Unrelated.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Humans are a disturbing race of violent creatures.  War, etc.

If the government in Washington fell tomorrow and the USA was disbanded overnight.

As trade routes broke up and starvation set in, as you watched your neighbors succumb to the kind of mutilation that happens in other parts of the world, as you faced down death-squads of ex-citizen vigilantes (or joined them); would you be happy that at least there was no more bickering in Congress?

On the seedier side of the Internets, across the street from all the wrong kinds of porno, in the dark alley servers where you find the shit AlQaida put online; where kids scream, not because their internet is too slow, but because they're tied to a chair watching their parents getting raped and dismembered in front of their eyes.

There is a part of the counter-establishment establishment that clings to an ideology of "freedom" as if it is the defacto state of Humanity, without tyrants.

But Humanity cannot exist without tyrants because humanity is a race of tyrants.

Is this current war for the Empire, however badly managed it is, even a little bit justified, at least in its intentions?

[Thurnez Isa]

But Humanity cannot exist without tyrants because humanity is a race of tyrants.

that jumps out at me like no other line

[LHX]

how do you have time to make these observations when the next season of American Idol is just around the corner??



what the fucks wrong with you man?

[P3nT4gR4m]

We are, as a race, a bunch of aggressive primates. It's in our nature to dominate, to establish our postition in the pecking order.

We want to know where we stand.

This is nature.

Nature has had it's day - time to move on.

Control your nature or your nature will control you.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

We are, as a race, a bunch of aggressive primates. It's in our nature to dominate, to establish our postition in the pecking order.

We want to know where we stand.

This is nature.

Nature has had it's day - time to move on.

Control your nature or your nature will control you.

That's all well and good, but people don't.

[Cain]

Its never justified.

Interestingly enough, Al-Qaeda seem to have shifted their aims re: the Middle East, quite considerably in what they wish to see happen.

Think anarchism, Islamic style.

Which in my opinion makes them qualitively different from the religious ideologues in America, or even in the Middle East (like Iran).

It doesn't make them any less retarded, but it sure as hell requires a major change in perspective re: black globalization, transnational crime and terrorism.

In a war between increasingly oppressive nation-states and increasingly retarded actors who want to destroy the Westphalian system (and replace it with something similar to Lyotard's small community anarchism), is any side in fact worth defending/condemning more?

Or should those who want to thrive somehow manouveur themselves inbetween the warring parties of the next century, to their own profit and gain?

[Discord]

As long as we are not involved it doesn't happen.
Isn't that at least partly what dominates many people?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Its never justified.

Interestingly enough, Al-Qaeda seem to have shifted their aims re: the Middle East, quite considerably in what they wish to see happen.

Think anarchism, Islamic style.

Which in my opinion makes them qualitively different from the religious ideologues in America, or even in the Middle East (like Iran).

It doesn't make them any less retarded, but it sure as hell requires a major change in perspective re: black globalization, transnational crime and terrorism.

In a war between increasingly oppressive nation-states and increasingly retarded actors who want to destroy the Westphalian system (and replace it with something similar to Lyotard's small community anarchism), is any side in fact worth defending/condemning more?

Or should those who want to thrive somehow manouveur themselves inbetween the warring parties of the next century, to their own profit and gain?

Justification is a tricky subject.

Is your way of life and standard of living worth defending?  And if it is, what does defending it mean?

Making life shit for people is presumably a 'bad' thing to do; but we're humans, and that's our specialty.

If you are in a position where it's either your life or somebody else's life that goes to shit, or both, are you 'justified' in making sure that it isn't your life that goes to shit?

[Cramulus]

Is this current war for the Empire, however badly managed it is, even a little bit justified, at least in its intentions?

yeah totally
I'm just pissed off I'm not one of the tyrants

I can't blame anyone, ya know? If I was the president I'd want America to be the biggest, strongest, richest country out there.

Have your silly anti-war protests, serfs. You elected me!

[Thurnez Isa]

Interestingly enough, Al-Qaeda seem to have shifted their aims re: the Middle East, quite considerably in what they wish to see happen.

Think anarchism, Islamic style.

Which in my opinion makes them qualitively different from the religious ideologues in America, or even in the Middle East (like Iran).

It doesn't make them any less retarded, but it sure as hell requires a major change in perspective re: black globalization, transnational crime and terrorism.

In a war between increasingly oppressive nation-states and increasingly retarded actors who want to destroy the Westphalian system (and replace it with something similar to Lyotard's small community anarchism), is any side in fact worth defending/condemning more?

Or should those who want to thrive somehow manouveur themselves inbetween the warring parties of the next century, to their own profit and gain?

this is a little off topic,
but you diffinately the person to ask...

it was at least my impression that Al-Qaeda would eventually go the way of (Armed Islamic Group?) in Algeria and come to a point where they will turn on each other
IE. get to a point were they consider everyone their enemy, including splinter factions within their own party

[Forteetu]

We are, as a race, a bunch of aggressive primates. It's in our nature to dominate, to establish our postition in the pecking order.

We want to know where we stand.

This is nature.

Nature has had it's day - time to move on.

Control your nature or your nature will control you.

We are a race of primates, thats for sure, however not all are aggressive. There is the whole range of aggressive/submissive roles that primates play. We tend only to hear-about/focus-on the aggressive ones because they tend to piss in our swimming pool.

The problem I see here is that it continues the idealogy of the last 2000 years that we (as a species) are seperate from nature. We aren't. If nature has had its time, then so have we. Not even close to being a part of the "airy fairy" wicca, tree-hugger shit ... simply that any increase in the opposition of order equals an increase in disorder. Is current global warming an example of this? Human's have tried to control nature and now nature is cranking up the chaos.

I like the second statement better, it includes the ownership of "your" nature which may be more along the lines of the original intent. "Your nature" seems to me to refer to ones inbuilt and unaware programming as opposed to the natural world we live in.

[Cain]

If you believe the drive for Empire is justified, then murder for profit is essentially justified.  Implicit racism, cultural superiority and force of arms as the only true law.

And while the majority of humans have bought into these things, at one time or another, they have equally shown that they can outgrow them and move on.  -gath

Human nature is a cop-out, because it doesn't exist.  In hunter-gatherer societies, while the quality of life sucked balls, you had equality of a sort among the group.  Once farming kicked in, classes and city-state warfare began.  City-states were destroyed outside of Italy and Germany in the Thirty Years war, crushed by the national armies of Denmark, Sweden and France.  An economic base, and technological advances, will dictate the overall environment of the social aspects of society, its possible ranges and difficulties.  And that, in turn, will dictate how humans behave.

What's really interesting is when you have two groups working off different base assumptions.  Two different logic sets, both working side by side within one greater system (the planet itself).  Thats why wars always precede changes in the international system, because chaos is the only outcome of two mututally exclusive logic sets working side by side.

That is pretty much the situation that is arising now, because the technological and economic changes that have been caused by globalization.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

If war is inevitable, then isn't it automatically justified because it is unavoidable, morally reprehensible or not?

If two mutually-exclusive logic sets are clashing, and you tend toward one or the other, is it not justifiable to give your 'side' your blessing?  In the West, the counter-establishment tends to piss and moan about the actions of the Establishment, while in general behaving pretty much the same as the "pro-establishment" people behave.

If globalization has resulted in globalized war as well as globalized commerce and communication; and the war is at its root about societies that are so heavily invested in globalization that they will fail if it doesn't continue versus conflicting societies that oppose globalization; is it not, regardless of high-minded morality, in the best interest of citizens of globalist societies to defend the course of globalization?

Obviously, ugly shit happens in war and always has.  In your opinion is there a difference between societies that see war as a 'necessary evil' and societies that make war a way of life?  Do you believe that any such distinction even exists, except in political rhetoric?

I don't believe that the drive for Empire in the case of America is in fact a drive for political or social domination, but a drive for economic expansion ahead of a perceived threat to an economy that is based on expansion, as all Western economies are to one degree or another.

I understand the arguments against this war, and believe me I'm not in favor of it, I'm just investigating the other side's point of view.

What would Iraqi society be like if (although it's probably impossible) every insurgent in Iraq laid down his weapons and the whole country just decided to go along with the American plan, tomorrow?

[East Coast Hustle]

there would be a massive proliferation of home makeover-themed reality TV shows.

[Cain]

Unavoidable is not the same as morally justifiable.  If I am to collide with another car due to faults in my car's structure, and I crash and kill the driver, then while I am not morally responsible, I am neither "justified" in ending that person's life.

And since agents in the international system are self-determining in that their actions create the system in which we live, they are not absolved at all.

The other side's point of view is based in a twisted mish-mash of Fascist and Trotskyite political thought, with a Machiavellian twist.  They believe in absolute power as means to absolute security and that means crushing anyone who has different ideologies to their own.  If they had succeeded in Iraq, they likely would have gone on to the rest of the Middle East (Syria, Iran), then pushed for central Asia.  After that, Africa would be on the agenda, then finally their own internal enemies, on the left and factions of the right.

Creating consensus through the barrel of a gun is their political goal.  Creating an international system where nearly everyone accepts certain rules of play, because those rules of play benefit them.  Naturally, the money men saw how to turn a profit on this and so also jumped on the bandwagon when they saw it gain momentum.