The War Thread

[Vector]

We already got that. And I already pointed out the obvious and rather ridiculous contradiction in people like you enjoying games depicting various conflicts in this world.

The only difference between them and 6DIF is that the latter is still going on. And that has never stopped you from blasting the German foxhole with a flamethrower, has it?

Your "human" side doesnt make your argument any more valid. It just makes you a selfcontradicting and patronizing kid.

I used those numbers and KDR stats to show that all things considered, US soldiers prevailed over Vietcong soldiers, and that lead me to the main point-
this enabled the players who played on the US side to feel that they were on the "good", "better" or "victorious" side. It has nothing to do with not putting value over lost lives, its a completely separate argument. But you obviously missed that, in your "I weep while playing wargames, therefore Im human" speech.

Check out my posts in the topic where people discussed whether Wall-E future or WW3 was their preferred future, then come back and try to compare the "I´m human"-e-peen.

I really don't see why you feel the need to be so damn condescending. There's a right way to get your point across and a wrong way. Don't start throwing around terms like "kid" and "e-peen" when we're having a discussion...it just makes you seem like an unintelligent person. I respect the way you discuss things because your arguments are well-formed, but there's no need to stoop to the level you just did.

Back on topic...I never said anything about video games. I'm talking about the wars themselves. Playing war video games and comparing death statistics from real-life conflicts are two completely different things.


Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. When something like this goes on for a few pages like it has, it could potentially never end, so I'm just gonna end it myself. Agree to disagree.

[Corrin]

...first of all, what? You don't consider holding prisoners without basic human rights and torturing them war crimes? I'm sorry...what? What are they then? Fluffy bunny cuddles? Actually, let's grab a deffiniton. Since the one on Wiki is credited to a reliable source we'll use that one.



Well, gee. I guess they aren't fluffy bunny hugs after all.

Secondly, soldiers sign up to defend there country. We can agree on that, right? So...how exactly was the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq defending America and Britain, the two countries that led the way? It was to take out the Taliban, which I admit has succesfully removed from goverment but is still a major force in the areal, and to destroy Bin Laden and his terror camps. That last one hasn't really been managed.

And yet the war was declared won and all that jazz. Why, if the goals were not achieved? It's been several years since we 'won' and things are still pretty much the same. But America is no safer now than before. Hell, if anything it's in a worse place. The terrorists are still there. A lot of it's allies lost a lot of respect. America lost a lot of influence with the EU. Britain didn't exactly come out of it smelling of roses either.

So...if the war has been won but the threat was never taken out how, exactly, have people died defending America? Answer: they didn't. They died in a knee jerk response to 9/11 that never had a chance to succed. And that's being relatively generous and assuming the intentions, if not the planning, were and not going into all the crazy ass conspiracy theories or the idea it was a war for profit.

And as for Iraq and the massive arsernal of weapons of mass destruction...oi. I don't think anyone can defend that cluster fuck. Iraq was no threat to anyone but possibly Israel. Did have plenty of resources which have, oddly enough, ended up in American corporation hands.

So yeah. You can call me a liberal if you wanna. It sounds about right. And yeah, American men and women join there armed forces to defend there country. I mean, that's what my wife tells me. She's American. I guess she might know. And I suppose the time I did spend there hinted at it as well. They don't, as I recall, sign up to go into a war that apparently served no purpose but seemed like a good idea at the time OR a war that was based on incredibly poor intelligence/a desire for lovely loads of oil.

I mean, there has been that noticible drop in recruitment since the wars, and more people leaving at the end of there tours of duty rather than re-signing in both America and Britain. And there have been all those military people saying the wars were immoral and illegal and such. So I guess at least some of the armed forces have a similar view to me. The ones I know certainly do.

EDIT: Ah, looking back I see I missed an important point. You don't consider terrorists to be soldiers. I'd disagree but that's niether here nor there. The Geneva Convention also mentions civillians and if the terrorists aren't one they are the other. And, of course, still human beings (hideous twisted ones, sure, but humans all the same) and therefore entitled to that protection by any civilized nation.

So, perhaps you can explain to me how stooping to there level is a good thing? I mean, here was me, under the impression we were trying to go for the moral high ground here. 'How dare they launch these hideous attacks' and all that stuff. Surely violating there human rights is something that is terrible and wrong, the sort of thing a terrorist would do? Or is stooping to there level acceptable behaviour so long as the job gets done? Which sorta sucks. The job didn't get done.

And that's, of course, assuming all the people are terrorists. We know a lot of those held at Quantanamo Bay were simply suspected of it, with such compelling evidence as they were near by when something happened. Which was the whole point of holding them without charges...they couldn't actually make the charges stick.

So...explain to me how holding people that are, according to your laws, innocent without the trail the law says they are entitled to nor the basic human rights they are entitled to is a GOOD thing for the Land of the Free?

And I'm sure none of these points are new. Facts often aren't. And most of this is documented fact. Not my opinion.

For the record, I'm anti-Bush and anti-Blair. Not Anti-American or British. And no, it isn't the same thing. Unless you think George W Bush IS America all of a sudden. That would be like saying all German people supported the Nazi Party and the Final Soloution. You can't paint a nation with a brush like that and expect to see the details, and history is made of the details.

First off, I don't appreciate you talking down to me with the whole "fluffy bunny hugs" remark. I think we can discuss this serious subject like civilized adults.

With that said, no, America and the Bush administration in particular are not guilty of ANY war crimes. Since you still refuse to tell me any of these "war crimes" aside from holding terrorists (who are my country's enemies and since they wear no uniform and do not outwardly display their weapons are NOT soliders and are NOT protected by the Geneva Conventions), I can only assume you do not know any facts and are, as I stated in my last post, simply regurgitating rumors and lies you have heard.

I'm still waiting for you to actually, you know, back up your wild statements with some solid facts. Otherwise, I can only assume you are trying to deliberately waste my time by trolling me.

EDIT: Just saw the bit about Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act. There's your answer.

[WeskerSexyCheez]

Just because Alexander did it that doesn't mean that Leonidas did it too.

I realise this. Big diff between Macedonians and Spartans and all, but I'm just saying he PROBABLY did. Like most of the other Spartans did.

[ValentineKnight]

I'm glad Obama shut that place down and like DM said not all of them WHERE convicted the fact that they where held without trial and TORTURED really isn't gonna give other countries a good image of us(hell most countries already hate us as is)

[Corrin]

I'm glad Obama shut that place down and like DM said not all of them WHERE convicted the fact that they where held without trial and TORTURED really isn't gonna other countries a good image of us(hell most countries already hate us as is)

Please learn proper spelling/grammar. Also, read my posts. I don't understand what point you are even trying to make, but I'm going to attempt to discern what you're saying.

Obama is shutting Guantanamo down for political reasons; it's a very unpopular place that has drawn the biggest ire against America and the Bush administration. I wholly understand his reasons for closing it, even though I disagree it should be closed.

Terrorist were tortured and held without trial (see my post about "The Patriot Act"). They were also held outside of the United States. This country's rules and laws do not apply in other territories. You have a problem with inhuman garbage getting the treatment they deserve? Well that's too bad for you.

Who gives a shit what other countries think of the United States? This isn't a popularity contest. We are the best country in the world with the most freedoms. That's enough for me. I could give a crap what the rest of the world thinks.

In b4 "The most freedoms??? But you has the Patriot Act! Bush is Hitler! Bu$h = Hitler!"

Even with The Patriot Act, America is still the safest country, the most free country to live in. I personally disagree that something like The Patriot Act has to exist in my country, but I understand that it was necessary to protect America.

[Member_of_STARS]

I honestly hope that you did not meant your "America is the most free country of them all" tirade seriously, because that would make you quite the ignorant one.

How is that line of thought even possible?

-

C29R, considering it took me 3 posts to get a point across that you ignored on every attempt, I agree to just drop it.

[Corrin]

I honestly hope that you did not meant your "America is the most free country of them all" tirade seriously, because that would make you quite the ignorant one.

How is that line of thought even possible?

-

C29R, considering it took me 3 posts to get a point across that you ignored on every attempt, I agree to just drop it.

As far as I know, most other 1st world countries do not have a Bill of Rights. In Canada and England, for example, free speech is a privilege, NOT a right.

But, I suppose you have caught me, as I haven't studied every single other country's freedoms. I can state that the United States of America, as far as I know, warrants her people the most freedoms in the world. I would be more than happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

[missvalentine]

No love for the Cold War?

I liked it, because of all the technology developments that came out of it,and movies that were made about it.

Speaking of wars, does anyone have any favourite events in the history of warfare?

All of them.



Anyways, what is the Patriot act and what does it do?

[Darkmoon]

First off, I don't appreciate you talking down to me with the whole "fluffy bunny hugs" remark. I think we can discuss this serious subject like civilized adults.

With that said, no, America and the Bush administration in particular are not guilty of ANY war crimes. Since you still refuse to tell me any of these "war crimes" aside from holding terrorists (who are my country's enemies and since they wear no uniform and do not outwardly display their weapons are NOT soliders and are NOT protected by the Geneva Conventions), I can only assume you do not know any facts and are, as I stated in my last post, simply regurgitating rumors and lies you have heard.

I'm still waiting for you to actually, you know, back up your wild statements with some solid facts. Otherwise, I can only assume you are trying to deliberately waste my time by trolling me.

EDIT: Just saw the bit about Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act. There's your answer.

I've already pointed out the war crimes, several times, but I can do it again.

BY the Geneva Convention, something America has signed up to, all civillians and combatants in it's care have certain rights. These include, but are not limited to, a decent living space (not a 4 x 4 x 4 wire mesh cage in the middle of a courtyard) exercise, decent food, humane treatment, respect for there religious identity...and a complete lack of torture.

Now, the Patriot Act is a lovely bit of paper, and one that allowed George Bush to laugh hysterically at the idea of your own constituion, but as far as I'm aware the US is still signed up to the Geneva Convention. And if it isn't? Those still qualify as war crimes. We hold Serbia accountable for crimes against humanity. Why is Bush different?

I'm intrigued by the fact you've actually admitted these things happen but they're not war crimes because of Georgraphy. The US tortured people, people they often couldn't proove are terrorists...well, at least until the thumb screws showed up. And, to my shame, Britain helped.

See, that's the issue here Corrin. A lot of the people held illegally (yes, it's illegal - Geneva Convention is not nullified by the The Patriot Act and the US is still signed up to it) and tortured were not proved guilty. In essence, innocent people suffered for being Arab and Muslim. How does that fit into your view of this little conflict? I'm guessing it's OK, since they're are casualties in war and at least these ones were on the other side? And so what if a few people can't see so well anymore, or have the use of there hands? It was only the basic human rights Americans hold so dear that were violated along with there bodies.

As for the Patriot Act itself...honestly, that was a nasty, nasty track that allowed Bush to do a lot of things that your own consitution is very much against. Click the link above for the Wiki article. Several sections have been ruled unconstiutional in court, interestingly, and it makes no mention of ignoring human rights.

[Member_of_STARS]

As far as I know, most other 1st world countries do not have a Bill of Rights. In Canada and England, for example, free speech is a privilege, NOT a right.

If you look at the constitutions of most countries, Im sure youll find that they offer "the right" for free speech. But thats just a piece of paper, much like the Bill of Rights can be considered.

If we move in to technical details, then "the freedom of speech" is an illusion in the US, considering the fact that you can sue for "moral damages" (which you cant in many other countries), so the so-called "freedom of speech" isnt really a "freedom" at all.

Its all really nitpicking, but the point still stands. America is not "the most free country in the world". Its freedoms are something you can be proud of, but they are by far not exclusive to your country. Besides, the only difference between 1st world countries and second world countries is the 2nd world Post-Soviet past.

Like I said, nitpicking, but I thought a correction was in order.

[Mr. Spencer]

Does Killzone 2 count as a favourite war?

[Member_of_STARS]

Only if you liked the Terran side more.

[Corrin]

[Darkmoon]

...well, that was certainly relevant.

[Corrin]

...well, that was certainly relevant.

...Are you actually crying, Vash The Stampede?