edlib Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 Originally posted by Nute Gunray: If there's any country on the WHOLE PLANET you can't apologize to, it's China. They have a huge superiority complex about that sort of stuff that dates back before there was civilization in Europe. Ever do something and then never be able to live it down? If the US apologized to China, every time we would turn around China would be ripping on us for kowtowing to them. Ok then; there has to be a solution somewhere between "Kissing thier ass", and "Leaving a huge, smoking hole in the ground where China used to be"! I can't belive those are the only 2 choices available to us worth considering. There have to be other options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 China is worse than Nazi Germany ever was. Those were the only two choices we had for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innror Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 Come on Nute, Nazi Germany was far worse than China will ever be. Ever heard of the Holocaust?. I am in no way defending China's human rights violations, i just think that they are not as bad as the Nazi's were in Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 But if we attempt to erase another nation off the face of the planet without exploring other options how will we be different from the Nazis ourselves? If we go that route we will become the most hated people in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fondas Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 Admiral, you failed to get my point. The point is that during my time in the Army, serving as an officer, I've been inside the eye of the cyclon, inside a crisis. When the battle tanks are loaded with live ammo and running, everybody has taken battle stations and you wait for the otherside's move, then you'll know that going to war is not that easy. That's what I mean about "sofa warriors" I'm willing , like you, to fight and die for my country, IF my country's freedom is compromised. All I'm saying is that war is not a game. I've almost been there and I know. As for Kosovo, do you really want to talk about it ? LOL. The whole NATO obidiently bowed to US's will to wipe out the Yugoslavians, not only Milosevic. What have your nation succeded ? By protecting the "poor Albanians", who guided by the extremists of UCKA , found the opportunity to slaughter the Yugoslavian citizens. Now the appetite for destruction continues; The albanian extremists are attacking FYROM !!! and as a bad joke, US is sending Yugoslavian troops to hold back the Albanians ! In plain english : "Oooops, the albanians are eventually the "beast", so let's support the other side." Unfortunatelly, two wrongs does not equal one right. As for Nute, kid am I happy the you are NOT in the shoes of Mr. Powell... ------------------ "No matter how pretty the bait, a hook is still a hook !" TZG+7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 Mao killed more people than there were Jews in the world for the Nazis to kill. That's a fact. I don't know the numbers, but I'm pretty sure Mao was over 20 million. Makes Hitler's 8 look pretty tame. I've ever heard rumors that Mao out did Stalin in senseless useless executions. If we fight a war and win it with H-bombs, what history will remember is not the ideals we were fighting for but the methods we used to accomplish them. These methods will be compared to the warfare of Genghis Khan who ruthlessly killed every last inhabitant of Persia. Hans A. Bethe From a purely strategic stance, the ONLY way we could possibly fight China is going nuclear. They just have way too many man and a highly centralized population, both things that are easy to nuke and vulnerable to nuclear strikes. Plus *IF* we were going to use them, it would almost likely be in response to a Chinese first use. Would it make us worse than the Nazis? Depends. Did China strike first? If so, then no. we were justified. If we strike first AND WIN, no. Because we used the only method we could use to achieve victory. If we struck first and lost, yes. we would be demonized for all time. Fondas: I would like to just point two things out, one has some relation. Despite my incredibly strong jingo spirit, I was totally against US/NATO action in Yugoslavia, mainly because I saw it as some type of European Union "bringing them into line" sort of thing and I don't like the EU one bit Secondly, if I were SecState, I would be acting differently. I would have apologized, gotten our people back, and then said "oh yeah, i'm not sorry. I lied. Screw you China." [This message has been edited by Nute Gunray (edited April 05, 2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innror Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 Mao being responsible for the deaths of many million chinese is horrible, but you have to take into account that there are about 1 billion chinese to deal with. That's a very low percentage compared to Hitler killing every third person in Belarus, every sixth Pole, most of the Jews and maybe around 20 million russians, plus all the other casualties they he was responsible for. Plus Hitler tried to kill every single Jew he could get hold of, thereby starting the only attempt in history to wipe out an entire race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 So you're saying that human rights violations can be based on a percentage of the population? That's even more sadistic than I'm willing to be. There weren't a billion chinese back in 1949 anyhow. At least Hitler had reasons, Mao was doing it just because he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innror Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 I'm a sadist? Uhm, do you think i like seing those people die or something? I simply don't understand what you mean. Where exactly did you get that idea? And yes, i think percentages are relevant. It would be very hard for Pol Pot to be as bad as Mao, simply because there was only maybe 10 million people to kill. Does that make him a better person than Mao? NO!!!And what precise reason did Hitler have to kill all those people? Please enlighten me on that!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zargon Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 OK well, I'm gunna out in some cents on the discussions I missed. First, If the US EVER goes to war, adn I am under the age of 50, you beeter believe me when I say I am signing up ON THE SPOT to go. Well, if I agree with it, I wouldhave been one of those suckers on the first wave at Normandy. Second, I mostly agree with Nute on everything else to save typing...especially the death penalty. I especially agree with it on the ECONOMIC scale. Take someone like say, Timothy McVeight. He murderd like a hundred people, INCLUDING LOTS OF SMALL CHILDREN. I see no damned reason why the US should some 800,000 dollars to keep his ass alive and jailed when we can spend 10 grand and give hima shot. As for nuclear war, yes, it is the only way we could ever achieve victory in anykind of decent time frame, and it would save lots of American soldiers. THe one thing I would never ever approve of is biowarfare, VX gas should be uninvented PRONTO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zargon Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 and i base many of my beliefs through christianity, it SOUNDS FUBAR, but... God often slaughtered thousands of people to save the jews, and he sent many attackers to kill and enslave the jews throughout the bible. War is part of life........and if its for the righrt cause its ok to take life......I however do not extend that to things like race tension and abortion.....thats just stupid. Now I proly fpor got some or wil lbe misinterpreted for some of it..so please dont jump down my throat about it just ask me to clarify and I'll be happy to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zargon Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 oh yeah, and to answer Zooms old question, I AM kinda leftist...but my political views can't be put on a side......I'm all over the place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zargon Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 oh, and christianity should =the bible, oopsies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Zaarin Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 I am a total pacifist, and always have been. War, to me, whatever the Geneva convention says, is murder. Soldiers, civilians, it makes no diference. That is one of the main reasons I could never accept Christianity: it openly condones war. This, IMHO, is one of the great contradictions of the bible. The commandments, one of the foundations on which the entire religion is based, state: Thou shalt not kill. And yet, how many deaths and murders are committed in the bible, and even ordered by god? To take an example, the killing of the first borns in Egypt. That, to me, is an atrocity some of the most evil people alive would not even contemplate, but in the bible, it is a direct act of god. Just my $0.02. *awaits hailstorm of flames* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rogue 9 Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 Zargon you say you don't like BIO-Weapons, you realize the U.S. has none and because of this our Response to any attack using a WMD reguardless of the use wether it be Tactical or Strategic is to launch a massive stategic Nuclear strike agaist the perpetrator, Bio-Warfare has Anti-Toxins, Nukes Don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Conor Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 Just for the record, the fifth commandment is "Thou shall not murder." It doesn't use the word kill. Every definition I have ever heard acknowledges that not all killing is murder. As for total pacifism, it is a beautiful concept, but unacceptable to realists. Of course WWII will always be brought up to support the idea that sometimes war is necessary. If nobody fought Hitler he would have set up a thousand year Reich. My point is, and I will stand by it, that sometimes otherwise repugnant actions become necessary. As for Egypt, no offense, but God knows why He does things much better than you do. For whatever reason, it can be assumed history and the times called for the specific action. Plus, it is logically impossible to judge God. He creates morality, He is the only authority on the matter. There is no way He could be judged on His actions. What He does is automatically right simply because He says so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Juggernaut Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 I think that in the EP-3 technicians should put a explosive device that activate when non authorized personal try to access it. Now they know it, and know how jamming it too . ------------------ Also knowed as Kanon Let get those guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zoom Rabbit Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 Yow! Now this is more like it! Open warfare...left, right, European, American, religion, morality... Sure you can defend warfare with the Bible. It's also supported in the Koran, the Khalsa, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. Yes, warfare is sometimes morally correct, but looking to God to figure out which side is can be a losing battle. They're likely to have scripture on the other side, as well. Do I think we're morally justfied to go to war here? HELL, NO! And let's make no mistake about it people...the saber-rattling has nothing to do with the lousy plane. The issue on the table is really Taiwan, and I think we all realize that. Sure, we can bring up human rights. It's the only issue the US government can really play on to bring their own population around to their side...but it isn't actually what they themselves are concerned with. We just 'have' Taiwan, the Chinese don't like this, and both sides are entrenched (militarily and ideologically) because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted April 6, 2001 Share Posted April 6, 2001 Fondas: From what you said I did misinterpet/understand what you meant. As for the Kosovo thing I meant that if the US and Nato didn't intervene there would have been Genocide as far as I know the soldiers their are trying to keep the peace and not taking sides. I wasn't to thrilled about it but I support my country. Zoom: that is the real reason why this whole fiasco started. Anyone with common sense can see that. ------------------ "Dulce bellum inexpertis." (Sweet is war to those who have never experinced it.) Roman Proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zoom Rabbit Posted April 6, 2001 Share Posted April 6, 2001 Am I the only one who finds Admiral's signature ENORMOUSLY FUNNY in this context? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted April 6, 2001 Share Posted April 6, 2001 Yes Zoomie, the sig is a bit ironic. The one thing nobody's mentioned yet is that a nuke exchange with China would kill MILLIONS of American citizens. They strike first, we strike first, doesn't matter. A whole buncha people dead. I live in the industrialized Northeast, so I can be pretty confident something nearby will be a target. I might just manage to escape an agonizing, lingering death from radiation poisoning or head-to-toe burns as my atoms are scattered on the leading edge of a fireball's shockwave. I don't know; 2 nations laying in smoldering rubble and untold billions dead or suffering... Not to mention the hundreds of other oppertunists who would want to take advantage of our nation while in a rebuilding stage after such a conflict. EM pulses from the explosions would render a lot of our tech infrastructure useless for a time. Sounds like fun. I'm really looking forward to it. We'll show those Chinese. It still seems to me that we might want to find another means to resolve our conflicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted April 6, 2001 Share Posted April 6, 2001 I live within ignition radius of at LEAST five targets. Unless you live in: New York, DC, LA, SF, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, or Seattle, you got nothing to worry about from Chinese ICBMs it's the IRBMs and the bombers you have to worry about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zargon Posted April 6, 2001 Share Posted April 6, 2001 Originally posted by edlib: The one thing nobody's mentioned yet is that a nuke exchange with China would kill MILLIONS of American citizens. Not exactly true....we CAN shoot em down....its possible.... I live in the industrialized Northeast, so I can be pretty confident something nearby will be a target. Wrong, large tech centers like Silicon Valley and were I live(The U of I) will be hit if any at all.....my town was on the top 10 to hit sites for Russia in a nuclear stike.....and China's delivery methods are very limited...... Zoom: You bring up a wonderfull point that I had overlooked till earlier today......Taiwan........oopsies. Zaarin: human history has shown we are incapable of pacifism.. [This message has been edited by Zargon (edited April 05, 2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted April 6, 2001 Share Posted April 6, 2001 Originally posted by Nute Gunray: I live within ignition radius of at LEAST five targets. Unless you live in: New York, DC, LA, SF, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, or Seattle, you got nothing to worry about from Chinese ICBMs it's the IRBMs and the bombers you have to worry about Boston. Good to know. I'd rather go quick. I'll pass on living (living?) under the fallout, thanks. [This message has been edited by edlib (edited April 05, 2001).] [This message has been edited by edlib (edited April 05, 2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zargon Posted April 6, 2001 Share Posted April 6, 2001 rehash mine, Nute's right...........China is farther behind and dumber than I thought....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.