yeah, kennedy told the russians to put missiles in cuba.usmarine wrote:
ya um......kennedy started the god damn thing in the first place.
well put yourself in that situation. do you think you would be sitting around saying "gee I hope the UN drafts another resolution today."Varegg wrote:
You haven't got a clue as to where or what i have experienced up close so don't give me that sacrificial mumbo jumbo, as a soldier or ex-soldier you should know that force never solves anything but to create new problems ... i'm not saying Darfur doesn't instigate a use of force but your OP states that force is general is the only way to go and that is wrong.usmarine wrote:
I bet you wouldn't say that if you hadn't eaten any food in a week. Or drank clean water. Or wiped your ass. But lucky for you that you are tucked away in the snow, sheltered from the world.Varegg wrote:
Force may sometimes be necesary but hardly before other solutions have been thoroughly tested to solve a situation.
Unless we as in nations and not races, are willing to totally wipe out that whole region and populate it with who we deem fit to control it.. There will always be resentment towards the west..
Why is it that the most gun ho, kill them all and fuck the rest of the world think that we the west are only comprised of white people?
Why is it that the most gun ho, kill them all and fuck the rest of the world think that we the west are only comprised of white people?
Not really, these conflicts boil down to tribal shit that would go on if there were fake borders or not..teddy..jimmy wrote:
To add to this, however, it was us (white guys) who started all these conflicts as a result of raising arms in Africa so it ultimately fucks a country up both ways.
no but they tried to kill castro which may have pissed him off a bit ya think? and we did low level flyovers over another country that we were not at war with.....that is force.IRONCHEF wrote:
yeah, kennedy told the russians to put missiles in cuba.usmarine wrote:
ya um......kennedy started the god damn thing in the first place.
Much like you i guess i would fight my own battles not waiting for someone to do it for me ... Africa is the only one that ultimately can take care of Africa's problems, not the UN and not the US - we can help provide stability before or after a conflict but never during a conflict, that will only help escalate the problems ...usmarine wrote:
well put yourself in that situation. do you think you would be sitting around saying "gee I hope the UN drafts another resolution today."Varegg wrote:
You haven't got a clue as to where or what i have experienced up close so don't give me that sacrificial mumbo jumbo, as a soldier or ex-soldier you should know that force never solves anything but to create new problems ... i'm not saying Darfur doesn't instigate a use of force but your OP states that force is general is the only way to go and that is wrong.usmarine wrote:
I bet you wouldn't say that if you hadn't eaten any food in a week. Or drank clean water. Or wiped your ass. But lucky for you that you are tucked away in the snow, sheltered from the world.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
yeah, nukes are a good response to failed assassination attempts. I know all world leaders who get assassination attempts made on them always hit up the russians for nukes in retaliation... keep trying.
what the hell are you talking about?IRONCHEF wrote:
yeah, nukes are a good response to failed assassination attempts.
Yep, because it's obviously nobody's "job" to keep policing African nations who are so hell bent on machete warfare, they, the African nations should get their act together. If we weren't so extended, had a fully operational, fully stocked, pleased military, we might be able to spend some of our defense spending on a military policing solution..but it can't happen.Varegg wrote:
Mush like you i guess i would fight my own battles not waiting for someone to do it for me ... Africa is the only one that ultimatly can take care of Africas problems, not the UN and not the US - we can help provide stability before or after a conflict but never during a conflict, that will only help escalate the problems ...
why do you assume I was talking only about the US military?
You said Kennedy started the cuban missile crisis because he attempted to assassinate castro. i sacrastically agreed with you to show that the cuban missile crisis was won with diplomacy and a non-aggressive response...to the very limit. So many times during those 13 days did Kennedy have what seemed to be the only option of force...but he understood that force is not always the answer. there's no better example than that to dispute your shit of force only, always, etc...usmarine wrote:
what the hell are you talking about?IRONCHEF wrote:
yeah, nukes are a good response to failed assassination attempts.
I thought that the Russians put the missiles in Cuba in response of our missiles set in Turkey, and Castro allowed it because he was afraid of a US invasion.
ummm..IRONCHEF wrote:
You said Kennedy started the cuban missile crisis because he attempted to assassinate castro. i sacrastically agreed with you to show that the cuban missile crisis was won with diplomacy and a non-aggressive response...to the very limit. So many times during those 13 days did Kennedy have what seemed to be the only option of force...but he understood that force is not always the answer. there's no better example than that to dispute your shit of force only, always, etc...usmarine wrote:
what the hell are you talking about?IRONCHEF wrote:
yeah, nukes are a good response to failed assassination attempts.
They tried to kill him yes? Then russia saw that as a perfect opportunity to put missiles in cuba. if someone tried to assassinate me, then russia came with money and said we just want to put a few missiles up to fuck with america since they have missiles near us.....I would probably say yes if I feared a US invasion. So he tried to kill him with force, now he had to back himself out of the corner. he was gun shy because of the bay of pigs IMO. but no worries, he got back at russia because he basically started Nam also.
Last edited by usmarine (2008-03-10 14:07:20)
As opposed to them saying "gee I hope America invades and puts us under martial law, which is working well for them and the citizens in other countries"usmarine wrote:
well put yourself in that situation. do you think you would be sitting around saying "gee I hope the UN drafts another resolution today."Varegg wrote:
You haven't got a clue as to where or what i have experienced up close so don't give me that sacrificial mumbo jumbo, as a soldier or ex-soldier you should know that force never solves anything but to create new problems ... i'm not saying Darfur doesn't instigate a use of force but your OP states that force is general is the only way to go and that is wrong.usmarine wrote:
I bet you wouldn't say that if you hadn't eaten any food in a week. Or drank clean water. Or wiped your ass. But lucky for you that you are tucked away in the snow, sheltered from the world.
Maybe in this case current efforts aren't working, but when certains plans fail, you just don't go rushing in with the military. Of course, on the other hand, some people try diplomacy way past the point that it is obvious it's not gonna work.
Side point directed at NO ONE in particular (<---not sarcasm): DAST is getting soo boring because of threads like this. People do this extreme generalizing way too much. Dems love terrorists, Republicans want muslim blood and oil. Liberals want to give terrorists rights and free access to America, conservatives want muslim babies crucified. Dems want communist socialism, Republicans want a fascist state.
blah blah blah.
sounds about right to me
what is your solution big guy?RoosterCantrell wrote:
As opposed to them saying "gee I hope America invades and puts us under martial law, which is working well for them and the citizens in other countries"
AND I AM NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THE US MILITARY.
fucking jesus!
You've been here less than 2 weeks.Schittloaf wrote:
I agree with you marine too many rainbow collation tree hugging put a band-aid on it lefties in here .
But they do love terrorists, want to give terrorists rights and free access to America, and want communist socialism.RoosterCantrell wrote:
Side point directed at NO ONE in particular (<---not sarcasm): DAST is getting soo boring because of threads like this. People do this extreme generalizing way too much. Dems love terrorists, Republicans want muslim blood and oil. Liberals want to give terrorists rights and free access to America, conservatives want muslim babies crucified. Dems want communist socialism, Republicans want a fascist state.
blah blah blah.
exactly his point.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
But they do love terrorists, want to give terrorists rights and free access to America, and want communist socialism.RoosterCantrell wrote:
Side point directed at NO ONE in particular (<---not sarcasm): DAST is getting soo boring because of threads like this. People do this extreme generalizing way too much. Dems love terrorists, Republicans want muslim blood and oil. Liberals want to give terrorists rights and free access to America, conservatives want muslim babies crucified. Dems want communist socialism, Republicans want a fascist state.
blah blah blah.
Oh, get off of your high horse. It's not like you never generalize.IRONCHEF wrote:
exactly his point.
I don't have one. I am just saying that your solution, probably is not the right one.usmarine wrote:
what is your solution big guy?RoosterCantrell wrote:
As opposed to them saying "gee I hope America invades and puts us under martial law, which is working well for them and the citizens in other countries"
AND I AM NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THE US MILITARY.
fucking jesus!
It's one thing to not have an answer, and don't know where to go with the problem. It's quite another to not have an awnser, and default to the military to solve it. Now, I understand, if you look at history, the U.S. military knows how to get shit done. Period. But there are times that it's attempts have not been so productive. Afghanistan and Iraq are perfect examples. Prefect examples that using the military MAY not be the right thing to do.
Time may very well show that the military may eventually be the thing that fixes the middle east. I don't see any of that as a failure. I just say that with the way things are, military action has proven to be a massive protracted engagement and undertaking. It's best to push diplomacy before deploying. Because nither can be sure of victory, and diplomacy requires less loss of human life, and less political turmoil, and that's only true part of the time as well.
But it's hard to argue that the consequences of bad choices in diplomacy is worse than an unwarranted and improper invasion. I must also clarify that I am not calling either Afghan or Iraq an unwarranted invasion, that is not the debate. I am just saying that sending in a military, when diplomacy is not exhausted within its resonable limits. Military action is unnecissary.
and, marine, I actually like ya! don't always agree, but you do make good points. I usually stay quiet here becuase most people laready say what I was gonna say .
EDIT:
Meh, we're all guilty of it from time to time, it's just that some people base thier whole argument on ridiculous stereotypes and dumb generalizations. This thread, IMO, doesn't have much of that, it KINDA applied so I vented a bit .{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Oh, get off of your high horse. It's not like you never generalize.IRONCHEF wrote:
exactly his point.
Last edited by RoosterCantrell (2008-03-10 14:32:46)
I can honestly say I haven't read much of this thread but I need to say this.
Anyone in armed forces anywhere (Except like the middle east and Germany)
You are all emperors amongst men.
Taken from that Field Marshall's speech for the Paras, "Every man an emperor".
Anyone in armed forces anywhere (Except like the middle east and Germany)
You are all emperors amongst men.
Taken from that Field Marshall's speech for the Paras, "Every man an emperor".
When I say except I don't mean people serving in the middle east. I mean people in Middle eastern "armies". Ya know, the ones that behead people and shit.
Chechens and stuff, for an example of a non ME army that I don't respect.
Chechens and stuff, for an example of a non ME army that I don't respect.
I agree. I have complete respect for anyone man who is in the military and conducts himself honorably. Even if the politicains aren't handling it right, how is that the fault of the troops?jord wrote:
When I say except I don't mean people serving in the middle east. I mean people in Middle eastern "armies". Ya know, the ones that behead people and shit.
Chechens and stuff, for an example of a non ME army that I don't respect.
I may questions the actions taken by the superiors and the politicians, but anyone who pulls that "fuck the troops" and "murderers" hippy Berkeley shit needs to wake the fuck up. No nation survives without the protection of the people who have the courage to sign up to potentially risk thier lives and die to defend someone or something beyond themselves. People like that are dillusional cowards and worthless ungrateful idiots
Last edited by RoosterCantrell (2008-03-10 14:46:57)
well my solution would get starving people food, water, and medicine a lot faster and safer then what they have right now. I am not talking about long term solutions. These people do not have time to wait for long term solutions.RoosterCantrell wrote:
I don't have one. I am just saying that your solution, probably is not the right one.