I just want to call the attention of some of you who ask themselves deeply where this human race is going and if it is really possible the change ...

Let me ask this: would you let your neighbor kill his wife/children with a knife or a gun without doing absolutely anything, but will fight against him if you watch that he is going to use chemical gas to kill her/them ?. Now, isn't that what is happening at the present in Syria ?. C'mon is that there were not children and civilians dying/asesinated before the chemical gas ?. Why do we tolerate a so called conventional war where hundreds of people are dying everyday without doing anything and all of the sudden we decide to punish someone because using a not allowed weapon for that killing ?. Are we so insane to say someone "you can kill whoever you want with other weapons but this weapon is not allowed. So, as you've been a bad guy i must punish you now!" ?. Sorry but this makes me cry ... And am not talking if what English and North Americans (and possibly others) are going to do, should have to be done or not ... I'm just simply talking aloud of the insanity and contradictions of the human race creating such a great deal of suffering to itself .

Any thoughts about that will be welcomed (no matter if they are for or against what i exposed here).

 

Is it insane to spy on nearly every internet user?
Is it insane to hack the UN?
Is it insane to have economic relations to countrys who "assimilated" a country (yeah, talkin about china)?

It's all about money and power, not morality or ethics...

 

you are right, fraggle, it is all insane, you must have the heart of a humanitarian to realize the hypocrisy as you pointed out..

blind eyes are turned to such atrocities across the world every day..



i can offer no solutions, only that we musicians and artists often times are more sensitive to the human condition, and we can in turn express feelings and emotions through our music to help ourselves and everyday people cope with the modern insanity that is the world as we know it..

music to mend the world

check out this article at national geographic, it asks the same questions your are asking

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/08/130828-chemical-weapons-syria-attack-military-action-science-world/

 

...hmmm

 

OH you guys

you cannot sell chemical gas to kill people that would be wrong

you need to sell them bullets and bombs, kill them the 20th century, old fashion way

What ever is really going on,

100s of millions have been killed since we were 10 hairs short of being a chimpanzee

regular people always pay, with an ocean of blood

Werner Von Braun lay on his deathbed in the early 70's he warned of the contrived threats that lay ahead.

1. Russians / Communists
2. Terrorists
3. Third-world Country "Crazies" / Axis of Evil / Nations of Concern
4. Asteroids
5. Aliens (extraterrestrials)

we are right on scheduled for the take over by who or whatever

do not worry, even if 2 or 3 billion are killed, they can be replaced

organized reproduction, not this take a penis whenever the women want it, can have us back up in no time

return to your useless busy work

the sad fact is the human race may not matter at all, if it is true , what we experience as reality is only about 6 % of what exits

so really we are just part of some leftover, fluff, kind of like the dust bunnies in your house

You cannot take over a planet, if you are going to be concerned or shy about killing 2 or 3 billion

this may be just the start :dancing:

Have a nice Day

 

All western countries have blood on the hands and freedom in the mouth.

 

Illuminati all in their bodies.

 

Korgrog, you stated that
Werner Von Braun lay on his deathbed in the early 70's he warned of the contrived threats that lay ahead.

1. Russians / Communists
2. Terrorists
3. Third-world Country "Crazies" / Axis of Evil / Nations of Concern
4. Asteroids
5. Aliens (extraterrestrials)

I guess he failed to mention Justin Beiber

 

And he's basically a traitor to his country, as all the Paperclip people.

 

PREAAAACH!!!! *yes*

 

That's simply politics (or better said geopolitics) and has nothing to do with the vast majority of people because it involves a dialectics between the different states. It's not like each man wakes up and thinks on a daily basis how to gas people.

 

Syrian just didn't get enough re-tweet and likes.

Chemicals are just easier faster and you can't shoot back. In post WWII it made sense. But you can get pretty medieval with any weapon.

If West and Europe had taken action from the start you would have criticized them about Vietnam and colonialism.

It's a catch 22. Sit & watch was the cheapest. The safest too.
AL Assad is the monster not UN countries.

 

I hope this is ironic.

 

It's not.

Despots are in a "nothing to lose" set of mind.
Democracies have to respond to their people.
(That's also how the work of police is so hard against criminals)

And the memories of Vietnam, colonialism, Irak, Afghanistan are fresh.
The consensus is not to get involved in civil wars and such for these very reasons.
UN was made for "old-school" wars (involving different nations) not guerrillas or civil wars.

I'm not ironic saying "Al Assad is the monster". Maybe I should have been more precise and write :
"Al-Assad and peoples around are the monsters, not the UN on the subject of the Syrian situation".

When there's a rape, don't accuse the outfit of the victim, the rapist's family situation or the witnesses. That's impolite.

 

My reference was actually to the second part of the statement: I'm not defending the rapist, I'm questioning his and all his fellows future executions. I have a hard time believing you can export values and democracy on a Nimitz or similar.

 

Ok.

Don't believe it : that's not what Nimitz are made for. Especially in civil wars. UN was made with WWII in minds (write it down it explain almost every geopolitics failure since 70's). It's made for global wars situation. With a bi-polar vision of the world, and self-centered nations. The world doesn't work like this since 25 years.

Long story made short : it's not virtuous (security council are the weapon seller, assembly has little to no power (except for UNESCO and such)), it often fail (serbia/yougoslavia, africa in 90s, Iran, Irak, Syria, ...) such, it's outdated, it's a baby sitter employed as a jail-keeper.

In the current situation, things won't move because most of the UN sec council members have interests in having a despotic situation there. Mainly because just like in Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood is the most organized "democratic" movement. And it went very wrong in Egypt. It scares everybody, despotic government was keeping them illegal and quiet. That's how all of these government were sponsored by Europe and US.

 

Let's say that Nimitz was just a synecdoche. I agree with all the rest you said. When people die because of wars, conflicts, etc. it's always a failure not only of diplomacy (in it's higher sense) but of the overall humanity. Somewhat inevitable if we keep this dialectic structure of the state which heavily relies on differences and borders. UN was an attempt to overcome this but it appears to be inadequate.

 

With a bit of irony, and sophism : there was no world war since UN was created. So it didn't fail ...jk...

I disagree with you, despite I see your point pretty well. But world isn't idealist, it has a too good memories (as a whole) and too vivid cultures (in particular) to afford idealism.
As long as the very concept of nation exists, conflicts aren't an overall concern. It's an "egg or chick" problem : no one knows if nations created wars or wars created nations.

Total and faithful humanism can't accept nationalism. As a "global population" we were unable to gather (or been gathered : all in all, that's what Genghis Kahn, Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon and Hitler (sorry to bring him here) were trying to do, and none of these can be called humanist) so far. I don't know if it's for better or worse.

Sorry if I might sound cynical. I'd rather not be.
We could go on and on on such conversation. You have Chopin as a pics, I like you.

 

I guess so but this is the reason forums exist, right?
I always learn something and I will continue as long as I have a bit of rationality and a byte on my connection.
My proposal is clearly ideal and different from reality (however I must stress not at all "faithful"). This is exactly how the world is supposed to work according to Plato. I think it is ok to try to conform this world to the best idea we have of it especially when geopolitics is concerned because this will mean less or no victims at all. Your "eggs or chicken" question is easily resolved by history because wars created states and then nations (at least in the majority of examples I am aware of). Conflicts are generated on the interactions/oppositions between those (East and West, North and South do remind you something?). Therefore I think that overcoming this kind of dialectic exchanges will involve also a change of the "state" definition and identity but will not necessarily include the leveling of all differences.

 

I think nations where created because we thought that doing that way we, human beings, would feel more secure from other human beings, and that's why we created nations and later borders in the eighteenth century. It's because security that first we created clans/tribes and then nations (which is a more elaborated tribe). And we should not forget family which was created based on the same tribal model. It's because we think that we'll feel secure in the division that we create such false protection as nations and borders. Unfortunately we don't see that division is the cause of all our problems.

.
That's it! But "humanism" as you call it is a mere idea for charlatans. Why we, each one of us i mean, are unable to realize that, not as an idea but as a fact ? That being separated from others is leading us to disaster ?. Why ideas have become so important ? ... i mean christianism, budhism, islamism, socialism, comunism, capitalism, and all the rest of "-ism" we've created along history ?. Is it again because we try to create security through such ideas ?. But then we must fight against others to defend them!. Someone said here that all what's happening to the human being is because the wish for power ... but i think it's merely because we are looking constantly for security for ourselves and our clan and that the wish for power (economical, psychological, and so on) is merely a consequence of it - thinking that through this power we'll accomplish that everlasting sense of security we all wish to have for ourselves and our little clan.

Now the question i left here for any of you to answer is: The human being is constantly seeking for security and hence creating all the conflict, but he's seeking security of what ?