flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > ok to war? ok to occupied another country?

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i was thinking about this, is it ok to occupied another country, neighbor country? to obtain their resources? to develop their land?

in business, they rarely consider if you are the first shop start selling doughnuts, competitor will just open another shop beside you if they saw high demand.

in relationship, boy continue to pursue girl who already couple, engaged, or married, they wouldn't care who come first.

if come to matter living or death, what would you choose?

even in share market, if you forecast share will drop, you will just hold and let it drop then you buy, or sell whatever shit you got right now.

If you forecast gain, then you will buy as much as possible now.

If you forecast this year and next year will be so crucial that world will turn upside down and you need bunker in a non-earthquake zone, and you need Libya, is that ok to "invade" ? "occupied" ? that country?

If you forecast oil is gonna dry up soon, you need to gather as much as possible right now, is it ethical?

If you forecast Iran is about to start its own agenda and so on so on, either you shot him first or let him shot you first.

I just wanna be logical and common sense, it seems, (human is damn hard to get along with each other well)

please share me your thoughts. thanks.
Post 26 Mar 2011, 17:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
In "democratic world" - I mean west liberal democracy, (there is very little "democracy" but it is another talk...), the society is set to a state of war each one against each one. More, this ideology is considered as "only possible and natural" and every other option is wrong.
So, for a man tamed to this mental pattern it is normal to use whatever resources he can pick up and hold, in order to win this war.
Also, he thinks everyone else wants to attack him and therefore, he have the right to strike first.
It is not the case with other types of societies. Even the notorious "Jihad" is only reaction to the west aggressiveness.
Of course the human race is aggressive by nature - that is why the societies are created - to control this aggressiveness and to stop humans from self extermination. In the west world, the society is reduced to simple crowd of individuals. That's why the society can't effectively control the aggressiveness of its members.
Post 26 Mar 2011, 19:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i don't know about other society, couldn't figure out what would they do if they must need their neighbor country resources.

but it seems, it is perfectly ok to occupied if we really in need.

if "love each other" is what everybody should do, (but this is insane) we sure know not everybody is tame, some are crazy lunatic aggressive people.
Post 27 Mar 2011, 16:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Well, under international law, it's illegal to "invade" a country unless it's under attack from another state and demands intervention. Unless, of course, you're a superpower with a permanent seat in the Security Council. :p

In the case of Libya, the ... hrmm ... limited humanitarian interventionists drew their legitimacy from the Arab League. That was very convenient for the AL countries since they had strained relations with Gaddhafi for many years.
Interestingly, the Libyan membership had been "suspended" right before the ... ahem ... limited humanitarian intervention started.
Post 27 Mar 2011, 18:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
sleepsleep wrote:
some are crazy lunatic aggressive people.


No, this statement is not true. Of course, the exceptions are possible, but there is no "lunatic aggressive people" if we are talking about nations.
This "pattern" is invented by the propaganda in order to excuse the violence.
The normal, average person wants only to live gently, to grow good children and to die in his bed. If this average person decided to die in suicide attack - there should be very serious reason, and the religion is not this reason - the religion may only help a little to the person to make his decision - because no one wants to die.
There are countless examples of people dieing for some cause, without any religious fanaticism.
Post 28 Mar 2011, 07:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
then how to deal all greedy human, selfish, crazy, exploiting, buly, and all sort of shity human that could ruin normal human morning?
Post 28 Mar 2011, 17:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
You cannot ignore negative emotions, conversely, you can use them as a tool. Wink
Post 28 Mar 2011, 18:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
btw, anyone got links for old ancient wise man "solution" for a better world or better ways dealing with human?
Post 04 Apr 2011, 23:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Post 05 Apr 2011, 02:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Post 05 Apr 2011, 16:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
both suggest tao to me, so both of u believe tao could solve world problems?
Post 06 Apr 2011, 05:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

You cannot ignore negative emotions, conversely, you can use them as a tool.

thanks, to know what i dislike is one of the way to know what i like... Smile
Post 07 Apr 2011, 10:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rxantos



Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 41
rxantos
If its ok for a country to go, invade another country, kill their citizens to rob their resources based on "necessity". Then it would follow that is ok for an individual to go and kill another person to take their resources based on "necessity".

What is just for a large group, is just as just for an individual. So, if you believe that is ok for a country to go an invade another, kill their people and rob the resources, you should have no issue if another person goes to your house, kill your family and then robs you.
Post 10 Apr 2011, 06:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Tao seemed like an appropriate response to:
sleepsleep wrote:
btw, anyone got links for old ancient wise man "solution" for a better world or better ways dealing with human?
The closer we get to a problem (in trying to deal with it), the more we become the problem -- the two indistinguishable from the one. Unfortunately, there is no other way - action must be taken and we get dirty in the process. Of course, the details can be debated: who, what, if/when, and for how long? Eventually, we step away from the problem (unless it has completely consumed us).

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 10 Apr 2011, 06:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
rxantos wrote:

if you believe that is ok for a country to go an invade another, kill their people and rob the resources, you should have no issue if another person goes to your house, kill your family and then robs you.

this is just exact reality,
thief broke into house in order to steal all your valuables, (so their main goal is to get valuables and leave), but if somehow you resists, able to identify them, they would probably execute their plan B to take your life or make you suffer.

of course, there exists also type B thief whose desire is to KILL.

if they were to broke into your house, they already justified their mind, it is "LEGAL, OK" for them to broke into your house.

most of the time, thief got no choice too, they owe loan-shark, they are drug addicts, no job for them, despised by society, they just fucking screw up and nobody is there to guide them, he sees other people got LIFE, and he got sucked like in hell.
Post 10 Apr 2011, 20:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
sleepsleep wrote:
i was thinking about this, is it ok to occupied another country, neighbor country? to obtain their resources? to develop their land?

in business, they rarely consider if you are the first shop start selling doughnuts, competitor will just open another shop beside you if they saw high demand.

in relationship, boy continue to pursue girl who already couple, engaged, or married, they wouldn't care who come first.

if come to matter living or death, what would you choose?

even in share market, if you forecast share will drop, you will just hold and let it drop then you buy, or sell whatever shit you got right now.

If you forecast gain, then you will buy as much as possible now.

If you forecast this year and next year will be so crucial that world will turn upside down and you need bunker in a non-earthquake zone, and you need Libya, is that ok to "invade" ? "occupied" ? that country?

If you forecast oil is gonna dry up soon, you need to gather as much as possible right now, is it ethical?

If you forecast Iran is about to start its own agenda and so on so on, either you shot him first or let him shot you first.

I just wanna be logical and common sense, it seems, (human is damn hard to get along with each other well)

please share me your thoughts. thanks.
The answer to all of these questions: Yes, if you have bigger and better guns than they do.
Post 10 Apr 2011, 21:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Tyler wrote:

The answer to all of these questions: Yes, if you have bigger and better guns than they do.

hahahak...,,,
Post 10 Apr 2011, 21:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.