The War Thread

[Member_of_STARS]

Yeah you won WW2 all on your own too a superior death toll doesn't count as a victory.
They backed out of Vietnam because they knew they couldn't get any further with it.

They pulled out because for the people back home, the war wasnt "popular" anymore and it was threatening the political power of the higher ups. That simple. Americas goal was noble, and Vietnam war acted as a better deterrent than any number of nukes in both USSRs and US´ arsenal. As soon as the bodies started piling up and media got a glimpse at "how horrible war is", every civvie got cold feet.

It was not a military loss. They didnt back out because they were decimated.

That is not arguable. Whether or not it was a political loss, that is.

------------------

My favourite war is the USSR-Afganistan war that took place in the 1980´s. The brutality of it is simply amazing. It also gave rise to Russian special ops (Spetsnaz and Osnaz) and showed some of the most brutal losses for the Russkies completely unsuited tactics.

I used to be into ancient Greek history when I was younger, I too rooted for the trojans.

Alexia, you should restart that debate on whether fighting today takes more balls than it did back in the "swords and shields" times ;).

[Darkmoon]

Does anyone have facepalm.jpg?

Got several of them. I can, however, support the people who risk there lives to defend there country and not the war they get no choice to fight in. It's not contradictory. You don't seriously think all the people in the armed forces wanted to be there? I know the folks I know in the UK army quit as soon as there term of service was up from this crap. The soldiers had no choice and were put in that situation, and most of them tried to do the best they could.

What minor war crimes?

Holding people without charge for indefinite periods, refusing them lawyers, refusing them basic human rights as defined by the Geneva convention, using torture as a means to obtain information...that's all the ones I recall but I'm running on so little sleep the world is purple.

[Mr. Spencer]

World War II.

[WeskerSexyCheez]

THIS IS MADNESS!!!!

Leonidas never had sex with little boys, homosexuality was never an option in Sparta. Believe me.

I don't want to get off topic, but anybody who has done Classical studies should know a thing or two about pederasty. When I say "little boys" I'm just being a bit of a d*ck. Of course, I mean adolescent males. Sexual relations with anyone in their single digits would've been frowned upon. There isn't really conclusive evidence that Leonidas himself indulged in the practise BUT he probably did, considering most Spartans and the rest of the ancient Greek world did.

Back on topic... I feel kind of odd having said all that now. >.<

[randomwab]

World War II.

No love for the Cold War?

[Member_of_STARS]

I actually liked that a lot about Spartans, despite us being introduced to ancient Greek history in 5th grade, along with its cultural (what we would now call) "peculiarities".

Its always amusing to think that one of the most enlightened civilization in its own time period didnt treat homosexuality as something that is out of the norm. And now, with average IQ going up a point ever 10 years and with the literacy rate close to 99% in most countries, people are as stupid as ever.

-----

Speaking of wars, does anyone have any favourite events in the history of warfare?

[Alexia_Ashford]

Speaking of wars, does anyone have any favourite events in the history of warfare?

Those epic "sword and shields" battles, of course. Not sure if it really counts as war, but Gladiator battles in the Colosseum.

[Corrin]

Got several of them. I can, however, support the people who risk there lives to defend there country and not the war they get no choice to fight in. It's not contradictory. You don't seriously think all the people in the armed forces wanted to be there? I know the folks I know in the UK army quit as soon as there term of service was up from this crap. The soldiers had no choice and were put in that situation, and most of them tried to do the best they could.



Holding people without charge for indefinite periods, refusing them lawyers, refusing them basic human rights as defined by the Geneva convention, using torture as a means to obtain information...that's all the ones I recall but I'm running on so little sleep the world is purple.

First point: Why would a soldier willingly sign up for the armed forces if they were not determined to defend America at all costs? You are just like all these liberals "I hate the war....but I support what the soldiers are doing". That makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not sure how it is in YOUR country (unlike you, I'm not going to assume I know everything about a foreign country) but in America young men and women join their country's defense of their own accord.

Second point: The Geneva Conventions protect soldiers and prisoners of war. Terrorists are neither. They should only be so lucky we don't treat them worse.

Third point: I asked you to name war crimes. You still haven't.

It's really astounding, Darkmoon, how little you actually understand this subject simply because you base what you say, not on fact, but on what you have heard from liberal and anti-American and anti-Bush sources. None of the points you have made are new to me, I hear ignorant things like these almost daily.

[aris13]

I don't want to get off topic, but anybody who has done Classical studies should know a thing or two about pederasty. When I say "little boys" I'm just being a bit of a d*ck. Of course, I mean adolescent males. Sexual relations with anyone in their single digits would've been frowned upon. There isn't really conclusive evidence that Leonidas himself indulged in the practise BUT he probably did, considering most Spartans and the rest of the ancient Greek world did.

Just because Alexander did it that doesn't mean that Leonidas did it too.

[Mr. Spencer]

No love for the Cold War?

I like From Russia With Love, does that count?

[Guest]

Many war photos here.

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/

My "favourite" event is Battle of Raate road.. probably becos my grandfather was there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raate_road

[Darkmoon]

First point: Why would a soldier willingly sign up for the armed forces if they were not determined to defend America at all costs? You are just like all these liberals "I hate the war....but I support what the soldiers are doing". That makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not sure how it is in YOUR country (unlike you, I'm not going to assume I know everything about a foreign country) but in America young men and women join their country's defense of their own accord.

Second point: The Geneva Conventions protect soldiers and prisoners of war. Terrorists are neither. They should only be so lucky we don't treat them worse.

Third point: I asked you to name war crimes. You still haven't.

It's really astounding, Darkmoon, how little you actually understand this subject simply because you base what you say, not on fact, but on what you have heard from liberal and anti-American and anti-Bush sources. None of the points you have made are new to me, I hear ignorant things like these almost daily.

...first of all, what? You don't consider holding prisoners without basic human rights and torturing them war crimes? I'm sorry...what? What are they then? Fluffy bunny cuddles? Actually, let's grab a deffiniton. Since the one on Wiki is credited to a reliable source we'll use that one.

War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including but not limited to "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity"

Well, gee. I guess they aren't fluffy bunny hugs after all.

Secondly, soldiers sign up to defend there country. We can agree on that, right? So...how exactly was the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq defending America and Britain, the two countries that led the way? It was to take out the Taliban, which I admit has succesfully removed from goverment but is still a major force in the areal, and to destroy Bin Laden and his terror camps. That last one hasn't really been managed.

And yet the war was declared won and all that jazz. Why, if the goals were not achieved? It's been several years since we 'won' and things are still pretty much the same. But America is no safer now than before. Hell, if anything it's in a worse place. The terrorists are still there. A lot of it's allies lost a lot of respect. America lost a lot of influence with the EU. Britain didn't exactly come out of it smelling of roses either.

So...if the war has been won but the threat was never taken out how, exactly, have people died defending America? Answer: they didn't. They died in a knee jerk response to 9/11 that never had a chance to succed. And that's being relatively generous and assuming the intentions, if not the planning, were and not going into all the crazy ass conspiracy theories or the idea it was a war for profit.

And as for Iraq and the massive arsernal of weapons of mass destruction...oi. I don't think anyone can defend that cluster fuck. Iraq was no threat to anyone but possibly Israel. Did have plenty of resources which have, oddly enough, ended up in American corporation hands.

So yeah. You can call me a liberal if you wanna. It sounds about right. And yeah, American men and women join there armed forces to defend there country. I mean, that's what my wife tells me. She's American. I guess she might know. And I suppose the time I did spend there hinted at it as well. They don't, as I recall, sign up to go into a war that apparently served no purpose but seemed like a good idea at the time OR a war that was based on incredibly poor intelligence/a desire for lovely loads of oil.

I mean, there has been that noticible drop in recruitment since the wars, and more people leaving at the end of there tours of duty rather than re-signing in both America and Britain. And there have been all those military people saying the wars were immoral and illegal and such. So I guess at least some of the armed forces have a similar view to me. The ones I know certainly do.

EDIT: Ah, looking back I see I missed an important point. You don't consider terrorists to be soldiers. I'd disagree but that's niether here nor there. The Geneva Convention also mentions civillians and if the terrorists aren't one they are the other. And, of course, still human beings (hideous twisted ones, sure, but humans all the same) and therefore entitled to that protection by any civilized nation.

So, perhaps you can explain to me how stooping to there level is a good thing? I mean, here was me, under the impression we were trying to go for the moral high ground here. 'How dare they launch these hideous attacks' and all that stuff. Surely violating there human rights is something that is terrible and wrong, the sort of thing a terrorist would do? Or is stooping to there level acceptable behaviour so long as the job gets done? Which sorta sucks. The job didn't get done.

And that's, of course, assuming all the people are terrorists. We know a lot of those held at Quantanamo Bay were simply suspected of it, with such compelling evidence as they were near by when something happened. Which was the whole point of holding them without charges...they couldn't actually make the charges stick.

So...explain to me how holding people that are, according to your laws, innocent without the trail the law says they are entitled to nor the basic human rights they are entitled to is a GOOD thing for the Land of the Free?

And I'm sure none of these points are new. Facts often aren't. And most of this is documented fact. Not my opinion.

For the record, I'm anti-Bush and anti-Blair. Not Anti-American or British. And no, it isn't the same thing. Unless you think George W Bush IS America all of a sudden. That would be like saying all German people supported the Nazi Party and the Final Soloution. You can't paint a nation with a brush like that and expect to see the details, and history is made of the details.

[Vector]

From the E3 thread...

Im glad that you completely misunderstood everything just to take a cheap shot at it. Get off your high horse, join the simple folks.

The point was that wars can be seen as victorious, regardless of whether or not they were a political success or not. 20:1 KDR gives most people a sense that US military kicked butt in Vietnam and as such, when it comes to videogames, playing on the US side does give most, if not all people, a sense of being on the "better" side.

I hope that explained it.

I'm glad you completely missed my point. The point I'm trying to make, the point I've been trying to make for a few pages now, is that I try to look at the 'human' side of things. I don't like to participate in trivial conversations about the number of people who died or "kill-death ratios." Throw around statistics all you want, the bottom line is that all of those numbers you use are human lives that were lost. With each life that's lost, that's a family whose lives are fucked up from that point on. Try telling the close relatives of the soldiers who died that their country won the war. "You lost your loved one, but it's okay because 'we won.'"

So, you guys see statistics and discussion, I see a family whose lives were ruined. Maybe that's just me.

I hope that explained it.

[Member_of_STARS]

From the E3 thread...




I'm glad you completely missed my point. The point I'm trying to make, the point I've been trying to make for a few pages now, is that I try to look at the 'human' side of things. I don't like to participate in trivial conversations about the number of people who died or "kill-death ratios." Throw around statistics all you want, the bottom line is that all of those numbers you use are human lives that were lost. With each life that's lost, that's a family whose lives are fucked up from that point on. Try telling the close relatives of the soldiers who died that their country won the war. "You lost your loved one, but it's okay because 'we won.'"

So, you guys see statistics and discussion, I see a family whose lives were ruined. Maybe that's just me.

I hope that explained it.

We already got that. And I already pointed out the obvious and rather ridiculous contradiction in people like you enjoying games depicting various conflicts in this world.

The only difference between them and 6DIF is that the latter is still going on. And that has never stopped you from blasting the German foxhole with a flamethrower, has it?

Your "human" side doesnt make your argument any more valid. It just makes you a selfcontradicting and patronizing kid.

I used those numbers and KDR stats to show that all things considered, US soldiers prevailed over Vietcong soldiers, and that lead me to the main point-
this enabled the players who played on the US side to feel that they were on the "good", "better" or "victorious" side. It has nothing to do with not putting value over lost lives, its a completely separate argument. But you obviously missed that, in your "I weep while playing wargames, therefore Im human" speech.

Check out my posts in the topic where people discussed whether Wall-E future or WW3 was their preferred future, then come back and try to compare the "I´m human"-e-peen.

[kevstah2004]

Don't give me any of that free the people bs the only reason their there is to secure the oil pipelines if you really wanted to free the people you wouldn't of supplied weapons to the very same people your now fighting.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php