Bored of terrorism [Archive] - Diablo: IncGamers Forums

PFS

06-07-2006, 13:57

I was kinda fed up with it a year or two before the IRA decided to stop blowing things up, so after a brief intermission by the time AQ got going it seemed a bit more interesting for a bit. But looking at events since then although AQ tends to put on a bit more of a show than the IRA their performances are pretty infrequent. AQ get more style points but their performance is a lot more sporadic and diffuse, although with the London atatck they lacked their usual flair by doing it all underground except for the guy who fluffed it and ended up doing a more effective job. Personally I thought after their initial debut their subsequent performances have lacked flair. Terrorism just 'aint what it used to be.

With the IRA there was always the feeling your train could go, and you never knew if your planned journey would be called off due to a bomb threat - ahh the mornings missed off school. There was a very real sense that it could happen to you personally. AQ just dont ahve the regularity to really get people going - they have more of a movie feel to them - that it'll never happen to you and so I'm really not bothered by it at all. Used the tube the day after 7/7 without even thinking there would be something happen. It's just not that tense, there is no terror. I give them maybe 2/10 for effectiveness based on their london go.

Merick

06-07-2006, 14:55

It's been boring for several years. As has president Bush, Iraq, 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the tsunami, Osama Bin Laden, and Al-Qaeda.

zodiac66

06-07-2006, 15:11

I am very bored. The term terrorism is used way too much IMO. I am not pleased with what has been implemented due to terrorism.

I honestly can't see what has been done to keep the influx of people into the US. We have problems with the Mexican border..what is keeping terrorists from crossing as well.

The war on terror is not something we can ever win. It will always exist. Someone from the middle east farts and gas prices go up. My right to privacy has been cut vastly.

Terrorism in respect to what is happening now is religious based. We can kill one...and 10 are standing in his place.

Sir EvilFreeSmeg

06-07-2006, 17:01

This is exactly what the enemy wants. They know too many people have the attention span of a gnat's fart. They're in this for the long term. We have to be in it for the long term as well. We've only fought on two fronts. There is still Iran, Syria, Indonesia (if necessary), possibly Sudan, etc.

Pres. Bush told you it was going to be a long war. This isn't something that is going to be over in 30 minutes or an hour. It's going to be many more years before the islamic fascists are rooted out and destroyed. They're like cockroaches. Hard to get rid of but not impossible. You just have to keep at it until you get them all.

Veilside

06-07-2006, 17:06

EliManning

06-07-2006, 17:40

I like how the pre-Iraq right bragged about how quick and easy it would be while the post-Iraq right insists that it can never end. I do agree with the right's flip-flop position though; it certainly won't ever end if you only invade countries that don't harbor terrorists.

zodiac66

06-07-2006, 17:45

Terrorism is never going to end. Bush can spout what he wants..but it will never end.

Let them fight between themselves and leave me and my country out of it. My best friends son is going over there in the next week. Give it up US...we can't win over there. Let them have their holy war over there, just don't kill my fellow Amercians for your silly war over oil.

Noone wins in a religous war.

Sir EvilFreeSmeg

06-07-2006, 17:46

Then you've already given up. I thought you never gave up.

zodiac66

06-07-2006, 17:51

Then you've already given up. I thought you never gave up.

One can never win against a group of zealots.

SaroDarksbane

06-07-2006, 17:55

I do agree with the right's flip-flop position though; it certainly won't ever end if you only invade countries that don't harbor terrorists.
The US: We're not content with one enemy. That's for pansies. I say we make more!

AMERICA!!!! **** YEAH! COMIN' AGAIN TO SAVE THE ************ DAY YEAH!

Sir EvilFreeSmeg

06-07-2006, 18:00

One can never win against a group of zealots.
We beat Japan and they were as zealous as you could get. It took a long time and a huge effort to do it but we did beat them. Now they're a very strong democratic republic and a steadfast ally.

We did it in the 40's and we can still do it today.

Module88

06-07-2006, 18:00

The US: We're not content with one enemy. That's for pansies. I say we make more!

AMERICA!!!! **** YEAH! COMIN' AGAIN TO SAVE THE ************ DAY YEAH!

................ -_-

Smeg, the War on Terror, if it will end, won't end by military means (unless you count a global nuclear war as ending the War on Terror).

Sir EvilFreeSmeg

06-07-2006, 18:05

Module88

06-07-2006, 18:13

Terrorism as we know it will end when it's no longer a viable means of politics. That can only happen when there are no terrorist sponsoring nations, the money is gone, the ways and means are gone, the leaders are gone, etc. Those cannot happen by any means other than force. That's the only language the enemy understands.

War is diplomacy enforced by violence. They only speak the language of war. So let's talk.

And sometimes war doesn't solve the problem. Terrorism will end when there's no point to it anymore. It would be impossible to eliminate all terrorist sponsors (if you want to keep the world free of nuclear winter), impossible to cut off all of the money, impossible to cut off the ways and means of fighting, and impossible to cut off all of the leaders (one leader dies, more pop up, duh).

Sir EvilFreeSmeg

06-07-2006, 18:15

Then you have already given up already. And they will kill you.

Module88

06-07-2006, 18:17

Then you have already given up already. And they will kill you.

Right. Because I believe there's a better way than an endless circle of revenge killings, I've given up. :rolleyes: Smeg, YOU have given up hope for peace, and because of THAT, they will kill you.

Talga Vasternich

06-07-2006, 18:21

Right. Because I believe there's a better way than an endless circle of revenge killings, I've given up. :rolleyes: Smeg, YOU have given up hope for peace, and because of THAT, they will kill you.
To use an old quote, "Without justice there can be no peace."
Stamp out those who influence others by means of fear and murder of innocents and there will be no more "revenge killings".

SaroDarksbane

06-07-2006, 18:22

Module88

06-07-2006, 18:24

To use an old quote, "Without justice there can be no peace."
Stamp out those who influence others by means of fear and murder of innocents and there will be no more "revenge killings".

And while we're at it we'll stamp out the innocent people in the way. I'll give you one guess as to what that will lead to.

Sir EvilFreeSmeg

06-07-2006, 18:36

Mod, are you telling me that you'd kill innocents indiscriminantly?

Talga Vasternich

06-07-2006, 18:40

You wanna stop terrorism, here's what you do:

1. Take your finger out of everyone else's business.
2. Take steps to protect yourself.

Eventually, once the unwashed masses realize that even without US interference, their lives are still ****ty, ****ty, ****ty, they will blame someone else other than us. Heck, in their outrage they might topple their leaders, and hopefully you'll get a democracy out of the deal too.

What you don't do is go to the houses of people who have been indocrinated to believe that the US is the cause of all their problems, bomb their house, kill their children, force your culture down their throats, and tell them it's for their own good. You know what that does? It turns people into terrorists.

The war on terrorism will never end, because people like you are doing everything in your power to make sure the list of enemies grows as fast as humanly possible.
So you stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away? That's a plan for dealing with terrorists?
The nations of the Middle East hated the US long before we "stuck our finger in their business". The leaders there, who have the money and power, teach the "unwashed masses" that the US is the cause of their impoverished lives. This is the one way they deflect the blame from all the harm they are doing to their own people and stay in power. With no presence there to show otherwise, how can this ever change?

Your statements also ignore the good things that the US is doing in Iraq...huge amounts of construction, medical aid, food, training a police force so they are able to look out for themselves, free elections...etc. Show the people that there is more to life (and the US) than what their selfish, self-serving leaders are telling them, so when Americans and Iraqis are murdered for political gains, the innocents know who they should really be afraid of.

SaroDarksbane

06-07-2006, 18:51

So you stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away?
Please see step #2.

The nations of the Middle East hated the US long before we "stuck our finger in their business".
True, but not nearly to the level we are now. We've been screwing around with them for years, and they have things they can point to to say "See? This is why the US is the cause of all your problems." The Middle East has an exceptionally long memory in this arena, and the way to deal with that is not to do more things they will remember in anger for centuries to come. Like, say, Iraq will now.

With no presence there to show otherwise, how can this ever change?
So our presence there now is truly "showing them otherwise"? Last I heard, it inspired a bonfire of hatred towards the US in just about everyone in the middle east, including many Iraqis.

Module88

06-07-2006, 18:54

Mod, are you telling me that you'd kill innocents indiscriminantly?

Of course not. But how many innocent people have died during this war? How many did we plan on killing?

So you stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away? That's a plan for dealing with terrorists?
The nations of the Middle East hated the US long before we "stuck our finger in their business". The leaders there, who have the money and power, teach the "unwashed masses" that the US is the cause of their impoverished lives. This is the one way they deflect the blame from all the harm they are doing to their own people and stay in power. With no presence there to show otherwise, how can this ever change?

Obviously, things need to change in the Middle East as well. But I'd rather have no presence there than a bad, unwanted presence. If we are going to do anything about it, we'd be better off using the UN (as much as I despise some aspects of the UN). We certianly shouldn't be doing it by invading a bunch of Arab countries and then say we're on a crusade.

Your statements also ignore the good things that the US is doing in Iraq...huge amounts of construction, medical aid, food, training a police force so they are able to look out for themselves, free elections...etc. Show the people that there is more to life (and the US) than what their selfish, self-serving leaders are telling them, so when Americans and Iraqis are murdered for political gains, the innocents know who they should really be afraid of.

If the good things are being outwieghed by the bad things, I question your line of reasoning. Every bit of contruction gets blown up. Shipments of food and aid are ambushed. Police forces are sometimes corrupt, aiding insurgents or running in the face of battle. I agree these forces are getting better, and I agree a pullout at this time is not the right decision, but you have to understand that we aren't clean cut after our scandals and the deaths of civilians at our hands.

Anakha1

06-07-2006, 18:55

Ha.

I'm very concerned about terror attacks, especially with that recent scare on Ottawa's Parliament buildings and other Canadian landmarks. I thought we were safe here because most Al-Qaeda terrorists are more comfortable in hotter climates. Here, they'd have to learn to use snowshoes, dog sleds, and construct bombs out of material that doesn't completely ice over in a few seconds like everything does here in T.O. Even in July.
I live in Ottawa and I wasn't even worried on that day. I've been bored of it a long time. People act like the threat of terrorism is something new. What about the 1980s? It was much worse then. It just didn't hit as close to home. I think if people in Israel and like places can deal with it on a daily basis and still have lives then we can too.

Not to mention the fact that every time the U.S. admin screws the pooch over something it's "terrorismterrorismterrorismterrorismOMGTERRORISM". It's pretty clearly now only a word used as a tool for political purposes. No matter how deadly the meaning of a word is it can still lose all substance if overused. And it's been overused since about year after 9/11, IMO.

I've also never thought for a second that the threat of terrorism EVER outweighed the importance of civil liberties in our society. The people like Smeg who run around accusing people of giving up because they want to live normal, peaceful and free lives are the ones who have really given in, IMO, because they're already willing to sacrifice the one thing that terrorists are supposed to hate the most. I think we've already sacrificed too much freedoms in the name of terrorism and in the process not only given an advantage to the terrorists but also to the politicians who would want to abuse it. Frankly if I have a choice between a minute possibility of dying in a terrorist attack but living free in the meantime or living in a totalitarian state and being perfectly safem I pick the former in a second.

Lastly I'm bored because I know I won't hear the end of it in a long time. The very method that the U.S. has decided to use in order to stamp out terrorism ensures that it will never be stamped. You can't kill a nest of cockroaches by stepping on them one at a time as you see them. All Bush has ensured is that there will be a fresh new generation of terrorists each time the old one passes on ready to pick up their predecessors swords. This is a war that can never be won the way that it's being fought. You can't fight an idea with a weapon. The Romans learned it, the Christians learned it, the British learned it, but I'm afraid this administration is so stubborn it will never learn it.

Talga Vasternich

06-07-2006, 18:58

So our presence there now is truly "showing them otherwise"? Last I heard, it inspired a bonfire of hatred towards the US in just about everyone in the middle east, including many Iraqis.
As I said, their leaders are in danger of losing their monopoly of power over the people and are doing anything they can to condemn anyone other than themselves for the terrible conditions their people live in.
A question for you, do you think that all Iraqis lived better, safer lives when Sadam ruled the country?

Module88

06-07-2006, 18:58

I live in Ottawa and I wasn't even worried on that day. I've been bored of it a long time. People act like the threat of terrorism is something new. What about the 1980s? It was much worse then. It just didn't hit as close to home. I think if people in Israel and like places can deal with it on a daily basis and still have lives then we can too.

Not to mention the fact that every time the U.S. admin screws the pooch over something it's "terrorismterrorismterrorismterrorismOMGTERRORISM". It's pretty clearly now only a word used as a tool for political purposes. No matter how deadly the meaning of a word is it can still lose all substance if overused. And it's been overused since about year after 9/11, IMO.

I've also never thought for a second that the threat of terrorism EVER outweighed the importance of civil liberties in our society. The people like Smeg who run around accusing people of giving up because they want to live normal, peaceful and free lives are the ones who have really given in, IMO, because they're already willing to sacrifice the one thing that terrorists are supposed to hate the most. I think we've already sacrificed too much freedoms in the name of terrorism and in the process not only given an advantage to the terrorists but also to the politicians who would want to abuse it. Frankly if I have a choice between a minute possibility of dying in a terrorist attack but living free in the meantime or living in a totalitarian state and being perfectly safem I pick the former in a second.

Lastly I'm bored because I know I won't hear the end of it in a long time. The very method that the U.S. has decided to use in order to stamp out terrorism ensures that it will never be stamped. You can't kill a nest of cockroaches by stepping on them one at a time as you see them. All Bush has ensured is that there will be a fresh new generation of terrorists each time the old one passes on ready to pick up their predecessors swords. This is a war that can never be won the way that it's being fought. You can't fight an idea with a weapon. The Romans learned it, the Christians learned it, the British learned it, but I'm afraid this administration is so stubborn it will never learn it.

For the most part, I agree with Anakha. That must mean something.

Edit:

As I said, their leaders are in danger of losing their monopoly of power over the people and are doing anything they can to condemn anyone other than themselves for the terrible conditions their people live in.
A question for you, do you think that all Iraqis lived better, safer lives when Sadam ruled the country?

Yes, I do. And they seem to think so too. Tell me, how many roadside bombs went off went Saddam was in power? Many civilians may have died at this hands, but many are dying now. At least back then, they had water and electricity. So they say.

bladesyz

06-07-2006, 19:01

Talga Vasternich

06-07-2006, 19:04

If the good things are being outwieghed by the bad things, I question your line of reasoning. Every bit of contruction gets blown up. Shipments of food and aid are ambushed. Police forces are sometimes corrupt, aiding insurgents or running in the face of battle. I agree these forces are getting better, and I agree a pullout at this time is not the right decision, but you have to understand that we aren't clean cut after our scandals and the deaths of civilians at our hands.
I agree with you that US hands are not blood-free.
Who blows up the construction?
Who ambushes food and aid?
I also agree that it is bad that innocent people die in war, but it is one face of war that can never be gotten rid of. Since the fall of Sadam's regime, who has killed more innocents in Iraq, Americans or terrorists? I believe the answer is terrorists and the reason is my previous post.

Sir EvilFreeSmeg

06-07-2006, 19:04

I dont' accept the premise that fascism cannot be killed. We did a bang up job in 1945 after all.

SaroDarksbane

06-07-2006, 19:07

As I said, their leaders are in danger of losing their monopoly of power over the people
Not really. If anything, we're providing more recruits for their cause.

A question for you, do you think that all Iraqis lived better, safer lives when Sadam ruled the country?
I don't know. I haven't ever visited the country.

From what I hear, they weren't as free, but they were probably safer and hated the US less. What was your point?

I dont' accept the premise that fascism cannot be killed. We did a bang up job in 1945 after all.
By gathering a bunch of **** together, handing them guns, and having them execute German children right in front of their parents?

Yeah, that wouldn't have helped the Nazis gather support at all.

SaroDarksbane

06-07-2006, 19:11

Double post.

bladesyz

06-07-2006, 19:18

I dont' accept the premise that fascism cannot be killed. We did a bang up job in 1945 after all.

Fascism isn't exactly a popular idea...

Module88

06-07-2006, 19:29

I agree with you that US hands are not blood-free.
Who blows up the construction?
Who ambushes food and aid?
I also agree that it is bad that innocent people die in war, but it is one face of war that can never be gotten rid of. Since the fall of Sadam's regime, who has killed more innocents in Iraq, Americans or terrorists? I believe the answer is terrorists and the reason is my previous post.

All of that is irrelevant. The question was, were they better and safer then or now? Who does the killing doesn't matter. The fact is that in their opinion, they were better off and safer under Saddam.

I dont' accept the premise that fascism cannot be killed. We did a bang up job in 1945 after all.

Facism is also not a giant religion composed of millions of people. If I created an ideology of some sort, and I died, you'd probably kill the whole ideology. But there's a difference.

Talga Vasternich

06-07-2006, 19:30

[QUOTE=SaroDarksbane
From what I hear, they weren't as free, but they were probably safer and hated the US less. What was your point?
[/QUOTE]
I was just wondering if you complained as much when Sadam unleashed "Chemical" Ali on thousands of villagers in norther Iraq, or when he summarily executed hundreds of prisoner dissenters. Or if you had the same indignation about his two sons and their documented abuses/rapes/murders of innocent people.

The US is there now, and we are doing many good things while we are there. From where I'm sitting, you're focusing on the evil things that terrorists are doing and blaming it on the US. I just don't believe that the US is to blame for Iraqis blowing up Iraqis.
~edit~ sorry for screwing up your quote

Module88

06-07-2006, 19:33

The US is there now, and we are doing many good things while we are there. From where I'm sitting, you're focusing on the evil things that terrorists are doing and blaming it on the US. I just don't believe that the US is to blame for Iraqis blowing up Iraqis.
~edit~ sorry for screwing up your quote

Unfortunately, we're also doing a lot of bad things as well. And if the amount of bad is greater than the amount of good we're doing, well, you get the idea.

Tell me, when did the Iraqi's start killing each other (not that all of the fighters are Iraqi in the first place), before or after the US invasion?

The current civil war is a consequence of our action and presence.

Road Ratt

06-07-2006, 19:36

Yep very bored with terrorism, it's a war we can't win. The terrorists won on 9/11 most people just don't realize that they did.

I'm not surprised at our country and all our wars though, the U.S. has a vested interest in war.

Sir EvilFreeSmeg

06-07-2006, 19:36

Mod, I swear if somebody gave you a glass that was 90% full you'd complain about the missing 10%.

Module88

06-07-2006, 19:38

Mod, I swear if somebody gave you a glass that was 90% full you'd complain about the missing 10%.

No, I'd drink it and complain about the fact that it's empty. But our scenario here is hardly a 90/10 thing.

Anakha1

06-07-2006, 19:39

I dont' accept the premise that fascism cannot be killed. We did a bang up job in 1945 after all.
And Bush is happily strolling back down that path by eroding the civil rights you claim are the enemy of freedom.

And in case you didn't notice, fascism is still alive and well in many places and the U.S. went in to both WWII and Afghanistan/Iraq to protect its own interests, not to destroy fascism. So let's not claim we have a history of altruism when we don't, mmkay? The U.S. is not the protector of freedom and democracy in the world. You're a super power that has the ability to enforce its own will, not a super hero.

Talga Vasternich

06-07-2006, 19:56

By gathering a bunch of **** together, handing them guns, and having them execute German children right in front of their parents?

Yeah, that wouldn't have helped the Nazis gather support at all.
Funny you should bring that up.
When talking about Iraqis feeling they were better off with Sadam... most Germans thought the same thing about Hitler.

bladesyz

06-07-2006, 20:55

I was just wondering if you complained as much when Sadam unleashed "Chemical" Ali on thousands of villagers in norther Iraq, or when he summarily executed hundreds of prisoner dissenters. Or if you had the same indignation about his two sons and their documented abuses/rapes/murders of innocent people.

The US is there now, and we are doing many good things while we are there. From where I'm sitting, you're focusing on the evil things that terrorists are doing and blaming it on the US. I just don't believe that the US is to blame for Iraqis blowing up Iraqis.
~edit~ sorry for screwing up your quote

It's funny. I remember before the Iraq War started, many political analysts were saying how Saddam, though tyrant he may be, is the only one capable of stabilizing the region.

I guess now is a good time for them to say: "I told you so!"

Funny you should bring that up.
When talking about Iraqis feeling they were better off with Sadam... most Germans thought the same thing about Hitler.

Care to back that up with evidence? And might I remind you that you said most, so you can spare us the comments of a few neo-nazis and old nazi nostalgics.

PFS

06-07-2006, 21:05

Dondrei

07-07-2006, 01:03

Noone wins in a religous war.

Well, no-one sane does.

I've also never thought for a second that the threat of terrorism EVER outweighed the importance of civil liberties in our society.

Exactly, the Nazis and even the Communists were a FAR bigger threat to our societies than terrorists are, people have blown the danger way out of proportion.

The Romans learned it, the Christians learned it, the British learned it, but I'm afraid this administration is so stubborn it will never learn it.

Actually the Romans fought and won many a war against ideas, but that was before people could make bombs in their backyard that could take out a busload of people.

The US: We're not content with one enemy. That's for pansies. I say we make more!

AMERICA!!!! **** YEAH! COMIN' AGAIN TO SAVE THE ************ DAY YEAH!

Exactly. But what on earth gets filtered that has 12 letters?

You wanna stop terrorism, here's what you do:

1. Take your finger out of everyone else's business.
2. Take steps to protect yourself.

Eventually, once the unwashed masses realize that even without US interference, their lives are still ****ty, ****ty, ****ty, they will blame someone else other than us. Heck, in their outrage they might topple their leaders, and hopefully you'll get a democracy out of the deal too.

What you don't do is go to the houses of people who have been indocrinated to believe that the US is the cause of all their problems, bomb their house, kill their children, force your culture down their throats, and tell them it's for their own good. You know what that does? It turns people into terrorists.

The war on terrorism will never end, because people like you are doing everything in your power to make sure the list of enemies grows as fast as humanly possible.

What, and lose all the political capital that can be made by pandering to people's kneejerk reactions? Never.

And I'd like to add to that that step 2's "protect yourself" will not be served by tanks and bombs (useless in defense and not that good against terrorists even in attack) but by better Intelligence Agencies. And maybe if the CIA wasn't so busy fighting the unwinnable fight against people choosing to do drugs, they might have more resources to devote to that end...

Care to back that up with evidence? And might I remind you that you said most, so you can spare us the comments of a few neo-nazis and old nazi nostalgics.

While I don't see where he's going with that, it's true he was a popular leader. His popularity of course varied over time, but I still think a lot of Germany believed the propaganda right up until their defeat. In war people are very reluctant to question a strong nationalistic government.

We've only fought on two fronts. There is still Iran, Syria, Indonesia (if necessary), possibly Sudan, etc.

And you blew all your resources on Iraq so it doesn't look like you're going to get around to invading somewhere that actually has terrorists for the next decade or so.

Pres. Bush told you it was going to be a long war.

Stalemates do tend to be long.

P.S. In case you'd forgotten, Bush said you can't win the War on Terror.

Terrorism as we know it will end when it's no longer a viable means of politics. That can only happen when there are no terrorist sponsoring nations, the money is gone, the ways and means are gone, the leaders are gone, etc. Those cannot happen by any means other than force. That's the only language the enemy understands.

In the words of Lex Luthor, WRONG!

Note the constant failure of Israel to dent Hamas despite killing off their leaders by the score and strangling their money supply. Terrorism's great strength is its grassroots.

War is diplomacy enforced by violence. They only speak the language of war. So let's talk.

They're better at it than you (because they don't care how many casualties they take), you're just dashing your brains out against a brick wall by trying to confront them head-on.

Then you have already given up already. And they will kill you.

+10 for hysteria.

I dont' accept the premise that fascism cannot be killed. We did a bang up job in 1945 after all.

Are you talking about Hitler or the Nazi ideology? The latter is alive and well.

We're talking about a socio-religious ideology, not a political one.

Dondrei

07-07-2006, 01:05

Wait a minute, if I'm bored of terrorism why am I posting about it?

PARADOX!!!

Omikron8

07-07-2006, 01:10

and then we're just left with the christian fascists.
how is someone piloting a plane into a building any worse than america carpet bombing people.

history is written by the victors ?

HAMC8112

07-07-2006, 01:30

christian fascists.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

llad12

07-07-2006, 01:36

The War on Terror is like ... a War on Dandruff.

Ok, bad example ...

Since the fall of the Soviet Empire, the administration deemed that we needed a new "enemy" to justify our massive defense expenditures, standing armies, and overt global militarism --> i.e., The War on Terrorism.

Like that one? :wink3:

Module88

07-07-2006, 01:52

Exactly. But what on earth gets filtered that has 12 letters?

Watch the movie. -_- Don't spoil it for Dondrei, everyone.

Since the fall of the Soviet Empire, the administration deemed that we needed a new "enemy" to justify our massive defense expenditures, standing armies, and overt global militarism --> i.e., The War on Terrorism.

Yet it seems like every time we downscale our military, a huge war pops up that we happen to be unprepared for. How many times have sniper schools and units been disbanded, only to have to be retrained when a major war broke out? How many times have we been caught with our pants down because we did NOT have a developed and well-trained/equipped military? We're quite lucky that no enemy has been able to strike and successfully disable us with our pants down. A strong military is essential to the defense of our country, from threats we are aware of and threats that have yet to appear.

If you are going to cut the military during peacetime, the first thing that should go is the equipment, but that's another story.

HAMC8112

07-07-2006, 01:58

Watch the movie. -_- Don't spoil it for Dondrei, everyone.

Yet it seems like every time we downscale our military, a huge war pops up that we happen to be unprepared for. How many times have sniper schools and units been disbanded, only to have to be retrained when a major war broke out? How many times have we been caught with our pants down because we did NOT have a developed and well-trained/equipped military? We're quite lucky that no enemy has been able to strike and successfully disable us with our pants down. A strong military is essential to the defense of our country, from threats we are aware of and threats that have yet to appear.

If you are going to cut the military during peacetime, the first thing that should go is the equipment, but that's another story.

From here on it goes like this:
Fascist!
Commie!
Fascist!
Commie!
Fascist!
Commie!

Edit: Nice to see you around again Llad!

bladesyz

07-07-2006, 04:49

Actually the Romans fought and won many a war against ideas, but that was before people could make bombs in their backyard that could take out a busload of people.

Except they lost against a bunch of followers of a pacifist carpenter.

While I don't see where he's going with that, it's true he was a popular leader. His popularity of course varied over time, but I still think a lot of Germany believed the propaganda right up until their defeat. In war people are very reluctant to question a strong nationalistic government.

If the Germans were half as enthusiastic about Nazism as the Russians were about Communism, WW2, European Front, wouldn't have ended with the fall of Berlin and the death of Hitler.

Hitler was certainly popular at the beginning, but when he sent 6 million people to die in concentration camps, I'm sure his popularity rating took a tumble.

llad12

07-07-2006, 05:28

Nice to see you around again Llad!

Thanks Ham! :thumbsup:

-------------------

Yet it seems like every time we downscale our military, a huge war pops up that we happen to be unprepared for. How many times have sniper schools and units been disbanded, only to have to be retrained when a major war broke out? How many times have we been caught with our pants down because we did NOT have a developed and well-trained/equipped military? We're quite lucky that no enemy has been able to strike and successfully disable us with our pants down. A strong military is essential to the defense of our country, from threats we are aware of and threats that have yet to appear.

Let's not get too carried away here Mod ... America's last entrance into a major war was in 1941.

While I have no argument with an adequate military defense, you should know that US militarism goes well beyond that ... by any description.

For example, how many military bases do you think the US has world-wide?

How many countries are these bases situated in?

It is not easy for the common citizen to truly understand the annual budgetary defense outlays or how these funds are subsequently distributed by our congressional leaders. The influence is enormous and can often become self-serving.

------------------------------

An excerpt from President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell speech might give one pause:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Sadly, the resultant effects of said militarism are unbeknown to most. :shocked:

==================

If one is interested in further investigating this issue, then I would strongly recommend that you check out this film (http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/).

Have a nice day,

Llad :thumbsup:

Anakha1

07-07-2006, 06:00

Actually the Romans fought and won many a war against ideas, but that was before people could make bombs in their backyard that could take out a busload of people.

Well... just because they succeeded some of the time doesn't mean they didn't learn it eventually. :laugh: I was thinking more of their efforts to stamp out Christianity.

Dondrei

07-07-2006, 07:48

Except they lost against a bunch of followers of a pacifist carpenter.

Eh? They didn't lose, they just stole his beliefs.

If the Germans were half as enthusiastic about Nazism as the Russians were about Communism, WW2, European Front, wouldn't have ended with the fall of Berlin and the death of Hitler.

Hitler was certainly popular at the beginning, but when he sent 6 million people to die in concentration camps, I'm sure his popularity rating took a tumble.

What the... how could it not end there? That's like saying a game of chess could go on after the King was taken.

Well... just because they succeeded some of the time doesn't mean they didn't learn it eventually. I was thinking more of their efforts to stamp out Christianity.

Well, like I said that's kind of a different thing - they weren't trying to stamp out an ideal, but trying to resist internal social forces. They couldn't very well crush their own people in the way that had been so effective in peregrine conflicts.

PFS

07-07-2006, 08:14

Yet it seems like every time we downscale our military, a huge war pops up that we happen to be unprepared for.
What wars?

Every conflict since WW2 the US has chosen to enter of it's own accord or by RSVP invite.

How many times have we been caught with our pants down because we did NOT have a developed and well-trained/equipped military?
Pearl Harbor. So once in 60 years.

Also since WW2 you have constantly had a "developed and well-trained/equipped military". If not the best trained at least the best equipped and most developed and largest fighting force in the world.

We're quite lucky that no enemy has been able to strike and successfully disable us with our pants down. A strong military is essential to the defense of our country, from threats we are aware of and threats that have yet to appear.

Not really luck - you have friendly neighbours to the north and south. You are seperated from your nearest serious hostile countries by thousands of miles of ocean that they do not have the navies to be able to cross with a large fighting force without giving you a few weeks warning.

Module88

07-07-2006, 08:59

Let's not get too carried away here Mod ... America's last entrance into a major war was in 1941.

While I have no argument with an adequate military defense, you should know that US militarism goes well beyond that ... by any description.

For example, how many military bases do you think the US has world-wide?

How many countries are these bases situated in?

It is not easy for the common citizen to truly understand the annual budgetary defense outlays or how these funds are subsequently distributed by our congressional leaders. The influence is enormous and can often become self-serving.

While I agree that US militarism has gone farther than I would like to see it go, having military bases around the world is a strategic necessity. Unless of course, you propose flying our planes and moving our troops half way around the globe (literally) every time something happens. That's inefficient, gas and money wise, slows down our ability to respond to a situation (an obvious strategic disadvantage) and allows an enemy even more time to entrench himself. The ability to strike at any place around the world requires... bases around the world.

What wars?

Every conflict since WW2 the US has chosen to enter of it's own accord or by RSVP invite.

The Civil War? WWI. WWI. Korea. Even our most recent Iraq War.

Pearl Harbor. So once in 60 years.

Also since WW2 you have constantly had a "developed and well-trained/equipped military". If not the best trained at least the best equipped and most developed and largest fighting force in the world.

See above. In all of these wars, we were hardly in a condition to fight right away. During the Civil War, we had to initially get volunteers. Volunteers who were hardly equipped or trained to deal with the more experienced Southern Army. During WWI, it took us months to get in the fight even after the declaration of war (I'm not including disbanding certain units). World War II. Broomsticks are not weapons of war. Again, it took us months to retaliate (effectively) in the Pacific, and years to get into the European front. Korea. We're still using older, worn weapons from WWII. Our troops were inadequetely prepared for the winter. Frostbite was common and there weren't enough supplies to go around. Not to mention the fact that our weapons were often stopped by... thick winter clothing. Who needs a bullet proof vest when you can have a bunch of coats instead? Even in the first PG war, it again, took us months to build up our forces, although I admit we were considerably more prepared to fight, especially with our new and shiny tanks. As for this war we're fighting in Iraq now, I hardly call welding scrap metal to Humvees to add "armor" preparation. I hardly call the shortage of body armor preparation, especially when you consider our budget.

Not really luck - you have friendly neighbours to the north and south. You are seperated from your nearest serious hostile countries by thousands of miles of ocean that they do not have the navies to be able to cross with a large fighting force without giving you a few weeks warning.

Tell that to the British who not only fought a war of independence with us, but also burned down our capital. Or the Confederate forces, who may have easily surprised us and were close to capturing our capital (they did fire the first shot, but they could have done a better job). Tell that to the Japanese, who "forgot" the fact that the carriers weren't in the harbor, or made the vital tactical error of NOT destroying our oil and dry docks, which would have effectively destroyed our Pacific Fleet, with no place to refuel or repair.

PFS

07-07-2006, 09:10

The Civil War? WWI. WWI. Korea. Even our most recent Iraq War.

As I said - since WW2... I am not sure what the Civil War has in relevence to any conflict today, particulary since you got the jump on yourselves. Or even WW1 - technology was so different it's comparison to a war today is almost meaningless - espically in the contextof a credible attack on the US. Korea again was a voluntary war, as was Iraq 1 and 2.

See above. In all of these wars, we were hardly in a condition to fight right away.

Iraq and Korea you choose to get involved of your own accord, Iraq you took a whole week or so to capture the entire country... Unprepared or what eh?

Tell that to the British who not only fought a war of independence with us, but also burned down our capital. Or the Confederate forces, who may have easily surprised us and were close to capturing our capital (they did fire the first shot, but they could have done a better job).

1. Confederate forces are irrevelent in this point as they were actually on the same continent as you.
2. If you can't see the difference in fighting a war with instantaneous global communications, radar, sattalites and fighter planes and submarines and fighting one where a ship can easily cross the atlantic and the first thing you know about it is when it arrives then frankly I don't know what to say. Also to start with the british were already in America... very different to landing an attacking force.

Dondrei

07-07-2006, 09:51

We're arguing about the American Civil War now? Well, good way to circumvent Godwin I suppose.

bg1256

07-07-2006, 12:15

So how many people are just plain sick of terrorism? .
Hopefully everyone.

SaroDarksbane

07-07-2006, 13:27

Eh? They didn't lose, they just stole his beliefs.
So if the US government imposed it's own brand of Sharia law in the US tommorow, it wouldn't be a victory for the terrorists? :laugh:

The most annoying thing about this is that the terrorists never had the ability to crush our freedoms; they could only blow up buildings. Ask yourself how many buildings the terrorists would have to blow up before our freedoms disappeared, and I think you'll find no connection there. In fact, that only one who can take our freedoms away is the government (with the consent of the governed, supposedly), and now we are being told that in order to protect our freedoms and way of life from these building bombers, we need to first sacrifice those freedoms and that way of life to our government.

So in the end, the terrorists, through physical violence upon a civilian population, have facilitated a political change in their favor. Wasn't that their goal to begin with? Isn't that the exact definition of terrorism?

The terrorists have won already, and it's going to take a future president (of a lot more character than the candidates I've seen around lately) a long time to fix the damage they've done . . . or should I say the damage they've persuaded us to do to ourselves.

PFS

07-07-2006, 13:39

So if the US government imposed it's own brand of Sharia law in the US tommorow, it wouldn't be a victory for the terrorists? :laugh:
Well - in Rome the same people were in power before and after. So to them it did not matter. And everyone elses life still sucked.

"Meet your new rulers. Same rulers as yesterday but with different necklaces"

The most annoying thing about this is that the terrorists never had the ability to crush our freedoms; they could only blow up buildings. Ask yourself how many buildings the terrorists would have to blow up before our freedoms disappeared, and I think you'll find no connection there. In fact, that only one who can take our freedoms away is the government (with the consent of the governed, supposedly), and now we are being told that in order to protect our freedoms and way of life from these building bombers, we need to first sacrifice those freedoms and that way of life to our government.

So in the end, the terrorists, through physical violence upon a civilian population, have facilitated a political change in their favor. Wasn't that their goal to begin with? Isn't that the exact definition of terrorism?

The terrorists have won already, and it's going to take a future president (of a lot more character than the candidates I've seen around lately) a long time to fix the damage they've done . . . or should I say the damage they've persuaded us to do to ourselves.
Exactly.

The 'we must go to war or else be destroyed' is clearly rubbish as they would never even be able to significantly harm the US, not even with 1000 planes. If those in power had not knee-jerked into their own groin they would have realised the US is safe from overthrow.

Instead they passed laws that make life less like what we want and more like what the terrorists want for us.

Talga Vasternich

07-07-2006, 13:47

The 'we must go to war or else be destroyed' is clearly rubbish as they would never even be able to significantly harm the US, not even with 1000 planes. If those in power had not knee-jerked into their own groin they would have realised the US is safe from overthrow.

Instead they passed laws that make life less like what we want and more like what the terrorists want for us.
In the Senate there was only one dissenting vote to go to war (and that was R. Feingold - D-WI), so if "those in power" are to blame, it's the entire government.
Which laws are you referring to that make life more what the terrorists want?

Dondrei

07-07-2006, 13:52

So if the US government imposed it's own brand of Sharia law in the US tommorow, it wouldn't be a victory for the terrorists? :laugh:

Joke I get not...?

The most annoying thing about this is that the terrorists never had the ability to crush our freedoms; they could only blow up buildings. Ask yourself how many buildings the terrorists would have to blow up before our freedoms disappeared, and I think you'll find no connection there. In fact, that only one who can take our freedoms away is the government (with the consent of the governed, supposedly), and now we are being told that in order to protect our freedoms and way of life from these building bombers, we need to first sacrifice those freedoms and that way of life to our government.

So in the end, the terrorists, through physical violence upon a civilian population, have facilitated a political change in their favor. Wasn't that their goal to begin with? Isn't that the exact definition of terrorism?

The terrorists have won already, and it's going to take a future president (of a lot more character than the candidates I've seen around lately) a long time to fix the damage they've done . . . or should I say the damage they've persuaded us to do to ourselves.

Preaching to the choir, my friend.

SaroDarksbane

07-07-2006, 13:56

In the Senate there was only one dissenting vote to go to war (and that was R. Feingold - D-WI), so if "those in power" are to blame, it's the entire government.
And I said differently where?

I think you're trying to make this into a right vs. left issue, but unbeknownst to you, there are several of us around who think both the Republicans and the Democrats are self-serving, ignorant rejects with absolutely no common sense or ability to see the forest for the trees.

PFS

07-07-2006, 14:01

In the Senate there was only one dissenting vote to go to war (and that was R. Feingold - D-WI), so if "those in power" are to blame, it's the entire government.
Which laws are you referring to that make life more what the terrorists want?
Well - the whole government it is then. Not the first time an entire government has made a dumb choice in a knee jerk reaction

Dentention without charge springs to mind. (for the UK at least, although the US detention at Gitmo is damaging the US worldwide quitea bit).

Using it to try force through ID cards (UK again).

Dodgy Wire Taps anyone?

Sending a few thousand kids off to die in a war thet the terrorists WANTED to start. (Ok, not a law, but a government act anyway).

Government promotion of fear, again what the terrorists wanted.

Actually its mainly the government promoting the fear that the terrorists were aiming at causing that psses me off most/

Talga Vasternich

07-07-2006, 14:03

Preaching to the choir, my friend.
So how does the situation get fixed?
I've offered my opinion about how to stop terrorism (which ECI also suggested), and been questioned/told it's wrong. The only other suggested remedy was to leave it alone, defend your borders, and it'll go away.

Talga Vasternich

07-07-2006, 14:06

And I said differently where?

I think you're trying to make this into a right vs. left issue, but unbeknownst to you, there are several of us around who think both the Republicans and the Democrats are self-serving, ignorant rejects with absolutely no common sense or ability to see the forest for the trees.
I am in no way making this a Dem/Rep issue. This is a global problem.
I know you and I have been on opposite sides of some issues and on the same side on others here on the forums, and other than having a conservative attitude, I am neither a Republican supporter or Democrat supporter.
~edit~ PFS "Actually its mainly the government promoting the fear that the terrorists were aiming at causing that psses me off most/"
You are dead on here. Terrorist activity has changed the way some governments have done things, but very few laws have passed that curtail freedoms. There is one in the US, but it is a law that will twilight to an end (likely when the current administration is gone).
I believe terrorists have to be dealt with in a way that both sends them a message that what they do will not be tolerated and they will be actively punished in any way, as well as showing the people who is actually responsible for the destruction caused by their tactics. Some people say that the actions of governments (specifically the US) are responsible for people blowing up buildings/people and I don't believe that is true. I believe that the people who blow up buildings/people are responsible for these actions and want them hunted down and killed, or at least hunted down and imprisoned for the rest of their lives.
as a side note, how does one quote multiple people in one reply and how does one separate parts of posts into quotes when replying?

Dondrei

07-07-2006, 14:11

Dondrei

07-07-2006, 14:15

So how does the situation get fixed?
I've offered my opinion about how to stop terrorism (which ECI also suggested), and been questioned/told it's wrong. The only other suggested remedy was to leave it alone, defend your borders, and it'll go away.

Attacking the root cause is the only option we realistically have. Of course it's entirely possible that it would be impossible or impractical for us to remove that, in that case the only solution is to concentrate on security and hope it goes away.

bladesyz

07-07-2006, 14:46

Well, like I said that's kind of a different thing - they weren't trying to stamp out an ideal, but trying to resist internal social forces. They couldn't very well crush their own people in the way that had been so effective in peregrine conflicts.

Did the Romans win solely with their military might, or did they win by also preaching their own ideology of the Roman civilization? If it was the former, then all traces of Roman culture would've vanished with its fall.

While I agree that US militarism has gone farther than I would like to see it go, having military bases around the world is a strategic necessity.

If it's so strategically necessary, then how come other countries don't do it?

Dondrei

07-07-2006, 14:51

Did the Romans win solely with their military might, or did they win by also preaching their own ideology of the Roman civilization? If it was the former, then all traces of Roman culture would've vanished with its fall.

Depends which period we're talking about, but mostly the former. But in any case the spread of Roman culture was rarely deliberate, in fact the Romans often resented it.

SaroDarksbane

07-07-2006, 15:08

Throw in Libertarians and I'm on board too!
As a political party? Sure, why not. I hate political parties.

Module88

07-07-2006, 19:44

As I said - since WW2... I am not sure what the Civil War has in relevence to any conflict today, particulary since you got the jump on yourselves. Or even WW1 - technology was so different it's comparison to a war today is almost meaningless - espically in the contextof a credible attack on the US. Korea again was a voluntary war, as was Iraq 1 and 2.

The Civil War doesn't have any relevance to wars today, but that wasn't what I was pointing. Time and time again we've been ill-prepared to fight conflicts because we tend to downscale our military after large conflicts. As you can see, that's changed a bit. Korea was part of a UN action. The first Gulf was part of a UN action. Afghanistan was part of a UN action. The second Iraq War wasn't. But it sure demonstrated how ill-prepared we were for war.

Iraq and Korea you choose to get involved of your own accord, Iraq you took a whole week or so to capture the entire country... Unprepared or what eh?

As you can see, the war has lasted for more than a week.

1. Confederate forces are irrevelent in this point as they were actually on the same continent as you.
2. If you can't see the difference in fighting a war with instantaneous global communications, radar, sattalites and fighter planes and submarines and fighting one where a ship can easily cross the atlantic and the first thing you know about it is when it arrives then frankly I don't know what to say. Also to start with the british were already in America... very different to landing an attacking force.

The issue doesn't lie with what you're talking about, but the luck we've had when facing our opponents who made the mistakes that allowed us to win or at the very least, win with less destruction on American soil.

So in the end, the terrorists, through physical violence upon a civilian population, have facilitated a political change in their favor. Wasn't that their goal to begin with? Isn't that the exact definition of terrorism?

The terrorists have won already, and it's going to take a future president (of a lot more character than the candidates I've seen around lately) a long time to fix the damage they've done . . . or should I say the damage they've persuaded us to do to ourselves.

McCain +1

The 'we must go to war or else be destroyed' is clearly rubbish as they would never even be able to significantly harm the US, not even with 1000 planes.

I don't know about you, but those plans managed to hurt our economy a tad. 1000 planes... maybe not enough to destroy the country, but enough to destroy the economy.

Dentention without charge springs to mind. (for the UK at least, although the US detention at Gitmo is damaging the US worldwide quitea bit).

The detention issue brings up a host of problems that neither side can address.

If it's so strategically necessary, then how come other countries don't do it?

I'm actually surprised you asked. I thought everyone would have figured out that it's, oh, a little bit expensive to have military bases all over the world...

SaroDarksbane

07-07-2006, 20:23

McCain +1
I like McCain, and I would certainly vote for him over the cretins we're normally presented with, but he does have some explaining to do on the whole "Campaign Finance Reform" issue.

DPH

07-07-2006, 20:24

I like McCain, and I would certainly vote for him over the cretins we're normally presented with, but he does have some explaining to do on the whole "Campaign Finance Reform" issue.
And his visit to Falwell's university.

maccool

07-07-2006, 20:27

And his being a member of the Keating 5.

Talga Vasternich

07-07-2006, 20:27

Soundbites for the win!

Dondrei

08-07-2006, 00:09

As a political party? Sure, why not. I hate political parties.

True. Personally I'd extend it to pretty much any large-scale organised ideologically-oriented group, particularly lobby groups.

PFS

08-07-2006, 00:12

The Civil War doesn't have any relevance to wars today, but that wasn't what I was pointing. Time and time again we've been ill-prepared to fight conflicts because we tend to downscale our military after large conflicts. As you can see, that's changed a bit. Korea was part of a UN action. The first Gulf was part of a UN action. Afghanistan was part of a UN action. The second Iraq War wasn't. But it sure demonstrated how ill-prepared we were for war.
You entered into all the post-WW2 wars willingly and of your own choice. It's a bit off to say they snuck up on you or they were thrust upon you. you have the largest and best equipped fighting force in the world, even at it's lowest levels over the last 50 years it has been larger and better equipped than any other nation.

Given that many of the wars you mentioned were against forces MUCH smaller and more poorly equipped I would think it obvious that if you were unprepared for war it would not be because your army was not big enough or with good enough weapons.

As you can see, the war has lasted for more than a week.

The war was over in a week or two. The occupation and peacekeeping have lasted a long time.

The issue doesn't lie with what you're talking about, but the luck we've had when facing our opponents who made the mistakes that allowed us to win or at the very least, win with less destruction on American soil.

It is not luck. In todays world America is very very geographically isolated from any countries that are hostile and inclined to fight. You are out of range of their missiles, they ahve no planes capeable of attacking America and any navy sailing on America will be quickly picked up and destroyed.

The best you could respond with was a war a few hundred years ago where it was possible to sneek a navy up on someone, and where the other side already had a foothold. That does not exist anymore.

I don't know about you, but those plans managed to hurt our economy a tad. 1000 planes... maybe not enough to destroy the country, but enough to destroy the economy.
Nah... Look at how badly some european countries were mashed less than 50 years ago and now have pretty decent economies... until they started ****ing themselves that is...

And in all realism, it is unlikely there will ever be another plane attack like those ones - everyone went along as they thought they would be hostages, now people know they would not sit passively.

Module88

08-07-2006, 00:22

You entered into all the post-WW2 wars willingly and of your own choice. It's a bit off to say they snuck up on you or they were thrust upon you.

Fair enough.

you have the largest and best equipped fighting force in the world, even at it's lowest levels over the last 50 years it has been larger and better equipped than any other nation.

Our nation is also much larger than most nations... Obviously the army will be larger. The proportion is what matters.

Given that many of the wars you mentioned were against forces MUCH smaller and more poorly equipped I would think it obvious that if you were unprepared for war it would not be because your army was not big enough or with good enough weapons.

Smaller? Poorly equipped? Do you know anything about Korea? Many times the US has had better equipment, but we hardly had a much larger number advantage (if we had that advantage at all, and most of the time, this wasn't the case).

The war was over in a week or two. The occupation and peacekeeping have lasted a long time.

Obviously, that's a part of the war. You can hardly say we were prepared for the war and only include the first two weeks of it. Unless of course, you believe in that phrase Bush used. "Mission Accomplished" sound familiar?

It is not luck. In todays world America is very very geographically isolated from any countries that are hostile and inclined to fight. You are out of range of their missiles, they ahve no planes capeable of attacking America and any navy sailing on America will be quickly picked up and destroyed.

Today.

The best you could respond with was a war a few hundred years ago where it was possible to sneek a navy up on someone, and where the other side already had a foothold. That does not exist anymore.

Again, you completely ignore the issue at hand. Listen to me very closely- "we've been lucky that an opposing enemy hasn't knocked us out while we had our pants down." America has been attacked quite a few times. The Revolution. The War of 1812. The Mexican American War. The Civil War. WWI, II. Strategic mistakes were made that let us slip by (with the exception of the MAW methinks) with a victory. The fact of the matter is that when I say we've been lucky, I'm obviously referring to history.

To take a recent example I mentioned earlier, what do you think would have happened if the Japanese bombed our oil facilities and dry docks during PH? Where would our ships refuel? More importantly, how the hell would we fix the fleet? Without a Pacific Navy, we wouldn't have been able to leap frog the way we did. Japan would have had the time to secure more resources and fortify their positions. Without those islands, we not have been able to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, and we'd hardly drop it on PH (assuming it was captured or abandoned since there would be no fleet to defend it) or the Phillipines. Now what?

We've been caught with our pants down time and time again, unprepared to fight or retaliate. It's about damn time we make sure that doesn't happen again.

Nah... Look at how badly some european countries were mashed less than 50 years ago and now have pretty decent economies... until they started ****ing themselves that is...

The American economy is much more fragile. Though there are advantages to a capitalist system, it's far more unstable. We've had quite a few depressions already, and I'm pretty sure that if 1000 planes hit the right targets, we'd go into another one.

And in all realism, it is unlikely there will ever be another plane attack like those ones - everyone went along as they thought they would be hostages, now people know they would not sit passively.

It doesn't have to be an attack from the air.

HaLoPhReAk

08-07-2006, 00:57

Someone from the middle east farts and gas prices go up.

:laugh: HAh. Now thats signature worthy *dreams of having a signature*..:wink2: .

But back on topic in the off topic, Yes I am bored of these dudes thinking they will go to their east indian version of heaven if they throw their (and other peoples) guts all over the wall... I mean WTF is wrong with these people, if ya wanna thin the gene pool please do it in a way that you do it in a way that you aint screwin other pplz lives up.

SaroDarksbane

09-07-2006, 03:09

True. Personally I'd extend it to pretty much any large-scale organised ideologically-oriented group, particularly lobby groups.
It's the same reason I don't like organized religion.

It stifles free thought from within, and promotes stereotypes from without.

Dondrei

09-07-2006, 03:12

It's the same reason I don't like organized religion.

It stifles free thought from within, and promotes stereotypes from without.

Let's high-five on it.

[/the Todd]

PFS

10-07-2006, 08:57

Our nation is also much larger than most nations... Obviously the army will be larger. The proportion is what matters.
Uhhhh.... no. An army of 100,000 from a country with 100,000,000 million people vs an army of 10,000 from a country with 20,000 people will (or should) win dispite the fact by proportion of population they are respresented only a fifetith as much.

In defense again - a smaller army will be more spread out, but if the attackers are from a smaller army they will be more spread out.

Again, you completely ignore the issue at hand. Listen to me very closely- "we've been lucky that an opposing enemy hasn't knocked us out while we had our pants down." America has been attacked quite a few times. The Revolution. The War of 1812. The Mexican American War. The Civil War. WWI, II. Strategic mistakes were made that let us slip by (with the exception of the MAW methinks) with a victory.

you have not been 'lucky', you just have a good georgraphical location away from all your enimies.
But... you won all the wars you listed above. Quite convincingly.

The only thing I can think when you say America has been unprepared for war is that you mean unprepared for the fact you'll take some casualties.

You did not get a victory in the MAW?! You got Texas and California!

The American economy is much more fragile. Though there are advantages to a capitalist system, it's far more unstable. We've had quite a few depressions already, and I'm pretty sure that if 1000 planes hit the right targets, we'd go into another one.
Ok... I was wrong in assuming that people would take the '1000' number as figuritive rather than literal, but even then - If all of america shared your lack of morale (A fact that is not bourne out by any other Americans I know personally) and totally misplaced concerns then frankly you could do with a war or prolonged conflict on your home turf to give some perspective and to help grow some backbone.

Can you imagine if Londoners during the blitz shared your level of morale and priorities? No convienent land base for the D-Day landings that's for sure.

"Oh No! they've blown up a bank, surely our enemies will overrun us within days as all we have left are our people, our shipyards, our agriculture and the large portion of our industry out of range of their bombers"

We're talking about a war here - fight for survival, not some minor inconvienence of a few low years on the NASDAQ. I think again this illistrates what you mean by 'unprepared' in that you seem to have an expectation that any conflict that is not more than a minor inconvienence without casualties is tantamount to a crushing defeat.

SaroDarksbane

10-07-2006, 11:43

You did not get a victory in the MAW?! You got Texas and California!
Like he said, not really a victory there. ^_^

Dondrei

10-07-2006, 13:31

America has been attacked quite a few times. The Revolution. The War of 1812. The Mexican American War. The Civil War. WWI, II. Strategic mistakes were made that let us slip by (with the exception of the MAW methinks) with a victory.

Well of course they say they were attacked, that's how you declare a war while looking like the good guys; set things up so you can pretend your opponent attacked you first. Let's have a look at them:

1. The Revolution

How on earth you can consider this an attack on America is beyond me. A series of acts of provocation, rebellion and insurrection against the people who at the time owned the country led to escalating tensions which finally resulted in the Battle of Lexington and Concord (where British soldiers were sent to disarm local rebels). If anyone was the belligerent it was the colonials. And how it would count given America didn't even exist at that time anyway I'm at a loss the understand.

2. The War of 1812

America was clearly the aggressor.

3. The Mexican-American war

Polk deliberately antagonised the Mexicans into attacking by sending troops into the disputed land between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande. The Mexicans considered this their territory, to them this was an act of war. The Americans recognised the border at Rio Grande so they could act as if Mexico were the aggressor, that of course being the whole point.

4. The Civil War

Now you've completely lost it, America was attacked by America?

*Scratches head*

5. WWI

They sunk some British ships carrying American passengers half-way around the world. Not exactly what I'd call a strike at the heart of America.

6. WWII

Some of your ships were sunk at a naval base half-way around the world (again). This time it was technically American soil, but it's not like they bombed New York, is it? Pearl Harbour is just a relic of way back when America hadn't yet realised that colonial imperialism (and banana republic-esque dirty tricks) aren't nearly as much fun and cost-effective as cultural imperialism. It's about as far removed from "American" as you can get while still technically being American soil.

llad12

10-07-2006, 17:30

America hadn't yet realised that colonial imperialism (and banana republic-esque dirty tricks) aren't nearly as much fun and cost-effective as cultural imperialism. It's about as far removed from "American" as you can get while still technically being American soil.

Cultural imperialism --- my Dondrei, how "Wilsonian" of you.

Module88

10-07-2006, 23:55

Uhhhh.... no. An army of 100,000 from a country with 100,000,000 million people vs an army of 10,000 from a country with 20,000 people will (or should) win dispite the fact by proportion of population they are respresented only a fifetith as much.

What?

You said "you have the largest and best equipped fighting force in the world, even at it's lowest levels over the last 50 years it has been larger and better equipped than any other nation."

Ok, first of all, we don't have the largest army in the world. Second of all, a larger nation will most likely have larger army. Go figure. That's all I said. I don't know where all of this came from.

In defense again - a smaller army will be more spread out, but if the attackers are from a smaller army they will be more spread out.

How does that work? If I'm out numbered and I'm attacking, the last thing I'd do is stretch out my army. I'd concentrate them and hit in one spot. What the hell are you talking about?

you have not been 'lucky', you just have a good georgraphical location away from all your enimies.

First of all, that partly is, lucky. You don't think a good geographical location is lucky at all, considering the other places we could be?

But... you won all the wars you listed above. Quite convincingly.

I know you're not American, but before you say anything as foolish as that, take at least, a look at something. We hardly one all of those with one hand tied behind our backs.

The only thing I can think when you say America has been unprepared for war is that you mean unprepared for the fact you'll take some casualties.

No, unprepared to fight (effectively).

You did not get a victory in the MAW?! You got Texas and California!

For some reason, you have a VERY high tendency to misinterpret everything I say- constantly. Strategic mistakes (major ones) did not occur in the MAW. We did not slip by that war- we won completely.

Ok... I was wrong in assuming that people would take the '1000' number as figuritive rather than literal, but even then - If all of america shared your lack of morale (A fact that is not bourne out by any other Americans I know personally) and totally misplaced concerns then frankly you could do with a war or prolonged conflict on your home turf to give some perspective and to help grow some backbone.

That's irrelevant. The point is that the American economy CAN be hurt by a bunch of planes crashing in certain places. I have no lack of morale. But you clearly don't understand how the American economy works- or how fragile it can be. And yes, I agree many Americans have lost their backbone to fight, but then, some are too eager to fight.

Can you imagine if Londoners during the blitz shared your level of morale and priorities? No convienent land base for the D-Day landings that's for sure.

"Oh No! they've blown up a bank, surely our enemies will overrun us within days as all we have left are our people, our shipyards, our agriculture and the large portion of our industry out of range of their bombers"

I'm still confused at where this came from.

We're talking about a war here - fight for survival, not some minor inconvienence of a few low years on the NASDAQ. I think again this illistrates what you mean by 'unprepared' in that you seem to have an expectation that any conflict that is not more than a minor inconvienence without casualties is tantamount to a crushing defeat.

Quite frankly, you confuse the hell out of me. Half the stuff you say comes out of the blue, and the other half makes no sense whatsoever. You said, "Nah... Look at how badly some european countries were mashed less than 50 years ago and now have pretty decent economies... until they started ****ing themselves that is.."

In response, I said that the American ecnomy (or the rest of it, now that I think about it) is hardly comparable to European countries. Not to mention the fact that these European countries recieved a tremendous amount of assistance after the war. One of the disadvantages to a capitalist system is its instability. Yes, it can produce a tremendous amount of growth and economic strength. But it's also much more fragile.

As for you, dondrei, I'm lucky enough to be able to wipe out all you've said in about... two sentences. When I said America was attacked, I mean, America was attacked- who started the war (your claim about the Revolutionary War is questionable and at one point inaccurate, ignoring the other things you said) is irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, America was attacked- its cities burned or plundered, its property destroyed.

WildBerry

11-07-2006, 01:30

In response, I said that the American ecnomy (or the rest of it, now that I think about it) is hardly comparable to European countries. Not to mention the fact that these European countries recieved a tremendous amount of assistance after the war. One of the disadvantages to a capitalist system is its instability. Yes, it can produce a tremendous amount of growth and economic strength. But it's also much more fragile.

Uh, which European countries did? We're talking Marshall Plan here? Finland didn't apply, since we were scared ****less of our good Eastern neighbour. We didn't become a People's Republic and didn't become a part of the Eastern Block (no memberships of Cominform or Warsaw Pact; no dominant [albeit a visible one] Communist party), in economic and parliamentary sense we belonged to the west, but with the experiences of war relatively close we could not afford to ignore Father Sunny's sentiments.

You are exactly right that in general the European economy was picked up to it's feet by the American financial aid. You just need to be careful with that word "European", as always. Even if you apply "Western European" the countries that stayed out of the war are still a hole in the argument.

Module88

11-07-2006, 01:38

Uh, which European countries did? We're talking Marshall Plan here? Finland didn't apply, since we were scared ****less of our good Eastern neighbour. We didn't become a People's Republic and didn't become a part of the Eastern Block (no memberships of Cominform or Warsaw Pact; no dominant [albeit a visible one] Communist party), in economic and parliamentary sense we belonged to the west, but with the experiences of war relatively close we could not afford to ignore Father Sunny's sentiments.

You are exactly right that in general the European economy was picked up to it's feet by the American financial aid. You just need to be careful with that word "European", as always. Even if you apply "Western European" the countries that stayed out of the war are still a hole in the argument.

Of course. I hardly meant it to mean all European countries, as many were of course, part of the USSR. Not all countries were also assisted as well, and some moreso than others. I don't particularly care to get into those details.

Dondrei

11-07-2006, 02:30

Cultural imperialism --- my Dondrei, how "Wilsonian" of you.

Who's Wilson? I dunno, it's a buzzword over here.

As for you, dondrei, I'm lucky enough to be able to wipe out all you've said in about... two sentences. When I said America was attacked, I mean, America was attacked- who started the war (your claim about the Revolutionary War is questionable and at one point inaccurate, ignoring the other things you said) is irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, America was attacked- its cities burned or plundered, its property destroyed.

You can't complain that you were attacked when you started the fight. Yeah you got your capital burned - after you attacked their country.

Module88

11-07-2006, 02:36

You can't complain that you were attacked when you started the fight. Yeah you got your capital burned - after you attacked their country.

The issue was the luck we've had when we have been attacked. As such, it's irrelevant who started the fight- what matters is that when it came right down to the war, we were lucky that things played out the way they did, and that our enemies made mistakes that often cost them the war.

Dondrei

11-07-2006, 02:48

The issue was the luck we've had when we have been attacked. As such, it's irrelevant who started the fight- what matters is that when it came right down to the war, we were lucky that things played out the way they did, and that our enemies made mistakes that often cost them the war.

I don't know how much of a role luck played, you had the upper hand in pretty much every war.

Module88

11-07-2006, 02:52

I don't know how much of a role luck played, you had the upper hand in pretty much every war.

? How did we have the upper hand in pretty much every war?

Dondrei

11-07-2006, 03:01

? How did we have the upper hand in pretty much every war?

Make my task simpler and name one in which you didn't.

Bulgarian

11-07-2006, 06:22

yes im bored of terrorism, im also bored of president bush

now what

Dondrei

11-07-2006, 07:24

yes im bored of terrorism, im also bored of president bush

now what

Hmmm... shall we fight China?

Module88

11-07-2006, 07:36

Make my task simpler and name one in which you didn't.

Uh, the Revolution. Barbary Wars. 1812. WWI. WWII, in the beginning. Korea. Vietnam... Obviously we won many of them, but that hardly means we had the upper hand.

PFS

11-07-2006, 08:17

First of all, that partly is, lucky. You don't think a good geographical location is lucky at all, considering the other places we could be?
Yes, but when talking about luck this is what you were talking about :

Module88: "The issue was the luck we've had when we have been attacked."

For some reason, you have a VERY high tendency to misinterpret everything I say- constantly. Strategic mistakes (major ones) did not occur in the MAW. We did not slip by that war- we won completely.
I think my intepretation was fair enough but I accept that I took the wrong message from your point on the MAW.

That's irrelevant. The point is that the American economy CAN be hurt by a bunch of planes crashing in certain places. I have no lack of morale. But you clearly don't understand how the American economy works- or how fragile it can be. And yes, I agree many Americans have lost their backbone to fight, but then, some are too eager to fight.

Quite frankly, you confuse the hell out of me. Half the stuff you say comes out of the blue, and the other half makes no sense whatsoever. You said, "Nah... Look at how badly some european countries were mashed less than 50 years ago and now have pretty decent economies... until they started ****ing themselves that is.."

In response, I said that the American ecnomy (or the rest of it, now that I think about it) is hardly comparable to European countries. Not to mention the fact that these European countries recieved a tremendous amount of assistance after the war. One of the disadvantages to a capitalist system is its instability. Yes, it can produce a tremendous amount of growth and economic strength. But it's also much more fragile.

See... When I talk about war I mean a full scale war that threatens your entire nation - invading armies and cities razed to the ground, while you seem to feel it means an international police action or something that might upset the economy for a few years.

Also - How is it more fragile? Why?

As to this getting convoluted - you keep going off on weird tangents. This started as you satying everytime america scaled down it got caught out by a war, i said starting a war or going RSVP to someone elses is hardly being caught out, that nobody who actually wants to attack america has the means as they will have their ships detected and blown up by radar and planes and to another persons comment added that even 1000 planes would not defeat america to which you replied 'yeah, but we were unprepared for the wars, lucky they did not get a better jump on us, and no planes blew up the ships in the revoloution and what about our economy' (to paraphrase). I mentioned the economy was kinda a secondry consideration in fighting for the survival of a nation, that you won all the wars pretty solidly and that geography rather than luck was responsible for americas good position.

Dondrei

11-07-2006, 11:42

Uh, the Revolution. Barbary Wars. 1812. WWI. WWII, in the beginning. Korea. Vietnam... Obviously we won many of them, but that hardly means we had the upper hand.

1. the Revolution

You were fighting on your own soil in a gigantic country against an enemy from a tiny country on the other side of the planet. Sure it wasn't an easy war, but you had many advantages.

2. the War of 1812

Well, you did attack first so clearly you thought you had the upper hand.

3. the Barbary wars

Is that a joke?

4. WWI and WWII

Well I think the fact that unlike every other country in those wars you never shed a drop of blood on your home soil is pretty telling.

5. Korea and Vietnam

You can probably assert that the enemy was more determined, more numerous and were fighting on their home soil but in every other way America was superior by lightyears.

PFS

11-07-2006, 11:50

4. WWI and WWII

Well I think the fact that unlike every other country in those wars you never shed a drop of blood on your home soil is pretty telling.

In fairness to him - WW2 did involve an outpost of theirs being bombed. Once i think.

But they sure seemed good to go straight after.

WildBerry

11-07-2006, 11:53

5. Korea and Vietnam

You can probably assert that the enemy was more determined, more numerous and were fighting on their home soil but in every other way America was superior by lightyears.

The Chinese "volunteers" on their home soil in Korea, hmmm?

Not disagreeing with you otherwise, just pointing this out. I'm actually helping you by adding a caveat to one of the things you mentioned.

Then again, maybe not.

Dondrei

11-07-2006, 11:54

In fairness to him - WW2 did involve an outpost of theirs being bombed. Once i think.

But they sure seemed good to go straight after.

Yeah, "outpost" is the right word - any further from the American mainland and it'd practically be on Japanese soil.

Dondrei

11-07-2006, 11:55

The Chinese "volunteers" on their home soil in Korea, hmmm?

Not disagreeing with you otherwise, just pointing this out. I'm actually helping you by adding a caveat to one of the things you mentioned.

Then again, maybe not.

Well, the Chinese sort of considered it theirs... :grin:

Stevinator

11-07-2006, 12:17

? How did we have the upper hand in pretty much every war?

Well if you hold north america then you get 5 armies every turn. no one can really hold the other continents, except australia, and that one's only 2 armies per turn.

PFS

11-07-2006, 12:21

Well if you hold north america then you get 5 armies every turn. no one can really hold the other continents, except australia, and that one's only 2 armies per turn.
Oh man! Imagine if Australia had 40% of Americas Army! (And could afford to support it!)

Wow! We'd like... rule South East Aisa.

Module88

11-07-2006, 18:27

1. the Revolution

You were fighting on your own soil in a gigantic country against an enemy from a tiny country on the other side of the planet. Sure it wasn't an easy war, but you had many advantages.

And plenty of disadvantages. Lack of food and weapons. Lack of training (we were facing one of the best armies in the world). Lack of leadership- Washington was one finger away from being killed on the battlefield. The only reason he lived was because the British marksman who had him in his sights believed that it was ungentlemanly of an officer to shoot another officer like that. His skill and a bit of luck lead us to victory. I shudder to think of what would have happened had be been killed.

2. the War of 1812

Well, you did attack first so clearly you thought you had the upper hand.

Americans overestimating themselves? So because we think we have the upper hand we must have the upper hand? I don't even know what to say.

3. the Barbary wars

Is that a joke?

Nope.

4. WWI and WWII

Well I think the fact that unlike every other country in those wars you never shed a drop of blood on your home soil is pretty telling.

Being lucky enough to have an ocean spreading you away hardly = you have the advantage. A large ocean also means it takes forever to send reinforcements, which = disadvantage. Hell, we didn't even have a good military jeep- American Calvalry is what we had. In an age of tanks and machine guns, well, let's just said I would not prefer to ride on a horse.

5. Korea and Vietnam

You can probably assert that the enemy was more determined, more numerous and were fighting on their home soil but in every other way America was superior by lightyears.

Yes, but better technology doesn't definitively mean advantage.

And steve, I've always wanted to play that game.