Eddo36

more troops = more people to shoot at = more people who shoots :crazy: thoughts?

Just a question, please explain.

Goodbye, and I would like some of what you're on as well. Either that or learn to read topics before you post in them.

... and the Canadians and Mexicans are not still occupying their ill-gotten plots of land? Either I'm totally missing your point, or I'd like to share what you are smoking. (w00t) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Either that or you didn't read the title of the topic before you start using personal insults.

But US is still doing it by being there....

Because what happened in America happened on a systematically much larger scale with the objective of conquering a vast area through organized means, leading to demographic change of a nature not entirely comparable to a whole lot of other historical examples. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As Meta pointed out, plenty of folks to blame. The Spainards managed to wipe out several civilizations in Central America and Mexico, and plop their own genetic profile in its stead. The Porteguese took care of those pesky natives in and around much of South America. The French wiped out most of the natives in Florida and what is now Central-Western USA, along with a healthy dollop of what is now Canada before the blood-thirsty Brits landed and began to wipe out those tribes along the east coast. Of course the Brits were behind France, Spain and Portugal in the North-South American native-slaughtering business because they were stretched a bit thin, having to liberate an entire continent (Australia) from those naughty aboriginal folks, not to mention the effort it took for them to claim one of the most populated countries in Asia (India) as its own. This all happened long before there was any population known as "American", because it was long before there was even a country known as America or the USA. So tell me again, why is North America... specifically the territory now known as the USA... being singled out for criticism and contempt here? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because that's who occupies it now?

http://www.videogamevoters.org/

No, for ethics is a way of life.

Or does your country merely not take liberty away from you? Different issue. Again, please think and maintain a healthy discussion.

Are you asking this as a serious question? Micro: Well, if you and your neighbour were the only two people in the world, you might be able to "liberate" his home and kick him out. Assuming that you are physically capable of subjugating him. Micro/Macro: Since it's unlikely that you are the the only two people in the world (which would make me your neighbour :ph34r: ), other rules apply. Part of being a member of society, be it a gang, a country, a political party etc. is the mutual commitments and rules that governs behaviour, responsibilites and so on. If you are both part of a society that has rules which states, that you can not kick out your neighbour because he is unable to hang on to his property, that society will gang up on you and kick you out in return, giving your neighbour his home back. Macro: This is where it gets messy and usually pretty bloody, when two organised groups (again, gangs, nations, political parties whatever) decides that they need to kick their neighbours out of their homes (because their homes needs to be "liberated" in the name of all that is right and holy and so on). The principle is the same as in the Micro example, might makes right. Sometimes you have a choice of which part you belong to, sometimes it's an accident of birth whether your are doing the "liberating" or being "liberated". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And why isn't the world a society by itself?

Why is there a difference between a macro scale and a micro scale?

Because you dislike the topic for it pertains to a real life issue not to your liking?

How many lives are worth a country's name? This about this before you reply please.

If that is true, then why did they make it against the law to kick your neighbor out of his house if you are stronger than he is?

Doesn't the whole continent rightfully belong to the Native Americans? If so, are Native Americans exempt from selective service? Otherwise, it's pretty messed up.

No difference, if you push paper around to get somebody killed, you're still part of the system of the killing machine. Blood is still on your hands. Ok, so refusing to go off and murder innocent women and children and taking a stand against injustice and dying for your beliefs would cause people to look upon you in shame? If it's the popular belief of everyone else in the country at that time, then yes it would cause people to look upon you not only in shame, but a coward.

If your country drafts you for a war that you really don't believe in (as in you don't believe in killing the other people because they did nothing wrong, or if not in a direct combat position, then push the paper work that gets them killed which is just as bad since the blood is still on your hands) and they will imprison with *unpleasant*-hardtime inmates or execute you for refusing the draft, will you still refuse? And in the war we're talking national offense, not national defense. If you choose refusing, you'll be executed and others will look upon you in shame. If you choose not to refuse and go on with it, you're no worse than the Nazi stormtroopers eh? So can you really blame the Nazi storm troopers for being part of Hitler's army? *edited by Walsingham for unpleasant references to Deliverance*

TIE Fighters

"Lord Nihilus, you escaped death by containing your consciousness within your armor. How?!"

Well that's what it says in the NEW star wars droid guide book. But wait! Does this now mean that Handmaiden doesn't exist in Star Wars? Only Disciple does?

Shouldn't Luke's force ghost look like an old man since he died in old age?

But not in the universe. And now that you already beat the game long ago, there is only so much to enjoy.

Game made by guys for guys.

It says so in this book. And the author of that book wrote the storyline for KOTOR. BOOYAH!

The real truth please. I appreciate honesty.