Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: achtung on June 05, 2006, 12:51:22 pm
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060605/ts_alt_afp/usmilitarytorture_060605124903;_ylt=AmI3Bi0CNjm75NuG4z7XCSRsbEwB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Step one toward completely throwing the agreement out the window. :doubt:
-
What. the. ****?
It's one thing to ignore the law but pretend to follow it - it's another to just say 'screw the law'.
-
Well, it's really just admitting what everyone but their own public already knew.
-
Well, nobody likes napalm so the US came up with a cheaper substitute.
None likes torture, so there's EST.
What can I say?
-
Well, it's really just admitting what everyone but including 60% their own public already knew.
fixed
-
Well, by their own public, I mean those who have been choosing to defend their 'illegal' actions along with the 'legal' ones (yes, that's terribly generalised, I know) I probably should have made it a bit clearer why I didn't put 'The American Public'. My mistake :)
-
Umm nice....what's next....! All hail to US ! Once beleived to be an example in human right's law enforcement now not much better then countries like Iran,Irak, the talibans and if this keeps up Bin Laden. Dont take it personal i'm not refering to the US the citizenz that actualy have a brain and see the dezaster this could eventualy lead to. Oh and i'm not talking about those who actualy fight against this law beeing passed i'm talking about it's current leaders political and milatary.
You do realize of course that other countries will soon follow if this law is passed!
Then where do we end up?? Back in the middle ages or something like that??
-
Then where do we end up?? Back in the middle ages or something like that??
The Age of Illiteracy?
-
The Age of Terror, most likely.
When both sides are resorting to torture, abduction and persecution to achieve their goals, you just know there's bad **** on the horizon.
I don't see other countries following suit though, America is losing political influence at an almost exponential rate in the world theatre these days.
-
The Age of Illiteracy?
Aldo, be nice. :wtf:'
:)
-
Aldo if that was suposed to be an insult you missed . While mi english is good its not that good. Soo unless you can actualy explain what you wanted to the phrase will remain ratherm empty to me.
Well I tend to believe that this will actualy happen. Why? Becasuse countries like China,North Coreea and others like them are just waiting for an excuse.
-
Countries like China and North Korea already ignore the Geneva Convention. It was one of the things America actually used to use to explain the difference between 'Free' and 'Oppressive'.
-
I wonder how they be able to point the figer at other countries now with this new law?
Also this is the perfect excuse for bin ladden and other like him to go around bomming the US and othre countries around the world.
-
Bush's speach writers will find a way.
(\_/)
(+.+)
(^ ^)
This is dead bunny, I killed him
-
Aldo if that was suposed to be an insult you missed . While mi english is good its not that good. Soo unless you can actualy explain what you wanted to the phrase will remain ratherm empty to me.
Yes well...er. *ahem*
Well I tend to believe that this will actualy happen. Why? Becasuse countries like China,North Coreea and others like them are just waiting for an excuse.
They don't need an excuse, they already do it and say they don't (or say nothing atall).
-
What like the US is gooing to do from now on?? Not that it did not do until now its just that now they actualy have mae up a legal excuse for it!
-
I just feel the need to say this.......
**** BUNNY!
The fact that the glow thing is an IE only feature makes me hate bunny even more.
-
Oh, is that why glow never worked! I just looked at the Forum under IE tab in Firefox, and it does work.
-
the us has been using napalm for decades, dispite the fact that it is illegal under the geneva convention.
this is not news.
-
The Age of Terror, most likely.
When both sides are resorting to torture, abduction and persecution to achieve their goals, you just know there's bad **** on the horizon.
I don't see other countries following suit though, America is losing political influence at an almost exponential rate in the world theatre these days.
I agree.I find it interesting that the US is becoming more like its "enemies" all the time.
-
Surprise?
-
Man...
The Geneva Convention is one of those things that we as "the good guys" are supposed to be able to leverage against the bad guys. As in ...we actually have a respectable code to go by and they do not.
-
I'm rather shocked that anyone is surprised by this. It's common knowledge the US has effectively pissed on Geneva for years, and yet we're still surprised when they pretty much admit it?
Becoming ones enemy to defeat ones enemy is one thing, but becoming worse than ones enemy is completely another.
-
I'm rather shocked that anyone is surprised by this. It's common knowledge the US has effectively pissed on Geneva for years, and yet we're still surprised when they pretty much admit it?
Becoming ones enemy to defeat ones enemy is one thing, but becoming worse than ones enemy is completely another.
I don't even think we need to become ones enemy to defeat them...we need to be better than our enemies to defeat them. We need to be heads and shoulders above them. We need to have honour, respect, understanding, and the application of overwhelming force when absolutely necessary. We need to stop pissing into the wind and show some real courage.
-
With a Bush between our legs? :eek2:
Not a chance!
-
I'm rather shocked that anyone is surprised by this. It's common knowledge the US has effectively pissed on Geneva for years, and yet we're still surprised when they pretty much admit it?
Becoming ones enemy to defeat ones enemy is one thing, but becoming worse than ones enemy is completely another.
I don't even think we need to become ones enemy to defeat them...we need to be better than our enemies to defeat them. We need to be heads and shoulders above them. We need to have honour, respect, understanding, and the application of overwhelming force when absolutely necessary. We need to stop pissing into the wind and show some real courage.
:yes:
The only problem being convincing the public of this.
-
Who said we have any enemies anyway?
It would be reasonable to say we wouldn't have any if the west didn't keep meddling in the affairs of suppossed irrelevant countries around the world for our own personal ****s and giggles.
I'm rather shocked that anyone is surprised by this. It's common knowledge the US has effectively pissed on Geneva for years, and yet we're still surprised when they pretty much admit it?
Becoming ones enemy to defeat ones enemy is one thing, but becoming worse than ones enemy is completely another.
Exactly.
-
Umm how did that Bush character end up in office anyway. I mean come on fighting a war like the One in Afganistan is one thing but gooing and pulling ***t like this over and over again(i mean like the Irak war) it just gets too old. Isnt the american public sick of all these wars their administration puts them through? Oh and on top of all that they didnt even had weapons of mass destruction in Irak. Go figure.
I mean what is the american G.I. 's life is worth less then mi car if the US Army is willing to throw away theyr lifes for these kinds of reasons???
But getting back to the topic at hand shouldnt there be some law or something like that i mean an international law that forbids gouverments to do these kinds of things i mean under no circustances can they be alowed to do this.
Also if the US gouverment can take a dump on international treaties like these then what exactly is the diference between the US and countries like North Corea? Oh and dont tell me its the freadom of speach or the right to privacy??
-
Am I the only one who believes that - should the US actually formally pull-out of the Geneva treaty - nobody will do s*** about it? I mean, how is this different than when they decided to tear up the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty?
-
I don't think that anything will be done. The only thing that kept the convention in place was a common goodwill and an interest in doing the right thing, and holding onto our humanity, no matter how hurt or angry we were, it was an ideal that didn't always work, but it was important that the ideal was there.
By stepping away from it, it signals, to me, a step away from the ideals of Freedom from persecution and the right of trial by jury. Now it will be Trial by ordeal. Something 'Western Society' has not tried to justify since the Witch-hunts.
-
Ammmmm the US broke off of the Anti-Balistic missile threaty?? Now I know why France,Germany and other Eu members dont get along to well with the US. but if the US broke off then what justification could they have for attacking Iran?
This one mean it Bush and his whole administration deserve to be taken up to the battlefields and get a few bullets through they brains or rather even better taken up to Irak and left on guard duty at some hospital and blown away by suicide bommbers. Then maibe then theyl start to actualy think about some of the things they do.
Again this is the US the country with one of the moste democratic sistems on the Earth where the people actuly have power over its leaders how come noone objects to this?
Do the American people actualy love the sword of nuclear war over theyr heads? Was the Cold war such an enjoyable thing? I can no say this since well I'm not that old. It's just a question.
Also sooner or later the might of the US Army wil get a bloody nose from picking on these weaker countries. I mean the fact that most of the european states didnt involve themselfs in the Irak war should of been a good example of some of the things that may come.
One day the US will run out of allies. At least any powerfull ones.
-
By stepping away from it, it signals, to me, a step away from the ideals of Freedom from persecution and the right of trial by jury. Now it will be Trial by ordeal. Something 'Western Society' has not tried to justify since the Witch-hunts.
Welcome to the 21st Century. :)
-
Just wait til WW III kicks off, I cat wait :lol: :wtf: :lol:
One step closer to a unified government....obvioiusly the existing ones wont get on, so after a nucular winter, we (i mean the three armed no-nosed mutant survivors) can instill a new government after the gene pool recifies itself.
-
ummm that a funny way of putting a serious issue. funny though in a....twisted sort of way....!
-
After the war in Afganistan was over the US turned around in the face of the Russian support they gave to the US during the war and slapped them with "no more missle treaty for you!".
World politics are going down the ****ter.
-
You can say that again! Oh and you know who you have to thank for that!
-
The U.S. has contributed yes, but so has every other nation and country in the world. It's a team effort.
-
is there any sort of 'good guy' anymore, on the national level?
a nation that actually has dignity and follows those international rules
and doesnt suck
-
Norway is probably the best bet.
-
the us has been using napalm for decades, dispite the fact that it is illegal under the geneva convention.
this is not news.
BULL. ****.
Your talking point is complete thrash and devoid of any actual merit, content or facts.
1. Weapons that US employ are not technically napalm anymore. It's more or less the same stuff but with less toxicity.
2. Napalm and other incendiary weapons are not banned
3. Well ok, they're kinda banned - several incendiary weapons are heavily regulated by 1980 Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. To put it shortly, their use against civilian targets is forbidden and military targets in vicinity of civilian targets should not be targeted with said weapons. Arty WP shells and **** are fair game, though.
4. US is not party to said treaty anyways
5. It's the above+Hague conventions that deal with weapons. Geneva convention deals with people.
There.
-
Ahah!!!!! BTW I just wanna say the Daisy cutter is my favourite ordanance so far....
-
Umm not to filp you post or anithing but what?? So then they are legal but at the same time ilegal?
Oh and pardon me for the "technical" issue of the problem. Its basicly the same blasted thing under a new name. Please i can go around the finger for years with things like "technical issues" !
Also It doesnt matter wich convention it is the fact that the US is pissing all over international conevtions and treaties one after the other is a good indicator of things to come.
I can only imagine the world gooig like" Here come the nazis marines...ups the US marines" hell the nazis tortured people to get what they wanted. on and of the battlefield. sure they killed a lot of them too. but then agin the US is only one spet away from them.
I'm wondering tough if Uberfuhrer Bush will still want the nazi's salute?
Edit: this is actuali suposed to be for Janos well the first part anywai!
-
Ahah!!!!! BTW I just wanna say the Daisy cutter is my favourite ordanance so far....
Mk82's, simple, effective, flexible, deadly :D
Big bangs for your buck are always good, but give me utilitarian over showy any day :p
Great. now I wan't to do a 'What's your favourite aircraft ordnance' thread :lol:
-
The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions...
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000522.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0617-01.htm
US forces used napalm-like MK-77 firebombs against Iraqi forces in their drive toward Baghdad last spring, a Pentagon official confirmed today, defending their use as legal and necessary.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145835413.html
http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=341
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page20.htm
FFS its still wrong... =/
-
Also, don't forget the use of phospherous weapons in Fallujah......
-
what do those do??
-
what do those do??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus#Use_in_Iraq
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure. [3] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed, in some cases burning right down to the bone. In some cases, burns may be limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed
Inhalation also leads to increased chance of cancer, etc.
-
http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic918.htm
It's basically a highly reactive agent that cuases severe burning to skin, blindness if got in the eyes and God alone knows what it does to your lungs, but it's not going to be pretty.
Edit : Aldo's link covers it better.
-
The same **** that's burning this baby's flesh:
(http://mindprod.com/images/restricted/iraqburnedbaby.jpg)
Some shocking photos here: http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqatrocities.html (you've been warned)
-
White Phos burns on contact with air, the only way to extinguish it is to completely isolate the area from oxygen IE jump in a river, but using this in a desert environment would be pure eviiiil.
:mad2:
-
Of course when in 20 years veterans report cancers from the phosphorus we'll hear about how evil it is and it must be stopped.
For the time being though you're screamed at for saying certain inefficient weapons are unnecessarily cruel.
-
Umm and I supose those milatary men who argued for the use of such weapons will want treatment and healtcare sistems to cover the expenses right?
Let them die slow agonizig death's with no treatement for these sidefects then will see if theyl argue in favor of these beeing used.
-
Well, in all fairness, the common grunt out in Iraq has no choice in the munitions used whatsoever, those responsible for making those decisions are nowhere in sight when these things land.
-
well then we should put them in the targeting range and give thema taste of what they argue as beeing reasonable for use in war.
Hell as long as they use this stuff which causes god knows how many sideefect deseases then why not use nukes instead its faster posibly cheapar and you get the effect you want faster. Also cancer and othe such deseasea are guaranteed to apear so theil be happy with this one.
-
I think it was a case of swift decisive victory over the main forces, To accuate that victory, the weapons were needed.
-
well then we should put them in the targeting range and give thema taste of what they argue as beeing reasonable for use in war.
It would make no difference, as it is a opinion within the Pentagon based on the effects of a given weapon versus its cost. There is no genuine need for these weapons, they are simply effective in urban environments and sufficiently cost effective to outweigh the possible negative effects. It's simply the arithmatic of war, nothing sinister or "evil" about it, and there is not a single or group of individuals who arbitrarily make the decision to use these weapons, so to kill these percieved individuals in an unsightly fashion would do little if any good.
-
umm then again in the conflict would of been more intence with people actualy putting up a stiff resistence then by all means they could and ,because it is more cost efective then a prelonged many years war, should of used nuclear weapons. Since this is the basis for any milatary invasion by the US Empire. Cuz its starting to look like and Empire each and every sigle passing day.
I'm discusted at this no really i am. All this cheap arithmetics make me sick. Just because they mai be efective doesnt mean they aren sickening to the bone.
Well now that I think about it the war in the former Iugoslavia when the romnian president gave Us planes the go ahead to travek through our country on theyr way to bomming runs and back was even worse. Now that was really sickening. I hate politics and I hate milatary economics.
-
umm then again in the conflict would of been more intence with people actualy putting up a stiff resistence then by all means they could and ,because it is more cost efective then a prelonged many years war, should of used nuclear weapons. Since this is the basis for any milatary invasion by the US Empire. Cuz its starting to look like and Empire each and every sigle passing day.
Nuclear weapons are not used, because they are weapons of last resort. Think of it like this; if you a trying to discipline a child for being naughty, do you cut its head off with an axe? Of course not, to do that would accomplish nothing, thus it is far more prudent to simply smack him on the back of his hand. War is a lot like this, it's not about unrestrained carnage and killing as many people as possible, it is using controlled violence to guide the enemy in a fashion favourable to your own ends. Obviously this is not readily apparent with the current conflict, but then this is not a war, it's an occupation, an insurgency. I suggest you look those terms up, because it would be somewhat questionable to utilise Nuclear weapons when you have already occupied the nation in question.
Please, stop being so sensationalist and calling the US an 'Empire'. They are displaying tendancies one would attribute to the empires of old, but to start screaming it serves no purpose.
I'm discusted at this no really i am. All this cheap arithmetics make me sick. Just because they mai be efective doesnt mean they aren sickening to the bone
Well wake up, this isn't some dream-land where there is no conflict, this is war. You may deem it disgusting, and that may well be the case, but this is what humans do, so if you don't like it, too bad. A nation is going to try to win in a fashion that is cost-effective and prudent, but if you've got any pearls of wisdom regarding why a nation would intentionally handicap itself when trying to win a given war, please share with the rest of us.
-
pfeh, it's the same thing every era, if an threat doesn't make itself aparrent to the US, it creates one to justify its actions, iran's supposed nuclear weapons program, for instance.
seriously, the UN needs to grow a spine, and a great big set of brass Cojones.
-
Problem is Turnsky, is the current American Hierarchy, for all it's rhetoric about Terrorists getting nukes and using them irresponsibly. If pressured by the UN, possibly to the level of threats of UN forces arresting American soldiers who break the convention, and trying them for war-crimes, I think the US government would be just as willing to threaten to 'consume the world in flame' if they saw their interests threatened as Iran would if they had Nuclear weapons.
-
Ones mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, And vice versa rightly so. It all depends on what side of the fence you're on.
-
Roger that!
Oh and i dont remember shouting out the US Empire all over the place. I just called it one. And untill the US stops creting artificial dangers to the "democratic and free citizens of the world" (a.k.a. the US oil industry,weapons industry and god knows what else involves money) then it will remain at least in mi opinion an Empire. No better then any other Empire that camo across this earth.
Also if the US milatary men came under napalm bomming and died horble painfull deaths or were bommed by some cancerigenic stuff the we will see the US gouverment actualy taking a stand and screaming for those things to be banned??
I mean what will it take for someone to learn??
-
I gotta jump in, The British Empire will always be dear to me. "swells with pride"
-
Oddly enough, no sooner did I post than I looked at the News and saw...
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iran
That, at least, is a step in the right direction, maybe if, rather than assuming the worst, we had offered a helping hand in the first place....
Ah well....
-
Each citizen can be proud more or less of his country no arguement from me there. Actualy there are citizens that should actuali burn they countries to the ground or sell it to the hiest biddder all the same but still....
Also at least the British Empire left railraods and industry and infrastructure and hospitals and countless other things behind it like the Romans and Babylonians and Egiptian etc but the US leaves anly crippled bodyes scourched fields and parentless children behind. In short only misseri they build nothing they just destroy.
Edited:
Woo see people we can talk and squeze eachother balls at the same time! :D
-
Also at least the British Empire left railraods and industry and infrastructure and hospitals and countless other things behind it like the Romans and Babylonians and Egiptian etc but the US leaves anly crippled bodyes scourched fields and parentless children behind. In short only misseri they build nothing they just destroy.
As much as I hate US goverment I have to say that's not fair. Don't go rewriting history just to bash the states...
-
Also at least the British Empire left railraods and industry and infrastructure and hospitals and countless other things behind it like the Romans and Babylonians and Egiptian etc but the US leaves anly crippled bodyes scourched fields and parentless children behind. In short only misseri they build nothing they just destroy.
Did we? I think the post-WW2 Germans would disagree. You're confusing intent with the more destructive properties of modern warfare.
-
The Empire kinda died in my eyes roundabout then, But at least the Yanks still use "Imperial measurment" For some dridiculous reason they teach our children metric now...........
-
The Empire kinda died in my eyes roundabout then, But at least the Yanks still use "Imperial measurment" For some dridiculous reason they teach our children metric now...........
It was two major wars against another European power that knocked out the once mighty British Empire.
Metric still pwns the "imperial measurement system" anyday.
Oddly enough, no sooner did I post than I looked at the News and saw...
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iran
That, at least, is a step in the right direction, maybe if, rather than assuming the worst, we had offered a helping hand in the first place....
Ah well....
The US only did this because it was isolated and backed into a corner. It really did have no choice.
-
May have been something to do with the Ayatollah saying that Iran may start using Oil Supplies as a weapon yesterday ;)
-
White Phos burns on contact with air, the only way to extinguish it is to completely isolate the area from oxygen IE jump in a river, but using this in a desert environment would be pure eviiiil.
:mad2:
The best way to save yourself from that **** is to actually scoop/carve it out of your skin and flesh. Ouch. And the next worst part is that the WP will spontaneously ignite again and again and again.
And also it's very common weapon and included in the arsenal of pretty much every army there is. It is also versatile - it illuminates, marks, disguises, covers and burrrrns, and can be easily dispersed with low-tech applications like hand grenades, ari shells and rifle grenades.
-
Umm not to filp you post or anithing but what?? So then they are legal but at the same time ilegal?
They are legal. Like bombs and bullets and cruise missiles and even tactical nukes. Are you Nuke's gimmick, btw?
Their use in vicinity of civilian installations, against targets in the middle of civilian centers and, of course and as should be, against civilians themselves, however, is restricted and forbidden.
It's not very different from normal bombs and stuff, but because burn weapons are pretty nasty they are scrutinized more closely.
And since US is not signatory to said treaty, it has no legal effect on USA. Sad but true
Oh and pardon me for the "technical" issue of the problem. Its basicly the same blasted thing under a new name. Please i can go around the finger for years with things like "technical issues" !
I actually agree. The purpose and general properties are pretty much the same, but the name "napalm" has understandably pretty negative connotations. It's a PR trick.
Also It doesnt matter wich convention it is the fact that the US is pissing all over international conevtions and treaties one after the other is a good indicator of things to come.
Again I agree on the overall message of yours, but we [THE INTERNET] have seen so many errors about just what Geneva convention actually IS that I get fed up with it.
It's not difficult to google. It's not difficult to fact-check. These things are important and different. Stuff like what I quoted gets repeated ad nauseum.
GC is more important than Hague and other weapon conventions (save for NPT), because it deals with people who are caught between two hostile armies hellbent on destroying each other.
Geneva convention bans .50cal? Nope! It bans explosive 20+mm rounds? Nope! It bans this and tha weapont? Nope! It's about people and how to treat them, were they friendlies or hostiles.
It's a small but annoying and sometimes really important mistake. And it's nice to correct people (although I was quite harsh to Nuke, sorry brother :( )
I can only imagine the world gooig like" Here come the nazis marines...ups the US marines" hell the nazis tortured people to get what they wanted. on and of the battlefield. sure they killed a lot of them too. but then agin the US is only one spet away from them.
I'm wondering tough if Uberfuhrer Bush will still want the nazi's salute?
Patriotism, isolationism, manifest destiny and all that jazz bite well into people with authoritarian philosphies. And there is a small authoritarian inside everyone. When people feel unsafe or unhappy, they usually turn to a Strong Leader Who Has Important Things to Say Which You Did Not Know Yet.
Read a comic book called Transmetropolitan. It's quite good. You might like it.
-
Also at least the British Empire left railraods and industry and infrastructure and hospitals and countless other things behind it like the Romans and Babylonians and Egiptian etc but the US leaves anly crippled bodyes scourched fields and parentless children behind. In short only misseri they build nothing they just destroy.
What, you mean the same British Empire as invented the concentration camp during the Boer War, or the same Romans that went from house to house, slaughtering or enslaving every person in Carthage, before destroying the city and ploughing the fields with salt to make them infertile?
-
That had a certain style though...
-
The US is just another empire, immoral and cruel, but that's the only way to the top.
-
A nation must do what's in its best interests, within ethical reason. If it involves acquiring something from another nation, all attempts should be made to do so peacefully. Only if it presents a definite, fact supported threat, should military force be used. The US's policy of Manifest Destiny is an excellent example. We expanded our borders because it was in our best interest. However, "our best interest" is no excuse for mistreating the Native Americans already there. And now the pattern seems to be repeating again, this time with Iraq. We invaded not because of "WMD" or "terrorists." We invaded because of our oil greed. There was no proof that Iraq contained WMD in the first place. Second, Iraq is one of the most anti-terror countries in the Middle East. Any terrorist presence would be deemed a threat to Saddam's power, hence, they would be eliminated immediately. The greatest fear of a dictator is losing power. Now we have Marines torturing and killing civilians, all because of a war based on greed.
This brings to mind another example of the US acting in "its best interest," yet in an unethical manner. Prior to WWII, the US was committed to wiping out poverty. Its methodology was based in the theory of Eugenics. Eugenics is the systematic sterilization of people considered inferior or harmful to society (such as, minorities, homosexuals, etc.) often without their consent, or even knowledge. The US felt it was in its best interest to eliminate these persons who were, to some people, "the cause of poverty and suffering." Most everyone who has studied history is familiar with this story to this point. What most people are not aware of, was that several US charitable foundations took this policy much, much further.
Several of these foundations helped to fund the concentration camps responsible for the systematic extermination of Jews, amongst other groups, in Nazi Germany.
Eliminating poverty: An excellent goal.
Sterilizing your population to achieve said goal: Disturbing, frightening, and extremely unethical.
A democratic society which advocated genocide with a portion of the people's CONSENT: Indescribably terrifying.
Not the United States shining moment, wouldn't you say?
I am not anti-American or mentally distrurbed. I just believe that in addition to a mounting economic deficit, the US is also facing moral bankruptcy. Our government only does the "Right Thing," if it is politically convenient. Even more so with the Bush administration.
Just look at the genocide in Darfur. The US won't intervene because there is no major advantage to us doing so. Whereas, we invade Iraq at the drop of a hat, in order to gain oil resources. There is absolutely NO REASON not to offer humanitarian aid to people who genuinely need and deserve it.
I'll end it here. It's getting late. I think I will have more to say tommorrow.
-
Umm as far as i know the british empire built railroades and hospital and schools in every major colony it had.
Also the Roman empire sure it fough a lot o wars but it also helped educate and civilize the barbarian civilizations it ocupied. Letf roades and engineering and stuff like that. Not to mention hospitals were sort of hospitals.
Each empire across the time has left something behind something that influenced civilizations to come.
What has the US left behind except bombs,mines, crippled children and women well basicly carnage and destruction. Nothing good nothing positive.
-
What have you ever done to make the world a better place? :)
-
it also helped educate and civilize the barbarian civilizations it ocupied.
Just to clarify... Those "barbarians" already had a highly developed culture and a way of living. But it was different from the "civilized" romans. Romans did build a lot of useful stuff, they did know how to do that. But they didn't civilize the people. They just replaced the "barbarian" culture and civilization with theirs.
-
Umm as far as i know the british empire built railroades and hospital and schools in every major colony it had.
Good-oh, hospitals and schools! Hooroo, railroads! Yep, all great achievements, but then, what about their other achievements? Y'know, those gems like spreading small-pox and all those other cudly little life-threatning ailments all around the world, thos silly little atrocities in India, that whole thing with stealing an entire generation of children from Native Australians, and completely wiping out the Tasmanian Aboriginies! Hooroo for genocide! I have the utmost respect for the old British Empire, but that doesn't cloud the cold, hard fact that they destroyed far more than they built.
Also the Roman empire sure it fough a lot o wars but it also helped educate and civilize the barbarian civilizations it ocupied. Letf roades and engineering and stuff like that. Not to mention hospitals were sort of hospitals.
You make it sound like the Roman Legion would go into a country, set up schools, hospitals and roads for the native population, and waltz on out with smiles on their faces. They kiiinda did that, only the built schools and hospitals only for Romans and those who accepted Roman rule, they built roads to facilitate movement of their armies, and they generally enslaved or wiped out pretty much everyone else*. Prophet's pretty much right on the money, not only did they not better foreign society other than simply replacing it with their own, but did you ever stop to think that maybe these "barbarians" already had a fine society on their own? I don't know how they hell you've come to the conclusion the Roman Empire at its peak was some sort of benevolent utopia, but I suggest you read more.
*I must confess i've not studied the Roman Empire in quite some time, so don't go ape if i've misconstrued the facts
Each empire across the time has left something behind something that influenced civilizations to come.
Indeed, each great Empire has left something behind, but what they tend to leave behind is a history of bloodshed and horror, and a legacy of infamy wherever they have tread.
What has the US left behind except bombs,mines, crippled children and women well basicly carnage and destruction. Nothing good nothing positive.
Actually, the US have contributed much to the development of society and the world in general. Please don't assume that, because they have a spotted past and they're currently under a somewhat tyrranical leadership at the moment, that they're pure evil. Every nation has its blemishes, every nation has its spotted past, and every nation elects [figuratively] questionable leadership now and then [France is a fine example of all of these].
-
planted 15 trees so far involved miself in ecological fundations that helped to educate people on the hazards of polution domestic and industrial. Involved miself in a few ecological actions in mi home city. Basicly di what the sanitation department should of done in the reservations of wildlife and fauna.
Oh and I have NOT bommed civilians nore have i tortured anyone else or killed or maimed or crippeled or well basicly left carnage and destruction behind me.
It mai not sound like much but is a hell of alot more then the US gouverment is dooing.
Edited:
Actualy that is not quite the case with the romans. Sure they did a lot of killing in wars. And have even destroyed some civilizations. But they did not comepletely replace cultures with theyr own. They asimilated the otehr cultures into theyr own. At least to some degree.
Also not all of the conquered civ. were torn apart by the roman legions. In fact most of the tribes and civ. conquered by the romans were left relatively intact with theyr culture almost intact. Also they enjoied a much more peacefull way of live under roman rule then they di before with all the fighting between the tribes and stuff.
I'm not sayng that all these empires were a peacefull utopia like place but they sure as hell werent as bad as the US.
-
Yet you can't take a few moments to learn that its MY not "mi" or doing not dooing. /rant :p
I'm definitly no fan of the US but I know that they are not all a pack of tards. Where are you from btw?
-
Never said the were all evil or something like that just theyr leaders whome I believe are a buch of maniacs and evil people gready as hell and well i think theyre a buch of nazies. Especialy Bush who sounds like Hitler with each passing speach. Heil Uberfuhrer Bush???.
Sounded a lot better with the other guys name.:P
I actualy have a great deal of respect for the US people for their power over the leaders of the nation. And for the way the take each coming blow...i mean with a sence of optimism. I just love that. No matter how hard they get hit they tri to make the best of it and move on with theyr lives without waiting for others to help.
I'm from Romania !
-
Never said the were all evil or something...
No, of course not. You simply took two especially bloodthirsty and genocidal Empires, ignored all the bloodthirsty and genocidal parts, and concluded that they are good. Conversely, you took the US, ignored any and all good they have accomplished, and concluded that they are the spawn of Satan in comparison.
By your logic, one can conclude that the Third Reich "ain't that bad" because they certainly left their mark on the world, and remember all the good they did! They brought Germany out of the depression, and rebuilt the shattered nation to almost superpower proportions! Sure, they did a few bad things here and there, but they're a darn sight better than them Americans! Those damn Americans started a war that has killed thousands! Thousands! And they've bombed civilians, and killed children and bunny-rabbits and kittens! Now why couldn't they be more like the Third Reich? What a perfect world that would be.
That, my good comrade, is what you sound like. See how silly that sounds?
-
We were never Genocidal, otherwise india and north africa and China would be wastelands ........
Occupational is more the term.
-
Umm as far as i know the british empire built railroades and hospital and schools in every major colony it had.
Also the Roman empire sure it fough a lot o wars but it also helped educate and civilize the barbarian civilizations it ocupied. Letf roades and engineering and stuff like that. Not to mention hospitals were sort of hospitals.
Each empire across the time has left something behind something that influenced civilizations to come.
What has the US left behind except bombs,mines, crippled children and women well basicly carnage and destruction. Nothing good nothing positive.
Um.... the roman empires' idea of civillizing the natives was no less brutal and ethnic-cleansing like than any other ancient empires'. Whilst they 'left' things like roads behind, they were really purely for the benefit of Romans, not the locals (i.e. roads to swiftly move armies about to suppress and rebellion).
To go back onto the Romans; every time there was a rebellion against them, it would be (to quote the wikipedia) drowned in blood. i.e. any opponents of the emperor, would be killed. For example; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_rebellion
The first Jewish-Roman War (66–73), sometimes called the Great Jewish Revolt, was the first of three major rebellions by the Jews of Iudaea Province against the Roman Empire (the second was the Kitos War in 115–117, the third was Bar Kokhba's revolt, 132–135). It began in 66, sparked by religious violence between the Jews and the Hellenists; it ended when legions under Titus besieged and destroyed Jerusalem, looted and burned Herod's Temple (70) and Jewish strongholds (notably Masada in 73), and enslaved or massacred a large part of the Jewish population. The defeat of the Jewish revolts against the Roman Empire notably contributed to the numbers and geography of the Jewish Diaspora, as many Jews were scattered after losing their state or were sold into slavery throughout the empire.
Or, Spartacus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Servile_War#Aftermath_of_the_war)
While most of the rebel slaves had been killed on the battlefield, some 6,000 survivors had been captured by the legions of Crassus. As an object lesson, all 6,000 were crucified along the road between Rome and Capua[10]. It is unclear as to whether those slaves captured by Pompey while fleeing the battle were among those crucified.
Hmm.... lovely.
Likewise the British empire, and indeed colonialism in general of the (very rough timeperiod) 1800, which was often essentially a big land-rape of the Middle East and Africa, destroying the culture and way of life of the inhabitants in favour of forcing upon the occupiers and 'civillising the savages'.
The only positive aspects that come out of any occupation arise from the struggle for freedom, not the occupiers. Otherwise that is a carte blanche excuse for any invasion, regardless of the consequences if and when it fails.
We were never Genocidal, otherwise india and north africa and China would be wastelands ........
Occupational is more the term.
That depends to a degree whether the destruction and, um, 'anglicisation' of cultures isn't genocidal in it's own way.
-
Damn it, Aldo. Why the hell can you always put things a hell of a lot more succinctly than I can?! A pox on thee!!
We were never Genocidal, otherwise india and north africa and China would be wastelands ........
Occupational is more the term.
I take it you mean the British Empire. Read up on the Tasmanian Aborigines, it's an interesting tale of how we wiped out an entire people. That, is genocide.
-
Never said the were all evil or something...
No, of course not. You simply took two especially bloodthirsty and genocidal Empires, ignored all the bloodthirsty and genocidal parts, and concluded that they are good. Conversely, you took the US, ignored any and all good they have accomplished, and concluded that they are the spawn of Satan in comparison.
That, my good comrade, is what you sound like. See how silly that sounds?
Comrade??!! Umm and you are the one whose telling me about how shortsited I am right?? Sure whatever you say.
Oh and btw. the roman empire streched like what several hundredds of years ??? All those things ahppened over a very long period of time. However that does not make it right. Also from the roades and othe infrastructures benefited the economy and trade not anly the army.
Whyle the Us got itself involved in like what 2 WW and countless other wars. Killed like what a few milion peoples during this time exterminated the native indians to whome the Us actualy belongs and...well shall i go on?? Oh and please do tell me the great industrial achievements that the US left behind for the ocupied shattered civ., or the great architectural wonders or something that they actualy did good of a suficient scale as to remember them by?
And dont tell me about the hospitals they built whic they were the ones who bemmed them in the firs place or the schools they raised wich also they were the ones who leveled them in the first place or the roades.
Also where on eart did you see me saing that the 3'rd Reich was a good thing???
AS I said I don think the US people are as you put it spwn from hell just they administration who sound act and i this keeps up look like the dreaded nazis from WW2 .
Now was i clear enough for you "COMRADE" !
-
Marshall plan?
-
umm and that was implememnted after the US and the UK decided to level all of germany with carpet bomming. Right I can see now why the Marshall plan was such a good thing.
Now seroisly I couldnt care less about the Marshall plan. That plan was brought into effect after the US and the UK army's decided in they increadible wisdom to level to the ground half of europe in carpet bomming runs day and night.
Also lets not forget the whole agreement between the 3 winning powers to split up Europe. As if they had a right to do that. What was Europe then some cheap peace of cheese to be cut up as they saw fit. For that I will alwais hate bothe the US and the UK.
They left more then half of europe under the rule of the comunists. that is 45 years till we had a so called revolution. I will never ever stop hating the US and the UK for this. But that is another thing which has nothing to do with the above stated arguements regarding the US.
-
No such ting as an innocent people its all down to your place in the event, perpective, opinion and what side of the fence you sit on. :snipe: or :lol: Its all relative.
-
Makes you wonder what the Romans said about the Greek Empire etc, they all got where they were if not by atrocities, then at least whilst commiting them.
Every power will give you reasons why their idea is best, after all, that's how they hold onto power.
It's not right. But it's very very human :(
-
umm and that was implememnted after the US and the UK decided to level all of germany with carpet bomming. Right I can see now why the Marshall plan was such a good thing.
Now seroisly I couldnt care less about the Marshall plan. That plan was brought into effect after the US and the UK army's decided in they increadible wisdom to level to the ground half of europe in carpet bomming runs day and night.
Welcome to total warfare in an era with unguided munitions.
What did you expect? "Sorry old chap, how about you stop using those factories and we'll call back the bombers, eh? Bravo, chop chop."
Also lets not forget the whole agreement between the 3 winning powers to split up Europe. As if they had a right to do that. What was Europe then some cheap peace of cheese to be cut up as they saw fit. For that I will alwais hate bothe the US and the UK.
They left more then half of europe under the rule of the comunists. that is 45 years till we had a so called revolution. I will never ever stop hating the US and the UK for this. But that is another thing which has nothing to do with the above stated arguements regarding the US.
Right, because the best way to react to the end of a World War (with heavy rationing still in place) is to start another?
Seriously, get a grip. No-one likes that the soviets ****ed up Eastern europe. But if you're expecting the response to the end of WW2 - a conflict that decimated much of europe and the economy of the UK and US - could in any way involve engaging a massive Soviet army, you're up a gum tree. (there's an arguement, too, that the US nuked Japan because of the fear that the Soviet army sweeping down through the likes of Manchuria would invade and conquer Japan if the war wasn't ended ASAP)
You're essentially blaming the US, and the UK, for the actions of the USSR. Presumably, I dunno, a big boy made them occupy romania et al, and then ran away.
-
Comrade??!! Umm and you are the one whose telling me about how shortsited I am right?? Sure whatever you say.
Oh and btw. the roman empire streched like what several hundredds of years ??? All those things ahppened over a very long period of time. However that does not make it right. Also from the roades and othe infrastructures benefited the economy and trade not anly the army.
Whyle the Us got itself involved in like what 2 WW and countless other wars. Killed like what a few milion peoples during this time exterminated the native indians to whome the Us actualy belongs and...well shall i go on?? Oh and please do tell me the great industrial achievements that the US left behind for the ocupied shattered civ., or the great architectural wonders or something that they actualy did good of a suficient scale as to remember them by?
And dont tell me about the hospitals they built whic they were the ones who bemmed them in the firs place or the schools they raised wich also they were the ones who leveled them in the first place or the roades.
Also where on eart did you see me saing that the 3'rd Reich was a good thing???
AS I said I don think the US people are as you put it spwn from hell just they administration who sound act and i this keeps up look like the dreaded nazis from WW2 .
Now was i clear enough for you "COMRADE" !
Calm down mate, you'll live longer.
Honestly, drop the Roman Empire thing. Yes, everyone knows they were a "beacon of civilisation in an uncivilised age", but I fail to see why you suddenly identify with Roman "civilisation" and believe it to be the be-all and end-all of cultures. History teaches us that every time a nation or power has attempted to "civilise" a foreign people, they have ended up destroying both the local culture, and sometimes the very people they are trying to "civilise". A nation that prides itself on "civilising" foreign culture a la the old British Empire should be reviled, not revered.
Why the hell are you comparing the US to the Romans or British anyway? Honestly, I fail to see any notable similarity that is not shared by a host of other contemporary nations. It's nothing new that the US is hypocritical, corrupt, and power-hungry, but there are far worse things in this world than the US, and you'd be good to note that.
One last thing; why the fuzzy hell are you getting so worked up at my addressing you as my 'comrade'? Edit: Oh, right, the whole Communist connotations of it, yeah... well, I use the term commonly in its capacity as a term of mateship, so don't take it personally.
-
One last thing; why the fuzzy hell are you getting so worked up at my addressing you as my 'comrade'?
You're obviously a dirty red commie-westerner-fascist-capitalist-humourist-(not)american, who carved up europe like a piece of fine Gouda, i guess.
-
You can see that "Domineering" aspect in some threads all over the net where people try and drive their opinion down your throat without letting up one bit. I always try and accept other views :D Brits might be arsey in the past but we were always polite as we did it :D
-
You can see that "Domineering" aspect in some threads all over the net where people try and drive their opinion down your throat without letting up one bit. I always try and accept other views :D Brits might be arsey in the past but we were always polite as we did it :D
Quite true, and i'll always respect the reflex response the British always had to a large conflict; 'steady-on lads, let's hold a meeting/conference/kegger!!' :p
-
The most accurate scene which portrays our cast iron national balls, is in Zulu where the enemy are banging their shields (non energy variety :D) and the Sergeant gets one of the Privates to do his jacket button up. Cant go to war scruffy now can we sunny jim :mad:
-
Its only human nature to step on the week to achieve your goals.
There is no such thing as a good empire but there is such a thing as empires better then others. Its just a mater of how bad in comparison the least bad ones they are situated.
Oh and I was trapped behind the Iron courtain. Hows that for bummer..???!!! I laugh about it now but mi parrents sure as hell didnt laugh....neighter did mi grandfather who had to watch close ones taken by the russians into concentration camps in Siberia. Needless to say they did not come back.
Also never said i dont agree with the bomming of german industry but there is a whole difference form bomming factories and bommbing cities to rubble just so that you might convince them to surrender. Oh and even when they noticed the whole "bomme'm into a pshicotic depression so that they will lose theyr fighting spirit" stuff didnt work they never stopped. So i fail to see the humanitarian and sincere effort made to help Europe through the Marshall plan thing.
Also that plan was just put in place in order to stop the commies from getting hold of the entier Europe. It had nothing to do with humanitarian aid. It was all politics, money, and well milatary tactics.
-
In all honesty bombing their factories was quite tame compared to the mass slaughter of millions of innocent Jewissh people. Oh yeah and invading Poland also :D
-
Its only human nature to step on the week to achieve your goals.
Then why are you singling out the United States?
There is no such thing as a good empire but there is such a thing as empires better then others. Its just a mater of how bad in comparison the least bad ones they are situated.
This just in, the US is not an Empire!! To label it as one is simply being provocative and sensationalist.
In all honesty bombing their factories was quite tame compared to the mass slaughter of millions of innocent Jewissh people. Oh yeah and invading Poland also :D
Oh don't start. If there's one thing I f***ing hate, it's when people try to justify killing.
-
? I just realised anything national can be called a Nation (D'uh) But being uninterested in US Politics apart from Bush making snafus every half hour, I gotta admit i dont know, How would a non-us citizen (obviously living outside the us ;7) classify it, Id call it a super state but not an empire........
-
Well for now its a super state at least in its name there si no empire atached yet the the name. But if this keeps up that thing will most definetly happen. And even if the word "empire" doesnt show up in the name it will come to be regarded as one by most of the people living outside the US.
Never ment to sigle ut the US but it just happens that its the only one remaining..er....superstate. Oh and they have an "expansionistic bomme'em into submission go for the money whreever you can kind of policy."
-
How the hell would you have done it then AlphaOne? How should it have been done. By all means enlighten us. :)
-
Say what?? Dont know what you want me to explain please refrase! I'm serious didnt understand the phrase.
-
regardless of who's "right", or who's "wrong" on either side of the fence, it's the civilians, and other innocent people who really just want to get on with their lives who are gonna get caught in the crossfire, as always. We shall see how things pan out in the end, however, i just think it's gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets any better.
it's all about the escalation, one side punches the other in the gut, the other side does the same only with a spiked knuckleduster, and so on, and so forth, it's all rather comic if you ask me, yet sad at the same time.
*starts singing "a kiss to build a dream on" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3PXiV95kwA&search=fallout%202)*
-
I was asking how you would of handled the europe situation.
And btw, it wasn't really the UK or US that bombed Germany into the ground. Russia took care of that with their artillery. What was it 300 guns firing for 5 days straight or something like that?
The UK and US didn't even hear about it they were that far away.
And leaving europe to russia was pretty much the only choice they had to them. Russia had bolstered their forces and outnumbered the UK and US forces together something like 30:1. It would of been bloody stupid to start another war with russia.
-
I thought Market Garden dropped Allied forces between Russia and Germany? ( a bridge too far )
If thats the case they should have got there first.
I think my philosophy is kind of archaic in some ways, but its the way i feel: If my country goes to war without me, I dont care what its over, who started it, Whats at stake, I just cheer em on and give my total support.
-
I'm pretty sure there was one incident when a British officer actually took command of a German squad (some medium sized soldiery group), and helped organize them to defend against the Russians until US/UK soldiers arrived for them to (eventually) surrender to.
-
There ya go :D i 've heard of that story, It was part of the red devils. An english Para group from WWII sorta like 101st airborne but "not as soft" ;7
-
I can see that happening. You really, really didn't want to be anywhere near those zany ruskies, whether you were military or civilian.
-
No, they werent fighting cos the reds attacked, we just have opride in keeping our prisoners "OUR" prisoners :D.
Its kinda like you finding a gold mine mining all the gold, putting it in a nice crate to take to the bank, Then some damn reds come and "Yoink" it......
-
What the hell are you talking about? I was referring to the wehrmacht soldiers choosing to fight with the British commander, not the other way around, and even then the Commander was undoubtedly aware of the wave of destruction and horror that was the Red Army.
-
What the hell are you talking about :confused:
A- Germans Surrender to small British squad
B- Russians try to take the POWs by force
C- Brits organize, Germs to fight superior numeric REDS
D- Reds held, until Brits main contingent arrive
X- We keep OUR prisoners.
:wtf:
-
What the hell are you talking about :confused:
A- Germans Surrender to small British squad
B- Russians try to take the POWs by force
C- Brits organize, Germs to fight superior numeric REDS
D- Reds held, until Brits main contingent arrive
X- We keep OUR prisoners.
Source?
-
Nah mate, I'll have some salad cream though........
:wtf:
Aldo's heard of it.
I read it in a book.
Google it............
-
The russians got there first because they are red.
Duh. :rolleyes:
-
You're saying that a British commander voluntarily took command of an enemy unit to fight an allied force of Soviet soldiers that were attempting to capture said enemy unit, for the sole reason of "keeping the prisoners in British hands". S***, I know relations weren't exactly peachy between the Eastern and Western forces, but I still find voluntary open conflict hard to believe.
Now, said commander taking command out of necessity in the face of an imminent Red Army attack he had no way of flagging to a stop, maybe. But to do it for the hell of "keeping the prisoners"? :wtf:
-
Call it pride if you will, Maybe the reds were just battle blind/combat high. Irellevent in the end, Until i find the book and scan it or find an article on the story (some finite details) this is all speculative. I cant remember enouugh to warrant a debate to be honest. Once i've dug it up ill post here though.
-
ummm what are you people on about?? The Russians never got anywhere near Germani till 1945.
Also the russians just baslted away the german strogholds amignst the rubble. they wanted to clear a path to berlin as fast as posible. Also dont think 4 years of constant bommbing by thousands of planes equals the artilary thing.
But regardless of who is right and whis is not i'm not talking about the fact that they 'had' no choice in the matter (yeah right) i'm talking about the fact that they made it 'legal' through a treaty. I mean thats just sick. that's like splitting a peace of bread into 3 just beacuse you can.
-
Call it pride if you will, Maybe the reds were just battle blind/combat high. Irellevent in the end, Until i find the book and scan it or find an article on the story (some finite details) this is all speculative. I cant remember enouugh to warrant a debate to be honest. Once i've dug it up ill post here though.
So do you actually remember that to be the case, or are you simply pulling out of your arse? [Serious question, i'm not 'taking the piss]
-
Umm as far as i can remember that was the case. Although mi histori is a bit rusty these days. I'm gooing to chek it out when I get home cuz now i'm at work.
-
I thought Market Garden dropped Allied forces between Russia and Germany? ( a bridge too far )
If thats the case they should have got there first.
Well not quite. They dropped them in Belgium. The eastern front was in Eastern Europe.
I think my philosophy is kind of archaic in some ways, but its the way i feel: If my country goes to war without me, I dont care what its over, who started it, Whats at stake, I just cheer em on and give my total support.
It's not archaic, it's dangerous, irresponsible and stupid. You're little better than a miscarried sheep at that point.
-
I was asking how you would of handled the europe situation.
And btw, it wasn't really the UK or US that bombed Germany into the ground. Russia took care of that with their artillery. What was it 300 guns firing for 5 days straight or something like that?
Most of the strategical bombings and attacks on German cities were by Allied forces. Russia did not actually have very large and potent airforce and they had their hands full of Eastern Front until late 1944 when the outcome was already clear.
The UK and US didn't even hear about it they were that far away.
And leaving europe to russia was pretty much the only choice they had to them. Russia had bolstered their forces and outnumbered the UK and US forces together something like 30:1. It would of been bloody stupid to start another war with russia.
Russia did not apparently hear about Dresden either. And they used it for propaganda after war! oh the irony
Russia and the western Allies were allied because of necessity, not because they liked each other.
Anyways. The most pointless of all pointless what-ifs is the question if Allies should have attacked Russia. Well gee that ought to go down really well, seeing how Russia had ridiculously big production although dimished manpower reserves and the War on Pacific was still going on. The most delightful counterargument to this is to point out that Russia used almost completely US-built trucks. TRUCKS. These are the guys who copied all good designs and adopted them into use with variable results (Christie tanks, engines, trains, artillery, anything). I doubt 5000 trucks would have been enough to make a difference. Or was it 50 000? Can't remember.
Another what-if: What if someone maybe important had, at some point, maybe made some decision which would have had some kind of consequences and maybe ramifications on a chaotic scale? DISCUSS
-
If you're askin me, then yeah i do remember that to be the case. Commisars are hard as nails but they arent as bad as yanks when it comes to Blue on Blue. I'm gonna tryu and find some facts on this i remember it was towards the end, mere weeks before hitler topped himself.
I thought Market Garden dropped Allied forces between Russia and Germany? ( a bridge too far )
If thats the case they should have got there first.
Well not quite. They dropped them in Belgium. The eastern front was in Eastern Europe.
[/qoute]
Operation Market Garden
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Market Garden
Part of World War II
Waves of paratroops land in the Netherlands during Operation Market Garden in September 1944.
Date: 17 September 1944 - 25 September 1944
Location: Netherlands
Result: German victory
Combatants
XXX Corps
First Allied Airborne Army II SS Panzer Corps
Army Group B
First Parachute Army
Commanders
Montgomery von Rundstedt
Strength
35,000 airborne, XXX Corps 20,000 (start of the battle)
Casualties
18,000 casualties 13,000 casualties
Siegfried Line Campaign
Moerbrugge - Market Garden - Nancy - Hurtgen Forest - Aachen - Scheldt - Metz - Queen
Operation Market Garden (September 17-September 25, 1944) was an Allied military operation in World War II. Its tactical objectives were to secure a series of bridges over the main rivers of the German-occupied Netherlands by large-scale use of airborne forces together with a rapid advance by armoured units along the connecting roads, for the strategic purpose of allowing an Allied crossing of the Rhine river, the last major natural barrier to an advance into Germany.
I think my philosophy is kind of archaic in some ways, but its the way i feel: If my country goes to war without me, I dont care what its over, who started it, Whats at stake, I just cheer em on and give my total support.
It's not archaic, it's dangerous, irresponsible and stupid. You're little better than a miscarried sheep at that point.
You keep thinking that :D You obviously dont allow free opinion in Janostopia.
-
Ah, well I have read about Allied and Soviet troops linking up before the "official" link-up over the Rhine (?), whereupon they promptly fired upon each other, though likely not intentionally.
And I totally agree with Janos on this one, your way of thinking is why nobody started asking questions when the Jews started disappearing in the early 40's.
-
Before you go on, The UK is assisting in a police action, I spent 9 months out there myself in 2004, Thats why i said when my country goes to war without me. Fricking twits.
-
Before you go on, The UK is assisting in a police action, I spent 9 months out there myself in 2004, Thats why i said when my country goes to war without me. Fricking twits.
... uhh, voluntary armies... governments getting their lpower from the people... military as an extension of governmental power... the entire democracy thing... uhhh
Define "your country going to war without you".
-
In my own words, an egagement between my old Regiment and an active enemy in a continuing theatre of battle after my term of service.
Hows that ? :mad:
-
Operation Market Garden
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[¨/quote]
Whoops. My bad.
I think my philosophy is kind of archaic in some ways, but its the way i feel: If my country goes to war without me, I dont care what its over, who started it, Whats at stake, I just cheer em on and give my total support.
It's not archaic, it's dangerous, irresponsible and stupid. You're little better than a miscarried sheep at that point.
[/quote]
You keep thinking that :D You obviously dont allow free opinion in Janostopia.
[/quote]
yes i mean that's a ****ty thing to say why oh why did i say that free opinion is not allowed there your attack on that angle is completely valid because i said that
...
-
In my own words, an egagement between my old Regiment and an active enemy in a continuing theatre of battle after my term of service.
Hows that ? :mad:
That's an interesting definition of phrase "If my country goes to war without me, I dont care what its over, who started it, Whats at stake, I just cheer em on and give my total support", but whatever.
-
So youre saying i am not allowed; even if for whatever reason i'm unable to keep fighting for my country, I'm not allowed to wholeheartedly back them because that makes me a miscarried sheep. Its not an ant-colony you know, I do choose that path.
You dont like thath FINE, By trying to catalogue me, and talk me into a corner for making a statement, that makes you kind oppressive doesnt it?
:hopping:
-
Define "your country going to war without you".
I tell you what mate if brains were dynamite you couldn't blow a f*cking envelope open!!!!!!!
:mad:
-
So youre saying i am not allowed; even if for whatever reason i'm unable to keep fighting for my country, I'm not allowed to wholeheartedly back them because that makes me a miscarried sheep. Its not an ant-colony you know, I do choose that path.
You dont like thath FINE, By trying to catalogue me, and talk me into a corner for making a statement, that makes you kind oppressive doesnt it?
:hopping:
No, that's now what he's saying at all. Frankly, i'm sure nobody will care one way or another whether you support a given war, that's entirely your descision to make. But you phrased it like this:
I think my philosophy is kind of archaic in some ways, but its the way i feel: If my country goes to war without me, I dont care what its over, who started it, Whats at stake, I just cheer em on and give my total support.
You said, without doubt, that you would support your nation in a war no matter the cause. Janos obviously takes that to mean you would support a war in favour of anything, such as a war to wipe out the last of the Jewish blood, or possibly nuking France, or maybe invading a sovereign nation for literally no reason at all. You effectively pledged to support your nation in whatever evil, heinous or downright horrific action it takes, and many [including myself] find that to be the attitude that is destroying the Western world. Now can you see why we call that mind-set f***ing retarded?!
-
I can see your point completely, but it doesnt need my comments to justify it does it? Why should you guys feel the need to try and verbally assault an opinion, I dont need justification, but i empathise with you....
The politicians cause the arguements, the Armies are there to follow a sworn oath.
-
Actualy the army is there to protect the citizens of its given country and to serve the people of the country. Not the politicians not the businessmen . But the people.
-
Try telling SAddam that 5 years ago :wtf:
Next you'll tell me that the sky is up and fish like water............
I mean, (calming down) the British Army swear an oath to the Queen and her Ruperts Officers, It just happens that they take orders form the PM.
But Duty is Duty and i take great pride in it, Well i used to, now i give my support instead...
Change of subject- or lock this off please Fury its gone waaaay off the rails.
-
So youre saying i am not allowed; even if for whatever reason i'm unable to keep fighting for my country, I'm not allowed to wholeheartedly back them because that makes me a miscarried sheep. Its not an ant-colony you know, I do choose that path.
You dont like thath FINE, By trying to catalogue me, and talk me into a corner for making a statement, that makes you kind oppressive doesnt it?
:hopping:
The army has no choice, beyond thinly defined issues of the legality of individual orders (actually the issue that started this topic), as to where and when they fight. If someone decides they have to die in a godforsaken desert with substandard boots, they do it, because that's how we need the army to act.
But when you abdicate an opinion, you're not supporting the army; you're supporting the politicians, the people who don't fight, and who measure these things in popularity rather than the human lives that it costs. It's giving a carte blanche for all manner of, well, evil to support an act just because it's an act.
There is no way for a serviceman/woman to refuse to participate in an illegal war as they can for illegal orders; we've seen that already demonstrated in court. That makes it the responsibility - duty - of the public to speak out when a war is manifestly illegal.
-
I think my philosophy is kind of archaic in some ways, but its the way i feel: If my country goes to war without me, I dont care what its over, who started it, Whats at stake, I just cheer em on and give my total support.
What that translates to is that you will support any conflict as long as it isn't your ****ing ass on the line. Appearently it is ok to send other people to their deaths, but as long as you risk nothing, why should you care?
-
ugh, patriotism
-
Was it Wilde who said 'Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious'?
-
For F*CK SAKE!!!
I spent six bloody years in the f*ckin army, from 99 to last april, 9 months in bloody IRAQ, and I have EARNED The right to bloody sit it out, DONT you dare preach the f*cking coward story. <calmer> You didnt know that, but you still jumped the bloody gun. :mad:
William blake
Dulce et Decorum est pro patria more'
That is a load of sh1t.
-
ugh, patriotism
Not merely that, but also selfishness with a good dose of stupidity.
I spent six bloody years in the f*ckin army, from 99 to last april, 9 months in bloody IRAQ, and I have EARNED The right to bloody sit it out,
No one "sits it out" in a real war. You are just fighting on a different front.
-
its an outdated concept, and it just happens to be really bad when your particular nation is the bad guy
-
For F*CK SAKE!!!
I spent six bloody years in the f*ckin army, from 99 to last april, 9 months in bloody IRAQ, and I have EARNED The right to bloody sit it out, DONT you dare preach the f*cking coward story. <calmer> You didnt know that, but you still jumped the bloody gun. :mad:
William blake
Dulce et Decorum est pro patria more'
That is a load of sh1t.
Do you want soldiers to die?
-
No one "sits it out" in a real war. You are just fighting on a different front.
You can never understand how completely wrong with regards to my case you are....
ALDO, I could wring your neck slowly for asking that, of course i dont,..........
End this now..........
-
ALDO, I could wring your neck slowly for asking that, of course i dont,..........
End this now..........
Well, you say you support all war by this country regardless of how unjustified, illegal or unecessary it is, and soldiers die in war, so I think it's a very valid question to ask. Especially as I'd like you to clarify what you mean by
"William blake
Dulce et Decorum est pro patria more'
That is a load of sh1t. "
-
Translated = It is just and right, to die for ones/your country. <<<is a load of ****........
Five or six years ago i was all death or glory, i would have agreed with him.
But its just a waste of life in the end , so NO i do not want soldiers to die..
Sorry for the confusion in my prior posts, but im a bit wound up..... (wants to get some hard liqour down his neck )signs off(
-
Define "your country going to war without you".
I tell you what mate if brains were dynamite you couldn't blow a f*cking envelope open!!!!!!!
:mad:
why did they let you in the army anyways :3
-
Translated = It is just and right, to die for ones/your country. <<<is a load of ****........
Five or six years ago i was all death or glory, i would have agreed with him.
But its just a waste of life in the end , so NO i do not want soldiers to die..
Sorry for the confusion in my prior posts, but im a bit wound up..... (wants to get some hard liqour down his neck )signs off(
If you do not want the soldiers to die, then why just blindly support any kind of war where soldiers, you know, die? (If you would blindly support a war, I am not quite following your logic sometimes)?
Take your time
-
No-ones asking you to. This is all relative to the Self abuse thread, Why the hell do people wanna get in each others heads???
If you dont understand my persona based on a few ill chosen paragraphs of text on a website dedicated to a computer game... Tough.
No-One asked you to
This has span out of control like a blind dyke in a fishmongers, Please can we drop my fu@king opinion as the subject of conversation.
-
No-ones asking you to. This is all relative to the Self abuse thread, Why the hell do people wanna get in each others heads???
If you dont understand my persona based on a few ill chosen paragraphs of text on a website dedicated to a computer game... Tough.
No-One asked you to
This has span out of control like a blind dyke in a fishmongers, Please can we drop my fu@king opinion as the subject of conversation.
I seriously cannot keep up with you. I have no idea what your stance is because it seems to change almost randomly every now and then. If someone asks you a question it's quite approriate to answer said question, then give arguments and counterarguments and actually define your stance etc. rather than dodge some questions and then flip out (strawman flipouts are awesome, btw).
Your opinion became the context and the heart of this thread somewhere around page 5 when you said your cheerleading line, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. If you say things in the internet, especially in this kind of thread, then what do you except?
-
Translated = It is just and right, to die for ones/your country. <<<is a load of ****........
Five or six years ago i was all death or glory, i would have agreed with him.
But its just a waste of life in the end , so NO i do not want soldiers to die..
Sorry for the confusion in my prior posts, but im a bit wound up..... (wants to get some hard liqour down his neck )signs off(
Right, I was thinking you were talking about Wilfred Owens' poem there.
-
An aside: I'm suprised I didn't get any flak for my post at the top of page 4. I guess my point was that every nation has skeletons in their closet, no matter how much good they do. Should have been clearer...My bad. That's what I get for posting on a complicated topic after a tiring day...
@Janos -- I'm having trouble following this too. I think I'm going to drop out of this discussion.
-
Keep it civil folks. Please. Its a worthwhile discussion without the personal attacks.
-
To say America is alone in the misbehaviour of it's troops would be inaccurate, I think the difference lay mainly in how it is dealt with. The US seem to be giving every appearance of burying it's head in the sand, or possibly even condoning it.
As an example with UN forces...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp
Admittedly, that's a very old (and biased) article, it's given as an example that these things happen everywhere more than anything else.
-
i just saw the head marines general dude on the news
he actually -took responsibility- and -apologized-
if only the rest of the leadership in this country had that kind of integrity...
thumbs up to head marines general dude
-
i just saw the head marines general dude on the news
he actually -took responsibility- and -apologized-
if only the rest of the leadership in this country had that kind of integrity...
thumbs up to head marines general dude
Keep in mind they did this only after the cover-up was blown.
-
If it would of done so before their cover up was blown then it woukld of been a curageos act and a damn good one. But still its a lot better then what the politicians do.
Also I admit that such things have happened many times in the past but the core of the problem is that instead of acting against such acts like some of the other coutries at least give the impresion of dooing the US is actualy triing to legitimize abuse and torture and other things like that.
That mi friends is what makes it worse then anything else. I'm not tring to point the finger at the US soldiers alone here as the spawn of satan as someone said before.
I'm just tring to point a finger the only country (that i know of at least) that actualy is triing to make such conduct legal and justified. Were not talking about china or North Corea or god knows what other totalitarian regime, where talking about a democracy and a country that waged wars suposetly for against opression and thing like these.
-
Can someone sum things up for me?
-
Basically, the US military is going to be removing the 'Cruel and Humiliating treatment' part of the Geneva Covention from the training regime of new recruits.
Not a clever move in the current climate, since it gives every appearance of effectively saying that Abu Ghraib was not the actions of a few, but based on policy, and now that policy is being solidified. (Not that we didn't pretty much know that already, but being so brazen in admitting it is a whole other matter).
-
Ok, so they're being up front, honest, and not misleading about the military force's actions. What's the problem?
-
The fact that they want to make it lgeal to torture and other stuff like that. That is the problem. This has much to do I think with the whole US wanting protection against warcrimes commited by US soldiers in several NATO countryes.
They made this deal wich basicly sais that that country will NOT turn over to the international tribunal for war crimes anyUS soldier that is acused or guilty of Warcrimes or crimes against humanyti.
And the freaking idiot romanian gouverment agreed to sign such a treaty. God i hate politicians. Especialy those that were in power duriong the last mandate.
-
Ok, so they're being up front, honest, and not misleading about the military force's actions. What's the problem?
Well, if, say, North Korea or Iran were up front, honest and not misleading about torturing people, you'd bloody well hear people complaining about that.
-
Haven't they just passed a resolution in Congress prohibiting this kinda crap?
I would not put it past the media to "neglect to mention" the fact that passage is being removed to make way for one based on US law.
-
Haven't they just passed a resolution in Congress prohibiting this kinda crap?
I would not put it past the media to "neglect to mention" the fact that passage is being removed to make way for one based on US law.
Didn't Cheney redefine 'torture' as being only something that was (effectively) crippling, though? Indications are from this administration that the likes of waterboarding, sensory deprivation, and forcing someone to stand up until they piss and **** themselves is perfectly acceptable.
-
Who would like to see Cheney put through such and ordeal so that he mai get a feel of what he is asctualy sugesting? I vote yes. Oh and not just him but every other maniac that has ideas like these as to making torture legal.
-
I blame Tony Blair for all this. Bush is obviously an idiot but he couldn't have pulled it off without TB tagging along, pretty much destroying the repuation of the UK in the middle east along the way.
Quick note on the WW2 bombing thing, the irony is if the Luftwaffe had been allowed to continue bombing UK airfields, rather than the civilian population at Hitler's direct orfer, then the RAF would have collapsed within a matter of weeks.
-
Yep In fact if Hitler had listened to his generals in the first place and used theyr advice during the war then he would of won the blasted thing. Woo now thats a scary thought. But still just goes to show how idiotic some leaders can be.
-
I blame Tony Blair for all this. Bush is obviously an idiot but he couldn't have pulled it off without TB tagging along, pretty much destroying the repuation of the UK in the middle east along the way.
Quick note on the WW2 bombing thing, the irony is if the Luftwaffe had been allowed to continue bombing UK airfields, rather than the civilian population at Hitler's direct orfer, then the RAF would have collapsed within a matter of weeks.
I thought it was Goering that switched targets? IIRC they spent a while hitting radar positions, which was badly damaging the air defense, but switched just short of a possible victory because they hadn't realised how effective it was.
-
I think they were ordered to switch because Hitler wanted revenge after a bombing raid on Berlin. The world is truely lucky he was such a military imbecile...
-
Well his milatary strategist skill were good to a point and were influenced by a lot of dumb moves on the part of the allies and one hell of a dose of luck.
He should of listened to his generals. If the generals had theyr way then europe would of had one official language....german. Man I managed to scare miself really bad here.
Oh and ever heard about he story where Von Manstein I believe it was that actualy told Hitler he was mad?? Alot of generals and filedmarshals got shot for a lot less then that.
I cant but help apreciate the milatary geniouses that Hitler surounded himself with but on the other hand i can but feel sickened about the fact they were fighting on the wrong side. The allies could of really used people like them.
-
Well, even if some of them did not like what was going on, they were still Germans. In a war, you don't just abandon your country because you don't like what the leader is doing (where would the United States be now if that were the case?). Of course, a fair number were also dedicated Nazis who supported the regime's policies.
Anyway, it is a bit scary to think about when you realize that all it would have taken for Germany to completely break the allies in Europe would have been for Dönitz to have been one rank higher at the start of the war.
-
So Iran saying they want to see Israel wiped off the face of the planet is merely being open and honest and we shouldn't worry about it?
The fact is that being 'honest' is no excuse for removing the safeguards that they chose to put in place to maintain, and I can't stress the word strongly enough, humanitarian treatment of prisoners.
Frankly, to me, it's a symbol that America is starting the slide into Barbarism.
-
Roger that shade something like this just makes the hair on back of your head stand up! but tha is enough ror tonight people. Here its 1.23 in the morning and i really must get some sleep!
-
0.23 here, and sleep would be welcome... but it's just still too damn hot for me to actually be able to fall asleep, so no point trying yet :p Need the temp to at least drop below 25c before I even bother to lie down.
-
Didn't Cheney redefine 'torture' as being only something that was (effectively) crippling, though? Indications are from this administration that the likes of waterboarding, sensory deprivation, and forcing someone to stand up until they piss and **** themselves is perfectly acceptable.
Considering the resolution was drafted by someone who actually suffered these things in Vietnam, I don't think they would have left loopholes like that...
-
Didn't Cheney redefine 'torture' as being only something that was (effectively) crippling, though? Indications are from this administration that the likes of waterboarding, sensory deprivation, and forcing someone to stand up until they piss and **** themselves is perfectly acceptable.
Considering the resolution was drafted by someone who actually suffered these things in Vietnam, I don't think they would have left loopholes like that...
Well, where's the text for these things and we can find out?
(of course, all it really would entail if it is solely a domestic ban, is moving these things to 'black' sites, or keeping up the practice of rendition to torturing countries)