Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

 

2008-03-11 13:13:21
ReTox
Member
+100|6926|State of RETOXification

usmarine wrote:

I did not name call there did I?  But I will to you.  STFU.
Ohhhh... you hath pierced me to the very soul you silver tongued devil you!   

/sarcasm + + anything else that correctly indicates contempt



Actually, I was referring to you calling Death1337 a "fucking retard":

usmarine wrote:

-=]DeatH1337[=- wrote:

Im just saying how i see it from my point of view. Marine, being a military man probably has only a mentality of force being the only option.

Nevertheless it seems that is his only view and he sees no compromise with regards to diplomacy which is why i said what i did.
you are wrong and acting like a This bit -> fucking retard as usual.  I have been to Africa delivering food before, probably while you were in diapers.  so I know more than force, and so do other Marines.  but Marines just being there is force so to speak, or the fear of force.


and how are we bad at force?
Call me names all you want... it makes me laugh and simply reinforces my belief of your total and undoubted idiocy and childishness.



Edit -

You want me to quote something like Janes and not junk like the BBC?  Why did you quote yahoo (???) in your OP then?

Last edited by ReTox (2008-03-11 13:15:45)

2008-03-11 13:41:10
Moo? Si!
Tall, Dark, Antlered
+39|6556|817---->907

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Nope an army is for defense and offense, a specified army such as IDF or JGSDF is a defensive army.
An army used for offence is generally called 'the bad guys'.
You viewpoint = Fail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Day
Unless you wanted your entire lineage to be erased at the flip of a gas chamber switch.
2008-03-11 13:44:47
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6983

Moo? Si! wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Nope an army is for defense and offense, a specified army such as IDF or JGSDF is a defensive army.
An army used for offence is generally called 'the bad guys'.
You viewpoint = Fail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Day
Unless you wanted your entire lineage to be erased at the flip of a gas chamber switch.
lol. You think D-Day was the first shot in that war? You might want to rewind to 1939.... lol The aggressor in that situation was the Axis, not the Allies Mr. Fail.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-03-11 13:45:29)

2008-03-11 13:45:41
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7117|Tampa Bay Florida

Moo? Si! wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Nope an army is for defense and offense, a specified army such as IDF or JGSDF is a defensive army.
An army used for offence is generally called 'the bad guys'.
You viewpoint = Fail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Day
Unless you wanted your entire lineage to be erased at the flip of a gas chamber switch.
He means pre-emptive attacks
2008-03-11 14:13:20
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6650|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Nope an army is for defense and offense, a specified army such as IDF or JGSDF is a defensive army.
An army used for offence is generally called 'the bad guys'.
An army used for defence also appear to often be called the 'bad guys'.

Also the allies went on the offensive.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-03-11 14:16:34)

2008-03-11 14:21:24
Moo? Si!
Tall, Dark, Antlered
+39|6556|817---->907

CameronPoe wrote:

Moo? Si! wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


An army used for offence is generally called 'the bad guys'.
You viewpoint = Fail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Day
Unless you wanted your entire lineage to be erased at the flip of a gas chamber switch.
lol. You think D-Day was the first shot in that war? You might want to rewind to 1939.... lol The aggressor in that situation was the Axis, not the Allies Mr. Fail.
Offense is offense regardless who strikes first.  I think there is a term that is applicable, "Going on the offensive".  Mr. Doesn't understand terminology.
2008-03-11 14:23:15
Moo? Si!
Tall, Dark, Antlered
+39|6556|817---->907

Spearhead wrote:

Moo? Si! wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


An army used for offence is generally called 'the bad guys'.
You viewpoint = Fail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Day
Unless you wanted your entire lineage to be erased at the flip of a gas chamber switch.
He means pre-emptive attacks
I was unaware of the switch to not speaking for ourselves. 
I believe if he meant pre-emptive attacks, Mr. CP would have mentioned it.
2008-03-11 14:32:19
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7189

ReTox wrote:

You want me to quote something like Janes and not junk like the BBC?  Why did you quote yahoo (???) in your OP then?
That is a story per say, where as you are trying to pass off fact by statistics.

Last edited by usmarine (2008-03-11 14:34:04)

2008-03-11 14:33:49
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7189

CameronPoe wrote:

lol. Still trying to 'save the day' eh marine? Concentrate on defending America. That's what armies are for: defence.
I feel sorry for them.  I have seen first hand what "diplomacy" does in Africa.  Those kids deserve better and you know it.
2008-03-11 14:47:28
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6650|Escea

usmarine wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lol. Still trying to 'save the day' eh marine? Concentrate on defending America. That's what armies are for: defence.
I feel sorry for them.  I have seen first hand what "diplomacy" does in Africa.  Those kids deserve better and you know it.
QFT,

Africa is proof that diplomatic reasoning won't always work, when diplomacy fails, the other option is to utilise force.
2008-03-11 15:01:25
ReTox
Member
+100|6926|State of RETOXification

usmarine wrote:

ReTox wrote:

You want me to quote something like Janes and not junk like the BBC?  Why did you quote yahoo (???) in your OP then?
That is a story per say, where as you are trying to pass off fact by statistics.
What, it's OK for you to post a story but my quote of statistics, backed up by multiple international news organizations has no merit?

For your Information:

The poll was "conducted by D3 Systems for the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today. More than 2,000 people were questioned in more than 450 neighbourhoods and villages across all 18 provinces of Iraq between 25 February and 5 March 2007. The margin of error is + or – 2.5%."

Read it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/p … ollnew.pdf

Seems to me that I don't have to "pass" anything off as fact... it's already been done for me.
Now, if you really want to help feed people and make their lives better try this: Real Big Guns Saving Lives


btw, Not to be a grammar/spelling Nazi but it's "Per Se" from the Latin for 'by itself'.  "Per say" would literally mean each time spoken.

Last edited by ReTox (2008-03-11 15:01:42)

2008-03-11 15:15:14
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6983

Moo? Si! wrote:

Offense is offense regardless who strikes first.  I think there is a term that is applicable, "Going on the offensive".  Mr. Doesn't understand terminology.
Don't be a tard. Hitler declared war on the non-German world and posed an existential threat to several nations. He declared war on the US - the US didn't decide to attack Hitler of their own unprompted volition. Battle was joined when Hitler declared war on the world.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-03-11 15:15:58)

2008-03-11 15:16:13
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6650|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:

Moo? Si! wrote:

Offense is offense regardless who strikes first.  I think there is a term that is applicable, "Going on the offensive".  Mr. Doesn't understand terminology.
Don't be a tard. Hitler declared war on the non-German world and posed an existential threat to several nations. He declared war on the US - the US didn't decide to attack Hitler of their own unprompted volition.
Britain declared war on Germany, they can't be classed as the baddies.
2008-03-11 15:16:27
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6983

M.O.A.B wrote:

usmarine wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lol. Still trying to 'save the day' eh marine? Concentrate on defending America. That's what armies are for: defence.
I feel sorry for them.  I have seen first hand what "diplomacy" does in Africa.  Those kids deserve better and you know it.
QFT,

Africa is proof that diplomatic reasoning won't always work, when diplomacy fails, the other option is to utilise force.
lol. Cos force has such a great record of success in Africa...
2008-03-11 15:21:07
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6650|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

usmarine wrote:


I feel sorry for them.  I have seen first hand what "diplomacy" does in Africa.  Those kids deserve better and you know it.
QFT,

Africa is proof that diplomatic reasoning won't always work, when diplomacy fails, the other option is to utilise force.
lol. Cos force has such a great record of success in Africa...
So where's the outstanding results of diplomacy and charity giving?

Force in Africa has been fought by tribal sides which intend to destroy one another regardless of their own peoples well-being, you stick a well trained and very well equipped military into the mix, a Western or NATO army that is assigned to beat down the threat of a militia or strikes and protect food and medical aid convoys, the outcome through use of force will be very different.
2008-03-11 15:22:34
ReTox
Member
+100|6926|State of RETOXification

FEOS wrote:

ReTox wrote:

Good counter but my argument holds "water" when you think about Basra.  Months without electricity or water even though no insurgents where there.  Only left over Iraqi army thugs who tended to flee instead of fight and the British forces who drove them out.
Sorry to burst your bubble about Basra (say that five times fast):
Thanks for the PDF.  Knowledge is important as one can't make an informed decision without it.

I still say there is a correlation to Basra in 2003-2004 and for sure if any kind of supply infrastructure was put in place in Africa that would undermine the rebels intent it wouldn't last long as is the case in Iraq now.

Packaged food and water would save lives and help a lot of people but the sheer size of population and geographic area would make a military escorted food program a non-starter simply because you couldn't protect everyone and everything all the time.  The red cross had US support during food drops in Somalia and we all know how that turned out.

Truth is, I don't know how to solve the problem... I really wish I did.
2008-03-11 15:50:07
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6983

M.O.A.B wrote:

So where's the outstanding results of diplomacy and charity giving?

Force in Africa has been fought by tribal sides which intend to destroy one another regardless of their own peoples well-being, you stick a well trained and very well equipped military into the mix, a Western or NATO army that is assigned to beat down the threat of a militia or strikes and protect food and medical aid convoys, the outcome through use of force will be very different.
I wouldn't want my tax money wasted on a complete and utter lost cause of a continent. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that when an economic downturn happens in your country the first thing the people will demand is that you pull troops out of distant nations you are attempting to help. No nation on earth is capable of sustaining the development of another country or another group of countries by force - eventually the bills arrive (noth financial and human) and the taxpayers say 'enough is enough'. The number one responsibility a government has is to its own people, not to peoples slowly crawling out of the stone age at their own snail pace. A bit of humanitarian aid is fine but take a reality check please. No western nation realistically has the capability to stay in it for the long haul and the probability is that even if they did they would probably fail.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-03-11 15:51:35)

2008-03-11 15:55:45
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6650|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

So where's the outstanding results of diplomacy and charity giving?

Force in Africa has been fought by tribal sides which intend to destroy one another regardless of their own peoples well-being, you stick a well trained and very well equipped military into the mix, a Western or NATO army that is assigned to beat down the threat of a militia or strikes and protect food and medical aid convoys, the outcome through use of force will be very different.
I wouldn't want my tax money wasted on a complete and utter lost cause of a continent. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that when an economic downturn happens in your country the first thing the people will demand is that you pull troops out of distant nations you are attempting to help. No nation on earth is capable of sustaining the development of another country or another group of countries by force - eventually the bills arrive (noth financial and human) and the taxpayers say 'enough is enough'. The number one responsibility a government has is to its own people, not to peoples slowly crawling out of the stone age at their own snail pace. A bit of humanitarian aid is fine but take a reality check please. No western nation realistically has the capability to stay in it for the long haul and the probability is that even if they did they would probably fail.
What about Israel? Western assisted country setup in one of the most hostile locations in the world, classed as an MEDC with a well educated population, well trained and equipped military.

Besides I don't like the idea of sit on the fence tactics. Generally gets you no where, your aid money ends up in the hands of warlords and corrupt politicians. Africans are people just like everyone else, their continent may have gone down the crapper but that doesn't mean you can't help them. You give aid and most of it goes to the wrong people, you give aid guarded by combat troops, it'll get to where it needs to go.
2008-03-11 16:21:26
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6983

M.O.A.B wrote:

What about Israel? Western assisted country setup in one of the most hostile locations in the world, classed as an MEDC with a well educated population, well trained and equipped military.

Besides I don't like the idea of sit on the fence tactics. Generally gets you no where, your aid money ends up in the hands of warlords and corrupt politicians. Africans are people just like everyone else, their continent may have gone down the crapper but that doesn't mean you can't help them. You give aid and most of it goes to the wrong people, you give aid guarded by combat troops, it'll get to where it needs to go.
You're offering up Israel as a model of harmonious enlightened nationhood? lol. It's a financial cripple and a big puss-ozzing sore in the middle of the middle east. It's the national equivalent of someone collecting unemployment benefit. Why anyone other than Israelis should pay for Israel is beyond me...

Not to mention the fact that bankrolling one country in the midst of a load of poor nations is like sticking a packet of crisps slap bang in the middle of a bunch of starving Ethiopians and expecting it not to get eaten.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-03-11 16:25:31)

2008-03-11 16:27:22
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6650|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

What about Israel? Western assisted country setup in one of the most hostile locations in the world, classed as an MEDC with a well educated population, well trained and equipped military.

Besides I don't like the idea of sit on the fence tactics. Generally gets you no where, your aid money ends up in the hands of warlords and corrupt politicians. Africans are people just like everyone else, their continent may have gone down the crapper but that doesn't mean you can't help them. You give aid and most of it goes to the wrong people, you give aid guarded by combat troops, it'll get to where it needs to go.
You're offering up Israel as a model of harmonious enlightened nationhood? lol. It's a financial cripple and a big puss-ozzing sore in the middle of the middle east. It's the national equivalent of someone collecting unemployment benefit. Why anyone other than Israelis should pay for Israel is beyond me...

Not to mention the fact that bankrolling one country in the midst of a load of poor nations is like sticking a packet of crisps slap bang in the middle of a bunch of starving Ethiopians and expecting it not to get eaten.
Cos most western countries won't ditch their allies.

Besides if the Arabs learnt to help each other instead of trying to rain death on a country they can't beat they might end up in the same economically developed position.
2008-03-11 16:30:59
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6983

M.O.A.B wrote:

Cos most western countries won't ditch their allies.

Besides if the each Arab nation learnt to help each other instead of trying to rain death on a country they can't beat got bankrolled to the same extent as Israel do, without periodically getting pummelled by western nations for rejecting globalisation, they might end up in the same economically developed position.
Israel is not my ally. It's not an ally of any European nation, come to think of it. Israel is not a western nation. No western nation can be based on the principle that it must have a voting majority of people of a particular religion.

Oh and I fixed your comment...

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-03-11 16:32:26)

2008-03-11 17:57:14
Moo? Si!
Tall, Dark, Antlered
+39|6556|817---->907

CameronPoe wrote:

Moo? Si! wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


An army used for offence is generally called 'the bad guys'.
You viewpoint = Fail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Day
Unless you wanted your entire lineage to be erased at the flip of a gas chamber switch.
lol. You think D-Day was the first shot in that war? You might want to rewind to 1939.... lol The aggressor in that situation was the Axis, not the Allies Mr. Fail.

CameronPoe wrote:

Moo? Si! wrote:

Offense is offense regardless who strikes first.  I think there is a term that is applicable, "Going on the offensive".  Mr. Doesn't understand terminology.
Don't be a tard. Hitler declared war on the non-German world and posed an existential threat to several nations. He declared war on the US - the US didn't decide to attack Hitler of their own unprompted volition. Battle was joined when Hitler declared war on the world.
Were you raised in a closet?  Can you not comprehend the basic concepts of offense and defense.  The US went to Europe to defend the allies from the axis. However, the US had to go on the offense to take back areas that Germany occupied.  Why are you trying to argue this?  Your opinion is unfounded.
2008-03-12 02:27:33
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6983

Moo? Si! wrote:

Were you raised in a closet?  Can you not comprehend the basic concepts of offense and defense.  The US went to Europe to defend the allies from the axis. However, the US had to go on the offense to take back areas that Germany occupied.  Why are you trying to argue this?  Your opinion is unfounded.
When I talk of an army being used for offence I imply an army being used to invade or occupy a country unprovoked (i.e., no threat to their national security), kind of like Hitler in eastern Europe, Japan in eastern Asia, Russia in Afghanistan, Napoleon in eastern Europe, the Romans in northern Europe, the Vikings/Brits in Ireland and the US in Vietnam/Iraq/Phillipines/etc.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-03-12 04:53:13)

2008-03-12 02:31:21
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6533|eXtreme to the maX
Cos most western countries won't ditch their allies.
I still haven't seen an explanation of how Israel is anything other than a leech.
Its certainly not an ally of anyone - See Israeli troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan or Iraq? Didn't think so.
Fuck Israel
2008-03-12 02:34:37
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7102|Canberra, AUS
Force is the only solution, eh?

Odd thing, that kind of attitude started two world wars.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard