Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Let me respond, in part, to all the comments that have been made about the U.S.
America's incompetence in war, I think, does not require proof, but I'll say it anyway. In World War II, the U.S. restricted itself to bombing Germany. This was somewhat effective, but not very. The actual fighting in the air was done by the British; on the ground, by the Russians. May I remind you that it was Russian troops who took Berlin.
The nuclear bomb is another example. The Japanese were ready to fight to the end, if not for that nice American tactic of "kill the civilians; we'll show them what we can do!".
Then, the Vietnam war. We all know that as a failure for America. How they managed to mess up so badly is an issue too long for this discussion.
And let's not forget the latest evidence, the "peacekeeping" in Kosovo. An F-117, supposedly invincible and super-stealthy, shot down during the first days of the conflict? And, of course, that bomb that accidently hit Macedonia. As a Russian political leader so succintly put it, "How do you miss a country?"
All in all, almost as bad as France.
Lest this be taken the wrong way, I love the U.S. It's a great country in all other respects. And let's face it, with our technology, America could take over the world in several hours. So there.
------------------ We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill...
Quote
Soviet mikee wrote:
...I think he is just confused on his war history. I don't see how you have the right to critize seeing how you weren't able to pick up on his mistake as well...
(/B)
Ohhh, I didn't even see that he was talking about Vietnam, I just skimmed through it and thought he was talking about the Korean war, my bad.
Anyways I'm not confused on war history at all, I just thought that he was talking about the Korean war, not the Vietnam war.
------------------
Obormot wrote: America's incompetence in war, I think, does not require proof, but I'll say it anyway. In World War II, the U.S. restricted itself to bombing Germany. This was somewhat effective, but not very. The actual fighting in the air was done by the British; on the ground, by the Russians. May I remind you that it was Russian troops who took Berlin.
Only superficially true. US ground troops were used extensively on the push to Berlin on the Western Front, and Russia took Berlin because the remainder of the allies slowed their advance so that they could do so as a concession to the Russian desire for revenge for the enormous hardships visited upon them because of Germany's actions during the war.
By your own argument, the Japanese were prepared to fight to the end (and that would have included most of the civilians), so the US tactic of dropping the nuclear weapons on them probably ended up saving lives. I'm not saying that nukes are wonderful things, but it is possible to come up with justifications for their use, and the two that have been dropped in anger thus far in human history can quite easily be justified in terms of the overall saving of life.
Not going to argue overmuch on this one as the US did make a bit of a mess of the Vietnam War. However, when it was finally decided to launch a full scale offensive, the US (and its allies) forced the frontline back enormously in a relatively short period. Remember, very few wars can be won by defensive tactics (which was how the war was being fought for a long time), and even fewer can be won without popular support back home.
The F-117 is not invincible, like any other craft it is susceptible to bullets and missiles, as well as technical malfunctions. Any aircraft can be shot down if someone is in the right place at the right time with the right weapon and is a little lucky. And when you consider that the rescue team managed to get the pilot out before the Serbains managed to get to him, that should tell you about how efficiently the air campaign was being run. Yes one or two aircraft were lost, and an occasional missile went astray, and one or two civilian targets were mistaken for military ones, but that is war. Mistakes are made, and some innocent people die. It is a shame. But when you compare civilian casualties in the Kosovo confrontation to other recent wars in the region, and you also take into account the amount of damage caused by NATO actions to Serbian military and civilian infrastructure, NATO did very well considering they went with an air-only campaign.
Just to put it all in balance, you simply do not have the troop numbers to hold the entire world. Because to hold ground, you need to have soldiers on it. You cannot hold ground with bombs (although you can clear it), nor can you do it with satellites, rockets, trucks, tanks or any other piece of gucci (Australian army speak for schmicko if slightly superfluous) technology. Men on the ground is what counts. You could severely cripple the rest of the worlds ability to make war, but you do not have enough people to keep the rest of the world 'pacified'. And I think it would take a little longer than a mere several hours.
I'm not saying that nukes are wonderful things, but it is possible to come up with justifications for their use, and the two that have been dropped in anger thus far in human history can quite easily be justified in terms of the overall saving of life.
The ends do not justify the means. If that were so, all wars could be ended by the use of nukes. That, by the way, is what the U.S. wanted to do to Germany if the war had dragged on. Europe, I assure you, would be a vastly different place now if that had happened.
Yes one or two aircraft were lost, and an occasional missile went astray, and one or two civilian targets were mistaken for military ones, but that is war. Mistakes are made, and some innocent people die.
It was more than one or two. I watched the news constantly during this period (American news, mind you) and evry other day we had a story about the Air Force using cluster bombs to take out point military installations. Americans, it seems, do not know anything but bombing. And I'll add the chemical warfare in the Vietnam to that list.
Obormot wrote: **It was more than one or two. I watched the news constantly during this period (American news, mind you) and evry other day we had a story about the Air Force using cluster bombs to take out point military installations. Americans, it seems, do not know anything but bombing. And I'll add the chemical warfare in the Vietnam to that list. **
Ummm, Clinton wanted it to be only a bombing campaign. If you think we should of sent in ground forces at the beginning to die for what could be accomplished with a bomb, you are in idiot. The bombing runs took out many many many groups of military personnel that would of otherwised cost many American lives, a bad thing, especially when most americans did not believe in the "peacekeeping" campaign -including me. Yea, way to diss Americans for using bombs instead of men... 10 years ago we used ALOT of men, recall the gulf war? We know how to use men and equipment quite well, we just prefer to save American lives by using bombs.
As for "the ends do not justify the means", screw you. It would of cost MILLIONS of American lives as well as millions more of Japanese lives to end that war. In case you didn't know, getting shot in the face and/or being burned alive IS NOT FUN. The pain, suffering and death that would of come had we not dropped the bombs is far far far greater than if we had. The entire country would of become warzone and little would be standing if we hadn't.
If it's because the two were dropped on civilian targets, I remind you every country fighting, Italy, "Nazi" France, Britian, Soviet Union, Germany and many others killed civilians or bombed their cities during the war. The Japanese fully supported the Emperor and the war, and loved it when they attacked us by killing thousands of innocent lives at Pearl Harbor. Keep in mind, we know nukes are not a great way of winning a war, we never used them again against North Korea, North Vietnam, China or the USSR.
------------------ Tear it down
when it comes down to it, america must have 3 things to survive:
im not trying to say that all americans are dumb...but the majority of the population really is messed up by propaganda.
another note about kosovo...there was this thing called the ramboullie accord. anyway it was this war declaration that was made out to look like a peace treaty with yugoslavia ------------------
(This message has been edited by Whurp (edited 03-25-2000).)
As for "the ends do not justify the means", screw you. It would of cost MILLIONS of American lives as well as millions more of Japanese lives to end that war.
Sorry, your facts are faulty. There was no necessity for the bomb, the U.S. submarines had already destroyed the Japanese ability to wage war. The bomb drop stemmed from a faulty translation (and, I suspect, a desire to see what it would do.). The Allies called for surrender, the Japanese replied with a diplomatic phrase meaning " take under consideration" which was mistranslated as "treat with contempt". All the japanese were seeking was assurance that they would not lose the Emperor.
...I think he is just confused on his war history. I don't see how you have the right to critize seeing how you weren't able to pick up on his mistake as well... (/B)
You silly little man. He was replying to my post on the Vietnam War. Are you too juvenile to recognise sarcasm?
Kevin Jordan wrote: **Sorry, your facts are faulty. There was no necessity for the bomb, the U.S. submarines had already destroyed the Japanese ability to wage war. The bomb drop stemmed from a faulty translation (and, I suspect, a desire to see what it would do.). The Allies called for surrender, the Japanese replied with a diplomatic phrase meaning " take under consideration" which was mistranslated as "treat with contempt". All the japanese were seeking was assurance that they would not lose the Emperor. **
Yea, it sucks that we had to overthrow their government. I would of loved to see all the Axis powers remain in their country, unharmed and still in power. That's like saying the Russians shouldn't of taken Berlin. Sorry, but when someone attacks your country and slaughters thousands of innocent lives, and then you have to sacrifice millions of your own people to fend them off, you want to make sure whatever government caused it never rises again. In case you don't pay attention to history, Germany surrendered in WWI. They were incredibly weak and exhausted, then 20 years later...
Kevin Jordan wrote: **You silly little man. He was replying to my post on the Vietnam War. Are you too juvenile to recognise sarcasm? **
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm, I am well aware of the fact that he was responding to your post. But you made a little snotty comment, and yes... I knew it was sarcastic.
The fact that you called Americas military wimps, then made another "sarcastic" comment which showed your complete lack of understanding of the Vietnam and Korean War... one of which you critized the US for not being 'tough' in.
BTW: Age has nothing to do with one's ability to understand sarcasm. You also spellt 'recongnize' wrong
Soviet mikee wrote: ** Ummmmmmmmmmmmm, I am well aware of the fact that he was responding to your post. But you made a little snotty comment, and yes... I knew it was sarcastic.
BTW: Age has nothing to do with one's ability to understand sarcasm. You also spellt 'recongnize' wrong **
Oh dear, why do I argue with children? I made no comments on the Korean War so how do you know whether I have a complete lack of understanding? BTW since you are so strong on spelling, I realise that spellt cannot be an error. Is it new age American spelling or are you referring to a brand of the flour called "recognize"? And yes, you are a silly little man. Cheers Kevin Jordan
Kevin Jordan wrote: **
**
Well... isn't this interesting, you think I am both a child and little... I noticed you put down "Engineer" as your occupation. Is there some generic field of engineering I have yet to hear about? I myself, am more of a scientist... astrophysics being my field of study, so I am not a "child".
Your lack of understanding came from, "You have just given us another reason why you got your butt kcked in Vietnam. Your army was in Korea, the wrong friggin country!"
** BTW since you are so strong on spelling, I realise that spellt cannot be an error. Is it new age American spelling or are you referring to a brand of the flour called "recognize"??**
To answer your question I quote, "Are you too juvenile to recognise sarcasm?" Check, and mate
Soviet mikee wrote: **To answer your question I quote, "Are you too juvenile to recognise sarcasm?" Check, and mate
Freelance Astrophysicist for Crissake. Does that mean you spend all your time watching old tapes of Startrek? If you really are over sixteen you hide it very well. {My apologies to the many intelligent 16 year old guys on this BBS for even comparing you with this dickhead}
Kevin Jordan wrote: **Freelance Astrophysicist for Crissake. Does that mean you spend all your time watching old tapes of Startrek? If you really are over sixteen you hide it very well. {My apologies to the many intelligent 16 year old guys on this BBS for even comparing you with this dickhead} **
Freelance Astrophysicist is me being sarcastic, shesh. Any idiot could figure out that a Astrophysicist could not go freelancing. Anyways, yes I am certainly over 16.
As for calling me a "d***head" you certainly have an attitude problem. The only time to insult someone else is when you feel insulted yourself, did I hurt your feelings?. Fortunalty I am not as "juvenile" as you to lower myself to such a childish display of immaturity. If you want to continue this conversation I suggest you change your grade-school behavior.
this is the most interesting forum ive ever seen...first, it starts with bas' name in autralia, then it moves on to US vs the world, then all suddenly, just these 2 guys are aruguing. PS, i agree with mikee that US is dum and i also agree with kevin that age has nothing to do with much...
something is wrong in here...help me out! (editing)
(This message has been edited by Whurp (edited 03-28-2000).)
America ruls but i have to agree that some places here sure do suck. However, I would rather live here than any other nation. If you disagree with me then you can kiss my a**
UE Crusader wrote: Why the HELL do you bother living here if you claim to hate it?
Because I can't move out.
------------------ Ā A n d r e w Ė M Ā
OpenGL Avara!
AIM: EVAndrewM
The official (url="http://"http://localc.cjb.net/")Location Calculator(/url)!
My few (overvalued) cents:
America is filled with annoying people. Out of all the people I see on public transportation and walking around (My two main modes of transportation, 50 cents for anywhere on the route..), I've met, say, 2 people that were seriously cool and nice. And, at the same time I've never ridden the bus once without seeing or smelling Alchohol and/or ciggeret(sp?) smoke.
Adding insult to injery, the american public school system sucks. I've been to two schools, and worked at one of them. While working at it, I was amazed at how CLUELESS everyone was. "Oh, ask so and so, I think hes.. Say, Bob, do you know where he can find a ink cartrige?".
My third reason to hate living here: Money is overvalued. I cant do anything without being hounded by people wanting money (stores and bums, mostly the former). If I want to live, I need money. This need of money is passed on by impression to kids, etc etc.
Fourth: Legal restrictions on everything. The USA has child labor laws, rather than helping the bigger labor problems in other countrys. If I could legally get a job, I'd go do that rather than sitting on my ass for another 14 months.
Fifth: Did I mention how much I hate people in general? I'm considering becoming a homicidal killer. Oh, wait. I need money for that. Which means I need a job. Which means a year and 2 months, minimum.
Open your eyes, mikee. America isn't half what it's cracked up to be. In fact, it's comperable to Software. It all sucks, just some sucks less.
Oh, UEC. "Why not move somewhere else?". Because moving outside the range of public transportation costs loads of, yup, money. Plus, I'd be stopped at the border. I can see it now.
Customs person:"Hello, where are you going?" Me: "Don't know. Away from here is good enough for me. You want to see my passport?" Customs person: "Look, kid. I cant let you through." me: "Why not?" CP: "uhh, I just cant."
Of course, it's most likly they'd just laugh at me and send me home. I wonder..
Me: "I live in Canada." CP: "Okay. What's your address?"
~S~
America isn't half what it's cracked up to be. In fact, it's comperable to Software. It all sucks, just some sucks less.
Yes, the annoying people find you, but you have to find the cool people. Same with everything. Have you tried living somewhere else? I have. It's better here. BTW Skunko, what part of the US do you live in?
Skunko7 wrote: **My few (overvalued) cents:
YEAH! come live in canada...heres a fake address: 255 derby place nanaimo BC...i dont know the postal code