Killing people and breaking things.

[Mr._johngalt]

My subject is a pretty good definition of war. For the last 10+ years I worked, I was mostly in aerospace/defense contracting. I was proud of my career. I made aerial recon. cameras, submarine periscope motors,
Abrams tank components, and Hellfire missle parts. I saw tonight that
the Hellfire missle was used in the Afghanistan strike that killed 80 people.
Maybe the people were "bad guys". Still, a thoughtful person might
reflect a bit on their role in the carnage. Being as cynical as I am,
I believe wars are a normal part of the human condition. Even so, the
loss of life (on both sides) is disturbing.

JG

 

[JohnEyles]

My subject is a pretty good definition of war.

On a related note, I have heard technology defined as: large dangerous
things that move fast, things that blow up, and poisonous junk.

 

[dumpster56]

My subject is a pretty good definition of war. For the last 10+ years I worked, I was mostly in aerospace/defense contracting. I was proud of my career. I made aerial recon. cameras, submarine periscope motors,
Abrams tank components, and Hellfire missle parts. I saw tonight that
the Hellfire missle was used in the Afghanistan strike that killed 80 people.
Maybe the people were "bad guys". Still, a thoughtful person might
reflect a bit on their role in the carnage. Being as cynical as I am,
I believe wars are a normal part of the human condition. Even so, the
loss of life (on both sides) is disturbing.

JG

it is thought that the drone attacked the school because Zwahiri was thought to have been there. A week before election day and what a big fish it would be for the Bush republicans to get him or bin laden.

But alas it was a school with a bunch of young muslim boys and their teachers.

Or maybe in a day or two we will see the dead body of that sick terrorist from Egypt dead.

One can only hope so.

 

[Nords]

I made... submarine periscope motors

My first thought was: For whose military?

My second thought was: you're the one to blame!

 

[Mr._johngalt]

My first thought was: For whose military?

My second thought was: you're the one to blame!

Blame for what? Didn't your periscope work properly? We only made them for nuclear subs, so very small volume. BTW Nords, I always found your service here to be sub-standard.

JG

 

[excellent]

Wars don't just take lives, they destroy them. A single casualty is going to effect more than just a single individual, right? So it would reason that when an a-10 takes out a few schoolchildren it's not just the children that are affected. My friend's dad works making handheld chemical detectors. Wars are products of a few greedy people's goals of sustaining a huge industry for their own satisfaction, and the compliance of everyone else to work within the economic system that is in place as a result of this. I hate wars. I love life.

 

[samclem]

. . . I hate wars. I love life.

All sane people hate wars. But history has repeatedly proven there are far worse things. There could be no wars if at least one side did not find the alternative to war worse than the awful tragedy that war is.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Or to paraphrase Mao...

- Justice grows out of the barrel of a gun !

 

[Mwsinron]

Peace is great. However we all know that doesnt happen. So when it comes to war you might as well be the best at it.

 

[excellent]

You are thinking lateral actions between countries, I am presuming.
I am thinking that the act of violence upon a person whether it be physical or mental is an act of war, which is a very different notion than what most people perceive it as. I thnk that slapping your neighbor is declaring war, in a sense. So that should tell you to what degree of disgust I hold what others call wars in my mind.

 

[Mwsinron]

You are thinking lateral actions between countries, I am presuming.
I am thinking that the act of violence upon a person whether it be physical or mental is an act of war, which is a very different notion than what most people perceive it as. I thnk that slapping your neighbor is declaring war, in a sense. So that should tell you to what degree of disgust I hold what others call wars in my mind.

Life is harsh. Sometimes someone needs to pick up a branch.

 

[Patrick]

I thnk that slapping your neighbor is declaring war, in a sense.

Not most people's definition of war . . .

 

[samclem]

You are thinking lateral actions between countries, I am presuming.
I am thinking that the act of violence upon a person whether it be physical or mental is an act of war, which is a very different notion than what most people perceive it as. I thnk that slapping your neighbor is declaring war, in a sense. So that should tell you to what degree of disgust I hold what others call wars in my mind.

You think "mental violence" upon a person is an act of war?

Tell us more about these "wars in my mind."

 

[brewer12345]

You are thinking lateral actions between countries, I am presuming.
I am thinking that the act of violence upon a person whether it be physical or mental is an act of war, which is a very different notion than what most people perceive it as. I thnk that slapping your neighbor is declaring war, in a sense. So that should tell you to what degree of disgust I hold what others call wars in my mind.

Ex, don't bother trying to debate pacifism with the nutballs here. To thine own self be true. That is, express what you believe and ignore the caterwauling. They will never even agree with even the basis of your beliefs/arguments, so debate is pointless.

- From someone who has trodden the path here before

 

[donheff]

I thnk that slapping your neighbor is declaring war, in a sense.

Don't you think it is valuable to distinguish levels of seriousness and reserve words like "war" and "hate" to the higher level? When you use a serious term to describe a trivial matter you risk trivializing the real thing. Kind of like describing a leer from a construction worker as "rape."

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Kind of like describing a leer from a construction worker as "rape."

In the future, left leaning libs will call this "hate eye movement" and will
attempt to criminalize it. (No I did not forget the smiley).

JG

 

[azanon]

In the future, left leaning libs will call this "hate eye movement" and will
attempt to criminalize it. (No I did not forget the smiley).

JG

You actually think a democrat is more likely to put in policy against any form of sexual advances? "Liberal" - What does that term mean JG? It is more liberal to allow something or not allow something. This is elementary stuff - i know you can do it JG.

Azanon

 

[Mr._johngalt]

You actually think a democrat is more likely to put in policy against any form of sexual advances? "Liberal" - What does that term mean JG? It is more liberal to allow something or not allow something. This is elementary stuff - i know you can do it JG.

Azanon

Of course I can do it. I question if you can

Who is most responsible for "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws?
Bleeding heart libs, that's who (Gosh I hope you won't dispute that).
These concepts are nutty in the extreme, but you will get more of the same
in the future. It's a lock. Defining "liberal" and "conservative" is useless
as the slow drift to collectivist thought police will not abate. Orwell's
1984 nightmare didn't happen on time, but it is coming.

JG

 

[Patrick]

Defining "liberal" and "conservative" is useless
as the slow drift to collectivist thought police will not abate. Orwell's
1984 nightmare didn't happen on time, but it is coming.

Megadittos!

 

[azanon]

Of course I can do it. I question if you can

Who is most responsible for "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws?
Bleeding heart libs, that's who (Gosh I hope you won't dispute that).
These concepts are nutty in the extreme, but you will get more of the same
in the future. It's a lock. Defining "liberal" and "conservative" is useless
as the slow drift to collectivist thought police will not abate. Orwell's
1984 nightmare didn't happen on time, but it is coming.

JG

Now i getting confused by the dual discussion. Are we discussion which party would implement more sexual prohibition of any kind or limitations relating to the first amendment? The reason i ask is because I think you're under the (mistaken) impression they're associated.

The party that tries to take away civil liberities is the Republicans.

 

[lets-retire]

I think what he is saying is the libs feel freedom of speech is great unless someone is made to feel the least bit uncomfortable. If anybody is made to feel uncomfortable then the speech must be restricted, unless of course the speech was made by a lib, then it is just misunderstood.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I think what he is saying is the libs feel freedom of speech is great unless someone is made to feel the least bit uncomfortable. If anybody is made to feel uncomfortable then the speech must be restricted, unless of course the speech was made by a lib, then it is just misunderstood.

Damn fine.

JG

 

[azanon]

I think what he is saying is the libs feel freedom of speech is great unless someone is made to feel the least bit uncomfortable. If anybody is made to feel uncomfortable then the speech must be restricted, unless of course the speech was made by a lib, then it is just misunderstood.

Oh i know what you mean now; like when my atheist kid is someday forced to listen to a classroom of students praying in the morning in a public school, and made to feel like an outcast if he doesn't do it too. So, those kinds of "freedom of speech". Ok, i'm with you now. Yeah, we dont like stuff like that.

Lets get back to which party is more likely to implement sexual inhibitions. This one's easy.

Azanon

 

[brewer12345]

I think what he is saying is the libs feel freedom of speech is great unless someone is made to feel the least bit uncomfortable. If anybody is made to feel uncomfortable then the speech must be restricted, unless of course the speech was made by a lib, then it is just misunderstood.

You mean like when protesters are ejected from a "free speech zone" (AKA holding pen) because they drove to the president's speech with the "wrong" bumper sticker on their car?

You mean like when the vice president (emphasis on "vice") sends the FBI/Secret Service to harass a citizen who expressed his views of the administration's policies?

You mean like when the ruling party allows federal agents to run wild across the land without bothering with all that pesky subpoena stuff?

Sounds more like a Rethuglican issue to me.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Now i getting confused by the dual discussion. Are we discussion which party would implement more sexual prohibition of any kind or limitations relating to the first amendment? The reason i ask is because I think you're under the (mistaken) impression they're associated.

The party that tries to take away civil liberities is the Republicans.

Maybe this will help. Forget the party labels. I am saying "bleeding heart
libs" think they can protect every perceived slight and dent to fragile
egos/bodies/groups by passing more and more laws (hate speech and hate
crime laws are 2 good examples). Now I see they don't want any
contact during "recess" for kids. The same thing is true for "helmet laws"
"seat belt laws" , "gun laws", etc. Removing individual choice to protect us
from ourselves, so they can "feel good" and because they "care". It's all BS. Living is a contact sport. Passing goofy laws to try to protect everyone from
everything is immoral. In that way lies madness, and yet that is the way
we are going, as sure as the compass to the pole.

JG