morpheas768 morpheas768

The REAL Chatroom

The REAL Chatroom

Or alternative Chatroom

Ok, so I decided to create a new Chatroom, because the old one was getting pretty....old!  ;P

Everyone may post here, as well as in the good'ol Flameroom...I mean, Chatroom *_*

I would like to keep this Chatroom civilized. Well, as civilized as most forum threads are (doesnt mean that you all have to be polite like Oatesy, lol).

So for this reason, I may update the OP of this thread in the future, posting certain thread rules, as I see fit.

For now though, post away, and everyone is welcome! :)

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/8676/threadnecromancy.jpg

Currently these users are banned:

- ArcticBlunder

7,925,011 views 3,481 replies +1 Loading…
Reply #677 Top

Quoting CmdrNilles, reply 674
Neurotransmitter Decay?
End of CmdrNilles's quote

Name of a song too cool for you to handle.

Quoting Altaux, reply 675
And a cool Dog too
End of Altaux's quote

No, Dog is Alyx's; of course, I think everyone who's played Half Life 2 has figured out that there's probably some kind of relationship (friends or something else, who knows) between Gordon and Alyx.

This makes Dog an ally to Gordon, but Dog is primarily at the behest of Alyx.

Reply #678 Top

No, Dog is Alyx's; of course, I think everyone who's played Half Life 2 has figured out that there's probably some kind of relationship (friends or something else, who knows) between Gordon and Alyx.

This makes Dog an ally to Gordon, but Dog is primarily at the behest of Alyx.
End of quote

 true

Reply #680 Top

LOLWUT ZOMGROFLMAOWTFBBQ

Reply #682 Top

randomness FTW.

Reply #685 Top

Quoting Oatesy03, reply 683
... Du bist lustig, aber ein bisschen ungerade.
End of Oatesy03's quote

No spreckins deh German.

Quoting Oatesy03, reply 684
For the King!

For the King!

For the Sake of Skyrim!
End of Oatesy03's quote

WUT KING? Hoo's Skyrim?

Reply #686 Top

Du hast Deutsch nicht sprechen?

Then I'll have to speak English.

Reply #687 Top

So I've been away from the forums for a few days, I apologize for that.

But its good to see that you guys didnt let this thread die like the rest, he he ;)

Reply #688 Top

Right....so lets get in bussiness:

Quoting Whiskey144, reply 643
Ironically, the Marines aren't the "strongest" force the US has in terms of sheer manpower. The Army is probably ten times bigger, or more.
End of Whiskey144's quote

Well, I meant it more like: 1 Marine soldier >>>>> 1 army soldier, but yeah, sometimes size (or better say population) DOES matter.

But if the US were to send, say, 1000 men into war, Marines would be much more effective than the Army.

Quoting Whiskey144, reply 643
By that I mean that Marine units maneuver on the battalion level, while Army units maneuver on the regiment or brigade level. The Navy and Air Force don't really have a comparable mission to either the Marines or the Army; the Navy and Air Force are more oriented towards gaining and maintaining sea and air superiority (respectively). The Army is oriented towards holding ground, or large-scale maneuver warfare, whilst the Marines are oriented around purely offensive operations.

That's not to say a Marine unit is incapable of defending a position, far from it. Just that their modus operandi is oriented towards establishing temporary bases for logistics support, whilst forward elements are tracking and engaging the enemy, along with the main body of the force.
End of Whiskey144's quote

Basically, the Marines are the tip of the spear, like I said.

Quoting Whiskey144, reply 643
1. I disagree; mainly because terrorist attacks against US soil have occured; September 11, 2001 is the prime example. Planes were suicide-piloted into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and nearly the White House. Such an attack could quite possibly have decapitated quite a substantial portion of the US government.

2. I doubt the national security issues are really propoganda. Really, the security issue is that there are small groups who happen to hate America for whatever reason, and these groups are trying to get their hands on weapons that can do significant damage to targets on US soil.

A national security issue can also be in the form of a sensitive information leak, like Julian Assaunge (sp?). You know why Assaunge isn't airing Russia's or China's classified docs? Cuz they'd kill 'im, plain and simple.

Incidentally, if Ronald Reagan were president right now, Assaunge would be dead. Reagan didn't mess around when it came to ensuring America was protected from anyone who could, directly or indirectly, hurt it.

3. Morally speaking, that's arguably true; however, I disagree with the idea. Here's why:

An efficient killer will generally kill only the person(s) who are confirmed as "the bad guys". The idea is that the efficient killer is able to use only the force required to kill, and not any more or less. An inefficient killer will either not use enough force to kill, thus leaving the "bad guys" alive, or he'll use to much, and possibly cause collateral damage.

In my mind, at least, an efficient killer would be capable of eliminating all hostile forces with zero, or unfortunately failing that, minimal collateral damage. So an efficient killer is better; they have a much less risk of causing collateral damage, in the form of property destruction, or more importantly, civilian deaths.

4. Well, that really depends. Has this terrorist group actually harmed or stated an intention to harm the United States? If so, then yes, the American people would be behind a president that has claimed to have lessened or eliminated said terrorist group. If he's lying, he's pretty much screwed. If the group hasn't done anything to America then it's a bit iffy.

On the one hand, who knows if said group might not have declared ill intentions against America. OTOH, who knows if said group might have been formed to destabilize a corrupt government, and replace it.

The thing about killing, is that sometimes, there's simply no other way to fix a problem.

As for the idea that profit/status/career comes before morality/ethics/sanctity of life, well, we live in a fallen world, wracked with sin. The placement of profit and status over morality and human life isn't the problem, it's the symptom. That's not to say those things aren't bad, just that they aren't the uber-huge problem lots of people make it out to be.
End of Whiskey144's quote

1. Sure thing buddy. Keep telling yourself that *_*   Too bad we cant find proof about anything regarding 9/11, but then again, if we could, we would prove that the 9/11 was in fact executed by CIA, supported by the US government of course.

Anyway, the 9/11 was not a terrorist attack, it didnt have to do with the Al-Qaenta, the Taliban, or any other "terrorist" group that is believed to be out there, it was one big fat propaganda, and it was 100% a success. Good work, good work indeed >_>

2. Even if somehow we could accept that the 9/11 was a terrorist attack (which it wasnt, but w/e), that wasnt an invasion. Quite far from it actually. In fact, these planes killing people in US soil, could only be expressed as a couple of flies/bees stinging a big Tyranosaur Rex. The thing barely even felt the stings, while it was busy killing and eating the weaker, smaller dinosaurs. See what I mean?

"Really, the security issue is that there are small groups who happen to hate America for whatever reason"

For whatever reason!!! LOLZ :rofl:

Dude, are you serious here?

Ok, first of all, the whole "some certain groups of people who hate america" thing, is really backed up and supported by the US government. Why? You dont know why? Because that fits in their plans, serves their purposes, and help them keep doing what they're doing.

To be more specific, giving an example: When there are so-called terrorists, somewhere in Irak or Afghanistan (for instance), where happens to be certain valuable resources in that country, like oil, and these terrorists hate America, and want to destroy it, for whatever reason, the USA doesnt need any more excuses than this, to go in there, kill people, destroy everything, steal resources and everything valuable, and then rebuild everything, allowing its big multinational companies to literally take over the country.

Yeah, these people are god damn crazy. I dunno why the hell they hate america so much >_>

Damn, I wish I could explain everything to you Whiskey, but I cant. You see, its a waste of my time, since you're not going to believe anything anyway.

3. First of all, there are no bad guys, there's a bad society. Secondly, there's no need to kill anyone, especially the "bad guys". The "bad guys" like you say, are not problems of our society, and shouldnt be handled as such. They are in fact mere symptoms of our society, and not only we arent even attempting of eliminating the roots of the problems that caused these symptoms, but instead we are treating them with force, fighting fire with fire, trying to heal an open would with a small bandage, ignoring the fact that these wounds are only a side effect of internal bleeding, and the body is slowly dying from it.

Hope you got that metaphor. If you did, then you know exactly what I mean.

So, an efficient killer, and an inefficient killer, are essentially, literally, the same thing. They are both killers, and thats what matters. They believe that by taking someone elses life, will bring peace and prosperity, or happiness, or solve a problem, or do something good in the long term. That is 100% false. Do I REALLY need to explain why?

In fact, we are all killers, and nobody is a killer at the same time. Kudos if you know what I mean.

4. Whiskey, honestly: Do you really want to go in a debate on whether the "terrorists" have done more evil/killed more people, than the USA? Please, dont even go there, because A. The US government have cause more harm in the world that any other "terrorist" group, and B. I would have to really lower my level of intelligence in order to start blaming certain groups of people, trying to decide which of them are good and which are bad.

Please, the US government and every government in the world care about only 2 things: More power, and maintaining and holding their position.

The US president isnt elected to change anything, he is placed there to keep things are they are. Keep his country at the top (maintain and hold position), and give it more power if possible.

And I have no idea why people are so brain-washed to think that there is any form of freedom in our current society. Maybe its because we have created the best self-destruct system ever, that not only will lead to our extinction really fast, but also makes us support it.

Everything in our currect society makes absolutely no sense at all. From the most basic things, to the smallest details.

But you know what bothers me the most? People have such little trust in others, that not only they wont believe anything other than what they've taught or manipulated to believe (thus keeping a close mind), but also they dont even want to hear anything else that is outside of their little bubble. Thinking outside the box is, for some reason, the worst thing that can happen to them. But then comes along social manipulation and forms of mass scale propaganda, and thats a different story.

Anyway, it all comes down to this:

1. What do humans need to survive?

2. And how can we ensure survival but living a prosperous life, minimizing pain and suffering?

3. Make up our minds and do it.

Yes, it is that simple in theory. The only problem is that it usually takes a very long time for a society/culture to move on to the next level.

And right now, we are in a transition phase, but the problem is, that we are stuck in that phase for far too long. From the Ancient times of uncivilized and technologically poor man, to the Iron Age, the Dark Ages, the Industrial Revolution, to what we have now. Which is, technological advancement of the next era to come, but social and mental advancement of the previous era.

Let us hope that this thing is only a phase, that will pass, and that sometime we will advance as a society, civilization, and a species, eventually. If we dont exterminate ourselves/the planet in the process, that is

Quoting CmdrNilles, reply 645
Wars are not noble or good (although the media often portrays them that way) they are simply a part of life
End of CmdrNilles's quote

They are not part of life, they are part of our species' society, and we accept that, because we have been taught that "thats the way it is", or "there are some bad people that only want to do harm to the world".

Reply #689 Top

Ah, but killing is a part of life; people must kill animals for food and clothing, and Cain did kill Abel.

Now, Cain killing Abel was wrong, very wrong. But there are some cases where killing is right. You can't rehabilitate a Ted Bundy. Because, like it or not Morph, there are people who only want to do harm to the world. They probably don't see it that way (see Ted Bundy), but their actions dictate their intentions far more clearly than words ever could.

As an aside, I say "for whatever reason", because I don't really know all the reasons one would have for hating/desiring destruction of America. Really, my statement was a broad generalization meant to include religious, political, and ideological reasons for desiring destructive actions towards the US.

Now, most of my points weren't a "I'd like to debate this", but "I believe this and I believe it supports my position". The fact is Morph, I doubt we'll ever see a human-built unified, warless government. It's simply impossible for a human society to build.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this because I look at society today and conclude that it's the best we'll manage. I'm saying this because of the fact that building a huge, one-government society would be prohibitively expensive and extremely difficult to the point of impossibility to manage.

There's at least 8 billion people on this planet. Eventually, we'll probably be on other planets, and that would only make it a bigger problem, especially because of lightspeed lag. Did you know that it takes about four minutes for a light beam fired from Earth to hit Mars? And that it takes a laser 1.5 seconds to hit the Moon when fired from Earth?

Communications and mobility has, generally speaking, determined the extent a government can control. Communications can allow us to talk to anyone anywhere in the world with probably no more than a single second's delay, and the delay is for sound, and not information transfer.

In contrast, mobility dictates that no single country could control the planet, because we simply do not have the technology to do a massive, hours-or-less transport of large quantities of military or peacekeeping forces. Sure, we have the ability to airlift a whole bunch of equipment and manpower to anywhere in the world, but it's not enough for an invasion, and such aircraft are enormous, in both size, maintenance requirements, and cost. A C-5 transport jet can carry a single Abrams battle tank. To transport fifty tanks, you therefore need fifty C-5s. Said planes cost a lot more than the tanks.

For a civilization that stretches over our Solar System, for example, any single government would have to be capable of sending some kind of peacekeeping force anywhere in the system. This is hampered by communications lag, because it could be anywhere from minutes to hours between the time a message is sent and received. Then you have even more lag due to spacecraft traveling very much slower than light.

Also, current trends are predicting a more and more balkanized Earth, and not a unified one.

As a side note Morph, what exactly do you believe is the best government model? Because from everything I can tell, it's something that's roughly similar to communism.

Reply #690 Top

2. Even if somehow we could accept that the 9/11 was a terrorist attack (which it wasnt, but w/e)
End of quote

Oooh... Conspiracy theories. We're edging this into dodgy ground.

Just like how the moon landings were faked.

And how Elvis is still alive.

And how the Government lies to us. Wait a second...

 

Also, didn't Al-Queada take responsibility for the attack? It probably wasn't actually done by members of Al-Quaeda, but they still claimed responsibility.

Anyway, we didn't like Saddam, and we also knew that Bin-Laden and some other Al-Queada high-ups were hiding in Afghanistan, which they were (though they got away due to a well-coordinated fuck-up) so yeah. War it was. Saddam claimed he had WMDs as well, from memory, which was pretty stupid, because it gave a great excuse to invade. Not that one was actually needed of course, but some people are more comfortable thinking that their people stopped some nutter from nuking America. Of course, soldiers don't need such assurances, because they serve their country, regardless of cause. If they weren't happy with it they would/should have left the army.

Anyway, with my pseudo-fascist rant over, why are we even talking about this again?

 

PS: Despite my earlier naive beliefs of "good" and "bad," you can define America not as the "bad" guys, but simply doing what it pleases, and the terrorists doing what they please.

Reply #691 Top

As a side note Morph, what exactly do you believe is the best government model? Because from everything I can tell, it's something that's roughly similar to communism.
End of quote

It's happy birds and flowers land. Everybody has everything they want provided for them whenever they want, etc.

Somehow we'll have solved all our energy problems, nobody will be violent, and everybody will be willing to put themselves in danger to save others.

And all thanks to the Morph-patented instinct-removal pill! Just take one and you'll be identical to everybody else! Hooray!

 

But now for the serious bit of my post. It won't work.

Reply #692 Top

Yeah Communsim is a good idea, but doesn't work in practice.

Also Oatesy you speak German? I'm a little german

 

Oh and Morph I beleive that the army soldiers are more effective than the marines. The only purpose of the marines are a quick strike and amphibous assault ( I could be wrong, I'm not a 100%)

 

Marines

 

Army

 

Navy

 

Airforce

 

I don't mean to be disrespectful but they are funny :grin:

 

Reply #693 Top

Quoting Oatesy03, reply 691

As a side note Morph, what exactly do you believe is the best government model? Because from everything I can tell, it's something that's roughly similar to communism.


It's happy birds and flowers land. Everybody has everything they want provided for them whenever they want, etc.

Somehow we'll have solved all our energy problems, nobody will be violent, and everybody will be willing to put themselves in danger to save others.

And all thanks to the Morph-patented instinct-removal pill! Just take one and you'll be identical to everybody else! Hooray!

 

But now for the serious bit of my post. It won't work.
End of Oatesy03's quote

Well, of course it won't work. It's not that the idea isn't internally inconsistent, it's that the idea isn't consistent with reality. People aren't going to suddenly give up the idea that having to work for money to buy nice things is a good idea.

Which, as it so happens, it is.

Quoting CmdrNilles, reply 692
Yeah Communsim is a good idea, but doesn't work in practice.

Also Oatesy you speak German? I'm a little german

 

Oh and Morph I beleive that the army soldiers are more effective than the marines. The only purpose of the marines are a quick strike and amphibous assault ( I could be wrong, I'm not a 100%)

 

Marines



 

Army



 

Navy



 

Airforce



 

I don't mean to be disrespectful but they are funny

 
End of CmdrNilles's quote

If the Marines one wasn't Marines, I'd find it funny. As it stands, it's a case of, "yeah, you should get punched in the face".

The others, however, I now desire to have larger resolution versions. BTW, the plane in the Navy pic is a US Marine Corp Harrier jump jet.

Funny that. The US Navy gives the best office views of Marine Corp planes.

Reply #694 Top

ok i didn't know that the Harrirer was a marine corps plane. Any way the marines do rely on the Navy (my favorite branch) and vice versa.

Whiskey do you dislike me?

Oh more Godzilla

 

 

Reply #695 Top

Quoting CmdrNilles, reply 694
ok i didn't know that the Harrirer was a marine corps plane. Any way the marines do rely on the Navy (my favorite branch) and vice versa.

Whiskey do you dislike me?

Oh more Godzilla



 

 


End of CmdrNilles's quote

I don't like you, but I have no particular dislike for you. I find you to be similar to an immature teenager, but meh, the internets are filled with immature teenagers.

Reply #696 Top

Whiskey do you dislike me?
End of quote

He is a fanatical defendant of the USMC. Of course he hates you and your lilly-livered, behind-bashing weakling US Army. :P

 

Anyway, I found most of those pictures funny. Peace through superior firepower was just true, and I've heard it so many times before. Moving on.

Did you know that the USMC is bigger than the entire British Army? In fact, it's a self-contained army in its own right.

Reply #697 Top

Whiskey me immature i'm, i'm  X(

 

Oatesy where do you find these facts?

Reply #698 Top

What, the random crap I come out with?

From all over the place. And I'm pretty sure that that's true.

Reply #699 Top

Did you know that the USMC is bigger than the entire British Army? In fact, it's a self-contained army in its own right.
End of quote

Isnt that becuase America is bigger than Britain in terms of population?

Reply #700 Top

I don't know the full reason, but that must play a part in it. I was just pointing out how the USMC is huge.