Jesus Chicken Posted June 7, 2002 Share Posted June 7, 2002 Well as most of us should know, I am, and I do belive the worst... I have to agree with ye. Freezing a veteran is a bit drastic, what are they going to do, thaw him out for the minute of silence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 7, 2002 Share Posted June 7, 2002 ROLF!!! I think it's like on of the historical things.... May be they could put a new eye in for him when they freeze him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus Chicken Posted June 7, 2002 Share Posted June 7, 2002 eheheh! And the leg too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unholy Newt Posted June 7, 2002 Share Posted June 7, 2002 Harlequin that is not the meaning of patriotism. Patriotism is having respect for your country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 7, 2002 Share Posted June 7, 2002 Where on Earth is this thread going? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Harlequin Posted June 7, 2002 Share Posted June 7, 2002 [font=gothic][color=crimson]Unholy Newt, you should know me well enough by now to realise that I never use a conventional meaning for anything if I can possibly help it. And as for where this thread is going... well, the twisted realm of Cloricus, Jesus Chicken, Ravenstorture and I having an argument I suppose.[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 7, 2002 Share Posted June 7, 2002 [size=1][color=tomato]Well, let's try and keep things on track. I already closed another thread in Otaku Lounge today because of an argument. It's dissappointing. :([/color][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amphion Posted June 8, 2002 Share Posted June 8, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Harlequin [/i] [B][font=gothic]And then you have the almost legendary arrogance of certain recent American leaders...[/font] [/B][/QUOTE] I have been hearing this alot, and I guess its true now that I think about it. Im not sure when, but I am sure that one day the US will meet its match. Then we will not act so arrogant. Reason being? History repeats itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Harlequin Posted June 8, 2002 Share Posted June 8, 2002 [font=gothic][color=crimson]Sorry James. The fact that history is allowed to repeat itself proves my point. Once getting to a certain point in his career, every leader starts to believe that he has done for his country than his predecessors, and ceases to learn from their predecessors mistakes. Human nature.[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 8, 2002 Share Posted June 8, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Harlequin [/i] [B][font=gothic][color=crimson]Sorry James. The fact that history is allowed to repeat itself proves my point. Once getting to a certain point in his career, every leader starts to believe that he has done for his country than his predecessors, and ceases to learn from their predecessors mistakes. Human nature.[/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=darkblue]I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with this discussion...[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstorture Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 [color=darkgreen][font=darkred]Well, I should apologise for throwing the thing about the leg, it seemed to lead the whole thing right off track. What I meant by the "what the hell was that supposed to mean" was why would cryogenic freezing of a dead man be postponed due to loss of a leg? And here's the [i]really[/i] interesting thing.... The last anzac died with both legs in tact. Anyway, I don't know much about the subject of historical wars, but I will say this because I believe it is important. At the moment, I am trining to be a soldier. As with a couple of other people in this discussion, but perhaps on a more subdued level. But we are taught dicipline, the routine of an army life, I have lived in an army barracks and I have undergone battle situations in training. I have eaten army food, slept in army property, fired an army weapon, I have befriended army soldiers and I have learnt from them. We are taught how to fight, why to fight, where to fight, when to fight, and who to fight. The only reason veterans interest me is because I have no doubt that one day, I will be among them. And I know that there is nothing that I would hate more to be respected and seen as a hero because I went out and slaughtered people.[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 We also learn to go out when it is cold Raven! But yes you are right. I have never seen why women would want to server on the front line, don't you think it is bad enough that in conscription that men are forced to go and fight, and die. I guess I'm being sexist when I say that but I have never figured out the reason women would want to be forced to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unholy Newt Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 The reason is that women also have respect for their country. They want come home and say. "I did that, I fought for my country's freedom'" they want to be respected for doing something great like the ANZAC's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 This topic is somewhat teetering. I'd like to see it brought back immediately. -Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 [color=royalblue]All topics tend to naturally change direction somewhat. It's a military topic...discussing defence and such. I think that the discussion of the ANZACs can directly move into where this seems to be going. But if it moves too far away from this basic subject thread, then it will need to be closed.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amphion Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 If a woman wants to serve her country, I repsect her for that. If not thats fine too. During WWII women where only factory workers. they were not allowed to serve on the front lines. Some women did not like this but if it where not for them being in the factories, the war machine breaks down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asar Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 [QUOTE]The ANZAC legend is the most glorified stupidity around. We celebrate the fact that a bunch of people sat in a hole for a while, then ran in and got themselves shot due to general idiocy on the general's part. How is this noble? How did this sacrafice that proved nothing really help us?[/QUOTE] Harlequin, the message that you're trying to get across doesn't quite match up with the words as you wrote them, in (as i see it) an intentionally inflammatory opening post. Obviously you knew that this post would incite quite considerable feelings of outrage from Australians, New Zealanders, and pretty much anybody who has heard the ANZAC story. I'm trying not to sound as if i'm talking down to you, but when you make a statement like that about a topic as controversial and emotive as war, not only should your message be completely succinct so that it can't be interpreted differnetly to your intended meaning, it should also be a tiny bit more complex that "Some guys hopped in a hole and got shot. They were dumb." War, as with most issues in life, is pretty complex, annd it shouldn't be boxed into a statement as simple as the one you made. I'm also pretty disgusted that an Australian would make that statement in the first place, and even with your less than satisfactory defense i still fell slightly nauseous at seeing the words. However, to paraphrase Voltaire, though i do not agree with what you say, you should have the right to say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Harlequin Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 [font=gothic][color=crimson]How many times do I have to settle that? I mean, I've had to explain myself to people who seem to be going out of their way to misunderstand me. For christ's sake, this is starting to annoy me. I believe war is a waste of life. I believe the manner in which this particular war was conducted wasted life. While I believe life is an aberration of time and space, I still respect others' rights to it. I swear, I am going to hang someone up by the shoulder blades in a minute. And as for being Australian, I am probably the least patriotic, most apathetic, person in this country. If our country was invaded, I would fight, but not for my sake. For the sake of the few people I care about. But if they had been killed, I would accept it. It means nothing to me. I really don't care what your opinion of me is, but on the other hand I really couldn't be bothered re-reading what has been said about me several times over again. I don't care how contentious you find me. Anyway, now that my little rant is over... Personally, the fact the women did not serve with the ANZACS was a good thing. At that time, they had no training, there was no force of women set up. While men who had no training signed up, women were less qualified. (And before anyone so much as THINKS about calling me sexist, hear me out.) Women are typically less aggressive than men. We'd all concede that? Good. They, in that time, were typically less fit and suited to the rigours that war would impose on them with men. Now however, is a different story. Now, they are trained, and are the equal of men in that field. I'm all for equality, but that they didn't serve with the ANZACS was a very good decision.[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstorture Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]We also learn to go out when it is cold Raven! But yes you are right.[/b][/quote] [color=darkgreen][font=gothic]Hey - I had more important things to do, like lying around and watching movies with my loved ones. Pushing a bus two k through mud is a waste of my valuble talents, Cloricus!!! And besides - my lance corporal needed that responsibility more than I did. [/font][/color] [quote][b]I have never seen why women would want to server on the front line, don't you think it is bad enough that in conscription that men are forced to go and fight, and die. I guess I'm being sexist when I say that but I have never figured out the reason women would want to be forced to do that? [/B][/QUOTE] [color=darkgreen][font=gothic]Women want to go on the front line probably because of the same reson men want to, without all that macho showing off thing guys do in the army sometimes. Breen told me I wouldn't make it to the front line. Another soldier guy I know, Lauryn's cousin, told mewomen are'n allowed in the front line because the "national requirement for women to have showers" is two weeks, but with boys it's six!!! Bull^&#@!! Women aren't allowed in the front line because of a responisbility of care, and the fear of a patriarchal, chauvenistic society that women are taking men over. Sorry, my other is a feminist. It shows in me sometimes.[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 Yes, well guess who's section got lost.... I didn't realise that there was a national requirement...? At the bases the most common answer to that if you ask is "they distract the men" and I guess in some cases that can happen, a human fault (in men) and that also can be deadly. And I guess that is why they haven?t done that so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus Chicken Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 I think the fact that anyone would want to die, is idiocy, I don't want this to spark another debate about my comment, as so happened with Harlequin's. I can't blame anyone for not wanting to go into war... If you want to it's your choice. I don't think it's right that women were, only until recently, not allowed to serve in the front line... But (I don't mean to be sexist) let's face it, men are more... Physically (spelling?) attuned then women... Men are more musclular, therefore it makes it easier for them to do more demanding excersises than women, fighting for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 I find it really annoying when that point is stated (men are stronger than women) that women get really annoyed. It is a fact. I know that it is a generalisation but it is the way we have evolved. Some women are stronger than men. I think that any women that are allowed to go in the army/front line are at the same standard as men, none of this equality crap. It is to dangerous if the women in a section on the front line are not a fast, strong or as good an aim as the others. I also think that the men in some sections that are not up to this standard should not be on the front line. This is why we only use the SAS (And other elite groups.) in battle. I feel that women should be able to fight on the front line, it is there right. But not at the expense of the other peoples lives. This means that every one should be at the same standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstorture Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 [color=darkgreen][font=gothic]Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!! The truth of it is, my dear fellows, that men are more physically stonger and more developed than women in the upper body. Genetically, women are stronger then men in the lower half of the body. Thus nullifying any "stronger gender" issue that is raised. Besides, I am probably stronger than both you [i]and[/i] cloricus, Jesus chicken. Perhaps... And in the beginning, the stone/bronze/etc eras, may I remind you that WOMEN hunted to food, men prepared it. They didn't just gather berries and pop out children every now and then, they actually took up spears and went and ran after animals killing them. I don't know where the roles got switched around to the extent of actual discrimination and mysogenism, but there it is. And as for wanting to die, the desire for death is not linked in any way to war. People who wnat to end their lives do not attemt to do so by joining an army. There are quicker, more efficient ways of ing it than joining a group that teaches you how NOT to die, under circumstances where the chance is remote. People who fight in wars are trained to survive, heightening their chance of NOT DIEING. More people die of heart disease, cancer, road accidents and getting crushed by washing machines than by war. It simply does not make sense. I have heard stories of women in the front line in other countries coming in contact with australian troops and numerous people have told me that the women were actually a lot better than some of the men, quite often, And this dosen't surprise me, as women would have to push themselves harder to get to places where, strictly, they aren't allowed.[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 I didn't bring up that part [quote]may I remind you that WOMEN hunted to food; men prepared it[/quote] Because it would of screwed up my argument. It is true and also not depending on the case. I am stronger than you raven; we have found that out already. (Except when you kick....) Women can be more useful in some situations and bad in others, the same as men. But if women where equal to men don't you think they would be on the front line already? I have no problem with this; I just believe there should be a standard for both men and women that have no difference. At the moment there is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstorture Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]I didn't bring up that part Because it would of screwed up my argument. It is true and also not depending on the case. I am stronger than you raven; we have found that out already. (Except when you kick....)[/b][/quote] [color=darkgreen][font=gothic]And by mind, my dear. [/font][/color] [quote][b]Women can be more useful in some situations and bad in others, the same as men. But if women where equal to men don't you think they would be on the front line already? [/B][/QUOTE] [color=darkgreen][font=gothic]No, because women aren't not on the front line because they aren't strong enough. People have already proved that we ARE strong enough. They are not on the front line because it seems to be a well accepted fact that women are less than men are, in some, if not most, ways. Only recently is this being refuted.[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now