RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is.

RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 4:55:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Firstly, carpet bombing, as a tactic, was used by the Germans in the Spanish Civil War. Secondly, the first bombing attack on a civilian area in ww2 was on London Thirdly, conservative Churchill or not, the war time government was a coalition All three facts are easily checkable. You still have yet to define "carpet bombing". According to Churchill he picked all the leaders of the coalition as well as appointing key members of the opposition to government agencies that would be sure to keep them busy and out of mischief. You do remember that he was twice to face a vote of no confidence and was tossed from office before the ink was dry on the surrender document. So you checked the facts then ?....... I thought not. I told you quite simply, carpet bombing was first used in Spain by Germany. I also told you that Churchill led a coalition government, as asked to do by King George. And yes, he would pick the cabinet members, that was his remit.

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 5:01:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx I am confused though, you in one paragraph suggest that the Anglo-American bombers kept the Axis in check, yet suggest that they played a small part in the prosecution of the war... how do those add up? The Anglo-American bombers led to extreemly high scoring aces for the Germans. Any serious study of that conflict would necessarily lead one to count the bodies. The body bags for the Anglo-Americans is pretty low when contrasted with the other players. What do you think would have happened if the Anglo,-American armies had suffered 350,000 battle deaths in the first sixty days of the war? Consider that U.S. battle deaths for the whole war on all fronts was only about a quarter of a million. So we are going to declare how much involvement or how much impact each nation had on the war based on the number of lives lost by their side? That is a bit of a stretch. Simply stated, it doesn't take into account tactics, weapons, or equipment, much less training or ability. It also doesn't take into account that some units (air, sea, or land) simply got lucky. What a colossal crock of shit. How many total German division? How many German divisions commited to Russia? How many Russian divisions? Please compare that to the total number of Anglo-American divisions in Europe. One could easily argue that if there was no error in judgement made regarding refueling and rearming the battle of Midway would have turned out differently, and its effects on the Pacific theater would have been devistating. Not very effectively Bastogne could have changed a great deal, Hardly...The thrust through the Ardennes was designed to put a wedge between the Britts and the Americans in the hope of a stalemate and a seperate peace. That was a non starter since the allies had agreed that there would be no seperate peace. Even if the Germans had made it to Antwerp the Russians were not slowing down just because it was winter. so could the simple delay of Hitler's move towards Russia, or how about a slight change in tactics at Normandy? Good lord do you really think Normandy was something special. Shit howdy it was not even as big as the Sicily invasion. Fuck some beaches were walk ons. Total losses for the U.S. were only about 2500. While body counts can be a useful tool in judging just how bloody a battle was, or in evaluating the tactical decisions made, it definitely isn't a measure of how much influence a side had on the overall war, much less on the effects that one of the winning sides had on it (as the victors normally have much less loss of life, not always but as a rule of thumb). So your position is that the conflict between some 20,million combatants is somehow inferior to the conflict between some four or five million combatants?

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 5:13:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Nor does it take into account German unwillingness to retreat or surrender in the face of Russian advances. It seems to me that the Germans retreated at Moscow(that would have been before the U.S. was in the war.) with a loss of more than 330,000 troops. The Germans surrendered at Stalingrad more than 600,000 troops (contemporaniously the first marine division was engaged with elements of the Igagi regiment at Guadacanal about 30,000 men all together on both sides. While Stalingrad had more than two million men engaged) The Germans lost at Kursk some two thousand plus tanks. You might want to check your history book mikey. As the war ended German troops on the western front were much more likely to surrender to the western powers than those on the eastern front were.Troops fighting the Russians were ,with good reason more likely to fight to the bitter end...driving up all casualties in that theater. So here you are agreeing with me that the Russians did the heavy lifting in terms of fighting and breaking the enemies will to resist.

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 5:17:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx The Anglo-American bombers led to extreemly high scoring aces for the Germans. Any serious study of that conflict would necessarily lead one to count the bodies. The body bag count for the Anglo-Americans is pretty low when contrasted with the other players. What do you think would have happened if the Anglo,-American armies had suffered 350,000 battle deaths in the first sixty days of the war? Consider that U.S. battle deaths for the whole war on all fronts was only about a quarter of a million. According to this logic, the Russians lost the war. No sweetie it indicates that the Russians had more soldiers in the field than the Anglo-Americans did.

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 5:23:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella LOL Fair enough, I just can't believe anyone would try to boil it down to that. It also completely ignores things like, oh, where the war was fought. The US casualties were low compared to the Reich's... The U.S. casualties were low compared to Germany's because we had fewer men involved. there were no battles fought on US soil. In Vietnam, there were probably 100 times as many Vietnamese killed than US soldiers, which has everything to do with the fact it was fought on their land and nothing at all to do with who won. No sweetie it has to do with carpet bombing by B52s. But again, the fact that one allied nation alone lost more people than the entire axis combined is enough to question the merits of the "body bag theory" Perhaps if you had a clue what you were talking about you could contribute to this discussion.

Thadius -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 5:27:07 PM)
I give in to your obvious superior knowledge of battle and war, and admit that the Russians are the force of good in the last century (without whom nothing would have been accomplished). I further acknowledge that had Yamamoto been more successful in his plans for Midway, that the Russians would have taken the Japanese out shortly after the fall of the Ango-American fleet. Using your logic, the French contributed a whole lot to the Normandy campaign, as they lost between 15k and 20k during it. You suggested in an early post that the number of dead in a particular campaign could and would have changed the position of the Anglo-Americans, then you argue that such losses would not have an effect? Midway, being considered the turning point at least from the Anglo-American and Japanese point of view in the war of the Pacific. Let's take this into modern warfare. If we send a Seal team into combat with 50 or 100 insurgents, who do you think is going to have a greater influence on the outcome of the battle? Technically that is not a fair question to ask, as you would want to know what the insurgents were armed with, what training they had, and how cohesive of a unit they were. Which again shows that numbers of bodies (especially dead ones) alone is not a very good way of deciding influence on the outcome. To your final question, where did I say it was inferior or superior. Hell, China could start handing out pitchforks and marching men and women into battle with any armed force and the half billion or so in losses may or may not have an effect on the outcome, although it would lower ammunition stockpiles....

Elisabella -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 5:28:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin I don't think you understand what I was getting at with my closing sentence. Politicians are elected to run countries, they are not god, they are not anything other than what they are elected to be, the voter can empower them, and disempower them, that is the way of democracy. War not only depletes the gene pool, but also depletes a country of wealth in monetery terms, chemical, mineral and whatever other that is required to come out on top. Post war a winning country often nearly collapses, normal life, back to old times is hard to complete as so much has changed, materials that were once obtainable now become scarce and the money simply is not there. Britain I believe rationing of food and materials only finished in 1952, seven years after the end of hostilities As to Churchill, he was a of a different class to the average voter, he could not see what the average voter could see, because of his dissimilar upbringing. He might have been good in the war years, but after the war, he was voted out of power. Oh no doubt I'll be the first to admit politicians are far from infallible...though I disagree with your postwar statement - that generally applies to countries in which the war was fought. The end of WWII ushered in an era of prosperity for the US. What I was getting at is that while politicians might not always make the best decisions, they are better able to make informed decisions. Anything the average US citizen knows, the average enemy knows. Politicians are privy to information we don't have. I'm going to give a totally theoretical example here so bear with me - suppose that the war in Afghanistan angered the oil producing nations so much that they were considering retaliating, and there was credible information that within a year, US gas prices would skyrocket to $20 a gallon and the economy would be nearly decimated because of it. And going to war in Iraq would be a display of power to OPEC to prevent that from happening. What would we do - say "yes we are going to war for oil, for our economy?" How would we defend that to the UN, to our citizens, to the world? We'd be tried as war criminals and rightfully so. Of course, that's an extremely unlikely scenerio and an overly dramatic one to boot, but since I don't work in Washington I can't give concrete examples :P But it is true that the decisions made in Washington are influenced by information that we the public do not have. A better example would be the 2008 elections where a lot of people wanted a politician to say that they would end the war in Iraq RIGHT AWAY, begin pulling out troops immediately and have it all done with. But Machiavelli had a point when he said that if you're going to attack someone, you need to finish the job, completely, or they'll get you back as soon as they're able. A power vaccuum in an insurgent Iraq would be a disaster - how do you think the Taliban came to power? It might sound naive of me, but I believe that in general, politicians do what they truly feel is best for this country. They might be right, they might be wrong, but changing game plan to pander to the ideas of voters will only ensure re-election, not victory.

slvemike4u -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 5:28:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Nor does it take into account German unwillingness to retreat or surrender in the face of Russian advances. It seems to me that the Germans retreated at Moscow(that would have been before the U.S. was in the war.) with a loss of more than 330,000 troops. Seems to me they "retreated" rather ineffectively The Germans surrendered at Stalingrad more than 600,000 troops (contemporaniously the first marine division was engaged with elements of the Igagi regiment at Guadacanal about 30,000 men all together on both sides. While Stalingrad had more than two million men engaged) Against orders from Hitler.If Von Paulus had been allowed to retreat prior to the completion of the encirclement the surrender would not have been necessary.You do understand the meaning of the word "necessary" do you not? They were surrounded,starving and critically short on the tools of war(ie:ammunition,stores and such) What were/are the dimensions of Guadacanal,surely you do not mean to compare a small island in the middle of the Pacific..to the vast unending stretches of Russia.No one can be this dense,not even you....but granting your denseness how would the warring factions have transported like numbers to the beaches of Guadacanal.....are you beginning to understand how comparing those numbers is more than a little birt a fools game? The Germans lost at Kursk some two thousand plus tanks. You might want to check your history book mikey. Again with the mikie shit...... And with the reading advice.....don't you get it yet,I don't like you and am very unlikely to take your advice on anything As the war ended German troops on the western front were much more likely to surrender to the western powers than those on the eastern front were.Troops fighting the Russians were ,with good reason more likely to fight to the bitter end...driving up all casualties in that theater. So here you are agreeing with me that the Russians did the heavy lifting in terms of fighting and breaking the enemies will to resist. So now we see that your history problems just might be a comprehension problem....that would explain a lot.

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 5:29:48 PM)
well,he's allowed to hold onto his fantasies. So far these so called fantasies have yet to be challanged by you or anyone else with anything more than opinion.

Elisabella -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 5:30:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx No sweetie it indicates that the Russians had more soldiers in the field than the Anglo-Americans did. I'm sorry, I might have misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 5:36:48 PM)
So you checked the facts then ?....... I thought not. This is so unlike you. You are familiar with my posts and know that I do not deal in that sort of thing. I told you quite simply, carpet bombing was first used in Spain by Germany. I mentioned that Britian used it first on Germany not that they were the first to use the concept. I am also aware that the official line (and there is no reason to doubt it) is that the first incident was an accident but it is pretty hard to unring the bell. Where I was going with asking for your definition of carpet bombing was so that we would have a common definition to discuss this with. I also told you that Churchill led a coalition government, as asked to do by King George. And yes, he would pick the cabinet members, that was his remit. Didn't Churchill also take on a few other jobs at the same time which were not his remit?

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 5:45:52 PM)
*If Von Paulus had been allowed to retreat* prior to the completion of the encirclement the surrender would not have been necessary.You do understand the meaning of the word "necessary" do you not? They were surrounded,starving and critically short on the tools of war(ie:ammunition,stores and such)** If bull frogs had springs on their asses they would not bruise them when they land. The Germans went to an ass kicking contest without their good boots on and got the everlovin shit kicked out of them. By any measure they were just out soldiered. My comparison to Guadalcanal was just to indicate the magnitude of the conflict in Russia and the relatively small number of combatants in the Pacific theater. Just for grins mikey just how many divisions did the Japs have totally and how many did they have available for use outside of China?

slvemike4u -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 6:30:18 PM)
So.you are comfortable with using the number of soldiers surrendered at Stalingrad to advance your silly little argument...but it is not cricket to look at how that surrender came to pass? What kind of mickey mouse discussions are you typically involved in Tommie? A little newsflash for you...when you choose to exchange posts with me....you do not get to set the criteria. The fact is that was a surrender of necessity...necessity brought on by the megalomania of Hitler....not a failure of his Generals nor of their soldiers.

JohnWarren -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 6:38:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Finally, I am sorry, but my hide is more important in that situation than anyone else's except those guys in my unit. John Warren's priorities. My men Other Marines Myself Other US military Poor dumb bastards in the way Served me well in the 1960's... still sounds right

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 6:40:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou So, I guess the consensus is shoot anyone carrying anything..., because all kinds of things look vaguely like all kinds of thing. Is that honestly the standard for killing people.. Lovely. Seeing as the MO of the opposition is to use any means necessary to kill or injure as many as possible, if there is reasonable cause to believe somebody is about to do you or your sqad harm, yes shoot the fucker and ask questions later. For the record, a video camera that was converted into a weapon is exactly how OBL took out the balancing opposition leader in Afghanistan. Typically an rpg is the first weapon fired in an ambush, to disable the lead vehicle so that the rifles can do their work on the passengers of the vehicles. Seeing armed men and then something that resembled an rpg being aimed, would set off alarm bells the size of the bells of Notre Dame in many combatants heads, and would garner the exact same response. You should feel better though, recent changes to the ROE provides for advanced notice of any searches of homes or buildings in Afghanistan, that should cut down immensely on the armed conflicts, save the enemy wants to setup an ambush. What standard do you propose we apply to our men and women on the ground? Well, for one, if those cameras are not good enough to gather information clearly enough to determine an RPG from a camera, then the US military need to invest some of those billions upon billions in a camera that can gather information well enough to make sane decisions. This is not 1960, or 1970, or 1980 or even 2000 this video was from 2007, I can buy a camera for a few thousand dollars, that I can zoom in and determine such, given the military budget, why do they murder people, based on crud data, instead of verifying threat. I may not be military but I know some technology. Even beyond that, I don't see why, after the RPG was taken out, they mowed everyone down. Beyond that, the men weren't exactly trying to hide anything, you'd think people planning a nefarious plot would conceal an RPG, when helicopters where overhead the whole time. Beyond that, it really is nuts that they shot the rescue van, when they showed no signs of aggression, at all, and they had incoming troops. Anyway, grainy images, is the best excuse they have for this, and that image is not the original it is compressed, so their images would have been clearer, and if they weren't very clear, well, what the fuck is the military doing with all that money. I mean is the argument, that over a dozen people died because of not having a good camera? Oh, well, whichever, they are dead, we are responsible, it should be fixed to prevent it from happening. My preference would be to leave Iraq, if not, well, Canon makes some fine cameras, maybe I should send one to the helicopter people, if their super expensive ones can't zoom to see well enough to determine an RPG from a camera. They really don't look alike, at all if you zoom in at all. Yeah, I suppose if you don't zoom in, but then zoom out enough and we all look like mario brothers characters. So, I guess my point is, when killing someone, the burden of reasonable proof lies upon us, especially in this war in Iraq, that we started and are wholly responsible for. If those cameras are indeed so shitty, as many are prone to believe, then maybe we should have better ones, you know with nifty shit like real zoom, and all that cool stuff. Though, I bet the zoom is mighty good, on those, problem is you have to care to use it.

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 6:44:27 PM)
The fact is that was a surrender of necessity...necessity brought on by the megalomania of Hitler....not a failure of his Generals nor of their soldiers. Perhaps you might want to read at least some sumary account of the battle before you make such foolish statements. VonPaulas got suckered into a "monkey trap" just like Gudeiran got suckered at Moscow. Out generaled and out soldiered.

slvemike4u -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 6:48:55 PM)
Oh fuck Tommie...did Hitler order VonPaulus to fight till the last man or not? Are you typically this fucking dense are do you just pull this shit out for WWII discussions?

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 7:07:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Oh fuck Tommie...did Hitler order VonPaulus to fight till the last man or not? Are you typically this fucking dense are do you just pull this shit out for WWII discussions? He was ordered to fight and the Russians kicked his ass. If you knew anything about the battle you would also know that the Russians also kicked the shit out of the relief effort to save Von Paulus. Had you actually taken the time to read anything about the battle except some thumbnail from wiki you would have a better grasp of the strategy behind the asault on Stalingrad. Why it was important to Germany. How the Russians made it look like a ripe plum just for the picking. How the Germans took the bait and how the trap was sprung...all this on a scale of millions of combatants...where else except on the Russian front were these masses of men pitted against one another? When in the history of mankind has combat existed on this scale?

slvemike4u -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 7:17:35 PM)
"Talking" to you is like listening to a record while the needle is stuck in a groove...for the absolute last time I will try to get you to admit the obvious......Did there come a time when Hitler's general staff,including the General on the scene (Von Paulus) beg Hitler to allow those forces to quit Stalingrad,thereby escaping the pouch they were being "trapped"in....or not ? It's a simple question Tommie...don't duck it,don't evade it and don't answer one question with another question....just answer the damm thing.....did not Hitler order those troops to stay in place and to fight where they stood ...no surrender,no maneuver...just stand and fight and die ?

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/6/2010 7:22:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius I give in to your obvious superior knowledge of battle and war, and admit that the Russians are the force of good in the last century (without whom nothing would have been accomplished). Maybe you should check that attitude at the hatch sailor boy. I have made no moral judgements about the Russians. I simply pointed out that they did the heavy lifting. Had they not had the bulk of the German army engaged do you think for a moment that the Anglo-American effort in Europe would have amounted to anything. Imagine Normandy being defended by 200 divisions instead of 20. Imagine Alexander trying to take Italy if Kesselring would have had 200 divisions at his command instead of five I further acknowledge that had Yamamoto been more successful in his plans for Midway, that the Russians would have taken the Japanese out shortly after the fall of the Ango-American fleet. You mean that the Japs did not take out the Anglo-American fleet? They sank all of our battleships at Pearl Harbor. They sank the Britts big shit in the Indian ocean and chassed the Britts all the way to India. What we had were the carriers and the subs, which every squid below flag rank knew were the real navy. We also had the Jap codes so it was pretty easy to set a trap at midway. Without their navy the Japs were without hope and began asking for peace right after Midway. Using your logic, the French contributed a whole lot to the Normandy campaign, as they lost between 15k and 20k during it. The U.S. lost 250,000 at Normandy.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875