Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

blue blaze

Terrorism

Recommended Posts

blue blaze

Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.The presence of non-state actors in widespread armed conflict has created controversy regarding the application of the laws of war.

An International Roundtable on Constructing Peace, Deconstructing Terror (2004) hosted by Strategic Foresight Group recommended that a distinction should be made between terrorism and acts of terror. While acts of terror are criminal acts as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and domestic jurisprudence of almost all countries in the world, terrorism refers to a phenomenon including acts, perpetrators of acts of terror and motives of the perpetrators. There is a disagreement on definition of terrorism. However, there is an intellectual consensus globally that acts of terror should not be accepted under any circumstances. This is reflected in all important conventions including the United Nations counter terrorism strategy, outcome of the Madrid Conference on terrorism and outcome of the Strategic Foresight Group and ALDE roundtables at the European Parliament.

 

What is your opinion about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All-Blacks

You didn't write this did you? confused.gif

 

Well the sad thing is in this post 9/11 world, anything with a mere explosion will be deemed as a suspected terrorist attack. Looking back 10 years ago, the media would of labelled something similar to the steam pipe accident as you guessed it, an accident. Nowadays though, reading through the articles written about the same event, you see the word 'Terrorism' more than the word 'witnesses'. Terrorism isn't even the correct term for 9/11 or 7/7, it should be labelled as mass murder. But it won't happen no, we're in a PC world don't forget.

Edited by All-Blacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blue blaze
You didn't write this did you? confused.gif

No,actually I took an idea biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
makeshyft
You didn't write this did you?  confused.gif

No,actually I took an idea biggrin.gif

But did you understand the idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TerminalGTA

To be honest it depends what side of the fence your on.

 

9/11 for example

 

USA would argue it was an act of terrorism

 

Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda would argue it was an act of war, the US invading Afghanistan and Iraq, really in many ways fuels al Qaeda's doctrine that they are at war, and therefore their acts are legitimate.

 

The problem really is that al Qaeda haven't declared war on America (Military) they have declared war on America's way of life, their ideology, their beliefs and the people in the US.

 

It's almost like the Crusades but in reverse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
makeshyft
The problem really is that al Qaeda haven't declared war on America (Military) they have declared war on America's way of life, their ideology, their beliefs and the people in the US.

Once again it depends on which side of the fence you sit on. Personally I don't buy into that hatred of freedom nonsense. I see it as more an act of war against the government - not people - and foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

The problem really is that al Qaeda haven't declared war on America (Military) they have declared war on America's way of life, their ideology, their beliefs and the people in the US.

Once again it depends on which side of the fence you sit on. Personally I don't buy into that hatred of freedom nonsense. I see it as more an act of war against the government - not people - and foreign policy.

Yeah, if you go to that side of the fence, those people would be quick to call the American government terrorists if that word were in their vocabulary. Through intimidating and imperialism the U.S. has been a pretty strong force in that region of the world for quite a long time, and I think it's easy to see how they would believe that American soldiers were "terrorists" and probably have the same zealotry and blind patriotism that many Americans have in regards to whom they perceived to be "terrorist".

 

After 9/11, whenever someone would say "terrorism" or "terrorist" I can't help but flash back to shows that parody the U.S's view on communism in the 1950s. It's so freakishly similar to me, that having really only had a conscious mind of terrorism post-9/11, "terrorism" and "terrorists" to me are just the symbolic "enemy" of America that we need to form unity; I hope that thought isn't lost on those who haven't read 1984, because I can't quite remember the quote, but the idea is that a nation needs an enemy to stay united against, otherwise the distress will turn itself inward. At a slight glance, "Communism" and "Terrorisms" seemed to be mechanisms of this in different costumes. If I'm not mistaken, we ( the U.S. ) really started using the word "terrorism" after the Soviet Union collapsed, right?

 

 

So I think that "terrorism" comes with a certain amount of hysteria attached to it, but what I think it represents in one form of another outside of that, is identifying our biggest threat. While our biggest threat may actually be very wealthy Chinese executives paying large amounts of money for our demise, the true executors of this will are now organizations like al-Qaeda that use these funds. The problem now is differentiating our enemy ( the one to be united against ) and our threats ( those who have the real motive against us ) when we say "terrorists".

Edited by SagaciousKJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
makeshyft

I don't wish to spam up this place, but that was pretty damn well said, Sag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randomname01

I think terrorism is both right and wrong. The way it is right now for the reason of the spread of islam is wrong. Also I believe terorism for reasons that are not very important, like reliegeon, are wrong.

 

But, in a few instances it is justifiable. If one day your country was invaded by another country and your people are oppressed, wouldn't you and some other people commit acts of terrorism to free your people and liberate your country? What if your government was truely oppressive and evil? Wouldn't you commit acts of terrorism (doesn't have to be against civilians, but government officials/soldiers) to fre your people and overthrow your oppressive government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Intentionally attacking civilian targets is like kicking someone in the nuts in a fist fight. It's a cowardly thing to do, and there is no justification for it. By no means should it be considered an act of war. Select a military target, and then if you want to die while taking out as many "enemies" if you can, be my guest. Strap and bomb on yourself, and yell the name of whichever deity you worship if you think that's a way to make your point.

 

As for United States' treatment of "terrorism", I agree with SagaciousKJB. I will further add that once the citizens fall for such propaganda from the government and change their way of life to feel more secure, the terrorists win. Whoever orchestrated the 9/11 attacks have achieved what they wanted, because citizens simply surrendered most of their rights for the false sense of protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
manofpeace

Well I don't really see this whole affair as a "war". Sure, there are hundreds of thousands of troops marching around in there, but as far as I've heard there is very little going on for a war. There hasn't been one dogfight or true bombing for ages, and that just shows some of the seams where this "war" is tearing into some religious suicide contest. Why can't these people put away their explosive backpacks and have a negociation? And this whining about the American Death toll. Wow, 3000 or so misinformed souls went there and died. Nobody's said anything about the huge deaths of our many other wars we've put ourselves in? The wars WE, the Americans, really started? Why not? Other people had weapons or had different views or some rubbish; we bombed them, f*cking war starts behing my back.

 

Politics are pointless, because the laws in place were fine as they were, thank you. There's some twit sitting in a large building continually pressing the big red button, causing wave after wave of soldiers to attack civilians and kill some people who work for a Middle Eastern Cult that's run by some guy that threatens, but never does much besides send a few bad guys to scare us.

 

Meanwhile, we wait for the now youtube addicted 2008 race for president, whom will hardly be able to get us out of this meaningless war and get us out of the trillions of dollars we are in debt. Face it, we're f*cked and have been since the early 1900's. Government's fault. Media's not helping. The people don't know. The smart people are trying to do something, but nobody cares what they think. Politicians are becoming more and more like dictators, and we're nearly out of petrol in the ground. Wtf?

 

But I've just described how f*cked up America is, but I covered a small amount of ground about terrorists at least. blush.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

Terrorism is, in brief words, simply an oversized FUD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All-Blacks
Wow, 3000 or so misinformed souls went there and died. Nobody's said anything about the huge deaths of our many other wars we've put ourselves in?

3000-4000 soldiers in Iraq have died since 2003 (from coalition of the willing nations) in a relatively pointless fight. Think about it. Its not a, "Wow, not a big deal." sort of thing. Its a serious matter. Those deaths should never of happened in the first place. Not to mention Afghanistan. Oh and numbers may not be as large as you seem because this isn't a war, nations are policing the country. Its a fight against insurgency. A very different kind of warfare compared to the Gulf War, WW2, Korean War etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
Well I don't really see this whole affair as a "war". Sure, there are hundreds of thousands of troops marching around in there, but as far as I've heard there is very little going on for a war. There hasn't been one dogfight or true bombing for ages, and that just shows some of the seams where this "war" is tearing into some religious suicide contest. Why can't these people put away their explosive backpacks and have a negociation? And this whining about the American Death toll. Wow, 3000 or so misinformed souls went there and died. Nobody's said anything about the huge deaths of our many other wars we've put ourselves in? The wars WE, the Americans, really started? Why not? Other people had weapons or had different views or some rubbish; we bombed them, f*cking war starts behing my back.

I don't think anyone should have perceived it as a war in the first place. In fact, the media usually refers to it as the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, and that is exactly what it was. You mentioned the lack of dogfights and the like; well, that's because our military might crushed Iraq's air-force, and most other parts of their military, before our ground forces were ever even deployed. This wasn't a conflict like that of WWII, it was simply an invasion.

 

I suppose maybe you could consider the "War on Terror"... However that's as big of a farce, if not larger, than the War on Drugs. To me the whole thing boils down to one big act of imperialism.

 

However, what you might want to consider is the impact for the Iraqis... I'm sure that they feel they're living in a war zone. With an estimated death toll estimated well over 100k ( some estimates reaching 500k in terms of how many have died because of circumstances caused by the war ) and car bombs going off nearly every week, most people there will not even let their kids out of their homes anymore in fear that they will be killed. it's pretty easy to say it's not a war when you're 6,000 miles away and the only thing you really get to hear about the war is how many dead American soldiers there are and the low approval rating of our president.

 

Personally, I'm surprised that people are not out-raged when our president uses 9/11 to justify such things. An act that killed ~3,000 people was the precursor to the death of ~3,500-4,000 American soldiers. Sickens me every time I hear some politician say, "9/11".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Risky

sagacious: a very well said post.

 

the real 'terrorists' are quite obviously the government themselves. day in and day out, we are made aware of the looming threat of 'terrorism'.. terrorist suspects on the front page of our newspapers, terrorists blowing stuff up on our news channels, terrorists planning to blow stuff up on our news channels, terrorists in our own neighbourhood. it's all in the name of creating mass terror to our very own population. and when people are scared, people are easier to control. and once people are in control, they are liable to blindly carry out orders - in this case, the order is to take down the 'terrorists' who 'threaten our very freedom'. and whilst this is being carried out, our 'freedom' is in fact gradually decreasing.. boundaries getting smaller, extra precautions being taken everywhere, liberties taken away, all in the name of defending ourselves from acts of 'terrorism'. and the worst part is, these new measures and laws are not being forced upon us.. we are asking for them.

 

i don't think for a single minute the US governments intention was to 'liberate' in iraq, their mission is simply to occupy it. you don't have to look far to see this... if you look in the news, 9 times out of ten it will be a bomb killing civilians, detonated by its own people. the armed forces are simply trying to control the area, and as many people know, the quickest and most efficient way to destroy an "enemy" is to make the enemy destroy itself. and that is exactly what is happening.

 

and irag won't be the end of it all.. it is just the beginning - the first large scale military base for the coalition forces. this is quite clear from the news that operations are now spreading into iran, of course all in the name of finding and taking down more terrorists. and the process will just carry on repeating itself.

 

yawn.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz

 

However, what you might want to consider is the impact for the Iraqis... I'm sure that they feel they're living in a war zone... and car bombs going off nearly every week...

Every week! Everyday you mean!

 

Watch this mini docu by Guardian Writer Sean Smith for an idea about what it's really like there in Iraq. Pay particular attention to the elderly Iraqi woman and imagine if that were your grandmother or even mother. Think about how they feel.

 

 

 

 

and irag won't be the end of it all.. it is just the beginning - the first large scale military base for the coalition forces. this is quite clear from the news that operations are now spreading into iran, of course all in the name of finding and taking down more terrorists. and the process will just carry on repeating itself.

 

I disagree. The British and Americans are far too aware that they've pushed their national armed forces and their economies to the breaking point with occupations of two states - they physically cannot occupy another unless they relinquish their positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and given the current state of affairs it's simply something they can't do.

 

Not ruling out a conflict with Iran, but it'll be one fought at a distance rather than an occupation if it were to occur. I'm talking about air raids on key installations, no-fly-zones, naval blockades, economic isolation. It'd bring Iran to it's knees no doubt, but an occupation - nah, I don't see it happening.

 

 

Anyway, back to Iraq.

 

Iraq has transformed from an unfinished piece of work by the Bush family, to a mis-directed-knee-jerk reaction to a terror attack, to an ill-thought-logistical committment and now into a full-scaled, occupational knightmare. turn.gif

 

 

The root of the problem is in culture. Culture and linkage. The US has a culture of enforcement in the Middle-East due to interest in the region. This leads to the development of groups aiming to undermine and attack the Americans. This leads to 9/11. The US hate that they can be attacked as the worlds only Superpower, so their mentality of retaliation leads them to Afghanistan. The Govt continue the culture of the Bush family and spread to Iraq. The terrorists are forced underground and spread a culture of hatred of the West fuelled under Hussein during isolation. The occupying forces find themselves attacked by assymetric enemies who blend in all-to-perfectly with the general populace of Iraq. So a culture of mistrust is fostered by the occupying forces of the Iraqi people. They mistreat them. The Iraqis hate them more. The hatred spreads through family ties to relatives/friends/Muslims now living within the Western world. Terrorism is fostered in our home nations. 7/7. 23/7. Richard Reid. Glasgow and London. Ricin bombers. Too many to remember.

 

 

Terorrism is resistance. Misguided, hiding under the guise of Islam, but it is resistance to something else. In a free-society such as our own, we grant that resistance the room to breath, spread, fester and strengthen.

 

The security services will do their best, but occasionally some will escape the radar. It happens. It's inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TerminalGTA

There is an arguement that to make an omelete you have to break a few eggs.

 

What I mean is that the Iraq war did get rid of Saddam Hussain who was by many standards a mini-Hitler of Arabia. I mean when you consider he killed thousands of people and suppressed Iraqi freedom for decades.

 

Arguably if the US wasn't going to go in there who would rid Hussain from Iraq, no one in my opinion. I guess the problem is that the reason for invasion was because Iraq has "weapons of mass destructions", which was clearly not true. But I think if you get rid of Hussain and try to replace him with a democracy then morally that action is correct.

 

To the people who say the government is the terrorist, I disagree, I think there actions were not with the intention to spread terror but to relieve the terror that Hussain was causing.

 

Any person who thought that America could go in remove the "WMD's" take out Hussain and it would be any different than it is now is mistaken. But in my opionion that cause to remove tyranny is a justified one.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz

@ TerminalGTA:

 

I've never disagreed with the notion of attempting to rid nations of barbarous, corrupt dictators who so blatantly impose quite terrible practices upon their people.

 

Whilst Hussein fell into this category, so do many others.

 

What about the other oppressed people around the world? What about the other dictators who, on a day to day basis, oppress their people. What about Tibet? What about Zimbabwe?

 

If it was for the good of the people of Iraq, why not help other nations for the good of their people... then what about Somalia? What about Sudan? What about the DRC?

 

How can the US justify ridding a nation of their 'undemocratic' system, and then so closely ally themselves with a nation whos ruler is "General" Pervez Musharraf, a man who seized power rather than being elected. sly.gif

 

Double standards. One rule for one, completely different for another. I wonder what makes middle-eastern nations so different... what could it possibly be...?

 

A natural resource perhaps... hmmm...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chickstick

 

@ TerminalGTA:

 

I've never disagreed with the notion of attempting to rid nations of barbarous, corrupt dictators who so blatantly impose quite terrible practices upon their people.

 

Whilst Hussein fell into this category, so do many others.

 

 

 

 

This is a very valid point. For one, why did the British Army get pulled into Afghanistan and later Iraq? Because the USA went in.

 

And why aren't the British Army going into Zimbabwe? Because the USA aren't.

 

Many members of our parliament commented on Mugabe during the Blair years but didn't act about his dictatorship. Why is this? Mugabe is just as bad as Hussein; he should be overthrown by an army of coalition forces.

 

But back to terrorism. As they say, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". However, in these politicolly correct times, terrorism is basically a metaphor for mass-murder.

 

I feel that the only thing that will stop terrorism (for the next couple of years at most) will be to pull out of Iraq. However this will leave the Iraqi people to sort out the titanic mess that we, the coalition troops, started. Before the coalition leaves, we should make Iraq peaceful again for the good of the Iraqis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

I think the question is whether or not the U.S. has crossed the border of libertarianism and compassion to imperialism. Yes, it's nice that we were able to liberate the Iraqis from Saddam's reign, but has their government just been set up as a farce to launder money and to benefit us?

 

In my opinion, I think that it's plausible. There's no real way to come to that conclusion with any evidence, but with Bush changing his reasoning for being there on whim, and over half a trillion dollars spent, where is all the money going? I don't mean to accuse Bush of anything; it should be well known that war is big business. I don't really have a firm decision one way or the other; I suppose it's plausible he's really doing everything in earnest.

 

The War on Terrorism is a perfect war for someone who isn't interested in winning in the first place. Not only because of how futile and endless the endeavor is, but how easy it is to manipulation the public's reactions, with emotional pandering. is it just coincidence that 70% of Americans think Saddam Hussein had anything at all to do with 9/11? I mean, there were papers written on using a catastrophe like this to manipulate the public that predate even WWII. I mean, there's a number of historians that can produce some circumstantial evidence that Roosevelt intentionally let the Japanese attack to enter WWII.

 

This doesn't resemble WWII really, but the fact is that the War on Terrorism is war on a faceless enemy, it can't be won. A war that can't be one serves nothing to peace, but more often lines the pockets of people. I'd hate to beat the conspiracy-theorist-ish drum, but what about that little tidbit about Bush's grandfather funding a steel factory for the third reich? Then there's also the whole Iran-Contra thing... I suppose the most adequate thing to say could be, "History repeats itself again".

 

Out of curiosity, when was the last presidential term which didn't engage us in some sort of war or mlitary conflict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*gta star*

This is a very valid point. For one, why did the British Army get pulled into Afghanistan and later Iraq? Because the USA went in.

 

And why aren't the British Army going into Zimbabwe? Because the USA aren't.

 

 

1. Bush isn't holding Blair on a lead anymore, like he did for the past few years.

2. Blair isn't the leader.

 

Let's see what the outcome is with Gordon Brown, yesterday he landed in the USA, the first topic that would be discussed between Brown and Bush was the situation in Iraq.

 

 

I feel that the only thing that will stop terrorism (for the next couple of years at most) will be to pull out of Iraq. However this will leave the Iraqi people to sort out the titanic mess that we, the coalition troops, started. Before the coalition leaves, we should make Iraq peaceful again for the good of the Iraqis.

 

I totally agree with you, time has passed now, the damage is done. The leader is dead now, it's time to make peace for the people living there, and leave. The world would be a much better place, if everyone was peaceful and lived in harmony. War certainly doesn't help this, we are loosing troops practically every week, innocent people are dying, it's upsetting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All-Blacks

 

I feel that the only thing that will stop terrorism (for the next couple of years at most) will be to pull out of Iraq. However this will leave the Iraqi people to sort out the titanic mess that we, the coalition troops, started. Before the coalition leaves, we should make Iraq peaceful again for the good of the Iraqis.

 

I totally agree with you, time has passed now, the damage is done. The leader is dead now, it's time to make peace for the people living there, and leave. The world would be a much better place, if everyone was peaceful and lived in harmony. War certainly doesn't help this, we are loosing troops practically every week, innocent people are dying, it's upsetting.

Iraq has been unstable well before the Coalition of the Willing kicked in. Leaving won't create peace overnight, nor even in the long run. If any, sending the troops home would create more problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

I don't think that pulling the troops from Iraq out will help with the situation either, but do you really think that they are doing any good in there? There was a way to avoid a lot of this mess from the start, but at this point, I don't see how it makes the difference if the US troops are there or not. So it would only make sense to pull them out.

 

Of course, it isn't going to happen just yet. There are way too many people in the administration who are interested in the war continuing until the end of the term.

 

The world would be a much better place, if everyone was peaceful and lived in harmony.

No. We'd still live in caves, chase our food, and die of hunger, cold, and a number of easily preventable diseases. Conflict is necessary for the progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cypress Hill

The most effective thing the US could do to deter terrorist attacks in the long run (after It pulls out of Iraq) is distance itself from Israel. One of the main reasons, if not the main reason Islamic fundamentalists hate us is because of our close alliance with Israeel. Every time Israel is threatened the US comes to their aid and it is becuase of the US that Israel has one of the biggest nuclear stockpiles in the world. IMO, If the US stopped protecting Israel, the "terrorists" will have much less motivation to attack the US. It would probably be bad for Israel, but I don't feel the US has an obligation to protect Israel.

 

 

No. We'd still live in caves, chase our food, and die of hunger, cold, and a number of easily preventable diseases. Conflict is necessary for the progress.

I don't think many people realize this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*gta star*

 

I don't think that pulling the troops from Iraq out will help with the situation either, but do you really think that they are doing any good in there? There was a way to avoid a lot of this mess from the start, but at this point, I don't see how it makes the difference if the US troops are there or not. So it would only make sense to pull them out.

 

Of course, it isn't going to happen just yet. There are way too many people in the administration who are interested in the war continuing until the end of the term.

 

 

The world would be a much better place, if everyone was peaceful and lived in harmony.

 

No. We'd still live in caves, chase our food, and die of hunger, cold, and a number of easily preventable diseases. Conflict is necessary for the progress.

 

Conflict causes too much sh*t in our world today, conflict destroys relationships, buildings, crops and everything. The money that will have to be spent to regenerate conflicted areas will be abnormal, so, how can you say this ? Millions will have to be spent, if there wasn't conflict, millions could be kept and spent on something different.

 

To answer your question, the troops are doing some good, they are trying their best and in fairness, they did manage to catch Saddam, the ring leader. However, they are doing more bad than good, it's getting out of hand. Troops are dying, there was a case of friendly fire not so long ago, which is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Conflict causes too much sh*t in our world today, conflict destroys relationships, buildings, crops and everything. The money that will have to be spent to regenerate conflicted areas will be abnormal, so, how can you say this ? Millions will have to be spent, if there wasn't conflict, millions could be kept and spent on something different.

Your utopian ideas are naive. Without conflict, people do not seek new ways of doing things. If everyone can have a job and a pay that they are happy with, that's all they are going to do. No one will want change. Population will grow, but ways of getting food for everyone will not develop. Provided that the population still insists on conflict free life, rather than killing each other off in a major war as they would have, they will all simply die of hunger.

 

With conflict - everyone suffers a little all the time. Without conflict - no one suffers right now, but everyone suffers greatly some time later. Conflict is a better way.

 

If you don't believe logic, believe history. When were the largest technological leaps made in shortest time in the XX century? In the periods of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. Rings any bells? Before 1914, airplanes were basically toys. By 1918 they were armed with machine guns and bombs. Airplanes of 1939 were just a little better. By 1945 there were jet fighters with heat seaking missiles. All of this technology has now found peaceful applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
With conflict - everyone suffers a little all the time. Without conflict - no one suffers right now, but everyone suffers greatly some time later. Conflict is a better way.

Since you are repeating like a parrot Marx's ideas, you should have also taken in account that when he said that conflict is necessary he also said that the human will is destructive for society.

 

The theory of social conflict is merely a philosophical rant of Marx, it does not precisely mean it's true, the caribeans, aborigins of my country lived in complete peace and harmony, they had everything they needed, the Incas from Peru were at war with other aborigins, but as a nation they lived peacefully, without internal conflicts, in my opinion this happened because the "style of government" if you could call it that way was different.

 

Of course, conflict is a force in development, but why is that?, wouldn't it be because we are constantly forced by a society to always be better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

1) I had no idea that Marx has expressed a similar oppinion. Never read any of his works.

 

2) Yes, you can live conflict-free, but you will not develop, meaning greater than necessary suffering due to natural causes. If there is population growth, you'll have problems in the future. If there is none, it either means that people are experiencing high death rates, or some other pressures keep reproduction down. The later would require a conflict of some sort.

 

3) You can't force people to work towards progress, and call it "no conflict". Even if people simply work at jobs they don't like (or more than they'd like to) to make the money for other things they like, it is a conflict. I don't mean that conflicts have to be in forms of war and loss of human life, but there have to be conflicts.

 

Ideal form of conflict is purely ideological. Far left movemtns want you to believe that it is enough to make everything work. Then comes economical conflict, which is believed to be necessary by the supporters of capitalist societies. Finaly, you can have military conflicts, and there are these who say that you cannot develop without that.

 

It is no doubt that large scale military conflicts allow for fastest technological growth, but at a highest costs. Whether or not these costs are justified by benefits of progress, I do not know. I am wondering, however, if we'd have trans-continental jet airliners without WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. I have some doubts about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
1) I had no idea that Marx has expressed a similar oppinion. Never read any of his works.

 

2) Yes, you can live conflict-free, but you will not develop, meaning greater than necessary suffering due to natural causes. If there is population growth, you'll have problems in the future. If there is none, it either means that people are experiencing high death rates, or some other pressures keep reproduction down. The later would require a conflict of some sort.

 

3) You can't force people to work towards progress, and call it "no conflict". Even if people simply work at jobs they don't like (or more than they'd like to) to make the money for other things they like, it is a conflict. I don't mean that conflicts have to be in forms of war and loss of human life, but there have to be conflicts.

 

Ideal form of conflict is purely ideological. Far left movemtns want you to believe that it is enough to make everything work. Then comes economical conflict, which is believed to be necessary by the supporters of capitalist societies. Finaly, you can have military conflicts, and there are these who say that you cannot develop without that.

 

It is no doubt that large scale military conflicts allow for fastest technological growth, but at a highest costs. Whether or not these costs are justified by benefits of progress, I do not know. I am wondering, however, if we'd have trans-continental jet airliners without WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. I have some doubts about it.

Your third point does sound a lot better, that kind of conflict is truly motivational.

 

Now what it truly is a bigger debate is PROGRESS, how do you know what really is progress?, because we are technologically more advanced?, more economically stable?, progress today is a shallow concept, there are dozens of countries who are "developed" and yet their citizens migrate to other places, there are health magazines that explain a correlation between advanced industrialism and happiness, in latin america we have sh*tty industries but people "feel happier", unlike what happens in countries like Japan or USA, no offense to anyone.

 

How in the world could that happen?, because progress is overrated in society, it was created by many people (governments, companies, media) to give the citizens a false sense of security and achievement in my opinion, just tell me how many countries support happiness over economic achievement wow.gif ???

 

One last tip, we wouldn't need "jets" if there hadn't been wars, you can't say it's something good, it's kinda like compensation confused.gif , at least in my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Well, for me, the main benefit of progress is that I know that I will have food and medical assistance if I need it.

 

In case of jets, for example. Yeah, the ability to fly to another country might not seem like all that important when the cost is a world war. But even not counting impact on economy, look at the helicopters used in rescue operations and by hospitals. Helicopters were also developed in WWII, and modern helicopters are mostly turbine-based. So we wouldn't have anything even close without the development done during the war. I can go on with this. Wasn't penicilin developed during WWI? Computers came out as a result of interest in trajectory computations. Many advances in surgery were made during Korean War. If you discard everything developed in wars during XX century, you end up with economic, medical, and technological conditions very close to early 1900's.

 

Now, there might be people who feel that they are happier living in similar conditions now, but how many of these who are unhappy with their "civilized" life move out to simpler places? No, everyone tries to get into countries with better technological and medical achievements. I think, the reason why people in highly developed countries might not feel as happy is just because they know more about how life can be lived, so their life, while being much better than these of the neighbors, might still seem insufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.