A cartoon
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Or did you mean that the damage on the industry was low?
Yep. Stupid punctuation. Must remember the "I helped my uncle jack off a horse" example.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
viaduct wrote:
Precisely - it's easy to say that it's fine to gun down innocent civilians when there is no chance of it happening to you.
Which is precisely why I want the bad guys defeated over there - so that there is no chance of it happening to me. It is precisely the willingness to do that which is the reason I live in a nation free from such evil.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
t is precisely the willingness to do that which is the reason I live in a nation free from such evil.
Of course you do, there have never been any terrorist acts within the US, have there?
"He's got a lot on his mind, and it's not a load-bearing structure." - John Weak
-
ihoecken wrote:
Which resources? Germany didn't had any more soldiers (they recruited 15 year old boys), no fuel, no steel, etc. The most factories weren't destroyed. They had build them deep under the mountains in KZs etc. The whole production were inefficient even before the bombing started.
Good God, are you really that fucking dense?!!!
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Good God, are you really that f****ing dense?!!!
You seem to have very good arguements. You can look it up, it's the truth. Germany had no own resources and after Britain and the US get the control over the sea, it wasn't possible to get any further resources. Most German tanks where destroyed by German soldiers, because there was no fuel. Germany had many plane but they couldn't start them because there was no fuel and the most planes built had no engine, because those were build by prisoners and so they didn't functioned. The same was with amo. Those are facts, you can close your eyes, but it's the truth. Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Roger J wrote:
and firing at those f***ers is so much more brave and respectful to life when you know you are going to hit civilians at the same time?
it it collateral damage by design on the part of the ***heads. Unless the news media is wrong, Israel warns in advance. But here's the important piece, when you're fighting for survival no one else is important. So, if for example you stood surrounded by your family and pointed a gun at me, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot no matter who was in the way.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
Mike Gaskey wrote:
for example you stood surrounded by your family and pointed a gun at me, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot no matter who was in the way.
Ouch - really scarey stuff - i dont imagine you'd have much of a problem pressing the 'ol 'red button' either. Red button aside, im not sure i would behave any different but i certainly wouldnt say 'I wouldn't hesitate'. And the war isnt being fought on those types of terms. Its bombs being dropped on innocent ppls heads. Simple as. Yeah, sure, there dropping leaflets saying 'please leave, were about to desimate the area'. But if you believe thats an effective strategy, i fear, your fundemetally mistaken. I dont agree with the war, i do think its a gross over-reaction on israels part. But, i also dont think that israel should be expected to sit back and let anyone attack their citizens (nor should the lebanon or palastine for that matter - sounds like a stalemate, eh?). If they are really that bothered about it (which they clearly are), they should have tackled this problem with a small amount of honour/foresight and moved in a ground force to ram raid possible targets, not just drop tonnes of US bought ordinance on their heads. They'd still no-doubt piss off alot of ppl, but nothing like the problems there going to have now. Last count was 400 dead and 600,000 displaced! Firstly they'd better hope that entire families were knocked out as part of the 400 killed by 'misplaced' bombs else there clearly going to have another fierce wave of terror attacks (dont doubt that hezbollah are behind the scenes as we speak creating the next wave of bombers). And the displaced? How easy is it going to be now to turn them against israel? and lets face it... they were half way there anyways. Various other countries have had similar problems at some time or another and didnt resort to full scale air bombardments. Which, imo, is the easiest way to create hate on the ground. But as always israel (and the US and the UK - well, pretty much the whole of the west) is scared stiff of losing soldiers in combat. Maybe if we started commiting ground troops are a rule of thumb the politicians wouldnt be so flippant about starting these conflicts. This, unfortunatly, promises to escalate into much much more than it is currently...
"He who only hopes is forced to spend his life in the dark"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
t is precisely the willingness to do that which is the reason I live in a nation free from such evil.
Of course you do, there have never been any terrorist acts within the US, have there?
"He's got a lot on his mind, and it's not a load-bearing structure." - John Weak
None that went unpunished.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Good God, are you really that f****ing dense?!!!
You seem to have very good arguements. You can look it up, it's the truth. Germany had no own resources and after Britain and the US get the control over the sea, it wasn't possible to get any further resources. Most German tanks where destroyed by German soldiers, because there was no fuel. Germany had many plane but they couldn't start them because there was no fuel and the most planes built had no engine, because those were build by prisoners and so they didn't functioned. The same was with amo. Those are facts, you can close your eyes, but it's the truth. Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
For fucks sake, the reason they didn't have any of that stuff is because we were bombing the crap out of them. Do you think if we had committed ourselves to a policy of never harming civilianz that Hitler would have hesitated to put all of his resources squarely behind civilians?
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I don't see that from where I live.
I think fat_boy is right in that point. Which countries intercede for the Jews when Hitler started to hunt them? And attacks against Jews weren't a German only phenomenon before WW2 started. Jews had problems in many countries, the Nazis just increases suppression and then of course (and unfortunately) mass murder. And some other countries even followed Germany into the deliriousness of holocaust.
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Aye, the whole early phase of the war the Germans were going easy on us, figuring (very reasonably) that we would sign an armistice. Good job we had that war mongering asshole Churchill.. -- modified at 10:44 Wednesday 26th July, 2006
Ryan Roberts wrote:
asshole
Dont you mean arsehole? *gets ready for flames*
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Churchill
Churchill is one of the main reasons a vast mojority of europe isnt speaking german right now. I think a little kudos is in order - a waring PM when we clearly needed one.
"He who only hopes is forced to spend his life in the dark"
-
Yes. That is the point. We are better than them, we have standards, even when dealing with scum like Islamic terrorists.
Tronché pas ma miche!
fat_boy wrote:
we have standards
and they rely on that.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
-
For fucks sake, the reason they didn't have any of that stuff is because we were bombing the crap out of them. Do you think if we had committed ourselves to a policy of never harming civilianz that Hitler would have hesitated to put all of his resources squarely behind civilians?
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
For fucks sake, the reason they didn't have any of that stuff is because we were bombing the crap out of them.
Did you ever saw a documentation about the German industry? They had even nearly no resources before D-Day or bombing runs. The most tanks and plans couldn't be finished in production from 1942 on and there were problems even before.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Do you think if we had committed ourselves to a policy of never harming civilianz that Hitler would have hesitated to put all of his resources squarely behind civilians?
The most factories weren't hided behind civilians and just a few were hitten (is that the correct form of hit?). The most were functional until the allies came and overtook them. Second point: in the most factories prisoners were working not Germans because Germany hadn't enough workers. Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
for example you stood surrounded by your family and pointed a gun at me, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot no matter who was in the way.
Ouch - really scarey stuff - i dont imagine you'd have much of a problem pressing the 'ol 'red button' either. Red button aside, im not sure i would behave any different but i certainly wouldnt say 'I wouldn't hesitate'. And the war isnt being fought on those types of terms. Its bombs being dropped on innocent ppls heads. Simple as. Yeah, sure, there dropping leaflets saying 'please leave, were about to desimate the area'. But if you believe thats an effective strategy, i fear, your fundemetally mistaken. I dont agree with the war, i do think its a gross over-reaction on israels part. But, i also dont think that israel should be expected to sit back and let anyone attack their citizens (nor should the lebanon or palastine for that matter - sounds like a stalemate, eh?). If they are really that bothered about it (which they clearly are), they should have tackled this problem with a small amount of honour/foresight and moved in a ground force to ram raid possible targets, not just drop tonnes of US bought ordinance on their heads. They'd still no-doubt piss off alot of ppl, but nothing like the problems there going to have now. Last count was 400 dead and 600,000 displaced! Firstly they'd better hope that entire families were knocked out as part of the 400 killed by 'misplaced' bombs else there clearly going to have another fierce wave of terror attacks (dont doubt that hezbollah are behind the scenes as we speak creating the next wave of bombers). And the displaced? How easy is it going to be now to turn them against israel? and lets face it... they were half way there anyways. Various other countries have had similar problems at some time or another and didnt resort to full scale air bombardments. Which, imo, is the easiest way to create hate on the ground. But as always israel (and the US and the UK - well, pretty much the whole of the west) is scared stiff of losing soldiers in combat. Maybe if we started commiting ground troops are a rule of thumb the politicians wouldnt be so flippant about starting these conflicts. This, unfortunatly, promises to escalate into much much more than it is currently...
"He who only hopes is forced to spend his life in the dark"
Ian Harrigan wrote:
Maybe if we started commiting ground troops are a rule of thumb
Ground troops don't work without artillery, not for about 100 years. It is any commanders duty to spare the lives of his soldiers if possible.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Then you will know that the word 'ghetto' comes from the name of an area of venice where, in the 12th century, Jews lived, and had to return to beforedark. That is why I state there ischronic ant-semitism. It has been going on for a very long time.
Tronché pas ma miche!
-
fat_boy wrote:
we have standards
and they rely on that.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I don't see that from where I live.
I think fat_boy is right in that point. Which countries intercede for the Jews when Hitler started to hunt them? And attacks against Jews weren't a German only phenomenon before WW2 started. Jews had problems in many countries, the Nazis just increases suppression and then of course (and unfortunately) mass murder. And some other countries even followed Germany into the deliriousness of holocaust.
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Ian Harrigan wrote:
Maybe if we started commiting ground troops are a rule of thumb
Ground troops don't work without artillery, not for about 100 years. It is any commanders duty to spare the lives of his soldiers if possible.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Ground troops don't work without artillery
In your typical open conflict perhaps, but artilery stops bombardments when troops are tangled up in urban street conflicts - they should simply deploy ground forces (supported by tanks, apcs and general mechanised infantry - i have no problem with that) and sweep building, bunkers and genenrally make their presense felt... ... ... on the ground
Ryan Roberts wrote:
It is any commanders duty to spare the lives of his soldiers if possible
Even if that means killing innocents?????
"He who only hopes is forced to spend his life in the dark"
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
asshole
Dont you mean arsehole? *gets ready for flames*
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Churchill
Churchill is one of the main reasons a vast mojority of europe isnt speaking german right now. I think a little kudos is in order - a waring PM when we clearly needed one.
"He who only hopes is forced to spend his life in the dark"
Ian Harrigan wrote:
Dont you mean arsehole?
Yep, I'm getting far to mid atlantic lately :)
Ian Harrigan wrote:
I think a little kudos is in order - a waring PM when we clearly needed one.
Was sort of my point.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Ground troops don't work without artillery
In your typical open conflict perhaps, but artilery stops bombardments when troops are tangled up in urban street conflicts - they should simply deploy ground forces (supported by tanks, apcs and general mechanised infantry - i have no problem with that) and sweep building, bunkers and genenrally make their presense felt... ... ... on the ground
Ryan Roberts wrote:
It is any commanders duty to spare the lives of his soldiers if possible
Even if that means killing innocents?????
"He who only hopes is forced to spend his life in the dark"
Ian Harrigan wrote:
on the ground
Read what happened in the first Chechnya war. Huge mechanised force was sent into Grozny and was decimated by cheap RPG's and demo charges deployed from buildings.
Ian Harrigan wrote:
Even if that means killing innocents
The lives of soldiers have to be more important to a commander than potentially hostile civilians, yes. That's not the same thing as machine gunning crowds and deliberately bombing hospitals though.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Today - in this point you are right - Europe isn't really anti-semetic, except for some (and I hope very view) never learning idiots.
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
For fucks sake, the reason they didn't have any of that stuff is because we were bombing the crap out of them.
Did you ever saw a documentation about the German industry? They had even nearly no resources before D-Day or bombing runs. The most tanks and plans couldn't be finished in production from 1942 on and there were problems even before.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Do you think if we had committed ourselves to a policy of never harming civilianz that Hitler would have hesitated to put all of his resources squarely behind civilians?
The most factories weren't hided behind civilians and just a few were hitten (is that the correct form of hit?). The most were functional until the allies came and overtook them. Second point: in the most factories prisoners were working not Germans because Germany hadn't enough workers. Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
They had even nearly no resources before D-Day or bombing runs. The most tanks and plans couldn't be finished in production from 1942 on and there were problems even before.
Why?
Thank God for disproportional force.
