The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Agent Cobalt
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices


Advertise here

Conversation Between Agent Cobalt and Fox♠
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 10
  1. Agent Cobalt
    November 26th, 2009 02:03 PM
    Agent Cobalt
    Take your time.

  2. Fox♠
    November 26th, 2009 12:56 PM
    Fox♠
    Sorry, I won't be replying for a few days, Went out for a fair few drinks tonight, and although hitting sober, I'm far from ready to continue a debate.

  3. Agent Cobalt
    November 24th, 2009 03:54 PM
    Agent Cobalt
    Haha, smashing! Someone finally makes a stand! Very well.
    Quote:
    When studying American history at school, we were taught that the settlers played a a large part in the massive decline of Buffalo. It's a known fact that the US army sanctioned and endorsed mass hunting of buffalo, as did the federal government. (Moulton, M (1995). Wildlife issues in a changing world, 2nd edition. CRC Press. - The quickest source I could find offhand to back my claim up, I'm sure your local library will have a copy if you want to check it out)
    Oh you're absolutely right, I don't deny any of this. The Army supported it as a method of beating down Indians that we were at war with on the plains. By lessening buffalo populations, we had a strategic advantage against the enemy and would more easily force the enemy's hand.

    However, what I do deny is that it was solely whites or Americans. Our actions were still nothing compared to the Indians, and that was my point. Again, the Indians killed half a million a year and were destroying populations before we even got in the picture. And it's true we had our hand in it, but that was for strategic means and trade, and unlike the Indians we rectified our waste by attempting to conserve them and because of that and our preserves there are now a healthy and sustainable population of buffalo. There are so many that we can actually farm them and sell their meat, and even cross bread them with cows for healthier beef.

    Even acknowledging our part, and I do, the vast amounts of buffalo were overhunted by the Indians, threatened by natural predators, and subject to harsh droughts and storms. It was unsustainable from the start even without Indians forcing them off cliffs or burning them alive.
    Quote:
    So white settlers only engaged to defend their land huh? So why is it then, that in 1838 president Jackson decided that the Cherokee people could no longer stay in their home state of Georgia? Surely then, any battle that came of consequence to that action was infact the natives defending their land, and not vice versa.
    See, this is a classic example of historical revisionism. Andrew Jackson has bee made a villain rather than a champion of the Constitution and the rule of law.

    Andrew Jackson wasn't even president when the Trail of Tears occurred; he left office in 1837. His vice president Martin Van Buren was. Regardless though, Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act. Contrary to what you might think from the name, it was actually nothing more than a law allowing the US to make treaties with Indians. The Indian Removal Act would move Indians from their then-current lands to lands West of the Mississippi River. And this could *only* be done after the tribes agreed to the treaties beforehand.

    Why is it you and most people mention the Cherokee? Because they're the ones who supposedly "suffered" because of Indian Removal. The fact is that those who suffered on the Trail of Tears were only a fraction of the Cherokee, and why is that? Because those were squatters that refused to leave beforehand with their tribe. The Cherokee had representatives put forward and the tribe agreed to the Treaty of New Echota. As such, the Cherokee Indians were to move West. The treaty gave the Cherokee five million dollars to move, and an extra five hundred thousand as compensation for property lost, the land, and for education.

    The Cherokee left Georgia as per the agreement. Not all of them. A bunch of squatters ignored the treaty, refused to acknowledge the law, and asserted their ownership of land they didn't own. Andrew Jackson had offered them move West peacefully, stay in Georgia but renounce any claim to the land and acknowledge Georgia's sovereignty over the land and US authority, or be forced off the land by federal forces. The squatters refused to give claim to sovereignty over the land of Georgia and also refused to move with their tribe. Georgia was understandably pissed. The Georgian state militia would have done far worse than Jackson or Van Buren, but the decision was made by the president to send federal troops to force the remaining Indians off Georgian lands.

    These were rebels, not recognized American citizens or anything like that. They chose defiance and paid the price for it. That's how things were, brutal perhaps, but just. Above all else, the rule of law reined supreme and no squatters were going to undermine a Senate-ratified treaty of the United States. An interesting note is that we had to escort those rebels to the new land, and our people froze and starved just as badly. But even ignoring that, the Cherokee rebels were a portion of a larger tribe that followed its word. The tribe moved before federal troops had to be called up.

    It was only a part of the Cherokee that had to be forced, because the rest of the tribe left. In fact, the Cherokee were only one of ten tribes to be moved. The only tribes were had trouble with were the Cherokee and Seminole. The Cherokee because of the stragglers, and the Seminole because of their violent nature and constant wars they waged on us. The tribes in the North moved without conflict and three of the Southern tribes went without much conflict. Of the Cherokee, the response to moving was divided and many left before having to be forced off the land. The problems with the Seminole resulted in the Second Seminole War.

    So what we did was uphold the law, protect property, and preserve American and Georgian sovereignty. I've been studying this since I was a child. Andrew Jackson is my favorite president and I've read in depth about his polices, especially the Indian Removal Act. America was fair and just in its actions and the "tragedies" the resulted from forced removal were a result of the stubbornness of the rebel Indians to follow the treaty.
    Quote:
    You might want to read up on the Sand Creek massacre, which funnily enough was white settlers completely wiping out every man, woman and child in the camp. Then again, Americans never intend to solely end life only to protect it, right?
    I've also studied the Battle of Sand Creek. It was part of a larger war called the Colorado War that lasted about two years. This was also during the last two years of the Civil War. The Colorado War only occurred because of Indian violations of the Treaty of Fort Laramie and the Treaty of Fort Wise. Specifically though, the Battle of Sand Creek was the result of pissed off irregular forces under Colonel John Chivington. Everyone under Captain Silas Soule held fire and wouldn't take part. It's also important to remember that the battle wasn't originally planned, that the Indians were already beaten and the specific Indians killed came in peace and welcomed US forces to come to the area. The plan was peace, and we even told them to raise our flag over their cabins to prevent fighting. Those that took part in the battle ignored the olive branch extended to this group of Indian, ignored the American flag and white flag of surrender. They were acting independent of orders. Not a shining example of US military history, but not reflective of US policy either. Next you'll probably use the Battle of Wounded Knee for proof of America's wrongdoings.
    Quote:
    This of course, isn't to say that the Natives were without their own heinous crimes, however it was their land and home that was invaded. Surely as a soldier you would do anything to defend your home from invasion? So what makes it so bad that they did?
    It wasn't their land when they agreed to move to reservations and had to be forced to follow through. It wasn't their land when they invaded our towns and butchered our people and raided cities. It wasn't their land when they invaded other Indians' lands and reservations and caused more conflicts. The Indians were not angels, correct. Many of the Indian Wars were started by Indian tribes or were caused by their actions.

    History is very complex. Indians aren't a homogeneous group. It's like "European." Who? Poles? Brits? The Indians had their own tribes, religions, languages, and cultures. Like I said before, we engaged in about seventy different wars with Indians. The reasons for these wars were often similar but always had different backgrounds and justifications. Like I also said before, our actions were about defending people and property, protecting trade routes, upholding Indian Removal, enforcing treaties, eliminating security threats, removing violent enemies, and repelling invasions.

    So if my land was invaded unjustly (emphasis on unjustly) then I'd resist it and kill every last enemy I could to protect and preserve the Constitution. If said "invasion" was really a force of federal troops upholding treaties formally agreed upon or put down a rebellion, I'd be a jackass to get in the way.
    Quote:
    I think the fact you refer to them as heathens already removes any need for me to argue the Christianity point, it's that superiority complex that caused 99% of the troubles in the first place, glad to see the ol' USA spirit is still burning though.
    Actually I said it because they *were* heathens. Heathen is just another word for pagan. Is pagan more politically correct these days? Basically, not believers of the Bible or God.
    Quote:
    They effed up? That's your excuse? Either they deliberately done it, or were really poorly trained and lacked discipline. There's no way a British pilot would of made the same mistake and there's no way if he had it would of being so brazenly swept under the rug.
    Regardless of off the British would deal with it, it was still just a screw up. They didn't plan on killing allies, that's obvious from the transcript when they ask if any allies are in the area. And it's not *my* excuse, it's a simply fact. I don't need to excuse them. They screwed up, and that's on them. I'm not going to defend friendly fire as ok. Yeah, it wasn't evil or intended, but it wasn't something to be proud of. Yeesh.
    Quote:
    Also the statement "neither of us were there" is pointless, if you're going by that, then every other point you've made and I've made is invalid, as neither of us were there at those times either.
    That was purely for introducing the fact that the transcripts of the events speak for themselves. We don't *need* to speculate because the record is right there.
    Quote:
    I'm not going to quote the last few points separately, as really they can be addressed as one. Had ANY other country fired a nuke, no matter what the reason, there would be outcry, especially if it was aimed at American soil. If say Iran was to nuke the USA to bring upon quick, unconditional surrender, you sure as hell wouldn't defend it then. And like Japan, nothing short of a nuke will stop America's policing of the rest of the world.
    Another example of making moral equivalents between the United States and dictatorships and theocracies. Moral relativism is never a useful tool in a debate. Why would I defend a tyrannical theocracy that nuked the United States to prevent it from spreading liberty? That's not even similar to what we did with Japan. Using the same weapon doesn't mean using the same rationale or having the same moral standing.
    Quote:
    Also in regards to the enemies not having weapons of mass destruction, that may have being true for the second world war, but the soviets DID have them by the time the cold war was in full swing. Yet they didn't use one.
    Welcome to Mutually Assured Destruction. The US already had the bomb by the time the USSR got it. The Soviets were evil but not inherently stupid. They bided their time until a hawk like Eisenhower left office and the brinkmanship policy ended. But what happened? Kennedy took office and the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred; the Soviets equipped Cuba with nuclear weapons capable of not only reaching but penetrating our shores. Khrushchev thought Kennedy weak and wanted to bully him into surrender and ransom the US. Having nukes only a few miles off Florida's coast wasn't exactly the safest moment in our history. The Soviets tried again to make a Latin American island into a launching pad, Grenada. Thankfully Reagan took care of that and invaded and overthrew the Communist coup there. Regardless, the Soviet example doesn't stand.
    Quote:
    And in response to the "they'd have used it not just for military purposes, but for global domination. " argument, I honestly have to say that it's ridiculous to even try and sue that in America's defense. America is by far the most intrusive, oppressive nation in the western world, and it's definitely the one to stretch a dominating hand the furthest.
    Oh sure, we'd be much better off had the Nazis gotten the bomb first. Nuclear holocausts are so similar to an interventionist foreign policy. There are things called context and hyperbole, and you only used one of them just now (hint: it wasn't context).
    Quote:
    And finally, in response to me ducking a debate, you were right, I was ducking, only because I've being posting from a Playstation and they're not really made for entering long winded debates over the internet.
    Indeed.

  4. Fox♠
    November 24th, 2009 06:36 AM
    Fox♠
    Quote:
    lolZ wut?
    It's a pretty commonly used saying in England, didn't realise you guys didn't use it. It basically means "cannot be bothered".

    Quote:
    buffalo stuff
    When studying American history at school, we were taught that the settlers played a a large part in the massive decline of Buffalo. It's a known fact that the US army sanctioned and endorsed mass hunting of buffalo, as did the federal government. (Moulton, M (1995). Wildlife issues in a changing world, 2nd edition. CRC Press. - The quickest source I could find offhand to back my claim up, I'm sure your local library will have a copy if you want to check it out)

    Quote:
    settlers didnt go starting wars with natives
    So white settlers only engaged to defend their land huh? So why is it then, that in 1838 president Jackson decided that the Cherokee people could no longer stay in their home state of Georgia? Surely then, any battle that came of consequence to that action was infact the natives defending their land, and not vice versa. You might want to read up on the Sand Creek massacre, which funnily enough was white settlers completely wiping out every man, woman and child in the camp. Then again, Americans never intend to solely end life only to protect it, right? This of course, isn't to say that the Natives were without their own heinous crimes, however it was their land and home that was invaded. Surely as a soldier you would do anything to defend your home from invasion? So what makes it so bad that they did? I think the fact you refer to them as heathens already removes any need for me to argue the Christianity point, it's that superiority complex that caused 99% of the troubles in the first place, glad to see the ol' USA spirit is still burning though.

    Quote:
    Make of it what you will; neither of us were there, but the transcripts make it clear; they effed up, and that's all there was to it.
    They effed up? That's your excuse? Either they deliberately done it, or were really poorly trained and lacked discipline. There's no way a British pilot would of made the same mistake and there's no way if he had it would of being so brazenly swept under the rug. Also the statement "neither of us were there" is pointless, if you're going by that, then every other point you've made and I've made is invalid, as neither of us were there at those times either.

    I'm not going to quote the last few points separately, as really they can be addressed as one. Had ANY other country fired a nuke, no matter what the reason, there would be outcry, especially if it was aimed at American soil. If say Iran was to nuke the USA to bring upon quick, unconditional surrender, you sure as hell wouldn't defend it then. And like Japan, nothing short of a nuke will stop America's policing of the rest of the world. Also in regards to the enemies not having weapons of mass destruction, that may have being true for the second world war, but the soviets DID have them by the time the cold war was in full swing. Yet they didn't use one. And in response to the "they'd have used it not just for military purposes, but for global domination. " argument, I honestly have to say that it's ridiculous to even try and sue that in America's defense. America is by far the most intrusive, oppressive nation in the western world, and it's definitely the one to stretch a dominating hand the furthest.


    And finally, in response to me ducking a debate, you were right, I was ducking, only because I've being posting from a Playstation and they're not really made for entering long winded debates over the internet.

  5. Agent Cobalt
    November 22nd, 2009 07:19 PM
    Agent Cobalt
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fox♠
    I did try reading it all but after you spelt surprise with a Z I couldn't be doing with it.
    lolZ wut?
    Quote:
    No, you are right, the natives cultures died because of them, not because white settlers depleted the buffalo numbers
    The idea that Indians lived in harmony with the environment and that whites came in and conquered and destroyed out of greed is manufactured. Indians could be pretty destructive to their surroundings. Entire herds of buffalo were wiped out by Indians, burned and charred. Why? It was a popular hunting tactic to use scorching to trap them. Indians also didn't actually use every part of the buffalo, and in fact could be pretty wasteful since they constantly moved around to follow the buffalo. I'm sure you know how stupid the animals are, and how that allowed Indians to lead them into buffalo jumps, wiping out herds by leading them off of cliffs. This too wasted a lot. The Indians in fact killed approximately half a million buffalo per year. Often the Indians just left the bodies they didn't desire to simply rot. There's also the fact that the Indians incompetently over hunted the buffalo because of their religious beliefs; they believed nature would always supply them more and that they couldn't run out. Indians also mismanaged the introduction of horses and guns and further over hunted. There's also the wild predator factor such as wolves. Fires, storms, and horrible climate also decimated buffalo. There's also evidence that buffalo were shrinking in population even before Americans got involved. Indian hunting, weather and climate, and natural predators made it unsustainable to maintain. Americans on the other hand created the American Bison Society and preserves to conserve them; yes they had their hand in hunting buffalo, but they actually did something about declining numbers and because of that they're no longer in danger of extinction. There are a lot of myths surrounding the Indians and buffalo, and the idea that whites were responsible for the decline is weak at best.
    Quote:
    tried to force Christianity upon them
    Trying to convert heathens is not the same as destroying them. Not even close. So no. Even then, "forcing" isn't really the word I'd use considering the peaceful methods used to evangelize Indians. This was a policy since Washington and Jefferson. But hey, I've only studied this, so what do I know?
    Quote:
    attacked them etc.
    Thus the term "Indian Wars." And we didn't start all of them. We were in about seventy or so wars with Indians since the Revolutionary War, and none of them were about starting problems with Indian tribes, exterminating them, stealing land, or carrying out systematic genocide. All our wars were about defending people and property, protecting trade routes, upholding Indian Removal, enforcing treaties, eliminating security threats, removing violent enemies, and repelling invasions. Never once has it been US policy to exterminate.
    Quote:
    Also I'm not 'biting off more than I can chew' with you, rather, I've heard all your pro American points before and rebuting against them, even with facts, is useless because either a) you'll deny they're facts, b) you'll deny they're facts.
    Haha, you're still trying to worm your way out of a confrontation you started. My mind, eyes, and ears are open and ready for anything you've got to throw at me; I just wish the same was true of you and your allies. If you actually supplied me with facts instead of myths, misconceptions, urban legends, and old wives' tales then I might be moved, but alas I've only gotten the latter.
    Quote:
    How anyone can mistake bright orange canvas as an iraqi rocket launcher is beyond me, well, as they say, "only in America".
    Make of it what you will; neither of us were there, but the transcripts make it clear; they effed up, and that's all there was to it.
    Quote:
    My whole point against you is; I don't see how anyone can defend the a-bombs.
    Obviously you could if you read my defense of it, which you obviously did.
    Quote:
    You didn't need a bombs to take out strategic targets, you had long range bombers for those.
    We nuked those military targets for a reason. The point wasn't just to hit them, but to force the Japanese to surrender. We already had been using regular weaponry on them and nothing short of a nuke was going to convince that suicidal empire to give in. When the reports came in that the first nuke was used and leveled an entire city, it was denied and scoffed at. Once the second was dropped, it couldn't be denied, and their leaders were dropping bricks in their pants. That was the point. Force an unconditional surrender without prolonging the killing.
    Quote:
    When the Japanese subsequently started the paciffic war, they bombed pearl harbour, warships, with planes. They didn't drop a horrific weapon of mass destruction onto civilians.
    ...They didn't *have* horrific weapons of mass destruction like the a-bomb to drop on us. The Nazis were developing it though, and are you so naive as to think that had the Axis had the bomb that they wouldn't have used it out of concern for civilians? The Japanese ransacked numerous countries and raped hundreds of thousands of people in China alone; the other Axis powers killed millions more. I mean really, this is such a non-point it's ridiculous. Had the Axis had the bomb, or the Soviets had the bomb, they'd have used it not just for military purposes, but for global domination. This isn't a sensationalist hypothetical about; this is based off the documented behavior and actions of those dictatorships. The Japanese didn't have the bomb, so no duh they didn't use it. They still managed to kill as many people at Pearl Harbor as were killed on 9/11, invaded US soil not just in Hawaii but in Alaska, and overran the Philippines and nations independent of us. What a silly argument.

  6. Fox♠
    November 22nd, 2009 10:20 AM
    Fox♠
    I did try reading it all but after you spelt surprise with a Z I couldn't be doing with it.
    No, you are right, the natives cultures died because of them, not because white settlers depleted the buffalo numbers, tried to force Christianity upon them, attacked them etc. Also I'm not 'biting off more than I can chew' with you, rather, I've heard all your pro American points before and rebuting against them, even with facts, is useless because either a) you'll deny they're facts, b) you'll deny they're facts.

    How anyone can mistake bright orange canvas as an iraqi rocket launcher is beyond me, well, as they say, "only in America".

    My whole point against you is; I don't see how anyone can defend the a-bombs. You didn't need a bombs to take out strategic targets, you had long range bombers for those. When the Japanese subsequently started the paciffic war, they bombed pearl harbour, warships, with planes. They didn't drop a horrific weapon of mass destruction onto civilians.

  7. Agent Cobalt
    November 21st, 2009 07:16 PM
    Agent Cobalt
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fox♠
    I was going to spend the time replying to all your points
    Oh I'm sure you were. Just like Luck, pokejungle, Vendak, Alinthea, and so on. Starting something and then backing off once confronting with facts, realizing they bit off more than they could chew, casually playing it off like it's not worth their time to reply even though they started it. Yeah, I'll take your word for it.
    Quote:
    "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and that in itself pretty much destroys any reply you can and no doubt will conjour up about how the USA only does things for freedom and peace and how all those against her are terrorists.
    First off I never said everyone in opposition to America is a terrorist; that's a nice attempt at word manipulation and hyperbole, but it's a non-sequitur at best. And as for the terrorist vs freedom fighter thing, it's a nice literary saying for when someone wants to be morally ambiguous, but it doesn't amount to much when faced with facts; words have meanings and definitions. So no, I'm not stumped and I don't see how you could have pressumed me to be.
    Quote:
    Shocklingly enough I can't see that using napalm on children was in any way helping keep the peace in 'Nam
    It wasn't, as that wasn't the purpose. The purpose was jungle defoliant to remove cover of the Communists in the conflict. It's well known that they used hidden trails to transport troops and supplies, as well as used jungle warfare. Eliminating the ability to sneak up on allied forced was a way to cripple enemy efforts and bring a quicker end to hostilities and surprize attacks. Not rocket science.
    Quote:
    nor can I see how shooting up a clearly marked British convoy (who, I'm not sure if you've realised, are you know, your allies) was helping to keep the peace in Iraq. Before you claim it was accidental friendly fire, you need to take into account that unless the pilots were VERY poorly trained or just plain stupid there is no way you could mistake BRIGHT ORANGE markings on BRITISH viechles as insurgents.
    It was friendly fire. What they hell else would it be? The tapes and recordings are proof enough that it was a case of errors. The pilots were unaware of friendlies in the area, failed to properly grid the area, the pilots mistook the orange canvas markers for Iraqi rocket launchers, they attacked without artillery markers, and then they attacked *again* without clearance. This is a case of people not following protocol and nothing more. If you read the transcripts it's pretty obvious they just screwed up. You're reading way too much into a friendly fire incident.
    Quote:
    I could also hit on the slave trade and the destruction of the indiginous people of America but I don't really feel i have to.
    Lol, I wish you luck on trying that. I'm sure it'll be a splendid case of Howard Zinn-style historical revisionism. You're not going to get me to defend the slave trade, but then seeing as we're the only nation to engage in a war with itself to end it and sacrificed blood and treasure to do so, and considering slavery existed long before we declared independence an inherited it. As for "destroying" the Indians, I'm pretty sure they're still around. What happened to them was the result of their inability to adapt, their weak immune systems, and their inter-tribal feuding and weak systems of government. The US didn't destroy them; they fell like most weak societies in history. They died off mostly from disease, lost land by instigating wars with much stronger forces than they could handle, and and crippled themselves by relying on confederacies even less advanced than most Asian dynasties at the time. All we did was try to spread our borders through the pen, uphold law, defend our citizens, and promote trade routes. The idea you'd probably push is that we carried out genocide, stole land, and purposely infected them with small pox and numerous other revisionist claims that have no historical bearing. But I've only been studying American-Indian relations, wars, and treaties for quite a while so what do I know?

    LOL, maybe you can get Rekky to fight your battles for you since he seems to be the brains behind this ill-managed offensive so many of you are trying to carry out against me. Bwahahaha!

  8. Fox♠
    November 21st, 2009 11:17 AM
    Fox♠
    I was going to spend the time replying to all your points, however as the saying goes "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and that in itself pretty much destroys any reply you can and no doubt will conjour up about how the USA only does things for freedom and peace and how all those against her are terrorists. Shocklingly enough I can't see that using napalm on children was in any way helping keep the peace in 'Nam, nor can I see how shooting up a clearly marked British convoy (who, I'm not sure if you've realised, are you know, your allies) was helping to keep the peace in Iraq. Before you claim it was accidental friendly fire, you need to take into account that unless the pilots were VERY poorly trained or just plain stupid there is no way you could mistake BRIGHT ORANGE markings on BRITISH viechles as insurgents. I could also hit on the slave trade and the destruction of the indiginous people of America but I don't really feel i have to.

  9. Agent Cobalt
    November 21st, 2009 05:19 AM
    Agent Cobalt
    Afghanistan's not at war with us; we're allied in a fight against an insurgency. Regardless though, to your point, if al-Qaeda or the Taliban got hold of nukes and used them on our countries it'd be completely different scenario and your attempt to make the liberators and oppressors moral equivalents is just another example of moral relativism and a logical fallacy. There's a difference between using a weapon for the sake of saving lives and preventing unneeded conflict and using a weapon solely for the elimination of human life. So no, if the terrorists were to use such a weapon it would be to annihilate countless amounts of people and other than the death count would be no different than their other terrorists attacks on our nations.

  10. Fox♠
    November 21st, 2009 02:48 AM
    Fox♠
    I guess I see your point about using the a bombs. It did win the war quickly and force surrender. i guess also then, if Afghan was to launch nukes into Britain and/or America, that would also be a sound, safe, ethical move that will save millions.


All times are UTC -8. The time now is 10:40 PM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.