aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Vasily Zaitsev Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Vasily Zaitsev" Watch "Vasily Zaitsev" New topic
Author

Vasily Zaitsev

Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Ok, then I withdraw my accusations regarding Saddam's sons and instead make an accusation regarding attempts to kill Saddam himself. How legal these attempts were?

During war time he was part of the military command and control structure, making him a valid military target I would think. Now we are trying to capture him, and if he resists we may end up having to kill him.
I am trying to say that even the most democratic democracy founds it possible to kill people for the reasons it itself found good enough.
Trying to justify Soviet genocide by using an analogy to trying to break the enemies command and control during war time seems a bit off base imho.
Back to Saddam's sons, this is not my idea, so I do not want to take credit for it, but here it is: wouldn't it make more sense to capture them alive? Couldn't they help with WMD search.
Attempts were made to capture them alive. They were asked to surrender. They chose to fight instead. It is not worth placing the life of one American soldier in any greater jeopardy than necessary. The on scene commander apparently agreed, choosing not to get his men killed in order to capture these guys.
Why was the operation conducted by the soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division and not by specially trained professionals?
Well, first I would have to point out that the 101st Airborne, or any other US infantry component, is more than qualified to assault a structure. However in this case, special operations forces were used to conduct the assault, while members of the 101st set up a cordon around the area. Keep in mind that this operation wasn't the kind of mission where they were going to assault and overrun the barricaded position at all costs. Apparently the safety of the US soldiers was the paramount concern, while still accomplishing the mission of either capturing or killing the occupants.
Tell me that I am stupid, but when Chechens sieged a theater in Moscow, sleeping gas was used and they could get all the terrorists alive (in this case they preferred to kill them). How difficult is it to send such a group to Iraq and keep it ready in case Saddam himself or whoever else are being hunted are detected?
Well, they also killed a good portion of the civillians in the theater. But anyway, the use of weapons such as CS (tear gas) and BZ (the "sleeping" gas the Russians used) are forbidden for military use by various international conventions. They weren't an option.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Well, they also killed a good portion of the civillians in the theater. But anyway, the use of weapons such as CS (tear gas) and BZ (the "sleeping" gas the Russians used) are forbidden for military use by various international conventions. They weren't an option.

Although it would have been amusing to listen to Map complain about the US violating international treaties if we had used them.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
What I found amusing, is that to use gas to put people to sleep constitutes violation of international treaties, but to bomb them to the death is just fine.
Regarding Moscow's events, from what I read, people died not because of gas or even overdose of it, but because if incompetent treatment after they were taken out of the building (unappetite details skipped). There was a controversy as to which exactly gas was used, prohibited or not, from which discussion I did not get an impression that all gases of this sort are prohibited.
Are you trying to say there is no way to ever capture a human being alive?
--------------------
Truth is stranger than fiction


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Herb: In using the US Civil War as an example, we're going back 130+ years in history to cherry pick the bloodiest incident of US history. Picking out an aberrant, uncharacteristic, one time event, and relatively short episode in US history and comparing it to the characteristic, ongoing repression of a typical undemocratic collectivist state is certainly not comparing apples to apples.
Hmmm... And consistent mentioning of 10 millions of starved Ukrainians (by the way, where *this* number came from? Researches oscillate between 3 and 8 (occasionally 10) millions, with the average of about 4 millions... do not want to look cynical, like if +- millions means nothing to me, but...)
an aberrant, uncharacteristic, one time event, and relatively short episode in US history
Aha. So you think in the Soviet Union people were constantly starved? Like every, say, 10 years? I do not remember any major starvation after the WWII, you know. :roll:
-------------------
Truth is stranger than fiction
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Map, can you explain why every thread you participate in ends up with attacks on the USA? :roll:
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Are you trying to say there is no way to ever capture a human being alive?
All they have to do is drop their weapons and raise their hands. International treaties forbid the use of any gassing agent for the purpose of disabling a soldier. There is no exception made for just "wanting to capture them."
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
HS: Three 'political economies', all collectivist and all undemocratic, each murdered more than 20 million people, many of which were their own citizens.
ME: We did that too. We called it The Civil War. A high-end estimate is about 700,000 or so but against a population of roughly 23 million, that's a big loss.

Actually that is a very silly comparison and I'm surprised at you for making it. The Civil War was a war. That is different that what Stalin did to the Ukranian people. If the South had surrendered the war would have been over. The Ukranians were not given the opportunity to surrender. Their death was the goal. Stalin didn't kill Ukranians because they fought to prevent collectivization. He starved them to death in order to force collectivization.
But let's look at this from another point. For the first 80 years of the country, how many Americans were deliberatly killed by the American government?
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Actually that is a very silly comparison and I'm surprised at you for making it. The Civil War was a war. That is different that what Stalin did to the Ukranian people. If the South had surrendered the war would have been over. The Ukranians were not given the opportunity to surrender. Their death was the goal. Stalin didn't kill Ukranians because they fought to prevent collectivization. He starved them to death in order to force collectivization.
But let's look at this from another point. For the first 80 years of the country, how many Americans were deliberatly killed by the American government?

May I include blacks and people indigenous to North America, or do they not count?
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

May I include blacks and people indigenous to North America, or do they not count?

Of course, you may include them. But even with them I'll bet you can't get that number up to 10,000 in 80 years.
[ August 02, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Of course, you may include them. But even with them I'll bet you can't get that number up to 10,000 in 80 years.

You mean to say that reducing a group of people who consisted of 100% of the American population to less than 5% isnt comparable with the genocide carried out by Stalin? (Incase you are wondering, I'm talking about native americans)


Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
You mean to say that reducing a group of people who consisted of 100% of the American population to less than 5% isnt comparable with the genocide carried out by Stalin? (Incase you are wondering, I'm talking about native americans)

That's a bit misleading. The reduction in percentage of native Americans is primarily from an increase in the percentage of other (non-native) Americans. So my answer would be no, it isn't even remotely comparable with Stalin's genocide.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
You mean to say that reducing a group of people who consisted of 100% of the American population to less than 5% isnt comparable with the genocide carried out by Stalin? (Incase you are wondering, I'm talking about native americans)

So are you saying that immigrants arriving in America today are launching a genocide against those of us who are native born since they are reducing our overall percentage of the population?
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

So are you saying that immigrants arriving in America today are launching a genocide against those of us who are native born since they are reducing our overall percentage of the population?

No! Because many of the immigrants arriving today are willing to live under the established law of the land and accept their status as a minority. However, if there are groups of immigrants who are intent on disobeying the established law and overthrowing the existing majority, I would classify them as participating in a genocide. This is not only for immigrants but for any group of people who are intent on disobeying the rule of majority.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Tom: Map, can you explain why every thread you participate in ends up with attacks on the USA? :roll:
Every? :roll:
This reminds me an old joke: our trees attack cars only as a mean of self-defense... Do you think I attack the USA in this thread? What exactly do you think constitutes an attack on the USA? Or are you saying I am provoking other to attack the USA?
[ August 03, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Absolutely yes to both questions. This thread started out about a movie about Stalingrad. Go back and find the first anti-American post. Guess whose it was.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Tom, I have much more questions than I ask here, believe me. Most of the time I do not post them, for not to break peace in this forum. But when I read posts like Frank made lately, I am getting irritated. To say that in the fUSSR you could be killed because you stay in a way of progress (it was in another thread, though) is like to say that American economy really, really sucks, because of that Big Depression in 1930-s.
All I want is a fair play, which means rules are the same for everybody. If you are careful with counting dead Iraqis (which is good) then be careful with dead Ukrainians also. If you do not like Stalin killing whoever he found necessarily to kill... Well.
What was so anti-American in my inquiry about legal grounds of killing leaders of an independent state however repellent they are? Are you saying that any questioning of US actions is automatically anti-American? (by the way, I was tempted to comment that your excuse "they did not surrender when they were told so" is no better than communists' excuse that if dissidents did not stop their anti-Soviet activity when being warned or just knowing it is against the law, then it's fine to send them to jail. But I did not, for not to start yet another war).
And regarding my perplexity about killing Saddam's sons rather then at least trying to capture them, I was thinking I was being pro-American. I said it could help to find this [illegible] WMD, which could only help Bush authority. I sincerely do not think I would complain about Americans using prohibited chemicals, as this is a special case. It's not an ordinary military operation against enemy's regular troops, or civil population. It's a special operation with very specific targets. I read that there was a 14-old boy among other people killed, did I complain that Americans are heartless enough to kill children? No, I did not, because this would be absurd. I do think it would be better if there was a trial for Saddam's sons, with all their crimes investigated and documented, as it was on Nuremberg process, then simply have them killed and buried.
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
I think the thread was doomed to end this way from the moment it began. Maybe we need to update Godwin's Law to explicitly mention Stalin and "anti-Americanism", in addition to Nazis. :roll:


"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Who is Godwin Law, and what was he doing in a movie about WW II?
Mani Ram
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 1140
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Who is Godwin Law, and what was he doing in a movie about WW II?

The question should be "What is Godwin's law?"
You can find all about Godwin's Law HERE


Mani
Quaerendo Invenietis
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

So much for irony...
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
"Oh, Irony! We don't get that here. No, the last time we had irony was '82, when I was the sole practitioner of it and I got tired of being stared at."
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Speaking about irony, last name of the hero of this thread, Zaitsev, is a derivation from "hare", who is a symbol of cowardice in Russian mythology, which fact I found ironical.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Snipers aren't typically lauded for bravery, mind you.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
If I had a choice, I would prefer to be a laundress rather than sniper.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Speaking about irony, last name of the hero of this thread, Zaitsev, is a derivation from "hare", who is a symbol of cowardice in Russian mythology, which fact I found ironical.

Some would argue that a sniper is a coward.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Doesn't quite fit my idea about cowardice.
--------------------
Truth is stranger than fiction
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

A coward is one who, in a perilous emergency, thinks with his legs.
-- Ambrose Bierce
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Watched it last week.
Main goody = British actor
Main baddy = American actor
That doesn't happen often!
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

We're trying to cut down on that sort of thing, you know. Gives others the impression that your sort has redeeming qualities.
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
We're trying to cut down on that sort of thing, you know. Gives others the impression that your sort has redeeming qualities.

You are a bounder and a cad ! I demand satisfaction !
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
Main goody = British actor
Main baddy = American actor
That doesn't happen often!

Yeah, generally we'd rather see Aussies or Kiwis in the first slot. Depending on how you count the nationalities of MG & RC; it gets confusing when people move around.
Hmmm... good Brit, bad American... I suppose the Bond films have had American baddies from time to time. And I recently saw "The Recruiter" which seems to qualify. There must be plenty of others, but they do seem to be distinctly in the minority.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Was it any coincidence that the members of the Empire in the Star Wars films generally had British accents? I think not.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Well that's to make them evil and hateful but formidable. If we wanted them evil, hateful and ridiculous, we'd give them French accents. Evil, hateful, cold and arrogant -- German, of course. Evil, hateful, double-dealing: some Chinese gang guy with a scar. Evil, hateful, but stupid: that'd be a Texan president. (rimshot!)
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
Was it any coincidence that the members of the Empire in the Star Wars films generally had British accents? I think not.
Of course, plenty of the Rebel spear-carriers had British accents too. Most of the studio filming was done in England after all; that's the biggest source of extras. Among main characters, Vader has an American accent; Obi-Wan is British. And Leia starts out with a perverse British-American mixed accent due the the fact that she had been living in the UK prior to filming the first film; in later films she's reverted to her native Californian. Interestingly, Vader was portrayed by two American actors, but when he's finally redeemed as Anakin, he is then portrayed by a Brit. Make of this what you will.
Naturally the prequels are not considered as real Star Wars films, right?
For a more clear-cut example of Brit baddies vs. American goodies, check out Spartacus.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Of course, plenty of the Rebel spear-carriers had British accents too. Most of the studio filming was done in England after all;...

Dammit Jim, let's leave facts out of this when I'm trying to make a point, okay?
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Was it any coincidence that the members of the Empire in the Star Wars films generally had British accents? I think not.
We're just your bogey men ... "The British are coming!!!"
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
For a more clear-cut example of Brit baddies vs. American goodies, check out Spartacus.
Titanic is a nice example too. Posh = callous!!
Kate Winslet has a soft English/Irish hybrid accent even though her parents in the film are of the stuck-up variety.
All the wholesome cheerful poor people are Irish sounding. All the rich people are English sounding - where were all the 1st class American passengers? Apparently they outnumbered all other nationalities in the 1st class cabins
That said, could you really picture Huge Grunt as a villain?
 
permaculture playing cards
 
subject: Vasily Zaitsev