The Online Onslaught Forums


By contributing to Online Onslaught, you'll help make sure we're around for years to come. Toss us as little as a few bucks, or as much as your generosity allows. Thanks!

Last active: Never Not logged in [Login ]

Printable Version |
Subscribe | Add to Favorites
<<  1    2  >>
New Topic New Poll
Author: Subject: Gruesome shit...
folby
The Great One






Posts 3399
Registered 9-11-2003
Location schmocation
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 4-2-2004 at 03:12 PM Edit Post
quote:
There aren't thousands of dead GI's.
You're right, Krydor. There aren't. But since you're clear that we must "win" this, I'd like to ask you a question: How many is it worth?

Michael Mihalakis, who was 18, Stuart Moore, who was 21, Nathan Nakis, who was 19, Kenneth Souslin, who was 21, Rian Ferguson, who was 22, Jeffrey Braun, who was 19, Joseph Blickenstaff, who was 23, Jason Wright, who was 19, Arron Clark, who was 20, Ryan Young, who was 21, Aaron Sissel, who was 22, Rel Ravago, who was 21, Robert Roberts, who was 21, Joseph Lister, who was 22, Scott Tyrrell, who was 21, Sheldon Hawk Eagle, who was 21, Richard Hafer, who was 21, Paul Bueche, who was 19, Damian Heidelberg, who was 21, Eugene Uhl, who was 21, Joey Whitener, who was 19, Irving Medina, who was 22, Daniel Parker, who was 18, Robert Wise, who was 21, Robert Benson, who was 20, Frances Vega, who was 20, Benjamin Freeman, who was 19, Steven Acosta, who was 19, and Charles Sims, who was 18, are all dead. Is it still worth it?

Rachel Bosveld, who was 19, Kimberly Hampton, who was 27, Sharon Swartworth, who was 43, Karina Lau, who was 20, Analaura Gutierrez, who was 21, Alyssa Peterson, who was 27, Melissa Valles, who was 26 or Lori Ann Piestewa, who was 23, they might tell you if it was worth it, except they won't, because there dead.

How many names is it worth, Krydor? As many as it takes? This is my blatent emotional appeal. Every one of those names is a son, a daughter, a husband, a wife, a friend, a lover. They're gone now. Why? Weapons of mass destruction? Empire building? The war on terror? Who knows? I hope you think it's worth it, because I were you, and I didn't, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

As for the inevitability of this war, and the grand scale with which you insist it must play out, I'm doubtful. Did you ever consider that radical Islam might have a harder time recruiting young men if there wasn't an American presence in the middle east? Maybe if we stayed out of their business completely, they'd be willing to settle for an uneasy truce: you stay out of our world, we stay out of yours. I don't know if that solution will work, Krydor. But I want the chance to try.

This is a clash of civilizations, as great as the one our grandparents faced (perhaps great grandparents in some cases). The stone aged ideas of radical Islam versus the enlightenment of the west. They aren't going to stop until they win or we are all dead. The very idea idea that we might stop because of some nasty pictures speaks volumes about our lack of resolve.

They want to take what we have, and the first thing they'll take is all those fantastic rights the left has fought for. After that, they'll take the ones the right cherishes. To finish it off, they'll remove the stuff we all cherish. Many don't think it's that serious. I know it is. History is the repitition of trends.


I'm reminded of a piece Slacktivist wrote in May of last year.
quote:
THE MOST CRITICAL TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD

Americans search for meaning by torturing the cat.

What happens to a man to whom all things seem possible and every course of action open? Nothing of course. Except war. If a man lives in the sphere of the possible and waits for something to happen, what he is waiting for is war -- or the end of the world.

-- Walker Percy, in The Last Gentleman

Jeanne d'Arc at Body and Soul lately has been fruitfully drawing on Chris Hedges' book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. (The book is nicely reviewed at Daily Kos.)

The truth expressed in Hedges' title is true both forward and backward. Just as war can provide a sense of meaning, so too a lack of meaning -- or the desire to fill that absence -- can provide the cause for war.

A while back, Josh Marshall posted a nasty little piece of hate mail he received (see here) that illustrated this point.

It's the typical supercilious undergrad tone -- the kind of thing written by people who want to be Ben Shapiro when they grow small. But one sentence in particular (and yes, this is all one sentence, if not quite one thought) stood out:

This may be the most critical time in the history of the modern world much less of our country; and it is my fervent hope that the American People will remember and appropriately reward those, like you, who have chosen to use this opportunity to forward a political cause, and not incidentally their own careers, by attempting to sabotage an honorable effort to make the world a safer, better place.

You have to love the uppercase "American People" -- and I'm guessing this guy never expresses a hope without it being "fervent." But the important part here is the section in bold -- that ours is "the most critical time in ... history."

Like many people who blindly support[ed] this war -- including perhaps many in the White House and the Pentagon -- the writer is desperate for his life to have some greater meaning or purpose than it apparently does. He hasn't quite managed to stare into the abyss, but he's taken a quick glance in its direction and seen something deep and dark and frightening that he doesn't quite know how to deal with.

"All flesh is grass," the prophet Isaiah said, and "the grass withereth." This guy, understandably, doth not want to wither. He wants his life to matter, to mean something. He wants to be remembered after he is gone.

He has given this war a metaphysical, religious significance. For him, the war isn't about oil, or "liberating" Iraq, or overthrowing an evil dictator. It's grander than that -- grander even than the dreams of empire that seem to be motivating Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz. This war is an attempt to give his life meaning by turning our times into "the most critical time in the history of the modern world." If our times are meaningful, he hopes (fervently), then our lives must also be meaningful.

The writer gives his life meaning by taking a part in this great, epochal, transcendent struggle.

And note how easy, how undemanding of sacrifice, it is for him to play a role in this epochal, historic event. All he has to do is watch Fox News and fire-off the occasional sophomoric e-mail -- maybe even wave a flag, attend a corporate-radio rally, or rename some snack food.

This letter-bomber is not the only one narcotizing his existential crisis with an enthusiasm for "shock and awe." This is widespread -- it's one of the reasons it is nearly impossible to have a civil conversation with our fellow Americans who believe -- or want to believe, or need to believe -- Bush's baseless arguments for capricious war.

In terms of pure shock and awe, however, nothing in the Iraqi adventure compares to the gut-wrenching, paradigm-shattering, constitution-shredding shock and awe Americans experienced on September 11, 2001. As we watched the towers fall and the Pentagon burn we experienced shock and awe, and a powerful, inseparable admixture of fear, anger, sorrow, pride and love. But there was also something else, unseemly and almost unmentionable -- the perversely giddy rush of vicarious significance.

On September 10, 2001, as in Thoreau's day, the mass of Americans were living lives of quiet desperation but then -- as nearly every observer proclaimed -- everything changed.

A few writers took advantage of the anonymous forum provided by Salon's "forbidden thoughts about 9/11" feature to express

When the towers started collapsing and all chaos broke loose, I felt actual excitement. Here was an event that broke banality. Finally, here was something meaningful. I had grown so tired of the meaningless fluff our continent had become so enamored with. Here was an issue of raw emotions. I was glad that this was happening to snap people back into reality, to snap them back to mortality. My last sinful thought was that of genocide -- lets just send nuclear missiles to all of the Middle East and let it be done once and for all.

-- Name Withheld

Such feelings were of course taboo, but they were hardly unique to "Name Withheld." Josh Marshall's letter-writer, like many supporting the war on Iraq across the blogosphere, expresses the very same perverse thrill:

I felt actual excitement ... here was something meaningful ...

This may be the most critical time in the history of the modern world ...

The daring of Normandy, the fierce courage of Iwo Jima ... is fully present in this generation. ... In the images of falling statues, we have witnessed the arrival of a new era.

The voices are different, the sentiments the same. All are driven by a similar need to break through banality and ennui with the vicarious thrills afforded by war.

A whiff of something similar can be detected in the strangely envious plaudits baby boomers heaped upon the "greatest generation." Look a little closer and there's a hint there of something like "They're lucky. I wish we had a Hitler we could go fight." Little surprise, then, that mingled in with the horror of our own Day of Infamy was that taboo thrill and something like an unspoken, "At last."

We Americans are the wealthiest, most educated people the world has ever seen. We are a people and a nation to whom all things seem possible and every course of action is open.

What happens to a people to whom all things seem possible and every course of action open? Nothing of course. Except war. If a nation lives in the sphere of the possible and waits for something to happen, what it is waiting for is war -- or the end of the world.

The great struggle being waged by President Bush and his supporters is not really about making "the world a safer, better place." It's not even really about an imperial "Pax Americana." It's about the search for meaning by a people so bored, complacent, comfortable and desperate for significance that for them war gives birth not only to terrible beauty but to terrible joy.

This is why even dispassionate, prudential questions about foreign policy provoke outraged invective. Such questions are not merely seen as a threat to a policy position, but as a threat to a metaphysical, religious belief system.

"There comes a time in the late afternoon, when the children tire of their games," G.K. Chesterton wrote. "It is then that they turn to torturing the cat."

It is late afternoon in America, and tired at last of our meaningless games, we're looking for a new source of excitement.


[Edited on 4-2-2004 by folby]





Things I have written recently
3/24: On Sandwiches: The Beef on Weck
3/16: The Rage Against The Machine School of Continuing Education
3/15: On Sandwiches Presents: The Best Possible Sandwich Chain

View User's Profile Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   folby 's Aim
OO Kyle
The Rowdy One






Posts 2364
Registered 11-21-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: McIan-tastic

posted on 4-2-2004 at 04:18 PM Edit Post
One choses how they wish to lead. If the world were a giant Prison, then Krydor's "lead through fear and intimidation" theory would be the best and most obvious course for America to take. It's the course taken by the Mongols, Romans, German Socialist Worker's Party (Avoiding Godwin at all costs) and just about every strong, powerful government throughout history.

And it worked. The Mongols controlled 90% of the known world. Alexander conquered millions. The Romans brought Pax Romana everywhere they went. If Hitler hadn't gotten stupid and greedy, instead of just homicidal, there would probably be three nations today: America, Pan-Germany, and whatever the hell Japan decided to call the Asian theatre.

But I wonder if the effectiveness of brute force is really a justification for it's use. No, wait, I don't. It's NOT a justification for it's use. There'd be a lot less crime in America if the cops shot "undesireables" on sight, but that's not the way a civilized nation acts.

Uncertainty is the price you pay for freedom, justice, and civilization.

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by OO Kyle]





Stand back! There's a HURRICANE coming through! Several, in fact!

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 4-2-2004 at 07:32 PM Edit Post
Kyle,

4 words: Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. Total military victory through brute force. 10 years of occupation to ensure that the peace would last. Different desired outcomes, strikingly similiar tactics.

Folby,

At some point a line has to be drawn. I would have drawn the line around 1980. First Barracks bombing in Beruit, no more terrorists in Lebanon.

Radical Islam is a blight upon peace loving people in every corner of the world. They kidnap and murder westerners in the Philipines. They bomb nightclubs in Bali. They cut the breasts off nursing women in Africa. They massacre Christians, Hindus and Buddhists in India and every other corner of the world.

Yes, let's leave them alone. Let's just disengage. I'm sure they'll leave Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Niger, Morroco, Tunisia, Spain, Great Britain, Russia, Kosovo, The Philipines, The USA and Canada. That's just off the top of my head.

This war is simply freedom versus tyranny. There is no relativism, there is no equivalence. They want to fight regardless of whether you do or not. They will fight, even if you stand with your hands at your side. Hell, they want the west to do nothing.

If only if it were as simple as "America Bad". They don't attack America anymore. They kill missionaries, aid workers, UN liasons, Spanish commuters, and a whole host of other non Americans for the unpardonable crime of being not muslim or not muslim enough.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
mcian
Banned






Posts 744
Registered 4-30-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Tactless

posted on 4-2-2004 at 07:40 PM Edit Post
The Fire-bombings of Dresden and Berlin did not force the Germans to surrender. The Americans Fire-bombed toyko and it burned for three days killing over 100,000 and that did not force them to surrender. It was simply the sheer power to the atomic bomb which made the Japanese surrender.

I agree with you on the second point. Islam, from its earliest times, is based on conquest of ones enemies. When Muhammed led his troops out of Medina to take Mecca he started a campaign which many muslims think will not be complete until they conquer all that oppose them and thier views. They have fought against the western world since they attempted to take Istanbul (then called Constantinople). They will continue to oppose those who do not accept Muhammed as the Prophet of God and that includes all major religions.

If you look at the muslim world they have been in a state of conflict with all of their neighbors no matter which way you look. They fought the europeans for centuries in the balklands, they have been fighting the hindus in India / Pakistan region for years, they have had ongoing conflict with different African peoples (pagans and Christians).





"you are just a piece of shit who probably has no fucking life and no fucking friends so you spend all your time online thinking you are cool."

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member This User Has MSN Messenger
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 4-2-2004 at 09:23 PM Edit Post
Mcian,

The point I was trying to make was that we are not above killing massive amounts of civillians.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
mcian
Banned






Posts 744
Registered 4-30-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Tactless

posted on 4-2-2004 at 09:25 PM Edit Post
Ok - sorry thought that the point was that the fire-bombings of Germany led to end of WW2.





"you are just a piece of shit who probably has no fucking life and no fucking friends so you spend all your time online thinking you are cool."

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member This User Has MSN Messenger
folby
The Great One






Posts 3399
Registered 9-11-2003
Location schmocation
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 4-2-2004 at 09:57 PM Edit Post
Krydor:

There are elements in American society that want to take over the whole world, too. They don't get anywhere, because we all realize that they're fucking lunatics. Why isn't the muslim world capable of the same realization? Why isn't the muslim world capable of thinking "Okay, we have to accept that there are people in the world who aren't muslim, and we can't do anything about it. Deal. But we can run our muslim world how we want." In my eyes, if that includes driving everyone else out, so be it. Do I advocate the murder of Hindus, christians, etc? No. But I do advocate different parts of the world working differently. In North America, we all live in peace and harmony. Why is the assumption that the rest of the world has to live like that too?

Radical Islam would have a hard time recruiting people without "Free the holy land" to put on their banner. Studies of suicide bombers have revealed that they're not poor, undereducated, or crazy. They're just angry. If we were to get out of there, I believe the muslim world to be rational enough to accept that they can't rule the whole world, and settle for ruling thier parts of it. I hope America accepts this too.

Look, the opression of muslim women bothers me. I think it's terrible. However, it's none of my fucking business. I just want to stay out of it. Do you not see the similarity in your "clash of the civilizations" arguments with their "true believers vs. infidels"? You share a remarkably similar attitude when viewing the conflict. Only chance has put you on this side of the argument, and not theirs.

P.S. You didn't answer the question. How many is it worth? 5,000? 500,000? As many as it takes? How many people are worth sacrificing to "the most important time in the history of the world"?

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by folby]





Things I have written recently
3/24: On Sandwiches: The Beef on Weck
3/16: The Rage Against The Machine School of Continuing Education
3/15: On Sandwiches Presents: The Best Possible Sandwich Chain

View User's Profile Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   folby 's Aim
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 4-2-2004 at 11:04 PM Edit Post
quote:
Originally posted by folby
Krydor:

There are elements in American society that want to take over the whole world, too. They don't get anywhere, because we all realize that they're fucking lunatics. Why isn't the muslim world capable of the same realization? Why isn't the muslim world capable of thinking "Okay, we have to accept that there are people in the world who aren't muslim, and we can't do anything about it. Deal. But we can run our muslim world how we want." In my eyes, if that includes driving everyone else out, so be it.



An advocation of ethnic cleansing? A plea for segregation? What the hell does this mean? If they segregate and cleanse people with similar beliefs to ours, does that mean we can do the same on our continent? Round up the Muslims and drop them out of c-140 over Iran?

quote:

Do I advocate the murder of Hindus, christians, etc? No. But I do advocate different parts of the world working differently. In North America, we all live in peace and harmony. Why is the assumption that the rest of the world has to live like that too?



Wait a second... This part and that first part are in total contradiction.

quote:

Radical Islam would have a hard time recruiting people without "Free the holy land" to put on their banner. Studies of suicide bombers have revealed that they're not poor, undereducated, or crazy. They're just angry. If we were to get out of there, I believe the muslim world to be rational enough to accept that they can't rule the whole world, and settle for ruling thier parts of it. I hope America accepts this too.



No, they would say "Free Spain/Andilusia" or "Kill the Infidels". The ones in charge are not rational in our sense of the word. That's the mindset you simply must break. For those people, it is completely rational to convert by the sword. They did this shit long before Israel was a state.

quote:

Look, the opression of muslim women bothers me. I think it's terrible. However, it's none of my fucking business. I just want to stay out of it. Do you not see the similarity in your "clash of the civilizations" arguments with their "true believers vs. infidels"? You share a remarkably similar attitude when viewing the conflict. Only chance has put you on this side of the argument, and not theirs.



This runs completely opposite to everything I hold dear and everything I find redeeming about the human race. The compassonate left, my ass.

In for a penny, in for a pound. You want to say "screw it"? Then well and truly do that. No more foreign aid of any stripe. It's none of our business, remember? Who cares if women are repressed or children starve? What's the big deal if AIDS is wiping out entire villages or if Islamic thugs are killing at random?

quote:


P.S. You didn't answer the question. How many is it worth? 5,000? 500,000? As many as it takes? How many people are worth sacrificing to "the most important time in the history of the world"?

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by folby]


I don't know. I can't honestly answer that question. Tens of millions, both civillian and military, died in WWI and WWII. I can't even speculate on how many died in the various actions in the cold war. You'll have to ask yourself if those actions were worth it.

Is there anything in your life that you would defend with your very being?






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
folby
The Great One






Posts 3399
Registered 9-11-2003
Location schmocation
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 4-2-2004 at 11:42 PM Edit Post
This is part of the reason I tried to avoid CE.

I'm not your average leftist. Really not your average leftist. If you look at my posts in CE, they're filled with "IMO" and "The way I see it" and "I think." There's a reason for this. For more than 100 thousand years, human beings lived in small, local tribes. They lived like any other creature on the face of the earth, and they prospered, just like the rest of the earth, living in perfect harmony with everyone else. Then, at some point in the past, civilization was born. It was born, and it decided it was the one right way to do things. It then procceded to either kill or convert everyone who didn't want to live like them. (What we did to the indians, what the Japanese did to the natives a looooooong time ago, what the Austrailians did to the aboriginals, and on and on and on.) We now live in the world that has been completely conquered by civlization.

If I were God, I'd return to tribal-based living. Small groups with little regard for each other. I wouldn't give a shit if two tribes fought, so long as one tribe didn't get all "we run everything" about it. The Crow and the Souix fought, but they never made war. No matter how many times they stole horses from each other, neither side went "Let's just wipe those motherfuckers out."

Our very civilization has one rule that goes above all others: We know what is right for everyone. Communism and capitalism both thought they knew what was best for everyone, so they duked it out. Now our world and the muslim world want to do the same thing. You seem pretty gung-ho about it.

I don't want to do that. I don't want a homogenized world. I don't want a global political body. I don't believe that the "one world" philosophy can work, ever and so I don't want to try.

In for a penny, in for a pound. You want to say "screw it"? Then well and truly do that. No more foreign aid of any stripe. It's none of our business, remember? Who cares if women are repressed or children starve? What's the big deal if AIDS is wiping out entire villages or if Islamic thugs are killing at random?

If I were in charge, yes. It seems callous and cold, I'm sure. However, there are other things involved in what I believe, which are too numerous and complicated to go into here. However, it comes down to this: The way we live (alluded to above) is killing us. There are only two options: abandon it or perish. Hence, despite it seeming cruel, that's what I want to do.

No, they would say "Free Spain/Andilusia" or "Kill the Infidels". The ones in charge are not rational in our sense of the word. That's the mindset you simply must break. For those people, it is completely rational to convert by the sword.

I guess we just disagree there.

quote:
Sinking Ship


The ship was sinking---and sinking fast. The captain told the passengers and crew, "We've got to get the lifeboats in the water right away."
But the crew said, "First we have to end capitalist oppression of the working class. Then we'll take care of the lifeboats."

Then the women said, "First we want equal pay for equal work. The lifeboats can wait."

The racial minorities said, "First we need to end racial discrimination. Then seating in the lifeboats will be allotted fairly."

The captain said, "These are all important issues, but they won't matter a damn if we don't survive. We've got to lower the lifeboats right away!"

But the religionists said, "First we need to bring prayer back into the classroom. This is more important than lifeboats."

Then the pro-life contingent said, "First we must outlaw abortion. Fetuses have just as much right to be in those lifeboats as anyone else."

The right-to-choose contingent said, "First acknowledge our right to abortion, then we'll help with the lifeboats."

The socialists said, "First we must redistribute the wealth. Once that's done everyone will work equally hard at lowering the lifeboats."

The animal-rights activists said, "First we must end the use of animals in medical experiments. We can't let this be subordinated to lowering the lifeboats."

Finally the ship sank, and because none of the lifeboats had been lowered, everyone drowned.

The last thought of more than one of them was, "I never dreamed that solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship would sink so SUDDENLY."


That Said:

If I advocate foreign aid, or intervnetion, or what have you, it's usually for one of two reasons.

1) We can't get off the ship quite yet, and it'd be nice to improve the lifeboats.

2) We need to fix something that is our fault.

Is there anything in your life that you would defend with your very being?

There's plenty of things. However, they all come down to one thing: Tribalism. Most the things I would defend with my being have to do with seperating one part of the world from interfering with another. Stopping someone who belives they know what's best for everyone from getting away with it, basically.





Things I have written recently
3/24: On Sandwiches: The Beef on Weck
3/16: The Rage Against The Machine School of Continuing Education
3/15: On Sandwiches Presents: The Best Possible Sandwich Chain

View User's Profile Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   folby 's Aim
OO Kyle
The Rowdy One






Posts 2364
Registered 11-21-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: McIan-tastic

posted on 4-3-2004 at 04:34 AM Edit Post
Krydor, off the topic for a moment, sort of: You should read Orson Scott Card's writings regarding America and the problems in the Middle East. I think you'd find his take on it interesting. I'll see if I can dig up the links.





Stand back! There's a HURRICANE coming through! Several, in fact!

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Firebreaker Chip
Man of a Thousand Holds






Posts 1396
Registered 1-21-2004
Location Shangri-La
Member Is Offline

Mood: Wolveriffic

posted on 4-3-2004 at 03:35 PM Edit Post
quote:
Originally posted by folby
Krydor:

Radical Islam would have a hard time recruiting people without "Free the holy land" to put on their banner. Studies of suicide bombers have revealed that they're not poor, undereducated, or crazy. They're just angry. If we were to get out of there, I believe the muslim world to be rational enough to accept that they can't rule the whole world, and settle for ruling thier parts of it. I hope America accepts this too.




It doesn't matter, if we withdrew all our troops tomorrow. The Islamic Miltants would still be after us. What we would be doing is trying to appease a terrorist society. You know who else tried to appease crazy nuts who wanted to take over the world.

Britian and France did back in 30's before WW II. They thought if we give Hitler what he wants he'll eventually stop and plus we are protecting the over all good by not allowing another war to take place. They were so hellbent not have another war they were willing to give Hitler anything. After the annexation of Austria, Sudentenland sp?, remilitrization of the Rhineland and the invasion of Poland they found they were wrong. If they fought Hitler in 1935 there would have been no WWII.

The Miltants are fighting a jihad they aren't going to stop until they win. In the 600's-700's, the Muslims conquered anything in their path. If wasn't for the Byzantines at Constantinople or the Franks at Tours we would all be be practing Islam.

Want further proof, Osama never ever said anything about the Israeli-Palestian conflict until after 9/11. Osama didn't look for ways to justify his actions in the eyes of Islam until 9/11 occured. Osama just hated America plain and simple it had nothing to do with our policy anywhere it was just the fact we were America. Once again I am sorry in advance for any grammitical errors.





Riding Space Mountain: Pro Wrestling & Occasionally More Blog

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
benoitbrokemyneck
John Edwards is a faggot.






Posts 4109
Registered 3-17-2002
Location Inside The Internets
Member Is Offline

Mood: not dead yet

posted on 4-3-2004 at 06:57 PM Edit Post
posted by folby...to krydor
You share a remarkably similar attitude when viewing the conflict. Only chance has put you on this side of the argument, and not theirs.


DING DING DING! Thanks folby for once again summing up my overall view on this. I do very much believe in certain personality types that are just bound to accept and promote violence for their version of "positive" change. The radicals have been doing it forever, and so have people like Krydor. Hell he even brought up Dresden and Nagasaki, as if these were "good" things, and said that "we murder massive amounts" of civilians to achieve "total victory". Total victory is good according to Krydor, so killing massive numbers of people to do so is just ok-doh-kay. Hmmmm, killing lots of innocent civilians to achieve total military victory. Sounds great, can I enlist? And what is this organization that wants to recruit me for killing people in hope of total victory? Hammas? Al Queda? The thought that you actually embrace the whole "if lots of innocent people die so we can crush them, then so be it" mentality speaks volumes of your character, it makes me ill actually to know that you would adopt the exact same mentality that most terrorists live by.


Furthermore the whole basis of this conflict has very little in common with the examples of "total victory' you so very much celebrate. Wars in the past were often symetrical, this one is not. Its at best asymetrical, there are no recognized armies in the realm of ideology, so the idea of recreating one of these tradgic days to achieve "total victory" is neither here nor there. On top of that, ideas can't be killed with bombs Krydor, they can only be squelched with peace, or fueled with hatred, occupation, bombs, and bullets. Your solution merely reinforces their cause. Look where its gotten the world. More terrorists strikes as of late, not less, our strategy is working if in fact we want more terrorists attacks. Is that what we want? Iraq is a fire, we are gasoline.


This runs completely opposite to everything I hold dear and everything I find redeeming about the human race. The compassonate left, my ass.

Krydor, you are getting confused. Any so called left-winger wants whats best for the world and humanity. Saying lets mind our business seems to contradict that, but then again, occupation, bombings, and "killing massive" numbers of innocents does contradict that to a MUCH LARGER degree. Anyway, we aren't there to help people out man, we are there to push our military agenda, and anything resembling "helping these innocents" is just a side effect. If our government really cared about promoting human rights they wouldn't have handed power of the the WARLORDS in Afganistan that often rape and beat women for thngs like showing their face or going to school. These new warlords are no different then the old ones, except they (like us) hate the taliban. MY MILITARY ISN'T IN IRAQ OR AFGANSITAN TO PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS KRYDOR, SO DON'T TAKE THE LIBERTY OF ACTING AS IF THEY ARE.


And you never fully addressed Kyle's point about "It's the course taken by the Mongols, Romans, German Socialist Worker's Party...." either. I think thats a good point that deals with the heart of our actions of late. Just because we can, does that means we are justified?

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 4-3-2004 at 09:10 PM Edit Post
Originally posted by benoitbrokemyneck
posted by folby...to krydor
You share a remarkably similar attitude when viewing the conflict. Only chance has put you on this side of the argument, and not theirs.


DING DING DING! Thanks folby for once again summing up my overall view on this. I do very much believe in certain personality types that are just bound to accept and promote violence for their version of "positive" change. The radicals have been doing it forever, and so have people like Krydor. Hell he even brought up Dresden and Nagasaki, as if these were "good" things, and said that "we murder massive amounts" of civilians to achieve "total victory".


Let's start backwards and work forward. Total victory is the desired outcome in any war. The treaty Versailles should be evidence enough of that. If not, then the sacking of Carthage after 20 years of Hannibal mucking about in Italy might ring a bell.

Comparing me to folks like Osama, Hamas and terrorists in Iraq is without doubt a new low. Total misrepresentation of my naming 4 of the most destructive Allied bombing campaigns comes close as well. Using your daft logic, the Allies were "just as bad" as the Axis.

Violence to promote change is why you have a country. Violence to promote change is why esteemed southern gentlemen can't own another human being because of their skin colour. Violence to promote change is why the labour movement is so strong. I'm not going to scare quote the word positive, as you did, because those are 3 examples of positive change through violence.



Total victory is good according to Krydor, so killing massive numbers of people to do so is just ok-doh-kay. Hmmmm, killing lots of innocent civilians to achieve total military victory. Sounds great, can I enlist? And what is this organization that wants to recruit me for killing people in hope of total victory? Hammas? Al Queda? The thought that you actually embrace the whole "if lots of innocent people die so we can crush them, then so be it" mentality speaks volumes of your character, it makes me ill actually to know that you would adopt the exact same mentality that most terrorists live by.


I still don't know how you managed to get into any institution of higher learning and stay there with such poor debating and reading comprehension skills.

Al Queda wants to kill us. I want them dead before they can do so. You want to have them over for a snack and perhaps a soda.


Furthermore the whole basis of this conflict has very little in common with the examples of "total victory' you so very much celebrate. Wars in the past were often symetrical, this one is not. Its at best asymetrical, there are no recognized armies in the realm of ideology, so the idea of recreating one of these tradgic days to achieve "total victory" is neither here nor there. On top of that, ideas can't be killed with bombs Krydor, they can only be squelched with peace, or fueled with hatred, occupation, bombs, and bullets.


You are so goddamn ignorant in the realm of history it makes me sick. To quote Sir Winston Churchill (greatest man of the 20th century)

quote:

What shall we do? Many people think that the best way to escape war is to dwell upon its horrors and to imprint them vividly upon the minds of the younger generation. They flaunt the grisly photograph before their eyes. They fill their ears with tales of carnage. They dilate upon the ineptitude of generals and admirals. They denounce the crime as insensate folly of human strife. Now, all this teaching ought to be very useful in preventing us from attacking or invading any other country, if anyone outside a madhouse wished to do so, but how would it help us if we were attacked or invaded ourselves that is the question we have to ask.



Italics mine

That's from 1934, or his Wilderness Years.


Your solution merely reinforces their cause. Look where its gotten the world. More terrorists strikes as of late, not less, our strategy is working if in fact we want more terrorists attacks. Is that what we want? Iraq is a fire, we are gasoline.


Are you on crack? The Pope denounces the war and Rome becomes a target. Spain capitulates, and there is another bomb found on a railroad track. You cannot have peace when your enemy isn't fighting for anything but your destruction. Their "idea" is to convert us infidels by the sword.

Like it or not, they will eventually run out of 12-34 year old male muslims willing to die for a lost cause. The Palestinians have been reduced to using women and children.


This runs completely opposite to everything I hold dear and everything I find redeeming about the human race. The compassonate left, my ass.


Krydor, you are getting confused. Any so called left-winger wants whats best for the world and humanity. Saying lets mind our business seems to contradict that, but then again, occupation, bombings, and "killing massive" numbers of innocents does contradict that to a MUCH LARGER degree.


Folby distinctly and clearly said that the plight of women in these backwater shitholes is an internal problem, and we should just say fuck 'em. I like women. I married one, and fathered two. The idea that we should let hundreds of millions of women suffer because it's none of our business is foul.

Quite frankly, it is our business.


Anyway, we aren't there to help people out man, we are there to push our military agenda, and anything resembling "helping these innocents" is just a side effect. If our government really cared about promoting human rights they wouldn't have handed power of the the WARLORDS in Afganistan that often rape and beat women for thngs like showing their face or going to school. These new warlords are no different then the old ones, except they (like us) hate the taliban. MY MILITARY ISN'T IN IRAQ OR AFGANSITAN TO PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS KRYDOR, SO DON'T TAKE THE LIBERTY OF ACTING AS IF THEY ARE.


Oh, it's all about Dick Cheney and Haliurton and the oil pipeline and cheap gas? Tinfoil hattery at its best.


And you never fully addressed Kyle's point about "It's the course taken by the Mongols, Romans, German Socialist Worker's Party...." either. I think thats a good point that deals with the heart of our actions of late. Just because we can, does that means we are justified?


I did, but you want to misrepresent it. The west isn't above using such tactics, has used such tactics and will use such tactics if the situation merits it. So far, in this war, the west has not used such tactics.

Spend more time in class and less time hanging out with the "cool" kids who will amount to nothing.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
mr_mysterious2
Showstopper






Posts 709
Registered 3-2-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: New Japan

posted on 4-3-2004 at 11:35 PM Edit Post
quote:
You are so goddamn ignorant in the realm of history it makes me sick. To quote Sir Winston Churchill (greatest man of the 20th century)

Hmmmm, ironic that you should see Churchill as the greatest man of the 20th century. Here’s what he had to say about using chemical weapons on Kurds and Arabs in what is now Iraq:

“I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes” – Churchill, 1920

There’s no doubt that Churchill was one of the most important men of the 20th Century. Its true that he contributed heavily to saving the Western world from the spectre of Nazism and for that he should be revered to some degree. But History-boy Krydor should know that he behaved like a war criminal for a long time prior to WWII.

Perhaps this idolisation of Churchill is a bit of an insight into the psyche of Krydor. Nothing greater than a racist Imperialist for you to model youself on.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
OO Kyle
The Rowdy One






Posts 2364
Registered 11-21-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: McIan-tastic

posted on 4-4-2004 at 02:29 AM Edit Post
...and let's not forget that Mr. "Greatest man of the 20th century" apparently let an entire city- an entire British city- burn in order to protect decoding efforts that were ultimately next to worthless.

Churchill was politically dead before WW2- It's amazing how vast quantities of Death and War somehow conspire to "noblize" people in our eyes. Hell, other than get England's ass kicked, what did Churchill do exactly to deserve the laurels history have laid upon him? I guess he avoided surrendering, but calling him the greatest man of the 20th century sort of seems like calling Al Snow the greatest wrestler of the 20th century. Yes, both of them showed great apptitude for getting the hell stomped out of them, and yes, both of them hung in to the bitter end.





Stand back! There's a HURRICANE coming through! Several, in fact!

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
chretienbabacool
The Great One






Posts 3444
Registered 3-5-2003
Location Columbia, MO
Member Is Offline

Mood: Go Cubs!

posted on 4-4-2004 at 04:38 AM Edit Post
Al Snow is a much, much better wrestler then Churchill was a leader, so just you be quiet Kyle.
View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 4-4-2004 at 07:33 AM Edit Post
Kyle,

I think you've mistaken Neville Chamberlain for Winston. For years, he warned of the threat of Nazism and Europe, implored action from the League of Nations and begged his country to re-arm. In the meantime, Charles Lindbergh thought Nazi's were keen and the former King Edward went to hang out in Germany.

He had no political stock because people thought he was a raving loon. How on god's green earth, 20 years removed from a war that killed millions could the German leadership possibly want another war? They really just want what we want, peace and love and all that touchy-feely stuff.

Hell, even if they do want war, who cares? After all, we live on this Island and no one is going to attack us on this Island. It's been a thousand years since that happened.

Yeah, Winston Churchill was the WWII equivalent of Al Snow. Does that make FDR Marty Jannety?[comicbookstoreguy]Worst Comparison Ever[/comicbookstoreguy]

Something to think about regarding the spy stuff:

The Enigma information was far from useless. The war was over for years before it was revealed the British cracked that code. There's all kinds of fantastic information that is just finally coming to light about the intelligence war.

Rommel didn't get his ass kicked in Africa entirely because Mongomery was a better general, but because the British knew Rommel's moves as he gave the orders.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
mr_mysterious2
Showstopper






Posts 709
Registered 3-2-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: New Japan

posted on 4-4-2004 at 03:34 PM Edit Post
Lets not forget the bombing of Dresden. Credit to Churchill though, he was at least capable of admitting doubt when he thought he might have been wrong:

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed ... The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. " - Churchill, 1945

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Eli
The Immortal One






Posts 4503
Registered 1-4-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Careworn

posted on 4-4-2004 at 04:34 PM Edit Post
A little off topic but, I would like to add that this is the first time I have seen Krydor utilize his ...

quote:
... quote style response technique


with his...

bold style response technique

Very Nice. It's like a fine Cabernet/Shiraz.

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   Eli 's Aim   Eli 's Yahoo
Endo
Fella






Posts 454
Registered 4-30-2002
Location Virginia Beach
Member Is Offline

Mood: hypoxic

posted on 4-4-2004 at 06:12 PM Edit Post
Just remember that no matter what side you take we are all still western infidels and wanted dead.





"Why do you watch that? It's fake! IT'S FAKE!!" - My mother
"I know." - Me

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Endo 's Aim
OO Kyle
The Rowdy One






Posts 2364
Registered 11-21-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: McIan-tastic

posted on 4-4-2004 at 06:27 PM Edit Post
Krydor;
Maybe I have- Jeb is our resident history expert, not me.

And I also laud your use of bold quoting over block quoting. I many not agree with what you say, but I admire the way you say it.





Stand back! There's a HURRICANE coming through! Several, in fact!

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
<<  1    2  >>
New Topic New Poll


go to top


Powered by XMB 1.8 Partagium Final SP1
Developed By Aventure Media & The XMB Group
Processed in 0.1950760 seconds, 22 queries