PDA

View Full Version : More banned munitions found in Iraq


LethalWolfe
Mar 10, 2003, 02:43 PM
Apparently inspectors found cluster bombs modified to be used as B/C weapons. The article is a bit on the long side.

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80676,00.html)


Lethal

wdlove
Mar 10, 2003, 03:24 PM
I'm wondering how much more that the World needs before it will act. I pray that it won't take an attack on Bonn or Paris.

skunk
Mar 10, 2003, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
I pray that it won't take an attack on Bonn or Paris.

Actually these two cities are about the LEAST likely to be hit :rolleyes:

alex_ant
Mar 10, 2003, 03:49 PM
Refinance - Apply Now!
Debt Consolidation
$150/hour WorkAtHome

Faux News must be strapped for cash.

leprechaunG4
Mar 10, 2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Faux News must be strapped for cash. [/B]
and this has something to do with this topic how?

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
and this has something to do with this topic how?

Exactly. I love how liberals attack Fox news, but fail to realize that it is the #1 news channel. Must mean there are more people wanting fair and balanced news than just liberal propaganda :)

Off topic, sorry

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 10, 2003, 05:48 PM
Face it , we have fools in the world who are so dead set in their own beliefs that Saddam could kill , lie , torture and rape right in front of them and they would still think he is a good guy. Didnt France do this with Hitler. Yes they did. History is repeating its self. Im just glad that we have a few Leaders that wont be duped. Tony Blair and George Bush. Funny how we just keep finding more and more of Saddam ignoring the U.N. and then the U.N. ignores itself. France you and your leader sucks! Your Leaders are taking you down the path of ruin, just as in 1939 just as now.

Rower_CPU
Mar 10, 2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Face it , we have fools in the world who are so dead set in their own beliefs that Saddam could kill , lie , torture and rape right in front of them and they would still think he is a good guy. Didnt France do this with Hitler. Yes they did....

Back it up, there, bucko.

What are you talking about? France was occupied by Germany after their defenses failed (whether or not you feel their defense was "good enough" or not, or if the acquiesced too quickly is another matter entirely).

When did France, as a nation, officially think Hitler was a "good guy"? Just because they were occupied doesn't mean they condoned Hitler's actions, just as the Iraqi people don't condone Saddam's actions but are powerless to stop him.

leprechaunG4
Mar 10, 2003, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Back it up, there, bucko.

What are you talking about? France was occupied by Germany after their defenses failed (whether or not you feel their defense was "good enough" or not, or if the acquiesced too quickly is another matter entirely).

When did France, as a nation, officially think Hitler was a "good guy"? Just because they were occupied doesn't mean they condoned Hitler's actions, just as the Iraqi people don't condone Saddam's actions but are powerless to stop him.
Actually France showed itself not too highly when it came to the Nazis either. You'll remember from history class France was not the first country invaded by Germany. While Germany was conquering Poland (quite easily) and sending people off to camps, the French government cared not. They did not want to involve themselves wiht the issue, until Germany invaded them then they really had no choice.

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."
--David Letterman

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Back it up, there, bucko.

What are you talking about? France was occupied by Germany after their defenses failed (whether or not you feel their defense was "good enough" or not, or if the acquiesced too quickly is another matter entirely).

When did France, as a nation, officially think Hitler was a "good guy"? Just because they were occupied doesn't mean they condoned Hitler's actions, just as the Iraqi people don't condone Saddam's actions but are powerless to stop him.

I think he is refering to the appeasement that took place before WWII.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 10, 2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Back it up, there, bucko.

What are you talking about? France was occupied by Germany after their defenses failed (whether or not you feel their defense was "good enough" or not, or if the acquiesced too quickly is another matter entirely).

When did France, as a nation, officially think Hitler was a "good guy"? Just because they were occupied doesn't mean they condoned Hitler's actions, just as the Iraqi people don't condone Saddam's actions but are powerless to stop him. Wake rower you liberal! France ignored hitler and would be speaking German if not for us. They ignored everything Hitler did prior and were appeasing him too. Sorry bunch of pacifist. Tyrants dictators love pacifist because they are so easy to controle or take over. They hardly had any defenses, they didnt have any weapons that could do anything and they had country of pacifists. Well you add this up and it came out to looser next to germany. Then came the U.S. Good men scacrificed there lifes for us and the French! We Freed France! not Iraq! Not some Damn communist! Russia was on Hitlers side until he turned on them. Hello! And its not a matter of sorry defence its a matter of sorry attitude and appeasement.

Rower_CPU
Mar 10, 2003, 07:48 PM
leprechaunG4 and B2TM-

Appeasement is one thing. Calling Hitler a "good guy" is quite another.

France did not have the support of Great Britain at the time and the European community was not in a position to stop Germany.

What started out as reparations for lands taken away from Germany after WWI, turned into Hitler's plan for domination.

Rower_CPU
Mar 10, 2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Wake rower you liberal! France ignored hitler and would be speaking German if not for us. They ignored everything Hitler did prior and were appeasing him too. Sorry bunch of pacifist. Tyrants dictators love pacifist because they are so easy to controle or take over. They hardly had any defenses, they didnt have any weapons that could do anything and they had country of pacifists.

See above.

You just said yourself that they weren't in a position to defend themselves. Rather than face certain destruction of life and property they chose to be occupied. No, it's not the most noble choice. But it was the most pragmatic choice.

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Well you add this up and it came out to looser next to germany. Then came the U.S. Good men scacrificed there lifes for us and the French! We Freed France! not Iraq! Not some Damn communist! Russia was on Hitlers side until he turned on them. Hello! And its not a matter of sorry defence its a matter of sorry attitude and appeasement. [/b]

And somehow the lives of the French, British and European soldiers were meaningless and it's only the US soldiers that mattered in WWII?

alex_ant
Mar 10, 2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Exactly. I love how liberals attack Fox news, but fail to realize that it is the #1 news channel. Must mean there are more people wanting fair and balanced news than just liberal propaganda :)

Off topic, sorry
It's the #1 news channel alright... #1 at SUCKING! Aharharharhar! Come on, we can fight our Republican illnesses together! You've got a liberal streak in you, everybody knows it, the test confirmed it. We can fight it out!

IndyGopher
Mar 10, 2003, 08:30 PM
And somehow the lives of the French, British and European soldiers were meaningless and it's only the US soldiers that mattered in WWII?

When did British and French soldiers stop being European soldiers? Not sure what the point was there. If the question is, do the lives of people from other countries mean less than the lives of people from your own country, then the obvious answer is yes.

Now before you liberals blow a gasket, you will kindly note that I did NOT say that their lives were meaningless or without value.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 10, 2003, 08:32 PM
In reference to good guy, hitler was doing all sorts of crap in germany and france CHOOSE to ignore it, and appeased him before he invaded their ass, Hence good guy. and no i dont mean to ignore all those europeans that died in WWII but am simply making a point that if we had gone with the popular vote and stayed out of europe at the time they all would be speaking German today. If all those nations would have paid attention to the tyrant they may have been better prepared for him. Look at all those countries that he ran through, they thought he was their buddy but in essence he was anything but. Just as France today, making deals and going against the U.S. at every chance when Saddam Keeps telling lies, keeps building his weapons, ignores the U.N. resolution after resolution and the U.N. does well nothing. Saddam has had his chance a dozen times over and he didnt take it . France wants to go down again in history siding with a killer/murder dictator so be it. Maybe Saddam will Bomb their ass as Hitler did in WWII.

Rower_CPU
Mar 10, 2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by IndyGopher
When did British and French soldiers stop being European soldiers? Not sure what the point was there. If the question is, do the lives of people from other countries mean less than the lives of people from your own country, then the obvious answer is yes.

Now before you liberals blow a gasket, you will kindly note that I did NOT say that their lives were meaningless or without value.

Sorry, I should have added "other" before European.

The question isn't whether lives of people from other countries mean less (they're equal in my view). It's the delusion that some people (Dont Hate Me) have the the US was the only country to make scarifices during WWII. In fact, the losses suffered by the US were minimal compared with those suffered by the countries who had the war fought right on their doorstep.

skunk
Mar 10, 2003, 08:58 PM
Umm, small detail here: you lot came rather late to that particular party, and many of your wonderful corporations were supporting the Nazi war machine even after that. Whereas France (except Vichy) and Great Britain, not to mention Czechoslovakia, Greece, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Poland and many others each put what they could into the effort from the beginning. Even Russia saw the light before the US, and from their perspective it wasn't the Second World War, it was the Great Patriotic War. So can we have a bit less of this gung-ho chest-thumping and a little more humility? A lot of innocent people are likely to die, and the arrogance and baseless swaggering being displayed by some posters is shameful. It is precisely this kind of insensitivity and intolerance of other cultures which is making it so hard for other countries to persuade themselves that the US is not the greatest threat to peaceful co-existence.

macfan
Mar 10, 2003, 09:22 PM
skunk,
Among the things that smell in your post is the idea that Russia "came around" before the US. The USSR had a treaty with Hitler. It held until the summer of 1941, when Hitler invaded Russia. Russia didn't see the light, they smelled the cordite.

In Iraq today, a lot of innocent people are dying. Every day that passes, more of them die under Saddam's brutality. I would point out that there is nothing peaceful about coexistance with Saddam.

It is not arrogant to state the following:

It was not America's choice to go to war in WWII, and many countries contributed, but the war would not have been won without American blood and treasure.

skunk
Mar 10, 2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by macfan
It is not arrogant to state the following:

It was not America's choice to go to war in WWII, and many countries contributed, but the war would not have been won without American blood and treasure.

I think you'll find this was not a statement I objected to.

Chef Ramen
Mar 10, 2003, 09:38 PM
maybe the reasons nobody stopped hitler at first were:

there was a global depression at the time

germany had a powerful army

skunk
Mar 10, 2003, 09:48 PM
Molotov-Ribbentrop II?

What is the Bush administration willing to trade off for Russian and Chinese votes in favor of a Security Council resolution against Iraq?

Disturbing signals are emerging that certain unsavory trade-offs may be in the works to avoid Chinese and Russian vetoes against a future U.N. Security Council resolution, which would authorize an U.S. invasion of Iraq. The sort of signals that bring back memories of some infamous trades in the not-too-distant past, such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and President Roosevelt's selling off the independence of the Baltic States at Yalta.

For those younger readers unfamiliar with the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, this was the non-agression pact between Stalin and Hitler, signed by their respective foreign ministers (from whom the pact takes its name) in August 1939. A secret codicil split eastern Europe into spheres of influence: the western two-thirds of Poland and Czechoslovakia to Hitler, Estonia and Latvia (later also Lithuania) to Stalin. Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, starting the Second World War. Stalin demanded military bases in Finland and the Baltic countries, the latter being eventually occupied and annexed by the then Soviet Union.

After Bush's speech in Congress a year ago on September 13, where he declared a "war on terrorism" and designated Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the three countries forming the "axis of evil" (which since then seems to have been reduced to a point--Iraq only), Russian president Vladimir Putin lost no time in declaring his brutal suppression of the Chechen independence movement as fighting "terrorism."

In the months following, Putin has been charging that Chechen rebels (who are Muslim, but not Arab) have been using Georgia's Pankisi Gorge as an across-the-border refuge in their attacks on Russian troops occupying Chechnya. Indeed, Russian warplanes have made a number of attacks on targets in the Gorge, in one case killing a Georgian farmer.

A few days before Bush's recent speech at the U.N., Putin declared that Russia reserved the right to invade Georgia's Pankisi Gorge and other alleged hideouts as its right of self-defense under the same U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized the Bush-the-Elder to throw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and that Bush-the-Younger claims as sufficient authority for a new invasion of Iraq.

Georgia, since its break-off from the disintegrating Soviet Union, has had internal troubles of its own. In its western part bordering on the Black Sea, a Russian minority (aided by old-Soviet-line generals of the Russian army) has been in rebellion against Georgian rule. The tenuous cease-fire is presently being secured by Russian "peacekeepers," who are also not-so-secretly supplying the rebels, and whom Georgian president Edvard Shevardnadze's government would dearly like to get rid of.

Although the U.S. has sent its special operations troops to train and assist Georgia in controlling its northern border with Russia, and although the Georgian government states that it is in full control of the area and that there is no evidence that the Gorge is used as a haven for terrorists, Russian sabers are being rattled. Russian right-wingers blame Shevardnadze (who resigned as Soviet president Gorbachev's foreign minister) for precipitating the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Putin would dearly like to bring Georgia back into the Russian fold, because a future Caspian Sea oil pipeline is very likely to run through Georgia.

The other trade-off seems already to have taken place, when the U.S. government designated the Uighur "East Turkestan Islamic Movement" as a terrorist group. The Uighurs are now a minority in their own land, the western part of the Chinese province of Xinjiang. In-migration by the Han Chinese have pushed the local Uighurs into the lowest-level jobs, as well as being oppressed politically and culturally. This has given rise to underground independence movements, which are seeking freedom from the heavy-handed Chinese rule.

The U.S. declaration has been met with skepticism by scholars and other governments, because it seems to have been based largely on a one-sided Chinese government report, not confirmed by independent evidence.

Yet, as a result, the funds of the East Turkestan Movement have been frozen and the Chinese given diplomatic cover for their suppression of the Uighurs.

So what's next? Turning a blind eye on mainland China's making a "pre-emptive" attack on Taiwan? Russia invading the Baltic States to "free" the sizeable ethnic Russian minorities in those countries? After all, it doesn't take much to cause "terrorism." A bomb in a car or the basement of an apartment house. Prior to the most recent invasion of Chechnya, three apartment buildings were blown up in Russian cities, with a loss of life of 300. The attacks were immediately blamed on Chechen rebels, now "terrorists," although no proof exists of it to this day, and some suggest that it may have been a provocation of extreme right-wingers in the Russian security service (formerly the KGB), to justify breaking the cease-fire negotiated between former president Yeltsin and Chechnyan president Aslan Maskhadov.

The Bush administration, in its single-minded zeal of "finishing the job" in Iraq, is playing a dangerous game. A game which could jeopardize the lives and fortunes of peoples in many other parts of the world, who've never done America any harm.
Copyright 2000 Quivis Magazine

groovebuster
Mar 10, 2003, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
In reference to good guy, hitler was doing all sorts of crap in germany and france CHOOSE to ignore it, and appeased him before he invaded their ass, Hence good guy. and no i dont mean to ignore all those europeans that died in WWII but am simply making a point that if we had gone with the popular vote and stayed out of europe at the time they all would be speaking German today. If all those nations would have paid attention to the tyrant they may have been better prepared for him. Look at all those countries that he ran through, they thought he was their buddy but in essence he was anything but. Just as France today, making deals and going against the U.S. at every chance when Saddam Keeps telling lies, keeps building his weapons, ignores the U.N. resolution after resolution and the U.N. does well nothing. Saddam has had his chance a dozen times over and he didnt take it . France wants to go down again in history siding with a killer/murder dictator so be it. Maybe Saddam will Bomb their ass as Hitler did in WWII.

Sorry dude, but at that point I have to tell you some stuff about the history of WWII since you seem to not know a lot about it.

When the US joined the war, Germany already had no chance to win it anymore. It was just a question of time when they would have been run over by the red army.

The main reason why the US joined was because they didn't want to see entire Europe become communistic. It scared the **** out of them because Europe was the most important trading partner at that time. Stalin was a tough guy and they were not sure if he would have stopped at the french-german border.

THAT was the reason. So don't come always with that bull-**** about freeing the French and the Germans from Hitler. Wonna talk about the war-crimes the allies committed in the last few years of the war? The totally unnecessary napalm bombing of big german cities, killing hundreds of thousands of inncocent people, mostly women and children (e.g. 80% of all buildings in Berlin were totally detsroyed). Not to forget that there was never a majority in the german population backing Hitler. Or what about all the german soldiers that had to fight a war they didn't want to? I lost my grand-father in WWII in Stalingrad and I can tell you that he was anything but a nazi. But he had no choice than marching into his death, because otherwise they would have shot him right away.

If the US wouldn't have joined WWII, the French would probably talk Russian today, but definately not German. Stop telling fairy-tales just to make you feel better.

So if you wonna tell me that the US is joining a war when it is in their national (mostly economical) interest, than I totally agree. But to claim any moral motivation for the actions of the US is (in most cases) not more than a joke considering their actions the last 150 years.

groovebuster

P.S.: I totally forgot... How can you expect the other nations to be perpared for someone like Hitler when even the german population didn't know what was going on exactly in the beginning?

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 10:14 PM
Skunk, I was going to blast that post, but since it is not your writing, I will dismiss it as propaganda. Since you believe though ;)

Seriously, it is called diplomacy, and no, we would not turn a blind eye to Taiwan. $ would not let that happen alone. This isn't hard to figure out.


Hey Alex, I tested liberal, and you republican. Go figure.:p

skunk
Mar 10, 2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Seriously, it is called diplomacy, and no, we would not turn a blind eye to Taiwan. $ would not let that happen alone. This isn't hard to figure out.

No, it's called being unprincipled.

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by skunk
No, it's called being unprincipled.

How do you figure? It isn't policy first off, it is rumor. Secondly, what do you think the French were doing in Africa today? That is how diplomacy works. Whoever has the deepest pockets wins normally.

beatle888
Mar 11, 2003, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by groovebuster

groovebuster



sorry you have to deal with people like that.

i cant believe how some people cant see the horror of destroying innocent lives. if iraq wants to develop WMD, we'll, then lets go kick his butt. but not at the expense of thousands of innocent lives. there has to be a more efficient way to go about it. AND what gives us the right to have WMD and no other country .


i cant believe the we are going to go in there and murder people that dont have anything to do with Saddam. GOD DAMN IT and what about all those civilians that died in Afghanistan. damn it. none of the people here can say a single pro war comment thats validated unless they themselves have been in the blood bath position that we put those civilians in.

it sickens me that we go in there KNOWING that we're murdering people in neighborhoods and schools and cities. then wipe our hands and pat ourselves on the back.

its strange how we do everything we can to save the lives of hostages during something like a bank robbery but we dont think about the people in iraq. thats so twisted. the number of lives at stake in iraq are enormous by any means especially when compared to a bank hostage situation.

Backtothemac
Mar 11, 2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by beatle888
sorry you have to deal with people like that.

i cant believe how some people cant see the horror of destroying innocent lives. if iraq wants to develop WMD, we'll, then lets go kick his butt. but not at the expense of thousands of innocent lives. there has to be a more efficient way to go about it. AND what gives us the right to have WMD and no other country .


Dude, you seriously need to go learn about history. Do you think that innocent people did not die in WWII. Would you have rather us left Hitler in Power? Was that an option? Same situation here. He agreed to a cease fire, and has violated it.


i cant believe the we are going to go in there and murder people that dont have anything to do with Saddam. GOD DAMN IT and what about all those civilians that died in Afghanistan. damn it. none of the people here can say a single pro war comment thats validated unless they themselves have been in the blood bath position that we put those civilians in.

Oh shut up! And watch your mouth too while you are at it. Look. You have to understand that some people are going to die in accidents. You act like we are going to carpet bomb Bagdad. We are using JDAM's and Laser guided munitions to keep civilians safe, don't you get that. Will there be some that die. Sure. That is part of war. The result will be worth it to the Iraqi people and the US security. As for the people in Afghanistan, you act like we whiped out half the country. What a joke. I bet if you took a survey of non Taliban people in Afghanistan 98% would say it was worth it. Oh, and again, yes I have served this country, so I guess that means I have the right to have an opinion. That is stupid ****ing logic man.


it sickens me that we go in there KNOWING that we're murdering people in neighborhoods and schools and cities. then wipe our hands and pat ourselves on the back.

OH MY GOD SHUT UP! Do you know how ignorant you sound. You sound like a super, ultra left pacifist that can't fight ever, under any circumstances. Get over yourself. Sometimes bad things have to happen in the world to get rid of really bad people. Was it worth it to have civilian casualties to get rid of Milosovic? Ask the people in Rowanda if they like the UN. How about Siera Lion. The UN is a friggin joke, and has finally proven how much of a joke it is, and how unloyal our "allies" are.


its strange how we do everything we can to save the lives of hostages during something like a bank robbery but we dont think about the people in iraq. thats so twisted. the number of lives at stake in iraq are enormous by any means especially when compared to a bank hostage situation.
OMG! Sometimes when you rescue the hostages in a bank innocent people die. You save say 15 and 2 die. Was it worth it? Was it worth it to take the chance? If my wife and daughter lived under the rule of that madman, I would say go in. If my wife or daughter was killed in an accident, I would accept that. Remember, the needs of the many, outweight the needs of the few, ore the one.

LethalWolfe
Mar 11, 2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by groovebuster
Sorry dude, but at that point I have to tell you some stuff about the history of WWII since you seem to not know a lot about it.

When the US joined the war, Germany already had no chance to win it anymore. It was just a question of time when they would have been run over by the red army.

The main reason why the US joined was because they didn't want to see entire Europe become communistic. It scared the **** out of them because Europe was the most important trading partner at that time. Stalin was a tough guy and they were not sure if he would have stopped at the french-german border.

THAT was the reason. So don't come always with that bull-**** about freeing the French and the Germans from Hitler. Wonna talk about the war-crimes the allies committed in the last few years of the war? The totally unnecessary napalm bombing of big german cities, killing hundreds of thousands of inncocent people, mostly women and children (e.g. 80% of all buildings in Berlin were totally detsroyed). Not to forget that there was never a majority in the german population backing Hitler. Or what about all the german soldiers that had to fight a war they didn't want to? I lost my grand-father in WWII in Stalingrad and I can tell you that he was anything but a nazi. But he had no choice than marching into his death, because otherwise they would have shot him right away.

If the US wouldn't have joined WWII, the French would probably talk Russian today, but definately not German. Stop telling fairy-tales just to make you feel better.

So if you wonna tell me that the US is joining a war when it is in their national (mostly economical) interest, than I totally agree. But to claim any moral motivation for the actions of the US is (in most cases) not more than a joke considering their actions the last 150 years.

groovebuster

P.S.: I totally forgot... How can you expect the other nations to be perpared for someone like Hitler when even the german population didn't know what was going on exactly in the beginning?


Well, it's too late to keep this thread from rocketing into OT land so I might as well join the fray.

Yeah... when the US offically joined the fight in 1941 the Red Army was ready to pounce? Please. Without a western front that was gaining ground (first N. Africa then southern Italy and bombing runs into Germany and German occupied Europe), logistical screw ups by the Nazi, and mother nature the under equiped and poorly led (Great Purge anyone?) Red Army wouldn't have been able to hang on by that shoe string that kept them from completly being run over.

And Europe could have done something about Hitler when 1. he was re-arming Germany which went against Germany's terms of surrender after WWI and 2. when Germany invaded CZ.


Lethal

macfan
Mar 11, 2003, 12:06 PM
groovebuster,

When the US joined the war, Germany already had no chance to win it anymore.

That is simply not true at all. It shows an amazing lack of knowledge about the situation in 1941 and 1942.

Backtothemac
Mar 11, 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by groovebuster

When the US joined the war, Germany already had no chance to win it anymore. It was just a question of time when they would have been run over by the red army.


You are so full of **** that I can smell you from Alabama! YOU obviously know nothing about WWII. NOTHING! Please, please explain to me, how the Red Army was poised to overrun the Germans in 41. I cannot wait to hear this. For that matter, how were they poised in 42, 43, 44? That is the most ignorant thing that I have heard in a long time on these boards.

Oh, and Chef. Germany did not have a powerful army in 35. They did not when Hitler rearmed the Rhineland. That was a test. He would not have gone any further if the world had challenged him. Yet THEY DID NOTHING.

macktheknife
Mar 11, 2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
You are so full of **** that I can smell you from Alabama! YOU obviously know nothing about WWII. NOTHING! Please, please explain to me, how the Red Army was poised to overrun the Germans in 41. I cannot wait to hear this. For that matter, how were they poised in 42, 43, 44? That is the most ignorant thing that I have heard in a long time on these boards.

Oh, and Chef. Germany did not have a powerful army in 35. They did not when Hitler rearmed the Rhineland. That was a test. He would not have gone any further if the world had challenged him. Yet THEY DID NOTHING.

Before I reply, BTTM, I want to let you know that I am also a fellow conservative (despite my UC Berkeley educational pedigree :D ), so please don't flame me too badly if you disagree with my view. ;)

Anyhow, there is strong evidence to suggest that the Red Army would indeed have eventually overwhelmed the Germany Army. The Germany failure at Stalingrad was only the beginning of the end of Hitler's eastward march. His failure to seize the oil fields in 1942 in the Caucasus left Stalin a much-needed source for oil. Military historians have also noted that the Red Army was intially beaten back in 1941 because their equipment were designed for offensive purposes. In other words, Stalin had been steadily preparing for a continental invasion himself and planned to pull the trigger eventually--only Hitler beat him to it.

As a testament to the might of the Red Army, even in late 1944 when the U.S. and U.K. army had a bigger foothold on the European continent and were marching towards Berlin, Hitler still committed more than 2,000 battallions on the Eastern front, versus several hundred on the Western front.

That said, the Red Army could not have triumphed without American economic assistance. The Red Army marched in American boots, commandeered in American jeeps, etc. American assistance kept the Red Army on life support during the darker days of 1941 in the initial phase of Operation Barbarossa. To paraphrase notable WW II historian John Keegan, of all of Hitler's questionable decisions during the war, his decision to challenge the might of the American economy may well stand to be his biggest folly.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 11, 2003, 02:39 PM
Back to the mac is correct. the world did nothing. Tyrants love this stuff because it tells them to go further. Hitler did, even that foreign minister from england was duped cant think of his name but i think he killed himself afterwards if im not mistaken. He was setting his own people up for a fall becaused he believed what the liar Hitler was saying and was convincing england that hitler was a nice guy and would never attack them. Well history showed he was wrong and France no longer had paris as their capital after Hitler ran those pansies out. Saddam and Hitler are from the same mold and they love Fools who think what they say is the gospel. Gee Why didnt Saddam declare the bombs and drones on his declaration? How stupid will the world continue to be? If they dont see Saddam for what he is how are they going to deal with the likes of N korea or Iran when they get the bomb?

beatle888
Mar 11, 2003, 03:20 PM
Backtothemac


i cant believe your disregard for people that value life. i so wish that your ass goes to fight this war. but i bet it wont, will it?

its funny, i just stated in another thread how you know **** about the german attacks in WWII. your the idiot if you think it takes a history lesson to know that war kills civilians. but what does it take to be able to have compassion for those people and want to find another way.

i would rather be a pacifist than a sychopath which is what you appear to be in regards to your disrepect for civilian war casualties. saddam has nothing on hitler, you guys keep comparing this situation to other tragedies but WE are the offensive here. and coming off like you do, saying that we should except the casualties and just shrugg our shoulders is soulless. you TALK with big balls and no compassion, you know what? why dont you go talk to some veterans that have dealt with civilian mutilation...you might gain some perspective. OH AND PLEASE TELL US, WHICH WAR HAVE YOU FOUGHT IN? im dying to know.


oh and what about the fact that WE are setting this war off. we are going to kill those people because of a possible future threat LOL OH MAN,
that is twisted. thats like saying, let me kill you now, people of iraq, cause saddam could hurt you a year from now. i could give a **** if people like you can only come to conclusions by destroying eachother, go ahead. blow eachother up....but to shrugg off innocent lives.....now there is the evil.

beatle888
Mar 11, 2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Oh shut up! And watch your mouth too while you are at it.

OH MY GOD SHUT UP!


yea i bet you served. soft serve that is. its gonna take a lot more then you to shut me up. now go join and as i said, we will talk when/if you get back.

leprechaunG4
Mar 11, 2003, 04:03 PM
beatle you are an absolute jerk. A mindless jerk. You obviously can't wrap your tiny little brain around the bigger picture that is known as the world we ****ing live in. Here's a quote from you vast bank of knowledge:if iraq wants to develop WMD, we'll, then lets go kick his butt. but not at the expense of thousands of innocent lives. there has to be a more efficient way to go about it.
Well then smart ass what is your "more efficient way" to "kick his butt." You obviously have no understanding of hwo the world works. Our military does every ****ing thing possible to protect innocent lives and they die doing so. They die so that you can sit there and slander their name. You pretentious little prick.