Stratovarius Community

miditek wrote:Was that Marilyn Manson I saw fleeing out the back door of the teen goth nightclub in terror, with members of Lynryd Skynryd in hot pursuit, carrying clubs and shaking their fists?

They both suck. Hard to say who sucks more though...

miditek wrote: Europe takes it's orders from Tehran and Moscow now, and without Mecca (which is in the Middle East), Islam cannot exist. And with each passing day, it appears that Europe is essentially unwilling to exist without radical Islam, so in that respect, a nuclear strike on the Middle East would actually make little sense.

What? What on earth are you talking about? Europe taking orders from Tehran and Moscow? You just love sensationalising anything don't you? Anyone who doesn't agree with what America does is now evil or something in your eyes right? I don't know whether that's hilarious or just scary.

Oh, never mind. You're free to choose to believe whatever you want.

You're actually agreeing with someone who seems to think nuclear annihilation of the entire world is a good idea, something to do with religious beliefs of the rapture or end of days or whatever no doubt.

I give up. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Bathory Killcraft wrote:
Black metal indeed is the answer...to all that is right in this world

Oh? And how is black metal an answer? Do you even know what you're talking about, or are you just using it as a catchy soundbyte to reply to things when you don't know how else to?

Again, please don't insult black metal by using it as a justification for angst-ridden teenage fantasies. You'll make people who don't listen to it think everyone who does holds similarly stupid views.

What the hell happened here? Am I in the The Twilight Zone? Am I still mixed up from last night? Or has the conversation here really gotten this absurd...

Black metal will prevail..darkness will prevail...the weak will perish in flames...

Carcass wrote:What the hell happened here? Am I in the The Twilight Zone? Am I still mixed up from last night? Or has the conversation here really gotten this absurd...

What is your problem poser?

Now, this is getting too campy...

Carcass, as I said it's probably a 14 year old who lives in a nice upper-middle class neigbhourhood who has never had a care or worry in the world.

Don't pay attention to it.

NeonVomit wrote:Carcass, as I said it's probably a 14 year old who lives in a nice upper-middle class neigbhourhood who has never had a care or worry in the world.

Don't pay attention to it.

On the contrary, NV. Bathory is one of the oldest members of the Stratoforum--forum wise. He is in his 20s&has served in the military. He comes here from time to time.

browneyedgirl wrote:

NeonVomit wrote:Carcass, as I said it's probably a 14 year old who lives in a nice upper-middle class neigbhourhood who has never had a care or worry in the world.

Don't pay attention to it.

On the contrary, NV. Bathory is one of the oldest members of the Stratoforum--forum wise. He is in his 20s&has served in the military. He comes here from time to time.

I see, however read through his last few posts and tell me I don't have a reason for believing otherwise.

miditek wrote:Europe takes it's orders from Tehran and Moscow now, and without Mecca (which is in the Middle East), Islam cannot exist. And with each passing day, it appears that Europe is essentially unwilling to exist without radical Islam, so in that respect, a nuclear strike on the Middle East would actually make little sense.

I knew you had pretty over-the-top views, but this is the best one yet.

NeonVomit wrote:

browneyedgirl wrote:

NeonVomit wrote:Carcass, as I said it's probably a 14 year old who lives in a nice upper-middle class neigbhourhood who has never had a care or worry in the world.

Don't pay attention to it.

On the contrary, NV. Bathory is one of the oldest members of the Stratoforum--forum wise. He is in his 20s&has served in the military. He comes here from time to time.

I see, however read through his last few posts and tell me I don't have a reason for believing otherwise.

I know what you mean a person can get that impression.

Carcass wrote:

miditek wrote:Europe takes it's orders from Tehran and Moscow now, and without Mecca (which is in the Middle East), Islam cannot exist. And with each passing day, it appears that Europe is essentially unwilling to exist without radical Islam, so in that respect, a nuclear strike on the Middle East would actually make little sense.

I knew you had pretty over-the-top views, but this is the best one yet.

Guys, it's called satire. I like comedy, but my absolute favorite form of entertainment of all time is political satire. Want to bash Bush? Clinton? Reagan? Good God man, there is certainly no shortage of that coming from the much vaunted Continent now, is there?

Here's another example of political satire:

Q. Where can the French get automobile insurance?

A. Since Geico said "fuck, no!", it appears that
Lloyds of London is the last viable option now.

Is that an anti-French statement? Well, not exactly, particularly since there is at least a degree of truth to it. Moreover, if France (or the EU) ceased to exist, it would be very difficult to find a replacement worthy of our ridicule!

Regarding Europe taking orders from Tehran and Moscow, there is of course, a degree of truth to that as well. One one hand, Iran's pitiful band of speedboat jihadists just humiliated the RN, while the rest of the UK's EU allies were busy finding a hiding place under the nearest rock.

I know, Europe seems to have learned it's lessons about starting wars, but little or nothing about preventing them. There were many chances to stop Hitler, and idiots such as Chamberlain ignored them.

Another example is all of the bullshit that happened in the Balkans during the 1990's, along with typical EU/UN non-response until after the damage was done, sort of invalidates that argument.

We have a radical Islamic power that is determined to get it's hands on nuclear weapons, and the EU could essentially shut down all trade with Iran. That, along with an Anglo-American air and naval blockade, would most definitely help to bring about an end to the entire gang in Tehran. But noooooo, the EU prefers to let things fester until they do spin out of control, and then war once again becomes inevitable.

The EU can't take the entire rap for this, but they are, by far, the worst fucking enablers on the planet. Acquiescence is ingrained into their DNA, along with the illusion that doing nothing actually prevents war, and all the while they are too stupid to see that the exact opposite is true.

The US Navy, on the other hand, has actually destroyed Iranian oil platforms in the Persian Gulf before, and did this lead to a general war? No, Iran actually piped down for a while. The same principle applied to Uncle Mommar in Libya- we've not heard much from him since President Reagan bombed him!

As far as Russia is concerned, Putin, in classic KGB fashion, creates the problem in Iran by sending in battalions of nuclear scientists and engineers to build the plants at Bushrer, and then offers to be part of a 'solution' by scolding Iran for it's current intransigence. The EU keeps it's mouth shut and does as it is told, our else, Uncle Vlad might shut off the flow of gas to Europe.

This is not the only case, if you'll recall, the French built a nuclear plant for Saddam at Osirak, only to see the IDF take it out, due to their completely justifiable concerns over Iraq's potential nuclear capabilities.

The EU's current military modus operandi is one of preemptive capitulation, largely a French innovation, that has been widely adopted by the rest of her neighbors. So we've seen what European diplomacy gets us, tens of millions of dead people, and for what? Glorifying fascist and Communist political systems (again, European- not American inventions), and then they have the gall to critique America over Iraq?

It would be different if America had not helped during WWI, WWII, the Marshall Plan, NATO, standing up to Russia during the Cold War, and many other projects. None of the countries that we've helped have ever paid us back for our assistance, with the sole exception being, (ding ding ding), yep, Finland!

Had those events not happened, then Europe might have a political leg to stand on when criticizing America now, but I'm afraid that this is a three legged dog that just won't hunt.

So Old Europe need not complain too much when confronted with criticism and/or satire from the
New World. What's good for the goose is usually good for the gander, and besides, a lot of things that we say are said in jest- we just love to see red faced EU bureaucrats standing side by side with their wild eyed imam brethren screaming about a Satan that neither really believes in anyway.

miditek wrote:Guys, it's called satire. I like comedy, but my absolute favorite form of entertainment of all time is political satire.

Satire or not, the rest of your post reiterates the previous post.

The EU keeps it's mouth shut and does as it is told, our else, Uncle Vlad might shut off the flow of gas to Europe.

Russia needs Europe to buy its gas as much as Europe needs Russia to deliver it. Have you ever thought about that? Where would Gazprom sell all of it? Kazakhstan?

Also, Finland had to reject the Marshall Plan aid.

miditek wrote:explaination

I was drunk, never mind

As you are probably quite aware, I have a heavy sense of humour myself and I enjoy satirising pretty much anything, but the medium of the internet sometimes doesn't transfer the proper meaning behind what you say!

NeonVomit wrote:

miditek wrote:explaination

I was drunk, never mind

As you are probably quite aware, I have a heavy sense of humour myself and I enjoy satirising pretty much anything, but the medium of the internet sometimes doesn't transfer the proper meaning behind what you say!

You and Carcass are most definitely two of the more humorous "virtual" acquaintances that I know. And yes, sometimes it is difficult to get satire/humor and other things like that to translate into an on-line post. You can't see the author's expressions nor hear the inflections in their voice.

Believe it or not (go ahead, call Ripley's if you wish), one of my favorite political satires of all time was not done by the right, but by Garry Trudeau- who is sort of like a "who's who among the lefties and other assorted moonbats and pinkos".

His creation of Ronnie Headrest took the old animated MTV character "Max Headroom" and blended him with then President Reagan, and the results were hilarious.

Ronnie Headrest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Headrest

How does this play into a thread about Iran? I certainly felt a lot safer when Reagan was in power. Iran released the embassy staff hostages almost within the hour that Reagan took the oath of office. I am not sure if that says more about Reagan, his predecessor Jimmah Cahtuh (peanut farmer) or both!

Americans capture 7/7 Mastermind in Iraq
timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1717571.ece

Good work! Hopefully al-Sadr will be next. I'm not sure which would be better; send him to one of our "ghost prisons" in Eastern Europe for "special treatment", or simply turn him over to MI5 for "extra special treatment"?

AhMaDbOuTjIhAd would also make an excellent trophy for the hearth above the fireplace!

miditek wrote:I certainly felt a lot safer when Reagan was in power.

Reagan (B movie actor) also made a lot of peoples abroad feel very unsafe.

Carcass wrote:

miditek wrote:I certainly felt a lot safer when Reagan was in power.

Reagan (B movie actor) also made a lot of peoples abroad feel very unsafe.

I remember this from the 1980's, and used to see a lot of protests from the Greens party, crying about nuclear weapons on European soil.

Just imagine what Western Europe would have looked like had their not been a strong post-war US military presence there. Stalin had designs on Denmark specifically, and the rest of the West, generally speaking. Eisenhower diverted a division or two north of Germany to Denmark as a signal to Stalin that Denmark remained in the western sphere of influence.

The Berlin airlift is another program that comes to mind. Don't you think that Stalin would have actually preferred to have occupied the rest of Germany? Who else other than the US could have stopped him from doing as he pleased? You would have traded one monster for another- one that was even worse than Hitler himself.

Remember, no one was immune from the Great Terror in Soviet areas for thirty years! Kulaks (peasants) were killed off by the millions, there were purges in the Red Army, purges in the party, purges of Jews, purges in the Central Committee, purges in the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, and purges in the Politburo. Executioners soon found themselves executed in the next round of killings.

There was also much contention and bargaining over Greece, and many other countries.

Let's assume that no US forces remained post-war; what do you think Stalin would have done with 50,000+ tanks and millions of troops? Do you think that the war ravaged west would have had a chance to stand up to Stalin?

I don't think that they could have stopped him. Later on, US nuclear weapons under NATO control certainly provided an effective deterrent to any further westward adventures by the Kremlin. That's another thing that annoys me to no end about Europe, particularly western Europe. Spending 1% of a small country's GDP on defense would have had little or no effect on Stalin's - or his successors' ambitions whatsoever.

Perhaps history would have taken a different turn if the US had packed up and left the Continent in May of 1945, and given our complete attention to other affairs, and said, "Okay, good-bye, and good luck!" No Marshall Plan, no NATO, no UN, no nothing. If this had been the case, Western Europe would have either been occupied by the Red Army, or alternatively, would have been back at war with Germany again, and within a similar time frame as the interwar years between WWI and WWII.

Similar threats still exist, but now in the Middle East, and it appears that a long, hard war with Iran and her allies (including Russia), is now all but etched in stone.

browneyedgirl wrote:

NeonVomit wrote:Carcass, as I said it's probably a 14 year old who lives in a nice upper-middle class neigbhourhood who has never had a care or worry in the world.

Don't pay attention to it.

On the contrary, NV. Bathory is one of the oldest members of the Stratoforum--forum wise. He is in his 20s&has served in the military. He comes here from time to time.

Indeed, as browneyedgirl says I am old and wise as the the most ancient forests, the highest snowcapped mountains, the deepest crystal clear lakes and the coldest streams devoid of life straight from the heart of the mountains...

Ok.

NeonVomit wrote:Ok.

Nothing is ok...

Bathory Killcraft wrote:

NeonVomit wrote:Ok.

Nothing is ok...

...or everything is ok?

Very few Europeans complain about US joining the war or about US military presence in post war Europe. If no one from Europe has shown your country gratitude for that, than here you have one: a sincere thank-you (although if Germany would've won, we would have a Greater Finland ). But that does under no circumstances oblige European countries to agree with US foreign policies.

The most stupid thing I've ever heard is that "Old Europe" should show some gratitude by not whining about Iraq War. I know you didn't claim that, but I know people who have. Both Americans and Europeans, the pro-Iraq War ones.

Hehe, didn't the French help US quite a bit in the Revolutionary War?

However, I was mainly refering to Reagan Doctrine and it's implications.

Carcass wrote:Very few Europeans complain about US joining the war or about US military presence in post war Europe.

I'm not sure how old you are (to remember these news stories, they were frequently on CNN) but in the 1980's there were a lot of protests in Europe about the presence of tactical nuclear weapons. The Greens party were among the ringleaders of these protests. This was during the Cold War, and yes, Warsaw Pact forces represented a very real threat, imo.

Carcass wrote:If no one from Europe has shown your country gratitude for that, than here you have one: a sincere thank-you (although if Germany would've won, we would have a Greater Finland ).

Thanks for the appreciation @Carcass. I think you'll find that most Americans are grateful for such sentiments. I'm wondering, would St. Petersburg have been ceded to the Finns as part of a general armistice, if history had taken a different turn?

Carcass wrote:But that does under no circumstances oblige European countries to agree with US foreign policies.

With that, I completely agree, there can be no obligations or coercions in regards to transatlantic relations. However, I still feel that many European politicians are far too forgiving and accommodating of rogue regimes and the like.

One of my favorite columnists, Charles Krauthammer, recently wrote an interesting column that touched upon the recent fiasco involving the Royal Navy and Iran.


Britain's Humiliation....and Europe's
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040501796.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Carcass wrote:The most stupid thing I've ever heard is that "Old Europe" should show some gratitude by not whining about Iraq War. I know you didn't claim that, but I know people who have. Both Americans and Europeans, the pro-Iraq War ones.

I think that the Old Europe thing, while amusing to me as a type of satire, has been blown out of proportion just a bit, and I think that it reflects certain impressions and stereotypes that Americans have of Europe.

Many Americans feel that Europeans are lazy, snotty, snobbish, and ungrateful elitist trash. On the other hand, many Europeans may feel that Americans are loud, obnoxious, uncultured, buffet-raiding buffoons.
I find both stereotypes amusing, although I am sure that there is as I usually state, a degree of truth regarding both, although it does not apply to either people as a whole.

I have myself seen fat and loud people at Chinese buffets, with each one eating enough food to feed an entire platoon of Ethiopians, for example. I have also had heated arguments (in person) with snotty Eurotrash that said America can do nothing right, and still kept the guy from getting his ass whipped by some angry patrons and one hell of a large bouncer. (That particular guy was drunk, as if none of us had ever had too much...I told the potential combatants).

However, I don't think that the Chinese restaurants could afford to stay in business if all Americans ate that way!

Moreover, if all Eurotrash that shot there mouths off in American bars were shot or beaten, the the state Alcohol Beverage Commission would have shut most bars down by now, at least in my state!

Carcass wrote:Hehe, didn't the French help US quite a bit in the Revolutionary War?

Yes, they did help. As to whether that help was decisive, I cannot say. They did provide naval support, but we did not have divisions of French troops disembarking on the battlefield, either. We were back at war with the British less than twenty years later though. In short, I think that the French got a pretty good return on their original investment, wouldn't you think?

Carcass wrote:However, I was mainly referring to Reagan Doctrine and it's implications.

I personally think that Reagan did a much better job than Carter, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, or the current president.

The French monarcy was bankrupted by the Revolutionary war, and many of those who had fought in it returned with certain ideas.

Louis XIV lost his head mostly due to that war, so it was a pretty awful return on his investment!

Louis XIV, the Sun King? (1638-1715) Wasn't the Revolutionary War fought several decades after his death? I mean, the USA involvement?

NeonVomit wrote:The French monarchy was bankrupted by the Revolutionary war, and many of those who had fought in it returned with certain ideas.

Louis XIV lost his head mostly due to that war, so it was a pretty awful return on his investment!

I think it was Louis XVI that was the French monarch during the time of the American Revolution. Also, the French fought wars with the Holy Roman Empire, among others, after the American Revolution, and there was essentially a laundry list of issues that caused his execution. I'll ask simplefrench, a mod on another board that I'm actually friendly with, his opinion the next time that I speak with him.

Historians traditionally see the tension between nobility and the rising bourgeoisie as the main reason. The world was changing, while the top of the French society wanted it to remain the same, to preserve some traits of feudalism, i.e. priveledges for the higher classes on the cost of the lower.

The ideas for the bourgeoisie, allied with peasents and the small number of workers were provided by Enlightenment philosophers. Wether the French Revolution could've happened without their contribution, I don't know.

France was also plagued by a famine in the 1780s and the aforementioned economic crisis. The equation is quite complex.