Right Wing Discussion Thread IX: The Right Man's Burden

[Sanctissima]

What if they reject him and continue anyway?

I doubt that, but if so then we come up with a Plan B, besides if you think about it, ISIS won't really function without a leader, unless they just keep doing what they've been doing and reinstate a new leader.

That's... kind of the nature of a terrorist organization.

Losing their bin Laden didn't crush Al-Qaeda, and I doubt Baghdadi's imminent demise will result in the destruction of ISIS either.

Taking out their leader has a very limited effect. If you want total victory, you have to eradicate them, thoroughly.

[Prusswitonsiakekingkailand]

I doubt that, but if so then we come up with a Plan B, besides if you think about it, ISIS won't really function without a leader, unless they just keep doing what they've been doing and reinstate a new leader.

That's... kind of the nature of a terrorist organization.

Losing their bin Laden didn't crush Al-Qaeda, and I doubt Baghdadi's imminent demise will result in the destruction of ISIS either.

Taking out their leader has a very limited effect. If you want total victory, you have to eradicate them, thoroughly.

True, it's also too late to wipe out all supporters of ISIS, since we've let them pour into countries across the West, and even possibly the Far East. Sure, rounding up every supporter of ISIS and either arresting or executing them is a drastic decision, but if someone could put forth a better solution other then "MAKE THEM INTEGRATE" (Which hasn't worked, at all.), that'd be most welcome. Besides, the problem with finding a solution, is trying to find a way to get the solution put into use... and knowing the EU, they'd call us "LITERALLY HITLER" for doing such a stunt.

[The Parkus Empire]

So Germany and Austria were compelled to start a proto global thermonuclear war.

Serbia started it you mean :^)

Since the Serbian government proper didn't order the assassination or protect the assailant, no, they didn't. And ever since Fritz Fischer's thesis became widely accepted, no one can reasonably think the war actually had anything to do with the assassination anyway.

[The Parkus Empire]

Disraeli vs. Gladstone, who's your guy?

[The East Marches II]

Serbia started it you mean :^)

Since the Serbian government proper didn't order the assassination or protect the assailant, no, they didn't. And ever since Fritz Fischer's thesis became widely accepted, no one can reasonably think the war actually had anything to do with the assassination anyway.

>Widely accepted

Maybe in the Orthodox world where you guys can't be allowed to have done anything wrong

Disraeli vs. Gladstone, who's your guy?

Gladstone was skrub

Grand Old Man?

In reality, Murderer of Gordon

[The Parkus Empire]

Since the Serbian government proper didn't order the assassination or protect the assailant, no, they didn't. And ever since Fritz Fischer's thesis became widely accepted, no one can reasonably think the war actually had anything to do with the assassination anyway.

>Widely accepted

Maybe in the Orthodox world where you guys can't be allowed to have done anything wrong

Disraeli vs. Gladstone, who's your guy?

Gladstone was skrub

Grand Old Man?

In reality, Murderer of Gordon

I imagine Orthodox countries have their own historians on that, I'm talking about in the West.

Whether or not you actually agree with his policies, Gladstone actually had a conscience, something surprisingly rare in an age when religion was so touted.

[The East Marches II]

>Widely accepted

Maybe in the Orthodox world where you guys can't be allowed to have done anything wrong



Gladstone was skrub

Grand Old Man?

In reality, Murderer of Gordon

I imagine Orthodox countries have their own historians on that, I'm talking about in the West.

Whether or not you actually agree with his policies, Gladstone actually had a conscience, something surprisingly rare in an age when religion was so touted.

Thats why Gladstone abandoned Gordon Pasha :^)

He was a terrible scumbag.

[The Parkus Empire]

I imagine Orthodox countries have their own historians on that, I'm talking about in the West.

Whether or not you actually agree with his policies, Gladstone actually had a conscience, something surprisingly rare in an age when religion was so touted.

Thats why Gladstone abandoned Gordon Pasha :^)

He was a terrible scumbag.

Gordon mishandled the situation terribly and decided to do things his way instead of following orders. Courageous man, but a major blunder.

Gladstone was a fine human being. His main failing was that he was a bit of a dither. This is from his proposal to his future wife: "I seek much in a wife in gifts better than those of our human pride, and am also sensible that she can find little in me: sensible that, were you to treat this note as the offspring of utter presumption, I must not be surprised: sensible that the lot I invite you to share, even if it be not attended, as I trust it is not, with peculiar disadvantages of an outward kind, is one, I do not say unequal to your deserts, for that were saying little, but liable at best to changes and perplexities and pains which, for myself, I contemplate without apprehension, but to which it is perhaps selfishness in the main, with the sense of inward dependence counteracting an opposite sense of my too real unworthiness, which would make me contribute to expose another - and that other!"

[The East Marches II]

Thats why Gladstone abandoned Gordon Pasha :^)

He was a terrible scumbag.

Gordon mishandled the situation terribly and decided to do things his way instead of following orders. Courageous man, but a major blunder.

Gladstone was a fine human being. His main failing was that he was a bit of a dither. This is from his proposal to his future wife: "I seek much in a wife in gifts better than those of our human pride, and am also sensible that she can find little in me: sensible that, were you to treat this note as the offspring of utter presumption, I must not be surprised: sensible that the lot I invite you to share, even if it be not attended, as I trust it is not, with peculiar disadvantages of an outward kind, is one, I do not say unequal to your deserts, for that were saying little, but liable at best to changes and perplexities and pains which, for myself, I contemplate without apprehension, but to which it is perhaps selfishness in the main, with the sense of inward dependence counteracting an opposite sense of my too real unworthiness, which would make me contribute to expose another - and that other!"

>Mishandled the situation
>Did the right thing and didn't sacrifice his reputation to cover for Gladstone's cowardice

I don't think so Tim.

Do you like defending bad guys? Gladstone was a fool and worse, he was a weak fool, the greatest crime of all. Irish Home Rule was also a stupid idea as its a well known fact they are incapable of governing themselves.

[Thermodolia]

I doubt that, but if so then we come up with a Plan B, besides if you think about it, ISIS won't really function without a leader, unless they just keep doing what they've been doing and reinstate a new leader.

That's... kind of the nature of a terrorist organization.

Losing their bin Laden didn't crush Al-Qaeda, and I doubt Baghdadi's imminent demise will result in the destruction of ISIS either.

Taking out their leader has a very limited effect. If you want total victory, you have to eradicate them, thoroughly.

Or incite enough opposing sides into to a fight. Though that would take up a considerable amount of resources and wouldn't be as near as fun as dropping six MOABs on Isis

[United Muscovite Nations]

Gordon mishandled the situation terribly and decided to do things his way instead of following orders. Courageous man, but a major blunder.

Gladstone was a fine human being. His main failing was that he was a bit of a dither. This is from his proposal to his future wife: "I seek much in a wife in gifts better than those of our human pride, and am also sensible that she can find little in me: sensible that, were you to treat this note as the offspring of utter presumption, I must not be surprised: sensible that the lot I invite you to share, even if it be not attended, as I trust it is not, with peculiar disadvantages of an outward kind, is one, I do not say unequal to your deserts, for that were saying little, but liable at best to changes and perplexities and pains which, for myself, I contemplate without apprehension, but to which it is perhaps selfishness in the main, with the sense of inward dependence counteracting an opposite sense of my too real unworthiness, which would make me contribute to expose another - and that other!"

>Mishandled the situation
>Did the right thing and didn't sacrifice his reputation to cover for Gladstone's cowardice

I don't think so Tim.

Do you like defending bad guys? Gladstone was a fool and worse, he was a weak fool, the greatest crime of all. Irish Home Rule was also a stupid idea as its a well known fact they are incapable of governing themselves.

We can't defend much of anything without the Theodosian Walls, tbh : ^(

[Proctopeo]

I doubt that, but if so then we come up with a Plan B, besides if you think about it, ISIS won't really function without a leader, unless they just keep doing what they've been doing and reinstate a new leader.

That's... kind of the nature of a terrorist organization.

Losing their bin Laden didn't crush Al-Qaeda, and I doubt Baghdadi's imminent demise will result in the destruction of ISIS either.

Taking out their leader has a very limited effect. If you want total victory, you have to eradicate them, thoroughly.

Their choice in new leadership may augment their ability to terrorist, however. Hopefully the change is negative.

We could just revive Moses and have him part the crust...

[The East Marches II]

>Mishandled the situation
>Did the right thing and didn't sacrifice his reputation to cover for Gladstone's cowardice

I don't think so Tim.

Do you like defending bad guys? Gladstone was a fool and worse, he was a weak fool, the greatest crime of all. Irish Home Rule was also a stupid idea as its a well known fact they are incapable of governing themselves.

We can't defend much of anything without the Theodosian Walls, tbh : ^(

I-I'm so sorry. At last it all makes sense. One day friendo, one day it will be put right.

[The Parkus Empire]

Forcing trade with Japan was pretty messed up, in retrospect.

[Salus Maior]

Forcing trade with Japan was pretty messed up, in retrospect.

Hey, turned out better for them in the end.

At least, when compared to other cultures who faced European imperialism.

[The Parkus Empire]

We can't defend much of anything without the Theodosian Walls, tbh : ^(

I-I'm so sorry. At last it all makes sense. One day friendo, one day it will be put right.

The Ecumenical Patriarch doesn't need anymore influence than he has. Besides, Byzantium was degenerate despite producing some great saints.

[Salus Maior]

I-I'm so sorry. At last it all makes sense. One day friendo, one day it will be put right.

The Ecumenical Patriarch doesn't need anymore influence than he has. Besides, Byzantium was degenerate despite producing some great saints.

All countries are pretty degenerate.

[Kramania]

Daily reminder that paganism is the only true path for self-respecting Europeans.

[Salus Maior]

Daily reminder that paganism is the only true path for self-respecting Europeans.

>True path

>That died out and everyone left

[War Gears]

Forcing trade with Japan was pretty messed up, in retrospect.

Nonsense. It was a good experience for Westerners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namamugi_Incident

Accelerated natural selection.

[The Parkus Empire]

The Ecumenical Patriarch doesn't need anymore influence than he has. Besides, Byzantium was degenerate despite producing some great saints.

All countries are pretty degenerate.

Russia under Vladimir was not so much.

[The Parkus Empire]

Daily reminder that paganism is the only true path for self-respecting Europeans.

I care about whether a religion is true absolutely, not relatively.

[War Gears]

Daily reminder that paganism is the only true path for self-respecting Europeans.

We know next to nothing about Nordic or Celtic paganism besides fragments collected from inscriptions and the works of Christian historians whose accuracy is in serious question. It was Christianity and Christian virtues which were what made Europe what it is today and preserved classical wisdom, not immolating people alive for Woden or raiding coasts.

Our knowledge of Greek and Roman paganism are much more extensive, but I'm not sure that modern European nationalists (who often believe in Christian values) would be comfortable truly embracing those religious beliefs. And there being next to no reason to believe in those gods since they were defeated by Christianity.

[Salus Maior]

Daily reminder that paganism is the only true path for self-respecting Europeans.

We know next to nothing about Nordic or Celtic paganism besides fragments collected from inscriptions and the works of Christian historians whose accuracy is in serious question. It was Christianity and Christian virtues which were what made Europe what it is today and preserved classical wisdom, not immolating people alive for Woden or raiding coasts.

Our knowledge of Greek and Roman paganism are much more extensive, but I'm not sure that modern European nationalists (who often believe in Christian values) would be comfortable truly embracing those religious beliefs. And there being next to no reason to believe in those gods since they were defeated by Christianity.

^ This guy gets it.

[The Parkus Empire]

Daily reminder that paganism is the only true path for self-respecting Europeans.

We know next to nothing about Nordic or Celtic paganism besides fragments collected from inscriptions and the works of Christian historians whose accuracy is in serious question. It was Christianity and Christian virtues which were what made Europe what it is today and preserved classical wisdom, not immolating people alive for Woden or raiding coasts.

Our knowledge of Greek and Roman paganism are much more extensive, but I'm not sure that modern European nationalists (who often believe in Christian values) would be comfortable truly embracing those religious beliefs. And there being next to no reason to believe in those gods since they were defeated by Christianity.

And individualist paganism is a romanticist invention anyway