> Mercenary units are not allowed weapons of mass
From: ~ On Behalf Of Beth.Fulton@csiro.au
Sent: 17 April 2002 08:39
Subject: [MERCS] Weapons available
> While I understand the logic, would it be enforceable?
Out-of-genre, I'd say mercenaries are more likely to
use such weapons since they won't have to face the legal
or political fall-out.
In genre, we know they were used by Swiss mercenaries in 2129 to cover their
raid on the Philipines.
This appears to be one of the rallying causes for the UN that transformed it
into organisation we are likely to meet in FB3, assuming it covers the UN
models.
We know that the Friesland Charter that concluded the Mercenary War in 2132
laid down a code for mercenaries and their employers. "Most nations and blocs
that either supply or employ" mercenaries sign the agreement not to hire any
unit that does not comply.
I thought all this was straight out of the back of SGII?
A unit might keep prohibited weapons in order to escape a desperate situation,
but they would have to disband and form new units, and they would presumably
forfeit any payment or repatriation bond.
> --- CS Renegade <njg@csrenegade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Out-of-genre, I'd say mercenaries are more likely to
Won't have to face legal and political fallout? Are you insane? Mercs have a
FAR higher vulnerability to Great Power actions than other great powers. And
as for political fallout, if a merc unit becomes known as the "Butchers of
Beta Trianguli" and acquires a reputation for flinging nerve gas with gay
abandon, then there is no way in HELL that they could ever get hired by
anyone. How could you explain to your voters that you hired a bunch of crazed
lunatics?
Mercs can get arrested. It's not hard. If you have a merc company, then you
don't have the support structure in place to protect you. All I have to do is
place the merc unit's family in "protective custody" and all of a sudden the
mercs are real cooperative.
> In genre, we know they were used by Swiss
With massive political outcry.
G'day,
> Won't have to face legal and political fallout? Are
I obviously have a more sceptical view of human nature. What about those
nations that are already "ostracised" by the other "respectable" nations.
Especially ones with totalitarian regimes that don't have to answer to their
populace. Worse still what if it was vs a target that the general populace of
said nation thought "deserved it as they were scum". Given the string of
atrocities dotting human history I don't have a problem imagining that mercs
could use them and "getting away" with it (the fact its a distasteful image is
a whole different ball game).
On the flip side playing a "war criminal" extraction scenario based on such an
action could be a challenge.
> From another angle, especially given the KV push for Sol, under what
Cheers
> From another angle, especially given the KV push for
As a side remark, the effects of chemical and biological weapons might well
differ between species. Perhaps the Kravak just sneeze at Sarin, but are
killed by a whiff of tear gas? Similarly, any bacteria may have a very
different effect on Martians than on humans (not a new idea, actually, see
"War of the Worlds").
Greetings
On 18-Apr-02 at 07:46, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au (Beth.Fulton@csiro.au)
wrote:
> From another angle, especially given the KV push for Sol, under what
I would see it as something where the Merc unit would be issued the weapons by
the hiring government and be expected to account for every one after the
contract.
The thing I'm curious about, my merc unit is licensed by the NAC and is, in
actuallity subsidized by them. Under what condition with respect to the KV
would they be used by the NAC? I'd almost say never but am curious about other
viewpoints.
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 18-Apr-02 at 09:08, Damond Walker (dwalker@syncreticsoft.com) wrote:
Then
> again, once that threshold has been crossed maybe the exact same
Under ordinary situations I would agree with you, however, in this case we are
talking about the government sending mercs on a mission involving KV.
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:46:12 +1000 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
<snip>
> From another angle, especially given the KV push for Sol, under what
Non-Human and grossly brutal? Why wait?
Seriously, It would be a matter of perceived cost to the defenders if they
didn't use them versus using them.
Gracias,
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> I obviously have a more sceptical view of human
Ummm... Most of those are way the hell too paranoid to permit their disposable
hirelings that much power.
> Especially ones with totalitarian regimes that don't
Paranoia levels get a lot higher in that case. They tend to not want to
introduce populations of armed foreigners into their countries. It's not
really safe. If they have WMD, they would tend to be in the hands of safe,
politically reliable officers preferably related by blood to El Supremo.
> From another angle, especially given the KV push for
Any time they face KV in the Core Worlds. But only under the control of the
respective governments. Nuclear weapons security is not a joke to those
nations who have them.
> Out-of-genre, I'd say mercenaries are more likely to
From: ~ On Behalf Of John Atkinson
Sent: 18 April 2002 04:43
Subject: RE: [MERCS] Weapons available [FH]
> Won't have to face legal and political fallout? Are
Possibly - see my posting on boarding actions.
> Mercs have a FAR higher vulnerability to Great Power
By out-of-genre, I was referring partly to real-world
mercenaries and partly to fictional ones drawn from
non-GZG backgrounds.
Twentieth-century mercenaries tend to form units for
single operations, or are even hired individually by the sponsor. In both
situations, there is often a large degree of deniability, so the mercenaries
are free to use methods that government troops and company employees would
face recriminations for.
In fictional backgrounds, different moral standards often prevail.
> And as for political fallout, if a merc unit becomes
If the unit has a reputation to uphold, and EMPLOYERS don't like the use of
these weapons then I would agree.
However, what if you have an industrial complex worth several billion credits
and it's been occupied by locals with cheap automatic weapons? Or even
striking employees? You can pay a mercenary company to flush them out using
similar weapons, or you can hire a platoon to simply sanitise the complex with
a few gas rounds from a mortar. Guess which will leave you more of your
complex?
> How could you explain to your voters that you hired a
That assumes a democracy, or an equivalent method of government accountability
to the general public. Even
then, you could have public pressure to hire a rock-hard
unit to nuke the enemy 'till they glow... etc.
On the other hand, patrons won't hire units with a reputation for making a
mess (literally or politically) regardless of whether they do it with
prohibited or conventional weapons.
> Mercs can get arrested. It's not hard. If you have a
Now that's sketching a established mercenary unit on the scale of Falkenberg's
Legion (and I think I recollect
an episode when a mad vice-president and his stooge tried
to arrest Johnny Christian.) Back to reality: I don't see the average
mercenary fighting under a nom de guerre having easily traceable dependents.
Yes, many of them are arrested, often before their operations get going. This
is simply to forestall the operation, rather than to prevent unacceptable
amounts of death and destruction.
==========================================================
Note: I've cheerfully mixed real-world and fictional
settings in all of the above. I would suggest that any replies make a better
job of distinguishing the two than
I've done so far. Most of the near-reality discussion
appears to be going on in the original thread anyway. The rest of this is all
[FH].
> In genre, we know they were used by Swiss
> With massive political outcry.
Hence my "This appears to be one of the rallying causes for the UN..." line.
If the Friesland Charter had just been a simple settlement between the
protagonists, it would not have been signed by so many other parties.
> Mercs have a FAR higher vulnerability to Great Power
Applying this to the GZG universe (which may or may not have been the original
intention) I would say that there, one does not break rules so much as make
enemies. Being wanted by the NSL for undue use of chemical weapons is no
problem if you primarily work within the ESU. However, if you are captured by
the Swabbies, you will only live as long as the cameras take to arrive for
your execution.
If it were not so difficult to cultivate and control a pool of ready
mercenaries, the Mercenary War would probably not have happened in the first
place.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:55:45 -0700 (PDT) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> From another angle, especially given the KV push for
If anything John understates attitudes, Beth. Not that some don't/can't
get out but I suspect even the ESU/NAC or FSE/NSL would cooperate to get
a loose nuke back into 'reliable' hands...
Gracias,
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 01:29:09PM +1000, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
Hey, the GZGVerse is obviously a utopia... it assumes humans have the basic
good sense to get into space in the first place.
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:29:09 +1000 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
Beth, Beth, Beth,
You know my answer - No comment. Or comet. <sorry, no grin>
Note I said would cooperate, not be successful...
When you both are potential targets it makes sense even in geo-politics
to reduce the chance of being the target of choice de jure... Even if you work
on nothing else.
IMNSHO, It's not a matter of if as much as when and where. And how many times.
Gracias,
> --- CS Renegade <njg@csrenegade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Twentieth-century mercenaries tend to form units for
Uh, not necessarily. They can get tracked down, especially if the victims are
determined enough.
And if they are that hard to track down, would any one trust them with a
goddamn nuclear weapon? Do you have any idea what sort of standards a nation
holds the custodians of their nuclear weapons to? Most personell in the US
military could not qualify for the PRP program to get close to nuclear
weapons.
> In fictional backgrounds, different moral standards
Depends.
> However, what if you have an industrial complex
Personally? I flush the place with CS and then send in riot police or regular
infantry. If you gas your own citizens you run the risk of ending up a pariah
like Iraq.
Oh, and you still do it with your own forces.
> > How could you explain to your voters that you
> government accountability to the general public.
Other methods of government produce reigimes far to paranoid to equip those
not politically reliable with WMD.
> Now that's sketching a established mercenary unit on
> having easily traceable dependents. Yes, many of
It's even simpler in any background with space travel: If the mercs in
question do unacceptable things, they
find it really difficult to get off-planet.
> Applying this to the GZG universe (which may or may
Depends on circumstances. Would the ESU hire mercenary units with the
firepower to set up their own fief (which WMD provide)? I doubt it.
> Personally? I flush the place with CS and then send
If you asked most of the Kurds the Iraqi's gassed, they would probably insist
that they are not Iraqis. The U.S. has no room talk about Iraq's use of WMD's
against a rebelious minor nationality. There are two documented instances
where the U.S. Army intentionally used biological warfare against native
american tribes. The Iraqi's used chemical weapons to defeat the Kurds. The
U.S. used biological weapons after the native american tribes had surrendered.
There's nothing like slaughtering men, women, and children with biological
weapons, while march them off to concentration camps (resorvations), to end a
minor nationality's ability to rebel for at least a hundred years.
> Depends on circumstances. Would the ESU hire
Sure they would. If they need the firepower at the moment and view the
mercanary fiefdom as far easier to deal with then the NSL or any other major
power.
> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> If you asked most of the Kurds the Iraqi's gassed,
Under international law, they are. If you hold Iraqi citizenship, you're an
Iraqi. Your personal preference in favor of independant Kurdistan is
irrelevant. Personally, I'm all in favor of Kurdistan, mostly because it would
honk off Turkey. Any divisiveness in the Dar al'Islam makes me happy.
> room talk about Iraq's use
Even if the cases occoured as you suggested, that doesn't not translate to the
above statement. The fact that 7 generations back, I'm descended from a slave
overseer does not prevent me from being offended by, for instance, the
Sudanese continuing to practice chattel slavery (and the Saudis effectively
doing so as well).
> There are two documented
Cite source. Reliable, off-net source preferably.
I've only seen 2 cases where this was substantiated.
One case was a _British_ officer ordered the
distribution of smallpox-infected blankets.
The other was a New York Indian fighter
(pre-Revolutionary, IIRC) who died of smallpox and
ordered himself buried in his infected blankets. The Indians predictably
desecrtated his grave and started
a plague. Frankly, I find that to be self-inflicted.
> with biological weapons, while march them off to
I can tell you've never actually seen a concentration camp. Hop a flight to
Europe sometime. It's
mind-expanding.
If the US wanted to engage in Nazi-style extermination
practices, there would be no Indians left at all. We're more effective than
Germans when we set our mind to something. More flexibility.
> > Depends on circumstances. Would the ESU hire
It would be far more likely that they would provide an "advisory and control
group" to the merc unit to maintain control over the nuclear weapons and
ensure that they are used in accord with whatever control measures the overall
ESU command decides to put in place. So it wouldn't be, in extreme
circumstances, completely unheared of for a merc unit to call in a WMD strike
but it absolutely wouldn't be under merc control.
> Under international law, they are. If you hold Iraqi
I listed no preference for Kurdistan. I simpily stated a fact.
> > room talk about Iraq's use
The whole point is that the U.S. is not clean from use of WMD.
> > There are two documented
I don't remember the source; I came a accross them about 10 years ago while
doing some research. If the sources weren't credible, I would not have
bothered to remember them.
> I've only seen 2 cases where this was substantiated.
Actually, I have seen two Nazi concentration camps. One of which, Buchenwald
(sic), had a recently discovered mass grave behind it (in the summer of 1992).
The dates were from 1946 on (I forgot the upper bound). Stalin didn't like to
waste resources, only people...
> If the US wanted to engage in Nazi-style extermination
If you knew your history, you would know that Adolf Hitler had the highest
regard for what the U.S. Army did to the American Indians. He liked it so
much in fact, it was his plan for the USSR. Only the in-ablity of the
Nazi's to defeat the Allies (especailly the Soviets) prevented them from
implementing this. The Hollocost was a result of the Nazi's in-ability
to inflict far worse and far broder genocide. Remember, the Jews and Gypsies
were only the two at the top of the Nazi extermination list. All of the Slav's
were also on there. If you doubt this, why don't you check what percentage of
captured Russian soldiers survived the war...
The reason there are some American Indians left is because the goal was to
exterminate enough of them to break there will... Nazi's weren't after just
breaking there will...
Imre and John, if you're going to continue that discussion, I get the
impression that it's better done offlist (which John did ask for, by
This is true. However, quite a few "Mercenaries" in the GZG universe are state
sponsored and state operated. That is are for all intents and purposes a
national
military "loaned" out to a client-state. Examples:
LLAR, IC, IF, & NI. If the LLAR wanted to provide its units with NBC weapons,
it would have the resources and training to do so. Only the contract with the
client state (or wisdom on the LLAR's part) would prevent them' from doing so.
Now, you could argure that all Merc contracts would have clauses in them not
to equip such units with NBC weaopons. But it also provides "plausable
deniability" to the
client-state if the "renegade mercs" use NBC weapons,
but then have thier contract canceled (no one mentions
the, off-book, swiss bank account exchange).
Some of it depends on how "dark" you make the GZG future history. The "Cabal
of Radical Darwinism" may find it worth being hunted down to nuke the "Society
of Intelegent Design".
-----
Brian Bell
From: Bell, Brian K (Contractor) Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil
> Some of it depends on how "dark" you make the GZG future
Actually, the Cabal for Pure and Applied Darwinism denied any involvement.
They suggested that the Society for Inelegant Design may
have been building a weapon of their own--inelegantly, of course, and
apparently that applied to failsafes as well. "Think of it as evolution in
action," they said.
Agreed. Not that with a Cherokee-white mix father this is not
interesting, just too far off topic for this list.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 00:26:14 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> Imre and John, if you're going to continue that discussion, I get the
> --- CS Renegade <njg@csrenegade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Twentieth-century mercenaries tend to form units
From: ~ On Behalf Of John Atkinson
Sent: 21 April 2002 22:22
Subject: RE: [MERCS] Weapons available [FH]
> Uh, not necessarily. They can get tracked down,
In any present-day scenario I can think of, I have
to concede this. As soon as the NBC balloon goes up, a prohibitive amount of
press and official interest is applied to finding the miscreants.
The only possible exceptions to this are groups so close to the criminal
fraternity that they fall outside of our use of the term "mercenary".
For example, were the Japanese authorities certain that they tracked down all
of the Ahm Sum (sp?) cultists and their stocks of Nasty Substances (TM)?
On a more recent note, did I miss the apprehension of the author of the
Anthrax Letters? Was the batch of anthrax used ever traced to a probable
source?
The perpetrators were able to construct* and deploy
biological and chemical weapons, inside first-
world countries to boot. These weapons certainly didn't have military
capabilities, but they illustrated the civilian reaction quite well.
* Granted that the last I heard, this hadn't been established for the letters
with any certainty.
> And if they are that hard to track down, would
Going by the recent Nukes thread, the US upholds higher standards in this area
than some other nations. Leaving aside impoverished Russian rocket scientists
and peasant conscripts exchanging vodka for plutonium, there was some
speculation (in the London Times, don't ask me for the date) that Gen.
Musharrif (sp?) reshuffled some of his generals to ensure that only
pragmatists had access to the bomb. Personally I thought it was more likely to
be an attempt to shore up his own position given the unrest in Pakistan at the
height of the Afghan offensive.
> In fictional backgrounds, different moral
> Depends.
Are there any absolute standards that are required for a scenario to have a
modicum of credibility?
> ... what if you have an industrial complex
> Personally? I flush the place with CS and then
I didn't think CS and similar agents were that effective? They can flush
people out of confined spaces and break up crowds, but they are designed not
to kill or even incapacitate*. Although improvised protection isn't much help,
can simple respirators handle CS? If memory serves, it's not very good at
putting out fires either.
* to forestall the howls from all who have been exposed to CS, I think the
issue may be one of concentration. Beyond a certain point, there's no question
of being able to hold, let alone aim a weapon. Next question: how many typical
CS rounds would it take to gas a big aviation hanger?
Get yourself a nice non-persistent nerve agent
that'll go through anything short of a full environmental protection unit (I
may have the wrong name for the relevant bit of tank here;
I mean the gubbins that doubles as air-
conditioning and gas attack warning / filtration)
in three seconds flat.
> How could you explain to your voters that you
> That assumes a democracy, or ~
> Other methods of government produce regimes
True, but these might hire what they could not buy or manufacture. Given
scattered interstellar colonies with several generations of ignorance, they
may not even fully realise what they are getting into. Remember the Elbonian
catapult!
> It's even simpler in any background with space
OK, let's swap to Alois Hammer. I'm sure you've read The Butcher's Bill; cast
your mind back to But Loyal To His Own. Granted, the Slammers are exceptional
(and somewhat larger than life.)
> Being wanted by the NSL for undue use of
> Depends on circumstances. Would the ESU hire
I don't think WMD do that in small quantities; if the threatened power has
many planets and the threat is concentrated on one, a power like the ESU has
no problem with the mathematics and the mercenaries know it. It's simpler to
take the remuneration and move on to the next ticket.
Once again, clarity is advised but not provided; there's a fairly hideous
mixture of fact, fiction, supposition and humour in all of the above.
> --- CS Renegade <njg@csrenegade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Going by the recent Nukes thread, the US upholds
The US is also a real nation, not a third-rate pack of
vodka-swilling pig farmers that by a fluke of history
happens to have nuclear weapons.
I mean, how seriously can you take an empire that took a mere 70 years to
collapse (speaking as an amateur Roman historian...)??
> >> In fictional backgrounds, different moral
Uh... yeah. Standard morale rules don't work very well otherwise.
> > Personally? I flush the place with CS and then
Never sucked much in, have you?
> spaces and break up crowds, but they are designed
True. They just make you _wish_ you were dead--in
large enough concentration. I personally have to be in an enclosed space with
no ventilation and a heavy concentration to be badly affected, but then again
I'm apparently a freak of nature. I was the one munching on chow and looking
around blankly while everyone else was masking during the FTX in AIT when the
drills were running around chucking CS grenades. I only realized we were being
gassed when I smelled the stuff. Never did put on my mask.
However, untrained persons who have never experienced CS tend to panic the
first time they feel it, which impairs everyone else's ability to do their
job.
> improvised protection isn't much help, can simple
Yeah, respirators are fine--although it burns exposed
skin as well in high enough concentrations. Of course, if they all have
respirators, they probably aren't the simple agitators your scenario
originally postulated.
> * to forestall the howls from all who have been
Depends on the size of your CS rounds.
> Get yourself a nice non-persistent nerve agent
Actually, you want a blood agent (the Cyanide family) because that will eat
through standard NBC filters in 25 minutes. Nerve agents can be handled by
standard (modern) NBC gear.
But you're still scum if you do so, and you can expect to be treated as such.
> True, but these might hire what they could not
GZG-verse has a mere 110 years of interstellar
colonization. I doubt that's enough time for many colonies to drop into
ignorance about what a freakin' nuclear bomb is.
> > It's even simpler in any background with space
Exceptional, larger than life, and not really thought out as a mercenary unit.
It was just a venue for Drake to tell Vietnam stories, originally. At any
rate, they are also a mutinied unit of a regular army (granted, a "foreign
legion") and as such had access to all kinds of munitions.
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> The US is also a real nation, not a third-rate pack of
Reality check, back in 1956 the U.S. didn't have the guts enough to stand up
to those "third-rate pack of vodka-swilling pig farmers that by a fluke
of history happens to have nuclear weapons." The Hungarians overthrew their
communist government and kicked the Soviet Army out. What was the U.S.
response to the Hungarian request, plees, prayers, and begs for help? NOTHING.
Why? The U.S. would have gotten into a "big one" and would have gotten hurt
(the Soviets assembled several tank armies and crushed the revolution). It's
much safer to go thump some third world country with a third rate military
(even if it is huge) that doesn't have nukes...
> I mean, how seriously can you take an empire that took
The Romans didn't run an empire based on terrorizing of the average citizen.
The Soviets did. This is a significant difference. A better comparison would
be with the Assyrian Empire, which didn't last nearly as long. Terror works
great for controling people for short periods of time. However, long term it
is very problematic as the Assyrians and Soviets found out and the Isrealis
are finding out.
> > improvised protection isn't much help, can simple
Not neccessarily true. If they are smart and organized they could easily stop
by the hardware shop and and dive shop and get what they need before
agitating. Also, if they are experienced, as in Palastinian rock throwing
kids, they will be conditioned to it (know what it does and be much less
likely to panic). In designing a scenario, you should consider the background
very carefully to determine what they will have and how they will react.
> > * to forestall the howls from all who have been
Depends on if you can get away with it. Best odds on that are using it in an
out of the way area and being too strong for those who are angry about it to
do anything effective. Example, Soviet use of chemical weapons in Afganistan.
> > OK, let's swap to Alois Hammer. I'm sure you've
First observation, most mercs are highly skilled specialists. Units of
mercenaries are very rare now days. Countries have plenty of cannon fodder to
pull triggers. What they need are skilled personal to train them, and maintain
the high tech equipment (or train locals to do it). The only large exception
to this are foreign legions which are under complete control of one state. The
other notable exception would be highly trained commando teams (so they have
deniability, but they are still problematic).
> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Take a look at the terrain (was the US to invade through Czecheslovakia and
East Germany? Or through Austria? And which of those nations have avenues of
approach capable of handling armored corps in the attack?) and the correlation
of forces. Also, please consider that the Hungarians were occupied by the
Soviets as a result of their actions in WWII. Should have thought about that
before they started Sieg
Heiling along with Hitler, no? We (Anglo-American
Allies) set up the governments we wanted in Belgium and Greece, the Soviets
got to do what they wanted in Poland and Hungary. Welcome to Power Politics
101, in which small nations are bargaining chips when the big boys settle down
to the table.
> Not neccessarily true. If they are smart and
True. But then we're talking terrorists not simple agitators. But then they
can also acquire protective gear to protect against nerve agents as well. Is
the payoff worth the risk? Maybe once. Do it a second time and you may find
your enemies are prepared for it. Also remember that many future production
facitilies will be producing items including computerized parts or control
units. In this case, they might have environmental controls capable of
handling a mere noxious chemical--and you're back to
SWAT or Special Forces going in the old fashioned way. Which has the advantage
of not creating as much bad press.
> Take a look at the terrain (was the US to invade
East Germany would have worked fine, the Soviet tank would have been in a
non-optimal position, and the Czech's would have probably revolted as
well (and quite possibly more of eastern Europel). Were talking world war 3
any way you slice it, so going to Budapest isn't an issue, going to Moscow and
beyond is.
> Also, please
Considering that the "allies" completely violated their own stated principles
during the peace treaties after World War 1 and completely rapped a country of
its historic lands and massive number of their population, and then the League
of Nations completely refused to discuss amending any of this, is it any
wonder that they sided with the malcontents.
The current mess with Iraq is a nice example of what can happen when you
assume the legal and moral high ground and ignore masses of malcontents. The
sanctions against Iraq of killed hundreds of thousand of Iraq infants and
young children. If you don't beleive, go dig it up at www.un.org Most
Iraq's are arabs. 2/3's of the arab's in the middle east (even our
"friends" the Saudi's) are very angry about this, and blame the U.S. (who does
most of the enforcing of the sanctions). They don't care if the
U.N.
says the sanctions are just, they believe the sanctions are wrong. 17 of the
19 terrorists on September 11 were arabs. Is there a connection?
Consider this, who did you blame for the slaughter of the children at Waco?
On the morning that Timothy McVeigh blew-up the Oklahoma City Federal
Building, what did it matter who you blamed? What did it matter who I blamed?
What did it matter who the U.S. Government blamed? What did it matter who
really was to blame? The only opinion that mattered was McVeigh's, because he
was the only one angry enough to kill people. While it is doubtful that all of
the terrorist on September 11 were motivated by the U.N. sanctions, some them
had to be. I hate to think of the number arab McVeigh's that are out there.
People's action are predicated on what they believe to be true. They will act
on what they beleive, not reality, not what is legal. A large group of people
that believe they have been wronged is always trouble for the future,
espcially if their greivence is not effectively addressed (in their eyes) in a
timely manner. After World War 1, who beleived they had been wronged by the
peace treaties? Germans, Italians (they were part of the allies in World War
1), Japanesse (also a part of the World War 1 allies), Hungarians, etc. They
acted accordingly; as will the arabs.
> We (Anglo-American
My point stands, the U.S. didn't have the guts enough to take on a first rate
military power armed with nukes. It is much easier and safer to bully third
rate powers that don't have nukes.
> True. But then we're talking terrorists not simple
The average kid, no. The few creative kids can very easily be this smart. I
was when I was a teenager...
Let's cancel this discussion and move on to 2195, when we'll all have
OKAY.
I STAYED OUT OF THIS AS LONG AS I CAN.
BUT, SZABO, TAKE YOUR MEAN MOUTH WAY FROM AMERICA AND AMERICANS.
I WAS NOT HAPPY WITH JOHN'S REPLY TO YOU BEING SENT TO THE LIST BUT ACCEPTED
THIS AS AN ACCIDENT (LIVE A REAL ACTIVE DUTY SOLDIER'S LIFE AND THEN COME AND
TALK TO ME ABOUT LACK OF SLEEP AND ETC)
YU BOTH COULD SHUT UP ANYTIME NOW AND QUIT TRYING FOR THE LAST WORD.
I AM TIRED OF THIS BIG DICK CONTEST THAT STARTS OUT DISGUISED AS A SG-II
TOPIC, BECOMES ANTI AMERICAN OR ANTI-EUROEAN, ANTI-JEWISH, ANTI-ARAB,
OR ANTI-WOTEVER AND BLOWS UP IN ALL OF OUR FACES.
THE EFFECTS OF REAL LIFE POLITICS AND HISTRY DO EFFECT HUMAN GAME FUTURE
HISTORIES AND RELATIONSHIPS.
BUT REAL LIFE POLITICS AND ETC DO NOT HAVE TO AFFECT CIVIL DISCUSSIONS HERE OR
ANYWHERE ELSE.
REAL LIFE MILITARY BEARING DOES HAVE A GAMING RELATIONSHIP AS FAR AS
SCENARIOS, TACTICS, POSSIBLE WEAPONS USAGE, TROOP QUALITY, TRAINING, AND
EQUIPMENT AS WELL AS LOGISTICS AND ON WORLD LOGISTICAL SUPPORT
BUT, (AND I AM GUILTY SOME TIME TOO) BITING THE HEAD OFF OF SOME ONE WHO IS A
GAMER WITH NO PRACTICAL EXPERIEINCE AS A SOLDIER TO FALL BACK ON IN A GAMING
ENVIRONMENT IS NOT THE WAY TO GO EITHER!
SZABO, STARTING WITH THE YANGTZE AND NEUTRALITY PATROLS BEFORE WW II, THROUGH
WW II, KOREA AND ELSWHERE IN THE 20TH CENTURY HAS SEEN MORE AMERICAN BLOOD,
GUTS, AND TREASURE EXPENDED THAN MOST EUROPEAN OR OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE BEEN
WILLING TO SPEND.
AND EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF A FIRST RATE POWER IS THE RUSSIAN COMMONWALTH NOW? IT
IS NOT!
AMERICA VAPING YOUR WORLD TO KICK RUSSIAN ASS WOULD HAVE MELTED YOUR LITTLE
LIFE A BIT.
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:04:03 -0500 (CDT) DAWGFACE47@webtv.net writes:
<my, you have done that, come to think of it. Good for you, I'm proud of you.
And that's no joke or sarcasm.
> DAWGIE, PISSED OFF AT ALL PARTIES TO THIS BULLSHIT!
Add me to this list. Although, to be honest, I am more disappointed then
angry.
Gracias,
Kraks, Mr.Rico, Kraks!
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 22:57:12 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> Let's cancel this discussion and move on to 2195, when we'll all have