aramike

quote: No it doesn't. To conform to such desires is to make one culture dominant. Any culture that cannot survive without state-sanctioned domination is not a real culture; it's statist propaganda. The end of the state system is the end of such destructive influences. I see no reason why Islam or Judaism would require such power to exist unless the culture has been perverted by the propaganda of state or pseudo-state entities, such as the PLO's Covenent of 1968 and Ben-Gurion's concept of racial democracy. The dismantling of the state system will separate the religion from the propaganda.Yeah, right. Now that is a pipe dream. I'd like to see someone try to get Muslim extremist states to serve a collective good of those that don't agree with their philosophies. Socialism won't work at all due to hundreds of economic factors. It especially won't work, however, due to the nature of one serving the all. Too many "ones" will only serve to a select group. quote: What about when a government uses force on its own people to defend its power? Is that not terrorism? Of course it is!Of course it's NOT! It's called "policing". The only time that it would be terrorism is when the MAJORITY of people under that government stands against the government. By your definitions (which are extremely unfounded), throwing tear gas into an unruly crowd is a form of non-lethal terrorism. Attacking an organized mob's drug warehouse would be terrorism. I don't buy that, and I can't see how any thinking man would. quote: It's not a big stretch to say that using force on another people to defend one's power is also terrorism, even when it's immediately necessary. War is just a grandiose euphemism that is used when terrorism is believed to be necessary.Not really. Apparently you missed the part of the word "terrorism" that says "terror". Terrorism is to find a resolution by using terror. War is a find a resolution by using force. While the use of force may cause terror, it is not terrorism due to the fact that the force employed is the primary reason for the achievement of goals. Terrorism's force is NOT at ALL the primary reason for it's acheivements. Bombing children doesn't actually accomplish a logistical end, while war does. There is a substative difference.

quote: This conflict is ultimate proof of the destructive nature of the state system.When the morality against killing is set aside in favor of targeting civilians to achieve a political end, the only proves that socialism would NEVER work. Why? Because in order for a society driven on religious belief such as the Palestinians to be involved in a socialist order, that socialist state must conform to their religious desires. I have no inclination to conform to that religion. Therefore I have ZERO desire to live in such a state. quote: To do what one must do to defend oneself is unavoidable, even when it's terrorism (a.k.a. war). What one does after the end of the unavoidable is how one is judged.War is not terrorism. War can be defensive in nature. Terrorism, by its very definition, is OFFENSIVE in nature at all times. quote: As you probably know, one of the ideas advocated by Communism is that all land be controlled by the state. This, of course, shifts a massive amount of control to the government. As a conservative (and nearly a libertarian) I find the idea of the government controlling all the land in a country tyrannical.It's not only tyrannical, it's virtual suicide. To give one body control over everything TOTALLY eliminates any accountability for that body.

quote: The Palestinians CAN live in peace, IF THEY WANT TO, so far they have shown NO wanting to live in peace. Barak offered the Palestinians 96% of what they wanted, and Arafat said no, and started this little terrorist campaign to get more concessions.I agree with you 100%, Jaugar. Just wanted to clear things up for all fairness: Barak did not offer the Palestinians 96% of what they wanted. It was more like 50%. Barak drew a certain line across the West Bank and then said they could have 96% of the REMAINING land. But in my opinion, Barak shouldn't have offered them squat.

quote: There is no excuse for tanks either.Read: Suicide bombers attacking civilians while the government looks the other way. Seems like more than an excuse; seems like a reason. quote: and the West sells tanks and attack helicopters to a state with nuclear weapons. No difference....tanks and helicopters to be used as defensive weaponry, and which have ONLY been deployed EVER in retaliation. Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent. Suicide bombers are OFFENSIVE weapons that target civilians. If you don't see the difference, that's just pacifistic ignorance.Both sides need to back off from their segregationist positions, which means abandoning the whole concept of a Palestinian state and an Israeli state and forming either an integrated state or a stateless association.By the very nature of defense, both sides don't need to back off. The aggressors need to back off. The agressors are the Palestinians. That is not disputed by any.

Hey, don't feel bad -- my birthday was a week ago. Happy Birthday!

quote: Originally posted by Has: Since not every muslim is a terrorist this could be a problem. Humor is lost upon some...

quote: It has never been tried the way it was originally written.I remember a debate we had where I laid out the economic realities of it and you never attempted to dispute it. Communism is an economic impossibility.

Speaking of HD... Wife and I just bought a Pioneer. Now this puppy is the high definition TV of high definition. It has about 800 lines more than your standard HDs, and its a 53' projo 16:9 widescreen. The problem is that there isn't CRAP going on in HD programming. Even DirecTV has almost next to nothing. Yeah, there's a bit on the premiums, but it's still not a whole lot. So, naturally, we go over to DVD. Proscan DVD. Sony. Kicks more ass than Jackie Chan at a donkey convention. And what does she want to watch? Gone With the Wind. Hoo-rah. When do I get to be home alone? HUH?

You know where I be, boss.

*Group Hug* Welcome back, boss!

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: This is like asking an author if they enjoy reading their own books. They know how it is going to turn out. Yep. But I never know with those Insurgents though. The last time I showed up in Sygan, I got my butt handed to me. Bastards. Actually, it was only half of your butt. The rest was vaporized with the Warmonger.

quote: Originally posted by Grayfox: listen to days of the new, then listen to AIC. im tellin ya they sound alike. only diff to me is the lead singer for days of the new has a little bit deeper voice. when i heard them for the first time, i thought AIC was coming out with a new unplugged album... no kidding. but youre right, aramike, i havent heard much of them in a while. Vocally, I agree. Musically, I just don't see the resemblance. But hey -- we all notice different things, right?

quote: i thought they sounded alot like alice in chains. there was a few bands that came out a few years ago that had that sound... days of the new really comes to mind... when i first heard them i thought it WAS Alice in ChainsNow THAT I cannot see. Days of the New are almost exclusively acoustic. Besides, they really went downhill when Travis Meeks decided that he should actually become the entire band. [ 03-01-2002, 20:19: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Antbody think Creed isn't a Stone Temple Pilot oops Soundgarden knock off or maybe their are really some strum and mumble fans who actually like Radiohead and Starsailor. Closer to Pearl Jam than anything else. But, I think they're more ... intense than any of the aforementioned bands.

quote: Originally posted by Cmdr. WeeGee: Resistance looks awesome. I just got Red Hammer myself, so far, its AWESOME. I just pray there isn't another mission like "After Montignac". God that was a hard mission. Just replayed that one today. I love that mission. Just takes a bit of practice.

quote: Yes aramike, but that is more pertinent to weapon systems like tanks and aircraft.Hardly. We already have tanks and aircraft, neither of which has the mobility of a GI. quote: This armour is for all purposes, something that the grunt mucking in the dirt wears just to give him much better protection than the shirt-wearing SOB on the other side of the trench, aside from the communication and zoom/hearing improvements.Give him better protection and the weapons used against him simply get stronger, negating any protection. Look at history. Everytime man has rendered a weapon obsolete a new one is created. A modern Corps colonel that I know once said this: "A Marine's vulnerability is his greatest strength." What he meant was that, so long as a troop stood the chance of being eliminated by conventional means, the enemy would have no reason to assure its own destruction by using unconventional means.

Here's the problem I have with heavy personal combat armor -- it's obsolete. How can I say that when we're talking stuff that can stop most bullets cold? Look at history. Every time we've rendered one weapon useless, a new, more powerful weapon was created. I would much rather have my troops on a battlefield where they don't have such a massive conventional advantage that the enemy has to fight unconventionally (mass destruction weapons) to even stand a chance.

Back on topic, shall we?

quote: Originally posted by Paddy Gregory: I was actually quite serious. People dying and being injured is NOT my idea of fun. I agree

quote: Originally posted by Manglor: Well.... I would say the teams don't foot the bill because it's easier to hold it over the city's head and say "Build us a new stadium or we'll move the team." The city doesn't want to lose all that revenue from the parking, tourists, amusement taxes and consessions so they build it. At least here in Pittsburgh they did. GO STEELERS!!!!!! That's part of the reason, definitely. But the main reason is the expense versus the income the team itself makes as a company. Remember: to be profitable you have to be competitive. And, in order to be competitive, you have to pay top dollar for players. Luckily, the NFL has revenue sharing on all broadcast income. That would actually help to save baseball. But they won't do it. Two words: Player's Union. quote: We lost our baseball team (montreal expo's) (disbanded) partially because the city wouldn't build a new stadium. As if I care. That's a small part of the reason. The other part is that Montreal puts a record low number of fans in the seats. I was all for contraction of the Expos. And it's too bad, too -- Montreal had the BEST farm system in all of baseball. The problem was that they couldn't keep the players there (read: no fans).

quote: Originally posted by Paddy Gregory: Aha, so no team actually owns the stadium they play in? Is it because it's 'not the done thing' , or are there regulations preventing it? I'm sure most of the teams have a big enough budget to build a purpose-built stadium of their own. Or is most of the budget taken up with the (hugely inflated) wage bill? Actually, most teams have at least partial ownership of the stadiums. The reason they don't build them on their own is mostly due to the vast expense, coupled with the fact that many cities will foot the bill to reap the benefits.

The reason teams move is indeed related to the money involved, but there are other reasons. First of all, cities are partly responsible for the facilities that teams play in. If they get too old or antiquated, the teams lose money. So, the cities usually help to build new facilities in order to suit the teams needs (remember, sports are huge revenue sources for local governments). Now, with that said, teams are usually on lease with the city they play in. The only team that doesn't have a lease is the Green Bay Packers -- that's because they are the only team that is actually owned by the city and fans. They could never move. Another interesting tidbit about the Pack is that they're the only team that plays in a small town (it's TINY). Yet they sell out every game and have a 30 year waiting list for season tickets... But that's neither here nor there. Anyway, teams usually move because cities don't help to support them while they reap huge benefits from having them there.

I'm a HUGE sports fan, so I'll field these: quote: Why is it divided into two conferences?This is because up until the late 60s, the whole thing was the AFL (American Football League). As the popularity went crazy, more and more teams were added to the fray. This made scheduling almost impossible, so a separate conference had to be created in order to make the divisional rivalries worth something. Thusly, the NFC and AFC (National and American Football Conference) was created. This way, the regional teams could be split into smaller divisions allowing for a more fierce competition for playoff seedings. In other words, instead of having 10 teams in a single central division vying for 3 playoff spots, you have 5 teams vying for one playoff spot from the division, making the divisional games worth a lot more. Also, consider that the season is only 16 games long -- with a smaller division each team can be assured to play each divisional opponent two times each year: once at home and once on the road. This way no scheduling fluke could have certain teams playing too many games out of division that would impact the division's playoff seeding. quote: How is it decided which team goes in which conference?Necessity, more than anything. When you create the two equivolent divisions in each conference, you have to keep rivalries together. For instance, before the NFL was created, the Packers and Bears were MAJOR rivals. In fact, this is the longest football rivalry there is. Now, with both teams in the NFC Central, they play each other twice each year. If you put the Packers in the NFC Central and the Bears in the AFC Central, they'd play each other once every other year depending upon the rotation (unless, of course, both teams made it into the Superbowl).

quote: Heh. We absolutely 0wnz3d them all the way! A useless statistic: this is the worst Green Bay postseason loss, in history.I can't f*****g believe it! The Pack could have won that game if they actually played like a team.

What Gallion said. Signing into any gov't institution is probably the most binding agreement one can make, which is the very reason that there are legal ways of separation. Make sure to recite the location of the escape clauses along with your reasons that apply. It won't be too difficult I don't think.