Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on ""When the World Outlawed War"" video.

  1. "Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." -Benjamin Franklin A pact lasts while all sides uphold their end of the deal. If one end no longer holds up their end of the bargain, then the pact is void. It is a contract, and both parties must uphold their responsibilities of the contract or the contract is no longer valid.
    2
  2. I never said that you said that democracies work, only that America is not one for the reasons reviewed. Democracy has not worked for the DRC. The suffer constant strife thanks to the lack of democratic reforms and inadequacies of their constitutions. Both Chile and Argentina are constitutional republics like America. Before the establishment of their strong constitutions, they suffered much the same fate that the DRC suffers.
    1
  3. You're right, generally speaking. However, should the larger portion of the country feel that the government is breaking the contract that is the Constitution, then the government will find itself usurped and defunct. However, the United States is not a democracy -- it is a Constitutional Republic. Democracies don't work; as Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."
    1
  4. For instance, a loaded question includes the prefix, "World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day." This prefix starts by misinforming the participant by using omission. That's why you get results that suggest "40% of US population want/demand a new...investigation..." You wouldn't know objective research if it fell out of the sky and wiggled on your face.
    1
  5. Martial law does not work in America. For a case study on this, review the facts of the Los Angeles Riots in the early '90s. For martial law to work, the government would be required to grievously deny individuals their Constitutional rights which would cause more issues. When the rights of individuals was attempted to be infringed upon during the hurricane Katrina aftermath (namely disarmament), it did not work.
    1
  6. Maybe not a winter, but the genetic damage over the next 150 years or so from radioactive isotopes all over the Earth could very well see the extinction of humanity.
    1
  7. It's not an analogy -- it's a case in point that when a population feels strongly enough about an atrocity, nothing will stop them.
    1
  8. We do have that in the US (as well as other countries) in the form of the constitution which protects the rights and enumerates specific responsibilities of the government and is the supreme law of the land beyond even that of the government to go against legally. The previous issues -- most notably in Iran -- were growing pains of a now globalization of the world. Whoever lead such an effort would doubtless make mistakes (namely the US and England).
    1
  9. I would suggest that less than .4% of the population want/demand a new investigation into the 9/11 attacks since it's already been done ad nauseam by the government, third parties and the same conclusion is come to each time (ignoring the completely ludicrous and easily disproved Loose Change/Alex Jones conspiracy nonsense). Of course, from the sound of it, you actually are fooled by these "truthers" so I doubt you'll agree.
    1
  10. You make the mistake that a lot of people make to presume that the motivations and strife of people today is any different to those of thirty years ago or even 100 years ago. The only difference today is that the same pressures that you found only in the ghettos in the 80s and early 90s are now being experienced by the nation at large and is a brewing powder keg of resentment and loss of confidence in the leadership of the country.
    1
  11. Hell, even just considering the 239 million internet users in the United States alone, that would still be a rate of .0079% That's a far cry from your biased number of 40% and even much lower than my conservative-in-your-favor estimate of .4%.
    1
  12. A democratic constitutional republic is a conflict of terms. Your personal opinions of the management of the US aside, or interpretations of the constitution in the Supreme Court, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land.
    1
  13. The spark doesn't explain how the powder keg got there in the first place. To say that the LA Riots were caused by the Rodney King is a gross generalization given the scope of this discussion.
    1
  14. Such naivete. Agreeing to no wars of aggression seems like a simple and great idea on the surface, but it's not so simple. How do you define aggression? Whose right is it to define aggression? How do you determine aggression in diplomatic claims (i.e. China vs. the world in the South China Sea)? Again, whose right is it to define such things or mediate? What about disagreements with the mediation process regarding interests, socioeconomic impacts of such mediation, etc.? Nationalism?
    1
  15. You should read more carefully if you have to go back that often. I articulate my points well enough if you actually digest the information I'm presenting rather than just skimming it and replying. That being said, your opinion of US presidents is yours alone and evidence of nothing.
    1
  16. It's not an analogy, but you can believe as you like.
    1
  17. Simple? Determine the aggressor in Tunisia for me. Was it the government's actions and humiliation that drove Mohamed Bouazizi to burn himself to death on the steps of his local government's office, or was it the Arabs that rose up against their government? Is the aggressor in the South China Seas China who claims territories in dispute from other nations in the South Pacific or the United States, et al. who mobilize to defend those smaller nations?
    1
  18. Taking out political affiliation, only 18% of people feel the government knew of the attacks prior to them taking place. (Rasmussen Reports 5/4/07). And this wasn't using loaded and complicated questions like those reports funded by truthers intended to sway opinion.
    1
  19. You completely missed my point.
    1
  20. There is no way to outlaw war. It's quite literally impossible. Let's say you outlaw war; how do you intend to enforce this? I imagine that when they passed this and Germany stopped paying restitution and building up an army which was against the armistice, the League of Nations could have just gone in and arrested Hitler and his socialist party cohorts without any military actions whatsoever... Right...
    1
  21. Democracy didn't work in the DRC. As is common with democracy, it certainly worked for the majority, but it was hell for ethnic minorities.
    1
  22. "Rights must be exercised in order to have substance, sure; but Washington denies rights, oppressively." You've again missed the point. Since clicking "show the comment" twice or going back a page or two to find a comment recently posted is too much for you, I'll explain the logic to you in simpler terms... The people are a vast majority. The government and its military are a vast minority. If a constitutional right were chosen to be enforced, there would be no stopping the people.
    1
  23. The problem is that roguish governments do two things before all others: take the weapons and control information. Look at North Korea, China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and other totalitarian nations.
    1
  24. It's a fantasy because no one leader can lead indefinitely and as such there can be no infallible system of government that first presumes the goodness of people. Your desires are totalitarian. A PK will work only if everyone thinks the same way you do (or the "PK" in this case).
    1
  25. You can outlaw crime because you can arrest an individual and put them behind bars. However, when that criminal is the leader of a nation with an army backing him and you have to go through to get to him, what do you think is the only way to go about getting him?
    1
  26. The internet and wireless phones are banned in NK (though I believe they are starting wireless service, but international calls are still banned). All information disseminated is done so by the Party. In China, the Party controls information through strict censorship and also has a ban on guns as started with Mao who said, "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," and foreshadowed weapons control in communist China. This is nothing like America.
    1
  27. Or how about Afghanistan? Is the US the aggressor for taking out the Taliban for harboring the Al'Qaeda in their country or is the Taliban the aggressor for supporting the group that performs attacks like the bombing of the US embassy in Africa or the '93 WTC bombing? Different people with different views will have different answers for all of these questions. As I said -- you're a totalitarian. You say (without realizing it), "If the whole world thought the same way, it'd be easy."
    1
  28. Here's an interesting fact for you: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has an open global petition for a "truly independent WTC investigation", and it has 1,909 architects and engineers and 17,099 others that have signed for a grand total of 19,008. Of the 6.97 billion people of the world, that would mean that at this point .00027% of the world's population cares about having another investigation. Of the 2.4 billion internet users, that's .0008%.
    1
  29. You're right that being a republic doesn't preclude being democratic, but a constitutional republic transcends democracy. While we may vote and in that way have an echo of democracy, it is distinctly different from democracy. If you wanted to be pedantic, you could say that the United States is a presidential federalist constitutional republic, but any mention of democracy would not be anywhere near accurate.
    1
  30. I was hoping that you would go back and read it again more carefully, but since you can't be bothered, it is not "in theory" (your favorite phrase to point out that what you're saying is bullshit but doesn't apply in reality) because it is a fact that any rights must be exercised in order to have substance. It's a simple fact that should be self-evident.
    1
  31. "A right not exercised, it a right lost." I don't recall right now which of the American forefathers had said this, but it is a declaration that shows that the power of the Constitution is exerted through the people.
    1
  32. It is up to the people to determine the reasonableness of such matters.
    1
  33. Indeed it's a fantasy, so I won't bother opining on it. Governments that work do so because they prepare for the worst people in power and hope for the best people. (More Benjamin Franklin, but with some paraphrasing this time.)
    1