Just another political arguing thread

[Delfos]

Dai said the very truth, Europe is so much more educated towards things like this. Why do we avoid war and to cross a tolerant barrier? because we had 2 world wars on our shoulders, the outcome was amasing, we had extremism of left and right wings, we have the balkans, we have a completly different culture and religion on our back doors, and those doors wanna get open to the EU and we wanna allow it, IF they respect our rules (Turkey), we had the Berlin wall, that got us the non-sense of building barriers, and still Bush wants and is building a wall on south border, and building a wall in Iraq. That wall will collapse some day. Theres a scenario explored on The Day After Tomorrow of americans trying to run to Mexico, what if theres a wall there? lol anyway it's just a stupid scenario but can be truem there's all those stupid and idiotic remarks of building a wall.

Lets not forget Portugal has an US base in Lajes - Açores (Azores), in the middle of the Atlantic, they love that base, dont you? we do not like to have it, there's CIA planes passing there that got Portugal under investigation, theres carrier planes crossing the Atlantic filled with missiles and bombs of all kinds to support Israel, theres alot of stuff like that going on that makes us hate having that base in our soil. But otherwise, we dont really care, as long as they stay away from our main land and business, and dont get CIA planes passing there, and dont support Israel through there..we shall not care...lol

[DynamicUno]

A killing is still a killing...

This is a fact, and I agree with that.

...and makes whoever does it a moster even if it's by proxy.

This is opinion. I think that one SHOULD, in fact kill any person that comes into a country with deadly intent, or substantial reason to believe they have deadly intent. Plus, as a "capitalist", I prefer that my tax money doesn't go to provide these scumbags with comfortable jail cells, so I advocate getting rid of them to not waste tax money.

When you say that you should kill whoever comes into a country with deadly intent... isn't that itself a deadly intent? I meant, you intend to kill whoever meets a certain criteria. That's certainly intent, and deadly enough.

I have trouble embracing the belief that "people who kill are wrong, so we should kill them... which is magically not wrong."

A killing is a killing, as you already agreed.

[DynamicUno]

is this about the installation of american anti-missile launchers across EU? I'm totally against it. As empire said we'r able to defend ourselves, lets not forget USA didn't help in WWI, wouldn't help in WWII if it wasnt Pearl Harbor, and a fight against emerging different political or economical systems.

The US didn't help in World War I? I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to qualify that statement with some serious proof. A lot of times people say "America didn't even join til the war was almost over!" which overlooks the fact that the war ended so quickly after that expressly BECAUSE the United States joined. At the time of the American intervention, the Central Powers were dominating the skies (the so-called "Fokker Scourge") and were manhandling Allied forces, giving up only hundreds of meters in exchange for massive attrition rates. The US brought not only a massive industrial base and additional manpower, but also innovation, a new sense of strategic and tactical warfare which managed to turn the tide. To say the US didn't help in World War I is to fail to understand the conclusion of the conflict entirely.

As for claiming the United States wouldn't have helped in World War II without Pearl Harbour, not only is that pure conjecture, it's demonstrably untrue as well. Programs like Lend-Lease and the Flying Tigers expeditionary force were in effect long before the attack on Pearl Harbour.

[Talmann]

I must again say... people do not understand these days. If some guy murders/rapes someone, odds are they're still going to do it. So, even though it IS a killing (which I have stated is still a killing, and therefore wrong), it would be for the betterment of humanity as a whole. This is because a) these people won't be around to bother us monetarily or mortally, and b) people will think twice before they decide to rape/murder someone. Nowadays, people see all these criminals in fancy cells getting fed the rest of their life. So they decide that killing ISN'T bad, because it would make their life easier. THAT'S why I say we should kill these people, THAT'S why America is so messed up. People don't see life as important, neither their own, or anyone else's. So, now that I've again cleared my point, does anyone not understand it?

Had America not intervened in WW II, chances are that the Cold War would have been between Germany and the US. They were as such provoked by the need to save themselves as well as European money.

So you would rather have the Nazi regime, which was far more organized, than the USSR Stalin-led government? Something tells me that the population of Europe would be much smaller... (Something also tells me that I was right about that National-Socialist thing... )

[Solnath]

So we should disregard human life because a) we can't be bothered to help them actually and b) fear is good?

[Delfos]

in WWI USA joined at the end, that didnt avoided the destruction, plus the majority of USA presence during WWI was volunteer, was normaly people that joined the european ranks, not US army, same for the spanish civil war, americans and english joined as volunteer. and no your country didnt wanna go to war if it wasnt the Pearl Harbor, President Truman says so. And again didnt prevent the destruction, Almost whole France was invaded already. We'r talking about military actions..not aid. The statement is about the instalation of american missile silos.

another thing, europe wasnt dominated by the nazi germany, they just invaded the opposing countries. for example the URSS was an ally, got invaded when Hitler realised he had to, blame the relations they had. Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, and other would be never invaded....we had our own Hitlers anyway.

[Talmann]

So we should disregard human life because a) we can't be bothered to help them actually and b) fear is good?

Yes, these people are beyond help, and to believe they aren't is to believe in divine intervention and not the fallibility of man, and I do not believe in such. Fear, in this case, is good to a point. It serves to slow the amount of civilian murders or rapes because people (as they are only humans) want to live and don't want to be sentenced to death for committing these crimes. Therefore, they will not commit them.

another thing, europe wasnt dominated by the nazi germany, they just invaded the opposing countries. for example the URSS was an ally, got invaded when Hitler realised he had to, blame the relations they had. Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, and other would be never invaded....we had our own Hitlers anyway.

a) it was a hypothetical situation, b) Hitler only wanted Russia as an ally so he wouldn't get fought on two fronts, which eventually happened anyway, c) Something tells me he would've kept invading, seeing as he wanted to be the world ruler, d) After Hitler helped in the overthrow of the said countries of Spain and Portugal, he essentially appointed the rulers of those respective nations. Italy was his ally, and he considered them weak and could've taken Italy at any time, Switzerland probably could've kept the Germans at bay for years.

[The Empire]

Yes, these people are beyond help, and to believe they aren't is to believe in divine intervention and not the fallibility of man, and I do not believe in such. Fear, in this case, is good to a point. It serves to slow the amount of civilian murders or rapes because people (as they are only humans) want to live and don't want to be sentenced to death for committing these crimes. Therefore, they will not commit them.

There you are just dead wrong in a number of ways.
1) People DO change without divine intervention if there is a proper, positive incentive to change.
2) Fear DOESN'T work in that way due to the fact that NO criminal expects to be caught and if they aren't caught what does any penalty matter? Yup, that's it, making an example or many doesn't mean shit to crime rates.
3) Fear does however make people with access to guns more prone to using them just in case, most often resulting in innocent deaths.

[Talmann]

There you are just dead wrong in a number of ways.
1) People DO change without divine intervention if there is a proper, positive incentive to change.
2) Fear DOESN'T work in that way due to the fact that NO criminal expects to be caught and if they aren't caught what does any penalty matter? Yup, that's it, making an example or many doesn't mean shit to crime rates.
3) Fear does however make people with access to guns more prone to using them just in case, most often resulting in innocent deaths.

1) An example, oh wise one? Since we are mostly American, we are more narrow-minded and cannot fathom such concepts.
2) This is true, except in the rare case where they do it for attention (see the West Virginia Massacre). However, we can hope.
3) So we should outlaw guns, making the black market skyrocket and make crime spread? This doesn't solve any problems... 

[Delfos]

d) After Hitler helped in the overthrow of the said countries of Spain and Portugal, he essentially appointed the rulers of those respective nations. Italy was his ally, and he considered them weak and could've taken Italy at any time, Switzerland probably could've kept the Germans at bay for years.

the what now? overthrow what?
At the end of the century we made the regicide at Portugal, we killed our king and his son in the public square (not like the french, was rather funny, the king, his son and his wife were passing by the public square with the horse car, someone went through the door and got out from the other. Alot of people there selling on the market, no-one cared about it, after that they were really joyful for the regicide)..what happens next is amasing, alot of governments during a month, weeks or even days, anyway around the WWI, the generals got bored and overthrew the 'instability', wich led to a military dictatorship, wich was soon overthrown by a (finally) stable government. Salazar came the way up like Hitler did, leading the government to a right-wing fascist and conservatorist dictatorship. We had the longest dictatorship in europe. Anyway here the spannish history mixes up with ours, Franco tries to take his ideals up front, somehow the people didnt like much..the king was a puppet back then. Anyway, civil war came up, Franco asked Hitler from Germany, and Salazar from Portugal for help. Hitler thought this was a great testing ground, so send most of the experiments, mostly pre-WWII armament. Gonna ask you if you'r ignorant, do you know about Guernica? Well, another Hitler's testing ground, Hitler sent experimental airplanes and bombs by boat to Portugal, landed at Lisbon, then they were carried by trucks to spannish soil and launched to destroy Guernica. Hitler didnt overthrow anything, he was just joyful testing his machines in reality. Anywhen, Franco was loosing the war, he was actually doomed, trapped inside a fort, surrounded by spannish civil army or whatever they called themselves. He asked an ultimate help to Portugal and we sent our Infantry Scouts, got to be known as Viriatos, who freed Franco from the trap, and only because of that, he got victory after victory, till he reached the capital, installing the monarchy he allways desired, with the king of Spain as his puppet, and himself as the ruler. hope that i helped you on this. Hitler would never invade the Iberian Peninsule, he wasnt stupid. Actually..let me get more juice on this, he needed us. Portugal was the main supplier of wolframium to germany, actually we supplied both to nazis and the allies, same goes to the other kinds of supplies. Something that ashames the portuguese a bit, we have alot of nazi gold.

Im glad he existed in history, he taught us all great lessons. It's why he existed that Europe is such better place now.

[Talmann]

^ is why I'm not good at modern history   

All I remembered was that Hitler helped out. Also, totally forgot you were Portugese and would know better than me, sorry 

Now, back to the conservative/liberal mud-slinging! Have at you!     

[The Empire]

1) People breaking addiction, (though the 7 steps method also doesn't work)

3) Just outlawing guns in the US won't work as you would have to decrease the number of guns first or else the black market for guns might skyrocket. But seriously, all other nations that has stricter gun-laws still don't have as much violent crimes, thus it must be something cultural or the fact that it's the nation with the simplest access to guns in the world or a ccombination of the two.

[Delfos]

true, but as we do around here, there's a period of around 2 months to deliver illegal weaponary, after that everyone gets busted. Because of this action, most of the PNR militants (Portuguese Nationalist Party) got arrested for possession of illegal weapons. smart thing, we have excuse to bust those guys :p most are totally ignorant, the yell LIFE TO HITLER, it's quite stupid, it would have been better if they said the portuguese dictator, after all they are nationalists...right? anyway they dont know anything about Hitler in 1st place, and theres groups everywhere beating in black people and (whoever they think) communists, once they beated a friend of mine for nothing, they just asked if he was communist, he doesnt even care for politics, look how stupid they are. Great thing now we can call the cops and ask for chasing the guys instad of just a sleep over at the police,

[The Empire]

I wasn't changing stances Delfos, I am Swedish, we have very strict laws on gun-ownership.

[Solnath]

KR, the two-step method works* though:

1) Get over it.
2) Move along, nothing to see here.

*guarantee void if tested.