Curse

Master Fuhon · Oct 03, 2008, 06:27 AM // 06:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

Get the f*ck out. I hate amerifags who think they run the world. Also, your suggestion that China will be 'beaten' by germ warfare is a joke.

You're bad at life, and you're bad at WW3 scenarios.

First off, temper tantrums don't work. I wouldn't trust someone so frustrated to tell me how to succeed at life. In your widespread condemnation of America you forget that the country is the sum of almost every other country on the planet at this point.

Second, germ warfare was used by Japan against China in WWII. China actually needed help dealing with it. They have a powerful military, not biological weapon resistance. China and the U.S. sparring in the Pacific isn't a problem unless someone purposefully violates the lives of civilians (that was the scenario that was presented). After that point, the U.S. is one of the few countries that recognize civilians are hostages. You think other countries are going to care that lives of another culture are at stake? Certainly not any of the countries who are attacked by a much stronger enemy.

Third, the only result of this war scenario is that China, Russia, and U.S. are all beaten pretty badly. It's a fragile self-esteem that appoints China as invincible; the U.S. is weak in it's own right. China doesn't get beaten, it's been around for as long as any civilization in existence. Historically, the country has been a key player in world trade. Still, I've seen projections elsewhere that this country lineup could be close to the expected WW3. After that point, it's just everyone fighting for the right to live. My statement was an assessment that U.S. vs China would be a long war, and our allies would get frustrated and try to end it sooner.

Fourth, the world needs more police. And by police, I mean people who defend the basic human rights of those too weak to fight for them. Life, food, freedom from slavery. Iraq/Afghanistan in the past, the conditions were appauling; I suppose you support killing political rivals to retain power. If you think the world is better off with no police, live in Darfur.

Fifth, if you want to tell me I am bad at WW3 scenarios, then be this guy
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/kaplan . I may not agree with his ideas, but he gives better detail than I could. Don't be some hotshot who shoots off one-liners to try to intimidate someone.

And lastly, your right to be both a waste of life and space was earned by American blood during WWII.

I didn't even spend as much time as I could have writing those responses, so I'm sure there's something easy to disagree with. I think I would say you fail because this whole scenario is a game and you just pounded your fists on the game board and knocked the pieces on the floor.

zwei2stein · Oct 03, 2008, 06:50 AM // 06:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

Fourth, the world needs more police. And by police, I mean people who defend the basic human rights of those too weak to fight for them. Life, food, freedom from slavery. Iraq/Afghanistan in the past, the conditions were appauling; I suppose you support killing political rivals to retain power. If you think the world is better off with no police, live in Darfur.

Policies you are defending/suggesting created those places in their current form to begin with.

If you were serious about what you say about being police, you would need to nuke US best friends like Arabic Emirates or Israel or Gruzia.

---

There is nothing worse in world than leader with Mission (preferably from deity of some kind), that kind is beyond suicidal. Because they will wage their holy war on X recklessly and wouldn't care less about collateral.

DarklingKiller · Oct 03, 2008, 06:53 AM // 06:53

Call in the asset! *Chuck Norris walks in*

Avarre · Oct 03, 2008, 06:54 AM // 06:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

I'm pretty sure, cliched as this might sound, that the RoK/DPRK would turn into a large proxy war between the Chinese and the US.

I thought this was a given.

Quote:

Originally Posted by netniwk

haha,you're all just a bunch of warmongers
at least I get to be neutral and watch the big boys beat the shit out of each other.

Hey man, I'm chilling in Singapore while this happens.

fenix · Oct 03, 2008, 08:17 AM // 08:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

First off, temper tantrums don't work. I wouldn't trust someone so frustrated to tell me how to succeed at life.

lol, you think I'm angry. Nice fail.

You're suggesting that because China was troubled by germ warfare in WW2, they will again? You best be joking.

Quote:

And lastly, your right to be both a waste of life and space was earned by American blood during WWII.

I'm Australian and you're a f*cking idiot. People like you are the reason everyone hates Americans.

Abedeus · Oct 03, 2008, 09:06 AM // 09:06

Quote:

And lastly, your right to be both a waste of life and space was earned by American blood during WWII.

What blood? Poland lost like 3 times more than you did. In the first phase of war, we lost 66k people, over 150k was wounded and more than 600k deported. However, we had like 2,5 less soldiers than the Axis forces that attacked us. So that's pretty good result.

Oh, and we could defend for over a month and a week, while Frenchies with army as strong as the Russians when they attacked us, surrendered after a month and a half. They COULD win. I mean, they could just attack Germans just after they attacked us, War would end at least two years earlier.

And I don't remember America loosing more than Pearl Harbor. By the way, how many films about PH failure were made? ;d It's not like you lost your capital *cough Warsaw bombarded cough* or anything important.

Compared to strength of your army, you lost the LEAST of all. Except for countries like Spain, they didn't do anything because they had, like, a civil war. Good for them.

fenix · Oct 03, 2008, 09:16 AM // 09:16

^ this

Not to forget the contributions of Australia and New Zealand. The casualties suffered by both us and the NZers are some of the highest due to % of the population.

pumpkin pie · Oct 03, 2008, 01:42 PM // 13:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

Second, germ warfare was used by Japan against China in WWII. China actually needed help dealing with it. They have a powerful military, not biological weapon resistance. China and the U.S. sparring in the Pacific isn't a problem unless someone purposefully violates the lives of civilians (that was the scenario that was presented). After that point, the U.S. is one of the few countries that recognize civilians are hostages. You think other countries are going to care that lives of another culture are at stake? Certainly not any of the countries who are attacked by a much stronger enemy.

America could have ended WWII much earlier but they did not, Why? Becasue they wanted to sell weapons and becasue America isn't threatened, not until Pearl Harbour. After that, they needed to do something. They weren't thinking of China, or Poland or the Jewish people or (etc) off couse that line of action did stop WWII. But they did not set out because they were thinking of Civilian of another culture/country. Sorry to blow your bubble, but the American government isn't all that great as you might think. Plus Japan wasn't just invading China, they nearly took the whole of Asean as well, singapore philippines and malaysia were amongst some WWII Japanese Victims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

Third, the only result of this war scenario is that China, Russia, and U.S. are all beaten pretty badly. It's a fragile self-esteem that appoints China as invincible; the U.S. is weak in it's own right. China doesn't get beaten, it's been around for as long as any civilization in existence. Historically, the country has been a key player in world trade. Still, I've seen projections elsewhere that this country lineup could be close to the expected WW3. After that point, it's just everyone fighting for the right to live. My statement was an assessment that U.S. vs China would be a long war, and our allies would get frustrated and try to end it sooner.

China would not have been beaten, why? Because China would not be so stupid to get into WWIII, not saying they don't have the necessary military power to defend themself, but above all else, what Chinese people wanted most is doing business now a days. In the olden days China, the order of honorable prfession are list as: scholar, farmer, workers, businessmen, and there's a saying that goes: Good Men Don't become Soldier which still holds true until today. No sane Chinese Parents will let their children willingly join the army. This is where most people keep mis-understand, well, how do you say, please understand the culture, the people, the country and you will come to understand that China does not want War, they've always only ever wanted to DO BUSINESS and be rich. Thats what they want to do and show the world their wealth. Even the earliest record as told in 1421, Chinese fleet when across the globe and back, and what did they do? They've gone to make friends and do business, either by sea, crossed deserts and mountains bearing gifts and what not, and what did Spanish and other European Country did when they got a hold of the map? the usual Roman Ideal: I come I see I conquer, and so they went across continent and took other people's land.

Avarre · Oct 03, 2008, 01:56 PM // 13:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

please understand the culture, the people, the country and you will come to understand that China does not want War, they've always only ever wanted to DO BUSINESS and be rich.

And America is all about liberty, I bet.

Thread is hilarious.

Master Fuhon · Oct 03, 2008, 02:00 PM // 14:00

I'll respond to the next wave (if there is one) later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Policies you are defending/suggesting created those places in their current form to begin with.

If you were serious about what you say about being police, you would need to nuke US best friends like Arabic Emirates or Israel or Gruzia.

We've only nuked Japan twice; no one else needs to be nuked yet. We continue to pay that debt despite the lives that may have been saved. I would say Israel is aggressive, but I do not claim the moral position to criticize the behavior of a country surrounded by enemies who make threats of death. Policing has nothing to do with bombs; frequently a military may try to achieve both functions of military/police and blur the lines. I would hope for more police so that the military does not have to double function, yet they would have to be capable of defending against violence (in some cases by being violent).

Leaders assassinated maybe, countries nuked no. But not worth the political instability when people are claiming WW3 is soon; we can't afford to be tied up rebuilding countries and to have the process fail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

There is nothing worse in world than leader with Mission (preferably from deity of some kind), that kind is beyond suicidal. Because they will wage their holy war on X recklessly and wouldn't care less about collateral.

Wrong. There is nothing worse than a man who takes no accountability for the negative consequences of his actions during his lifetime. This may be a man who foolishly believes himself to be a god, believes he has been appointed by a god to be an incarnation of some form of a god, or the man who doesn't believe there is any existence beyond his own death and uses that as an excuse to justify the world ending after he dies.

A man who believes in a warped violet god even could not approach the level of destruction of the previous 3 because he 'wastes' his time in prayer. You are absurd to interject your religious hatred into this. The argument could go on long enough on politics alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

You're suggesting that because China was troubled by germ warfare in WW2, they will again? You best be joking.

Everyone is vulnerable to germ warfare unless they can afford innoculations on the magnitude of treating several outbreaks. Bubonic plague started in China, and was passed on by traders and devastated Europe. Psychologically, everyone is even more vulnerable to germ warfare and nuclear weapons than they are physically. Such love for country, how do you react when you are not taken care of and treated as a casualty of war. You encourage the next generation not to fight, the U.S. has lived this part of history already. Put the Chinese people under the care of an extremely burdened healthcare system and I guarantee you they will lose the unity they have right now and be in the same place as the U.S.

Australia is still connected to Earth last time I checked. Earth's problems affect all of us; I will trust that not all Australian citizens are as ignorant of how Europe and other countries continue to act on its behalf so it can retain a semblance of peace and neutrality. Or how Australia acts to preserve it's status.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

What blood? Poland lost like 3 times more than you did. In the first phase of war, we lost 66k people, over 150k was wounded and more than 600k deported. However, we had like 2,5 less soldiers than the Axis forces that attacked us. So that's pretty good result.

I do not claim WWII as the sole victory of any country but I give credit to those who fought for not being cowards. Victory went to the world, even those who were not able to fight. If I was to foolishly give most credit to one country, I might say Russia. Russia threw bodies at the Germans to more effect than the other countries. Throwing bodies at an enemy is not a winning war strategy; it demonstrates a willingness to win but it does not demonstrate the ability. Even so, I think Russia could have done it longer than anyone; based on how much the people believed in that country at the time and how willing the leadership was to do it. Hitler was a drugged-up terrible, reckless general. The U.S. threw less bodies but attempted to act with precision to achieve objectives.

No where in my statements have I said the contributions of any country are worthless. Maybe if a country sent 4 men I would question whether they were acting on behalf of the nation. Most of the countries involved in the war were provoked at some point to cause them to join; but the war was about freeing people instead of just responding to agression.

As was said before, people want the U.S. to stay in the western hemisphere during times of peace, and to help out during times of war. You really need to pick a side on this one. We can't know which side to act on if we don't stay involved in Eastern Hemisphere politics. In Afghanistan, we continually get people who give us false information because they want to see their neighbors get killed.

If we trusted Europe to it's own devices with out checking sides before hand, we may accidentally side with the next Hitler. I'm sure someone wants to tell me the U.S. is the next Hitler; I think that would be making the first mistake of forgetting history by trivializing his crimes against humanity. Our President and Congress are under the watchful eye of our media (well maybe not a few celebrity candidates) and the whole world is watching every time we make a move.

pumpkin pie · Oct 03, 2008, 02:07 PM // 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

And America is all about liberty, I bet.

Thread is hilarious.

No, but debating is fun. lol and you kinda make me think of something regarding Doing Business, Chinese could become meanie and do business the way the American does = sell weapons ....

then we're all dead dead! i tell you.

Avarre · Oct 03, 2008, 02:09 PM // 14:09

There's debating, and then there's making stuff up. Around here, they seem to go hand in hand.

pumpkin pie · Oct 03, 2008, 02:14 PM // 14:14

but its a thread about playing a WWIII game, I think thats how things get mixed up.

Master Fuhon · Oct 03, 2008, 05:09 PM // 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

America could have ended WWII much earlier but they did not, Why? Becasue they wanted to sell weapons and becasue America isn't threatened, not until Pearl Harbour. After that, they needed to do something. They weren't thinking of China, or Poland or the Jewish people or (etc) off couse that line of action did stop WWII. But they did not set out because they were thinking of Civilian of another culture/country. Sorry to blow your bubble, but the American government isn't all that great as you might think. Plus Japan wasn't just invading China, they nearly took the whole of Asean as well, singapore philippines and malaysia were amongst some WWII Japanese Victims.

I have a distinction that leaders do not act on behalf of what is morally right, only what is morally right for one’s country. Some are clearly in the wrong in actions taken against own country. American’s don’t live in a bubble where we pretend others are villains without pointing the criticism at ourselves. Such projected greed at Bush for drilling oil; he’s only following Sun Tzu by foraging on the enemy. The wars are personal for him and not the army; that’s why they are so messy. I play this game as not fighting a personal war.

I don’t idealize people and I don’t often criticize the past based on the knowledge we have today. FDR was a high quality president. Albert Einstein and two of his constituents, given the acceptance of uranium enrichment, pointed the U.S. towards building the first bomb, in order to gain the advantage over Germany. He was an absolute pacifist, and I mark the nuclear weapon race as the decision that propelled America to where it is today (for good and bad). Truman dropped the bombs, and he did it to Japan for attacking us. I think every leader at the time would have dropped as many as they had upon being attacked. I think I would have too; the situation gets uglier when the enemy can retaliate with equal force. Japan was small, but it was a menace. The generals were encouraged to fight after the bombings. At least you recognize that devastation does not need to come in a large package.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

China would not have been beaten, why? Because China would not be so stupid to get into WWIII, not saying they don't have the necessary military power to defend themself, but above all else, what Chinese people wanted most is doing business now a days.

I have had no problem with China in history. They need to learn from U.S. failures of democracy and Soviet failures of communism. I initially recognized the army building as a defensive measure, intimidation against aggressive smaller enemies. The alliances and treatment of opposing belief systems are questionable, however. Right now the U.S. and China just stare at each other, and this plays out like classic Cold War game scenario. Chinese nationalism is a threat, the strongest enemy is a united one. Principles of war state the best chance of victory is to strike when least expected, at an extended enemy. Is this demonstrated weakness to provoke attack, China watches, others grow bold. Public opinion states: First one to panic and take direct action, starts the war and loses. There is no hatred between the two countries; there is no solid reason for the war to happen. But it could, because trust only comes after fully knowing the enemy (how he fights).

The consequences would entirely have to be larger than the actions that were initiated to discourage future war. Like the game scenario that has China striking a neighbor. This spurs U.S. to action out of duty, from the signing of a contract of defense. Killing of troops fuels killing civilians, which fuels killing of more civilians. It would be the war to make everyone sick of wars.

America comes from the same Roman culture as Europe does; it’s full of people who left out of necessity not out of desire to abandon beliefs. Someone would be sitting back, waiting for the moment to claim the place of power opened up. Would there not be a claim to take part in the rebuilding of the defeated country, as Germany was? Europe was hungry to see Germany absorbed as revenge for the acts of its army. The anger is intense for the U.S. having claimed a prize (Japan) for suffering the least losses. By example, the world knows what the U.S. does to the countries we absorb as extensions of ourselves. The world does not know China; even a Russian alliance could be weakened by this lack of trust upon a Chinese victory.

It would very much be a war initiated by leadership if it was started in this manner. But in both cases, it wouldn’t be possible to walk in and remove the guy the same way the U.S. would in Iraq.

Unlucky Slayer · Oct 03, 2008, 05:20 PM // 17:20

Right then, this has gone down the shitter into a useless debate about countries. I think its better for everyone to just end it.