Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion > General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-25-2001, 01:12 AM   #121
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 52
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by Fljotsdale:
About people being 'hurt and angry': Maybe YOU were not, Yorick, but can you honestly say that most of America was not? I also find it dificult to believe that someone who was in NY at the time could FAIL to be hurt and angry.

Sorry. I had to respond to this in seperation. Again, your finger is not on the pulse in these matters Fjlotsdale. New Yorkers are actually calling for peace not war. Anger is not prevalent here in comparison with the rest of the country. The calls for peace are quite loud. Very few, myself included, want to see more bloodshed and violence.

In any case Dio's post was not being read by much of New York. Only four on this forum are even remotely close to ground zero, and two of them haven't posted in this thread. So who were you referring to?




------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!
Yorick is offline  
Old 09-25-2001, 01:22 AM   #122
Aelia Jusa
Iron Throne Cult
 
Tetris Champion
Join Date: August 23, 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Age: 42
Posts: 4,867
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
"Innocents" won't necessarily be standing in the way Aelia. The "innocents" will be assisting the US, running to the border, holding shoulder rockets in the armies of the northern alliance, providing information, covertly entering Bin Ladens organisation, and taking bribes to betray him. Any who oppose, condone and support actions that destroyed 7,000 "innocents".

In any case sometimes "innocents" do die when protecting a greater number of lives.

Would the Armed forces have been justified in shooting down the planes before they hit? Will they be justified in doing so again? 200 people die but 7,000 live. Difficult question yes?


Yes very difficult, Yorick. Actually I agree with most of what you've said, though I do agree with some of Dio's points as well. My point was just that Liliara seemed to be attacking Dio for something he has not said.

Hi Liliara

------------------


Goddess and Sorceress of the HADB, and her sidekick Pink
Aelia Jusa is offline  
Old 09-25-2001, 06:02 AM   #123
Nachtrafe
Red Wizard of Thay
 

Join Date: August 9, 2001
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Age: 51
Posts: 889
Quote:
Originally posted by G'kar:
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Oh come on. Lose face? American lives are worth more political weight than international face. If Bush was worried about face he wouldn't have tossed out Kyoto in favour of the "nonegotiable" American way of life.

Bush is a human. Can we remember that please? Most humans with our educational perspective have at least some value on human life.

Good point, He would lose alot of "face" at home if the polls indicate anything.
The voters at home are what counts to any elected official. And the current polls indicate a substanial degree of tolerance for U.S. casualties , Now if or when these causalties actually start happening, all that might change.

I know that this is two days after your post, but I absolutely *have* to point this out. There have already been casualties. SEVEN BLOODY THOUSAND OF THEM!!! Every man, woman, and child, from over 80 countries around the world, that died on 9-11-01. That is a pretty steep list of casualties, dont you think?

Just to put things into perspective, READ THIS!

------------------
"In Memorium of those who are gone, and all those that bought our freedom with their hearts blood!"

"May the Colors of Liberty never run"
Nachtrafe is offline  
Old 09-25-2001, 06:51 AM   #124
Nachtrafe
Red Wizard of Thay
 

Join Date: August 9, 2001
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Age: 51
Posts: 889
I have a question. This is mostly aimed at Dio and Lady F. Why are you both instantly presuming the worst? Not a single shot has been fired yet. Not a single bomb/missle/warplane has been invoked. Yes, there are US Ships being sent to the Gulf, and Yes, the US Military is preparing. Does this automatically equate with indiscriminate bombing and 'John Wayne mentality'? No, of course not, and to think otherwise is plain silly.

First of all, we have the most sophisticated attack systems in the world, and can quite cheerfully place bombs and missles anywhere we want. Second, we have the most highly trained army on the planet, and they too can be, and are selective about their targets. You keep assuming that the US is going to take a shotgun approach. Before you judge Bush, at least give the man a chance to act. I mean, so far he has acted in an immenantly reasonable fashion. Denouncing the despicable acts of the terrorists, calling for world unity, trying his utmost to heal wounds already inflicted with the Muslim world, building bridges, etc. I live in a state peopled heavily by gun-toting, right-wing, kill-em-all-and-let-God-sort-em-out rednecks. And even here, the primary focus seems to be the healing of our wounds, and bringing these people to justice. JUSTICE! Not revenge!

However, if justice means a bullet in the brainstem of every member of the Taliban, and Osama Bin Ladin...so be it. I wont shed a single tear. If a ground based military assualt is required to root these people out(and I would also consider this extremely unfortunate), and innocents die in the process, I will weep for them just as I did for those lost in America. But I wont ask that American soldiers shirk from the responsibility of destroying these scum either.

And, as a BTW, yes, it is a war. It is in no way a conventional war, but it is war nonetheless. You are absolutely dead on about the effect of the term 'WAR' on the American psyche. And I, for one, think that it is necessary and right for Bush to use that exact term. Legal maneuvering has failed. Diplomacy has failed. Appeasement has failed. Naked force is the only option that remains. To quote..."The Sleeping Giant is Awakened".

------------------
"In Memorium of those who are gone, and all those that bought our freedom with their hearts blood!"

"May the Colors of Liberty never run"
Nachtrafe is offline  
Old 09-25-2001, 11:32 AM   #125
Fljotsdale
Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom
 

Join Date: March 12, 2001
Location: Birmingham, West Mid\'s, England
Age: 87
Posts: 2,859
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
h
Regarding conditions in Afgahnistan, Fjlotsdale and Diogenes, you are both naive ..... I suggest both of you do a little research into the recent history of the place before spouting inane comments such as this. Misinformation does nothing for your argument or for educated debate.

The Taliban has ignored creating any social infrastructure for the years they have ruled. Reaction against the USAs movements hardly did that. Members of Aid organisations were arrested long before today. I wouldn't blame them for leaving. War has torn the country apart for twenty odd years, yet you two are insisting that the conditions are resultant from actions over TWO WEEKS?! Were the boatload of Afgahni refugees turned away by Norway, Indonesia and Australia weeks ago, fleeing the USA BEFORE THE WTC ATTACK?


And you Fjlotsdale, however you twist your reply stated:
"Diogenes is the most sensible man I have ever not met! And I agree with you! But no-one would listen to him. When people are angry or wounded they rarely listen to the voice of reason."

In this context, you equated "not listening" with disagreeing. Certainly you're not speaking about anyone who hasn't replied (because they weren't listening).

Who else in here was disgareeing with Diogenes? Moridin, Tancred, myself and perhaps 250. Of course I'm going to take it personally. Never have I accused you of being unable to comprehend my words when offering a reply, yet you have on more than one occasion refused to acknowledge the possibility of comprehending, yet disagreeing.

Of course I'm "scratchy". This is not a one off, but a repeated insistance during debates. Look at your language regarding this thread!
"So far, though, I have not seen what I consider to be a single good argument for military action in Afghanistan, even though I understand and have some sympathy for those arguments. My basic instinct is 'bomb the bastard terrorists out of existence!

Define "good" Fjlotsdale. By good do you mean one you agree with? Certainly in this context you're not meaning coherant, expressed, logical, informed, balanced, or any other impartial judgement about the character of an argument. You are applied a subjective assessment, and this is precisely what I am talking about.

Besides, by virtue of the above quote, it would seem you are missing my points.
I took up with Diogenes the issue of not calling this a "war". Never did I suggest "bombing the bastard terrorists out of existence" was a good option, and I repeatedly have stated I am a pacifist.

I was originally going to reply properly to your post, Yorick, and copied it so as to do so calmly.
However, as I read it over again I found it so grossy offensive that I am now too angry to do so.

You think I insult you, Yorick? I have never treated you with less than respect (certainly not deliberately), even when seriously annoyed with you. Even after your previous post I did my best to keep it friendly. But you seem determined to feel insulted and antagonistic, and to offer me (and Dio) insults that are clearly INTENDED as insult. (And you claim that you are not affected by anger and distress about the plane 'bombings'? )
So if you want further response from me in this thread you can whistle for it. I shall try to continue on a friendly basis with you in other threads, however, and to forget what you have said to me here.

Oh, and while I'm bellyaching, my name is not Fjlotsdale, it's Fljotsdale. It has been niggling me for ages that you always spell it incorrectly!
------------------






[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 09-25-2001).]
Fljotsdale is offline  
Old 09-25-2001, 11:40 AM   #126
Fljotsdale
Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom
 

Join Date: March 12, 2001
Location: Birmingham, West Mid\'s, England
Age: 87
Posts: 2,859
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown:
Yorick, as both Fjlotsdale and I acknowledged above, we both know conditions in Afghanistan were poor before our military started on its way. Perhaps you should read our posts again, particulary Fjlotsdale's point regarding how much worse those already poor conditions make our military intervention.

Yorick, don't you dare pretend to be hurt by Fjlotsdale's words when you are advocating the killing of more innocent life! Has the death of 6,000 people so suddenly hardened you that the deaths of more don't matter much?

Don't you dare to pretend to take the moral high ground over Fjlotsdale here! She doesn't want more innocent death any more than you do, and yet is wise enough to know that should start right this friggin moment, not wait until after we have had our vengeance!!!!!

Are the innocent Afghani's the same as the houseowners in your example!! Noooo!!!!!! So stop pretending that what you are advocating will cause anything other than the loss of INNOCENT life. You claim to be wanting to save innocent life in the future. As a technique, you are willing to look the other way while our military prepares to take innocent life. What is the principle we are trying to establish here, Yorick?

Thank you, Diogenes!
Wouldn't it be nice if people read what we ACTUALLY wrote instead of what they THINK we wrote? Still - human nature, I suppose! I've been guilty of it myself!

------------------


Fljotsdale is offline  
Old 09-25-2001, 11:40 AM   #127
Ryanamur
Fzoul Chembryl
 

Join Date: March 29, 2001
Location: Montréal, Canada
Age: 49
Posts: 1,763
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown:
Here we go again.

I suppose that at least this means the insane "War on Drugs" might be finally running out of steam.

But now we have the "War on Terrorism," in which case we are using the full might of our military strength.

Whoaaahhhh there, Mr. Bush, and my fellow Americans.

The War analogy is a FALSE one. It is only going to confuse our thinking on the proper response.

It would be more accurate to view what happened not as a WAR between the US and some foreign gov't -- especially not against Afghanistan.

It would be better to treat it for what it was, as CRIMES against various individuals, some american, some foreign, and property owners, including the US government.

Everything the terrorists did can be accounted for by routine principles of New York state and Federal criminal laws. (The same in the other jurisdicitions)

Plainly, they are guilty (assuming once again that we really know who did it) of over 6,000 counts of Murder, among thousands of other criminal offenses, which would certainly warrant the death penalty, if anything ever does. That includes Bin Laden (assuming he was really the one behind it) and all his co-conspiritors.

We are giving Bin Laden too much credit on the international scene by declaring this a war. Or are we recognizing Bin Laden as a legitimate government in his own right? If so, where is his land? Who are his people?

Why the quick rhetoric from Bush and so many others about this being a War?

What does he have to gain by insisting on War terminology?

If you ask me, he seems overeager to use his military toys, like his daddy before him in Kuwait. (Supposedly the very reason Ben Laden turned against the US in the first place!)

First of all, I believe that the rhetoric of War was used to inflame public support as well as to make it clear to Bin Ladden and his followers that the US now gladly accepted his invitation to the battlefield. Now, the Bush Administration as the full support of the public, the House and the Congress to go and find Bin Ladden and all members of his organisation.

What scares me is that we are entering this with an attitude of "bringing to justice" and "hold accountable for actions", etc, etc. In other words, we are seeking revenge for what as happened in NYC. That's the mistake.

You do not enter this kind of conflict seeking revenge. You must enter it to prevent future terrorist attacks. Again, it's sementics because the end result is the same: the death (or removal) of Bin Ladden and his followers.

As far as bringing terrorist to justice, I personnaly think it's a mistake as he can be percieved as a martyr. But then again, he will also be percieved as a martyr if we just kill him. Plus, let's face it. Bin Ladden, as one man, as just proven himself to be stronger than the entire Western Civilization. He's been illuding us for over 8 years and still manages to strike and bring us down on one knee (the economic one, not the attitude).

I also believe that sending US troops to the Persian Gulf again is an error. Let's face it, what boosted Bin Ladden network over the last decade? Hate for the US, not only for their involment in the Middle East, but for having military units in Saudi Arabia. No, a full blown military operation is the wrong approach to this problem if you ask me. However, it's what Americans want to see and that's what Americans will get.

The proper way to deal with this is by covert operations. You deal with terrorist like you would deal with guerrilas: with guerrilla warfare. Ironically, the US where never that great at this type of battle. Don't tell anyone, just send small groups of people to take terrorist out both at home and abroad.

CNN broadcasting Bin Ladden and War on Terrorism day and night doesn't help. Muslim extremist that were on the fence now might fall over to Bin Ladden's side 'cause they can now really see his true power. This whole thing as way to much publicity.

I'm curius as to what Americans will do with all that military hardware in the Middle East. I might be living in the world of "if" "maybe" or "might" but I know that B-2, F-117, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 and AWACS can do nothing to bring Bin Ladden down. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. So, why are they there? Maybe to carpet bomb Afghanistan, maybe to prepare the ground for another Desert Storm. Who knows but just a small flashback: did carpet bombing Drezden (spelling) solve anything but to boost the morale of Germans (like V1 and V2 boosted the morals of the English). It's amazing how much history can teach us, yet, it keeps repeating itself because people don't take time to learn from it (don't worry I don't know it all) We'll know soon enough why they sent those troops and planes to the Middle East, so I'll refrain from further commenting on that issue.

The last point I want to talk about is a war in Afghanistan. I have a feeling that most of the Occidental world sees them as "bad" "evil" or "supportive" of Bin Ladden and Anti-American sentiments. Granted, the Taliban have a very strong hold on the locals and are anti-Americans. But, the Gestapo and the Waffen SS also had a very strong hold on the Germans during WWII. Were all Germans bad then? No. Today, like 60 years ago, it's not all Afghans or Muslims that are bad. We should be carefull not to generalize too much and go after the wrong people.

------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?
Ryanamur is offline  
Old 09-25-2001, 12:34 PM   #128
Fljotsdale
Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom
 

Join Date: March 12, 2001
Location: Birmingham, West Mid\'s, England
Age: 87
Posts: 2,859
Quote:
Originally posted by Nachtrafe:
I have a question. This is mostly aimed at Dio and Lady F. Why are you both instantly presuming the worst? Not a single shot has been fired yet. Not a single bomb/missle/warplane has been invoked. Yes, there are US Ships being sent to the Gulf, and Yes, the US Military is preparing. Does this automatically equate with indiscriminate bombing and 'John Wayne mentality'? No, of course not, and to think otherwise is plain silly.

First of all, we have the most sophisticated attack systems in the world, and can quite cheerfully place bombs and missles anywhere we want. Second, we have the most highly trained army on the planet, and they too can be, and are selective about their targets. You keep assuming that the US is going to take a shotgun approach. Before you judge Bush, at least give the man a chance to act. I mean, so far he has acted in an immenantly reasonable fashion. Denouncing the despicable acts of the terrorists, calling for world unity, trying his utmost to heal wounds already inflicted with the Muslim world, building bridges, etc. I live in a state peopled heavily by gun-toting, right-wing, kill-em-all-and-let-God-sort-em-out rednecks. And even here, the primary focus seems to be the healing of our wounds, and bringing these people to justice. JUSTICE! Not revenge!

However, if justice means a bullet in the brainstem of every member of the Taliban, and Osama Bin Ladin...so be it. I wont shed a single tear. If a ground based military assualt is required to root these people out(and I would also consider this extremely unfortunate), and innocents die in the process, I will weep for them just as I did for those lost in America. But I wont ask that American soldiers shirk from the responsibility of destroying these scum either.

And, as a BTW, yes, it is a war. It is in no way a conventional war, but it is war nonetheless. You are absolutely dead on about the effect of the term 'WAR' on the American psyche. And I, for one, think that it is necessary and right for Bush to use that exact term. Legal maneuvering has failed. Diplomacy has failed. Appeasement has failed. Naked force is the only option that remains. To quote..."The Sleeping Giant is Awakened".


Nachtrafen, I think I speak for Dio as well as myself when I say that we shall shed no tears over bin Laden or the Taliban! No way! Don’t you even think it!

As for ‘presuming the worst’ – well, there is past record to go by. And even if that was not the case, what else could anyone presume from the build-up of forces in the area?
I HOPE that it is just a show of power to force the Taliban to hand over bin Laden if it is proved he was behind the plane ‘bombings’. I really hope that. But history begs to question that hope by pointing out that what USUALLY happens is the bombing of innocents. The so-called ‘smart’ weapons are not all that smart, as has been proved.
And even if the ordinance was really ‘smart’, people like bin Laden and other terrorists make sure to surround themselves with civilian women and children so that they can display their bodies for the media, thus wrong-footing the West. Those innocent victims of terrorism do not deserve for us to kill them on top of what they already suffer, do they?

HOW to bring terrorist to justice without harming others is a question I have no answer to, but I want it done in a way that does NOT include the death of anyone other than terrorists. Therefore, negotiation and diplomacy MUST be pushed to the limit before even thinking of force, imho.


------------------


Fljotsdale is offline  
Old 09-25-2001, 06:34 PM   #129
Nachtrafe
Red Wizard of Thay
 

Join Date: August 9, 2001
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Age: 51
Posts: 889
Quote:
Originally posted by Fljotsdale:

Nachtrafen, I think I speak for Dio as well as myself when I say that we shall shed no tears over bin Laden or the Taliban! No way! Don’t you even think it!
Sorry F(I'm not even going to try and spell your name. I dont want to mess up. (BTW...there's no 'n' on the end of my name. HEHE). I didn't mean to imply that you would. I didn't get that impression from either of you. I was just stating 'my' opinion on the matter. Sorry for the miscommunication.

Quote:

As for ‘presuming the worst’ – well, there is past record to go by. And even if that was not the case, what else could anyone presume from the build-up of forces in the area?
Several things. A show of force, as you suggest below, and Ryanamur suggests above? A desire to show our allies in the region that we are taking this seriously and not making wind? A preventative...so that some of the criminals involved dont get any bright ideas(I refuse to accord Bin Laden and/or the Taliban the status of Govt, and Hussien isn't much better)?

There are several options, and scenarios. I think that it is rather obviously a show of force. But there are also obviously some rather complex reason behind it.

Quote:

I HOPE that it is just a show of power to force the Taliban to hand over bin Laden if it is proved he was behind the plane ‘bombings’. I really hope that. But history begs to question that hope by pointing out that what USUALLY happens is the bombing of innocents. The so-called ‘smart’ weapons are not all that smart, as has been proved.
Actually, the technology is almost foolproof. I have a buddy that works on the guidance systems for missles, and they really are 99.99% accurate. The problem seems to be in the decision-making process of the people firing them...*cough*Chinese Embassy*cough*. Not something I'm real proud of BTW.

Quote:

And even if the ordinance was really ‘smart’, people like bin Laden and other terrorists make sure to surround themselves with civilian women and children so that they can display their bodies for the media, thus wrong-footing the West. Those innocent victims of terrorism do not deserve for us to kill them on top of what they already suffer, do they?
True...he is the type of scum that will use human shields. Should that weaken out resolve? Hell no!! Like I said...I will weep for each and every life lost in the coming conflict. But we, as a united world, CANNOT shrink from what needs to be done. And please, dont offer me a microcosm and say "What if it was people you know." That is a specious arguement. Stoping terror is the issue. And whatever needs to be done, should be done. The people that order such actions(on both sides) will have to answer to their consciences and their gods. The innocents that are subjected to such horror will, I hope, find peace and love in their next lives. They will certainly deserve it.

Quote:

HOW to bring terrorist to justice without harming others is a question I have no answer to, but I want it done in a way that does NOT include the death of anyone other than terrorists. Therefore, negotiation and diplomacy MUST be pushed to the limit before even thinking of force, imho.
Unfortunately, I cant think of a way either. And it saddens me immensely. If there was a way to resolve this entire issue without bloodshed, I would be the first and loudest voice crying for it. More than 7000 of my fellow humans are dead, and I really dont want any more to die(with the exception of a few scum that no longer qualify as human, and desperately deserve it). But right now, all other options seem to have failed. If the Taliban pulls their collective heads out of their collective orifices, and hands over Bin Laden, then maybe we can resolve that specific matter peacefully. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out excellently by Yorick, it goes against their own laws. So I really cant see that happening. So, sadly, the only real option left, as I and others have pointed out, is force. As for the other terrorist-harboring nations... Those will have to be handled on an individual basis. The current, world-wide focus is shining brightly on Bin Laden and the Taliban. Once that issue is resolved...we'll see.

One last thing. The ideal you are talking about...peaceful resolution, the world lending a helping hand and making all right with the Afghani, etc, is just that...a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, living in the real world tends to suck. I, for one, would rather live in your ideal. But, as we *all* live in the real world, and that is a dark and sucky place most of the time, we have to use dark and sucky means to acomplish our ends.

------------------
"In Memorium of those who are gone, and all those that bought our freedom with their hearts blood!"

"May the Colors of Liberty never run"
Nachtrafe is offline  
Old 09-25-2001, 07:44 PM   #130
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 52
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by Fljotsdale:
You think I insult you, Yorick? I have never treated you with less than respect (certainly not deliberately).
I beg to differ. The intent may not have been there, but I have pointed out the effect on more than one occasion.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!
Yorick is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who's your role model? Sigmar General Discussion 14 04-16-2005 03:51 PM
Choc is now a 3D Model! Oh no! Run! (pic) Ziroc NWN Mod: Escape from Undermountain 8 12-20-2004 03:09 PM
TES model stuff DalekBoy Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) 3 07-03-2004 11:28 PM
Who's your role-model? Sigmar General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 31 03-02-2004 04:37 PM
NWN Model Viewer Micah Foehammer Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2 Also SoU & HotU Forum 1 04-25-2002 12:33 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved