Moderator: Community Team
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.





















Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
















Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
















riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.





















THEY DUN HURT US SO WE'RE GONNA DUN HURT THEM BACK.
YOU IS WITH US OR YOU IS AGAINST US.
FOR JEEEEEBUUUUS.












canadian woman wrote:Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The British Soldier.
3. The Canadian Soldier.
4. The US Soldier, and
5. The Australian Soldier
One died for your soul,
the other four, for you and your children's Freedom.











































BigBallinStalin wrote:That's weird. Usually, I see "yada yada yada" instead of "blah blah blah."
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.










MeDeFe wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:That's weird. Usually, I see "yada yada yada" instead of "blah blah blah."
"Yada yada yada" is for when someone fires of what they believe to be points in fairly quick succession, the tone of the letter is more on the droning side, hence the "blah blah blah".
MeDeFe wrote:[But yeah, it's sad that some people think it's a good idea to lower themselves to the same level as those they claim to be superior to.

















natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"








Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.

































Neoteny wrote:Do we, or do we not, consider ourselves to have the upper hand when it comes to morality, integrity, and justice?
Or do you not care?














john9blue on Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:44 pm
we have killed more civilians than the al-qaeda terrorists (by orders of magnitude) and have been fighting them since before 9/11
i don't really care that we are "lowering ourselves to the terrorists' level" because sometimes you have to fight dirty. anyone who thinks we shouldn't is willing to sacrifice how many soldiers to maintain our "dignity" as a country?
by BigBallinStalin » Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:01 am
It's ok, john. I don't care too much about the moral arguments with terrorism either.
Here's my general problem with US foreign policy regarding the "long war":
1) If the government's method of executing certain leaders is the most effective (e.g. CIA drone strikes), then terrorism in the long-run will decrease.
2) If the terrorists seek substitutes and/or become more decentralized while remaining just as effective, then the current US methods are prolonging and worsening the problem.
I keep concluding that #2 is actually happening, yet what's crazy about US foreign policy is that those relevant bureaucracies tend to be geared toward thinking a certain way--which explains the unrelenting faith in #1 (caveat: issues of #2 are considered, yet the means aren't really changed).
Since the government exerts a monopoly on those services, then no potential firms are created to seek cheaper and more effective solutions (via competition in the market). Since the government's costs are incurred on the friends and family of the "collateral damage," and since the loss of such government investments are usually always experienced by the citizens (e.g. future 9-11 attack, anti-American sentiment, etc.), then the government won't change its decisions as quickly as say a private organization as it responds to profit and loss incentives.
So, with a bad feedback system, we're stuck with #1 until something bad happens, or terrorists innovate and find new means of achieving their goals (via terrorism, insurgency, who knows).










































qwert wrote:yep,you right, some 100000 minimum killed civilian in afghanistan and iraq, for 3000 killed in 9/11. Hmm,how much more need to be killed,so that score be even?

























qwert wrote:yep,you right, some 100000 minimum killed civilian in afghanistan and iraq, for 3000 killed in 9/11. Hmm,how much more need to be killed,so that score be even?






























Neoteny wrote:Yeah, you guys are looking at this backward. The terrorists did, and are doing, something morally wrong. We are justified, indeed required by our national integrity, to bring them to justice. If they are resisting that, well, certain measures need to be taken.
BigBallinStalin wrote:It's ok, john. I don't care too much about the moral arguments with terrorism either.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"








Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.






























Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl