A tale of war and politics [was: Racist Japanese Players]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ezikiel said:
Sculli- Yes war is, unfortunately, good for business. War does help the economy.
Click to expand...
While these two things are not mutually exclusive, they are in this case not quite true. War is good for profits, it does, however, not really help the economy at large all that much if it becomes drawn out (as this one does). Too much money, taxpayers money, is spend on war, and that money is much needed elsewhere. Bush Sr. did well, quick war, boost to the economy, done and done.

The President nicely summed up what he has in mind for the American people; "[we] never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."

yet another great speech from great leader

I can only imagine the faces of his staff when he said that, they probably have a pool running for each speech he's giving, though I doubt anyone would actually bet in his favor.
 
Ezikiel said:
Mattaru said:
One point that i want to hit mainly is that the second a nation decides to send in troops for some altruistic crusade to save an oppressed people is the same second a government acknowledges that the lives of their citizenry are less than equal or even equal to the citizens of another nation. It is a governemnts first responsiblity to protect there own citizens, then such idealistic endeavours are at least somewhat justifiable.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. Aren't all people created equal??? Should not others have the same rights or opertunities as you???

Lest we forget, it was pure CHANCE that you were born in this country and not there.
Click to expand...

Rawlsian veil of ignorance bs isnt meant for governments first of all. All people are created equal sure (in fact this debatable even, this phrase was coined by enlightenment philosophy that had alot of its warrant based on the belief in a supreme being, ie in these eyes of god everyone is equal therefor ethey are accored such treatment, but i tend to agree that people should be treated as equals. therefore, borders are arbitrary to god maybe or between peoples, but not for governments). All people are equal so why ought we sacrifice one group of peoples for another (ie sending American troops to "liberate" another people for no apparent reason only to be altruistic and get some southern baptist to vote for you), that was the brunt of my argument that you failed to see.

dont give me that condescending this is tiring bs.
 
*should be treated equally nonetheless. Sorry that was a bit rantish, rather than oraganized.
 
Oh and btw i see the confusion that could be wrought be the statement "or even equal", basically a government that is responsible to another citizenry becomes pointless, just a superfluidity.
 
Mattaru said:
dont give me that condescending this is tiring bs.
Click to expand...

Totally not meant to be condisending. We, and others, obviously don't agree. It's tireing to dwell on it, and I think that it is becomming quite redundant. No harm, no foul.

But remember, American troops decide to become troops. They make a choice to enlist, knowing that war is a possibility, and their lives may be at stake.

And furthermore, I belive that as a/the world superpower, we have a responsibility to liberate the opressed, and HELP people to achive the same freedoms that we have. This should be the UN's job- but see Mistayas post.

The thing is..... helping someone that needs help does not sit well with the American people. "Mind our own business" they say.
Quite selfish, I think. So there needs to be a reason. The threat of nuclear warfare was that reason. Did they have them?..... no. Could they have??....... maybe. Doesn't matter. What we did was a good thing.

Sculli, I will not get into a presidential debate with you. The Democratic nominee has said/done some contriversial things also. He is quite the politician, and changes his stand on things like the wind of opinion polls. That's why we vote (I hope you do). My personal feeling on Bush is, while he may not be the smartest man (mis-speaking often) He leads with his heart and personal convictions. He is not afraid to say/do what he feels is right, not what will make him popular.
 
Ezikiel said:
Totally not meant to be condisending. We, and others, obviously don't agree. It's tireing to dwell on it, and I think that it is becomming quite redundant. No harm, no foul.

But remember, American troops decide to become troops. They make a choice to enlist, knowing that war is a possibility, and their lives may be at stake.

And furthermore, I belive that as a/the world superpower, we have a responsibility to liberate the opressed, and HELP people to achive the same freedoms that we have. This should be the UN's job- but see Mistayas post.

The thing is..... helping someone that needs help does not sit well with the American people. "Mind our own business" they say.
Quite selfish, I think. So there needs to be a reason. The threat of nuclear warfare was that reason. Did they have them?..... no. Could they have??....... maybe. Doesn't matter. What we did was a good thing.
Click to expand...

Even if American troops decide to enlist and face war that doesnt mean that sending them to die is justifiable.

Believing a responsibility exists is far from proving its existence (unless you are Berkeley but hes whack). Just because i have the power to do something makes me accountable for not doing it. IE, the grass in my yard is getting fairly long i could cut it but i decide not to, does that make me obligated to cut the grass? Secondly, i think that the United States follies in Iraq show it to be not entirely capable of being a "world cop". Needless to say being a world cop is so extremely implausible that it is not even funny. Thats one reason the UN cant do it entirely, its such a large task. Of course, using the UN as a tool to push an individual nations agenda doesnt help. The US isnt the only nation guilty of this. The UN will probably fail becaus at its conception it treated large nations as the decision makers which marginilizes voices of smaller nations, for instance the veto powers large nations always hold that gives very limited and temporary power to members that dont have the veto power.

Im no Ayn Rand sympathizer but "selfish" gets a bad rap. God forbid people act in their own interests. Sometimes that gets you in trouble that you deserve but that tends to be because when people become overly selfish they also become increasingly idiotic, or were that way in the first place and they are now in a position to have it come back to bite them in the ass. As i said earlier im not promoting isolationism but im not promoting reckless crusades either. Many of the families who lost there loved ones in Iraq may agree it was for a good cause and im sorry they think that way. Im sorry that people believe that there own flesh and blood is an ok means to a folly end that will most likely fail. Im gald Iraq is free for now but im sorry it was done in this way.

This wasnt directed to me but plenty of people who follow their hearts and convictions were some of the most evilest people this world has known and some have been the greatest, it is an admirable quality but a destructive one in the hands of a fool with great power.
 
Justice is in the eye of the beholder. What is sad, or a lost cause to you, is heroism and justifiable to others. It's sad you would hold your opinon above someone who gave their life for something they believed in. I'm not saying that your opinon is wrong........ it is your opinon and valid.

The UN will probably die.... thank God. I do not support it whatsoever.

I guess the difference between me and you is, that I do believe in helping people selflessly. Call me crazy but my belief is: God first, others second, myself third. I may be a fool in your eyes, but ask those I have helped if I am a fool. Don't get me wrong, I have boundries. But I have done quite well for myself, and found that there is no feeling greater than doing something positive in someones life.

You make a fantastic point at the end, and I couldn't agree more.
 
Yes war is, unfortunately, good for business. War does help the economy.
Click to expand...

That isn't entirely accurate. War CAN help an economy, but this war isn't going to hel pour economy. The idea that war helps an economy is largly represented by WWII. That war got us out of the depression. The reason it helped our economy is that we DIDNT have takns, boats, ammo, guns, you name it in supply enough to GO to war. This war is being fought with payed for items and while it is true that some of this stuff will need replacing, by and large, we HAVE everything we need. All of the military contracts are secured and payed for, and new ones of any significance and size aren't likely to be established because of this war. If war is so good for our economy ask these questions: 1-- why wasn't the economy better during viet-nam. 2-- George Bush Sr. was immensly popular during the war but was then voted out of office for the recession. 3-- Our economy is shit NOW.

Look at the latest job statistics: 22,000 jobs created in July, 120,000 or so short of the number needed to simply break even. Also, we essentially conquered an oil producing nation, so why is our gas so high? Yes, I know the REST of the world already pays more and yes I know that it is "The Iraqi People's oil" but honsetly, we SHOULD get a discount for helping to remove their dicator and for giving them freed (if that really is what we did)
War CAN be good for the economy, but consider what kind of war would need to exist to buy a significant ammount of supplies for. In WWII, even food items were rationed. When was the last time you had to struggle to buy butter? THAT is the kind of war we would need in order for it to boost our economy. The OTHER way it could work is if we were in such a righteous and just action that the mood of our poepple was high. Happy people usually equals a good economy. Given that polls show that more Americans think that Iraq was a mistake than think it was proper, we clearly don't have that kind of war.
 
Point taken Dale.

I'm not speaking of a widespread boost like WWII. But going to war does create jobs. Albiet, totally not a reason to support war, but does create a small amount of contracting jobs (in and out of US), plus people to replace those who go to war.

People's well-being and happiness are what really effects the Economy. (or actually the media, but another topic all together)

July's job #'s were down. But that was the first decline in some time. Our economy is cirtainly not the best right now.... but compare it to times in the 70's and 80's, and things are not so bad.

Polls are for the most part even on the war. Half support, half don't.
 
Yeah, I just hope this thing stops before it becomes another Viet-nam. It would be VERY unlikely to become such, but it doesn't seem as though anyone really wants us over there except for the White House, a few republicans, and a bunch of republicans who feel that they can't step up and divide the party (a good choice). I don't believe that George Bush will win the next election. I think there will be a very high voter turnout, higher than in 2000, and it will all be people voting against him. People loved to hate Clinton, cause he was the charming, handsome, rougish man of power so many wish they could be. People hate Bush in much more real and legitimate way. I think this will inspire a lot of people to vote that otherwise wouldn't. Me for instance. I'm 26 and have never voted in a presidential election because I've never felt strongly enough to care. I didn't think Clinton would make a good president, but I didn't think Dole would have either. Same with Gore vs Bush. I just didn't care. Even if I HAD voted, it wouldn't have mettered. I lived in Washington state, which always goes liberal. Now I live in Nevada. Here in Las Vegas, things are very liberal. However, the rest of the state is conservative. In 2000, Nevada went to Bush. Every month voter registration shows something new. One month there are more Democrats, the next month more Republicans.
So all of these polls showing "likely voters" are "likely" mistaken. People hate Bush so much that they have made movies against him (Farenheit 911, the only documentary EVER to gross over $100 million) and musicians are going on tour to support Kerry. That is astounding and possibly unprecidented.
 
Yes, this will be a tough election for us. It actually depends on all of the "young" voters, and if they all, infact vote.

You make it sound like hating Clinton is not a legitimate thing, and based off of jelousy. I am suprised at this, and would expect better of you. There are many reasons that one could dislike him, the first being that he cheated on his wife with an intern- then proceeded to lie about it. Believe me, I am all for seperation of personal lives, and do not discredit for things done in ones past. But good God, he was the President of the United States.

The sad part of this election is that it is not about Bush vs Kerry. It is Bush vs Who cares. In other words, nobody cares who would be Pres, as long as it's not Bush. You're not voting for Kerry, you're voting against Bush. /sigh I wish Mc Cain ran independent. Kerry is just empty rehtoric, and will make for a bad Pres, IMO.
 
The President of the United States is still a human being with human frailties. He cheated on his wife, does that mean he'd make a bad president? JFK was an amazing president, and he cheated on his wife. I don't believe that the president is the moral leader of the nation. The framers of the constitution didn't design the office to be such anyway.
I have no reason to hate Clinton, I don't know him. And if I'm correct Ezekiel, your views on morality spring from a place that is awfully promoting of forgiveness, correct? Turn the other cheek and whatnot? So is there reason for many of us to hate Bill Clinton?
He was a pretty decent president, but not in the top 10. I wouldn't want him as a husband, but I'd want him to run my business. Bush on the other hand might have been a pretty cool person to know once. I would never want the man to be my president. For MANY reasons. You have to separate the man from the office.
 
And yeah, this election isn't about John Kerry for president, its against George Bush.
And I would have voted for McCain over Bush OR Gore. And I am an athiest liberal.
Even so, Wesley Clark was so OVERWHELMINGLY QUALIFIED to be president its scary. Too bad he's such a poor politician.
 
Dalecooper said:
Even so, Wesley Clark was so OVERWHELMINGLY QUALIFIED to be president its scary. Too bad he's such a poor politician.
Click to expand...

I really liked Wesley Clark. I would have voted for him. If I was American.
 
chpal said:
god, there is soo much going on between JP and NA, good and bad! But remeber the Europeans are coming soon!^^ soon we will be saying:

<english><japanse><french><german><spanish><swedish><greek><pourtugese><russian><polish><hungarian> PT ok^^

when they get here, there will be a lot of NA players that will not want to PT with them either. Its natural to be wary of the unknown. We ahve no idea what a thousand Euros will act like when they get here. Perhaps some of us will act like those "racist" JP towards the Euros^^
Click to expand...
Yes.... i know.... late... dont judge me
But anyway im european! :lol:
*shutting up*
 
Hit or Miss.

Much like everything else in life, people are kind of hit or miss.

Before I started playing, I had a friend that would tell me all sorts of little tidbits and stories. One thing he stressed was calling out your 30 minutes. According to him, this was incredibly important, especially when Partying with Japanese.

After alot more experience I have come across 2 strong personality types. It is easy to generalize since I cannot speak the language and can only really judge them based on actions. But the 2 most common Japanese player types are:

1)Stoner: Gives no warning and will usually do something completely retarded, then suddenly announce they are tired and disband. They will never actually log on, they just find themselves a Japanese group.
--This is mildly irritaiting, and I often find that more NA are willing to stick it out in a group they can't communicate with than there are JP who are willing to do the same.

2)Superhuman: Well informed. Very polite. Willing to help you out if you look like you need it. Will often turn down a reward. Is often capable of speaking key phrases in English, although they may in no way be fluent.
--These guys are my favorite, but I get nervous around them, because I want to be as nice as possible while not sounding condecending or overly gratefull in a mannor that could be taken as sarcasm.

Those are just 2 main clusters that I run into more often than not. There are many different types of people out there. But this is like seperating the assholes from the great guys in any country really.
 
"do you know im bad? so you have 10 parties with american people, 8 of them were AWFUL, SO? suck it up. you still had 2 good parties and you cant bring all of us down because of a majority of COMPLETE idiots/asses"

~ I wouldn't be Willing to take that Chance, would You ? Would you go to A Country where 8 out of 10 People hate You ? Would you go to a Store where there is a 80% chance to get Robbed ? Would you go to a Party where you have an 80% Chance of NOT having Fun ? I didn't think so.

(BTW I'm a Euro Player) We are Everywhere already ! Our Silent Invasion goes as Planned !
 
*stabby stab* *stabs move voilently* Why won't it die!?!?!

*grabs the chaingun, aims at thread*
 
Oye.. yet again where the lack of an edit button foils my attempt to be funny. /sigh
 
you'd need a random joke generator for you to be funny ecks
hehe couldnt resist
anywho
where you from ellah?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top