laneolaneo1 Posted November 16, 2008 Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 And even more unfortunately, they find ways to screw up the interventions so that their initial motives go down the drain in a flurry of taxpayers' dollars.Or borrowed money, as is increasingly the case. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherry Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 That's what they want you to think. Unfortunately, US motives for intervening in other countries are far less noble than that.Sure our motives might be far less nobler then that but what u need to understand that we have helped stabilized Iraq, we might have went in with an ulterior motive but we still ended up doing some good Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Shiver Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 You didn't stabilize Iraq. You virtually destroyed it. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Posted November 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Sure our motives might be far less nobler then that but what u need to understand that we have helped stabilized Iraq, we might have went in with an ulterior motive but we still ended up doing some goodList me all the good that you did do, opposed to the mountain of bad. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Philippe Arni Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 You didn't stabilize Iraq. You virtually destroyed it.Exactly right my friend... Iraq was at least stable when Saddam Hussein was there... You did not need to fear entering a bus and feeling that it was about to blow up... YES he killed a huge amount of innocent people, but like I said the country will never be what it has been before, the country Iraq cannot be split up otherwise countries such as Iran and Turkey will claim some land and it will create more problems. Therefore, be careful (talking about ppl who are in favour of the war) with what you say....... Dn't get brainwashed by republicans... Read your HISTORY correctly! And you will understand the truth about the Iraq war. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereoisomer Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 Sure our motives might be far less nobler then that but what u need to understand that we have helped stabilized Iraq, we might have went in with an ulterior motive but we still ended up doing some goodI completely agree with Aboo.The bad outcomes of this war outweigh the "noble" outcomes.A survey has shown that 82–87% of the Iraqi population was opposed to U.S. occupation and wanted U.S. troops to leave.If the U.S troops indeed stabilized Iraq then shouldn't the local people wish for your army to stay? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
laneolaneo1 Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 Besides for the Marsh Arabs and a handful of Kurds, Iraq is worse for everybody. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 With the US forcing "Democracy" down everyone's throat, I'm forced to think, is democracy really the solution to everyone's problems? Actually, is it the solution for every country? A few case studies:1. Iraq: Under Saddam Hussein's "Dictatorship", the country was actually running, there were relatively no suicide bombs, and the economy was actually stable.2. Pakistan: Under the new democratic rule, the economy has tumbled down, bombings are on the rise. The economy has deprecated because they've allowed for a corrupt democratic government to me elected.3. Afghanistan: Yes, this is an exception to the rule, the Afghans do have a better quality of life under Hamid Karzai but then again he is an American puppet.4. Singapore, all the PMs are from the same family, which technically doesn't make it a democracy. It's a flourishing country.Anyway by my observation, democracy works, yes, in the West. That does NOT mean that democracy must be forced upon everyone.Thoughts?No i do not think that democracy is the answer to all problems Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflowerr Posted December 3, 2008 Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 The war in Iraq killed way more people than Saddam killed. And if the USA was so helpful, why do all the Iraqis hate the Americans...As for democracy.. democracy is an awful system and it is not the answer to all of our problems Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
josephchoi Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 I say we should be ruled by robots/machines with a set code of morals/laws that stresses benefits for the society. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharkSpider Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 But what morals do we give the machines? What happens when we take our own morals to their fullest extent? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
josephchoi Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 Buddhistic morals at least the planet will be a better place. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Posted December 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 Buddhistic morals at least the planet will be a better place.Hell to the no! Government should always be secular. And what if the robot kills me for squishing an ant? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
josephchoi Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 hmm perhaps I worded it wrong... how's this sound? whatever benefits the society the most, in the sense that it preserves the most # in their best conditions? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Posted December 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 The whole idea of robots is frankly absurd.Ever watched Terminator? And even if you program them to keep in maximum population, it takes one ****ed up hacker to change the way robots think, and you might just have a large number of people at a life threatening risk. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
josephchoi Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 cuz that's better than Hitler, Stalin, and more of Carrot Top. Right. But seriously, YES I have seen the Terminator. Great action movie, but c'mon- let's away with the Frankenstein syndrome. The Skynet was created as an AI defense system not as the governing machine itself. For sake of clarity, I say it should be based roughly on Asimov's 3 laws, but modified obviously to fit the protocol. So to Not harm humans, or by inaction cause harm. However, when there are two or more humans involved, the machine should use necessary force to stop such opposition between them. By necessary force I mean to stop the attacker, let's say from attacking, but not kill or seriously (as in permanently) damage the person. and YES. I do mean Carrot Top is among the worst! Ever seen that guy without his bag of tricks? Dear Lord! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
laneolaneo1 Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 Any robot programmed to minimise long-term human suffering would immediately do the honorable thing and kill all the humans Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharkSpider Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 What if the robot decided that capitalism was evil because by having a class difference, some humans were harmed? But, say the resistance to a robot-enforced communist system was great, and many robots hurt many humans, and other robots saw this and decided to stop the robots from hurting the humans, and thus we have a three way war between two factions of robots and human guerillas?The idea is simply absurd to program morals in to machines and hope that they can make sense of it. We'd be better off with an absolute dictator. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
josephchoi Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 Not morals, laws.But yeah I see where you guys are coming from. But still no Carrot Top! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Shiver Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 (edited) For sake of clarity, I say it should be based roughly on Asimov's 3 laws, but modified obviously to fit the protocol.Isn't that kind of like a reverse Frankenstein syndrome? Edited December 19, 2008 by Mr. Shiver Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.