logo Sign In

Darth Chaltab

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Mar-2004
Last activity
6-Jan-2011
Posts
10,487

Post History

Post
#260717
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260717/action/topic#260717
Time
Um, yeah... But there is a difference between attacking a nation that has no part in the war and attacking a corrupt regime that turns a blind eye to terrorism and murders it's own people.

This is where you fail at the equation of common sense--America--we're not perfect, but we're STILL the good guys. To ethically equate Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor with our invasion of Iraq is nothing but mind-rotting moral relativism. We not only warned Iraq first, but we gave them YEARS to comply with the UN resolutions. They did not, so they brought the war upon themselves.
Post
#260698
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260698/action/topic#260698
Time
Originally posted by: BrikHaus81
I can't believe someone would post some crap here about being "ashamed to be an American." This mentality is one of the most upsetting things someone can hear from a fellow countryman/woman. Sure, you don't have to like/agree with everything the U.S. does, but that doesn't mean you should go ahead and declare it the Great Satan. People like this should try living in a country without the luxuries, freedoms, and amenities we have here in the U.S. I guarantee they'd change their tune quickly. I find it disgraceful they should choose the Pearl Harbor thread to vent their anger. This day is about remembering and honoring our fallen family members, not disgracing them by saying that you hate the country they gave their lives for.


Amen, Brikhaus.
Post
#260547
Topic
The $$$ spent on the war on terror
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260547/action/topic#260547
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: ricarleite

The only reason for creating wars is economical.


Ric, do you honestly believe this?

I don't support any dictatorship, but as Obi Jee said, there is a matter of threat assessement. The United States, a super-power though it may be, does not have unlimited resources or unlimited resolve. The dictator ships of South America don't present a direct threat to the United States, not in the way the Middle East does.


So Saddam was a treat to the United States in which way? Through weapons of mass destruction? How much of a threat to america is Saddam compared to Idi Amin Dada, who would personally torture and EAT the flesh from his enemies and killed 300 thousand people in Uganda? Let's see, Saddam ruling Iraq had a war with Iran, and the US sold him weapons and gave him support. Then he invaded Kwait and the US had economical interests there, so there was the gulf war. Next, on the peak of war on terror, the invasion of Iraq based on non-existant weapons of mass destruction - when South Korea, Pakistan and Iran are posing even greater threat.


First of all, Iraq's not having weapons of mass destruction is irrelevant, because our intelligence indicated that they did, and they clearly wanted us to think they did. Not only that, but leaving them alone would give them ample time to develop them. I don't know anything about Idi Amin Dada, but again, we can't fix everything.

I wish that some of the other nations that keep wishng the US would do something about these other dictators would step up to the plate and attack themselves. The US is already commited long-term in the Middle East, and taking on every third-world thug and dictator around the world, all at once would spread our resources far too thin.
Post
#260458
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260458/action/topic#260458
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
I've been having some problems with my Wii's Wiimote. Here's an e-mail I've sent Nintendo:



I'm curious, Ric, how far are you sitting/standing from the console when you're playing? I've read at IGN that the sensor bar only has a range of roughly nine-feet, so you might want to start using candles or something instead. If you're losing sync with the console entirely... I'm not sure what to tell you.
Post
#260456
Topic
The $$$ spent on the war on terror
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260456/action/topic#260456
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite

The only reason for creating wars is economical.


Ric, do you honestly believe this?

I don't support any dictatorship, but as Obi Jee said, there is a matter of threat assessement. The United States, a super-power though it may be, does not have unlimited resources or unlimited resolve. The dictator ships of South America don't present a direct threat to the United States, not in the way the Middle East does. The United States can't fix everything, but I sincerely believe that Iraq was and Iran, and North Korea are problems we MUST start tackling.

As for why we've supported some dictators? Two things. One, hindsight is 20/20, and two, the old addage about the lesser of two evils. At the time we supported Hussein, he was the lesser of two evils in the minds of the leaders of the US. In the 21st century, things changed; there is no USSR (at the moment at least), and the greatest threat to the lives of Americans and other peaceful nations is concentrated in the Middle East, in the form of terrorist organizations and Islamofacist dictatorships.

It seems to me like you're trying to make everything black and white. It never is in international politics. No nation is 100% good, but in the case of the war on terror, there are nations whose leadership is 100% evil, and in that case it should be completely clear where the enemy is.
Post
#260292
Topic
The $$$ spent on the war on terror
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260292/action/topic#260292
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
There is no war on crime. We fight crime perpetually. It's an ongoing struggle of society. And appropriate resources should be dedicated to it on an ongoing and perpetual basis.

Agreed.


Terrorism is, in fact, no different. It doesn't require a war. To declare "war" on terrorism is to admit a permanent and perpetual state of war. A state wherein abdication of human rights and constitutional rights can be falsely justified and facistically implemented. Not to mention all other the other horrors and economic siphoning that would be a permanent state of being with a permanent state of war.

Here's where you're wrong. Terrorism is a crime when it is perpetuated by citizens of a country against that country or against a friendly country. Terrorism is an act of War when the terrorists operate from hostile countries where they are encouraged and harbored by the countries.

If we treat terrorism as the crime that it is, we can fight it just as we would any other heinous crime, and battle organizations that commit terrorism the same as we would any other criminal organization.

No thank you. That's what Clinton did for years, and it DOES NOT WORK. If we had treated the 1993 WTC attack as an act of war instead of a law-enforcement issue, then the towers might still be standing.


The danger to our society from terrorism has been insignificant compared to others we are not throwing treasure at. A war is not an appropriate economic or moral response to acts of terrorism commited by ad hoc organizations.


Al Quaida and other networks are not ad hoc organizations--they are global networks backed by the governmetns of some of the coutnries. What about the the Taliban? Do. You. Remember. Them?

Where is the "war" on the mafia? Where is the "war" on the bloods and crips? Far more Americans lie dead or wounded via the acts of these criminal organizations than from those of international terrorists (though I'll grant that terrorism adversely affects our economy to a greater degree with far fewer and less lethal acts of violence).


Not to excuse their crimes by any means, but please. The bloods and the crips do not want every Westerner to convert to Islam or die. There's a rather pronounced difference there, dude.


Risk assessment would be prudent to apply to international terrorism.


If you don't see how serious the threat is, then you aren't paying attention, or you're willfully blind. The president of Iran wants to bring about the bloody Apocalypse; if that isn't a threat we need to assess, I don't know what is.

Post
#260288
Topic
Fantasy Ships
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260288/action/topic#260288
Time
Captain - Han Solo (Do I even need to explain why?)

Second Officer - Jim Raynor (He's good at following orders, but is smart enough to know when the orders aren't worth following.)

Helm- Wedge Antilles (Having him on the ship guarantees it won't blow up)

Head Engineer- Geordi LaForge

Doctor- The Hologram Doctor from Voyager

Security- River Tam (Cause she will Eff You Up)

Counselor- Doctor Who (Because hilarity would ensue--you know it would)
Post
#260273
Topic
The $$$ spent on the war on terror
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260273/action/topic#260273
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Chaltab what if profiting from war is the only reason behind the war? I mean, so many dictators in the world through the last decades, what made Saddam so special, for example? The no found weapons?


If profiting off the war was the only reason behind it, then I'd agree. But Saddam was a murdering dictator who destabilized the region. We weren't alloud to fly over Iraq, and there was a huge obstacle between Kuwait and Iran should, God forbid, we have to invade that country.

To suggest that profit was the only motive is to suggest that the President is completely and totally controlled by the companies that arm our military, and with an accusation that unlikely, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Post
#260265
Topic
The $$$ spent on the war on terror
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260265/action/topic#260265
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Chaltab allow me to move away from the main discussion for a while and pose you this question - one that I've already did, but would be interesting on the present discussion - do you think this war on terror is actually winnable, it'll end?


I think that we can win. This is not to say I think we will win. I think that if we resolve to win and vote for politictians who understand the danger that radiacl Islam poses, and are willing to use the proper ammount of force, then yes, we can win. What scares me is that too many people don't seem to want to win.

The original topic is a good example. The $$$ spent on the war on terror? As long as it is buying the equipment and supplies our troops need to win and its not helping our enemies, I don't think who gets the money in the end matters. If Company A makes the best body armor available, and it helps to keep our troops alive, what's wrong with them getting money for that? I think they deserve it. I think that's capitalism. Are they profiting off war? I guess, but that doesn't bother me. If they were making shoddy product, that would bother me. That would be something worth investigating, but I see no moral dilema with an honest transaction.

The message I get is that the people who care about who gets the money, really are saying "Hey, if someone is profiting off this war, God forbid, then it must be an illegitimate war! We don't have to fight it!"

And to them, I'd point out that it was World War 2 that brought the US out of the great depression. Should we have not fought THAT war since someone profited off it?

Post
#260259
Topic
The $$$ spent on the war on terror
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260259/action/topic#260259
Time
Yeah, pointing out the absurdity of fighting 'terrorism' misses the point.

"War On Terror" is a politically correct euphemism for the world-wide war agaisnt violent Muslim extremsists. Victory in this war means capturing or killing leaders of terrorist organizations in order to make all future uses of terrorism independent affairs sponsored by no state governments.

Number20's analogy is effective. If we can't when the 'war on terror' does that mean we should give up on the war on crime as well?

Post
#260231
Topic
Favorite Nintendo Game
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260231/action/topic#260231
Time
Originally posted by: BrikHaus81
Although Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask doesn't get much love, I feel it was the most unique and best game in the entire series.


Majora's Mask is excellent, and I still think no game before or since has ever really made you feel like you were in a living, breathing world where your actions mattered better than that game.
Post
#260121
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260121/action/topic#260121
Time
That's stretching it. At worst PS3 will have the third highest marketshare like the GC. The brand name is too strong for it to just crap out of the race entirely like a CD-i.

Plus, despite the lackluster launch, the PS3 does have at least ONE good game, and the same can't be said of most other failed consoles. Heck, the CD-i managed to get even ZELDA wrong.