EMFM won't be happy unless everyone but him has weaspons so he can appoint himself as Lord Kaiser of Terran.
Printable View
EMFM won't be happy unless everyone but him has weaspons so he can appoint himself as Lord Kaiser of Terran.
Yes, because my definition of national interest has my nation disarmed and defenceless with Iran having nuclear weapons. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Yeah just like Costa Rica, considering all the wars it befell when it abolished it's millitary in 1948.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Oh wait, it appears I was wrong. It was every other Spanish speaking country in Central America which suffered invasions or foreign interference since 1948. Silly me.
There are a few reasons that Costa Rica hasn't been invaded since then which anti-military advocates conveniently ignore, but for most nations, disbanding the army won't work. The fact that you are here today, with free speech, is because of the militaries of democratic Western nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Such as? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm genuinely curious.
This only makes my skin crawl. The most dangerous are people who have inferiority complex and feeling shame from their roots. The greatest prosecutors of the Jews were of Jewish origins. People like Tomas de Torquemada, probably Hitler, some other Nazis; in a different aspect (not to the Jews but to the Christianity), this was valid the Janissaries (devshirme recruits) in the Ottoman Empire, the Ghulams in the Arabian countries: these all were people who were transferred to another religion/ideology and they became its strictest, even fanatical followers, far stricter than those, whose families have been devoted to it for centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Costa Rica has a heavily armed police force that could provide a fair amount of resistance. It isn't surrounded by enemies that it can't take on using this force. Any enemies from abroad with the strength to attack it will be met by a very angry America. Internal political factors reduce the chance of rebellion, as well as this wonderful quasi-army they have. They are a country with no ability to project power beyond their region, so a larger army isn't necessary to carry out international duties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
In short, they haven't been invaded because it would be a fundamentally stupid decision by the invader, and they haven't suffered civil war because of various internal factors (though I wouldn't claim that an army prevents civil war). For us, in powerful Western countries much different from Costa Rica, a military is necessary.
has been proved false, at least according to Professor D. Lipstadt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
(since her and my father are close friends, we have her over for lunch every now and then, a real treat)
Because it's costa rica.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
If you can't understand why it can abolish its military than you should just leave the backroom.
I mean really? Is this what it has come to?
Well, what about the other Central American countries? All of the other Spanish speaking ones have experienced conflict at some point since Costa-Rica's millitary was abolished, usually because Uncle Sam pokes his long, pointy nose into places where it is not wanted (United Fruit Company anyone?). What is so special about Costa Rica which meant that, apart from not having a millitary, it was spared from the horrors the rest of Central America went through in the late 20th Century?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I wonder if the Iranians like the taste of their own medicine? Suck on this and swallow it, you scum.
Indeed. Especially those scumbag Baluch bystanders. They'll be rotting in their scumbag graves, serves them right for being at the wrong place, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Anyway, it is easy to suspect a conspiracy in an area crawling with SEVAK and Pakistani ISI agents. I wonder who in the Revolutionary Guard the general fell out with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Since when are we not allowed to be happy when Iranian religious militants get blown up by suicide bombers? I can litterally hear kazoos and pin the tail on the donkey being played at the Pentagon.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Yes, I expect they will be dancing in the street and praising their God. They cannot be innocent, who consort/talk/walk near with the enemy.
My former pastor (since transferred to another parish) warned all of our congregation (quite a lot of military being present) that REJOICING at the harm done to others is itself an evil. We should perhaps be quietly thankful that a threat has been removed, but to be joyful therein is a sickening of one's own soul. You shoot the rabid dog that threatens your toddler, you don't do the "happy dance" because you yourself got to kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
You should be happy I did not view this thread first. Banquo responded, I would have issued points for your "scum" post and probably a warning to Dariush for feeding the troll. Blanket attacks are not acceptable.
Wow, and just when I thought the Backroom mods were unfairly slanted towards US... Now I can see how wrong I was. To defend Iran, to give an infraction out for such a seemingly negligible offence that bothers no-one here, despite being the nationalities SM and BG are (American and Irish, right?), is a sign of immense neutrality and moderator merit. I am both proud and humbled to be a part of such community :bow::cry:
The mods aren't slanted towards the US, they just have to put up with us as we are the loudest, fattest members. :smug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Well, I had a few experiences that suggested that... When I generalise about US, I get an infraction. When someone else does the same to Russia, they do not. How do I know those individuals did not get an infraction? My posts were deleted/edited. Those other posts were not.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
For example, one time I posted matter-of-factly that US and Israel were two of the most hated nations in the world. Probably true, especially the first one. Yet I got an infraction... And the post was indeed deleted.
Then I had the time when I said that Americans in general recklessly spend money. How is that not true?? Infraction I got, nonetheless. But when Russia is called a nation of drunks and idiots that is a different matter obviously... Not that I dislike those comments about Russia - no, I think we should all be allowed to say such things. Or if not, then at least both cases should be punished..
I didn't realize that we were siting in a kumbaya circle. Revolutionary guards are enemy. Scum was probably unnecessary, but who here doesn't feel bubbling chuckles when terrorists are blown up by other terrorists? TotalWar.org is consistently TotalNancy.org. Everybody dies, some more ironically than others.
Thanks for not giving me a point for using the word scum.
The point being made to you was that like most terrorist attacks, a lot of innocent people died as well as the "target".Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Terrorism is wrong regardless of who it is targetting. Once you argue that it is right when applied to your enemies, you are little different to those people dancing in the street when they hear of atrocities against their enemies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I think terrorism is stupid and dangerous in most circumstances, not wrong. Civilian life loss sucks, but the act of terrorism is out of desperation and an inability to resist or assault with conventional warfare. I wish it didn't exist most of the time, but I understand it.
Few people are innocent. We all support militaries, who without our financial and moral aid would be weaker. Civilian population is the backbone of the State. Next time you re fighting a bear, avoid hurting anything other than the claws and teeth. We used to fire-bomb cities with no notice while everyone was sleeping. Was it right then and wrong now?
Protect your own and destroy all enemies. When we are no longer enemies and become one people, then we can talk about the ills of terrorism.
In that case Tuff, we differ so much, a dialogue would be pointless.
:bow:
Oh stop being so dramatic :beam: . I'm just arguing with you for arguements sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I like you. Don't leave...ever. :stare:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
The Backroom is a hive of wretched scum and villainy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I know. But having lost someone to terrorism, it's not a subject I can easily treat with levity. Sorry. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
TSM:
Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict =
legitimate act of war.
Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, but despite using all reasonable precautions to avoid harm to bystanders and civilians =
legitimate act of war with a regrettable loss of innocent life.
Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, but failing to take reasonable precautions to minimize or avoid harm to bystanders and civilians =
wrongful action. Should be punishable/viewed as criminal to the extent that the perpetrators are culpable through their negligence.
Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, knowing that their will be significant civilian/bystander casualties and making no effort to minimize or prevent such casualties =
Wrongful act. Only possible justification for such action is as a quid-pro-quo for previous action of like kind by opponent and even then ONLY when the quid-pro-quo is done as a means of curtailing like actions in future. NOTE: many, perphaps most, people around the world would actually view actions of this kind as having no difference from the category below.
Targeting civilians or bystanders in order to create the greatest possible harm on the softest target (terrorism) =
Criminal Act
There is a HUGE moral difference between guerilla war and terrorism. If you conflate the two completely, you are starting down a path towards what I would define as evil.
:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I understand the moral arguement and agree, but who cares about all of that in war. People die and you kill them - so what?
I understand why someone wouldn't want their loved ones to be killed because it would hurt them and disrupt their lives - but you have to see the practical sense in destroying the economic and social stability of your enemy. As awful as civilian loss during a conflict is, we all die - some will die more slowly and painfully without being nailed by a ricochet/hit with an IED. Who knows who will die in war before they lose a child in peace or come down with a painful or debilitating ailment.
The blanket of morality and ethics are great and I use them and get why the US military uses them, but for arguements sake lets discuss why, practically we shouldn't kill civilians for its own sake.
I get the moral arguement, but that is a philosophical arguement, not a military one. Whether you send people to heaven/hell or nothingness i'm not sure it matters to them after the fact. Step outside of yourself and your fears.
I'm just making arguement- stop being so sensitive. I lose people, but that's part of life. I guess I have never lost someone important enough to me - mother/father/wife/children. I don't really see why it matters whether a loved one is killed by disease, wild animals or another human. The death is the same and the life was the same.
I have completely hijacked this thread. I digress. Why would you two mods let me do that! :no:
Your argument would make sense if a nation was engaged in a hypothetical total war against a terrorist organisation, in which all resources are deployed to destroying this particular group, including labour. But of course, that would never happen, so your argument sounds incredibly cold blooded.