MOVED: Definition of Terrorism

:oops: Oh, okay! I guess I lost something in the translation…
…from my eyes to my head.

Forget my first rejoinder. :oops:
Though I stand by my remainder. :P

A little poetic license…

i still find this really amusing. I went back to re-read the original quote, and now i can’t take it seriously at all. Am i the only one with this problem?

Hahaha… as F_alk would say, your German is very bad.

Mind you, i guess Xi and TG’s arguments over quotes belittles the intent of the original post, so i guess that’s appropriate

When I see a quote that I find inappropriate, I will deal with it. Us Americans don’t give up that easy.

“One of the striking differences between Fascism and Communism
is this: Fascism has inspired no great work of art…. No doubt,
Fascism is too vile and scurrilous an ideology to produce those
charities of the imagination which are essential to literate art.
Communism, even when it has gone venomous, is a mythology of the
human future, a vision of human possibility rich in moral demand.
Fascism is the ultimate code of the hoodlum; Communism fails
because it would seek to impose upon the fragile plurality of
human nature and conduct an artificial ideal of self-denial and
human purpose. Fascism tyrannizes through contempt of man;
Communism tyrannizes by exalting man above that sphere of private
error, private ambition, and private love which we call freedom.”

Hahaha, I think DasEwokSS would disagree with you on fascism (thank you for knowing the correct spelling).
Myths don’t come true, Communism will. There is no human purpose under communism? Give me a break. It would seem like it would have a more “humane” purpose. Be careful with human nature - it will surprise you. Also, Communism is freedom - compare that spectrum with fascism to see why.

Might as well use that forum. Only 3 threads will be moved.

Of course we can never forget “One Eye” Saburo Sakai. He managed to go up against the best-trained pilots of all time and survive. Outnumbered and outgunned by Wildcats, Hellcats, and Corsairs, he still managed to rack 64 kills (though the Japanese military did not credit individual pilots with victory claims). Plus, Sakai was a man of character.

On 2001-12-09 17:31, Yanny wrote:
if Us takes a Japan first strategy russia can put his head between his legs and kiss his butt goodbye.

I agree. For logistic reasons it is far easier for Japan to defend itself than it is for the US to attack it. Japan should be able to destroy most of the USs initial navy in round 1 while retaining most of its own fleet. There is no reason for Japan to build a navy to confront the USs navy if the US goes after Japan. Japan should be building a force of tanks to go after Russia and if the US wants to go after Japan that force can easily be turned on the US if Japan has to defend NE Asia. Japan should retain several fighters that are great for defense as well and one round of buying infantry can go a long way towards providing a defense against the US if they are foolish enough to go after Japan. Remember, it only costs Japan 3 ipcs for a unit of infantry in Asia and 5 for an armor plus a one shot 15 or so for an IC or two. It costs the US 7 for a unit of infantry ((3+3+8)/2) that only attack at a 1, and 13 for a tank (5+8).

Germany would love to have to contend with two countries rather than three. US goes after Japan is a very bad move IMO.

[ This Message was edited by: xenophobe on 2001-12-10 10:42 ]