quote:

Originally posted by zedex26:


now, you ALREADY have a complete complex system of protection set up, and just for the heck of it, you wield yourself full body armour, bomb-proof suit, any kind of protection you think you need, except one... you have terrible health problems...

No worries if I can afford 10 bodyguards fully equipped with the newest in technology and a full body armour bomb proof suit, and any kind of protection, then I am sure I could afford the bill for medicine :P

YOU DIDNT THINK ABOUT THAT DID YOU?!

quote:

Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
You really need to study some WWII history. Once you do, you will find that isolationism and appeasement do nothing for you and one still gets drawn into conflict. What makes it even worse is the appeasement and said "victor" still bombs the living daylights out of you.

Also, by your measure, we didn't start Vietnam, but our men did not fight harder (there were those who did mind you). They often got disgrunteled due to having to retake the same ground time and again.

War is actually the failure of diplomacy. As long as there are humans, there will be such failure and disagreements to start wars. Fact.

actually, thats a bunch of bull****. appeasement and isolationism isnt what drew america in WWII - it actually started during teddy roosevelts time as presidency, when the great white fleet sailed the world and dropped anchor in Japan as a "Diplomatic Envoy". This intimidated the japanese officials, who as a warring nation saw america as a rising threat.
second, we stopped supplying them with oil(among other things) during their pacific expansionist period. had those two things not occurred, The US would most likely not have been involved in WWII, because the Axis wished to avoid it if at all possible - because of the industrial power of the US, the ultimate deciding factor in modern warfare.

the fact that every 'professional' warrior nation has collapsed, and the USA isnt even 250 years old yet, *is* fact.

quote:

Originally posted by ElysianGuardian:

quote:

Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
You really need to study some WWII history. Once you do, you will find that isolationism and appeasement do nothing for you and one still gets drawn into conflict. What makes it even worse is the appeasement and said "victor" still bombs the living daylights out of you.

Also, by your measure, we didn't start Vietnam, but our men did not fight harder (there were those who did mind you). They often got disgrunteled due to having to retake the same ground time and again.

War is actually the failure of diplomacy. As long as there are humans, there will be such failure and disagreements to start wars. Fact.

actually, thats a bunch of bull****. appeasement and isolationism isnt what drew america in WWII - it actually started during teddy roosevelts time as presidency, when the great white fleet sailed the world and dropped anchor in Japan as a "Diplomatic Envoy". This intimidated the japanese officials, who as a warring nation saw america as a rising threat.
second, we stopped supplying them with oil(among other things) during their pacific expansionist period. had those two things not occurred, The US would most likely not have been involved in WWII, because the Axis wished to avoid it if at all possible - because of the industrial power of the US, the ultimate deciding factor in modern warfare.

the fact that every 'professional' warrior nation has collapsed, and the USA isnt even 250 years old yet, *is* fact.

Again, you fail at history. It was Commodore Perry that opened up Japan with the "black ships" at the direction of Millard Fillmore who was President (1852 was the first trip and the black ships were used in 1853), not Teddy Roosevelt. The appeasement was of Hitler by European countries including England.

thats a completely separate event, both happened; however, due to the beginning of the 20th century's race for nationalization and modernization, the great white fleet's appearance in japan was much more relevant.

either way, you just shot your premise all to hell by providing evidence that the war is instigated(over the past 200 years, often by the US); because that means war IS avoidable.
"Wars can be prevented surely as they can be prevoked; and we who fail to prevent them must share the guilt for the dead."-Omar Bradley

but i dont expect a piece of the system to understand the whole, so you believe what you want while i fly to imaginationland on a dragon named puff.

quote:

Originally posted by ElysianGuardian:
...war IS avoidable.

The effects of avoiding war can often be worse than the effects of war.

"Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master." -- Demosthenes

BTW: I'm with WhiteKnight77 regarding the dangers of appeasement and negotiation might sound good on paper but some things are not and should never be negotiable.


Since you like Clausewitz too:
"The fact that slaughter [battle] is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but [it does] not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms." -- Carl von Clausewitz

Pacifists do crack me up though...

you've used that quote both times you speak of clausewitz' work.
but clausewitz was talking about war as a system in and of itself, as the true nature of war is to exhaust itself, like a flame consuming fuel. We do not live in a state of perpetual war, no matter what societal indoctrination of the western credo, or the US political propaganda might have convinced you of. We exist in a shade of grey, where peace and war do - and must - coexist. but if you live only by the Rules Of War, and not by the rules of humanity, you're not the top of the food chain...you're just another cow for the slaughterhouse.
my point is best summed up by the actions of NATO and the resulting decay and collapse of the soviet union under pressure from *allied* nations. basically, the Soviets lost because it was them vs. the world. thats an impossible racket.

of course there are things you should draw the line at; it certainly wasnt wise to simply allow germany to annex austria or allow russia and the nazis to ransack poland. But diplomacy is more than a beaucratic smiley glad-handing waltz; friendship can often be the most effective weapon against the enemy - take the first step, and drop the expectation baggage at the desk. Too many good young men(and women) pay too high a price for wars to be fought due to speculation of a threat - nor is it too priceless to sacrafice in defense. But my heart, at least, will be lighter at the moment of death on the battlefield of some future Great War, when i know that i died for a neighbor, and not a hill or agenda.

and if you consider me a pacifist, i suggest we never meet.

EDIT:
never catch all the typos...crafty devils.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ElysianGuardian,

It's a good quote. Here's another:
"The aggressor is always peace-loving; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed." -- Carl von Clausewitz

The quickest, shortest, route to peace is to simply surrender to an aggressor but that's peace at what cost? That's not to say that the costs of war are inconsequential, they certainly are not, it's just that war is not always the worse choice, as with WWII etc. Of course I guess that would depend on which side the person was on. It's usually not hard to see which side that is either...

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." -- Winston Churchill

actually, depending on the alternatives, a pseudo-surrender would be more effective.
case in point would be France during WWII: by surrendering on a formal level, the price they would've had to pay to maintain an open offense like poland tried(that price being the cultural and social treasures of the french) could be avoided, and they live to fight another day. Knowing when to fight and when not to fight is of course one of the most crucial points, and its the issues of a perpetual state of war(something the US has been maintaining since the cold war began) that lead to society crumbling on the inside because they view *every* event as a matter of survival, when it may not be. hell, i read a statistic from the AP recently - more people die from peanut allergies in the US than from Terrorism worldwide.
War-like nations will get the shortest straw at the end(Japan, anyone?). If you keep 'bringing the sword' to every situation you cant solve, the sword will eventually be brought to you.

at the end of this whole very old discussion theres the war veterans: anyone who has seen a war as messy as vietnam(even some units in Iraq) absolutely know that war is to be avoided at all costs. its usually these young first-person-shooter players who think war is cool. so i say "go ahead pal, join the military and fight for your country!" because if they're stupid enough to look for Death - to actually sign up to fight for a political stooge who buys his election, i have no problems with marrying their widow after they meet Him. We have no Great War...just an endless series of Police Actions now..."Peacekeeping" with heavy weaponry and a 10:1 civilian:enemy kill ratio.

quote:

Originally posted by ElysianGuardian:
actually, depending on the alternatives, a pseudo-surrender would be more effective.
case in point would be France during WWII: by surrendering on a formal level, the price they would've had to pay to maintain an open offense like poland tried(that price being the cultural and social treasures of the french) could be avoided, and they live to fight another day.


Knowing when to fight and when not to fight is of course one of the most crucial points, and its the issues of a perpetual state of war(something the US has been maintaining since the cold war began) that lead to society crumbling on the inside because they view *every* event as a matter of survival, when it may not be. hell, i read a statistic from the AP recently - more people die from peanut allergies in the US than from Terrorism worldwide.


War-like nations will get the shortest straw at the end(Japan, anyone?). If you keep 'bringing the sword' to every situation you cant solve, the sword will eventually be brought to you.

at the end of this whole very old discussion theres the war veterans: anyone who has seen a war as messy as vietnam(even some units in Iraq) absolutely know that war is to be avoided at all costs. its usually these young first-person-shooter players who think war is cool. so i say "go ahead pal, join the military and fight for your country!" because if they're stupid enough to look for Death - to actually sign up to fight for a political stooge who buys his election, i have no problems with marrying their widow after they meet Him.

We have no Great War...just an endless series of Police Actions now..."Peacekeeping" with heavy weaponry and a 10:1 civilian:enemy kill ratio.

As I said, some things are worth fighting for and france, at the time (and since), is a perfect example of cowardice, unwilling to pay a just price and willing to accept a master instead.

I don't believe a lot of what the AP has to say about anything and (especially after the made up sensationalism they've been caught with in the past) you know what they say about statistics, right?
"There are 3 kinds of lies; lies, damn lies and statistics." Even if it's true, you really can't compare peanut allergy deaths to terrorism, maybe that makes it acceptable to those unwilling to pay a certain price but thank God we have patriots that are willing to take a stand.

I guess that depends on what you consider "war-like nations." I'm sure Jefferson would consider the power to wield a sharp sword to be a deterrent.
"The justest dispositions possible in ourselves, will not secure us against it [war]. It would be necessary that all other nations were just also. Justice indeed, on our part, will save us from those wars which would have been produced by a contrary disposition. But how can we prevent those produced by the wrongs of other nations? By putting ourselves in a condition to punish them. Weakness provokes insult and injury, while a condition to punish often prevents them." -- Thomas Jefferson

I can't speak for all vets but my father was a WWII vet, I'm a disabled (yes, service connected) cold-war era vet myself and I'm absolutely sure that you're wrong that war should be avoided at all costs. You might call patriots and heroes "stupid" or "stooges" but that really says more about you than them. As I said, it's usually not hard to see which side people are on.
"War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means." --Carl von Clausewitz

I don't buy the 10:1 BS either, unless you're blaming the wrong side for the civilians that the enemy are killing or you get your numbers from the AP.

obviously you're one of the brainwashed, and have never seen a battlefield gone bad except on tv. Additionally, you've just begun regurgitating United States propaganda, so i'm done. kthxbye.

Yeah, that's about what I thought you might try to say but I will give you credit for not using the exact word "sheeple" even if you desperately implied it. Embrace your fail, you were done pages ago...some people are *for* cut and run/surrender some of us aren't.

"it's usually not hard to see which side people are on." --me

nah - you've got it all wrong; i'm just tired of arguing with you because i REALLY enjoy when people lacking independent thought, like you, support US foreign policies like those of today.

please, uncle sam needs you! sign up so maybe you dont come back. war is good for thinning the herds.
"Patriotism is the Virtue of the Viscious". once i realized you've been indoctrinated theres nothing left to do but ****talk, which you initiated.

and quoting yourself? christ what an ego.

go go go, go go to war!

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:
I can't speak for all vets but my father was a WWII vet, I'm a disabled (yes, service connected) cold-war era vet myself and I'm absolutely sure that you're wrong that war should be avoided at all costs. You might call patriots and heroes "stupid" or "stooges" but that really says more about you than them. As I said, it's usually not hard to see which side people are on.

quote:

Originally posted by ElysianGuardian:
nah - you've got it all wrong; i'm just tired of arguing with you because i REALLY enjoy when people lacking independent thought, like you, support US foreign policies like those of today.

please, uncle sam needs you! sign up so maybe you dont come back. war is good for thinning the herds.
"Patriotism is the Virtue of the Viscious". once i realized you've been indoctrinated theres nothing left to do but ****talk, which you initiated.

and quoting yourself? christ what an ego.

go go go, go go to war!

You may want to read the enbolden part. He already did serve. Will you?

the cold war wasnt a war. it was a threat of war.

and i cant serve, i'm also disabled but i was shot in the elbow and shoulder 8 years ago, so i'm constantly in pain. And i'm a civilian.

the cold war never went hot. In fact the cold war serves to prove war can be avoided by brinksmanship.

besides, if you've ever met an MP you know it doesnt require genius of any kind to work for the military. why would i want to serve a broken system? of course, it makes sense why he's so blind to reality now that we know he was in the service during the existance of the soviet union. robot.

i'm sorry i know i'm not a good american, because i like to form my *own* opinions.