open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked new sniper record
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2010.05.03 21:33:00 - [31]
 

Toshiro speaks a lot of sense but i totally disagree about George W Bush and his sidekicks Cheney and Rumsfeld. All three were 'chicken hawks'. Iraq was simply payback for 911. Iraq had no WMD. Connections to terrorists? Most of them came from Saudi Arabia. Invading Iraq was about oil. There are lots of evil dictators in Africa. Why do we not do anything about it? Very little strategic value to the west (unless they have oil).

I give credit to the USA for getting stuck in at the Yugoslavia civil war when the EU was just talking with diplomats. But George W Bush is a total douche and many in the US militery resent him.

Jesse Ventura says it very well (To the Foxnews right wing borg) Jesse Ventura On Foxnews

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.05.03 22:07:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: M'ktakh
Meh, there is nothing wrong with imperialism.

Though sugarcoating that did not help the British. On the other hand, the US could and should learn how to conduct a sucessfull COIN operation form Perfidious Albion instead of doing those massive amounts of fail they keep in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Not massive amounts of fail ... That is simplistic and stupid ...


However ... different military's have their strengths and weaknesses. I will give Props to our UK allies for some of the things they do well.

One thing about European as opposed to American Special Ops ... is that Europe has a greater appreciation for elitism than the US does. We're more egalitarian in our outlook on life and it shows in our Spec Ops. We don't tend to be as elitist in our elite outfits as the Europeans.

But actually this is all nit picking as most nations elite units are fairly good.

What the Americans do well - is focus power on a point. When it comes to that ... no one in the world can touch us.

The trouble is ... when you're favorite tool is a hammer - all your problems tend to look like nails.

*shrug*

It isn't that we don't learn. We learned all about how to do this in Vietnam (to some degree based on what the UK did in Malaya). What we do - is forget what we've learned. Short attention span.

Of course ... in somethings ... having had ... at one time ... a world wide empire - has given the UK a much greater exposure to a large number of the worlds cultures - and specifically their languages - than the US had. We pretty much had the Philippines and that was it.



The other big factor in successful counter insurgency operations is having troops stationed in the villages to defend them - this of necessity spreads out your troops and makes them vulnerable to attack. With the casualty averse western nations - this is not a popular strategy. We'd much rather have some guy sitting in California piloting a drone.

The other thing is ... while I am aware of the positive as well as the negative side of 19th Century Imperialism ... that isn't a US goal. We were attacked by people based in and supported by a nation with an extremist theocratic government. Our purpose is to replace that government with one that is not as oppressive to it's own people - and being a more moderate government - one that is friendlier to the rest of the world. Specifically - one that will not sponsor terrorists looking to kill us.




JordanParey
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2010.05.03 22:15:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: baltec1
Edited by: baltec1 on 03/05/2010 17:17:13
Edited by: baltec1 on 03/05/2010 13:38:53
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: JordanParey
Originally by: Sokratesz
Impressive. I wonder how large they showed, even with 25x magnification. Does the default slider even allow for drop correction at such distances?


probably not, but I'm sure that's what the phrase "**** it" is around for......


But how are you ever going to aim then? I don't assume they train for that kind of distance, he had to have something to go by, or lots of experience.


He is British, its what we do. As a nation we have come up with many many noval ways of battle including apache longbow surfing into battle and have a very unique way of air marshalling.




I call shenanigans, I want to see pics of an Apache Longbow surfing into battle Very Happy

Zubenelgenubi
Priory of the Lime
Posted - 2010.05.03 22:43:00 - [34]
 

pew pew!

death to the enemy!

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.05.03 22:48:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Vogue
Toshiro speaks a lot of sense but i totally disagree about George W Bush and his sidekicks Cheney and Rumsfeld. All three were 'chicken hawks'. Iraq was simply payback for 911. Iraq had no WMD. Connections to terrorists? Most of them came from Saudi Arabia. Invading Iraq was about oil. There are lots of evil dictators in Africa. Why do we not do anything about it? Very little strategic value to the west (unless they have oil).
...



1) The first Gulf War was about oil. People who usually say that act like there's something wrong with fighting over the life blood of our civilization - but there isn't. Oil is a matter of life or death. Without oil or with oil in the hands of the wrong people - economies collapse - people lose their jobs and inevitably there are people who die one way or the other because the economy has failed. It's not just about evil, nasty money - it is about peoples lives.

2) The Invasion of Iraq, Gulf War Part II, was a continuation of that war. There was never an end to the first Gulf War. The leadership in Iraq was supposed to fulfill certain conditions - which they constantly dodged. They'd lie and say they had no more of some such weapon - then our inspectors would find them. Then they'd say that that was it - there were no more - and our inspectors would find more. Iraq clearly had a both a Nuclear and Chemical Warfare program before the first Gulf War. Gas (which IS a WMD) was used against both Iran and the Kurds. There were plants in Iraq which were used to manufacture those chemicals - which could also - as with any other chemical plant - manufacture fertilizer. As to their nuclear program - some of the equipment that had been assembled for that was found. Also - there is testimony from an Iraqi general that a lot of the WMD materials were sent to Syria before the US invaded. He told us where they are - and there are pictures of the facility on the Internet. What's in there I don't know. The real farce in all this - is that any type of excuse was thought to be needed to go in and remove the former leadership of Iraq. After having invaded two of his neighbors and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens - there were already PLENTY of REASONS for removing the Iraqi leadership from power. GW only did what should have been done the first time around. Here - the US was still paying the price for losing the Vietnam war. We didn't want to go in by ourselves so we assembled a coalition and then - had to put up with their refusal to remove a fellow dictator from power.

3) As to all the Evil Dictators around the world - yes - THE FREE NATIONS OF THE WORLD SHOULD UNITE IN REMOVING THEM FROM POWER ... but that's not going to happen. Now I understand that after two world wars fought on their soil and the horrendous tole taken by their populations and cities - that Europeans have a real aversion to going to war but then so do we. Of course, as with the US - politicians feel they need to justify sending their young men off to die with something the nation can get behind. All those anti-war protesters in the US were just licking their chops at a chance to march around, shout slogans and feel as if their lives had meaning again. If you're going to over come that kind of strident opposition - you need to make your citizens feel they are effected. If you can't - they don't care how many people who don't look like they do die. So, Taliban allies attacked us and the Iraq problem needed solving so we went after them.

4) Rumsfeld is to blame for trying to go cheap. As to how much his advice effected Bush and Cheney's decisions ... I don't know - but - they did remove him and replace him eventually.

5) Iraqi Support for Terrorists was another excuse that shouldn't have needed to be made. However, after we went in - there was a large foreign fighter contingent we got to kill when they were attracted to the area. So that worked out well, for us ...

Tobias Xiaosen
Total Xenophobia
Posted - 2010.05.03 22:53:00 - [36]
 

Toshiro, why must every single ruddy post you make be an essay? Mad

Bodrul
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.05.03 23:17:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Bodrul on 03/05/2010 23:18:56

GreyHawk

1)
yet you fail to mention how ****** hussain went rogue on the US
the US and others supported ****** for one reason and that was pay back against Iran
for ousting the US from their country by overthrowing a goverment which the US put in place by overthrowing the org leaders in fear they would be allied with the soviots and nationlise their oil . (Operation Ajax)
Operation Ajax

the only Reason the US got ****ed off is because ****** then went for quwait which was an ally of the US.

2) ****** hussain was a evil SOB granted,
then you have to take into account the people and countries which gave him the weapons and capibilities to produce these weapons, even the pansies of the french had a hand in helping ****** and his regieme in the 1970s and on wards.

3) all these evil dictators? why is it ironic coming from someone in the US, whos goverment supplies and arms dictators all around the world aslong as they are on the side of the US?
only reason the US supported pakistan against India was because India and russian relations.
the US also armed and supplied what we see as the Taliban for their proxy war against Russia aka USSR. you reap what you sow


other countries all do the same and supply and train terrorists/dictators and so on aswell.
even britain.

Not everything is black and white and the problems we face today is thanks to actions taken by those fueled by greed and power.



Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.05.03 23:25:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Tobias Xiaosen
Toshiro, why must every single ruddy post you make be an essay? Mad


Sorry about that ...

I've got a Masters in History ... and ... well ... *shrug* ... it shows ...

That minor in Creative Writing probably doesn't help matters either ...

And ... I talk like that ...

One other factor though ... is that ... a lot of other people ... very possibly because of they way young people have learned to communicate - think that anything longer than a paragraph ... is to long. Thus ... tl;dnr ...

Being 58 I'm from an older generation that actually was taught to write essays in school, rather than learning to write within the limited confines of a posting board thread.

*shrug*

In any case ... I'll not be changing ...

Nothing is simple. Electrons are complex. And complexity is the enemy of brevity.

So ... in attempting to convey the complexity of a subject - and essay is born ...

.



Epegi Givo
Amarr
Department of Redundancy Dpt.
Posted - 2010.05.03 23:52:00 - [39]
 

For everyone getting mad about the sniper:

You say it is not honorable, not brave. But doesn't compromising your sense of honor, to betray yourself in that way, isn't that a form of bravery itself? Yes, this man is brave, but just in a different kind of way.

He may be shunned by his fellow soldiers, because he is not on the front lines. But he will bravely face this, because his job is to keep his friends and the ideal he is fighting for alive.

And here is my view on war:

People want things a certain way, and if what they see is not the way they like it, they will want to change it.

Change comes when everyone agrees. The problem is, people do not like to agree peacefully. Then, people see that the only way to get what they want, is to force the opposition to yield.

So, war can be good, but should still be avoided. War costs lives and money. Any sensible person will realize that this is bad. But then how do you get people to submit?

I personally support that war be taken to the digital realm. Where battle are fought online through video games. When one country wins, their demands get fulfilled. If the losing country does not comply, then the UN and all the countries send military forces to enforce the decision.

Yes, lives will be lost and money will be lost, but overall this would be more efficient than real fighting.


And when I type, I speak what I am typing in my head. This means that I will place a comma where I believe that there should be a pause, not when it is grammatically correct.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.05.04 00:09:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 04/05/2010 00:14:16
Originally by: Bodrul
Edited by: Bodrul on 03/05/2010 23:18:56

... Stuff I had to cut out to make room for my own post


Not everything is black and white and the problems we face today is thanks to actions taken by those fueled by greed and power.





Well ... sorry I failed to mention all that but ... I'm afraid that a History of the Middle East written in EVE Forum Posting Blocks ... would be a little impractical.

Now ... except for the tone and the implied guilt of the US for failing to act any other way ... what you said is all pretty much true. I just don't necessarily agree with your implications that there was something wrong with the way we acted.

See my previous remark on complexity ...


I find it ironic that I'm having to create an essay here to answer questions right after having been asked why everything I write is an essay ...

But maybe I'll be short about this - since I don't have to disagree with you on anything but the tone of your post ... but then again ... maybe not ...


We fought with the USSR against Germany in WWII - then were allies in NATO against the USSR.

We fought a war on the side of Britain against the French, fought against the British allied with the French, fought with the French briefly and fought again against the British. Then a hundred years later we were allied with both of them against Germany.

During our Civil War - the South was hoping for British intervention on their side - but was losing ... and had slaves ... so they didn't get it ... but otherwise might have.

*shrug*

Arms changed hands willy nilly in all directions during those conflicts. We even sold some to France in 1870. Hell ... we're still getting shot at by Martini Henri's and ... home made rifles Kipling wrote stories about in Afghanistan ...

In each instance of US foreign policy there was a reason for the actions we took - just as there was during the histories of the rest of the worlds nations.

And yes - most of the time things are shades of gray. We aren't perfect and everything we did (think the Bay of Pigs) wasn't well thought out.

But this time we ARE the good guys. This time it is clear cut. There are no shades of gray here.

Are you suggesting that a feudal, theocratic state would be better for the people of Afghanistan - and that the US had no right to retaliate against a regime that allowed people who'd attacked us a safe haven? People who were in fact part and parcel of the forces they were using to conquer the nation and subdue the Northern Alliance?

Of course - with the Shah - you seem to some how feel that he wasn't better than Mosaddegh. If you look at what the Shah was trying to do for Iran - making it a modern Industrial Nation instead of a land of illiterate peasants under the rule of their local Mullahs ... at least he was trying to do something good for his people. He just failed. I can't say that I would agree with all of his methods but look at what followed. There is also an implication that we fabricated the Shah and simply imposed him on Iran - when it fact - he had been a power in Iran before Mosaddegh who only ruled 2 years. So - what we did there - was to take sides in a power struggle within Iran. The reason the Iranians hate us - is because when the Shah was dying of cancer - we let him come here to be treated. They hated the guy and wanted him to die. Our Embassy was attacked and taken - because of an act of compassion for a dying man by Jimmy Carter - whom the Iranian militants then came to hate. Thus - they wouldn't release our hostages - until the moment he was out of power.

The Shah lost out in a power struggle with the theocratic leaders of that nation. I knew several Iranians back then - and from what I've seen - Iran was better off under the Shah than it is now. The ironic thing here is - that if Mosaddegh had stayed in power - then HE might have been the one the Mullahs rallied their flocks against.

*shrug*

So Sensational
Ministry of War
Posted - 2010.05.04 00:12:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

No - I'm not the western equivalent of the Taliban - I don't advocate the intentional slaughter of helpless civilians. I don't advocate everyone being forcibly converted to my religious beliefs. I am not looking to turn my society back to the dark ages where the local village priest could have you stoned on some trumped up charge if he took exception to your outlook on life.



You want to impose your views on them (through military might in this case). They want to do the same to you, with terror. Religious or moral, they're still just beliefs and just like them you believe yours to be the "good" ones. Even though you slaughter them like animals.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

One of the great fallacies of modern western culture is a belief in moral neutrality. That, from the serial killer's point of view - he was right. The POV of evil people doesn't matter. They're evil - and even it they are merely stupid good people fighting in support of an evil cause - what they are doing is evil.

I'll go ahead and disagree with that then, you believe they're evil, I don't. Can you prove me wrong? You're the one making a statement here. You believe that there's a moral "scale" of sorts, with good on one side and evil on one side, you believe that they're on a certain place on that scale, I'm simply denying its existence. So, it's up to you to procure evidence. This reminds me of the never-ending arguments about God and how non-believers need to "prove that he doesn't exist", please don't ask me to do that.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

Religious fanaticism, when taken to the point of forcing your beliefs on others - or killing them - IS evil. They ARE wrong. We ARE right.

What they're doing is incompatible with modern society, but wrong? Meh, naw.


Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

There is a difference. There is no moral equivalence. We ARE the Good Guys. They ARE the Bad Guys.

Again, you impose your beliefs on them, you can justify it by saying that your beliefs are good but you're still doing what they're doing, with bigger toys.


Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

As to you, since that isn't obvious - I've already put you in the proper category.

Good for you, have a cookie.


Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

Oh ... and as to those man power issues in Afghanistan ... we, as a NATO power ... having been attacked by such as the people Osama organized and was supporting the Taliban with - have received some support from our NATO allies. While I appreciate the fact that they have sent some people (especially the UK) - considering the commitments we made to our European Allies during WWI, WWII and The Cold War ... I would appreciate seeing some more. Not to mention a little bit more support from the citizens of those countries we rescued and then defended for 50 years.


Hey I'll even agree with you here. Even if you as a NATO country believe that the wars aren't justified you'd still benefit from ending them quicker now that they've been started, regardless of what you believe.



Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.05.04 00:37:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: So Sensational


More stuff I had to delete to have any room at all to respond.





Our difference of opinion is over whether or not there is a moral distinction between peoples actions.

As I said - you'd justify the serial killers actions based on the fact that serial killers have a point of view too.

I use that example to point out the absurdity of your position.

Yes - the Taliban disagree with us - but so what? The NSDAP disagreed with us too but I doubt you'd dare to justify their actions saying that they had a point of view too.

(Actually ... the NSDAP got into power because Germany HAD been mistreated after WWI (after all - it was The Austro-Hungarian Empire, Serbia and Russia that stated that war ...) If it hadn't been for that mistreatment - people as horrible as the NSDAP wouldn't have gotten into power).

If you look at communisim - now there - is a case for somebodies POV. There's just tons (I mean that literally) of materiel written to justify the communists positions - material which fooled millions of people into slavery to a silly, 19th century Utopian idea. Yes - the communists had a point of view - and could easily find any number of injustices to justify their actions - but that didn't make them right. It just got them into power because they lied to people, telling them they were going to give them land - well ... they didn't actually lie about giving them the land ... they just left out the taking it all away from them late part ...

The Communists are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of human beings. Their system of government was evil. The one saving grace was that it was so stupid it was bound to fail of it's own weight.


But even the Communists weren't as bad as the Taliban. At least their ideas were from the 19th century - rather than the 7th.




We are not imposing our views on the Taliban - we are simply preventing them from imposing their views on everyone else.

Again - if you can't see the difference morally - then you are a moron.

Sorry ... but there you are. It is as clear cut as that.



So Sensational
Ministry of War
Posted - 2010.05.04 00:46:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: So Sensational on 04/05/2010 00:48:39


Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

Our difference of opinion is over whether or not there is a moral distinction between peoples actions.

As I said - you'd justify the serial killers actions based on the fact that serial killers have a point of view too.

I use that example to point out the absurdity of your position.

Justify it? I don't believe that what he's doing is something that we should accept, but I don't believe it's "evil" either. Same goes for the Taliban.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
We are not imposing our views on the Taliban - we are simply preventing them from imposing their views on everyone else.


You believe that what they believe (Tyranny, religious law, etc) is wrong, and when they act upon their beliefs you kill them. Sounds a lot like some group I heard about a while back, what was their name again? I believe it started with a T, oh that's right, the Taliban.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
Again - if you can't see the difference morally - then you are a moron.

How could I possibly counter such a mighty argument? Oh I know, u r dem moron mister, iz be rigt u be wrong.



MooKids
Caldari
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.05.04 02:48:00 - [44]
 

Looked up the type of rifle he used and I found out exactly what it was

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L115A3

****ing AWP/AWM *****! He should use a real rifle, like a Scout.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.05.04 05:15:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: So Sensational
Edited by: So Sensational on 04/05/2010 00:48:39


Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

Our difference of opinion is over whether or not there is a moral distinction between peoples actions.

As I said - you'd justify the serial killers actions based on the fact that serial killers have a point of view too.

I use that example to point out the absurdity of your position.

Justify it? I don't believe that what he's doing is something that we should accept, but I don't believe it's "evil" either. Same goes for the Taliban.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
We are not imposing our views on the Taliban - we are simply preventing them from imposing their views on everyone else.


You believe that what they believe (Tyranny, religious law, etc) is wrong, and when they act upon their beliefs you kill them. Sounds a lot like some group I heard about a while back, what was their name again? I believe it started with a T, oh that's right, the Taliban.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
Again - if you can't see the difference morally - then you are a moron.

How could I possibly counter such a mighty argument? Oh I know, u r dem moron mister, iz be rigt u be wrong.






Ha! Ha! Ha!

Yeah ... I'm afraid we've reached an impasse here.

I hold your intellect and values in contempt - you can do the same with me if you like - and neither of us can care what the other thinks.

The difference between me and the Taliban - is that if I knew who you were in real life - I would not shoot you just because you disagreed with me - in fact, I would and have as a veteran, given my life over to my government for a few years to defend the rights of morons like you to believe whatever they want. The Taliban however - will shoot you just for disagreeing with them.

Ah well, the real problem with some people is - it's usually fairly difficult to get someone such as yourself to just flat out admit that they are a fool. You can demonstrate their foolishness to others but if the others are fools too - then they won't see it either.

I have done so and who ever sees that sees it and whoever doesn't doesn't.

As to you're being a moron being an argument - it isn't an argument - it's a conclusion.

*shrug*

Have a nice day.

.


Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
Posted - 2010.05.04 05:52:00 - [46]
 

If it's any consolation Toshiro I would've said you won that debate simply for that fact that you made a coherent argument and supported your positions. Too bad really that you didn't get any decent opposition I would've liked to see how it played out.

Ah well, I guess I'll just have to Sad Face.
Sad

Taua Roqa
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.05.04 06:25:00 - [47]
 

one has to agree with toshiro.

Makar Kravchenko
Posted - 2010.05.04 06:31:00 - [48]
 

Referring to the earlier comment about `fair fight`

Fair fights only happen when its inside a ring, my friend.

War is not fair to anyone who has to put a family member in the line of fire. Wether it be allied, or enemy forces.

There once was a saying: Two wrongs don't make a right

I guess people forgot that. But none the less, malicious entities must be removed from existence. Kudos to the Sniper for doing his job far beyond what is expected.

It is sad that humans are too ignorant to unite. but such is and what will be what finally destroys us all...

Kudos again to the sniper. He deserves a medal.

Florio
Miniature Giant Space Hamsters
Posted - 2010.05.04 08:14:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: So Sensational
We're only the good guys because winning the "war" is beneficial to us and humanity based on our way of perceiving the world. In fact, people like you who think that there's a "good" and "bad" side are the reason for wars like these in the first place.

I used to believe in cultural relativism too when I was younger, then I learnt more about the real world and grew up.

Bodrul
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.05.04 09:32:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk


make room for this post :P (removed stuff)

The Shah lost out in a power struggle with the theocratic leaders of that nation. I knew several Iranians back then - and from what I've seen - Iran was better off under the Shah than it is now. The ironic thing here is - that if Mosaddegh had stayed in power - then HE might have been the one the Mullahs rallied their flocks against.

*shrug*





on your first one , i did say all countries armed and supplied others for their own national Intrests, and you reap what you sow.
Prior to the US war on terror the US had plenty of notice about attacks from the people it armed against the soviots.

Afganistan the US was right to go in, the US let the Dogs off the leash after soviots left and didnt keep an eye on them. the only Bad thing to come out of this is atleast the Taliban destroyed the poppy fields which now are on the rise.

also

search up abdul haque (think thats how you spell his name) man who warned the US about the threats taliban posed. also he has alot to do with the northen alliance as he was shot dead by the taliban after returning from the US prior to warning them. (thanks to the forign policy of the US it didnt act on the warning)

i dont see how comparing the US civil war to Afganistan and other conflicts really matter.
or are connected. (so i wont address that)


on the Shah i would like to see your sources.
and most of that is what ifs the US did nothing the Mullahs might have overthrown them.

Iraq war i am against as it was pretty much fueld by greed,
and the fact sadd'am wanted to change from USD's to euros. which Iran is after now aswell. (already kick started in using)

in war there are no Good Guys or winners, Just losers
Terrorists Kill us familes, Americans in turn Kill Their familes.


Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.05.04 13:39:00 - [51]
 

Bodrul.

The comments on other wars were to illustrate the changing nature of relations between nations. Churchill once said something to the effect that Britain had no permanent friends or enemies only interests.

The thing is you don't reap what you sow. You reap what you reap and what that is varies with the happenstance of history. For example - if we'd reaped what we'd sown with Western Europe in WWI and WWII - they'd be helping us more. They have their own internal politics to deal with though and that always trumps external relations.


There have certainly been any number of missteps on the part of the US throughout history. In 1938, we the British and the French should have lept to the defense of Czechoslovakia - but it took a Japanese attack on us to get us out of our isolationism.

After the string of embassy bombings in Africa - when Osama was in Suddan - they offered to give him to us but our legal bureaucracy wasn't ready to take him yet - so they exiled him and he ended up in Afghanistan ... We're a nation of laws and we try to live by them ... mostly ... and that sometimes bites us in the ass. Of course ... we really didn't know what was coming. We knew who Osama was and that he was behind a number of attacks on us but we didn't predict 9/11 the same way we didn't predict Pearl Harbor. In each case - we knew something was going on - but we didn't know exactly what.

As to foreign intelligence sources ... foreign intelligence sources told us we could just send a few Cuban Exiles and Castro would collapse ... we believed them ... and the result was the Bay of Pigs. Here ... what the Cuban Exiles really wanted - was to get a war started that we would then commit troops to but Kennedy was unwilling to do that.

The Iraq war being fueled by greed is idiotic. We could have bought all the oil we wanted from S.a.d.d.a.m. He'd have been happy to sell it to us. Instead we spent a lot of time, blood and money there and got back nothing for it but a more stable region. In the process we gave the people of Iraq a chance at a decent government.

As to sources on Iran, here's a quick one on the Pahlavi dynasty. That article includes one on Mosaddegh. It was actually mere speculation on my part that the Clerics might have turned on the man - but in that article it seems that they already had and that this was one of the reasons for the success of the Shah (under western guidance, specifically including the CIA) in ousting him. USA bashers like to point out the CIA's involvement in such things - without noting that had there not been local support for what was done - such efforts would have failed. Yes - the CIA was there and acting on US interests - but it was simply assisting one side in an ongoing power struggle within Iran. While the man may have been used as a rallying point against the US by it's enemies in Iran later on - Mosaddegh was not a saint - and certainly was a secular leader who had in fact lost the support of the clergy prior to his removal.

Later on - the Shah's attempts to modernize Iran also cost him the support of the Mullah's who turned their flocks against him and gave us the theocratic state that we have there now. It is in the interest of those Mullahs to have an ignorant population that gets all it's views from their pulpits but that is in conflict with the technological education required to run a modern state. The Mullahs want things both ways - and they aren't going to get it. The recent protests and demonstrations are an indicator of that. It isn't that Iran won't be an Islamic nation - it's just a question of what role Islam will play. As a religion - Islam has a lot to offer it's believers. As a form of government it is out of step with a modern society. It would be as if the Catholic Church were conducting the Inquisition today.

So Sensational
Ministry of War
Posted - 2010.05.04 15:02:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: So Sensational on 04/05/2010 15:22:44
Edited by: So Sensational on 04/05/2010 15:09:58
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

The difference between me and the Taliban - is that if I knew who you were in real life - I would not shoot you just because you disagreed with me - in fact, I would and have as a veteran, given my life over to my government for a few years to defend the rights of morons like you to believe whatever they want. The Taliban however - will shoot you just for disagreeing with them.

Sure, I didn't mean that you were an exact replica of a Taliban when I used the word equivalent, just the part where you kill them because they break your rules, just as they do to others. You believe yourself to be justified because you protect innocents, they believe themselves to be justified because they follow the word of Allah.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

Ah well, the real problem with some people is - it's usually fairly difficult to get someone such as yourself to just flat out admit that they are a fool. You can demonstrate their foolishness to others but if the others are fools too - then they won't see it either.

I have done so and who ever sees that sees it and whoever doesn't doesn't.

All you've said is that you're the good guy and that anyone who disagrees with your moral views is evil/an idiot. It's fairly simple really, I don't believe in moral universalism. If that makes me a moron in your eyes then you're the simpleminded (See? I can play this game too) fool.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
As to you're being a moron being an argument - it isn't an argument - it's a conclusion.

I guess you haven't developed much since elementary school then. Anyone who disagrees with you is a *****face.

Originally by: Florio
Originally by: So Sensational
We're only the good guys because winning the "war" is beneficial to us and humanity based on our way of perceiving the world. In fact, people like you who think that there's a "good" and "bad" side are the reason for wars like these in the first place.

I used to believe in cultural relativism too when I was younger, then I learnt more about the real world and grew up.

Cool bro.

Unity Love
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.05.04 15:06:00 - [53]
 

god you guys are gay.

stop being backseat politicians on an spaceship forum.

So Sensational
Ministry of War
Posted - 2010.05.04 15:26:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Unity Love
god you guys are gay.

stop being backseat politicians on an spaceship forum.

hey u, htfu dis is OOPE

Jerreie
Posted - 2010.05.04 21:37:00 - [55]
 

I would love to see the math involved in a shot like this.

Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
Posted - 2010.05.04 22:28:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Makar Kravchenko
Referring to the earlier comment about `fair fight`

Fair fights only happen when its inside a ring, my friend.

War is not fair to anyone who has to put a family member in the line of fire. Wether it be allied, or enemy forces.

There once was a saying: Two wrongs don't make a right

I guess people forgot that. But none the less, malicious entities must be removed from existence. Kudos to the Sniper for doing his job far beyond what is expected.

It is sad that humans are too ignorant to unite. but such is and what will be what finally destroys us all...

Kudos again to the sniper. He deserves a medal.


Who is that friend? I never said anything about a fair fight, I said someone not putting themselves at considerable risk will never be a hero in my book. It just doesn't happen, you have to risk it all to be elevated to that status.

I'd like to see you define those malicious entities, are they set in stone, did someone bring your righteous government stone tablets?

Why the medal, he already has the record and the only thing that was far beyond what he was there to do was the target, he did his job, nothing more.

dr doooo
Posted - 2010.05.05 02:07:00 - [57]
 


The last year or so Eve seems to have been flooded with neo-con militarist evangelists intent on ramming their opinion down everyone's throat. I thought this was a thread about an especially skilful sniper? Why the need to post a load of political opinions, and in the same post call everyone who disagrees with each, every, and any point a moron?

The whole thing reminds me of the brainwashed moonies of the 70's. Then again though, there has to be something similar going on here if these dumb kids can genuinely think they are on the side of the 'good guys'. They travel half way around the world to attack an impoverished nation that was politically and philosophically the sworn enemy of the mainly Saudi Arabian terrorists that attacked the USA in 2001. If it's about Bush's 1984 style (that's a book... just in case) perpetual war against a concept (Muslim fundamentalism/terorism) then what the hell are they doing going for what was one of the few secular Nations in the area?

Why not go for one of the Nations that were genuinely harbouring and funding terrorists, like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran? But you maybe say Sadam is a 'bad guy' who invaded Kuwait? Why did he do that? Because he felt let down after fighting a protracted, cripplingly expensive and very bloody war on the side of the 'good guys' against fundamentalism, and then felt left out in the cold and let down when USA snuggled up with the Royal Saudi fundamentalist harbourers. Oh the f**king irony when Bush invaded Iraq on the pretext of them being Muslim terrorist harbourers. Diplomats from pretty much every nation stood openly open mouthed at what was happening.

But then again the suckers in the USA military know no better. How many 'perpetual war' combatants knew anything of Iraqi or Afghani politics before the wars, and more importantly, where does all the miss-information they have now come from????? Open your eyes Suckers.




Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.05.05 02:11:00 - [58]
 

Steven Segal is the best marksman ever

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

sp3cial forc3s
Sileo In Pacis
Posted - 2010.05.05 12:13:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Unity Love
god you guys are gay.

stop being backseat politicians on an spaceship forum.


THIS!

P.S Those of you calling Snipers cowards and saying they may not have the respect of other soldiers because they are not on the frontline are absolutely clueless, you obviously have no idea what a snipers role is from day to day.


Zofe Stormcaller
B4D W0LF
B4D W01F
Posted - 2010.05.05 12:52:00 - [60]
 

Must've been the recent buff to tracking enhancers...


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only