side is willing to die for its beliefs then it cannot be stopped by the threat of being destroyed. Do you see where I am coming from?

In other words, if Iran is a threat MAD won't work, they will have to be nuked in a first strike scenario. Of course any Iranians that you miss on the first strike scenario will become lifelong enemies of all things US and there is a little matter of all those oil fields that will no longer be available.

The very worst thing that any terrorist could do to the US is to destroy all the oilfields. Nevermind using Nukes on US territories, depriving the US of oil supplies would be far, far worse.

Cam, I see not the slightest evidence that the U.S. Government has ever acted with restraint in matters of foreign policy. It's record, on the contrary, is one of extreme unconcern for justice or for human life wherever it pursues its own strategic or corporate interests abroad. America's imperialist ambitions seem to be perceived by pretty much the entire world with the exception of (some of) its own citizens.

Iraq is a good example. The reasons given for invading Iraq were not to protect Iraqi citizens but to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime of its alleged WMD and punish them for supporting Al Quaeda Terrorists. These were pretexts. We know they were lies. The reason for invading Iraq was control of the Middle Eastern oilfields. And now that several hundred thousand people have been blown apart, the adventure is now spiralling out of control.

The US tried to establish a puppet government to run the country under its direction and that has failed. If the US now withdraws it faces the very strong possibility that the Shia majority will form an alliance with Iran and probably also with the increasingly militant Shia resistance in Saudi Arabia. If that comes to pass, then there is every good reason to suppose that those countries and factions will form a further alliance with oil hungry China and possibly also the Russians. That is a nightmare scenario for the oil greedy American corporations and the government that represents them.

But, despite all the blether, there is no real evidence that the US intends to withdraw. It is continuing to build huge permanent military bases all over Iraq (mostly close to the oilfieds) and a massive, palatial embassy building - the largest ever constructed.

Neither Iraq, Iran or Saudi Arabia have any reason to love America. In each case the U.S. installed a murderous regime in their countries. In Iraq it ousted a popular government and installed Saddam Hussein, a man already known to be a psycopathic killer. In Iran, similarly, it installed the Shah, who proceeded, with US help, to turn his country into one huge torture chamber, and in Arabia, it established the despotic Saudi family. Whoever wins the next election in the US has a very difficult situation on their hands, a fact of some importance to American energy corporations but paling into insignificance against the overwhelming suffering US actions have already caused and are causing.

Frankly Kal, I think you are being extremely unfair to the Iranians by typifying them with this Western stereotype. The Western media like to portray the Iranian rulers as the Mad Mullahs, but whatever you think of their form of government they are sophisticated politicians who are heirs to a highly developed and sophisticated culture. The average Iranian citizen is as intelligent and thoughtful as anyone else. I don't think the Iranians are any more willing to die in a pointless war than the average American.

To put things into perspective, the consolations of an 'after-life' have always been used by Western military elites to encourage troops to be selfless in battle. A recent survey discovered that around 80% of American Christians believed that there would be a ball park in heaven - which would probably have the same affect on the average American psyche as all those virgins.

Sure why not. If they take care of nuclear weapons like they take care of their aircraft, there won't be a problem for long.