peter1191's forum posts

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts
Any why are 1/2 of the reviews in Amazon 1 stars? Seriously, I went there to see the price of the product, and glanced over the reviews.........and saw a bunch of DRM stuff.
Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts
O I know. I'm just pointing out what I think are intentional misconceptions.
Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts

Seriously, whats going on? Why is there a group of people who are willing to find any sort of fault in the West, even though they live in it? Georgia, last thursday responded to attacks on Georgian villages by separatists via military crack down in South Ossetia. Note that this occured after Georgia offered separatists a cease-fire. Russian "peacekeepers" were killed in the crackdown. So Russia up and invades, not even talking to Georgia or asking for reparations for the lost lives. No, just up and invades another country's property. What is the right? What gives Russia the right to dictate what happens in other independent countries? How is it that separatists and invaders are given the upper hand while Georgians, the ones who are suffering, are simply blamed? Sure, South Ossetians are suffering as well, yet wasn't it their separatists who started the conflict? And wasn't it them who wanted to take soverign Georgian land and united with the Russians? Georgia is in the right: what country in the world would give up its land without a fight? And to think they offered separatists a cease fire first, as well.

I'm disturbed at the fact that people seem to think of the west as the one who starts all the grievences, not ends them. WHy, when President Bush criticized Russia, many users on this board warned of the danger and called Bush a fool for taking such a stance. Why not let the whole world burn, then? A democracy under fire, for trying to maintain its territorial integrity, and the USA is going to sit around and watch? Seriously guys, this is an international effort to end a foolish war. Don't tell me those trying to stop the war and warn Russia are foolish: who are the Russians? What military strength could the possess that the USA couldn't match? I'm not counting them out, especially thanks to their oil and natural gas reserves, but come on: the over all idea on these boards is that Georgia is in the wrong, Russia is a monster military power that shouldn't be challenged, as so on and so forth. I'm not talking about war between the West and Russia: I just mean there is nothing wrong with the West standing up for what is right, and Georgia was not wrong to crack down on what should be considered terrorists within their own boards. There is no evidence of "ethnic cleasing" otherwise Georgian operations would have been much wider and Georgian troops returned from Iraq before any action was taken by the government of Georgia. Really, there is no indication that Georgia was ready for any war with Russia. I mean, as far as the news can carry my judgement, Georgia is in the right.

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts
[QUOTE="peter1191"][QUOTE="p2rus"][QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"][QUOTE="p2rus"]

Hiroshima?

ps love your micheal savage book quote in your sig...i listen to him for the lulz

p2rus

What does Hiroshima have to do with this? The US nuked another country, not their own.

I was simply saying that America has no such qualms at killing innocent people in oder to destroy their enemy.

Look genius, no country since the started of modern warfare has gone to war without killing innocents. Its horrible, espeically when innocents are specifically targeted. However, its the way to break a country's spirit, however inhuman it is. I distinctly remember the Germans laying waste to Britain in incessent air strikes, but the British proved their mettle still. Its a part of war, killing of innocents, make no mistake. Sadly.

1 there is no need to insult me

2 attacking civilain populations is immoral, especially when it is not a proportional attack (for example, the atomic-bombs)

Its different to say that the killing of civilians is a part of war, then to have a shell blow up your house. Does the 'killing of innocents' spiel give terrorirsts the right to bomb american cities now? Of course not!

Sorry for the insult, but I'm merely pointing out whats true. We really don't disagree, because I believe it is immoral as well. But be realistic here: it will happen. I live in the USA since I immigranted here, so I will probably never know the feeling of fear and horror as my own home gets bombed. Nonetheless, it happens in war consistantly, and all sides contribute. It simply does not work criticizing one side when all do it anyhow.

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts
[QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"][QUOTE="p2rus"]

Hiroshima?

ps love your micheal savage book quote in your sig...i listen to him for the lulz

p2rus

What does Hiroshima have to do with this? The US nuked another country, not their own.

I was simply saying that America has no such qualms at killing innocent people in oder to destroy their enemy.

Look genius, no country since the started of modern warfare has gone to war without killing innocents. Its horrible, espeically when innocents are specifically targeted. However, its the way to break a country's spirit, however inhuman it is. I distinctly remember the Germans laying waste to Britain in incessent air strikes, but the British proved their mettle still. Its a part of war, killing of innocents, make no mistake. Sadly.

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts
Georgia is in the right. First off, they continue to offer cease-fire. Second, they didn't INITIALLY retaliate when separaists started attacking Georgian villages. Thirdly, Russia itself hasn't even mentioned a cease fire. We all know the Russians can annialate Georgia, so Russia's moves are more likely to be looked at as that of an aggressor. However, look again: Georgia doesn't want war. I think its clear who has motivated this action, these war: Russia. Only they can benefit, and the Georgians certainly know their limits and would not challenge Russia in such a case anyway.
Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts
Why blame the USA? Wasn't it the Beligans who created the division between the two peoples in rwanda during colonial times? Didn't the French supply the Hutu army? Why does the US have to police the world all the time? DO SOMETHING FOR YOURSELFS! Really, if the world (especially Europe) doesn't take action, who will? the US can't carry the weight of the world, after all, only a few years before US troops were virtually massacured in Black Hawk Down
Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts
I too think Guantanimo is a foolish quest by the American government to secure these "terrorists." However, I must stress the fact that we are in a war: some of you think info should be free no matter the situation. But in war, things just have to be done. DId you know that President Lincoln suspended Habeaus corpus in Maryland at the start of the Civil War? Thats the same situation: is it right to limit freedom in times of war? And I think it isn't, but I also accept the fact that, in times of war, it must be done. THis has historically proven true. To what degree its done is, then, the deciding factor on how well freedom is being safeguarded by the government. I simply think Guantanimo is foolish because there is little evidence, torture is still being practiced there, etc.
Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts
It is illogical to be gay Don't nobody go out and throw some of that philosophical crap at me. "Logic is relative" is a good statement, for the appropriate time and place and topic. Here we are dealing with a male have sex with a male. Or a female have sex with a female. It makes no sense guys. No one is necessarily born with it, because it is a choice. Thats my argument. If it was true that being gay is begotton from birth, then why do straight parents bear gays? Why is it still a mystery if there is a gay gene? As far was we know, those on the side of "anti" gay have the advantage: the idea of Gay pride" and (in the USA) the honorable, if not common place "Gay-American" is almost like a propaganda of sorts, with Gays trying to post their standing among society by attributing a measure of honor to "their kind." But homosexuality is created and cultivated in the mind: people become more unrecptive to the opposite sex. Often I've heard of instances where, as with a little boy, he lived with a family of girls (his father died early on). And, being the youngest child, they would dress him up in girl clothing to see how "cute" he looked. Little girls playing dress up with an even smaller brother. The result: he became gay Now, it sounds comical, but grow-up: this is reality in many cases. I believe I meantioned in an earlier post the girl who got raped and turned lesbian as a result: events in someone's life can trigger these alterations. Its a choice, and the fact that babies are not made by this process, nor is the human race even built for such processes (common sense: a snake can't go inside another snake, or a garden can't enter another one, lol srry for the "symbolism" don't wanna get banned). So.........what is there to argue about? You could argue about the moral issue, but asking if being homosexual is a problem is hardly a debatable question from a factual standpoint: it obviously is. Moral wise, I believe that homosexuals should not be shown such hate. THEY ARE PEOPLE TOO. I'm no "GAY-PRIDE" supporter, but these are people, so they deserve their rights. I just don't believe they should be "married" per say, maybe a sort of "union" or something recognized by the government. Lesser than a marriage: a marriage has always been for a man and a woman. Since the big bang, adam and eve, however far you wanna go back or whatever religion, marriage=man and woman. As one posted earlier: God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (and if your not christian, think of it this way: the anther's pollen can not possilbe fertilize another anther. Thats just impossible). lol