Why is it ok for the US to develop...., page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 06:31 PM by ken10
Originally posted by N. Tesla
reply to post by ken10


like i stated above maybe you dont want war but we need war. war is nessacery. it keeps the population down. it keeps other countries in check. ever get into a fight in high school? was it wanted? but it was necessary otherwise you'd be a loser.


Be careful what you wish for ?

America has made known the countries on its hit list and i wouldn't be surprised that if America starts on another from that list, It could find the rest of them uniting very fast for a strike (I know i would)..........And whilst America would then have its troops already spread in three conflicts.....It could find itself caught with its pants well and truly down.


reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 07:33 PM by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Wildbob77


Well I for one never believed the US Military and Russia were really reducing their nuclear capabilities. I could be wrong sure, but it's what I believe. Most of what they do is entirely unavailable to the Publics eye. The only reason they would reduce nuclear capabilities imho is because they are comfortable with the nuclear submarines that have patrolling the Oceans. I don't believe there is some humane goal to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether.


reply posted on 8-11-2008 @ 06:30 AM by Woland
reply to post by N. Tesla


You don't understand Darwinism if you think it explains foreign relations and war-time behaviour.

The problem with your argument is that you would have to approve of the bombing of your country by an usurped government (for example, Afghanistan's) as acceptable behaviour. Yet, at the same time you'd be outraged and demand an equal or superior reaction. While this is logically acceptable, it's extremely weak.

You offered the argument that you'd support the death of large numbers of non-combative Iraqi people if it meant saving the life of an American. As with Japan in the second world war, the United States and it's allies are the aggressors in Iraq war, yet you don't seem to appreciate that there would have been millions of Japanese that would have been like you in not supporting their country's aggressive war. Wouldn't you and your family be innocent should the ousted leaders of Iraq manage to bomb your home town? Thus, doesn't that make those Japanese civilians innocent victims?

Doesn't the equanimity of logic dictate that both actions would be wrong and, to use your approach, evolutionarily inferior. Everyone bombing everyone is not an evolutionarily stable strategy.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by Woland]


reply posted on 8-11-2008 @ 11:16 AM by Anonymous ATS




reply posted on 8-11-2008 @ 11:37 AM by N. Tesla
Originally posted by Woland
reply to post by N. Tesla


You don't understand Darwinism if you think it explains foreign relations and war-time behaviour.

The problem with your argument is that you would have to approve of the bombing of your country by an usurped government (for example, Afghanistan's) as acceptable behaviour. Yet, at the same time you'd be outraged and demand an equal or superior reaction. While this is logically acceptable, it's extremely weak.

You offered the argument that you'd support the death of large numbers of non-combative Iraqi people if it meant saving the life of an American. As with Japan in the second world war, the United States and it's allies are the aggressors in Iraq war, yet you don't seem to appreciate that there would have been millions of Japanese that would have been like you in not supporting their country's aggressive war. Wouldn't you and your family be innocent should the ousted leaders of Iraq manage to bomb your home town? Thus, doesn't that make those Japanese civilians innocent victims?

Doesn't the equanimity of logic dictate that both actions would be wrong and, to use your approach, evolutionarily inferior. Everyone bombing everyone is not an evolutionarily stable strategy.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by Woland]



i said that darwinism should apply to the soldiers not the civilians. and there are no innocents in war.

lets say that your country is at war and a soldier comes to your house and tries to kill you. do you stay innocent and get slaughtered or do you kill him?

if you kill him you are no longer innocent. and if you choose to die.. well there isnt much to be said about that.

nukes should be developed as a constant fear. fear keeps people in check. the only reason every single country isnt at war with each other right now is because they know that the war would end in complete death for everyone.


reply posted on 8-11-2008 @ 12:26 PM by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
If you are talking about 911 - well there is a possiblity that a fraction / group within the American Government perpetrated the destruction of the two towers in order to manipulate the American People into "fear mode".

The ememy / traitor could have come from within and not "The Middle East".

Until mankind learns to control his "monkey rage" we are doomed to remain a violent and primitive creature.

As David Icke said: "PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION".
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Nano Drones Flying in Formation
  Posted 10 days ago with 15 member flags
FPS RUSSIA
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags
Spinel Thin Transparent Ceramic Armor defeats Barrett .50 Cal BMG
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
Self-steering Bullet Researched
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags
Shockrounds take out three of your five senses.
  Posted 3 days ago with 5 member flags
Defective Ammunition Warning
  Posted 3 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 15 hours ago, 68 replies