Quake3World

YourGrandpa wrote:

Nightshade wrote:Several detainees have died in US custody, and it's a FACT that they are holding people that they just gathered up in sweeps in Afghanistan. They had no ties to Al Qaeda, just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's not common practice to kill detainees, you moron. You can't be this thick. And they were arrested for a reason, "Wrong palce wrong time". They'll be sorted and released. Not murdered per a maniac's protocal.

I didn't say it was common practice, merely that it's happened. And why have they been held for three fucking years as enemy combatants if they're going to be "sorted and released"?

Dave wrote:I don't blame the British for much of what happened to the Indians because most of them died from disease... there was no way to know that disease was going to wipe out entire populations at the time. I think NS is talking about the later shit pulled by people like Andrew Jackson

Yes, Wounded Knee, the Trail of Tears, the Seminole Wars, etc., etc.

Nightshade wrote:Dude, you cannot be this dim. You said the US had never engaged in genocide. I proved you wrong with a very obvious example. And they weren't Englishmen, they were AMERICANS. READ A BOOK.
The "theories" I mention are hard facts, again, read a book. Do some research on the Banana Wars that the Marines fought in Central America. You know what they were for? CORPORATE INTERESTS. You know who said it? Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, two-time Medal of Honor winner. Go read "War is a Racket", his book on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/092291 ... s&v=glance
When one of our most decorated officers tells you something like that, you're a fucking fool not to listen. After all, he was only the guy that prosecuted the whole thing.
Ignore the facts and engage in strawman arguments at your peril.

Maybe I should have predicated my statement by adding CIVILIZED in front of U.S. Though you still haven't answered one question or offered one solution.

Blah, blah, blah CORPORATE INTERESTS. Blah, blah, blah, Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler. This based on one mans word who had a book he was hawking.... :icon27:

That's it, you're completely fucking mental. I have answered your questions, and I offered a solution. You disagree, so you ignore them. Brilliant.
I used to consider MGen Butler a hero because he won the Medal twice. Now I hold him in high esteem because he told the truth as he saw it.
I can see you're happy in your ignorance, so go on, be a happy American idiot. Be exactly what the rest of the CIVILIZED world hates about this country, and with damn good reason.

Nightshade wrote: I didn't say it was common practice, merely that it's happened. And why have they been held for three fucking years as enemy combatants if they're going to be "sorted and released"?

My point is that it was common practice by Saddam and that's why "Saddam" and "The US" are not driectly interchangeable.

If they've done nothing wrong, they should be released. But how do you know that they're being held unjustly? You really don't. You're speculating that if they're not terrorists, there isn't any other reason that they should be held. Injustices happen every day in the judicial system. The system isn't perfect, but it's the only one we've got.

Nightshade wrote:That's it, you're completely fucking mental. I have answered your questions, and I offered a solution. You disagree, so you ignore them. Brilliant.
I used to consider MGen Butler a hero because he won the Medal twice. Now I hold him in high esteem because he told the truth as he saw it.
I can see you're happy in your ignorance, so go on, be a happy American idiot. Be exactly what the rest of the CIVILIZED world hates about this country, and with damn good reason.

You've answered your own questions, not mine. Read up.

American idiot, how cliche.... If the CIVILIZED world doesn't have an alternate method for dealing with situations like Iraq, maybe they shouldn't be so quick to hate the US.

Hey, if the shoe fits...

The only question you've asked in this thread (while answering none of mine) is a strawman argument. It's the same as saying "Oh, would you rather Saddam was still in power?" when questioned about the validity of the 'reasons' given for the invasion.
When you ask how long 'we should let this madness go on' you're totally ignoring the fact that the US and it's foreign policies are a HUGE part of the reason why this 'madness' happens in the first place.
Now stop dodging my questions and answer them, along with this one: How did Saddam originally get chemical weapons?

Answering a question with a hypothetical situation or another question does not constitue an answer.

Iraq originally got there base for chemical weapons by way of the american government.....

Now answer my questions with an answer.


BTW, I've asked multiple questions.... Read up.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Nightshade wrote:TBH, we really have no way of knowing how many civilians were actually in Fallujah. But then, there's always Dresden and Tokyo to recall fondly!

And Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Um, they started it. Unfortunately for them. As awful as it was to drop nukes, it can be argued that it saved more lives than it destroyed becaues it brought the war to a quick end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom ... d_Nagasaki

as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month.

Sometimes breaking the back of the enemy is the best way to save civilian lives.

Nightshade wrote:Oh, and you also need to look up the reasons why we got involved in WWII, and how it could have been ended without dropping the bomb.
And explain to me again what the rationale was for firebombing population centers?

As for the need for an expediate end to the war:

The firebombing had killed well over 100,000 people in Japan, since February of 1945, directly and indirectly. That intensive conventional bombing would have continued prior to an invasion. The submarine blockade and the U.S. Army Air Force's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshu from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands. This, combined with the delay in relief supplies from the Allies, could have resulted in a far greater death toll in Japan, due to famine and malnutrition, than actually occurred in the attacks. "Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death," noted historian Daikichi Irokawa. Meanwhile, in addition to the Soviet attacks, offensives were scheduled for September in southern China, and Malaysia.

And as for ending it through other means, while anything is possible in theory, in practice you have to deal with the reality of the situation and act on those realities:

Although supporters of the bombing concede that the civilian leadership in Japan was cautiously and discreetly sending out diplomatic communiques as far back as January of 1945, following the Allied invasion of Luzon in the Philippines, they point out that Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the atomic bomb.

While some members of the civilian leadership did use covert diplomatic channels to begin negotiation for peace, on their own they could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal. A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan with the military increasingly determined to fight despite the costs and odds.

As for the firebombing, it's called war man. That's how they did it back then. Look at Britain or Germany and ask them why they got bombed while you're at it. Destroying the ability of a country to make weapons is one aspect of winning a war.

YourGrandpa wrote:

Nightshade wrote: I didn't say it was common practice, merely that it's happened. And why have they been held for three fucking years as enemy combatants if they're going to be "sorted and released"?

My point is that it was common practice by Saddam and that's why "Saddam" and "The US" are not driectly interchangeable.

If they've done nothing wrong, they should be released. But how do you know that they're being held unjustly? You really don't. You're speculating that if they're not terrorists, there isn't any other reason that they should be held. Injustices happen every day in the judicial system. The system isn't perfect, but it's the only one we've got.

We should have shot them all on site, fuck this taking prisoners crap. If they were within 50 miles of a terrorist camp they are guilty by association. If they don't like it, they should get their military together and kick the terrorists out. Besides we told them we were coming! Anyone with half a brain would have gtfo!

Nightshade wrote: Now stop dodging my questions and answer them, along with this one: How did Saddam originally get chemical weapons?

That's a copout.
Countries are going to continue to develop weapon technologies with or without our help. What do you propose we do about the threat of countries who's leaders are maniacal tyrants who would like nothing better than to build weapons and fire them off at other countries, especially the U.S.? According to what I've heard so far we should let them do what they want and just hope they never nuke us.

Nobody still has answered my initial question:

Specifically I would like to know what you think would happen if we leave countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. to do as they please.

YourGrandpa wrote:Still, no alternatives.

i just suggested one. elect better governments in your own country before starting wars on other people's. i guess with your selective blindness you missed this the first time i said it

Sure, the US is guilty of many similar things. But it isn't US policy to kill and/or jail its civilians just because they're feeling the need to. The US is not forcing 90% of the countries population to live below poverty because the leader wants everything for himself.

i assume by US you mean US government, in which case it doesn't need to force them. it just needs to act 9 times out of 10 in the interests of big business and poverty just happens

The US has never been involved in mass genocide.

apart from native americans, which NS already covered

The US has never invaded a country for the sole purpose of consuming said country under its rule.

this is mere sophistry. when britain dominated the middle east there was such a thing as the 'arab facade', a string of compliant governments who were free to do certain things within their own borders but did britain's bidding regarding british oil interests. today the US is attempting to establish a 'democratic facade' for the same purpose. direct rule is unnecessary and usually undesirable, as any imperialist will tell you

So to say you can "directly" compare the US and Saddam is a blatant display of stupidity.

i think it's your own stupidity on display here since all of your points have been destroyed in this thread

You're simply trying to redirect the conversation away from your inability to provide a viable solution.

SOLUTION TO WHAT?

Yes, the US did bomb Japan... etc etc...

ancient history. nothing we can do about it now

It's real easy for you arm-chair generals and politicians to sit back and criticize the decisions made by our world leaders. But I implore you to suggest something more effective.

well, since i'm an armchair general, and you're just an armchair gunnery sergeant, i outrank you, so fuck off soldier

seremtan wrote:by the sounds of it, explaining the anti-war pov to you would be a mammoth undertaking. you seem to find the idea of countries "doing as they please" intolerable, which leaves me wondering wtf you think the US has been doing all these years

we do not go around attacking other countries at random, we get drawn into these situations because of their actions. We did not attackKuwait, Saddam did. As for us attacking Iraq, the whole entire UN should have attacked him. We did not act alone, we acted on the premise of following the policies laid out by the UN year ago. However most of the rest of the UN became corrupt with things such as under the table oil deals (France) so that in the end England and us were the only ones who had the integrity to enforce the world's policies. And for this we are looked down on? Fuck the rest of the world then!

i can probably sum up the anti-war position with a rhetorical question: what right does the US or anyone else have to interfere with, dictate to, not to mention bomb & slaughter the people of, any country it pleases, for any reason it pleases, at any time it pleases?

Like I just said above, we don't do that, people like Saddam do that. We only do it when there is no other choice for an acceptable outcome. Look at all the countries out there that we could be attacking for our benefit. Hell we could bulldoze over half the persian gulf and take their oil if we were guilty of what you say, but we don't do it. Saddam was in blatant, repeated, and ongoing violation of UN sanctions which is an act of war against all UN countries.

Again I would pose to you, how long do we wait? It seems to me your answer is "forever". The anti-war crowd seems to think that we should never really go to war until we have armies on our soil killing your families. Yet you don't seem to get it that we are never that far away from that scenario. In this day and age war doesn't have to be bad guys with ak-47's in your backyard. It can be assholes half a world away with nukes and chemicals pointed at you. Soooo... Please answer the question, how long do we wait, and when is it appropriate to attack?

or perhaps you can treat that a real question and answer it, because i find the pro-war pov as utterly baffling as you apparently find the anti-war view

Just to be clear, I do not like war. I hate it. However I also hate what happened on 9-11. I never want to see that happen again. And in my opinion if we don't change the mindset of so many people who hate us based on radical religious reasons, then we will continue to face the same sort of threats, forever. I feel that at the very least, even attempting to democratize Iraq and that region of the world is the best way to establish a long term peaceful outcome for the world as a whole.

seremtan wrote:

YourGrandpa wrote:Still, no alternatives.

i just suggested one. elect better governments in your own country before starting wars on other people's. i guess with your selective blindness you missed this the first time i said it

how does this solve the problem in countries like Iraq? It's a solution to nothing.

Sure, the US is guilty of many similar things. But it isn't US policy to kill and/or jail its civilians just because they're feeling the need to. The US is not forcing 90% of the countries population to live below poverty because the leader wants everything for himself.

i assume by US you mean US government, in which case it doesn't need to force them. it just needs to act 9 times out of 10 in the interests of big business and poverty just happens

The US has never been involved in mass genocide.

apart from native americans, which NS already covered

ancient history like you said below. The world was a different place back then, so let's get over it. We don't need to draw up every time someone in history came into a new land and ended up killing most of the people. It has happened countless times. But this is now, things are that way anymore so let's let it go.

The US has never invaded a country for the sole purpose of consuming said country under its rule.

this is mere sophistry. when britain dominated the middle east there was such a thing as the 'arab facade', a string of compliant governments who were free to do certain things within their own borders but did britain's bidding regarding british oil interests. today the US is attempting to establish a 'democratic facade' for the same purpose. direct rule is unnecessary and usually undesirable, as any imperialist will tell you

while this is a possibility, do you really think that this will come to be? I can't see the US coming out of this with very much "control" over the government in Iraq, who will answer to the people of that country. If their people don't like the "control" we have over them, they will simply force the powers that be out of office and elect new leaders that we don't have control over.

So to say you can "directly" compare the US and Saddam is a blatant display of stupidity.

i think it's your own stupidity on display here since all of your points have been destroyed in this thread

actually you guys haven't destroyed any of his points, except the native american thing, but that is just so not relevant and outdated it doesn't even count.

You're simply trying to redirect the conversation away from your inability to provide a viable solution.

SOLUTION TO WHAT?

exactly, you don't even know there is a problem. You need to go read the first few posts in this thread. We asked for better solutions to dealing with tyrants like Saddam. In other words, if we should not have attacked him, what should we have done? Even if you say "just wait it out", I will take that as an answer. Granted I think that's a supurbly retarded answer, but I will accept that some people have that opinion.

Yes, the US did bomb Japan... etc etc...

ancient history. nothing we can do about it now

yep. just like the Indians. Let's deal with now, and our future of the next 100 years. No since crying about the past.

It's real easy for you arm-chair generals and politicians to sit back and criticize the decisions made by our world leaders. But I implore you to suggest something more effective.

well, since i'm an armchair general, and you're just an armchair gunnery sergeant, i outrank you, so fuck off soldier

again, a perfect example of avoiding the question, just like everyone keeps doing in this thread. He asked a pointed question and this is the best you could come up with ?

Still I'm not any closer to understanding the anti-war philosophy. Can't somebody explain it?

btw, Gramps, you seem to totally "get it".

seremtan wrote: i just suggested one. elect better governments in your own country before starting wars on other people's. i guess with your selective blindness you missed this the first time i said it

Electing a new government in the U.S. will not fix the problems culminating in the middle east.

i assume by US you mean US government, in which case it doesn't need to force them. it just needs to act 9 times out of 10 in the interests of big business and poverty just happens

Yes I do mean the U.S. government, 90% of the population isn't below poverty and free enterprise will always be the staple of our economy. Anyone can prosper in the U.S., unlike Iraq.

apart from native americans, which NS already covered.

That point has already been countered.

this is mere sophistry. when britain dominated the middle east there was such a thing as the 'arab facade', a string of compliant governments who were free to do certain things within their own borders but did britain's bidding regarding british oil interests. today the US is attempting to establish a 'democratic facade' for the same purpose. direct rule is unnecessary and usually undesirable, as any imperialist will tell you.

So I'm right, the U.S. has never invaded a county and established it as our own.

All that other bullshit you spewed is mere speculation on your part,

i think it's your own stupidity on display here since all of your points have been destroyed in this thread

You haven't even offered a logical response, let alone destroy anything. All you've done is doged another question with a sophomoric reply.

SOLUTION TO WHAT?

HANDLING AN INSANE DICTATOR, you momo.

ancient history. nothing we can do about it now

The same could be said about the American Indians.

well, since i'm an armchair general, and you're just an armchair gunnery sergeant, i outrank you, so fuck off soldier

Keep living in your fantasy land, Jr. I'm sure that's what ultimately prevents you from identifying reality.

hahaah gramps has owned everyone in this thread.

MidnightQ4 wrote:Just to be clear, I do not like war. I hate it. However I also hate what happened on 9-11. I never want to see that happen again. And in my opinion if we don't change the mindset of so many people who hate us based on radical religious reasons, then we will continue to face the same sort of threats, forever. I feel that at the very least, even attempting to democratize Iraq and that region of the world is the best way to establish a long term peaceful outcome for the world as a whole.

First of all, "changing the mindset" of radicals is never going to be accomplished by brute force. It's called foreign relations. And while we're on the topic, religion played a small role in 9/11. Thinking that the reason we were attacked was because a bunch of people believe in a god which you don't agree with is just plain wrong. The mindsets we need to change are those that hate us for our asshole foreign policy. Starting a war is the least practical way to do that.

As for democratizing the middle east, think about it another way around. Let's say China wants to convince us that communism is the best path for world peace. They can either sit with the US and discuss it, pointing out its benefits in a civilized way, or they can invade our country, overthrow the gov't, and try to write a new socialist constitution, because they think it will benefit them personally.
Which do you think works the best?

werldhed wrote:

MidnightQ4 wrote:Just to be clear, I do not like war. I hate it. However I also hate what happened on 9-11. I never want to see that happen again. And in my opinion if we don't change the mindset of so many people who hate us based on radical religious reasons, then we will continue to face the same sort of threats, forever. I feel that at the very least, even attempting to democratize Iraq and that region of the world is the best way to establish a long term peaceful outcome for the world as a whole.

First of all, "changing the mindset" of radicals is never going to be accomplished by brute force. It's called foreign relations.

The war itself is not what is supposed to change ppl's mindset. I mean duh. Obviously it is the long term effect that outsting Saddam and establishing a democratic culture that will change the way people live, think, and behave as part of a world culture, and not some hyper religious nation who's people have nothing going for them in life and turn to fanatical religious ideas to escape.

I mean of course most everyone else but us and Britain thinks we are being bullies. But you know what? FUCK THEM! Anyone who thinks that needs to have a car bomb blow them into tiny pieces, or inhale some anthrax.

All the naysayers just look at this war and it's effects right now. Why can't you people think ahead 20-40 years when your kids are grown up, and think about the kind of world you want them to live in? It is obvious to me that if things do not change in the middle east in a large way, things are going to get worse, much worse. Especially as these countries develop new weapon technologies. It is only a matter of time.

Hell just look at Iran. They are blatantly and openly defying the UN now. They are basically going to put themselves, and us, in the same position that we were in with Iraq. They have flat out told everyone that they are developing the capabilites to build nuclear reactors for energy, which means they can also build bombs. AND the leader of the country said that his mission is to remove the jews from the gaza strip. That sounds like a bad combination to me. Not to mention that any world leader who makes it his country's mission to commit genocide is capable of tossing nukes at us or anyone else who he doesn't like. And it should be obvious that all of this hate he and his countrymen have is founded on their whacked out religion!!! There is no other reason to remove the jews from gaza.

And while we're on the topic, religion played a small role in 9/11. Thinking that the reason we were attacked was because a bunch of people believe in a god which you don't agree with is just plain wrong. The mindsets we need to change are those that hate us for our asshole foreign policy. Starting a war is the least practical way to do that.

Well you can say that, but I completely do not agree. It is well known that these idiots who flew the planes were convinced that they would get to fuck 69 virgins in heaven. WTF kind of religion teaches people that? That's why all these fags are so quick to kill themselves, cause they are brainwashed!

Religion imo was a huge part of the reason why people hate us, it is not just foreign policy. Hell didn't we keep the russians from going in and attacking these people? Then they turn around and blow up our buildings? And even if you claim it is foreign policy, the guys like bin laden use religion as the driving force to get these fools to go along with them. So whatever the agend of bin laden is, he uses fanatical religion as his tool.

These people think we are all the brood of the devil, so it is their religious mission to kill us. Killing us is a good thing according to their doctrines. Do you deny this?

So ya starting a war may look bad now, but it is the long term effect that we should be worried about, after people have forgotten about us kicking Saddam's ass out of there 20 years from now and are carrying on with their happy lives. Basically that's when things need to be better. And the main thing that needs to be different then is the staunch religious zealots need to be gone and stop preaching all this hate. All it would take is 1 generation of kids growing up not being taught we are sinners, and then everything would be fine.

As for democratizing the middle east, think about it another way around. Let's say China wants to convince us that communism is the best path for world peace. They can either sit with the US and discuss it, pointing out its benefits in a civilized way, or they can invade our country, overthrow the gov't, and try to write a new socialist constitution, because they think it will benefit them personally.
Which do you think works the best?

Ok well if you want to go there, we would have to have a maniacal tyrant dictator running our country, who will never ever talk to the Chinese in any sincere way about removing himself from power, because that's the situation that Iraq was in. In which case I would welcome China to come in and destroy that regiem.

Indeed put it this way: What if we lived in a country like Iraq was, with said dictator? Wouldn't you want Britain or the UN to come in and get rid of him and help us to establish a democracy like we have now? If you say no, you can just leave the country please. I mean it should be obvious that democracy or something close to it is the best form of peaceful government. It is always the countries with power hungry dictators at the helm that cause most of the problems. People are greedy, so you have to balance the power out so no one person is in charge. It's fundamental, surely you can agree.

Nightshade wrote:Those things are so accurate, I'll bet I could shoot ToxicDud in the brain from six feet.

MidnightQ4

MidnightQ4 wrote: As for the firebombing, it's called war man. That's how they did it back then. Look at Britain or Germany and ask them why they got bombed while you're at it. Destroying the ability of a country to make weapons is one aspect of winning a war.

The quotes you posted shot down your argument, the war was over before we dropped the bomb.
It was a war so that makes it ok? You seem to think that the US firebombing Tokyo reduced Japan's ability to make war? WRONG. They were killing civilians in an attempt to break the will of the Japanese. Hitler found out that that didn't work with the Blitz in England. If he had continued to bomb industrial centers instead of switching to cities, he would have been able to invade England. Before the Blitz, the Brits couldn't keep planes in the air because the factories kept getting destroyed. When he started bombing London, the plants tooled right back up and started pumping out fighters, enabling victory in the Battle of Britain.
The Japanese war machine was in fucking ruins by mid-1945, the US had destroyed the entire Japanese Navy and Air Force all across the Pacific.

MidnightQ4 wrote:That's a copout.
Countries are going to continue to develop weapon technologies with or without our help. What do you propose we do about the threat of countries who's leaders are maniacal tyrants who would like nothing better than to build weapons and fire them off at other countries, especially the U.S.? According to what I've heard so far we should let them do what they want and just hope they never nuke us.

Nobody still has answered my initial question:

Specifically I would like to know what you think would happen if we leave countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. to do as they please.

It's not a goddamn copout, it's the point of this entire debate. Iraq had chemical weapons because we sold them to them. Why? Because the Iraqis were at war with Iran at the time. Funny that we'd help out against the Iranians, but then the Shah (who we put there) was no longer in power, so they became the enemy of the month. Remember the Iranian hostage crisis? Gee, why do you think that happened? US interventionist foreign policy.
And as far as letting "the bad countries" do as they please, why the fuck do people like you seem to think that the US is the world's police force? Yeah, a lot of bad shit goes down out there, but isn't funny how we'll invade Iraq but ignore Rwanda and Darfur?

seremtan wrote:apart from native americans, which NS already covered.

YourGrandpa wrote:That point has already been countered.

The hell it has. You just ignored my point because you're a retard.