Stan187

That's what he means. Its shorthand. Soviet armies are called Russian even tho there are many Siberians, Jews, Caucasians, Tartars, etc. Hitler's army was called German, even tho there were plenty of foreign volunteers. Thats just the way ppl talk.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

Stan187

Yes, this was in fact the body of the Hak'taur that Apophis/Amonet were trying to give protect so that it could later become Apophis's new host body. Only this body before taking in Apophis was put on some serious growth hormones... that guy is like Goliath height.

xerxes

I understand that, but I dont agree

The Soviet Army is by definition an imperial army, sense Sovietism is not related just to Russinism, but overlaps it. Therefore, like the Grande Armee, the Soviet army is a correct term and it presents the people of different ethnicity. Much like that of Rome.

The German Army of the Second Reich was an imperial army, made of Bavarian, Saxon and Prussians corps. Therefore the term German Army is acceptable. After, 1918, when the Empire was replaced by republic, the term German Army is still valid as it was made of vast majority of Germanic people, minus few SS foriegn divisions.

__________________
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

IDonT

I don't know why people really hype out this battle. It is really simple. A small highly motivated force, using the local terrain to their advantage caused a disproportionally high casualty rate to their enemies.

Hoplite warfare was suited to fighting on passes where the enemy can't outflank you. 100,000 unsupported hoplites fighting against 100,000 Persian's will lose badly in a wide open space. Its all about terrain.

gunnut

Yes, that was good. Persian empire was defeated by Alexander with 40,000 men. The west owes the Greeks. Don't you forget it.


Are you stupid or just pretending to be? I'm being "culturally sensitive" by limiting the number to 150 years. That's the number seperating the battle at Thermopylae and Alexander defeating the Persian Empire. Someone mentioned Fallujah. So I said the islamists are welcome to try to march an army in downtown Manhattan 150 years from now if they can do what the Greeks did. But we know they can't. However, if I make the number to be 1500 or 2500, people will bi!tch and moan that I show favortism for the Greeks by not recognizing the righteousness and superior fighting capabilites of the islamic horde.

There, is that too long for you? Do you understand now? Should I draw a diagram for you? I would make a shockwave flash presentation for you if I had the talent to make one. I don't. So you will have to read the words and try to comprehend the parallel some of us are trying to draw here.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

xerxes

Diagrams will do nicely for my slow brain ... as far as shockwave flash presentation ?? ... are we going into the realm of computational fluid dynamics, y+, boundary layers and shock waves in supersonic flows?? ... that stuff is hard material, I warn you ...

Joking aside, no need to hide that you show favoritism to anyone, it is loud and clear, I see it. Just like my biasness is loud of clear as well for you. Though, I couldnt care less about the spread of Islam by sword and actually as a Persian, I dont like that particular episode and therefore against it. However, I always find it amusing to use that period that show another side of the coin of hypocracy in the West, who bash spread of Islam (ideology) by the sword, but get drunk on the stories of Alexander the Great and its Greek horde, and how he spread his ideology eastward.

Whether, you say which ideology is superior that is your opinion, which is highly respected but debatable in my book. However, if you are saying that spread one ideology by the sword is okay/accepted/glorified, while spread of another ideology by sword is not okay. For me that is pure hypocracy, and no offense to you personnaly, but I despise and hate hypocracy.

Here, I said all very nicely, without resort into calling you either being "stupid" or "pretending to be" ...

Kartajan

Out of curiosity, did the Greeks of this time even think of themselves as "Western"?

I always thought that Greek self-identity has always swung like a pendulum over the ages, and at that particular point of time their primary identity was as "Mediterranean" people first and foremost. The main source of Greek concern was the alarmingly easy subjugation of modern Syria and Egypt (i.e the immediate neighbors of Eastern Greek colonies), not any defense of "West".

gunnut

We bash the spread of islam by the sword TODAY.

We don't bash the spread of islam by the sword 1300 years ago just like we don't bash the spread of Greek culture by the sword 2500 years ago. Everyone was doing that back then. We have changed. The world has changed. Islam has not. That's why we have a problem with them.

No hypocracy here. We don't spread western culture by the sword today. 3rd world despots are free to butcher their own people. We don't give a rat's ass. See Darfur? We don't care.

We care when these people want to spread their violence to us. 9-11 was a wake up call. A-stan and Iraq are retaliations. We would have been perfectly happy to leave those 2 nations alone had we not been attacked.

That's because I was frustrated at how retarded your response was. History in parallel? 150 years? Can't you grasp the comparison? Do I need to spell it out? You of all people should know Persian history and Alexander better than I can.

astralis

gunnut,

not quite western culture persay, but part of the rationale of an offensive War on Terror is to spread democracy and thus uproot some of the hatred stemming from oppressive tyrannical regimes.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

xerxes

I could be very wrong ,, but based on my understanding here in this forum and many other places, it is the spread of islam by the sword some 1300 years ago that is the common source of discontent. It is aleast such was for the Persians. and infact that was the only major spread by sword ... the Ottoman expanion doesnt really fall into that category, because Ottoman Turks like the Russian Moscovites embrace Islam and Orthodox Christianity to fit their needs, not other way around. Therefore, regardless of what religion the Ottoman Turks and Russian Moscovites were major imperial expansionist powers, therefore the Ottoman expansionist is more like a Turkish expansion rather then Islamic one. Infact, were the Turks Christians they would have still delivered the death knell that ended the Roman Empire in the East. And were the Russian muslims, they would still aimed to conquer the mythical seat of the world empire. Therefore, the spread of islam by the sword that is bashed by the west, could only be refered to the original sweeps of the armies of the Umar and his descendents that shock the throne of Caesars and Chosroes.

Well the world is changing century by century. It is getting smaller and closer. That is truth. As far as if Islam has changed or not. I would say it has changed, but I dont know if it changed for better or worse.

That is fine. But as someone else mentioned here, you spread your ideology by the sword, TODAY. Infact, the Third world despots are the ones that are insolation and are busying butchering their own people, and therefore are mostly content with their little shiny palaces and women.

No my friend. Iraq was going to invaded anyways regarless of 9/11, as part of the Wolfewitz Doctrine. Infact, Saddam probably dug his own grave when he embrace the power of Euro. As far as Taliban, I cannot quite remember but If memory serves, the US government had a huge issue with them regarding a project involve building a pipeline gaz passing through Afghanistan. I am sure that had 9/11 not happened, there would have been perhapes strong covert operation aimed at overthrowing the Taliban regime by the US.

Patience, my friend, ... patience ... I am obviously not bright enough grasp the comparison, therefore be patient toward me and dont be too frustrated


The strong manly ones in life are those who understand the meaning of the word patience. Patience means restraining one's inclinations. There are seven emotions: joy, anger, anxiety, love, grief, fear, and hate, and if a man does not give way to these he can be called patient. I am not as strong as I might be, but I have long known and practiced patience. And if my descendants wish to be as I am, they must study patience - Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu

leib10

Saw the movie yesterday. Yes, it takes a lot of liberties in storytelling, but the basic underlying story is there, and that's what counts. A bit of overuse of slow-motion, but that's forgivable. All in all a pretty solid film.

__________________
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

gunnut

That's the sales pitch. We wouldn't have done these things if we weren't attacked. We did it out of our self interest, not for the intrinsic benefit of the natives.

gunnut

No my friend, we had no plans to attack Iraq had 9-11 not happened. We were just fine letting Saddam play his game of hide and seek with the UN. We might bomb them here or there to retaliate for lighting up our fighters patrolling the no-fly zone. But there was no plan for a full scale land invasion...until 9-11. Some in the Pentagon might have wanted to. But there was nothing that gave them the excuse to move ground forces into Iraq. 9-11 gave us the excuse.

Stop watching Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore.

xerxes

Mr Gunnut, I assume that you are just joking with me, with this last comment of yours. For someone who read books, I dont like to be told to stop watching something that I dont watch.

The only stuff that I watch are:

Rome
Sopranos
Battlestar Galactica
PBS Frontline

... and crapy popecorn movies like 300

pick on these if you like .. thank you

Kansas Bear

Actually, it was Unocal(along with other companies) that was involved in discussion with the Taliban. Strangely, after Unocal and the Taliban announce an agreement to build the pipeline, OBL issues his 'fatwa' against all Americans(Feb 1998). Followed by the attack on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania(Aug 1998) and the subsequent missile attacks on terrorists camps within Afghanistan. Unocal cancelled all plans(Aug 1998) to build a pipeline, since building a pipeline in a war zone is impractical.

The question is, what country benefits from there NOT being a pipeline transporting Turkmenistan and Kazakistan's oil to the world market??

__________________

Till he returns...