Dollars BBS | News

feed-icon

Main

News

Animation

Art

Comics

Films

Food

Games

Literature

Music

Personal

Sports

Technology

Random

Iraq Under Threat (20)

1 Name: RaineK0k0r0 : 2014-09-16 17:20 ID:RJdvs94C [Del]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119462/obama-has-weak-legal-justification-bombing-iraq-and-syria

Above is the link to an article, explaining about the whole thing.

Personally, I find it ironic. Especially since every time I go to the store, there's always that one a$$hole that makes fun of the Hindus.

2 Name: DaiMajutsu13 : 2014-09-17 00:31 ID:Sv0KEjHa [Del]

What do hindus have to do with this?

Btw. although I'm not fully against the US on this matter, but again, they can attack whoever they want whenever they want. All the reasoning is just legal bullshiting. Rethorics and details. If they want to attack, they will eventually find a text where their action fits it's context somehow.

3 Name: Minimize : 2014-09-17 12:23 ID:oyD+fX9b [Del]

Doesn't the fact that ISIS killed two American reporters an several more Iraqis constitute as a good enough reason to try and get them out?

4 Name: DaiMajutsu13 : 2014-09-17 13:47 ID:Sv0KEjHa [Del]

I would just note before I continue, that I am not on ISIS's side on this. But regardless, nothing constitutes as a good enough reason to willingly start a military conflict against another country. War is the supreme failure of bridging the differences between nations. Also, 2 lives of some whoknowswhos don't really make a difference for politicians, bankers or military commanders. If it was two american street artists or two american immigrants, or two american latinos it wouldn't have even made the news. But let's assume that it would have. So the answer to this problem is going to war with another country, bombing them, killing them, putting more oil on the fire. If you think about it, none of us really benefit from that. And women and children don't make a difference in front of guns. Nor in front of bombs. Even if it's the wives of some ISIS radicals. They have lives too. Just like those reporters had. It's this way of thinking that's the root cause of all this radicalism. That there exists a good enough reason to willingly slaughter other human beings. It doesn't. Do you honestly think the government gives two shits about american citizen's lives, or the lives of those two reporters? Do they give a shit about poverty or homelessness or projects' standard of living? Those are their citizens too. The government has interest too you know. And they act out of interest. Interest for control, for popularity, confusion, for money, for control over resources, for freedom in this type of monetary system. If the american government attacks another country, then it's already made sure, that it's profitable for them, or else it would not be sensible. It would be disadvantageous for the government in the above mentioned interests.
Anyone who disagrees can throw rocks at me for how I think about this, but I don't sway due to cheesy rethorics on the matter of human lives...

5 Name: Khroma : 2014-09-17 15:24 ID:Iqaf2n+7 [Del]

I completely agree with you DaiMajutsu13,if it wasn't for the oil the United States wants over in Iraq then none of this would even concern the government.Harsh,but in my opinion very,very true.

6 Name: Xephlrek!9RNNck.4fo : 2014-09-17 15:25 ID:zIxJGsxL [Del]

>>4 Someone's a liberal.

7 Name: DaiMajutsu13 : 2014-09-17 16:13 ID:Sv0KEjHa [Del]

>>6 Someone's too narrow-minded to spare me from being branded as anything. Liberal or not wasn't the point here, and I don't give two shits about it either, since I don't consider myself anything. I'm not into taking sides politically, it's unimportant. Human lives are important. But don't worry, I don't expect a retard to get it.

8 Name: Magnolia : 2014-09-17 18:45 ID:BW4kmXa5 [Del]

Don't get so heated when you're talking about politics. As soon as you start insulting people, you lose the argument and everyone disregards your once valid opinion.

9 Name: Anonymous : 2014-09-17 22:09 ID:yVy86ias [Del]

10 Name: DaiMajutsu13 : 2014-09-18 00:22 ID:Sv0KEjHa [Del]

>>8 My pride has nothing to do with how valid my arguments are. Only a cerebral incompetent (and I'm trying not to mean that in an offending way) would disregard a valid opinion on emotional basis. You can't have a civilized discussion if you only care about >>6 labeling and >>8 >>9 getting butthurt.
>>6>>8>>9 what you are doing right now. That's what we call politics in the first place. Or political game.
1. I wasn't talking about politics. My point was that I don't support politics. Any kind of politics. It's an outdated system. I support the importance of human life and the standards of living.
2. How do you exactly know that everyone will disregard my once valid opinion? Please do give me a valid proof for that statement. It's physically impossible for you to know, unless you're a psychic....

11 Name: Magnolia : 2014-09-18 00:43 ID:BW4kmXa5 [Del]

I didn't mean people would disregard it on an emotional basis.
It's just you sound childish now after insulting the intelligence of a complete stranger.
I was just trying to give advice and prevent this going down the ungodly path of a YouTube comment section.
You can have a civilized conversation over politics (or whatever you want to call it) without flinging around insults. It just gets you taken more seriously.

12 Name: Chreggome : 2014-09-18 01:00 ID:2IJIqNvA [Del]

>I don't support politics.
>Any kind of politics.
>It's an outdated system

My goodness.

13 Name: Chreggome : 2014-09-18 01:06 ID:2IJIqNvA [Del]

>>10 >>12 Please just learn that are tons of kinds of politics mang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

14 Name: DaiMajutsu13 : 2014-09-18 07:03 ID:KkycSnPw [Del]

>>13 Voluntaryism is a philosophy, not a political direction. That doesn't make it worse or better, I personally find it pretty interesting,but I still don't see how it should be considered politics.
Still, you made me realize that I didn't express myself very clearly, I should correct myself. I'll try to clarify it, so that it's very hard to misunderstand. I do not support the political system, nor any political directions or movements, which abide its rules, try to solve problems within the system's limitations. They are all outdated, and futile. That doesn't mean there's no better alternative abiding the political system, it's just that I don't think it's a system that supports the solving of human problems.

Back to >>11 >"I didn't mean people would disregard it on an emotional basis"
Then could you also please tell me what you did mean by that? Since talking at each other doesn't seem to cut it now does it?

>"It's just you sound childish now after insulting the intelligence of a complete stranger. "
Point out the intelligence part, and I'll review what I said earlier. The mistake might be on my side, and I can accept that, given a valid argument. At least we will be clear on what we consider intelligence.

>"I was just trying to give advice and prevent this going down the ungodly path of a YouTube comment section."
Sorry, I rarely read them. Don't have a clue about how the ungodly part looks like.

>"You can have a civilized conversation over politics (or whatever you want to call it) without flinging around insults. It just gets you taken more seriously." Yes, I fully do understand that. And I do appreciate you caring for me, you can take that as a compliment. Still, in many occasions I would very heavily consider insulting someone, there are certain things that I don't take. Everyone has something like this. Mine is being labeled or stereotyped, since it prevents people who posess less information about the topic to judge it more objectively. It also presumes unnecessary information about an individual. I don't want to go deeper in explaining. It's not a capital matter. It's my button that can be pushed. Everyone has it. It's normal. We're humans. Stop riding the problem. It's marginal. And we're way off topic.

On the sidenote: I did say that "You can't have a civilized discussion if you only care about >>6 labeling and >>8 >>9 getting butthurt." I already got the labeling. I wasn't trying to hold a civilized conversation after that in the first place, although I think other than the retard part I pretty much managed to communicate my point clearly. Or do we have to discuss the "I don't give two shits" part too, mom?

15 Name: Solace !o0GOqY0U0w : 2014-09-18 07:27 ID:sQ3dbshh [Del]

>>14 Quite the Berlin wall of text.

On the topic of Isis (or IS as they call themselves now).
Rarely in a conflict is there something as one dimensional as 'baddies', but the fellows who affiliate with Isis are pure fucking cunts.
500 police men in Sydney, a prominent Australian city, conducted a search this morning, rounding up dozens of Islamic extremists.
You know what initiated this search? They intercepted a phone-call from an Isis affiliate planning to snatch a random person off the street the next day, behead them, then upload the video.
If you think the prevention of that kind of evil is evil unto itself just because it's involved with governmental measures, you need a serious reality check.
I'd be happy to hear a better solution than military intervention but as is, people just seem to want to complain about every fucking institution ever.

So, yeah.

16 Name: Anonymous : 2014-09-18 11:55 ID:r62XZInb [Del]

>>10
I think it's funny that you think civilized discussion means people don't get insulted at insults, rather than people not insulting in the first place.

>I would very heavily consider insulting someone, there are certain things that I don't take. Everyone has something like this

No, I don't have something that people can say that forces me to insult them. That is my choice, I choose to be an asshole just like you when you call someone a retard. It's not a human problem, that's all you boy-o.

>>15 They seem too bad. They are starting to censor science and math from children now.

17 Name: DaiMajutsu13 : 2014-09-18 13:36 ID:Sv0KEjHa [Del]

>>16
>"I think it's funny that you think civilized discussion means people don't get insulted at insults, rather than people not insulting in the first place." No, I don't. I don't even understand what you're trying to point at, maybe I'd understand better if you'd elaborate it... Nevertheless, please refrain from rewording what I once said, since it allows you to interpret what I said differently. And so this discussion is going nowhere.

>"No, I don't have something that people can say that forces me to insult them. That is my choice, I choose to be an asshole just like you when you call someone a retard. It's not a human problem, that's all you boy-o" I never wrote that someone can say something that forces me to insult them. I wrote that I chose to be an asshole. Correct. Labeling was the line for me for that. And again. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Also "It's not a human problem, that's all you boy-o." you know very well, that the human problem part was meant to the actual topic of the thread, not the part where a bunch of you started dickriding my social habits. Or at least I hope you're competent enough to understand that sonny.

18 Name: Anonymous : 2014-09-18 18:40 ID:in0edS8c [Del]

>>17
>You can't have a civilized discussion if you only care about >>6 labeling and >>8 >>9 getting butthurt

I think that pretty heavily implies civilized discussion becomes non-civilized when you get butthurt about the insult, and not after the actual insult. I guess you didn't mean that, but I don't think it was crazy to read it like that.

I know you aren't forced to say anything, it was what you would call an exaggeration. You made it seem like it was inevitable you were going to insult someone when they went 'too far' for you, that's what I said it. I didn't really agree with that. As for the 'dickriding', we all read this forum, so if we keep reading you calling people retards or we get called retards, it's not so much riding your dick as it is trying to maintain reasonable neutrality. That's the way I'm always trying to come at it.

If I think you're being an asshole, I'll be an asshole. That's not right, but I'm an asshole, so, yeah. Looking through your other posts, I don't think you're an asshole.

Sorry. I was not being cool. I promise I am not usually like that.

19 Post deleted by user.

20 Name: DaiMajutsu13 : 2014-09-19 03:45 ID:Sv0KEjHa [Del]

>>18 Yeah, well I'm just happy we got it cleared up :)

Also:
>"If I think you're being an asshole, I'll be an asshole. That's not right, but I'm an asshole, so, yeah."
Same rule applied here: >>6 >>7

Anyways, no worries. I rarely get offended by misunderstandings.