213374U

I definitely need to pay Denmark a visit. And Kaftan... is that Leonard Nimoy? :ph34r: Also, are you really trying to get a warning/the ban?

Uh... ok... I think.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say you are just being ripped off. All I know is that the oil of Iraq wasn't available before, but now it is. And rewarding the families of martyrs is, at most, supporting terrorism. Saddam wasn't actually funding terrorist operations or organizing them himself in any way. Do you want to make me believe that you went to war just because he was giving money to the families of dead terrorists? That's even worse than the WMD excuse.

That is false. No ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and any terrorist organization has been found so far. Just like no trace of WMDs has been found. You did it for the oil. Killing for resources is the oldest form of war. At least be honest. Well, yeah. He wasn't officially in the CIA payroll, I guess. But CIA operatives were sent to train him and his buddies in guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and terror tactics to use against the soviets. That is what made him so dangerous. And exactly how are Venezuela and Cuba a threat to the US? Last time I checked, they didn't have any ICBMs pointed at you. Their military power and political influence are laughable, too. You might not like them, but a threat?

I honestly don't know. I would really like to think that if the US went to war with North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or some other country, Western POWs would be treated according to the Conventions. But so far, it seems that the only ones that respect those agreements are those who "invented" the principles on which they are founded. And after Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, not even by the US. I agree, to a point. You are right in that no dictator can undermine the power of an idea, but since usually dictators already have the international community against them, they really don't lose anything by violating the Conventions, too. Even if the whole world respected those Conventions and were adherents to the idea of innate human rights, it only takes one dictator (or democratically elected president) to violate human rights. So much for the power of ideas. The difference is that he wasn't backed or funded by any governments. Small countries with little in the way of economic or military resources are resorting to terrorism as their way to cowardly wage war against those they could not attack openly. That is something that international law and justice courts are not ready to deal with.

My bad. I didn't mean to word it in such a manner that it would sound euphemistic. I don't support what's happening in Guantanamo. But I don't condemn it, either. As I said before, there's no easy solution to that. And while it's your choice not to be afraid of those people and you are quite right that the situation there is only a breeding camp for even more terrorism and hate of the US, it's safer to have some of those people locked up. No. Luxuries and the right to religious practice have nothing to do with dignity. I could say that driving around in a Ferrari makes me human in my eyes. Since most people can't afford a Ferrari (myself included), I could argue that this society is violating the dignity of the majority, because it's the system that prevents everyone from having one. That statement is true from a literal standpoint. However, that doesn't mean that in some countries, the majority does as you say. And that is what I was referring to. I'm not quite so sure. Granted, everyone's a supporter of the concept of innate human rights when it's oneself that's being sent to Guantanamo. But before that, were they? And if they were not, why should they be given a different treatment that what they would give us? Um, yeah. While all nations are supposed to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, not all respect them when the time comes. Iraq before the new government was installed is an example of that. I'm not sure what would they do to captured US soldiers in North Korea in the event of a war, either. I'm sure you can find more examples yourself.

As a luxury I understand anything that isn't necessary for survival. Canteens, the text of the Geneva Convention, and anything related to religion are luxuries under that definition. They aren't going to die or suffer permanent damage in a physical or psychical way due to deprivation of these things. Plus, while they have not been granted the official POW status, they are de facto POWs, many of which are suspected of terrorism. Granted, they are not doing things by the book. I already admitted that. But again, would you rather have them released? There just isn't an easy way out of this situation and the solution dictated by ethics or law is against common sense. For starters, people are detained on the basis of "intelligence" everyday. They become suspects, they are interrogated, and if further evidence or indications of evidence isn't found, they are released. But anyway. Obviously, the easy way to solve this is to have a 100% legalistic approach to the matter. But I find it funny that the only part of the western culture those people seem to accept is the part that supposedly would protect them from this situation. They don't even have that kind of laws in their countries, and they sure as hell wouldn't respect the so vaunted Geneva Convention if they captured any soldiers. They don't really believe in all of that. Draw your own conclusions. Now, now. Are you trying to say that the same amount of popular action against a flawed justice is being taken against the situation in Guantanamo? Please. And sorry, but a children rapist and murderer deserves nothing except for perhaps constant whippings. I am tired of seeing murderers, wife beaters, rapists, and other assorted scum get away with sentences of five years. So don't tell me that prisoners are degraded and their welfare is being threatened when all they have to do in prison is sit back, watch TV, have warm and nice meals and let society fund it all. And as for the last part of the paragraph, yeah. I guess it really isn't the prisoners' fault. Nope. It's society's for not paying them accomodations in the Ritz Hotel so they aren't stigmatized. The current penal and justice systems are full of flaws, but being too hard on the prisoners isn't one of them. A fictional difference. Is there a reason with enough moral strength to warrant mass murder? Even national sovereignty? The only reason I can think of that could justify taking another life would be self-defense. But seldom any wars are fought with mass annihilation as a goal. And If taking lives for any other reason is wrong, the only ethically acceptable option is unconditional surrender, to avoid both own and enemy casualties. War can't be justified through morality. That is a contradiction. Economic, social, political, or territorial reasons are the only things that can explain (not justify since that has moral implications) a war. One can only hope that the risks outweigh the gains. No, I don't think it's possible to do that. Violence is something that changes the mindset of both who exercises it and who suffers it. No amount of training can, in my opinion, make every soldier impervious to the effects of both using violence as an instrument and being the target of the same thing. But I agree, that shouldn't stop us from trying to minimize the effects.

You are quite right. This isn't blackjack. There is not a chance that a software product will be faulty. There is a certainty. No software is flawless. Welcome to the real world. Now, when you buy a game on the Xbox, you should know you will have to live with whatever bugs that game has. You don't like it? Well, I didn't like having to wait two more months, either. And please stop beating the dead horse already.

It's nice of you to be so partial. I see nothing in all of those articles but supposed abuses. Nothing has been proven so far. As for the violations of human rights, all I see is luxury deprivation, but no actual physical abuses. Extracted the following from one of your articles: Sorry, but terrorists and POWs aren't afforded luxuries. It's bad enough that common prisoners are. But terrorists? Don't make me freaking laugh. I'm sure there are innocent people being held in Guantanamo, and it's unfortunate. But don't forget that the majority of them are probably not and were locked up for a good reason. It's unfair, but life isn't fair. There are lots of innocent people being held up in regular jails too because of a flawed system but I don't hear anyone complain. What's the alternative, releasing them? I'd rather not have that. There's a common misconception that war has to be "legal" and "humane". Do you realize the hypocrisy in "legalizing" the mass murder of people? War is a crude and unlawful thing. Welcome to the real world. Oh, and yes. The French resistance during WWII was a terrorist organization, too. It doesn't matter that they only terrorized the nazis, or that they had a good reason for doing so. It doesn't change what they were. What are you trying to prove?

No, that's not quite what I had in mind.

You have been reading too many of our good friend Kaftan's threads. "

Beat both of you n00bs to it. :owned:

Unfortunately that would mean that OE endorse Aurora's work. And I don't think they can afford it, LA being what they are with regards to fans modding their games.

It's always fun when people totally make up the stuff of their first post.

It sure seems a short fix list for the amount of time it took them to release it.

Where did I say it was out of kindness or ideology? But can you assure that without the US intervention WWII would have been won? The Germans were close to completely overrunning the Soviet Union, and even after they were driven back at Kursk no European country was in any shape to take the fighting back to them without further support. Whether the USSR would have been able to lead a successful counterstrike without US support against German forces is highly debatable. We don't know either if they would have kept pressing foward after they had driven the Germans out of Soviet soil, considering the huge losses they had already suffered. So, yeah. We really didn't need the US.

Nah, I wasn't complaining about the personal attacks, I couldn't care less about those. I was just pointing out that he resorted to those when he found himself unable to refute me. That's the difference. Want me to refute his arguments? I can do that, too. Wrong. That's just one of the aspects of patriotism. Well, sorry about that. I hear it's pretty comfortable as far as POW camps go. Well, considering that NATO forces are made up mostly of US equipment and personnel, I'd say we depend somewhat on their military. And let's not forget it was the US that came to the rescue in WWII. So... yeah. For the nth time, fascism and national socialism are not other words for patriotism. You tell your friends that. Is that better, Ros?

And that's what happens when proud illiteracy meets raw stupidity.

I wouldn't know. I am the result of the circumstances I've grown in. Would my views be different? Possibly. But that doesn't necessarily mean they would be any more right. Still, I try to have an objective, detached opinion about all this. Why aren't Julius Caesar's or Alexander the Great's campaigns considered "great human tragedies", but today's wars are? The goals aren't any different, only the means. Why are the great military leaders of old called "conquerors" and those who start wars today are called murderers? It seems that we would like to see ourselves as "enlightened" when compared to the people of the old times. Sure, we have TFT displays and sliced bread, but as far as politics are concerned, things haven't changed significantly. I really wish I could think of a world that could work without war, but that's just wishful thinking. History puts everyone in their rightful place. For a civilian that is correct. But it's not a soldier's place to question orders. If they did, the chain of command would crumble, and the army would stop working as a cohesive fighting force. That is what military Justice is for. You might argue that then the whole idea of an organization that turns men into automatons is absurd, but that's beside the point. If you can think of something better, feel free to share it with us. Obviously all of that doesn't apply in totalitarian regimes, but that's a whole different story.

So it's not your fault when you kill innocent people. You just did what they told you to. SUBJECTIVE MORALITY GO Yep. That's how it works. Nobody said it had to be pretty or leave a nice aftertaste.

Those aren't really classes. For instance, the Dathomir Nightsisters are just Force Adepts, from a class standpoint. It would be like considering "stormtrooper" and "rebel trooper" two different classes.

That's what I think.