>> ^bcglorf:

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.
You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.
So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.
Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...
I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.
And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).
In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.
Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.
Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives
Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.
Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.


I'm picturing an infomercial right about now. Buy our world class American installed dictator right now and you'll receive many happy decades of watching your wife get raped, your lawn regularly razed, and your children going without food or education. But wait! There's more! In thirty of forty years (basically whenever we feel like it) we'll send in an army and take your lawn for ourselves so you don't have to worry about the dictator razing it any more!!!! Special discounts apply if you order before Libya.

1. America put Saddam in power, his atrocities are in large part America's fault
2. America has enabled many other dictators around the world, it's what they do when a leader doesn't follow their wishes
3. Knowing full well what outcomes these dictatorships have had (as intended) in the past, how do you know we wont get similar results this time?

We're talking about a country here, it has people that want different things, of course some Libyans are going to be happy that Gaddafi is removed, many will have wanted other outcomes, neither of us can speak for them, we are not Libyan. You say a few people dieing/getting bombed is ok to save a possible genocide. Would you kill your family to save your village? The people dieing in Libya are someones family, they are real, just because you aren't Libyan doesn't mean you can't feel empathy for them. Wake up man, you and your country are not the center of the world, you can't force your will on others unfairly without at least some repercussions. Your day is coming, and it's coming faster than you might think.

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.

You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.

So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.

Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...

I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.

And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).

In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.

Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.

Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives

Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.

Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.

>> ^bcglorf:

You do realize you just admitted that if a country's people need a "less worse life", then America and a few of its allies should move in the planes and bomb them to 'improve' things.
Because bombing Gaddafi's forces as part of a UN mandate, and thus stopping their genocide of the rebels, was indistinguishable from deliberately dropping bombs on civilians. You don't seem capable of understanding the difference between the two. You shouldn't get so vested in things you can't seem to comprehend.
You're also making the assumption that Libya is going to be better off.
Gaddafi promised to commit genocide against Libya's people, that has been stopped. It is not an assumption that they are better off, it is a fact. If that will translate into a long term gain is an open question. I don't see how suffering a genocide under Gaddafi, and his further consolidating his power would improve Libyan's long term prospects. Can you explain how there is any ambiguity at all on this?
Is Iraq better off than before America invaded?
Yes. You seem to be among the ignorant majority that know enough about post-war Iraq to see how horrific it is, but know nothing about Saddam era Iraq to compare it to. It's hard to grasp, particularly given how hard it seems for you to grasp the previously mentioned simple concepts, but it is possible to be worse off than Iraqi's are today.
Iraq's Kurdish people(about 20% of Iraqi's) no longer fear extermination. Iraq's Shia(about 55%) no longer fear for their lifes as well. The remainder of Iraqis may now print pamphlets and voice political ideas without facing the death penalty. Saddam spent decades dividing the nation, sowing discord and letting everything in it fall apart or rot so long as his secret police and iron rule remained in tact. The country's infrastructure was in ruins and it's people were fractured and divided against one another from decades of Saddam's depravations. Iraq isn't a mess today because of the American invasion, it's a mess from decades of abuse and devastation under a tyrannical dictator. America's sin is not removing Saddam, but taking so cursedly long to finally go in and do it.


Look I admire the fact you're giving this a go and putting on your thinking cap, I really do; but let's look at each of your points.

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.
http://www.epic-usa.org/node/5620

Overall - the economy is worse, it has next to no industry or farming, health outcomes/life expectancy are worse, while education has improved. So even with this brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, the country was doing better in many areas than it is now, and this is not even looking at the subjective elements such as the hundred thousand dead civilians at the hands of US soldiers and assorted explosive devices. However even though things were perhaps marginally better with Saddam in power, I do agree that his dictatorship was brutal, and things were pretty horrific for many in Iraq. But guess what? Saddam's Ba'ath Party was put in power by the CIA - this is a well documented fact, feel free to look it up. America objected to the fact the previous ruler wanted to nationalize it's own oil reserves. So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.

In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.

Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives (subvert Gaddafi's genocide) you're being extremely naive. There are far better ways of saving lives than invading a country with bombs, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

You do realize you just admitted that if a country's people need a "less worse life", then America and a few of its allies should move in the planes and bomb them to 'improve' things.

Because bombing Gaddafi's forces as part of a UN mandate, and thus stopping their genocide of the rebels, was indistinguishable from deliberately dropping bombs on civilians. You don't seem capable of understanding the difference between the two. You shouldn't get so vested in things you can't seem to comprehend.

You're also making the assumption that Libya is going to be better off.

Gaddafi promised to commit genocide against Libya's people, that has been stopped. It is not an assumption that they are better off, it is a fact. If that will translate into a long term gain is an open question. I don't see how suffering a genocide under Gaddafi, and his further consolidating his power would improve Libyan's long term prospects. Can you explain how there is any ambiguity at all on this?

Is Iraq better off than before America invaded?

Yes. You seem to be among the ignorant majority that know enough about post-war Iraq to see how horrific it is, but know nothing about Saddam era Iraq to compare it to. It's hard to grasp, particularly given how hard it seems for you to grasp the previously mentioned simple concepts, but it is possible to be worse off than Iraqi's are today.

Iraq's Kurdish people(about 20% of Iraqi's) no longer fear extermination. Iraq's Shia(about 55%) no longer fear for their lifes as well. The remainder of Iraqis may now print pamphlets and voice political ideas without facing the death penalty. Saddam spent decades dividing the nation, sowing discord and letting everything in it fall apart or rot so long as his secret police and iron rule remained in tact. The country's infrastructure was in ruins and it's people were fractured and divided against one another from decades of Saddam's depravations. Iraq isn't a mess today because of the American invasion, it's a mess from decades of abuse and devastation under a tyrannical dictator. America's sin is not removing Saddam, but taking so cursedly long to finally go in and do it.

You know what I find sadly amusing? All those "cultural supremacists" (most of which hide their xenophobia under a thin mask of concern about Islam's ethical failings) go on about how Judeo-Christian values are better, not realising that Islam is largely a rehash of the Bible/Torah they defend so ardently.

Sharia Law? Taken from the Torah/Old Testament.
Fire for the infidels? An exaggeration of Jesus' infernal invention.
Exterminating your "God's" enemies? Read the Old Testament already.

Perhaps I can be more clear. Christ existing is obviously a necessary condition for Christianity to be true - but it's not sufficient. I suppose some people might say "Oh, Christ never existed so Christianity isn't true", but I don't think anyone's doing that here - and that's why I thought it was an odd thing to bring up. I think most non-Christian people here would say something more like "Jesus probably existed, and probably said more or less the same stuff that's in the Bible - but he didn't do miracles, isn't the Son of God, and didn't come back from the dead".

The belief that Jesus is a myth seems to be more prevelent, actually, and many of the people I have debated here have claimed this. I think only a very unthoughtful and intellectually incurious person could actually believe it, as you'd be hard pressed to even find a secular historian who does. He is by far the most influential person in history, which continues to this day. That in itself speaks to His claims. Our great land was founded on judeo-christian values, and the freedom that we enjoy today was predcated upon those values of personal liberty.. Even the pursuit of science was founded upon Christian understaniding; It was thought we could determine the operation of the cosmos because the Universe is orderly and has regularity due to Gods oversight. Yet, even with all this some people close their eyes to the simple truth that Jesus Christ even existed. Yet, these are the same people who champion their own rationality as being superior.

This martyr argument is another one you come back to, but surely with any reflection you understand why it isn't convincing. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on martyrs - there's been plenty of, for example, Muslims who've chosen to die for their beliefs in a great variety of circumstances, sometimes very pro-active ones. But even if Christianity has the most (or most spectacular martyrs), certainly there are many people who've died for all sorts of causes: religious, secular, or personal.

While it certainly says Christianity is a powerful idea that so many have died for it, I don't think an idea has to be true to prompt this level of conviction.

I think the martyr argument is very powerful when you consider the original disciples. They were the ones who truly knew if Jesus was in fact risen. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, there isn't any plausible explanation as to why they would all willingly die for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant their testimony. It is also powerful for the early church because it was formed in the times of the living witnesses of Christ, and it was under very heavy persecuation. It was to a persons great disadvantage to follow Christ, socially, economically, and was often putting your life on the line. Being a Christian then was like being a Christian in Iran today. There is no good reason why the church should have ever survived under those conditions, but it did more than; it thrived and expanded expodentially. Yes, people martyr themselves today..most notably members of Islam. Islam isn't under persecution though..people are indoctrinated from birth and told if they even think one bad thought about Allah they will face eternal torment. There is no atonement in Islam, so if you screw up once you're done for. Under these conditions, and considering that Islam advocates exterminating all other religions and people, it isn't surprising it creates conditions in which people willingly martyr themselves. These situations however are night and day in regards to motivation.

First off, I should say that I appreciate the effort you're putting into legitimate debate here. I do. While I disagree with your recent points, I also accept them as honest reasoning and I think we're discussing things on a better level than we have in the past. So thanks, and I'll try to rein in my own douchebag forum persona.

Anyways, I'll (hopefully) explain what I was trying to get at better. It is my belief that religions often effectively "poison the well" for detractors by saying that the detractors are doing so for alternative motives, or that those detractors cannot understand the truth because of some flaw. To illustrate this, I was saying that Scientologists are quick to call out detractors (who are, to be fair, usually former members with a grievance) for their character flaws or crimes. Facetiously (because I don't actually know Scientologist beliefs), I was suggesting that they might also blame detractors' disagreements on confusing Thetans.

I was attempting to illustrate how awkward this attack is to refute for the detractor. The detractor certainly does have "crimes" (because, as I think we all agree, people all do things they aren't proud of). And he certainly can't be convincing if he says he has no Thetans. How can he make the case for that, when he doesn't even believe in Thetans anymore, and is definitely no longer being cleared of them?
From a perspective of a non-believer, a Christian detractor is in a similar position. Many (or even most) will have personal grievances that make their arguments sound suspect. And all will have sins. Many will have sins associated with their departure. Given that it's common Christian thought that sin clouds thought (or bars revelation or conscience or similar), we're left with a tidy way to undermine almost all detractors.

The most common objection I hear from someone is not that they haven't done evil, or that they aren't guilty of crimes against God. It's not even that they would disagree that they deserve to be punished. It's that they just defacto reject Gods authority over them because they don't want to stop living the way they do. In a very real way, they reject God over their preference to sin as they wish. This is exactly what the bible means in John 3:19-21 when it says:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.

Even Christopher Hitchens outright admits it. Skip to 6:26 for his confession.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AX1CswHCkA

A person who is railing against Christianity due to personal grievances is not only not rational, but is completely disingenuous. Such a person willfully avoids the truth, because their objection isn't based on rational grounds, but emotional ones. I have yet to meet a single person who has a legitimate gripe against Christianity as it is described in the bible. It is all due to the failings of men who didn't live up to Gods word. Yet, to the world you're a Christian if you say you are, and every evil thing man has done in the name of Christianity is ascribed to it, ignoring the fact Christ specifically taught against it.

I understand your argument..but you're basically saying it's unfair because the bible accurately describes the condition of man. That it's easy for a Christian to pigeonhole unbelievers because man is in fact habitually evil and hypocritical as the bible describes.. Man has a sin problem, but how is it any different when one might reference a scientific worldview. To blame the wickedness of human beings on animal instincts, or the "reptile brain" (serpent consciousness), or chemical reactions. Survival of the fittest. Science even says that people who believe in God have it in their DNA to do so, and even associate it to a certain area of the brain. There is no real empirical evidence for any of this, so how is it much different than saying man is corrupted by sin? It really isn't. They are competing worldviews. Science says it's a physical issue, but the bible says it is spiritual. Only one can be right.

So my overall point is an analogy. Both the Scientologist and the Christian believer have similar reasons to doubt the detractor. However, I think we'd both agree that the Scientologist detractor is right despite those reasons. So while I understand that you still would not accept the Christian detractor, my point would be that we can't completely refute him on these grounds because he could (in principle) be the same as the Scientologist detractor. The differences between the Christian and the Scientologist detractor (with regards to these ideas) are generally only differences from the perspective of someone who already believes Christianity and not Scientology (and certainly I think we'd agree that believing Christianity is more rational than believing Scientology - I'm just using it as a convenient analogy).

My point was that instead of looking at him (the detractor) in terms of his grievances, or in terms of factors (like sin or Thetans) that could cloud his judgement - it's safer to just consider his arguments, which will stand or fall on their own qualities regardless of the speaker.

Yes, I do understand your analogy. Yes, a scientologist might reject a detractor because they think he has thetans, but we know those are made up. There is a similarity in that basic approach, but since Scientology is easily disproven, there aren't any arguments to consider. In that case, people are rejecting his truth because its clearly not true, not because it isn't possible that people reject truth because they are corrupted by evil. It's still a strawman any way you look at it. The point here is, what is the best explanation for reality and the human condition. If it is true that everyone sins, and that people are hypocrites, then that is something you as an unbeliever have to come to terms with. If I can accurately portray the human condition better than you can, and give reasonable explanations for human behavior according to biblical truth, those are obviously points in favor of the bible and not some cheap tact. It's perfectly legimate to point out that the objective stance people claim to take (and the claim they lay to reason itself) is mostly just smoke and mirrors for their personal prejudices and very real rebellion against Gods authority.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Fact of the matter is, one of Gods two greatest commandments is to love your neighbor as yourself. If you're not following that, you are pretty much a Christian in name only. It says in the bible, if you hate your brother you cannot love God. So Christians do love atheists. The fact that some people who call themselves Christian act like this doesn't change that.


Was that before or after He ordered their execution and the wholesale extermination of their civilization?

Go figure, we can both pick pieced of the Bible that say entirely different things.

Either way it's a lame video trying to score cheap points on a collection of particularly ignorant folks, and instead needling the greater majority of Christians who are pretty decent folk. Doesn't deserve the high vote tally it has.

Conservative estimate of the number of civilians killed by American sponsored dictators, American "wars" in other countries, and American attacks on countries aimed at removing a democratically elected government that wont act as a puppet to America's wishes. This number doesn't include those wounded, driven to homelessness, refugee status etc.

8,000,000

This number is less than the civilian casualty rate of world war II, however it's 3-4 times higher than the number of people killed in extermination camps by the Nazi's. So while this movie may be fun to watch (it seems a bit tongue in cheek type humor), a more appropriate theme these days probably involves Americans on the dark side of the moon.

But what's that I hear you say? American's aren't to blame, it's the government and it's corporatist backers, not it's people? Well consider that it may have been the same for Germany, at some point the people of the country involved have to take responsibility.

He's speaking a half truth, but I don't think he's calling the Tea Party people who believe in the extermination of people based on race or anything like that. He's trying to point out that the Tea Party, similar to the Nazi party, is an anti-establishment movement that has been born out of a troubled economy. That he's right about. He's also correct in observing that there doesn't seem to be any charismatic leader within the Tea Party. He's also correct in stating that there's a higher risk of radical parties coming to power during times of socio-economic upheavals.

He loses me in stating that the Tea Party is only about fear and hate, and have no proposed solutions. They are proposing a radical change in the federal budget, including massive cuts that adhere to radical conservative political philosophies, including massive cuts typically in social programs instead of defense. I vehemently disagree with that, but that's still a stated solution. I just wish politics were more about discussing rationally the pros and cons of an idea instead of loose associations with clearly horrible groups from history. You could make the case that the American progressive movement was a reaction to poor political and social environments, but that doesn't make the Progressive Movement bad.

He also is oversimplifying the Nazi rise to power. When you think about it, he contradicts himself. If Hitler simply rose to power because of exploiting popular discontent with the economy, then why did he never get the support of the majority of Germans in a free and fair election? Hitler did in fact exploit fear and malcontent in the German population caused by the Great Depression, but he never would have come to power had the conservative parties not attempted to co-op the Nazis to fight off the political left Social Democratic party and the Communist Party in Germany.

The rise of an extreme party in the US in the same way Nazis took control of Germany is very highly unlikely. While there are obvious negatives to the US two party political system, one strength is it does a very good job of preventing extremists from taking over. In Germany, the Nazi party exploited the fact there were numerous parties - the Conservative party, the Catholic Party, the Social Democratic party, the Communist party, and of course the Nazis to name some. Sure the US has other parties than the Democratic and Republican parties, but they're virtually insignificant in numbers and support. That simply wasn't the case in Weimar Germany, and in order to get a coalition government to get anything done, parties had to compromise and work together. Unfortunately, the conservative parties decided to work with the Nazis, making Hitler Chancellor, even though the Nazis were clearly anti-democratic, because they politically disagreed with the Social Democratic party. You can call the Tea Party whatever you want, but they certainly are in favor of Democracy.

Watching it right now on youtube. its blowing my F*&*&ing mind man.

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
FYI, the English version was called Fantastic Planet. It is available on DVD.

For the record, there aren't experiments or evil in this movie. Humans are merely animals which are used as pets on this planet and treated as such. The domestic ones are just like dogs or cats and treated as such (in some houses well, in others not so well), where are the wild ones are considered pests and exterminated (or attempted to). So in summary, you can only call it "evil" if you consider the domestication of animals evil.

FYI, the English version was called Fantastic Planet. It is available on DVD.

For the record, there aren't experiments or evil in this movie. Humans are merely animals which are used as pets on this planet. The domestic ones are just like dogs or cats and treated as such (in some houses well, in others not so well), where as the wild ones are considered pests and exterminated (or attempted to). So in summary, you can only call it "evil" if you consider the domestication of animals evil.

"Exterminate the fire!"

What's the emoticon for nerd crush? B-}

Nicely done, beelicant.
In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Angry hornets covered in soap atop the shoulder of an exterminator. I've watched fireflies glitter in the dark near Old lady Ethel's Garden. All those moments will be lost in time, like ants in the rain. Time to die.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Angry hornets covered in soap atop the shoulder of an exterminator. I've watched fireflies glitter in the dark near Old lady Ethel's Garden. All those moments will be lost in time, like ants in the rain. Time to die.

Hey baby, wanna exterminate all humans?