What happened to Gorah Kar???

Bandit LOAF said:
I think the two secret, war-ending bombing runs to drop morally debated "T-Bombs" is a pretty deliberate World War II parallel. :)

Remember that the Kilrathi didn't purposefully wipe out civilian targets until the very end of the war -- even the bombing on Earth was targetting the cities because they were part of the defense grid. Add to that the fact that many Kilrathi played up the idea that they were being lead into war by a corrupt regime -- and the fact that over three times as many Kilrathi died in the war as humans. The guilt isn't necessarily justified, but it's certainly reasonable that it exists.
Click to expand...

yeah i totally see that. i guess rationally i see the difference b/w a last gasp weapon to save humanity and a tool to win a war quicker. Also, in the game you're given the impression that humans hated the kilrathi for their treachery and brutality thru the many years. I sure many however were cushioned or oblivious to all the things we saw in the game.

As you said later on, the mere specre of this type of weapon runs on a logic parallel to its reasonable use and validity.

however, i'm sure its the bloody politicians who never saw the war and apathetic civvies were to blame ! :p
 
Yeah, we shoudl turn into murderous genocidal bastards, like the Allies did with Germany and Japan. Oh, wait, they didn't, and guess what, nowadays Germany and Japan are two very important allies of their former enemies! Shiver me timbers! Maybe not taking furious revenge on defeated enemies might be a good idea.
 
Edfilho said:
Yeah, we shoudl turn into murderous genocidal bastards, like the Allies did with Germany and Japan. Oh, wait, they didn't, and guess what, nowadays Germany and Japan are two very important allies of their former enemies! Shiver me timbers! Maybe not taking furious revenge on defeated enemies might be a good idea.
Click to expand...

That's the reason why there was ever a second World War, but hey, it'd feel good giving the cats another punch in the stomach by seizing their industrial facilities or something. :p
 
Next time you guys want to kill a thread, be sure to flush twice.
 
Probably because the Forstchen novels are the most "Republican" slanted sci-fi books on the market.
 
Well they do have a pretty negative view of both politicians, the media and democracy.
In fleet action the civilian government was gulliable enough to accept a peace treaty that was an obvious ploy to weaken to Confederation war effort whilst at the same time giving them the time to bring their new characters online. Once it was obvious thet the war was back on the replacement government refused to allow Tolwyn the opportunity to launch spoiling attacks over the kilrathi border.
Also in fleet action many civilians believed the kilrathi propganda that the war was the responsibility of militarilistic factions on both sides and believed that the war was an unneccessary expense.
The media was also quick to point out kilrathi casualties both during the false peace and after the destruction of kilrah and renamed human owned systems that had been captured by the kilrathi just before Blair nuked kilrah, also again in Fleet Action (sorry if i'm over using the same source) a reporter accuse Bear of being a warmonger and Kat hater despite his past record of refusing to attack kilrathi civilians.
 
Paddybhoy said:
Well they do have a pretty negative view of both politicians, the media and democracy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the evil republicans hate democracy and free speech. BusHitler and all that . . . :rolleyes:

Get serious, Paddybhoy. :p
 
Dr. Forstchen is certainly a noted Republican -- but in general I think the Wing Commander novels go beyond this... their 'political' message is generally simply that wars should be fought by soldiers rather than civilians. To the best of my knowledge, that's a point of view wholly separate from either of the modern parties...

Forstchen is also a Civil War scholar, and if anything I'd claim that his Wing Commander politics are more of a commentary on those of that era rather than any modern day mudslinging.
 
I used the word "Republican" because I felt "Conservative" may have had other denotations that would be either unwelcome or totally seperate to the topic.

(But yes, I do concede completely to LOAF's point)
 
Paddybhoy said:
I wasn't talking about republicans, I was talking about the novels, sorry if u misunderstood Porthos.
Click to expand...

Then, what was the point of your post? I asked for an explanation of what LeHah said, and you gave it to me. You didn't deny his conclusion, and you offered examples, so I could only conclude that you agreed. But, whatever :p . I'm far to politically minded, and I do tend to get easily riled about generalizations of either side of the political spectrum, be it liberal or conservative. It's the Irish in me. :p

I'd say the viewpoints of a Patton or MacArthur come through in the novels more than a Civil War viewpoint. Though, it still boils down to, "In war, there can be no substitute for victory." That ideology served us well until wars became entirely politically run, and/or motivated.

When a nation at war subsitutes victory for political touchy-feely, that nation will lose any war it is involved in. See US actions in Korea and Vietnam.

But yes, the military and the press don't get along, and the military has to put up with civilian oversight, which they find annoying/dangerous. In the Korean war, MacArthur was asked by Truman to bomb one half of a bridge, so as not to offend the Chinese, who happened to be pouring troops into Korea over that bridge. MacArthur's reaction ultimately got him fired as supreme allied commander.
 
Oops I forgot about LeHah's original statement :) But what happens in Wing Commander is almost panto like, nobody is as stupid in there actions as the Government in fleet action was.
 
Paddybhoy said:
...nobody is as stupid in there actions as the Government in fleet action was.
Click to expand...

resign.jpg
 
America didn't lose Korea, it was just a stalemate that could only be broken by starting WW3. The decision to end the war in Korea was in my opinion a valid one, whilst MacArthur almost certainly had the ability to fight the Chinese and North Koreans back, but to what succesful end could he successfully persecute and win the war? The Soviets (who at this point had atomic weapons) would eventually intervene and then it would be a two front war, one in Asia where the U.N. would be unable to attain any strategic victory due to the vast distances, poor logistics and sheer manpower the enemy could mobilise, whilst in europe the allies could certainly do the buisness, but not without the use of nuclear weapons and the U.S having to grant substantial aid to both Britain and France.
 
Paddybhoy said:
America didn't lose Korea, it was just a stalemate that could only be broken by starting WW3. The decision to end the war in Korea was in my opinion a valid one, whilst MacArthur almost certainly had the ability to fight the Chinese and North Koreans back, but to what succesful end could he successfully persecute and win the war? The Soviets (who at this point had atomic weapons) would eventually intervene and then it would be a two front war, one in Asia where the U.N. would be unable to attain any strategic victory due to the vast distances, poor logistics and sheer manpower the enemy could mobilise, whilst in europe the allies could certainly do the buisness, but not without the use of nuclear weapons and the U.S having to grant substantial aid to both Britain and France.
Click to expand...

Korea was no stalemate. We had taken almost all of N. Korea but a tiny sliver along the Chinese border. The only real difficulty was that the Chicoms started sending in hunreds of thousands of troops over the Yalu river's bridge, which, as MacArthur said, was an act of war. Truman said that if he could bomb the korean half of it the bridge, go ahead, so we don't offend the Chinese (who were already sending troops who were killing US forces!!) After that, we lost all of the ground we gained, and now we have a situation that could cause an even bloodier war than originally would have happened if we'd just bombed the bridge when we had the chance.

Yes, the Russians had atomic weapons then. They were crude compared to ours, they didn't have nearly as many, and like ours they had to be delivered by bombers, which were not as advanced as ours, and could be shot down easily by our fighters, which were superior to the MiGs of that era. Thing is, they probably would not have gotten involved if we'd just bombed a bridge. Now, if we'd gone so far to invade China, that would have been a mistake, and I disagree with MacArthur on that point, though I can see where he was coming from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top