THe latter. Wonder who we'll be at war with next.

---

(August 15, 2011 at 11:22 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Sadly, war is inevitable.

Humans don't seem anywhere near ready to give up that pursuit. I still believe we as a race will bring ourselves to near extinction before we figure it out .... maybe several times more.

Nah... 1 billion humans (1/7th of Earth's population of humans) is far from 'going extinct'.

Hell, a million humans (1/7000th) is far from going extinct. You'd have to do a pretty freaking amazing job at annihilating humans to do that.

---

(August 16, 2011 at 2:13 am)Minimalist Wrote: We need to attack Belgium....or Morocco....

I am a fan of war with gain... crush Mexico and annex it. Would certainly stop the immigration problem from Mexico, and look at all the new industry and territory.

I do much like this plan... why they are thinking warring on the other side of the planet is beyond me... very easy for your 'fleet' to get cut off and crushed. Expensive to resupply, more expensive to maintain, ridiculously expensive to reinforce.

You leave distant assaults for very special occasions when it is worth the cost... and most of those should be performed with a minimal number of forces.

My vote goes to Mexico, which we should immediately annex.

Quote:I am a fan of war with gain... crush Mexico and annex it.

Too tough. Every one of those motherfuckers has an AK-47 thanks to American drug laws. They'd kick our ass.

Besides, if you annex Mexico the idiots running Arizona and Texas would go ape shit looking for someone else to hate.

Could annex all N and S america. There's always fucking penguins Min.

War-Mongering America Terrorizes the World
The USA's massive military campaigns are both strategically ineffective and morally indefensible.
September 9, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/41430/

I've previewed this post and it showed up. I've tried to commit it to post 3 times and it doesn't. Whoever hackfucked this forum, should be beat to death with a giant cactus. Because they're hella better than any alleged IT masters we allegedly have on board who to this day can't fix shit about it.

The webmaster of this site should get a refund for all the BS this entails. Fuck!

All military campaigns are ultimately morally indefensible Judas. There's nothing honorable or morally upright in pulling the trigger on another Joe, ever. Sure you could have a good cause, but the other soldier is just a soldier.

(August 16, 2011 at 2:01 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:

(August 15, 2011 at 11:22 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Sadly, war is inevitable.

Humans don't seem anywhere near ready to give up that pursuit. I still believe we as a race will bring ourselves to near extinction before we figure it out .... maybe several times more.

Nah... 1 billion humans (1/7th of Earth's population of humans) is far from 'going extinct'.

Hell, a million humans (1/7000th) is far from going extinct. You'd have to do a pretty freaking amazing job at annihilating humans to do that.

---

One million humans is a lot yes, when they're all living in the same city. Spread all around the world however, is pretty damn few humans. Especially when you consider that most humans today are not equipped to deal with living off the land. What would you do without your precious XBox and your tap water and your Ipod and your pre-wrapped ground hamburger Sae? You might survive, most would not. You're also not factoring in the possibility that accessibility to good drinking water could possibly be very limited and natural food sources such as fishing and hunting might be completely non-existent. There's too many factors to justify a simple, "nah". Add to the fact that .0001% of any species remaining alive is considered to be on the verge of "near extinction" regardless of it's former size.


I stand by what I said.

(August 16, 2011 at 4:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: All military campaigns are ultimately morally indefensible Judas. There's nothing honorable or morally upright in pulling the trigger on another Joe, ever. Sure you could have a good cause, but the other soldier is just a soldier.

Yes, war sucks. Everyone would agree that doesn't have a $take in the declaration of war. However, humans aren't exactly passive creatures in the first place. If we didn't war on the global stage, we'd be left to war on forums, in neighborhoods, etc... As we do now and as the headlines show each and every day.

What's disingenuous, I believe, about American's condemning war as if they're repeating that old hook in the 60's tune; 'war! what is it good for? Absolutely nothing say it again....' , is not only is that not true, but they say that while living in a country they inhabit as a citizen because war and victory made it possible to be the United States of America.

Certainly, for every war lost there are victims and there are victors enjoying the spoils. That's just the way it is. However, to imagine that America is the sole aggressor in the world, an imperialist State that seeks to rule everything as did former powers in history, is naive. If we didn't have a strong military industrial complex, where would we be?

When we read how many people in this forum alone, both citizens and foreigners, who hate America just in print, imagine how real life aggressors would react if we became a weaker power and were able to be overcome?
Where would those whining hate mongers be then? Dead, enslaved, overcome, rabid ass kissing subjects of the victor nation. Those gun cowards who despise the mere sight of a firearm, would be the first to die at the end of one. And amazingly enough, only to them of course, it wouldn't be some punk, some gangster thug piece of trash, some redneck, some Republican nut bag, some gun nut American at the trigger. It would be that invading force who prayed, begged, lived for the day, the weak who hate the country they occupy and enjoy as free citizens while spitting on the country they occupy and enjoy as free citizens every chance they get, would finally succeed in weakening her to the point that her guard was down, because they didn't want to pay to keep it safe. They didn't want to support the allied forces who would and do join in the concerted effort of national security.

I know a lot of service men and women who hate going to war. They are to this day affected by what they've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam and Korea too. "Saving Private Ryan", for many of us was just a movie. For many of them, that opening scene where the troops are trying to take the beach, is too real. It's a bitter reminder of blood and sand and loss and fracture.
And yet, every single one I talk to, even those who go on the biker memorial ride to D.C. every Veterans day each year agree, if they had to do it over again they would. Because sometimes, it's necessary to get bloody in order to stay free.

War, what is it good for?

Look around at your home, at your bank account, in your garage, in your pocket, in your wallet, in your purse, in the mirror, at the flag that waves red white and blue and not the flying colors of some other nation that could include Iraq, Afghanistan or even Great Britain or France or Mexico.

Look at the first black person you see tomorrow. War, what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing?

(August 16, 2011 at 2:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Too tough. Every one of those motherfuckers has an AK-47 thanks to American drug laws. They'd kick our ass.

Besides, if you annex Mexico the idiots running Arizona and Texas would go ape shit looking for someone else to hate.

If they'd kick our ass: why don't they? They border us for heaven's sake... it's easy to make a push when all of your forces are right there to begin with

I think that the idiots finding something else to hate would be good for most people. Who wants to bet they'd turn their attention on the trans?

---

Judas Wrote:War, what is it good for?

Entertainment.

Quote:What would you do without your precious XBox and your tap water and your Ipod and your pre-wrapped ground hamburger Sae?

What would you do if you got an infection? Or broke a leg?

Life would pretty much suck.

(August 16, 2011 at 4:22 pm)Cinjin Wrote: One million humans is a lot yes, when they're all living in the same city. Spread all around the world however, is pretty damn few humans.

And I suppose there are pretty damn few brown bears and they are all going extinct?

Sure, it's not enough for a city... and it might even be reduced to families instead of small villages... but they would repopulate the world eventually.

Quote:Especially when you consider that most humans today are not equipped to deal with living off the land. What would you do without your precious XBox and your tap water and your Ipod and your pre-wrapped ground hamburger Sae?

What would I do? Pley my PS2, drink from the lake outside (or head to the beach where I can get spring water during the summer... snow is everywhere in the winter and I can use that), play music on guitar and whatnot again, and I never ate hamburger much to begin with.

Most humans today have arms and legs and hands and feet and a brain... and really that's all you need to be 'equipped' with to survive.

Quote:You might survive, most would not. You're also not factoring in the possibility that accessibility to good drinking water could possibly be very limited and natural food sources such as fishing and hunting might be completely non-existent.

Might? Haha... hell yes I would survive. The hell is 'good drinking water' when you're trying to survive? So long as it isn't poison or diseased with something you can't adapt to: it's good.

If natural food sources are nonexistent: then there are no survivors to begin with, and we're no longer talking simply '1/7000'th of the humans survive: we're talking extermination of life on earth... which is even harder to do. I mean: that's freaking amazing.

Quote:There's too many factors to justify a simple, "nah". Add to the fact that .0001% of any species remaining alive is considered to be on the verge of "near extinction" regardless of it's former size.


I stand by what I said.

.0001% of the Klackon in this galaxy is roughly 46,000,000,000,000 individual Klackon. Yeah... that isn't even close to 'near extinction'. Near extinction is a matter of numbers remaining and concentration of those numbers, it has nothing to do with the former size (which is where the whole '.0001%' thing comes from, btw).

I stand by what I say: 1 million humans is not 'near extinction'.

---

(August 16, 2011 at 11:31 pm)Minimalist Wrote: What would you do if you got an infection? Or broke a leg?

Life would pretty much suck.

It would be far far worse than losing those other things. The infection depends on where, and if hydrogen peroxide/epsom salt is available... the broken leg you pretty much can't fix without modern medicine.