NationStates Jolt Archive

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?

Did you seriously just ask this question. This thread alone is enough of a reason for such a parody. Don't think for one moment that higher-ups wouldnt be above fabricating such a story to humiliate Blair or Bush in favor of their own candidate. Just look at how rotten the spanish socialists behaved after their crisis in wooing the voters to their side right when they were the most vulnerable. No, if there's one question whose answer is glaringly obvious it's "why."

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?

Did you seriously just ask this question. This thread alone is enough of a reason for such a parody. Don't think for one moment that higher-ups wouldnt be above fabricating such a story to humiliate Blair or Bush in favor of their own candidate. Just look at how rotten the spanish socialists behaved after their crisis in wooing the voters to their side right when they were the most vulnerable. No, if there's one question whose answer is glaringly obvious it's "why."

The British allegations are subject to further investigation, so let's put them aside for the moment.

The allegations of torture by the US forces are not even disputed.

One must indeed ask "why?"

The only fabrication involved in the allegations re US torture appears to be from those doing their best to find another issue.

Are the Spanish people not entitled to make democratic choices? Just because it may not suit the US?

Whether it's "legal" or not is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

When a despot is in power, acting to take him out is morally justified in and of itself.

Torturing those who assisted the despot of their own volition is simply administering of justice.

Justice is when you get what you deserve; nothing more, nothing less.

Whether it's "legal" or not is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

When a despot is in power, acting to take him out is morally justified in and of itself.

Torturing those who assisted the despot of their own volition is simply administering of justice.

Justice is when you get what you deserve; nothing more, nothing less.

Firstly, posting in capitals does not enhance your argument.

Secondly, torture is illegal and immoral. Always. For everyone. Period.

Thirdly, "Torturing those who assisted the despot" - if you have any, repeat any evidence that those being tortured were in fact gulity of anything, please feel free to publish it. This ridiculous assertion is not being used by Bush or the military - so where did you dig it up from?

And finally, please advise what you would consider to be suitable "justice" for the US torturers? Or does somehow "justice" not apply anymore?

Everyone knows that BBC is biased towards communist hippies so it can't be trusted.
How so? Do you even watch it? Is it run by communist hippies?

Well, it's run by non-americans...Therefore it must be anti-american crap. And once I saw a program where a gun had killed someone! That's a clear anti-extreme-republican message right there!You will be surprised at what the Beeb has in that link, then.

It's a liberal trick!

Whether it's "legal" or not is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

When a despot is in power, acting to take him out is morally justified in and of itself.

Torturing those who assisted the despot of their own volition is simply administering of justice.

Justice is when you get what you deserve; nothing more, nothing less.

Firstly, posting in capitals does not enhance your argument.
Neither does being wrong, but that does not seem to deter you.

Secondly, torture is illegal and immoral. Always. For everyone. Period.
Illegal, perhaps--but my whole point is that is irrelevant.

Immoral--of course not, if its victims deserve it.

Thirdly, "Torturing those who assisted the despot" - if you have any, repeat any evidence that those being tortured were in fact gulity of anything, please feel free to publish it. This ridiculous assertion is not being used by Bush or the military - so where did you dig it up from?
I'm not saying they are; I'm simply saying that if they are, they very much deserve torture.

And finally, please advise what you would consider to be suitable "justice" for the US torturers? Or does somehow "justice" not apply anymore?
Nothing, since there is nothing wrong with torturing a vile scumbag.

Whether it's "legal" or not is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

When a despot is in power, acting to take him out is morally justified in and of itself.

Torturing those who assisted the despot of their own volition is simply administering of justice.

Justice is when you get what you deserve; nothing more, nothing less.

Firstly, posting in capitals does not enhance your argument.
Neither does being wrong, but that does not seem to deter you.

Secondly, torture is illegal and immoral. Always. For everyone. Period.
Illegal, perhaps--but my whole point is that is irrelevant.

Immoral--of course not, if its victims deserve it.

Thirdly, "Torturing those who assisted the despot" - if you have any, repeat any evidence that those being tortured were in fact gulity of anything, please feel free to publish it. This ridiculous assertion is not being used by Bush or the military - so where did you dig it up from?
I'm not saying they are; I'm simply saying that if they are, they very much deserve torture.

And finally, please advise what you would consider to be suitable "justice" for the US torturers? Or does somehow "justice" not apply anymore?
Nothing, since there is nothing wrong with torturing a vile scumbag.

In summary of your argument then, legality or morality are irrelevant.
Evidence is unnecessary. Justice is only selectively required.

About the sort of loony rant I would expect from anyone attempting to justify torture. :roll:

Whether it's "legal" or not is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

When a despot is in power, acting to take him out is morally justified in and of itself.

Torturing those who assisted the despot of their own volition is simply administering of justice.

Justice is when you get what you deserve; nothing more, nothing less.

Firstly, posting in capitals does not enhance your argument.
Neither does being wrong, but that does not seem to deter you.

Secondly, torture is illegal and immoral. Always. For everyone. Period.
Illegal, perhaps--but my whole point is that is irrelevant.

Immoral--of course not, if its victims deserve it.

Thirdly, "Torturing those who assisted the despot" - if you have any, repeat any evidence that those being tortured were in fact gulity of anything, please feel free to publish it. This ridiculous assertion is not being used by Bush or the military - so where did you dig it up from?
I'm not saying they are; I'm simply saying that if they are, they very much deserve torture.

And finally, please advise what you would consider to be suitable "justice" for the US torturers? Or does somehow "justice" not apply anymore?
Nothing, since there is nothing wrong with torturing a vile scumbag.

In summary of your argument then, legality or morality are irrelevant.
Evidence is unnecessary. Justice is only selectively required.

About the sort of loony rant I would expect from anyone attempting to justify torture. :roll:

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

As the latest Passion of the Christ and the not-so-latest Pearl Harbor will tell you.

Uh, excuse you. What the heck do you mean the Passion of Christ? That was unfailingly close to the Gospel's account, which unless you have any other manuscripts on Jesus' death dating from the first century, is the closest thing to "history" that we have! Finally, as they say 'the vitors write the history books' which means, of course, that anyone's account of history is just that, THEIR account, and certainly not THE account. (That's why the Passion was superior, it was based on FOUR people's account, thus gaining better picture of what actually happened.)

Ahh but how do you validate the Bible?

I don't recall anybody finding any scrolls or what not written in the hand of the people you mentioned.

Never mind the fact that many of the Gospels were written 80+ years after his death.

Oh wait I forgot, you have to have faith!

wow

Whether it's "legal" or not is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

When a despot is in power, acting to take him out is morally justified in and of itself.

Torturing those who assisted the despot of their own volition is simply administering of justice.

Justice is when you get what you deserve; nothing more, nothing less.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Oh what a wonderful example of justice.
So next time you or a friend or a relative get stopped by the police for speeding, the best thing all round is a bloody good hiding from a few truncheons then? Better still, take him or her back to the station and wire them up to the grid for an hour or so, that'll teach 'em. Maybe even force them to strip naked and take a photo, then post it outside on the bulletin board. Tell me, do you read the old testament once or twice a day?

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?
.. Don't think for one moment that higher-ups wouldnt be above fabricating such a story to humiliate Blair or Bush in favor of their own candidate. ...
No, if there's one question whose answer is glaringly obvious it's "why."
What higher-ups?

The very small minority is to be punished by Courts Marshall. Don't let this small drawback make us take our eye off the ball. Don't let another 9/11 or Bali bombing get a chance to happen again. He who endures, wins. :wink:

How does the war in Iraq prevent another 9/11 ?

The Muslim Fanatics (not all Muslims) have as their raison d'être a one Muslim world, with no satanists (Christian or non Muslim) allowed. If they succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, it will be the old domino effect. I realise that the domino effect may sound Vietnam era against the communists, however have a read of the radical Muslims plan to dominate the world. I enjoy my freedom to much to let them just take that away from me.

The very small minority is to be punished by Courts Marshall. Don't let this small drawback make us take our eye off the ball. Don't let another 9/11 or Bali bombing get a chance to happen again. He who endures, wins. :wink:

How does the war in Iraq prevent another 9/11 ?

The Muslim Fanatics (not all Muslims) have as their raison d'être a one Muslim world, with no satanists (Christian or non Muslim) allowed. If they succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, it will be the old domino effect. I realise that the domino effect may sound Vietnam era against the communists, however have a read of the radical Muslims plan to dominate the world. I enjoy my freedom to much to let them just take that away from me.

The world must be fun when you see it like a Charlie Chaplin film

In summary of your argument then, legality or morality are irrelevant.
No...only legality is. Show me where you incorrectly think I said that.

Evidence is unnecessary.
False...show me where you incorrectly think I said that.
Justice is only selectively required.:
False...show me where you incorrectly think I said that.

Oh what a wonderful example of justice.
So next time you or a friend or a relative get stopped by the police for speeding, the best thing all round is a bloody good hiding from a few truncheons then? Better still, take him or her back to the station and wire them up to the grid for an hour or so, that'll teach 'em. Maybe even force them to strip naked and take a photo, then post it outside on the bulletin board.
If speeding were indeed an act of evil, then yes, such punishments would be appropriate.

However, speeding is NOT an evil act, so your retarded attempt at an analogy is laughably inappropriate.

Tell me, do you read the old testament once or twice a day?
No, mysticism is incredibly retarded.

The very small minority is to be punished by Courts Marshall. Don't let this small drawback make us take our eye off the ball. Don't let another 9/11 or Bali bombing get a chance to happen again. He who endures, wins. :wink:

How does the war in Iraq prevent another 9/11 ?

The Muslim Fanatics (not all Muslims) have as their raison d'être a one Muslim world, with no satanists (Christian or non Muslim) allowed. If they succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, it will be the old domino effect. I realise that the domino effect may sound Vietnam era against the communists, however have a read of the radical Muslims plan to dominate the world. I enjoy my freedom to much to let them just take that away from me.

The world must be fun when you see it like a Charlie Chaplin film

:?: :?: Trust me, I won't be laughing if it happens, why will you?

The very small minority is to be punished by Courts Marshall. Don't let this small drawback make us take our eye off the ball. Don't let another 9/11 or Bali bombing get a chance to happen again. He who endures, wins. :wink:

How does the war in Iraq prevent another 9/11 ?

The Muslim Fanatics (not all Muslims) have as their raison d'être a one Muslim world, with no satanists (Christian or non Muslim) allowed. If they succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, it will be the old domino effect. I realise that the domino effect may sound Vietnam era against the communists, however have a read of the radical Muslims plan to dominate the world. I enjoy my freedom to much to let them just take that away from me.

The world must be fun when you see it like a Charlie Chaplin film

:?: :?: Trust me, I won't be laughing if it happens, why will you?

Black and white depresses me.

The very small minority is to be punished by Courts Marshall. Don't let this small drawback make us take our eye off the ball. Don't let another 9/11 or Bali bombing get a chance to happen again. He who endures, wins. :wink:

How does the war in Iraq prevent another 9/11 ?

The Muslim Fanatics (not all Muslims) have as their raison d'être a one Muslim world, with no satanists (Christian or non Muslim) allowed. If they succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, it will be the old domino effect. I realise that the domino effect may sound Vietnam era against the communists, however have a read of the radical Muslims plan to dominate the world. I enjoy my freedom to much to let them just take that away from me.

The world must be fun when you see it like a Charlie Chaplin film

:?: :?: Trust me, I won't be laughing if it happens, why will you?

Black and white depresses me.

Yeh, racism depresses me to :lol:

In summary of your argument then, legality or morality are irrelevant.
No...only legality is. Show me where you incorrectly think I said that.


Your post said : Illegal, perhaps--but my whole point is that is irrelevant.
Immoral--of course not, if its victims deserve it.

Evidence is unnecessary.
False...show me where you incorrectly think I said that.

My question and your response read: Thirdly, "Torturing those who assisted the despot" - if you have any, repeat any evidence that those being tortured were in fact gulity of anything, please feel free to publish it. This ridiculous assertion is not being used by Bush or the military - so where did you dig it up from?

I'm not saying they are; I'm simply saying that if they are, they very much deserve torture.

You are therefore obviously prepared to pre-judge the victims of torture, without any reference to any evidence.

Justice is only selectively required.:
False...show me where you incorrectly think I said that.

My question and your response :
And finally, please advise what you would consider to be suitable "justice" for the US torturers? Or does somehow "justice" not apply anymore?

Nothing, since there is nothing wrong with torturing a vile scumbag.

Anything else I can help you with?

[

How does the war in Iraq prevent another 9/11 ?

The Muslim Fanatics (not all Muslims) have as their raison d'être a one Muslim world, with no satanists (Christian or non Muslim) allowed. If they succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, it will be the old domino effect. I realise that the domino effect may sound Vietnam era against the communists, however have a read of the radical Muslims plan to dominate the world. I enjoy my freedom to much to let them just take that away from me.[/quote]
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Correct me if I'm wrong do, but I don't recall much problems with Muslims before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which the CIA interfered with big time. Leaving aside the Israeli- Palestinian troubles which were always localised. I seem to remember the west and Islaam getting along quite reasonably before that. Apart from the odd spat, OPEC kept us well supplied and used the profits from oil to construct modern cities with excellent infrastructure. In the seventies and eighties, they were trying to build an economy that would last long after the oil ran out. Remember all the Arabs in New York and London? Then Sadaam was told that America had no opinion in any fight with Kuwait, he took it (he's not the best diplomat in the world) as a green light to take back what had once been part of Iraq. But the west decided that it didn't fancy that too much and the Americans, Brits and many other Arab countries formed the 'original' coalition to kick the Iraqi arses back into their own yard. Bin Laden and his chums, who the CIA had backed heavily against the soviets, then saw not Russian infidels in Afghanistan but American and British forces in their most holy of places, in Saudi. Quaeda was outraged at this betrayal by the Saudis and the complete insensitivity of the Americans and being a fighting group protested vehemently. They got nowhere so they had the crazy and murderous idea of driving aeroplanes into the Twin Towers, in the stupid hope that the Americans would leave the area to Islaamists.
Understandably and rightly, the US could not let that pass and so they demanded that the taliban in Afghanistan hand over Bin Laden. The whole world was grieving with America and the UN and American allies decided to enter the country to get Bin Laden and the rest of Qaueda. This failed and turned Afghanistan from a primitive and helpless country into a wasteland. Then, following an old war plan, the US and UK illegally invaded Iraq which was no part.of the Queda terror, using lies about WMD to ty and convince the rest of us that Sadaam posed a clear and present danger. Now scores of coalition soldiers are being killed each week and uncountable Iraqis, all for the mad fixation of a few evil US politicians.
We now have more terrorists in the world, in Arabia, Indonesia, Europe and America than ever before. There never was a 'domino' theory applicable to Islaamic states. Indeed, the only shaky dominoes now are other Arab countries like Saudi and Kuwait and their threat comes from the American inspired terrorists. 'War on terror', my arse. 'Creation of terrorism' is what we've now got.
After 9/11, the whole world felt Americas pain and the US had not had so much love and respect for a very long time. The world glady joined in against the fight in Afghanistan. With Iraq, Bush has pissed away all that respect and affection. Now, mighty and freedom-loving Americans have been caught treating Iraqis like animals. Well done Bush, you have turned valued and respected allies into enemies.

Whether it's "legal" or not is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
Most of the world would disagree with you there.

When a despot is in power, acting to take him out is morally justified in and of itself.
In 1984 Donald Rumsfield went to Iraq to re-establish diplomatic ties with Saddam. While Saddam was in power, the US and other western countries, gave him the "tools" to carry out his actions, including chemicals that he used against Iran, during the Iran/Iraq War. How do you spell complicity?

Torturing those who assisted the despot of their own volition is simply administering of justice.
How would this distinguish you from Saddam Hussein?

Justice is when you get what you deserve; nothing more, nothing less.
What do you mean by the term "justice"? Did all the innocent men, women, and children that have been killed in this conflict get what they "deserve"?

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?

Naturally, the Brittish pictures are fake. But, those barbaric Americans are definitely guilty, even with no trial and no more evidence than there is against the Britts. :roll:

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?

Naturally, the Brittish pictures are fake. But, those barbaric Americans are definitely guilty, even with no trial and no more evidence than there is against the Britts. :roll:

Well, they did find the yanks that were responsible for the torture in those photos...

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

Here is some history for you, when the US entered the war the Nazis were at he edge of Moscow, slaughtering an ill-equipped demoralised Soviet army. All of Europe that had the heart to fight(not that it was a very large percentage) was cowering in England. And the Japanese were steam-rolling through the Pacific. What changed that suddenly reversed fortunes? I can think of one very big thing.

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

Here is some history for you, when the US entered the war the Nazis were at he edge of Moscow, slaughtering an ill-equipped demoralised Soviet army. All of Europe that had the heart to fight(not that it was a very large percentage) was cowering in England. And the Japanese were steam-rolling through the Pacific. What changed that suddenly reversed fortunes? I can think of one very big thing.

Yep...The yanks started the Russian winter that killed all those german troops. Thank you USA!!!

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?

Naturally, the Brittish pictures are fake. But, those barbaric Americans are definitely guilty, even with no trial and no more evidence than there is against the Britts. :roll:

Well, they did find the yanks that were responsible for the torture in those photos...
Did they? has there been a trial? Where are the Brits from the photos? Is anyone looking for them? Or are they to be simply assumed innocent?

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?

Naturally, the Brittish pictures are fake. But, those barbaric Americans are definitely guilty, even with no trial and no more evidence than there is against the Britts. :roll:

Well, they did find the yanks that were responsible for the torture in those photos...
Did they? has there been a trial? Where are the Brits from the photos? Is anyone looking for them? Or are they to be simply assumed innocent?

Both incidents are currently being investigated, as they should be.

But it is interesting to note that neither the British nor the US administrations are rushing to say that such a thing has not occured.

Instead, they are adopting the "I'm appalled, are you appalled too?" approach.

I doubt very much if you would see this reaction if the allegations had no substance behind them.

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

Here is some history for you, when the US entered the war the Nazis were at he edge of Moscow, slaughtering an ill-equipped demoralised Soviet army. All of Europe that had the heart to fight(not that it was a very large percentage) was cowering in England. And the Japanese were steam-rolling through the Pacific. What changed that suddenly reversed fortunes? I can think of one very big thing.

Yep...The yanks started the Russian winter that killed all those german troops. Thank you USA!!!More to the point, they supplied the USSR with vehicles, ammunition, food, fuel, weapons that prevented the disintergration of the Soviet army, they began to send even more supplies and started sending troops to England, giving the Nazis another theatre to prepare to defend, dividing thier forces further. Then, planned and lead the invasion of western Europe that placed Berlin in jeopardy and made the Nazis truly defend thier country for the first time in the war. All the while, undertaking an equally large and diffcult effort, practically alone, half of the Earth away. But, no big deal, right?

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?

Naturally, the Brittish pictures are fake. But, those barbaric Americans are definitely guilty, even with no trial and no more evidence than there is against the Britts. :roll:

Well, they did find the yanks that were responsible for the torture in those photos...
Did they? has there been a trial? Where are the Brits from the photos? Is anyone looking for them? Or are they to be simply assumed innocent?

6 soldiers have been charged with abusing prisoners.
17 have been relieved and are under investigation.

And yes, the british are looking for those people in the photos. And there is still some question about their authenticity.

Don't you watch the news?

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?

Naturally, the Brittish pictures are fake. But, those barbaric Americans are definitely guilty, even with no trial and no more evidence than there is against the Britts. :roll:

Well, they did find the yanks that were responsible for the torture in those photos...
Did they? has there been a trial? Where are the Brits from the photos? Is anyone looking for them? Or are they to be simply assumed innocent?

6 soldiers have been charged with abusing prisoners.
17 have been relieved and are under investigation.

And yes, the british are looking for those people in the photos. And there is still some question about their authenticity.

Don't you watch the news?


Figures you would deny the British photos.

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?

Naturally, the Brittish pictures are fake. But, those barbaric Americans are definitely guilty, even with no trial and no more evidence than there is against the Britts. :roll:

Well, they did find the yanks that were responsible for the torture in those photos...
Did they? has there been a trial? Where are the Brits from the photos? Is anyone looking for them? Or are they to be simply assumed innocent?

6 soldiers have been charged with abusing prisoners.
17 have been relieved and are under investigation.

And yes, the british are looking for those people in the photos. And there is still some question about their authenticity.

Don't you watch the news?


Figures you would deny the British photos.

Quit trolling...

[quote=Deeloleo]
The torture and humiliation of prisoners is wrong, no matter who is responsible. SNIP

Meanwhile, from what I can see of the USA, the media seems to be carefully shying away from the incident. Which brings us back to why Europeans hate the way your country is run so much. Try and elect someone who isn't completely tied up with corporate and media interests sometime, hmmm?

Which media outlets are you referring to? In Monday May 3rd's Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, etc. the story is page one and above the fold - still.

:shock:

Dupe deleted

Oh, because we disaprove of ghouls prifitting from pictures of caskets we are censored? I'm glad we are, then.

That was not the purpose in prohibiting those pictures. Prohibiting them has/had more to do with propaganda than respect for the families of the dead. Flag draped coffins are not explicit pictures of individuals torn apart by the ravages of war. By their nature they are sanitized version of the much harsher reality.

:shock:

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?Here's a story from the Beeb (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3678221.stm) that lends credibility to your opinion.

Everyone knows that BBC is biased towards communist hippies so it can't be trusted.

Interesting display of "knowledge." The report is that - a report. It quotes members of the UK government and military. I don't see a position taken save by The Mirror which was the publication that printed the photos.

:shock:

Figures you would deny the British photos.

Well, some of the things that are wrong with the photos.

1. Wrong type of rifle. British soldiers now use the SA80 mark II not mark I as in the photos.

2. Front Line soldiers would wear watches and carry ammo, the ammo pouches on the webbing belt of the "soldier" are empty.

3. British soldiers do not tuck their trousers into their boots whilst in the desert, it allows sand to get in. They use trousers with elastic bottoms.

4. Why is the "captive" in a clean t-shirt?

5. Why are the photo's in black and white? Do people usually carry about a black and white camera?

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

Here is some history for you, when the US entered the war the Nazis were at he edge of Moscow, slaughtering an ill-equipped demoralised Soviet army. All of Europe that had the heart to fight(not that it was a very large percentage) was cowering in England. And the Japanese were steam-rolling through the Pacific. What changed that suddenly reversed fortunes? I can think of one very big thing.

Yep...The yanks started the Russian winter that killed all those german troops. Thank you USA!!!

-Buzzer sound-

Ahm thank you but do you care to site some numbers on how many Germans froze to death?

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

Here is some history for you, when the US entered the war the Nazis were at he edge of Moscow, slaughtering an ill-equipped demoralised Soviet army. All of Europe that had the heart to fight(not that it was a very large percentage) was cowering in England. And the Japanese were steam-rolling through the Pacific. What changed that suddenly reversed fortunes? I can think of one very big thing.

Yep...The yanks started the Russian winter that killed all those german troops. Thank you USA!!!More to the point, they supplied the USSR with vehicles, ammunition, food, fuel, weapons that prevented the disintergration of the Soviet army, they began to send even more supplies and started sending troops to England, giving the Nazis another theatre to prepare to defend, dividing thier forces further. Then, planned and lead the invasion of western Europe that placed Berlin in jeopardy and made the Nazis truly defend thier country for the first time in the war. All the while, undertaking an equally large and diffcult effort, practically alone, half of the Earth away. But, no big deal, right?


I think you are one of the unfortunate victims of the egocentric manner in which history is taught in the USA. The lend lease program was of fairly minor importance and certainly did not "prevent the USSR from disintegrating". Given the industrial output of the USSR by 1942 the weapons which the US supplied USSR with were unecessary, furthermore the light, poorly armoured tanks the US donated were a sorry comparison to the likes of the Russian T-34 and KV-1 models. The war in the east was won through the defence of Leningrad and Moscow and that victories at Stalingrad and Kursk. These were brought about by a number of factors - skillful Russian generals such as Zhukov and Chuikov having learned from their mistakes, their industrial recovery, the size of the resource pool of manpower and equipment they could draw from, the winter, the length of the German supply lines, the meddling of Adolf Hiter.

The US played a huge part in winning the war particularly in Asia, but they did not single handedly win the war, nor could they have done.

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

Here is some history for you, when the US entered the war the Nazis were at he edge of Moscow, slaughtering an ill-equipped demoralised Soviet army. All of Europe that had the heart to fight(not that it was a very large percentage) was cowering in England. And the Japanese were steam-rolling through the Pacific. What changed that suddenly reversed fortunes? I can think of one very big thing.

Yep...The yanks started the Russian winter that killed all those german troops. Thank you USA!!!More to the point, they supplied the USSR with vehicles, ammunition, food, fuel, weapons that prevented the disintergration of the Soviet army, they began to send even more supplies and started sending troops to England, giving the Nazis another theatre to prepare to defend, dividing thier forces further. Then, planned and lead the invasion of western Europe that placed Berlin in jeopardy and made the Nazis truly defend thier country for the first time in the war. All the while, undertaking an equally large and diffcult effort, practically alone, half of the Earth away. But, no big deal, right?


I think you are one of the unfortunate victims of the egocentric manner in which history is taught in the USA. The lend lease program was of fairly minor importance and certainly did not "prevent the USSR from disintegrating". Given the industrial output of the USSR by 1942 the weapons which the US supplied USSR with were unecessary, furthermore the light, poorly armoured tanks the US donated were a sorry comparison to the likes of the Russian T-34 and KV-1 models. The war in the east was won through the defence of Leningrad and Moscow and that victories at Stalingrad and Kursk. These were brought about by a number of factors - skillful Russian generals such as Zhukov and Chuikov having learned from their mistakes, their industrial recovery, the size of the resource pool of manpower and equipment they could draw from, the winter, the length of the German supply lines, the meddling of Adolf Hiter.

The US played a huge part in winning the war particularly in Asia, but they did not single handedly win the war, nor could they have done.

My question and your response :
And finally, please advise what you would consider to be suitable "justice" for the US torturers? Or does somehow "justice" not apply anymore?

Nothing, since there is nothing wrong with torturing a vile scumbag.


Yes, that's what I said. I fail to see your point.

Unless you're claiming that there is something wrong with torturing vile scumbags, and that those who do so deserve to be punished themselves. In that case, you're horribly incorrect.

Actually the article just said that this information was confirmed in March, so CBS had it and didn't air anything for a month. This is another example of the media's self-censorship and the lack of real information Americans are getting. I hate to think what kind misconceptions people who only watch Fox State Television have.


Making a stupid comment about Fox news doesn't help your case any. BTW, Fox acted the same way as CNN and BBC.

It's a proven fact, not a stupid statement. There was a study done of people who falsely believe that we have found WMD's in Iraq and that Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda. The #1 news source for people with those misconceptions about the war in Iraq was Fox State Television.

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

Here is some history for you, when the US entered the war the Nazis were at he edge of Moscow, slaughtering an ill-equipped demoralised Soviet army. All of Europe that had the heart to fight(not that it was a very large percentage) was cowering in England. And the Japanese were steam-rolling through the Pacific. What changed that suddenly reversed fortunes? I can think of one very big thing.

Yep...The yanks started the Russian winter that killed all those german troops. Thank you USA!!!More to the point, they supplied the USSR with vehicles, ammunition, food, fuel, weapons that prevented the disintergration of the Soviet army, they began to send even more supplies and started sending troops to England, giving the Nazis another theatre to prepare to defend, dividing thier forces further. Then, planned and lead the invasion of western Europe that placed Berlin in jeopardy and made the Nazis truly defend thier country for the first time in the war. All the while, undertaking an equally large and diffcult effort, practically alone, half of the Earth away. But, no big deal, right?


I think you are one of the unfortunate victims of the egocentric manner in which history is taught in the USA. The lend lease program was of fairly minor importance and certainly did not "prevent the USSR from disintegrating". Given the industrial output of the USSR by 1942 the weapons which the US supplied USSR with were unecessary, furthermore the light, poorly armoured tanks the US donated were a sorry comparison to the likes of the Russian T-34 and KV-1 models. The war in the east was won through the defence of Leningrad and Moscow and that victories at Stalingrad and Kursk. These were brought about by a number of factors - skillful Russian generals such as Zhukov and Chuikov having learned from their mistakes, their industrial recovery, the size of the resource pool of manpower and equipment they could draw from, the winter, the length of the German supply lines, the meddling of Adolf Hiter.

The US played a huge part in winning the war particularly in Asia, but they did not single handedly win the war, nor could they have done.

I would like to think that no American is taught that we did it single-handedly..at least I wasn't...but..Lend-Lease was HUGE for England at a time when they needed the material...and one can only surmise if the Soviet Union or England or their possessions in the East could have survived Tojo's and Hitler's armies if the US had stayed out of it...were it not for Japan's attack we might not have entered the war, there was a huge American Bund Party in the States during the 1930's - 1940's that was openly Nazi..and many Americans having had to deal with Europe 25 yrs earlier were very content to stay out of this fray.

Whether it's "legal" or not is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
Most of the world would disagree with you there.
Then most of the world is made up of unprincipled sheep who don't bother to determine the moral legitimacy of acts for themselves.

When a despot is in power, acting to take him out is morally justified in and of itself.
In 1984 Donald Rumsfield went to Iraq to re-establish diplomatic ties with Saddam. While Saddam was in power, the US and other western countries, gave him the "tools" to carry out his actions, including chemicals that he used against Iran, during the Iran/Iraq War. How do you spell complicity?[/quote]
That's nice. To the best of my knowledge, Saddam had not become a despot by then. If he had, then what took place then was wrong. However, it does not diminish the moral correctness of what is taking place now.

Torturing those who assisted the despot of their own volition is simply administering of justice.
How would this distinguish you from Saddam Hussein?
The fact that Saddam tortured people who did nothing wrong (and therefore did NOT deserve to be tortured), while (assuming the victims of the recent torture were in fact complicit in Saddam Hussein's regime) in this case people who did something wrong (and therefore deserve to be tortured) are being tortured.

Justice is when you get what you deserve; nothing more, nothing less.
What do you mean by the term "justice"? Did all the innocent men, women, and children that have been killed in this conflict get what they "deserve"?
No. But that does not alter the fact that justice has been served to those who DID deserve death or torture.

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

Here is some history for you, when the US entered the war the Nazis were at he edge of Moscow, slaughtering an ill-equipped demoralised Soviet army. All of Europe that had the heart to fight(not that it was a very large percentage) was cowering in England. And the Japanese were steam-rolling through the Pacific. What changed that suddenly reversed fortunes? I can think of one very big thing.

Yep...The yanks started the Russian winter that killed all those german troops. Thank you USA!!!More to the point, they supplied the USSR with vehicles, ammunition, food, fuel, weapons that prevented the disintergration of the Soviet army, they began to send even more supplies and started sending troops to England, giving the Nazis another theatre to prepare to defend, dividing thier forces further. Then, planned and lead the invasion of western Europe that placed Berlin in jeopardy and made the Nazis truly defend thier country for the first time in the war. All the while, undertaking an equally large and diffcult effort, practically alone, half of the Earth away. But, no big deal, right?


I think you are one of the unfortunate victims of the egocentric manner in which history is taught in the USA. The lend lease program was of fairly minor importance and certainly did not "prevent the USSR from disintegrating".



Oh come now that is nothing more then speculation. My grandmothers boyfriend did the Murmanks runs and he said the Russians were always happy to see them.


Given the industrial output of the USSR by 1942 the weapons which the US supplied USSR with were unecessary, furthermore the light, poorly armoured tanks the US donated were a sorry comparison to the likes of the Russian T-34 and KV-1 models.


Whoops, they were not rolling them out when the Germans attacked. If they had "suffient" quantities at the time, the Germans would not have made it to Moscow.

Sorry the supplies were needed badly to delay the germans so the Urals could get rolling.


The war in the east was won through the defence of Leningrad and Moscow and that victories at Stalingrad and Kursk. These were brought about by a number of factors - skillful Russian generals such as Zhukov and Chuikov having learned from their mistakes, their industrial recovery, the size of the resource pool of manpower and equipment they could draw from, the winter, the length of the German supply lines, the meddling of Adolf Hiter.


Ahh but you leave off the battle of Berlin where the Russian army had almost collapsed. It was only saved when Zhukov pulled a couple Guards divisions and force them into some rather nasty house to house fighting that made the Germans finally toss it in.


The US played a huge part in winning the war particularly in Asia, but they did not single handedly win the war, nor could they have done.

The USSR could not have won the war on its' own. It is easy to out produce the Germans when British and AMERICAN bombers keep visting their production facilities.

The forces of DDAY also played a hand as well. If they were just an annoyance, why were the Germans pulling veteren SS units off the eastern front to deal with them.

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

Here is some history for you, when the US entered the war the Nazis were at he edge of Moscow, slaughtering an ill-equipped demoralised Soviet army. All of Europe that had the heart to fight(not that it was a very large percentage) was cowering in England. And the Japanese were steam-rolling through the Pacific. What changed that suddenly reversed fortunes? I can think of one very big thing.

Yep...The yanks started the Russian winter that killed all those german troops. Thank you USA!!!More to the point, they supplied the USSR with vehicles, ammunition, food, fuel, weapons that prevented the disintergration of the Soviet army, they began to send even more supplies and started sending troops to England, giving the Nazis another theatre to prepare to defend, dividing thier forces further. Then, planned and lead the invasion of western Europe that placed Berlin in jeopardy and made the Nazis truly defend thier country for the first time in the war. All the while, undertaking an equally large and diffcult effort, practically alone, half of the Earth away. But, no big deal, right?


I think you are one of the unfortunate victims of the egocentric manner in which history is taught in the USA. The lend lease program was of fairly minor importance and certainly did not "prevent the USSR from disintegrating". Given the industrial output of the USSR by 1942 the weapons which the US supplied USSR with were unecessary, furthermore the light, poorly armoured tanks the US donated were a sorry comparison to the likes of the Russian T-34 and KV-1 models. The war in the east was won through the defence of Leningrad and Moscow and that victories at Stalingrad and Kursk. These were brought about by a number of factors - skillful Russian generals such as Zhukov and Chuikov having learned from their mistakes, their industrial recovery, the size of the resource pool of manpower and equipment they could draw from, the winter, the length of the German supply lines, the meddling of Adolf Hiter.

The US played a huge part in winning the war particularly in Asia, but they did not single handedly win the war, nor could they have done.

I would like to think that no American is taught that we did it single-handedly..at least I wasn't...but..Lend-Lease was HUGE for England at a time when they needed the material...and one can only surmise if the Soviet Union or England or their possessions in the East could have survived Tojo's and Hitler's armies if the US had stayed out of it...were it not for Japan's attack we might not have entered the war, there was a huge American Bund Party in the States during the 1930's - 1940's that was openly Nazi..and many Americans having had to deal with Europe 25 yrs earlier were very content to stay out of this fray.

I can't say for now but when I was first learning the history of WWII, it was not taught that way.

Usually, the Americans that claim we won the war, get their history from Hollywood! Such as the recent Pearl Harbor film! :roll:

However, those that actually read the history will say the allies won the war. Great Britain and the US won it from the West(not demeaning the efforts of the other nations just refearing to the amount of soldiers supplied) and the Soviets from the East.

There is a "movement" in Europe and some parts of the former USSR that actually try to suggest that the Americans really didn't do anything for the war. They usually tend to be the teen to 20 somethings.

The former USSR people I tend to give the benefit that some of their knowledge comes from "Goverment" sponsered teachings(for example, I know one girl whose grandfather was a general of the airforce and he told her the Soviets domainated the air.

The Europeans that spout this. Well I write it off to nothing more then they just hate America.

All in all, as the people who lived the war die off, more "facts" start to appear.

Women Gang-Raped by US soldiers

This is why there is an Up-rising... this is why the militias are fighting the soldiers... this is why they call America the Great SATAN...


Women Gang-Raped by US soldiers

Imagine that this was your sister, mother, wife, girl-friend

Imagine that this was your town...


(I won't link to the site directly, it's too disgusting)
torture Iraq women abu ghraib -- type this into google for a link to a website

Women Gang-Raped by US soldiers

This is why there is an up-rising... this is why the militias are fighting the soldiers... this is why they call America the Great SATAN...


Women Gang-Raped by US soldiers

Imagine that this was your sister, mother, wife, girl-friend

Imagine that this was your town...


(I won't link to the site directly, it's too disgusting)
torture Iraq women abu ghraib -- type this into google for a link to a website

Women Gang-Raped by US soldiers

This is why there is an up-rising... this is why the militias are fighting the soldiers... this is why they call America the Great SATAN...


Women Gang-Raped by US soldiers

Imagine that this was your sister, mother, wife, girl-friend

Imagine that this was your town...


(I won't link to the site directly, it's too disgusting)
torture Iraq women abu ghraib -- type this into google for a link to a website

I don't believe anyone is so fragile..you thought nothing of putting up the pics of the men now Texax?...put up your link

oh..and you'd have more credibility if you stated "Allegedly"..otherwise you're convicting a man without due process....the very same rant you apply to the Branch Davidians should apply to US servicemembers who may be accused of a crime don't you think?

Regarding Iraq and rape of women...

http://www.patriot-paradox.com/archives/000106.html

Women Gang-Raped by US soldiers

This is why there is an up-rising... this is why the militias are fighting the soldiers... this is why they call America the Great SATAN...


Women Gang-Raped by US soldiers

Imagine that this was your sister, mother, wife, girl-friend

Imagine that this was your town...


(I won't link to the site directly, it's too disgusting)
torture Iraq women abu ghraib -- type this into google for a link to a website

Actually the gang-rape shots look like they are out of a bad porn film.

Consider this:

Of the recent events of the prison case, you can clearly make out faces of the guards. You don't get a decent face of the so called rapists.

With all the animosity against the Americans right now; such an event would be all over the place. It only appears on an Arab propaganda site.

Let's not forget that soldiers in the prison shots are wearing desert clothing and yet the gang rape shots are green.

Sorry but I think those are rather bad fakes.....

[quote=Texastambul]Women Gang-Raped by US soldiers

This is why there is an up-rising... this is why the militias are fighting the soldiers... this is why they call America the Great SATAN...


Women Gang-Raped by US soldiers

Imagine that this was your sister, mother, wife, girl-friend

Imagine that this was your town...


(I won't link to the site directly, it's too disgusting)
torture Iraq women abu ghraib -- type this into google for a link to a website

I don't believe anyone is so fragile..you thought nothing of putting up the pics of the men now Texax?...put up your link

I'd hoped the google directions weren't too hard to follow!

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/iraq.html

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

Here is some history for you, when the US entered the war the Nazis were at he edge of Moscow, slaughtering an ill-equipped demoralised Soviet army. All of Europe that had the heart to fight(not that it was a very large percentage) was cowering in England. And the Japanese were steam-rolling through the Pacific. What changed that suddenly reversed fortunes? I can think of one very big thing.

Yep...The yanks started the Russian winter that killed all those german troops. Thank you USA!!!More to the point, they supplied the USSR with vehicles, ammunition, food, fuel, weapons that prevented the disintergration of the Soviet army, they began to send even more supplies and started sending troops to England, giving the Nazis another theatre to prepare to defend, dividing thier forces further. Then, planned and lead the invasion of western Europe that placed Berlin in jeopardy and made the Nazis truly defend thier country for the first time in the war. All the while, undertaking an equally large and diffcult effort, practically alone, half of the Earth away. But, no big deal, right?


I think you are one of the unfortunate victims of the egocentric manner in which history is taught in the USA. The lend lease program was of fairly minor importance and certainly did not "prevent the USSR from disintegrating".



Oh come now that is nothing more then speculation. My grandmothers boyfriend did the Murmanks runs and he said the Russians were always happy to see them.


Given the industrial output of the USSR by 1942 the weapons which the US supplied USSR with were unecessary, furthermore the light, poorly armoured tanks the US donated were a sorry comparison to the likes of the Russian T-34 and KV-1 models.


Whoops, they were not rolling them out when the Germans attacked. If they had "suffient" quantities at the time, the Germans would not have made it to Moscow.

Sorry the supplies were needed badly to delay the germans so the Urals could get rolling.


The war in the east was won through the defence of Leningrad and Moscow and that victories at Stalingrad and Kursk. These were brought about by a number of factors - skillful Russian generals such as Zhukov and Chuikov having learned from their mistakes, their industrial recovery, the size of the resource pool of manpower and equipment they could draw from, the winter, the length of the German supply lines, the meddling of Adolf Hiter.


Ahh but you leave off the battle of Berlin where the Russian army had almost collapsed. It was only saved when Zhukov pulled a couple Guards divisions and force them into some rather nasty house to house fighting that made the Germans finally toss it in.


The US played a huge part in winning the war particularly in Asia, but they did not single handedly win the war, nor could they have done.

The USSR could not have won the war on its' own. It is easy to out produce the Germans when British and AMERICAN bombers keep visting their production facilities.

The forces of DDAY also played a hand as well. If they were just an annoyance, why were the Germans pulling veteren SS units off the eastern front to deal with them.

Merely because the Russians were glad to see US equipment does not mean that it had a dramatic impact upon the course of the war. Furthermore the USSR was invaded in 1941 not 1942 so whilst your statement that Russia was not prepared for war in 1941 and suffered as a result is true it does not discredit the validity of mine.

Actually the Russian army was outproducing the German one by the start of 1943, before bombing raids had even begun upon Germany. Despite the efforts of Albert Speer, he could not compete with the 1,200 tanks the USSR was pumping out every month in addition to the enormous manpower reserves Stalin could draw upon. It is also notable that German industrial production reached its peak in the year of 1944 - precisely when these bombing runs were taking place. Whilst they were undoubtedly effective they did not cripple the German industry.

I'm sorry but I have no idea where you reached the conclusion that the USSR army was on the verge of collapse by the time it reached Berlin. In all truth, if the USA did not possess the atomic bomb by this point and had Stalin so wished, it could quite happily have marched to through western Europe. Even by 1980 it was widely acknowledged that Russia's army was stronger than the USA.

It's interesting to note that there were more British ground forces fighting on the Western fron that American ones. Clearly the opening of the second front had a major effect on the Germany's fighting capability. But my initial post was an attempt to argue that the USA (nor even the USSR or the UK) won the war alone and that the withdrawal of any of these three would probably have resulted in a defeat for the allies.

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/iraq.html

It is sick to think that Saddam's rape rooms are still in use, by the Coalition...

Why are we in Iraq?

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/iraq.html

It is sick to think that Saddam's rape rooms are still in use, by the Coalition...

Why are we in Iraq?


It was ONE prison and only 17 soldiers. The soldiers have been arrested and are going to trial for war crimes, They be proven guilty and get jail time, then this will never happen again.

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/iraq.html

It is sick to think that Saddam's rape rooms are still in use, by the Coalition...

Why are we in Iraq?

You've yet to prove this..as someone previously said...it appears on an Arab site and the credibility of it in question...yet you're readily willing to swallow it hook, line, and sinker..without even a cursory amount of proof that the evidence is in fact credible. I notice you didn't even comment on the two links I gave.

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

Here is some history for you, when the US entered the war the Nazis were at he edge of Moscow, slaughtering an ill-equipped demoralised Soviet army. All of Europe that had the heart to fight(not that it was a very large percentage) was cowering in England. And the Japanese were steam-rolling through the Pacific. What changed that suddenly reversed fortunes? I can think of one very big thing.

Yep...The yanks started the Russian winter that killed all those german troops. Thank you USA!!!More to the point, they supplied the USSR with vehicles, ammunition, food, fuel, weapons that prevented the disintergration of the Soviet army, they began to send even more supplies and started sending troops to England, giving the Nazis another theatre to prepare to defend, dividing thier forces further. Then, planned and lead the invasion of western Europe that placed Berlin in jeopardy and made the Nazis truly defend thier country for the first time in the war. All the while, undertaking an equally large and diffcult effort, practically alone, half of the Earth away. But, no big deal, right?


I think you are one of the unfortunate victims of the egocentric manner in which history is taught in the USA. The lend lease program was of fairly minor importance and certainly did not "prevent the USSR from disintegrating".



Oh come now that is nothing more then speculation. My grandmothers boyfriend did the Murmanks runs and he said the Russians were always happy to see them.


Given the industrial output of the USSR by 1942 the weapons which the US supplied USSR with were unecessary, furthermore the light, poorly armoured tanks the US donated were a sorry comparison to the likes of the Russian T-34 and KV-1 models.


Whoops, they were not rolling them out when the Germans attacked. If they had "suffient" quantities at the time, the Germans would not have made it to Moscow.

Sorry the supplies were needed badly to delay the germans so the Urals could get rolling.


The war in the east was won through the defence of Leningrad and Moscow and that victories at Stalingrad and Kursk. These were brought about by a number of factors - skillful Russian generals such as Zhukov and Chuikov having learned from their mistakes, their industrial recovery, the size of the resource pool of manpower and equipment they could draw from, the winter, the length of the German supply lines, the meddling of Adolf Hiter.


Ahh but you leave off the battle of Berlin where the Russian army had almost collapsed. It was only saved when Zhukov pulled a couple Guards divisions and force them into some rather nasty house to house fighting that made the Germans finally toss it in.


The US played a huge part in winning the war particularly in Asia, but they did not single handedly win the war, nor could they have done.

The USSR could not have won the war on its' own. It is easy to out produce the Germans when British and AMERICAN bombers keep visting their production facilities.

The forces of DDAY also played a hand as well. If they were just an annoyance, why were the Germans pulling veteren SS units off the eastern front to deal with them.

Merely because the Russians were glad to see US equipment does not mean that it had a dramatic impact upon the course of the war. Furthermore the USSR was invaded in 1941 not 1942 so whilst your statement that Russia was not prepared for war in 1941 and suffered as a result is true it does not discredit the validity of mine.

Actually the Russian army was outproducing the German one by the start of 1943, before bombing raids had even begun upon Germany. Despite the efforts of Albert Speer, he could not compete with the 1,200 tanks the USSR was pumping out every month in addition to the enormous manpower reserves Stalin could draw upon. It is also notable that German industrial production reached its peak in the year of 1944 - precisely when these bombing runs were taking place. Whilst they were undoubtedly effective they did not cripple the German industry.

I'm sorry but I have no idea where you reached the conclusion that the USSR army was on the verge of collapse by the time it reached Berlin. In all truth, if the USA did not possess the atomic bomb by this point and had Stalin so wished, it could quite happily have marched to through western Europe. Even by 1980 it was widely acknowledged that Russia's army was stronger than the USA.

It's interesting to note that there were more British ground forces fighting on the Western fron that American ones. Clearly the opening of the second front had a major effect on the Germany's fighting capability. But my initial post was an attempt to argue that the USA (nor even the USSR or the UK) won the war alone and that the withdrawal of any of these three would probably have resulted in a defeat for the allies.

If you had bothered to read my posts, you would have seen that I've never said the US won WWII alone.Actually, I believe the superior technology and intelligence services of the UK played a larger role than any other nation, particularlly the RAF. And, weren't the Nazis slaughtering an ill-equipped, demoralised Soviet army that was held from fleeing by the threat of death? Without Brittish tenacity, US materials and forces and Stalin's willingness to sacrifice everything the war would have turned out differently. I do, however, grow very tired of seeing so many give all credit to the Soviets and ignore everyone else.

Merely because the Russians were glad to see US equipment does not mean that it had a dramatic impact upon the course of the war. Furthermore the USSR was invaded in 1941 not 1942 so whilst your statement that Russia was not prepared for war in 1941 and suffered as a result is true it does not discredit the validity of mine.

Actually the Russian army was outproducing the German one by the start of 1943, before bombing raids had even begun upon Germany. Despite the efforts of Albert Speer, he could not compete with the 1,200 tanks the USSR was pumping out every month in addition to the enormous manpower reserves Stalin could draw upon. It is also notable that German industrial production reached its peak in the year of 1944 - precisely when these bombing runs were taking place. Whilst they were undoubtedly effective they did not cripple the German industry.


Oh ok. Well I figured you are one of the Soviets won the war types so I won't bother arguing.

Obviously the Brits and the Americans were nothing to the Germans! :roll:


I'm sorry but I have no idea where you reached the conclusion that the USSR army was on the verge of collapse by the time it reached Berlin.


Did I say when they reached. I said at. As I have said Zukov shoved in 2 guards division for the house to house.


In all truth, if the USA did not possess the atomic bomb by this point and had Stalin so wished, it could quite happily have marched to through western Europe. Even by 1980 it was widely acknowledged that Russia's army was stronger than the USA.


Ahh what if scenerios are so much fun.

Sorry don't buy the argument as I have said it was nothing more then the young Europeans that offer that all the time.

I will never figure out the effort to belittle the American envolvement. But there it is.


It's interesting to note that there were more British ground forces fighting on the Western fron that American ones. Clearly the opening of the second front had a major effect on the Germany's fighting capability. But my initial post was an attempt to argue that the USA (nor even the USSR or the UK) won the war alone and that the withdrawal of any of these three would probably have resulted in a defeat for the allies.

Interesting. You say that but all your statements say otherwise. Over production, endless man power, stronger army.

Sorry but I think you are one of the Soviets won the war types.


But hey lets agree to disagree and leave it at that.....

For Gods sake this is just ridiculous, you seem to be distorting everything I say in accordance with some perceived anti-American agenda. It's impossible to be objective or rationally criticise the US government it seems, if you do so you are boxed and categorised and dismissed with the wave of a magic wand without even addressing the criticisms made. It's actually remarkably similar to how Bush conducts his foreign policy.

The US played a HUGE part in winning the war, so did Russia and so did the UK. But neither the UK or Russia or the US won the war on their own. That is what I am saying. It's quite simple. DO YOU AGREE???

Thats the problem with Americans. We are murderous liars like our leaders.

For Gods sake this is just ridiculous, you seem to be distorting everything I say in accordance with some perceived anti-American agenda. It's impossible to be objective or rationally criticise the US government it seems, if you do so you are boxed and categorised and dismissed with the wave of a magic wand without even addressing the criticisms made. It's actually remarkably similar to how Bush conducts his foreign policy.

The US played a HUGE part in winning the war, so did Russia and so did the UK. But neither the UK or Russia or the US won the war on their own. That is what I am saying. It's quite simple. DO YOU AGREE???

What's distorting. You said the Russians outproduced. I said yes they had an advantage in they they didn't have to deal with bombing raids. Then you basically said the bombing raids didn't do anything.

You said they Russians didn't need help and I mentioned Murmansk. You then said it wasn't needed?

As to criticising the American Govement? Don't recall discussing that.

As to the perceived anti-american agenda. Well it does exist. I have had many discussion/arguments about the Americans in WWII. And many many times I have heard arguements that they basically didn't do anything and stole all the glory.

"It's actually remarkably similar to how Bush conducts his foreign policy."

That's completely different. The shrub can talk all he wants and only the neo-cons talk like him. Many people question Iraq now. But remember that the Americans take our press for granted now. As our history used to show the Press was the watchdog of liberty. Now it is a tool of the goverment. So people are slowly learning they have to evaluate what is being said. For example, I just found out we use mercs for Intelligence "extraction" that is wrong! They are doing that because it is a "loophole" in the way to do things.

"The US played a HUGE part in winning the war, so did Russia and so did the UK. But neither the UK or Russia or the US won the war on their own. That is what I am saying. It's quite simple. DO YOU AGREE???"

I never said otherwise. However, like I said I have listened to the argument that England and America were basically "saved" by the Russians.

Some of your arguments seem to suggest that! I thought you were just being polite rather than state your opinion! ;)

No worries then!

Still it is better then some of the Revisionist history I hear coming out of Japan. I was talking to one kid who argued about how certain ships actually survived the war! :shock:

Thats the problem with Americans. We are murderous liars like our leaders.

Wow trolling are we?

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/iraq.html

It is sick to think that Saddam's rape rooms are still in use, by the Coalition...

Why are we in Iraq?

Don't be so simple minded!

Just on my little observations, they are fake!

With all the sexual harrasment laws that exist in this country, we would hardly accept organized gang-rapes of Iraqi women.

I will go as far to suggest the shrub would loose the election if that was going on.

Hate to tell you this.

Muslims actually lie! :shock:

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/iraq.html
And a link to a site that tells the whole sad story about what the US knew and what they did about it, Iraq that is from 1979 to 1990:

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

Saddam has always had friends in high places?

the sexual harrasment laws that exist in this country, we would hardly accept organized gang-rapes of Iraqi women.
It was "accepted" by the Generals...untill...against all odds...some pictures made their way to a Media that was ready to publish them....

Its amazing that some pictures are public...

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/iraq.html

It is sick to think that Saddam's rape rooms are still in use, by the Coalition...

Why are we in Iraq?

Don't be so simple minded!

Just on my little observations, they are fake!

With all the sexual harrasment laws that exist in this country, we would hardly accept organized gang-rapes of Iraqi women.

I will go as far to suggest the shrub would loose the election if that was going on.

Hate to tell you this.

Muslims actually lie! :shock:

So do military people sometimes! Oh my gosh! I think the faked argument does not hold much weight, since the President, the Defense Department and plenty more people on down are taking this very seriously. Also, while I don't think this is widespread in the military, a bad problem that could and probably will arise out of this is increased violence against us and increased support for the militants. Rumsfeld has acknowledged the deaths of Iraqi prisoners in our care, for which we 'may' have been responsible.


edit: here's a link to an article on yahoo

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20040505/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_prisoner_abuse_51

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/iraq.html

It is sick to think that Saddam's rape rooms are still in use, by the Coalition...

Why are we in Iraq?

Don't be so simple minded!

Just on my little observations, they are fake!

With all the sexual harrasment laws that exist in this country, we would hardly accept organized gang-rapes of Iraqi women.

I will go as far to suggest the shrub would loose the election if that was going on.

Hate to tell you this.

Muslims actually lie! :shock:

So do military people sometimes! Oh my gosh! I think the faked argument does not hold much weight, since the President, the Defense Department and plenty more people on down are taking this very seriously. Also, while I don't think this is widespread in the military, a bad problem that could and probably will arise out of this is increased violence against us and increased support for the militants. Rumsfeld has acknowledged the deaths of Iraqi prisoners in our care, for which we 'may' have been responsible.


edit: here's a link to an article on yahoo

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20040505/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_prisoner_abuse_51

Some people have testified that it was three whole prisons... "Widespread" is relative I guess.

GIs 'Rode' Elderly Iraqi Woman 'Like a Donkey'
LONDON, Wed, May 05, 2004 - U.S. soldiers who detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year placed a harness on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey, Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal human rights envoy to Iraq said Wednesday.

The envoy, legislator Ann Clwyd, said she had investigated the claims of the woman in her 70s and believed they were true.

During five visits to Iraq in the last 18 months, Clwyd said, she stopped at British and U.S. jails, including Abu Ghraib, and questioned everyone she could about the woman's claims. But she did not say whether the people questioned included U.S. forces or commanders.

Asked for details, Clwyd said during a telephone interview with AlJazeera that she "didn't want to harp on the case because as far as I'm concerned it's been resolved."
.

WHO ARE THE SICKOS WHO DID THIS??? I WANT THEM COURT MARSHALLED FOR DISGRACING OUR MILITARY!!!!

I didnt think that their would be such sickos in our military i thought this was propaganda until i saw it on the news. I hope they get shot becuase they are a desgrace to our nation last thing we needed is something else for people to hate us for :evil:

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/iraq.html

It is sick to think that Saddam's rape rooms are still in use, by the Coalition...

Why are we in Iraq?

Don't be so simple minded!

Just on my little observations, they are fake!

With all the sexual harrasment laws that exist in this country, we would hardly accept organized gang-rapes of Iraqi women.

I will go as far to suggest the shrub would loose the election if that was going on.

Hate to tell you this.

Muslims actually lie! :shock:

So do military people sometimes! Oh my gosh! I think the faked argument does not hold much weight, since the President, the Defense Department and plenty more people on down are taking this very seriously. Also, while I don't think this is widespread in the military, a bad problem that could and probably will arise out of this is increased violence against us and increased support for the militants. Rumsfeld has acknowledged the deaths of Iraqi prisoners in our care, for which we 'may' have been responsible.


edit: here's a link to an article on yahoo

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20040505/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_prisoner_abuse_51

Before you jump in; go back an look at the site he posted.

There are the prison shots which we know are true, but then they also added shots of what looks like a bad porno of soldiers in Jungle colors gang raping arab women.

For Gods sake this is just ridiculous, you seem to be distorting everything I say in accordance with some perceived anti-American agenda. It's impossible to be objective or rationally criticise the US government it seems, if you do so you are boxed and categorised and dismissed with the wave of a magic wand without even addressing the criticisms made. It's actually remarkably similar to how Bush conducts his foreign policy.

The US played a HUGE part in winning the war, so did Russia and so did the UK. But neither the UK or Russia or the US won the war on their own. That is what I am saying. It's quite simple. DO YOU AGREE???

What's distorting. You said the Russians outproduced. I said yes they had an advantage in they they didn't have to deal with bombing raids. Then you basically said the bombing raids didn't do anything.

You said they Russians didn't need help and I mentioned Murmansk. You then said it wasn't needed?

As to criticising the American Govement? Don't recall discussing that.

As to the perceived anti-american agenda. Well it does exist. I have had many discussion/arguments about the Americans in WWII. And many many times I have heard arguements that they basically didn't do anything and stole all the glory.

"It's actually remarkably similar to how Bush conducts his foreign policy."

That's completely different. The shrub can talk all he wants and only the neo-cons talk like him. Many people question Iraq now. But remember that the Americans take our press for granted now. As our history used to show the Press was the watchdog of liberty. Now it is a tool of the goverment. So people are slowly learning they have to evaluate what is being said. For example, I just found out we use mercs for Intelligence "extraction" that is wrong! They are doing that because it is a "loophole" in the way to do things.

"The US played a HUGE part in winning the war, so did Russia and so did the UK. But neither the UK or Russia or the US won the war on their own. That is what I am saying. It's quite simple. DO YOU AGREE???"

I never said otherwise. However, like I said I have listened to the argument that England and America were basically "saved" by the Russians.

Some of your arguments seem to suggest that! I thought you were just being polite rather than state your opinion! ;)

No worries then!

Still it is better then some of the Revisionist history I hear coming out of Japan. I was talking to one kid who argued about how certain ships actually survived the war! :shock:

The bombing raids didn't occur until after D-Day in 1944 by which point the USSRs industry was already vastly outproducing that of Germany. The bombing raids played a part but by 1944 Germany could not possibly have won the war. I don't recall you mentioning Murmansk? Anyway, my arguments were more to the effect that whilst the US played a major role in winning the war in Europe, that their contribution to the eastern front was relatively minor.

My little rant regarding anti-Americanism arose from the frustration I feel that many contemporary conservative Republicans can dismiss a rational criticism of a particular policy or ideology by classifying them as "anti-American" and thus not having to actually respond to the criticism itself. Regardless of whether or not such an agenda exists (although clearly it does), I feel that it often suits US conservatives to either exaggerate its extent or apply it to people and situations where it is not relevant. Furthermore, even if "anti-Americanism" is the reason for a persons belief I do not see that as a reason why they shouldn't be debated, it seems rather like saying "I'm not going to argue with you because you're a Republican". Anyway I felt that by dismissing what I said as anti-Americanist (you didn't use that phrase but something to that effect) it was a refusal to engage in argument. Admittedly I didn't summarise my views particularly well in my original posts, but I felt that such a response was unfair.

GIs 'Rode' Elderly Iraqi Woman 'Like a Donkey'
LONDON, Wed, May 05, 2004 - U.S. soldiers who detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year placed a harness on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey, Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal human rights envoy to Iraq said Wednesday.

The envoy, legislator Ann Clwyd, said she had investigated the claims of the woman in her 70s and believed they were true.

During five visits to Iraq in the last 18 months, Clwyd said, she stopped at British and U.S. jails, including Abu Ghraib, and questioned everyone she could about the woman's claims. But she did not say whether the people questioned included U.S. forces or commanders.

Asked for details, Clwyd said during a telephone interview with AlJazeera that she "didn't want to harp on the case because as far as I'm concerned it's been resolved."
.

-SNIFF SNIFF-

Emmmm flamebait!

Can't seem to find that article at their website.

As if they were a credible news agency anyway! It's nothing more then Fox news for arabs.

GIs 'Rode' Elderly Iraqi Woman 'Like a Donkey'
LONDON, Wed, May 05, 2004 - U.S. soldiers who detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year placed a harness on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey, Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal human rights envoy to Iraq said Wednesday.

The envoy, legislator Ann Clwyd, said she had investigated the claims of the woman in her 70s and believed they were true.

During five visits to Iraq in the last 18 months, Clwyd said, she stopped at British and U.S. jails, including Abu Ghraib, and questioned everyone she could about the woman's claims. But she did not say whether the people questioned included U.S. forces or commanders.

Asked for details, Clwyd said during a telephone interview with AlJazeera that she "didn't want to harp on the case because as far as I'm concerned it's been resolved."
.

-SNIFF SNIFF-

Emmmm flamebait!

Can't seem to find that article at their website.

As if they were a credible news agency anyway! It's nothing more then Fox news for arabs.


Found it. If you are going to paste an article at least don't edit it.

It was one GI that rode her.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&u=/ap/20040505/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq_us_prisoner_abuse&printer=1

The bombing raids didn't occur until after D-Day in 1944 by which point the USSRs industry was already vastly outproducing that of Germany. The bombing raids played a part but by 1944 Germany could not possibly have won the war. I don't recall you mentioning Murmansk? Anyway, my arguments were more to the effect that whilst the US played a major role in winning the war in Europe, that their contribution to the eastern front was relatively minor.

My little rant regarding anti-Americanism arose from the frustration I feel that many contemporary conservative Republicans can dismiss a rational criticism of a particular policy or ideology by classifying them as "anti-American" and thus not having to actually respond to the criticism itself. Regardless of whether or not such an agenda exists (although clearly it does), I feel that it often suits US conservatives to either exaggerate its extent or apply it to people and situations where it is not relevant.


Ahh the old "Either you are with us or against us" crap. Thank your shrub that was soooo insightful and helpful! :roll:


Furthermore, even if "anti-Americanism" is the reason for a persons belief I do not see that as a reason why they shouldn't be debated, it seems rather like saying "I'm not going to argue with you because you're a Republican". Anyway I felt that by dismissing what I said as anti-Americanist (you didn't use that phrase but something to that effect) it was a refusal to engage in argument. Admittedly I didn't summarise my views particularly well in my original posts, but I felt that such a response was unfair.

Normally that is true but the people I have come across can't seem to change any of their opinions no matter the evidence. So most of the time it is a waste of time. Can't count the amount of times somebody offers a clueless argument, debate follows which shows the person does not know what they are talking about and yet the next day or so will make the same exact claim! :roll:


As to the Eastern Front, I agree the Brits and the Americans didn't have affect till DDay.

The Russians would have taken them on their own but the Brits and the Americans(and everybody else involed) helped end the fighting faster.

Makes you wonder the difference if the Hitler had let his commanders run the war.

Did they ever find out who was Wurther?

The bombing raids didn't occur until after D-Day in 1944 by which point the USSRs industry was already vastly outproducing that of Germany. The bombing raids played a part but by 1944 Germany could not possibly have won the war. I don't recall you mentioning Murmansk? Anyway, my arguments were more to the effect that whilst the US played a major role in winning the war in Europe, that their contribution to the eastern front was relatively minor.

My little rant regarding anti-Americanism arose from the frustration I feel that many contemporary conservative Republicans can dismiss a rational criticism of a particular policy or ideology by classifying them as "anti-American" and thus not having to actually respond to the criticism itself. Regardless of whether or not such an agenda exists (although clearly it does), I feel that it often suits US conservatives to either exaggerate its extent or apply it to people and situations where it is not relevant.


Ahh the old "Either you are with us or against us" crap. Thank your shrub that was soooo insightful and helpful! :roll:


Furthermore, even if "anti-Americanism" is the reason for a persons belief I do not see that as a reason why they shouldn't be debated, it seems rather like saying "I'm not going to argue with you because you're a Republican". Anyway I felt that by dismissing what I said as anti-Americanist (you didn't use that phrase but something to that effect) it was a refusal to engage in argument. Admittedly I didn't summarise my views particularly well in my original posts, but I felt that such a response was unfair.

Normally that is true but the people I have come across can't seem to change any of their opinions no matter the evidence. So most of the time it is a waste of time. Can't count the amount of times somebody offers a clueless argument, debate follows which shows the person does not know what they are talking about and yet the next day or so will make the same exact claim! :roll:


As to the Eastern Front, I agree the Brits and the Americans didn't have affect till DDay.

The Russians would have taken them on their own but the Brits and the Americans(and everybody else involed) helped end the fighting faster.

Makes you wonder the difference if the Hitler had let his commanders run the war.

Did they ever find out who was Wurther?

But people all all political views often refuse to alter them irrespective of evidence and reason. Surely then you'd refuse to argue based on the ignorance or the inflexibility of the person rather than what it is they actually believe.

Anyhow, I think the arguing that the US played a relatively minor role in the war comes about partly as a result of the numerous US war films which are often seen to downplay the involvement of their allies. As a result you have people who previously had moderate opinions, deciding to argue for an extreme opposing view. That, and the historical generalisation of anti-Americanism, the extent of and reasons to which I don't want to get into now.

If Hitler had given his commanders more of a free rein, particularly in the USSR then the war might have turned out very differently. Still, I enjoy reading about his relationship with his generals particularly Halder and Guderian. That said, my favourite quote from that general subject came from General Paulus the commander of the German 6th army at Stalingrad. When he telegram from Hitler informing him that he had received a promotion to Field Marshal and adding that no German Field Marshal had ever been captured. For many years he had been devoutly loyal to Hitler but upon receiving that he is reported to have said "I have no intention of shooting myself for this Bohemian corporal".

That was fairly irrelevant I guess but it just came to me.

The bombing raids didn't occur until after D-Day in 1944 by which point the USSRs industry was already vastly outproducing that of Germany. The bombing raids played a part but by 1944 Germany could not possibly have won the war. I don't recall you mentioning Murmansk? Anyway, my arguments were more to the effect that whilst the US played a major role in winning the war in Europe, that their contribution to the eastern front was relatively minor.

My little rant regarding anti-Americanism arose from the frustration I feel that many contemporary conservative Republicans can dismiss a rational criticism of a particular policy or ideology by classifying them as "anti-American" and thus not having to actually respond to the criticism itself. Regardless of whether or not such an agenda exists (although clearly it does), I feel that it often suits US conservatives to either exaggerate its extent or apply it to people and situations where it is not relevant.


Ahh the old "Either you are with us or against us" crap. Thank your shrub that was soooo insightful and helpful! :roll:


Furthermore, even if "anti-Americanism" is the reason for a persons belief I do not see that as a reason why they shouldn't be debated, it seems rather like saying "I'm not going to argue with you because you're a Republican". Anyway I felt that by dismissing what I said as anti-Americanist (you didn't use that phrase but something to that effect) it was a refusal to engage in argument. Admittedly I didn't summarise my views particularly well in my original posts, but I felt that such a response was unfair.

Normally that is true but the people I have come across can't seem to change any of their opinions no matter the evidence. So most of the time it is a waste of time. Can't count the amount of times somebody offers a clueless argument, debate follows which shows the person does not know what they are talking about and yet the next day or so will make the same exact claim! :roll:


As to the Eastern Front, I agree the Brits and the Americans didn't have affect till DDay.

The Russians would have taken them on their own but the Brits and the Americans(and everybody else involed) helped end the fighting faster.

Makes you wonder the difference if the Hitler had let his commanders run the war.

Did they ever find out who was Wurther?

But people all all political views often refuse to alter them irrespective of evidence and reason. Surely then you'd refuse to argue based on the ignorance or the inflexibility of the person rather than the poltical view itself.

Anyhow, I think the arguing that the US played a relatively minor role in the war comes about partly as a result of the numerous US war films which are often seen to downplay the involvement of their allies. As a result you have people who previously had moderate opinions, deciding to argue for an extreme opposing view. That, and the historical generalisation of anti-Americanism, the extent of and reasons to which I don't want to get into now.

If Hitler had given his commanders more of a free rein, particularly in the USSR then the war might have turned out very differently. Still, I enjoy reading about his relationship with his generals particularly Halder and Guderian. That said, my favourite quote from that general subject came from General Paulus the commander of the German 6th army at Stalingrad. When he telegram from Hitler informing him that he had received a promotion to Field Marshal and adding that no German Field Marshal had ever been captured. For many years he had been devoutly loyal to Hitler but upon receiving that he is reported to have said "I have no intention of shooting myself for this Bohemian corporal".

That was fairly irrelevant I guess but it just came to me.

I didnt think that their would be such sickos in our military i thought this was propaganda until i saw it on the news. I hope they get shot becuase they are a desgrace to our nation last thing we needed is something else for people to hate us for :evil:

Don't scapegoat the soldiers (while they do deserve punishment) -- they were following orders, and the people that were handing those orders down deserve the bulk of the punishment! Remember, this isn't an isolated incident -- think about what happens at Gitmo'

There are new pictures. Woo! New photoshopping meat!

I didnt think that their would be such sickos in our military i thought this was propaganda until i saw it on the news. I hope they get shot becuase they are a desgrace to our nation last thing we needed is something else for people to hate us for :evil:

Don't g0at the soldiers (while they do deserve punishment) -- they were following orders, and the people that were handing those orders down deserve the bulk of the punishment! Remember, this isn't an isolated incident -- think about what happens at Gitmo'

The nazis were "only following orders" too.

I didnt think that their would be such sickos in our military i thought this was propaganda until i saw it on the news. I hope they get shot becuase they are a desgrace to our nation last thing we needed is something else for people to hate us for :evil:

Don't g0at the soldiers (while they do deserve punishment) -- they were following orders, and the people that were handing those orders down deserve the bulk of the punishment! Remember, this isn't an isolated incident -- think about what happens at Gitmo'

The nazis were "only following orders" too.

Great! Now that the "nazi ball" is in play, so much for having anything like a rational debate.

The fact is that these soldiers were not single, isolated cases as the US government is trying to spin it, and may be representative of a systemic problem stretching across the entire campaign and possibly back here to the Pentagon. While the soliders who carried out the actions should be brought to justice, it is important to not forget that thier superiors (who may very well have been aware of this situation for quite some time and, in fact, may have instigate it) need to be held as accountable.

I'm hoping this one takes Rumsfeld down as well, although I imagine that's just being overly optimistic.

I didnt think that their would be such sickos in our military i thought this was propaganda until i saw it on the news. I hope they get shot becuase they are a desgrace to our nation last thing we needed is something else for people to hate us for :evil:

Don't g0at the soldiers (while they do deserve punishment) -- they were following orders, and the people that were handing those orders down deserve the bulk of the punishment! Remember, this isn't an isolated incident -- think about what happens at Gitmo'

The nazis were "only following orders" too.

Great! Now that the "nazi ball" is in play, so much for having anything like a rational debate.

The fact is that these soldiers were not single, isolated cases as the US government is trying to spin it, and may be representative of a systemic problem stretching across the entire campaign and possibly back here to the Pentagon. While the soliders who carried out the actions should be brought to justice, it is important to not forget that thier superiors (who may very well have been aware of this situation for quite some time and, in fact, may have instigate it) need to be held as accountable.

I'm hoping this one takes Rumsfeld down as well, although I imagine that's just being overly optimistic.

Hey, it was only a comparison... People have been executed for "just following orders"...Some were executed by Americans.

We blame this crisis on the soldiers' commanders so Bush can dodge the fire. Rummy's still Sec. of Def., that already shows how we've handled it.

We blame this crisis on the soldiers' commanders so Bush can dodge the fire. Rummy's still Sec. of Def., that already shows how we've handled it.

Yes, but Bush apparently gave Rummy a tongue lashing over it (which, if you believe TRA's posting from the other day alleging Bush is bisexual, may have a whole host of alternative meanings). Publicly he's supporting him, but that may change once the spin meter ticks into the red and they need someone to take the hit.

DP

TP

QP

I loved that Bush comment... :lol:
I wouldn't be suprised if they were faked after the whole debarcle of the obviously faked photo's of the British Soldiers 'abusing' Iraqi's...

GIs 'Rode' Elderly Iraqi Woman 'Like a Donkey'
LONDON, Wed, May 05, 2004 - U.S. soldiers who detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year placed a harness on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey, Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal human rights envoy to Iraq said Wednesday.

The envoy, legislator Ann Clwyd, said she had investigated the claims of the woman in her 70s and believed they were true.

During five visits to Iraq in the last 18 months, Clwyd said, she stopped at British and U.S. jails, including Abu Ghraib, and questioned everyone she could about the woman's claims. But she did not say whether the people questioned included U.S. forces or commanders.

Asked for details, Clwyd said during a telephone interview with AlJazeera that she "didn't want to harp on the case because as far as I'm concerned it's been resolved."
.

As if they were a credible news agency anyway! It's nothing more then Fox news for arabs.

FoxNEWS for arabs?

in a way...I Agree.

But people all all political views often refuse to alter them irrespective of evidence and reason. Surely then you'd refuse to argue based on the ignorance or the inflexibility of the person rather than what it is they actually believe.

Absolutly! When they are wrong, you alway debat them! :wink:

But I do try to avoid ignorance mixed with a closed mind. It is a waste of time because they will never change.


Anyhow, I think the arguing that the US played a relatively minor role in the war comes about partly as a result of the numerous US war films which are often seen to downplay the involvement of their allies.

Ahh but you see it is only a movie. Always remember: Who made the film? Americans. Who is the primary audience? Americans. Unless it is a documentary; "Artistic License" comes into play. I would not worry about Hollywood as I think they will decline since now they seem to think all films require a pretty boy. Australia and the Kiwis are starting to turn out powerful actors and movies. The only two recent flims from WWII have been the Memphis Bell and the Band of Brothers. They avoid the Americans won the war as the movie is only about the Unit. Saving Private Ryan? Well I liked the DDay aspects especially since they were blessed by a few vets as they said the only thing missing was the smell!

Sooo what do we do? Well for your own blood pressure, I would suggest the nod and smile approach when you get somebody arguing history from a films persective.

People forget that you can't tell what happened in a 2 to 3 hour film.


As a result you have people who previously had moderate opinions, deciding to argue for an extreme opposing view. That, and the historical generalisation of anti-Americanism, the extent of and reasons to which I don't want to get into now.


Ahh but when you come across people that are simply ignorant and take the extreme side, you only make them belive they are right.

Keep in mind WWII is a proud moment in our history. As such to hear, "you really didn't do anything," turns it hostile.

Now having said that, many Americans are rather stupid about their history. If they knew it then the shrub would not be so easy to install many of "laws" that violate the constitution.

What is scary is that some consider WWII and WWI ancient history. :shock:

Sometimes you just want to cuff them and scream "How can it be ancient history if we have veterens that are still alive!!!!!" :roll:

You think its bad now. As that generation dies off, Myth will start to develope.

I know more then most as my family was heavily involved. Different countries and different branches of service.


If Hitler had given his commanders more of a free rein, particularly in the USSR then the war might have turned out very differently. Still, I enjoy reading about his relationship with his generals particularly Halder and Guderian. That said, my favourite quote from that general subject came from General Paulus the commander of the German 6th army at Stalingrad. When he telegram from Hitler informing him that he had received a promotion to Field Marshal and adding that no German Field Marshal had ever been captured. For many years he had been devoutly loyal to Hitler but upon receiving that he is reported to have said "I have no intention of shooting myself for this Bohemian corporal".

Guderian was still required reading in military strategy.

It's funny you mention Von Paulus and the 6th army. I dated a German girl whose grandfather was part of it. He got shot in the hand and just missed the army going in. Talk about lucky. He said everybody he knew, died. He also spoke kindly of the Field Marshal.

That was fairly irrelevant I guess but it just came to me.

Who could blame him? Ordered to take the city when he thought it was a bad idea. Promised supplies which barely feed his soldiers. Making an order to stop feeding the wounded kind of makes you bitter.

just one more of the many attrocities carried out by thye military.

I don't expect civilized actions from people trained to kill and hate

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Listen here little man, most of us in the military are better behaved than you.You pacifist America hating, liberal pussy. If you havent been in the military then you dont know what you are talking about. I just saw the video of those towel wearing genies cutting off the Berg guys head. I wasnt for torture before but after seeing that I say we increase torture, make it leagal and show these cowardly fucks what happens when you mess with America and our military. :evil:

just one more of the many attrocities carried out by thye military.

I don't expect civilized actions from people trained to kill and hate

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Listen here little man, most of us in the military are better behaved than you.You pacifist America hating, liberal pussy. If you havent been in the military then you dont know what you are talking about. I just saw the video of those towel wearing genies cutting off the Berg guys head. I wasnt for torture before but after seeing that I say we increase torture, make it leagal and show these cowardly f--- what happens when you mess with America and our military. :evil:

OK I admit I was wrong.... after reading your post I am conviced now that you are civilized.
:roll:

I actually made a conscious decision not to join the military because I am above that kind of behavior. But I know that as humans we are still evolving so there will always be those who are a bit behind in the process.

just one more of the many attrocities carried out by thye military.

I don't expect civilized actions from people trained to kill and hate

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Listen here little man, most of us in the military are better behaved than you.You pacifist America hating, liberal pussy. If you havent been in the military then you dont know what you are talking about. I just saw the video of those towel wearing genies cutting off the Berg guys head. I wasnt for torture before but after seeing that I say we increase torture, make it leagal and show these cowardly f--- what happens when you mess with America and our military. :evil:

OK I admit I was wrong.... after reading your post I am conviced now that you are civilized.
:roll:

I actually made a conscious decision not to join the military because I am above that kind of behavior. But I know that as humans we are still evolving so there will always be those who are a bit behind in the process.

Ahuh...above those of us who serve or who have served huh....I've never met men more of character and honor then those men who I haved served with...lifelong friendships with men who'd have taken a bullet for me..can any of your friends say the same? In any social group there are misfits and malcontents...the military is no exception..we try to weed them out..we're not always successful. I say you missed out by not joining the military..then what would I know...I'm just a bit behind in the evolutionary process.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Listen here little man, most of us in the military are better behaved than you.You pacifist America hating, liberal pussy. If you havent been in the military then you dont know what you are talking about. I just saw the video of those towel wearing genies cutting off the Berg guys head. I wasnt for torture before but after seeing that I say we increase torture, make it leagal and show these cowardly f--- what happens when you mess with America and our military. :evil:
Do not flame. You do not want to break the forum rules.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

The nazis were "only following orders" too.
Great! Now that the "nazi ball" is in play, so much for having anything like a rational debate.
It's a fair point, actually. Whenever you watch a WW2 documentary or read a history book, you always have old German soldiers saying "we were only following our orders, the policy was set from above, etc" when asked why they did what they did. And last time I looked, the consensus is that this does not excuse their behaviour. Seeing these Americans repeating the exact same words is pretty ironic.