Real Life Mandarins

Ender

Spaceman
The site is owned by a veteran of the US armed forces. SO yes, it's Murrka-W's favorite mispronunciation.

You never really responded, you just got on the "Moral High Ground (tm)" argument and never really responded.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
War on Terror

There, let's see if that fixes the thread issue.

You don't think I answered your question sufficiantly? Okay, I'll put it this way. On the spot, yes or no, do I believe that only traitors speak out against war? No, I do not. I believe that everyone has a right to free speech. I believe that everyone has a right to protest. I do not believe, however, that anyone has a right to set out to harm innocent people. No matter what the reason. Story: Spirit, if you didn't know, has the utmost respect for the samurai. (Read the manual). But even they were fallible under a currupt Emperor, and ninja fought against them. Them, not innocent people. I have utmost respect for the ninja who did so. (There were those ninja who were the feudal Japan era terrorist, and they were reviled, and rightfully so. That's where some ninja rivalries came from). In World War Two, there was the French Resistance. They fought against the Axis Forces, and never harmed the innocent. I have the utmost respect for them too. Today's terrorists, or 'freedom fighters' to some, do target innocent people to try and make others bend to their will. I have no respect for them. Only utmost contempt.
 

Ender

Spaceman
Now, you could have stopped after the free speech part, that would have been quite sufficient. I'm puzzeled as to why you felt the need to take the moral high ground. (Especially because there is no moral high ground.)

It's also a bit of a stretch to compare Samurai with the guy launching cruise missiles at targets that he will never see. A guy with a sword, or even a gun, has to get within sight of their adversary, they see their enemy bleed and die. Their enemy, also, depending on equipment, skill and some oether factors has a chance at inflicting the same damage. A guy in Sudan has absolutly no way to kill the person who launched the cruise missile into the pharmaceutical factory where his son worked. There are no US military personel in Sudan for him to attack. No, I'm not defending terrorism, I'm just saying that we need to look at the situation not in terms of "They are evil and must be destroyed," but rather in the context of, "Well these guys are willing to die to take us out. Why? There must be reasons that this many people of varying backgrounds would have this big an ax to grind with us. Yea, we have to stop them from doing anything else to us, but at the same time, is there a way we can ensure that our actions will not make new terrorists.

In short, we need a foreign policy that takes more into consideration than the next election cycle.
 

Madman

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by Aries
hate to break it to ya buddy, but hitler only orderd the attack on russia when he did cause he failed in attacking britian. and though by what they did it doesn't look like it, the german high command actually did try to win the battle of britian, it's just they didn't work well together and general goring (sp?) was incompetant. also, their priorities kept shifting, from bombing radar sites and airfields, to cities, etc. and the V2 rocket wasn't availible until 1944 i believe. the pitiful remnants of the luftwaffe were because of the battle of britian and the subsequent russian campaign and it was at stalingrad where the germans were stopped then forced back (yes they were stopped at leningrad, aka st. petersburg, but the attack started at stalingrad was the attack that freed leningrad)
and how do you get the war on terrorism to be to boost US oil stock. last time i checked, afganistan didn't have any oil and where else have we attacked in the war on terrorism. the war against iraq is different that the war on terror, and though i disagree with those who say that war is for the oil, i can at least understand where they are comming from.
the weapons are WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) MAD is the policy used during the cold war for said weapons. MAD stands for Mutual Assured Distruction.
and finally, yes you are right. Hussein and Bin Laden don't like each other, but I'm sure that to strike at the United States, they would be willing to put aside their differences for a while to cause as much damage as they can to my country. and why is money going into russia a threat. if anything, it would allow russia to stabilize it's economy and mabye pay its military to reduce the risk that some colonel would sell a nuke just to get money.
hate to break it to ya buddy! but, i think ull find that nazis hate communists and hitler respected the british, so hows about u get UR facts straight!

b) i used MAD for a reason, all WMD's are MAD and thats relevant.

and finally paying russia money, gee i wonder why thats bad? so theyll get a strong economy, a good industrial world, people will be happy, forget the past and communism might rise again, or failing that a moron like bush mite take over and nuke u dozy americans
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Ender
I'm just saying that we need to look at the situation not in terms of "They are evil and must be destroyed," but rather in the context of, "Well these guys are willing to die to take us out. Why? There must be reasons that this many people of varying backgrounds would have this big an ax to grind with us. Yea, we have to stop them from doing anything else to us, but at the same time, is there a way we can ensure that our actions will not make new terrorists.

In short, we need a foreign policy that takes more into consideration than the next election cycle.
Certainly. I agree with you. But (yes, I may be taking the moral high ground again), forgive my language here, as I want to really nail this point home. No one has the fucking right to fucking kill fucking innocent fucking people. Not even the fucking U fucking S fucking of fucking A. Am I making a clear and definifive point with the ironic repetitive use of the F word? I am? Good.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Good. :p I don't mean to go on high moral ground. I go over these things the best way I know how, by trying to cover all the bases that I feel are relevent. Plus, I have a habit of going off on tangents, as you no doubt would have seen.
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by scheherazade
aries < iraq has a right to have any kinds of weapons it desires, on its own land. its not the US' right to tell any other nation what it can or cant do on their own land. and saddam is not crazy. people say he's crazy cause he made war. so what, if thats a reason to be crazy then a good few of our presidents were insane.
Saddam's not crazy, huh. where did you get that? the guy kill's thousands of his own citizens, aggrassively tries to get WMDs, and other things that i won't list cause i don't want to spend the rest of the night writing this post. but if you don't think that is crazy, go right ahead and think that. as for iraq not being a country to start ww3, you don't need a huge army, all you need is one little nuke that can fit in a suitcase and walk into some city and "boom". that's all you need to start ww3. and that's what saddam is trying to get. but since you don't think he's crazy, well i'm sure that will make you feel a whole lot better when a iraqi built nuke goes off in D.C cause you assured us that Saddam isn't crazy
as for your history lesson, it is a contridiction. saying that germany didn't have the capibility to invade and then saying that if hitler hadn't changed pace it would have opened britian up to an air invasion? read your post before you post.
isreal doesn't have a proven record of using WMDs on anyone, let alone civilians, but Saddam does. personally, i'd sleep better if nobody had WMDs but since that isn't the case, i'd rather have a country who hasn't killed its own citizens with nerve gas to have nukes and the like, instead of a country that has (and i've said this before) killed thousands of its citizens. and no the taliban didn't do anything except provide training grounds to bin landen and give him money. yeah nothing at all. gotcha.

and Madman, would you give me a list of the facts that i *supposdly* need to get right and i will consult my extensive library on the subject of ww2 to get the *correct* awnsers. and just because hitler respected the british doen't mean he didn't try to conquer you. and i know nazis and communists don't like eachother. on the russian economy, russia had comunism ever since the 1917 revolution and since the cold war when they had WMDs. personally, i can't think of a single time the russians tried to nuke america. and what do you have against bush. would you rather he sell weapons to bin laden and when someone kills 3000 americans he brings them to the white house and give them the fucking medal of honor!?
 

scheherazade

Rear Admiral
aries < i live in the greater washington DC area. and i'm at all unafraid of a suitcase nuke. why? cause saddam wants to be in power. blowing up DC would mean that he's out of power a few days later. that simple.

by hitler changing pace i mean he turned his attention to russia, and lessened his air raids into britain. these air raids almost had accomplished their purpose when he laid off. and it is true he had no LC's, and few aircraft capable of transporting an army.

US has killed many more people in aggressive action in south america than saddam would in 10 lifetimes. and it was done OFFENSIVELY. calling saddam a crazy killer is like calling mother teresa a murderer for swatting a fly. there are many greater evils on this planet than saddam. the attention given to him is unjustified under the causes given, because these very causes apply even more to other places, who recieve no attention at all.

so far there is 'cartoon-like' mania about saddam... he's portrayed like a cartoon villain. simply 'bad' because he's made that way. well no one is made bad. whats bad for one person is good for another. the US cant judge his actions by the way actions are judged in the US, because this is not the US in question. secondly its delusion to actually believe that there is some kind of 'pure evil' out there... there simply is no logical, or benefitial reason for that kind of thing to exist. The US is taking a person who has done wrongs, and villifying him by bloating those wrongs to astronomical proportions... like did you see the news report on TV about iraqi troops going into hospitals and taking babys off of life support? i mean there is no POINT to that kind of pure evil. and might i add, rather quickly an investigation showed that the story was made-up. and ta-da, not to any surprise, no one is going out calling the news agency a liar. just /forgotten/ (it was fox or cnn, during desert storm). i wont trust what i hear about someone from their enemy. its just way too unlikely to not be unbiased or skewed. i prefer to watch news from italy or germany, and see what they are saying. its a totally different story on their programmes, and they're neutral.

-scheherazade
 

Ender

Spaceman
<whispers> Tom Clancy is fiction author.

"and what do you have against bush. would you rather he sell weapons to bin laden and when someone kills 3000 americans he brings them to the white house and give them the fucking medal of honor!?"

Not like his daddy supported Saddam Hussein with intelligence and weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, or his VP sold Iraq machinery that could be used in the making of WMD's, or anything like that.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
Of course, Regan was president for the Iran Iraq war, not Bush Sr., but Bush was running the CIA fro at least part of that and thus bears some responsibility.

Just a thought, but does anyone here know what Turkey (a member of NATO) calls Kurds? Terrorists.
 

Ender

Spaceman
OT- It's my understanding that Hitler lost himself the battle of Britan when he turned the bombers loose on the cities, rather than finishing off the RAF. While London was burning, the factories were churning out Spitfires and Hurricanes, flight schools were graduating pilots. The RAF got the reprieve it needed to build it's strength back up, and eventually they got their payback. If the Luftwaffe had continued it's assault on British airfields and air defenses, it is entirely possible that Britan may indeed have fallen, or at least had to use the homeguard for something other than training.

But hey, I just read books and watch the History Channel.
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
Saddam ain't gonna live forever, you know. what makes you think on his deathbed he won't give the order to use nukes, if he has them by then. and on the history part, hitler had enough airplanes to land drop enough paratroops to secure a beachhead for the LCs he was building to land troops.
I know Clancy is a fiction writer, but the scenario i mentioned is very possible. and with a nuke going off, you wouldn't have enough left of the guy to find out where he came from. and your understanding of history is correct
 

Ender

Spaceman
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Just wondering, what's this in referrence to?
The one nuke can start WWIII stuff. Right outta Sum of All Fears. (book, I refuse to see that sellout movie) But then again, on 9/11/01 I thought we were living the last chapter of Debt of Honor.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Only played the shoddy game demo. Yeah, Tom Clancy is a fiction writer. But he was in the military, and some act of his earned him the Medal of Honor. I believe that his novels are based as much on real life as possible. If you've ever seen Patriot Games, we see that Jack Ryan (then played by Harrison Ford) is not an action hero. Neither is the movie all bang bang bang like James Bond or other high profile action movies. And my memory may be spotty here, but wasn't a similar act responsible for sparking off World Wars I and II?
 

scheherazade

Rear Admiral
aries < thats right, he had enough planes for a beachead. that leaves none for an invasion force inland, and still no built LC's to support that beachhead (leaving it lost in days). he had to wait to finsih building his naval trransports. in the mean time troops went to russia instead of sitting idle, hitler was just unwilling to wait.

-scheherazade
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
yeah, hitler lost the battle of britian. what've i been saying.
and Ender, you're probably better off not seeing the movie. the book is much better, and so many things were changed that about the only things the book and movie had in common were the basic plot (I mean very basic plot) and the title. Hell, Greer wasn't even in it!!
 

Ender

Spaceman
They took out the Arabs and put in Nazis, they nuked the wring city, the pres. wasn't supposed to be at the game, and that's just from the trailer.

Well, you will be without my company for a few days, I'm going out of town to see some relatives. I'll be back next month, and if this thread's still active I'll keep sparring.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Also, just something I've thought of. Palistinions celebrated the September 11 attacks.
I can't believe that over a year on, I'm still hearing this bullshit.

The Palestinians did not celebrate September 11th attacks. For some reason, CNN broadcast archive footage, several months old, of Palestinians celebrating something else - not a terror attack.

Oh, and I find it highly amusing that you would admire the French Resistance. The European Resistance movements, for whom I personally have a lot of respect, were just as ruthless as today's "terrorists" are. Don't let the fact that they didn't use suicide attacks (probably because they didn't have enough manpower at their disposal to allow for such wasteful tactics) fool you. You think they first checked for civilians before blowing up a train?
 

Ender

Spaceman
Don't forget the Irgun blowing up the King David Hotel. That's a little after WWII, but it still fits the resistance model.
 
Top