Post by: Sandwich on July 05, 2002, 03:11:55 am
Quote
Authorities say the gunman who killed two people Thursday at Israel's El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport was an Egyptian who came to the United States in 1992.
Federal and local authorities say it is too early to determine whether terrorism is to blame for the attack.
"Duhh.... let's see..... uhhh..... "
Give me a break.
|
V see top line in siggy :nod:
Post by: Dr.Zer0 on July 05, 2002, 05:26:19 am
Post by: Styxx on July 05, 2002, 07:28:32 am
:sigh:
Post by: ^Graff on July 05, 2002, 09:10:49 am
Post by: Warlock on July 05, 2002, 09:18:34 am
As far as the Sec Guard shooting them in cold blood...you don't know exactly what happened ,..news reports rarely tell the exact situation on ANYthing.
Post by: CP5670 on July 05, 2002, 10:21:56 am
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 05, 2002, 10:59:51 am
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
I am extremely glad they just blasted him down; this is precisely the way to deal with these people, cornered or not. If they did indeed kill him in cold blood, that makes it all the better, as it will serve as an example to others.
Couldn't say it any better.
Post by: TheCelestialOne on July 05, 2002, 11:20:25 am
Post by: Zeronet on July 05, 2002, 11:35:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by ^Graff
What I want to know is why they killed the gunman. He was disarmed, and they had him pinned to the ground, and the security guard shot him twice in cold blood. What the hell was he thinking? What happened to Human Rights and a trial? There was no reason why that man should have been shot. They could at least have questioned him.
:wtf: :wtf: Uhh! They shot him dead as soon as they could get a shot off. He was armed and shot 3 people dead and injured others, they didnt let other ppl die just to arrest him.
Post by: an0n on July 05, 2002, 12:11:40 pm
Post by: LtNarol on July 05, 2002, 12:18:58 pm
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 05, 2002, 12:37:55 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
STOP! 4th of July was my birthday, wich is more important than all this depressing stuff!
This reminds me of a movie.
Glad they shot the bastard, they should shoot more of them.
Post by: Knight Templar on July 05, 2002, 01:31:56 pm
Post by: Dr.Zer0 on July 05, 2002, 02:42:25 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
STOP! 4th of July was my birthday, wich is more important than all this depressing stuff!
hello Mr.America ;) :p
you get fireworks on your birthday:doubt:
Post by: Warlock on July 05, 2002, 02:51:27 pm
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
You do realise he might have just been some poor guy trying to smuggle a gun through customs and have no terrorist or organised crime links whatsoever. He probably just paniced when he realised they'd twigged and tried to shoot his way out.
Like i said ......alot of the "let's check to see if he's a terrorist" is being done on ANYthing even remotely possible.
But ...tried to smuggle in a gun...flipped out and shot ppl when caught. ...umm he basically walked up to the guard's and said "Hey would you mind to terribly shooting me perhaps ? Gee thanks"
The only downside to him being shot is lack of more information from him.
It's better he got shot there than caught and go through court then prison for years or life even. I REALLY don't like the idea of my tax many feeding those type of bastards. *sigh*
But as a whole we're too squimish and too into the whole "humane" thing to fry these jackasses anymore.
I mean hell...if someone's sent to kill someone else...life's not a wonderful little world for them,...they get caught and go to prison and spend time working out or actually taking school classes ...or more commonly just getting into the prison level crimes. And WE pay the tab.
But I'll get off this b4 I really go into it :D lol
Post by: ^Graff on July 05, 2002, 03:08:55 pm
Quote
Originally posted by LtNarol:yes:
capture and interrogation is the way to go.
Which is why, if you've already disarmed him and pinned him to the ground, you don't shoot him.
Post by: Mr. Vega on July 05, 2002, 03:58:00 pm
Seriously though, NEVER trust anything that comes from my country's news.
Post by: VW-Dynamo on July 05, 2002, 04:41:03 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
I am extremely glad they just blasted him down; this is precisely the way to deal with these people, cornered or not. If they did indeed kill him in cold blood, that makes it all the better, as it will serve as an example to others.
Yeah, America will go far with that kind of attitude. :rolleyes:
Post by: Grey Wolf on July 05, 2002, 04:53:08 pm
Post by: Warlock on July 05, 2002, 05:13:42 pm
Quote
Originally posted by VW-Dynamo
Yeah, America will go far with that kind of attitude. :rolleyes:
Well so far the "be as humane as you can and always give the killer a chance to 'reform'" as done wonders for us hasn't it ?
I mean...out of every killer we imprison and "reform" ...only 99.9% of them kill someone within a year of release.
Ohhhh yea civility does wonders :D
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 05, 2002, 07:02:45 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Warlock
But as a whole we're too squimish and too into the whole "humane" thing to fry these jackasses anymore.
Why do you think I live in Texas. We fry more stuff than KFC!
If he's shooting at people then no idiot is going to say..."Ok Mr. Nice Gunman, will you please put down your gun so we can talk about this." What are you going to do if you are the secruity guards? You're going to shoot his ass off, it is instinctive. Sometimes those instincts play off better than you think. the body goes into the kill or be killed mode like soldiers in a war, you shoot him before he shoots you because no doubt he is going to shoot you, you just have to shoot him first.
Post by: daveb on July 05, 2002, 07:45:44 pm
Don't mess.
Post by: Warlock on July 05, 2002, 09:10:25 pm
"Hmmm he's got a gun" *Pulls side arm...empties clip into badguy*
"WTF do you mean 'You're under arrest'??? I'm the GOOD guy here!"
Course even the army has stupid rules
Like the 'use of a weapon' thing. The m-2 50 cal machine gun...it's actually against MILITARY law to use it against enemy soldiers UNLESS it's your ONLY weapon. It's made for anti-equipemnt and vehicles.
lol
I always used to joke that well...you know a helmet IS equipment...it's not MY fault the bullet went RIGHT throw that AND his head :D
Still...too many rules for upholding what's right...be it in everyday life or war.
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 05, 2002, 09:27:44 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Warlock
Like the 'use of a weapon' thing. The m-2 50 cal machine gun...it's actually against MILITARY law to use it against enemy soldiers UNLESS it's your ONLY weapon. It's made for anti-equipemnt and vehicles.
Screw that I'd shoot em anyways.
Post by: Warlock on July 05, 2002, 09:32:00 pm
Thankfully I was never in that situation...I'd be hard pressed to "calmly" sit through a courtmartial over that BS lol
"excuse me sir ....but you're a f*cking idoit aren't you ?"
Post by: Mr. Vega on July 05, 2002, 10:58:42 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Screw that I'd shoot em anyways.
:sigh: saddness.....
Post by: Warlock on July 05, 2002, 11:04:32 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
:sigh: saddness.....
Ummm why ?
His comment was about my comment saying Army Regs stated you aren't supoossed to use a hvy machine gun on enemery personal.
What's so sad about someone ding just that if it's in a WAR ?
:confused:
Post by: Mr. Vega on July 05, 2002, 11:06:08 pm
Post by: Warlock on July 05, 2002, 11:22:50 pm
I mean...if you are a cop or guard...and out on your patrol...you come up on a guy about to kill someone ...do you ask him to stop and discuss his actions ? At the cost of more lives perhaps ?
We have to know were the lines are. Being the "better" person and doing the "right" thing does have limits. Ever notice the more liberal laws dealing with punishments get the MORE crime goes up ? Ever wonder if it's because criminals really don't worry about getting caught ? I've actually HEARD ppl before say they wouldn't care if they got caught doing something because jailtime was "easy" to handle.
Sorry but I'm of a more simple straight forward concept.
You kill someone: Fried or baked?
You rape someone: Easily fixed...look at Ms Bobbit's example.
You rob someone or othere crime: Jail,..but none like we have it now...You, a slab and pillow to sleep on, a hole to crap in IN your cell. 3 square meals of the CHEAPEST possible food in the country.
Post by: Grey Wolf on July 05, 2002, 11:23:01 pm
When we lose our respect for human life, we have lost all hope for our race as a whole.
Post by: Warlock on July 05, 2002, 11:23:51 pm
Post by: CP5670 on July 05, 2002, 11:24:36 pm
Quote
Yeah, America will go far with that kind of attitude. :rolleyes:
Very far, as will anyone else who goes by this "attitude." Society does not and cannot operate on morals. It really is pointless to have any inherent "respect" for human life in that sense; humans are just another part of the universe, and we don't seem to have any "respect" for nonliving things. :p (which is good)
Also, while it is indeed more rewarding to capture enemies alive, it is also much more difficult to do. Remember that after people heard the gunfire the whole place went up in pandemonium, and it would have become very easy for the guy to slip away in the confusion. Although in this situation, the whole thing seemed quite poorly planned (the guy should have started firing after getting on the plane, not at the airport terminal), and the operation did not have that bin Laden "master's touch" to it; the guy probably was not affiliated with any large terrorist organization, and even if he was, they probably only told him as much as he needed to know, so he would not yield much information. (one interesting thing is while Atta and one or two of the upper-level guys on the 9/11 planes knew that they were on a suicide mission, most of the hijackers thought that it was going to be a normal plane hijacking and did not expect to die)
Post by: Grey Wolf on July 05, 2002, 11:42:37 pm
Quote
Originally posted by WarlockI just feel killing them brings you down to their level. I feel we should just lock them up for eternity instead. Pardon me for believing in that little phrase: "Thou shalt not kill."
Sorry ...I didn't know a cold blooded murderer was still to be concerned "human life"
Post by: Warlock on July 05, 2002, 11:53:54 pm
Besides......honestly I do NOT like the idea of paying for those bastards to eat etc etc for the next 60 + years. (Based on average age group being 30s and average lifespan of 90)
I mean if they'd actually get to basics, 4 walls, a board to sleep on and a small bowl of rice for meals. ...ok that'd be a bit better
Post by: Grey Wolf on July 05, 2002, 11:56:53 pm
Quote
Originally posted by WarlockOf course, why would they deserve anything better? I'm just against capital punishment, that's all.
I mean if they'd actually get to basics, 4 walls, a board to sleep on and a small bowl of rice for meals. ...ok that'd be a bit better
Post by: CP5670 on July 05, 2002, 11:58:26 pm
"Thou shalt not kill" is fine but only when applied as a method to other objectives; as an end in itself it means nothing.
Post by: 01010 on July 06, 2002, 05:34:28 am
Quote
Originally posted by Warlock
Well ummm....guy shoots innocent ppl....and doesn't immediatly drop his gun and give up,...sooooooo yea I can see shooting him without questioning.
I thought the point was that the guy had dropped his gun and was lay prone on the floor when he was shot? :confused: :no:
Post by: LtNarol on July 06, 2002, 06:08:13 am
Post by: vyper on July 06, 2002, 06:52:07 am
Note: According to reuters news agency, the gunman was tackled first by an unarmed security guard, whose partner then drew his weapon and fired - the gunman was mortally wounded but continued to struggle and managed to stab them both.
Quote
The FBI rejected a report in the Los Angeles Times that Hadayet had been disarmed and subdued before he was shot by one of the El Al guards at close range, saying that the two airline security officers had probably saved lives.
Now u see you've all be arguing over nothing :p
Post by: Sandwich on July 06, 2002, 09:19:39 am
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Pardon me for believing in that little phrase: "Thou shalt not kill."
"Thou shalt not kill"?? Where the heck is that from? There's a similar phrase in the Bible - one of the Ten Commandments, actually - that says "Thou shalt not murder."
Don't get 'em confused. :D
Post by: aldo_14 on July 06, 2002, 09:47:39 am
If he surrendered, and was shot (intentionally to kill or maim). It's wrong. You can;t do that, because it puts you on their level of thinking.
If he was still firing and a threat, then it was of course, justified. But lethal force must always be the last resort.
Post by: CP5670 on July 06, 2002, 09:55:03 am
Quote
Lets be realistic, if you're talking about "war" which is what Bush and Blair keep saying "war on terrorism" then yes, you have to be ruthless and sometimes a bit less civilised than normal. However, there is a point at which you must stand behind your own principles or you become no better than the enemy. There are rules - even in war.
Well, the thing is that who is to decide whether you are "better" or "worse" than these guys? These terrorists are not "morally bad" or anything as the media makes them out to be, but they are merely against the western world, and are thus its enemies. This is not a conflict of moral values, but a conflict of competing interests; this is what most people are misled into thinking from the media conditioning. When you get down to the fundamentals there are no moral rules in a war, and no moral rules in anything else for that matter. (and if one side tries to obey them anyway, they will just become an unnecessary hinderance)
I like something like "Thou shalt do what thou likes; the end shalt turn out the same anyway." :D
Post by: Wildlife on July 06, 2002, 11:42:44 am
well rather the shooter die then another innocent bystander, so shooting him on sight was really the only thing to do on a quick act now think later situation.
But when you consider, dropping all morals and compassion for human life to kill these ppl, i think you just turn into them instead.
Post by: Grey Wolf on July 06, 2002, 12:59:13 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sandwichAre you sure? In every English translation I've seen, it's "kill", not "murder".
"Thou shalt not kill"?? Where the heck is that from? There's a similar phrase in the Bible - one of the Ten Commandments, actually - that says "Thou shalt not murder."
Don't get 'em confused. :D
Post by: Sandwich on July 06, 2002, 01:47:29 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Are you sure? In every English translation I've seen, it's "kill", not "murder".
Completely sure. Exodus 20:13 (NKJV): "You shall not murder."
In the Hebrew, it's "Lo tirtzach"
Lo = No, not, don't
tirtzach = the infinitive of the root word for murder, RETZACH
Post by: Dan1 on July 06, 2002, 02:07:22 pm
:mad2:
Ya, eleminating them is the only thing they understand, we should be like Sherman, during the civil war.
Eleminating everything in our path but not kill people.
Unless they try to kill u first.
;7 ;7 ;7 ;7 :D :D
Post by: Grey Wolf on July 06, 2002, 03:21:54 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sandwichDamn, you're right....
Completely sure. Exodus 20:13 (NKJV): "You shall not murder."
In the Hebrew, it's "Lo tirtzach"
Lo = No, not, don't
tirtzach = the infinitive of the root word for murder, RETZACH
Post by: Martinus on July 06, 2002, 04:30:48 pm
Post by: vyper on July 06, 2002, 04:45:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, the thing is that who is to decide whether you are "better" or "worse" than these guys? These terrorists are not "morally bad" or anything as the media makes them out to be, but they are merely against the western world, and are thus its enemies. This is not a conflict of moral values, but a conflict of competing interests; this is what most people are misled into thinking from the media conditioning.
Murder of innocent civilians *is* bad. Thats what terrorists do - terrorize civilians by any method including murder. Thats why I make no distinction between Eta, IRA, al-Quada (spelling?), you-name-it.
No matter how just your cause, its wrong to kill those who are not armed or not able to fight.
Also, morality is never a hindrence - it is what keeps man civilized and what makes the life of the just man more safe and peaceful than that of the un-just.
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 06, 2002, 05:10:41 pm
Quote
Originally posted by vyper
There are rules - even in war.
And when that first bullet flies over your head all your politics, rules, and other BS go right out the window. Then you are more worried about survival.
Post by: vyper on July 06, 2002, 06:05:50 pm
And might I add - the morality my country (UK) and her allies are based on is not "BS".
Post by: Warlock on July 06, 2002, 06:21:31 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
And when that first bullet flies over your head all your politics, rules, and other BS go right out the window. Then you are more worried about survival.
Fact
Even in training. When we did field exercises, now mind you I was NOT infantry,...although I did perform as the "enemy" vs my battalion my last 3 years active and my first 2.5 years I was on my units QRF (quick reactionary force), it was as real as it can get without having holes punched into you :)
You had the MILES system on EVERY weapon which used a microphone to pick up the sound of a dischanged blank from the weapon and fire an IR laser from the barrel emttier. The harnesses worn by troops and vehicles would receive this beam.
Rocket weaponry even had discharge blanks that fired 3 foot flames as per a real rocket would from the launcher.
Reason I'm saying all this ? It's as real to combat as you can get. Once the first cap sounds, ALL you see are:
Buddies: Do not shoot.
Bad Guy : Shoot as much as possible.
Course I had a BLAST doing that and it's bout the only thing i truely miss. heh YOu should seen the look on an oppossing unit's COs face when he popped up in front of me prepping to fire a Viper Anti-tank launcher and I jerked the fire button....heheh *Click* *BOOM!* *Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep* "Ummmm damn sir...sorry...but you're dead"
Although the OCs didn't find that too amusing my BC sure as hell did :D
Post by: CP5670 on July 06, 2002, 06:39:13 pm
Quote
Murder of innocent civilians *is* bad. Thats what terrorists do - terrorize civilians by any method including murder. Thats why I make no distinction between Eta, IRA, al-Quada (spelling?), you-name-it.
No matter how just your cause, its wrong to kill those who are not armed or not able to fight.
Most of us think all of that is "morally wrong", but there are definitely people in the world who think to the contrary. (i.e. the terrorist bands) Since there is no way to prove or disprove the correctness of this, it cannot be an absolute quantity. Same goes for most other moral issues. Everything is right and everything is wrong. :D
Wars are not fought over moral issues; they are fought over conflicting interests and nothing more.
Quote
Also, morality is never a hindrence - it is what keeps man civilized and what makes the life of the just man more safe and peaceful than that of the un-just.
Yes, but what happens when the "just" and the "unjust" come into conflict with each other? That is when it starts to become a hinderance.
Post by: Shrike on July 06, 2002, 06:42:26 pm
Quote
Originally posted by WarlockWHAT? What in god's name are you supposed to use a .50 cal on? Tanks?
His comment was about my comment saying Army Regs stated you aren't supoossed to use a hvy machine gun on enemery personal.
Post by: CP5670 on July 06, 2002, 06:47:49 pm
Post by: vyper on July 06, 2002, 06:50:09 pm
Post by: Shrike on July 06, 2002, 06:58:02 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670Yeah, no ****.
It would take some time to damage a tank with that... :D
"What the **** man, what are we supposed to use, harsh language?"
Post by: CP5670 on July 06, 2002, 06:58:45 pm
Quote
CP5670, I'd love to get into Plato here (no, actually I wouldn't!!) but I'm far too tired.... :sigh:
Then I would get Nietzche here... :D (actually, I don't like many of his ideas, but I think he has the moral part right)
If you are into this stuff, see if you can find that 1000-post religion thread that was around a while ago; I posted a lot in that. :p
Quote
"What the **** man, what are we supposed to use, harsh language?"
I think they actually do that in real combat; first hurl a curse at the guy and then shoot him. :D
Post by: Sandwich on July 06, 2002, 07:07:37 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Damn, you're right....
How much does that throw your life-view or whatever off-kilter?
Quote
Originally posted by Shrike
WHAT? What in god's name are you supposed to use a .50 cal on? Tanks?
Well, the .50 cal was designed originally as an anti-air gun back in the WWII days. Since it's pretty useless for that purpose nowadays, it's stuck in every corner of the armed forces that it fits (at least, it is in the IDF). I'd say it's great at tearing apart anything with equal or less armor than the M113 APC. It's fire rate ain't all that high compared to a standard "machine gun", making it useless at "spraying" infantry (unlike the Vulcan... ;7).
Post by: LtNarol on July 06, 2002, 07:10:04 pm
A joke for the slower members of the forum.
Post by: Shrike on July 06, 2002, 07:23:21 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sandwichActually, you can dial down the ROF on a vulcan... 1000 RPM is high, but still slow enough for effective use. ;)
Well, the .50 cal was designed originally as an anti-air gun back in the WWII days. Since it's pretty useless for that purpose nowadays, it's stuck in every corner of the armed forces that it fits (at least, it is in the IDF). I'd say it's great at tearing apart anything with equal or less armor than the M113 APC. It's fire rate ain't all that high compared to a standard "machine gun", making it useless at "spraying" infantry (unlike the Vulcan... ;7).
Post by: Warlock on July 06, 2002, 07:39:02 pm
Which I'll admit IS effective...the debris from round impacts would take out most of them. Hell just having a round pass close enough can kill a man :)
Vulcan...I've actually got a shell casing from that beast....ummm...ouch. It packs more powder than some small rockets :D Roughly 2 inches diameter by 6 inches long...JUST the casing..not the bullet.
When they flew a few A-10s over us out at JRTC in Ft Polk for training.....you'd hear the Vulcan firing and the fighters be NO where in sight. I didn't know WTF that noise was my first week in the field. Sounds NOTHING like a weapon. Imagine someone ripping Velcro ...only 10,000 times louder.
Post by: Shrike on July 06, 2002, 07:52:43 pm
Quote
Originally posted by WarlockMy cousin who was in the Canadian Navy said the same thing about the CIWS systems. A giant zipper he called them.
When they flew a few A-10s over us out at JRTC in Ft Polk for training.....you'd hear the Vulcan firing and the fighters be NO where in sight. I didn't know WTF that noise was my first week in the field. Sounds NOTHING like a weapon. Imagine someone ripping Velcro ...only 10,000 times louder.
Post by: Warlock on July 06, 2002, 08:00:05 pm
Just a horribly loud "rrrrrrrrrrriiiiiipppppppppppppppppppppppppppffffffffffffttt" sound.
*sigh*
I still prefered my old M-60 :) Least with THAT you could hear EACH round pacing off. ,,,,,Then they swapped out for the SAW,...some bastard cross breed of the M60 and M16.
*sigh*
Advancements are NOT always for the best.
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 06, 2002, 09:27:07 pm
I've heard that Vulcan before, that thing looked sweet. I read somewhere IF you could hold down the trigger until it emptied out its ammo box without the barrels melting it would last only 18 seconds.
I actually like the M249 SAW better than the M60. Maybe it would be because you can slap somebody's M16 magazine into your gun if you ran out of ammo, and I think they said it is more reliable somewhere.
However, when I play a game like Desert Siege and I'm in the wilderness I'm going for that M60 or PKM. But if all else fails I can also grab the A9-91. Gotta love SOME of those Russian guns.:)
Post by: Warlock on July 06, 2002, 09:41:36 pm
With my M60 I could dump 50 bursts (SHOULDn't...but could) ....my SAW...20 rounds the barrel glowed like Vader's Lightsaber on Viagra.
And yea you could slap a mag from a 16 into it...and ? it's 30 rounds of .556 ammo ?
When I went on detail playing OPFOR with my M60...I had a set of webgear I bought myself...took the magazine cases and ripped the mag dividers out...could get a 200 round belt in each...took an empty 2 gallon canteen carrier and used it to carry another 400 round belt,...and had a 400 round belt wrapping my arm on drop feed.
Magazines for machineguns.........blah. Takes away all the damned fun :D
Post by: Blue Lion on July 06, 2002, 09:54:03 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Warlock
Blah,....the SAW was a POS. Rate of fire too high for small calibur ammo,...USED small cal ammo...barrels melted faster than all hell.
With my M60 I could dump 50 bursts (SHOULDn't...but could) ....my SAW...20 rounds the barrel glowed like Vader's Lightsaber on Viagra.
And yea you could slap a mag from a 16 into it...and ? it's 30 rounds of .556 ammo ?
When I went on detail playing OPFOR with my M60...I had a set of webgear I bought myself...took the magazine cases and ripped the mag dividers out...could get a 200 round belt in each...took an empty 2 gallon canteen carrier and used it to carry another 400 round belt,...and had a 400 round belt wrapping my arm on drop feed.
Magazines for machineguns.........blah. Takes away all the damned fun :D
Remind me....never too piss you off....
Post by: Warlock on July 06, 2002, 10:11:09 pm
:snipe:
heheheh ;7
Post by: Blue Lion on July 06, 2002, 10:55:43 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Warlock
And you guys thought I was evil in Squadwars :D
:snipe:
heheheh ;7
Since when are you mean in SW? Ya big softy
Post by: daveb on July 06, 2002, 11:32:02 pm
While I agree its odd, I can see the reason they designate it as not-for-use-against-infantry.
The reasoning is the same as follows : This isn't a well known fact, but standard NATO ammo is _specifically_ designed to wound and not to kill. That is, the rounds are full-metal-jacketed - designed to pierce completely _without_ expending all the energy on its target. Hence creating a wounded soldier almost as inert as a dead one. This is in contrast to say, cheapo hunting ammo, which is specifically designed to mushroom on impact with a target to expend the maximum amount of energy on the target (stopping inside) and making the biggest hole. (I always get kindof amused when people say - oOOoOOooo eeeeevil "military" ammo. If I had a choice, I'd rather get hit with one of those evil military rounds rather than the somewhat PC hunting ammo).
Anyway, that gives you the flavor. The idea is to take out the enemy, not butcher him. Granted this kind of flies in the face of the reality of artillery, grenade, etc, etc. But no one has ever claimed that war makes sense.
Thus ends dave's firearms history lesson of the day.
Post by: Warlock on July 07, 2002, 12:08:41 am
"Kill a man you remove one soldier from the battle.....wound a man you remove three,...the one you shot and the two that carry him out of the battle."
Post by: daveb on July 07, 2002, 12:37:41 am
Edit : I thought you meant tumbling in flight (not possible) vs. tumbling upon impact which apparently was indeed part of the M16 design. Wacky.
Post by: Warlock on July 07, 2002, 12:58:37 am
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 07, 2002, 01:05:04 am
A tumbling bullet does cause more damage, but the range just sux. Only time I've ever had a bullet tumble is when I've hit a limb, but it does make a nice big fat hole. :)
Pending on your gun type, if the enemy has body armor I think I'd rather sweep him in the legs if your using something light like an MP5 or BIZON. Cut him down and then shoot him in the head. Higher power weapons like the M60, M4, M16, An-94, FN FAL, A9-91, Ak-47, AK-74, AK-74 SU, etc, etc. Maybe a good two shots to the chest and maybe one in the head or neck. However I'd prefer to blow him up with an M136 or LAW, but then again they probably have some rule against blowing up soliders with weapons meant for light armor for those too. :/
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 07, 2002, 01:06:33 am
Quote
Originally posted by Warlock
AR 15
Yup...cost too much or I'd buy one. Oh well I'll play with my SKS until I make it all pretty looking and cooler looking than a goofy AR-15.
Post by: daveb on July 07, 2002, 01:50:36 am
Oh, 556/223 is for limp wristed chumps. .308 all the way :p
Post by: Shrike on July 07, 2002, 01:54:44 am
Ok, sure, that doesn't technically exist...... but USCM pulse rifles are cool. ;)
Post by: daveb on July 07, 2002, 02:12:01 am
Definitely on my future buy list.
"In my opinion, the M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised."
LGEN George S. Patton, Jr.
Post by: Kitsune on July 07, 2002, 02:13:27 am
Anyone else seen these things or know exactly what I'm referring to?
Post by: Martinus on July 07, 2002, 08:12:20 am
Quote
Originally posted by Shrike
10x24mm HEAP.
Ok, sure, that doesn't technically exist...... but USCM pulse rifles are cool. ;)
Hmmm the M41A pulse rifle.
Maeglamor has 1:1 scale plans and a good idea of how to implement the ammo counter too. ;7
*Starts hunting for fiberglass resin*
Post by: aldo_14 on July 07, 2002, 08:31:19 am
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
On the .50 :
While I agree its odd, I can see the reason they designate it as not-for-use-against-infantry.
The reasoning is the same as follows : This isn't a well known fact, but standard NATO ammo is _specifically_ designed to wound and not to kill. That is, the rounds are full-metal-jacketed - designed to pierce completely _without_ expending all the energy on its target. Hence creating a wounded soldier almost as inert as a dead one. This is in contrast to say, cheapo hunting ammo, which is specifically designed to mushroom on impact with a target to expend the maximum amount of energy on the target (stopping inside) and making the biggest hole. (I always get kindof amused when people say - oOOoOOooo eeeeevil "military" ammo. If I had a choice, I'd rather get hit with one of those evil military rounds rather than the somewhat PC hunting ammo).
Anyway, that gives you the flavor. The idea is to take out the enemy, not butcher him. Granted this kind of flies in the face of the reality of artillery, grenade, etc, etc. But no one has ever claimed that war makes sense.
Of course, if you shoot someone's leg off, or cripple them, it's win-win in war. The guy is out of action (depending on the injury), it fills up the enmeys medical centres, his teammates have to carry him to safety or rescue him, making them targets*, and there's the dual burden of caring for the crippled soldier (in most countries) and also training and recruiting a replacement. And, of course, you can capture, interrogate and 'trade' injured PoW's, but not bodybags.
*in fact, my grand-uncle died in Belgium during WW2 whilst on voluntary stretcher duty
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 07, 2002, 10:05:17 am
M-1 sucks! We don't need no teenage queen, we just want our M-14! I found a good M-14 for sale the other day for 800. Came with 2 stocks(wood and camoflauge Fiberglass) 2 30 round clips and 3 10 round clips, a sling, and a bipod. The gunwas in pretty good shape, but I just spent all my money on another computer. :( Put now I get to play FS2 and GR with a frame rate of about 200! :D
And on the full metal jacket. The bullet WILL slide right on through without doing much damage UNLESS you hit a bone. Then the steel jacket peels off and the aluminum alloy core flies right through you leaving the jacket somewhere in your body. Either way, I don't really want to get shot by anything.
Post by: daveb on July 07, 2002, 12:42:40 pm
Quote
Either way, I don't really want to get shot by anything.
Indeed.
Post by: Carl on July 07, 2002, 12:48:41 pm
whee!
Post by: Sandwich on July 08, 2002, 04:54:23 am
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
I've heard that Vulcan before, that thing looked sweet. I read somewhere IF you could hold down the trigger until it emptied out its ammo box without the barrels melting it would last only 18 seconds.
I wouldn't know - the only Vulcans I saw were on the bridge of the Enterprise..oops, sorry - wrong reference! :p They were mounted on an M113 APC, with a freaking huge barrel (think oil barrel size, not gun barrel) of ammo inside the APC. I think it held something like 1,500 rounds or so. :D
Quote
Originally posted by Warlock
And yea you could slap a mag from a 16 into it...and ? it's 30 rounds of .556 ammo ?
Get the decimal right! It's a 5.56mm round! The .50 cal is a half-inch round, which is where the confusion came in. :D
Quote
Originally posted by Warlock
heh no worries ,...sorry I should have stated on impact .....and actually...it's a .556 round ....the .223 is the "legal" civilian version of the m16,...the AR 15 or something like that.
Actually, the bullet doesn't tumble through the body - it spins. This spinnig, which stabilizes the bullet during flight, also makes it drastically swerve off "course" when it travels through anything more solid than air. Have you ever shot an M-16 through an ammo box full of water? You'll see that once the bullet penetrates into the water, it starts to go crazy. But it still travels with its nose pointing in the direction of movement - otherwise it would never make it all the way through a body - which it (usually) does.
Quote
Originally posted by Carl
you know what's cool? now the tables have turned, and I can moderate Dave!
whee!
:nervous:
Post by: CP5670 on July 08, 2002, 09:39:55 am
Post by: killadonuts on July 08, 2002, 04:13:48 pm
Quote
Originally posted by ^Graff
What I want to know is why they killed the gunman. He was disarmed, and they had him pinned to the ground, and the security guard shot him twice in cold blood. What the hell was he thinking? What happened to Human Rights and a trial? There was no reason why that man should have been shot. They could at least have questioned him.
Nowadays, the US constitution is only a suggestion for the government.
Post by: Warlock on July 08, 2002, 05:19:02 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
Get the decimal right! It's a 5.56mm round! The .50 cal is a half-inch round, which is where the confusion came in. :D
Oops
[qoute]
Actually, the bullet doesn't tumble through the body - it spins. This spinnig, which stabilizes the bullet during flight, also makes it drastically swerve off "course" when it travels through anything more solid than air. Have you ever shot an M-16 through an ammo box full of water? You'll see that once the bullet penetrates into the water, it starts to go crazy. But it still travels with its nose pointing in the direction of movement - otherwise it would never make it all the way through a body - which it (usually) does.
:nervous: [/B][/quote]
Just going off what my entire chain of command taught us while I was on active for 5 years *shrug*
To be technical,..ALL bullets spin. That's the entire concept of a rifled barrel. To cause the bullet to rotate as it passes through.
But since I'm not longer required to possibly kill ppl at a moment's notice ...I'm not too concerned with it anymore. :D Only thing I'm still fully knowledgable about from my time in was NVG repair :D
God I miss those toys
Post by: daveb on July 08, 2002, 06:13:56 pm
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 08, 2002, 08:56:10 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Heh, SKS. The badge of the true enthusiast ;)
Actually the true enthusiast would own:
1. Maxim Machine gun
2. Colt Patterson Revolver
3. Colt 1911 .45
4. Brown Besse Musket
5. Mausser
6. Ak-47
7. M-1
8. Matchlock Musket
9. Kentucky Rifle
10. Browning BAR
And of course a Luger somewhere in the mix. Unfortunaly, I only have a Kentucky Rifle out of all those. :( Some you need an FFL before you can have one. But that Kentucky Rilfe runs circles around its competition. I also have a Spanish Panther Rifle and it doesn't come clse to that Kentucky Rifle.
Gotta love the History Channel:)
Post by: Warlock on July 08, 2002, 09:02:56 pm
Ruger 10/22
Custom made CS Richmond Musket and Matched Carbine
Winchester 12 gauge
Browning buck mark .22 long
Beretta .25 (Forget the model...that tiny ass pistol)
Browning 306
,.........
hmmmm......ummmm.....lemme finish this after I visit my folks this weekend and peek back into the safe k ?
Post by: Blue Lion on July 08, 2002, 09:11:51 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Gotta love the History Channel:)
:yes:
Post by: daveb on July 08, 2002, 10:32:48 pm
*sniff* All these classic piece are making me all weepy.
I'm a :
Rem 700 VS .308
Kimber 1911 Stainless Classic
Savage Mk II LV
Colt Python Elite 6" stainless
kinda guy
*glances at all the HLP members eyeing us with odd looks*
:D
Post by: Blue Lion on July 08, 2002, 10:34:46 pm
Post by: daveb on July 08, 2002, 10:40:23 pm
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 08, 2002, 10:44:13 pm
Post by: Warlock on July 08, 2002, 10:44:50 pm
Course I haven't been to the range in well over a year :( Even had to give up being active in the N-SSA (http://www.n-ssa.org) because I just didn't have time to mold and load ammo anymore :( Least my Veteranship of 13 years stays :D
Post by: daveb on July 08, 2002, 10:49:36 pm
'course, he shoots 300 yards with a 4x on an HK91, and I shoot 100 yards with a 14x - I defer to his needs :)
Post by: Sandwich on July 09, 2002, 05:58:28 am
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
That's why you make your own. Molotov cocktails, anyone? How about a soup can grenade and 6" steel piping?:D
Somehow I knew I could trust either you or an0n to bring this up. It's nice to see that you're so reliable. :D
Just don't try to bring any of that stuff over here - they'd laugh at your primitiveness. :doubt:
Admins: I think DaveB needs a new title.... :p
Post by: vyper on July 09, 2002, 06:01:43 am
Quote
Just don't try to bring any of that stuff over here - they'd laugh at your primitiveness.
Don't they sell you Fighter parts? :p
Post by: TheCelestialOne on July 09, 2002, 06:03:53 am
Post by: Sandwich on July 09, 2002, 06:49:13 am
Quote
Originally posted by vyper
Don't they sell you Fighter parts? :p
Who, the US? Yeah, after they shut down the Lavi Project because it would have been too advanced a fighter beyond anything they had. :doubt:
Post by: Ace Pace on July 09, 2002, 09:53:12 am
Post by: Sandwich on July 09, 2002, 10:44:18 am
Quote
Originally posted by Ace Pace
wasn't it shut down because of the costs?
Yes, but that's the sneaky part - the US stopped funding it because of the reason I gave above, and since Israel didn't have the financial means to continue on her own... :headz: :snipe:
Post by: Zeronet on July 09, 2002, 10:50:41 am
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
Who, the US? Yeah, after they shut down the Lavi Project because it would have been too advanced a fighter beyond anything they had. :doubt:
We sell you Fighter parts for your F16 Fighters and you used some modified Centurions.
I dont think Sandwich wasnt saying Britian was Primitive.
Post by: Ace Pace on July 09, 2002, 10:53:17 am
Post by: CP5670 on July 09, 2002, 11:14:18 am
Post by: Sandwich on July 09, 2002, 04:40:59 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
If the US government actually did that, it would be one of the few smart things they did. :D
Let's not get started, but just remember that "smart" is relative. :D :lol:
Post by: CP5670 on July 09, 2002, 04:46:04 pm
Post by: Sandwich on July 09, 2002, 05:00:20 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
It was in their own interests, so it is "smart" as far as that goes. :D
It was in their interests to prevent a nation that was not only friendly, but downright dependant on them, from developing a superior fighter? Huh?
Post by: CP5670 on July 09, 2002, 05:01:47 pm
Post by: Sandwich on July 09, 2002, 05:06:25 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
Obviously you don't want someone else taking over a position that you may have. :p (leader in military technology)
AFAIK it was being co-developed by both Israel and the US, but besides - our millitary tech may be on average a step behind the US, but we certainly have a more experienced military. :doubt:
Now, I don't have to dredge up that article about those mock-combat dogfights that Israel did with the US, do I? :D
Post by: CP5670 on July 09, 2002, 05:13:29 pm
Post by: Sandwich on July 09, 2002, 05:17:24 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
In the end, it is all technology though (fusion bomb, anyone?); most military experts would agree there. :p :D
No, if anything, it's the opposite, although I tend towards a healthy mix, personally. :)
Look at the Romans against the barbarian hordes, or any of those sort of examples throughout history - yeah, technology helps a heck of a lot, but it's not the bottom line.
Post by: CP5670 on July 09, 2002, 05:23:35 pm
Post by: Sandwich on July 09, 2002, 05:28:33 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
If there is enough of a difference, that is really all that matters; the atom bomb has shown that to be true. Conventional armies would be of no use in a new world war in the usual sense (if one came up); it would be fought with ICBMs. The opponents to this say that hordes are what matter, so population can defeat technology, but I personally cannot see how a collection of savages can beat some nukes. :p
That's not quite how the argument goes - it's more of a "you can have all the nukes you want, but if us 'hordes' have a man on the inside in the right place at the right time.... hehehe ;7".
Race cars are only as good as their drivers, a pattern which is repeated the world over.
Post by: CP5670 on July 09, 2002, 05:38:36 pm
Post by: Grey Wolf on July 09, 2002, 05:56:46 pm
Post by: Warlock on July 09, 2002, 06:08:01 pm
Let's recall the entire "arms race" concepts. There was a reason so much effort went into becoming tops in military advancements.
And we have seen "allies" at times make a quick change.
Also is the fact that yes then an allie would have a better toy...BUT the us would not control if that buddy decided to sell a few extra toys,...gotta look at the bigger picture.
Or the simple one...we will never be making those judgement calls,...deal with them :)
Post by: Sandwich on July 09, 2002, 06:19:50 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
If we have WWIII, the people who flee to the moon will have a great reading light: The glowing, irradiated surface of Terra. Hmm.... Let's see.... 10000 nuclear missile strikes, with quite a few probably at nuclear reators such as Three Mile Point.... Yep, that's a bright idea.
Einstein said:
Quote
I don't know what weapons World War Three will be fought with, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones.
Post by: vyper on July 09, 2002, 07:12:00 pm
Post by: Ace Pace on July 09, 2002, 11:55:30 pm
Post by: Sandwich on July 10, 2002, 07:01:22 am
Quote
Originally posted by Ace Pace
Sandwich, could you dredge up those articles?:p
No problem: :D
Quote
IDF - USAF EXERCISES, MED, 5 May 99
In mock air battles during training exercises held about 2 months ago in the Negev between Israeli and US air force, Israeli pilots "shot down" 220 US aircraft, compared to 20 Israeli aircraft "shot down" by American pilots. The exercise was the first time Israeli pilots trained against foreign pilots on such a wide scale. In the past, the IAF objected to such exercises for fear it would expose IAF tactics. However in recent years, IAF commander General Eitan Ben Eliyahu has increased such exercises to help train Israeli pilots against new tactics.
The US pilots flew F14 & F18 jets against the Israeli F15 & F16 jets. While the Israeli pilots drew much praise from the Americans, the Israeli side played down the one-sided results saying that the mock battles were mostly in close air battles - which is a particular strength of the Israelis.
Post by: Ace Pace on July 10, 2002, 07:39:04 am
Post by: Zeronet on July 10, 2002, 07:53:59 am
Post by: Styxx on July 10, 2002, 08:21:01 am
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, one man with the right technology (or knowledge, in other words) can in theory take on the whole world and win with almost mathematical certainty. :p
Hm, unless you're considering some kind of future technology, that is not even close to mathematical certainty. I'd say that it's closer to zero probability...
;)
Post by: CP5670 on July 10, 2002, 09:21:46 am
Quote
Hm, unless you're considering some kind of future technology, that is not even close to mathematical certainty. I'd say that it's closer to zero probability...
um, yes it is; probably about 99.9999%. You think that large mobs can beat hydrogen bombs? :p :D
Post by: Zeronet on July 10, 2002, 09:48:42 am
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
um, yes it is; probably about 99.9999%. You think that large mobs can beat hydrogen bombs? :p :D
A large mob could beat up the people deploying it. :p
Post by: CP5670 on July 10, 2002, 09:50:54 am
Post by: Styxx on July 10, 2002, 11:20:09 am
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
um, yes it is; probably about 99.9999%. You think that large mobs can beat hydrogen bombs? :p :D
What you fail to realize is that you'll need:
1. Several hydrogen bombs
2. Ability to launch it from out of range of the "angry mobs"
3. Complete assurance that you're the only one with such abilities
As the world is today, the instant you launch an intercontinental missile, there will be most likely several others coming right at your direction. You'll cause some damage, yes, but you won't live to see any of it. I can hardly call that a victory. ;)
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 10, 2002, 11:26:26 am
Lack of military discipline?
The British have never sent 100 special forces into an area and been surrounded by thousands of armed Somoli militia either, and fight their way out. And go into 2 hot zones and fight them off so they can recover dead bodies from mutalation. Thank God for Pakistan for once.
Actually, last time I checked, Adid was more afriad of the 20,000 US Marines that were there over any of the UN forces including British. Once those Marines pulled out then he got brave. And then got his ass shot off, until "Our Great Almighty President Clinton", decided to remove those troops and those Rangers and Delta Force died for nothing.
I don't know what you guys think is the best aircraft. I still say the AC-130 Spectre gunship 0wnz j00!!!!!!:D
Post by: CP5670 on July 10, 2002, 12:18:59 pm
Quote
What you fail to realize is that you'll need:
1. Several hydrogen bombs
2. Ability to launch it from out of range of the "angry mobs"
3. Complete assurance that you're the only one with such abilities
As the world is today, the instant you launch an intercontinental missile, there will be most likely several others coming right at your direction. You'll cause some damage, yes, but you won't live to see any of it. I can hardly call that a victory. ;)
Um, yes, remember that this is only one man with the right technology; as I said, he could just launch all of his missiles from the moon or something and then run to some other planet or blow up the enemy missiles in space using more missiles, where they would be almost useless due to the lack of an atmosphere. :p
Post by: Sandwich on July 10, 2002, 07:10:15 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Close Air fighting is not an American strong point, because we don't really ever get that close to enemy fighters...
While Israel usually wouldn't have a choice, considering that there is no point in Israel that is more than 30 miles from a border. :doubt:
Post by: daveb on July 10, 2002, 08:12:37 pm
Post by: LtNarol on July 10, 2002, 08:36:48 pm
Quote
Originally posted by davebi sure hope this "special" attention you speak of doesnt involve use of weapons of mass destruction...that could end up very nasty
Nuclear weapons are inherently a deterrent. But this deterrent works on the assumption that the countries wielding them are rational. Countries such as Iraq (as led by Hussein) are _not_ rational and therefore require "special" attention.
Post by: daveb on July 10, 2002, 08:45:58 pm
I meant "special" attention in the case of Iraq in the context of the clear US buildup and intent to oust Saddam. You know, all the "interventionist" stuff that Europe likes to whine about. There will be a FANTASTIC amount of blustering and blithering from the European left as the US goes in a installs a new, less insane regime. Deep down though, they'll realize that if this isn't done, they'll be facing the tips of Saddam's missiles in 10-15 years. Then things get _really_ ugly. Ounce of prevention and all that.
Saddam has been in power for _decades_. In 15 years its conceivable that he'll have thermonuclear weapons. To put this in perspective, 15 years ago the two most powerful nations in the world (the US and the Soviet Union) had enough weapons pointed at each other on hair trigger to flatten the planet 5 times over. These days, we're best buddies! Take this sort of shift and assume we do what the whiny UN will inevitably demand and leave Saddam alone. It is entirely conceivable that in 15 years Iran and Iraq (both developing Nukes rapidly) will flip flop and be best buddies. Iran is on the cusp of a secular revolution which will endear them to Iraq. Heck, throw in moderate (teehee) Saudi Arabia and maybe Pakistan in the mix. Now you've got all the superpowers-of-the-desert with giant armies and nukes a few thousand miles from Europe. You can bet that "regime replacement" will be absolutely _mild_ compared to what will be going through the minds of Europeans then when sights are turned West.
Post by: Sandwich on July 10, 2002, 09:01:38 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Deep down though, they'll realize that if this isn't done, they'll be facing the tips of Saddam's missiles in 10-15 years.
:wtf: 10-15 years? Try months, bro - months. :doubt:
Post by: daveb on July 10, 2002, 09:23:08 pm
Post by: CP5670 on July 10, 2002, 10:10:59 pm
Post by: LtNarol on July 10, 2002, 10:43:02 pm
Post by: CP5670 on July 10, 2002, 10:54:46 pm
Post by: daveb on July 10, 2002, 11:16:39 pm
"Bush" AND ("low IQ" OR "clearly dim")
"unilateralism"
"Turkey"
"hegemony" OR "imperialism"
"I'm a cheese eating surrender monkey"
Ok, I'm kidding about the last one. Without France, the American Revolution would never have been won ;)
Post by: CP5670 on July 10, 2002, 11:17:30 pm
Post by: vyper on July 11, 2002, 06:21:20 am
Quote
The British have never sent 100 special forces into an area and been surrounded by thousands of armed Somoli militia either, and fight their way out. And go into 2 hot zones and fight them off so they can recover dead bodies from mutalation. Thank God for Pakistan for once.
Yeah, just carry on thinking that way. Please.
But I'm digressing here from what I was going to say:
Removing the threat that Saddam and his WMD pose is a definate short term goal for any nation that has an ounce of common sense. The method by which to remove him is more of a debatable issue. If you simply remove Saddam, you're leaving the door open for a replacement. If you oust his government you're left standing around looking for a replacement. If you wipe out his country you risk world war with the UAE and condemnation by the EU humanitarians.
Personally I don't know which would work better - but I get the feeling we will all live to regret not taking Desert Storm to the terminal conclusion that both American and the UK wanted.
(btw CP5670 I think you should clarify who you consider to be Europe because Britain certainly ain't pacafistic. :D)
Post by: Sandwich on July 11, 2002, 06:34:18 am
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
I was speaking more along the lines of strategic nuclear weapons. That is to say, Saddam may churn out a WMD or two in the short term and have the ability to hold a country hostage, terrorist-style - but that's peanuts in the big scheme of things. If the major, traditionally radical ME countries continue along the lines they have now, in 10-15 years they could have significant arsenals of nuclear weapons which will change the whole concept of "terrorism". If they find themselves coddled by the UN (that is, not smacked down HARD when supporting terrorism) they'll learn that terrorism and threats pay. And then we won't be talking about 100,000 dead, or even a flattened city of millions. We're talking the ability to scour entire countries or continents (read : Europe).
Ahhh, clarification noted. :) But Iraq's already tested those Shihad missiles, the latter of which have the range to reach Israel and beyond, IIRC. That's why the US is talking/planning on going in "now" (whenever that is...) to remove Saddam.
Post by: Zeronet on July 11, 2002, 06:46:44 am
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Close Air fighting is not an American strong point, because we don't really ever get that close to enemy fighters. However, you the Isreali's are also using American made or American based on designs. The biggest worry are those of the Mirages, MiGs, and SUs. Why shoot a guy with your guns when you can blast him at 50 miles with a Pheonix? We also have mass numbers of fighters as well, even though a lot of countries can out fight the US, we can out number you pretty quick. Iraq is a good example, in mock battles they beat the **** out of US fighters in Dogfighting, but when US fighters engaged them for real over Iraq, those Mirage's and MiG fled to Iran after being murdered by long range missiles, and their lack of ground based radar to give off US Aircraft positions, since Wild Weasels and A-10's kinda fixed those. And of course, the A-10 and Apache helicopter kinda handed the Iraqi mighty T-72's there own ass. Persian Gulf also showed how much better the British and American tanks are compared to the Russians and their mighty T-72's and T-84's.
Lack of military discipline?
The British have never sent 100 special forces into an area and been surrounded by thousands of armed Somoli militia either, and fight their way out. And go into 2 hot zones and fight them off so they can recover dead bodies from mutalation. Thank God for Pakistan for once.
Actually, last time I checked, Adid was more afriad of the 20,000 US Marines that were there over any of the UN forces including British. Once those Marines pulled out then he got brave. And then got his ass shot off, until "Our Great Almighty President Clinton", decided to remove those troops and those Rangers and Delta Force died for nothing.
I don't know what you guys think is the best aircraft. I still say the AC-130 Spectre gunship 0wnz j00!!!!!!:D
Last time i checked the British Army didnt lose more soliders due to friendly fire, than to the enemy, which is what happened to the Americans during Vietnam and we didnt bomb any weddings, that Pilot was told to await confirmation but he decided to fire before he received it, how Ak-47 firing into the air can be mistaken for substained AA fire is beyond me.
Now i seem to remember 4 British Marines going into a Prison full of Taliban and rescuing an American but im not talking about Elite forces here though.
Post by: Top Gun on July 11, 2002, 08:41:03 am
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Nuclear weapons are inherently a deterrent. But this deterrent works on the assumption that the countries wielding them are rational. Countries such as Iraq (as led by Hussein) are _not_ rational and therefore require "special" attention.
Isn't it interesting how Iraq is always Irrational whilst say; saudi Arabia is rational enough to Trade arms with. Although the Iraqui government leaves a lot to be desired (Marsh arab and Kuwaiti conflicts), I can tell you for sure that it's a lot less "irrational" than Shrub or Blair would have you believe. Looking back through history America has had some pretty "irrational" conflicts. Vietnam Anyone? I'd be prepared to bet that the atrocities committed there by Americans more than equal anything Iraq has ever done.
P.S. Dave What about Ashcroft? he's a bigger loon than Bush could ever hope to be.
Post by: LtNarol on July 11, 2002, 10:03:48 am
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG NDand remind me...who was getting their rear ends kicked around in both world wars prior to U.S. intervention? :p
The British have never sent 100 special forces into an area and been surrounded by thousands of armed Somoli militia either, and fight their way out. And go into 2 hot zones and fight them off so they can recover dead bodies from mutalation.
Admitted, the U.S. goes around the world trying to solve other people's problems, but those problems would eventually affect everyone so its more preventive than otherwise. Also keep in mind, Black Hawk Down was a "catch the warlord's best buddy" mission that went bad, and rangers dont leave their own behind.
Post by: Zeronet on July 11, 2002, 10:10:27 am
Quote
Originally posted by LtNarol
and remind me...who was getting their rear ends kicked around in both world wars prior to U.S. intervention? :p
Not Us :p :D, we kicked the Nazi airforce in the battle of Britian all the way back to Berlin. You see Britian, nobody else won the Battle of Britian.
Post by: daveb on July 11, 2002, 10:11:31 am
Quote
I'd be prepared to bet that the atrocities committed there by Americans more than equal anything Iraq has ever done.
Hyperbole. Unless you honestly believe the US specifically targets civilians to further political gains, this comparison is meaningless. The US does not say "
we can make America's people sleepless and frightened to go out in the streets (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=10072002-024212-6260r)". The US does not use chemical WMD on its own civilians, or any other civilians for that matter.
Although I know you would like to believe the US is some horrible human-rights violating power seeking to control the world - that's just a fiction. I'm rather baffled at the extreme anti-American stance that comes from Europe very clearly these days. I would also note that _this_ is precisely the reason the US wants nothing to do with the ICC. Those-in-charge would absolutely relish the chance to wield their newfound power at the Americans they so despise - resulting in bogus charges and an overall circus atmosphere. Bet on it.
I realize its popular to believe every American just loooooves going out and kicking other people's asses. We're certainly good at it. But the reality of it is, we have no more desire to go to war than any of the self-appointed Euro intellectual elite. However, Saddam has been tap-dancing around political and economic strategies to remove him from power for decades. He's the master. If you think a few decades more is going to work, feel free. When he's got his nuclear tipped boot up your rear in a few years, you'll probably be thinking otherwise.
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 11, 2002, 10:13:38 am
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronet
Last time i checked the British Army didnt lose more soliders due to friendly fire, than to the enemy, which is what happened to the Americans during Vietnam
Yes, and british guns weren't a piece of **** and jammed to death which would get you killed. You have to remember this is thick jungle fighting back when a radio was only carried by one person. And the fact your own soldiers were tossing away their M16's for AK-47's doesn't help since, then you are shooting the same gun the enemy is shooting.
The parts a very true however, but what do you expect. The airforce is just a bunch of former jocks that were actually smart enough to get somewhere, but still had the ego's to prove and thinking that bombing something would make them a hero is really sickening. Most of those could have been avoided if it weren't for the UN and NATO. They think Britian and the US are its big sticks that is can swing at anybody. I hate the UN and NATO. They can both burn in hell for all I care, they were both a mistake, a very stupid mistake.
On Iraq, you could always do what the US has done in South America. Support the most powerful rebel groups in the country. Arm them and have them over throw Saddam, then replace them with US appointed officals. But of course...the people did rise up against him and we let him use his Hinds to slaughter the uprising. Go figure...:doubt:
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 11, 2002, 10:16:06 am
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronet
Not Us :p :D, we kicked the Nazi airforce in the battle of Britian all the way back to Berlin. You see Britian, nobody else won the Battle of Britian.
Yes, but Hitler had you guys by the ass at Dunkirk. His mistake was letting british forces go. One of 3 mistakes he made.
Post by: Blue Lion on July 11, 2002, 10:17:42 am
Post by: Unknown Target on July 11, 2002, 10:23:32 am
Post by: Zeronet on July 11, 2002, 10:24:32 am
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Yes, and british guns weren't a piece of **** and jammed to death which would get you killed. You have to remember this is thick jungle fighting back when a radio was only carried by one person. And the fact your own soldiers were tossing away their M16's for AK-47's doesn't help since, then you are shooting the same gun the enemy is shooting.
The parts a very true however, but what do you expect. The airforce is just a bunch of former jocks that were actually smart enough to get somewhere, but still had the ego's to prove and thinking that bombing something would make them a hero is really sickening. Most of those could have been avoided if it weren't for the UN and NATO. They think Britian and the US are its big sticks that is can swing at anybody. I hate the UN and NATO. They can both burn in hell for all I care, they were both a mistake, a very stupid mistake.
On Iraq, you could always do what the US has done in South America. Support the most powerful rebel groups in the country. Arm them and have them over throw Saddam, then replace them with US appointed officals. But of course...the people did rise up against him and we let him use his Hinds to slaughter the uprising. Go figure...:doubt:
Im not trying to knock America, im support Britians relationship with American very much, i just think some parts of its Military need more discipline. With Iraq the best thing to do, it get a large taskforce to the area, bomb Saddamns ass repeatedly and then go in with M1A2s, Challenger 2 tanks and Troops. Blast Iraqs military powerbase, kill Saddamn and install a Sane government. Same with North Korea.
Post by: Zeronet on July 11, 2002, 10:26:54 am
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Yes, but Hitler had you guys by the ass at Dunkirk. His mistake was letting british forces go. One of 3 mistakes he made.
He didnt let us go, he'd never let the British Army escape willingly, we escaped through one of the Bravest acts of the war and then returned and kicked his ass.
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 11, 2002, 10:31:33 am
Oh, then why did his forces halt just before taking the city?
If he wouldn't have made mistake number three which was ally with Japan and declaring war on the US as well, he would have met the Japanese in India.
But Britian didnt kick his ass, it was Britian, US, and Russia that kicked his ass. And if somebody says France and I am going to slap you!
Post by: CP5670 on July 11, 2002, 10:32:28 am
Quote
Isn't it interesting how Iraq is always Irrational whilst say; saudi Arabia is rational enough to Trade arms with. Although the Iraqui government leaves a lot to be desired (Marsh arab and Kuwaiti conflicts), I can tell you for sure that it's a lot less "irrational" than Shrub or Blair would have you believe. Looking back through history America has had some pretty "irrational" conflicts. Vietnam Anyone? I'd be prepared to bet that the atrocities committed there by Americans more than equal anything Iraq has ever done.
Who said Saudi Arabia is any more rational? We just help them because they are helping us at the moment; they can be dealt with as well in the future. (same with Pakistan) Also, one thing that is interesting that Iraq is the only nation in the world that officially supported the 9/11 event (not even Afghanistan); although many nations had at least some sympathy for that, Iraq's official statement shows that it is willing to operate in the open against the US, making it much higher of a potential threat. Opposing a global superpower in a time of its crisis takes courage, and people with such courage can be dangerous.
The Vietnam involvement was indeed quite irrational, but not for the reasons most people give (atrocities or casualties do not really matter much as long as the objective is met); the paranoia that the US had against communism was unfounded and they simply did not have anything to gain by getting into that conflict. I don't like what the US government did in the past in some places, but at least they are shaping up now.
Quote
Personally I don't know which would work better - but I get the feeling we will all live to regret not taking Desert Storm to the terminal conclusion that both American and the UK wanted.
Yes, I think they made a big mistake then by not taking out Hussein and his top generals right there. The majority of Europe would have of course condemed it because the general resentment against the US is almost a part of the current cultural paradigm there, but as Dave said, they would have spoken out against almost anything done by the US to find some excuse to oppose the US and vent their sentiments.
Quote
(btw CP5670 I think you should clarify who you consider to be Europe because Britain certainly ain't pacafistic. )
Actually, while the current administration is said by many to be basically a puppet of the US, the majority of the people even there are the pacifist types. The worst are the moralistic nuts in the US itself though, people like Chomsky. :p :D
Quote
War on two fronts in Europe....Idiot! Hitler never played Risk?!?!?! Everyone knows that, you get a spot in Austrailia and work your way up, come on!
Yes, that was Hitler's biggest mistake; he was a master politician but a blundering fool in terms of military strategy, and he should have listened to his generals and left the USSR alone until Britain had been dealt with.
Post by: daveb on July 11, 2002, 10:34:47 am
Quote
Chomsky.
Argh! Rage.....building.......anger......rising.....
Man, I hate that guy :)
Post by: LtNarol on July 11, 2002, 10:35:47 am
As for how to invade Iraq...break out those million-dollar-apiece cruiser missiles and start leveling his military bases...hell, tac nukes could be used on a number of them. After which, hit him from the air with B2 bombers and F14s (which the navy loves so very much). Finally, roll in the M1A1s.
Post by: CP5670 on July 11, 2002, 10:36:15 am
Post by: Zeronet on July 11, 2002, 10:36:27 am
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 11, 2002, 10:36:39 am
Post by: Blue Lion on July 11, 2002, 10:38:15 am
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronet
I resent that comment, Kellan does not represent us :). Most British people relate a lot more to Americans than to the mainlanders, most of us arent pacifist!
A quiet rebellion?
Post by: LtNarol on July 11, 2002, 10:40:05 am
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670Or shear stupidity
Opposing a global superpower in a time of its crisis takes courage, and people with such courage can be dangerous.
Post by: CP5670 on July 11, 2002, 10:40:21 am
Quote
I resent that comment, Kellan does not represent us :). Most British people relate a lot more to Americans than to the mainlanders, most of us arent pacifist!
Yeah, sorry I was taking Kellan's viewpoint as the normal one (it is the usual one in the continental Europe); if the majority of you are like that, that is all the better. :)
Post by: Zeronet on July 11, 2002, 10:42:21 am
Quote
Originally posted by LtNarol
and you also lost every other major land battle in Europe, radar and RAF were the only saving grace for the Brits during WWII...
As for how to invade Iraq...break out those million-dollar-apiece cruiser missiles and start leveling his military bases...hell, tac nukes could be used on a number of them. After which, hit him from the air with B2 bombers and F14s (which the navy loves so very much). Finally, roll in the M1A1s.
British forces didnt lose every major land battle in Europe, we withdrew to Dunkirk due to a large German force which we werent in the position to defeat and dont forget the African Campaign and Burma, we did have the largest empire in the world to defend, the fact we fought as Allies to defeat Nazi germany means a lot, this wasnt the US versus the Axis, it was the ALLIES versus the Axis, American hasnt won any wars without outside assistance. Also about the M1A1s, it'll take ages to get them there, unlike Challengers, you cant airlift a M1A1.
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 11, 2002, 10:45:49 am
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronet
American hasnt won any wars without outside assistance
Correction..
War of 1812
Mexican War
Texas Revolution(Yes they are Texicans but they were actually from the US)
American Civil War
Spanish American War
Philipino War
Post by: vyper on July 11, 2002, 10:50:04 am
It so happens Britain fought Hitler at the start because we weren't willing to sit idly by while he took over Europe. Unlike some people...
Personally I'm not anti-America- I'm just pro-British.
I'd expect Americans of all people to understand patriotism.
Post by: Blue Lion on July 11, 2002, 10:50:46 am
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronet
you cant airlift a M1A1.
I thought you could :confused: Just it was one tank per transport, which kinda sucks
Post by: daveb on July 11, 2002, 10:54:17 am
All this "leaked" stuff about these major attacks - pure disinformation. Yes, I'm sure there's a big plan in the books. But we haven't heard what it is. Make no mistake, our military planners are _smart_. They know what mind games will do to him. Schwartzkopf did so marvelously well in Desert Storm because he had Saddam absolutely pegged, mentally. One of Saddam's biggest faults, besides military incompetency is his paranoia. He's a total master when it comes to diplomacy and skirting around sticky political situations. But you can be sure he lives in fear of traitors around him 24/7.
When we do go in, which seems inevitable, you can bet his command structure will be in a shambles.
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 11, 2002, 10:55:27 am
Quote
Originally posted by vyper
I think Zeronet just made the most important point of this argument - AMERICA did not win WW2. The Allied forces did.
It so happens Britain fought Hitler at the start because we weren't willing to sit idly by while he took over Europe. Unlike some people...
Personally I'm not anti-America- I'm just pro-British.
I'd expect Americans of all people to understand patriotism.
i understand it but he is knocking at our ego so somebody has to defend it! i like britain but i hate europe
Post by: vyper on July 11, 2002, 10:57:56 am
(j/k)
Post by: daveb on July 11, 2002, 10:59:03 am
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 11, 2002, 11:05:07 am
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
When one has an ego this big that's lasted this long, there's usually a valid reason behind it. :)
I think this is where u use the :ha: smiley.
Post by: Silver_Scythe on July 11, 2002, 11:15:05 am
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
If he was still firing and a threat, then it was of course, justified. But lethal force must always be the last resort.
Tell that to Officer Rich Herzog of the Bellvue, Washington PD.
Wait you cant cuz hes dead. :mad:
Post by: Top Gun on July 11, 2002, 11:33:55 am
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
Also, one thing that is interesting that Iraq is the only nation in the world that officially supported the 9/11 event (not even Afghanistan)
Please get me some evidence of that claim, a quotation from Iraqui Authority (an anouncement by Blair, Bush or ashcrofy won't cut it).
Post by: Top Gun on July 11, 2002, 11:51:15 am
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
The US does not use chemical WMD on its own civilians, or any other civilians for that matter.
"at least not intentionally" is what I think should have been said. Whilst the war in Afghanistan may have been wholly justified (the Taliban were a murderous and insane regieme) the number of Afghan civilans killed in this supposed "War on Terror" is now double the number of americans Killed on September 11th. (Although how many killed if action hadn't been taken is anyone's guess). But Vietnam......... Haw many civilians do you think got Bombed/Napalmed/Shot/Poisoned (by de-leafing solution) there? No chemical weapons against civilains, Pah :rolleyes:
Post by: LtNarol on July 11, 2002, 01:11:57 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Top Gunthere are -always- colateral casualties, the difference between the U.S. and Iraq is that the U.S. doesn't intentionally fire scuds or chem bombs or other weapons of mass destruction at civilian populations (with the exception of Nagasaki and Heroshima during WWII)
"at least not intentionally" is what I think should have been said. Whilst the war in Afghanistan may have been wholly justified (the Taliban were a murderous and insane regieme) the number of Afghan civilans killed in this supposed "War on Terror" is now double the number of americans Killed on September 11th. (Although how many killed if action hadn't been taken is anyone's guess). But Vietnam......... Haw many civilians do you think got Bombed/Napalmed/Shot/Poisoned (by de-leafing solution) there? No chemical weapons against civilains, Pah :rolleyes:
Post by: daveb on July 11, 2002, 01:43:44 pm
Its like Ted Turner's whole "both sides are committing terrorism" statement. Yeah, the Israeli's are being real terrorists when they go in and shell a bomb-making factory. Or maybe the Palestinians were just reacting to all those school children who were terrorizing them by riding their bus to school. Bah. Moral relativism is the weakest of arguments.
Post by: Zeronet on July 11, 2002, 01:56:10 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
i understand it but he is knocking at our ego so somebody has to defend it! i like britain but i hate europe
No i wasnt.
Post by: Top Gun on July 11, 2002, 02:23:18 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Lt, its not worth it. He's taking the standard obtuse stance where he refuses to see the very clear difference between accidental civilian casualties and those inflicted intentionally. The US spends a gajillion dollars on precision weapons to specifically destroy military targets. Are there mistakes? Yes. The terrorists on the other hand, spend their money trying to kill civilians intentionally. Anyone trying to intentionally _not_ see this critical distinction is kidding themselves and/or ducking the real meat of the argument
Uh Excuse Me, do you mean to tell me that The Red Cross Centre in Kabul wasn't Intentionally bombed (even though it was a food source for the taliban it was still a target)? What about villages in Vietnam that may have been hiding guerillas? Napalmed and to hell with the civilians. Hell, the war wasn't even a just cause.
And as for Israel; there have been thousands of reliable reports of civilains being shot at for whatever reason (breaking curfew, refusing to open doors to Isreali troops wishing to search the premises). Plus the fact that if the Isreali army is whiter than white then why won't it let the UN inspectors into Jenin? What about Ariel Sharon? Anybody remember the Butcher of Beirut? Remember, there's religious Zealots on both sides of this conflict.
I'm not suggesting for a second that it's anywhere near as bad as what the Terrorists are doing (focusing 100% on causing as many civilian casualties as possible) but it's still worng.
Post by: daveb on July 11, 2002, 02:52:17 pm
You're saying that since US bombs sometimes kill civilians, we have no authority to say a guy like Saddam is irrational because he likes to use his weapons on civilians. The false conclusion : since in the end both sides kill civilians, one shouldn't be judging the other.
This is akin to saying "well, we can't really pass judgement on your tumor sir. There are trillions of healthy living cells around the the area. No matter how precise my scalpel is, blood will be spilled and innocent cells will die needlessly. Thus ignoring the unfortunate fact that the rest of the body will have to deal with this inaction later when the cancer decides it's had enough sitting in one place.
But of course this is extremely wrong. Saddam has no compunctions about intentionally using weapons against civilians to accomplish his goals (read : Kurds). The US uses its weapons against military targets _only_. You will never find a case where the US said "let's blow up civilians". To draw a comparison between them is completely misguided. You're forgetting that when the US does cause the deaths of civilians it is _always_ while engaged in lawful military activities against an armed opponent - very likely this said fellow has been marked as an opponent because he decided he was going to start killing civilians on his own. Blowing up school buses, gassing Kurds, flying planes into buildings are all 100% different because they _intentionally_ target the innocent.
You may argue that it doesn't matter what the morals are - if the US attacks, many civilians will be dead regardless. This is true, but it ignores two key points :
- All steps will be taken to minimize these casualties. Reparations in the tens of billions have and will continue to be paid for mistakes. The US is the _only_ country that has such a policy.
- By _not_ acting, we put 10 times as many lives in just as much peril in the future.
But I've seen this argument fought 10,000x. I have no desire to go any further.
Post by: Top Gun on July 11, 2002, 03:12:49 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
But of course this is extremely wrong. Saddam has no compunctions about intentionally using weapons against civilians to accomplish his goals (read : Kurds).
Well in that case Turkey should bare some responsibility. Seems as they've been nearly as oppressive towards the Kurds.
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
The US uses its weapons against military targets _only_. You will never find a case where the US said "let's blow up civilians".
Maybe not but civilian Targets have been attacked. The Red Cross centre was a target, the Pentagon confirmed it (I'll search for the statement if you want) and I can think of other Civilian Targets that have been deliberately attacked.
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
All steps will be taken to minimize these casualties. Reparations in the tens of billions have and will continue to be paid for mistakes. The US is the _only_ country that has such a policy.
By _not_ acting, we put 10 times as many lives in just as much peril in the future.
Try applying both of those to Vietnam. Since the US failed in its Military objectives we can see quite clearly that the resulting Vietnamese government that so much blood was spilled over to stop was not a major threat to American security neither was it abusive towards its citizens.
Post by: daveb on July 11, 2002, 03:21:56 pm
Quote
Maybe not but civilian Targets have been attacked. The Red Cross centre was a target, the Pentagon confirmed it (I'll search for the statement if you want) and I can think of other Civilian Targets that have been deliberately attacked.
Just because a building has the words "CIVILIAN" painted on the side of it doesn't mean it isn't housing and supporting enemy soldiers. If a "civilian target" is taken over by enemy soldiers and used as a headquarters its no longer a civilian target, regardless of whether the city maps mark it as such. Your vision is totally myopic on this.
Post by: phreak on July 11, 2002, 03:31:23 pm
oh and sandwich: wait until that USAF vs IAF event comes up again and we have a squad or two of F22s thrown in. Then it will get very interesting. Then again if its -14s and -18s flying, it would be the navy
Post by: CP5670 on July 11, 2002, 03:39:46 pm
Quote
Please get me some evidence of that claim, a quotation from Iraqui Authority (an anouncement by Blair, Bush or ashcrofy won't cut it).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,551104,00.html (just found this off Google)
I can't believe you have not heard this before. :p
Quote
Moral relativism is the weakest of arguments.
w00t; someone agrees with me! :D
Post by: LtNarol on July 11, 2002, 04:10:48 pm
Post by: daveb on July 11, 2002, 04:15:55 pm
Quote
Well in that case Turkey should bare some responsibility. Seems as they've been nearly as oppressive towards the Kurds.
Dollars to donuts you'd never draw this comparison with Israel and Jordan towards the Palestinians. Numerically speaking, Jordan is far more "oppressive". But its easy and convenient to forget that 80% of Palestine is in Jordan isn't it?
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 11, 2002, 04:36:37 pm
Jordan may not want tons of refugees, but all in all it's Israel that's killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, not Jordan. Anything other than that doesn't really matter- Jordanian Palestinians aren't going to give a **** about censorship or lack of rights when their comrades are dying in the cities every day, and they might be next. They have much more important things to deal with than trying to governmentally emulate the nations that are attempting with all their might to do to the Palestinian people what Amerika did to the Indians in her own country.
Post by: Top Gun on July 11, 2002, 04:45:10 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Dollars to donuts you'd never draw this comparison with Israel and Jordan towards the Palestinians. Numerically speaking, Jordan is far more "oppressive". But its easy and convenient to forget that 80% of Palestine is in Jordan isn't it?
...and who gave great support to Jordan and King Hussian? That's really not a very good argument to bring up.
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Just because a building has the words "CIVILIAN" painted on the side of it doesn't mean it isn't housing and supporting enemy soldiers. If a "civilian target" is taken over by enemy soldiers and used as a headquarters its no longer a civilian target, regardless of whether the city maps mark it as such. Your vision is totally myopic on this.
Quote
2. Definition of civilians and civilian Property
Any Person not belonging to the armed forces (see Chapter III, Section I) is considered as a civilian and the same applies in case of doubt as to his status. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.[P. I, 50]
Civilian property is anything which is not a military objective, i.e. which by its nature, location, purpose or use does not effectively contribute to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization would not offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time. Thus, military equipment, a road of strategic importance, a supply column on its way to the army, a civilian building evacuated and reoccupied by combatants are military objectives. In case of doubt, a property which is normally assigned to civilian use should be considered as civilian and must not be attacked.[P. I, 52]
Now the red cross centre was not actually ocupied by the Taliban, it was bombed on the Presumption that it could be. Its bombing violates chapter IV of the Geneva Convention which stated that Civilian Targets and the Red Cross/Crecent and Humanitarian facilities should not be attacked. Or doesn't the American Government Recognise the Geneva Convention Anymore?
Post by: daveb on July 11, 2002, 04:49:53 pm
With that, my agony limit for discussing this issue is done.
Anybody have any cool gun pictures or something? :)
Post by: Zeronet on July 11, 2002, 04:52:17 pm
(http://www.army.mod.uk/img/2rtr/CR2-Moving-1-Small.jpg)
(http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Challenger2_Pics/Challenger2.jpg)
One of the Best MBTs (http://www.army.mod.uk/2rtr/2rtr_today/challenger_2_tank/)
Post by: Kazan on July 11, 2002, 04:55:34 pm
Post by: Styxx on July 11, 2002, 04:56:14 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Anybody have any cool gun pictures or something? :)
Hm, I don't have any cool gun pictures... can it be rocket artillery? :D
(http://www.army-technology.com/contractor_images/avibras/avibras3.jpg)
Post by: Top Gun on July 11, 2002, 04:58:33 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
I'm concerned with the long term effects of neglecting a raving madman with a growing arsenal of mass destruction.
Fair enought but remember who trained members of Al Quaeda and the Taliban to fight the Soviets.
And as to show there's no hard feelings
Post by: daveb on July 11, 2002, 05:09:46 pm
Although I admit this thread is in a relative shambles based on its original intent :)
(http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/b52-strat/images/b52sc007.jpg)
(http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/stennis/sten-heel.jpg)
Post by: Styxx on July 11, 2002, 05:11:39 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Although I admit this thread is in a relative shambles based on its original intent :)
Damn, that would make one fine poster. :D
Post by: phreak on July 11, 2002, 05:16:15 pm
(http://www.jetpix.com/webfiles/army/army13.jpg)
heh.. this better not be faked
(http://www.birdman.org/images/uzimagbig.jpg)
(http://www.birdman.org/images/hnsbig.jpg)
gotta love the MG42 (unless you had to go up against one)
(http://www.gulfcoastarmory.com/shoots/kcr/10-2000/dual-mg42.jpg)
(http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/images/tsmgcat.jpg)
Post by: LtNarol on July 11, 2002, 05:25:40 pm
(http://www.battletanks.com/images/M1_Abrams-1.jpg)
(http://207.234.171.161/armor/m1-blast.jpg)
Post by: Zeronet on July 11, 2002, 05:27:19 pm
Post by: LtNarol on July 11, 2002, 05:31:12 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronetummm....lets see....they're big, they're bad, and they kick @$$?
We could actually discuss the MBTs instead of just posting pics of them :rolleyes:
Post by: Zeronet on July 11, 2002, 05:33:29 pm
http://www.qinetiq.com/markets/defence/future_concepts_and_technologies/case_study_plastic_tank/index.asp
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 11, 2002, 05:34:58 pm
Post by: Grey Wolf on July 11, 2002, 05:37:20 pm
We'll go for Vietnam first. We have one side saying that it was intentional killing of civvies, one side saying collateral. Here's a question for both sides: How can you tell who is a civvie and who is an enemy fighter when they're both attacking you? In Vietnam, they ingnored the villages filled with women, old men, and children. Then those same women, old men, and children attacked the US fighters. Upon the first shot, they are legal targets.
Next, Israel. I have a slightly different view here. On one side (Palestine), we have people committing acts of terrorism. On the other side (Israel), we have the military oppressing an entire people on the basis of the actions of a minority. It's a messy situation, and I'm not going to take sides there, I'm just saying this: There is no clear-cut, black-and-white group of people to blame there.
In conclusion, I'm going to leave you with a quote:
Quote
War is hell.
EDIT: Damn, took too long typing my reply and the subject changed.....
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 11, 2002, 05:38:44 pm
(http://www.theplatoon.com/game/Guns/abakan.jpg)
•AN-94 ABAKAN
This post cold-war weapon of revolutionary design may have a superficial resemblance to the AK-74, and indeed it uses the same ammunition and magazine. The function of the weapon, however, is something completely new and different. What makes this rifle unique is that although its fully automatic rate of fire is only 600 rounds-per-minute, it has a 2 round burst setting that fires at 1,800 rpm. This, combined with a "delayed blowback" system, allows both rounds in the 2rnd burst to be fired before any recoil is felt. Needless to say this results in a drastic improvement in accuracy. Although officially adopted by the Russian military as its main battle rifle, it is doubtful that it will replace the AK-74 in mass production any time soon.
(http://www.theplatoon.com/game/Guns/groza.jpg)
•GROZA
The Groza Assault Rifle is a highly adaptable rifle designed to fulfill many different roles for the Russian Interior Ministry Special Forces troops. Its modular design allows for 4 different configurations: assault rifle, assault carbine, silenced assault rifle, and assault rifle/40mm grenade launcher combo. All necessary parts for modifying the weapon come in one kit. These four configurations all fire 9.39mm SP-6 ammunition, but a variant called the "Groza-1" was developed for the Spetsnaz which fires the AK-47 7.62x39mm ammunition.
(http://www.theplatoon.com/game/Guns/9a-91.jpg)
•9A-91
The 9A-91 is a truly unique weapon. Though its dimensions are smaller than most sub-machine guns, it delivers the full power of an assault rifle. The 9x39mm subsonic ammunition it fires is capable of penetrating most body armor, and is designed to do maximum damage to "soft targets". It's short barrel does have a negative effect on long-range accuracy, but in a CQB operation it is an extremely deadly and effective weapon.
(http://www.theplatoon.com/game/Guns/fnfal.jpg)
•FN-FAL PARA
This rifle of Belgian design is both an esthetic and functional classic, and has been one of the most widely used battle rifles of the 20th century. Its countless variants have been adopted by over 70 countries, including Britain, Australia, Canada, and Germany. It has some shortcomings, including high recoil, weight, and length. But it more than makes up for these with extreme reliability, functionality, and ease of use. One of its more innovative features is an adjustable gas regulator, which allows an operator to direct more or less gas into the system, in order to balance less recoil with better function under adverse climate conditions. It fires NATO standard 7.62mm ammunition, and is fed by a 20 round magazine. The PARA variant features a folding stock.
(http://www.theplatoon.com/game/Guns/bizon.jpg)
•BIZON
The Bizon was designed in part by the legendary Victor Kalashnikov, and has for years served as the standard sub-machinegun for the Russian military and tactical units. Its design is based on the AK-47, but its action is blowback instead of gas operated. Its distinguishing characteristic is the 64 round helical magazine (that's a spiral in laymen’s terms). It is very stable even at a fully-automatic rate of fire, and has preformed effectively in the field, particularly in Spetsnaz and Russian Special Forces operations, including the ongoing conflict in Chechnya where much of the fighting has been CQB.
(http://www.theplatoon.com/game/Guns/Pkm.jpg)
•PKM
The PK general purpose machine gun was originally developed in the 1950's as a replacement to WW2 era soviet machine guns. During the Cold War, the PK-series machine guns were widely distributed all over the world and used in many conflicts. Modifications made the weapon lighter and more accurate, and the PKM variant entered service in 1969. The PKM machine gun fires conventional, armor-piercing, incendiary, and tracer bullets. The PKM machine gun is simple in design, easy to operate and maintain. Many believe it to be unrivalled in the world in terms of reliability and efficiency which has been proven by many years of their employment in all climatic conditions.
(http://www.theplatoon.com/game/Guns/m60.jpg)
•M60
The M60 universal machine gun entered service with the US military in 1950, and its initial design borrowed heavily on WW2 era German machine guns. The M60 has seen heavy action since its inception, particularly in the Vietnam War. Although many soldiers have sworn by "the pig" as it is known, others cite a variety of reliability and fragility problems, particularly with the firing pin. There have even been lawsuits filed against its designers over design flaws which resulted in injury or death. The E3 variant includes a lighter barrel, but this means that the barrel can only fire 100 rounds at a rapid rate before the barrel must be changed or cooled. These and other problems have led to the US military's recent adoption of the 7.62mm M240D as a replacement for the M60.
(http://www.theplatoon.com/game/Guns/psg1.jpg)
•PSG-1
The Heckler & Koch PSG-1 sniper rifle was designed with imput from some of the most successful German snipers from WW2, as well as the British 22nd SAS, the German GSGN, and various other elite special operations and police units. The PSG-1 is known as a "counter-sniper" rifle and is used primarily by antiterrorist units and law-enforcement special-weapons teams. Its superior design and reliability, along with its elegant appearance, make the PSG-1 the world standard for long-range tactical rifles. The rifle comes standard with a Hensoldt 6X fixed-power scope with illuminated reticule. It also features an adjustable butt plate and cheek rest, which allow for a personalized gun fit for almost any physique.
(http://www.theplatoon.com/game/Guns/barrett.jpg)
•M-98
The Barrett Firearms Company have long been recognized as the world leader in heavy caliber semi-automatic rifles. One of their latest creations is the Model 98, designed around the receiver of a traditional bolt action rifle with its heavy receiver. Unlike traditional bolt action rifles, however, the M98 uses a tapped-gas engine. A very efficient muzzle brake comes standard on the weapon, and helps to effectively reduce recoil. The entire stock is made from a fiber glass-reinforced polymer, which results in a relatively lightweight weapon. It is fed from a 10 round box magazine, and fires a .338 Lapua Magnum cartridge.
Post by: CP5670 on July 11, 2002, 05:41:22 pm
Quote
Although I admit this thread is in a relative shambles based on its original intent :)
That's pretty common around here though. :D
Quote
Fair enought but remember who trained members of Al Quaeda and the Taliban to fight the Soviets.
Exactly, that was indeed a very stupid move on the US's part, but at least we should try to correct the mistake now instead of leaving it that way. :p
And when you get down to the fundamentals, today's world really makes no distinction between "civilian" and "military" targets if they are equal parts of a social structure.
Post by: vyper on July 11, 2002, 05:52:21 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronet
Actually smaller tanks could be better. The British Army is testing a plastic tank, which is a lot lighter than most and they are experimenting with Chameleon features and armor that repairs itself.
http://www.qinetiq.com/markets/defence/future_concepts_and_technologies/case_study_plastic_tank/index.asp
This is so cool! Imagine the speed! Imagine the possibilities! LONG LIVE THE EMPIRE!!! :D
*hits self with mallet*
Right, sorry about that...
It is pretty cool though.
Post by: Sandwich on July 11, 2002, 05:52:30 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
No, it's just true and irrefutable that the Palestinians aren't getting slaughtered wholesale in Jordan, and that they aren't fighting a war of liberation against jingoistic, racist invaders who have driven them from their land and impoverished their people in Jordan.
Jordan may not want tons of refugees, but all in all it's Israel that's killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, not Jordan.
:rolleyes: Slaughtered wholesale would be accurate if we were, well, slaughtering them wholesale. But we're not, so don't spout crap, m'kay?
Oh, and - "...killed thousands of Palestinian civilians..."? Where the heck do you get your news from, Radio Al-Aksa? Simple equation for ya:
Human being + gun pointed at me + bullets flying at me = immediate threat. Civillian or not is like asking what the color nine smells like - totally irrelevant question. If I see a person with a bomb strapped to him/her, or with a gun shooting at innoccent bystanders, I will shoot him/her dead, regardless of whether he/she was a civillian, "undercover" millitary, senior citizen or child: THREAT.
Now when Palestinian civillians take up arms and start shooting at soldiers, they will be shot back at. Period. And I don't understand why it's so hard for the world to grasp such a simple concept.
EDIT: Almost forgot - Israel's Merkava Mk. 4 MBT is the best desert MBT. No question. :D
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 11, 2002, 05:52:58 pm
Post by: Styxx on July 11, 2002, 05:58:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
EDIT: Almost forgot - Israel's Merkava Mk. 4 MBT is the best desert MBT. No question. :D
Bah, that's just because development of the Osório was discontinued... :D
Post by: Sandwich on July 11, 2002, 06:02:51 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Styxx
Bah, that's just because development of the Osório was discontinued... :D
Hmmm... never heard of it before, but dang! is it ugly! :p
Post by: Styxx on July 11, 2002, 06:09:34 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
Hmmm... never heard of it before, but dang! is it ugly! :p
Ugly?! Come on! :D
http://www.inventabrasil.hpg.ig.com.br/osorio.htm
The first prototypes were being viewed as potentially the best MBTs of their time (back in 1988, I think), but the US virtually put the company to bankrupcy by imposing the M1 to all potential clients of the Osório. The Brazilian military industry kinda died after the 80's... We don't really have the need for a large military, and with the US pushing their own products (through threats of economic embargos and such) stops our industries from having a good international market.
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 11, 2002, 07:38:37 pm
I like they way it looks. And it has pretty good range, looks like it has more range than the Soviet tanks.
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 11, 2002, 08:16:59 pm
Think they'll go down to $700? 'S all I've got...
Post by: Styxx on July 11, 2002, 08:42:44 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
So... what you're saying is that they've got all these nice, relatively new tanks lying around... that nobody wants... and they can't seem to sell... hmm? ;7
Think they'll go down to $700? 'S all I've got...
Well, it's not that nobody want them... It's more that the US doesn't want them to sell the tanks. ;)
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 11, 2002, 09:49:24 pm
Post by: Top Gun on July 12, 2002, 03:59:10 am
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
We'll go for Vietnam first. We have one side saying that it was intentional killing of civvies, one side saying collateral. Here's a question for both sides: How can you tell who is a civvie and who is an enemy fighter when they're both attacking you? In Vietnam, they ingnored the villages filled with women, old men, and children. Then those same women, old men, and children attacked the US fighters. Upon the first shot, they are legal targets.
Well in that case what the hell was the US doing there when the Majority of the people wanted communism? what right did they have to invade? Now we can bring up the subject of imperialism because I think that war fitted the criteria for it quite nicely.
Post by: Sandwich on July 12, 2002, 04:19:08 am
Quote
Originally posted by Styxx
Ugly?! Come on! :D
Compared to the Merkava, it's ugly. :D
http://www.airshow.mod.gov.il/eurosatory/merkava.htm
(http://www.voodoo.cz/merkava/images/mk3/mk3_4.jpg)
(http://unjourailleurs.free.fr/Photos/Militaire/merkava_profil.jpg)
(http://www.greendevils.com.pl/t_h_c/merkava/merk_3.jpg)
She even flies..... :D
(http://www.voodoo.cz/merkava/images/mk3/mk3a_6.jpg)
Post by: Kitsune on July 12, 2002, 05:54:49 am
Quote
She even flies...
Man, when that thing comes down I do NOT want to be nearby... Just feel sorry for the little critters who may be living in burrows around there. Groundhog pancakes...
Post by: Zeronet on July 12, 2002, 06:44:32 am
(http://www.army.mod.uk/img/armyaircorps/images/apache1.GIF)
http://www.army.mod.uk/armyaircorps/apache.htm
Post by: Styxx on July 12, 2002, 09:06:38 am
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
Compared to the Merkava, it's ugly. :D
Pfft. That's what you think... :p :D
Post by: Styxx on July 12, 2002, 09:08:48 am
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
She even flies..... :D
SHE?!? :wtf:
Post by: phreak on July 12, 2002, 09:16:20 am
(http://www.army-technology.com/projects/comanche/images/comanche13.jpg)
Post by: CP5670 on July 12, 2002, 09:23:12 am
Quote
Well in that case what the hell was the US doing there when the Majority of the people wanted communism? what right did they have to invade? Now we can bring up the subject of imperialism because I think that war fitted the criteria for it quite nicely.
They had a "right" to do anything they wanted to do, as did any other nation out there; right and wrong are meaningless. :p As I said before though, it was indeed a useless expenditure of resources for something that they would have had nothing to gain from, which is really all that matters.
Post by: LtNarol on July 12, 2002, 10:30:46 am
Quote
Originally posted by PhReAkApaches have far more firepower, and Cobras have that nice little sensor ball :p
this thing is much better than the apache
(http://www.army-technology.com/projects/comanche/images/comanche13.jpg)
Post by: phreak on July 12, 2002, 10:43:52 am
Post by: Zeronet on July 12, 2002, 10:58:31 am
Post by: Top Gun on July 12, 2002, 11:03:25 am
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
They had a "right" to do anything they wanted to do, as did any other nation out there; right and wrong are meaningless. :p As I said before though, it was indeed a useless expenditure of resources for something that they would have had nothing to gain from, which is really all that matters.
Fair Enough but what we have to agree on is that Right and Wrong must be assigned a meaning by us in order for us to live healthy and happy lives. Otherwise we wouldn't live for very long (as a race). The Vietnam war Flouted most peoples' perception of the above. It was needless, against the will of the vast majority of the people there, caused countless suffering to millions of people (poth intentional and colateral) and all because America happened to disagree with the Ideals of Communism.
Post by: CP5670 on July 12, 2002, 12:08:06 pm
Quote
Fair Enough but what we have to agree on is that Right and Wrong must be assigned a meaning by us in order for us to live healthy and happy lives. Otherwise we wouldn't live for very long (as a race). The Vietnam war Flouted most peoples' perception of the above. It was needless, against the will of the vast majority of the people there, caused countless suffering to millions of people (poth intentional and colateral) and all because America happened to disagree with the Ideals of Communism.
Not exactly. These concepts of "right" and "wrong" developed as merely the first laws of the human civilization. Even in today's world, they work out fine and usually coincide with the objectives of the society, but not always, since the world has been changing ever since while these remained static. Especially, as Codedog said before, when a war begins, all these artificial constructs of morality and whatever else go right out the window. The Vietnamese might not have liked it or whatever, but that really does not matter at all as long as they cannot do anything; this is simply the way nations operate in today's society and any country that abides by some silly rules will end up causing damage to themselves. Most importantly, there were lots of other people in the world who thought that this was indeed the right thing to do, so who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Morality is not an absolute idea.
Post by: Sandwich on July 12, 2002, 12:39:26 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronet
But all tanks fear this, especially Iraqi tanks. :D
(http://www.army.mod.uk/img/armyaircorps/images/apache1.GIF)
http://www.army.mod.uk/armyaircorps/apache.htm
Hehehe ;7 The Merkava Mk. 4 is able to take out helicopters with it's main turret (given the right circumstances, ie. the turret's elevation has to be able to point at the heli - duh). :D
Post by: LtNarol on July 12, 2002, 01:31:30 pm
Post by: Top Gun on July 12, 2002, 01:37:34 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
Not exactly. These concepts of "right" and "wrong" developed as merely the first laws of the human civilization. Even in today's world, they work out fine and usually coincide with the objectives of the society, but not always, since the world has been changing ever since while these remained static. Especially, as Codedog said before, when a war begins, all these artificial constructs of morality and whatever else go right out the window. The Vietnamese might not have liked it or whatever, but that really does not matter at all as long as they cannot do anything; this is simply the way nations operate in today's society and any country that abides by some silly rules will end up causing damage to themselves. Most importantly, there were lots of other people in the world who thought that this was indeed the right thing to do, so who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Morality is not an absolute idea.
I never said it was but the point I was making was that for America to Condem Iraq's invasion of Kuwait after prticipating in one of the bloodiest wars without just (in my perception of it at least) cause, in the last 50 years is Hypocracy.
For debate to actually exist, common ground must be found and I'd like to hope that everyone in this discussion at least shares the basic rudimentary values that civilisation has, rightly or wrongly, precieved as right and wrong over the course of history (aka. death should be avoided, happiness should be obtained not at the expense of others etc.).
Now we can always argue over the justness of the cause. The only possible just cause for America to attack Vietnam was that it could be precieved as a threat to American/Allied security or was brutally repressive. Was Communism in Vietnam a real threat to American National securityor brutally repressive? Was war declared because Vietnamese Communism was genuinely precieved as a threat or just through hatred of their Ideals?
Now applying that logic we could of course say that Al Quaeda are not morally wrong, just have interests that conflict with that of the United states and most non religious Zealots. These ideas obviously confict more radically than most. But it's clearly in America's interest to defend itself to ensure that noithing like this ever happens again minimizing casualties as much as possible. The question is "Has America done enough now to prevent such an attack?".
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 01:47:21 pm
Of coure, we're still bastardly towards most Middle Eastern and African nations (read: oil tyrranies, like in Nigeria, embargoes, etc.), so it won't be long 'till everything's back to normal.
Post by: Top Gun on July 12, 2002, 02:19:41 pm
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 02:27:56 pm
Quote
we both have aggressively expansionist, intolerant doctrines and the world isn't big enough for two jingoistic imperialists any more.
Back this up with a single shred of evidence. Name _one_ region of any kind the US has "imperialized" in the last 100 years. I'll give you a hint : the answer is zero. The US is entirely _not_ expansionist, even in the "benevolent" sense.
And intolerance? I'd like to see the explanation of that one too. If we're so "intolerant" why do we have the most diverse mix of cultures of any nation in the world by FAR. Also, name a single instance where we've been "intolerant" of another country doing anything outside of genocide, invasion of its neighbors, or imperialist expansion by other powers.
That characterization is pure fantasy. Militarily speaking, the US takes action in two very specific cases. To defend others (you know, like the last 3 wars we were in where we basically in the game to save 3 seperate Muslim peoples), or to prevent unstable or aggressive regimes which are a threat to us from getting a foothold.
And as for our "bastardliness" towards ME and African countries : Aren't you in the crowd that says political and diplomatic solutions are the only way to fix things - as opposed to war? Begging, pleading and reasoning mean nothing to a guy like Saddam or Arafat who are willing to let their own people live in squalor to further their own political agendas. Hence the embargo. So then - what's your proposed solution? Do nothing and watch the genocides/slavery/oppression continue unchecked? I'll give you a hint as to who else has a "hands 100% off policy". His name is Pat Buchanan. You can't have it both ways. If you think the world sucks now, you can't even imagine the horrors you'd see if all the Western powers said "well, all we're willing to do are send the occasional ambassador".
Post by: Top Gun on July 12, 2002, 02:36:05 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Back this up with a single shred of evidence. Name _one_ region of any kind the US has "imperialized" in the last 100 years. I'll give you a hint : the answer is zero. The US is entirely _not_ expansionist, even in the "benevolent" sense.
And intolerance? I'd like to see the explanation of that one too. If we're so "intolerant" why do we have the most diverse mix of cultures of any nation in the world by FAR. Also, name a single instance where we've been "intolerant" of another country doing anything outside of genocide, invasion of its neighbors, or imperialist expansion by other powers.
I've said this time and time again Vietnam. Is the most blatant example, then there's other examples where "invasion of its neighbors, or imperialist expansion by other powers" has been tolerated, encouraged and supoported by america. Arming Saddam in the First place to fight Iran is one example. You think he made most of his chemical weapons himself :rolleyes: What about the training and indoctorination of Taliban and Al Quaeda Members to fight the soviets?
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 12, 2002, 02:38:11 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Top Gun
Well in that case what the hell was the US doing there when the Majority of the people wanted communism? what right did they have to invade? Now we can bring up the subject of imperialism because I think that war fitted the criteria for it quite nicely.
Now your from the UK right? Well, I don't think Britian should talk about imperialism. Seems they had a nice little empire awhile back.
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 02:39:37 pm
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
Now, last time I checked there were no voting booths, or Senators from Vietnam. Nor do I see Vietnam sending us part of their GDP. Vietnam/Cambodia was in fact a clear example of us taking proactive steps to secure the area from the expansion of Communism. Ask some Cambodian children about how they felt about the Soviet Union. Oh that's right you can't because the Khmer Rouge kicked most of their heads in when they were infants :/
As for arming Saddam and the Mujahedin - read my previous post. We do what we think is the best thing for securing things at the time. We can't see 20 years into the future with much accuracy. But again, if you'd rather do _nothing_ except bluster at the UN conference table (which will do nothing to sway the real madmen of the world) feel free.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-Jeff Cooper
(Coop is 'da man by the way)
Post by: Top Gun on July 12, 2002, 02:42:17 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Now your from the UK right? Well, I don't think Britian should talk about imperialism. Seems they had a nice little empire awhile back.
Did i ever say that I supported it? No It's nice that you feel the need to judge every British person by the actions comitted by a ruling elite that was certainly not representitive of the majority of British people. Hell Elections weren't even fair in those days.
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 02:46:37 pm
Intolerant? What kind of tolerant nation places embargoes in the way we do? What kind of tolerant nation attempts to keep its minorities in ghettoes by incentive and economic enslavement, and trains cops to hunt them like dogs and call it "profiling"?
What kind of "tolerant" nation sets up the bigoted religious beliefs of the powerful few as the impartial law of all? What crime is polygamy? Grass-smoking? Loitering?
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 12, 2002, 02:50:19 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Top Gun
Did i ever say that I supported it? No It's nice that you feel the need to judge every British person by the actions comitted by a ruling elite that was certainly not representitive of the majority of British people. Hell Elections weren't even fair in those days.
And this gives you the right to judge America and its policies? Rest of Europe and Britian needs to keep to its own business and worry about their own problems and not ours.
Post by: Top Gun on July 12, 2002, 02:53:31 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Now, last time I checked there were no voting booths, or Senators from Vietnam.
That's an irrelevant point because America lost the war, who knows what it would have turned out like if that hadn't.
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Vietnam/Cambodia was in fact a clear example of us taking proactive steps to secure the area from the expansion of Communism. Ask some Cambodian children about how they felt about the Soviet Union. Oh that's right you can't because the Khmer Rouge kicked most of their heads in when they were infants :/
First of all the Khamer Rouge had nothing to do with the Soviets or the Vietnamese. Yes they were highly insane but ironically it was the Vietnamese (evil communists) that removed them from power. Get your facts straight. If you're going to play the emotion card then I'd like to ask what most of the the rural Vietnamese infants thought about America's war effort; Only I can't because they were Napalmed by the americans or Poisoned by leaf removing solution :rolleyes:
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
As for arming Saddam and the Mujahedin - read my previous post. We do what we think is the best thing for securing things at the time.
Even if it means arming Fanatics. It was well known that the people who were armed were not rational but as long as it prevents the expansion of communism or Un friendly nation then It's worth all the suffereing inflicted on the population by heavily armed madmen.
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 02:54:18 pm
Quote
What kind of tolerant nation attempts to keep its minorities in ghettoes by incentive and economic enslavement, and trains cops to hunt them like dogs and call it "profiling"?
I think you might need to adjust your tin foil hat. If you really believe there's some uber Whitey conspiracy to keep the black man down, I respectfully suggest you've been watching too much MTV. Almost every single minority group in this country has excelled. This is especially evident in non-American African immigrants. Historically they are very successful here. In fact there are quite a few essays out there about the growing hostilities between immigrant Africans and African Americans because the immigrants don't seem to be suffering from the same problems. I guess our anti-minority policy must be pretty darn selective.
Quote
What kind of "tolerant" nation sets up the bigoted religious beliefs of the powerful few as the impartial law of all? What crime is polygamy? Grass-smoking? Loitering?
Name some of these bigoted religious beliefs which are written in law. Disallowing loitering is a sign of oppression? Come on... :) FWIW, I don't agree with the War on Some Drugs at all. As for polygamy, I'd hardly say that represents the bias of only the "powerful few".
Post by: Top Gun on July 12, 2002, 02:56:27 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
What crime is polygamy? Grass-smoking? Loitering?
Add the "DMCA" to that list and the scourge of WIPO
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 02:59:02 pm
Tell me why marijuana smokers get longer jail terms than murderers, or why there are more of them in jail than pretty much any other type of criminal.
EDIT: It doesn't matter whether it's the prudishness of only a few or all but one. if you do no harm, it's not a crime, it's harassment by state. In any nation that was truly tolerant, I could go out absolutely naked if I wanted to- little old ladies in tennis shoes are not SUPPOSED to be the arbiters of law, sorry to say. There's a difference between that and hitting someone with a fire axe.
Post by: Top Gun on July 12, 2002, 02:59:22 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Name some of these bigoted religious beliefs which are written in law.
What about "Fornication and other sexually repressive Laws", "Abstinence only education"?
Post by: Zeronet on July 12, 2002, 03:01:11 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Now your from the UK right? Well, I don't think Britian should talk about imperialism. Seems they had a nice little empire awhile back.
It was 25% of the worlds population and land and if i want to talk about the Empire and imperialism i will :).
Still Americans business in regards to the War on Terrorism is British problem, Bin Laden tried to hijack planes in Britian and use them to blow up Big Ben etc, it was lucky we grounded all the flights and also we are helping in this war and we'll be helping in Iraq when we finish the job started in 1991 and nobody is gonna stop that happening, not all the hippies protesting at Nuclear sub bases, not the Euro Zone.
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 03:01:41 pm
Not that this is particularly relevant to this discussion, but : Its worth noting - the DMCA, the PMRC, and the highly insane CBDTPA were and are _all_ sponsored by Liberal Democrats
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 12, 2002, 03:03:50 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Top Gun
What about "Fornication and other sexually repressive Laws", "Abstinence only education"?
Because of the deadly sexual transmitted diseases that are everywhere. I don't know about in your country but in ours or at least in my state you still have to take a blood test when you apply for a marriage lisence.
The word "Under God" in the pledge did not come about till the 1950's when the US was up against the atheist dominate USSR. Banning the pledge is a little too far. Just using the old pledge would be better.
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 03:04:03 pm
It's an act of unforgivable rudeness, where I come from, to advocate the overthrow of any nation you're not currently in. I mean, really. What'd the Iraquis do to you?
Post by: Top Gun on July 12, 2002, 03:06:35 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Not that this is particularly relevant to this discussion, but : Its worth noting - the DMCA, the PMRC, and the highly insane CBDTPA were and are _all_ sponsored by Liberal Democrats
I never once expressed support for the democrats, both parties (Democrats and Republicans) are equally sold out, just to different people.
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 03:08:16 pm
Quote
Tell me why marijuana smokers get longer jail terms than murderers, or why there are more of them in jail than pretty much any other type of criminal.
Like I said, I don't believe in the War on Some Drugs.
These are all horrible, vile, atrocious violations you've listed. Having to say the Pledge? Horror! You're going to go ahead and call "anti-freedom" because the overwhelming majority of Americans (who are overwhelmingly Christian) don't support polygamy? That's just grasping at straws. I don't know what they're putting in the water these days, but how the younger generation has been so thoroughly convinced that the US is "oppressive" is baffling to me. Try whining about "I don't like religious zealots" in Saudi Arabia and you'll have the idea of freedom driven home very quickly.
Post by: Zeronet on July 12, 2002, 03:09:35 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
"Helping in Iraq"? By overthrowing the local government and installing one that pretends that the nation doesn't hate us? It's none of our business what Saddam does in his own country- he took it over, the people are still the majority, if they wanted him out they'd throw him out.
It's an act of unforgivable rudeness, where I come from, to advocate the overthrow of any nation you're not currently in. I mean, really. What'd the Iraquis do to you?
They tried to, the rebellion was strong after 1991, when they thought we'd help them, he killed them and used chemcial weapons on them majority means nothing, he has the troops and what did the Iraqius do to us? Well ask the confirmed victims of Saddamns dirty scud he fired at our troops.
Saddamn has biological and chemical weapons and if we do nothing he'll use them and the develop nukes and you can watch London get nuked because you thought it was "rude" to stop it. How can you be so blind to what that madman is doing? He doesnt ban UN weapons Inspectors because he really believes they are spies, he bans them so they dont find he weapons of MASS destruction.
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 03:10:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Because of the deadly sexual transmitted diseases that are everywhere. I don't know about in your country but in ours or at least in my state you still have to take a blood test when you apply for a marriage application.
Is it YOUR business what so-and-so catches from screwing their unmarried neighbor? First of all, these were all illegal BEFORE VDs flourished, second of all once you're an adult, YOU'RE A ****ING ADULT. CAPABLE OF TAKING CARE OF YOURSELF. If you're not, you belong in a mental institution, not society. If a fully capable adult can't take measures to avoid getting diseases from ****ing, or can't stop on their own if need be, then it's their own fault. Having the law lead them by the hand is insulting to the intelligence, as well as despotic. It frankly isn't your business if I bang 30 hookers a night and catch every below-the-waist disease known to man. It never is, no matter who you are. Sure, if I'm sleeping with you, I have a moral obligation to tell you I'm screwed up, but that's a personal moral issue, not a legal one, and my partners can take measures to find out, anyway (such as the aforementioned blood tests). Just because there's no law regulating my ucking habits doesn't mean I'm necessarily gonna run around humping anything with two or more legs anyway. If it does, like I said- I'm not a consenting adult, I'm an imbecile. Still my problem, not yours.
Post by: TheVirtu on July 12, 2002, 03:11:40 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
"Helping in Iraq"? By overthrowing the local government and installing one that pretends that the nation doesn't hate us? It's none of our business what Saddam does in his own country- he took it over, the people are still the majority, if they wanted him out they'd throw him out.
It's an act of unforgivable rudeness, where I come from, to advocate the overthrow of any nation you're not currently in. I mean, really. What'd the Iraquis do to you?
Yes smart idea, leave Iraq alone and let them acquire weapons of mass destruction and USE THEM ON US!
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 03:12:04 pm
Quote
It's none of our business what Saddam does in his own country- he took it over, the people are still the majority, if they wanted him out they'd throw him out.
Oh really now? And I suppose there was nothing we should have done to Hitler because he was killing Jews "in his own country". How can you possibly think that there wouldn't be many more megadeaths every year if the West didn't intervene? How can you say its the morally right thing to do?
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 03:13:50 pm
Quote
I never once expressed support for the democrats, both parties (Democrats and Republicans) are equally sold out, just to different people.
I know :) I was just trying to draw the comparison between liberalism and _real_ anti-freedom.
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 03:16:40 pm
Zeronet: They tried, and failed. They were a minority (rebels always are). But the Iraqi people far outnumber soldiers and poison gas bombs. It's their business, not ours. I think we all know about the last time the U.S. tried to be Superman coming to a nation's rescue. People have been talking about it the whole time. And, as I recall, it turned out the people of that nation didn't want to be "saved", after all... it starts with a "V" and ends with an "M". They chose their own government, so we massacred them. We thought it was an oppressive, murderous government then, too, if you'll remember
Post by: Top Gun on July 12, 2002, 03:18:05 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Try whining about "I don't like religious zealots" in Saudi Arabia and you'll have the idea of freedom driven home very quickly.
Yes and why is the Saudi government continually having oil bought from it and having arms sold to them by the west? I'd sooner be in Iraq and express a dislike for religious Zealots, it's a surprizingly secular country. Saddam's teen role model was Stalin (who wasn't exactly a religious Zealot). Not that that any of this means he's not a bad leader, it's just interesting.
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 03:20:20 pm
Post by: Zeronet on July 12, 2002, 03:21:06 pm
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 03:21:59 pm
Quote
aveb: So, your argument is "Well, other countries are even worse than us!!"? That's just weak, I've gotta say. If despots couldn't think up better, they'd be dead in a hurry. So why's it a legitimate excuse here?
No, I'm not. Its apples and oranges. To even try to suggest there's some linear graph that you can draw between "doesn't allow people to smoke weed" and "beheads homosexuals" is 100% bogus.
Your argument is this : we're so morally and oppressively corrupt that we have no right to be enforcing our will on other nations. Correct?
You're basing this argument on "oppressions" in the US such as disallowing pot and being anti-polygamy. Those are moral judgements. There's no similarities between that and keeping people as slaves. Again - moral relativism as an argument is vacuous.
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 03:22:17 pm
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 03:23:44 pm
Quote
We didn't care about Hitler when it was restricted to Germany. In fact, the people of the U.S. actively supported Hitler's anti-semitism at the time. We didn't fight WWII over the Holocaust- we didn't even know about it.
But according to you, even if we did know about it, we should have just left well enough alone because we weren't in immediate danger?
Post by: Zeronet on July 12, 2002, 03:24:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Zeronet:...For the same reason the Whatever of, say, Albania doesn't send a task force to kill Bush.
What because there is no reason to and Bush isnt a evil madman intent on destroying the west for crimes against Islam?
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 03:25:03 pm
Slavery IS a moral judgement, BTW. The plantation owner sees it as perfectly justified. Are you trying to say that you are the final, omniscient source on objective right and wrong, that you determine what is moral and immoral? That's not just arrogant, that's literally playing God.
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 03:25:21 pm
Post by: Top Gun on July 12, 2002, 03:25:27 pm
Quote
Because of the deadly sexual transmitted diseases that are everywhere. I don't know about in your country but in ours or at least in my state you still have to take a blood test when you apply for a marriage application.
You would have though that all of this kind of crap would have stopped as soon as effective contraception became available (aka. not restricted by zealots, the Greeks and Romans readily used Condoms) again. Anyone promoting Abstinence as a way of avoiding pregnancy/STDs shouldn't kid themselvs that that's the real reason why they're doing it.
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 03:29:07 pm
Quote
Then why use it? It's your own argument.
Wait, how did this become _my_ argument? You're the one who posted "none of our business what Saddam does in his own country- he took it over, the people are still the majority, if they wanted him out they'd throw him out. " I'm saying that extending that logic to Hitler (where the connection between Saddam and Hitler is demonstrable) clearly demonstrates the emptiness of the argument.
Quote
You're going to tell me that people who deny homosexuals the right to marry or have sex over here are right, while people who deny homosexuals the right to state that they are homosexual "over there" are wrong?
The sophistry is running _way_ high here. You're spinning "beheading homosexuals" into "denying them the right to state what they are" and then taking that sanitized statement and comparing it with "disallowing homosexual marriages", _and_ ignoring the fact that our country is actively changing to accomodate different lifestyles. :/
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 03:31:50 pm
About the Holocaust- it really didn't start until AFTER Germany had begun invading everything, anyway. Including our allies. So even if we'd known about it and had not been attacked, we would have gone in anyway sooner or later. Pearl Harbor was more of an excuse than anything else- those elements of the US not behind Hitler were just itching to blow some foreigners away (we really were a lovely country back then, eh? The eyes of historians have no mercy). But, we were threatened with invasion (as we would have been soon enough anyway) and that's why we went to war.
Post by: Top Gun on July 12, 2002, 03:32:38 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
I think my fingers are going to fall off from furious typing :)
Don't worry, this is just preparation for the next religious debate that comes round once every so often :)
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 03:34:28 pm
Doesn't even begin to answer the question of "if we knew Hitler was doing it, how can you justify your we-can't-interfere-in-his-business argument?" :)
A change then : Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. Why should we have (by your reasoning) just left well enough alone. C'mon, I'm trying to get you to say what you don't want to say......
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 03:37:23 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Wait, how did this become _my_ argument?
You were the one saying that we were better than some other nations, and that thus we were "right". THAT'S "moral relativism", not pointing out that poking our nose where it doesn't belong is how we get it chopped off.
Who beheads homosexuals, anyway? Some nations arrest them as homosexuals- thus they stay closeted. Our nation only arrrests them if they do not choose the Catholic-dictated (and the Catholics were the open-minded ones) life of chastity- so we prevent them from having sex, which is pretty much the action that defines homosexuality. See now?
And like hell we're "trying to accomodate them". If we were trying, their basic rights would be valid in more than two states. If we were trying, we wouldn't have only moved to let them be treated as human beings after they had demonstrated that they were as noisy, powerful, and, politically and possibly numerically speaking, as large a minority as blacks were when civil rights caught on.
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 03:40:22 pm
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 03:43:57 pm
Quote
You were the one saying that we were better than some other nations, and that thus we were "right". THAT'S "moral relativism",
It most definitely is _not_. Moral relativism is trying to define a gray area between two extremes where there is none and using that to justify any ol' argument. Like - "sardines are living creatures _just like humans_. We don't net and eat humans do we? So why do we let the sardine atrocities continue?" By stating "we are in the right" and "they are in the wrong" I'm making a clear judgement not trying to equate one as the other multiplied by some arbitrary factor.
Quote
And like hell we're "trying to accomodate them". If we were trying, their basic rights would be valid in more than two states.
Two more than there were 10 years ago. I'm not saying its fast. Of course there's resistance. Many people have religious problems with homosexuality. But don't forget, if you're _truly_ tolerant you have to understand that their beliefs actually have weight - and you need to compromise. Otherwise you're just operating on an agenda.
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 03:45:06 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Yeah. It wasn't "ethnic cleansing" in the Holocaust sense of the word that was going on in the Balkans, anyway. More of a race-based civil war that had been going on for decades, if not centuries. It wasn't our business to prod into their Hatfield-and-McCoy feuding, and it matters not in the least that they chose to draw the battle lines based on geneaology, rather than property. That's their thing. They'd been doing it forever. So?
Well, at least you have clarity. If you can sit by and say "I'm tolerant! Whee!" while the mass graves are dug that's uh, fine with me I guess.
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 03:52:29 pm
I can abide by homophobes, even try to see where they are coming from, but neither side does me any harm, so I'm all for letting both do as they please unless they DO. Domestically, the only crime should be the one that directly harms some other non-consenting party (I'm not talking about gambling the family's savings away, that's the family's problem for giving total access to someone with an addictive personality, anyway). Internationally, NONE OF IT IS ANY OF OUR BUSINESS. The same moral rules can't apply between countries in people- in the domestic theater, if you see your neighbor hit his wife, you might want to help her. Internationally, you wait ffor the wife to brain the asshole with a saucepan.
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 03:57:46 pm
Quote
So, you're willing to compromise with homophobes but not those who are equally unpleasant towards Serbs?:wtf:
C'mon, surely you can recognize the relativism here. You're equating Christians who don't want to have homosexuality espoused as "normal" to an army running around massacring and burying people in a genocidal manner? While one may be morally suspicious or even repulsive - its not even the same galaxy supercluster as genocide.
> Internationally, NONE OF IT IS ANY OF OUR BUSINESS.
::shrug:: I disagree. When those ICBM's Iraq is working on are pointed at your house, it will very rapidly become your business. You may feel morally superior but you're still dead.
"Gun control is the idea that a woman raped and strangled with her panty hose is somehow morally superior than one with a smoking gun explaining to the cops how the dead rapist got that hole in his head". Same philosophy here. You shouldn't moralize yourself into suicide.
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 04:02:17 pm
However, were there any evidence that he HAD nukes and WAS preparing to blow us into the stratosphere (Just who, I wonder? We're an extremely large nation. He could aim for DC, I suppose, and were he really, really advanced the shockwave would just about reach the Pentagon), invasion would be justified.
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 04:05:28 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
So, you're assuming that, while WE have nukes, we're RESPONSIBLE enough to be entrusted with them, while if our enemy nations had them, they would even ignore the inevitable prospect of MAD in their haste to push the button? Come now. Saddam may be a psycho and a despot, but his actions show he's no idiot. He's at least as safe with a nuke as we are.
Ah. And that's why all those SCUDs were fired intentionally at civilians during the gulf war. But yes, I _do_ trust us to have them, and few others. The nations of Europe, yes. Japan, yes. The rest of the world has shown too much bloodlust in recent times for me to feel comfortable with them wielding them. One of Iran's bigtime Imam's several years back made a statement to the effect that once Iran had nuclear weapons, the "Israel problem would be solved". Call me crazy, but that seems rather threatening.
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 04:10:56 pm
Anyway. SCUDS do not nukes make. There is a definite, multiple-megaton, hundred-thousand-rad, and a 30,000X retaliation difference. All nations recognize this, except a few who aren't ever gonna get nukes, anyhow. Besides, we haven't been too stingy with the subnuclear daisycutters recently ourselves, and lots of the bombs tested in Afghanistan killed a lot more civilians than any SCUD, albeit mostly accidentially.
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 04:53:05 pm
Post by: phreak on July 12, 2002, 04:59:35 pm
you sure dave?
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 05:06:10 pm
(http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/m2-ground.jpg)
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 05:14:21 pm
(http://brainzipper.com/albums/hall/aat.sized.jpg)
Post by: CP5670 on July 12, 2002, 05:16:38 pm
Quote
I never said it was but the point I was making was that for America to Condem Iraq's invasion of Kuwait after prticipating in one of the bloodiest wars without just (in my perception of it at least) cause, in the last 50 years is Hypocracy.
Yes, it is indeed hypocrisy, but who cares? As long as you can make people believe that it is true all is well, and the common man can be tricked easily. The problem here was that the true cause behind it was not really in American long-term interests.
Quote
For debate to actually exist, common ground must be found and I'd like to hope that everyone in this discussion at least shares the basic rudimentary values that civilisation has, rightly or wrongly, precieved as right and wrong over the course of history (aka. death should be avoided, happiness should be obtained not at the expense of others etc.).
Well I never assume such things, because everyone in the world will have their own idea of morals and a logically consistent conclusion cannot arise from contradictory assumptions.
Quote
Was war declared because Vietnamese Communism was genuinely precieved as a threat or just through hatred of their Ideals?
Most likely it was hatred of the ideals. Like I said earlier, I do agree with you that the US should have stayed out of that conflict, but for different reasons.
Quote
Now applying that logic we could of course say that Al Quaeda are not morally wrong, just have interests that conflict with that of the United states and most non religious Zealots. These ideas obviously confict more radically than most. But it's clearly in America's interest to defend itself to ensure that noithing like this ever happens again minimizing casualties as much as possible. The question is "Has America done enough now to prevent such an attack?".
The answer to that is: of course not. Even if the US completely wipes out every other nation out there they would not have done "enough" to prevent such a thing. I would say that getting rid of anti-US administrations in these nations and installing pro-Western guys (even if they are just as "morally bad") is good enough in practice. And yes, that is exactly the logic I am using, because it is the most objective way of thinking about such things.
Quote
Pat Buchanan
:p this guy is quite a character. :D
Quote
I've said this time and time again Vietnam. Is the most blatant example, then there's other examples where "invasion of its neighbors, or imperialist expansion by other powers" has been tolerated, encouraged and supoported by america.
Sure it has, and that is perfectly fine if they are doing it in their own interest in the end. All of the instances that the US supported outside nations in imperialistic behavior was when they were its allies so to keep friendly relations with them.
Quote
Even if it means arming Fanatics. It was well known that the people who were armed were not rational but as long as it prevents the expansion of communism or Un friendly nation then It's worth all the suffereing inflicted on the population by heavily armed madmen.
Of course it does! Everything done by a sensible nation is in the interest of that nation only. This time, I like the means but not the end - the anti-communist craze was unfounded.
Quote
It's none of our business what Saddam does in his own country- he took it over, the people are still the majority, if they wanted him out they'd throw him out.
Everything and nothing is everyone's business. :p
Quote
but how the younger generation has been so thoroughly convinced that the US is "oppressive" is baffling to me.
It is mostly likely because the US has become successful; if you have heard of Schumpeter's methods, it can be seen from that why people criticize it. ;)
And regarding this issue of government intervention in private affairs, when you get down to it in the end, what individuals do is certainly the government's business to maintain a productive society. If everyone in the nation started to use some new narcotic drug and everyone started dying, should the administration just stand by? The only society that can give complete freedom to its people is no society at all, or in other words, an anarchy, which in turn would stall the progress of knowledge. Stop thinking of individuals and society dualistically. :p
Post by: LtNarol on July 12, 2002, 05:17:52 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9They werent thinking, they hardly ever do when it comes to messing with developing nations. They screwed over the entire India subcontinent, they ticked off the Chinese beyond measure with the Opium War, they sectioned off Africa into nations with total disregard to the nomadic migration routes and tribal borders...of course, they seem to have learned since all that.
Sometimes I wonder what the British were THINKING in doing what they did...
Post by: phreak on July 12, 2002, 05:19:36 pm
(http://www.batteryb.com/webmaster/cannonpictures/M109-12.jpg)
(http://home.rochester.rr.com/argyllsutherland/gallery/flamethrower.jpg)
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 12, 2002, 05:20:25 pm
Post by: CP5670 on July 12, 2002, 05:20:36 pm
Quote
If everyone in the counrty had a sudden desire for suicide, yes, it is the government's job to aid them in that. The government serves the people, not the other way around.
No, any society works both ways. Just as the cells and the organism serve each other, the same goes for a society and its people. The individual human is not the ultimate unit; as I said before, don't think dualistically. :D
Post by: vyper on July 12, 2002, 06:17:03 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
I guess it is true that Pakistan would not have been created in the first place if it weren't for the British (who stirred up the religious sentiments), but I'm not holding anything against them for that; it is just that I am not sure what their end objective was there and how it might have benefitted them.
*Mutters quietly as to not draw too much flak (or beam fire :D)*
If you keep Pakistan and India and everyone else around them fighting each other, there's less chance they'll fight against you. That was the objective.
Post by: vyper on July 12, 2002, 06:21:59 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
And this gives you the right to judge America and its policies? Rest of Europe and Britian needs to keep to its own business and worry about their own problems and not ours.
Yeh, I mean - its nothing to do with us is it? Of course its nothing to do with us ifpolicy American is going to endanger our interests or our security. We shouldn't dare question the good ole' US of A, should we?
My God are you actually that narrow-visioned you can't see why Britain and Europe have a vested interest in American policy? The US makes statements on European and British policy all the time for the same reason!!!
Post by: Martinus on July 12, 2002, 07:01:17 pm
Quote
Originally posted by vyper
Yeh, I mean - its nothing to do with us is it? Of course its nothing to do with us ifpolicy American is going to endanger our interests or our security. We shouldn't dare question the good ole' US of A, should we?
My God are you actually that narrow-visioned you can't see why Britain and Europe have a vested interest in American policy? The US makes statements on European and British policy all the time for the same reason!!!
Indeed. America basically tends to speak for the 'civilised' world wether or not we want it to. If we don't agree with american ideals we become a competitor or worse, an enemy. Britian may seem like a formidible power but it's only because it has the pseudo backing of america, alone, britain does not hold much political or military weight.
Post by: CP5670 on July 12, 2002, 07:13:12 pm
Quote
*Mutters quietly as to not draw too much flak (or beam fire :D)*
If you keep Pakistan and India and everyone else around them fighting each other, there's less chance they'll fight against you. That was the objective.
Yeah, but at that point the British forces had decided to pull out anyway, so it wouldn't have really made much of a difference. Maybe a sort of last gesture of revenge? :D
Post by: Sandwich on July 12, 2002, 07:38:29 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Time to revive this...:D
That's my picture, don't wear it out! :p :D
Quote
Originally posted by PhReAk
(http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/gallery/warminster/images/0123796.jpg)
Hmmm... that picture has been flipped left-right - the drivers' hatch is on the left side in M113 APCs. :D
Post by: Martinus on July 12, 2002, 07:54:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
Hmmm... that picture has been flipped left-right - the drivers' hatch is on the left side in M113 APCs. :D
Hehe military nerd ;)
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 08:04:30 pm
Post by: Martinus on July 12, 2002, 08:14:50 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
I'm pretty sure once someone spends some time in the Israeli military, you're not allowed to call him a nerd anymore. Or at least, you're not advised to do so. _Especially_ a guy who can heft an M2 ;)
:lol: I'm not so worried that he can lift it. I'd be worried if he could fire it accurately whilst holding it though. Then it's time to retire to a safe distance, France for example. :D
Post by: daveb on July 12, 2002, 09:35:40 pm
Why France? Chances are you'd have to surrender for something within a few months anyway ;)
Post by: phreak on July 12, 2002, 10:07:39 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
Hmmm... that picture has been flipped left-right - the drivers' hatch is on the left side in M113 APCs. :D
I got that from the Jane's defense website. They got the picture from the Royal Army. They drive on the wrong side of the road and in the wrong seat of the car.
Post by: Sandwich on July 13, 2002, 06:50:57 am
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Well, according to Fallout Tactics, he'd need a Strength of 9 to do that. Or be taking post-apocalyptic drugs. Sandwich, can you fill us in here? I didn't see any power armor in that picture...
9 out of 10? Yeah, sounds about right. That thing was soo heavy that my arms were literally trembling for a whole day or 2 afterwards. :D
Shooting is out of the question for two reasons. First, it doesn't have any sort of convienient handgrip with pulling (or pushing, I should say) the trigger in mind. And second, the kickback would probably break my wrist and hip.
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Why France? Chances are you'd have to surrender for something within a few months anyway ;)
ROFL!!!
Quote
Originally posted by PhReAk
I got that from the Jane's defense website. They got the picture from the Royal Army. They drive on the wrong side of the road and in the wrong seat of the car.
But if they drive American-made M113's, they have the drivers' compartment to the left of the engine, period. Left-right alterations are much easier when done to cars than Armored (note: there's no "U" in that word!!!) Personnel Carriers.
And that looks to be a 60mm mortar, although it's missing some parts. Perhaps its a make I've not encountered (entirely possible).
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 13, 2002, 10:49:38 am
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Is it YOUR business what so-and-so catches from screwing their unmarried neighbor? First of all, these were all illegal BEFORE VDs flourished, second of all once you're an adult, YOU'RE A ****ING ADULT. CAPABLE OF TAKING CARE OF YOURSELF. If you're not, you belong in a mental institution, not society. If a fully capable adult can't take measures to avoid getting diseases from ****ing, or can't stop on their own if need be, then it's their own fault. Having the law lead them by the hand is insulting to the intelligence, as well as despotic. It frankly isn't your business if I bang 30 hookers a night and catch every below-the-waist disease known to man. It never is, no matter who you are. Sure, if I'm sleeping with you, I have a moral obligation to tell you I'm screwed up, but that's a personal moral issue, not a legal one, and my partners can take measures to find out, anyway (such as the aforementioned blood tests). Just because there's no law regulating my ucking habits doesn't mean I'm necessarily gonna run around humping anything with two or more legs anyway. If it does, like I said- I'm not a consenting adult, I'm an imbecile. Still my problem, not yours.
Yes but there still people out there that use there VDs to infect others purposely.
Post by: Top Gun on July 13, 2002, 10:59:25 am
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Yes but there still people out there that use there VDs to infect others purposely.
..and the Law caters for it by holding them to account (2nd degree murder if it's fatal). STDs are now no longer a cause to discourage sex with anyone, anywhere in any circumstance FULL STOP
Post by: Zeronet on July 13, 2002, 11:10:03 am
Quote
Originally posted by PhReAk
I got that from the Jane's defense website. They got the picture from the Royal Army. They drive on the wrong side of the road and in the wrong seat of the car.
NO! Its the correct side and the right seat of the car.
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 13, 2002, 11:25:30 am
Quote
Originally posted by Top Gun
..and the Law caters for it by holding them to account (2nd degree murder if it's fatal). STDs are now no longer a cause to discourage sex with anyone, anywhere in any circumstance FULL STOP
And then again here comes the moral clash. :/
Most of these arguments are based on a POV. A pov establishes a persons morals. My morals may believe that killing somebody b/c he knows too much is justified, while yours may not, but would both of us be truely wrong? That is a moral question in itself. To make a full argument you would have to assume certain morals are true and justified, like killing civilians, but then you would have to have a like definition of civilian.
I know a lot of people that go **** around and then get stuck with some whore b/c he was stupid know to knock her up. Government discouraging premartial sex is more or less protecting the people from its own stupidity. Government is there to watch over the people to make the logical and more rational desicions, however, a lot of the times it doesn't do that. Maybe they will fix that when they program some robots to run governments that are based on logical programming. But then it might end up like the matrix.:doubt:
Ug, I hate going to work because then I have to read like 2 more pages before I can really post to anything. But it is fun, I never find anybody that can bring up an interesting debate at home. I hope nobody has any hard feelings to each other in all this posting. :)
Post by: CP5670 on July 13, 2002, 11:58:14 am
And regarding morals, bin Laden's morals dictate him to kill the heathens who do not believe in Allah, so that would make him equally right as any of us. (it is based on morals) Stop using moralistic arguments. :p :D
Post by: phreak on July 13, 2002, 12:09:59 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, the best thing would be for the government to completely ban any form of sex now that artificial methods are starting to come out. ... but I want it sooner. :D
WHAT ARE YOU THINKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
thank you
Post by: Top Gun on July 13, 2002, 12:44:25 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
And then again here comes the moral clash. :/
Most of these arguments are based on a POV.
Yes the POV that people should have the right to decide wherther to participate in a (so lang as percautions are taken) harmless activity and not have the POV of conservative christian Prigs rammed down their throats.
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
I know a lot of people that go **** around and then get stuck with some whore b/c he was stupid know to knock her up.
I'm not even going to dignify that steaming crap bucket of an argument with a response.
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Government discouraging premartial sex is more or less protecting the people from its own stupidity. Government is there to watch over the people to make the logical and more rational desicions, however, a lot of the times it doesn't do that.
But discouraging premarital sex (where marriage is a religious ceremony in itself) just so happens to fall directly in line with the point of view of Christian Zealots. I think we both know that Abstinence Propaganda has nothing to do with prevention of Unwanted Pregnancies/STDs (effective contraception made sure of that) and everything to do with forcing Conservative moral values on people.
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Maybe they will fix that when they program some robots to run governments that are based on logical programming. But then it might end up like the matrix.:doubt:
So long as they're not a Proprietary technology and don't lock you into a single vendor;)
Post by: Top Gun on July 13, 2002, 12:48:14 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, the best thing would be for the government to completely ban any form of sex now that artificial methods are starting to come out.
And I guess that eating would have to be banned as well because we'd have all neccessary nutriens Injected into our veins. Although I'd love to see you suggest to a feminist lobby that the future of humanity lies in women lining up to be A.I.'d like dairy cattle:D
Post by: CP5670 on July 13, 2002, 01:11:47 pm
Post by: LtNarol on July 13, 2002, 02:10:51 pm
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 13, 2002, 02:17:37 pm
Quote
Originally posted by daveb
Back this up with a single shred of evidence. Name _one_ region of any kind the US has "imperialized" in the last 100 years. I'll give you a hint : the answer is zero. The US is entirely _not_ expansionist, even in the "benevolent" sense.
I'm thinking Hawaii for some reason... :)
Post by: phreak on July 13, 2002, 06:17:41 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
I'm thinking Hawaii for some reason... :)
Hawaii was imperialized in the 1880s-1890s
little over 100 years ago
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 13, 2002, 06:37:52 pm
But yeah- that is completely insane. We treat cows that way because they have no choice in the matter, and we don't do it for the cows. A life like that isn't living, it's simply waiting to die.
And you're trying to say that your arguments aren't opinionated? Any argument is. It's what makes us human. Any truly objective arguer would have to concede that even the most preposterous statement is as possibly true as any other, and that's just not good form.
Anyway- the purpose of law is to allow more than two humans to coexist without massacring each other wholesale over a pebble or something. Laws exist even in anarchic societies, and are usually self-imposed. But the purpose of law is merely to prevent us from harming each other, not to hold our hands. After a certain point of life, you don't need Mommy, but you still need at least a self-imposed regulatory system in the society in order to keep you alive. If the law takes on a life of its own, oversteps its bounds such as it does in Amerika, that's fascism of the most despotic sort, plain and simple. I don't need a law to tell me not to cross the street right in front of a sppeding car- but without the legal ability to if I so chose, I'd be no better off than a veal calf. I don't care if it's common sense. I don't care if it's protecting me from myself. I don't need to be protected from myself, because I, for one, am competent enough to understand the implications of what I do and accept whatever consequence comes. And I'm willing to give everyone else the benefit of the doubt that they are not drooling infants- apparently unlike you, referring to others but never to yourself. There's much meaning in the unanimous cry of the "conservative" neo-fascists: "Protect them from themselves!" as opposed to "Please keep me from doing this, to rotect me from myself!". Once again, it boils down to personal arrogance. Do you really think you're smarter than everyone else? Moreover, would you understand that, in the world you and your kind idealize, these same codes would apply to you, and more, following someone else's "common sense" that you don't find so sensible? Really.
Post by: CP5670 on July 14, 2002, 11:11:50 am
Quote
CP: If society ever gets anything close to that point, people will quite literally self-destruct. Riot in response to the new codes, bust into some North Dakotan silo, nuke DC, and split Amerika into about 98 separate tribal districts would be my guess.
If they do it currently, yes. Cultural conditions will gradually change over the centuries; these are most certainly not static.
Quote
And you're trying to say that your arguments aren't opinionated? Any argument is. It's what makes us human. Any truly objective arguer would have to concede that even the most preposterous statement is as possibly true as any other, and that's just not good form.
I said most objective. Using certain logic axioms and rules, many contradictory statements (where similar true and false stuff exists in the same system) can be eliminated. Of course every statement is indeterminate if nothing is presumed, but the whole system of argument is structured around logic in the first place and thus I am assuming that those rules would hold. At least I am not using moral nonsense. :p
Quote
Anyway- the purpose of law is to allow more than two humans to coexist without massacring each other wholesale over a pebble or something. Laws exist even in anarchic societies, and are usually self-imposed. But the purpose of law is merely to prevent us from harming each other, not to hold our hands. After a certain point of life, you don't need Mommy, but you still need at least a self-imposed regulatory system in the society in order to keep you alive. If the law takes on a life of its own, oversteps its bounds such as it does in Amerika, that's fascism of the most despotic sort, plain and simple. I don't need a law to tell me not to cross the street right in front of a sppeding car- but without the legal ability to if I so chose, I'd be no better off than a veal calf. I don't care if it's common sense. I don't care if it's protecting me from myself. I don't need to be protected from myself, because I, for one, am competent enough to understand the implications of what I do and accept whatever consequence comes. And I'm willing to give everyone else the benefit of the doubt that they are not drooling infants- apparently unlike you, referring to others but never to yourself. There's much meaning in the unanimous cry of the "conservative" neo-fascists: "Protect them from themselves!" as opposed to "Please keep me from doing this, to rotect me from myself!". Once again, it boils down to personal arrogance. Do you really think you're smarter than everyone else? Moreover, would you understand that, in the world you and your kind idealize, these same codes would apply to you, and more, following someone else's "common sense" that you don't find so sensible? Really.
I am not even sure if this mindless ranting is worth dignifying with a response, but here goes anyway.
First of all, stop thinking of the individual human as something in itself; it is just another part of a greater whole (as I said before, use the cell analogy), and the society is one of the successive stages to the whole. There is nothing "special" about the individual human as you seem to think, since it is yet another unit in the continuing sequence of the complexity of intelligence. It is almost certain that some millions of years in the future, humanity will have either become a single organism in some way or died out completely (evolved or otherwise); the question is when. You are quite obviously a typical product of the current generation and its accompanying cultural paradigm, in which common moral values and individual freedom is considered to be the ultimate. This thing that every human has an inherent right to freedom, as you seem to think, is a bunch of nonsense; people have an inherent right to nothing and everything. Citizens are given some liberties so to keep them quiet (or else they will rebel) and, more importantly, because it allows the society to continue advancing in terms of knowledge (freedom of thought). Upcoming social eras will likely allow for the circumvention of both of these issues, and the concept of freedom will essentially have changed from its current meaning (think Hegel's type of freedom). It might be "fascism of the most despotic sort," but it is far better than the alternative. You are the moralistic anarchist around here, right? You might want to read that old thread on politics (the "oh hell" one). There cannot be any long-lasting species without a consistent advance to a unified organism; the change is the critical part rather than the end.
One interesting thing is that if all national governments ban something popular, say sex, by law right now and then lift the ban after seven or eight decades, nobody will have any interest in whatever was banned anymore. These things are quite variable and are changing constantly based on outside cultural influences. The original purpose of government and law is completely irrelevant here; change in this direction is inevitable as long as a government exists since a static system is bound to collapse (check out Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy). Besides, you agreed just a few posts ago that if everyone started killing themselves, the government should intervene, and now you post this. Talk about inconsistency. :rolleyes: Also, nobody really cares whether you want this type of thing or not; fact is that there will be some supporters in the world, and these men will end up rising to the top. (a large unit competing against disorganized individuals) Of course I see that the laws would apply to me, but considering what I do all day, they would not affect my life at all. However that is of no importance here - like I said, the opinions of individuals do not really matter in the large picture. The actions of large groups can in certain cases change the course of social history but these are fairly predictable. I do not like common sense and therefore try to avoid using that in arguments, so I don't know what you are talking about there. And how in the world could I use "someone else's common sense;" this is one of the strangest statements I have heard. And I am probably quite stupid compared to most people here, but this last post of yours has shown me that I at least have more sense that you do. Really. :p
Quote
CP, some days i worry about you...then there are days like this when i think you're just down right nutty :p
:D ;7
Post by: Styxx on July 14, 2002, 11:30:46 am
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
The only society that can give complete freedom to its people is no society at all, or in other words, an anarchy, which in turn would stall the progress of knowledge.
THE CULTURE!!! :D :D
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, the best thing would be for the government to completely ban any form of sex now that artificial methods are starting to come out...
Hmm... Definately not the Culture... :doubt:
Ah, no mention of the Culture should go without this: :D
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/setekh/ebw-gf.jpg)
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 14, 2002, 11:41:31 am
Yeah. All that is quite logical, rational, and would make sense in a twisted sort of ideal. But you're not taking the nature of the beast into account- sure, it would make SENSE to eliminate sex. That doesn't mean doing it wouldn't still end up being the death of the species. People are irrational in the extreme, and the only way to understand them is to be able to factor in that something else, even if it isn't hard to understand. We're not math equations, or, at least, we are, and bloody complex ones. So complex that nobody quite gets the details of how we work, and only the most successful leaders have figured out how to work with us effectively.
You misread me. I don't think there are ANY "inherent rights" because a right is a privelidge given by the government to good children. The "right" to speech, in the form outsiders take it, is not a right, any more than being able to throw a Molotov cocktail at the pigs is a right. There's nothing to grant, because it can't be denied. The governments of the world try to, and that spells their eventual doom.
You assume, as most non-anarchists do, that we want to pick up the first gun we see and start shooting. Lack of a government FORCING people to be decent does not mean that nobody can on their own. Disorganized? The anarchist Yippie movement used to be one of the more highly organized, influential powers in the nation! What you see NOW is disorganized- a hundred million demoralized people trying to survive in a nation too wishy-washy to fully concede its own totalitarian rule, and thus secure power, and too greedy to be decent enough to die quietly. Everyone's miserable, most people, given half a chance, WOULD go start shooting everyone at random, and you can't get a group of people to agree on one set of pizza toppings, much less a political philosophy. In contrast, the "disorganized" anarchist movements of the 60s and early 70s were highly attuned to one goal, could talk freely and exchange ideas, and did as they pleased. They understood that not just ONE ideology was going to get anyone everywhere, but only that they needed to follow the same general goals of securing their personal freedoms. They lived, in fact, outside of the law, and yet were nicer to each other, by all accounts, than anyone in any authoritarian society. Disorganized? You really need to read up on what you're talking about. People are only organized when they can gather behind a common cause of their own volition, live together of their own free will. NOT when forced to get along by a quasi-dictatorial government.
And I never said the government should STOP people if they started killing themselves. I said that, if that was what the people wanted, the government should HELP them. Put good use to all those nukes in Nevada.
How 'bout if someone told you that computers and TV were deleterious to your mental health, confiscated all means of electronic communication, and replaced all TV programming with propoganda of the dullest sort? It's far from unlikely in any authoritarian movement, and probably the closest analogy I can find, knowing as little as I do about your habits.
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 14, 2002, 12:16:43 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Styxx
THE CULTURE!!! :D :D
Hmm... Definately not the Culture... :doubt:
Ah, no mention of the Culture should go without this: :D
euh... Is this a part of The Plan™? I don't remember it being a part of The Plan™. :D
Post by: Kellan on July 14, 2002, 12:25:32 pm
Give me a few days to deal with all this. Looks like the "Oh Hell" thread a few weeks back, but to go back to the original topic, I havea comment which is so obvious it has probably been picked up already. I'll say it nevertheless, because that's the kind of person that I am. :)
Anyway, does this whole link to terrorism not go back, basically to the fact that the shooter was a Muslim Arab? I mean, when that kid crashed the little plane into that building shortly after 9/11 and his suicide note expressed sympathy for Osama bin Laden there was still no suspicion that he wasa terrorist - not only because of his age, but because he was a white, non-Muslim American.
Now I know that the Jose Padilla proved Americans can be terrorists ( :ha: ) but he was a Muslim too...
My point is this: had the shooter on July 4th not been a Muslim Arab but a somewhat unhinged LA resident, or a guy from Denver, or from France, say - would it automatically have been linked to terrorism? What we're seeing and experiencing is some sort of ethnic stereotyping of Arabs and Muslims as anti-American terrorists. For example, one of my friends is the son of an Iranian asylum seeker and following Septempber 11th he wasactually physically assaulted at work - simply for being an Arab. :no:
Such behaviour has to stop, really. That might sound a bit sanctimonious, but perception of the 'outsider' is one of the key features of further persecution...
...So consider this more of an impassioned plea. :p
"Give peace a chance!" :D
Post by: vyper on July 14, 2002, 12:37:01 pm
Quote
...So consider this more of an impassioned plea. :p
"Give peace a chance!" :D
:ha:
Tell that to bin-liner (as we in the UK sometimes call him).
Peace is fine as long as you're gonna be left alone. Thats not how this situation works though.
Its unfortunate what happened to your friend though. :(
Post by: CP5670 on July 14, 2002, 04:36:31 pm
Quote
Yeah. All that is quite logical, rational, and would make sense in a twisted sort of ideal. But you're not taking the nature of the beast into account- sure, it would make SENSE to eliminate sex. That doesn't mean doing it wouldn't still end up being the death of the species. People are irrational in the extreme, and the only way to understand them is to be able to factor in that something else, even if it isn't hard to understand. We're not math equations, or, at least, we are, and bloody complex ones. So complex that nobody quite gets the details of how we work, and only the most successful leaders have figured out how to work with us effectively.
Yes we are. In fact, while nobody has been able to create a fully precise and rigorous theory of mob psychology, it is extremely easy in practice to change around the culture of a society given several decades and the right communication devices. How do you think so many of history's fierce demagogues were able to completely transform the culture of a nation? People like sex because that is what the common culture of today's dictates. (note the great resurgence of sex in the last 30 or so years; there are a number of causes for this, but I will not get into that)
Quote
You misread me. I don't think there are ANY "inherent rights" because a right is a privelidge given by the government to good children. The "right" to speech, in the form outsiders take it, is not a right, any more than being able to throw a Molotov cocktail at the pigs is a right. There's nothing to grant, because it can't be denied. The governments of the world try to, and that spells their eventual doom.
Actually, everything can be denied very easily by the Stalinist route, seeing as you either live by the laws or you die. A right exists only as far as it can be put into practice. However, it only really comes to this if the change in laws is sudden and drastic; a gradual change in the laws over hundreds of years will allow the cultural systems to keep up with the changing laws and thus mainstream people will not care one bit if any of these "rights" are denied completely. This is why I support communism in principle but not in today's world.
Quote
You assume, as most non-anarchists do, that we want to pick up the first gun we see and start shooting. Lack of a government FORCING people to be decent does not mean that nobody can on their own. Disorganized? The anarchist Yippie movement used to be one of the more highly organized, influential powers in the nation! What you see NOW is disorganized- a hundred million demoralized people trying to survive in a nation too wishy-washy to fully concede its own totalitarian rule, and thus secure power, and too greedy to be decent enough to die quietly. Everyone's miserable, most people, given half a chance, WOULD go start shooting everyone at random, and you can't get a group of people to agree on one set of pizza toppings, much less a political philosophy. In contrast, the "disorganized" anarchist movements of the 60s and early 70s were highly attuned to one goal, could talk freely and exchange ideas, and did as they pleased. They understood that not just ONE ideology was going to get anyone everywhere, but only that they needed to follow the same general goals of securing their personal freedoms. They lived, in fact, outside of the law, and yet were nicer to each other, by all accounts, than anyone in any authoritarian society. Disorganized? You really need to read up on what you're talking about. People are only organized when they can gather behind a common cause of their own volition, live together of their own free will. NOT when forced to get along by a quasi-dictatorial government.
Okay, you need to read that book I mentioned earlier, since all of these issues are answered there. Yes, that is exactly what I assume, because the lack of a civilization will force the human to return to its primordial instincts and we would become just like animals. Do you think that humans actually have any natural inborn instincts of common morality and that they will no longer be, to quote you, "too greedy to die quietly?" Morality has arisen from the civilization, and although it has been taken way too far at this point, going back to where we started from would not better the situation either. The ultimate objective of the isolated animal is personal survival, since no society exists, and of course, half the time this will involve destroying other humans. This would continue for millions of years until humans have evolved into a new kind of species, thus eliminating the human anyway. Regarding organization, as you said, people can be somewhat organized when they have a common goal, but only as long as the cause that binds them together exists. I bet all you anarchists will be at each other's throats when your objective of destroying the society has been met. :p (incidentally, this is why the plots against Hitler during WW2 were largely failures) The most "organized" system would be, like I said before, a single mega-organism encompassing everything in the universe, and the path of intelligent evolution throughout history has shown this to be the limiting end anyway.
Now, I never said that people will be forced to do anything at all in the sense of the word you are thinking of. The social and cultural conditions in the people's surroundings largely determine what they like and do not like. Seeing as these events will occur over very long periods of time, the tensions among the people will become quite insignificant as long as the rate of change is low. (think of the human's general attributes rather than those of the current human) The people will go along with everything by their "own free will," but this "free will" can be and is changed around easily with the varying global conditions. Next, you are saying that "one ideology is not going to get anyone anywhere," and then immediately after you write that they all need to attempt to uphold individual freedoms. Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes: Contrary minds are of course necessary to keep the progress going, but in the generality, organization implies that a central objective must exist for the majority. And lastly, what is the Yippie movement? A group of people who advocate interjections of happiness? :D :D
Quote
And I never said the government should STOP people if they started killing themselves. I said that, if that was what the people wanted, the government should HELP them. Put good use to all those nukes in Nevada.
Sounds fine, but this would effectively destroy the human race anyway since the members of a static society would at some point fall prey to the tide of evolution. If that is what you want, then it turns into a somewhat unrelated issue, so I will not get into the details of that here.
Quote
How 'bout if someone told you that computers and TV were deleterious to your mental health, confiscated all means of electronic communication, and replaced all TV programming with propoganda of the dullest sort? It's far from unlikely in any authoritarian movement, and probably the closest analogy I can find, knowing as little as I do about your habits.
I would obviously not like it (the computer part; couldn't care less about TV :D), but if I can be given a solid reasoning behind the new law I would still accept it and would get used to it over time. The next generation would find it very easy to cope with the new law and would in fact wonder how people were ever able to live without it. If a slow and subtle change as I talked of earlier was to take place, it would go far beyond the scope of any one man's lifetime, and thus few, if any, hard feelings would come up.
Quote
Hmm... Definately not the Culture...
Does Culture with a capital C carry some sort of different meaning from the normal word? ;)
Quote
My point is this: had the shooter on July 4th not been a Muslim Arab but a somewhat unhinged LA resident, or a guy from Denver, or from France, say - would it automatically have been linked to terrorism? What we're seeing and experiencing is some sort of ethnic stereotyping of Arabs and Muslims as anti-American terrorists. For example, one of my friends is the son of an Iranian asylum seeker and following Septempber 11th he wasactually physically assaulted at work - simply for being an Arab.
Such behaviour has to stop, really. That might sound a bit sanctimonious, but perception of the 'outsider' is one of the key features of further persecution...
This reminds me of a slightly similar but far less serious incident; my uncle was on a business trip a few weeks ago and was detained by at the airport for a much more detailed search due to his southeast-Asian appearance. (my family is of Indian origin and Hindu ethnicity but there are large numbers of both Hindus and Muslims in that country, and by natural characteristics alone, both look very similar :D) Unfortunately I think that this might be necessary for some temporary period while these terrorist tensions are still high so to make sure that nobody slips through. One thing though is that the people should be given some compensation if they are thoroughly searched and questioned and nothing is found out of the ordinary, because it might otherwise cause previously loyal Americans to turn over to these terrorist bands.
I fully agree with you that the idea of the outsider must fade away, but this will require very powerful propaganda campaigns along with the cooperation of all national governments (including those in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, etc.). Most of the religions and common cultures make divisions of people based on origin, ethnicity and such things, which is how the terrorist groups get supporters in the first place, but these ideas coming up actually cause the divisions to form (psychological conditioning), and so all of this must go. It will happen eventually, but probably not in our lifetimes.
Quote
"Give peace a chance!"
It was tried but it did not work, so it's time for war now. :D
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 14, 2002, 05:07:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
I would obviously not like it (the computer part; couldn't care less about TV :D), but if I can be given a solid reasoning behind the new law I would still accept it and would get used to it over time. The next generation would find it very easy to cope with the new law and would in fact wonder how people were ever able to live without it. If a slow and subtle change as I talked of earlier was to take place, it would go far beyond the scope of any one man's lifetime, and thus few, if any, hard feelings would come up.
And I can imagine if you were a 1930's German jew then you'd comment on how reasonable the rationale was behind sending you to the chambers.
"People would live like animals"- when is the last time you saw animals kill anything for food, steal based on anything but bare survival, etc.? If people could get up to the level of most animals, we wouldn't even need culturally ingrained codes against this sort of thing.
And, like I said, you really don't have the first clue about hte anarchist movement- at least, those parts of it not the Freemen or whatever. Those psycho bastards are more Nazis, anyway. I've had the decency to read up on YOUR general point of view before talking about it, rather than waste everyone's time by flapping my lips on a subject I know nothing about except what came to me from my own uninformed preconceptions. One would think at least at the first hint you'd have the sense to at least aquire a working knowledge of what anarchy is before blathering about it. Your statements about the Movement are garbage and you know it. Go read some Jerry Rubin, and shame on you for acting like a cretin about something quite involved and well-thought-out, and then posture as someone who based arguments on reason and available information.
You certainly have a low opinion of everyone. Since your claim is that you're nothing but an animal caged and kept behaving by the law, I don't see what kind of authority you have to speak to us humans. The opinions of murderous animals are of no value to anyone- shoo!
Post by: CP5670 on July 14, 2002, 05:47:13 pm
Quote
And I can imagine if you were a 1930's German jew then you'd comment on how reasonable the rationale was behind sending you to the chambers.
No, I said that if the rationale were explained to me that statement would hold. If a consistent reason can be given, then I will accept it.
Quote
"People would live like animals"- when is the last time you saw animals kill anything for food, steal based on anything but bare survival, etc.? If people could get up to the level of most animals, we wouldn't even need culturally ingrained codes against this sort of thing.
All the time. Animals steal from other animals for exactly the same objective: survival. If one animal has some food, others will attempt to steal it from him. Why do you think that most life processes are described as "survival of the fittest," even within a given species?
Quote
And, like I said, you really don't have the first clue about hte anarchist movement- at least, those parts of it not the Freemen or whatever. Those psycho bastards are more Nazis, anyway. I've had the decency to read up on YOUR general point of view before talking about it, rather than waste everyone's time by flapping my lips on a subject I know nothing about except what came to me from my own uninformed preconceptions. One would think at least at the first hint you'd have the sense to at least aquire a working knowledge of what anarchy is before blathering about it. Your statements about the Movement are garbage and you know it. Go read some Jerry Rubin, and shame on you for acting like a cretin about something quite involved and well-thought-out, and then posture as someone who based arguments on reason and available information.
I do not have time to write a full response to such garbage, so I will just change some words around and let us see how well this whole thing holds together: :D
And, like I said, you really don't have the first clue about hte communist movement- at least, those parts of it not the Stalinists or whatever. Those psycho bastards are more Nazis, anyway. I've had the decency to read up on YOUR general point of view before talking about it, rather than waste everyone's time by flapping my lips on a subject I know nothing about except what came to me from my own uninformed preconceptions. One would think at least at the first hint you'd have the sense to at least aquire a working knowledge of what communism is before blathering about it. Your statements about the Movement are garbage and you know it. Go read some Joseph Schumpeter, and shame on you for acting like a cretin about something quite involved and well-thought-out, and then posture as someone who based arguments on reason and available information.
You certainly have a low opinion of everyone. Since your claim is that you're nothing but an animal set free, I don't see what kind of authority you have to speak to us rationalists. The opinions of murderous animals are of no value to anyone- shoo!
Anyway, that shows about how much solid reasoning and how much petty insulting was contained in your last post. As they say, people resort to this when they are out of other arguments, so you have pretty much given up as far as I am concerned. Learn how to argue properly before getting into a fight with someone here next time. :p :D
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 14, 2002, 05:54:27 pm
Post by: CP5670 on July 14, 2002, 05:57:04 pm
Quote
I'm not a goddamn communist, genius. Never said I was, never stated a Communist philosophy the entire time. You're not only failing to know what you're talking about, you're just making up stuff to argue with now. And that about settles the one point you tried to make in your post. Go home, little boy. You're no good at playing political philosopher.
So much for "reading up on general points of view." As I wrote there, I just changed around a few words to make it fit my side. :D You just made a fool out of yourself by not reading my post and thinking that it was intended to support your side. :D
This is getting funny now... :D
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 14, 2002, 06:02:08 pm
Post by: CP5670 on July 14, 2002, 06:06:18 pm
Quote
I recognize that.
Wow, you actually conceded that you made a fool out of yourself! :D
The rest of this is just more mindless sophomoric insults, so lets try that same thing again. :D
Quote
However, you conceded the mimickry on your own, so I saw no point in dealing with your failure to provide anything of your own. It was enough to point out that the statement IS one-sided, and that by using it you have demonstrated that not only do you not read political doctrines, but you do not read other posts before blasting off on your own. As such, your opinions are not only misinformed, but completely lack any context here. In other words, so much wasted air (or server space). I really can't be bothered to argue with someone so inept and shallow, as I have little gun thingies to put on spacecraft, so I'll let you grab whatever last word you seem to be seeking and go off imagining you actually have some insight into these things. It would be so much easier to actually GAIN some, but as you seem to prefer the illusion, I'm not gonna mess with that. It's your thing, I guess.
However, you conceded the oversight on your own, so I saw no point in dealing with your failure to provide anything of your own. It was enough to point out that the statement IS one-sided, and that by using it you have demonstrated that not only do you not read political doctrines, but you do not read other posts before blasting off on your own. As such, your opinions are not only misinformed, but completely lack any context here. In other words, so much wasted air (or server space). I really can't be bothered to argue with someone so inept and shallow, as I have math problems to solve, so I'll let you grab whatever last word you seem to be seeking and go off imagining you actually have some insight into these things. It would be so much easier to actually GAIN some, but as you seem to prefer the illusion, I'm not gonna mess with that. It's your thing, I guess.
Works ever better than the last one. You are certainly good at making up insults but they can be used by either side with equal ease. :D
Post by: vyper on July 14, 2002, 06:06:22 pm
Post by: CP5670 on July 14, 2002, 06:08:11 pm
Post by: LtNarol on July 14, 2002, 06:33:39 pm
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 14, 2002, 06:40:26 pm
Wiseass. [Goats Narol]
Post by: LtNarol on July 14, 2002, 11:58:57 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9anytime :D i do try you know?
Suuure, come in late with the sensible response, look so smaaart...
Wiseass. [Goats Narol]
Post by: Styxx on July 15, 2002, 02:40:24 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
Does Culture with a capital C carry some sort of different meaning from the normal word? ;)
You don't know? Poor little soul.
* points at CP and laughs *
:D :p
Post by: LtNarol on July 15, 2002, 02:47:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Styxx:lol:;7:lol:;7:lol:;7:lol:
You don't know? Poor little soul.
* points at CP and laughs *
:D :p
Hey, Sticks, could you help me with a rendering thing? Please?
Post by: Styxx on July 15, 2002, 03:24:31 pm
Quote
Originally posted by LtNarol
Hey, Sticks, could you help me with a rendering thing? Please?
Hm, that thing you asked me a while ago? I'll have to check my free time, I don't think I'll be able to get anything done reasonably soon, but I can try anyway.
Post by: Shrike on July 15, 2002, 04:24:10 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670It is HLP policy to discuss sex, which is a positive, creative act, instead of war, which is a negative, destructive act. Further violations will result in banning. :p
Actually, the best thing would be for the government to completely ban any form of sex now that artificial methods are starting to come out. This will happen at some point in the future anyway, but I want it sooner. :D
Post by: Sandwich on July 15, 2002, 04:36:10 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Shrike
It is HLP policy to discuss sex, which is a positive, creative act, instead of war, which is a negative, destructive act. Further violations will result in banning. :p
I'm not going to go off on a dissertation on how sex outside of and before marrige ruins relationships, nor on how some wars are neccesary and it's murder that's bad... :D
(http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/armed/flamethrower.gif)
*ducks flame from Shrike's flamethrower*
Dang, those things are soooo much naster in near misses than those old shotguns ever were! :p
Hrmmm: (http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/armed/fart.gif)
Post by: Styxx on July 15, 2002, 04:39:51 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
I'm not going to go off on a dissertation on how sex outside of and before marrige ruins relationships...
Yeah, you better not. Mainly because it would be a bunch o' bull. :D
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
nor on how some wars are neccesary and it's murder that's bad... :D
We need wars on sci-fi. And fantasy books. And books in general. In real life, wars are bad. At least I live on one of the places where it's less likely that a war will ever happen, and I'm happy with that. ;)
Post by: Shrike on July 15, 2002, 04:44:13 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sandwichWho said anything about relationships? Sex != relationship.
I'm not going to go off on a dissertation on how sex outside of and before marrige ruins relationships,
You religious people go on about how it's some holy act that has to be done under the holy veil of marriage. Why?
Post by: Fineus on July 15, 2002, 04:47:18 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Shrike
You religious people go on about how it's some holy act that has to be done under the holy veil of marriage. Why?
Well Witches don't... your the one who said that if you wanted a taste of religion you should lick a witch, and you never said anything about marrige there!
;)
Post by: Shrike on July 15, 2002, 04:48:49 pm
Post by: CP5670 on July 15, 2002, 05:15:26 pm
Quote
It is HLP policy to discuss sex, which is a positive, creative act, instead of war, which is a negative, destructive act. Further violations will result in banning. :p
Actually, they are both creative and zero, because destruction is a form of creation and they both involve both positively and negatively charged particles. :D
war >> sex :D
Quote
You don't know? Poor little soul.
* points at CP and laughs *
:D :p
:p okay is this another of those common things that I should be knowing? :D
Post by: Zeronet on July 15, 2002, 05:17:01 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Shrike
It is HLP policy to discuss sex, which is a positive, creative act, instead of war, which is a negative, destructive act. Further violations will result in banning. :p
My Westland Apache is not negative, guns are cool but war is hell.
Post by: Styxx on July 15, 2002, 05:19:39 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
war >> sex :D
Hmm, are you shifting the war variable sex bits to the right there or what? :D :p
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
okay is this another of those common things that I should be knowing? :D
Yep, it is. And we won't tell you, so go do some research. :D
Post by: Zeronet on July 15, 2002, 05:27:49 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Styxx
Hmm, are you shifting the war variable sex bits to the right there or what? :D :p
Yep, it is. And we won't tell you, so go do some research. :D
He saying war is greater than sex, if your interpretation was mathematically weighted towards such lateral thinking, if such comtemplation was regarded with consideration applied with knowledge of social elements that could affect the direction his post was pointing.
Post by: CP5670 on July 15, 2002, 05:32:50 pm
Quote
Hmm, are you shifting the war variable sex bits to the right there or what? :D :p
">>" means relatively much greater than or equal to. :D
Quote
Yep, it is. And we won't tell you, so go do some research. :D
argh, culture is a common word, so Google is not turning up anything... :p
Post by: Shrike on July 15, 2002, 05:32:51 pm
Post by: Shrike on July 15, 2002, 05:33:14 pm
Quote
Originally posted by StyxxMmm, fieldwork. Or would that be bedwork?
Yep, it is. And we won't tell you, so go do some research. :D
Post by: CP5670 on July 15, 2002, 05:33:42 pm
Post by: Styxx on July 15, 2002, 05:37:05 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
">>" means relatively much greater than or equal to. :D
Nope, ">>" is the shift-right operator, f00!! :D
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
argh, culture is a common word, so Google is not turning up anything... :p
Well, look harder!! :D
Post by: Zeronet on July 15, 2002, 05:38:03 pm
Post by: Styxx on July 15, 2002, 05:39:08 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Shrike
It's evident that sex > war, because if war > sex, there wouldn't be any people left on the planet. :p
LOL! 0wnage! Again! :D
Post by: Shrike on July 15, 2002, 05:40:50 pm
Post by: Styxx on July 15, 2002, 05:42:21 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Shrike
Whoa, did I really mess it up that much? Should be obvious what I meant, but wow, typo....
Meh, fixed your text a bit so it's absolutely clear what it meant. ;)
Post by: Shrike on July 15, 2002, 05:43:44 pm
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 15, 2002, 05:45:06 pm
*Larry the Slut comes to the door*
You: Yes?
Larry: Here's your kid, now gimmie child support.
You: Huh? I want a DNA test!
Larry: I''ll give u a DNA test!!!!!
*beats the **** out of you*
Larry: I told you that thing was leaky, especially after the fifth time! Now pay up *****!
Bleh, sex without the comforts of steady pay and a stable household is bad. Unless you can't have children, but then you got all these other "special gifts" wrapped that could hurt your "pp." Not worth it, it's not all that special and holy, it's just you don't want to be some trash that has 6 kids and they are all bastards. And don't give me that abortion crap. Unless it's life threatening to the mother there should be no abortion, it is just a consquence you should have to live with. Everything has some kind of consquence, a lot are good, but some are bad, and unless you like spending all your money on daipers and child support then it might be wise to hold off on what Captian Winky is telling you to do.
Post by: Styxx on July 15, 2002, 05:47:05 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Bleh, sex without the comforts of steady pay and a stable household is bad. Unless you can't have children, but then you got all these other "special gifts" wrapped that could hurt your "pp." Not worth it, it's not all that special and holy, it's just you don't want to be some trash that has 6 kids and they are all bastards. And don't give me that abortion crap. Unless it's life threatening to the mother there should be no abortion, it is just a consquence you should have to live with. Everything has some kind of consquence, a lot are good, but some are bad, and unless you like spending all your money on daipers and child support then it might be wise to hold off on what Captian Winky is telling you to do.
Points to dating/sex thread:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,8760.0.html
Post by: CODEDOG ND on July 15, 2002, 05:48:02 pm
Post by: Styxx on July 15, 2002, 05:48:44 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
u ppl type to fast!
Lol, don't worry. The posts won't go anywhere. :)
Post by: Zeronet on July 15, 2002, 05:49:10 pm
Post by: CP5670 on July 15, 2002, 06:27:17 pm
Quote
Nope, ">>" is the shift-right operator, f00!! :D
Yes, but it also means much greater than or equal to. :p :D
Quote
Well, look harder!! :D
I tried www.culture.com but that had nothing to do with it; I don't even know where this "Culture" is from. :p
Post by: Styxx on July 16, 2002, 08:32:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, but it also means much greater than or equal to. :p :D
As I said, for math f00s it does. For real people, it's the shift-right operator. :D
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
I tried www.culture.com but that had nothing to do with it; I don't even know where this "Culture" is from. :p
Tsk, tsk. :rolleyes:
Post by: CP5670 on July 16, 2002, 01:56:06 pm
Quote
As I said, for math f00s it does. For real people, it's the shift-right operator. :D
You never said anything about "math f00s" and "real people" earlier though. :D
Quote
Tsk, tsk.
Most of the people in the world probably don't know either. :p
Post by: Styxx on July 16, 2002, 03:29:52 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
You never said anything about "math f00s" and "real people" earlier though. :D
It was implied. :D
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
Most of the people in the world probably don't know either. :p
All the people that count do. ;) :D
Post by: Knight Templar on July 16, 2002, 03:38:42 pm
I tend to stop readiong threads after they get longer than 10 pages.... what are we talking bout' now?
Post by: CP5670 on July 17, 2002, 12:04:30 am
Quote
It was implied. :D
Well how am I supposed to know that? :p
Quote
All the people that count do. ;) :D
But who decides who "counts" and who does not? :D
Post by: Bobboau on July 17, 2002, 12:52:23 am
and you don't
:p
Post by: Sandwich on July 17, 2002, 08:14:30 am
Quote
Originally posted by Shrike
Who said anything about relationships? Sex != relationship.
You religious people go on about how it's some holy act that has to be done under the holy veil of marriage. Why?
Ever hear of this thing called family? You know, where a father and mother bring up their children together, etc etc?
I'd rather not touch on a possibly sensitive point with who knows how many people on this board, but I need to make a point:
How many of you who come from broken homes, whether from a divorce your parents had, or perhaps you simply never really knew who your father/mother was?
And of those of you who answered "Yes, I did" to the above question, how many had friends who came from non-broken families/households... and how often did you really envy them their relationship with their father/mother?
Do some historical research. Look into the great empires of the past - the Romans, Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, etc. Look for a correlation between when those empires tossed the family concept, family values, out the window, bringing in the "have sex freely, for pleasure" concept, to the downfall of that empire. I think you'll be surprised what you discover.
CP, do a Google search for "Culture" in correlation to a "Iain M. Banks". :yes:
Post by: Top Gun on July 17, 2002, 09:36:34 am
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
Ever hear of this thing called family? You know, where a father and mother bring up their children together, etc etc?
My personal view on this is that Marriage in the traditional sense is old and should be tossed on the scrap heap. Yes, the family system worked well in the upbringing of childeren, that doesn't mean it's the only way of bringing up childeren and people should have the right to choose without raging theocrats chaining women to the kitchen sink, keeping them pregnant and making the father work.
Two parents need not Love each other to be good parents, they only need to love and cherish the child and to co-operate during his/her upbringing. They do not need to be tied to one another (financially and sexually), in fact doing so is the likely cause of the hostilities between them that result in broken homes.
It's amazing how many Ignorant conservatives use the term "family values" as an excuse to undermine womens rights and force people to conform to a dated and illogical regieme that sould have been scrapped years ago.
I'll say it now and I'll say it again. Two concenting people (married or not) should have the right to have sex anytime they want. It's not a "sin", it's not "dirty", there's nothing special; about it. Sexual pleasure is nature's way of rewarding us for passing on our genes but since reliable contraception is widely available (despite the best efforts of a certain church), it can now be just a source of pleasure. Nothing more, nothing less.
Post by: Bobboau on July 17, 2002, 10:28:36 am
now sex I have determined serves to perposases
1) reproduction
2) forming of emotional bonds
the only problem with sex for fun is that someone might get pregnent, if that hapens there is going to be a screwed up person sooner or later
but none of my opinions should be mandated by law, that would force people to be parents when they don't want to be, for force them into roles they don't want, this will cause much more damage than just not having a parent would have
Post by: Styxx on July 17, 2002, 10:43:32 am
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
How many of you who come from broken homes, whether from a divorce your parents had, or perhaps you simply never really knew who your father/mother was?
And of those of you who answered "Yes, I did" to the above question, how many had friends who came from non-broken families/households... and how often did you really envy them their relationship with their father/mother?
My parents are divorced. I never envied any of my friends that came from "non-broken" homes, though, simply because they were in a worse situation than I was. They had their freedom restricted, irrational prohibitions imposed into them, and their parents worrying more about themselves than about the children. I, on the other hand, managed to coerce/blackmail any of my parents (specially my father) into giving me anything I wanted (that was inside their possibilities, of course) or allowing me to do anything I wanted. I had them both paying a lot more attention to me (and my brother) than most of my friends from "normal" families - my brother can attest to that.
Of course you'll say that I should never have done such a thing (blackmail my father) but that's your moral standpoint, and it's perfectly valid. My own view on the matter, though, is very simple: I didn't ask to be born, they did it without my consent, and now have to face the consequences. If they didn't want to spend the time and money a child requires, they shouldn't have had it - and for this I approve all methods, from simple contraceptives to abortion (and yes, I'd rather never be born than be born into a "family" that wouldn't have conditions to give me the things I wanted). Now, don't get offended by this - I think most christian principles are valid and good ones, since I was a christian for most of my life (another thing that was imposed into me while my parents were not divorced yet), but I value freedom of choice above all else.
I won't try to say that your viewpoint is wrong, I'm just saying that it's not the only one that's right. Now let's get this to the "Dating and Sex" thread, that's there for this reason alone. ;)
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,8760.0.html
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
CP, do a Google search for "Culture" in correlation to a "Iain M. Banks". :yes:
Damn you, spoiled my fun!! :D
Post by: Top Gun on July 18, 2002, 03:23:38 am
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
the only problem with sex for fun is that someone might get pregnent, if that hapens there is going to be a screwed up person sooner or later
Why do people never seem to grasp the fact that there is very reliable contraception ... and failing that there's the morning after pills.
Post by: Kellan on July 18, 2002, 08:49:00 am
I have also found, as Styxx apparently did (;7) that the children of divorcees get away with a lot more than children from a two-parent household. I don't think my friends who are children from "broken homes" were ever envious of me having 2 parents. I would only accept that people in general feel that way from a very large sample, which I don't think any of us have access to.
As for Styxx, he's certainly a cheeky bugger. :D Still, if your parents are going to ignore you to pursue their own happiness when they decided to create you, I don't think it's that objectionable to use them in turn to pursue your happiness if they're not going to help you. :)
Post by: IceFire on July 18, 2002, 08:54:49 am
Quote
I have to agree with Top Gun on this one. Personally, I would rather live in a family in which I only have one parent than a family in which I don't get on with a parent. This kind of relationship is more common than an abusive one, but they should be considered too.
I may be the exception rather than the rule...but my parents are still married (and I think in no danger of divorce at all) and I get along with both of them (most of the time anyways, nobody gets along with anyone 100%) and I'd say thats pretty ideal.
So would you rather then live in a family where you get along with both parents together than one separated or both separated?
Post by: Kellan on July 18, 2002, 08:58:27 am
Quote
Originally posted by IceFire
So would you rather then live in a family where you get along with both parents together than one separated or both separated?
Sure I'd prefer to get along 100% with both my parents, because (I suppose) you naturally want to surround yourself with as many people you like as possible. However, not having experienced single parent life (though my Dad isn't around much as he works late and travels) I can't comment on how good it is in my opinion though.
Post by: Styxx on July 18, 2002, 09:46:21 am
Quote
Originally posted by Kellan
As for Styxx, he's certainly a cheeky bugger.
Excuse my lack of knowledge on english slang, but what the heck is that supposed to mean? :p
Post by: Sandwich on July 18, 2002, 09:58:20 am
Quote
Originally posted by Styxx
Excuse my lack of knowledge on english slang, but what the heck is that supposed to mean? :p
:wakka:
It means you've got a lot of Chutzpa! :D :lol:
:wakka:
Post by: Styxx on July 18, 2002, 10:01:34 am
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
It means you've got a lot of Chutzpa! :D :lol:
Styxx's official answer: meh :p
Edit: and according to dictionary.com, it's "chutzpah". :D
Post by: Kellan on July 18, 2002, 11:38:32 am
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
:wakka:
It means you've got a lot of Chutzpa! :D :lol:
:wakka:
That's right. :)
It's a term of...errr, respect. Yeah, that's right. :D :nervous:
Post by: Styxx on July 18, 2002, 12:20:12 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Kellan
It's a term of...errr, respect. Yeah, that's right. :D :nervous:
Okay, one more of these and I'll start talking in portuguese... ;)
Post by: Kellan on July 18, 2002, 04:14:42 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Styxx
Okay, one more of these and I'll start talking in portuguese... ;)
Is that a threat or a promise? ;)
The only Portugese word I know is the Portugese pronunciation of "adios" (with the -sh, apparently) and (sp) Mudranya (/sp), which is some kind of killer liquor called 'fire water'. :p
Post by: Styxx on July 18, 2002, 05:29:45 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Kellan
The only Portugese word I know is the Portugese pronunciation of "adios" (with the -sh, apparently) and (sp) Mudranya (/sp), which is some kind of killer liquor called 'fire water'. :p
Hmm, "Adeus" and "Aguardente", respectively, I believe? The last one has the popular name of "Cachaça", which translates roughly into "Schnapps" (sp?).
Post by: Zeronet on July 18, 2002, 05:32:39 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Styxx
Excuse my lack of knowledge on english slang, but what the heck is that supposed to mean? :p
haha, he doesnt know and its not slang.
Post by: Kellan on July 19, 2002, 02:28:12 am
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronet
haha, he doesnt know and its not slang.
Yes it is, it's just that it's such old slang it's found its way into dictionaries. :)
Post by: Sandwich on July 19, 2002, 04:00:01 am
Quote
Originally posted by Styxx
Okay, one more of these and I'll start talking in portuguese... ;)
Eu quero comida! I just hope it doesn't get so bad that I start eating myself. :D
Post by: vyper on July 19, 2002, 06:02:22 am
Quote
people should have the right to choose without raging theocrats chaining women to the kitchen sink, keeping them pregnant and making the father work.
That is spurious and you know it. Just because a couple are married does not mean that both can't work. It is also thier choice whether they have children. You are confusing a culture of the past and of Catholicism where the sanctity of marriage included having as many children as possible and the man being the only bread-winner. (Which was suited to the lifestyles and quality of living of the past.)
Modern models exist where a married couple can live out life without the wife being chained to the kitchen sink or "keeping them" pregnant.
Post by: Styxx on July 19, 2002, 07:56:51 am
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
Eu quero comida!
Well, at least you won't starve... :D
Post by: Sandwich on July 19, 2002, 09:37:26 am
Quote
Originally posted by Styxx
Well, at least you won't starve... :D
Yeah yeah, cala boca! :p :D
Post by: Styxx on July 19, 2002, 11:10:50 am
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
Yeah yeah, cala boca! :p :D
Well, you'll also be able to keep your mouth shut when people tell you to... :D
Post by: Sandwich on July 19, 2002, 02:30:28 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Styxx
Well, you'll also be able to keep your mouth shut when people tell you to... :D
:D
I could go on, but the only other phrase I remember would be "te amo", and I don't think that that would be quite appropriate... :p :lol:
Post by: Kellan on July 20, 2002, 05:19:46 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich
:D
I could go on, but the only other phrase I remember would be "te amo", and I don't think that that would be quite appropriate... :p :lol:
Now even I know what that means. I agree that...well, maybe you shouldn't be telling each other that unless you really mean it. :lol:
:wakka:
Post by: Zeronet on July 20, 2002, 06:21:42 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Kellan
Yes it is, it's just that it's such old slang it's found its way into dictionaries. :)
Both words seperate are not slang, combined they form a phrase. If you meant to say they "were" slang, you may be correct, english is such a colourful language.
Post by: Blue Lion on July 20, 2002, 06:33:27 pm
Post by: Sandwich on July 20, 2002, 06:35:58 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Kellan
Now even I know what that means. I agree that...well, maybe you shouldn't be telling each other that unless you really mean it. :lol:
:wakka:
Yes, well that was the very first phrase I, ummm... was taught... :D ;)
Post by: Kellan on July 21, 2002, 04:56:53 am
Quote
Originally posted by Blue Lion
I'll never understand why slang phrases aren't considered legit. Where do we think all these word came from?
From a descriptivist linguistic viewpoint all new words are considered legit, even "jkjhhy". After all, it's not like we have a council of wordmakers. If the language isn't allowed to be changed by the people who use it, it willstop reflecting societal experience and people will stop using it.
Take a look at Latin, for example.
Post by: Blue Lion on July 21, 2002, 06:30:02 am
Quote
Originally posted by Kellan
From a descriptivist linguistic viewpoint all new words are considered legit, even "jkjhhy". After all, it's not like we have a council of wordmakers. If the language isn't allowed to be changed by the people who use it, it willstop reflecting societal experience and people will stop using it.
Take a look at Latin, for example.
My point, thank you ;)
I got people telling me "That isn't a word!"
Am I gonna be arrested by the Word Police? I said it, doesn't that make it a word?
Post by: Kellan on July 22, 2002, 04:25:35 am
Quote
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Am I gonna be arrested by the Word Police? I said it, doesn't that make it a word?
Unfortunately, I cannot stop the power of the Word Poli---
HALT. THIS IS THE WORD POLICE. YOU WILL CEASE THE USE OF NON-STANDARD VERB FORMS AT ONCE AND SURRENDER YOURSELF.
Run, Blue Lion, ruuuuuunnnn.....
:p