Ok, so I decided to create a new Chatroom, because the old one was getting pretty....old!
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!
Currently these users are banned:
- ArcticBlunder
Well, I did say that I was being lazy about it.
Analysis:Analysis
Confirmation: Your analysis is sound.
Query: Why are we conversing in a manner evocative of HK-47?
Smug statement: Because meatbags do not shut up unless they are shot.
This:
No, because HK-47 = awesome dude/droid
Smug Counter-Statement: Because Meatbags do not have a noosphere or even a basic understanding of the Omnissiah's will.
Diverging from statement topic-doohickey:
Tonight, at the youth group at the church I attend, I met a really strange person. Like, I didn't even know they really had people like that strange.
And she was very interesting, to say the least. What little conversation I had with her, I have come to a conclusion. She is either:
1) Completely, utterly, and totally loony.
OR
2) She simply acts like that because she doesn't care what people think.
Either way, most interesting and enigmatic.
This person merits further study.
Thoughts? Any "wat do's"?
And she was very
He he, I figured it would be a "she" before I even read it, otherwise Whiskey wouldnt have even bothered to talk to her, LOL
Anyway....
Well, from what little I read about her in your post here, I can already tell that she could be your other half
Why?
Because 1) if she really is a loony, then she's good for you!
And 2) if she acts crazy, not caring what other people think, then guess what. She is perfect for you
Anyway, I'm kinda kidding about the 1st part, but the second one is true.
That's true. Crazy actions+uncaring attitude towards other people's opinions of her would be quite desirable to me.
On the whole "knew it would be a 'she' even before I said so" thing:
That reminds me of the fact that one of my sister's friends remarked upon me apparently being a ladies' man. I was unaware of this until that time, but meh, what can I say? I like the ladies.
Analysis: Subject: Whiskey exhibits attributes of typical human male in this respect.
This HK-47 thing is surprisingly good fun.
Who needs HK-47


That pic is total ripoff of the United States Marine Corps slogan:
"When it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed overnight, call the Marines."
Cuz that's what the USMC does. They utterly, absolutely, positively, incontrovertibly destroy stuff.
He he, I know you better than I thought, after all
OH NOES!! A female Whiskey!!!
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES THERE ARE 2 OF THEM!
J/K
In order to be called a Ladies' man, you have to have a waaay with de ladiez!
Well, do you have that quality?
I bet they have difficulty holding ground then.
"GET TO COVER!!!"
"Sir, there is no cover!"
"What? What did you maggots do wrong this time?"
"Nothing sir! You told us utterly, absolutely, positively, incontovertibly destroy this place!"
"..."
"Sir?"
"... Are you a mouse, or a man, private?"
"What?"
"If you are a man, you will stand in the open with your comrades and open fire on these Taliban pieces-o-shit, do you hear me?"
"But-"
"YOU ARE A US MARINE! SNAP TO IT MAGGOT!"
Works every time. Well, with US Marines. If you told a Royal Marine that he is a US Marine he'd have a sense of humour failure. They have... a reputation out of America.
Not quite and if you have noticed in the recent wars (bot including Iraq) marines almost always have the highest casulty rate because they use outdated tactics
Also how about this one
Whether or not the Marines are efficient killers, doesnt matter. What matters is that they are trained killers.
Their job is to kill people
(Now is the part where Oatesy comes in, and starts explaining to me that somehow the Marines are protecting their country from the evil terrorists, implying that these wars are noble or something.)
1. "outdated tactics?" That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Maybe they have the highest casualty rate because they are always the first ones in? That would make sense in, you know, REAL LIFE, because the Marines are the primary offensive arm of the US military.
2. You do realize that Godzilla isn't real. Even so, I raise your Godzilla one Imperial Star Destroyer. And a single ISD is confirmed to be capable of literally turning a planet's surface to molten material. This requires 5,000,000 megatons of TNT equivalent. MINIMUM
Generally speaking, a trained killer will be an efficient one. Or so I'd think anyway. Either way, the Marines of either country are protecting their nations from threats to national security.
Your opinion on whether these wars or noble/correct isn't really relevant from that particular point of view.
You might want to start running anyway. HEHEHEHEHE.
I s'pose I do, yeah.
Yes, its true that they always send the Marines first, and thats why they have the largest casualty rate.
Basically, because they are the strongest force they've got (man-related, not talking about weapons/technology etc), they send in the Marines first, so they can do the most damage, and then the military can mop up the rest.
It makes a lot of sense, from a strategy perspective. Tip of the spear first, and then the rest of the spear.
From a moral perspective, it doesnt make sense, because its immoral to only care about killing the most people, without any regard to your own losses. Then again, just wanting to kill people is immoral on its own, let alone the first one.
You do realize that the ISD isnt real either, right?
1. Uhm, no they're not protecting anything. Thats what they want you to believe.
2. There is no such thing as threats to national security right now. In fact, I cannot recall any time that the USA has been invaded, and I'm not talking about a distant island like Pearl Harbor or something, but North America's inhabited areas, towns cities, etc. If the USA has really been invaded for real in the past, please do mention it.
Anyway, the whole national security thing, is really a big fat propaganda, and its working quite well. Kudos to the US government.
3. I said it doesnt matter whether a trained killer is an efficient one or not. Morally speaking of course.
4. Oh yes, my opinion on whether these wars are noble/correct or not has everything to do with the subject at hand. And sadly, morality, ethics, right and wrong, are usually irrelevant for most people, and that is not only disapproved, but also rewarded, because a US president that has supposedly stopped a "terrorist group", by declaring war to them, killing thousands of people in the process, is mostly going to have the US people on his side, and get a nice Christmas bonus for a job well done. Just saying.
So basically, what I'm trying to say here, is that everything else like profit, social status, career advancement, etc comes first, and moral, ethics, human life, whatever you wanna call it, always comes second, and that is usually considered normal, and rewarded, in most cases.
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.
It's down to the training that Marines receive versus the training that any Army/Navy/Air Force servicemember receives. It's the mentality of the Marines; they have a mentality of "go in, kill the bad guy, and make sure he stays dead". The Army has traditionally had more of a ground-holding or large-unit maneuver mentality.
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.
Of course. The point was to say that Godzilla is by far one of the least destructive objects in modern scifi history. The fact that Godzilla can tear up Tokyo isn't particularly impressive by the standards of many scifi series; even Star Trek, one of the lower-end damage capable series, has ships that are capable of pretty much sending a planetary civilization back to the Stone Age.
In constrast, the Imperial Star Destroyer is capable of literally turning a planet's surface into molten slag. Which is so overkill that it's ridiculous; you don't need nearly that much destructive firepower to cripple or destroyer a planetary civilization.
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.
I never said that war is just did I?
Anyway, it is a good cause from my perspective, because it may well stop me or those I know getting blown up by a terrorist, if only for a little while.
1.But the marines aren't protecting the U.S. intelligence groups, TSA, and the national guard are.
2.Yes terrorist attacks have happened but we have never been invaded (except maybe the war of 1812?)
3. They may be efficent killers but they still rely on charge tactics and don't really care for losses. Thier mentatlity is simalair (except maybe airforce?) but extreme. This beserk mentaltity is sometimes thier problem when they take on an entrenched unit that can cause huge casulties. ( most of this info is based on ww2 which i mainly know about and my dad who was in the army so it may be slightly biased)
4. Wars are not noble or good (although the media often portrays them that way) they are simply a part of life
Also I never said Godzilla to be able to beat anyhting, he isn't a major sci-fi (only irradiated right) so it isn't excatly fair to compare him to the other sci-fi's
First things first, Nilles, PLEASE use proper spelling, punctuation, and grammar. "Beserk" is not a word; "Berserk" is. "Simalair" is not a word, "similar" is. "Mentatlity" is not a word, "mentality" is. "Casulties" is not a word, "casualties" is.
Furthermore, you've twisted my third point out of context. I was referring to Morph's position that an efficient and inefficient killer are morally identical, which I pointed out is not necessarily true. You have twisted it to say that "Marines might be efficient killers but they still use outdated tactics, like charging the enemy head-on without regard for losses" which isn't true.
The fact is, that any assault on the Japanese strongholds in WWII was bound to have high casualties. Additionally, rushing the enemy head on may:
1. Have been the only option. Perhaps the Japanese positions were firmly entrenched and simply had no other avenue of approach other than head on.
2. Have been done because it was the simplest and fastest method; alternately, this approach may have had the most usable concentrations of cover from enemy fire, despite being deep in an enemy position's line-of-sight.
3. May have been done for psychological effect. I don't think you'd want to sit tight in your fancy little bunker/dugout if the enemy is charging head on and making significant progress.
In looking back over your post, I realize that you may be thinking that my 3rd point is referring to some difference between the Army and USMC (it isn't). To my knowledge, the Army has never had a berserker mentality of "run straight at them and hope they die".
If you're thinking of the landings at Normandy, then the reason the Allies' troops had to run straight into the teeth of the German defenses is because there was no other way. The Allies were doing an amphibious assault; there wasn't any other way for them to get the enormous concentrations of men into France without a beach assault. So, naturally, the Germans knew this, and heavily fortified the beaches. This made the beaches a veritable gauntlet of death-dealing machinery and equipment.
It's simply naive to think that some of the most important battles in history could have been won with fewer deaths on the victor's part.
As for the Godzilla vs other scifi Nilles, here's the lo-down on scifi vs.
1. "Fair" means both sides play by the same rules. Not that the 2 parties are evenly matched, but that they play by the same rules. A child and an adult that are boxing each other is a fair fight so long as both use the same equipment and play by the same rules; it's a poorly matched one, yes, but still fair.
2. A lizard that gets irradiated and turned into a giant dino-lizard thing that then terrorizes Tokyo is science fiction. It's more handwavey than a lot of scifi nowadays, but then again, giant bugs and people are hideously unrealistic in the extreme.
War can be noble, depending on the reasons for going to war. The actual act of war is neither noble or good, yes, but the reasons behind going to war can be.
The fact is however, that USMC tactics have changed quite a bit since the Second World War.
Yes, I realize that my post does go a little helter-skelter. Suck it up, at least the spelling, punctuation, and grammar are fine.
Ok, ok, ok you win (hey your right you can win wars )
but I don't really care for spelling as I am just a teenager. plus its close enough
1.Quite true but I beleive that a heavier Navy and Air Corps pounding could have lessened the american death's
2.Again possible, but I like to think that other choiceesw were available
3. I apoligize about doing that, but I still disagree
The Godzilla part.
I want an even match ok. I'm pretty sure you know what I meant. If it were Godzilla vs. the zillo beast (btw can anybody tell me what happneed to it, i didn't see that episode), the Krayt Dragon or an Army, would have been a FAIR,EVEN MATCHED OPPONENTS!
Oh and I really only like the American Godzilla and his tv show.
Oh whiskey this is for you
So what exactly are the stimulants that the USAF takes before going into the air? I've heard it said that it could be part of the reason that the USAF has had more than a few... accidents with friendlies. While I doubt that it leaves them as high as some claim, does anybody know what they actually take?
Also, can somebody try to make the M4 or the FN Scar vaguely more interesting for me? They've both always struck me as incredibly boring, though I don't know much about them, so that may be at least partially why.
I can't help you with the first one but I might be able to help with the 2nd
From what my dad has told me (he is a scar fan) the scar-H is a battle rifle and fires 7.62x51mm round while the scar l fires the standard NATO round. I am also pretty sure that the scar can switch barrels by taking out screws and replacoing it with a different barrel for a diffferent bullet( not 100% sure)
My dad says if he wins the lottery he will buy me and my brother one
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
