152 replies to this topic

[Killerace]

wow how could I miss this

[Avenger]

Killerace, on Feb 24 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

wow how could I miss this

lol you missed out on alot and you cant even be a part f it now its alll over jealous i was right in the middle grr

[Hawk]

Pk is 1337, on Feb 23 2009, 10:08 PM, said:

on topic: Biggest disapointment was Definately CoD:W@W and people are stupid for calling it CoD5 since Modern Warfare 2 is a current project that will be released soon so ignore W@W and look forward to CoD:MW2

Well it IS the fifth call of duty to be released...

[Avenger]

Hawk, on Feb 24 2009, 09:45 PM, said:

Well it IS the fifth call of duty to be released...

ahh silly youngun's dont know a thing

[Dynamic]

I personally think COD5 did pretty well, it's really fun, however, I know what you're saying about it being COD4 just.. back in time. But because I expected it to be a piece of tuberculotic spewtum, it wasn't that bad.

Alex, on Feb 22 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

You sir, are a complete and utter idiot of the highest degree.

now that is going in my sig.

[eagleye]

Apolloz, on Feb 22 2009, 02:32 PM, said:

Leaders from all countries = BAD
The solderis who did all the dirtywork and executions = Good, they did just obey orders.

"Just obeying orders" is IMO equivalent to asnwer yes to "if everyone else went and jumped off a bridge and killed themselves, would you?". If you have so little value of humna life that you can do something like that because your general told you to, you're as bad as Hitler. The only thing necessary for evil to suceed is for good men to do nothing. Now this can apply to all sides of the war, but if you were in that position, I hope to God you wouldn't do what the Nazi soldiers did.

jaZ, on Feb 23 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

If Germany had won you yourself may portray jews as you now do the axis. IMO the problem with leaning either way is that it's very hard to know if you're being influenced in the direction your political leaders intend.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that the either axis or allied powers are unequal in their crimes against humanity, however, I do think I have the foundation to accuse both of terrible things that continue to exist today because we either ignore them and coexist with them or were born with an innocent ignorance of them. Skepticism of one's government, even when misplaced, can't be a bad thing, but misplaced faith in one's government can turn into as ugly a thing as the holocaust...

WHICH is why I think RA3 has met my expectations well. It was a very humorous game

Are you a conspiracist? Because everytime you post it's always about the evils of government and faith, and how we should all hate them and how they all suck.
I am still lost to how anyone can rationalize the methodic execution in cold blood of 6 million people because of their religion to any other actions in WWII. I mean, seriously, why did America use atomic bombs on Japan? To end the war and prevent further loss of American lives. I'm not saying it as the best course of action (although I think it was indeed) but don't even try to compare the Holocaust that to America killing civilians to win a war.

jaZ, on Feb 23 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

Regarding the holocaust specifically the axis probably outdid the allied powers in terms of immoral practices, but both are a great deal guilty. If everything taught to us about the holocaust is true, then the allied powers fall short of being as horrendous as the holocaust. They're not equal, but alone they are still devestating.

Personally, I think that comparing any other action in the 20th century to the Holocause is ignorant. As I said earlier, saying the allies "fell short of being as horrendous of the holocaust" is such a gross overstatement. Killing people in order to win a war cannot be compared to the systematic execution of helpless individuals. I cannot think of another instance where any country has facilitated the murder of a mass number of innocents compeltely on purpose. Collateral damage exceluded, because all that means is the benefits outweighed the negatives for the given situation.

Modern-Day Germany should not be punished for the Third Reich's sins, but I still think that any sensible person understands that we cannot compare the evils of the allies to those of the axis.

[Dynamic]

Yeah, I totally agree with eagle, I think that WW2 was possibly one of the only large scale wars when we fought to save the freedom of the entire world(allies not the axis), not for oil, power or anything else. That war truly was one of freedom versus, basically, evil (I know that sounded stupid). Im not saying the soldiers were necessarily evil, but hitler was. The allied forces had to these things, but they did it for the freedom of the world, not for any other evil. It was, as we have already said, a necesary evil.

I hear what you are saying about it being bad that we killed innocents, but imagine what it would have been like if we had not fought at all, imagine what the world would be like? And I serilously doubt that many of the people of today would have had the same courage that our forefathers had to fight in such a terrible war, for their of freedom.

And yeah, modern day germany shouldnt still be punished for what hitler and the nazi party did, I think the economic deflation and having hitler and all the blood on his hands in their history is punishment enough.

The atomic bomb(s) on the other hand, ended the war, you cannot deny that. Who knows when it would have ended, but Im sure that far more lives would be taken from the good allied forces, and innocents if the bomb had not been dropped. Imagine if you were deciding those orders, do you drop that bomb, and evapourating thousands of innocents and enemy soldiers but ending the war almost instantly or do you order your soldiers to fight on, fight on into the rainforest of a country that the japanese soldiers know like the back of their hands, yet you know nothing about. The japanese were absolutely terrible during the war, the stories I was told by my granddad about how they feared being captured by the japanese more than anything because of what they did in the camps. But also the bomb made us realise about It also made us realise the power of the atom bomb, and will be something that

[7.62 nato]

The bombs dropped on Japan were a direct response to Pear Harbor. It fits the American attitude of mess with our country we will mess with you 2X over. It's meant to be a deturrent, like if someone is to bomb some of our boats while sitting in a harbor we will nuke 2 of your major cities. . It's makes people think before attacking us, IMO Iraq is the same situation. You took out 2 of our buldings so we are taking your country, kkthxgtfo.

Basically we retailiate X2, and we escalate it until the enemy is dead or have surrendered.

Also, I agree passing the murder of 6 million people off as "I was following orders" doesn't work. They could have refused, then again if they had they would have been shot, point still being they still had to choose to pull the trigger or not. We nuked Japan to end a war, and counter for thier aggressive actions towards us. The nazi's murdered 6 million people because they were "better" than everyone else. There is NO comparison there.

[Avenger]

7.62 nato, on Feb 25 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

The bombs dropped on Japan were a direct response to Pear Harbor. It fits the American attitude of mess with our country we will mess with you 2X over. It's meant to be a deturrent, like if someone is to bomb some of our boats while sitting in a harbor we will nuke 2 of your major cities. . It's makes people think before attacking us, IMO Iraq is the same situation. You took out 2 of our buldings so we are taking your country, kkthxgtfo.

Basically we retailiate X2, and we escalate it until the enemy is dead or have surrendered.

Also, I agree passing the murder of 6 million people off as "I was following orders" doesn't work. They could have refused, then again if they had they would have been shot, point still being they still had to choose to pull the trigger or not. We nuked Japan to end a war, and counter for thier aggressive actions towards us. The nazi's murdered 6 million people because they were "better" than everyone else. There is NO comparison there.

thats about 6x worse, didnt we go to war with them beacause america thought they had wepons of mass destruction, but they didnt?

[Alex]

7.62 nato, on Feb 25 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

IMO Iraq is the same situation. You took out 2 of our buldings so we are taking your country

Wait, WHAT?!?!

[Avenger]

zomg i might have alex on my side

[jaZ]

eagleye, on Feb 24 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

Are you a conspiracist? Because everytime you post it's always about the evils of government and faith, and how we should all hate them and how they all suck.
I am still lost to how anyone can rationalize the methodic execution in cold blood of 6 million people because of their religion to any other actions in WWII. I mean, seriously, why did America use atomic bombs on Japan? To end the war and prevent further loss of American lives. I'm not saying it as the best course of action (although I think it was indeed) but don't even try to compare the Holocaust that to America killing civilians to win a war.


Personally, I think that comparing any other action in the 20th century to the Holocause is ignorant. As I said earlier, saying the allies "fell short of being as horrendous of the holocaust" is such a gross overstatement. Killing people in order to win a war cannot be compared to the systematic execution of helpless individuals. I cannot think of another instance where any country has facilitated the murder of a mass number of innocents compeltely on purpose. Collateral damage exceluded, because all that means is the benefits outweighed the negatives for the given situation.

Modern-Day Germany should not be punished for the Third Reich's sins, but I still think that any sensible person understands that we cannot compare the evils of the allies to those of the axis.

Ehh heheh... you can ignore anything I posted last year. Thing's change .
I never did compare anything, so this wouldn't be an attempt at that either. The bombs dropped on Japan were unnecessary at best. We could have sent a package saying 'look here, a bomb's going to be dropped, see the devestation and give up' and then drop the bomb on a relatively uninhabited area, but why we dropped not one but two on two of the most densely populated cities in Japan without warning other than the 'give up or you will face total destruction from our almighty weapons' crap must have to do with a cause that your grandmother probably wouldn't approve of.

Also, the only real problem I have with government and religion is that both go out of their way (and succeed, and sometimes unite to do so) in oppressing me, therefore the idea of both parties does not evoke respect, nor do the sincerely religious members of society that go out of their own way to oppress me when they think they are doing the world a right through their religion which doesn't at all apply to me because I do not possess a religion, and if I did it is very likely that it would have nothing to do with their religion. For example, in America your rights are relative and expendable, rights that should be inherent to all human beings that can be suspended and excluded entirely from 'the system'. Even as a citizen, your rights last as long as the unprovoked politician that 'gives' you the right. Your rights are suspendable for the preservation of one nation under god in our national defense from terrorism. Our popular political leaders never fail to remind us of the 'under god' part.

[Avenger]

i hate when people leave long posts

[Swex]

Same here i diddent even rad everything but can you guys talk about this in a other tpoic or what cuz we talking about games here !

2008: Spore: Suck not even just when create my monster > !
GTA4: Many glitches

2009:Halo wars : Lame !

and nofing more lol ;P

[Killerace]

7.62 nato, on Feb 25 2009, 06:38 PM, said:

The bombs dropped on Japan were a direct response to Pear Harbor.

Direct response?

the attack on pearl harbour was at the 7. december 1941.
the atomic bombs were in 1945. that doesn't sound like a direct reaction for me...

the USA dropped the bombs, because they wanted Japan to capitulate; what germany already did (i think).

[Avenger]

wow ive had this convo before but not with someone tht is actuarlly german now we need someone from japan and were set

[Jack]

7.62 nato, on Feb 25 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

IMO Iraq is the same situation. You took out 2 of our buldings so we are taking your country, kkthxgtfo.

... yes because it was the Iraqi government that pulled off 9/11.

jaZ, on Feb 25 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

The bombs dropped on Japan were unnecessary at best. We could have sent a package saying 'look here, a bomb's going to be dropped, see the devestation and give up' and then drop the bomb on a relatively uninhabited area, but why we dropped not one but two on two of the most densely populated cities in Japan without warning other than the 'give up or you will face total destruction from our almighty weapons' crap must have to do with a cause that your grandmother probably wouldn't approve of.

Weapons don't work when the enemy knows you won't use them.

[eagleye]

jaZ, on Feb 25 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

Ehh heheh... you can ignore anything I posted last year. Thing's change .
I never did compare anything, so this wouldn't be an attempt at that either. The bombs dropped on Japan were unnecessary at best. We could have sent a package saying 'look here, a bomb's going to be dropped, see the devestation and give up' and then drop the bomb on a relatively uninhabited area, but why we dropped not one but two on two of the most densely populated cities in Japan without warning other than the 'give up or you will face total destruction from our almighty weapons' crap must have to do with a cause that your grandmother probably wouldn't approve of.

Actually, the Japanese failed to surrender even after the first atomic bomb was dropped. You're naieve at best if you think that us dropping a bomb in deserted forest would have resulted in a japanese surrender. We did what was necessary to end the war. We killed more Japanese than was necessary, yes, but we saved numerous American lives. Whether what we did was the correct course of action, you can make that decision for yourself, but regardless, you cannot compare that to Nazi Germany.

As for the Iraq war, I think that Jack and Nato both have a valid point. Would we currently be in a war with Iraq if 9/11 had never happened? I don't think so. But the Iraq government didn't organize 9/11 by any stretch of the imagination.

[Dynamic]

The true irony about iraq is that we (the UK + US) are fighting soldiers trained by the pakistani army, which we( the US and admittedly the UK) ignored this and now look who we are fighting, the very same soldiers we could have stopped years ago quite easily if we had cared more about peace than global resources.

[Jack]

Hell, we (US&UK) supported Saddam until he was no longer useful to us.

[eagleye]

So you think if we put a bit more effort into world peace the Iraq would just peacefully become a democracy and Saddam Hussein would have quietly retired to a nice old cottage by the sea? Would the taliban have disbanded as well?

[Jack]

Iraq was no threat to the west. Sure the government was a threat to its own citizens, but why is that a matter for the Coalition?

[eagleye]

I don't really know much (at all) about "The Coalition", but the world's most powerful nations have a responsiblity to look out for the welfare of less fortunate countries. Especially in the event of human right's violations.

[Jack]

eagleye, on Feb 26 2009, 01:31 AM, said:

I don't really know much (at all) about "The Coalition", but the world's most powerful nations have a responsiblity to look out for the welfare of less fortunate countries. Especially in the event of human right's violations.

So it's just a coincidence that we invaded an oil-rich country like Iraq and not the resource-stricken Zimbabwe then, eh?

[Alex]

But why?

Who "looked out" for the UK when we were growing up? Its ridiculous to get ourselves tied up in Africa for example. I mean, I don't remember the Africans helping England through the black death... Its a cold hearted look on it, but why should we get involved at all?

Its not feasible, as we're responsible for some of the mess due to the empire, but still...

[eagleye]

Jack, on Feb 25 2009, 08:40 PM, said:

So it's just a coincidence that we invaded an oil-rich country like Iraq and not the resource-stricken Zimbabwe then, eh?

Because we had to choose between two, and had a much better side effect for us.

It's more of a philosophy. In practice, there are always alterior motives. The point is, America's policy is not to stand by and tiwness atrocities in other countries. We do our fair share of watching, but we also intervene in some cases.

[Milosevic]

eagleye, on Feb 25 2009, 09:32 PM, said:

Because we had to choose between two, and had a much better side effect for us.

It's more of a philosophy. In practice, there are always alterior motives. The point is, America's policy is not to stand by and tiwness atrocities in other countries. We do our fair share of watching, but we also intervene in some cases.

LOL the last time you intervened was in Vietnam. Where were you for Rwanda and now Sudan

[Alex]

Hey they were there for somalia....oh wait, there's supposed to be oil there!

[Helix]

So the conclusion is that we are all profit takers. When someone is not usefull to you anymore, throw some bombs on it and move on, or throw bombs on it to make it usefull.

We humans never really changed..

[Avenger]

wow i dont know how this topic turned into us discussing this