231 réponses à ce sujet

[pablodurando]

Made Nightwing wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...


There is always another way.

The people who say that never say it to the despot/dictator who insigate the war in question.  They're usually too... dead... to try.  It's always in hindsight and armchair generalship that you question and judge wars.  Ideology and reality often don't mix.  My sig is an example of reality that many ideologues would deny.

^This. Sitting around in an armchair, reading books and watching documentaries does not count as examining the conflict 'in detail'.

I digress.  It takes an outsider who is not biased toward either side to actually understand the conflict.

[Made Nightwing]

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Who was manipulated? No, honestly, please, tell me. WHO manipulated a war that killed tens of millions? Was it the Templars? Or the Grand Order of Assasins? Maybe a brokerage of powerful buisnessmen intent on world domination? Or some aliens assessing our capabilities for an invasion that is yet to come? Please, share your knowledge. You're a joke.

It's not a joke, it's a common pattern in war.  Generals manipulate soldiers to try to win a battle knowing people are going to die.  It's sad but soldiers are tools.

That's called....wait for it....STRATEGY. It's accepted up and down the line. Soldiers trust their senior officers to come up with the best battle plan possible, and they'll fight like hell to carry out that battle plan, though they'll modify it on the frontline in accordance with tactical situations. But they know they might have to die to do it.

No one goes to the front line who hasn't volunteered to do so. Any pacifist who doesn't want to fight is removed from his unit and sent to the rear echelon positions. The battlefield is no place for cowards.

[Made Nightwing]

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...


There is always another way.

The people who say that never say it to the despot/dictator who insigate the war in question.  They're usually too... dead... to try.  It's always in hindsight and armchair generalship that you question and judge wars.  Ideology and reality often don't mix.  My sig is an example of reality that many ideologues would deny.

^This. Sitting around in an armchair, reading books and watching documentaries does not count as examining the conflict 'in detail'.

I digress.  It takes an outsider who is not biased toward either side to actually understand the conflict.

It's always been wonderfully convenient for guys like you that you don't actually have to do any fighting in order to comment on war.

[pablodurando]

Made Nightwing wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Who was manipulated? No, honestly, please, tell me. WHO manipulated a war that killed tens of millions? Was it the Templars? Or the Grand Order of Assasins? Maybe a brokerage of powerful buisnessmen intent on world domination? Or some aliens assessing our capabilities for an invasion that is yet to come? Please, share your knowledge. You're a joke.

It's not a joke, it's a common pattern in war.  Generals manipulate soldiers to try to win a battle knowing people are going to die.  It's sad but soldiers are tools.

That's called....wait for it....MANIPULATION. It's accepted up and down the line. Soldiers trust their senior officers to come up with the best battle plan possible, and they'll fight like hell to carry out that battle plan, though they'll modify it on the frontline in accordance with tactical situations. But they know they might have to die to do it.

No one goes to the front line who hasn't volunteered to do so. Any pacifist who doesn't want to fight is removed from his unit and sent to the rear echelon positions. The battlefield is no place for cowards.

I changed one word, unfortunatly it makes sense.

[mauro2222]

pablodurando wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...


There is always another way.

The people who say that never say it to the despot/dictator who insigate the war in question.  They're usually too... dead... to try.  It's always in hindsight and armchair generalship that you question and judge wars.  Ideology and reality often don't mix.  My sig is an example of reality that many ideologues would deny.

That is what happens when psychopaths and retards get admitted into high positions.  Exactly why the general public should know their leaders and be able to pick the best leaders after EXTENSIVLY studying their ideals.

And that's why education is the pinnacle of freedom.

[pablodurando]

Made Nightwing wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...


There is always another way.

The people who say that never say it to the despot/dictator who insigate the war in question.  They're usually too... dead... to try.  It's always in hindsight and armchair generalship that you question and judge wars.  Ideology and reality often don't mix.  My sig is an example of reality that many ideologues would deny.

^This. Sitting around in an armchair, reading books and watching documentaries does not count as examining the conflict 'in detail'.

I digress.  It takes an outsider who is not biased toward either side to actually understand the conflict.

It's always been wonderfully convenient for guys like you that you don't actually have to do any fighting in order to comment on war.

Maybe it's because guys like me see both sides of the story.  Soldiers are biased by nature.

[pablodurando]

mauro2222 wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...


There is always another way.

The people who say that never say it to the despot/dictator who insigate the war in question.  They're usually too... dead... to try.  It's always in hindsight and armchair generalship that you question and judge wars.  Ideology and reality often don't mix.  My sig is an example of reality that many ideologues would deny.

That is what happens when psychopaths and retards get admitted into high positions.  Exactly why the general public should know their leaders and be able to pick the best leaders after EXTENSIVLY studying their ideals.

And that's why education is the pinnacle of freedom.

+1

[Yakko77]

Peace.. through superior firepower.

Seriously. Peace is a wonderful idea but it has to be preserved, defended, fought for. It doesn't "just happen" because some wish for it or because we had it yesterday or today. It has to be maintained, watched after and fought for. Just as I took the Oath of Enlistment in the U.S. Navy to the U.S. Constitution (we defend our Founding freedoms, principals and laws and not to any individual) I'd likely take the same Oath to defend the Alliance for similar principals.

[shaneofthedead]

YES

[Made Nightwing]

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Who was manipulated? No, honestly, please, tell me. WHO manipulated a war that killed tens of millions? Was it the Templars? Or the Grand Order of Assasins? Maybe a brokerage of powerful buisnessmen intent on world domination? Or some aliens assessing our capabilities for an invasion that is yet to come? Please, share your knowledge. You're a joke.

It's not a joke, it's a common pattern in war.  Generals manipulate soldiers to try to win a battle knowing people are going to die.  It's sad but soldiers are tools.

That's called....wait for it....THE REALITY OF COMMAND. It's accepted up and down the line. Soldiers trust their senior officers to come up with the best battle plan possible, and they'll fight like hell to carry out that battle plan, though they'll modify it on the frontline in accordance with tactical situations. But they know they might have to die to do it.

No one goes to the front line who hasn't volunteered to do so. Any pacifist who doesn't want to fight is removed from his unit and sent to the rear echelon positions. The battlefield is no place for cowards.

I changed one word, unfortunatly it makes sense.

Changed it to make more sense. Generals know they have to send men to die to accomplish an objective, to prevent more lives from being lost. The really good ones, like General Morsehead, General Patton, or The Magnificent Bastard himself: General Rommel, love their men, but they still have to fight on, and send those same men into harms way.

[Praetor Knight]

"If you want peace, prepare for war" Vegetius

[Yakko77]

Made Nightwing wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...


There is always another way.

The people who say that never say it to the despot/dictator who insigate the war in question.  They're usually too... dead... to try.  It's always in hindsight and armchair generalship that you question and judge wars.  Ideology and reality often don't mix.  My sig is an example of reality that many ideologues would deny.

^This. Sitting around in an armchair, reading books and watching documentaries does not count as examining the conflict 'in detail'.

I digress.  It takes an outsider who is not biased toward either side to actually understand the conflict.

It's always been wonderfully convenient for guys like you that you don't actually have to do any fighting in order to comment on war.

If they commit or sacrifice nothing then they have nothing to lose.  Those of us who enlist or at least appreciate those who enlist can understand first hand what it takes to defend peace.  My sig goes back to ancient Rome but is stil relevant today.

[Made Nightwing]

mauro2222 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Who was manipulated? No, honestly, please, tell me. WHO manipulated a war that killed tens of millions? Was it the Templars? Or the Grand Order of Assasins? Maybe a brokerage of powerful buisnessmen intent on world domination? Or some aliens assessing our capabilities for an invasion that is yet to come? Please, share your knowledge. You're a joke.

You can´t ignore that federal banks are in your country, my country, and in every capitalist country. From where the goverment gets his money? The central bank, the central bank creates this money out of nowhere and is shared to the goverment with interest (debt), this interest gets bigger with the ammoun of money required. When you are at war, you need money, from where the money comes from? Who gets more money = power as long the conflict last?

The Federal Banks are responsible for the safe keeping of money. The money is created by the GOVERNMENT, in mints, or is generated by the GOVERNMENT in accordance with inflation, public spending, natural resources, or other factors. War BANKRUPTS countries. In a war, governments will buy from weapons manufacturers. You don't buy weapons from a banker. I didn't see bankers exempt from conscription during WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam.

You are not an economist, do not try to be one.

[DarthSlim108]

I would totally join. My favorite class in the games is the vanguard, but I think I'd be better as either an infiltrator or an adept in real life. But heck, I wouldn't even have to fight, I'd be happy just to serve on a ship and get to travel the galaxy.

[Made Nightwing]

Yakko77 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...


There is always another way.

The people who say that never say it to the despot/dictator who insigate the war in question.  They're usually too... dead... to try.  It's always in hindsight and armchair generalship that you question and judge wars.  Ideology and reality often don't mix.  My sig is an example of reality that many ideologues would deny.

^This. Sitting around in an armchair, reading books and watching documentaries does not count as examining the conflict 'in detail'.

I digress.  It takes an outsider who is not biased toward either side to actually understand the conflict.

It's always been wonderfully convenient for guys like you that you don't actually have to do any fighting in order to comment on war.

If they commit or sacrifice nothing then they have nothing to lose.  Those of us who enlist or at least appreciate those who enlist can understand first hand what it takes to defend peace.  My sig goes back to ancient Rome but is stil relevant today.

I like this human, she understands

[Made Nightwing]

Finally getting back to OP. I would definitely join, but only if I could get into the special forces. My goal in RL is to get into the Aussie SAS (gonna be nearly impossible, but I'll give it my best). So yeah, I'd try and work my way up to N7.

[Yakko77]

Made Nightwing wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Who was manipulated? No, honestly, please, tell me. WHO manipulated a war that killed tens of millions? Was it the Templars? Or the Grand Order of Assasins? Maybe a brokerage of powerful buisnessmen intent on world domination? Or some aliens assessing our capabilities for an invasion that is yet to come? Please, share your knowledge. You're a joke.

It's not a joke, it's a common pattern in war.  Generals manipulate soldiers to try to win a battle knowing people are going to die.  It's sad but soldiers are tools.

That's called....wait for it....THE REALITY OF COMMAND. It's accepted up and down the line. Soldiers trust their senior officers to come up with the best battle plan possible, and they'll fight like hell to carry out that battle plan, though they'll modify it on the frontline in accordance with tactical situations. But they know they might have to die to do it.

No one goes to the front line who hasn't volunteered to do so. Any pacifist who doesn't want to fight is removed from his unit and sent to the rear echelon positions. The battlefield is no place for cowards.

I changed one word, unfortunatly it makes sense.

Changed it to make more sense. Generals know they have to send men to die to accomplish an objective, to prevent more lives from being lost. The really good ones, like General Morsehead, General Patton, or The Magnificent Bastard himself: General Rommel, love their men, but they still have to fight on, and send those same men into harms way.

Beat me to it.  General Patton understood this.  He'd send 100 men to die to win a battle in a day that another general would win losing 50 men a day but takes a week to win.

Modifié par Yakko77, 17 juillet 2011 - 06:59 .

[PlumPaul93]

Yakko77 wrote...

Peace.. through superior firepower.

Seriously. Peace is a wonderful idea but it has to be preserved, defended, fought for. It doesn't "just happen" because some wish for it or because we had it yesterday or today. It has to be maintained, watched after and fought for. Just as I took the Oath of Enlistment in the U.S. Navy to the U.S. Constitution (we defend our Founding freedoms, principals and laws and not to any individual) I'd likely take the same Oath to defend the Alliance for similar principals.

yep

[Yakko77]

Made Nightwing wrote...

Finally getting back to OP. I would definitely join, but only if I could get into the special forces. My goal in RL is to get into the Aussie SAS (gonna be nearly impossible, but I'll give it my best). So yeah, I'd try and work my way up to N7.

Who Dares Wins.

Best of luck to you.

[SandTrout]

Psychopaths getting into positions of power is why many people do not like to give government any more power than is necessary to perform specific duties. Considering the seemingly limited authority of the Alliance and that it is, at least nominally, a democratic republic, it is something that I would be willing to fight for.

If it were a tyrannical and oppressive government, I would probably join a militia on one of the terminus colonies. This is not the apparent case.

The Alliance is primarily arranged as a defensive force where most of its actions are retaliatory. All known wars that it has participated in were the result of being attacked, not preemptive action on the SA's part. The First Contact War was due to Turian occupation of Shanxi. In the Batarian Conflict, the Batarians funded pirates and other criminals to attempt to force the Alliance out of the Skyllian Verge. In each case, the Alliance was not the first to resort to the use of force.

[Yakko77]

Made Nightwing wrote...

I like this human, she understands

My femsheps approve!

[Yakko77]

SandTrout wrote...

>snip<

BTW, your sig rocks!!!

[pablodurando]

Yakko77 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...


It's always been wonderfully convenient for guys like you that you don't actually have to do any fighting in order to comment on war.

If they commit or sacrifice nothing then they have nothing to lose.  Those of us who enlist or at least appreciate those who enlist can understand first hand what it takes to defend peace.  My sig goes back to ancient Rome but is stil relevant today.

To defend peace, war is illogical.  I know that there are many quotes like the following statement, but fighting fire with fire doesnt work.  Are you truly seeking peace if you engage war.   Do you not question the means by which you acquire said peace.  Your sig is a false dichotomy.  

[pablodurando]

Yakko77 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Who was manipulated? No, honestly, please, tell me. WHO manipulated a war that killed tens of millions? Was it the Templars? Or the Grand Order of Assasins? Maybe a brokerage of powerful buisnessmen intent on world domination? Or some aliens assessing our capabilities for an invasion that is yet to come? Please, share your knowledge. You're a joke.

It's not a joke, it's a common pattern in war.  Generals manipulate soldiers to try to win a battle knowing people are going to die.  It's sad but soldiers are tools.

That's called....wait for it....THE REALITY OF COMMAND. It's accepted up and down the line. Soldiers trust their senior officers to come up with the best battle plan possible, and they'll fight like hell to carry out that battle plan, though they'll modify it on the frontline in accordance with tactical situations. But they know they might have to die to do it.

No one goes to the front line who hasn't volunteered to do so. Any pacifist who doesn't want to fight is removed from his unit and sent to the rear echelon positions. The battlefield is no place for cowards.

I changed one word, unfortunatly it makes sense.

Changed it to make more sense. Generals know they have to send men to die to accomplish an objective, to prevent more lives from being lost. The really good ones, like General Morsehead, General Patton, or The Magnificent Bastard himself: General Rommel, love their men, but they still have to fight on, and send those same men into harms way.

Beat me to it.  General Patton understood this.  He'd send 100 men to die to win a battle in a day that another general would win losing 50 men a day but takes a week to win.

I question your morals.  You would willingly send 100 men to their death instead of seeking a peaceful resolve.  At what point does the blood end I ask you.  No matter how you try to justify it, it will be manipulation by defenition.

[Yakko77]

pablodurando wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...


It's always been wonderfully convenient for guys like you that you don't actually have to do any fighting in order to comment on war.

If they commit or sacrifice nothing then they have nothing to lose.  Those of us who enlist or at least appreciate those who enlist can understand first hand what it takes to defend peace.  My sig goes back to ancient Rome but is stil relevant today.

To defend peace, war is illogical.  I know that there are many quotes like the following statement, but fighting fire with fire doesnt work.  Are you truly seeking peace if you engage war.   Do you not question the means by which you acquire said peace.  Your sig is a false dichotomy.  

My sig is reality.  Peace just doesn't happen because some enlightened and overeducated pacifist wishes it.  Peace has to be fought for and defended.  To deny otherwise is to deny reality.  It'd be nice if peace just was.... but that's not the real world.