logo Sign In

ricarleite

User Group
Members
Join date
9-Apr-2004
Last activity
21-Aug-2020
Posts
6,592

Post History

Post
#199915
Topic
Super Smash World Leaders Melee
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199915/action/topic#199915
Time
Originally posted by: starkiller
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Nice Monty Python sketch. Although I prefer the ones in which Marx, Mao and Che Guevara answer questions about songs and soccer.
I don't recall anything about songs...just soccer.

Oh, I'm sorry that was a trick question. They never won the cup.


Eric Idle: Teddy Johnson and Pearl Carr won the Eurovision Song Contest in 1959. What was the name of the song?

Mao Tse Tung: (after some silence) Sing Little Birdie?

Eric Idle: Yes it is!
Post
#199746
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199746/action/topic#199746
Time
That is interesting that Jesus has been brought up to the debate. Didn't he used to say something like "offer the other face" or something? And some insane things about love? One of my favorite scenes in movies is a scene on "Full Metal Jacket" in which the drill seargeant is talking about God and Jesus on Christmas. So much hypocrisy, the scene is hilarious, in a "Dr Strangelove" kind of way...

"Today... is Christmas! There will be a magic show at zero-nine-thirty! Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few marines! God has a hard-on for marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours! To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?"
Post
#199407
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199407/action/topic#199407
Time
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: ricarleite
To quote Gandhi, if you kill me you'll have my corpse and nothing more. Not my obedience.

Well, I take it then that Gandhi would be against using a full nelson to stop Hitler. So Ric agrees 1 Hitler 4 billion Gandhis: Hitler rules the world. He might be lonely, but he will rule the world.

What world would he rule, apart from his own? And what if the Gandhis made sure no Hitler would be born? That's what I have in mind.

Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
First, it's a silly and completely stupid scenario with no pratical reasons. OK let's just proceed with this Monty Python sketch of a hypothetical situation, and asume we have a world in which we have 4 billion Gandhis - and I don't mean 4 billion people looking like a thin Ben Kingsley in underpants, I mean 4 billion people who wouldn't resort to violence. Then we have a Hitler being born, and by Hitler I mean someone who thins differently and see force as an ally. Then, answer me, why would he think differently? Mutation? Not being educated by the Gandhis surrounding him? What would he gain by resorting to violence? Power to do WHAT? To rule WHO? To rule WHAT? Who would follow him? Obey him? And no, he wouldn't have access to cloning devices, time machines, or flying killing robots.


In my scenario, I wasn't worried about how Hitler came to be Hitler, he just came to be that way. It is possible for that to happned even with 4 billion Gandis in the world. Remember some people argue you are born the person you are and environment has nothing to do with it. As far as what he would gain from using violence? He would gain control of the world. You right, he couldn't clone himself. So what if the world consisted of only Hitler, 10,000 SS officers, and 4 Billion Gandis. Now what?


Now you propose a better scenario for discussion, although still a bit too drastic. My point of view is only valid when I stress out that not letting these 10001 murders to get into their murdering minds is the way. I mean, think about it. Would you be one of the SS officers? Or Hitler? I know you wouldn't. I know you wouldn't do any harm to anyone. So why can't we all think alike? Besides, my point is, when you resort to violence, you are always wrong. What if the Gandhis got pissed and started to kill the SS officers? They have families who would see this and say "Hey, the Gandhis are evil!", don't you agree? And which side is "correct", on the actually sense of the word "correct"? If a bottle of coke falls from the sky and two tribes start to fight and make a war to get hold of it, which one is correct? Both are wrong, right? As violence is not the way. So what makes the bottle of coke or a pseudo-world domination to be different? You might say that world domination leads to people losing their freedom, but I am not discussion the ends, but the means to it.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
I didn't answer your question because I am not talking about MYSELF. I am talking about the whole world here. If I only thought about myself, then I would agree that violence is great. Screw the rest of the world, I earn enough to buy guns, who cares if they are at peace or not? Who cares about all the rest of the world? In such a situation, would I kill myself to protect the other? Hell no! BUT I try to think of others, and considering the well-care of the rest of the world, my life is insignificant. I would die or lose my freedom if that meant what I dream for coming true.

Well, if you refuse to answer my questions, then there no point to continueing this debate. When I asked my question, I wasn't trying to refer to senarios where your not fighting could free others. I was thinking about situations where fighting and killing would be the only way to obtain freedom for yourself and for others. Of course I would agree if dying and or giving up freedom would free others and save lives, then thats what I would do. But what if that is not the case? What if other peoples lives and their freedoms, and rights depended on you fighting for them?


I don't refuse to answer any questions. I just thought you did not correctly undertood what I was talking about and was posing a question on something outside my point. But anyway, let's see if I understand what you are asking me... You ask, what if people's life and freedom depended on my fighting. The answer would be NO. I would not, as it would bring to someone else something I don't desire do inflict. I do not wish to kill anyone (unless that person requested me to perform an euthanasia, on certain conditions). I would go on and fight to make it stop on other ways. Let's give a face to your question and assemble a scenario on it, let's say it's a war between my country and some other country. I would try to 1- assist the injured, 2- speak with my leaders to see if we can avoid this situation, 3- see if there is a way to get in touch with the other side and propose the same. I have no idea why would anyone invade my country, let's asume Brazil had a lot of gold and there was no gold anywhere else. I would propose selling it. I would propose using silver instead. Or using some other material. I would do my best not to let the situation get into a war, and if it got it that way, do my best to make it stop.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
Why not? Just because you are suggesting someone will always resort to tyrany? Then what is the porpouse of locking Saddam out, or killing him? He will be replaced by others. Reminds me of a quote from "Munich", ***POSSIBLE SPOILERS!!!*** in which Eric Bana's character says "All the people I've killed were replaced by worse people, what was the reason?", and Geoffrey Rush's character replies to something like "My nails will keep growing, why cutting then?", only that the nails won't hurt anyone, but the bad people will. So WHY keep doing it if it's impossible to win anyway? Just so we can keep the nails "not too long"?


yep. that why. If we don't fight the Hitlers, The Stalins, The Sadams, the Nazis, The KKK, they will grow too long and powerful and take over the world. I am not willing to let that happen. Are you?

I don't want any nails to grow in the first place.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
EDIT: And I hope, ric, that your above "I will" isn't serious.
I do too.


I am.

Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
[quote]So WHY keep doing it if it's impossible to win anyway? Just so we can keep the nails "not too long"?[/quote]

YES! If we cut the 'nails' before they can get 'too long' we save the world MORE violence and grief.

Ric, listen to yourself. How can you possibly, logically believe your own arguments. You can't possibly think pure, blind pacificsm would work against people who HATE YOU, and WANT YOU BEHEADED, and want to see the streets of our cities run with the blood of our children, who DESPISE freedom in any form...

My brain cannot understand how you can possibly even begin to believe that pacifism will work against such a foe. You're acting like a mindless brainwashed idiot, Ric. You're supposed to be smarter than that!


I don't know that I'd put it the way Chaltab did, but I too wonder how one can possibly think that total and absolute pasifism will work against people who are willing to shoot unarmed nonviolent people to obtain what they want.


Well I guess I am insane, then. Peace is truly uthopic.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
Chaltab, I'll take your comments as a constructive critic and as a complement. I do have a radical and small-voiced point of view, but those are not based really on 100% logic, but in my principles and ethics. If everyone had a small amount of this sort of principles, as we all do (no one here is a criminal or a murder), and having it this way is indeed possible (maybe only theorically), then why should I give up? I know you guys don't agree with me, I know I'm alone here, but these are my principles, this is how I have conducted my life, or at least tried to. I'm no Gandhi, I might be wrong and hypocritical and babbling something that is not correct, but still I'm following what I feel is right. You guys are doing the same,a dn i understand that! I totally understand your point of view, I just think there is another way!


I understand and respect the fact that you have a different view. You have every right to your opinion. I just don't understand it. But please understand that I'd rather have 10 billion Gandis on the earth, than 1 Hitler.


So do I.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
And let me get this straight. Jagdlieter, please do avoid trolling as you've been doing so far. Trolls usually (and thankfully) have a short life-span on this forum. Please don't be next, and if you feel such an urge to call attention to yourself, I recommend you to find other ways. I don't disagree or disaprove your needs, I just think it isn't fair to ruin a good, clean and moderated debate forum just because of that. OK?


I believe he did apologize to you.


We'll see how that comes along over the following days...

Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Well, I'm not quite fighting against you here, ric. I agree that pacifism is by far the best way to deal with things. However, in a real world situation, it doesn't always work, so I condone violence only as a last resort, because, at some point, it's the only thing people will listen to. And it's sad, but it appears to be true. But in terms of theory, I agree with what you're saying.


Again, I agree with Gaffer here.


I know.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
And by the way, while the whole point has been to resort to violence to defend yourself from an outside violence, what I am asking is for neither violence to take place. Why? Because, that outside violence is always a response to another kind of violence, be it directly or indirectly. Someone atacks you because you have either atacked someone first, or someone else has done it. Violence does not come out of nowhere. And if we stop this circle of perpetuating, by stopping BOTH sides, we'll then achieve peace.


You can ask for neither violence to take place, but it is not going to happen. Not everyone would listen to you. If the side that wants to defend itself decides not to defend itself and instead lays down its arms, the side that is attacking wins.

I for one do not believe that every act violence is a response to another act violence. Somtimes the first act of violence comes out greed, insanity, selfishness, religous fanaticism, or simply not caring.

All avoidable causes. It is ridiculous to think that all those issues can be solved like that, but changing the focus on solving problems trhough violence into something else would do the trick.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: Nanner Split
That's not completely true, Ric. Have you ever read Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood"? Perry Smith and Dick Hickock murdered a family of four just because of a rumor that there was a safe containing ten thousand dollars in the family's house. The family didn't use the least bit of resistance, and they all wound up dead. Now I ask you: how can you ask for neither violence to take place, when you have no control over the other side?


good point.

Tell me Ric, would you be for getting rid of our police forces? When criminal resist, the police resort to violence to stop them. Would you be against that? Do want choas and anarchy to rein supreme? Do you laws against murder, assult, rape, and theft inforced?

Tell me, if an enemy army surrounded Brazille and then annouced they intended to kill every person in Brazille just for the fun it, and peace talk were tried and failed. What would you advise your nation and other nations to do? Just stand there, do nothing, and let it happen?


LOL Brazille? You mean Brazil right?

See my answer above, I think I've used the same example above.
Post
#199371
Topic
Super Smash World Leaders Melee
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199371/action/topic#199371
Time
What I am proposing is having a televised debate between God, who would come to Earth by using someone's image (I propose a 1960s Don Knotts in a black suit), and about 5 people who are currently suffering. One with a crushing loneliness and depression, the one with health problems and in a pain beyond any medical help, the one who has lost wife and children in an accident, the poor one with no money to even buy food or clothes, and the handicapped one. They all ask to God why are their lifes so miserable, and He must reply. then God can ask them if they have been good and loving people, and they must reply. The people watching the debate can judge if God deserves our worship, and if we should go to church and follow His words, OR if we should agree with Nietzche and abandon this idiotic concept of a all-powerful all-knowing all-loving God.
Post
#199366
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199366/action/topic#199366
Time
And by the way, while the whole point has been to resort to violence to defend yourself from an outside violence, what I am asking is for neither violence to take place. Why? Because, that outside violence is always a response to another kind of violence, be it directly or indirectly. Someone atacks you because you have either atacked someone first, or someone else has done it. Violence does not come out of nowhere. And if we stop this circle of perpetuating, by stopping BOTH sides, we'll then achieve peace.
Post
#199354
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199354/action/topic#199354
Time
Chaltab, I'll take your comments as a constructive critic and as a complement. I do have a radical and small-voiced point of view, but those are not based really on 100% logic, but in my principles and ethics. If everyone had a small amount of this sort of principles, as we all do (no one here is a criminal or a murder), and having it this way is indeed possible (maybe only theorically), then why should I give up? I know you guys don't agree with me, I know I'm alone here, but these are my principles, this is how I have conducted my life, or at least tried to. I'm no Gandhi, I might be wrong and hypocritical and babbling something that is not correct, but still I'm following what I feel is right. You guys are doing the same,a dn i understand that! I totally understand your point of view, I just think there is another way!

And let me get this straight. Jagdlieter, please do avoid trolling as you've been doing so far. Trolls usually (and thankfully) have a short life-span on this forum. Please don't be next, and if you feel such an urge to call attention to yourself, I recommend you to find other ways. I don't disagree or disaprove your needs, I just think it isn't fair to ruin a good, clean and moderated debate forum just because of that. OK?
Post
#199295
Topic
John William's Opinion on the Special Editions
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199295/action/topic#199295
Time
Originally posted by: SilverWook
How is the Tron vinyl album different from the CD?


The vinyl is made from the original masters, which were subsequentually lost due to unproper conditioning, even though Wendy Carlos has spoken about this issue a number of times. The CD is assembled from other tapes. Some pieces are different and I belive some music not heard during the movie is not at the CD.
Post
#199293
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199293/action/topic#199293
Time
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Welll, I suppose it depends on your definition of violence. I wouldn't call two puppies playfully wrestling on the ground to be violence, even if they get mildly hurt in the process. To put a Hitler in a full-nelson would, most likely, not injure him at all, but just keep him from moving. But if one Hitler's staring down even 100 Gandhis, it would be very easy to be able to incapacitate him, even if he was carrying a gun.


again that calls for an act of violence. Ric, you are the Gandhi expert, would Gandhi be against using a full-nelson to take down Hitler?


To quote Gandhi, if you kill me you'll have my corpse and nothing more. Not my obedience.

Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite

First, as for the whole Hitler vs Gandhi discussion, it is a silly and ridiculous scenario and has no porpouse on our current discussion.


bullsh__, it goes to prove that total and complete pasifism doesn't work against people who care nothing for human life. Hitler would rule the world in my scenario because Gandhis refuse to fight him. That's the point.


First, it's a silly and completely stupid scenario with no pratical reasons. OK let's just proceed with this Monty Python sketch of a hypothetical situation, and asume we have a world in which we have 4 billion Gandhis - and I don't mean 4 billion people looking like a thin Ben Kingsley in underpants, I mean 4 billion people who wouldn't resort to violence. Then we have a Hitler being born, and by Hitler I mean someone who thins differently and see force as an ally. Then, answer me, why would he think differently? Mutation? Not being educated by the Gandhis surrounding him? What would he gain by resorting to violence? Power to do WHAT? To rule WHO? To rule WHAT? Who would follow him? Obey him? And no, he wouldn't have access to cloning devices, time machines, or flying killing robots.

Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite

I didn't mention ANY of the possibilities. If there was a way people could live freely and in peace, and I belive we CAN (all we have to do is stop being such mean sons of bithces), and if to acomplish that I would have to give my my own freedom or life, but making sure the rest of the world is free and at peace, I would give up my life in a second.


you didn't answer my question. And in my question, I never said that you're dying would give other people peace and freedom. My question is solely about just you, your life, your rights, and your freedom.


I didn't answer your question because I am not talking about MYSELF. I am talking about the whole world here. If I only thought about myself, then I would agree that violence is great. Screw the rest of the world, I earn enough to buy guns, who cares if they are at peace or not? Who cares about all the rest of the world? In such a situation, would I kill myself to protect the other? Hell no! BUT I try to think of others, and considering the well-care of the rest of the world, my life is insignificant. I would die or lose my freedom if that meant what I dream for coming true.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
If a man is not at peace, is he really free?

If a man is not free, can he really be at peace? Ric, we are never going to agree on this because I have been brought up in a nation where freedom, justice, and peace are worth fighting for, dying for, and yes even killing for.


Feels like we are looking at both sides of the same coin.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
I am still alive because I belive we can acomplish what I wish for, a peaceful and free world.


without resorting to violence? I doubt it. You may achieve peace, but not freedom.


Why not? Just because you are suggesting someone will always resort to tyrany? Then what is the porpouse of locking Saddam out, or killing him? He will be replaced by others. Reminds me of a quote from "Munich", ***POSSIBLE SPOILERS!!!*** in which Eric Bana's character says "All the people I've killed were replaced by worse people, what was the reason?", and Geoffrey Rush's character replies to something like "My nails will keep growing, why cutting then?", only that the nails won't hurt anyone, but the bad people will. So WHY keep doing it if it's impossible to win anyway? Just so we can keep the nails "not too long"?

Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
If we can't, if what you guys are saying is right, and if there isn't any hopes, well, give me that gun, I'll be the first to blow my brains out.

fine *gives Ric the WarbSP™* Just so you I have no intention of killing myself afterward. Just becaue we can't achieve peace and freedom without resorting to violence every once is a while, doesn't mean there is no hope. But if you feel that way, go ahead.


I will.
Post
#199251
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199251/action/topic#199251
Time
I will use a simplified version of the quote tags to make it easier.

First, as for the whole Hitler vs Gandhi discussion, it is a silly and ridiculous scenario and has no porpouse on our current discussion. I hardly think that a raving lunatic Adolf Hitler, killing apathic Gandhis with a machine gun in such a bizarre hypotetical world has anything to do with our discussion. besides, after he travels all around the world killing people, and clone himself (as we all know, Hitler was a cloning scientist as well), and kill everyone, what was he going to do? Dance and laugh, shooting in the air?! Hitler did what he did because of other reasons. Stalin did what he did due to other reasons.


The soldiers are trying to achieve freedom not just peace.

Ric, make a choice:
A)fight and die a free man, or
B)live peacefully as a slave
which will it be? I chose A.


I didn't mention ANY of the possibilities. If there was a way people could live freely and in peace, and I belive we CAN (all we have to do is stop being such mean sons of bithces), and if to acomplish that I would have to give my my own freedom or life, but making sure the rest of the world is free and at peace, I would give up my life in a second.

If a man is not at peace, is he really free?


fine, you first. no? I didn't so. I don't know whatt the point of having humans on this earth is, but I don't believe that we are here to surrend our freedoms, rights, beliefs, and liberty to evil bullies. I think we should fight as little as we have and still maintain our freedoms and rights, and enjoy whatever little peace that comes along. Not much, but it is better than suicide or surrender.


I am still alive because I belive we can acomplish what I wish for, a peaceful and free world. If we can't, if what you guys are saying is right, and if there isn't any hopes, well, give me that gun, I'll be the first to blow my brains out.
Post
#199162
Topic
John William's Opinion on the Special Editions
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199162/action/topic#199162
Time
Originally posted by: bad_karma24
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Originally posted by: Davis
The third answer could be for those traditionalists who want the original the way it is—it's there.


Where?!


I belive he's referring to the laserdiscs and VHS.


Oh, yes, right, so let me get my vinyl long play hi-fi stereo to listen to the long lost Tron soundtrack, which is available on its original form only in a Long Play vinyl disc. I mean, everyone has one of these at home, right? Along with the 8mm film camera, and the black and white TV set, a typewriter, a beeper...
Post
#199149
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199149/action/topic#199149
Time
Ah, here we go again, editing multiple quote tags. This is hard...

Before we go on, let me once again remind anyone I am not personally atacking ANYONE here. We're still friends no matter what is said, and if I offend anyone, I apologise, as it is not my intention. Sometimes the debate gets heated and it is easy to mix up things. So, please... let's not let this get personal right?

Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: ricarleite
If there was 1 Hitler and 4 billion Ghandis, he wouldn't be able to do much.
Yes he would. The Ghandis would peacefully protest Hitler and Hitler would kill them one by one.

This is a ridiculous and silly example. Why would Hitler kill 4 billion Gandhis? How would he kill the 4 billion Gandhis, kung fu?? And why?? Why would Hitler go postal and kill everyone, if he had no one to support him?! He would have no army! Nothing to conquer! Just peaceful people to kill, and he would have their corpse and nothing more! See?

Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
To avoid violence? Yes, I am willing to give up a lot of things. If giving up my life, rights, way of life, religious beliefs and freedom IS going to help in achieving a non-violent future for our world, I would give up those things right now.
Well, we are never going to agree on this because I have been brough up to believe it just to fight for our rights, life, and liberty. Sure, you could give up your freedom, way of life, your rights and live at peace. But what kind of life will you have? You'll be a slave. Will you have any joy in your life? Any happiness? Is peace really worth that?


Yes it is. Besides, it would not be for myself, but for the future generations. As I've said, if it was to secure a safe and peaceful future for the rest of mankind and the following generations, yes I would give up my life. Wouldn't you? No? Hmn so why are soldiers dying anyway? Isn't that the porpouse of why THEY die? Only problem with their deaths is, violence will continue. No peace. Oh well.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
A crude, ridiculous example: if invading Iraq brings the country into a civil war that kills many civillians and soldiers, and not invading it will mantain Saddam as to perform tortures, and violence will remain on the world, why bother in the first place? Why invade Iraq? .


I was hoping it wasn't going to end in civil war. I was hoping the people of Iraq end up and at peace, and that they would have a democratic government.

Is Civil war really worse than the torture Sadam was putting his country through.


Was that a question? I don't know which one is worth. Depends on how you see things being worse. You could count the weekly average body count of innocent civillians and see which one is higher. I have no idea right now, but I could look for the numbers and see.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
If the world is beyond any redemption and peace is an uthopic lie, why bring more pain and hatred into this doomned world anyway?


Your right, lets just kill ourselves now and get it over with. We're doomed anyway right?


Well, I've been saying that peace is achieavable and all we gotta do is stop resorting to violence, and those who oppose my point of view said it is not. So, if that point of view is correct, than yes, there is no point of having the human kind on this planet and we should all die. That might sound a bit drastic, but, makes sense to me.
Post
#199070
Topic
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/199070/action/topic#199070
Time
I just love when we go for each others throats on war or politics subjects

OK, so, about my point of "why use violence", what I meant is, violence pretty much has no end, right? I mean, all of you guys who claimed that resorting to violence to suppress other non-justifiable violence is the only way, agree that it will never end, that it is part of human behaviour, part of what we are, and that we will never be 100% peaceful. If there is no point, why resort to violence in the first place? One: we are all gonna die anyway, a horrible, violent death or not. Two: violence is unavoidable and forever will be part of our lifes. Three: if we are all subject of this violence, why bring more into it? A crude, ridiculous example: if invading Iraq brings the country into a civil war that kills many civillians and soldiers, and not invading it will mantain Saddam as to perform tortures, and violence will remain on the world, why bother in the first place? Why invade Iraq? If the world is beyond any redemption and peace is an uthopic lie, why bring more pain and hatred into this doomned world anyway?

I could go on and say that wars are generated due to profit (our side) or insane mind-washed fundamentalistic porpouses (their side), but nah that would be pointless. Our side is the cool one.

No matter where we are in a war, we are the ones with the right points.