Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8

 

2006-01-09 22:35:51
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7066

(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:

One thing always make me laugh about ww2.
The Maginot line.
The French spent huge amount of money to build an ultimate defense line, what cannot be passed....
Then comes Hitler's army:
Sergeant: "Sir, there is a massive defense line in our way! What shall we do?"
Lietuneant: " Well, go AROUND it!"
dude they didnt know Belguim would sell them out.
also it did have the effect of channleing the attack in a narrower area.
they had no politcal will to see the War through ala Democrats and libarals

All germany did was reach the English Chanal Most 90% of France was still intact They would have had  a long Exposed Flank and supply line. their leaders just gave up like the democrats want to.
Sometimes you need guts.

Draw your own examples
2006-01-09 22:41:03
BEE_Grim_Reaper
Member
+15|6936|Germany

freebirdpat wrote:

Nobody ever condones real war, its always the last option on anyone's mind.
If that would only be true...

Repeat, we did not start a war, Iraq started the war with Kuwait, we finished it. Many times in history one country has been dominated or ran over by another country and a foreign country came in to help fight back. I do not like the US being a kind of world police, but nobody else wants to pick up the job, and someone has to do it.
You just learned the first lesson in politics, nothing is purely out of humanitarian reasons, there is always an ulterior motive. Just like the fact that the countries that opposed the war, weren't working on humanitarian reasons on the basis that Iraq was on its way on being better, because it wasn't. Iraqis are going to have schools, and will be able to choose their fate instead of Saddam choosing it for them. Iraq was going to collapse eventually.
Speaking of ulterior motives... Nothing personal, but on one hand you speak of a job to help a "poor country being harassed by an evil dictator", on the other hand you state, that help always is encompassed by an ulterior motive... I wonder what the ulterior motive of the US was in that case... Have you ever wondered, why noone else wanted to pick up the "job" (since when is a fullblown war called a job anyway? That sounds like calling the Holocaust "Taking out the trash", sorry for my sarcasm)

Anyway... as we see, the Iraqi in their newly given freedom just chose to shoot each other and anyone who might interfere... Maybe we should just let them... I am pretty sure, the problem would solve itself in time... As a matter of fact... what does make anyone think, that they even WANT democracy and freedom? Just a thought: How many democracies of western-european or north-american model are existant in the arabic east by this time?

And as far as the atomic weapons ban, only the members of the UN Security Council are allowed to have atomic weapons, yet that isn't happening, thats the atomic weapons ban in a nutshell, there is no ban on them, Russia has them, France has them, Britain has them, China has them, and then there is the countries like India and Pakistan and Iran that are working on them or have them, yet they aren't on the council.
So.... we are playing the game "I will discard my bombs if you do it first", eh? I guess, someone has to start with that. And frankly, what difference does it make, if for example the US does not have any anymore, when for example Russia would decide to lob a few of their own at them? Right, ok... only one country will be devastated except of two, one might think... But have you ever thought, that noone would win? Not even those who are not even involved? The global repercussions would be devastating for all of us. But well... I guess, one cannot expect reason in that direction by a country that is defined to be the will of god by some of its own inhabitants. I seriously pity any country that spends more money on new weapons and armies than on education and welfare.


Iraq has never had a stable society because stable societies aren't formed when a society is ruled by fear. Germany was going to war eventually before Hitler came to power their military was already being trained to fight. All they needed was a go ahead to fight.
I beg to differ here... Fear is the most basic and common motivator for stability and order... Why are modern societies stable? Because they have laws... Why are laws abided by most of the population, even the dumbest ones? Not because of reason but because of fear of the repercussions and punishment.
Oh, and by the way.... what use would be a military if it was not being constantly trained to fight? There were some military figures that sympathized with Hitler, but it is purely ridiculous to state, that Germany wanted to go to war with or without Hitler... I would really like to know, where you got these theories?

If they were looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction, they could snoop around my house all they want because the only weapons of mass destruction they are going to find is dog turds. Iraq was doomed anyhow, it didn't matter whether the US invaded or not, our invasion secured a higher possability of a secure, free, democratic Iraq.
To restate the question: What does make you think, Iraq WANTS to be democratic? And what makes you think, the imposed system IS democratic? And what makes you think, the US democratic system IS really democratic?

I just find it funny how people will question the US and our actions yet, no one questioned the China and Tibet issue, or the Russia and cheychen issue. Or the entire North Korea problem(the people there are very impoverished for no reason at all, and all is at the fault of Kim). There are probably plenty of other issues out there that can be considered problems,(Muslims and Christians fighting in africa), yet nobody addresses those, or brings those up. Yet, the US does something and the whole world wants to join hand and sing kumbaya.
I guess, the answer to this you have given already... The world does not question the action, the world does question the motives. As you already said... there are already ulterior motives and nothing is being done out of pure humanitarian thinking. As you also said: there are so many issues in the world, where people fight people... True, nobody has done really anything effective in the Issue China/Tibet, noone has really helped North Korea (and don't blame everything on Kim... the US have their share in it as well as the USSR and China).... Why is Iraq so much more important than those? Why has the US not tried to bring China democracy for example? Now don't tell me, you have to practice first... the country that says of itself to be the oldes democracy in being should have enough experience in being democratic.

Iraq on the outside was stable, yet on the inside it was bound to fall apart. Sounds like Russia post cold-war.
So what about your own country? You know... sometimes, I have the impression that someone in the White House decides from time to time to bomb someone when a distraction from the interior problems is needed...
2006-01-10 05:40:48
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7066
" So what about your own country? You know... sometimes, I have the impression that someone in the White House decides from time to time to bomb someone when a distraction from the interior problems is needed..."


      Dude the masturbator is gone. This guy only stomps you if you attack the USA.

          PS no more Attacks on the USA. I geuss he stomped the Right people.
2006-01-10 07:42:40
(HUN)Rudebwoy
Member
+45|6984
"dude they didnt know Belguim would sell them out.
also it did have the effect of channleing the attack in a narrower area.
they had no politcal will to see the War through ala Democrats and libarals"

Aight, chill man!
I meant no disrespect, it just doesent make sense to me....

As for the Iraqi war...
As i said before, no one knows the motives 100%.
It can be anything.

I'm not anti-American, I have no trouble with them (dont judge the people of a country by the actions the president make) BUT, it starts to smell like every other country is a bad child in kindergraten, and when there is truble, the teacher comes to restore peace....
For some countries it could be frustrating, that it seems they dont really have freedom: if they do something the US dont like, they will be punished badly...
It is an opinion, no facts behind it, this is just what I experience here ( people in my country and around start to dislike the US...)

About the Government of Fear:
you know after ww2, my country was occupied by the Soviet Union, and they established a puppet government on the same basis like the USSR's.
This was not a problem, we hungarians got used to being ran over (Hungary was almost erased from the map      5 times: Mongolians, Turks, Hapsburgs from Austria, Germans, and Russians). It was a fear government, but it worked properly. If u played by the rules you had nothing to be afraid of. Now we are a Republic , since 1990, and my parents say very often that the old system was way better. People had many opportunities, education was ok, doing sports were ok, healthcare was ok.
Now our average at sports are way under the line, the universities cant pay the teachers, a teacher cant explain a solution to a math problem without using his/her book in gymnasium(if you ask WHY that is the solution, he/she answers: because the book says so), we barely have enough doctors coz they are not paid well, we do not have proper equipment (we have about 4-5 defibrillators all over in a 12mil population country), those people, who have skills and enducation, wont stay here, they go abroad and never come back...
Just to head back to the original question:
government of fear is not always evil...
2006-01-10 08:12:07
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|7000|Atlanta, GA USA

BEE_Grim_Reaper wrote:

Erkut.hv wrote:

Ikarti wrote:


you realize that Fallujah is probably the most stable city in Iraq right now?
Yes, poor choice of city. I digress. Actually about the post in general. Just sucks our (US) military has to play the good guy, when our enemies don't play by the same rules. makes me upset is all.
Playing by the rules in a war? Well... let's see... The US started a war in Iraq without having been provoked by them. Granted, Iraq invaded Kuwait years ago and the US wanted to protect one little country that actually supplies a lot of oil to them. BUT: The reason for the second war against Iraq was twofold... first it was said they were in league with terrorists, which has never been proven... second, it was said they has Weapons of Mass Destruction.... which miraculously were not found at all... the Iraq was even willing to let UN inspectors into the country and to every suspected site but the US government did not care...

Right, you want to call it "War against Terrorism" (which has been said to be unwinnable by US government btw), I call it a war of agression.

But anyway... what the militant iraqi are actually doing is called guerilla war... and that was perfectly by the rules in WW II (The French Maquis, the Russian Partisans). Noone complained about that. So I guess, the US started the game and now that they seem to have a shitty hand, they should live with that. Since they eliminated the only stabilizing factor in a country full of rivalries, I guess they need to find way to deal with this situation.... and by the way... nukes are not suitable means on solving this dilemma... hence the user of nukes will be the bad guy regardless of the reasons... or why do you think India and Pakistan did not nuke each other into the stoneage? Ever thought of the political repercussions of the use of nukes?
Hmmm... Did you feel that since you lost all your arguments about WWII that you had to divert  the thread to yet another discussion about the war in Irag?  Please stick to the subject.
2006-01-10 09:06:11
Jimmy th4 man
Member
+0|6911|Hechingen / GERMANY
Holy shit,

for what reason do most of u guys think the US are the good and have to save anything on this planet?

Did iraq ask the us for help? Nope. The only reason for the US was internal probs and oil.
Anything else has to be settled behind the moon...

For the initial question of this thread:

I don't think that WWII was worth it. In my eyes the germans had a big leader that had the power to convince the folks, the only prob he had was that he was crazy. If he'd took the "old" german countries like old prussia anything would have been fine. but that dumb rapeed the jews and all non arisch.
anyway, I am glad that i live today and not 60 years ago...

The A-bomb-thing, well I think for some reason it was right to drop ONE bomb, but not two.

One thing that frights me is China - everybody sends his technology and know-how to them for cheap producing reasons. They can build anything, and with the currency that goes down there the become more powerful every minute. It is only a matter of time till they kick the ass of the rest of the world!!

Did u notice that EVERY war was fought because someone was able to do it? He had the money, he had the people, so he startet a fuckin war.

What do u folks think about china?

CYA
2006-01-10 09:40:12
Deuceman
Member
+1|6926
"I don't think that WWII was worth it. In my eyes the germans had a big leader that had the power to convince the folks, the only prob he had was that he was crazy. If he'd took the "old" german countries like old prussia anything would have been fine. but that dumb rapeed the jews and all non arisch.
anyway, I am glad that i live today and not 60 years ago..."

That has got to be the winner for the best logic of the day.  Wow I mean what more can you say to that.  If only Hitler hadn't started the war guys.  If only he hadn't started it in Europe.



PS. if you guys couldn't figure it out, I am sarcastic talking about his logic.

Last edited by Deuceman (2006-01-10 09:41:12)

2006-01-10 12:31:19
BEE_Grim_Reaper
Member
+15|6936|Germany

Horseman 77 wrote:

(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:

One thing always make me laugh about ww2.
The Maginot line.
The French spent huge amount of money to build an ultimate defense line, what cannot be passed....
Then comes Hitler's army:
Sergeant: "Sir, there is a massive defense line in our way! What shall we do?"
Lietuneant: " Well, go AROUND it!"
dude they didnt know Belguim would sell them out.
also it did have the effect of channleing the attack in a narrower area.
they had no politcal will to see the War through ala Democrats and libarals

All germany did was reach the English Chanal Most 90% of France was still intact They would have had  a long Exposed Flank and supply line. their leaders just gave up like the democrats want to.
Sometimes you need guts.

Draw your own examples
Concerning the Maginot Line: It was planned to extend that fortification up to the Channel Coast along the Belgian border. This was not finished due to financial issues.

But saying, the French gave up like the Democrats, which I interpret as them being thought as cowards... sorry to say that but you are misinterpreting facts. First of all, the French did not even think, that the Germans would be stupid enough to invade through Belgium again as they did in the Great War. Apparently, they where wrong. Second, the French military doctrine was strongly influenced by WW I, which meant, they were prepared for a static border war.

The German strategy of Blitzkrieg, which was the first to falicitate combined ground AND air assets combined with highly mobile specialized tank division and motorized infantry was absolutely new and unthought of by the French and British. They still saw the tank as a slow moving juggernaut for infantry support not as a highly mobile strike force. Additionally, the French did not have any ground support planes and only one fighter who could nearly match the German counterparts.

So basically the French had two choices: surrendering an already lost war and sparing the lives of thousands of soldiers or fighting to the last man on lost ground. You see, it is easy to say one would die for his country out of blind patriotism but really doing it is the hard part... and even harder for leaders who take their responsibility serious is to order other to march into certain death for a cause that is already lost. You might want to think about it.
2006-01-10 12:37:19
BEE_Grim_Reaper
Member
+15|6936|Germany

Jimmy th4 man wrote:

Holy shit,

for what reason do most of u guys think the US are the good and have to save anything on this planet?

Did iraq ask the us for help? Nope. The only reason for the US was internal probs and oil.
Anything else has to be settled behind the moon...

For the initial question of this thread:

I don't think that WWII was worth it. In my eyes the germans had a big leader that had the power to convince the folks, the only prob he had was that he was crazy. If he'd took the "old" german countries like old prussia anything would have been fine. but that dumb rapeed the jews and all non arisch.
anyway, I am glad that i live today and not 60 years ago...

The A-bomb-thing, well I think for some reason it was right to drop ONE bomb, but not two.

One thing that frights me is China - everybody sends his technology and know-how to them for cheap producing reasons. They can build anything, and with the currency that goes down there the become more powerful every minute. It is only a matter of time till they kick the ass of the rest of the world!!

Did u notice that EVERY war was fought because someone was able to do it? He had the money, he had the people, so he startet a fuckin war.

What do u folks think about china?

CYA
Actually, I think, there are two Chinas... the metropolitan one, the rich one, the powerful one, the one to be feared... then there is the rural China... the one where people are even as poor as people in Africa or Afghanistan. If China would have wanted to start a war, they could have done this decades ago. Apparently, they don't want to. Why do you think, they initiated birth control when they had the manpower to actually conquer the complete far east? Think about it: why conquer the world and destroy everything, when you can buy it, if you are patient?
2006-01-10 12:45:34
G.H.O.5.T.
Member
+1|6912
yes ww2 was nececery and yes the atomic bombs was nececery you know that for every death with the atomic bobs 10000 lives are saved
if they didn't drob the atomic bombs the ameican's had to do an invesion (i dont know how to write it)
then there would be mutch more death
by the way do you know that the americans put more civilan kills in europe than the kills of the 2 atomic bombs together
2006-01-10 13:35:44
Deuceman
Member
+1|6926
Actually BEE you are wrong about the French Government.  They did give up.  Most of the country was still in French hands, and the Panzers had exposed their flanks and had long supply lines.  Why do you think that Hitler halted his Panzers at points, to protect them.  You do know what a flank is right?  After playing online with people I have learned that most don't. 

The failure of a French counterattack was because of the defeatism that was in the French Government.
2006-01-10 16:23:56
BEE_Grim_Reaper
Member
+15|6936|Germany

Deuceman wrote:

Actually BEE you are wrong about the French Government.  They did give up.  Most of the country was still in French hands, and the Panzers had exposed their flanks and had long supply lines.  Why do you think that Hitler halted his Panzers at points, to protect them.  You do know what a flank is right?  After playing online with people I have learned that most don't. 

The failure of a French counterattack was because of the defeatism that was in the French Government.
Well... surrender is always some kind of "giving up". As any military commander can tell you: Breaking the Morale of the opponent and the population is more important than conquering territory or annihilating armies. And by the way... as someone who studied history and military history with a university degree, I do know, what a flank is. It would acutally be quite stupid to send tanks forward without infantry securing their backs and flanks, a tactic that is still valid even today.

But even if there where short periods for regrouping and securing flanks and supply lines, fact is, that one of the most important effect of the Blitzkrieg was breaking the morale of the French in toto. You speak of defeatism (a word that is derived from defeat)... The french government was feeling they were defeated, the french population was feeling they were defeated. I think not being able to put up an effective resistance to an invading juggernaut is definitely a reason to feel defeated even if most of the country was still in own hands. I am not quite sure, why everyone thinks, that victory or defeat is defined by territorial gain or loss. Why should it be neccessary to fight to the bitter end when the only things to be gained is a higher deathtoll and more suffering. Fact is, that the key to the French defeat was the unreasonable inflexibility of the French military doctrine that dated back to WW I and the Generals (WW I Veterans) who clinged to it.

As a sidenote: Did you know, that by the time Germany surrendered in WW I, the allied only managed to conquer parts of the Vosges Mountains in the Alsace from the Germans, but the Germans still had nearly complete Belgium and stood on French soil? And Russia had surrendered to Germany in 1917. Fact is, that Germany surrendered because the morale of the population had suffered greatly and a continuation of the war would have resulted in rebellion (which it basically did).
2006-01-11 01:37:31
Jimmy th4 man
Member
+0|6911|Hechingen / GERMANY
@grim reaper:

sure there are those two chinas, and its true that they can buy the whole world.
but the scary thing to me is that if they want to kick the worlds ass no one can stop them...
bist du eigentlich der deutsche grim reaper dens auch in cs gibt oder halt irgendeiner mit deutschem tag?

@deuceman: wheres the prob in my logic? am I so damned silly that I don't see the mistake? pls help.. d;-)
2006-01-11 02:10:45
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6911|Stillwater, Ok
Ok alot of people have some messed up thoughts.  The bombs were definately needed at the time.  The japanese population as a whole were ready to fight and kill americans.  Not just the military....they have videos of kids preparing for kamikaze attacks.  Also take a look at what the japanese did in manchuria during that time period.  It was estimated like most people said that there would be over 1 millions US casualties.  This doesnt include Japanese casualties.  Someone also said that Japan was ready to surrender. The emperor was thinking about it but there were a few officers who tried to assasinate him to keep this from happening.  Their culture is based highly on honor and is still today.  Defeat for them was intolerable and thats not an enemy you want to fight. I am amazed the US is as close to them today considering the past.
   As for the guy who was talking about ethiopia...do a little more research and not just watching the starving kid commercials.  If you travel into the mounain area where the core population is its relatively nice.  They are mostly Orthodox Christians as well and the poverty areas are ruled by warlords and not the government.
  Another aspect to look into was Germany.  Had the US not come into the war Britian would have fallen.  She was on the verge of it when we entered and that is why we went to Europe first.   If Britian fell then that left a single front against Russia and they would not be able to stand up to Germany alone.  In one battle the Russians lost over 1 million men trying to stop Germany.  Once Russia fell there would be no way in hell the US could have stopped them.  Africa would have fallen next to Italy and Germany and finally the Pacific to Japan.  Once the Axis powers used their new resources they would eventually wear down the US and then kick our asses.  The US entering the war when we did was critical to stopping that alliance.
  The sad part about China is yeah they could kick some serious ass in a war.  I dont think the US has enouch bullets to kill them all in the first place much less going head to head in combat.  Even an army of 100,000 americans could not fire enough lead to stop an attack by the Chinese. Both countries have nukes, both awesome and well trained armies, and strong economies.  They have massive production facilities, more so than the US i think.  And their government doesn't like us....Isn't life grand.
  Also to the BeeGrim Reaper....we didn't go into Iraq for oil only...there was alot there that i saw first hand you haven't.  Seeing a guys shadow made from his blood on a wall is a messed up image.  Not to mention some of the other stuff we found. In my opinion getting rid of Sadaam for his hate crimes is a good enough reason.  People trust the media too much and in truth it sickens me to see how much they leave out for their own political gain.  How many people i have corrected on the Iraq topic is amazing from being misinformed.

Last edited by 2ndLt.Tucker (2006-01-11 02:25:05)

2006-01-11 07:51:04
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7066
Germany surrenderd becuase it was ruduced to rubble there are hills outside of berlin now that are made of rubble.

Germany even at High tide never had a Heavy Bomber fleet like The USA and Brits had. They knew we would turn the entire continent to ash if we wanted.

The Dimunitve Panzer force hitler possesed when he stomped france flat was nothing in comparision.
In fact France had more tanks when War broke out. The Germans just used them with better tactics

Hi speed, concentrated and hi speed infantry support and totaly mechinized logistical colum to follow up resupply.
2006-01-11 08:28:37
*ToRRo*cT|
Spanish Sniper-Wh0re
+199|6972|Malaga, España

=NAA=TheTaxidermist wrote:

Did you know? America was the only country Germany declared war on... think about that one for a second as a scratch my crotch.
i,m sorry...what i know is

American's didnt want to go in war
Germans Did not attack america, the japanese attacked pearl harbor (something about oillines or supply stuff dont really know have to search for that).
so what did japan did...well they waked up the Giant
America declared war and helped europe...and are also battleling in the pacific.

was WW2 worth it... well if germany thought creating a Pure Race was something to have war about...well they did. you know creating the 3th Empire (3th Reich)
well, they have gone pretty far in europe...

but what i think was wrong of Germany , well the ''Holocaust'' . you know the SS where the bastards of the german army.

Also i thank the germans a little bit for bringing the ''BlitzKrieg'' or else we would be sitting in iraq in trenchlines...and doing the same bullshit tactic as in WW1.

did u know that hitler was so paranoid that if there excisted a button that said ''Push Here To Blow Up The World'' well he defintly pressed it.

Japan Nuclear Bombs:
was it worth it, well i don,t know...the bombs are to horrible to describe..even if they didnt get launched...i think its scary to have them. So was it worth it to drop them on a country knowing that it would cause a lot deaths in there population...NO! but they have been dropped....they surrenderd...and we saw the radiation killing a lot of people...well, lets all hope that shit doesnt happen again.

will there be a 3th World War ?

i think YES, reason for the war: Religion, just look now what it is between the Middle East versus the West. it,s not really big u know...but would i become big...i think it would...when? i do not know
2006-01-11 17:10:26
Dlab37
Member
+0|6911

xX[Elangbam]Xx wrote:

I mean think about it, WWII was to crush a bunch or crazy racist dictators from controlling the world. I mean we lost over 5 millions people altogether but probably a hell of a lot more. I mean we still have nazis and this supremist groups everywhere. People go calling others jews as an insult but say that nazis suck? wtf, and then these mexican haters.

Moving onto the atom bomb. Japan was already losing and yet we dropped 2, not 1 atom bombs on innocent civilians. Although pearl harbor was bad, they were soldiers and they had enlisted for this type of stuff but the Japanese had women and children that although were trained were still just civilians so I really don't see why we had to use the atom bomb.
while you make some valid points the atomic bomb needed to be dropped, looking at the sheer cost of life needed to take Berlin the numbers could easily be 5x more, its on an island.
2006-01-11 17:57:24
BEE_Grim_Reaper
Member
+15|6936|Germany

Jimmy th4 man wrote:

@grim reaper:

sure there are those two chinas, and its true that they can buy the whole world.
but the scary thing to me is that if they want to kick the worlds ass no one can stop them...
bist du eigentlich der deutsche grim reaper dens auch in cs gibt oder halt irgendeiner mit deutschem tag?

@deuceman: wheres the prob in my logic? am I so damned silly that I don't see the mistake? pls help.. d;-)
I have played CS once or twice, but somehow it is not my game... I used this name with different tags since my days of Mechwarrior 3, 4 and Mercenaries.
2006-01-11 18:08:20
BEE_Grim_Reaper
Member
+15|6936|Germany

2ndLt.Tucker wrote:

Ok alot of people have some messed up thoughts.  The bombs were definately needed at the time.  The japanese population as a whole were ready to fight and kill americans.  Not just the military....they have videos of kids preparing for kamikaze attacks.  Also take a look at what the japanese did in manchuria during that time period.  It was estimated like most people said that there would be over 1 millions US casualties.  This doesnt include Japanese casualties.  Someone also said that Japan was ready to surrender. The emperor was thinking about it but there were a few officers who tried to assasinate him to keep this from happening.  Their culture is based highly on honor and is still today.  Defeat for them was intolerable and thats not an enemy you want to fight. I am amazed the US is as close to them today considering the past.
   As for the guy who was talking about ethiopia...do a little more research and not just watching the starving kid commercials.  If you travel into the mounain area where the core population is its relatively nice.  They are mostly Orthodox Christians as well and the poverty areas are ruled by warlords and not the government.
  Another aspect to look into was Germany.  Had the US not come into the war Britian would have fallen.  She was on the verge of it when we entered and that is why we went to Europe first.   If Britian fell then that left a single front against Russia and they would not be able to stand up to Germany alone.  In one battle the Russians lost over 1 million men trying to stop Germany.  Once Russia fell there would be no way in hell the US could have stopped them.  Africa would have fallen next to Italy and Germany and finally the Pacific to Japan.  Once the Axis powers used their new resources they would eventually wear down the US and then kick our asses.  The US entering the war when we did was critical to stopping that alliance.
  The sad part about China is yeah they could kick some serious ass in a war.  I dont think the US has enouch bullets to kill them all in the first place much less going head to head in combat.  Even an army of 100,000 americans could not fire enough lead to stop an attack by the Chinese. Both countries have nukes, both awesome and well trained armies, and strong economies.  They have massive production facilities, more so than the US i think.  And their government doesn't like us....Isn't life grand.
  Also to the BeeGrim Reaper....we didn't go into Iraq for oil only...there was alot there that i saw first hand you haven't.  Seeing a guys shadow made from his blood on a wall is a messed up image.  Not to mention some of the other stuff we found. In my opinion getting rid of Sadaam for his hate crimes is a good enough reason.  People trust the media too much and in truth it sickens me to see how much they leave out for their own political gain.  How many people i have corrected on the Iraq topic is amazing from being misinformed.
True... every government does a politic of media misinformation... however, I am wondering wether you are referring to the last war in Iraq or the war after Iraq invaded Kuwait. I am still wondering... what does a government make to commit troops of that size to a country that many people don't even know where it is located in the world. I think it is different to make a decision firsthand and rationalize it based on the experiences being made.
2006-01-11 18:52:45
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6911|Stillwater, Ok
I was referring to the current and still ongoing war.  But since the American media is largely liberal they tend to bash anyone in office who doesn't go for their views and alot of reporters in recent years have been in serious trouble for it.  Kinda like the moron who recently revealed the spy program to monitor suspected terrorists phone calls.  I believe it was Dan Rathers who also got in alot of trouble for a story he didn't bother to check up sources on. We have caught alot ot terror cells in the US from it and intercepted important information.  I would much rather have a computer listen in for keywords than to see another 9/11 happen.     
  As for seeing things first hand you get a much better perspective of whats happened there compared to listening to the media.  There are things found that definately point to WMD's, and the oil is actually under controll of the Iraqi government again.  Sadly and i say this disgustingly....most american are ignorant dumbasses who let people think for them, or take care of them on welfare.
2006-01-11 19:17:21
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7066

2ndLt.Tucker wrote:

I was referring to the current and still ongoing war.  But since the American media is largely liberal they tend to bash anyone in office who doesn't go for their views and alot of reporters in recent years have been in serious trouble for it.  Kinda like the moron who recently revealed the spy program to monitor suspected terrorists phone calls.  I believe it was Dan Rathers who also got in alot of trouble for a story he didn't bother to check up sources on. We have caught alot ot terror cells in the US from it and intercepted important information.  I would much rather have a computer listen in for keywords than to see another 9/11 happen.     
  As for seeing things first hand you get a much better perspective of whats happened there compared to listening to the media.  There are things found that definately point to WMD's, and the oil is actually under controll of the Iraqi government again.  Sadly and i say this disgustingly....most american are ignorant dumbasses who let people think for them, or take care of them on welfare.
I hear you man. We need to be on WAR FOOTING. I think I needs to get worse before it will get better.
2006-01-11 23:24:13
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6911|Stillwater, Ok
It damn sure doesn't need to get worse....its a horrible experience seeing polished caskets with flags being put on c-130's.
2006-01-12 22:04:10
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6945
A-bomb convo is officially over.

on ww2... USA did save every1's ass, if they didnt launch d-day, every1 is fucked, coz germany will take britain because of the german me-262 fighter/bombers which was in service in 1945. germany takes out britain, then concentrate on russia, then the CCCP is fucked...
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-01-12 22:11:28
nitro92
I cheat.
+-6|7030|Sydney, Australia
the atom bomb was awesome it can blow 75% of any big city in the world thats just ownage u know wot drop one on tokyo it has 26.5 million people that means that ur killing about 17 million people o yeh thats ownage now turn that in bf2 and u got a score of 34 milion lol thats ownage so hard
2006-01-12 22:32:52
bs6749
Member
+3|6973

=NAA=TheTaxidermist wrote:

What do you mean was WWII worth it?  Oh yes, lets just let The National Socialists take over all of Europe.  There is a grand idea.  220,000 people died in the Hiroshima and Nagisaki bombings.  In the first month of the Japanese mainland, the expected American casualties were 250,000.  Yes, the bomb was worth it.  You don't think the Japanese were willing to kill American civilians?  Oh, if it would have won them the war it would have been so.  The bombs forced the Japanese surrender, it was worth it.
Not too many people know of the "balloon bombs" that Japan launched towards mainland USA. Do a google search to pull up information on this. In short the Japanese sent bombs (hundreds or even thousands) up in the air by balloon and a few of them hit the coastline but they didn't know if they were successful or not because the US government kept it under raps.

Yes they did (intentionally) target US civilians and yes bombing them WAS the right move. I would rather have a huge loss of life on their country's side than on my own, and as others have pointed out it, in all actuallity it probably saved many Japanese lives overall.

If we didn't bomb them we would have been bombed. Basically a do or die situation and the President chose wisely IMHO.

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard