Army Strong

[greenpeace]

Peace and nonviolence only works against a civilized opponent like the British. You see, Ghandi wasnt the first man to attempt peace and nonviolence. A man called Ixnay the Meek Greek attempted to do the very same thing during the Roman reign of Caligula. However, Caligula didnt hesitate to simply have Ixnay work his peace and nonviolence against the lions in the arena and that was that. To quote the Roman guards as they tossed Ixnay into the arena "heh, dumbass".

Are you really trying to say that humans can't use peace because a lion ate a person?

 

[MobBoss]

Are you really trying to say that humans can't use peace because a lion ate a person?

No..I am saying that you have to know your audience. If Ghandi had tried his tactics say against a less restrained opponent.....he would have been simply killed and dumped somewhere. Thats why I have always believed Ghandi overrated and actually a failure in the long run. His "peace" didnt last, and couldnt last when his opponents changed from the British to the far less restrained Muslims.

 

[amadeus]

In the former British colonies the natives were treated with extreme raciscm and harsh ounishment. However, that is more or less trivial since the fact that Peace and Nonviolence works is the important part. It shows that killing millions of people is foolish an unneccessary. We can't go on killing and killing we have to bring a stop to all this unneccessary foolishness and killing millions isn't helping.

You're missing the point completely. Britain would not shoot entire Indian families for saying something bad about the Queen, nor would they behead a woman who claims she was abused by her husband.

In North Korea, Gandhi would have been detained and shot in secret, so nobody would ever know about his resistance, as well as anyone who joined him in protest. The surrounding villages likely would be cut off from all food rations, left to starve to death. News of these events would not spread, and nobody would ever know about the resistance except for a few inner party members, who have nothing to gain from spreading the news.

You just have to face the facts: that kind of passive resistance doesn't work under totalitarian regimes.

 

[greenpeace]

No..I am saying that you have to know your audience. If Ghandi had tried his tactics say against a less restrained opponent.....he would have been simply killed and dumped somewhere. Thats why I have always believed Ghandi overrated and actually a failure in the long run. His "peace" didnt last, and couldnt last when his opponents changed from the British to the far less restrained Muslims.

First of all the last sentence is extremely racisct. To say that Muslims are "far less restrained" then British is very general and is defianently not true in all cases.
Second of all your premise that the policies of the British colonists were somehow more "civilized" is utterly wrong. Did you account for the time when a squad of army men opened fire on hundreds of completly innocent Indians usind machine guns to completly massacre everyone in the confined space. At least the "radical muslim terroists" that you implied didn't occupy a foreign land and kill hundreds of thousands of people and oppress the natives with cruel inhumane policies. All this "war on terror" is doing is creating more and more hate, death, and according to the government that sponsors it has created more terroist activities. Wake up and look at reality, Peace and Nonviolence is the only way we can attain Peace.

You're missing the point completely. Britain would not shoot entire Indian families for saying something bad about the Queen, nor would they behead a woman who claims she was abused by her husband.

In North Korea, Gandhi would have been detained and shot in secret, so nobody would ever know about his resistance, as well as anyone who joined him in protest. The surrounding villages likely would be cut off from all food rations, left to starve to death. News of these events would not spread, and nobody would ever know about the resistance except for a few inner party members, who have nothing to gain from spreading the news.

You just have to face the facts: that kind of passive resistance doesn't work under totalitarian regimes.

You mean the British colonization wasn't a fascist regime? Wow, thats pretty ignorant, its kinda pathetic (for examples see above). To expand on the example of North Korea, what would happen if, seeing the fact that the government is starving people who resist other people in North Korea become aggravated so that resistence spreads. The governments can't starve everyone and even if they did they would still be peacefully overthrown.

 

[MobBoss]

First of all the last sentence is extremely racisct. To say that Muslims are "far less restrained" then British is very general and is defianently not true in all cases.

How so? When was the last time you saw a film of a British citizen sawing someones head off?

But I will admit, I was incorrect on one fact...it wasnt a muslim that killed Ghandi, but rather a Hindu extremist who thought Ghandi had weakend India.

Second of all your premise that the policies of the British colonists were somehow more "civilized" is utterly wrong.

No...its not. Example: When they actually took the time to toss Ghandi off that train so infamously...did they kill him first? Nope. Compared to many other peoples the world over, the British were most certainly more restrained.

Did you account for the time when a squad of army men opened fire on hundreds of completly innocent Indians usind machine guns to completly massacre everyone in the confined space. At least the "radical muslim terroists" that you implied didn't occupy a foreign land and kill hundreds of thousands of people and oppress the natives with cruel inhumane policies.

Apparently you forget your history. You may want to read up on Mohammed himself and about the people he killed or had blinded.

Wake up and look at reality, Peace and Nonviolence is the only way we can attain Peace.

And I humbly submit that there are times to fight evil as opposed to sit there peacefully and let it kill you.

Anyway, what type of slogan would you suggest? Make it a good one, I am interested in hearing your offering.

 

[greenpeace]

How so? When was the last time you saw a film of a British citizen sawing someones head off?

During the time of Mahatma Ghandi in one day British beat hundreds of peaceful unarmed protesters and at another time they slaughtered more than thousand people by gunning down innocent peaceful Indians in a confined space.

But I will admit, I was incorrect on one fact...it wasnt a muslim that killed Ghandi, but rather a Hindu extremist who thought Ghandi had weakend India.

How does that have any relevants?

No...its not. Example: When they actually took the time to toss Ghandi off that train so infamously...did they kill him first? Nope. Compared to many other peoples the world over, the British were most certainly more restrained.

Please, you obviously have overlooked the facts of the time, many were killed during the harsh regime for doing things such as listening to peace-preaching speeches.

Apparently you forget your history. You may want to read up on Mohammed himself and about the people he killed or had blinded.

What does that have to do with anything?

And I humbly submit that there are times to fight evil as opposed to sit there peacefully and let it kill you.

So your saying that is not evil to murder your brothers and sisiters. You have a misconceived notion of what it means to be peaceful. You aren't peaceful by just sitting down and getting slaughtered, that is not what it means to be peaceful. In fact, that is very foolish, the last thing someone who supports Peace wants. In order to be a true dedicated pacifist you must sacrifice even your life for your brothers and sisters, not just idly do nothing.

 

[nivi]

Me Tarzen, you Jane!

 

[Revolutionary]

@greenpeace

basically what MobBoss and others are saying is correct, Ghandi's methods would not have worked in opressive regimes like the USSR, Nazi Germany, Japanese Empire, etc.

if the British Empire had been like these regimes at the time Ghandi would have simply been killed along with all his followers

don't believe me? look at what happened to the White Rose a non-violent resistance group in Nazi Germany opposed to the regime and the war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

 

[The Yankee]

Moderator Action: What does any of this have to do with the topic? Feel free to start a thread on the merits or demerits of having a military if you like, but that isn't the point of this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lotus49]

They should have stuck w/ 'Be All That You Can Be'. Now they're lost in the sauce, and the slogan gets worse, and loses more and more respect and meaning, with each change.

Slogans. Yet another area, in which the Marines prove superior, and more reliable.

 

[Brighteye]

Be the best.

That's what our army had.

Or
Feel a man
which is what our sailors do.

 

[nonconformist]

Eh, they've lost the honest touch they hadwhen the slogan was "Army:Wir fahren nach Polen".

 

[Imcalfin]

Feel a man
which is what our sailors do.

Feel a man? Seriously? They didn't miss a proposition there?
What happens to the poor sailor that misunderstands the slogan?

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I don't really care about the slogan, its the institute that is the real problem, in other words the propaganda they use to support the army of murderers is propaganda whatever they say.

Oh ye of little mind. Without the army to defend us, you voice would be squashed under the boots of so many conquerors you would lose count.

And though I am not in the military, I find any diss directed at them incredibly insulting. But killing is an unfortunate necessary evil. If we could live without threats from other nations great, but until that time (which never will come) happens, we need the military.

So your saying that is not evil to murder your brothers and sisiters. You have a misconceived notion of what it means to be peaceful. You aren't peaceful by just sitting down and getting slaughtered, that is not what it means to be peaceful. In fact, that is very foolish, the last thing someone who supports Peace wants. In order to be a true dedicated pacifist you must sacrifice even your life for your brothers and sisters, not just idly do nothing.

Willingly sacrifice your life for your brothers and sisters? You do not resist the people taking your life? Isn't that doing nothing?

And most people view brother and sister as a person coming from the genes of your two parents. While I grant you my athiest stand makes me see that I do have ties to all human beings, I view brother and sister as being directly related to me, and coming from YOUR parents.

============================================================

And I didn't really think that the old slogan of "An Army of One" was very good, as it is almost contradictory. Aren't you supposed to work as a team in the military? I grant you they train each soldier to be relatively self sufficient, but it works best as a team.

 

[JollyRoger]

Army Strong? Who came up with that? Certainly they are not strong against 3rd world dead enders. It isn't any worse than "An Army of One". That one was funny - it sounded like the size the army would end up if they only recruited from Young Republican meetings on college campuses.

 

[MobBoss]

So your saying that is not evil to murder your brothers and sisiters. You have a misconceived notion of what it means to be peaceful.

And you have a misconceived notion of what murder is. Murder is not exactly the same thing as killing someone; say, in war or in self-defense.

You aren't peaceful by just sitting down and getting slaughtered, that is not what it means to be peaceful. In fact, that is very foolish, the last thing someone who supports Peace wants. In order to be a true dedicated pacifist you must sacrifice even your life for your brothers and sisters, not just idly do nothing.

Huh? Now wait a sec. First you say its foolish to simply sit down and get slaughtered, but then turn right around and say you must sacrifice even your lilfe? I fail to see much difference between the two. Peaceful protest often does involve a lot of sitting an being uncooperative. So, if this is done in the face of an enemy that will just slaughter you, then its foolish? You think so?

 

[MobBoss]

Army Strong? Who came up with that? Certainly they are not strong against 3rd world dead enders.

Really? And in another thread its alleged we have killed over 600k of them. At least try to be consistant in your flaming. So which is it...are we killing them by the hundreds of thousands or getting our ass kicked?

Bottom line, we are plenty strong against those turd world dead enders. If they fight us, they die. Fairly simple. Thats why they rely on suicide bombers and sneaking around to place IEDs. If they fight us, yes, our strength overwhelms them and defeats them.

It isn't any worse than "An Army of One". That one was funny - it sounded like the size the army would end up if they only recruited from Young Republican meetings on college campuses.

In light of the fact that the republicans are in power in the White House and congress, I find your statement fairly funny. Perhaps its like recruiting Young Republicans at college....or recruiting democrats at the polls.

 

[Perfection]

Whatever happened to the notion of the Army being about protecting the nation and stuff? That seems like a great idea for a motto!

 

[C~G]

"Army strong" sounds really like that "Me Tarzan, you Jane"-talk.

I have always loved one of the titles of Prodigy albums:

Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned.

 

[Brighteye]

Only with the Americans they're not often outnumbered either.