aramike

quote: Originally posted by Steve Schacher: Nova,You are indeed more aware than I was at your age. I share your sentiments about the Afghan people, but I'm concerned that the world looks to the USA to solve their problems, and then bites the hand that feeds them. Why is it the USA's obligation to help the people of Afghanistan when there are so many other prosperous countries around the world, some in Afghanistan's back yard? Many people rightly claim that we have our own starving, homeless, jobless people right here, yet they also say that we have to help the suffering people of other countries as well. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, while the other countries sit back and bank the money that they should be spending instead of us. And then they bomb us and call us decadent, and then they say that we had it coming and that it was our own fault. It's enough to make my brain hurt, trying to keep it all straight. I couldn't agree more.

Guys, good work, keep it going! One exception though -- the ranks you currently are suggesting are no good. They indicate a military organization, which is precisely what we need to avoid. Rename them to something a little more, civilian, if you will. Other than that, a lot of good thoughts!!!

quote: Originally posted by Steve Schacher: Replied. Thanks, Steve. I, too, have replied. Are you going to be on a bit longer?

Steve, check your private messages.

quote: Originally posted by Menchise: Jaguar, if you're referring to me as thought police (note that I said "if"), then I must say that I haven't tried to censor anything. I just said that the joke wasn't funny. He wasn't referring to you, although he shouldn't have said it in the first place.

And I just noticed that, throughout that ENTIRE letter you failed to offer ONE, SINGLE viable solution as an alternative. Basically you just said "sit back and deal with it". So it's okay with you that innocent Americans are dying so that you can avoid seeing a war? You don't ALREADY see that as a war? I wonder what your perspective would be if the buildings next door to you were blown up. Would you want to wait for the NEXT one to happen to take action? Would you want to wait until something TRULY heinous occured, such as NBC warfare? Millions will die if we don't stop them. The intelligence community sees it (they predicted an incident like this one). Politicians see it. Military leaders see it. Law enforcement sees it. Will it not be "good enough" for you until it ACTUALLY HAPPENS?

quote: Originally posted by Menchise: Here's my opinion: It's not funny. *SHOCKED* I think of it (including the text) to be much like the posters used in World War Two. We'd see pictures of bombers over Germany. Didn't mean we were targeting civilians. At any rate, you can't deny the fact that the world is at war against terrorism. Don't be afraid of this: this war was declared centuries ago. We've lost THOUSANDS of people to terrorism, not even including the attack on the WTC. Now, we're fighting back. I see nothing wrong with that. I'm not nor have ever been a proponant of war as a first line solution. Lest you forget, though, we've tried sanctions. We've tried diplomacy. We've even tried limited strikes. We've tried the legal system. We lost. 1000's of the WORLD's citizens, to be exact. These weren't people in uniform. These were fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters, going to work, just like most of us do. And our diplomacy, sanctions, and legal system failed them and their loved ones, miserably. You all must understand that these people will NOT rest until all people who do NOT conform to their ideologies are DEAD. And, do not forget that their ideologies are a stark contrast to pacifism. They want GENOCIDE, racial cleansing. How are they better than Hitler? They want the West out. Sorry, but that isn't going to happen. We have FRIENDS there. If a few robbers take hostages in a bank and demand millions of dollars, do we give it to them? Why should WE leave when it is a few that want us to, rather than most? Yes, there are tens of thousands who want us all, dead. Tough. We rely on them, and many of them rely on us, those hypocrites. Yes, there will be casualties. Civilians. But, as opposed to the alternative of letting these people MURDER at will, that is what needs to be done. What will it take? A bioweapon? A chemical weapon? Some phosgene released into our air and water supply? A nuclear weapon? MILLIONS dead before we fight back, and then it may be too late? Should we LET them aquire nuclear weapons and a possibility of deploying them in the hopes that they'll negotiate with us? Show me ONE precedent that shows that terrorists negotiate, engage in diplomacy. Just ONE. If we would have attacked them and eliminated them, THOUSANDS of people may be alive today. THOUSANDS of children would have mommy and daddy coming through the door tonight. So, now we know what they can do. And STILL we aren't supposed to do anything about it? Or, we're supposed to do the SAME THING, which got thousands killed? We're not leaving the middle east. We have friends there, there are good people there, who would be oppressed without our influence. We are NOT imposing freedom on anyone. Freedom cannot be IMPOSED. Freedom is the default, people can only take it AWAY. And what about the energy that we all use? The oil imports? Last I checked, many of you liberals were opposed to drilling in Alaska. What now? Do we leave and start doing that? No. We do what WE do as a FREE nation. We ACT, instead of react. We STOP the problem. People will be lost. But MANY more will be lost if we do not take action. This isn't about revenge. This is about SAVING INNOCENT LIVES. Yes, some will be lost as a result. Yes, MORE will be lost without the action. What interests me the most is the fact that I don't see any viable alternative solutions being posted. Just bear in mind that you can't stipulate diplomacy. That has failed. You cannot suggest sanctions. That has also failed. You cannot put forth the rule of law. That has failed as well. Limited military strikes? Failed too. If you are against the solutions being sought, then post alternative solutions. The only thing is, it has to be a solution that HAS NOT FAILED! It has to be a NEW idea that we haven't tried. Otherwise, you have NO precedence that it would work, but you have PROOF that it would fail. Thank you and goodnight. ~Mike

quote: Originally posted by pkzip: "Newbie"??!!??Ouch, like a knife in my heart. I've been lurking for years! (Aramike, I had anticipated your response was going to be, "Ensign forever? That can be arranged." ) LOL! I had considered it. So when you heading to the Insurgent forum, man?

quote: Originally posted by Menchise: That's odd. According to my web browser, you're still an Ensign. He is. Friggin' zealous newbies. And if he doesn't join the Insurgency soon, I'm gonna smack him upside da head. [ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Originally posted by Akuma Minako: No, you know what? That's not true. Okay? I read almost every forum or thread that comes up on here. And I don't just turn my head and look the other way when I see somthing so blatently offensive. You know what? I'm being stubborn. You know why I'm bring stubborn? Because I feel a lot of pain for what those Americans went through and I don't want more of the same to ensue! I've been depressed for WEEKS about this. I've been Angry, upset and torn down for weeks! I'm sick of this crap. You know what? I'm just plain sick of it! And I have a right to express that! So how do you feel about that? A LOT of people are hurt over this. I am as much as you. That does not mean that we stop people from exercising their rights. That does not mean that YOUR way of coping takes precedence over another person's way of coping. Just relax. If you don't like something, say it. You have that right. But, that does not mean that anyone's thread will be deleted as a result. Think: Your idea that pacifism is the way offends me. We've tried that, and it resulted in DEAD Americans. But I'm not stopping you from saying your piece. Likewise, I will not stop anyone from saying their's.

quote: Originally posted by Akuma Minako: Yeah I guess...But I sick of seeing this war thing being drawn out so much. I just wish everyone would stop it. I know things arn't going to just because I say so...But well...I just...It hurts ya know? I know what you mean. That's why we can't allow opinions offend us. If we do that, the world will be at war faster than you can say "World War 3". In fact, opinions offending people is the reason that the terrorists attack people ANYWAY. I may not agree with you on pacifism, but on this board, I will ALWAYS protect your right to voice your opinion. I will NEVER censor you any more than I would anyone else. That is why I believe in straight-forward rules without ambiguity. So just relax, voice your piece if you so choose, and know that NO ONE will be allowed to attack you personally for them, or that you will not be stopped from doing so.

quote: Originally posted by Akuma Minako: I'm not talking about the picture buddy I'm talking about the text that goes along with it. As for video games that's totally different. That's fantasy. What that image is relating to is in fact reality. I find this very VERY offensive. That picture is no more placed in "reality" than a game based upon World War Two, as Soback pointed out. In any case, it is a political, ideological statement if taken seriously. Those planes are NOT bombing people, necessarily. They may be bombing facilities, for all you know. In other words, you're letting your imagination run wild with a simple joke and then demanding that it be taken away. Sorry, but in the free world, opinions are ALLOWED. And if my opinions offend you, oh well. Same thing if your opinions offend me. Oh well.

quote: Originally posted by Akuma Minako: So you're trying to tell me that if I'm deeply offended by somthing that I can't even request to have it locked down? Well that makes me feel so great. You know what forget it. That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. That would open the flood gates for ANYONE to be deeply offended by whatever they want, and THEN we end up censoring EVERYTHING. Again, some people are deeply offended by violence in video games (read: Columbine). So should we just delete the forum? What offended you? Fictitious bombers dropping bombs on Afghanistan? On no one in particular? You know what? I'm offended by the thread Derek started called "Only in America". That is offensive to my nation. It should be deleted too. I'm also offended at the mention of the game "Operation Flashpoint", which is about Cold War times. Very insensitive, it should be deleted. I'm offended by the thread called "Getting Married". Marriage is against my belief system. That thread should be deleted. I'm offended by "Something Interesting in a Christian bookstore". That should be deleted as well. I'm offended by the mention of "Comics". That thread should also be deleted. I'm offended by the fact that this place allows people of religions other than Christianity to participate. That should be stopped. Now, all of the above is sarcasm, but do you see my point? Therefore, the guidelines I set forth for closure/deletion of threads stand, unless Derek disagrees. And I doubt he will, if he does, this place isn't what most of us think it is. And this place is EXACTLY what he wants it to be, last I checked. If there is no vulgarity, racism, adult-oriented content, etc., a thread will NOT be deleted. [ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

OK, everyone, listen up. I, for one, am EXTREMELY tired of people asking for closed threads. I'm not having that. This forum is open to discussions of ALL natures, and has been since I've been here. Your opinions are welcome, so long as they are clean in nature, not vulgar, not crass, not racist, and not adult-oriented. Those threads will be categorically deleted, as they've always been. However, a dissenting opinion is NOT grounds to shut down threads. If you don't like something, fine, say it. Share your opinion. If someone attacks you personally, they will be BANNED. However, if you find an opinion that you don't like and want it deleted, think again. This place is open to ALL ideologies, no matter what they are. And as soon as that is restricted, Derek can remove me as an admin (I can say that because he'll NEVER restrict opinions, that's not who he is from what I know). Need I remind you (I really shouldn't have to), some people see computer games as distasteful. Should we then ban/censor discussion about gaming and stop showing screenshots? I don't think so. We joke about such violent material. We laugh at that. But some don't want us to. Even so, we're NOT stopping. Therefore, for the last time, if something is not vulgar, racist, adult-oriented, etc., a thread will NOT be closed/deleted. If people start MAKING those threads vulgar, etc, they will be BANNED. Respect one another's opinions, yours will be respected as well. Thank you. ~Mike

OK: 1: I do not see anyone being killed in that photo. 2: If there's a problem with that, then why don't we just not play BCM, which effectively simulates killing THOUSANDS of people (assassin caste, too, heh). 3: If you don't find something funny, that is fine. But please quit trying to CENSOR jokes that are NOT racist, NOT vulgar, etc. If we're going to complain about violence, then perhaps we should all look at the NATURE of this forum, the BATTLEcruiser Online Forum. Unless Derek totally disagrees with me, there will be NO locking down threads UNLESS they are racist, vulgar, adult-oriented, etc. There is NO reason for that, especially considering the things that have been PEACEFULLY posted here in the past. So, unless there is something posted that falls in those catergories, please quit asking for locked threads. Admins/moderators are NOT here to take sides or to censor jokes/opinions based upon IDEOLOGIES. You may disagree with someone's point of view. You may find something distasteful. But unless there is something that is absolutely, unilaterally in poor taste, it will NOT be censored. Lest you forget, governments have tried to censor GAMES that we REGULARLY talk about on here, and that are EXETREMELY violent. Should we not talk/joke about them too? [ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

Here's the question I have: what use would tactical nukes be in this kind of conflict? Look at the nature of the Afghan militants and please tell me what good dropping even a tac-nuke on them would be. A little overkill, I think.

quote: Originally posted by Epsilon 5: I agree that this quite funny, but all those pics (including those in the previous thread) reflect one thing : the desire to kill Afghans. Please leave them alone. Please.And the SC asked that nothing about making a war or about seeking vengeance shall be posted, and that is an element of vengeace and war. [ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ] I see them as the desire to kill terrorists. It's just a joke, it isn't vulgar, so will everyone just LIGHTEN UP?

quote: Originally posted by pkzip: I was going to ask why we needed to stage in Pakistan anyway. I mean, it will be problematic, based on Reuters and AP feeds out of Peshawar and Islamabad, so why not set up staging elsewhere?Then I looked at a topo. Sheeesh. I'm assuming the Hindu Kush range looks as bad in real life as it does on the map, and I'm also betting that it's a logistical nightmare putting a supply line over a mountain range anyway. Just curious, if you were staging this (essentially ground campaign), and Pakistan were not an option, how would you approach it? Just a hypothetical. Here's the tactical low-down: First off, anyone even attempting to parallel a US invasion to the Russian one should think again. The Russians were not just trying to displace a government, they were trying to replace it. Also, they were there for *10* years, which is something the US wouldn't even consider. Also, the US is technologically leaps and bounds ahead of where the USSR was during that time. At any rate, if the US were to invade on the ground, it wouldn't be anything like troops storming the borders. It would most likely involve surgical insertions to secure key areas (airstrips, etc) and then a movement directly into the country via air. When the Russians invaded, they mainly came in across their borders and through the mountains. Big mistake. Now, let's say we're in the country. We've either destroyed all resistance, captured them (likely, think: Iraq), or sent them running into the mountains (also likely). With our current technology, hiding in the mountains won't work all too well. You've all seen COPS, right? Those choppers with thermal and NV detection would likely be deployed to hunt them down. In any case, the Taliban's hold on the country would be nearly instantly destroyed. If they try to find refuge in the mountains, that not only puts them under our technological scope, but under Afghanistan's northern militia's guns as well. And, there would be no way for them to run a nation hidden in the mountains. As such, a new government would easily be installed, and the US and/or UN/NATO coalition would be able to build that government up to be defensible. So, if the Taliban attempted to take Afghanistan back through a coup, they would face a perilous and likely hopeless fight. It would also force the Taliban to attempt to press terrorist cells into military service. Perfect moving target practice.

quote: Roger, sir. I had interpreted Jaguar's misguided attempt to discredit the source as a personal attack on me. I see from his and your comments that I was in error. I will now willingly swallow a "Chill Pill" roughly the size and shape of my foot.Hehe, don't worry about it. Just wanted to make sure things were kept proper. Didn't mean to pick on you personally, so don't think it.

quote: Aramike, please shut down this thread. It has ceased to have any purpose.OK, everyone, just hold on a quick second... pkzip: Please try not to take anyone's opinion so personally. That is the very cause of conflict, and I ain't having it anymore. I just read 90% of this thread, and I don't see any indication that anyone was attacking you, nor anyone else personally. The very purpose of debate is to attack opinions, and that is totally acceptable here. This forum has always been open to debate, and for as long as I stay around and Derek allows it, the debates will rage on. To everyone: I, for one, am NOT going to go around closely moderating debate threads to the point that they are all closed. I don't have time for that crap and neither does Derek or ANY admin/moderator of this board. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I can safely speak for Derek in saying that this board has ALWAYS been open to debate, no matter how controversial. In fact, I think that even Derek encourages it (considering a private debate we both engaged in recently). At any rate, this nonsense of taking dissenting views personally stops RIGHT NOW. I'm NOT closing ANY threads unless they are ludicrous and out of hand. And if they are well-constructed threads that do get out of hand, I'm simply going to BAN whomever is responsible for a certain time frame. There is NO reason that we cannot discuss one of the worst world tragedies on here without making it into an attack on each other's character. So carry on and keep it peaceful. *NO* personal attacks will be tolerated. ~Mike [ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: LOL!!! I figured you guys might like that one. I made it up while in the shower* *Whatever you do, don't ask what I was doing in the shower thinking about Osama. I've got a TV in there and CNN was on! I swear it!!! What?!?! Arrogant?!? Who?!? Me?!? Thats it!! Who's got the rope? [ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ] Uh, oh -- have you been in the "cigars" again, Derek?

quote: Aramike, I disagree with your view that governments are people's responsibility. A government can be sustained in the power by means of opression, if they can overpower the civil population with their military, and also by propaganda, misinforming and distorting the reality. Sadly, history is full of such examples.That's where I disagree. Let's say the Afgahnis rose up against the government. The government would either then have to submit to the people or they'd have to employ military rule involving the slaughter of civilians. If they were to do that, the west would get involved so fast it would be incredible. In either case, the government is displaced. Without people to govern, there can be no government. And if people submit to a government, it is then just as much their responsibility. Life is the most valuable part of this world, however, sometimes some must be lost in order to protect the greater good. Should those lives be Americans who endorse a free government or Afghanis who allow a totalitarian government which kills for religious purposes? Without sacrifice there is ALWAYS proliferation of death and tyranny. quote: However, I'm glad that you can still keep this opinion, because that means you live in a country that has rarely had to deal with these issues along its history. If only we could all share that blessing the world would be a better place.I've also served this country in many oppressed nations. I put on a uniform knowning that I had the responsibility to DIE for our freedoms if necessary.

quote: I don't mean to have an itchy finger, but the profanity was over the line.I agree totally. Which is why I went further and deleted the thread. [ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Originally posted by Kush: Aramike, I think the point that was being made is that the Taliban do NOT have the support of the people. The people are too weak, and hungry to be able to rise up against the government. I think Bush should offer food and aid to the people of Afghanistan in exchange for Ben Laden and his organization. You'd be amazed at how quickly they will turn him over. But how to you get food and supplies to people when the military won't let those things in? The oppressed still possess the ability to fight. At any rate, Jaguar is right. Just everyone remember to keep it civil or I'll shut it down. Opinions are welcome no matter what, just no needless bickering. So far so good.