The War on Anything That Moves

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic]I'm not trying to order people around, merely asking them to obey the rules. Remember who I mentioned I was interested in seeing this thread continue? Think along those lines.[/font]

[Ravenstorture]

[color=darkred][font=gothic] You people post so quicly, four pages a night at this rate!!! (stupid stupid quota)
Religion is an iffy topic because there is do doubt that some people will be cut by it. Like it or not, there are people out there who build thier lives on the christian/catholic faith and [I]love[/I] doing it. They have a wonderful time. Any religion, for that matter. So you can understand why it might hurt a little to get onto the net and see people proclaiming things along the lines of "jesus is dead, get over it" and that sort of thing. I'm not attacking you, Jesus chicken, it's blunt and slightly impertinent but nevertheless true.
And don't worry about continually saying things along the lines of "I'm sorry I don't mean to offend anyone." We know, if you were meaning to offend people you would probably do a better job of it.
Yes, Gotenks, I am female. It feels wierd to have to explain that to people....

And another thing I simply can't ignore. I don't believe such a cynical bunch of people (except for lateralised, never heard of you before, hi there, nice to meet you) would walk straight past this:

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by roxieortatiana [/i]
[B]I don't understand you people. Why do you think blowing up the world with nukes is a good idea?? WHY? you yourself would be killed, too. Ok, so maybe they don't nuke YOUR country, but you will die from the radiation. I mean, it DOESN"T stay contained in one area. It would spread across the seas and eventually into your country(yes, EVEN Australia) and kill you. I don't understand why nukes are good (unless, of course, you WANT to die for some unfathomable reason) [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't know where you got the picture that we actually want to blow the world up with nuclear weapons. Actually, I do... don't worry, they were just being really really stupid for "comedius perposa" as I like to put it. Sorry if it alarmed you. However, this is the second time you have skwarked over something.... (remember earlier?) and it seems to me that you are a serious person with a great care for the earth and it's people. That's a beautiful quality to have, but I don't share it with you and you clash horribly with people who do not share your concerns. Don't worry, I have met heaps of people in my life that have argued with me fervently for at least an hour because I don't believe that human beings are the most important things on earth. In fact, I believe that humans have ruined the planet so much that they have destroyed their right to be here at all.
Well, you're thinking, there goes any religious ties with this particular antagoniser. Wrong. I am not atheist, as many of you would suspect. I am agnostic. Christianity, in my belief, is the bane of the earth's existence. And yes, to many many people, (2.54 billion I believe) that is excrutiatingly offensive and yes, there is an almost complete undeniably possibility that I will probably burn in hell for all existance after I die.

But I have never been the kind of person to let other people's views affect my own.

Back to nuclear war - (sorry, this is a wrong time to argue with me on this topic, I am debating it with st saviours college next wednesday, wish me luck) - radiation would not spread across the seas and kill everyone, however, it would make lots of people rather ill for a while. Here is a quote from my debating speech to round things off:

[quote]
But besides the widespread blast, radiation, and fire damage from individual bombs, nuclear weapons have a catastrophic global effect on climate. This possibility, known as the nuclear winter theory, dictates that the explosion of nuclear warheads would throw enormous quantities of dust and smoke into the atmosphere, sufficient to block out sunlight for several months. This would destroy plant life and create a sub-freezing climate until the dust dispersed. The ozone layer would also be affected, permitting further damage as a result of the Sun's ultraviolet radiation. Were the results sufficiently prolonged, they could spell the virtual end of human civilisation.
[/quote][/font][/color]

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic] Finally.

From a mutual philosophical friend...

"The Christian resolve to view the world as ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad".

Nuclear winter, while damaging, may even have some useful effects. We'd end up with a world more aware of the facts, and it would be less likely to happen again if we all survived it.[/font]

[Ravenstorture]

[color=darkred][font=darkred]Which we most certainly would not. The explosion of not even one half of the combined number of warheads in the United States and Russia would throw enough crap into the air to give us a nuclear winter of three years, far far more than enough to kill off every living thing on the planet, except for cockroaches, cloricus, John Farnham and that Mr Powell guy that is visiting our school at the moment...[/font][/color]

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic]Not neccessarily. The amount of radiation in the atmosphere would neccessitate some rather extreme mutations in just about every cell in every living beings body. So, there would be some survivors. And as for Mr Powell...[/font]

[Ravenstorture]

[color=darkred][font=gothic]He'd be... pumped.


BTW, what did you mean by "Finally" in your earlier post?[/font][/color]

[James]

[color=coral]Dozens of nuclear weapons have been discharged throughout history. It's unlikely that a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would cause a Nuclear Winter.[/color]

[Kent]

im just amazed at this topics life.
its moved all over and i have been intrested the whole time.
possible nuclear winter...
i think that it is possible; that said, i want to say i most likely will not happen. hopefully.
in the above i accepted the possibility of the worst; so i will also look at possible out come in that chain of events. going beyond the initial effects i will think about the winter to follow.
i believe we could survive it. we are intelligent, so we've got that going. we will take major population loss; up to 2/3. revert to more primitive culture. most likely migrations will occur by all surviving animals and mamals. we also for that matter, are warm blooded allowing self regulating temp, unlike dinos.
and most of all, we've made it once before. though that comment holds less weight then i would like; because i know the humans to endure the ice age were very different from modern man.
id also like to say that religion, to me, is something so deep, i almost cant comment. is there a thread on beliefs?
_________________________________________
i couldnt resist but come back. maybe i did mis out on some cause i noticed the big bang come up. off subject a bit, i know, i just had to mention this. this is all theory, and i want yours.
discovery channel. does the rest of the world get that channel?
i watched a show that ended up discussing the bang and of all things i was appualled that they actually said the start, just before the bang, there was pure engery that turned into matter and created an explosion. the rest of it sounded cool, it was just the begining. energy?
i cant think of a more unscientific way to explain what caused the explosion. of course, that is unless you want to try and prove the exiestence of god. Now that would be some good stuff to start an independent council investigation of god.
sorry to come back and edit like this. "just had to"

[James]

[color=coral]There are many, many threads on religion. It's been pretty much covered.[/color]

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic]But the comparitive moralities in assorted religions when applied to war, or religious war? Which is a whole new barrel of fun...[/font]

[Guest Raven131]

Well he DID start the war because the terrorists bombed a couple of our major US buildings and kill like 5000 pplz so this is just my opinions but I THINK it was justified. If he had let it go pplz would think we were weak and pushovers. But hey don't think I'm being all patriotic (Confederates Will RULE again!)

[Ravenstorture]

[color=darkred][font=gothic]The fact that it was the trade towers that were destroyed was [I]not[/I] a coincidence. America had been unfairly trading with countries such as Afghanistan for more than thirty years. In fact, in the seventies or eighties, America lent billions of dollars to young coutries to help them get onto their feet. But the interest rate was so atrociously high that the countries are permanantly indebted to America, and the whole country's wealth is siply funnelled into America to pay off debt. They were considering cancelling world debt for the millenium, but it never happened because of America's position as a superpower.
[quote][I]Originally posted by Raven131:[/I]
Well he DID start the war because the terrorists bombed a couple of our major US buildings and kill like 5000 pplz so this is just my opinions but I THINK it was justified. If he had let it go pplz would think we were weak and pushovers. [/quote]

More than three times the number of innocent people were killed by american forces than died in the 9/11 incedent. Pushovers, or learning a lesson, forgiving and moving on? It is my personal belief that America deserved what it got from Afghanistan. It may have been a little too harsh, but definately not for America. Not after what it has done to some countries in the past. Even it's own country has suffered. [/font][/color]

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]I too take great satisfaction in the fact that Bin Laden is America's creation. They got what was coming to them, and this had damn well better teach them that their national interests are secondary in other countries.[/font][/color]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Harlequin [/i]
[B][font=gothic][color=crimson]I too take great satisfaction in the fact that Bin Laden is America's creation. They got what was coming to them, and this had damn well better teach them that their national interests are secondary in other countries.[/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=coral]Are you serious?

I'm prepared to admit, as much as anyone, that the United States primarily looks after its own interests. But what nation doesn't?

Is that a reason to murder innocent people in cold blood?

America didn't get what was coming to them at all. I don't know how you could be so dismissive of the situation.

All this sort of action does, is further hatred and anger...and if anything, it's going to cause America to lash out further (because they have justification to do so). So if anything, bin Laden has demonstrated his sheer stupidity.

He is claiming to somehow help the cause of fellow muslims, yet his actions are only making it more difficult for a positive outcome to occur.

When I saw the WTC attack happening live, I didn't for a moment think "Finally America is getting what's coming to them". My first thought was how horrifying it must have been to actually be there...and how sick I would feel if a member of my family or friends were there at the time.

I think your post was an example of how [i]not[/i] to view a situation such as this. As a human being, I find it very difficult to be so heartless and dismissive.[/color]

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]When the Americans sided against the Russians, they trained Bin Laden and his like, and then let the country be ravaged. They expended the lives of countless Afghans, all in their power struggle against Russia. If America hadn't been so cold-bloodedly manipulative, September 11 wouldn't haev happened, the Taliban wouldn't have been terrorising their citizens for the past however many years, and I wouldn't have 9 out of 10 people on my back about my glacial nature. And as for how I can be so empty of sympathy... well... let's just say that it takes a certain amount of coffee, jug of wine, loaf of bread, and < occupant >.[/font][/color]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Harlequin [/i]
[B][font=gothic][color=crimson]When the Americans sided against the Russians, they trained Bin Laden and his like, and then let the country be ravaged. They expended the lives of countless Afghans, all in their power struggle against Russia. If America hadn't been so cold-bloodedly manipulative, September 11 wouldn't haev happened, the Taliban wouldn't have been terrorising their citizens for the past however many years, and I wouldn't have 9 out of 10 people on my back about my glacial nature. And as for how I can be so empty of sympathy... well... let's just say that it takes a certain amount of coffee, jug of wine, loaf of bread, and < occupant >.[/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=coral]Okay, I'm sorry, but you're 100% wrong there.

Russia was under the process of invading Afghanistan. And at that point, the Afghans didn't have a way of defending themselves from Russia.

The United States decided to provide weaponry to the Afghan military, so that it could better defend itself against invasion. Of course, the core reason behind that was because the USA wanted to stop the spread of Communism.

It was Russia's invasion of Afghanistan which caused such factionalization across the country. The entire nation became a series of warring factions and thus, several years of civil war broke out.

The Taliban were merely one of these factions. They came into power directly because of Pakistan's involvement in the territory (Pakistan had an interest in seeing a "stable" Afghanistan). And thus, Pakistan provided weapons/support and ultimately supported the rise of the Taliban itself.

So really, yes...the USA's involvement is what put weapons into the country. But at the time, this was done as a way of defending Afghanistan against Russia. You can't possibly blame the United States for simply "not seeing" the outcome of this action -- it wasn't the USA's fault if the Taliban ended up stockpiling the used weaponry in order to stabilize its own power in the country.

Ultimately, it is Pakistan who originally supported the Taliban.

It's important to get the facts right in this situation, so that you can understand the motivations behind different international actions/conflicts.

Osama bin Laden is merely someone who couldn't perform his actions in Saudi Arabia...and thus, went to Afghanistan simply because of its lawlessness. It's useless to try and blame the USA or anyone else (besides Russia or Pakistan) for this occurrance.[/color]

[The Harlequin]

[color=crimson][font=gothic]That's my point. The entire invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent defense by the USA was merely a power struggle between Capitalism and Communism. Russia wanted to know how far the USA would go to protect it's interest, in relation to the USA's military actions during that period. And the USA had supported the Taliban during their "friendly occupation" of the country as it was.[/font][/color]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Harlequin [/i]
[B][color=crimson][font=gothic]That's my point. The entire invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent defense by the USA was merely a power struggle between Capitalism and Communism. Russia wanted to know how far the USA would go to protect it's interest, in relation to the USA's military actions during that period. And the USA had supported the Taliban during their "friendly occupation" of the country as it was.[/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=sienna]The conflict in Afghanistan wasn't merely a power struggle between the USA and Russia. I think that's kind of glossing over what really happened.

The USA never supported the Taliban. Most countries, during the Taliban's reign, provided absolutely no support or contact to the regime. Only Iraq and Pakistan ever even acknowledged that the Taliban was the "Government" of Afghanistan.

And as mentioned, bin Laden's original involvement in the conflict didn't even have anything to do with the United States. So the point still stands, in the sense that you can't exactly blame the USA for all of these happenings; there are many who should take more blame than the United States.[/color]

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]I'll concede I may have made a contextual error when I said power struggle. Afghanistan was a pawn. The USA goaded Russia into making a move. They strengthened their military, and made a pronouncement that they would help other countries resist incursions by the Russians. They basically asked the Russians to attack someone. The USA never openly supported the Taliban, but they did arm and fund them, fully aware of Taliban dogma. [/font][/color]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Harlequin [/i]
[B][font=gothic][color=crimson]I'll concede I may have made a contextual error when I said power struggle. Afghanistan was a pawn. The USA goaded Russia into making a move. They strengthened their military, and made a pronouncement that they would help other countries resist incursions by the Russians. They basically asked the Russians to attack someone. The USA never openly supported the Taliban, but they did arm and fund them, fully aware of Taliban dogma. [/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=darkblue]Once again, you're partly right. But your facts tend to be mixed in with the wrong context here.

You can't possibly tell me that an invasion and subsequent ten year war was merely based on US provocation.

Russia had a vested interest in taking Afghanistan and it wasn't as though they were doing so simply to provoke the United States. Russia invested ten years in that war. And they realized pretty early on what the situation was.

The USA [i]never[/i] armed or funded the Taliban. That is most definitely incorrect. I think you have your time periods somewhat mixed up.

The Taliban came into power [i]well after[/i] the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan. And thus, they came into power well after the United States had offered weaponry to the Afghans.

The weaponry was only offered to fend off the Russian invaders, but it was certainly not specifically offered to the Taliban (and even then, you would have to dispute exactly [i]when[/i] the Taliban itself was formed...it didn't come into any cohesive force until the 1990's, well after the war ended).

The weaponry used by the Taliban wasn't something provided to them by the USA directly -- they used old US/Russian weapons which had been retained from the war during the 1980's.

As I mentioned, the USA is certainly not a 100% innocent party here. But they didn't do a thing to deserve 9/11. There is no way in hell you or anyone else can even attempt to justify those attacks.[/color]

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]The group that ultimately called itself the Taliban was around during the war, it just hadn't named itself as such. It quite obviously was not in power at that time, I never claimed it was. Once the war started, neither side could back down from it. That was the worst part about it. Each party had invested a bit too much in it. I'm trying to justify those attacks, I'm trying to present them as a hopefully effective object lesson. And no object lesson is ever justifiable, so I'm not contradict myself by saying the attacks were right. I don't believe they were right, or good, or just, but I believe as long as something is learned from them. they have served a useful purpose. Damn, I'm starting to sound optimistic here...[/font][/color]

[James]

Of course, if something was learned, that is important. But if you read your previous posts, that isn't really what you were saying. Your arguments seem to be shifting a little as time goes on.

The Taliban (whether using that name or not) was not even a cohesive force during the war in Afghanistan in the 1980's. So that whole point is completely redundant.

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]It's in the phrasing. I don't like repeating myself, so I change the way I say it. Every now and again I slip up and it comes out differently. Sorry.

Anyway... cohesive no. In existence yes. A force doesn't have to be cohesive. Hell, fanatics are rarely cohesive. They don't have to be, in fact it's better if they're not. If they were, they'd start comparing notes, realise whatever they were part of was dangerous, futile and ultimately boring.[/font][/color]

[James]

You don't seem to understand.

The Taliban were not a cohesive force and thus, they were not even classed as an [i]organization[/i] of any sort at the time.

The USA was never dealing with the Taliban (although they may have been dealing with some [i]individuals[/i] who became a part of that specific group in subsequent years).

The Taliban as it existed in the 1990's didn't exist in the 80's. So we're talking about apples and oranges here.

The group came about purely as a way of forcefully taking down opposing forces in the country.

[Kent]

i think this is amazing for 2 reasons. one, james is writting more than my newbie butt has yet seen and i like his nuetral (or as close to) views. second, im glad to see some of these kids back pedalling.
james has the story right. and just to add random trivial knowledge. you want to know why the us funded the afghans during the 80s. just so we could make rambo 3, just kidding, it was to give russia a taste of what they gave us in vietnam.
9/11 no matter how you cut it was wrong. in fact, taking what we know. bin laden should have thanked the u.s. but instead he wanted 10 years and decided to smite the hand that had fed him.
afghanistan was in serious trouble when they were fighting the russians and for the first 3 or 4 years of the russian occupation, the afghans were being slaughtered. until.... the u.s.a. gave a little help. i also want to say im glad to see the voice of reason (james) take on this debate during the time im not posting.