Is there a prison big enough for Tony Blair's ego?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/03/tony-blair-the-hague-iraq-war

People starting to build cases against the T.Hawk trying to get him arrested for war crimes/mass murder. I would rather he be done for gross treason but tat probably be harder. I'm a little sceptical anything would happen- the international criminal court is basically set up to justify the ethos of western capitalism- as they say in the article every person who has been brought before this court has been African and there is a reason for that- but with enough campaigning they might get it done/do it in one of the countries.
The guy behind this article tried to citizen arrest John Bolton once but he got away.

[Sifright]

Would be nice to see the thatcherite bastard shipped off to prison where he belongs.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I am the most anti-prison person in the world, I wouldn't put a rapist serial killer in prison but I'd totally put tony blair in prison.

[Sifright]

yea... I'd have no problem locking some one like that up and probably throwing the key away as well... I mean I believe in second chances but a serialkiller rapist would be so far beyond forgivable.

[Magus]

All you guys gotta do is prove that Tony Blair is a serial killer rapist (and not just vicariously).

I'd like to see GWB sharing a jail cell with ol' Tony but it ain't gonna happen.

[Ecks]

haven't you heard hes gonna croak soon hes going to republican hell

[Aerozord]

I'd like to see GWB sharing a jail cell with ol' Tony but it ain't gonna happen.

I dont know, I'm kind of iffy about putting the mentally handicap in prison.

[Sifright]

I dont know, I'm kind of iffy about putting the mentally handicap in prison.

well thats a step up from republicans executing them

[Magus]

I dont know, I'm kind of iffy about putting the mentally handicap in prison.

Fool me once...shame on...you? Fool me twice...you can't get fooled again.

[Solid Snake]

I am the most anti-prison person in the world, I wouldn't put a rapist serial killer in prison but I'd totally put tony blair in prison.

...Wut

[Azisien]

...Wut

As in, he doesn't believe in prisons as an institution. Except for the one prison cell in the world where we would put Tony Blair.

[Solid Snake]

I just feel it's extremely disingenuous to insinuate that any political decision made -- no matter how utterly offensive or costly or indefensible -- could possibly be worse than rape and murder.

I mean I fucking hate George W. Bush with the passion of a thousand suns, I sincerely hope he rots in hell, but I wouldn't actually say he's a worse person that someone who actually made the conscious decision to rape and/or murder another human being.

If nothing else, it belittles the actual horrific impact of something like rape to view it as less offensive than "political decisions I personally disagree with."

[Azisien]

But political decisions often have direct impact on lives, and not just this person or that person, but millions or billions of people. This line of thinking obviously has utilitarian roots, but the decision to go to war in Iraq, for instance, has cost not much money, but many, many, many lives. The decision to do that was the conscious decision to commit quite a lot of murder. That the decision-makers were in offices giving orders via Bluetooth makes not that much difference to holding the guns yourself, aside from the fact that it's much easier to ignore the consequences.

I think on decisions of that level, no matter what you do, it'll probably cause some chain of events that will lead to people dying or suffering. Unavoidable to an extent. But as a species we just seem to suck extra super hard at making sure most of us suffer. This is worse than singular murders or rapes.

e: the lowest figure I've seen is 100,000 dead, mostly civilians, from just the War in Iraq.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

I don't think smarty meant to belittle rape, instead emphasize the horribleness of Tony Blair. I thought this was obvious. But I often follow some kinda crack logic if some people are to be believed.

[Sifright]

Yea blair and bush totally aren't directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.


oh.... waaaait a second. Yea they are

Gosh how did i forget about that?

Oh yes and of course it was all done for financial reasons which is fantastic bit of oil money is always great.

*PRO TIP*
Libyan rebels? They were supported for the same reason. Gadafi about 6-12 months before the nato nations weighed in tore up a bunch of oil contracts and forced the companies involved to take the oil on at higher cost.

Thank fully the paragons of freedom and democracy joined sides with the rebels who signed much more favourable oil contracts with the west. Isn't that grand?

Edit: So yea, Blair and Bush physically disgust me. They are both more evil than a rapist serial killer even better neither of them will ever suffer for their actions as they are both given millions and millions.

[Solid Snake]

But political decisions often have direct impact on lives, and not just this person or that person, but millions or billions of people. This line of thinking obviously has utilitarian roots, but the decision to go to war in Iraq, for instance, has cost not much money, but many, many, many lives. The decision to do that was the conscious decision to commit quite a lot of murder. That the decision-makers were in offices giving orders via Bluetooth makes not that much difference to holding the guns yourself, aside from the fact that it's much easier to ignore the consequences.

You better be ready to imprison every politician who ever makes a decision on anything ever, then.

You see there's no less than three major problems I can deduce with equivocating Tony Blair (let alone viewing him as 'worse than') a 'rapist serial killer,' but one of those three problems is that by falling into the trap of believing that individuals are solely responsible for making major decisions regarding war and peace, you're reducing the degree of responsibility we all share for the mess that's caused.

To put it another way: George W. Bush is a war criminal, Tony Blair is a war criminal, Barack Obama is a war criminal, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-drone-warrior/2012/05/31/gJQAr6zQ5U_story.html) our intelligence agencies are war criminals, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq) and our military-industrial complex would make ANYONE in a position of power in a country like America or Britain a war criminal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex)

To pretend that the problem is solely with Bush or solely with Blair actually minimizes the actual degree of criticism and self-reflection that should be required. So, again -- if you're going to say Blair deserves to be imprisoned, don't stop with him, because just about any other British politician under those circumstances with that faulty intelligence and the military and the industrialists breathing down their backs would've made the same decision. Hell, a majority of U.S. Democrats in Congress with every reason to oppose Bush on Iraq made the decision. Then take in the CIA, and don't stop with defense contractors, or anyone who profits in any way from the military-industrial complex, including employees of aerospace companies who make a living from making contributions that result in drones bombing civilians.

The problem isn't with individuals. The problem is with politics itself -- our institutions of governance, the theoretical underpinnings that we teach every Political Science graduate and law school student regarding the 'way the world works,' the role that war plays in our society, the division of civilization itself into separate 'sovereign nations' that compete against each other, and how foreign policy decisions should be made. The capitalist economic structure, the profits gained from a vibrant defense industry, etc. -- all of these things are bigger than Bush or Blair and we even have to indict ourselves insofar as citizens in western countries in general benefit from an unacceptable division of power and resources.

As Barack Obama's recent indulgence in drone warfare has revealed, you could pretty much stick anyone -- Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, David Cameron, whoever -- into office and they're going to make the same fucked up decisions. Because it's not so much a matter of individual culpability when the system itself is rigged to ensure anyone with the power makes the exact same decisions.

I guarantee you, give Smarty McBarrelpants the U.K. Prime Minister position unilaterally tomorrow and within a year he'd make a major foreign policy decision that would be controversial and result, however indirectly, in the deaths of innocents, and that decision could readily be construed as a war crime. Doesn't make him worse than a serial rapist or a serial killer.

I think on decisions of that level, no matter what you do, it'll probably cause some chain of events that will lead to people dying or suffering. Unavoidable to an extent. But as a species we just seem to suck extra super hard at making sure most of us suffer. This is worse than singular murders or rapes.

I think quite the opposite, you see.
Though it's less a quantitative reflection and more a qualitative one; it's less a reflection on how many die and more a reflection on how and why the tragedy's happened.
Unless you sincerely believe that Barack Obama, George W. Bush or any other politician takes personal joy in the notion that their decision will result in the deaths of innocents, like they're just sitting there in their chairs laughing at all the suffering they're going to cause with maniacal glee on their faces, or that they're eager and voluntary participants in genocide, their decisions just feel different to me tonally than a serial killer or a serial rapist, who indulges in the crimes of murder and rape due to a conscious choice to murder and rape innocent people.

That's actually my second of three objections to this notion that politicians who make tough decisions (even contemptible decisions) are 'worse than' serial killers and serial rapists. Legally speaking, active malice is the difference between murder and manslaughter. Active participation in the crime makes a difference, too. And in theory -- albeit not often in practice -- just wars function in a manner similar to self-defense in criminal law cases.

There is, in short, a huge causation issue here.

Let's attempt an oversimplification for the mere sake of example. Say President X orders the assassination of a known terrorist. There's two ways the terrorist could be killed: (1) By drone strike or (2) by ground forces. The drone strike option risks no troops, but there's a 15% chance according to Intelligence Agency estimates that innocent civilians will be killed. The third option President X could choose is not to act, but Intelligence Agency indicates at least a 50% possibility that if he isn't killed, the terrorist will set off a bomb somewhere next week.

Question One: If the President chooses option (1) and innocent civilians are accidentally killed, is he a war criminal? Is s/he worse than a serial killer or a serial rapist who intentionally seeks to inflict harm upon his known victims?

Question Two: If the President chooses option (2) and soldiers are killed during the operation, is the President worse off than with option (1) because his/her own nation's citizens died due to his/her actions? Or, is s/he in better standing because those who suffered were military combatants and not innocent civilians? What if the death of soldiers with option (2) is guaranteed, whereas the death of innocents with option (1) is not? Heck, what if the terrorist has been falsely implicated by misleading evidence, was innocent all along, and option (1) and option (2) both result in the death of an innocent man?

Question Three: If the President chooses inaction and the terrorist (let's call the terrorist 'Saddam', just for the hell of it) actually has a bomb, Intelligence Agency's prediction was accurate, he set off the bomb and kills thousands of innocent people, is the President a criminal then? His inaction led to thousands of deaths, after all, and he had an opportunity to stop the suspected terrorist before the attack occurred while only risking a mere chance of comparatively few deaths.

Question Four: If inaction is the correct course of action because the suspected terrorist is in fact innocent and has no intentions of setting off any bombs, who's to blame if the President chooses option (1) or option (2)? The President, because he made the actual decision? The Intelligence Agency, for presenting the President with misleading evidence? The nation's military, for giving the President the aggressive options in the first place and encouraging him/her to choose the option that'd most benefit their own standing? The military-industrial complex as a whole, for lobbying in favor of action that would increase their economic standing? The technician who developed the weaponry that was actually used? The soldier who actually pulled the trigger? Generations of past scholars, for creating legal and moral justifications for wartime actions that the President would rely upon to inform his/her decision and view him/herself as in the 'moral right' for acting that way?

TLDR: To compare the complexities of wartime decision-making to a serial killer or a serial rapist intentionally choosing to kill or rape someone is ridiculous. And unless evidence comes out that reveals that Tony Blair in fact was eagerly anticipating his decisions leading to countless deaths of innocent Iraqis, I'll continue to feel that way.

Finally, the single biggest (and third) reason why I oppose Smarty's sentiment is because it's indicative of rape culture in general for us to say that anything whatsoever is 'worse than rape,' and extremely insensitive to do so in just about any context. If at any time your message sounds like, "A politician who made a controversial decision I personally disagree with due to policy reasons is worse than a rapist," I can't imagine how a victim of a traumatic rape experience would process that. Murderers and rapists are the epitome of evil, the worst of all scum, and unlike even Tony Blair, there's not even a policy justification they can pull out of their asses to claim innocence or a causation argument in which ultimate accountability could be deflected.

Anyone who speaks of anything who even indirectly suggests or implies that a specific subject is 'worse than rape,' especially if/when that person's never actually experienced rape, which is usually when the comparison is evoked, it's just aaaauuuugggghhhh.

[POS Industries]

Anyone who speaks of anything who even indirectly suggests or implies that a specific subject is 'worse than rape,' especially if/when that person's never actually experienced rape, which is usually when the comparison is evoked, it's just aaaauuuugggghhhh.
This, exactly.

The sticking point of the argument here isn't that Blair and Bush aren't inhuman monsters that should totally go before the Hague for their crimes, it's that Smarty totally marginalized the impact of rape, which is also an awful thing to do.

[Solid Snake]

Yeah I tried that thing they teach in school where you put the most important argument last to end your argument well, but in retrospect it actually led to a completely unnecessary (albeit fun to type) wall of text that may have obscured the last few sentences, which was actually the really important part.

[Sifright]

You better be ready to imprison every politician who ever makes a decision on anything ever, then.

You see there's no less than three major problems I can deduce with equivocating Tony Blair (let alone viewing him as 'worse than') a 'rapist serial killer,' but one of those three problems is that by falling into the trap of believing that individuals are solely responsible for making major decisions regarding war and peace, you're reducing the degree of responsibility we all share for the mess that's caused.

To put it another way: George W. Bush is a war criminal, Tony Blair is a war criminal, Barack Obama is a war criminal, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-drone-warrior/2012/05/31/gJQAr6zQ5U_story.html) our intelligence agencies are war criminals, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq) and our military-industrial complex would make ANYONE in a position of power in a country like America or Britain a war criminal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex)

To pretend that the problem is solely with Bush or solely with Blair actually minimizes the actual degree of criticism and self-reflection that should be required. So, again -- if you're going to say Blair deserves to be imprisoned, don't stop with him, because just about any other British politician under those circumstances with that faulty intelligence and the military and the industrialists breathing down their backs would've made the same decision. Hell, a majority of U.S. Democrats in Congress with every reason to oppose Bush on Iraq made the decision. Then take in the CIA, and don't stop with defense contractors, or anyone who profits in any way from the military-industrial complex, including employees of aerospace companies who make a living from making contributions that result in drones bombing civilians.

The problem isn't with individuals. The problem is with politics itself -- our institutions of governance, the theoretical underpinnings that we teach every Political Science graduate and law school student regarding the 'way the world works,' the role that war plays in our society, the division of civilization itself into separate 'sovereign nations' that compete against each other, and how foreign policy decisions should be made. The capitalist economic structure, the profits gained from a vibrant defense industry, etc. -- all of these things are bigger than Bush or Blair and we even have to indict ourselves insofar as citizens in western countries in general benefit from an unacceptable division of power and resources.

As Barack Obama's recent indulgence in drone warfare has revealed, you could pretty much stick anyone -- Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, David Cameron, whoever -- into office and they're going to make the same fucked up decisions. Because it's not so much a matter of individual culpability when the system itself is rigged to ensure anyone with the power makes the exact same decisions.

I guarantee you, give Smarty McBarrelpants the U.K. Prime Minister position unilaterally tomorrow and within a year he'd make a major foreign policy decision that would be controversial and result, however indirectly, in the deaths of innocents, and that decision could readily be construed as a war crime. Doesn't make him worse than a serial rapist or a serial killer.



I think quite the opposite, you see.
Though it's less a quantitative reflection and more a qualitative one; it's less a reflection on how many die and more a reflection on how and why the tragedy's happened.
Unless you sincerely believe that Barack Obama, George W. Bush or any other politician takes personal joy in the notion that their decision will result in the deaths of innocents, like they're just sitting there in their chairs laughing at all the suffering they're going to cause with maniacal glee on their faces, or that they're eager and voluntary participants in genocide, their decisions just feel different to me tonally than a serial killer or a serial rapist, who indulges in the crimes of murder and rape due to a conscious choice to murder and rape innocent people.

That's actually my second of three objections to this notion that politicians who make tough decisions (even contemptible decisions) are 'worse than' serial killers and serial rapists. Legally speaking, active malice is the difference between murder and manslaughter. Active participation in the crime makes a difference, too. And in theory -- albeit not often in practice -- just wars function in a manner similar to self-defense in criminal law cases.

There is, in short, a huge causation issue here.

Let's attempt an oversimplification for the mere sake of example. Say President X orders the assassination of a known terrorist. There's two ways the terrorist could be killed: (1) By drone strike or (2) by ground forces. The drone strike option risks no troops, but there's a 15% chance according to Intelligence Agency estimates that innocent civilians will be killed. The third option President X could choose is not to act, but Intelligence Agency indicates at least a 50% possibility that if he isn't killed, the terrorist will set off a bomb somewhere next week.

Question One: If the President chooses option (1) and innocent civilians are accidentally killed, is he a war criminal? Is s/he worse than a serial killer or a serial rapist who intentionally seeks to inflict harm upon his known victims?

Question Two: If the President chooses option (2) and soldiers are killed during the operation, is the President worse off than with option (1) because his/her own nation's citizens died due to his/her actions? Or, is s/he in better standing because those who suffered were military combatants and not innocent civilians? What if the death of soldiers with option (2) is guaranteed, whereas the death of innocents with option (1) is not? Heck, what if the terrorist has been falsely implicated by misleading evidence, was innocent all along, and option (1) and option (2) both result in the death of an innocent man?

Question Three: If the President chooses inaction and the terrorist (let's call the terrorist 'Saddam', just for the hell of it) actually has a bomb, Intelligence Agency's prediction was accurate, he set off the bomb and kills thousands of innocent people, is the President a criminal then? His inaction led to thousands of deaths, after all, and he had an opportunity to stop the suspected terrorist before the attack occurred while only risking a mere chance of comparatively few deaths.

Question Four: If inaction is the correct course of action because the suspected terrorist is in fact innocent and has no intentions of setting off any bombs, who's to blame if the President chooses option (1) or option (2)? The President, because he made the actual decision? The Intelligence Agency, for presenting the President with misleading evidence? The nation's military, for giving the President the aggressive options in the first place and encouraging him/her to choose the option that'd most benefit their own standing? The military-industrial complex as a whole, for lobbying in favor of action that would increase their economic standing? The technician who developed the weaponry that was actually used? The soldier who actually pulled the trigger? Generations of past scholars, for creating legal and moral justifications for wartime actions that the President would rely upon to inform his/her decision and view him/herself as in the 'moral right' for acting that way?

TLDR: To compare the complexities of wartime decision-making to a serial killer or a serial rapist intentionally choosing to kill or rape someone is ridiculous. And unless evidence comes out that reveals that Tony Blair in fact was eagerly anticipating his decisions leading to countless deaths of innocent Iraqis, I'll continue to feel that way.

Finally, the single biggest (and third) reason why I oppose Smarty's sentiment is because it's indicative of rape culture in general for us to say that anything whatsoever is 'worse than rape,' and extremely insensitive to do so in just about any context. If at any time your message sounds like, "A politician who made a controversial decision I personally disagree with due to policy reasons is worse than a rapist," I can't imagine how a victim of a traumatic rape experience would process that. Murderers and rapists are the epitome of evil, the worst of all scum, and unlike even Tony Blair, there's not even a policy justification they can pull out of their asses to claim innocence or a causation argument in which ultimate accountability could be deflected.

Anyone who speaks of anything who even indirectly suggests or implies that a specific subject is 'worse than rape,' especially if/when that person's never actually experienced rape, which is usually when the comparison is evoked, it's just aaaauuuugggghhhh.

Bush Blair et all didn't give a flying fuck about wmds any other nebulous bullshit brought up. They both knew there weren't any. The only reason they went into iraq was purely for financial gain.

They didn't give a shit that their plan of action would murder hundreds of thousands of people because they would never have to deal with the end result of their actions in any kind of negative way.

Do I think they sat on a chair cackling about murdering brown people in the middle east? No.

Do I think they sat on their chairs cackling about all the money they would make for this? Yes, that hundreds of thousands of peopled died in the middle east means nothing to them.

Yes there are things worse than bloody rape. You know things like GENOCIDE?

Just maybe!?

By the way Bush and Blair ARE murderers on a scale that normal individuals are never capable of reaching.

What fucking wartime decisions. There was no pressing need to invade Iraq. The desire to do so was entirely born of greed. Your fictional scenarios are also an utter joke attempting to justify CIA drone strikes is utterly contemptable.

[Solid Snake]

In this thread: Sifright completely ignores every part of my argument in which I explicitly condemn the current state of politics and warfare on a societal level, because he's incapable of reading text.

Also, re: Genocide:

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"

And for the record: I do believe Bush and Blair are war criminals under applicable international legal conventions. (I don't believe they committed genocide.)
I do believe it'd be nice to see them jailed.
I do not believe they are equal to, let alone 'worse than,' serial killers or serial rapists in terms of their moral responsibility or accountability.
So stop insinuating that I'm saying things I'm not.

[Sifright]

TLDR: To compare the complexities of wartime decision-making to a serial killer or a serial rapist intentionally choosing to kill or rape someone is ridiculous. And unless evidence comes out that reveals that Tony Blair in fact was eagerly anticipating his decisions leading to countless deaths of innocent Iraqis, I'll continue to feel that way.

Hey guys I think snake doesn't seem to understand that colatoral damage is inevitable when you invade a country.

Edit: Yo, saddam and civilians don't mine me I'm just parking my battalians of tanks on top of your cars, an storing my bombs in your houses? You all cool with that? Excellent. oh an I'm also going to build a huge ass oil pipeline so can take me some black gold, awwww yea

I love how you trivialise their culpability for a war they started by trying to say they had Hard complex decisions to make "TO start a war of aggression for money or not HMMM DIFFICULT."

[Solid Snake]

Oh shit, apparently I forgot how Sifright was incapable of engaging in rational, levelheaded conversation without delving into stereotyping, insults, and gross exaggerations of one's commentary

Welp, that's my cue to leave and seek out other opportunities to engage with reasonable adults, then.

Also:

The problem isn't with individuals. The problem is with politics itself -- our institutions of governance, the theoretical underpinnings that we teach every Political Science graduate and law school student regarding the 'way the world works,' the role that war plays in our society, the division of civilization itself into separate 'sovereign nations' that compete against each other, and how foreign policy decisions should be made. The capitalist economic structure, the profits gained from a vibrant defense industry, etc. -- all of these things are bigger than Bush or Blair and we even have to indict ourselves insofar as citizens in western countries in general benefit from an unacceptable division of power and resources.

How long are you going to dance around believing that I'm saying I'm satisfied with drone attacks and the current state of international politics and war as a tool of national security, when I'm been on record saying I despise it but choose to hold civilization in general more accountable than individual actors, given that individual actors on all sides of the political spectrum and from all different nations continue to do the same exact things?

Like, you'd have a great point if Bush and Blair were egregious outliers in America or Britain, but they're not. See: The Obama articles I linked to. You may like Obama more because he seems like a nicer guy and has some nicer social policy beliefs, but he's just as willing to inflict collateral damage, and that says something.

[Sifright]

Oh shit, apparently I forgot how Sifright was incapable of engaging in rational, levelheaded conversation without delving into stereotyping, insults, and gross exaggerations of one's commentary

Welp, that's my cue to leave and seek out other opportunities to engage with reasonable adults, then.

This is amusing given the incredible amount of logical fallacies in that postal tidal wave of shit.

Almost of all of your post is with out merit simply because of the fact that you aren't comparing like for like in your defense.

Edit: Just going to find a quote from a terry pratchet book which describes blair perfectly.



Fine you're not okay with drone strikes and murdering civilians, but to claim the people authorizing them aren't culpable because of the political environment is rather disingenuous and the only way to change the environment is to hold them accountable. Otherwise you are tacitly giving your approval to their actions Extra judicial murder is not something we should ever allow to be a legitimate thing if that causes problems for 'national security' tough fucking shit.

double Edit: Obama is terrible I've no illusions about that he's pretty staunchly conservative with all the horrible evil bullshit that brings with it.

[Solid Snake]

Fine you're not okay with drone strikes and murdering civilians, but to claim the people authorizing them aren't culpable because of the political environment is rather disingenuous and the only way to change the environment is to hold them accountable. Otherwise you are tacitly giving your approval to their actions Extra judicial murder is not something we should ever allow to be a legitimate thing if that causes problems for 'national security' tough fucking shit.

The argument I was actually making was: "Politicans who authorize drone strikes or invasions are NOT WORSE than serial rapists / killers."

Note at no point was I making any of the following arguments you're ascribing to me:
* That I believe that politicians shouldn't be punished for committing war crimes. (They should.)
* That I believe Bush and Blair did not commit war crimes. (They did, albeit not the ones you're referencing.)
* That I believe Bush and Blair or anyone else shouldn't face personal accountability for their actions. (They should, but not any more so than a serial killer or a serial rapist.)

Now, if you were to say: "Snake, you're suggesting that Bush and Blair should receive a less daunting penal punishment than a serial rapist or serial killer with all your causation / societal bullshittery talk," well, then you'd probably be right, if only because the alternative would basically involve imprisoning just about every politician who'd ever achieve any degree of success in America or Britain, and if sincerely implemented, the hypotheticals I've advanced that you've derided would ultimately dissuade anyone from ever becoming a politician in the first place.

My larger point early on with Bush and Blair was simply that people like you tend to actually give the system a pass by believing that Bush and Blair are these awful outliers who deserve punishment for doing awful things most politicians wouldn't do, when in fact any politician in their shoes would have done very similar reprehensible things.

Let's face it: Obama is guilty of war crimes, too. So will the next U.S. President. And the President after that. It'll take a seismic change in the way we as a civilization operate -- or a seismic loss of American and British military power -- for that to change. For that change to happen, the first thing we have to acknowledge is that we're all, to some extent, every bit as guilty as Bush and Blair, insofar as our lifestyles and our attitudes and everything we learn and everything we are in America (and Britain too) is a byproduct of our projection of military superiority and a culture that tolerates and in fact celebrates war.

TLDR: Saying "A lot more people were culpable than just Bush and Blair, and nothing will change if you just pretend Bush and Blair aren't byproducts of the system they're in" is not the same thing as saying "Bush and Blair aren't culpable."

[Sifright]

Politicians that authorize invasions of other countries ARE worse than Rapists or serial killers.

A politician that does that literally takes the mantle of serial killer decides to knock it up to hard mode and murder entire populaces. War is not a fucking game . When you invade another country you will be murdering their soldiers destroying their infrastructure with all the side effects that entails stopping shipments of food causing civilians to starve for the hopeful benefit of causing the same to happen to their soldiers. Bombing roads and power plants to destroy their supply lines and logistics.


PEOPLE LIKE ME GIVE THE SYSTEM A PASS? Are you fucking joking? You are the one trying to claim the entire military industrial complex isn't in some way culpable as well for what goes on.

If I had my way I'd throw the entire current socio poltical and economic system out the bloody window as not fit for purpose.

Oh I love the self hating argument that some how the poor are also responsible for the decisions of their rich masters Well fucking done.

Most of society and our way of life wouldn't have to change at all to facilitate this dream world in which we don't blow up arabs for money. (It's called communism and murdering the fuck out of the rich.)

[Solid Snake]

Politicians that authorize invasions of other countries ARE worse than Rapists or serial killers.

And here's where we disagree.
But at least we can just leave it here at "we disagree," because damn I see no point whatsoever in continuing this.

Oh I love the self hating argument that some how the poor are also responsible for the decisions of their rich masters Well fucking done.

Yes, because that's what I'm saying.
Not that, y'know, everyone here in America by virtue of being in America (or Britain) is 'rich' by comparison and has benefited from the operations of the military-industrial complex to protect their precious interests in continued electricity and cheap gasoline and defense jobs and 'national security' and everything else that American citizens unquestionably benefit from.

Also:
You are the one trying to claim the entire military industrial complex isn't in some way culpable as well for what goes on.

Goddamn man. How do you go from accusing me to paying too much attention to societal factors and letting individual actors off the hook, to paying too little attention to the very military-industrial phenomenon that I HAVE BEEN REFERENCING SINCE THIS ARGUMENT BEGAN and that you haven't even mentioned once until now?

[Sifright]

And here's where we disagree.
But at least we can just leave it here at "we disagree," because damn I see no point whatsoever in continuing this.



Yes, because that's what I'm saying.
Not that, y'know, everyone here in America by virtue of being in America (or Britain) is 'rich' by comparison and has benefited from the operations of the military-industrial complex to protect their precious interests in continued electricity and cheap gasoline and defense jobs and 'national security' and everything else that American citizens unquestionably benefit from.

Snake this is utterly nonsense. Your knowledge about the fundamental structure that society relies on is entirely false. We have no pressing energy crisis that isn't manufactored to exist by vested interests so that they can price gauge and make stupid amounts of money.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, The Iraq war made oil more COSTLY for the american and british public whilst giving the RICH a chance to make a killing by OWNING the Iraq oil pipelines. FUNNY HOW british and american people didn't benefit from that isn't it?

The rich are Extra national. They don't have the same limitations we do. There are no borders for the mega wealthy. Their capital can buy what it wants and go where they want it. Labour how ever can't this is how the rich make a killing it's and why they always bang on about immigrants.

The divide in wealth between the nations is entirely a product of the rich classes in all countries involved. We wouldn't have to live in poverty for the middle east and Africa to not be in poverty. It's kind of funny in that Nuclear power would serve all our energy needs pretty much for ever right now and would actually be much CHEAPER over it's lifetime.

Energy is artificially high in price and regardless as energy sets the base price utimately for everything it's also kind of irrelevant. There are no constraints of energy as a whole. Oil is only used in the vast quantities it currently is used for due to vested interests and the fact that as a fuel for energy generation on national scale it's energy density for cost is terrible.

Uranium generates vast amounts more power as a fuel even factoring in the huge costs of nuclear plants where all the cost is front loaded it's still cheaper to go nuclear and more environmentally friendly.

What i'm saying is that their pretty clearly is 0 need for any of this bullshit. It's just the easiest way for the mega rich to protect their interests and keep on getting richer.

[Grimpond]

Clintright, that is a chair.

That is not SolidSnake.

Why are you calling that empty chair SolidSnake.

[Sifright]

Clintright, that is a chair.

That is not SolidSnake.

Why are you calling that empty chair SolidSnake.

Hohohohoho, what a card.

I'm pretty sure Snake, is the one making fatuous comments and blaming entirely the wrong people for societies ills. Oh who am I kidding It is self evident to all middle class fuckers that OBVIOUSLY everything wrong with society starts with the poor and only ends with mega wealthy. After all our governments are totally acting in our name by blowing up middle easterners its our fault that it happens.

Except for the fact that, the government doesn't act in our name at all. The poor have no say in government or policy, even the middle classes influence on politics is at best marginal. To say that every one in society is to blame for the actions of the political class is nonsense which is exactly what snake has claimed.

[POS Industries]

I'm pretty sure Snake, is the one making fatuous comments and blaming entirely the wrong people for societies ills.
No, it's pretty apparent that you're completely misrepresenting everything Snake is saying or just flat out ignoring his posts entirely and claiming he's said things that he hasn't at all.

There's also the whole thing where you appear to be completely unaware of our own first-world privilege and the military-industrial complex's utter dedication to maintaining that, which has led to us continuing to encourage it via taking advantage of its benefits.

[POS Industries]

And with the above in mind along with the fact that I'm pretty sure we're not going to get anywhere out of all this, I might as well just close the thread and be done with it.

[shiney]

For reference, and not so you guys think POS is all "last word", the thread was closed by my request.

sifright, you need to learn how to make an adult argument that goes beyond ad-hominems or straw men, and certainly strays somewhat significantly from patronizing your opponent and pointless vulgarity. Hold yourself to a higher standard when you regain access to this forum.