Inappropriate Avatar (Swastika)

[foolish_yeti]

i liked it more when the talk was about communism and nazism. this is just to much.

let me remember all the subtopics of this topic: nazism , communism , 9/11 , al-queda , drinking , smoking , iraq , saddam , afghanistan and as i recall even something about sexism.

so may i be the one to another subtopic to the "INNAPROPIATE AVATAR" : how about SEX. that wasn't debated!

this topic has gone way to long!

pls lack CLOSE IT! i changed my avatar. that is not a problem anymore.
pls!

Cdman, you are quite correct that this thread has nothing to do with the original topic- that was already ruled upon...it's morphed into something new. I'd be glad to start up another thread to continue this discussion so it's under the proper heading, but I don't see the point in that (mods if you want it just ask). It's not detracting from the original point of this thread, as you have pointed out- that is over, and thus the continuation of our discussion is doing nobody harm- except for those who for some reason don't enjoy serious discussion happening on a game site. But again there's a simple solution that works for both parties- don't read the topics you're not interested in.

[AAFitz]

you might expect someone who wanted to wear a swastika to care more about war and its consequences...then again...maybe not


damn...i just agreed with yeti...

yeti and i are enjoying this...i take full responsibility for it getting off track..but it has been interesting

[hulmey]

AAfitz sorry to say you dont know what you are talking about....Its always we this and we that meaning, america!!!!!

America is not the world.....

People have always hated america....Who the communists, vietnam.

But now 99% of the world hate american politics (not americans). I myself am Britsh born and bred and have no love of "terroists" etc....however i am tending to lean towards the plight of the "terroists".

As for Saddam Hussain keep resources for his country to build armies to invade kuwait. That is a very ignorant statement!!!

Iraq was the capital of the Arab people with a good standard of living and the best arab schhols and infrastrucute...There military was actually supported by AMERICA and many billions given to Saddam Hussain by AMERICA to fight Iran....

Iraq has always seen Kuwait as part of Iraq...Kuwait was part of Iraq until the British took it from Iraq in 1920 because it didnt want Iraq to have access to the sea there!!!!!

[AAFitz]

AAfitz sorry to say you dont know what you are talking about....Its always we this and we that meaning, america!!!!!

America is not the world.....

People have always hated america....Who the communists, vietnam.

But now 99% of the world hate american politics (not americans). I myself am Britsh born and bred and have no love of "terroists" etc....however i am tending to lean towards the plight of the "terroists".

As for Saddam Hussain keep resources for his country to build armies to invade kuwait. That is a very ignorant statement!!!

Iraq was the capital of the Arab people with a good standard of living and the best arab schhols and infrastrucute...There military was actually supported by AMERICA and many billions given to Saddam Hussain by AMERICA to fight Iran....

Iraq has always seen Kuwait as part of Iraq...Kuwait was part of Iraq until the British took it from Iraq in 1920 because it didnt want Iraq to have access to the sea there!!!!!

I appologize for the we..but its just quicker...and as you point out...99% of the world hates american politics. Britain isnt exactly at the top of the popularity charts either is it...

You have every right to feel bad for Saddam and condone his attacks on Kuwait...but the US used to be a part of the Brittish Empire as i recall....does that give you a right to try to take it back???

and you can feel bad for the terrorists all you want...

[Guiscard]

and if the US had not attacked Iraq, the attack on Afganistan would not have been percieved to be as wrong as much as to root out the terrorists that caused it, and everyone saw the afganistan people applauding when the taliban was ousted...they paid a terrible price for having lived it the country that harbored bin laden through no fault of their own. I am not in any way saying it was handled perfectly, or even that it was the only way...or that one innocent civilian should have been killed...but it was essentially inevitable once the attacks on 9/11 took place

Afghanistan has still turned out badly. We're entrenched in a damaging war where the Taliban are still a serious presence. we can't control the opium trade and we're still struggling to establish some kind of democracy. I don't know about America but theres certainly been some recent coverage the British problems in Helmand province... Unfortunately the problems are immensly overshadowed by Iraq. There would still have been anti-US entiments and we'd still have protested against contuned involvement in a war which is costing lives and resources for minimal results, just perhaps not to such a degree as we are with Iraq.

it is possible they made it up completely, but if they truly thought they were there, at the time you could see how they might feel they had to attack....

Its been pretty much proved it was made up. At least in Britain, the governemtn has all but admitted it.

[Evil Semp]

Please help me understand just what is "plight of the "terroists"?

[Anarkistsdream]

Please help me understand just what is "plight of the "terroists"?

Kinda like Flight of the Bumblebee without Wagner...

[AAFitz]

and if the US had not attacked Iraq, the attack on Afganistan would not have been percieved to be as wrong as much as to root out the terrorists that caused it, and everyone saw the afganistan people applauding when the taliban was ousted...they paid a terrible price for having lived it the country that harbored bin laden through no fault of their own. I am not in any way saying it was handled perfectly, or even that it was the only way...or that one innocent civilian should have been killed...but it was essentially inevitable once the attacks on 9/11 took place

Afghanistan has still turned out badly. We're entrenched in a damaging war where the Taliban are still a serious presence. we can't control the opium trade and we're still struggling to establish some kind of democracy. I don't know about America but theres certainly been some recent coverage the British problems in Helmand province... Unfortunately the problems are immensly overshadowed by Iraq. There would still have been anti-US entiments and we'd still have protested against contuned involvement in a war which is costing lives and resources for minimal results, just perhaps not to such a degree as we are with Iraq.

it is possible they made it up completely, but if they truly thought they were there, at the time you could see how they might feel they had to attack....

Its been pretty much proved it was made up. At least in Britain, the governemt has all but admitted it.

Fine they made it up...wasnt arguing it either way

and as far as the attacks on Iraq or Afganistan. I agree...I havent said otherwise... Im really not arguing that the attacks have gone well for the US in either Iraq or Afganistan....

in fact the attack in Iraq is clearly a disaster...which was my original point

and as far as afganistan goes...i only used it because i believe the attacks were a mistake by Bin Laden...

you are welcome to believe otherwise..but i was only using them as examples of why the consequences of attacks should be considered when judging the success of an attack....if it results in the destruction or causes severe damage to the attacker...than the attack was foolish in the first place

i never intended to argue the finer points of the war in this forum...to do so would take thousands of pages...with examples and research....you are welcome to poke holes in the examples...but i dont have the time to explain every little detail so if every single example...as i said before, i should not have used these examples in the first place

[hulmey]

well lets just thank god nowadays we dont have to join the army and fight these silly wars for the people who want all the power and money for them and their families

[AAFitz]

All I know is I have the deepest respect for the men and women that serve my country, and I thank them for risking their lives to protect my country.

[Guiscard]

I don't. I call them fools.

[Evil Semp]

I don't. I call them fools.

Those fools from the USA and many more countries helped save your country from being over run by the Germans.

You should thank them for giving you the right to have the right to call them "fools", and thank them for continuing to defend that right for you.

And don't say that calling current service men and women fools is not calling all served their countries fools.

I respect your right to call them names, but I do not respect your opinion of them.

[NanoSpores]

I must say, as this is a game, shouldn't someone have the fun of representing "Evil"? or would you rather play on Middle Earth against a bunch of Frodos. I'd kind of like to play against Hitler in Risk.

Hitler...Good luck only one stupid diseased nutbag lunatic per century....Oh by the way...that's the second stupidest thing I've heard(still waiting for the first)...

doy, I didn't mean the actual Hitler.. I meant someone with that screen name to inspire a good fight.. I just think it would make it slightly more interesting.. get it?

[AAFitz]

I don't. I call them fools.

cowards never understand courage

you complain about the swastika and then call the US military men and women fools

now thats funny...just absolutely priceless

[hulmey]

there we go again AAfitz

Who the hell mentioned us servicemen???????????

he means soldiers in general.

Boy ur like a horse oonly see in front of u!!!!!

[AAFitz]

there we go again AAfitz

Who the hell mentioned us servicemen???????????

he means soldiers in general.

Boy ur like a horse oonly see in front of u!!!!!

Um....I did and this is the only thing i see in front of me

All I know is I have the deepest respect for the men and women that serve my country, and I thank them for risking their lives to protect my country.

his response:

I don't. I call them fools.

I naturally assumed he was referring to the same people I was.

Maybe its because of my horse vision like you suggest, but if im wrong...who is he talking about then?

If he's talking about the Brittish servicemen, thats even worse. They risk their lives to protect the country he lives in.

And if hes talking about all soldiers thats fine....but it includes the men and women that protect his country and to unilatterally call them fools is still cowardly....

which was all started by your quote

well lets just thank god nowadays we dont have to join the army and fight these silly wars for the people who want all the power and money for them and their families

thankfully there are brave people who will do it for you

but alas, i couldnt care less what you have to say after this...

And as for guiscard so what the BNP beat up a few people!!!!!!!

Why is the BNP now getting stronger and stronger in the UK...Coz we in the UK are under attack from extremists and terroists....

They come to our country and dont respect the way we live!!!!!!!

and then

Guiscard your a patheic reason for a human being...Did i insult you? Did i mention the black race? Just a page before in this thread are 2 blacks with nazi symbols are on their chest!!!!!

So go f*ck your mother you wanker!

which was provoked by this

There is no justification for extreme right wing pieces of shit like the BNP. f*ck you you daily mail-reading facist piece of shit. I've had good friends beaten to within an inch of their lives by those thugs just for being black. Its people like you who don't respect the way we live - peacefully and compassionately with respect for others.

...and I'd promised myself I'd stay out of this thread...

you guys are swearing at each other in a forum about war and human tragedy

and lest we forget your praise for the brilliant terrorists...

of course they where well thought out.

It was a masterpiece (from a militaristic point of view...God rest the innocent CIVILIANS killed) .

A man living in cave striking at the heart of Capitislim!!!!

There structure and organistion is till very much alive and for every terroist that dies 10 more spring up to take his place.

Look at iraq, US troops suffered there biggest casaulties last month!!!!
Saddam Hussian told the world you will defeat IRAQ but IRAQ will be your grave!

so turning more people into terrorists has been a positive thing????
More people who only want to kill more people, unstabilizing the region they live in even further....that has been positive and helped thier cause??? Directly caused an attack on afganistan, and indirectly allowed an attack on Iraq. Which has caused more killing, more hate, more pain....Very brilliant indeed....

I thank anyone for seeing the quick point I was trying to make at the beginning of this. That military actions cannot be viewed as brilliant if they result in the destruction of the attackers country or virtual destruction.

It was meant to counter those who praise supposed brilliant conquerers who have caused war for no good. It includes attacks by Germany, the US, bin laden, and the Japanese

if an attack results in severe negative consequences for the attackers country and people, then even if it was successful...it can only be viewed as a complete folly...

My point is really anti-war...I believe it is very easy to start wars, attack other nations and kill other people. Its been done as long as humans have lived. What is difficult is living in peace. If the supposed geniuses could find a way to solve thier problems without going to war, they would then be doing the people they are sworn to protect the greatest service. But this isnt to say that it is always possible to do so. But striving to do it should be the ultimate goal of all in the position of power.

[cdman]

dont get me wrong i just got amazed about where this discussion has gone.

continue the discussion because i realize it is of not an importance anymore and to begin a new topic and even start all over is hard.

but still i liked it more when the talk was about communism and nazism

[AAFitz]

talk about nazism and communisim then.

[speckknoedelsup]

there are some things i want to point out:

afgahnistan is not osama bin ladens country !!!! he does not give a pice of shit what happens to many innocent people there when striking on the us.

there is no link between al-quiada and iraq. everone understood that bush had to strike against osama and his organisation al-quaida, but then he abused the situation in order to be able to strike against iraq under fake reasons as they were: saying ther is al-quaida in iraq (lie) , wmd (lie) , ending the dicationship (true) but the real reason i think was to get under control of their oil fields.

i am glad that saddam is taken out and the dictationship had and end, but it are the reasons i don't like he ( bush) said he is doing it , they were all fake.

and you can hardly compare the situation of dicationship under nazis with the dictationship of saddam because:
in europe the people have revolted against monarchy before there was a short period of democracy, but the peace of versaille made after WWI screwed the economical circumstances in germany and austria so no democracy could stand that. hitler raised and WWII happened, the allies saved us from that dictationship but they were powerfull enough to keep the situation calm and people where already ready for democracy.

in iraq the situation now is that people who were oppressed under saddam now see their chance to get in charge and civil war is the result but noone could see that comming.

again wipping out saddam was a good thing (thou the us made him strong before) but the fake reasons bush told, is what i really am pissed of, but of course he could not tell his troops : hey guys you must die because some of my friends wanna cash an awful lot of money .

that is my opinion

[Guiscard]

Ok heres the justification of my calling active service men and women fools. (Will add I was pissed up at the time, and perhaps a little brutal, but I'll stand by my comments).

And don't say that calling current service men and women fools is not calling all served their countries fools.

Why not? In the past there has been a genuine risk of an invasion of Britain by troops on the ground, threatening the peace and security of our nation. To join up to defend your country in a time of war is a completely different matter (and don't forget there was mass conscription - I know for a fact both of my Grandfathers would have stayed at home if they could, but I still don't criticise their bravery for fighting when duty called).

To join the army in the present day and age, however, is a different kettle of fish. We're not fighting any kind of defensive war, nor is it even in the interests of our country to be at war (in my opinion). People who label current soldiers who voluntarily joined 'heroes' or 'brave' are, in my opinion, completely incorrect. All that they are doing is adding towards the body count. I'm afraid I'm a pacifist through and through. We don't need such numbers of troops and we don't need such high levels of military technology. If the US was genuinely commited to multi-lateral co-operationa and peace-keeping action, rather than pursuing self-interests through a policy of vetoes in the Security council, then there might be a chance at sorting things out without the need for massive standing armies in apparently 'civilised' countries. [/b]

[hulmey]

i agree with last 2 posts 100%.....

Would like to add my grandfather,father and brother where all in the british army at some point in their lives....

[AAFitz]

there are some things i want to point out:

afgahnistan is not osama bin ladens country !!!! he does not give a pice of shit what happens to many innocent people there when striking on the us.

there is no link between al-quiada and iraq. everone understood that bush had to strike against osama and his organisation al-quaida, but then he abused the situation in order to be able to strike against iraq under fake reasons as they were: saying ther is al-quaida in iraq (lie) , wmd (lie) , ending the dicationship (true) but the real reason i think was to get under control of their oil fields.

i am glad that saddam is taken out and the dictationship had and end, but it are the reasons i don't like he ( bush) said he is doing it , they were all fake.

and you can hardly compare the situation of dicationship under nazis with the dictationship of saddam because:
in europe the people have revolted against monarchy before there was a short period of democracy, but the peace of versaille made after WWI screwed the economical circumstances in germany and austria so no democracy could stand that. hitler raised and WWII happened, the allies saved us from that dictationship but they were powerfull enough to keep the situation calm and people where already ready for democracy.

in iraq the situation now is that people who were oppressed under saddam now see their chance to get in charge and civil war is the result but noone could see that comming.

again wipping out saddam was a good thing (thou the us made him strong before) but the fake reasons bush told, is what i really am pissed of, but of course he could not tell his troops : hey guys you must die because some of my friends wanna cash an awful lot of money .

that is my opinion

we all know afganistan is not bin ladens country...however, he must have some people some where, and they live in the mid east or are muslims...so his attacks have made their lives worse....and i disagree that oil was the only reason Iraq was attacked, not to say it was not a factor, and the fact that the people and congress and the world was deceived to allow such an attack is a very frightening thought indeed...the extent is debatable of course....and will be for years...

[hulmey]

ok AAFitz what do you think is the reason Iraq was attacked for?

[foolish_yeti]

there is no link between al-quiada and iraq. everone understood that bush had to strike against osama and his organisation al-quaida, but then he abused the situation in order to be able to strike against iraq under fake reasons as they were: saying ther is al-quaida in iraq (lie) , wmd (lie) , ending the dicationship (true) but the real reason i think was to get under control of their oil fields.

I would say that there was most likely Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but that this didn't justify or warrant an attack there. The reason being that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait posed a threat to Saudi Arabia...Bin Laden offered to help protect Saudi Arabia- off the top of my head I think the offer was refused- but I'd guess there were Al-Qaeda in Iraq....and there definetly were after the invasion in 2003- but again this in no way could be used as justification for invasion.

on edit: don't have time to quote and the whatnot, but just a quick note that I agree that oil was not the sole reason for invasion- it was the main one, but not the only.

[AAFitz]

i do not have time to get into this discussion any deeper, i really dont...but to say there is only one factor in the war is simply naive....if you are asking me to explain it to you...im afraid I dont have the time, nor the qualifications...

i know you like to simplify the world with your 2 line posts and impress us all with your insights, like the plights of the terrorists...but i have no more time for this

ive only continued to post to try to clearify the original point I was trying to make

Yeti, its been educational and interesting...

Guiscard, I respect your obvious passion for peace and willingness to stand up for what you think is right....with the exception of your liquor enhanced comment on military volunteers

Sempster...thanks for the backup...as always

Robinette...for sure, like..you know exactly like when to throw in some like comic relief, like for shur...so like, thanks