StarGateWars Forums

Brdavs wrote:And its somehow a better idea to park a military base on a historic sight & dig trenches etc. cos "it might save a life of a serviceman"?

I never said I agreed with it..

Lets just be honest, we just dont care about those piles of rubble in the fertile triangle, cradle of civilization or not.

They...

But hell hath no fury like the fury we have if our preccious symbols 1/100th the age of the above mentioned are threathened.

Ergo why every apocalypse feature flick needs to feature the head of lady liberty floating away under watter at the very minimum. Doesnt strike home otherwise.
Wonder what the reaction would be if they chopped off the top half of mt.rushmore to place machinegun nests on top.

Selective caring for symbols is bad, I got to agree...

MEZZANINE wrote:If despoiling some dusty old relic to build a base saves a single life, or even prevents a single injury to a US or UK soldier then its worth while.

Lives are a dime a dozen. It's easy to make more. See if you can build another monument as easily..

I mean seriously.. you choose to go to war. You die, or you don't die. It's a professional hazard. Quit whining. Losing 6 lives in an ambush sucks, I'm sure. Especially for the people who were connected to those lives. Does that make these lives more valuable in the big picture? No. Lives are worthless, except to the poor people who are connected to lives that might perish. Professional hazard. If you don't want to die, don't get involved with the military in any way. Anything less, and you run a bigger risk than you would living your life as an office clerk.

I think the point of the base was to deny the site to the enemy.

Also the comparisons with other monuments like the statue of liberty is ridiculous, the hanging gardens are already ruins, I think it was earthquakes or some other natural disaster not war that destroyed them. As for disaster movies, I never seen a disaster movie that showed the hanging gardens being destroyed, reason, because they already look destroyed and most people wouldnt even recognise a picture of them.

MEZZANINE wrote:I think the point of the base was to deny the site to the enemy.

Also the comparisons with other monuments like the statue of liberty is ridiculous, the hanging gardens are already ruins, I think it was earthquakes or some other natural disaster not war that destroyed them. As for disaster movies, I never seen a disaster movie that showed the hanging gardens being destroyed, reason, because they already look destroyed and most people wouldnt even recognise a picture of them.

Okay, so we compare them with the World Trade Center. That works better for you? But honestly, the WTC had no architectural value beyond being a pretty damn tall building.

And the majority of Chinese pig farmers and Indian rice planters wouldn't know your Statue of Liberty either.. so meh. Only wonder of the world in that regard are the Pyramids.. and even those are not unique.



But I will not to try to argue the value of history and historical sites with a barbarian. Now where's my dynamite. Mt. Rushmore needs to be corrected. Whoever had the brainless notion of despoiling a rock to make a few portraits in.. *frown* A restaurant would be better.

Juliette wrote:

MEZZANINE wrote:I think the point of the base was to deny the site to the enemy.

Also the comparisons with other monuments like the statue of liberty is ridiculous, the hanging gardens are already ruins, I think it was earthquakes or some other natural disaster not war that destroyed them. As for disaster movies, I never seen a disaster movie that showed the hanging gardens being destroyed, reason, because they already look destroyed and most people wouldnt even recognise a picture of them.

Okay, so we compare them with the World Trade Center. That works better for you? But honestly, the WTC had no architectural value beyond being a pretty damn tall building.

And the majority of Chinese pig farmers and Indian rice planters wouldn't know your Statue of Liberty either.. so meh. Only wonder of the world in that regard are the Pyramids.. and even those are not unique.



But I will not to try to argue the value of history and historical sites with a barbarian. Now where's my dynamite. Mt. Rushmore needs to be corrected. Whoever had the brainless notion of despoiling a rock to make a few portraits in.. *frown* A restaurant would be better.

My Statue of Liberty ? Not mine mate, Im Welsh, SoL was made by Frechies and given to Yanks when both Frenchies and Yanks didnt like UK very much. I only quoted it from someone else's comparison and was saying it is not comparable to the hanging gardens because one is intact and one is ruins. Im sure the pig and rice farmers you mention wouldnt recognise either. As for The World Trade Centre, that was just a commercial building IMO, the only part of it's destruction I regret is the loss of life in it, the building itself meant nothing to me or most people. Mount Rushmore, again means nothing to me, I wouldnt visit it as it is, and I would not care if you built your restaurant on it.

MEZZANINE wrote:

Juliette wrote:

MEZZANINE wrote:I think the point of the base was to deny the site to the enemy.

Also the comparisons with other monuments like the statue of liberty is ridiculous, the hanging gardens are already ruins, I think it was earthquakes or some other natural disaster not war that destroyed them. As for disaster movies, I never seen a disaster movie that showed the hanging gardens being destroyed, reason, because they already look destroyed and most people wouldnt even recognise a picture of them.

Okay, so we compare them with the World Trade Center. That works better for you? But honestly, the WTC had no architectural value beyond being a pretty damn tall building.

And the majority of Chinese pig farmers and Indian rice planters wouldn't know your Statue of Liberty either.. so meh. Only wonder of the world in that regard are the Pyramids.. and even those are not unique.



But I will not to try to argue the value of history and historical sites with a barbarian. Now where's my dynamite. Mt. Rushmore needs to be corrected. Whoever had the brainless notion of despoiling a rock to make a few portraits in.. *frown* A restaurant would be better.

My Statue of Liberty ? Not mine mate, Im Welsh, SoL was made by Frechies and given to Yanks when both Frenchies and Yanks didnt like UK very much. I only quoted it from someone else's comparison and was saying it is not comparable to the hanging gardens because one is intact and one is ruins. Im sure the pig and rice farmers you mention wouldnt recognise either. As for The World Trade Centre, that was just a commercial building IMO, the only part of it's destruction I regret is the loss of life in it, the building itself meant nothing to me or most people. Mount Rushmore, again means nothing to me, I wouldnt visit it as it is, and I would not care if you built your restaurant on it.

Sorry, made an ass out of me there. I'll remember you're Welsh in the future.
Anyway.. how many people know Welsh monuments? The examples I gave would be even less valid.

Who knows Caernarfon castle? The Valle Crucis abbey? The town walls of Denbigh? Would it make a difference to you, Mezz, if someone were to smash these monuments and build an <insert corporate supermarket name> on the site?

Anyway, this is getting ridiculous. If you feel you are a citizen of this world, not just of your hometown/nation/continent, and if you have a tiny bit of historical insight, you'll understand some of the frustration with the ijits who smash ancient sites 'because they're strategically located and a base would be awsum'. Or you won't. In the big picture, it's all worthless. Nothing is new, everything that has been shall be again and again in different form.. oh well. I'll stop.

as we all know, whats built ultimately fades away, but these sites are not just mounds of rubble, they endure, even if they are little more than rubble/ruins.

look at the great pyramids for instance, they used to totally covered with cladding which gave the pyramid a smooth and reflective surface. this was shaken loose by an earthquake. the cladding was then used in some of the construction of Cairo.
this is a real shame because the cladding was a marvel of engineering in itself. some of the cladding is still intact, but most is gone forever.

now, the hanging gardens maybe little more than ruins for most people but the fact still remains that these are historical sites full of mystery which has yet to be explained, destroy the site and we have no chance of explaining anything.

the bottom line here is, the site STILL endures and great care must be taken to preserve these sites.
you (you meaning whoever reads this) may not be bothered, but others are.

those who dont care about sites in other countrys would be quick to condemn those same troops (and commanders who gave the orders) if the ruins were in THEIR country....


i'm babbling

[KMA]Avenger wrote:as we all know, whats built ultimately fades away, but these sites are not just mounds of rubble, they endure, even if they are little more than rubble/ruins.

look at the great pyramids for instance, they used to totally covered with cladding which gave the pyramid a smooth and reflective surface. this was shaken loose by an earthquake. the cladding was then used in some of the construction of Cairo.
this is a real shame because the cladding was a marvel of engineering in itself. some of the cladding is still intact, but most is gone forever.

now, the hanging gardens maybe little more than ruins for most people but the fact still remains that these are historical sites full of mystery which has yet to be explained, destroy the site and we have no chance of explaining anything.

the bottom line here is, the site STILL endures and great care must be taken to preserve these sites.
you (you meaning whoever reads this) may not be bothered, but others are.

those who dont care about sites in other countrys would be quick to condemn those same troops (and commanders who gave the orders) if the ruins were in THEIR country....


i'm babbling

I disagree, most of these sites have no mystery left, archeologists have studied them for decades, centuries in some cases, what can be discovered from the remains already has been. The ones than can be exploited for tourism ( money ) are maintained and protected, the ones than dont attract tourists are left to rot.

there are STILL mysteries and not all (not even close to all) has been explained.
aside from the knowledge still to be gained, there are also the ancient artefacts, scrolls and recorded history which is STILL being unearthed at that site, and many others.

putting the above argument aside for a minute, what right does any invading army have to go and destroy the native heritage?

how would you like it if the English army invaded Wales and set about doing what's been done in Iraq?

i'm Greek Cypriot born and raised in London, i can tell you know, i would not be happy at all if the same was done in my country...or in Greece for that matter.

Seriously KMA, learn your damned history. The UK did do that to wales & to scotland & to ireland.

We went in and destroy countless buildings and what would now be considered 'monuments' in our war of conquest for the Union.

Kit-Fox wrote:Seriously KMA, learn your damned history. The UK did do that to wales & to scotland & to ireland.

We went in and destroy countless buildings and what would now be considered 'monuments' in our war of conquest for the Union.

Indeed. It would be too much to expect us to have learnt anything from history, I suppose.

Juliette wrote:

Kit-Fox wrote:Seriously KMA, learn your damned history. The UK did do that to wales & to scotland & to ireland.

We went in and destroy countless buildings and what would now be considered 'monuments' in our war of conquest for the Union.

Indeed. It would be too much to expect us to have learnt anything from history, I suppose.

untrue.
with each passing war, we reach new heights of efficiency in monumet destruction.

Hitchkok wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Kit-Fox wrote:Seriously KMA, learn your damned history. The UK did do that to wales & to scotland & to ireland.

We went in and destroy countless buildings and what would now be considered 'monuments' in our war of conquest for the Union.

Indeed. It would be too much to expect us to have learnt anything from history, I suppose.

untrue.
with each passing war, we reach new heights of efficiency in monumet destruction.

*chuckles* Aye, that's true.
For a minute I read that as 'destruction' as in the destruction of human lives.. I had almost typed a lengthy reply about how the last decade is a pretty inefficient time, in which wars lose to nature in body count.
With the monument destruction remark, I agree. It's a bit of a nuisance.

Kit-Fox wrote:Seriously KMA, learn your damned history. The UK did do that to wales & to scotland & to ireland.

We went in and destroy countless buildings and what would now be considered 'monuments' in our war of conquest for the Union.

did i say it hadn't been done? mate, calm down...seriously!

i do know my history, its been done the world over, i am talking about hypothetically being done TODAY!

and since i've brought it up and just to prove i do know my history...it was a downright travesty when Venetian bombardment on the acropolis-hit and ignited the Ottoman ammunition dump blowing up the Parthenon in the process...

thank you, thank you *takes a bow*

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Kit-Fox wrote:Seriously KMA, learn your damned history. The UK did do that to wales & to scotland & to ireland.

We went in and destroy countless buildings and what would now be considered 'monuments' in our war of conquest for the Union.

did i say it hadn't been done? mate, calm down...seriously!

i do know my history, its been done the world over, i am talking about hypothetically being done TODAY!

and since i've brought it up and just to prove i do know my history...it was a downright travesty when Venetian bombardment on the acropolis-hit and ignited the Ottoman ammunition dump blowing up the Parthenon in the process...

thank you, thank you *takes a bow*

*applauds* And what to think of the horrendous construction of cathedrals on top of Aztec, Incan temples to mention a few? Some of those cathedrals are pretty majestic.. but they pale in comparison to the temples they have been built on top of.

Slap a cross on something and it's christian. No need to make a mess of history for that..