How the current war in Iraq goes against the spirit and concepts of Jing Mo

[Siu Lum Fighter]

First of all, I want to emphasize that these are my personal opinions and not the official statements of my Jing Mo School or any of the other branches throughout the world. I haven’t even really discussed any of this stuff with my sifu or any of my kung fu brothers, although I know some of them probably have similar views.
Let me begin by saying that I believe most of the people in our armed forces are good folks who have a sense of honor, respect, and loyalty that, sadly, isn’t present within the leaders who have been dictating foreign policy in the The United States recently. Furthermore, I’ve had two grandfathers and a few other relatives who served this country well during at least two major wars throughout its history. I’ve also had quite a few friends who have served in the armed forces. I’m definitely NOT anti-military.
That being said, let me explain my rather bold proclamation at the beginning of this thread.

Let me start with Jing Mo’s concepts:

1. Jing Mo concept of Man:
To achieve all around ability through moral, intellectual, and physical training
Morally I feel the war is wrong because it was no mystery that countless thousands of innocent Iraqis were going to die because of a U.S. led invasion. Also, the reasons were suspect. With Iraq sitting on top of 17% of the world’s remaining oil reserves and billions of dollars being funneled straight into the pockets of the vice president and his cronies (via Halliburton) one has to suspect there were ulterior motives for the invasion. If one were to intellectually work all this out, the reasons for the invasion are clear: greed and power. I suppose what I’m trying to say here is that these conclusions were due, in large part, to my moral, intellectual, and physical training.

2. Jing Mo concept of Character:
Respect for others and self respect through justice and integrity
There hasn’t even been enough respect for Iraqi civilians to do any sort of accurate body count. The U.S. military’s policy towards keeping track of civilian casualties can be summed up by a statement by General Tommy Franks in Afghanistan: “We don’t do body counts.” The latest estimates by the esteemed medical journal, The Lancet? A shocking 655,000 deaths were estimated to have occurred by the end of last year. Where’s the justice for all of those dead men, women, and children? Where's the integrity of the military? I wouldn’t be able to respect myself for going along with this war.

3. Jing Mo concept of Caring:
Humanity and equality through honesty and frankness
I’ve talked to a marine who confirmed to me that they were told to “shoot anything that moved,” by their superiors in the opening stages of the war. With those words ringing in their ears, they were flung into an uncertain conflict in which any vehicle was a potential bomb, any civilian was a potential enemy combatant, and at any moment they could be headed back home in a box. After the initial stages of the war, countless Iraqis were left with no electricity, no water, no jobs, and no security for years (something that was promised to them along with freedom, liberty, equality and whatever other lofty ideal the Administration could think up). The U.S. military also regularly uses rounds with depleted uranium in them. The uranium dust from these rounds can have an extremely debilitating affect on anyone who breaths it in. Equality? Honesty? Frankness? Caring?? I think not.

4. Jing Mo concept of Words and Deeds:
A person's dealings are judged by his words and deeds
We were told by the administration that Iraq had the ability to attack us with chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons. Even though Hans Blix, after a long, laborious search, had confirmed there were no WMD’s in Iraq, Colin Powell, Condoleeza, Bush, Cheney, and friends used false evidence (Nigerian uranium, suspect radio transmissions), and a whole lot of manufactured fear to lead this country into a conflict that seemingly has no end. Shady dealings I'd say.

5. Jing Mo concept of Trustworthiness:
To keep every pledge and promise
Besides the above mentioned promises of electricity, water, jobs, and security for the Iraqis (something we are responsible for according to the Geneva Convention), everyone was promised that the war would be over quickly and that the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators. Who can forget GW in his flight suit on the USS Lincoln with that banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished.” They promised everyone that all was well and that we were not going to get caught up in another quagmire like we were in Vietnam. The U.S. and the world would be happier and more secure than it has ever been. Wow!! Were they mistaken!! They lied about the WMD’S, they lied about their motives, and they lied when they assured the world it was going to be quick and painless.

6. Jing Mo concept of Punctuality:
To be punctual in appointment with no apology
George W. Bush and friends had to be punctual with one thing: ending the war. Like I said previously, they promised us that the war was pretty much “over.” Whether it was a question of more troops, better diplomacy, or a better understanding of the Iraqi people and their needs and desires, they have utterly failed. Of course, we should never have gone down this sad and unfortunate road to begin with. But, since they promised us a swift and painless victory, they might as well have delivered. Sadly, they haven’t.

7. Jing Mo concept of Justice:
To uphold justice impartially
Can anyone guess what I’m going to talk about next? Yep, you guessed it, Abu Ghraib. What happened at Abu Ghraib is not an isolated phenomenon. That was just one prison in Iraq. One can only speculate what it must be like in the 32 other prisons/torture centers across Iraq (I've read about things I can't even say here). The fact that most of the individuals incarcerated at prisons like Abu Ghraib were and are innocent (the U.S. Army has even admitted), is indicative of an atmosphere of prejudice against Arabs and Persians within the United States and it’s military. I hate to say this but it seems as though racism often plays a part in American foreign policy. Every “other” racial group from the Native Americans to almost every Asian denomination has known American firepower. Since time immemorial Arabic and Persian people have always been seen as enemies of the West. They've always been characterized as "crazy and fanatical." Just look at American movies and TV shows. This country hasn’t been just and impartial with the Iraqi people.

8. Jing Mo concept of Service:
To render service with honor
I know that many military personal have the best of intentions when it comes to serving this country. But when the smoke clears and the rest of the world, which is very critical of this country’s actions post 911, holds us accountable for allowing this country’s leadership to fall in the hands of tyrants and for going along with their madness, what will you say? What will you be able to tell your kids? There comes a time when one has to ask whether or not they are engaged in an honorable fight. Whether or not they are fighting for what’s right and just, or blindly following the orders of selfish and dishonorable men. No, I don’t believe George Bush, D!ck Cheney or any of their cohorts to be honorable men. I feel that it is a disgrace to our armed forces that they are calling the shots and deciding peoples fates. Why should anyone give them any credence at all when it comes to how we should fight a war? There has never been any “service with honor” rendered by these armchair warriors during actual combat, so why are they commanding the military? And why would anyone serve them for any other reason?

9. Jing Mo concept of Welfare:
To give and not to take
Once again, how can it be argued by anybody that this country is currently looking out for the welfare of the Iraqi people, when hundreds of thousands of them have been killed? They WERE better off under Saddam. But then again, it’s easy to see how their welfare could be overlooked when one sees how the welfare of our own troops is taken for granted. Many of our troops are headed for their third tour of duty and many of them are in the National Guard. I remember talking to a marine a couple of years ago about how under equipped our Guardsman were (some police departments across the country were even donating their Kevlar vests for these guys), and he was telling me that his own unit was sourly lacking in essential equipment. And what is this whole conflict for? So American oil companies can ransack the country of it’s oil, of course. Whose welfare is all of this really about?

10. Jing Mo concept of Fraternity:
To love others as you love yourself and your own family.
At this point, it may seem redundant to point out how much of a lack of love there is in the Middle East right now. But I think this concept can be clarified as having a Universal Love for all others no matter what color, creed, or religious denomination they may be from. When it comes to Iraq, there is obviously a serious lack of Universal Love; from all parties involved. Though I can’t help but be especially disappointed in my own government. The U.S. government proved itself to be a brutal, hegemonic power in the world after the invasion of Iraq. It certainly showed that our leaders don’t “love others as they love themselves.”

Jing Mo’s three virtues:
WISDOM: Man of Wisdom cannot be mislead
BENEVOLANCE: Man of Benevolence has no worry
COURAGE: Man of Courage has no fear
Lastly, I think it’s worth mentioning that the three virtues have helped me to get a clear perspective on the whole conflict. Anyone who is wise and benevolent can see that initiating a brutal war against the Iraqi people was wrong and we need more courageous people to openly say so.

[golden arhat]

ur right
however at least we got something for the war
invading a country for one bearded guy hmmm ..........

now oil, i hear thats worth alot of money these days

hahhhahahah lmao


(just a joke)

[bodhitree]

I don't think the Bush admin (or any other admin) is bound by "jing mo" concepts. If my memory serves me right in the 2004 election it said "Republican" not "Jing Mo"

[MonkeyKingUSA]

The Jing Mo organization would have really been disappointed in me if I were the Commander-in-Chief. After we destroyed their military I would have taken the spoils (their oil) and left them to clean up their own mess. Of course this is before I would have rendered Iran militarilly incapable of defending themselves and blowing up the nuclear plant that they are building. But I am not very nice. :o
The US is waaaaay to nice to its enemies.

[Black Jack II]

The US is waaaaay to nice to its enemies.

True words.

Beatniks keep harping on the violence of the war yet they have no idea what it would be like if the US really wanted to do the things that existed in there warped conspiracy theories.

The way America handles itself in wartime is very humane considering what we can do if we wanted.

[David Jamieson]

The US creates it's own enemies, so it should be nice to them. lol

[YiLiQuan1]

The way America handles itself in wartime is very humane considering what we can do if we wanted.

The quiet, science-fiction reading person in my brain often wonders how long any "insurgents" would stand up to us if we prosecuted this, or any, war to its fullest extent, unencumbered by concerns like "law of war" and "rules of engagement."

We are technologically the most advanced fighting force on the planet. The simple fact that we are still futzing around in Iraq is testament to our sense of self-control. The actions of a very, very few Soldiers do not dictate the behavior of the forces at large (regardless of what the media would have you believe).

That having been said, what kind of fight would the insurgents put up if we reduced every building to rubble, executed, on the spot, any "insurgent" we found in the course of a day's work, and really did torture (and I mean more than scaring someone with dogs and blindfolds) the prisoners we took in order to get the information we needed to end the fight...

I'm reminded of the opening chapter of Heinlein's Starship Troopers, where the Mobile Infantry, in their powered suits, essentially level a city just to let the aliens know what more could have happened had the M.I. wanted to get really nasty...

[FuXnDajenariht]

duuuude. thats a book? thats like one of my favorite movies ever.

whats the name of the book?

[YiLiQuan1]

duuuude. thats a book? thats like one of my favorite movies ever.

whats the name of the book?

Ummm...

"Starship Troopers."

It's not an action book... Very little "shoot-'em-up" goes on. It's the story of Juan Rico's evolution from a private in boot camp, through earning his sergeant's stripes, on into officer candidate school. Interesting book, nonetheless...

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by Black Jack II
The way America handles itself in wartime is very humane considering what we can do if we wanted.
Read this...
http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/opinion/v-print/story/9316830p-10241546c.html
and view these...
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28&page=1
hmmm...I can't help but wonder what country we might be compared to if we were just a little less humane? Nazi Germany perhaps?!?

originally posted by YiLiQuan1
That having been said, what kind of fight would the insurgents put up if we reduced every building to rubble, executed, on the spot, any "insurgent" we found in the course of a day's work, and really did torture (and I mean more than scaring someone with dogs and blindfolds) the prisoners we took in order to get the information we needed to end the fight...
What you don't seem to realize is that we've created a whole country of "insurgents" by actually doing much of what you've described. Except that, more often than not, the prisoners we take are innocent of any wrong doing...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211374,00.html
and in case you didn't notice those dead people in the Abu Ghraib photos, the U.S. is doing far more than just scaring people with blindfolds and dogs. White House council John Yoo has advocated raping children in front of their parents, and it's been alleged (and I believe there are some videos to prove this) that women and children have been, and are, raped and sodomized in prisons all across the country. Now that's about as horrible as you can get. One step below cutting off limbs and brutally slaying people (which the U.S. military also does).
http://www.infowars.com/print/iraq/iraq_torture_archive.htm

[golden arhat]

i support siu lum fighter completely here

i have seen many things where us soldiers arte pictured sodomising iraqi women
and these arent isolated accounts either
look up iraq on youtube and u can find them
the us could do alot more but that doesnt make what its doing now ok

if u shoot someone in the leg it doesnt make it ok simply because you let him live

[Black Jack II]

I don't deal in forum debates with far left cretins who bring up the guardian newspaper or infowars. Using those sources as anything is bonafide squirrely, talk about an agenda, throwing out pictures of American hating dead muslims doesn't do much for me either. Its just another typical hyperinflation mannerism of fake emotion that the left spits out as a sign of trying to showcase any intelligence.

Nazi Germany...lmao, to even write that shows you don't have a clue to stand on. It's to early in the morning for this kind of dumbf@ckery.:rolleyes:

[bodhitree]

I don't deal in forum debates with far left cretins who bring up the guardian newspaper or infowars. Using those sources as anything is bonafide squirrely, talk about an agenda, throwing out pictures of American hating dead muslims doesn't do much for me either. Its just another typical hyperinflation mannerism of fake emotion that the left spits out as a sign of trying to showcase any intelligence.

Nazi Germany...lmao, to even write that shows you don't have a clue to stand on. It's to early in the morning for this kind of dumbf@ckery.:rolleyes:


A war based on faulty intelligence, the CIA warning the intelligence was wrong, half of the high level CIA officials resigning, Cheney and Rumsfeld's influance in the Pentagon and Military industrial complex, the resignation of Colin Powell, the lack of weapons of mass destruction, the fact that Al-Quida flourishes in Iraq AFTER the Iraq invasion, the fact that the middle east is now more radical, more unstable, and it is easier for terrorists to attack Americans (yes our troops are Americans)


Are you ignorant of all this, or is it "liberal cretin" propaganda. Stupid.

[Hishaam]

Nazi Germany...lmao, to even write that shows you don't have a clue to stand on. It's to early in the morning for this kind of dumbf@ckery.:rolleyes:

I guess you don't even know that there are people on this board who don't have the same timeline as you do :rolleyes:

[Black Jack II]

Hey dumbsh!t,

It was in reference to where I am located. Try again.:rolleyes:

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by Black Jack II
I don't deal in forum debates with far left cretins who bring up the guardian newspaper or infowars. Using those sources as anything is bonafide squirrely, talk about an agenda, throwing out pictures of American hating dead muslims doesn't do much for me either. Its just another typical hyperinflation mannerism of fake emotion that the left spits out as a sign of trying to showcase any intelligence.


So I guess FOX is a better "source?" The thing I don't think you realize is that the mainstream media is controlled by all of about four major corporations. The men behind these media conglomerates have to try and make the U.S. look like it's doing the right thing. So they're not going to show pictures like the ones from that link. It's a big deal when they show coffins draped with American flags. They're certainly not going to show some little kid with his face blown off. And some of the "American hating dead muslims" in those pictures were children by the way. Do you advocate killing women and children in the name of American Empir...I..I mean freedom and democracy and all that other good stuff? I think you've basically said it before but I just want to be clear on that. Killing women, kids good?

[SaintSage]

None of this has anything to do with Kung Fu. Perhaps we should talk about Kung Fu on a Kung Fu forum...

[Black Jack II]

So I guess FOX is a better "source."

Here is the difference since you don't seem to get it.

Fox News is a MAJOR news network where Infowars is a site run by that f@cktard Alex Jones who believes in vast satanic conspiracies regarding Moloch. I already told you, since you brought up Infowars as a reliable source of information anything else you say means nadda, you are gulliable and typical.


Do you advocate killing women and children in the name of American Empir...I..I mean freedom and democracy and all that other good stuff

It's the use of the word Empire in your spasm above which showcases what you are really about. It would be boring and old hat to school your a$$. :rolleyes:

[FuXnDajenariht]

gawd i love watching Black Jack get torn a new one. :D

did they fix that chip yet?

[Siu Lum Fighter]

SaintSage,
This thread does have something to do with kung fu because it's about martial arts philosophy and how the Iraq war fits in with that.
Black Jack,
Shows like Hannity and Colmes, and Bill O'Reilly are a f@cking joke. And the so-called journalism that they practice on that network is obviously biased. You might hate Alex Jones because FOX has told you to, but he's not alone in thinking our government has been orchestrating a push for world domination. There are some things the mainstream media can't hide and one of them is that currently over 84% of Americans reject the official 911 story (these are New York Times and CBS News polls saying this). It currently breaks down something like this...
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%"
and over a third of the population (within the 53% who think they are hiding something) think 911 was an inside job. Let's see, that's about 48,200,000 people. Personally, I'm so glad that Republicans and Demopublicans alike can no longer fall back on their standard character assasination tactics and call most of the population a bunch of conspiracy theorist nutjobs (well, they can but at this point they'll look like fools if they do).
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403757&in_page_id=1770
Also, 54% of the public is more angry at the Federal Government than ever before and 77% said they knew people who are more angry than ever before. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you and whoever else watches FOX are in the minority bub.

[Hishaam]

Hey dumbsh!t,

It was in reference to where I am located. Try again.:rolleyes:

LOL, typical answer and i don't have to try again i succeeded the first time by the look of it :) , any debate with you over this kind of things would be in vain, you seem to be part of a certain group of people that just don't give a rat's hiney about others unless you're in the situation yourself, when somebody adresses a subject like this one you go hide behind the "leftist propaganda blablabla" and spit on others that don't share your view point, this is about being human and having empathy, i guess for you the latter is sissies talk.
History keeps on repeating itself because of people that do not care.
To Siu lum fighter sorry for the thread drift.

[golden arhat]

black jack

are u gonna adress what bodhi said at all ??


who else here apart from rogue thinks black jack is re tarded
*raises hand*

[rogue]

duuuude. thats a book? thats like one of my favorite movies ever.

whats the name of the book?

And the movie has nothing except the title to do with the book.




hi i am fred i live in oldham north greater manchester, i am originaly from north london.
ive been told im arrogant, ive been told i have a massive ego, ive been told i'm too head strong and over confident, ive been told i'm too lazy, but thats ok ,nothing phases me much,(and hey it might just be true)

i can be quiet and unasuming, i can be LOUD and attention seeking, calm and collected some times, i can get angry and flip out at ppl at others,

i fall in love quickly, and fall out slowly,
I LOVE MARTIAL ARTS, and i love philosophy, i hate chauvenism ,
i try to judge ppl on merit and the choices they make often tho i get the wrong end of the stick, (innit aimee) i live in the now,

I'm a buddhist,
my friends are very important to me( tho i dont have many)

my girlfriend, aimee, means a lot to me. she's the only one i'd clean my room for.

i love everyone (well actually i dont i hate loads of ppl),
im very untidy,
im true to myself,
i hate grammar,
but love messing with words,
im opinionated but always open to new ideas,

and i have an weird sense of humour and music,
i go off into my own world and daydream alot,

i think into and about stuff way too much but dont usually stress myself out about it,
i think im quite nice,
u might think so too,

so add me and see.


Who is the retard? Farging pathetic **** ant kid.

[rogue]

i support siu lum fighter completely here

i have seen many things where us soldiers arte pictured sodomising iraqi women
and these arent isolated accounts either
look up iraq on youtube and u can find them
the us could do alot more but that doesnt make what its doing now ok

if u shoot someone in the leg it doesnt make it ok simply because you let him live

My goodness Black Jack, the wet behind the ears little prig is right!

The death dealing Imperialists in action (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8-A8TpZqVk) Darn you George Bush. :mad:

Here's some fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umVTzlWwWDA&mode=related&search=

[SaintSage]

It WAS about martial arts philosophy, then it became politics. :rolleyes:

[Black Jack II]

gawd i love watching Black Jack get torn a new one

LMAO...I have never gotten torn a new one on this forum. For the most part all you got around here are a bunch of wannabe grandmaster po clownshoes whose specialty is puking up the same old Maoism.

Same old song and dance but this time its by the infirm.:rolleyes:


Shows like Hannity and Colmes, and Bill O'Reilly are a f@cking joke.

BWAHAHA....this by the soaring tool who mentions infowars. What did I already tell you kid???

You don't count now, mentioning that site pegs you for the hysterical fool that you are. Maybe with some time you will grow out of it but I doubt it.


You might hate Alex Jones because FOX has told you to

Nope, Alex Jones is a scorching idiot.

People who believe our government elected officals camp out in the woods and whorship in sacrifice to a god called Moloch are a bunch of scorching dumbsh!ts, those kool aid drinkers who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy are even bigger scorching dumbsh!ts, and the people that think this is about a American Empire also fall into the dumbsh!it box. All in all anyone listening to Alex Jones is not holding a full deck of cards and thats you dude.:eek:

But don't feel bad, more than half this forum falls into some sort of perverse ideology.:p

LMAO Rogue that video was wicked!

[Shaolinlueb]

I don't think the Bush admin (or any other admin) is bound by "jing mo" concepts. If my memory serves me right in the 2004 election it said "Republican" not "Jing Mo"


yeah god help us if bush was a amrtial artist. hes like "i took ka raat tay! in my day"

[The Xia]

yeah god help us if bush was a amrtial artist. hes like "i took ka raat tay! in my day"
Imagine if all politicians were martial artists! Would mudslinging consist of "You didn't get the closed door material!" and "You don't compete in MMA so you are just a forms dancer!" and "You only practice what works in the ring so you aren't prepared for the streets!" and "Bruce Lee is the ultimate martial artist!" and "Bruce Lee sucks!" and "My style is better then yours!" and "You train at a mcdojo!" and “I possess the legendary iron crotch and you don’t!” and so on? Ok, well maybe we wouldn’t see the last one but what about the rest? :D

[David Jamieson]

why not make a thread about how war in general goes against the ability to evolve into decent moral and ethical beings?

the war in iraq is what it is. It's all the bad things people say it is, and yet, take a look on any cities highway cams and there's your oblivious people cruising up and down highways alone in their vehicles.

worthy of note is that suvs and large trucks with 4 wheel drive are big sellers in urban areas.

unfortunately, it is difficult to legislate against human stupidity and lack of good sense.

[Black Jack II]

the war in iraq is what it is. It's all the bad things people say it is,

Well, it must be if you say it is all the bad things people say it is,....:rolleyes:


worthy of note is that suvs and large trucks with 4 wheel drive are big sellers in urban areas.

what the hell does that have to do with anything?


unfortunately, it is difficult to legislate against human stupidity and lack of good sense.

.....that is so typical I don't even know where to start. It must be charaterized as bad sense because the great kung lek puts it into that classification.:rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

,

Well, it must be if you say it is all the bad things people say it is,....:rolleyes:



what the hell does that have to do with anything?



.....that is so typical I don't even know where to start. It must be charaterized as bad sense because the great kung lek puts it into that classification.:rolleyes:


you are a stupid little punk, so I will speak to you hencefoth as such.

clearly by your answers and quotes of my posts, you are a moron and incapable of really grasping any sort of reality that there is and instead you choose to wallow in your own crapulence of egoism.

from now on, you will only be referred to as little douchbag and or 3 cent ho.

if only you would have some balls...but you don't, so be it. lol

p.s if you want to fight, type a whole bunch, then posture, then type some more douchebag.
You got a beef with me? I don't care, I'm just gonna abuse you for your lack of thought. It's freeing.

[Black Jack II]

Wow,

That whole paragraph of yours didn't mean sh!t. That's pretty typical coming from you though.

All you do is type and not ever say jack. Your dad must of dressed you up like a little schoolgirl and made you dance for his friends for you to be this disordered.

btw, you ever just want to kill yourself for living in Canada. Man I would.....whew.

[David Jamieson]

Wow,

That whole paragraph of yours didn't mean sh!t. That's pretty typical coming from you though.

All you do is type and not ever say jack. Your dad must of dressed you up like a little schoolgirl and made you dance for his friends for you to be this disordered.

btw, you ever just want to kill yourself for living in Canada. Man I would.....whew.


It didn't mean anything to you because you don't have the capacity to understand that which is more abstract and demanding on the mind to sort.

I'd type slower, but I'm certain that wouldn't aid in your comprehension of the correct either.

I imagine you may never comprehend. And that's ok. We weren't all put here to "get it" after all. And besides, people like you serve as brilliant examples of how not to be.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by Black Jack II:
You don't count now, mentioning that site pegs you for the hysterical fool that you are. Maybe with some time you will grow out of it but I doubt it.

You know what, you don't count now you nimrod. Where on this thread have you not proven yourself to be just a name calling d!ckweed? You haven't made one intelligently thought out point or addressed any facts at all this whole time. Basically, here's what it's like having a debate with a right wing nipple lump such as yourself:

So what do you think about this, this, and this?

HAHA!! YOU'RE A D!PSH!T!! YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF FU<KING RETARDS!!

Wait, but you didn't address the point. Do you have anything to say to that?

YOU BELONG IN THE DUMBSH!T BOX!! DID YOUR DAD DRESS YOU UP LIKE A GIRL?!!

What are we in the 3rd grade here? You sound like some kid on the playground getting into a argument over tether ball. How old are you anyway? I think maybe I've just been fueling some adolescent's rant by replying to your posts.

[Scott R. Brown]

People start out with their own preconceived opinion and then find sources that support their view. One side believes the evidence that supports their view while the other agrees with counter evidence they believe supports their own view. Very few people are informed enough to make a proper judgment about any of this.

So far no one here has formulated a cohesive argument to support any opinion for or against the war.

Enjoy the pi$$ing contest, but don't think your conclusions amount to a hill of beans.

And thank God none of you are running the country or the world!

[FuXnDajenariht]

what? that the Iraq War is wrong and illegal and immoral and that the leaders implementing it are just plain uncompassionate and blinded to the suffering and injustices that they lay on the very people they claim to be saving? how they're the cause of many of their own obstacles?

you on the same planet?

[FuXnDajenariht]

you know what. you said you piece so why dont you enlighten all of us?

[Scott R. Brown]

Ok, here is a bit of enlightenment for you:

1) You can't have a rational discussion with irrational people!

2) Given two people who ARE rational, they may arrive at differing conclusions based upon what they consider true facts. When two people accept differing facts as true they are unlikely to come to the same conclusion.

3) War and conflict are as old as mankind. War will not disappear just because you are anyone else doesn't like it. Get used to it!

4) Moral and immoral in this discussion are value judgments based upon what one side or the other accepts as facts. Facts are not universally agreed upon by anyone, anywhere at anytime in history! Get used to it! That is why different conclusions are arrived at as to the morality and immorality of the war. One group views the war as eliminating evil and freeing the oppressed, the other views the war as selfish and hurting innocent people. They arrive at different conclusions because they are starting from different core premises!

5) Innocent people always get hurt in wars! Innocent people get hurt all the time in life. It isn't fair, it isn't right, but it cannot be avoided. Get used to it!

6) The solution to any problem always creates unexpected negative consequences. There would be unexpected and unpleasant consequences regardless of whether there was a war or not!

7) You, me and no one here are the final arbiter of what is moral or immoral! Get used to it!

8) One man's atrocity is another man's heroic action! Get used to it!

9) Life is hard and unpleasant things happen! Try not too get to emotionally bound up in what you cannot change.

10) The anger and hostility on this thread is not helping the spread of peace and harmony in the world. If you want to stop wars, violence and immorality eliminate narrow mindedness, fear, anger, hate, and violence in your own life first. Try setting an example to others by being understanding of their views. Understanding does not mean you necessarily approve of their views, but all opinions have reasons for them. If you have understanding you will develop compassion which will help you to begin to live a quiet, peaceful and harmonious life. This will help to change your immediate environment and participate in bringing more peace and harmony to the world.

12) Most people won't understand or agree with a thing I am saying here, but that is why they should hear it.

11) "The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." - Herbert Sebastian Agar

That is probably enough for now! I don't want your head to explode!;)

[Shaolin Wookie]

I've had enough of Jing Mo and the Iraq War.

I say, how about Chung Moo and hte Iraq War, ******!!

[Hishaam]

The number 12 remark and the last sentence aren't that positive, you assume that what you said cannot be fathomed by most people who posted on this thread and that's a bit judgemental and in a way insulting i wonder why you even bothered to post in here, i don't want to say elitist but that's how it felt.
I stand to be corrected if i misunderstood you.

[Black Jack II]

Nimrod.....?

Dude, you are using as a source of reference a conservative smear site which states that the United States Government practices devil whorship in the woods of California.

How come you keep skipping over that part???

:rolleyes:

[Shaolin Wookie]

Nimrod.....?

Dude, you are using as a source of reference a conservative smear site which states that the United States Government practices devil whorship in the woods of California.

How come you keep skipping over that part???

:rolleyes:

****!!! They found me?

Goddamit!!! I gotta go!

Anyone know of some abandoned woods in their area?

[Black Jack II]

Lmao!!!!!!

[Shaolin Wookie]

Preferably with wireless high speed internet?

[Scott R. Brown]

The number 12 remark and the last sentence aren't that positive, you assume that what you said cannot be fathomed by most people who posted on this thread and that's a bit judgemental and in a way insulting i wonder why you even bothered to post in here, i don't want to say elitist but that's how it felt.
I stand to be corrected if i misunderstood you.

Hi Hishaam,

I do not assume it "cannot" be fathomed, but that it won't be fathomed, There is a difference. It is not any more elitist than your assumption that my comment was elitist. I make my comments based upon experience. That is all any of us can do. I tried to make a comment that was not an absolute statement because there are always exceptions to the rule. Therefore, if it does not apply to you then it was meant for you.

It was not my intention to make positive or negative statements. I was asked to give some enlightenment and I did. Take what you like and leave the rest.

No offense taken on my part. ;)

[Shaolin Wookie]

7) You, me and no one here are the final arbiter of what is moral or immoral! Get used to it!

That's kind of a declaration of what's right and wrong, isn't it? You must have been a regular on the Juna thread, right?


10) The anger and hostility on this thread is not helping the spread of peace and harmony in the world. If you want to stop wars, violence and immorality eliminate narrow mindedness, fear, anger, hate, and violence in your own life first. Try setting an example to others by being understanding of their views. Understanding does not mean you necessarily approve of their views, but all opinions have reasons for them. If you have understanding you will develop compassion which will help you to begin to live a quiet, peaceful and harmonious life. This will help to change your immediate environment and participate in bringing more peace and harmony to the world.

I figure if I can kill everyone in opposition to myself, I'll get to the point where there is peace and harmony, as I see it, anyways.


12) Most people won't understand or agree with a thing I am saying here, but that is why they should hear it.

What in high hell are you saying?

11) "The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." - Herbert Sebastian Agar[/QUOTE]

I've never done a box set, and Eddie's full of it if he says otherwise. -Sammy Hagar, the illegitimate son of H.S. Agar

Man, that's profound......

[Shaolin Wookie]

Jing Mo concept of Fraternity:
To love others as you love yourself and your own family.

Doesn't that kind of justify the gay nude Iraqi dry humping pics from Abu Ass-Grab Prison?

[Hishaam]

Hi Hishaam,

I do not assume it "cannot" be fathomed, but that it won't be fathomed, There is a difference. It is not any more elitist than your assumption that my comment was elitist. I make my comments based upon experience. That is all any of us can do. I tried to make a comment that was not an absolute statement because there are always exceptions to the rule. Therefore, if it does not apply to you then it was meant for you.

It was not my intention to make positive or negative statements. I was asked to give some enlightenment and I did. Take what you like and leave the rest.

No offense taken on my part. ;)

Thanks for the clarification. ;)

[Hishaam]

Jing Mo concept of Fraternity:
To love others as you love yourself and your own family.

Doesn't that kind of justify the gay nude Iraqi dry humping pics from Abu Ass-Grab Prison?

Dude although i don't speak to the spirits anymore but i'would ve loved a taste of what you're smoking :D

[Shaolin Wookie]

Ay....keemosabi.....

Don't break the cypha!!!:D

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by Scott R. Brown
4) Moral and immoral in this discussion are value judgments based upon what one side or the other accepts as facts. Facts are not universally agreed upon by anyone, anywhere at anytime in history! Get used to it! That is why different conclusions are arrived at as to the morality and immorality of the war. One group views the war as eliminating evil and freeing the oppressed, the other views the war as selfish and hurting innocent people. They arrive at different conclusions because they are starting from different core premises!
So are you saying there shouldn't be a debate at all? If you ran into someone who believed the world was flat, would you not contest their belief at all just because they are starting from a different core premise? Mine and many other peoples views on the morality of the war are based on generally accepted facts. If FOX all of a sudden makes up there own "facts," should we stand down and not call them on it because the facts aren't universally agreed upon? Even though their propaganda influences people to go along with a destructive and costly war?

originally posted by Black Jack II
Dude, you are using as a source of reference a conservative smear site which states that the United States Government practices devil whorship in the woods of California.
Of course, you're going to take that one topic on his site and attempt to completely destroy any credibility he might have. But if you want to talk about the legitamacy of his claims without immediately going, "that's looney!! yet another crazy conspiracy theorist!!," the fact is many high powered political leaders do go to a place in northern California called The Bohemian Grove and engage in bizarre rituals. There is not only footage to prove it, but it's admitted by some of our own politicians and there are pictures of many of our former presidents hanging out there. Now, whether or not you want to say the rituals caught on film are a part of some light hearted, fun, fraternity-like party or some sort of dark masonic congregation can still be debated. But what can't be refuted is that there is testimony and some evidence that suggests our leaders are actually making policy there just like CEO's on a golf course might, and that's why it's significant.

[SaintSage]

The Freemasons are a "light hearted, fun, fraternity." Were you trying to imply otherwise?

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Sorry,

You're right, for the most part they are. But you have to wonder about some, seemingly dark, masonic-like fraternities like Skull and Bones who have the symbol of the deaths head as their signature. It's a fact that both George W. Bush and John Kerry are both members of that, admittedly secret organization, and so are many prominent members of our government. I think the people who get caught up in right wing vs. left wing, liberal vs. conservative, Republicans vs. Democrats are not able to see that, at the core, it's really all just one party.

[Black Jack II]

Of course, you're going to take that one topic on his site and attempt to completely destroy any credibility he might have.

Your kidding right dude? That is a HUGE nonsense topic but its not the only one and you know it. Who are you kidding, look at that nutty site and you see 9/11 junk, FEMA takeover junk, microimplants.......:rolleyes:

It's not as bad as David Icke but for the love of f@ck its close enough and no way should anyone say that site has ANY real cred.

btw, I know about the grove and skull and bones, plus I am also a traveling man myself but I do my own research and I don't cander to the fun but bizzare conspiracy claims. The skull and bones symbol is a Totenkopf and it just means deaths head in German where the origins of the lodge come from.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Well, it seems as though you know a bit more about all of this stuff than I thought. Regarding the deaths head: I was wondering what your theory is on why W's fraternity at Yale are using the same symbol or Totenkopf that the SS used during WWII?

[SaintSage]

Thank you, though. I just don't like seeing good men defamed, so I get a little jumpy at the "Masonry is a Satanic cult" thing. Just making sure you knew better!;)

There are Masons out there who do things they probably shouldn't, but that's because they are people, not Masons.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Scott, come on. i mean really. you know as well as i do that credible facts are based on empirical evidence. whether you want to believe a fact or not doesn't take away from its proven basis in reality. someone who makes or creates their own "facts" in opposition to actual fact is either ignorant or delusional. something can either be proven or disproven, and what we called facts are proven to be true after vigorous testing and investigation. im the first to agree that biased opinions dont count. but you mislabel all of the comments made as such. now if you wanna put your facts against everyone elses thats fine but to say no one has any say so in the matter is BS.

what i basically take from your statement is that the so called facts the President used as a justification for the war in the first place are the only ones that matter, and that everyone else should keep their mouth shut when trying to call him on his proven lies. thinking you dont have the right to question your elected officials decisions is foolish in my opinion

[FuXnDajenariht]

Scott wrote: 5) Innocent people always get hurt in wars! Innocent people get hurt all the time in life. It isn't fair, it isn't right, but it cannot be avoided. Get used to it!

people are angry because the war in Iraq and the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives was and is competely unnecessary in relation to the actual war on terrorism. like i said before, Britain proved that you can thwart terrorism with plain old good policework. the reasons for American troops being in Iraq have been factually proven to be fabricated. former and current CIA agents have testified to the fact the the white house manipulated intelligence on WMD's to fit its agenda. its been factually proven that the war in Iraq has increased acts of terrorism and has increased the recruitment rates for terrorist groups. those are just a few reasons that the civilian casualties in Iraq are unacceptable to the majority of the global community and the American public. do i even need to mention the wasting of American lives? its a failed, unnecessarily mismanaged war with no clear agenda, no actual progress but seemingly daily regression, no clear end in sight and basically no legitimate reason for it existing.


Scott wrote: 8) One man's atrocity is another man's heroic action! Get used to it!

Get used to it? riiiiight. A fair amount of Arabs believe 9/11 was an act of heroism. you believe that no one is allowed to make a judgement call on that? according to your logic.....

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi FuXnDajenariht,

You are forming your opinion based upon what you accept as fact and either ignoring contradicting facts, refusing to consider the conflicting facts, or not informing yourself with other facts. This is what led me to the statements I have made. However, this is not an affliction that only YOU possess. We are all subject to the same flaws in thinking.

Here is what happens, most people only accept the facts that already support their world view and ignore contradicting facts rather than change their opinion. They commonly don’t even know they are doing it. They don’t understand how the mind functions or how they have actually arrived at their conclusions because they have never taken the time to think it through. That is, think through, not just what their opinion is, but also how it is that they arrived at the opinions they have or even how we form opinions in the first place. There is a pretty well defined process, but we are never educated about how this occurs and we are not taught to think for ourselves in school. One of the reasons we aren't taught to think independently in school is because a population that thinks independent cannot be manipulated by politicians and the media. Most people who consider themselves free thinkers can't identify their own preconceived notions and thus end up becoming self-righteous about the opinions they do have. The vast majority of individuals cherish their own preconceived opinions more than true facts. What you consider empirical facts in this circumstance are not empirical facts, but merely opinion. Facts that contradict our preconceived world view are considered lies in order to preserve our own views. So you do not accept or consider the possibility the facts that conflict with your view might be true and this narrows your perspective and limits your judgment.

The problem becomes whose facts, or what facts, are the true facts. In reality there is no way for anyone to know for sure which facts are reliable facts. Even empirical experimentation has flaws. (I don’t want to take the time to explain why at this time.) However, nearly all accepted facts in the public area and many "scientific" facts are only accepted as facts due to popular consensus. The comments by either side of any argument are all merely opinion based upon what each person accepts as the core premises (facts) that support their personal view. If we change the basic premises of our view our conclusions change and this changes our experience of life.

[FuXnDajenariht]

please Scott, if you wanna defend your support for the war then fine. but dont patronize me with half assed Daoistic philosophizing about my so called unconsciously preconceived notions.

what makes you an authority on what qualifies as correct thought processes? what makes you assume i haven't put as much thought into my conclusions as you have in your own, or that no one here constantly comtemplates, dissects and investigates the reasonings, origins and meanings behind their thought-forms in an effort to perfect the functioning of their minds? are you saying your the only one capable of forming rational, unbiased, clear-headed, well researched opinions? oh i see..... would i be a free-thinker if i conceded to your opinion that im not actually qualified to have any?

if we are all capable of flawed thinking as you say, which any sane person wouldn't deny, then what makes you so certain yours aren't flawed as opposed to my own?

[FuXnDajenariht]

oh yea and the way to separate who's facts from what facts from true facts is called the scientific method. it may not be perfect but its best investigation tool that we have. either that or you can go the whole faith route. i heard thats working real well for organized religion. ;)

you say scientific fact is popular consensus as if its theory pulled out of someones ass and then voted on like American Idol. experimentation can be tampered with for certain results of course, but in most cases its not. if you have no faith in empirical evidence then your basically saying all the knowledge we have about physical science is made up. i know for sure that even you dont believe that with all the advances in science and technology as clear proof of their factual truth. these areas of knowledge are useful because they have a basis in reality whether slightly flawed or not. the system isn't and never claimed to be perfect. this is why everyones opinion is accepted in the scientific community no matter how outlandish, but it isn't accepted as fact without physical proof. it only remains an opinion. Christopher Columbus couldn't use a map modeled after the fact of the earth being flat because it wasn't true.

opinions and theories aren't facts. i gave evidence for my reasoning in the past. you claim what i say isn't fact without proof to the contrary. my conclusion may be somewhat flawed but its better than what i view as the deluded alternative.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi FuXnDajenariht,

I have voiced no opinion on the war. You are presuming.

I am unconcerned here about the war per se and more concerned about the thought processes that occur when people reach the conclusions they do. My interest is in learning how to reach the essence of matters. When we understand the essence or core of a matter we understand all that springs from that essence. As an example: Hating war does not contribute as much to bringing peace as loving peace does. Contributing to the general world hostility, as demonstrated by some of the comments on this thread, does not help to create peace and harmony. It increases the chaos already present. A lover of peace then is better advised to behave in a manner that contributes energy to peace and harmony than increasing the already present hostility.

I am able to draw a conclusion about your thought process because I have experience in doing so. In your MA class you may not question your instructor when he corrects you because you accept his authority. You trust his judgment because you are the novice and you accept him as the expert regardless of whether he has any real expertise or not. Beginners do not have the experience to determine how much expertise their instructors possess, so they really have no idea whether they are getting comprehensive instruction or not.

You do not accept my comments because I have no established authority with you. I understand this and that is one of the proofs of my expertise. I am not attempting to change your view or bless you with my wisdom. I am holding a conversation with you because you provided the first interesting response. To me, conversations such as ours provide a learning experience. I consider it part of MA training. Whether you benefit or not from our conversation is your own responsibility.

I am not offended or controlled by emotion in my comments. I have a more objective view than would otherwise occur because of this. Hostility is a characteristic that applies to all self-righteous views. Simply speaking, people with self-righteous views are participating in hypocritical behaviors. That is, they possess the same ignorance that they accuse others of possessing, but do not perceive it. Self-righteous individuals believe that views that do not agree with theirs are ignorant and they treat those who disagree with them with hostility. If we appreciate peace, then peace starts with our self. It is more proper to fix our self before we try to fix the world according to our own idea of what is right or wrong.

Since I understand the process that occurs when we arrive at our conclusions about matters, I possess no hostility or anger towards those who disagree with my views. I understand that the conclusions others arrive at are due to the premises, basic assumptions, they begin with. To change a persons conclusions we must first change their basic assumptions, however most people are emotionally attached to their basic assumptions. Their basic assumptions form a foundation for their basic identity, therefore there is an inherent resistance towards changing our basic assumptions about life. Herein, lays another proof of my understanding regarding main points of my comments. It is not my responsibility or purpose to change the world, you or anyone else. I participate in conversations I find interest and participate as long as my time and inclinations provide.

I am qualified to comment upon how individuals arrive at conclusions because I recognize how the process works, the inherent rules, and I recognize the limitations that apply to all of us, therefore I am better prepared to use the rules effectively and be less controlled by the limitations. It is like learning to swim. Once we understand the limitations and rules of water we are able use those rules to our advantage and the consequence is we are better prepared to navigate through the water effectively and efficiently. I understand and recognize the rules and limitations of reasoning and this provides me with an advantage over those who do not perceive them or understand them as well. A person who perceives their own afflictions has an advantage over others who choose only to perceive and pick at the afflictions of others. If one's purpose is to affect the world in a positive manner then one must begin by developing their own abilities and seek to avoid preoccupation with the flaws of others!

Life/Tao/God does not care what we think of the way the world functions. It does not care whether we like war or love peace. War will exist no matter what we think or do about it because it is part of the system of conflict inherent within our world system. Hostile attitudes contribute to violence, understanding leads to compassion which contributes to peace and harmony.

Life/Tao/God does not impose itself on man. There are some essential foundational principles that we must adhere just like in any game, but within that basic framework Life/Tao/God does not impose itself on the system. The rules of the system will not change because we don't like what we consider to be inequities or injustices. History demonstrates that anyone who attempts to impose their own ideal on others becomes a Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, and Saddam Hussein no matter what their initial good intentions were.

When we become emotionally attached to a specific world view we become unable to perceive clearly and this obstructed view contributes to greater misunderstanding which leads to greater anger and hostility. Emotionalism obstructs clear perception. An obstructed view must be questioned concerning its correctness because obstructions create flaws in judgment.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi FuXnDajenariht,

Another way of expressing what I am trying to say here may be found in this thread:

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=741150#post741150

Post # 38 the final paragraph.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Scott wrote: "I have voiced no opinion on the war. You are presuming.

I am unconcerned here about the war per se and more concerned about the thought processes that occur when people reach the conclusions they do. My interest is in learning how to reach the essence of matters. When we understand the essence or core of a matter we understand all that springs from that essence. As an example: Hating war does not contribute as much to bringing peace as loving peace does. Contributing to the general world hostility, as demonstrated by some of the comments on this thread, does not help to create peace and harmony. It increases the chaos already present. A lover of peace then is better advised to behave in a manner that contributes energy to peace and harmony than increasing the already present hostility."

I presumed because this is a discussion about war. the only comments i really made on this thread were in relation to the debate on the merits of the Iraq War which you deemed yourself qualified to dismiss based on your observation that i have inferior abilities of discernment compared to your own. dismissal without any reasonable evidence to the contrary of the actual statements made and opinions expressed about the war. well researched opinions and statements i might add.

you seem to wanna take this conversation somewhere else so fine. who says that hating war and actively seeking its eradication wont lead to a peaceful existence. you say that hostility doesn't create a peaceful world and i agree for the most part, but i could site certain examples of its necessity. WW2 for instance is a perfect example of violent means creating a peaceful, ordered and harmonious existence. i'm pretty sure having sweet thoughts about butterflies and lollipops wouldn't of stopped Hitler from spreading death and destruction as far as his resources would of allowed him to. hostile actions succeeded in ending the chaos of that era ironically.

on the flipside you have communist era Russia, where the people were pretty passive in regards to their own opression, supression and extermination. being a peaceful person doesn't mean you'll have a peaceful, loving existence. unfortunately in this day and age, sometimes hostile means are warranted against the powers that be, so i dont see hostility as always a bad thing but you may have a stronger definition for the word. it doesn't necessarily have to be violent hostility, but dissenters are the only forces for change in a democracy when absolute power finally corrupts as it always will. staring with doe-eyes and singing kumbaya wont stop you from being thrown in jail as a political prisoner if worse comes to worse.

Scott wrote: ".........You do not accept my comments because I have no established authority with you. I understand this and that is one of the proofs of my expertise. I am not attempting to change your view or bless you with my wisdom.......

Hostility is a characteristic that applies to all self-righteous views. Simply speaking, people with self-righteous views are participating in hypocritical behaviors. That is, they possess the same ignorance that they accuse others of possessing, but do not perceive it. Self-righteous individuals believe that views that do not agree with theirs are ignorant and they treat those who disagree with them with hostility. If we appreciate peace, then peace starts with our self. It is more proper to fix our self before we try to fix the world according to our own idea of what is right or wrong."

that has more than a slight air of condescension. exactly what am i expressing ignorance of? lol since you aren't concerned with the war debate, which is the only thing i made comments about, exactly what would be your point of contention? am i self-righteous for coming to the same conclusion as the majority of the most knowledgeable set qualified to comment on something? or is that being a realist? exactly when are you allowed to speak up and call someone on their ignorance when their beliefs are clearly counterproductive to a peaceful existence? you know the saying "evil prevails when good men do nothing" or something like that. well maybe part and parcel to fixing oneself is to help rectify the problems around them. can an organism function properly when one of its organs are diseased? or will the one diseased organ destroy the entire organism? if i point the well-known flaws in the views, of i dont know saaaay the President, is that me being self-righteous or should i instead turn a blind eye to undue suffering his flaws which i shouldn't be pointing out causes? how can any man say he has peace with full knowledge of the injustices in the world? how is that anything but apathy?

Life or God or Tao or whatever may not care what i think of how the world functions but i still have to live here and im of the kind that believes you can make a heaven or a hell of it. im also of the kind to not allow some ******* with his own personal agenda create it into the latter with wrongheaded intentions in my name no less, without telling said ******* what i think about it. whether you think thats hostile or not i can't help that. some people need a louder wake up call than others.

and i disagree with you when you say its not your responsibility to change the world. i think its everyones responsibility. i believe its the fundamental reason we're here. and i also dont think war is natural but thats another discussion entirely.

i wont even get into how your more qualified to comment on how individuals arrive at conclusions or makes yours superior to everyone elses.... i dont know you personally or much about you beyond what you post so what kinda of freethinker would i be to buy that hook line and sinker? ;) that'd make me pretty weak-minded wouldn't it? you'll hafta explain that whole more qualified thing to me one day....

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi FuXnDajenariht,

The presentation of your points of view occur with an underlying hostility. That allows me to draw conclusions concerning your intent and state of mind. Just as you presume to draw conclusions about my state of mind and intent according to the manner in which I present my comments. You presume your assessment of me is correct while disregarding my assessment of you. You are not applying the same standards to yourself that you are applying to me and this is a hypocritical characteristic.

The facts you cite to support your view of the war are merely the facts you have chosen to accept. There is ample evidence to dispute your conclusions, but I am not interested in listing them because I perceive your inherently narrow perspective so instead I chose to address the manner in which we all reach our conclusions. You do not perceive the narrowness of your perspective so to you it does not exist. You accept the evidence that supports your views and disregard or ignore evidence that conflicts with your preconceived view. This is very apparent in the manner in which you present your opinions. I chose not to tear down your arguments by presenting the logical inconsistencies. However as one example of ignored counter evidence: Tthere is an Iraqi general that has already written a book that claims the weapons of mass destruction were removed by the Russians prior to the war. Since this view has not been presented frequently to the American public it is not considered. The fact it is ignored does not necessitate its inaccuracy any more than the frequent presence of conflicting views assure their accuracy. Everyone has an agenda and that agenda determines what facts are presented and considered valid. This is where the consensus that determines truth occurs. If one presumes they have all the facts they may believe they have solid reasons for their conclusions. I am asserting you do not have all the facts necessary to reach a true conclusion.

No one can make you feel condescended too. If you do it is because you possess a sense of inner insecurity. I am not offended nor do I feel condescended to by your comments, although I do perceive your inherent hostility. My observations are dispassionately made and do not reflect a value judgment. If I consider your attitude narrow and hostile you may consider it similar to saying the sky is blue and the clouds are white. They are direct observations without any value placed upon the facts as described.

Hostility is an attitude not an action. Violence/force is an action. Sometimes violence/force is necessary to limit the greater potential for violence. Violence without hostility is appropriate within a specific context because it will perform only the violence/force necessary to stop the potential for greater violence, however hostility tends to perpetuate more hostility which will result in greater unrestrained violence.

If you think you have a responsibility to change the world then you are part of the problem, not the solution. You are attempting to force your narrow views of what you think is right or wrong onto the world. It is presumption to the point of arrogance to think your view or my view or anyone else’s view is the right or correct one. You will find others who would resist your opinions of what are right or the way things should be and this will cause greater conflict and hostility. It will create the opposite of what you wish to accomplish.

[David Jamieson]

If the intention of the thread is to indicate to those of the jing mo that it is not in keeping with the concepts, ideals and tenets of the credo of jing mo to support the war, then the presentation put forth is valid.

I would say that it is easy to not support this war on so many other levels.

such as it sets a dangerous precedent of first strikes against weak countries.

It is really not difficult to draw a parallel here to the German invasion of Czheckoslovakia and poland in the 1930's.

The difference is that no one cared about Iraq because it did have a tin pot cruel dictator at the helm.

On more levels than one, the war in Iraq is unethical, immoral and wrong despite what is being fed to us by the media day in and day out. Thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with Saddam have been subjected to occupational forces and the individual idosyncractic actions of the soldiers in those battle groups.

It is simply a wrong war that cannot be won and is a demonstration of lack of forsight and ill understanding of the region as a whole.
It is also indicative of an illness that exists in the core level of american society and british society where we are being shown that there is a clear disconnect between the people that live in these countries and the governments who run them.

It is up to the people eventually to make enough protest to end these unabashed assaults against other cultures and societies.

Iraq was rendered harmless through 12 years of sanctions that were indeed working. there were no weapons of mass destruction, there were no ties to al quaida and there is no and never was any tie to the incidents of 9/11.

So, with those few things alone, It is very difficult for anyone to actually justify american and british actions on the matter. Those who do attempt to justify the deaths of innocents and the aggressive actions of these countries in general don't seem to have the capacity to call a spade a spade.

Memes can be dangerous.

as for all the other stuff, I think that paragraphs of non related and nontopical stuff only serves to obfuscate. Please start another thread if it's rumination on unrelated stuff that you want to go on about. :p

[Shaolin Wookie]

This conversation you guys are having isn't even 1/3 as profound as you guys are making it out to be.....

[David Jamieson]

This conversation you guys are having isn't even 1/3 as profound as you guys are making it out to be.....


that comment doesn't make 7/16ths the amount of sense as cheese on a cracker with a glass of bin 222. :p

[Shaolin Wookie]

that comment doesn't make 7/16ths the amount of sense as cheese on a cracker with a glass of bin 222. :p

Wash that reprimand down with an 1/8th of vodka:p

[David Jamieson]

Wash that reprimand down with an 1/8th of vodka:p

I'd prefer 1/5th of whiskey thanks.

and that's not the 1/2 of it!

[Black Jack II]

The skull and bones symbol is no big deal. The death's head symbol has been reused by countless organizations over the course of the earth. It's basically representing the death-resurrection cycle. Used in initiation it is a symbol of rebirth, with the promise of new life over death.

It's just symbolism for a private club dude, there are no bogeymen hiding in the closet. Skull and Bones wishes it had the levels of secrecy that some of the other college old boys clubs still have, such as Ravens Claw in which is even older and even more clamped down.

[Scott R. Brown]

This conversation you guys are having isn't even 1/3 as profound as you guys are making it out to be.....

One man's profundity is another man's foolishness, just as one man's immorality is another man's righteousness!
_____________________________________________

There is a Taoist metaphor that goes something like this:

There was a man who bred horses; his prized breeding mare broke out of the paddocks and ran away. Upon hearing of the bad news the man’s friends arrived to console him. When the man’s friends mentioned his “bad luck” losing his prized mare, the man replied, “Maybe.”

After some time the mare came back, bringing with her a beautiful stallion. The man’s friends rushed over to comment upon his turn of “good luck”! The man just replied, “Maybe!”

Soon after this while the man’s son was breaking the stallion he was thrown and broke his leg leaving him lame. The man’s friends rushed over to lend support for such and “unfortunate” event. The man replied, “Maybe.”

Later, the government military representatives traveled through the land to find healthy young men to press into service. Finding the man’s son lame, they did not take him to join the army. The man’s friends once again commented on his good fortune. All the man replied was, “Maybe!”

Here are a few other ideas that seemed like a “moral” thing to do at the time, but resulted in disastrous consequences:

The ban of DDT in 1972’s: The claims that DDT is harmful to humans and the environment some believe are pretty well debunked. The ban on DDT has cost an estimated 50 million lives due to malaria. Some believe DDT is also safe to use for agriculture. The ban reduced crop yields and required farmers to turn to more expensive, more harmful and less effect alternatives. Many holier than thou “moral” people felt pretty good about themselves for the ban on DDT at that time too. How much more and cheaper food could have been used to feed the poor of the world? One farmer claims that fields that were yielding 3-4 bales of cotton per acre were reduced to 1.5 bales or less. How many lives were lost due to junk science and self-righteous political agendas?

Here is one supportive link, but all you need do is put, “The Truth about DDT” into Google and then have fun reading:

http://junkscience.com/malaria_clock.htm

There are also a numerous articles that argue against this opinion as well, but that demonstrates my point that we will believe what already supports our world view and ignore or reason away evidence that conflicts with what we “want” to be the truth. In the end a reasonable person cannot know who to believe since all parties involved have their own agendas! Those who want to believe that DDT is good will ignore or reason away the detractors and vise versa. There is no way to determine with accuracy or self-righteous assurance any one view is more moral or immoral than another.

At the end of WWII Patton wanted to press all the way to Moscow. We did not do so and millions of “innocent” human lives were lost:

“I calculate that the Communist regime, 1917-1987, murdered about 62,000,000 people, around 55,000,000 of them citizens.” http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2006/05/01/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html

Should we have gone? I am not saying yes or no! I am saying that ALL actions or non-actions carry with them unanticipated consequences.

The morality or immorality of most actions can never be accurately determined. This applies equally to major world events since the consequences of not acting when we should have or acting when we shouldn’t have can never be accurately determined. All actions have consequences some anticipated, but most are unanticipated and innocent people will suffer and die either way. All evidence supporting action AND all evidence supporting non-action, regardless of the topic in question, is based upon the interested parties’ biases. This makes all evidence used to support any view questionable. The only way to determine the appropriate action to take is to make a best guess based upon the best evidence available, which is also biased. What is considered the best evidence is not always true facts. A best guess will be based upon the decision-maker’s preconceived world views and is subject to his personal biases. All people are subject to their personal biases and therefore no one opinion is necessarily the correct one and the morality or immorality of any action is in the eye of the beholder.

[Shaolin Wookie]

The ban of DDT in 1972’s: The claims that DDT is harmful to humans and the environment some believe are pretty well debunked. The ban on DDT has cost an estimated 50 million lives due to malaria. Some believe DDT is also safe to use for agriculture. The ban reduced crop yields and required farmers to turn to more expensive, more harmful and less effect alternatives. Many holier than thou “moral” people felt pretty good about themselves for the ban on DDT at that time too. How much more and cheaper food could have been used to feed the poor of the world? One farmer claims that fields that were yielding 3-4 bales of cotton per acre were reduced to 1.5 bales or less. How many lives were lost due to junk science and self-righteous political agendas?.

I for one am entirely pro-ban on DDT. DDT's are nasty, man. Although it was my favorite finishing move in the WCW, it just looked inhuman, dude.....

[Shaolin Wookie]

The morality of war is an issue that has always been argued, justified, and ripped into.

Everything that is needed to say on the issue has been said by better mouths than ours.....especially if you read this thread.

Lemme point out some highlights (all probably available on the internet, and short in length so you can read 'em):

Pericles' funeral oration from The History of the Pelopponnesian War by Thucydides.

The War Prayer, from Mark Twain.

The Prisoner of Chillon, Lord Byron.

But if we're talking about mortaility and morality.....all you need is John Dryden's translation of the fourth(?) book of Lucretius' De Rerum Natura, On Death.....

"What has this bugbear death to frighten man,
If souls can die, as well as bodies can?
For, as before our birth we felt no pain,
When Punic arms infested land and main,
When heav'n and earth were in confusion hurled
For the debated empire of the world,
Which awe, with dreadful expectation lay,
Sure to be slain, uncertain who should sway;
So when this mortal frame shall be disjoined,
The lifeless lump uncoupled from the mind,
From sense of grief and pain we shall be free;
We shall not feel, because we shall not be!"

edit (Roughly, going from memory here.)

[Scott R. Brown]

I for one am entirely pro-ban on DDT. DDT's are nasty, man. Although it was my favorite finishing move in the WCW, it just looked inhuman, dude.....

I have no fixed opinion because evidence for either view is based upon preconceived agendas and therefore subject to inaccuracy. The conclusions we come to are based upon the premises we start with, that is, the information we choose to accept as true evidence. Change the premises and the conclusion changes.

If DDT is, in fact, relatively harmless, then millions of people died needlessly. Is this more or less immoral than a war that kills tens or hundreds of thousands? If DDT is truly dangerous would the cost to benefit ratio make it worth its continued usage? These are value judgments that are subject to personal biases. The morality or immorality of many decisions can never be accurately determined. Under such circumstances do we accept the decision maker's good intentions regardless of the negative consequences of that result?

[FuXnDajenariht]

my inherent hostility? well granted im a sarcastic b@astard, that can't be helped, but i apologize if hostility is the aura your getting from my posts.

the facts that i sight aren't merely facts that i accept. they're facts the majority of the world agrees with. now that isn't necessarily reason to believe a set of facts but when new evidence springs up everyday, left and right to support that point of view, shouldn't it being taken as based on reality?

you say an Iraq general wrote a book that the Russians took WMD's out of Iraq right before we invaded. well that would suggest to me the reason our military didn't find any when they arrived there. it would also again nullify our reasons for being there. if the weapons were removed then the threat was removed too. if our intelligence agencies were allowed to do their job this fact would of come to light. but its well known that they weren't. if CIA agents says with their own mouths that the information they gathered was manipulated by the white house leading up to the war, is my accepting this as probably being the truth in accordance with UN weapons inspector reports among other things, me having preconceived notions?

the burden of proof is on the white house and anyone who supports them in light of what we already know and see every day in the news.

i wont even get into the moral vs immoral, right vs wrong debate. lets just say that laws and society by extension can't function without some idea of right and wrong.

hell...your making a judgement call on me making a judgment call. you say im unqualified to draw a conclusion about a well known subject with a great wealth of information, and then when i get slightly offended you say its do to my narrowmindedness. :rolleyes:

lol you chose not to tear down my argument? by all means please do. you honestly wont be hurting my feelings. i like to get to the truth of the matter.

read my sig:
"better to reside in hell knowing the truth than to be blissfully ignorant in heaven."

if im wrong im wrong. but we can't come to the truth of the matter if we dont debate it at all.

[FuXnDajenariht]

This conversation you guys are having isn't even 1/3 as profound as you guys are making it out to be.....

so add something profound.

[Shaolin Wookie]

you say an Iraq general wrote a book that the Russians took WMD's out of Iraq right before we invaded. well that would suggest to me the reason our military didn't find any when they arrived there. it would also again nullify our reasons for being there. if the weapons were removed then the threat was removed too. if our intelligence agencies were allowed to do their job this fact would of come to light. but its well known that they weren't. if CIA agents says with their own mouths that the information they gathered was manipulated by the white house leading up to the war, is my accepting this as probably being the truth in accordance with UN weapons inspector reports among other things, me having preconceived notions?


Not to mention that with all our intel on Russia, we wouldn't have known about all that......

We've got better intel in Russia than Iraq.

Look, GW stated many times even before he was in office that we never finished the job in Iraq. He used the only convenient excuse he could to get us involved in the Hussein conflict. Hussein kept his people in check with less daily barbarity than that displayed in this terroristic civil war, which is the result of American occupation, directed by our compassionate Democracy.

It's not a matter of opinion here. It's just a before/after picture.

[Shaolin Wookie]

so add something profound.

There's nothing profound to say about war. If there was, it was said in Catch-22.....

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

Nice comments!

The problem is many people try to impose their personal idealistic views on a world system that doesn't necessarily agree with them. In life most actions taken are pragmatic and motivated by self-interest. In the end even idealism is a result of self-interest and therefore not necessarily more moral than a pragmatic view. Life is bigger than any of us and bad things happen to good people. That doesn't mean we should lay down and accept anything that appears improper, my view is that we should understand that even the best of intentions create unanticipated negative consequences that result in innocent lives being affected in tragic ways. Bad things to happen to good people, that is the way of Life. It cannot be avoided and solutions often create greater harm than the original problem as is apparently the case in Iraq.

Therefore we should be a bit more temperate when judging any action moral or immoral. The evidence we use to arrive at our decisions is always subject to manipulation according to the source's agenda. When biases of evidence are combined with the personal biases of the receivers of the information true evidence is not always clearly apparent. Misjudgments occur by well intentioned people and all of us are subject to manipulation by the evidence presented to us. It comes down to, who do you trust? I say don't trust anyone absolutely. The one you trust the most is also the one most able to manipulate you!

[FuXnDajenariht]

I have no fixed opinion because evidence for either view is based upon preconceived agendas and therefore subject to inaccuracy. The conclusions we come to are based upon the premises we start with, that is, the information we choose to accept as true evidence. Change the premises and the conclusion changes.

If DDT is, in fact, relatively harmless, then millions of people died needlessly. Is this more or less immoral than a war that kills tens or hundreds of thousands? If DDT is truly dangerous would the cost to benefit ratio make it worth its continued usage? These are value judgments that are subject to personal biases. The morality or immorality of many decisions can never be accurately determined. Under such circumstances do we accept the decision maker's good intentions regardless of the negative consequences of that result?


lol well Scott, while you make up your mind on skim milk or whole milk the world doesn't stop revolving. decisions have to be made. split second decisions. the future cannot be taken into account in all cases. if they found evidence for DDT being dangerous and they didn't immeditately pull it off the market then they would of been labeled as negligent and equally inhumane if it caused preventable deaths. hindsight is 20/20. we dont have the power to see into the future. all we can do is learn from our mistakes and adapt accordingly.

its all do to intention.

if you use a chemical in a populated area with full knowlegde of its poisonous qualities leading to unnecessary deaths, i would call that immoral. now if you discontinue using a chemical based on a later admitted flawed report of its poisonous qualities i would call that being more safe than sorry. i'd call that being simply misguided but with good intentions, but certainly not immoral. malaria has been killing people since humans and mosquitoes began co-existing. as sad as that is no one would be to blame for those deaths.

[Scott R. Brown]

the facts that i sight aren't merely facts that i accept. they're facts the majority of the world agrees with. now that isn't necessarily reason to believe a set of facts but when new evidence springs up everyday, left and right to support that point of view, shouldn't it being taken as based on reality?

the burden of proof is on the white house and anyone who supports them in light of what we already know and see every day in the news.

hell...your making a judgement call on me making a judgment call. you say im unqualified to draw a conclusion about a well known subject with a great wealth of information, and then when i get slightly offended you say its do to my narrowmindedness. :rolleyes:

lol you chose not to tear down my argument? by all means please do. you honestly wont be hurting my feelings. i like to get to the truth of the matter.

Hi FuXnDajenariht,

You seem to have ignored the “fact” that there was more than one reason for going to Iraq. I believe there were 10-15 reasons given. The media focused mostly upon the WMD’s to discredit the reason for going and the simpleton public can't think beyond the 6:00 news. Another major reason given was that Iraq continually violated it agreements with the UN. Some countries and individuals such as Cofy Annon’s son were circumventing the oil for food program for their personal benefit; so much for the effectiveness of sanctions. If sanctions are not adhered to then they are useless to inspire conformity to the rules. Improper actions without consistently enforced negative consequence will never inspire appropriate behavior. Every good parent realizes this fact. You have also ignored the fact that France, Germany, the UN, the Clinton administration and just about everyone else believed that Iraq had WMD’s, EVEN Hillary!

I repeat, you are selecting specific facts the support your preconceive opinion concerning the war. The above paragraph is just small demonstration of the evidence to support my view. The sources for these facts should be easily found by doing a Google search.

The Iraqi general told of the Russians moving the WMD’s to Syria AFTER the initial war was won!

I agree the White House is doing a miserable public relations job concerning the war.

I do not want to tear down your argument because it would take more time than I am willing to invest in this conversation. I would prefer to provide evidence from established sources to demonstrate you are using selective evidence; however I don’t want to take the time to find them, so I am trying to avoid it.

I am not concerned about your feelings. You are responsible for them, not me.

[Scott R. Brown]

lol well Scott, while you make up your mind on skim milk or whole milk the world doesn't stop revolving. decisions have to be made. split second decisions. the future cannot be taken into account in all cases. if they found evidence for DDT being dangerous and they didn't immeditately pull it off the market then they would of been labeled as negligent and equally inhumane if it caused preventable deaths. hindsight is 20/20. we dont have the power to see into the future. all we can do is learn from our mistakes and adapt accordingly.

Once again you do not have the actual facts. The major researcher on DDT that was interviewed before congress stated in his interview that DDT did NOT have any known carcinogenic properties.

The man, who was head of the EPA at the time and banned DDT did NOT attend the hearings and admitted he did not read the transcripts! The decision was based upon politics and not scientific evidence.

[Shaolin Wookie]

It's really a logical fault of the coexistence of idealism and pacifism. Shaolin monks are a fantastic parallel for this whole debacle.

It's better to never impose your ideology upon someone else. Hopefully, we could co-exist. But some ideologies require the imposition of values upon others, especially where those values contradict what reason, intuition, research, and empirical evidence would lead us to believe. Ex: Christianity, the Iraq War (Democritization-by-way of coup-de-tat..........rather than popular consent...:D ), and hte Communist regime. When the Communists began eradicating anything of religious significance, and they converged on the temples, the monks either fled or died. Or, in the case of Shaolin-Do, a dude kills eleven soldiers and gets exiled to Indonesia, adopts Japanese outfits, and is forever branded on KFM as an imposter and shaolin-wannabe:D .....

If you're a pacifist, you tend to get along with everyone, but the idealist can kill you off for no particular reason, and at minimal cost, b/c you won't fight back in a way that will be cost-ineffecient for the aggressor.......it's like difference between being indifferent and progressive. Only, with ideals, those indifferent to progression aren't actually regressive, they're just don't view "change" as "improvement"......and neither do I. That's why this whole war debate is really nothing new. It's just a shift in historical context.

[Shaolin Wookie]

There is an almost perfect parallel for the Iraqi War in the Melian Argument from the history of Thucydides.......

I suggest everyone read it.

[David Jamieson]

There is an almost perfect parallel for the Iraqi War in the Melian Argument from the history of Thucydides.......

I suggest everyone read it.

bwahahahahahahaha. You say that here? Anyone here who has the capacity to read the real classics likely is doing so or has done so. My personal fave is The Republic by Plato. Probably has more information about the nature of politics, war and society that is relevant even now than most every document since.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I used to like that one....until I delved further into Plato and realized he set up a society that functions more like a dictatorship....and that he wrote some of his treatises to support a Dictator uncle of his....go figure......:D

[David Jamieson]

I used to like that one....until I delved further into Plato and realized he set up a society that functions more like a dictatorship....and that he wrote some of his treatises to support a Dictator uncle of his....go figure......:D


any governance you live under functions more or less as a dictatorship. we just dress it up so that collectively we think it doesn't. You KNOW that is true.

the nature of the political heirarchy and so on, ...meh, so we elect a dictator instead of allowing him to take power through a coup. what's the difference when a president sends your children to die by veto or by writ or by duping you into believing it's the right thing to do even though no one has actually attacked you?

there are no good wars, there is no honest government. question authority and continue to question authority. It really doesn't have any right to tell you to do anything. Our moral compass in fact shuold be very simple inasmuch as we individually make the commitment to bring no harm to another.

and you're right, plato had an agenda, and so did kato later, and cicero, pliny, the caesars all the way up to the here and now.

fundamentally, the structure of democratic government has not changed for 2000 years! but we live for such a short time, we are at the mercy of what our elders decide to tell us as we grow and learn. some generations grow in a culture of fear, most do in fact and others grow in a generation of despair. rare is prosperity and goodness on the lands. this is because we willingly are ignorant to teh actions of our governments and willingly evade taking responsibility for what we say and do. even here in this "forum" many of us, if not the great and vast majority hide our true selves and will not speak out or ask the really important questions. It is a flaw that we must try to get past, but, I am fairly certain it won't happen in my lifetime, so i will only continue to do it myself, for myself and my own conscience.

IE: if the emperor has no clothes, then say so. :)

[Shaolin Wookie]

any governance you live under functions more or less as a dictatorship. we just dress it up so that collectively we think it doesn't. You KNOW that is true.

I do? Well, yeah, I do.......but you don't have to sound so dictatorial about it, do you? NO, YOU DON'T!!!!:D


the nature of the political heirarchy and so on, ...meh, so we elect a dictator instead of allowing him to take power through a coup. what's the difference when a president sends your children to die by veto or by writ or by duping you into believing it's the right thing to do even though no one has actually attacked you?

I don't think he got that many of us on that one.......not really.....some just wanted to believe....they didn't reallly believe...

there are no good wars, there is no honest government. question authority and continue to question authority. It really doesn't have any right to tell you to do anything. Our moral compass in fact shuold be very simple inasmuch as we individually make the commitment to bring no harm to another.

Agreed. The only rights they have to enforce on me are the ones they can muster up the force to enforce. I guess that's kind of like hte definition of government, more or less. Honestly, I don't think American freedom is that special. We just have the right to talk about how free we are, so it kinda seems that way. We've got soooooooo many arbitrary laws...

and you're right, plato had an agenda, and so did kato later, and cicero, pliny, the caesars all the way up to the here and now.

I was always rather fond of Nero. The guy appointed a dude to be his "Arbiter of Elegance"........how could you not love that?

fundamentally, the structure of democratic government has not changed for 2000 years! but we live for such a short time, we are at the mercy of what our elders decide to tell us as we grow and learn. some generations grow in a culture of fear, most do in fact and others grow in a generation of despair. rare is prosperity and goodness on the lands. this is because we willingly are ignorant to teh actions of our governments and willingly evade taking responsibility for what we say and do. even here in this "forum" many of us, if not the great and vast majority hide our true selves and will not speak out or ask the really important questions. It is a flaw that we must try to get past, but, I am fairly certain it won't happen in my lifetime, so i will only continue to do it myself, for myself and my own conscience.

I had a recent experience with this when I started to question my fellow S-Do guys on their stuff/system.....(I'm like the inside-the-Do-skeptic-but-I-wanna-learn-the-8-Immortals-system-so-I'll-go-along-with-some-of-the-BS kind of guy.

IE: if the emperor has no clothes, then say so. :)

No, you just play along until you can get close, and then whisper XYZ....

[David Jamieson]

8 immortals system?

Hate to break it to you, but 8 immortals are fairy tales to engage children in moral tales. some kungfu stuff from taoist background has been honourarely named 8 immortals this or that, but there is no 'actual' full an dcomplete method that isn't recent.

having said that, George Xu has a tape or two that has 8 immortals style stuff on it, tere is some other guy who is selling it in teh states as well, but it's not an actual thing with a fairly solid history like Hung Kuen or CLF or BSL or even WC. It's pretty much mostly gone if it ever existed outside of wuxia novels to begin with. :p

[mambi]

.What was the question?

[Siu Lum Fighter]

This is off topic, but I've always been interested to see how this 8 immortals system compares with my own style (BSL). If it truely is the style of the "immortals," then it would pre-date the five mother styles of Bak Siu Lum (the Ch'a, Wah, Hua, P'ao, and Hung styles). Maybe there would be similarities. :confused:

[David Jamieson]

.What was the question?


there was no question, there was an explanation about how the war in iraq went against the ideals of the jing mo. then it branched off from there.

[Shaolin Wookie]

David.....while I agree it's probably a recent "invention".....

It still doesn't change the fact that while I was a little surprised the 8 immortals in my particular school isn't the 8 Immortals I'd seen elsewhere, move-for-move, it was equally as physically demanding and fun-looking as any other. Plus, it looked really cool. And 8 Immortals is one of the styles you learn on the "cool" and "fun" curve.....plus, it gives you the hard physical training necessary for some even more physcially demanding stuff....

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Anyway, without sifting through all of the previous posts (especially that long argument between Scott R. Brown and FuXnDajenariht), I want to address something I believe was postulated by Scott. That was that the U.S. government had the best of intentions when going into Iraq.

How this can be believed when the facts and evidence suggest otherwise. After our own CIA discredited the whole Nigerian uranium story, the Bush administration made sure to use this information to "prove" that Iraq was enriching uranium. After prominent members of the CIA pointed out that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, the Administration still tried to convince everyone that it did. These pieces of evidence strongly suggest there were ulterior motives for the invasion. They wanted to start killing people and destroying infrastructure as soon as possible. As if that was going to solve things in the short run or the long run. The fact that companies related to people in the Administration and the government are making billions off the resources of Iraq and from the conflict itself, shows there were no "good" intentions going into this war. I know what's good and bad can be relative to individuals and groups of people, but in the long run, I believe we're headed for a worse outcome than a better one.

Also, I know it's a matter of opinion, but I don't think trying to kill Saddam Hussein and his whole family (which, of course, includes women and children) in the opening stages of the war showed the U.S. had the best of intentions either. Whether you like it or not, Saddam was the sovereign leader of another country. The Administration's actions were tantamount to murder in this case. Once again, this is my opinion, just like it's my opinion that it's evil (or, resistant to a harmonious existence with others) to, let's say, walk up to some 90 year old man on the street and start beating the cr@p out of him.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Also, I know it's a matter of opinion, but I don't think trying to kill Saddam Hussein and his whole family (which, of course, includes women and children) in the opening stages of the war showed the U.S. had the best of intentions either. Whether you like it or not, Saddam was the sovereign leader of another country. The Administration's actions were tantamount to murder in this case. Once again, this is my opinion, just like it's my opinion that it's evil (or, resistant to a harmonious existence with others) to, let's say, walk up to some 90 year old man on the street and start beating the cr@p out of him.

What did Sadaam die for anyways? Was it for possession of WMD's and his role in Al Quaeda's bombing on 9/11, as the US purported when we began the war?

Nope, it was for the war crimes that occured pre-Desert Storm. That, more than anything, points out the mismanagement of the war, and the "sinister" intentions of W's administration (which I voted for twice :o in the hopes he'd get us out of the mess he got us into....plus, I didn't think a Democrat should have to deal with the mess a Republican started [just like I don't think sober friends should help a drunken friend out when he gets in a brawl with a guy twice his size.....rather, you beat up the drunken friend and drag him away from the enraged giant and then say...."you owe me one, *******."])

Sil Lum....good points..........not to mention the fact that Hussein kept radical, militant, fanatical Islam pretty much under control, as a secular President. He wasn't admirable, but he wasn't as bad as say..........well, there's so many of 'em.....

[FuXnDajenariht]

the argument would of been more meaningful if Scott just admitted his own bias without going off into long tangents about his apparent superior intellect and worldly experience.

point in case. i admit i dont know much about the DDT debate. it was before my time and i never gave much thought to it. and your right. i agree if someone from the EPA banned its use without reading evidence of the chemicals harmlessness, that is negligence and it is immoral when preventing deaths are at issue. see? was that so hard? actually giving evidence for what you claim rather than arguing metaphysics and rants about someones preconceived notion and false perceptions? i concede that you may be right. but by your own logic how is the evidence from the researchers reliable? why should it be trusted?

and the analogy that i gave was a counter to him claiming that you can't decide what is and isn't moral. people decide this everyday. if my family is murdered in their sleep you bet your ass im gonna say its alittle more than "an unfortunate event".

[Black Jack II]

He wasn't admirable, but he wasn't as bad as say..........well, there's so many of 'em.....

Wow, I can't believe someone just wrote that.

[rogue]

Also, I know it's a matter of opinion, but I don't think trying to kill Saddam Hussein and his whole family (which, of course, includes women and children) in the opening stages of the war showed the U.S. had the best of intentions either. Whether you like it or not, Saddam was the sovereign leader of another country. The Administration's actions were tantamount to murder in this case. Once again, this is my opinion, just like it's my opinion that it's evil (or, resistant to a harmonious existence with others) to, let's say, walk up to some 90 year old man on the street and start beating the cr@p out of him.

Sadaam, while sovereign leader, tried to assassinate two US presidents. For that alone capping him was justified.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Si Lum Figher,

I understand anyone’s aversion to sifting through numerous posts, however in not doing so it is easy to misunderstand the argument presented.

My purpose from the beginning has been to counter the seemingly self-righteous assertions that some people make about the war on EITHER side of the argument. The counter facts I produced to FuXnDajenariht’s facts were meant to demonstrate my point that people generally start out with their opinion and then select evidence that supports it and ignore evidence that contradicts with their preconceived opinion.

Taking a view counter to FuXnDajenariht’s is not the same thing as taking sides on one side or the other concerning the war; that is not what I am discussing. I am discussing the manner in which decisions are made and the self-righteousness of those who are so sure their view is the correct one when they don’t even understand how they have come to the decision they have.

Most people think they have reasoned through the facts when they don’t even understand how they tend to automatically seek out information that supports their preconceived view. This is a well established psychological principle and easy to demonstrate for yourself. Here is the exercise I use to demonstrate this to others:

Pick a type of vehicle: truck, car, motorcycle family van, mini-truck, mustang, whatever; It is preferable to choose one you are not commonly interested in, but it will work with whatever vehicle you want to choose. Tell yourself you like that kind of vehicle and begin to look for them on the highway when you are commuting. Soon you will find that you are noticing all the cars of that type as they pass you by. It will appear that suddenly these vehicles are everywhere; like somehow their numbers have increased. In truth, the vehicles have always been there; it is just that you have never noticed them. You have selectively chosen to notice a specific type of vehicle and programmed your mind to search them out, therefore you notice them now! The same principle applies when we selectively choose what kind of information to accept when making a decision. We accept facts we want to accept because we are subconsciously conditioned to seek out information we agree with and ignore information to that contradicts our preconceived notions. When you hadn’t programmed yourself to perceive the vehicle you chose to look for you ignored them and to all intents and purposes they did not exist for you just as we ignore information that contradicts with our preconceived notions. This is not meant to be an absolute. But it is an important factor that affects what we perceive and accept as fact. This principle strongly influences how we arrive at decisions and if we do not recognize our pre-conditioning we cannot believe we are making anything close to an informed decision.

Also, I am not saying that people’s opinions cannot be changed, but change is frequently due to the effective marketing of information. We usually call this propaganda, however in general, people consider information that supports their preconceived opinion to be facts and information that contradicts their preconceive opinion to be propaganda. They tend to never consider the information they accept as fact is most likely propaganda as well. There is power in public opinion; therefore it is wise to try to manipulate it and this is what politicians and the media do. ALL MEDIA, not just FOXNews!

To think we ever have all the true facts is foolishness. Even in hindsight with investigative research it is still foolish to consider we have all the facts and can therefore make an absolute determination about anything that has to do with historical events. All evaluations EVEN BY THE EXPERTS is subject to personal biases. What is considered true facts in most cases is determined by popular opinion.

For example: You believe the CIA confirmed that Saddam did not try to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. This is not the case! You have selectively accepted information and disregarded conflicting information just as FuXnDajenariht has done. Many have reached your opinion based upon the non-binding opinion of a single man who has a dubious (that means “doubtful”) reputation. According to an opposing OPINION the CIA did NOT confirm that Saddam had NOT tried to buy yellow cake uranium. It was Joseph Wilson who came to that conclusion and his investigative skills are in question. The source of the information that brings his opinion into question are his own statements, not opinions from others! In addition, according to British intelligence Saddam DID attempt to buy yellow cake and they stand by their information regardless of what Joseph Wilson says. There is also ample evidence available to question Wilson’s objectively in the whole matter. It has been demonstrated that he lied concerning the whole affair. This determination was made when he was interviewed by a Senate committee. Once again this is a demonstration of how you and others select information that supports your preconceive notions and ignore evidence to the contrary. At the very least all anyone can say is that there is conflicting information and who knows who to believe. In this circumstance my point is still well made. No one can make a self-righteous determination based upon reason one way or the other if there is no way to determine who is providing true facts. Therefore, individuals will tend to believe the facts that support their preconceived world view. That is, the view/facts you WANT to be true and not necessarily the ones that are ACTUALLY true. This is not adequate reasoning. Most of us should not make decisions or formulate opinions just to have one. This leads to greater error. Those we elect to make our decisions for us, have more information and a greater perspective of the consequences of the decisions they make. They must frequently make decisions based on what they believe the facts to be and sometimes the decisions are wrong. No one is perfect, but we elect them to make the decisions for us. They cannot please everyone and if we don’t like their decision making ability we have the opportunity to not vote for them again.

I like your last paragraph where you are clear you are stating your opinion. You are not attempting to be self-righteous there. You are stating an opinion based upon your own value system. However, you are still presuming or coming to your conclusion based upon inaccurate facts. No one in Saddam’s family was killed who did not try to fight back. His sons came out guns blazing so they were shot in self-defense. Saddam did not so he was captured and he was tried by an Iraqi court.

Hi FuXnDajenariht,

Of course I am biased. I have said everyone is biased and has preconceived notions AND I believe I previously stated, “EVEN ME!” You have not been paying attention to my argument very well. What I said is that since I know I am biased I am better prepared to take my preconceived notions into consideration when coming to a determination about facts that are of questionable nature, which is most facts. There is really no way for us to know what the true facts are about historical events; especially when it comes to the biases of the media, politicians and historians. Therefore, we should be careful not to make self-righteous/absolute decisions. I don’t like to play the age card because it does sound condescending, but I do not mean this in that way. I was young once too, and because of that I know that there is much you do not understand because of your age. On the other hand there is much people do not understand simply because they are blinded by their preconceive notions regardless of age and many are happy making simplistic conclusions about things they have no true understanding of. I am aware of the media and politicians tendency to try to manipulate the public, ON BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum. NOT just the ones I disagree with! Therefore, I do not accept what I am fed automatically. As with the Taoist story I previously mentioned, I take the attitude of “MAYBE!”

My disagreement with you is not about what is moral or immoral. Not many would justify the intentional hurting of any innocent person. Innocent people will always be hurt in wars. We don’t like it, but it is a fact of life we must live with at this time. Our last two wars were fought with the intent to preserve the life of innocent civilians. This is a first in the history of man and you should be proud you live in a country that cares about innocent lives. We can see by numerous demonstrations that militant Islam disregards the lives of innocent people and some day that innocent life could be you or someone you love!

[Shaolin Wookie]

Sadaam, while sovereign leader, tried to assassinate two US presidents. For that alone capping him was justified.

If one of 'em was W, I think we should have sent him a medal. And a fruit basket.......and Monica Lewinski....

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Shaolin Wookie
You brought up a good point about Saddam. In terms of Islamic governments, his was actually a lot more secular than most. Women were able to walk down the street without burkas and they could receive an education right along with the men. It was a lot like Turkey in that respect. Of course, he was as corrupt and megalomaniacal as any third world dictator, but that's what do you get when you place a C.I.A. asset in charge of a country.
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html
Scott R. Brown
Are you kidding? Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's dead and I should be proud of my country's actions? Did you not read the admissions of this Iraq war veteran?
http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/opinion/v-print/story/9316830p-10241546c.html
Veterans like him are coming out in droves now.
http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php
I remember back in 2004 when it was estimated that over 100,000 civilians had lost their lives. It was estimated that 7&#37; of those people were killed during the initial stages of the war, before we toppled Saddam's government. That's about 7000 men women and children. And what did Tommy Franks tell the press when they asked him how many civilians he thought the U.S. military was killing? He said, "we don't do body counts."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3672298.stm
Where's the compassion for all of those people's families (the ones who are left). Is that to say that when innocent people are killed, our military just doesn't care? It just isn't important when they bomb Afghan wedding parties and kill 30 people? Sorry dude, but when my country is recklessly doing sh!t like that, I can't just "get used to it."
Oh, and the classified documents appearing to depict an Iraqi attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger had allegedly been suspected to be fraudulent by CIA sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson as well as former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. It seems as though you're willing to believe British intelligence, why not the C.I.A.? It seems as though G.W. Bush is just as likely to lie as any of these people so why would you trust anything he says? By the way, I would use the word "elected" very carefully. There was a major controversy both times he was supposedly "elected," so, even if you weren't biased either way, wouldn't you have to allow for the possibility that the elections were rigged?
I know you think we're all being biased and that automatically makes us pick out facts that seem to support our viewpoints. But, what's the point in practically writing a novel about how flawed our arguing skills are without really going into your own views. Why don't you tell us then, in a nutshell, where you currently stand on this whole conflict?

[Scott R. Brown]

Shaolin Wookie
You brought up a good point about Saddam. In terms of Islamic governments, his was actually a lot more secular than most. Women were able to walk down the street without burkas and they could receive an education right along with the men.

Uh yeah!! And they could also be picked off the street at any time and gang raped for hours by his son and his friends. There was nothing anyone could do about it. A raped Islamic woman is soiled for life and lives a life of shame shunned by her own family, never to marry or have children or be seen in public. But Iraq was a lot like Turkey!! Oh joy!! Would you have sent your daughter to live there then?

It takes a book sometimes to explain simple reasoning principles to people who do not wish to think but only want to ape what they hear in the popular media!

The casualties compared to WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is very low as well as just about every war in ancient history! No one wants innocent people killed, but the numbers of innocent killed is mostly likely inflated due the anti-war agenda of those providing the numbers. American soldiers are NOT trying to kill innocent civilians while the insurgents ARE!!! While I don’t want any innocent lives lost, it is better someone else’s innocent die than my own family. I guess you could call me selfish that way!

The war is here and there is nothing I can do about it so we better win it or it will be much worse.

Bin Laden stated that the reason they felt confident destroying the World Trade Center is because US wimped out in Somalia and he believes America has no spine for war. That is being confirmed by you and a number of others here.

Saddam Hussein was financing terrorists in Israel for decades paying large sums of money to suicide bomber’s families. Saddam most likely was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. There may be some credibility to information that the Russians moved evidence of WMDs. He attempted to assassinate our president. His sons had rape rooms. He fed people to his dogs who ate them alive. (This is on film!) He put people alive and feet first into wood chippers. (This is on film!) Plus many other horrible things! How do we know all this? Because like the Nazi's he kept extensive records. Oh Yeah! But according to you Iraq was a lot like Turkey.

He gassed thousands of Kurds. He invaded Kuwait where he tortured and killed many innocent civilians and threatened the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. He displaced thousands of Sh’ia in southern Iraq by destroying their homeland.

I have a really good idea! Why don't you try talking to someone who actually lived in Iraq during Saddam's rule. Ask them why they left and if they preferr life in America to Saddam's rule since they were missing out on a life much like life in Turkey. Also ask them why they immigrated to America instead of Turkey!

The enemy hides amongst citizens and mosques and wedding parties and funerals and hospitals and schools. That is part of their strategy to manipulate people like you. The terrorists are the ones responsible for many of those deaths not the American military who are seeking to defend themselves and weed out the bad guys.

When America defeats an enemy in war we re-build their country for them and help them set up a free form of government and they become world economic powerhouses. i.e. Japan, Germany! We defend other countries from oppression i.e Europe in both world wars, and the Philippines and China in WWII.

My position is you and most people are ill-informed and prefer to believe whatever supports your preconceived notions than search for information that contradicts the popular media biased version. Your inherent world view is negative. To you and others the glass is half empty instead of half full just because your country isn’t perfect. The problem isn’t your country; it is your own unrealistic expectations. No one is perfect and no country ever will be perfect. There will always be those who abuse power for personal gain. That is life get used to it! There are NO world powers in the history of mankind that have saved more people and done more for humankind than America. Even with all the mistakes and bad things that the government has done no country has benefited more of mankind in the history of the planet! We share more wealth with other countries than any other super power in the history of the planet. America has its problems and I am not pollyannish about it. But eventually we try to fix our mistakes. What other super power has ever done that?

There will always be a super power somewhere on the planet. Would you prefer it be the Islamic nations who are inclined to kill non-believers or force you to convert? Who do you think will be the first ones they kill? Jews, Christians, Gays, those who abort babies, Hollywood stars. Would you prefer Russian or China be the world power? They both have had their day in the sun and and both of them slaughtered their own people by the MILLIONS!!!

There is ample information to refute all the claims of how horrible the war and the US are. There are just as many soldiers coming out and stating how much the media is distorting and slanting what is happening over there as there are whiners and criers, if not more. There are just as many complaints about non-reporting of the good things that are taking place like the building of schools and infrastructure. You don't hear that 90&#37; of the country is pacified and happy the Americans are there. Nearly all the problems are in Baghdad. What American major city doesn't have their own problems. L.A. had the riots that destroyed much of the city twice in my life time. The death rate in some American cities is higher than the death rate in Iraq. If you are unaware of this information it is because you are only interested in finding information that supports your preconceived notions. You prefer to see your glass as half empty. I prefer to see mine as half full.

You and those like you whine and cry more over how we treat the enemy than how they treat their captives. WE have not beheaded anyone and used their bodies as trophies for public propaganda to inspire more idiots to kill themselves for 40 virgins in paradise and a free pass from all their sins from Allah. Why are you not trying to save all those poor manipulated dummies who think they get to go to heaven if they kill their OWN innocent neighbors????????

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Wow! Once again, another novel that I must pick through.

Uh yeah!! And they could also be picked off the street at any time and gang raped for hours by his son and his friends. There was nothing anyone could do about it. A raped Islamic woman is soiled for life and lives a life of shame shunned by her own family, never to marry or have children or be seen in public. But Iraq was a lot like Turkey!! Oh joy!! Would you have sent your daughter to live there then?
I love how you purposefully chose to only quote the first couple of sentences of my post. Let me emphasize what you left out...

You brought up a good point about Saddam. In terms of Islamic governments, his was actually a lot more secular than most. Women were able to walk down the street without burkas and they could receive an education right along with the men. It was a lot like Turkey in that respect. Of course, he was as corrupt and megalomaniacal as any third world dictator, but that's what do you get when you place a C.I.A. asset in charge of a country.
It's true Saddam was a monster, but Iraq was widely known as one of the more secular countries in the Islamic world. It's leaders may have been corrupt but it was secular in terms of it's customs and culture. It was countries like Afghanistan that were hotbeds of radical Islamic extremism, not Iraq. The link between Saddam and Osama was fabricated.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0303-01.htm
You want to talk about unreliable sources, how about the Administration telling us we should believe a woman who claimed she had been Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's mistress.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/746741/posts
Ya, like she's more reliable than members of our intelligence community and the former president of Niger.

How do we know all this? Because like the Nazi's he kept extensive records. Oh Yeah! But according to you Iraq was a lot like Turkey.
Were you looking for connections with the Nazi's? Look no further than our own president and his family!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
It's an absolute fact that Prescott Bush worked for Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH) which acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s. He was in bed with the same people who built the Nazi war machine!! That information has been extensively documented and was uncovered many years ago.

He displaced thousands of Sh’ia in southern Iraq by destroying their homeland.
Funny, that's exactly what the U.S. did to over 200,000 people in Fallujah (a predominantly Sh'ia city).
topics.developmentgateway.org/rc/filedownload.do?itemId=1091185

My position is you and most people are ill-informed and prefer to believe whatever supports your preconceived notions than search for information that contradicts the popular media biased version.
Excuse me, but very few of my sources (though I'll admit there are some) are biased, popular media outlets. That's just it, much of the so-called popular media would have you believe the war was completely justified and it's a worthwhile endeavor. Since it's obvious what my media sources are from all of the articles, I'm curious to know what sources you're citing and how they keep you more "informed."

Would you prefer Russian or China be the world power? They both have had their day in the sun and and both of them slaughtered their own people by the MILLIONS!!!
I don't want this country to turn into another Russia or China. That's why I care so much about where this nation is headed. You say my views are negative and I look at the glass half empty, but you're the one saying that wars must be fought and innocent people die so get used to it! I view it as an utter failure of humanity when it becomes necessary to fight a war that kills countless innocent people in the name of greed and power.

The death rate in some American cities is higher than the death rate in Iraq
What you're not mentioning is that the death rate they were comparing Iraq to was for African American men ages 20 to 34. Of course, most African Americans in this country live in ghettos that are plagued by drugs, guns, and violence. Was this the article?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082500940.html
Please, don't respond with another 5 page essay. I'm not sure I'll have the time to refute all of the information (wait a minute, maybe that's been your plan all along!).

[Shaolin Wookie]

My position is you and most people are ill-informed and prefer to believe whatever supports your preconceived notions than search for information that contradicts the popular media biased version.

Unless you're a CIA agent, the President of a Western nation, a sheik, or a department head in the FBI, I bet we're working from the same information, dude.

I always love that tactic......

Then again, you might be an international spook/media-recon-ninja.......:rolleyes:

[Shaolin Wookie]

Let's recap what we've learned so far, for the sake of argument:

There is a war in Iraq.
It's a war, and it's a civil war.
The civil war is largely instigated by radical muslims.
Radical muslims were kept in line by Sadaam.
Sadaam was an *******.
Sadaam kept order in Iraq with extreme prejudice.
Extreme prejudice kept everyone in line.
When Sadaam was removed, chaos broke out.
Democracy hasn't kept everyone in line.
People die in wars.
Innocent people die.
Bad people die.
Children die.
War is bad.
Sometimes the cause or effect of a war is good.
The US got involved in this war on misinformation.
This misinformation was spread by the President and his advisors.
The President and his advisors went ahead and recommended war based on this information.
The senate approved the war based on this information.
Sadaam died not because of his involvement in 9/11, but for war crimes pre-Desert Storm.
He was not prosecuted based on the reasons the US stated were teh reasons for our involvement there....which was Sadaam's link to 9/11.
We cannot now prove with corroboratory testimony from one Sadaam Hussein that he had links to 9/11.
All evidence collected hereafter would only be circumstantial.
No WMD's have been uncovered in Iraq.
If WMD's are discovered, many people will think we planted them.
Planting WMD's would justify the war.
The mere existence of this suggestion discredits any evidence we can and will collect to support W's misinformation.
UN inspections were denied by Sadaam.
Further inspections found nothing.
The Presidential approval ratings are abyssmal.
The President of Iraq is dead.
9/11 does not appear to have anything to do with Iraq.
Sometimes the cause or effect of a war is good.
The cause of this war was based on misinformation.
Misinformation is bad, because it is inaccurate , or flat-out wrong.
Precise information, especially in war, is good.
Good information can save lives.
Bad information can result in innocent deaths.
Sometimes the cause or effect of a war is good.
Our cause has started civil war, and many US soldiers and innocent Iraqi's are killed or injured day-to-day.
Civil war of this kind is not good.
Civil war of this kind does not have an identifiable agenda.
Sometimes the cause or effect of a war is good.
The cause and effect of this war has not been good.