CommanderJohnson

quote:Under the current system, there is no feasible lasting alternative. That is the circumstance that needs to be changed. Ok, give me a feasible way to change the circumstance/system so that the problems can be solved.

quote: If you are talking about the cut-scenes, yes, I hate them too. Every staunch BC member knows my stance on doing cut-scenes in my game. Never gonna do them. Ever. You had a cool opening cutscene for the original BC3K.

If I want eye candy (graphics), i'll look at pictures of naked women. Or i'll look at naked women. If I want to play a good computer game, i'll play BCM. Any objections? Case closed...

quote:Me: What one world government?! You: The one that socialists want. Me: What socialists? You: The socialists who want one world government. Me: Give me an example of a socialist who wants one world government. You: ... I'm waiting. Ok, i'll give you a few. Strobe Talbott (Deputy Secretary of State Under Bill Clinton in 92) A senate foreign relations subcommitee Pope John Paul II But again, my "mock thread" was just to point out the stupidity of solutions without a practical means, not to argue about socialism. As I stated, and was the main purpose of my post: Ok, now, since the argument has boiled down to the alternative, what exactly is the feasible alternative to our current course of events that would change the "circumstances." Can't go isolationist, can't stop supporting Israel....are we going to declare Bin Laden the dictator of our government? That might work...

quote:Well then, change the circumstances! You want an alternative? I'll give you one in time, but I don't think you're going to like it ($iLk, I think we're going to be debating about socialism again soon). Umm, yet again, your making these overarching statements/solutions with no practical means. It's like this: Me: Give an Alternative You: Peace. Me: Give a feasible Alternative You: Socialism Me: Give a feasible alternative with practical means of implementation You: One-world government Me: Ok, I don't think your getting me. Feasible means that there is actually a forseeable way to get it done right now without causing global instability, etc. You: Rubbish. What's wrong with a one world government? Ok, now, since the argument has boiled down to the alternative, what exactly is the feasible alternative to our current course of events that would change the "circumstances." Can't go isolationist, can't stop supporting Israel....are we going to declare Bin Laden the dictator of our government? That might work...

You don't want a gun! That's ANTI-AMERICAN! If you don't want to exercise your right to bear arms, that's not exerting your rights as an American as much as possible! You are also denouncing your right to a speedy and fair trial since you should go out and kill someone so you can exercise your right to a fair and speedy trial by your peers right now! You are denouncing your right to free speech since you haven't been standing up in the middle of KKK rallies and saying that you think minorities are the greatest group to ever come to America! YOU ANTI-AMERICAN PERSON!!!! (If you didn't notice the sarcasm/joking/totally harmless nature of this post, don't worry about it, it is)

Perfect scenario: You see four shuttlecraft alone in deep space near a jump gate. You think to yourself "some stupid newbie lost his shuttles, might as well destroy them" You jump to the area with your CC, on the way to some other planet. You hear "there's something out there", right as a megaron decloaks at point blank range and launches all of its missiles it has right into your reactor core. quote:Originally posted by Tac: Do not understimate the power of newbieness!!!

Well, $ilk's article he found is absolutely right and I agree with it. Additionally, in response to Menchise, I think you/he inadvertantly just PROVED MY POINT. quote: External relations are nowhere near as strained as they used to be. Israel already has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan (two of the three main aggressors of the Arab-Israeli wars) and no Arab state has invaded Israel since the Yom Kippur war of 1973. Apart from the lack of success in negotiations with Syria, the internal situation is the most significant. You give no reason why the "internal situation is the most significant" in regards to terrorism, and even if it is, it's virtually impossible to solve it, so we might as well solve the problem with terrorists by bombing them. However, I'm sure all of you who know World History know that the only reason why Israel won the series of wars with it's neighbors was US military supplies and aid. Israel cleaned their clocks almost every time because of United States aid and support, and thus the neighboring countries formed peace treaties with them (peace THROUGH war, not before). That HUGE amount of US intervention and support in the region toward Israel is the most likely cause of anti-American sentiment in that part of the world, next to maybe our "culture". We can't withdraw or lessen support to Israel (the reasoning i've given many times), so our current course of action is the only practical one. quote: Today, many of the main aggressors of those wars (of which the last occurred over 27 years ago) have officially recognized Israel's right to exist. Maybe because they got their armed forces decimated when they attacked Israel? Or maybe because the United States was directly supporting Israel, as was the UN. That gives an empirical example how our current course of action actually solves problems. quote: I'm not so sure that Israel is the core issue of the recent acts of terrorism. What is the core issue then? And what is the PRACTICAL alternative to solve it, as i've asked many, many, many times on this forum.

How exactly did this Light Fighter get past all 10 of your turrets and your fighters? Were you sleeping or upgrading your reactor or something?

quote:Originally posted by Simparadox: It could be an evil, sneaky trick to get them off welfare. You just have to hope they're smart enough to get a job when they realize they have to use the money the government gives them to pay for all of the other blood sucking leeches. That's the whole point. You WANT the scum sucking leeches to have to pay for each other, because eventually the money will run dry and they'll have to get a job if they want to stay alive. Or they can die pounding on the doors of government offices (that much closer to the "Health Department", that way they can bury the bodies quicker.

Next time you get boarded, see if you can shoot the intruders in the docking bay. THAT'd be a trick.

I just thought of something. Instead of the "Liberals and Democrats Must Die" stance, how about this. If you are a contributing member of society (veteran, property owner, etc), you don't have to pay taxes that would go to social welfare programs (aka, make TWO different taxes out of the income tax, each being less than before). That way lazy people who aren't trying to get a job can support each other, and the rest of us just pay the tax to support our country.

When you have more than 100 non-tech support related posts on these forums. (hums) [ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: Captain Dread ]

That's sorta messed up. With all of the advanced computer tech we are supposed to have in BCM, we cant even get a time estimate....

.....We've seen their kind before. The terrorists are the heirs to fascism. They have the same wield of power, the same disdain for the individual, the same mad global ambitions. And they will be dealt with in just the same way. (APPLAUSE) Like all fascists, the terrorists can not be appeased. They must be defeated. This struggle will not end in a truce or a treaty. It will end in victory for the United States, our friends and for the cause of freedom. The Enterprise has been part of this campaign, and when we need you again I know you'll be ready........ The above is from the leader of the greatest country in the world, President George W. Bush of the United States of America. You can read the entire transcript at: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushtext_120701.html Just goes to point out that President Bush, with the greatest minds in the nation advising him did the following: 1. Related it to WW2 2. Knows that there is no "peaceful solution" 3. That the terrorists are a threat to American freedom.

B5 mod! That'd be great. Please do it. I have absolutely no modding skills/experience/tools, so I can't help, but that would be great. Planetkiller ships.....Whitestars.....Starfurys.....those cool weapons they use...PPGs? Galcom could be the Interstellar alliance..... Earthcom could be Earthforce.... Maybe the special little items on random planets that were talking about in other threads, maybe that race could be "The First Ones". Huge ODS platforms around every inhabited planet.... POWER TO B5! (too bad they cancelled that game)

quote:Common knowledge? You're kidding, right? If you think that the drivel spat out by Omar or Bin Laden represents Arabic Muslim opinion then you're dreaming. Of course not. It is common knowledge that with them in power or people like them in power, they are going to force feed it to everyone around them, create terrorists, and oppress those with opposing views. quote:Have you ever heard of cease-fires? Every action is spurred by some sort of motivation. Their motivation behind attacking us has not disappeared since 9/11. There was a "cease fire" prior to the WTC. The effectiveness of a cease-fire to do anything is non-existant. quote:This has little to do with culture, despite the rhetoric of the extremists. It's about the influence that the US has on the economics and political structure of the region, which is one step behind the influence that the British had before they withdrew in the 1930s. That's why Americans are called imperialists in issues such as this. Umm, it is culturally motivated. America's culture is pretty opposite their religion, while just about every government in the Middle East is religiously dominated by one form of Islam or another. The United States has very little influence on the region except in a couple very important ways. 1. Israel 2. Iraq That's many steps behind Britain's influence. We can't lay off Iraq, and we can't become isolationist toward Israel, so the motivation of attacks will always be there, so the best option is to reduce the terrorists ability to terrorize. quote:Irrelevant. That's like me asking you to name any peace that did not come about before war. The point is that there has been no significant conflict that has been resolved with anything EXCEPT war, and historians agreed. There was no diplomatic solution to WW1 or WW2. Once the hostilitites started, there was no turning back. The internal and external reprecussions of the US stopping the retaliation would be horrendous. It'd be internaltional relations suicide, not to mention political suicide for the leaders and economic suicide on the stock market. quote:That is not a fact at all. The terrorists have a cause. Without a cause, they have no reason to fight. The nature of the cause seems to be what we're debating. I think what we're debating is the best solution to the terrorists. Your saying "peace", we're saying "keep bombing until there can be peace". Your right, without a cause they have no reason to fight. Realistically, it is impossible to remove the cause (without arms race, global instability, etc), so it IS a fact. The terrorists wont stop until they are all dead. Or locked into little tiny boxes. Or stuffed on a spaceship and sent into the sun. [ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: Captain Dread ]

quote:Originally posted by Soback: [QB]Jaguar, $ilk. I wish that the world would be separated in 2 halfes. QB] What about me?!?!?!?

I almost forgot a seperate small rant. Since WW2, there has not been anything comparable to a World War. Why? Because all major powers know that if there was one, many, many, many people would die, if not the destruction of the world (Nuclear Arms). All minor powers know they would be crushed by the major powers. Countries and nations fear the power of the US. The US is the most powerful country in the world. Fear decreases if other countries realize the US is gutless. Fear decreases even more if we don't protect our own citizens. Hedgemony decreases, terrorists keep attacking us, all respect that the US has in the world goes plummeting, and we end up with an unstable world, with terrorists having power.

Well, if you want to include all the rebuttals here are a couple from Ravonaf (the 1st one) and $ilk, (the 2nd one). Didn't post all the replys because I thought you wouldn't want to have to deal with them. ------------------------------------------------- Menchise "Prove it." What's to prove? It's common knowledge. "Peace itself requires that both sides lay down their arms. I am not advocating surrender." And how do you suggest this happen? Do we go first or them? It will NEVER happen. "That's not necessarily true. Remember that Bin Laden and the Taliban are only extreme versions of what the people actually want. The vast majority of people do not regard westerners as infidels. If they did, the Taliban would have much stronger military support." It's absolutely true. Terrorists and non-terrorists alike want us out. Not everyone. But as long as there are a few there will always be terrorists. That's one of there biggest demands. They don't like the influence our culture has. "Rubbish. Peace through force is not peace at all. It's oppression." Rubbish? Again. Name any peace that did not come about after war. The fact of the matter is the Terrorists will not stop until they are all dead. That's a fact. No matter how much you refuse to accept it. You can't change it. We have to learn to live with it. -------------------------------------------------- And number 2: -------------------------------------------------- Menchise, youre views on peace, commendable though they may be, are another case of wishful thinking. I would say "it's not gonna happen" and you will quote that and answer "how come?" It's clear to anyone who has studied the subject matter, and clear to you as well, that there will be no peace in the Middle East until there is no more Israel. Bin Laden has said that Israel is nothing more than an American outpost, and he want's the "infidels" driven from the Middle East. In order to do that, he would have to destroy Israel, but knows it is not possible while we support Israel. What kind of peace is there when everyone has the ability to attack everyone else? It makes for forced treaties and "my arsenal is bigger than yours" agreements. True stability and peace could only be brought about through force, until that one magical day when everyone becomes "tolerant" and "understanding". Leftists are so well-intentioned that they don't look beyond the well-intentions and see the folly of the programs they wish to initiate. For instance, Left wing nut: "I just saw a man get shot in the street. If the bad man had not had a gun, he wouldn't have shot anyone! The gun obviously made him do it! I must seek to ban all gun ownership. So let's say dumbass in the example above succeeded. Well, no one is shooting anyone else any more (except those criminals who still own guns), yet it seems like everone has started either stabbing or strangling each other... and those who are of small physical stature can't defend themselves, because the new ways of self-defense are beyond their ability. So all the former legal gun owners become victims instead of defenders of justice. Then look for the left wing moron to try banning knives, clubs, cars, bats, rings, string, yo yo's, and anything else that could be possibly used as a weapon, not realizing that the weapons enable defense, and that people are responsible for their own actions. Taking away someone's right to self defense is immoral, yet the leftist in America sees it as their sacred duty. If only they would wake up out of the "wouldn't it be great if" fantasy land, they would realize what they are doing is misguided. I believe - for the record, that liberals, leftists, socialists, communists, whatever - are the same people who hide from the reality of life in a selfish dreamworld, wanting to do something great for humanity, but wanting others to expend the effort. Oh the homeless! Oh the disadvantaged! Oh the disenfranchised! Left Wing Nut: "I must raise money to help these poor people. But where should I get it from? Charities are obviously right-wing establishments and would only serve to give aid to the judeo christian dictatorship that is a stranglehold to our society, and not like those white male racists would give money anyway. WAIT! I know, I will ask congress and several groups to raise taxes so those greedy people will HAVE to pay! They make too much money anyway, and those people doing without deserve more, even though they haven't worked for it. But WHO is to say they should work for it? They have their dignity, and it would obviously contribute to the racial divide and the years of terrorism these people have had to deal with if they had to work. THose poor poor disadvantaged. I want to take care of them and feel better about myself!" But Menchise, of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to help people. But this "means to an end" nonsense is wrong. But any excuse that get's in the way of the liberal mind is either declared as (outdated, racist, greedy, etc.) How can those who claim to represent minority rights want to force labor on the smallest minority of all, the working individual? The liberal mind is full of hypocrisy and what is perfectly logical to them in one case is obviously racist in another. To your credit Menchise you haven't tried whipping out the race card really. But the liberalistic "save the world by blindly moving towards an end regardless of means" idea is still pervading your thoughts. The peace you want - everyone lives happily ever after and no one attacks anyone. The means? Forcible seizure of guns? Victimization of the majority? Forcing a one world government? Your noble intentions can't win arguments without describing exactly how you would bring about such an anti-realistic change in society. It sounds good to you to say nice things and blow sunshine up people @$$, but at the same time let's be realistic - it can't happen. To save you the trouble I could probably fill in your argument for you. Menchise : "why not?" Me: "Because at no point in history and no time of human nature that conflict has not existed" Menchise: "But it could change" Me: "How?" Menchise:"There could be peace!" Me:"How?" Menchise:"People could stop fighting and everyone could form a big utopia and sing kumbaya!" Me:"And how would you get them to do this?" Menchise"The promise of peace!" Me:"And what if they don't believe the promise and fight anyway?" Menchise"But they wouldn't..." And we could go on and on like that, just like in our continuing the debate thread. I'm aimed at convincing you to doubt that little self-guilt laced voice in your mind, so just bear with me and understand, that when you get a job, children, a family, and start paying taxes : you will understand where I'm coming from. I don't have the money available to dick around and save the world like liberals want to. I barely have enough money to get by and have enough left over to throw into my computer, and even then haven't you noticed how I've sold off most of my PC games, my PS2, etc. just to make ends meet? That's one of the things that influenced me to the military is LESS tax.But big government liberals will only want to raise taxes higher and higher and higher until only a small majority is forced to work to support those that don't. Correct me if I'm wrong - but wasn't slavery people working to support those that didn't? There's a pattern happening here, and good intentions through the acts of liberals are going to raise taxes and oppress the working class of this country until we do have a revolution - but it's not going to be the communist one they want, it's going to be an American revolution to throw off the oppressive hands of tyranny. That's what liberalism is today - tyranny. It's forcing one class of citizens to support another. It's wrong, and immoral. But all that liberals see is the light at the end of the tunnel. They don't realize, that liberalism never makes it that far down the tunnel. And all the good intentions in the world, no matter how successfully leftists blind themselves to the facts of what they are doing, reality is going to sneak up and it's going to bite them in the ass. Mark my words. --------------------------------------------------

Also post if you killed anyone? :-) Any civilians? Were they shooting at you?

I think that an important issue is raised. Why is it that people should benefit from a government or a country they don't contribute to. The USA is not based on the idea of "help every person in the country". It's based on the foundation that immigraints put down when they came to the country. They weren't automatically given money by the government, etc. They went out, got jobs in factories, etc, and worked for money. I see no historical precedent for welfare, giving everyone their due "share of America" The government was always intended to protect people's rights and freedoms, not to augment freedoms by giving them more money and making the playing field equal. You make the playing field equal by working.

Now, before we continue the thread that was on the other topic, with my last post as a spring board, please do ONE, SIMPLE, THING when arguing for peace, etc. *Give an alternative* No one's going to disagree that peace is good, but you better have feasible **means** in order to create peace WITHOUT having a bunch of Americans dying, or you'll probably be laughed and flamed off the forum. Also, please note again, present a *MEANS*, not just "we should be at peace". [ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Captain Dread ]