RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DaddySatyr -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 1:21:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edvynn

Good thing there is no question whatsoever who's sock you are.

But I don't 'sock' or whatever else for anybody, and never have.

Unlike you.



There's a couple of issues, here:

Some of us (at least one) have "Edwynn" on hide because we don't wish to waste our time with anything that emanates from his imagination. You may not give a flying fuck about that and that's fine but, some of us do. If you are also that person, you've essentially made your own bed and the courteous thing to do is to let others know so that we can treat you, as you've earned.

Even if you're oblivious to the discomfort caused by Edwynn's posts, there's a rule here about one person, posting on the same thread, posing as two different posters.







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?




Edvynn -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 1:56:44 AM)


Here's the news;

I did notice that I all of a sudden came on here recently as a "new member" with out having gone to my account and changed anything. not the name, pass word, nothing.

Whatever happened in that regard was not my doing. I was "Edvynn before and I'm "Edvynn" now, but with only about 16 posts rather than 2,000 or whatever it was before.

You and Bama will have to ask the administrators about any of that, because I have no clue how that happened, and fuck if I'm going to ask any 'administrator' here about anything, because in my experience none of them have ever been the least fuck-all clear about whoever the fuck they were.

So if you're happy now with that, it's time you put me back on 'ignore' because I speak the truth the same now as I did before the site or the admins. did whatever they did with my account, and the truth pisses you off just as much now as it ever did (though some others can handle it better).





DaddySatyr -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 2:13:12 AM)


Sometimes, dealing with the wreckage of our past can be a daunting task. I wish you luck. Get well, soon.







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?




Edwynn -> RE: Foreignnglish language is the only Western language that us Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 2:36:42 AM)

OK, here's back to where it used to be.

So while we're on the subject of "to be," why is it that the English language is the only Western language that requires a preposition for the infinitive form of a verb?




Politesub53 -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 2:45:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

How in the name of all the gods did France pull anybody into Indo-China ? It was the Americans that taught, trained and armed the Viet-Minh in the first place and France was long out of Indo-China before the first 'advisers' showed their heads. America went into that country on the 'Reds-under-the-bed' scare that was rattling around the western world at that time (somebody DID mention the 'Domino Theory' here and I believe that was some American hawk that theorised on that load of bollocks). Much as I dislike France, please don't blame them for something they really had sweet F.A. to do with.



US advisers began arriving in 1950 (to help France) and it was STILL French-Indochina.

Edited to add:

There is actually a rather famous book AND movie (with Mel Gibson) that goes over this. "We Were Soldiers Once. . . And Young"



Kind of you to skip a few years. The OSS did train Ho Chi Minh well before they sent advisers to help the French, this went along with Americas push for a toehold in South East Asia after 1945

There is a good book on the whole Vietnam saga "Thirty Years War" or something similar.




PeonForHer -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 4:41:56 AM)

quote:

I was "Edvynn before and I'm "Edvynn" now, but with only about 16 posts rather than 2,000 or whatever it was before.


Hang on, weren't you 'Edwynn' before, not 'Edvynn'? Maybe that's the reason for the (apparent) mysterious change on your profile.




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 8:58:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

I was "Edvynn before and I'm "Edvynn" now, but with only about 16 posts rather than 2,000 or whatever it was before.


Hang on, weren't you 'Edwynn' before, not 'Edvynn'? Maybe that's the reason for the (apparent) mysterious change on your profile.

And the reason I had suspected him of being a sock, now it is clearer. Still doesn't explain what happened but it has been corrected.




Aylee -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 11:03:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

How in the name of all the gods did France pull anybody into Indo-China ? It was the Americans that taught, trained and armed the Viet-Minh in the first place and France was long out of Indo-China before the first 'advisers' showed their heads. America went into that country on the 'Reds-under-the-bed' scare that was rattling around the western world at that time (somebody DID mention the 'Domino Theory' here and I believe that was some American hawk that theorised on that load of bollocks). Much as I dislike France, please don't blame them for something they really had sweet F.A. to do with.



US advisers began arriving in 1950 (to help France) and it was STILL French-Indochina.

Edited to add:

There is actually a rather famous book AND movie (with Mel Gibson) that goes over this. "We Were Soldiers Once. . . And Young"

That took place in the 60's, it is the only Vietnam movie that doesn't infuriate me.


Yeah, but it has some stuff where Mel Gibson is reading up on the history of the area.




Aylee -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 11:07:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edvynn


Good thing there is no question whatsoever who's sock you are.

But I don't 'sock' or whatever else for anybody, and never have.

Unlike you.

In any case, I consider "We Were Soldiers" to be a fairy tale not because the events as the movie played it were a fiction, but it's a fairy tale as in presenting itself as being representative of the entire 15 year misadventure.

And I think "Apocalypse" sucked, and I think both Oliver Stone Vietnam movies sucked, badly, and I think "Hambutger Hill" and "Full Metal Jacket" sucked, and I think "Catch 22" sucked (I tried to like it, I like Alan Arkin, but it just sucked), and did I mention "The Deer Hunter"? completely sucked, on every level.

except that none of that means much since all those bazillion WWII movies sucked even ten times worse.

I hope you're getting the point, here.

To either glorify or to demonize all these tragedies for sake of (or as fodder for) salable drama in the entertainment industry is something I find disgusting in the extreme.







No it represented one incident.
And it was the only Vietnam movie which treated the American soldier with any respect.
It treated the VC as not monsters but as enemy soldiers.
If you came out disliking any one it was the brass on both sides.
And the Lt who got his platoon cut off.
I doubt that you liked Gettysburg, Gods an Generals, A Bridge to Far, or the Lost Battalion. All of which were good movies and as historically accurate as you can hope for from Hollywood.
Are there any historical dramas that you like?
The original All the Kings Men was a good fictionalization of Huey Long, but it is that boring history stuff again.


I always thought that "Zulu" was pretty good. And the re-creation of the Battle of Rorke'S Drift that S.M. Stirling did in his Island in the Sea of Time series.




PeonForHer -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 11:19:58 AM)

quote:

And the reason I had suspected him of being a sock, now it is clearer. Still doesn't explain what happened but it has been corrected.


My guess is that long ago, he made two profiles, one called 'Edwynn' and one called 'Edvynn'. He liked Edwynn better, so used that one. Then, recently, he inadvertently went back to Edvynn, thinking it was Edwynn.

Whatever. 'Edvynn' is too close to 'Edwynn' for it to make sense as a deliberate sock.




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 11:34:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

And the reason I had suspected him of being a sock, now it is clearer. Still doesn't explain what happened but it has been corrected.


My guess is that long ago, he made two profiles, one called 'Edwynn' and one called 'Edvynn'. He liked Edwynn better, so used that one. Then, recently, he inadvertently went back to Edvynn, thinking it was Edwynn.

Whatever. 'Edvynn' is too close to 'Edwynn' for it to make sense as a deliberate sock.

While you are correct that it was too close for a good sock, it took me one post to see it was him using a different name. (fit my opinion of his brilliance)




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 11:44:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

How in the name of all the gods did France pull anybody into Indo-China ? It was the Americans that taught, trained and armed the Viet-Minh in the first place and France was long out of Indo-China before the first 'advisers' showed their heads. America went into that country on the 'Reds-under-the-bed' scare that was rattling around the western world at that time (somebody DID mention the 'Domino Theory' here and I believe that was some American hawk that theorised on that load of bollocks). Much as I dislike France, please don't blame them for something they really had sweet F.A. to do with.



US advisers began arriving in 1950 (to help France) and it was STILL French-Indochina.

Edited to add:

There is actually a rather famous book AND movie (with Mel Gibson) that goes over this. "We Were Soldiers Once. . . And Young"

That took place in the 60's, it is the only Vietnam movie that doesn't infuriate me.


Yeah, but it has some stuff where Mel Gibson is reading up on the history of the area.

And it begins with a massacre of French troops in the same valley.




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 11:47:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edvynn


Good thing there is no question whatsoever who's sock you are.

But I don't 'sock' or whatever else for anybody, and never have.

Unlike you.

In any case, I consider "We Were Soldiers" to be a fairy tale not because the events as the movie played it were a fiction, but it's a fairy tale as in presenting itself as being representative of the entire 15 year misadventure.

And I think "Apocalypse" sucked, and I think both Oliver Stone Vietnam movies sucked, badly, and I think "Hambutger Hill" and "Full Metal Jacket" sucked, and I think "Catch 22" sucked (I tried to like it, I like Alan Arkin, but it just sucked), and did I mention "The Deer Hunter"? completely sucked, on every level.

except that none of that means much since all those bazillion WWII movies sucked even ten times worse.

I hope you're getting the point, here.

To either glorify or to demonize all these tragedies for sake of (or as fodder for) salable drama in the entertainment industry is something I find disgusting in the extreme.







No it represented one incident.
And it was the only Vietnam movie which treated the American soldier with any respect.
It treated the VC as not monsters but as enemy soldiers.
If you came out disliking any one it was the brass on both sides.
And the Lt who got his platoon cut off.
I doubt that you liked Gettysburg, Gods an Generals, A Bridge to Far, or the Lost Battalion. All of which were good movies and as historically accurate as you can hope for from Hollywood.
Are there any historical dramas that you like?
The original All the Kings Men was a good fictionalization of Huey Long, but it is that boring history stuff again.


I always thought that "Zulu" was pretty good. And the re-creation of the Battle of Rorke'S Drift that S.M. Stirling did in his Island in the Sea of Time series.

Haven't seen the Stirling series, but Zulu, except for the parts with the missionary, was very accurate.




Aylee -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 11:50:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

How in the name of all the gods did France pull anybody into Indo-China ? It was the Americans that taught, trained and armed the Viet-Minh in the first place and France was long out of Indo-China before the first 'advisers' showed their heads. America went into that country on the 'Reds-under-the-bed' scare that was rattling around the western world at that time (somebody DID mention the 'Domino Theory' here and I believe that was some American hawk that theorised on that load of bollocks). Much as I dislike France, please don't blame them for something they really had sweet F.A. to do with.



US advisers began arriving in 1950 (to help France) and it was STILL French-Indochina.

Edited to add:

There is actually a rather famous book AND movie (with Mel Gibson) that goes over this. "We Were Soldiers Once. . . And Young"

That took place in the 60's, it is the only Vietnam movie that doesn't infuriate me.


Yeah, but it has some stuff where Mel Gibson is reading up on the history of the area.

And it begins with a massacre of French troops in the same valley.


Hence my comment about the movie "going over" it.




cloudboy -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 12:08:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edvynn


What does have bearing on the matter is that terrorist recruitment was at an all time low after 9/11/01 and there was more Arab and ME sympathy to the US than there ever was before.


So of course the obvious thing to do for national security was to invade a ME country and thereby make terrorist recruitment skyrocket and increase regional political advantage of the most radical factions all across the region.

Makes sense, no?

OK, what were you saying about ISIS then?





Good post. We made the worst Foreign Policy moves of my lifetime. Just mind-boggling.




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 12:31:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edvynn


What does have bearing on the matter is that terrorist recruitment was at an all time low after 9/11/01 and there was more Arab and ME sympathy to the US than there ever was before.


So of course the obvious thing to do for national security was to invade a ME country and thereby make terrorist recruitment skyrocket and increase regional political advantage of the most radical factions all across the region.

Makes sense, no?

OK, what were you saying about ISIS then?




Hence Arabs dancing in the streets all over the ME in celebration of the 9/11 attacks call when you return to earth.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 1:31:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Hence Arabs dancing in the streets all over the ME in celebration of the 9/11 attacks call when you return to earth.



Forget the Middle East. In South Brunswick, NJ, a bunch of them gathered at the mosque and had a little hootenanny and wondered why a few of them got their asses beat by some South Jersey Redneck types.







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 2:05:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Hence Arabs dancing in the streets all over the ME in celebration of the 9/11 attacks call when you return to earth.



Forget the Middle East. In South Brunswick, NJ, a bunch of them gathered at the mosque and had a little hootenanny and wondered why a few of them got their asses beat by some South Jersey Redneck types.





Because when someone begs for something it is rude not to give it to them?

Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?





thompsonx -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 2:51:53 PM)


ORIGINAL: BamaD

France has started air strikes in Iraq.
But we all know about their Spartanesque attitude toward war.


No we do not. Perhaps you could tell us?





thompsonx -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/20/2014 2:59:10 PM)


ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I'm shocked that French bombs can find their way to the ground.

Anoher moron who does not believe in gravity[8|]





[/color]



Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?
[/quote]




Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625