A life wasted

[Geggy]

Washington Post reporting this...? :eek

Now I have seen everything...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR2006010200974.html

:(

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Geggy, it's an Op/Ed......

[AChimp]

The writer is managing director of a trade development firm in Cleveland.

I think Geggy has gone crazy in the past couple of weeks. Time to take a break, man...[/i]

[Kulturkampf]

"This leads to the second reaction. Since August we have witnessed growing opposition to the Iraq war, but it is often whispered, hands covering mouths, as if it is dangerous to speak too loudly."

Is that true?

and I would like to add... I liked what the Roman poet Horace said:

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori."

It is sweet and proper to die for one's country.

This is true because:
(a) Without sacrifice for the greater good against enemies, there is no unity of the people.
(b) This sacrifice is the largest embodiment of what it means for a collective force of people, and only when there is a collective force of people can there be safety for those who we want to shelter from the harm [the innocents]

And so both sides must always be commended on their dead, and it is always sweet and proper for th emen to fight and to die like this, because it is a representation of civic duty and government.

It was written in Nam-do, the way of men, the Confucian way of how we exist, as well as in the European codes of conduct and chivalry and the Roman Legion's SPQR, so this is a very universal concept that is representative of the very basis of civilization.

[ziggytrix]

Is what true? That speaking out against the war is viewed as unpatriotic? That's certainly how the current administration tries to paint it. Or are you asking if it's true that people are speaking out?

No, boy, dying's easy.
Ain't nothing heroic about dying.

But if you can take a stand
for something you'd kill for...

...that's something. Something special.


Dying for your country is civilization? Perhaps. If civilization is merely agreeing with another human not to kill each one another in order that you might both work toward killing a third party.

But I prefer to think that the goal of civilization is something other than military build-up.

You military, Kultur?

[ItalianStereotype]

military build-up isn't the goal of civilisation, it is the guarantor.

[ziggytrix]

War Is Peace · Freedom Is Slavery · Ignorance Is Strength


add:
Militarization Is Civilization

[ItalianStereotype]

which is exactly what I just said that it isn't.

[mozz]

War is fucking stupid, cant we live in harmony and dance round an infinate rainbow.

[ziggytrix]

As its guarantor it would be an indispendisble and integral component though. It is hardly a slippery slope from that integral component to goal.

Perhaps a goal, and not the goal. Would you concede that?

Personally, I think it's futile. Complete dominance is unachievable without abolishing ALL liberties. Acts toward that end only inspire rebellion, as evidenced by pretty much all our recorded history.

[ItalianStereotype]

it's true enough, I will concede, that militarisation must be a goal of civilisation.

as to the futility of it, I don't follow your reasoning. complete dominance of what? the world? the region? one's own civilization? if that is the case, why do you feel that complete dominance is the goal even though the necessity of it is dubious? can you cite historical precedent?

[mozz]

War is over power, revenge and religion.
Turn the world communist
Turn the world into mindless zombies
Boycott religion
It's not going to happen.
War will always be about.
Gay :/

[ziggytrix]

So what is the goal of civilization? To progress the human species?

The American Heritage defines it as "An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions."

What part of that requires a military buildup?

Is it to defend civilization from those who prefer barbarism? Hardly. It is so that a group of jingoes can impose their view of civilization upon dissimilarly minded group of jingoes. And feel free to put the word "patriots" in place of whichever group with whom you sympathize.

Frankly, I'd welcome a one-world government that claimed to cherish the same values America claims to cherish. However, I remain cynical, and believe that it would merely turn upon itself, with the usual petty power plays among the leaders and acts of terrorism from dissidents.

The human species is very succeptible to power-madness. The militaries of the world are ultimately a symptom of this sickness. :)

[Kulturkampf]

Is what true? That speaking out against the war is viewed as unpatriotic? That's certainly how the current administration tries to paint it. Or are you asking if it's true that people are speaking out?

I would have thought there would certainly be enough anti-war sentiment that no one would have to hide it. I do know that there are plenty of people who want to paint it one way, but it is at about fifty/fifty in the nation, if I am not mistaken (?).

Dying for your country is civilization? Perhaps. If civilization is merely agreeing with another human not to kill each one another in order that you might both work toward killing a third party.

But I prefer to think that the goal of civilization is something other than military build-up.

You military, Kultur?

Yes. I did join out of such convictions I have.

And yes, there is more than military build up - naturally, the arts and literatures of a nation and the culture of its' people are more important than guns and ammunition, but to deny the honor of the military in its' service of the peopl would be a wrong philosophy.

[ziggytrix]

I would have thought there would certainly be enough anti-war sentiment that no one would have to hide it.

Depends where ya are. I'm sure if you cared to dig you could find people with claims that they lost their jobs due to being too vocal either for or against some politcal policy. The fact that we are "a nation at war" only intensifies this.

I do think the writer exaggerated the average person's fear of reprisal for speaking out against the war, but one need only look to specific tradationally unhawkish folks on the right or center-left in Washington to see real fear of speaking out against the war. This war was immensily popular when it began.

[ItalianStereotype]

So what is the goal of civilization? To progress the human species?

The American Heritage defines it as "An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions."

What part of that requires a military buildup?

Is it to defend civilization from those who prefer barbarism? Hardly. It is so that a group of jingoes can impose their view of civilization upon dissimilarly minded group of jingoes. And feel free to put the word "patriots" in place of whichever group with whom you sympathize.

Frankly, I'd welcome a one-world government that claimed to cherish the same values America claims to cherish. However, I remain cynical, and believe that it would merely turn upon itself, with the usual petty power plays among the leaders and acts of terrorism from dissidents.

The human species is very succeptible to power-madness. The militaries of the world are ultimately a symptom of this sickness. :)

yes, one of the goals of civilisation is to advance the human race through its own development. another goal is to sustain itself and survive. remember one of the primary reasons that Rome fell was that it could not protect itself. Byzantium suffered the same fate at the hand of Islamic invaders.

civilisations do not stand on the good will of those around them, to believe that is the worst sort of ignorance.

jingoism. I love that word. JINGO JINGO!

so you have no taste for imperialism? I suppose I can see that, but I can't agree with it.

[El Blanco]

So what is the goal of civilization? To progress the human species?

The American Heritage defines it as "An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions."

What part of that requires a military buildup?

Actually, when you look at most of the important advances in history (especially American history) scientific advances have been tied directly to military applications.

Space program: The German Vengance II rockets were the basis for shooting people into space.

Medicine: Gell pills were invented to get wounded soldiers to down their penicillin. The Civil War saw the greatest jumps in prosthetic technology until the use of robotics. The use of phosphorus and other incindiary chemicals during WWI led to the invention of skin grafts.

Internet: Product of DARPA, the R&D people for the Pentegon.

Is it to defend civilization from those who prefer barbarism? Hardly. It is so that a group of jingoes can impose their view of civilization upon dissimilarly minded group of jingoes. And feel free to put the word "patriots" in place of whichever group with whom you sympathize.

Did you know how Hellenistic culture spread through half the known world? A general spread it.

How did Rome unite the world and its cultures? Under the sword.

How did all those people learn to read one unified language(Islam) use Algebra, create art and literature and preserve Greak and Eastern culture while the barbarians you seem to underestimate were sacking and burn ing every damn thing in sight?

Do I have to tell you?

Frankly, I'd welcome a one-world government that claimed to cherish the same values America claims to cherish.

And how do you think that would come about? A big tea party and we ask real nice?


The human species is very succeptible to power-madness. The militaries of the world are ultimately a symptom of this sickness. :)

Its both the symptom and the cure. Kind of like a vaccine.

[ziggytrix]

civilisations do not stand on the good will of those around them, to believe that is the worst sort of ignorance.


1. quit spelling "civilization" like a foreigner.
2. none has to this point, but is the ideal society one that is full of good will or full of fear of the military/police?

In reality, modern society is in balance between control through fear and control through the inherent rewards of harmonious living.

Personally, I find the worst sort of ignorance to be blind faith in nationalism and one's leaders. It's that sort of ignorance that caused the Holocaust.

Centralization of power is not good. The altruism of the emporer is merely the expression of a fear of a coup. However, humans aren't very good at getting things done without a hierarchy, so don't think I'm suggesting anarchy.

I'm not claiming to have the answers. I don't know how we can go from "peace through superior firepower" to something sane, but I do believe that such hawkish philosophy is a path to our own annihliation.

What was that statistic from the cold war era regarding how many nukes the USA and USSR had combined? Something like enough to destroy the Earth 8 times over?

[glowbelly]

you know who used to do that all the time (spell words all british style?)???

rorschach :eek

'member him?

[ItalianStereotype]

I don't like the letter "z"

ask jin!

[Kulturkampf]

Personally, I find the worst sort of ignorance to be blind faith in nationalism and one's leaders. It's that sort of ignorance that caused the Holocaust.

I also find blind cynicism and distrust in the nation's leaders to be rather disgusting, and there seem sto be a plethora of youth who would rather endlessly condemn their home states than even try to understand the reasons for the things that we do.

Loyalty is a virtue -- disloyalty isn't. So I would prefer people who have more of an inclination to be loyal to their own states and to understand the pespective of their own nation than to fall victim to vain exoticism and perceived intellectual thinking (Marxism is the opiate of the teen-agers).

[Big Papa Goat]

What exactly did you mean by centralization of power not being good, and then human beings not doing well without a hierarchy? What would a hierarchy be without centralizaiton of power?
In any case, don't humans function pretty well without hierarchal organization? Look at Western civilization, with market economies and democracy. Arguably some of the best institutions for promoting civilization that human beings have thus far come up with. Certainly they seem to be quite succesful, and both seem to explicitly reject hierachal control as a means of organizing society. Interestingly, both still seem to require the centralizaiton of violent military power.

I do see your point though ziggy, and I can't imagine why the centralizaiton of military power would be neccesary for civlization. Unless human beings in general are suffering from some kind of power-madness that causes them to always want to take advantage of other people for their own benefit and others expense. I guess in that case, centralized military power might be useful to prevent people from fucking with eachother.

But since the only people that are power-mad are the American government and the Jews that control it, militaries are basically just a way for them to advance their interests and strange views of civlizaiton on the rest of the world.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

and I would like to add... I liked what the Roman poet Horace said:

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori."

It is sweet and proper to die for one's country.

I think I prefer what Wilfred Owen had to say about that.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Actually, when you look at most of the important advances in history (especially American history) scientific advances have been tied directly to military applications.

Space program: The German Vengance II rockets were the basis for shooting people into space.

Medicine: Gell pills were invented to get wounded soldiers to down their penicillin. The Civil War saw the greatest jumps in prosthetic technology until the use of robotics. The use of phosphorus and other incindiary chemicals during WWI led to the invention of skin grafts.

Internet: Product of DARPA, the R&D people for the Pentegon.

I'm not a huge fan of this argument. You often hear it made for why we should keep putting more and more money into NASA.

Okay, so after how many billions of dollars, we get how much innovation? Could we have simply directed those billions into the actual desired product itself (i.e. medicine, internet, blah blah)? I know, I know,perhaps innovation comes about from experiment and random chance, but it seems like a really roundabout way to improve on things.

[Big Papa Goat]

How do you direct these billions of dollars at 'actual products' and get innovative new products?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

No, my point is if you're going to argue that spending $3 billion on warplanes gets you a new vaccine for AIDS or something, is that a strong enough argument to keep spending that much on the military, or is it a sign that we should be spending more on disease research?

[Geggy]

NASA, cure for disease, poverty, better education, etc, spend money on things that gets the civilization to move forward, grow and evolve. Everytime we go to war the process of civlization slows down to numbers of years depending on amount money that's been wasted and number of people killed in the war. Seems like everytime a Bush gets elected, America goes into recession, if not falling behind, and for what? Their own interest? >:

[El Blanco]

You don't invent something until you need it. No one was just sitting around thinking "wouldn't it be cool if computers could instantaneously communicate with each other". It was some lab geeks in the Pentagon going "shit this work is hard. If the machines could just talk to each other, it would cut our workload in half".

These innovations usally have some pressing need surrounding them, and since when is there a more pressing need than life and eath, which is pretty much what the military deals in?

Don't get me wrong, there have been tons of non-military pushed advances, but it just seems thats where the most of them come frome, funding or not.

Of course, we humans also have this wierd tendency to put most of our creativity into finding new ways to kill each other. All the cool toys are by-products.

[ziggytrix]

You can say I'm nuts, but I think the internet would have come along even without our government's fear of a centralized missle command being taken out by a Soviet nuke.

The banks, or the phone companies, or the universities (and ARPANet was created at universities, even if it was military research) each could have come up with wide area networking, based solely on the need for data communication over distances.

[Kulturkampf]

No, my point is if you're going to argue that spending $3 billion on warplanes gets you a new vaccine for AIDS or something, is that a strong enough argument to keep spending that much on the military, or is it a sign that we should be spending more on disease research?

I definitely see and sympathize with your point, I agree with it on very fundamental grounds.

I think, surprising to some, that the US has such a monopoly on modern war technology that there should be no reason to continue to invest in such extremely expensive equiptment when we can accomplish the job with simpler tools our enemy do not even have -- and by simple, I mean simple.

Our enemy can barely fight us, and the idea that we need billion dollar gadgets to blow them up is absurd.

I think that what we need to do is support a system that allocates more funding towards general protection of the foot soldier, and less in the way of funky explosives that all too often hit civilians (an infantryman can discriminate between a baby and a terrorist, but a bomb cannot).

We should use more money for tax breaks to fuel a better economy and growth throughout the world, and some money should definitely be redirected to providing proper medical care and education to the nations that are failing.

In a roundabout way, we even degree.

[Geggy]

Japan spends somewhere in the vincinity of 30 billion a year on defense yet they're far more technologically advanced than the united states...

Russia and china spends around 110 billion a year on defense combined and they've formed a space alliance and aiming to land on the moon...

United states alone spends 420 billion a year on defense and what do we get...? 9/11... :rolleyes

[El Blanco]

Japan spends somewhere in the vincinity of 30 billion a year on defense yet they're far more technologically advanced than the united states...

In what way? Because most of the stuff you bought was made there? Its not their technological means that makes them such a world economic power, its their bussiness sense.

They don't innovate anything (besides the occasional robot). They are incredible managers, though.

Russia and china spends around 110 billion a year on defense combined and they've formed a space alliance and aiming to land on the moon...

And if this were 1968, I'd be concerned.

Were they to build a long term research center or some sort of colony, that would be impressive.

United states alone spends 420 billion a year on defense and what do we get...? 9/11... :rolleyes

A fluke. A perfect storm of circumstances and years of planning that paid off for a short time.

It wasn't the tech that let us down that day.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Everybody knows Al Gore invented the internet anyway. :rolleyes


I think that what we need to do is support a system that allocates more funding towards general protection of the foot soldier, and less in the way of funky explosives that all too often hit civilians (an infantryman can discriminate between a baby and a terrorist, but a bomb cannot).

I agree entirely, particularly since the state vs. state concept of war at least seems to be a fading notion. I'd rather see a smaller, more skilled, and well equipped military. Ya know, like universal soldier or something....

Don't get me wrong, I am not against military spending. I just think arguing about why we should support it because it cures cancer and makes improvements in technology is sort of weak. We should spend money on our military because we need to defend ourselves.

Regarding earlier themes in this thread, like jingoism (heh...jingo), nationalism, etc.

I think we need to be careful with nationalism and patriotism. As a U.S. citizen, I want the soldiers who defend me to be patriotic to the point of nausea. I want them to be the types who cry during the national anthem. I know to a certain degree you need your soldiers to have that psychological buy-in in order to do what they are asked to do. I don't care that they tend to be ideologically different than me, and on average, conservative Republicans. I can live with that trade off.

With that being said, I think the average citizen needs to be careful with their patriotism.

" I would prefer people who have more of an inclination to be loyal to their own states and to understand the pespective of their own nation than to fall victim to vain exoticism and perceived intellectual thinking "

Sure, however we should be careful not to fall in to the constant trap of arrogance, because arrogance leads to laziness, which IMO, leads to defeat. I think it's perfectly rational (AND patriotic) to constantly question your government and nation. How else will you constantly improve and strive to remain the best?

[ziggytrix]

Only godless commies and nazis think it's wrong to question your own government.

[kahljorn]

"Don't get me wrong, there have been tons of non-military pushed advances, but it just seems thats where the most of them come frome, funding or not. "

Yea, like the wheel. That was obviously designed with military intentions; roll a giant stone wheel down a hill and you've killed like half their army.
How about electricity? You know when he was flying that kite it was ACTUALLY a stealth bomber he was electrically charging for devestating firepower?
Or how about the humble lightbulb we use to destroy subterranean aliens who are light sensitive?
Or icecream. We all know what icecream is for.
How about steel? In this 20th century we need high quality steel for our swords.

I think the idea that the military pushes out lots of "Innovation" is fucking ridiculous. Which republican asshole gave you that stupid idea? Or the, "War creates good economy" idea. Yea, cause, look at this economy. Fucking fantastic. Let's go kill korea.

[Immortal Goat]

Our enemy can barely fight us, and the idea that we need billion dollar gadgets to blow them up is absurd.
They can "barely fight us"? I am willing to bet that there are thousands of soldiers who would disagree with you on that one.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

They can "barely fight us"? I am willing to bet that there are thousands of soldiers who would disagree with you on that one.

Yeah, you'd just have to pull them out of the holes they're hiding in in order to ask them.

[ziggytrix]

I think Goat's referring to any of our soldiers, Kev.

And they enemy is clearly able to fight, albeit fighting dirty. The point I think Kult's gettin at, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that no one can stand up to the US in conventional warfare, so we'd do better to spend a billion dollars on counter guerrilla fighter training rather than building billion dollar warheads.

[Immortal Goat]

I understand that part of it, and completely agree. What I am saying is that the phrase "they can barely fight us" seems to be underestimating the enemy.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think it's arguable that they aren't doing too well at the dirty warfare, either. They haven't pushed us out of iraq, they haven't stopped elections, and ultimately, they probably won't be able to thrive in Iraq.

Of course they will always be able to take cheap shots, but as for any of their desired goals, I'd say they've pretty much failed to achieve those.

[Immortal Goat]

I guess it's just semantics then. You think being able to fight means accomplishing goals. I think being able to fight means causing a mortality rate in our troops numbering into the thousands.

it doesn't matter if they accomplish their goals. They will never go away, because you can't kill an idea. These people are like roaches. Exploding roaches.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

But you can kill an idea. You do it with better ideas.

I think eventually, as we start to withdraw our troops, and average Iraqis begin to get used to these election things, as well as the lack of totalitarianism and torture chambers, they will probably have less tolerance for this tiny fraction of "insurgents".

[Immortal Goat]

More than likely these insurgents have children. And more than likely, these children have been brough up to believe the same as their parents. I doubt that a "better idea" is going to make up for the fact that these kids saw their parents killed by the very people they have been brought up to hate.

Think of it in American terms. I white child is brought up to hate black people. His father is a member of the KKK. Most of the country has moved on to the "better idea" of racial tolerance, but if a black man kills this child's father in a riot, that kid will grow up to hate black people just as much (if not more than) his father. And though the KKK may be a small group, the ammount of trouble they can cause is still significant, and people still die from it.

Insurgents will never go away, and that is the harsh reality that we as a nation need to face.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

More than likely these insurgents have children. And more than likely, these children have been brough up to believe the same as their parents. I doubt that a "better idea" is going to make up for the fact that these kids saw their parents killed by the very people they have been brought up to hate.

And if they continue to do the things their father did, they will end up dead just like him. The one exception might be that it'll be an Iraqi soldier who does it instead of an American. You can't make these kinds of excuses for blowing up cars and kidnapping aid workers. There will be consequences, and eventually, Iraqis will grow tired of this crap.

Think of it in American terms. I white child is brought up to hate black people. His father is a member of the KKK. Most of the country has moved on to the "better idea" of racial tolerance, but if a black man kills this child's father in a riot, that kid will grow up to hate black people just as much (if not more than) his father. And though the KKK may be a small group, the ammount of trouble they can cause is still significant, and people still die from it.

I think this is a great example, because the KKK is a tiny, meaningless, antiquated, marginalized, and insignificant organization. Sure, maybe one drunk and regressive redneck will shoot a black man, but what's important is that society condemns this person, not only for the crime, but also for his absurd beliefs.

I think this is a good comparison to the so-called "insurgents" in Iraq.

Insurgents will never go away, and that is the harsh reality that we as a nation need to face.

So what? You said it yourself, they're more like roaches. Roaches are annoying and unpleasant, but they don't bring life to a screaching hault. Another important thing to remember is that these roaches won't simply be our problem in the future, but ideally, that of a free and democratic Iraq. The Iraqi people can decide how to deal with these people eventually.

[Immortal Goat]

Sure, they are outdated and antiquated, and sure, they don't bring nations to a screeching hault, but my point is that as long as the ideal still exists, Bush will not let up. He has declared war on Terror. As long as insurgents exist, and as long as we have this war, they WILL be significant, because we are the ones making it so.

[sadie]

bush won't be in the white house forever, and the ideals that he has set forth won't be kept forever.

[Geggy]

In what way? Because most of the stuff you bought was made there? Its not their technological means that makes them such a world economic power, its their bussiness sense.

They don't innovate anything (besides the occasional robot). They are incredible managers, though.

In what way? Reliability, for one thing. American businesses care more about the packaging deal and the price of the product while the Japanese businesses focus more on the quality (and the trendiness) of the product. Take Playstation(japan) and Xbox(us) for instance...which would you buy for the quality of it? How about Ford and Toyota...which would you rather own?

I can't agree with you that Japaneses don't innovate anything. I'm betting you every cell phone device you've ever owned (if you do own one) was made in Japan but the service and the program is American.

I would like to own most of Japanese products but their export wouldn't allow it (or something like that)...

And if this were 1968, I'd be concerned.

Were they to build a long term research center or some sort of colony, that would be impressive.

That could happen if they continue to avoid getting involved with the war and increase military spending...
A fluke. A perfect storm of circumstances and years of planning that paid off for a short time.

It wasn't the tech that let us down that day.

You're right about the tech that didn't let us down that day but sorry, I'm having a hard time believing it was all a fluke when they've received numorous warnings that al-Qaeda was planning to strike the US. I'm also having hard time believing that al-Qaeda was responsible for the NORAD standdown simply by switching off the radar...

[El Blanco]

Yea, like the wheel. That was obviously designed with military intentions; roll a giant stone wheel down a hill and you've killed like half their army.

Oh, you were there? So, tell me,how did it happen? Tell me how and why it isn't how you just sarcastically described.

How about electricity? You know when he was flying that kite it was ACTUALLY a stealth bomber he was electrically charging for devestating firepower?

Who invented electricity? Refresh my memeory.


Or how about the humble lightbulb we use to destroy subterranean aliens who are light sensitive?

Did I say all inventions were of military design? Did I? Or did I say many inventions were not?


Or icecream. We all know what icecream is for.

Ah, yes, the very lynchpin of civilization. By the way, care to know how the refrideration system as we know it came about?

How about steel? In this 20th century we need high quality steel for our swords.

When was steel invented?

I think the idea that the military pushes out lots of "Innovation" is fucking ridiculous.

I find the notion that you think rediculous.

Which republican asshole gave you that stupid idea? Or the, "War creates good economy" idea.

True life? Fact? History?

Yea, cause, look at this economy. Fucking fantastic. Let's go kill korea.

Unemployment is down and home ownership is up. As for Korea.....I think its time for your ritalin now.

[El Blanco]

In what way? Reliability, for one thing. American businesses care more about the packaging deal and the price of the product while the Japanese businesses focus more on the quality (and the trendiness) of the product.

Thats business sense, numbnuts, not technological innovation. Which I just said.

Take Playstation(japan) and Xbox(us) for instance...which would you buy for the quality of it?

Dumbass, the X-Box has way better speciffications. Sony just used better business sense and made the PS and PS2 more accessible to third party programers.

How about Ford and Toyota...which would you rather own?

I'm looking to buy a Camry because Toyota is a better run company that puts out a more reliable and fuel efficient car with a better warranty. It has nothing to do with any type of innovations in the car.

I can't agree with you that Japaneses don't innovate anything. I'm betting you every cell phone device you've ever owned (if you do own one) was made in Japan but the service and the program is American.

The cell phones we use trace their lineage back to the portable radio units from WW2. Ericsson and Nokia also happen to be Scandenavian (I forget which of the three countries).

Tell me, what is one Japanese innovation?

I would like to own most of Japanese products but their export wouldn't allow it (or something like that)...

Do you have any idea how much total crap is pumped into that market? Talk about a consumer culture, they make us look Amish.

But, if you want to look like a 15 year old Japanese girl, thats your bag.


That could happen if they continue to avoid getting involved with the war and increase military spending...

You do realize that our own space program was a direct result of the Cold War, right, as well as the Soviets? I agree that a shooting war would slow down any progress there, but onyl the need to compete and the fear of another threat is going to propel them toward that sort of goal.



You're right about the tech that didn't let us down that day but sorry, I'm having a hard time believing it was all a fluke when they've received numorous warnings that al-Qaeda was planning to strike the US. I'm also having hard time believing that al-Qaeda was responsible for the NORAD standdown simply by switching off the radar...

I'm not going through this shit again. How many threads do you want locked because you want to ramble on about the evil Zionist Illuminati?

[kahljorn]

"Oh, you were there? So, tell me,how did it happen? Tell me how and why it isn't how you just sarcastically described."

Tell me how war innovated it.

"Who invented electricity? Refresh my memeory. "

Abraham lincoln.

"Did I say all inventions were of military design? Did I? Or did I say many inventions were not? "

No, but you said war and innovation are having a homosexual affair.

"By the way, care to know how the refrideration system as we know it came about? "

So we could freeze the battlefield before we triumphantly march over frozen corpses?

"When was steel invented?"

I'm not exactly sure, 1600's maybe? Iron working has been around for a while, I remember that from jr. high, however the high-quality steels that are produced today have been inovated for a very long time and isn't the same type of steel you'd find in the 1800's.

"True life? Fact? History?"

As far as I know there's no republican politicians by those names.

"Unemployment is down and home ownership is up."

Where the fuck did you get that idea from? Unemployment was at a record low, remember the big controversy over ohio?
The economy's great though, you're right. Let me go buy some 2.50 a gallon gasoline now.

[El Blanco]

So, because you are paying more for one of the most used resources, the economy is in the crapper?

Cost of living always rises.

[Geggy]

Dumbass, the X-Box has way better speciffications. Sony just used better business sense and made the PS and PS2 more accessible to third party programers.

Yeah, XBox has more specifications. They also have more viruses than the playstations!

I'm looking to buy a Camry because Toyota is a better run company that puts out a more reliable and fuel efficient car with a better warranty. It has nothing to do with any type of innovations in the car.

I'm not speaking of innovations, I'm speaking of japaneses thrive for improvements hence they take leaps into the next level of breaking the technology barrier. I love using cars as examples. Japanese's honda has come out with 2006 civic SI with a puny I-4 engine that pumps out 202 horsepower, and that's without the turbo. To me that is damn impressive...japaneses are also responsible for the subuaru wrx sti with I-4 which runs on 300 ponies with turbo, the mitsu evo III, also runs as high as that amount of ponies with the turbo...and the US's cars are many steps behind of producing cars anywhere in that level. And believe me they will do anything to catch up even if that means fucking people in the ass by producing and selling lemons such as ford and chevrolet piece of shits. The US are known to thrive to be number 1 at any cost! Go USA!

The cell phones we use trace their lineage back to the portable radio units from WW2. Ericsson and Nokia also happen to be Scandenavian (I forget which of the three countries).

Tell me, what is one Japanese innovation?

whoa hold the phone here...i thought it was motorola that first came out with cell phones sometime in the 70's. i think you're speaking of cb's which is entirely different. I have no idea whether if motorola is japenese or us. But then, I dont know much about cell phones...

But, if you want to look like a 15 year old Japanese girl, thats your bag.

If i wanted to spend a little more money on something that will gaurantee to last a long time, i'd with with japanese's products...


I'm not going through this shit again. How many threads do you want locked because you want to ramble on about the evil Zionist Illuminati?

you missed a point...since we were on the subject of military spending, i just dont see the point of spending as much as what the us spends on defense, let alone spending trillion of dollars on air force projects if another country that spends probably under a billion a year on defense, let alone receiving supplies and weopons from the US back in the 80's are capable of beating the US defense system on that day. Sounds like a story of David and Goliath except only way beyond that.

[kahljorn]

"the economy is in the crapper? "

Did you completely ignore the part about unemployment being at it's lowest? While we're at it why don't we discuss the "National deficit" you halfwit piece of shit.
I like how you ignore any decent part of someone's thread that people have been talking about for ages and pick the "weakest link" so to speak. It goes to show what kind of a moron you are, exactly. As if doing that could derail somebody's points.

I'm sorry to say, but practically our entire country uses gasoline. Cost of living going up doesn't generally triple within a couple of years when you have a good economy. I don't even know why I'm going to debate this with you, it's pointless. You're obviously just stupid.

You think these natural disasters are cheap? Why do you even think our economy is good with the way our government has been handling situations? Taking money out of various states and programs to fund their shitty war?
THE ECONOMY MUST BE SO GREAT WE HAVE SO MUCH EXTRA MONEY WHY WE COULD ALL JUST DONATE IT TO THE GUBERMENT AND THATS EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING FOR US GOD BLESS AMERICA THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GONNA DO WITH MY 175 DOLLAR CHECK GIVE IT TO THE GUBERMENT THEY ARE SO PSYCHIC THEY JUST WENT AHEAD AND TOOK IT FROM ALL THE STUFF I VOTED ON AND ALSO JUST STUFF THAT WAS COMMON SENSE TO HAVE AROUND. THANK YOU GEORGE W BUSH.

[kahljorn]

Japanese innovation: from what I understand america is pretty much entirely responsible for any innovation that comes out of japan. Not directly, but weren't we the one's who helped them rebuild and gave them a bunch of patents-- along with the tools and knowledge to manipulate them?
Also, doesn't america sell them their raw materials to make everything?

Maybe I have this mixed up, though.