Messages

The definition of WMDS is contested, which is exactly what suits the US anyway.

ooh Tuomas is bored. Let's entertain Tuomas. This thread, as all others are here for his constant amusement.

[faaaaabricated]

Really? They maintained that there weren't weapons, and so far there's no evidence to the contrary.

Hmmm ... kind of like Iran today. And yet, there's quite a bit of international diplomacy going on to try to get them to stop their nuclear program out of fear that they may actually be trying to develop nukes.

What the hell does this even mean? It's besides the point. There were no WMDs. What Saddam was 'intending' to do hadn't happened yet. Saddam might have been intending to butcher the baby Jesus next christmas for all we know. Next christmas did not come. How much can a single simple point be sidestepped? THERE WERE NO WEAPONS. Saddam is a bad boy, yes. Saddam is a killer yes. Saddam is a monster yes. We're all better off without Saddam, yes. BUT THERE WERE NOT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Hence, the reason the US presented as grounds for invasion was fabricated. Say the word with me: faaaaabricated. I dare you to say it. Say it!

Remember, God changed his mind on Testament ver 2.0!

God doesn't make mistakes!

I think you are OK.

Wait, I don't get it. White Magician is a Christian, right?

I am interested.

We would all die only if there's a large scale retaliatory strike and another and another... as history shows, a single nuke brings not the end of the world, but lots of dead and dying, suffering and radiation.

OIL! hahah! Sorry, I didn't realize. That's brilliant.

(Basically because then, "their shit" can easilly be transformed into "our shit")

Easily yes, but easily doesn't mean it has happened yet.

But I forget, in spain you get tried and jailed for intention.

Thank you, Nacho. Please remember that a country has the sovereign right to self-regulate. Everybody should sort their own shit out without external invasion. "Killing for peace". It's one thing to put diplomatic pressure, cut aid, whatever, and another to invade another country, go into war, to 'liberate' them. Let them sort their own shit out. Multinational cooperation is only that until it's not, it cannot and should not be enforced with the threat of military force. If there's a third world country where a dictator is killing all his people, that is tragic, and we should do well to oppose it via diplomatic means, but in the end, if they don't listen, they just don't listen. Let them sort their own shit out.

And about nuclear weapons. Let's say they do have them. Until they attack someone, they are no different than the US having military weapons. And the US are the only ones so far that have used them. Is it because we put this value judgement that this or that person is a derranged bucher that makes it okay for us to step in and take his nuclear toys away? I happen to think Bush is a derranged butcher, is it ok to go to war with the US over their nuclear arsenal? Of course not. And more importantly could we win that war? Of course not...

There are no ethics behind US invasions. There is the geopolitical powerplay, where influence and control are an end in themselves. It's not about saving lives. It's about playing monopoly.

I dunno, it's pretty obvious to me who doesn't subscribe to this bullshit utilitarian sort of ethics.

What we must discuss is if it should have been correct to attack them 10 years ago. If it should have been correct to stablish a democrat, non beligerant and economically effective government in spite Kim Jong Il,

Are you asking us if one country should have invaded another to change their mode of goverment? Would you be suprized if the answer was 'no'?

No, pm applies to everything, really. In the sense of reinvention, willfull regurgitation and so on, yes, you are correct. "nothing new under the sun". Just the connection wasn't very clear to me on the second to last post of yours. Thanks.

nobody but

I don't see what post-modernism has to do with what you're describing, m0ds.

I bought the 32x and all I got was this lousy version of Doom.


(no I didn't, of course)

Progz: When I think Accolade, I think of shooting little boys for being uppity, actually.

Wow, you guys feel really strongly about gaming companies, consoles and all that.

Yes, I think adventure games should bring back failure and failing, not just death. I think hotsaving (Diablo/Roguelike style) where you save when you quit only is the way to go. Do things, have the game react to you in more shades than DEATH - SUCCESS. There's shades of failure and shades of success.