logo Sign In

JediSage

User Group
Members
Join date
22-Mar-2005
Last activity
10-Jan-2011
Posts
2,109

Post History

Post
#105437
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105437/action/topic#105437
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I would sugest that the U.S government only intervene in foreign affairs if it is of some interest to them, be it security, financial, etc. It may not be an obvious interest, but they will have some interest, even if it's citizen's are unaware.


I agree, however it just never seems to work out that way. We could never make the case to invade anywhere there's a drop of oil, because everyone would scream about it. It is unfortunate, because I do believe the US can be a force for good, especially it's military. However, we're often in lose-lose situations because of the games our politicians play, and in the court of public opinion.

Post
#105424
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105424/action/topic#105424
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
The US fought in the WW2 on the right side, along with Canada, Australia, England, South America, and the Russian Red Army, who had the biggest losses in war and reached Berlin first, freeing Poland on the way. Despite of that, some people still think that WW2 justifies pretty much every military action.

Since socialism isn't the cause for interventions, I asume the only real need for an intervention is when the people is taken by a dictator that imposes suffering on its people. Take Hitler for an example, the nazi party was absolutely not socialist. And yet... why sometimes actions are taken to make sure the dictators are getting stronger? The Iran-Iraq war as an example, the south americans miliraty dictatorship as another example... Take Idi Amin Dada for an example, the dictator of Uganda during the 1970s. He killed and brutalized his people, he had strong relations with the soviets, he freaking ATE his enemies... and yet, absolutely no country at all moved one finger to take him out. You know who took Idi Amin Dada from power? Tanzania. When Uganda invaded Tanzania, the army from that country not only fought back, but actually invaded Uganda and disposed Idi Amin...

And in some cases, like in south america, the socialist parties were not even controlling the nations, there were absolutely no communist seizes of power, there was only democracy and freedom,and yet brutal military dictatorships were installed...


The reason the Red Army took the most losses is because their tactics were horrific, not to mention that their leadership placed absolutely no value on the lives of individual soldiers (end result of socialist "equality").

Socialism as a theory in and of itself is not the only reason for intervention. It's the implementation that's the problem.

In regards to your comments about Nazi Germany: the Nazis were born from a group called the National Socialist Worker's Party. Facism is the bastard child of socialism. They both result in state control of the economy.

In regards to intervention anywhere: Unless the threat is on our backdoor, meaning Mexico (which is a threat)or Canada or Russia due to it's proximity to Alaska, we've got no business doing anything but securing our own borders and protecting our own jobs and economy. To quote Pat Buchannan, this is "...a Republic, NOT an empire". Too many of our politicians have gone beyond worrying about our own problems.
Post
#105416
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105416/action/topic#105416
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
there would not have been an england save for FDR and Hitlers over zealousness.


May I take this opportunity to worship at the feet of all Americans for saving my puny Island from certain destruction. We held out from 1939 until 1944 without them, but that one year that they helped us was, of course, the decider. Thank You Thank you Thank you.
p.s Thank You.


I am of the belief that in spite of England's requests for help and American lend-lease aid (for the better part of what, 10 years?), Hitler would have eventually fallen without US intervention, so you're barking up the wrong tree (at least with me). Believe me, I'm an isolationist by nature (duh), so the last thing I want is the US fighting European wars. The world handled it's own problems for 150 years without us getting involved. It could get used to it again. WWII set a precedent that too many US politicians take waaaay too seriously: We must intervene everywhere at all times and act as a police force for the world.

Post
#105362
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105362/action/topic#105362
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
OK so, since we mentioned the whole issue of socialism in central america, let me ask you guys something. If a country had estabilished a communist regime and yet, with no dictatorship, with the power concentrated on people's hands, and no problems to the people, would it be OK for any foreign troops to invade it and force a capitalist regime? I'm not saying it happened! I'm just asking that so I can understand your point of view of what's justifiable for an intervention.


I would have no problem co-existing in that situation if it were actually possible. But it's not. In order for true socialism to work the people have to fall in line meaning they must give up everything for "redistribution". No likely.

For the record...there are plenty of countries out there with economic systems other than communism that the US has issues with, so we're not picking on communist nations in particular.

Post
#105327
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105327/action/topic#105327
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Gorbachev? What did he do besides surrender? He was the leader of a totalitarian system that needed to be destroyed. Reagan (and Maggie and JPII) left him no options. And the only reason Reagan's administration did what they did with Iran-Contra is because the Democratically controlled congress refused to fund anti-communists in the Western hemisphere, in other words: Gave tacit aid to the Soviet flunkies in Central and South America. Or maybe the popular leftist views that Truman won the Cold War by losing China and Eastern Europe to the communists is right. Or that they really did have 75 years of bad weather and that's why communism didn't work.

Nixon: All he did was get us out of Vietnam (which JFK got us into, BTW) by bombing Cambodia then going directly to the Chinese. And, refresh my memory...who had the world on the bring of nuclear holocaust, JFK or Nixon? *cough* Missles of October *cough*

Mandella? Don't get me started.


OK before this goes on, let me remind everyone here, including yourself, that this is a political view discussion, and based on opinions. Opinions are like clocks, they can be a little bit foward or back, but no clock is entirely correct. Also, to discuss is not the same as to offend, and we are NOT letting this get personal. OK? I'm not competing with you, I'm not against you, we are just discussing points of view. No one is "right", there is no right answer. OK?

Reagan did have some part on it ("mr gorbatchov, tear down this wall"), but he was also not very sensitive on the subject, joking about the missles who were coming from ussr at that moment... Try to imagine how Regan and Maggie would act if Kruchev was on office... But I'll give you Reagan for an influencial man in the 20th, ok. He was influencial after all.

Iran-Contras: ok so let me get this straight, it is OK for a country to sell weapons to both Iraq AND Iran, so one can kill each other, and then get the profit from this and invest on killing civilians on suth american countries who had strong communist parties? Let me remind you, I'm from Brazil, who had a violent dictatorship for 20 years backed up by the CIA, the US secret service, and with actions authorized by Lyndonn Jonshon and Nixon. I've talked about it enough on another topic, but if you want me to go on I will.

Nixon: he got you out of Vietnan? OK correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not being sarcastic, I don't know, correct me! - but didn't the US withdraw from Vietnan in 1975, when Ford was on office? Now, imagine if the US had never invaded Vietnan, the north would win the same way as it did, right? And how is Vietnan today? Eh? There's a freaking McDonalds on Ho Shi Ming City (Saigon).

JFK: The missle crisis would have a very different ending if Kennedy was not on office. A mushroom cluded ending. But I don't know, maybe what've read on the subject and on the actions taken by the White House back then were wrong...

Mandella: What's wrong with him? OK you don't like him, let's have MLKJr and Steve Biko only...


I did not mean to belittle anything that went on in Brazil. I'm also not going to make nice nice and act like there weren't communist governments in Central America that didn't need to be squashed. It seems like any time someone talks about the anti-communist guerilla's in Nicarragua (sp?) in a positive way they get bombarded by a litany of stories about the innocent civilians that they killed. Would it have been better to let the totalitarian communists stay in power and establish a foothold in the Western Hemisphere? 100,000,000 dead at the hands of communism/socialism. And the number continues to climb. It's an idealogy that needs to be wiped out.

Actually, we participated in the Iran-Contra debacle in order to aid Israel (in addition to fighting communism in Cent Amer). They were the ones who sold Iran the weapons. Given Iraq's hatred of Israel, I'd say they had every right to sell arms to Iran (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). I'm sorry, but if I was within striking distance of two of my greatest enemies and they were fighting eachother, I'd sell weapons to BOTH of them. The biggest ones available.

Reagan did much more than the "tear down this wall" speech. He waged idealogical, moral, economic, and military war against communism the world over. Relentlessly (in spite of the news media, Congress, and Hollywood celebrities). The Soviets had never been challenged in this manner. Aside from Reagan, the only previous serious challenges to their hegemony came from Nixon and to a much lesser extent Eisenhower and JFK (almost no resistance).

Cuban Missle Crisis would have been MUCH different if we weren't put in that situation to begin with. I place most of the blame on Eisenhower and to a lesser extent JFK. There was so much ambiguity about where Castro's political leanings were that Eisenhower hesitated about taking action against him. This allowed him to solidify his position in Cuba and with Moscow. JFK had an opportunity to get rid of Castro at Bay of Pigs, but insisted on idiotic rules of engagement (see below) that hamstrung the exiles and our own military and prevented us from providing the aid that had been promised. Things may have been much different if they had succeeded, or something had been done about him earlier. A good book on the subject: One Hell of a Gamble

Yes, we did withdraw from Vietnam in 75, but only after Nixon laid the groundwork by going directly to China and negotiating with them (backed by bombing in Cambodia). By doing that we cut the Soviets and N. Vietnamese out of the equation (without aid from China, NV would never have been able to do what it did). If Nixon was still in office Saigon would not have fallen (and the left would lose one of it's favorite memories). It was only after immense pressure by the American leftist establishment that we finally withdrew. The inevitable outcome of a war tragically fought, with 1 and 1/2 hands tied behind our back because of idiotic "rules of engagement". War is hell. It must be as horrible as possible in order to be ended as quickly as possible. Yes, that's a terrible thing to say, but protracted, ugly engagements with hundreds of thousands of casualties are not pretty either. I have multiple family members currently or in the past served in the military and they would say the same thing.
Post
#105316
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105316/action/topic#105316
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
I'm not going to pick 5, I'll pick 10.

PLEASE do keep in mind that I'm listing the most INFLUENTIAL persons of the last century, and by influential I mean people whose actions changed our world. OK? I'm not a nazi.

1- Hitler
2- Ghandi
3- Lenin
4- JFK
5- Churchill
6- Gorbatchov
7- Einstein
8- Jonh Paul II
9- Stalin
10- Mandela

And why not mention GL too? I mean, can you imagine the world today without Star Wars?
Not to say he wasn't a good president, but why pick JFK over someone like FDR or Reagan??



JFK was a Joke... How do you have Gorby and not Reagan? Why Mandela over MLK Jr? And Church Hill over FDR? (there would not have been an england save for FDR and Hitlers over zealousness.)



* sigh* OK, let's do it.

JFK: if Nixon had won over JFK, the world would be a nuclear radioactive wasteland today.

Gorbachov: If there was only Reagan and no Gorbatchov, the Iron Curtain would still be there. I guarantee you. OK maybe we CAN consider Reagan if you find that the Iran-Contras was a major happening in worlds history. Or that his films changed the world.

Churchill: OK I'll give you Roosevelt.

Mandela: You're right, I give you MLKjr and Steve Bilko with Mandela. And Rose Parks (is that her name)?



Gorbachev? What did he do besides surrender? He was the leader of a totalitarian system that needed to be destroyed. Reagan (and Maggie and JPII) left him no options. And the only reason Reagan's administration did what they did with Iran-Contra is because the Democratically controlled congress refused to fund anti-communists in the Western hemisphere, in other words: Gave tacit aid to the Soviet flunkies in Central and South America. Or maybe the popular leftist views that Truman won the Cold War by losing China and Eastern Europe to the communists is right. Or that they really did have 75 years of bad weather and that's why communism didn't work.

Nixon: All he did was get us out of Vietnam (which JFK got us into, BTW) by bombing Cambodia then going directly to the Chinese. And, refresh my memory...who had the world on the bring of nuclear holocaust, JFK or Nixon? *cough* Missles of October *cough*

Mandella? Don't get me started.
Post
#105304
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105304/action/topic#105304
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
I'm not going to pick 5, I'll pick 10.

PLEASE do keep in mind that I'm listing the most INFLUENTIAL persons of the last century, and by influential I mean people whose actions changed our world. OK? I'm not a nazi.

1- Hitler
2- Ghandi
3- Lenin
4- JFK
5- Churchill
6- Gorbatchov
7- Einstein
8- Jonh Paul II
9- Stalin
10- Mandela

And why not mention GL too? I mean, can you imagine the world today without Star Wars?
Not to say he wasn't a good president, but why pick JFK over someone like FDR or Reagan??


I agree. Seems like JFK is always valued because of the "optimism" he brought to the table, not because of anything he actually did.
Post
#105298
Topic
Depressing but fairly intellligent blog...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105298/action/topic#105298
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Quote
"And now in our quest to bring you stories in gory detail..." and then shot herself in the head on live tv. If she had done it in her bedroom, nobody would have cared, but because she did it on tv it was huge. My wife and I are becoming more concerned about this and are making an effort to drastically reduce the time that the kids spend watching it. Very frightening.


Oh my flipping gosh... That's terrible. It almost sounds like a very bad joke from SCARY MOVIE.... That actually happened...

What nation/channel did it occur on?


He did not specify, but it was in the mid-west in the 70's at some point.

Post
#105296
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105296/action/topic#105296
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
John Paul II? Most influential? more than Lenin? More than Churchill? More than Hitler? And 2 U.S presidents on the list? Jedisage, I know you and I often don't see eye to eye on political and global matters, but come on. I'm not saying I have any better suggestions, this is a very tough choice, but your list I don't think cuts it.
I know the guy just died, but how was the pope so influential? Sure, he touched a lot of people, but he didn't have any major effect on the history of the planet, unlike Hitler. It was a bad effect, but an effect all the same, and a big one. In the same way I think you could say Bin Laden makes the list - he has influenced and reshaped our world for years to come, although that happened in 2001 so I guess he missed his chance by a year or so.
I personally think John Lennon was pretty influential. He changed popular music and art and opened up politics etc to lots of people who would otherwise not have been interested. And what about Gandhi?


I didn't put them in any particular order (should have specified that). However, JPII was quite active in the downfall of communism and was a huge activist for the poor.

As for the two US presidents, yes I put them on there. Why would I not put them on there? I put FDR on it because he was a closet Socialist and is largely responsible for many of the problems the US is having today. And Reagan, refer to my comment on JPII. The majority of people in the US will say he's one of the three greatest presidents the US has ever had, along with FDR (God help me) and Lincoln (another Republican, I might add).

Lennon??? LOL. Please. Another closet socialist (though he was more open about it than FDR was) who hated America yet made his millions here. If we're talking entertainers (groups or individuals) I'd put Elvis or the Beatles as a whole before I'd put Lenin...oops, I mean Lennon there by himself.

The reason I didn't put Bin-Laden on there is because, yes he was responsibile for World Trade Center '93 (which Clinton did nothing about, BTW), but his impact will be greater on the 21st Century.

My choices for 6-10 in no particular order:

6. Martin Luther King
7. Hitler
8. Jonas Saulk
9. Oppenheimer
10. Stalin

Post
#105264
Topic
Depressing but fairly intellligent blog...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105264/action/topic#105264
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
You've had Cable for fifteen years and are already mindless drones? Everybody pray for Brazil.


This obviously started to happen back in the mid 70s, not since cable TV. I just mentioned it as an example of how TV was not embbeded in our culture, but now that it is, our society seemed to have dumbed down. Not "dumbed down" in the sense of people being ignorant or incompenent, dumbed down in the sense of people drooling in front of the TV, watching our horrible reality TV shows, worshipping celebreties like pseudo-gods, and letting themselves to think as TV tells them to. One day I'll tell you the story of a network called "Globo", not now because I'd take a long time to tell that story.


This is a topic I did some reading on recently. In a book by Harlan Ellison called Strange Wine. If you aren't familiar with Ellison, he's a fairly legendary writer here in the US who's been around a long time. He basically makes it his business to offend people and will usually go out of his way to do so. However, he does EXCELLENT work. Any-hoo...in the intro to the book he talks about how tv is so dangerous now because it requires no work on the part of the viewer. Basically, you sit there, turn off your brain, and the images/sound just pulsate into your head. He was talking about how tv has become reality for so many people now, and gave as an example a Star Trek fan who went nuts on him at a conference when he talked about writing the lines for Spock in a particular episode. The guy called Ellison a liar, saying that he heard and saw Spock saying the lines...the show had become reality for this person and he couldn't deal with someone knocking that reality apart. He gave as another example a reporter who said something like "And now in our quest to bring you stories in gory detail..." and then shot herself in the head on live tv. If she had done it in her bedroom, nobody would have cared, but because she did it on tv it was huge. My wife and I are becoming more concerned about this and are making an effort to drastically reduce the time that the kids spend watching it. Very frightening.
Post
#105159
Topic
The Things We Hate And Love Thread .
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105159/action/topic#105159
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
There was this time I saw an informerial (don't know how that's spelled) on TV that showed this product that , if applied, would make sure hair would never, ever grow back on that area. I seriously considered buying it so I would never have to shave again, but decided against it: what if I had to grow a beard one day? If I joined the amish or something...


I'd be wary of any product that claims to prevent all hair growth permanently...1. I would doubt it's effectiveness. 2. What's it doing to your body??

Post
#105183
Topic
ROTS: Gut Feeling
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105183/action/topic#105183
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
ROTFLMAO!!!!

It's kinda funny because I used to take part in the Fark.com Photoshop contests and, a couple of years ago, I did one with this very theme in mind. It was a USA Today stat graphic about a satellite and it showed where it's orbit has taken it. I took the image of the satellite and added Slim Pickens (I think that's who it was, right?) on top of it just ridin' away. I loved it. Got some nice comments about it as well. I think I've still got it somewhere.


LOL...yes, that was his name. Great film. Very subtle (I doubt many kids today would "get it", Chaltab excluded of course).
Post
#105160
Topic
Changes that you like (from the 1997 SE and the 2004 OT SE DVD release)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105160/action/topic#105160
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Anakin's Mannequin
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
I'm kind of partial to the new scene with Ian McDermiad as the emperor in Empire. And I have to admit I don't really have a problem with them inserting Christensen at the end of Jedi.

The one UNFORGIVEABLE sin in my book is Han/Greedo.


I feel the same regarding the Emperor scene. I think that's ok being there.

I do have a problem with Hayden at the end of ROTJ though. It made it even worse that he didn't even know they were filming him when they inserted him in there. It's a weak attempt to tie in both trilogies at the end of the movie.


If I were Hayden, I would nail LFL to the wall on this and demand residuals. If they refuse I'd sue for breach of contract or using my likeness without my knowledge. Anything.

Post
#105158
Topic
Hey Bossk
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105158/action/topic#105158
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Ah, what's the difference anyway? Here at "off-topic" we REALLY go off-topic, we always tend to discuss something completly away from the original topic. Makes no difference if the topic is "Hey Bossk" or "Food I don't like".


Yeah Chalt...lighten up.