Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LoL

Ork for the Win!

Myself, I could care less about Epeen power. I just dont see the point in carrying on a "Debate" when I know full well it would just turn into another flamewar with a kid I could care less about.

Tried to bow out and the kid kept pushing it. Now we will let the mods decide whats what.

Bow out? You said some extremely revolting things that no right-minded person should ever say, and you expect everyone to agree with your views?

If my people were threatened, I would put twenty three million of the offenders in the ground to save just ONE of my own. And it is my humble opinion that any other real man would feel the same regarding his people.

I would feel remorse for the loss of the innocent, but If it is between THEIR innocents and MY innocents, then I wouldn't have to think twice about what to do. And I imagine the other "monsters" that are making you folks "sick" feel similarly.


As a side note, just to link it up with 40k, the above philosophy is the PREMISE of the lore of the eldar race. And I have never heard anyone call the eldar disgusting black hearted monsters.

That's because they're not GRIMDARK enough to compete. Like the Tau. If they were in most sci-fi settings, they'd be considered quite evil I'm sure.

*facepalm*
But that's the issue here, the 23 million 'offenders' aren't doing anything. They haven't done anything to deserve death. I wouldn't trade that many lives for any one person. NOBODY. No life has more value than another.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
No life has more value than another.

That is relative to each and every individual. I would kill you in a heartbeat if it would save my brother, for example.

NVM

As would I, but this is a massive number we're toying with. 23 million. You could fill a city with that many dead bodies. Men, women, children, the elderly, the infirm, the innocent, the guilty, all human. Could you really kill them all in one stroke to save a single life?

Those who understand realize that you have no right to let them live!

I don't really see how 40k has any relevance to this.

Yes. Because any single one of my kinsmen is more valuable to me than the sum of 23million strangers in a place that I iwll never see and has never done a single justice to me.

Cheese Elemental wrote:As would I, but this is a massive number we're toying with. 23 million. You could fill a city with that many dead bodies. Men, women, children, the elderly, the infirm, the innocent, the guilty, all human. Could you really kill them all in one stroke to save a single life?

Umm , to remind you . They were able to go to war for a WMD that didnt exist.

Now there is actually one . You can bet there will be tons of additional propaganda to follow if it needed to be .

Human conscience? sure is noble to say, though too easily manipulated.

I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it's the sand of the coliseum. He'll bring them death - and they will love him for it.
Just like Bush yes?

What if you don't like your kinsman.

Would you kill 23 million people if doing so allowed you to kill someone you dislike as well?

I said I would kill many to save one, not that I would kill simply for the sake of killing.

What if that one person was about to kill 23 million of your guys himself, so that he could save his brother?

I often wonder what the history books will say about this. What do you get taught in school about the World Wars and all the other horrible conflicts that scar history?

Orkeosaurus wrote:What if that one person was about to kill 23 million of your guys himself, so that he could save his brother?

I would kill him. Despite the fact that he is doing what any real man should.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I often wonder what the history books will say about this. What do you get taught in school about the World Wars and all the other horrible conflicts that scar history?

Well lets just say who ends up to be #1 global power in the future.
If its USA , it'll stay the same.
If its anything else , you can bet the history book between 1990-2010 will not be the same.

Remember history = his story.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I often wonder what the history books will say about this. What do you get taught in school about the World Wars and all the other horrible conflicts that scar history?

imho, schools do not go into nearly enough detail about the causes and effects of wars. Its all quite generic, i assure you. I sure wish they would have told us that the australian warned us that the japanese were headed toward hawaii, and that FDR ALLOWED pearl harbor to happen, in order to give us an excuse to get involved; alas, those reports were only declassified recently. Not that the teachers would tell you that anyway.

eerily similar to what happened with bush.

War. War never changes.

"War.... War never changes."

Win!

Would you rather punch a baby in the face, or kick a baby in the face?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Would you rather punch a baby in the face, or kick a baby in the face?

What is your angle, sir?

And another thing, Luna, please stop being condescending. I do not appreciate it when people assume that all Americans sit in front of the idiot box and take in their daily helpings of propaganda, so that they dont have to think for themselves.

mcfly wrote:North Korea has the craziest leader in the world. I say we take him out, whether with nukes or green berets or something. Hell, lets just send Rambo into the country to kill him.

Also, all you people saying that its wrong for us to attack NK after they kill hundreds of thousands of American lives are crazy. If they attack us, and the government does nothing, what kind of image would that send to the man that invented the internet? He would attack everyone.

So nuke em, nuke em, nuke em, but only after he attacks us.

You realise that effectively your answer is to do even less than what's being done right now. Right now no-one is in any doubt there would be an immense response in North Korea were to nuke the US (exactly how that might happen outside of a Tom Clancy book no-one knows, but anyway). But there have also been steps taken to prevent North Korea furthering its capabilities, with various agreements and now sanctions.

You're talking about the obvious response to an impossible scenario, while disregarding all the work undertaken to prevent an attack. In effect, you're arguing 'do nothing'.

Falconlance wrote:
War. War never changes.

Yep its just human nature at their true vulnerable form. They'll be willing to believe in anything aslong as it make
their *conscience feel less guilty. We are despicable creature you know .

The witch hunt , centuries ago.
The Jews , decades ago.

And everyday , we eat meat . Oh how yummy they are , yet if we go to slaughter house we think thats cruel and sad.
Next day , " who is ready to go for some big mac? "

Frazzled wrote:Then whats the problem Sebbie? You say bloodlust when all I am saying is we ignore their tantrums unless they attack us. Firing a missile into US space is attacking us.
-If they can't do it then there's no issue.
-If they don't do it then there's no issue.

I'm mereley restating the policy of the US, UK, France, China, Russia, India, and Pakistan.

Pretending they can do it is playing around with fantasy. They can't, so there's no point. It's just an excuse to talk about how horrendous retaliation could be. Meanwhile there is a real discussion to be had about how the world can limit the expansion of North Korean capability, while leaving the door open for a change of government. It probably isn't as exciting as a conversation about how the US could totally smash up North Korea if they attacked continental US, but at least isn't make believe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sexiest_hero wrote:Sebster, as much as I usually agree with you, N.Korea is a different monster. Unlike Iraq, whom most of the known world knew didn't have WMDs. N.Korea has activly boasted about what it was trying to do, and has sold what they know to Iran, activly spreading the threat.

Edit: When I talk about possible damage it's only an honest response. millions would be killed but millions more saved. the south Korean capital has plenty of bunkers, I can only hope for the best.

But why attack? Doing so is only ensuring the worst case scenario actually comes true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I am referring to the rogue nations, where human rights abuses are bread and butter (yes, I know, what about our 'allies' like SA, frankly no love for them either).

Then we're talking past each other. I read to much into your reference to the middle east.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:Look at it this way... Sooner or later N korea is going to start a war with somebody and millions are going to die.

We just had this. It was called Iraq. Please learn from that and don't kill millions more for no reason.


This thread is just odd. We have people talking about how the US should just sit back until attacked (which basically amounts to 'do nothing'). We have people talking about how we should attack now, damn the casualties. But there's no-one arguing for containment and quarantine to stop the building of weapons. It's really not that contraversial a policy.

sebster wrote:This thread is just odd. We have people talking about how the US should just sit back until attacked (which basically amounts to 'do nothing'). We have people talking about how we should attack now, damn the casualties. But there's no-one arguing for containment and quarantine to stop the building of weapons. It's really not that contraversial a policy.

This has been attempted and failed, which is only slightly worse than attempted and succeeded, because its a temporary solution anyway. Additionally, NK has stated that any further attempts at this will provoke their hostility.

Falconlance wrote:If my people were threatened, I would put twenty three million of the offenders in the ground to save just ONE of my own. And it is my humble opinion that any other real man would feel the same regarding his people.

Look, just stop it. Stop it. Stop it.

There is no threat to anyone person in the US from North Korea. It isn't a possibility, so stop pretending you need to be all manly about killing people to protect your own. They are not in danger.

sebster wrote:


There is no threat to anyone person in the US from North Korea. It isn't a possibility...

That has great potential to make the list of famous last words.

Alright you guys, my opinion on the matter is this: if North Korea attacks us, we should launch hundreds of nukes at them. It seems pretty clear that it's only a matter of weeks before North Korea launches nukes at our major cities, so I think the best usage of this thread is talking about just how many North Koreans America will kill in the ensuing war.

I think maybe six or seven million people from the nuclear blasts and fall out. Probably more from starvation and disease.

Falconlance wrote:imho, schools do not go into nearly enough detail about the causes and effects of wars. Its all quite generic, i assure you. I sure wish they would have told us that the australian warned us that the japanese were headed toward hawaii, and that FDR ALLOWED pearl harbor to happen, in order to give us an excuse to get involved; alas, those reports were only declassified recently. Not that the teachers would tell you that anyway.

No, no such documents have been released.

It's an idea that's been around for decades, and has never made much sense. If the Japanese sent a carrier fleet to attack Pearl Harbour it wouldn't matter if Pearl Harbour was prepared or not, the American people would have supported the war effort following an unprovoked attack. I mean really, do you think FDR would have heard about the attack, considered putting the base on alert, but then thought 'no, the Americans won't support to war after an unprovoked attack, better ensure the attack massacres countless Americans - then the people will support the war'. It makes no sense.

For what it is worth, the attack was likely born out of the cognitive dissonance of the opinions people had of the Japanese with the reality that they had managed a near perfect military strike. Faced between challenging their racist notions of the Japanese, they instead decided the Japanese only could have managed such through the betrayal of their own government. Not that people believing it now are racist. Nowadays the story keeps going because it is very exciting, and people rarely stop to consider whether exciting things are really all that plausible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Falconlance wrote:That has great potential to make the list of famous last words.

They can't get an accurate launch at Japan. How do you think they're going to hit the US? I mean honestly, what is going on here? Why are you all so insistant on believing something that no authority on the subject is even considering at all?