Jump to content

Vanarambaion

The 500 Club
  • Posts

    1,654
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vanarambaion

  1. Yes, I saw some angry posting going on there. Simmer down now.
  2. Hey! Who's old? I'm certainly not. Looks like I died again. In the meantime, law school happened, so you'll have to forgive me. I'll be back for a while, at least. Good to see the gang's coming back around.
  3. That's because it's full. Try somewhere else and when we lowly plebs get our invites, we'll join you there.
  4. Hi all. "2 days ago: The Research Center of San Ba ceased to exist." I guess the regulars really are all dying off...
  5. Hullo ladies. I found a map, don't know if it's the most updated version or not, but now that I'm back for good, and I don't have a military to whip into shape (though I may have to whip Tag back into shape since it's been too long since our last pissing contest ), I'd like to re-claim plots 182 and 183, and claim plots 27, 180, and 98. I have 4.973 billion people, and over 1000 posts. I think that should cover it. If I've missed a post where someone claimed one of those territories, lemme know. I'll RP the re-constitution of Vanarambaion. Look for a planning post. It'll be particularly interesting to Tag, Aki, Adaptus, and Tal Shiar, since it'll be happening on their doorsteps.
  6. I'm not really a fan of this idea. It would throw off everyone's world view, to have another nation/region suddenly show up. As it is, there's a dynamic balance of world power, I see no reason not to keep it in-house. Plus, I'm not a fan of having anyone moderate such a nation. Nearly unlimited power? It IS a powergamer's dream, and that's what scares me.
  7. OOC: Sorry, RL jumped up and bit me after the new year. I'm back now though. IC: The Vanarambaion delegation sent to welcome the arriving SPA dignitaries was far from strictly dressed. Collars were loosened to let the a breeze flow under the sweltering wool dress uniforms, and hats were in hand. However, this was also far from being a sloppy meeting, as the Vanarambaion government knew very well where it's friends were, and that they should be shown every comfort and convenience. After the customary greetings were exchanged, the Akiiryan delegation was ushered to their waiting vehicles, and on their way to Thule --several hours later-- The doors to the various cars were held by attendants as the Tagmatine ambassadors and delegation were ushered into one of the huge Roman-style buildings labeled. Notably absent from the welcoming committee was the Patriarch himself. Whether a carefully crafted reaction to the visiting dignitaries, or a gut response from an angry church official was unclear, but there was significance in it nonetheless. However, as the delegations moved through the building toward a room set aside for the negotiations, an elderly count broke the ice with the head Tagmatine Ambassador, Mr. Bucket. Jabbering on about this and that, he at least served as a distraction until the doors to the improvised chambers were opened, again by military attendants. Everything around them was resplendant in marble with gold trappings and gemstones tastefully mounted in various places.
  8. That's much more reasonable than the original statement. I don't care whether people say the media leans left or right, but let's not go overboard.
  9. And let's talk about this - is there the possibility that Saddam would not have been killed? No, the US and Iraqi governments wouldnt' have allowed him to be tried in a court where he couldn't face the death penalty. Too much pride was at stake. Saddam had no real chance of defending himself in any other court, so the decision was a foregone conclusion. The Sunnis, would be pissed at that anyway. There's no way for either government to let Saddam live, so this whole thing was a necessary evil, and the Sunnis are either going to have to put up, or shut up, since fighting a 60% Sunni majority is not an option any sane people would take (I'm assuming a lot here, perhaps). I think the greater question here is, why are we standing in the middle of two (or three) rabid groups who want nothing better than a chunk of the other group? THAT is the losing situation, not killing some half-retarded psychotic dictator.
  10. Saddam was given the trial he deserved, plain and simple. How many sham trials did he put his own people through? How many never had a trial? No, I think the only sham would have been if he'd been removed from the Iraqi court system. The new government got a chance to repay Saddam's treatment of them, and I'm glad they did. If they hadn't, they'd be looking for someone to blame this on, and the US is all too tempting a target. As I said, the only thing I regret is I think he got off with too little pain. As to the possibility of explaining itself to the Hague, the US wouldn't have to explain anything it couldn't handle, given the international hostility to Iran recently. No, Saddam got exactly what he deserved - a poetic taste of his own medicine.
  11. And let's have a whooping moment of joy, as the great and mighty Steelers ruined those blasted Bengals playoff run for two consecutive years. pssst, BJE, it's the 49ers, not the 48ers.
  12. Besides all that, the public's trust of the government is at an all-time low. We've tried the WMD angle. We've tried the terrible dictator angle. And we've used up all the political clout the public would stand for in advocating a war. If the president (any president) came out and said "This is the worst freakin' person you could imagine, and he's about to send a WMD down everyone's chimneys," the average American would respond "Oh, yeah, now pull the other one." No, there will be no war with Iran, and Iran knows it.
  13. I'm not aware of the status of the UK's Guardian as it pertains to widespread readership, and would not presume to comment on another country's media choices without more research, but I'm quite sure that I've never laid my hands on, much less read a copy of the Houston Chronicle. To argue that a paper that includes a "GunBlog," a "Thinking Christian" section, and caters to the Houston Texans is part of this fictional "Corporate Media" is ludicrous. Why don't we look at the New York Times, where a blistering front page article blasts the New York Republican power bloc, or half-way down the page, where an equally blue article lays into President Bush for his chaotic handling of Iraq in 2006? Or maybe the LA Times, for which the top stories are: "Democrats prepare to kick off 100-hour agenda," "Israel loses a founding father," (which bemoans the loss of a man who tried to sew up the wounds in the Middle East, and turns into a criticism of the Bush Administration), and "Gay marriage threatened in Mass." Surely the so-called "Corporate Media," if it has decided anything as a cohesive unit, has not decided that the Bush Administration in general and the Iraq war in particular is a good thing. In fact, I'd say quite the opposite.
  14. Oh pipe down for one second. Do any of you hear that? That is the sound of business as usual. There've been no reprisal killings, no more so than is already going on, anyway. Saddam's execution came and went without any of the bloody fanfare anyone was expecting. He's not a martyr, and there is no popular uprising to get him back. The only people still fighting are those being paid to do so by the pundits on the various sides like Muqtada Al-Sadr. And if his troops are included in the security forces, that gives him at least a passing interest in seeing the government, clumsy and inefficient as it may be, succeed. Sounds good to me. And as to his execution, which after all is the topic of this discussion, I'm glad it happened. Maybe they should have made it more painful, to repay him in kind for what he did to his own people, but at the end of the day, I'm mostly satisfied. And the media has less to do this than alarmists would like to believe. There was no moral high ground to hold, as we haven't had any from the start of this war. There was only business to take care of, and Saddam sitting in jail for the rest of his life would have been one more unnecessary concession in an already loosing battle. And furthermore, the media in America is a crock of sh*t and everyone knows it, so the idea that some super-governmental organization is brainwashing us is not only ludicrous, it's a crass generalization and a gross underestimation of the average American.
  15. Yes. They can beat us like the pathetic Iraqi insurgency is beating us. They can beat us like the Viet Cong beat us. Because we haven't learned how to deal with that kind of warfare, and the whole world knows it. Iran knows it, and they have a history of making it work. How do you think all these terrorist cells are so well funded? If you say it has nothing to do with Iran, I say you are being naive. Also, can we occupy the country so they can't pull off this kind of stunt? I point to Afghanistan and Iraq when I say no, we don't have the personnel to do that. Can Iran beat us in a battle that they get to choose, because that is the kind of battle they will fight? Yes. Yes they can.
  16. Practicality. That's what this comes down to. If you can find some way to put a leash back on a dog that hasn't had one for as long as Iran has been a loose cannon in the Middle East, more power to you. The problem with dealing with a power like Iran is that our governments didn't even recognize the other as legitimate until recently. That means there was no dialogue between them. None. We have no interests in Iran, no way to bargain with them. When they kicked us out after Khomeini's rise to power, they KICKED US OUT. There is literally not a single bargaining chip we have with Iran other than force. And given that they defeated the largest military force in the region already in the '80s when they had no military at all - the US doesn't hold a candle to the power they can project in the region. They won't listen to force, as they already know they can beat us, given the position we're in, and we have no other bargaining power, because we have no interests in or around their country. We cannot force them to do anything. So if you would like to tell me how we're going to gain this leverage, I would love to know what I've overlooked.
  17. There's a few problems with this strategy you speak of, from a home front perspective. While I don't trust the Dems at all, and their moronic pundits like Pelosi and Biden (curses on his head) will go for an idea like that, there was a huge influx of liberal doves to the new Congress. The liberal - and more powerful - end of the media, like CNN, CBS, etc, will eat them up and public opinion will spin out of control. In Britain, the situation is worse. Blair is trying to repair bridges to his own party, and even if he gets the backing of his Conservative opponents, as he did in debates over the last war, he won't be able to stay in office. The Conservatives seem terminally unable to rally and win an election, or even gain seats, so either a Labor or Liberal Democrat will take over as PM, and Britain will be out. Israel is in somewhat of an opposite situation. Olmert leans liberally, for Israel anyway, but he'll be prodded by the Religious Right of that country to move, so long as the backing is there from the other two powers. While this is all great in practice, I don't see anyone, even after the next presidential election and parliamentary elections, who can gather enough support at home to project that kind of support to the Israelis for something like this. It's too right-wing.
  18. Ren, I see what you're saying, and in a perfect world, that would be the best strategy. However, what's missing from the equation here is history. The last Shah of Iran was controlled by the US, and when he got cold feet and fled, the current regime came to power. Since then, they've been against the US because the Shah, supported by the US oppressed the people to such an extent, and signed so many of Iran's powers over to foreign players, that the people of Iran got pissed and rebelled. And they should be pissed, because they were in a position worse than any other nation in the world today. They were prisoners in their own country. And going back to pre-Roman times they've hated the West and everything it stood for. The Iranian people are not ones to be taken lightly, either. Look at the 1980 war with Iraq. They charged the Iraqi lines with nothing but a bandana and faith that Allah wouldn't let them get killed for no reason. These are not people who care about the respect of the Western powers. These are not people for whom reason has anything to do with their way of doing things. These are people who fanatically follow their religious leaders, all of whom would like nothing better than to turn America into a parking lot. Respect? No. We left respect a long time ago, when we backed the Shah, and when we placed them on the Axis of Evil. No, respect has no place when reason is abandoned and fanaticism embraced. When that comes around, fear is the only option left.
  19. Should we fear Iran? HELL YES. Now, I'll admit, I didn't read all of the above arguments with my normal thoroughness, but there is no reason that ANY nation without a stable government (lipstick apparently = revolution?) should never have something like nuclear weapons. Number one. Number two, we have troops, citizens and interests that are all well within Iran's ability to deliver nukes. We seem to forget that Iran doesn't need a intercontinent-capable delivery system to hit America - we're right next door in both directions. And invasion of Iran is not an option, we'd have absolutely no chance of success. The only thing we have to rely on is surgical hits - which is nice to talk about, but surgical is an ideal we can't rely on - on missile sites. That's a cop out. Once they have the information needed to build a missile, they can just rebuild afterward. Then we're playing catchup, and eventually we'll lose. Or we can negotiate. However, we don't negotiate with terrorists. So in the end, the only option the US has is to prevent it all from happening in the first place. And if Iran doesn't take the bait, then we should be very afraid of a country whose whole government has been built on hatred of America. Very afraid.
  20. Relax comrade. In order to make a living you have to use your skills, and aside from liberalism - which rarely puts food on the table - military experience is the only skill you have that we're aware of. Perhaps if you elaborated on what you're looking to do we'd be more helpful.
  21. There is no mandatory draft coming. There never will be another draft, unless WWIII is declared. The current leaders are the Vietnam generation, and the draft was the worst thing to ever happen to that war, as it put into Vietnam a whole slew of people that didn't want to be there, while simultaneously destroying the morale of the regular troops, who had signed up for things like this, to be forced to babysit a bunch of spoiled children. Secondly, the American public would stand for a lot, but they'd never allow this president to do this. He's in enough hot water as it is. No, there is no draft coming.
  22. As the delegates entered their cars, the drivers started the engines, then radioed a code into their headsets. Rolling down the window separating the cab from the front seat, they introduced themselves as members of the Vanarambaion military, and that if the delegates needed anything, to please not hesitate to ask. Then, rolling up the window, they fell into a pattern behind two motorcycles, with two SUVs on either side of each vehicle, and one motorcycle bringing up the rear. Ignoring the speed limits on the highways on the way toward the capital they sped along at a considerable clip. The few cars along the way slid out of their way. The only pursuit was ended when a news van was run off by one of the motorcyclists. Several minutes later, the delegation entered the city proper. The streets on the approach to the center of the city had been carefully blocked, and a crowd had gathered nearby to gawk at the newcomers. The procession moved quickly into the center of the city, finally pulling up in front of a huge, columned building. Standing in front was a crowd of what looked to be officials, all decked out in full dress uniform, with a few in regular suits. The differing uniforms denoted the different ranks, familial lineages, and services that each person claimed, but altogether the crowd was a conglomeration of the brightest colored - and highest ranking - officials in the Vanarambaion government and military. Nearly everyone was there, including the current and former Emperors. The caravan stopped, and the doors were opened, and the delegates ushered out to a crowd of faces clearly undecided as to whether this was a momentous occasion or a pain in the rear.
  23. The officers greeted each member of the delegation with a slight bow, calling the more high-profile members by name. There was no need to hide that each side had stacks of pictures and filing cabinets full of information on the other party. The Lt. Colonel appeared to be in charge of getting them delegates into their vehicles with a minimum of standing around, while the Colonel waited, bowing to each person as they passed him. Finally, he caught sight of the person he'd spent the last few days getting to know inside and out. "Ambassador Bucket. I am Colonel Li'akan Kilpatrick. Welcome to Vanarambaion. Your transportation awaits you, please step lively. We have rumors of attempts on the delegation, and we'd like to get them into a safe zone as quickly as possible. We'll talk more once we've gotten there." With that, the Colonel bowed, wheeled, and stepped into one of the SUVs. He knew the Tagmatines would recognize his name, and they'd probably been briefed about this one-time successor to the crown, and adopted son of the former Emperor. He'd leave it to their immagination how he remained at his post after the coup.
  24. Everywhere's messed up at times. You just gotta find the least messed up place and deal with it when it gets messed up from time to time. Good luck M-S.
×
×
  • Create New...