Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
AtmaDragon said:So it would be wrong to kill me if I continued my murder rampage? No one's answered that yet. How could you bear on your conscience of killing me, if ALL killing is wrong?
i dont think the USA could have done anything more than they did once they entered the war, they stroke with full force and certainly shortened the war by quite a couple of years, for this the USA of the 1940ies have my full respect (it has changed far too strong as to be still the same tho, when todays USA claim that they safed europe its just ridiculous, its not the same nation anymore) . however the russians alone would have won this war in less than a decade aswell. their country simply has far more resources and soldiers at its disposal than germany, plus their dictator actually was smart enough to listen to his military advisors. their probably biggest advantage was the sheer width of the country tho. the german was spread so extremely thin once it went into russia, the further they would have advanced the bigger that problem woul dhave gotten, anyways after stalingrad the war was decided on eastern front, it was only a question of time.Woodah said:we definetly could have done more but i don't think the war would have been won if all the countries involved weren't involved.
first off, 1 week after the southern city basra was occupied the licences to exploit the local oil fields were already given away to american oil companies, of which some are owned by the families Bush and Cheney.Woodah said:to make money? do u mean the oil fields? because we don't control the oil fields at all. we went into iraq because the dipshit cia gave bush the wrong info on wmd and such things. also saddam had terrorist camps in his country is one more reason. we probably didn't need to attack iraq right now but if we waited then the situation may have gotten worse for many countries imo.
Bart said:But the sad thing was, that your soldiers didn't only kill, they raped innocent people and threated them like shit.
This bad threatment was mainly caused by the drug habbit the soldiers
even if it was so, it should still not be accepted as normal. while i do not suppose that you would find it ok you do clearly not find it axtraordinary, while it is. i ask you to understand the meaning of the matter and to understand that it must not happen, most of all not from the people of, quote Bush: "god's own country" which also claim to be the moral instance in the world and which officially only invade other countries to free its people and to pacify the world.Woodah said:doesnt that happen in every war?
that is not quite so.europe, as opposed to the USA, does not act aggressiveley on the political stage. also europe pays tremendous amounts of foreign aids into the 3rd world, someting the USA does not do to this extent, at least not unconditional. american money usually only comes in exchange for something, like pollution permits so they can bypass environment protocols.Nanko said:This is complete bollocks, ppl are so easy to blame America these days. Don't get me wrong im not trying to defend anybody here. Im just saying most euro countries are just as bad.
America and europe have all the wealth and luxery they want, and they'll defend that whatever the cost.
who says that you cant have peace without war? europe does quite well since ww2, and its not like there werent any differences, they were simply settled in conference rooms. of course if you have a situation like in ex-yugoslavia you have to send troops in, but those troops who were sent didnt actually fight the serbs and the croatians down, they just went in and pacified the situation. That is a situation where you have to go to war to have peace, but thats not atacking a country, its going in between 2 combatants. other than iraq and afghanistan where you simply attacked 1 single country without former agression.Woodah said:have said this a few times already but U CAN'T HAVE PEACE WITHOUT WAR. which means people must die to keep peace. yes the iraq war probably wasn't needed but many more americans may have died had the terrorist camps in iraq not been taken out.
what do you think we are doing here? we are dialogueing and reasoning like mad here, i didnt see any "holier than you" posts in this thread.Thruingwethil said:Rather than adopting a "holier than thou" attitude, why don't people try to do something constructive. Engage the Americans in dialogue, petition your MP or whatever?
you mention something quite remarkable about your country there. the fact that once there is a situation in which you feel attacked politicaly, economicaly or militarily you blindly stand behind whoever happens to be your leader. that creates quite a momentum and is sure a good thing if your country was actually attacked, but its easily exploited which so happened with the whole anti terrorism thing. Bush's foreign policy provoced the whole thing, yet after 911 everybody supported him. when Blair enagaged into Bush's war the british didnt blindly support him they asked questions and criticised him, imo a far better way to go.Woodah said:the general opinion? if we listend to ur general opinion alot of things would be different in our country for good or bad. but the general opinion in our country was to attack. before u come talk shit read up on the subject. the world will always have different opinions. but your country comes before the world at this point in time.
the figures of civilian deaths were awfully high, even your precision bombs dont prevent that when you "accidentaly" bomb wedding parties, schools, busses, family houses and hospitals. which so happened in both iraq and afghanistan.Woodah said:nowhere near the amount of civilians have been killed compared to military.
the bombs are much more accurate.
-CrackKing- said:You seem to be under the impression that the only way to stop you on your murderous rampage would be to kill you?
Woodah said:Nanko as long as everyone has different viewpoints there will never be peace.
Thats 2 subjects:AtmaDragon said:Can't remember who said it but basically he said he would be "perfectly willing" to kill the murderer of his family. But also said it wasn't necessarily right because he'd be killing another person.
So it would be wrong to kill me if I continued my murder rampage? No one's answered that yet. How could you bear on your conscience of killing me, if ALL killing is wrong?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[Source]
Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change [Source]
Martz said:There was bloody murder of 1000's of people across Iraq by the US goverment in the name of Freedom for both Iraqi and Coalition.
But lets not forget that Al Qaeda hijacked 4 planes and killed over 3000 people on US soil in the worst atrocity in recent times.
Nanko said:Woodah as long as we settle our differences with weapons there will never be peace
sobo said:a quick mind game: imagine the germans won the war. europe would be called something like US of Germany and of course europe was only rescued from <whatever> threat. germans would be the good guys and any country that would turn hostile would automatically become a "terrorist" country because it harms world peace.
Sauron said:however the russians alone would have won this war in less than a decade aswell. their country simply has far more resources and soldiers at its disposal than germany, plus their dictator actually was smart enough to listen to his military advisors.
I didn't read whole thread but just overflew some of the posts and I here I have to mention that the USA delivers a lot of corn for example to Northern Corea (otherwise many ppl would prolly starve there cause there own government spends most of the budget for military) for free (maybe just to get rid of the overproduction). Just thought this should be mentioned cause they don't get anything in exchange for it and you all know Northern Coreas attitude.that is not quite so.europe, as opposed to the USA, does not act aggressiveley on the political stage. also europe pays tremendous amounts of foreign aids into the 3rd world, someting the USA does not do to this extent, at least not unconditional. american money usually only comes in exchange for something, like pollution permits so they can bypass environment protocols.
Sauron said:that is not quite so.europe, as opposed to the USA, does not act aggressiveley on the political stage. also europe pays tremendous amounts of foreign aids into the 3rd world, someting the USA does not do to this extent, at least not unconditional. american money usually only comes in exchange for something, like pollution permits so they can bypass environment protocols.
Sauron said:as in? europe does not ignore UNO resolutions and invade other countries, apart from UK, spain and poland, altho u can forget the latter two as they sent like 2 soldiers each. the major problems in europe are unemployement, which is just as prominent in the USA, and the integration of the huge numbers of foreigners and asylum seekers, a problem the USA dont have to that extent as they simply dont let anyone in, they send refugee ships back to where they came from and they built an actual wall on the boarder to mexico so no one can pass. on the other hand the USA have a huge percentage of their own people living in poorness.
also if we dont comment on what the USA does, who should? eruope is the most propsperous region in the world, you wont find many countries with less internal problems than here.
thats what the EU did for some time but now they know its wrong as they destroy the 3rd world's "agriculture economy" - how could they possibly compete with food that comes in for free every first of the month? as a result those 3rd world countries become dependent on those supplies4. EU food mountains being left to rot rather than sent to places it could be used?
too easy imo - if u believe this way theres no way to prove the opposite - personally i dont feel that the german i.e. gov't follows such policy that u describedEurope has however mastered the art of getting American troops to die instead of its own, America to spend the money and provide the equipment etc, and then being able to adopt a "clean hands" approach and blame the Americans for any problems. See in this context Bosnia, Kosovo etc...
didnt read him denying that fact (he excluded some euro nations iirc)2. Poland and Spain actually sent several thousand troops to Iraq this time.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030731-100008-9335r.htm - 2,000 polish troops sent to Iraq...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3756359.stm - Polish Trrops face abuse claims...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3512144.stm - At least 1,300 Spanish Troops were in Iraq...
hehe some? y r there so many illegal immigrants in the usa then?3. America doesn't let immigrants in???? WHAT??? Where did you get that gem from? I mean, America is comprised of immigrants. It doesn't have English as an official language because it is the first language of less than half the actual population. (I think Spanish is the most spoken language there?) OK, they turn some people away, but show me a country that doesn't? The Netherlands, or France closing its refugee camps and shipping them all to the UK?