Agoraphobic PS3 Owner Appeals Sony Lawsuit Loss
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
No, to say everyone from a given country is evil is racist. You are not hating the Japanese for the way they behave. I'm assuming, as you never mentioned it, that you actually know no Japanese people. You are writing them off as evil for actions where those guilty are no longer alive. I for one do not believe in the sins of the father being passed on to the son. Its the same as calling Americans evil for what happened with the slave trade, attrocites in Vietnam, or the genocide committed against native Americans. Far more people died over a longer period from slavery than from the holocaust.Therumancer said:Not racist, culturally bigoted maybe, but not racist... and yes, I have no problem with calling backwards cultures backwards and talking about straightening them out or even destroying them based on their behavior.bjj hero said:
That is the big differance, a racist hates someone for being black or whatever. I hate people for the way they behave, even if they were raised that way. Race can't really be changed, but even on a societal level behavior can. You can beat a black person non-stop and they can't stop being black, but you can blast a culture back to the stone age and change their behavior.
As far as Afghanistan goes... well you do what you can and address the issues you can. However if you've actually read some of my other messages, I've also talked about sorting the middle east out also, and you might guess from the above statements what my opinion is even if you haven't read them.
Also don't get me wrong there IS a middle ground in sorting things like this out between ignoring someone/letting it go, and the total destruction of entire cultures. However this really isn't the time or the place for such a discussion
At any rate this conversation is going nowhere, and I've said what I feel I need to, so I figure I'll withdraw from it. Those who disagree with me (which is pretty much everyone else posting0 and I will of course have to agree to disagree.]wall of text
All nations have committed acts of douchebaggery in their past, the UK and the USA are not shining examples of a civilised, humanitarian past.
Going to have to agree, unless now large evil corporations are making themselves exempt from the law D:matrix3509 said:
Mekado said:
Yes, Japan is not at it's potential military peak since it's under occupation. However if we were to leave chances are we'd wind up crippling the nation to prevent it from being a threat, assuming of course we leave under some kind of duress. Their current SSDF is roughly similar to the American National Guard when you get down to the reality of it. Even so it's mostly a ceremonial thing so they can feel good about having a military.
As far as commenting on everyone in Japan being racist, well there might be rare exceptions, but speaking as a culture they are a group of xenophobic racists. As far as not knowing any Japanese people that's a HUGE assumption since my opinions come from real experiences. Not only have I dealt with a number online, I've also read a lot of translated Japanese periodicals, and was very interested in them for a time (for a number of reasons). I'm sure lots of Wapanese and Weeaboos still love to think the world of Japan and see it as a "friend" but the truth is a lot differant. Not saying that's what you are, but in most cases people who defend Japan are Weeaboos.
As far as the world not liking us, well we're the dominant world power, duh. Nobody likes the dominant world power. As far as us using strongarm tactics, we generally speaking do not even when we should, and then wind up taking the same amount of flak we would have gotten otherwise.
But yes, one of the purposes of the US is to ensure basic human rights globally. This became the case when we gave up on isolationism. If your not abiding by first amendment protections you are pretty much at odds with the US. Changing this situation is something we're supposed to be doing by whatever methods, however in general we tend to be too cowardly nowadays to try and do anything that isn't purely diplomatic.
The reason for the way we've been operating is largely because of Vietnam and the fact that the generation involved in that "war" are more or less calling the shots. In short we went into Vietnam for a lot of reasons, but the central pretension was to protect an alleged progressive democracy from a communist uprising. However in going into 'Nam it rapidly became clear that there were no good guys, the people we were fighting on the behalf of was anything but a progressive democracy, and just as messed up as their enemies were. The war went on for as long as it did because of all the money that was being made on it (on a lot of levels). One of the reasons why many compare the current "War On Terror" to 'Nam is not so much because of direct similarities, but because instead of trying to resolve the problems Cheney (and to a lesser extent Bush) were keeping things going in order make money for their buddies, largely by handing out sweetheart goverment contracts in exchange for a cut of
the money to the people they awarded them to (kickbacks).
At any rate, this is my last post on the subject. However yeah... a lot of "peace at any price" liberals are against military action for any reason. I can see how with that mentality bouncing a cruise missle off of people who don't enforce the right to free speech is anathema to them, however that doesn't mean it's wrong. I'm all for killing leaders, using strong arm tactics, etc... as long as it's done for the right reasons (and ensuring the right to free speech is among the right reasons).
It's sort of like the situation in Venezuala, I see no real reason why we shouldn't kill Chavez (as do many). However today we have the ridiculous mentality that we should apologize for suggesting it, and people get air time for complaining about games like "Mercenaries 2: World In Flames".
Ah well, this will truely be my last message on the subject. I don't imagine most will agree with me here. That's become apparent as this discussion has gone on.
Well first off Sony isn't American based it's Japanese so it's not subject to the same laws as the U.S and along with this Sony is a private company and not government owned so your first amendment doesn't apply which is exactly the same with the escapist here... if you go about causing trouble on here you will be banned, what do you think because your/he's American you get special treatment?. There's also the EULA that he signed too which also throws away his first amendment once he sign's it.matrix3509 said:
All that considered... He doesn't have a leg to stand on.
This guy again?! When will he learn to stomach defeat and just walk away (like the AI in the Madden series needs to do)?
Well no you don't... you can't force every country to abide by US laws. Countries are governedTherumancer said:
by there own laws any attempt to change that would invoke an act of war. You really think the US would be able to take on ever single country out there... China it self would fuck you up never mind the rest of Asia and Europe. Then there's the rest of the America Brazil... ect. that would love the opportunity to take a crack at you... the US would be cluster fucked if it tried to enforce some thing like this.
Sovvolf said:
Alright, I keep getting drawn into this despite my attempts to withdraw from the discussion. This will however doubtlessly be my last message on the subject however. It's merely to correct some misinformation that people seem to have in their heads.
Understand before I say anything else, that my personal belief is that a NWO (New World Order) that exists as a global unity under american principles such as equality (ie no racism or ethnic supremacy), a seperation of church and state, and freedom of speech is a nessecity. This needs to happen if we are ever going to expand into space to obtain more resources and such, by NOT doing this we doom ourselves to resource depletion, overpopulation, and the eventual death of our species when the sun goes Nova if nothing else (and it WILL die eventually, no matter how long in the future).
My pro-American attitudes are not just because I am American, but because there is no other way. An long-term opppressive world goverment, or one based on ethnic or religious supremacy is simply going to set itself up to fall and lead back towards a fragmented global strucutre. One could not be maintained. In the long run destroying various forms of supremists would lead to chaos, but once they were gone I believe a global goverment including the principles I mention would be able to survive and get what needs to be done, done.
As far as the misconceptions, I find it lulzworthy how the left wing has been convinced (and convinced others) that the US is weak (despite somehow being the dominant world power). I guess a lot of it comes from what many left wingers see as 'the greater good' served by a 'peace at any price' mentality. Which in of itself is based on the idea that we aren't going anywhere and will remain invincible no matter what we do (which is admittedly not the case).
To put things bluntly the US is alone in having the firepower to destroy the world 10x over. The USSR used to be able to share this distinction, but they no longer do, due to their collapse, the spread of their weapons over a number of now-independant satellite nations, and simply the fact that their R&D has fallen well behind. Right now we can intercept missles with our cruisers, submarines, and other things to an unprecedented degree (as demonstrated in our various police actions). One of the reasons Russia is so uppity about the idea of missle shield bases in nations like Poland is that it castrates their nuclear technology. It means that if they were to say decide to fire nukes over poland to hit allies in the UK/EU, or try and wing them over the oceans, those bases would eat their missles before they ever got to their destination. This is ALSO why Russia whines about how the US has violated the spirit of previous treatires preventing the development of missle defense technologies.
What holds back the US is our morality more than anything. Sure, we don't have the manpower to invade and hold other countries, but we DO have the firepower to blow them off the map. The problem is that our morality prohibits this, making the whole idea of a smaller and more advanced military pointless when we decide to do things like avenge the 9/11 attacks by taking guys on on the ground gun to gun where the abillity to bounce a city-busting warhead off a gnat's testicles from the other side of the world is irrelevent.
WMD being a "weapon of last resort" but ALSO a first strike weapon. Basically once you've got your troops in someone's country you can't drop a nuke on your own people. What's more coming in and doing the "yes let's be friends and rebuild the country" schtick is supposed to occur after you level a country, not beforehand (but this gets into something else entirely).
The intended engagement doctrine of the US is that we try diplomacy, if that fails we use the special forces and cruise missles to nail strategic targets, and attempt to enforce embargos. If someone still continues to act like a twit we drop WMD on them (first strike, when other resorts have failed) and then use conventional forces to mop up/castrate whatever is left. Then we offer to "help" rebuild, but logically with the intention of ensuring that by rebuilding we also effectively put things under occupation and are thus able to prevent them from reforming as a threat, or simply occupy the ashes.
The thing is that we no longer have the guts to operate this way (actually we never did, other than putting it on paper). Our morality simply prohibits it. The world realizes the US has this potential power, but they also realize that we won't use it, and that the best way to stop the US is simply by whining to the roughly 50% of the population who are left winger, peace at any price, liberals. The nature of our system means that even when the country isn't polarized, simply by having a substantial number of people we can't ignore that voice without effectively invoking war powers, and unlike other nations the US has always been very reluctant to do so even when we probably should.
Right now China is a POTENTIAL threat. They can't really do much to the US in a military sense. Economics being more irrelevent to warfare than many people think. Merchants and economists have predicted that war was impossible for such reasons almost every time there has been a major war. World War II was an example of this, it's just that you don't hear about how many Hitler Supporters there were in the US, what he did with the economy, and other things. Hitler was an international man of the year for a reason.
China IS building up the technology to project their potential power, which is one of the reasons I have been advocating a first strike against them for decades, they however do not have it yet. A lot of the technology you see causing problems in the East right now comes from a man named "Bill Clinton" who dropped the ball in running our country. Basically he lost a bunch of Hard Drives that for all intents and purposes still had goverment secrets on them, namely military missle guidance technologies. This being the guy who downsized our intelligence services (pretty much castrating them) as well. A few years afterwards you noticed China with better counter-satellite technology, and an upswing int heir space program, and North Korea suddenly showing off new missle guidance technology which they use to threaten us with. Basically the current upswing in the power of the region can be tracked back to a left-winger losing our own technology to them (or selling it to them, if you believe certain versions of the story). This isn't even a big secret, it's just the media preferred to focus on sexual antics in the oval office than thigs that were actually important when it was going on.
At any rate, if we were to INVADE China it would be stupid, we could however still pretty much decimate them from thousands and tousands of miles away and there isn't much that could be done about it. On the other hand 10-20 years down the road our prospects of being able to take China become much more dubious.
This same logic applies to most countries with large, conventional military forces. They only seem to be a factor because we're stupid enough to fight them gun to gun, instead of using the technology we developed to make it so we wouldn't have to do this. Nobody believes we'll use that technology if they whine, so people increasingly act like it doesn't exist.
In general, if the US wanted to become more aggressive, we could take out most of the leaders, regimes, and groups we don't like. A single "Night Of Long Knives" and we could make the world a better place (from our perspective) ... all with the push of some buttons. We could also enforce a LOT of principles. Instead of sending the military in as beat cops, all we have to do is make it so people fear the power we actually have again. Free Speech? Learn to love it, or get ready to embrace the glow.
As far as the idea that "the rest of the world would never allow for this!", well I think people have some misguided impressions. For starters a lot of our "allies" act the way they do now because they don't have any faith in the US to act like the strong arm protector it's supposed to be. I mean if the intervention of their "ally" amounts to a half hearted military intervention by conventional troops, which our "allies" will have to contribute to, what the heck is the point? We're powerful becaus eof our tech. If we don't use it, we're a third rate conventional military simply because of our relatively small population and level of militerization. Our allies act accordingly to how we do, and face it... we're not reliable when we act this way. That's not how the US military was re-defined to fight wars and project it's will.
On top of this, ask yourself what they would do about it? If the entire world was to gang up on a US that meant business (right now) our odds of surviving intact are around a mere 10% or something like that (from the last analysis I read). The rest of the world surviving in any habitable form is exactly 0%.
The point of that is, that if someone threatens global retaliation (unlikely) it's the equivilent of putting a gun to their head and saying "Stop, or we'll committ suicide". It's not like they can actually STOP us, all they can do is kill themselves and hope they take us down in the course of bringing about the cessation of human life on earth.... which basically means they get nothing out of it, so chances are mere survival is eventually going to get them to play ball.
The thing is that the current diplomatic situation with the US reflects our current policies. Nobody pulls this crud with say Russia when they behave badly, because unlike the US, Russia will laugh at them since they know there is nothing they can do other than talk BS and hope that someone believes it. Russia does things like tries to kill leaders in Ukraine to affect an election, and notice what happens... nothing. We do the same thing and the global population would be all over us simply because of all the left wingers who would
freak out. This is incidently why guys like Chavez continue to enjoy oxygen. >
At any rate, despite how all of this sounds, I do not believe the world can be unified soley by military conquest. I believe that will play a role in places, but I believe it will primarily happen due to the spread of ideas. This is one of the reasons why I have such a hate-on for censorship, especially accross national boundaries. I feel that if we can force free information, it reduces the need for conquest in the long run (and understand I do not think we will see a global unity within my lifetime).
I believe that rival nations like China, and totally closed theocratic cultures will probably need to be destroyed, with the remaining tiny fragments brought into the fold. I also feel that if we do not act, eventually a nation like China will replace us as the dominant power, it will not hold back the way we have due to morality, and it will effectively unite the globe temporarly under an ethnic "master race" dominance, which will
in turn lead to rebellion on what is effectively an un-neogitiable principle, that will eventually shatter the entire thing back into nations and states. In the mean time costing the world time, and most importantly resources, that we can't afford if we're going to get off the planet to obtain more resources and living space.
Agoraphobia doesn't give him a right to not be banned. PSN is a private company, they don't have to be fair. They just have to stick to the Terms of Service they lay out, which like every other company with on, probably says they can fuck your mother and shoot your dog and you just fuck off.
So he is pretty much wasting his time. The whole Joker nonsense just makes me feel like he belongs in a home...
So he is pretty much wasting his time. The whole Joker nonsense just makes me feel like he belongs in a home...
Wow after reading that very...very..very long message I have came to the conclusion that your talking shit. No you couldn't wipe the earth ten times over, you wouldn't stand a chance. Your nothing but a racist jingoistic genocidal bastard who I have a good mind as to report.Therumancer said:
You actually think that every one should do what America does because America is so perfect and you think that any one who opposes this should be wiped off of the map. You think that Japan and China should be exterminated because every Chinaman and every one from Japan are evil.
And this one did it all for me.
No you'd be fucked... I know.. your one of those Americans that think there country could take them all on but realistically you'd be destroyed. Tell me what would the US do?... launch nukes every were?... you'd get them back from every corner of the world that has nukes. Launching nukes would have no positive gains for America.. the world would be a giant wasteland and you'd get Nuked your self in the process. The fallout would destroy all the resources and farm land so you wouldn't be able to survive. Even if you did survive you'd been blown back to the stone age. So what's your alternative? sending all your troops to every country out there to fight them all?... 1) You wouldn't have the resources 2) Every one would put you in embargo so you would have no import or export 3) You already owe money to china so you wouldn't be able to afford it 4) You'd crumble internally, a lot of Americans would not want to go to war and send off all there kid's to die over a ill attempt at imperialism or America attempting to run ever country for them. I mean you've had enough shit over the Iraq war never mind a world war with every one against you.Therumancer said:
Sovvolf said:
Go ahead, report me. It's nothing I haven't said before. Not everyone is a peacnik, or thinks that there is anything wrong with Nationalism or Militarism. The very fact that you think I've done something "Wrong" because you disagree with me, sort of illustrates some of my overall points. But that goes beyond this paticular aspect of the conversation.
Read what I've actually said. I called Japan racist (it is), and at the most advocated using force to prevent them from engaging in censorship and the spread of ideas.
With China I *HAVE* advocated a massive, culture destroying first strike. However my overall reasons for this go well beyond anything discussed here. They are also racist, but that is not the entire reason for doing so.
If you've ever taken Ethics you'd know there is no such thing as a universal concept of right and wrong. It all comes down to perspective. In the end it's "us" or "them". The very idea of global domination by a single ethnicity being wrong is like anything a matter of perspective.
The big issue is whether or not you believe a world unity is nessicary. I happen to think so, and of course I have my opinions on how such global goverment should be run. It's fine if you disagee with that principle. However if you don't disagree then you have to look at how to accomplish it, and of course that leads to consideration of things like how to accomplish it and what philsophy it should be run under.
By some views of morality the Chinese basically outnumber pretty much every other ethnic group combined, so they should get their way, right or wrong. We should all pretty much surrender to their global dominion and slavery for the good of the species. I happen to disagree and believe that a proper global goverment would be one where all ethnicities can exist as equals. Lacking the abillity to universally adopt a global religion, we of course then also have to seperate church and state. Both of which happen to be American principles.
China is however not going to give up their ambitions, and that makes war inevitable. Either we wait for them to continue building a military sufficient to assert themselves, or strike first. That's simply the way it is. No right and wrong, no great World War II-like crusade against evil. Simply two points of view on global unification which by their nature cannot co-exist.
-
Also when it comes to military force, you are dead wrong. Plus you didn't read what I said. The US has roughly a 10% chance of surviving a "take all comers" war with no allies. Including the enviromental repercussions of the war. That is NOT good odds, unless you look at the fact that the rest of the globe has no chance whatsoever. You must have missed the odds.
Truthfully I think a lot of anti-US elements (including anti-US Americans) take faux refuge in the thought that we aren't all that powerful... but well... we are. Our military failures have mostly been due to stupidity in our engagement doctrine. In general for moral reasons the US does not simply go in and kill people and break things like your supposed to do in war. That means 99% of our wonderful killing technology languishes unused.
Heck, did you know that because of the "OMG, we can't hurt civilians! We need an antiseptic war!" left wing crowd, that we were loading a lot of our missles with concrete instead of explosives to try and be more "precise" with what we hit? It's kind of funny when you think about it.
We spent billions of dollars developing ways that a single jet could reduce entire city blocks fo flaming pits of death, collapse skyscraypers, and drop various kinds of bombs that could reduce thousands of people to hamburger... and then when called upon to use it "peace at any price" liberals are allowed to deadlock the goverment, and we replace all those bombs with what amount to glorified rocks... and then people somehow come away from this with the impression that our military isn't all it was supposed to be.
It's kind of disturbing on a lot of levels...
What's more, I will also point out that the only "nation" with enough nukes to matter in a global exchange is Russia, and their stockpile is no longer united, and it's guidance technology is now obselete (which is why missle defense is an issue). Most nuclear powers don't have more than a handfull of nukes, enough to take out a couple of cities. How good those nukes are as far as delivery systems largely depends on how much technology we (the US) have given them. The fact that we still lead in such technology being why it was a big deal when we lost some of it to China.
This is also incidently why during the whole "Georgia" crisis Russia was willing to pretty much move right in on the EU's border, plop down an army, and then turn off the gas. With the US occupied, short sighted European powers weren't about to get involved other than sending diplomats and crying. If things had come to a head, nations like France and even England have enough missles to maybe nail a few cities. But in the end a nation the size of Russia can absorb those hits and just keep right on coming (having the manpower to actually invade and occupy). This is also the situation with China (ie it's too big for any nuclear power to stand them off except for the US).
The entire global stockpile of missles coming in at the US faces new missle defense technologies such as interceptor bases, submarines, and even what jets can do. There are still a lot of missles, and of course the enviromental repercussions, hence the 10% figure. In the meantime we COULD blanket the world and pretty much hit everything.
Consider WMD also includes things like Biological and Chemical Weapons. Despite "bans" on them, consider that during the Anthrax scare there were only a few places that could have produced weaponized Anthrax like that. The US is one of them, and the (cough) biggest producer of such things. Other nations have it, but the thing to consider is that if it kills, the US has it, and we've got more of it than anyone else.
-
Yes, I am Jingoistic, I admit so fully.
However in a world of US-Bashing I pretty much figure it's fully acceptable to be nationalistic back.
People seem to have this impression that Americans are arrogant and nationalistic, when in reality that's far from the truth. Start acting nationalistic and the first thing you have on your case is a bunch of left wing Americans screaming "Noes! That is wrong! I should report U".
Amazingly in 99% of the forums I'm on (Fandom tends to the left in general) I'm the only American being arrogant. The very fact that you even remotely think you could report me and get sympathy sort of makes my point.
Now keep in mind that me admitting to arrogance does not mean I'm wrong. Simply that I am not humble about it, I refuse to be politically correct, and pretty much think America needs to be a LOT more assertive internationally instead of constantly going all emo about well... everything.
-
This IS the last message from me because really this has nothing to do with anything this thread was about to begin with.
a: If he's THAT agoraphobic, how does he get to court?
b: If he lacks the common sense to see that a Joker suit is inappropriate in court, then I'm unsurprised he's been banned from PSN for "inappropriate behavior".
b: If he lacks the common sense to see that a Joker suit is inappropriate in court, then I'm unsurprised he's been banned from PSN for "inappropriate behavior".
So what you're saying is that there is only American, Dictatorship, Racist, and Religion-based governments?Therumancer said:
...I'm at total loss for words here. Do a tad of research.
I've done tons. You are of course forgetting socialism in there, but that winds up as bad as a dictatorship with a "party" replacing the dictator, the individual giving up personal freedom to empower the state. Socialists have a tendency to do things like have the goverment regulate morality, which is what you see to an extent here in the US with issues like video game violence and the goverment trying to find ways to regulate it directly or indirectly. Once they establish the precedent for regulating morality one way it becomes increasingly easier to do things another way.lacktheknack said:
See, what a lot of people don't realize is that the left wing is just as bad as the so called "religious right" they oppose. The left wing basically trying to take a punkhammer to those who don't share their beliefs the same way the other side has done in the past. Albeit you find that this is the attitude of the mainstream liberal. Attacking someone for what is decided to be "hate speech" and censoring them is a loss of freedom just as much as attacking someone on religious grounds. Either way it's wrong. I tend to go after liberals more nowadays because they represent a greater danger than the other side, whom I would be after if they were on the ascent.
You look to nations like France as example of socialism. While a lot of left wingers deny being socialists (or make arguements for it not being that bad) they are quick to use France and things like it's health care system as examples of the benefits of their way of thinking. I on the other hand look at things like the "Oil For Food Scandal". That stands out to me not because it was an example of goverment corruption (which is frankly one of the problems with any society, a utopia will never be achieved) but because it showed how much the French Goverment says "freedom" on one hand but at the same time oppresses their people without them ever realizing it. The way the French covered that, compared to the US and the rest of the world (even though it eventually seemed to sink in over there) pretty much demonstrates a lack of both freedom of the press, and free speech. It's also an example of WHY universal first amendment rights are something that needs to be enforced, even at gunpoint. Without them it becomes too easy for goverments to keep their people ignorant and steer them in whatever direction they happen to want, warfare, genocide, political persecution, etc...
The "Iron Curtain" being what effectively made the USSR what it was, and a big part of what brought it down was being able to force free information through it (which was difficult). China currently has the "Bamboo Curtain" which is just as bad. Right now I figure such informational curtains are something that needs to be prevented at any cost to prevent something like the USSR from happening again. Like it or not that could have gone either way, and the rest of the world feels no need for America now that the cold war is over, but that is simply foolishness, while it lets the same thing happen again, or even starts to implement the same practices themselves.
As bloodthirsty as I might seem, even when you get past my overall objective I feel killing even hundreds of thousands of people (civilians, military, whatever) is worthwhile to break such things before a nation can become too powerful with it in place. I see it as being what it good for the globe, and millions of people in the long term.
As minor an issue as we're discussing here (I don't remember the original article or if I commented on it, I'm commenting purely on this one) I see it as being indicative of a bigger deal. Small things like this turn into big problems, and then people go "OMG! How did this happen! How do we deal with it now" and spend decades dealing with problems that could be resolved with a little muscle and a handfull of cruise missles right now. I'd rather people scream about American "Tyranny" performed for the right reasons, then have to deal with a bunch of closed nation states all trying to preserve their own cultures, totally ignorant of what each other is doing, and weapons pointed in every direction... or more likely simply another USSR like what China will become should it continue it's military build up. I really don't care if they want civilian automobiles, and more industry, and to improve the lifestyle of their people. I do care when they claim this, while still having people sharing homes with their bloody livestock (which is how SARS apparently got started) while building YUAN Class Submarines, rattling their sabers, tagging American ships (case in point: The Kitty Hawk) and screaming behind the Bamboo Curtain that soon they will start conquering the world as part of their destiny (The Middle Kingdom has Endured 5000 years despite the oppression of the white devil! Booyah!) and obtain living space for their exploding population.
The big thing to consider here is that living space alone is a huge motivation, the only reasons they haven't been invading for decades is both a lack of technology to pull it off.
But I digress, this has little to do with China, as much as making an example out of Japan. Japan doubtlessly having their own free speech laws (as was pointed out) so all comments about extreme solutions aside, I very much doubt forcing them to do anything would be nessicary assuming it was approached properly from a legal perspective. In other places however, I do imagine cruise missle diplomacy is the only thing that will work, and indeed I think the greater good is served by being far more assertive.
I think the problem is that many people I speak to haven't thought this through from the right perspective, and don't realize that I am talking about heading off problems before they occur.
Okay now hopefully this will be the final message from me on the subject. In the end I figure we're all going to have to agree to disagree (like on most things).
You have done some thing wrong... racism... it's against the rules of the community.. when you say a full race of people are evil then your discriminating and that's racism... even going as far as to say they should be wiped off the face of the map.Therumancer said:
I did read what you put however I and I imagine many others see this as racism. There leaders and government may be corrupted but that doesn't make a full race of people evil.Therumancer said:
I know the reason why... they'd destroy America in warfare, they can hack into your networks. They have a far larger and more powerful army, they would have Russia's support along with Korea, it would be a tactically sound idea to attack them first before they have a chance to attack you. Again there leader may be racist along with a good lot of Chinamen may be racist (Just like Britain, America, France... you name a country and it's full of racists) but that doesn't mean ever single Chinaman is racist nor does it mean they should be wiped out.Therumancer said:
Well yes there is a universal concept.. people have different perspectives on that concept but it's still universal... that's why murderers and rapists are looked down upon in every society along with thieves, vandals and what not.Therumancer said:
I don't believe in a world of unity I believe we should all be left with our own cultures, our own way of running things (whilst still applying to the universal set of laws decided on by every leader through every nation)... not a one whole that is run with the concept we say it you do it in a totalitarian fashion. The problem with your philosophy is that you believe that it should all go the way America wants it while eradicating all other cultures rather then a pick and mix of all other cultures to see which one's are for the best.Therumancer said:
Which is what your suggesting America should do to the rest of the world... enslave it for the good of the species.. I don't see the logic there not do I see why because China is bigger with more people that they should get there own way.Therumancer said:
Therumancer said:
Along with British principle, French principles, Australian principles...ect. However I agree with you on this one (see I'm not a total prick) I believe all countries should separate Church from state however this shouldn't be done as a hostile take over. This should be as a universal law set down to all countries which again most be agreed up on by the majority vote which would include votes from ever leader of ever nation were every one gets there say. However if the vote does go by the "Separate Church from State" and a country does not comply with these laws then they would be embargoed from every other state until they do so.Therumancer said:
As said if this is the case then an embargo would be set first.. if they however to launch and attack then yes war would be the case but not total eradication of every Chinaman, nor should we destroy there culture... just knock them down a peg or two for them to beTherumancer said:
A. No longer a threat to the rest of the world.
B. They join the rest of the alliance and confine within the universal laws.
You however seem to think that America should attack China alone, along with attacking Britain, Russia, Japan, France, Germany, Finland, Australia, Iran, Iraq, Africa.. the list goes on.. all at once and you even believe you'd have a chance at winning.
I read it. My quote was aimed at that... You thing that you'd be able to destroy every country out there while you remain (in bad condition). it simply wouldn't happen. even if you blanketed the whole world you wouldn't survive. As soon as people got wif of the fact that you were launching a nuke there rest of the world would launch straight back at you... America has 50 states... all it takes is 50 Nukes I bet China as that alone, never mind the rest of the world. Your farm belt would be the main target, not Washington no, they'd be no point, your leaders wouldn't be hanging there nor would any thing important still be left there as it would be an obvious choice.Therumancer said:
No your military failures have been due to the fact that you think your better then you are. You go in singing "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!!!" whilst your enemies just stay silent and focused. This was the case with Vietnam... you were facing more desperate more disciplined warriors who instead of showing up flashing there flag every were, they hid, they flanked using guerilla hit and run tactics. You were ruthless and hell you used your technology to it's fullest (Napalm), heck you'd blast entire forest down with that stuff and hit more of your own men then the enemies.Therumancer said:
Why would you want to hurt civilians?, what do they have to do with the war... it's as much a pain on them then it is on you... even more to be honest. There in the thick of it the majority of the time. What?, you think we should be like the guy with the machine gun in the Helicopter in full metal jacket?, shooting men, women and children who have nothing to do with it which the sole idea in your head that it's justifiable because there not my countrymen.Therumancer said:
It's just good to have them when needed. However using them to destroy and entire city of innocent people who have nothing to do with the war because they have the rotten luck of being in the same city as some one you need to get rid of isn't what they should be used for.Therumancer said:
From the sound of things, you disturb me on a lot of levels.Therumancer said:
Any nuke matters.. as soon as it lands and I can bet enough will land to make it matter if were talking about the whole world going at you.Therumancer said:
Which is why we have an Alliance, America is a big asset to the UN as it is big country with a lot of nukes. Also if it did go head to head Russia would be taking on all of Europe, which is close enough to cluster fuck them via sending there armies straight in there. However a lot of nations were busy with the war in Iraq, I doubt we want to be fighting two wars all at the same time.Therumancer said:
Yep and so does most of the world... mainly the Japanese and China... heck China seems to be able to jump in and out of your defence network at a whim... they'd just hack in again and tear down your defences.Therumancer said:
Yes but Nationalism takes a nasty turn when it curves into racism... there's nothing wrong with loving your country but I don't see why you need to insult ever other country to do so. This the problem with the BNP they think the best way to big up there country is to insult others (along with other races).Therumancer said:Yes, I am Jingoistic, I admit so fully.
However in a world of US-Bashing I pretty much figure it's fully acceptable to be nationalistic back.
Yeah people like you are the main reason as to why.Therumancer said:
No only when you start being offensive to others do people say it's wrong I should report you.Therumancer said:
I wasn't trying to gain sympathy nor was I going to report you for disagreeing with you, I was going to report you for Racism... calling a full race of people evil is racism.Therumancer said:
