Bah, politics!

i disagree mr wilson; i personaly believe with an air "of cold calculating calm that was a decendant of retribution"......

.....we edge ourselves on our semantics sir... :wink:

damn right they were pissed off...but the act, as well as the decision, were done in the "clarity" after much confusion, anxiety, debate, .......and sleepless, sleepless nights.

Doc B...

I'm sure youre right mr B, and I'm not disagreeing with you. I used "in anger" as a term to describe an act intended to injure or kill others, regardless of whether the act was planned months before or an instinctive reaction. I beleive this is the proper use of the term in this context.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

wil5on said:
I used "in anger" as a term to describe an act intended to injure or kill others, regardless of whether the act was planned months before or an instinctive reaction. I beleive this is the proper use of the term in this context.

I am still fussed over this. Something is fundamentally wrong with the idea.

I think that people who commit euthanasia would argue the point strongly against the "In Anger" reference, in spite of the fact that the description that you gave would also fit their action. To euthanize a loved one who is critically ill is an act of passion and love, not anger, yet it is an act that is intended to kill and could be planned months or be spontaneous.

I know its semantics, but its not anger motivation that drives the urge to drop bombs on people. I do not doubt that there are situations that have anger involved, but whats driving the anger is more than likely something much deeper.

I think the confusion lies in that you are determining that an aggressive action is explained with an angry terminology. One must be angry, because devastation is occurring and no one would create this situation and be happy.

Hell, a tornado can do the same thing and have no motivation what so ever. Bad correlation maybe, but I feel that it has some merit.

I think we need to agree to disagree.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

anger can be interpreted in many ways.

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

If bush dragged his ties to big oil into the whitehouse, why would he give up saddam's oil fields to the new iraqi government? I mean.. That doesn't sound like an oil tycoon to me. More like someone that wants a flourishing Iraqi democracy. (Of course, one could say that it puts the oil in a position to be bought with American dollars. but still, it's Iraq that will gain more than the USA.)

If you honestly think it's idealistic to want secure American borders, there's something very wrong. This is a sovereign nation with entry methods and laws. If you break the law, you're a criminal -- but we don't persue illegals like we should.. Yet. How do OTHER countries handle illegals? One example: Mexico. Did you know that you can do jailtime in Mexico for staying illegally? It's practically an American felony. And let's say you're visiting as an American citizen.. Did you know that you can be deported at any time for no reason? Hell, even if you have a proper visa, the very same thing can happen. EVEN if you've become a Mexican citizen, you can STILL be deported at any time for the first 2 years. If that s**t happened here in America, the media would be all over it. (Used Mexico as an example because it's fresh in the mind from the O'reilly factor. Yes, I said the O'reilly factor.)

When it comes to Japan, Mr. Brasso is right.. There would have been MANY more deaths on both sides if there was a land invasion. Dropping the two bombs ended the war with relatively little loss of life. However, nowadays, when the USA isn't the only country with this trump card.. Things can potentially get out of hand. Most industrialized nations have crises like the cold war.. Countries like Iran will have "Let's nuke anyone that looks at us funny" hissy fits. Same goes for N. Korea. We dropped the ball in letting them get this far with their nuclear programs IMO.. Not that i doubted Bush would be blamed anyway.

..And actually, people DO hate Americans because of our genetic makeup. Because of the perception of our government and our government's actions, people worldwide have associated every American accordingly. I mean, the only americans that are widely accepted by foriegners are those that spout "Bush is a tyant/terrorist/monkey" etc etc.. And there's something wrong with that. If I went to france and said I support Bush and his war, I'd be crucified. .. Wait a sec, THAT HAPPENS HERE IN THE STATES!

---

the players tried to take the field
the marching band refused to yield

Don't make me hit you with the "capitalise the start of sentences" stick Bewbies :razz: Please make that your last lowercase only post.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Don't make me hit you with my black materia stick, Reno.

---

the players tried to take the field
the marching band refused to yield

ill hold him, you pummel him boobs... :wink:

doc b... :heee:

The USA would never have occupied the oilfields, it wouldn't have been
accepted and would have been totally against their principles for
invading.

Installing a US friendly administration is the easiest way to do it.
The war in Iraq was a badly dressed attempt to protect American
oil/industrial interests in the Persian Gulf at a time when more and
more of the Arab nations were starting to become more and more
belligerent with the US.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Gwil</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>The USA would never have occupied the oilfields, it wouldn't have been accepted and would have been totally against their principles for invading.
</DIV></DIV>

There's that word used out of context again. The American public wouldn't have tolerated such an action (I cannot truly say about the rest of the world as I am not privy to the talk that goes on daily there). Accepting isn't a concept that applies because, one would have to envision us occupying the fields without compunction. American as a majority have no interest in them. So, accepting it would have to be an all or nothing scenario.

Tolerance on the other hand. Now thats something relevant.

Some would tolerate the idea, most wouldn't tolerate it at all.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

The USA would never have occupied the oilfields, it wouldn't have been
accepted and would have been totally against their principles for
invading.

Installing a US friendly administration is the easiest way to do it.
The war in Iraq was a badly dressed attempt to protect American
oil/industrial interests in the Persian Gulf at a time when more and
more of the Arab nations were starting to become more and more
belligerent with the US.

This is how the world has worked for a long time. At least thats
how I understand the facts that I know. The big boys help pro-big
boy rebles take controle of countries to gain a foot hold there, even
if the person/people they help get into power are currupt (see Iraq for
example)

Also, my point wasn't about how many A-bombs have been dropped. I
said 2 were used in combat, and 2 were used in combat by the US.
My point is that if we dont want anyone to ever use Atomic wepons the
US should give them up along with the "bad guys".

I was thinking about this during my last run. It gets boring driving so you have lots of time to think. :biggrin:

This is how I view, "tolerated" and "accepted"

This is also a true story so don't feel that I made it up just for examples purposes.

Anyway, as a youth I discovered that hunting, and killing animals bothered me. I still do it but, I only hunt animals that I am willing to eat. I do not trophy hunt or any of that other crap big time hunters do.

Anyway, I realized that I will prolly always feel this way, and I have come to "accept" that on some level, it will always bother me to kill them. As I grew older, I built up a "tolerance" to the notion that I am actually killing a living creature. I accept that it bothers me, but it doesn't bother me like it used to.

Now, some may see this as one and the same, accepting and tolerating, but I do not.

So, if you see it differently, I accept that, but you will have to tolerate me not seeing it your way.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.