Osama is not a "Mastermind."
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Mastermind?" HAHAHAHAHAHA. Osama is clearly insane. He wants
to die on TV, and now he is claiming that "America is jealous of
him and Islam." Let me see now. Osama attacked America because
America was "jealous" of him? HAHAHAHAHA.
The more I listen toOsama Bin Nutcase the more he comes off as a
paranoid delusional
with delusions of grandeur. This pathetic fool (Mastermind) just
single-handedly lost a war in 10 weeks that the Russians could
not win in 10 years!
And this is the Fundamentalist Muslim's "Mastermind?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
We are clearly fighting a crowd in which their elevators fail to
reach their top floors. They are delusional idiots. The ol "we
will defeat America" bullshit Osama Bin Loony Tune blustered from
Bora Tora is nothing more than a sad echo in the ears of his dead
followers.
Doug Grant (Tm)
--
De Oppresso Liber
Happy Birthday
dmtsymphony
profound.However, one thing he does appear to have masterminded is a
method of eluding the U.S. and everything it has at its disposal.Not
bad, I say.
Professor Vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Some have called Osama a Mastermind:
A master of cowardice. When the world's great cowards are enumerated,
Osama's name will be near the top of the list.
Orval Fairbairn
vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Professor Vonroach) wrote:
Along with Mullah Mohammed Omar, who exhorted his followers in Kandahar to
fight to the death, while he plotted his escape.
Professor Vonroach
wrote:
>Feel better now Doug?Your pious evaluation of Osama is clear, if not
>profound.However, one thing he does appear to have masterminded is a
>method of eluding the U.S. and everything it has at its disposal.Not
>bad, I say.
>
Clearly you put great value on personal cowardice and the exploitation
of others. I must inform you his power and his exploited base is
decimated. He is no longer a factor, just another beaten dictator on
the run with his cowardly ilk.
Daylight
> This pathetic fool (Mastermind) just
> single-handedly lost a war in 10 weeks that the Russians could
> not win in 10 years!
So the US has won the war. Everything is over now.
What the US has accomplished in 10 weeks, the Soviet Union has done it
in less than a week, that is capturing major cities.
Bin laden is no idiot. Why should he stay in the cities and take the
responsibility of protecting the civilians against the blind US
bombings. He moved his forces to mountainous areas where the US and
her airforces have no effects. This what the CNN and other US news
media didn't tell you.
If you listen to the news carefully, you should know that. Remember
the battle for Tora Bora. After 3 weeks of heavy fights, the US has
admitted that bin Laden and about 2000 of his soldiers have managed to
leave the area to unknown locations. Where did they go? How the US
kept claiming that bin Laden is surrounded in a small area and finally
they let him go to fight another day. Now who do you think is the
idiot? Is it bin laden or the US?
I am very sure that he is now planning a guerilla warfare that will
target the US soldiers all over Afghanistan. This is the same strategy
that was used against the Russians. After kicking the US out of
Afghanistan, he can easily recapture the cities in less than a month.
Don't keep listening to CNN too much. If you do, try to relate the
news items with each other and don't take each news item separately.
That will give you a clue of the real situation on ground.
foobar
news:70ceae71.02010...@posting.google.com...
>
> I am very sure that he is now planning a guerilla warfare that will
> target the US soldiers all over Afghanistan. This is the same strategy
> that was used against the Russians. After kicking the US out of
> Afghanistan, he can easily recapture the cities in less than a month.
>
against the Russians. Who is there to help him now?
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:3c3a29c3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
Yeah! Me too! (Sic em Vonroach.)
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
message news:<u36mr4f...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> > This pathetic fool (Mastermind) just
> > single-handedly lost a war in 10 weeks that the Russians
could
> > not win in 10 years!
>
> So the US has won the war. Everything is over now.
In respect to ousting a renagade cult from power, yes.
> What the US has accomplished in 10 weeks, the Soviet Union has
done it
> in less than a week, that is capturing major cities.
No, the USSR did not control the countryside, and did not even
manage to get to the underground caves until years into their
war. The Taliban is finished and on the run, in the cities and
in the country. Unlike the Russians, we were able to destroy
their mountain strongholds, the Russians *never* were able to do
that.
>
> Bin laden is no idiot. Why should he stay in the cities and
take the
> responsibility of protecting the civilians against the blind US
> bombings. He moved his forces to mountainous areas where the US
and
> her airforces have no effects. This what the CNN and other US
news
> media didn't tell you.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Right now there are pockets of Taliban on the run.
Tora Bora looks like a World War One no-man's land. I see you do
not appreciate nor understand the effect of a B-52 carpet bombing
raid. Moreover, Osama initially housed his goons amongst the
civilians so that when some civilians would be killed he could
use that as propaganda. That did not work, and he ran for the
hills....but found the hills were more dangerous than the cities.
So now he and his fellow goons will probably make some pathetic
last stand somewhere....the sooner the better.
Meanwhile, Osama Bin Fruitcake has used his daddy's money to run
and hide and piss his pants, while the poor unfortunate feeble
minded twits he recruited are left to "say hello" to the
Blackhawks and the B-52's....Not only is Osama clearly insane, he
is a coward to boot. What happened to all that "Martyr"
business? It seems that "Martyrdom" is fine for everyone
*except* Bin Laden and the rest of the terrorist henchmen.
>
> If you listen to the news carefully, you should know that.
Remember
> the battle for Tora Bora. After 3 weeks of heavy fights, the US
has
> admitted that bin Laden and about 2000 of his soldiers have
managed to
> leave the area to unknown locations. Where did they go? How the
US
> kept claiming that bin Laden is surrounded in a small area and
finally
> they let him go to fight another day. Now who do you think is
the
> idiot? Is it bin laden or the US?
First of all, Osama Fruitcake has scurried away, but NOT with any
2000 goons! The US has not admitted anything resembling what you
claim. The Taliban that tried to escape from Tora Bora were
mostly vaporized, and the rest that cowered in their Tora Bora
caves were begging and crying for mercy in their radios.
Tora Bora was a rout and a disaster for the Taliban and Al Qaeda
goons. Mullah Oman is next. Osama Bin Fruitcake is not a
fighter, hell he is not even a leader! He is simply a criminally
insane moronic coward that has managed to lose his entire army in
about ten weeks.
>
> I am very sure that he is now planning a guerilla warfare that
will
> target the US soldiers all over Afghanistan. This is the same
strategy
> that was used against the Russians. After kicking the US out of
> Afghanistan, he can easily recapture the cities in less than a
month.
HAHAHAHA. Osama Bin Fruitcake can plan all he wants. But first
he needs an army....he has none. Even if he could convince some
more feeble minded morons to follow him, he first would need to
attack the Northern Alliance and the new Afghanistan government
troops before he could get to any Americans. The Afghans hate
Osama Bin Fruitcake worse than we hate him. The chances of even
seeing this hightailing coward back in Afghanistan is about the
same chance of him winning this war....zero.
>
> Don't keep listening to CNN too much. If you do, try to relate
the
> news items with each other and don't take each news item
separately.
> That will give you a clue of the real situation on ground.
I never listen to CNN. My news comes directly from the
newswires. Osama Bin Fruitcake is cowering somewhere outside of
Afghanistan. His troops are all either killed or about to be
killed, and he is a pariah to the Afghanistan people. I suspect
Osama is in Kashmir like I said he was about a month ago. The
war in Afghanistan is all but over. Kashmir is next.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"foobar" <f...@bar.org> wrote in message
news:oX_Y7.315861$ez.44...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
vaporized. Those that remain are pariahs in Afghanistan. The
Afghanistan people will no longer support the Taliban nor Al
Qaeda....Bin Laden is too busy running and hiding to plan
anything. His assets in Afghanistan are no more, save a few
hundred remaining zealots that will be soon visiting their 72
celestial virgins.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Mike
Good point. The Russians slaughtered the Afghans until the
freedom-loving yanks gave a load of stingers to the Taliban, thus
depriving them of air power. If the Americans didn't have their
bombers, they would be just as vunerable - don't kid yourselves that
the Marines are any better than the Spetznaz. Without your bombers you
couldn't have won.
And if Russia had been quite as callous as you then it might have been
your Marines having their balls cut off and fed ot them instead of the
Russian army. Makes you feel proud, does it?
And another point - you still ain't got him. So if he's an idiot, then
surely the US is even stupider, yes? Or do you want to leave that
statement until you actually have him?
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Mike" <topca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd093fb0.02010...@posting.google.com...
> "foobar" <f...@bar.org> wrote in message
news:<oX_Y7.315861$ez.44...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
> > "Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:70ceae71.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > I am very sure that he is now planning a guerilla warfare
that will
> > > target the US soldiers all over Afghanistan. This is the
same strategy
> > > that was used against the Russians. After kicking the US
out of
> > > Afghanistan, he can easily recapture the cities in less
than a month.
> > >
> > you forget that it was the US that funded and organized his
'guerilla war'
> > against the Russians. Who is there to help him now?
>
> Good point. The Russians slaughtered the Afghans until the
> freedom-loving yanks gave a load of stingers to the Taliban,
thus
> depriving them of air power. If the Americans didn't have their
> bombers, they would be just as vunerable - don't kid yourselves
that
> the Marines are any better than the Spetznaz. Without your
bombers you
> couldn't have won.
Duh. The Marines have been using close air support for many
years now. The United States Marines are the best assault troops
in the world. What they do they do better than any others. But
they are not stupid. If the bombers can do the work, there is
not a Marine in the world that would want to do it for them. You
should know the Russians have bombers also. Yet they did not use
them in close air support like we did. There is nothing wrong
with Russian Special Forces, just those that command them.
> And if Russia had been quite as callous as you then it might
have been
> your Marines having their balls cut off and fed ot them instead
of the
> Russian army. Makes you feel proud, does it?
I am amazed at the wines, howls and cries of our blustering
enemies when someone shoots back at them. First it is
"WEWILLKILLALLAMERICANSALLOFTHEIRGOATSANDDESTROYTHEIRLIVES
AND...AND...AND..." Then when the American troops arrive
with their air support, it is "whine, cry, please don't hurt me,
I give up, whine, cry, piss pants." Cowards. Just like Osama
Bin Skedaddle.
> And another point - you still ain't got him. So if he's an
idiot, then
> surely the US is even stupider, yes? Or do you want to leave
that
> statement until you actually have him?
Catching Osama Bin Coward is not as important as destroying Al
Qaeda, and the rest of the terrorist networks. One man a war
does not make. Osama has already proved to his followers that he
is a coward and a fool. He managed to lose in 10 weeks what the
real Afghan fighters were able to defend against the Russians for
10 years!
Then when it was time to really fight those that will shoot
back, and there was no chance to kill some more innocent women
and children, ol Osama Bin Yellow-Belly took off for parts
unknown and left his "followers" to the wrath of the B-52
bombers. And this is your "hero?" Your "mastermind?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Keynes
The Saudi people.
Daylight
> "foobar" <f...@bar.org> wrote in message news:<oX_Y7.315861$ez.44...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
> > "Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:70ceae71.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > >
>
>
> surely the US is even stupider, yes?
>
It isn't only they haven't gotten him, they haven't either had any
real success against him so far, except forcing him out of the cities.
His forces left Kabul with all their weapons, the same thing happened
in Kandahar, Helmand, Jalalabad and many other provinces. In Tora
Bora, the US kept bombing that area for 3 weeks and claimed the area
is surrounded, but again, they failed to stop his soldiers from
leaving.
How can someone claim his enemy is defeated without knowing about the
losses in the enemy side and how much the enemy has suffered?
All you hear in the news these days is nothing but a US war
propaganda.
Daylight
If bin Laden believes that the US his backbone, he wouldn't go against
the US. No one goes against his master. What bin Laden believes is
that the US was just a source in one particular time. If that source
is not available anymore, he can arrange another source.
By the way, do you really think that countries like China and Russia
want the US to win in this war? No matter what they say publicly, I
will not be surprised if they are found helping bin Laden secretly, or
through a third party such as the Russian Mafia. Just a few days ago,
there were reports about weapons made in China found in Tora Bora.
Mike
> Qaeda, and the rest of the terrorist networks. One man a war
> does not make. Osama has already proved to his followers that he
> is a coward and a fool. He managed to lose in 10 weeks what the
> real Afghan fighters were able to defend against the Russians for
> 10 years!
For the last time, idiot, I will re-state the position: THE RUSSIANS
LOST BECAUSE THEIR CLOSE AIR SUPPORT AND GUNSHIPS WERE SHOT DOWN BY
AMERICAN STINGERS WHICH MEANT THAT THEIR TROOPS WERE BUTCHERED AND
WERE TORTURED BY THE TALIBAN.
Did you get that? That's the whole point, mate!! If you didn't have
your air support (ie: if it was shot down by stingers) then your
Marines would be cannon fodder as well.
The whole point is that the war the Russians fought was an assured
victory until your damn missiles came onto the scene - the only reason
that it dragged out 10 years was because America was shafting Russia
in the back. If they were doing that to you now, the US Marines would
be toast.
And don't kid yourself that they are the best in the world - the SAS
trains your SEAL teams, sonny. You don't even come close...
Hugh Bothwell
news:dd093fb0.02010...@posting.google.com...
> For the last time, idiot, I will re-state the position: THE
> RUSSIANS LOST BECAUSE THEIR CLOSE AIR
> SUPPORT AND GUNSHIPS WERE SHOT DOWN BY
> AMERICAN STINGERS WHICH MEANT THAT
> THEIR TROOPS WERE BUTCHERED AND
> WERE TORTURED BY THE TALIBAN.
Uh, no.
The Russians had essentially won the war; they withdrew
because they were losing money holding a mostly worthless
country against fanatical goatherders, everyone hated their
guts, and the troops were needed elsewhere.
Yes, the Stingers were the icing on the cake; but that's all.
As far as troops being 'butchered', the Afghanis had been
reduced to hit-and-runs on convoys, in which they generally
lost five or eight times as many men as the Soviets did.
> Did you get that? That's the whole point, mate!! If you didn't
> have your air support (ie: if it was shot down by stingers) then
> your Marines would be cannon fodder as well.
Again, not quite.
Without close air support, it would be a bit harder and
much slower - but the end result would be *precisely*
the same.
> And don't kid yourself that they are the best in the world
> - the SAS trains your SEAL teams, sonny. You don't even
> come close...
(shrug) A lot of the elite forces crosstrain - Delta, Seals,
SAS, GS9, etc - and in actual fact, there's not much to
choose between them, they're ALL incredibly good.
foobar
news:<oX_Y7.315861$ez.44...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
> > "Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:70ceae71.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > I am very sure that he is now planning a guerilla warfare that will
> > > target the US soldiers all over Afghanistan. This is the same strategy
> > > that was used against the Russians. After kicking the US out of
> > > Afghanistan, he can easily recapture the cities in less than a month.
> > >
> > you forget that it was the US that funded and organized his 'guerilla
war'
> > against the Russians. Who is there to help him now?
>
> Good point. The Russians slaughtered the Afghans until the
> freedom-loving yanks gave a load of stingers to the Taliban, thus
> depriving them of air power. If the Americans didn't have their
> bombers, they would be just as vunerable - don't kid yourselves that
> the Marines are any better than the Spetznaz. Without your bombers you
> couldn't have won.
>
necessary.
> And if Russia had been quite as callous as you then it might have been
> your Marines having their balls cut off and fed ot them instead of the
> Russian army. Makes you feel proud, does it?
>
It makes me VERY proud that our armed forces have been victorious, yes.
> And another point - you still ain't got him. So if he's an idiot, then
> surely the US is even stupider, yes? Or do you want to leave that
> statement until you actually have him?
There's a difference between stupid and crazy. I for one never said he was
stupid. But he IS crazy.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
assault troops in the world has ever seen them fight? Or has
fought anything? Even the Russian soldiers I have met
acknowledged our Special Forces were better trained and better
equipped than theirs, and our Marines make theirs look pathetic.
I have trained with Russians, and I have trained and fought
with Brits, Australians and New Zealanders, Vietnamese, ROK
Marines, Turks, and the French Legionnaires. I have also drank
with them on many a night. They will all tell you that our
troops are the best equipped and best trained troops in the
world. Whether our troops are better, that would depend upon who
you were asking....but none of the above have ever stated they
were better or less capable than American troops.
Most of the NATO troops are very well trained and extremely
capable. I would say on an equal basis with American troops.
However, today, troops are only as good as their equipment and
coordination communications with their air support. In those two
respects nothing can touch the American military. The Russians
could not afford to train nor equip their troops on a par with
NATO. Moreover, Russian soldiers are mostly illiterate and
poorly trained. They are great for a bayonet charge and their
bravery is legendary, but their command structure is inept,
corrupt and obsolete.
(However, now that Russia has joined the civilized world, look
for all that to change.)
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
亮
"Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> 撰寫於郵件
news:70ceae71.02010...@posting.google.com...
Do you know most of the weapons used by the Afghan (Taliban and other Afghan
factions) were made in China?
So there is nothing unusual in finding Chinese made weapons in Tora Bora.
We have been exporting weapons for decades.
By the way, you are right. We NEVER wanted the US to win the "war" in
Afghanistan.
Many of us believe the so-called "war" in Afghanistan is a plot to turn
Afghanistan into another "US's ally".
So the US will have a base established at our backyard (and the Russians),
and a supplier of cheap natural gas.
The "victory" of the US in Afghanistan means a terrible threat to our
nation.
Moreover, some of us even support Bin Laden, mosty the Muslims of couse.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
HHAHAHAHAHA. What utter laughable nonsense! Right now we are in
their strongholds counting bodies and extracting intelligence.
When Guerrilla type troops slip away, they always need to mass
again somewhere to attack and draw supplies. They run from point
A, with 20% less troops due to their losses at point A, then we
find them at point B, then they lose 20% more and are forced to
run to point C, then we find them and they lose 20% more and are
forced to run to point D, then we find them and they run to point
E, and when we find them at point E, there will be no point F.
Not only have the Taliban and Al Qaeda lost the war, they are
hated by the Afghanistan people. They have managed to lose a war
in ten weeks that real Afghanistan fighters (like the one Bin
Laden had assassinated) were able to hold after 10 years against
the Russians.
They are not only terrible soldiers, (crying in their radios for
mercy and hiding behind civilians as an example) they are cowards
to boot. They are toast...just some fools that post on these
newsgroups do not want to admit it.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Al
> > Qaeda, and the rest of the terrorist networks. One man a war
> > does not make. Osama has already proved to his followers
that he
> > is a coward and a fool. He managed to lose in 10 weeks what
the
> > real Afghan fighters were able to defend against the Russians
for
> > 10 years!
>
> For the last time, idiot, I will re-state the position: THE
RUSSIANS
> LOST BECAUSE THEIR CLOSE AIR SUPPORT AND GUNSHIPS WERE SHOT
DOWN BY
> AMERICAN STINGERS WHICH MEANT THAT THEIR TROOPS WERE BUTCHERED
AND
> WERE TORTURED BY THE TALIBAN.
The Russians have bombers. American stingers cannot shoot down
high flying bombers...moron. The Russians lost the war because
they used obsolete tactics against a highly mobile Guerrilla
force. Moreover, the Russian logistics were terrible, and their
equipment almost inoperable. They were sitting ducks.
> Did you get that? That's the whole point, mate!! If you didn't
have
> your air support (ie: if it was shot down by stingers) then
your
> Marines would be cannon fodder as well.\
But we *do* have high flying bombers just like the Russians, and
those were the most important weapon we used. We also have much
better technology in respect to our guided bombs and drone
planes. The Russians did not have access to that technology.
Moreover, we can countermeasure stingers....mate! Where have you
been? Our close air support can countermeasure stingers *after*
they are fired, not to mention spot any group with those weapons
in the dead of night *miles* before our close air support is in
range of those weapons. This is the 21st Century "mate" and this
is America, not some backward colony with an Army and technology
equal to our Girl Scouts.
>
> The whole point is that the war the Russians fought was an
assured
> victory until your damn missiles came onto the scene - the only
reason
> that it dragged out 10 years was because America was shafting
Russia
> in the back. If they were doing that to you now, the US Marines
would
> be toast.
The Russians could provide the Taliban with all the stingers they
can find and it would make little difference. Stingers cannot
shoot down B-52's nor most high flying or low flying very fast
aircraft. The lumbering giant choppers the Russians used were
death traps, they did not have countermeasures for stingers, we
do. Our Marines have been trained to work with close air support
*and* distanced air support, like B-52's.
I have been in B-52 raids. I know first hand what they can do to
the minds and wills of soldiers. In this case the B-52's made
the difference. The Russians have comparable bombers yet they
chose not to use them in Afghanistan for some reason....probably
because of America's threats. If they had they would have won in
Afghanistan also.
>
> And don't kid yourself that they are the best in the world -
the SAS
> trains your SEAL teams, sonny. You don't even come close...
I personally trained SAS troops, and ROK Marines, and troops from
Australia and New Zealand. And officers from the SAS also
trained me. Most of the training for Special Forces NATO is
done at Fr. Bragg North Carolina. Most (not all) of the
instructors are American, although there are many from NATO
countries that provide their specialties.
Our Marines are trained as assault troops, not as Special
Forces. (Although they do have Recon Platoons that are very well
trained for their types of missions.) Seals, I have been told,
are exceptional in respect to most Special Ops troops. I am sure
they have accepted training from SAS officers and any other
officers that could help them learn their jobs. All that means
is that some SAS officer taught them one element of their
training, not all of it....sonny.
In respect to our Marines, they are the best assault troops in
the world. That is what they do, assault objectives, and they
are indeed the best. They are not trained to be sneaky like
Special Ops, they will still fix bayonets even today. Our
Marines are Grunts and they are proud of it. I would imagine the
only complaint the Commander of Camp Rhino has received from his
men is "when are they going to let us fight?"
Doug Grant (Tm)
Daylight
> "Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> 撰寫於郵件
> news:70ceae71.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > "foobar" <f...@bar.org> wrote in message
> news:<oX_Y7.315861$ez.44...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
> > > "Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:70ceae71.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
>
> Afghanistan.
> Many of us believe the so-called "war" in Afghanistan is a plot to turn
> Afghanistan into another "US's ally".
> So the US will have a base established at our backyard (and the Russians),
> and a supplier of cheap natural gas.
>
> The "victory" of the US in Afghanistan means a terrible threat to our
> nation.
>
wins the war. From a political point of view, as you said if the US
wins the war, it will cause a great threat to China. And form a
military point of view, now it is a great time for China to test their
weapons in a real battlefield.
If you look at the war at this moment of time, you will see the US
wants to end the war as soon as possible. While the opponent, bin
Laden, wants it to last for a very long time. In his last video
message, he said that he distributed his fighters in small groups over
very large areas. It has become clear now that the US is not going to
send large number of troops to attack his bases. So there is no point
to bring his soldiers in large numbers in small areas to become easy
targets for the US bombers. Distributing them in small groups over
large mountainous areas, make them very diffecult to find and make the
US bombings very little effective.
While the time passes, the support for the US from other nations will
start to decrease. The 70 thousand Pakistani soldiers standing on the
borders will not be there. Things will become loose.
In the time being, I believe, weapons manufacturers from China or
Russia or both are sending their engineers to study the battlefield
and the unexploded US bombs and missiles and warplanes. As late as
this coming summer, the war will have a new phase and the US will be
in deep trouble.
亮
"Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> 撰寫於郵件
news:70ceae71.02010...@posting.google.com...
> "?G" <yo...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:<a1613i$r1...@imsp212.netvigator.com>...
> > "Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> 撰寫於郵件
> > news:70ceae71.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > > "foobar" <f...@bar.org> wrote in message
> > news:<oX_Y7.315861$ez.44...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
> > > > "Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:70ceae71.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> >
> > By the way, you are right. We NEVER wanted the US to win the "war" in
> > Afghanistan.
> > Many of us believe the so-called "war" in Afghanistan is a plot to turn
> > Afghanistan into another "US's ally".
> > So the US will have a base established at our backyard (and the
Russians),
> > and a supplier of cheap natural gas.
> >
> > The "victory" of the US in Afghanistan means a terrible threat to our
> > nation.
> >
> I always think so. China and Russia will be great losers if the US
> wins the war. From a political point of view, as you said if the US
> wins the war, it will cause a great threat to China. And form a
> military point of view, now it is a great time for China to test their
> weapons in a real battlefield.
like pistols, rocket launchers, automatic rifles....
But now we are exporting our most advanced tanks and missles to Pakistan.
So if we are to test our *NEW* weapons in *real battlefiend*, it will
not be Afghanistan but somewhere between Pakistan and India.
>
> If you look at the war at this moment of time, you will see the US
> wants to end the war as soon as possible. While the opponent, bin
> Laden, wants it to last for a very long time. In his last video
> message, he said that he distributed his fighters in small groups over
> very large areas. It has become clear now that the US is not going to
> send large number of troops to attack his bases. So there is no point
> to bring his soldiers in large numbers in small areas to become easy
> targets for the US bombers. Distributing them in small groups over
> large mountainous areas, make them very diffecult to find and make the
> US bombings very little effective.
and hopes Afghanistan will become the second "Vietnam".
>
> While the time passes, the support for the US from other nations will
> start to decrease. The 70 thousand Pakistani soldiers standing on the
> borders will not be there. Things will become loose.
>
> In the time being, I believe, weapons manufacturers from China or
> Russia or both are sending their engineers to study the battlefield
> and the unexploded US bombs and missiles and warplanes. As late as
> this coming summer, the war will have a new phase and the US will be
> in deep trouble.
advanced US planes. Western media claimed that our government have
bought unexploded US curise missles from Bin Laden, finanically aiding
his terrorist activities, but this time we wont have to spend a penny : )
By the way, according to "TIMES", a Chinese-to-Arab dictionary was found
in a hiding place of Bin Laden......
Racists___Religions
1.Church is "two bodies, one Black Christian, one white
Christian-separate and divided.
2.Sudras (Untouchables Hindus)
Hindu Church is "two bodies, one Brahmin Hindu , one Untouchable Hindu
separate and divided.
The holocaust was sponsored by "Christians".
American slavery was "justified" by "Christians".
Please visit:
Sudras (Untouchables Hindus) Holocaust Museum
http://www.dalitstan.org/holocaust/
Fight White Power
Fight Brahmin Hindu Power
Fight Imperialism
Fight Racism
Aeolus
When the media refers to Osama as the 'mastermind', they are simply
implying that he is the figure behind the attack. Why would they think
that he is supra-intelligent? He is simply another Hitler, without
another nation to back him.
Aelous
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Aeolus" <aeol...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:aaf320d5.0201...@posting.google.com...
Actually, Osama Bin Fruitcake is more akin to a Pol Pot. A small
twisted obviously insane radical with maniacal delusions of
grandeur. And a coward to boot just like Pol Pot.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Mike
> high flying bombers...moron. The Russians lost the war because
> they used obsolete tactics against a highly mobile Guerrilla
> force. Moreover, the Russian logistics were terrible, and their
> equipment almost inoperable. They were sitting ducks.
Obselete? ie, throwing grenades down their little caves and smoking
them out? Seems valid...
> But we *do* have high flying bombers just like the Russians, and
> those were the most important weapon we used. We also have much
> better technology in respect to our guided bombs and drone
> planes. The Russians did not have access to that technology.
> Moreover, we can countermeasure stingers....mate!
Yes, very clever. This is now 20 years later - you didn't have access
to that technology at the time either. The Russians couldn't have sent
Tupelovs against Afghanistan due to logistical problems and
international pressure would not (perversely) condone that kind of
engagement.
> This is the 21st Century "mate" and this
> is America, not some backward colony with an Army and technology
> equal to our Girl Scouts.
Oh sorry "homie", "gangsta", "pal", "dude"... any word your version of
my language would put in it's place.
Exactly what country are you referring to there? If Russia, it was the
same "backward colony" which had a couple of thousand ICBMs pointed at
your face for fifty years. You talk about your vaunted technology as
though laser-guided bombs and missiles are the latest thing, wheras a
huge number of countries also use them. Maybe America made them all,
it wouldn't surprise me if they found their way into the hands of some
tin-pot dictator (ethics? the weapons industry?).
Of course, if you were referring to Britain then, I will just take the
liberty to laugh at you a while. It's so boring being British, not
having lost a war for three hundred years and all... sigh, having the
best armed forces in the world gets tiresome... that reminds me, when
was Vietnam again? Hardly an undefeated record there...
> The Russians could provide the Taliban with all the stingers they
> can find and it would make little difference. Stingers cannot
> shoot down B-52's nor most high flying or low flying very fast
> aircraft. The lumbering giant choppers the Russians used were
> death traps, they did not have countermeasures for stingers, we
> do. Our Marines have been trained to work with close air support
> *and* distanced air support, like B-52's.
Wow! Another new tactic - co-ordinating with air support? Wow.... must
suggest that one to the Ministry of Defence. It's amazing what you can
teach us about the basics of how to shoot straight!!
> I have been in B-52 raids. I know first hand what they can do to
> the minds and wills of soldiers. In this case the B-52's made
> the difference. The Russians have comparable bombers yet they
> chose not to use them in Afghanistan for some reason....probably
> because of America's threats. If they had they would have won in
> Afghanistan also.
What goes around comes around. Would have saved you a bit of bother
then, huh?
> Our Marines are trained as assault troops, not as Special
> Forces. (Although they do have Recon Platoons that are very well
> trained for their types of missions.) Seals, I have been told,
> are exceptional in respect to most Special Ops troops. I am sure
> they have accepted training from SAS officers and any other
> officers that could help them learn their jobs. All that means
> is that some SAS officer taught them one element of their
> training, not all of it....sonny.
>
> In respect to our Marines, they are the best assault troops in
> the world. That is what they do, assault objectives, and they
> are indeed the best. They are not trained to be sneaky like
> Special Ops, they will still fix bayonets even today. Our
> Marines are Grunts and they are proud of it. I would imagine the
> only complaint the Commander of Camp Rhino has received from his
> men is "when are they going to let us fight?"
Interesting comment, you should have been a writer for Full Metal
Jacket. However you may present this, the US Marines being the best in
the world is debatable. You probably haven't heard this on Fox or
whatever, but the 'sneaky' SAS won one of the most convincing
hand-to-hand victories in this whole war. A sixty-strong force engaged
about 500 al-Quaeda and Taliban troops and cut them down in about two
hours of close quarter fighting, guns and knives. Only two SAS needed
airlifting out as casualties. With the greatest respect to the
"grunts", it seems that the only achievement of the USMC has been
putting American flags on walls and surrounding Tora Bora for the
fourth week running.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
down
> > high flying bombers...moron. The Russians lost the war
because
> > they used obsolete tactics against a highly mobile Guerrilla
> > force. Moreover, the Russian logistics were terrible, and
their
> > equipment almost inoperable. They were sitting ducks.
>
> Obselete? ie, throwing grenades down their little caves and
smoking
> them out? Seems valid...
Mike, you need to brush up on the construction of enemy caves and
tunnels. In Vietnam, they built them with booby trapped trap
doors at right angles every few feet. A Grenade would only work
to the first compartment, and the smoke was workable perhaps to
only two compartments. You needed to go into those tunnels
with a hand weapon and grenades, our "tunnel rats" worked from
trap door to trap door, compartment to compartment. My first
assignment in Vietnam was at Chu Chi. The tunnels there are
legendary and are so vast and complicated they have even been
turned into a war museum by the Vietnamese.
> > But we *do* have high flying bombers just like the Russians,
and
> > those were the most important weapon we used. We also have
much
> > better technology in respect to our guided bombs and drone
> > planes. The Russians did not have access to that technology.
> > Moreover, we can countermeasure stingers....mate!
>
> Yes, very clever. This is now 20 years later - you didn't have
access
> to that technology at the time either. The Russians couldn't
have sent
> Tupelovs against Afghanistan due to logistical problems and
> international pressure would not (perversely) condone that kind
of
> engagement.
Now you want to use hindsight as a self-serving excuse for the
Russian failures in Afghanistan? Of course they could have used
their bombers, and in fact, did use them to a degree. But their
logistics and command controls would not allow them to spend the
money America is spending. The Russians could have easily
destroyed Afghanistan completely if it wished to do so, but like
us, it really does not need any more Goats or rocks.
If the Afghans had attacked Moscow, I doubt if their would be
anything left of Afghanistan other than a greasy spot. My point
is Russia had the capability to win in Afghanistan completely,
stingers or not. Yet when a new political atmosphere began in
Moscow the Russian leadership decided that a continual
occupation of Afghanistan was no longer practical....and left the
Afghans to their own devices voluntarily.
>
> > This is the 21st Century "mate" and this
> > is America, not some backward colony with an Army and
technology
> > equal to our Girl Scouts.
>
> Oh sorry "homie", "gangsta", "pal", "dude"... any word your
version of
> my language would put in it's place.
Considering that I nor anyone I know uses any of the above
terms, you can stick with "mate" if you wish, it is your jargon
not mine. However, if you wish to call me anything American, you
can call me "Sir" or "Patriot." (You have been watching too much
American TV..mate.)
>
> Exactly what country are you referring to there? If Russia, it
was the
> same "backward colony" which had a couple of thousand ICBMs
pointed at
> your face for fifty years. You talk about your vaunted
technology as
> though laser-guided bombs and missiles are the latest thing,
wheras a
> huge number of countries also use them. Maybe America made them
all,
> it wouldn't surprise me if they found their way into the hands
of some
> tin-pot dictator (ethics? the weapons industry?).
>
First of all those USSR ICBM's had to fly. Over half would not.
Then when they landed they had to explode, over 90% would not.
Moreover that does not include all of those ICBM's we would have
shot down. In respect to some of our weapon technology finding
its own market, you are absolutely correct about that.
Moreover, I just learned that the US was going to pay $150,000
per stinger in Afghanistan. I would suspect every crate of
Stingers in the world are on their way to Afghanistan right now.
This is a major mistake. We are not perfect, our Politicians
make these kinds of stupid mistakes from time to time. And yes,
most of our common weapon technology will fall into some
Potentates hands....but not the really good stuff that is tested
about 50 miles from my house in Groom Lake.
We have some weapons (like the B61-11) that could take out any
tunnel or mountain stronghold instantaneously. But I suspect it
will take another attack on America before we gain the public
support to start using them.
> Of course, if you were referring to Britain then, I will just
take the
> liberty to laugh at you a while. It's so boring being British,
not
> having lost a war for three hundred years and all... sigh,
having the
> best armed forces in the world gets tiresome... that reminds
me, when
> was Vietnam again? Hardly an undefeated record there...
You have been watching too much TV again. The United States
Military never lost a single battle in Vietnam. Vietnam fell
after we left it to its own designs. Now, how many colonies has
Britton abandoned that immediately turned to a civil war? I can
count about six off the top of my head. Did the British Military
lose a war in those countries? No of course not, they abandoned
them like we did Vietnam.
Also, it seems to me the Brits lost a war at Yorktown Virginia,
and again at New Orleans (you remember "they ran through the
briars and they ran through the brambles and they ran through the
bushes where a Rabbit couldn't go?) . Hell there are even songs
about how the British lost these wars against Americans.
Moreover, the British supported the Confederacy during our civil
war, and they lost that one also (although they never sent
troops).
And we need not point out the accepted fact that your Island
language would be German right now if it were not for America and
its support.....you do remember Dunkirk don't you? How about
Montgomery's debacle in Holland? If WWII was left exclusively to
the Brits, there would no longer be any free Europe not to
mention an England. Also, how did Britain win the air war
against the Nazis again? Oh yes, it did have something to do
with a new American technology called "Radar?" Something the
Americans helped to invent and mass produced and gave to the
Brits...without which Goening's Luftwaffe would have destroyed
England.
But the past is the past. Right now, as usual, our countries
are allied against a common evil. Just like we were allied
against the Nazis and the Soviets.
>
> > The Russians could provide the Taliban with all the stingers
they
> > can find and it would make little difference. Stingers
cannot
> > shoot down B-52's nor most high flying or low flying very
fast
> > aircraft. The lumbering giant choppers the Russians used
were
> > death traps, they did not have countermeasures for stingers,
we
> > do. Our Marines have been trained to work with close air
support
> > *and* distanced air support, like B-52's.
>
> Wow! Another new tactic - co-ordinating with air support?
Wow.... must
> suggest that one to the Ministry of Defence. It's amazing what
you can
> teach us about the basics of how to shoot straight!!
You were the one complaining about how the Russians were shot
down with stingers. Obviously they had problems coordinating
their close air support.
And now you facetiously want to comment about coordinating air
support....like you think all countries do the same air
coordination support training as American troops. You are of
course very wrong. In fact, the Russian ground control systems
are completely different than the American air control systems.
Close support is much different in the two armies, and I would
suspect, because of your Harriers, the Brit support is somewhat
different also. (At least it seemed that way to me in the
Falklands.)
>
> > I have been in B-52 raids. I know first hand what they can
do to
> > the minds and wills of soldiers. In this case the B-52's
made
> > the difference. The Russians have comparable bombers yet
they
> > chose not to use them in Afghanistan for some
reason....probably
> > because of America's threats. If they had they would have
won in
> > Afghanistan also.
>
> What goes around comes around. Would have saved you a bit of
bother
> then, huh?
You are right about that one. In hindsight, it would have been
much better if the Russians would have continued to occupy
Afghanistan and we would have left them alone. Now they are
probably gleefully smirking at our mistake as they immediately
offered their help to defeat the Afghanistan terrorists. I
don't blame them (or you) for being smug on this account. They
are right. But hindsight is always 20/20.
I had not heard of that account of the Brits engaging the enemy.
Where did you hear that? Are you sure they used only guns and
knives? Where was their air support? Also, if they received air
support was it American? Also, like I said, the only complaint
the commander of the Marines could be hearing is "when will they
let us fight." Moreover, if the Brits did as you say, then I
congratulate them for their well deserved victory.
I would imagine our Marine Corps troops are very frustrated with
the politics of this war thus far. But I suspect they will get
their chance before this is over.
Also, I have nothing against the SAS, but they are not assault
troops. They are much more sophisticated and better trained
troops for what they do compared to our US Marines. But for what
our assault troops do, which are direct assaults, no troops I
have ever seen equal the US Marines with perhaps one exception
and that was the ROK Marines.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Mike
least hobby, out of all this. A few things, though....
> > Of course, if you were referring to Britain then, I will just
> take the
> > liberty to laugh at you a while. It's so boring being British,
> not
> > having lost a war for three hundred years and all... sigh,
> having the
> > best armed forces in the world gets tiresome... that reminds
> me, when
> > was Vietnam again? Hardly an undefeated record there...
>
> You have been watching too much TV again. The United States
> Military never lost a single battle in Vietnam. Vietnam fell
> after we left it to its own designs. Now, how many colonies has
> Britton abandoned that immediately turned to a civil war? I can
> count about six off the top of my head. Did the British Military
> lose a war in those countries? No of course not, they abandoned
> them like we did Vietnam.
I beg to differ. You didn't lose battles because you didn't fight
battles, but the American military were slaughtered. This is not the
same as British troops peacefully leaving fifty years after the first
shots were fired that made it theirs. Not one of the British colonies
that was exited after the war chased out the British soldiers, nor did
the British at any time lose their control over any of these colonies.
The way you paint it, America stormed in there, won a few battles and
then left, thus it was the South Vietnamese at fault. Sadly, not true
- you were in there for over ten years, in which thousands and
thousands of your own troops died. That was, in essence, a loss.
Nobody even considers Vietnam a war after the American
pull-out/retreat. The Tet offensive, for one? Right to the doors of
the US Embassy, wasn't it? And that close air support you rely on -
yep, you sure hit a lot of people in the neighbouring countries. And
My Lai..?
Americans often try to get away with this one by claiming that it was
never a war, or that (as you do) that it was not a loss. Everyone in
the world knows it was. In any case, by that logic, the American
Revolution was just that - a revolution - as Britain never declared
war, thus, by your reasoning, was not a loss.
> Also, it seems to me the Brits lost a war at Yorktown Virginia,
> and again at New Orleans (you remember "they ran through the
> briars and they ran through the brambles and they ran through the
> bushes where a Rabbit couldn't go?) . Hell there are even songs
> about how the British lost these wars against Americans.
> Moreover, the British supported the Confederacy during our civil
> war, and they lost that one also (although they never sent
> troops).
We supported the Confederacy only to the extent that anything which
ripped America apart was music to our ears - and that you boarded two
British ships just to get a few Confederate diplomats. Don't kid
yourself - however you may view the relative positions in the world
now, back then Britain was undisputably the greatest and most powerful
country in the world - if we'd gone into the Civil War the Yankees
would never have come out of it.
> And we need not point out the accepted fact that your Island
> language would be German right now if it were not for America and
> its support.....you do remember Dunkirk don't you? How about
> Montgomery's debacle in Holland? If WWII was left exclusively to
> the Brits, there would no longer be any free Europe not to
> mention an England. Also, how did Britain win the air war
> against the Nazis again? Oh yes, it did have something to do
> with a new American technology called "Radar?" Something the
> Americans helped to invent and mass produced and gave to the
> Brits...without which Goening's Luftwaffe would have destroyed
> England.
NOT an accepted fact by any means. Let's review: Britain declared war,
also bringing in India, South Africa, Australia and Canada. Early
victories include - the entire of Africa, destroying the Luftwaffe
despite 10-1 superiority in numbers (radar was, in fact, a British
invention). Then on to Italy, which America and Britain shared. Then
the D-Day landings, in which (and you can look this up) it took ONE
MONTH to get as many American troops into the theatre as British and
Canadian troops. ONE MONTH. So for that whole time us and the
Canadians fought off the best the Germans could offer. Dunkirk was a
defeat, but also a withdrawl - most of our soldiers made it out. This
utterly stupid idea that America saved Europe is pathetic - Russia
gained much more territory than you. The British Empire fought as hard
as anyone in the war, striking all the way into the heart of Germany
ALONGSIDE you. Similarly, a little-known fact in America is that
Hitler called off the invasion of Britiain after the destruction of
the Luftwaffe in 1940 - by the time the yanks got involved, invasion
was no longer an issue.
As I think I've outlined, British troops were first into the breach in
some of the most dangerous conflicts in the war. I'm sure that your
history doesn't teach it like that, the same way it teaches you about
your shining success in Vietnam. I'm sorry, but what is undisputed is
that Britain and the Commonwealth were equal partners with both
America and Russia, not (as America likes to pretend) that America was
way ahead and everyone else was struggling to keep up. If you really
want, we can re-fight the war blow by blow, but if you take your head
out of the dirt for five minutes and think about how completely and
utterly misconceived you are to even suggest that the greatest
imperial power in the world needed the contribution of what was
frankly a wayward colony you may eventually realise that one third of
the entire civilised world owes this civilisation to Britain.
Including you.
> And now you facetiously want to comment about coordinating air
> support....like you think all countries do the same air
> coordination support training as American troops. You are of
> course very wrong. In fact, the Russian ground control systems
> are completely different than the American air control systems.
> Close support is much different in the two armies, and I would
> suspect, because of your Harriers, the Brit support is somewhat
> different also. (At least it seemed that way to me in the
> Falklands.)
I did not suggest that America is the gold standard, which every army
emulates. My point was that air support isn't a new idea... and the
Falkland isles was a case in point of poor air support, but those 12
harriers still managed to take down a huge airforce by themselves.
> >
> > > I have been in B-52 raids. I know first hand what they can
> do to
Really are a jack-of-all-trades, aren't you? What do you actually do?
> I had not heard of that account of the Brits engaging the enemy.
> Where did you hear that? Are you sure they used only guns and
> knives? Where was their air support? Also, if they received air
> support was it American? Also, like I said, the only complaint
> the commander of the Marines could be hearing is "when will they
> let us fight." Moreover, if the Brits did as you say, then I
> congratulate them for their well deserved victory.
It wouldn't suprise me in the least if the American media hadn't
touched it - I mean, you "saved our ass in dubya-dubya-two", right?
How could we possibly ever achieve military victory, we're useless and
run around aimlessly during conflict relying on American inventions to
save us.
No air support, just an extremely talented group of people. And yes,
it really was full hand to hand combat, because the SAS literally
charged into them and fought tooth and nail in their defensive
trenches. They were special forces fighting en masse. I don't know
what your media is showing, but at one stage we were getting daily
pictures of the SAS storming their way through Afghanistan - you can
hear British accents on the tapes; guys with winged dagger
shoulder-patches were at most of the hotspots.
Seeing as you seem to have such connections, maybe you could ask
someone the validity of this? That is of course assuming that you can
take time out from re-writing history to make you feel better about
certain recent conflicts you may otherwise feel embarrassed about,
that is.
Seriously, ask what the British contribution has been so far - much
greater than many Americans may think.
Orval Fairbairn
topca...@hotmail.com (Mike) wrote:
> A long and mostly correct post. You have clearly made a career, or at
> least hobby, out of all this. A few things, though....
(snip)
>
> > And now you facetiously want to comment about coordinating air
> > support....like you think all countries do the same air
> > coordination support training as American troops. You are of
> > course very wrong. In fact, the Russian ground control systems
> > are completely different than the American air control systems.
> > Close support is much different in the two armies, and I would
> > suspect, because of your Harriers, the Brit support is somewhat
> > different also. (At least it seemed that way to me in the
> > Falklands.)
>
> I did not suggest that America is the gold standard, which every army
> emulates. My point was that air support isn't a new idea... and the
> Falkland isles was a case in point of poor air support, but those 12
> harriers still managed to take down a huge airforce by themselves.
.... WITH the help of the latest (at the time) AIM-9L Sidewinders, which
gave them 90 deg deflection shot capability.
I have it on good authority that an American AF officer could not buy his
own drink in RAF Officers' Clubs after the Falklands war -- the RAF guys
INSISTED on pucking up the tab!
The Argies suffered from POOR leadership. Hell, the Argies even drafted
executive jets for rcon duties and were promptly shot down by the Brits.
Allan Larsen
others to go along for the ride. I`ve heard
speculation that the others may or may not have realized that they were
going to die. This would not have been that big of an accomplishment for
someone with five million dollars.
The only way he is a mastermind is if
he gets the US to dump billions into
Afghanistan.
AM I THE ONLY ONE TO SEE THE MOVIE ---THE MOUSE THAT ROARED???
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Orval Fairbairn" <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:orfairbairn-06...@sdn-ar-001flhhilp306.dialsprint
.net...
I spent 30 years in the Military. First the US Marine Corps,
then the United States Army. My last command was a MI command.
What I watched (on TV) in respect to the Falklands was a
conspicuous absence of close air support. But there is no
denying the Harriers did their job admirably.
> .... WITH the help of the latest (at the time) AIM-9L
Sidewinders, which
> gave them 90 deg deflection shot capability.
>
> I have it on good authority that an American AF officer could
not buy his
> own drink in RAF Officers' Clubs after the Falklands war -- the
RAF guys
> INSISTED on pucking up the tab!
>
> The Argies suffered from POOR leadership. Hell, the Argies even
drafted
> executive jets for rcon duties and were promptly shot down by
the Brits.
It was a turkey shoot as I was told. Only because of the
superior Brits and their Harriers. Here is to the next "turkey
shoot."
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Mike, Mike. We did lose more than 50,000 dead, the enemy lost
over three million dead. Hardly a victory for the Viet Con and
the NVA mike. The only "slaughter" in Viet Nam were battles like
the Tet Offensive of 1968 (which I participated in) and the Viet
Cong lost 90% of their troops and suffered so many causalities
they even destroyed their ability to continue to be a fighting
force. Why do you think the NVA signed the Paris accords Mike?
Because they were winning? Like I said, the American forces
never lost a single major battle. And yes, the country did
fall.....after the American forces left the country.
Moreover, Vietnam was a terrible defeat for the Russians. It
destroyed their economy by their own admission.
> Americans often try to get away with this one by claiming that
it was
> never a war, or that (as you do) that it was not a loss.
Everyone in
> the world knows it was. In any case, by that logic, the
American
> Revolution was just that - a revolution - as Britain never
declared
> war, thus, by your reasoning, was not a loss.
Britain lost its armies in the field, TWICE during the American
revolution and the war of 1812. America not only did not lose
any of its armies in Vietnam, it *never* lost a major battle nor
campaign. The Republic of South Vietnam was intact when our
forces left the country Mike. And yes, we took causalities, but
the enemy was soundly defeated in the field, and that is why they
signed their surrender accords in Paris. Check history Mike, not
TV, for the truth. From the American political perspective,
Vietnam was a defeat. From a strictly military perspective, it
was a clear victory. The military did its job. It forced a
surrender. What happened after the effective military force left
has no bearing on the American military, only on the American
political system.
Nope. You sent 15000 troops to Canada and then sent them home
over that ship boarding. The British knew their troops would be
slaughtered if they intervened.. You seem to not remember that
30,000 to 50,000 men were being killed *per battle* in our civil
war. The Brits knew they did not have a chance or they would
have used their troops. The Union Army was just too strong, and
the logistics for the British, considering the Union blockades,
were impossible.
Please Mike. Without American support England would have fell to
the Nazis. The world knows this. Moreover, D Day was under
*American* command. The debacles in Holland were under *English*
command. And if that is not enough, Montgomery who claimed he
would achieve his objective in three weeks, took three months!
The delay in respect to getting the right number of troops in
France was due directly to Montgomery's failures.
Also who told you that Radar was "invented" by the British?
Actually, it was invented by the Italians, but it was America
that mass produced the actual devices. The Russians could not
have survived even Stalingrad without American supplies and
equipment and American steel and experts working with the
Russians. Don't you remember the endless supplies the Americans
were providing the enemies of the Nazis? Over 75% of the weapons
used against the Nazis had the "made in America" stamp on them
Mike.
>
> As I think I've outlined, British troops were first into the
breach in
> some of the most dangerous conflicts in the war. I'm sure that
your
> history doesn't teach it like that, the same way it teaches you
about
> your shining success in Vietnam. I'm sorry, but what is
undisputed is
> that Britain and the Commonwealth were equal partners with both
> America and Russia, not (as America likes to pretend) that
America was
> way ahead and everyone else was struggling to keep up. If you
really
> want, we can re-fight the war blow by blow, but if you take
your head
> out of the dirt for five minutes and think about how completely
and
> utterly misconceived you are to even suggest that the greatest
> imperial power in the world needed the contribution of what was
> frankly a wayward colony you may eventually realise that one
third of
> the entire civilised world owes this civilisation to Britain.
> Including you.
Mike, calm down now. I fought in Vietnam, and in South America.
I know those wars and I studied the tactics of all other wars. I
*know* what happened in Vietnam as I was there. I did not need
to learn about that war in any text book. In respect to England,
I doubt if King and Country looked upon America as a wayward
colony after Yorktown. America defeated England, soundly, and
became England's best friend because of one thing....English law.
That is the most important contribution England has made to the
civilized world.
Marines first, US Army second. B-52 raids (known as "Arc Lights)
in Vietnam were common. Today I am involved in the Financial
Futures Markets.
>
> > I had not heard of that account of the Brits engaging the
enemy.
> > Where did you hear that? Are you sure they used only guns
and
> > knives? Where was their air support? Also, if they received
air
> > support was it American? Also, like I said, the only
complaint
> > the commander of the Marines could be hearing is "when will
they
> > let us fight." Moreover, if the Brits did as you say, then
I
> > congratulate them for their well deserved victory.
>
> It wouldn't suprise me in the least if the American media
hadn't
> touched it - I mean, you "saved our ass in dubya-dubya-two",
right?
> How could we possibly ever achieve military victory, we're
useless and
> run around aimlessly during conflict relying on American
inventions to
> save us.
That is the general belief over here Mike.
>
> No air support, just an extremely talented group of people. And
yes,
> it really was full hand to hand combat, because the SAS
literally
> charged into them and fought tooth and nail in their defensive
> trenches. They were special forces fighting en masse. I don't
know
> what your media is showing, but at one stage we were getting
daily
> pictures of the SAS storming their way through Afghanistan -
you can
> hear British accents on the tapes; guys with winged dagger
> shoulder-patches were at most of the hotspots.
>
> Seeing as you seem to have such connections, maybe you could
ask
> someone the validity of this? That is of course assuming that
you can
> take time out from re-writing history to make you feel better
about
> certain recent conflicts you may otherwise feel embarrassed
about,
> that is.
No embarrassment here Mike. I was there. I do not need to
re-write history - I know what I am writing about first hand.
>
> Seriously, ask what the British contribution has been so far -
much
> greater than many Americans may think.
My information is based upon our press and our intelligence
community. I have not heard of your stated SAS victories in
Afghanistan from either source. Of course that does not mean
they did not happen. Our press is biased towards our own troops
as I am sure so is the BBC.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Timothy Casey
>
>
>
> When the media refers to Osama as the 'mastermind', they are simply
> implying that he is the figure behind the attack. Why would they think
> that he is supra-intelligent? He is simply another Hitler, without
> another nation to back him.
>
The paranoid delusional/Hitler classification of bin Laden is an interesting
hypothesis. Ever notice how well groomed he is. Even in the middle of
no-where, this "rough and tough" militant is made up like a newscaster with
not a hair out of place. I think that this obsession with physical
appearance is a product of the need to appear to be more than he really is.
Based on this assessment, one could predict that deception is bin Laden's
specialty.
However, the show-pony type of personality is can also be an extension of
the paranoid personality as a result of unresolved anger - Something that
likely drove Hitler into that arena of deception called politics.
Bin Laden seems to be so well cast in the role of show-pony that it would
surprise me if he were still in Afghanistan. My guess is to look where you'd
least expect to find him.
I think bin Laden would do or say anything to look good in the eyes of his
fundamentalist followers. So I am wondering if anyone knows of more evidence
than bin-Laden's say-so/insinuations that he is behind the WTC atrocity?
By the way, I hope that whoever captures bin Laden remembers to feed him
well: There are 140+ countries who want their pound of flesh from bin
Laden - and bin Laden is looking a bit on the thin side in his videos.
=~=
Timothy Casey
FieldCraft
PO Box 299
Glenelg
South Australia 5045
Phone (+61)4 1290 1844
E-mail: field...@iprimus.com.au
Read faster, comprehend more, enjoy reading:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/timothycasey/fieldcraft/10.htm
Mike
> the Nazis. The world knows this. Moreover, D Day was under
> *American* command. The debacles in Holland were under *English*
> command. And if that is not enough, Montgomery who claimed he
> would achieve his objective in three weeks, took three months!
> The delay in respect to getting the right number of troops in
> France was due directly to Montgomery's failures.
Care to elaborate? You can't have this both ways - you say D-Day was
under American control. Thus, the botched Omaha landings, the
completely lost Utah force and the scattered 82nd and 101st Airborne
were all American cock-ups, yes? In contrast, the 1st and 6th
Airbornes kept their order, took their objectives, and the Sword, Gold
and Juno beach landings went off without a hitch, very successfully.
British forces pushed up towards Caen and secured a beach-head, with
complete success and with more forces than the Americans for a whole
month.
But we're still useless, right? I mean, we only spearheaded the
invasion of France. Oh wait, Eisenhower was in command, that means
that you get to take credit for all the British successes, does it?
And what about the American cock-ups? You attribute them to
Montgomery. Frankly bollocks - you can't claim one minute that
everything that went right was totally due to American leadership, and
then in the next everything that went wrong was someone else's.
INESCAPABLE FACT: the British landings and parachute drops succeeded
perfectly. And whoever you try to blame, the fact remains that British
and Canadian troops spearheaded the invasion. You can't argue that,
it's historical fact.
Again, this is simple maths: according to Hitler's aides, surviving
leading Nazi figures etc, the invasion of Britain had been called off
in 1940. NINETEEN-FORTY. The Americans entered the war in 1941 -
NINETEEN-FORTY-ONE. Any further clarification needed?
> > It wouldn't suprise me in the least if the American media
> hadn't
> > touched it - I mean, you "saved our ass in dubya-dubya-two",
> right?
> > How could we possibly ever achieve military victory, we're
> useless and
> > run around aimlessly during conflict relying on American
> inventions to
> > save us.
>
> That is the general belief over here Mike.
Quite frankly, damn you too. Despite what you may think, the British
military did manage that small matter of colonising a third of the
earth, and again despite your ridiculous midconceptions were side by
side in force in most of the major engagements in the second world
war. The fact that America considers our effort something akin to
that of France (ie, twenty men and a boat) is possibly the most
arrogant rubbish I've ever heard from an American. British successes
in the war include: el Alamein, the D-Day landings (OUR forces didn't
land on top of St. Mare Eglise, or hit the wrong beach or run into an
SS regiment), the naval conflicts, sinking the Bismarck, securing two
of the three bridges in Market Garden (and holding Arnhem with extreme
gallantry for much longer than could be expected), the Ardennes,
Italy, Sicily (which would have been a deathtrap were it not for the
efforts of British intelligence), the Dambusters, the Battle of
Britain and the occupation of Germany.
How can an American look at that list and truly suggest that the
British contribution was negligable? Seriously - the British navy took
out the pride of the German navy, were (and you still haven't
responded to this fact) the majority of the forces which landed in
Normandy, humbled a huge and highly professional airforce and took
Africa back against Rommel (arguably one of the greatest generals of
all time). And Montgomery was, with the exception of Market Garden,
better than Patton. Surely the mere fact that the British army in the
field was as large as the American army is evidence enough that we
played our part, yes?
With respect to the whole weapons issue, here are some basic facts:
the standard rifle of the British army was the Enfield. The
sub-machine gun was the Sten. The aircraft were the Hurricane,
Spitfire, Typhoon and Lancaster. All British. The tanks were, I grant
you, mostly American-made. The only American weapon which got into
regular issue was the Thompson.
In any case, look at the above *facts* and make up your own mind, but
let's face it, that is an impressive list. As a student of military
history you are remarkable lothe to look at the facts - British
schoolchildren learn about the American, Russian and British
contributions to the war as they were, and the basic timelines which
you seem to have confused. The fact that you conform to such ignorant
stereotypes like "saved yer ass" without looking at the above facts
(which in Britain every fifteen-year-old learns) truly shows that you
are either so patriotic you are blind or that America has become so
arrogant they need not look at history from any angle other than the
one they learn in Kindergarten.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Montgomery failed to take Caen. All of our troops got off the
beach Mike. Although the English were given the easy beaches so
Montgomery could take Caen and split the Nazi force. He was
supposed to take Caen in one week. He decided he did not like
the American tactics and stopped advancing. He almost
singhandedly destroyed the entire invasion.
> But we're still useless, right? I mean, we only spearheaded the
> invasion of France. Oh wait, Eisenhower was in command, that
means
> that you get to take credit for all the British successes, does
it?
> And what about the American cock-ups? You attribute them to
> Montgomery. Frankly bollocks - you can't claim one minute that
> everything that went right was totally due to American
leadership, and
> then in the next everything that went wrong was someone else's.
> INESCAPABLE FACT: the British landings and parachute drops
succeeded
> perfectly. And whoever you try to blame, the fact remains that
British
> and Canadian troops spearheaded the invasion. You can't argue
that,
> it's historical fact.
Please Mike. The 101st Airborne and the 82nd Airborne
represented the majority of the airborne spearhead. You claimed
that D-Day was a British victory. I correctly pointed out that
the entire force was under American command. The only problem
with any commander during the entire invasion was Montgomery. He
resented American command and his rebellion almost cost us the
invasion. The Brits were lucky they had Eisenhower, or it would
have been another Dunkirk. We saw how the Brits fought the Nazis
when their Army was defeated during the fall of France and were
forced off the continent. We wanted no part of those obviously
inept commanders. The Brits were lucky the Nazis had reason to
not slaughter them at Dunkirk....(Hitler thought he could press a
treaty with a defeated England and use all of his forces to
attack Russia. He did not count on America to enter the war at
that time.)
> Again, this is simple maths: according to Hitler's aides,
surviving
> leading Nazi figures etc, the invasion of Britain had been
called off
> in 1940. NINETEEN-FORTY. The Americans entered the war in
1941 -
> NINETEEN-FORTY-ONE. Any further clarification needed?
See above. England lost an army in the field in France, and was
a defeated nation until America started sending in the war
supplies. That was in 1939 Mike. We were losing more ships and
American merchant marine than were dying in London. America was
in the war supporting Britton long before 1940 Mike. The U-Boat
commanders were not sent to destroy American convoys for the fun
of it Mike. They knew what was keeping your island afloat.
America to the rescue as usual.
Mike, the successful war against the Nazis was commanded by the
Americans. American troops and equipment were mostly used.
The defeat at the hands of the Nazis, (the fall of France and
Dunkirk) was commanded by the English and French. I am sure you
do not need any further examples. I am not trying to take away
glory from the English troops. They were great troops, they just
had inept commanders. (Even you cannot claim that Dunkirk was a
good example of English leadership Mike....in fact it remains
today as a classic example how not to command troops against a
fast moving army.)
There were no "Dunkirk's" when the Americans were in charge
Mike. I know all about this debate Mike. I have had it before
with many of my English friends. It is a point of honor with
many Englishmen as no doubt the Blitz and all that left lasting
scars. It would appear we are picking nits, and it is enough to
say that allied forces won the war against the Nazis and Imperial
Japan.
Of course I am always going to believe that America saved
England's ass, and you are going to think otherwise. We are at
an impasse Mike, and both of our countries have yet another war
to fight. Let us concentrate on this war Mike.
>
> How can an American look at that list and truly suggest that
the
> British contribution was negligable? Seriously - the British
navy took
> out the pride of the German navy, were (and you still haven't
> responded to this fact) the majority of the forces which landed
in
> Normandy, humbled a huge and highly professional airforce and
took
> Africa back against Rommel (arguably one of the greatest
generals of
> all time). And Montgomery was, with the exception of Market
Garden,
> better than Patton. Surely the mere fact that the British army
in the
> field was as large as the American army is evidence enough that
we
> played our part, yes?
No one said the English troops were not exemplary troops Mike.
You also are forgetting the Australians and the New Zealanders in
North Africa. According to them, they won North Africa not the
English. (When I was in a hospital in Vung Tau Vietnam, I had
an Australian across from me in my ward, and New Zealanders on
both sides of me. We became good friends and I heard many a tale
about their Fathers fighting in North Africa. In fact some of
the same units that fought in North Africa came to Vietnam.)
>
> With respect to the whole weapons issue, here are some basic
facts:
> the standard rifle of the British army was the Enfield. The
> sub-machine gun was the Sten. The aircraft were the Hurricane,
> Spitfire, Typhoon and Lancaster. All British. The tanks were, I
grant
> you, mostly American-made. The only American weapon which got
into
> regular issue was the Thompson.
You forgot about all the American mortars and artillery pieces
and anti-tank weapons Mike. All American. You also forgot about
the ammunition and the artillery shells, the bombs, shells for
the ships, the some of the ships themselves and the powder.
Moreover, you probably do not know this but one of the largest
Spitfire plants in the world was located in New Jersey.
>
> In any case, look at the above *facts* and make up your own
mind, but
> let's face it, that is an impressive list. As a student of
military
> history you are remarkable lothe to look at the facts - British
> schoolchildren learn about the American, Russian and British
> contributions to the war as they were, and the basic timelines
which
> you seem to have confused. The fact that you conform to such
ignorant
> stereotypes like "saved yer ass" without looking at the above
facts
> (which in Britain every fifteen-year-old learns) truly shows
that you
> are either so patriotic you are blind or that America has
become so
> arrogant they need not look at history from any angle other
than the
> one they learn in Kindergarten.
My angles came from a War College Mike. I studied tactics,
actual communications and logistics and battlefield tactics of
WWII. What I could never understand is why the English just do
not admit they were defeated at Dunkirk, then again at Market
Garden, and the victories did not start until the Americans
assumed total supreme command.
Those are the facts Mike. I did not make them up. Those facts
are there for all historians that want to know the truth. Does
that make England less of a country? No. Sometimes we all need
help Mike. England needed our help and would not have won the
war against the Nazis on its own. Even Churchill begged for
American help Mike...often.
Why is that truth so hard for some Englishmen to admit? Big
deal, you would have lost a war without American help. England
lost a war before, at Yorktown Virginia and again at New Orleans
and at Dunkirk yet England still managed to survive as a great
nation because England has more friends in the world than
enemies.
Mike, there are over 50 million German Americans in America.
When Chamberlain made a debacle out of his "peace treaty" with
the Nazis, and when England signed the military support treaty
with Poland, Americans wanted no part of it. In fact, during the
early war years, considering the amount of Irish and Germans in
this country, helping England was political suicide for any
American politician.
Had we came to the aid of England sooner, I doubt if Dunkirk
would have happened. That is what we did wrong Mike...yet after
Dunkirk, we still used our Merchant Marine to keep the supplies
coming to England as our Government leaders were desperately
looking for a way to to militarily intervene to save England.
They found a way by embargoing Imperial Japan and forcing it to
attack our Pacific Fleet.
President Roosevelt was a staunch supporter of England, although
he was very much alone at that time. As it turned out, he was
right to do what he did, although it required the sacrifice of
thousands of Americans in the Pacific just so we could help the
English. You and the rest of the English should be grateful,
not arrogant Mike. You have no idea how our country suffered
from a war that we did not start nor have any reason to fight.
Yet back to the present Mike. Do you know what brought tears to
the eyes of most Americans recently? When the Brits played the
Star Spangled Banner at Windsor Mike. There was not a dry eye in
this country when that happened. We appreciate England's help in
a war they also have no real reason to fight. And I for one will
gladly give them all the credit they deserve. We Americans are
not arrogant Mike, we are just as proud of our nation as you
clearly are of yours.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Larry Vaughn
>> Please Mike. Without American support England would have fell to
>> the Nazis. The world knows this. Moreover, D Day was under
>> *American* command. The debacles in Holland were under *English*
>> command. And if that is not enough, Montgomery who claimed he
>> would achieve his objective in three weeks, took three months!
>> The delay in respect to getting the right number of troops in
>> France was due directly to Montgomery's failures.
>
>Care to elaborate? You can't have this both ways - you say D-Day was
>under American control. Thus, the botched Omaha landings, the
>completely lost Utah force and the scattered 82nd and 101st Airborne
>were all American cock-ups, yes? In contrast, the 1st and 6th
>Airbornes kept their order, took their objectives, and the Sword, Gold
>and Juno beach landings went off without a hitch, very successfully.
>British forces pushed up towards Caen and secured a beach-head, with
>complete success and with more forces than the Americans for a whole
>month.
>
Completely lost Utah force? are you nuts or just don't know history.
Omaha was different terrain than the other beaches and despite the
best of the German forces being stationed at Omaha Beach the Americans
prevailed and despite the losses German loses were greater.
The movie people like to cluster fuck history.
>But we're still useless, right? I mean, we only spearheaded the
>invasion of France. Oh wait, Eisenhower was in command, that means
>that you get to take credit for all the British successes, does it?
Like to elaborate on the brilliant strategy employed at Singapore
or in Malaysia? How about cocky Montgomery's screwed up Market
Garden, the strategy os sending a hole army down one road?
>And what about the American cock-ups? You attribute them to
>Montgomery. Frankly bollocks - you can't claim one minute that
>everything that went right was totally due to American leadership, and
>then in the next everything that went wrong was someone else's.
>INESCAPABLE FACT: the British landings and parachute drops succeeded
>perfectly. And whoever you try to blame, the fact remains that British
>and Canadian troops spearheaded the invasion. You can't argue that,
>it's historical fact.
>
>Again, this is simple maths: according to Hitler's aides, surviving
>leading Nazi figures etc, the invasion of Britain had been called off
>in 1940. NINETEEN-FORTY. The Americans entered the war in 1941 -
>NINETEEN-FORTY-ONE. Any further clarification needed?
>
I think it was a European War, by what stretch of the imagination was
America responsible for the second European cluster fuck in 20 years.
America was already limitedly engaged in China and Burma in the late
30s. Ever herd of the Flying Tigers? They helped keep the Japanese
out of India when they were knocking on the door.
Despite the fact we set on the side for awhile, England would have
went down the tubes if not supplied by us. Inevitably we entered the
war on the British side. Would Britain ever have gotten off that
little Island without us colonials?
For saving your asses we have had to endure 50 years of pompous
bullshit
about how you gloriously won WWII with only a little colonial help.
Bullshit!
I note the British contribution to America's War with Japan was
extremely minimal, The Aussies would have been bowing to Japan in 6
months had we not sent our first forces to South Asia.
Of British Generals only Alexander with limited resources was truly
Admiral. I note some American Generals were not any better than some
British Generals, but many others were superb.
American pilots flying B17 were flying by the hundreds into daylight
Germany wile the British Lancaster's only flew at night.
Which plane would you rather have been in?
Do you have any idea of how many American Ships were crossing the
Atlantic and the North See to Murmask?
How many British?
Napoleon said an army travels on its stomach, this means army's
without supplies can't travel, and if you can't travel, your a setting
duck.
Kinda like England in 1941. Hitler was so sure you would fall he went
off to fight Russia. He did not calculate that Japan would bomb the
US and the US would destroy him, along with British and russian
assistance.
The US 8th Air Force destroyed Germany's ability to fashion or supply
its army before D Day ever commenced.
After that it was only how long and at what price, but victory was in
the bag.
Mike
> when their Army was defeated during the fall of France and were
> forced off the continent. We wanted no part of those obviously
> inept commanders. The Brits were lucky the Nazis had reason to
> not slaughter them at Dunkirk....(Hitler thought he could press a
> treaty with a defeated England and use all of his forces to
> attack Russia. He did not count on America to enter the war at
> that time.)
This is slightly off - the Dunkirk debacle was a much the French's
fault as anyone else. I know this looks like desperately putting off
blame, but the entire Maginot line was circumvented and the French
forces were frankly abysmal... the BEF couldn't really be expected to
hold the country with no defences on it's own. Granted, the Blitzkreig
pushed us back. Granted, Dunkirk was a defeat. What I'm saying is that
the vast majority of the British army made it back home, which is a
much better result than could have happened.
> See above. England lost an army in the field in France, and was
> a defeated nation until America started sending in the war
> supplies. That was in 1939 Mike. We were losing more ships and
> American merchant marine than were dying in London. America was
> in the war supporting Britton long before 1940 Mike. The U-Boat
> commanders were not sent to destroy American convoys for the fun
> of it Mike. They knew what was keeping your island afloat.
> America to the rescue as usual.
Interesting. I don't deny that the supplies were vital - but you must
reconsider your mindset as goes Britain at the time. Britain was still
a collosal world power, and the Royal Navy and Air Force had done
their respective jobs superbly. The Army was staffed, not by idiots,
but by commanders who had no experience in the war which took place.
> Mike, the successful war against the Nazis was commanded by the
> Americans. American troops and equipment were mostly used.
> The defeat at the hands of the Nazis, (the fall of France and
> Dunkirk) was commanded by the English and French. I am sure you
> do not need any further examples. I am not trying to take away
> glory from the English troops. They were great troops, they just
> had inept commanders. (Even you cannot claim that Dunkirk was a
> good example of English leadership Mike....in fact it remains
> today as a classic example how not to command troops against a
> fast moving army.)
That's not really fair. After the Maginot line cock-up, it was 'every
man for himself', not a considered strategy. There was little the
generals could do, and you are right, it was done badly. But those
were all very early examples - when the British army fought in North
Africa (as you are so right to point out, with the Commonwealth
forces), under Montgomery, and the Germans were defeated. I concede
Eisenhowere's supreme command, but Monty remained a field general and
there were no more mistakes. Citing Dunkirk is, as I said, not really
fair, as it was a mistake. And one which, although it was a cock-up,
did get a lot of troops out. Using these as examples of British
ineptitude is a little harsh, as many of these commanders were either
taught on the battlefields of the Great War or in Sandhurst - not in
real combat. I still maintain that Montgomery and the Commonwealth and
British forces held Africa against Rommel, who was their best.
>
> There were no "Dunkirk's" when the Americans were in charge
> Mike. I know all about this debate Mike. I have had it before
> with many of my English friends. It is a point of honor with
> many Englishmen as no doubt the Blitz and all that left lasting
> scars. It would appear we are picking nits, and it is enough to
> say that allied forces won the war against the Nazis and Imperial
> Japan.
Fair enough. But again, I must ask that at least consider the fact
that Britain did not simply pack it up in 1941. We were back, with a
vengence. And whatever else you may critisice, the enormous success of
the Royal Air Force was possibly one of the greatest victories against
overwhelming odds ... with radar... ;-)
> Of course I am always going to believe that America saved
> England's ass, and you are going to think otherwise. We are at
> an impasse Mike, and both of our countries have yet another war
> to fight. Let us concentrate on this war Mike.
Again, fair, and I accept the metaphorial olive branch. But British
forces have, over the last three hundred years, aquitted themselves
nobly, walking victorious from the Forbidden City to the plains of
South Africa. Something which I think many have forgotten, even if we
have not.
> > With respect to the whole weapons issue, here are some basic
> facts:
> > the standard rifle of the British army was the Enfield. The
> > sub-machine gun was the Sten. The aircraft were the Hurricane,
> > Spitfire, Typhoon and Lancaster. All British. The tanks were, I
> grant
> > you, mostly American-made. The only American weapon which got
> into
> > regular issue was the Thompson.
>
> You forgot about all the American mortars and artillery pieces
> and anti-tank weapons Mike. All American. You also forgot about
> the ammunition and the artillery shells, the bombs, shells for
> the ships, the some of the ships themselves and the powder.
> Moreover, you probably do not know this but one of the largest
> Spitfire plants in the world was located in New Jersey.
Few of the ships themselves, it must be said. Washington Navy Treaty,
19....something, put the American and British navies at a 5:5 ratio
with eachother in size. At least in that respect, our navy was still
in the game.
> My angles came from a War College Mike. I studied tactics,
> actual communications and logistics and battlefield tactics of
> WWII. What I could never understand is why the English just do
> not admit they were defeated at Dunkirk, then again at Market
> Garden, and the victories did not start until the Americans
> assumed total supreme command.
North Africa...? As long as you can at least accept that the British
and Commonwealth forces at least played their part in the war,
alongside America and Russia rather than a hundred paces behind them,
then we really have nothing left to argue.
> Why is that truth so hard for some Englishmen to admit? Big
> deal, you would have lost a war without American help. England
> lost a war before, at Yorktown Virginia and again at New Orleans
> and at Dunkirk yet England still managed to survive as a great
> nation because England has more friends in the world than
> enemies.
Seriously, there has been a lot of examination over Hitler's motives.
He really did admire the British, and when his airforce and navy were
decimated he really did call off the invasion. I grant you, Britain
could not have possibly *won* the war without America and Russia, but
it is debatable whether they would have *lost* it either ie: been
invaded.
> Mike, there are over 50 million German Americans in America.
> When Chamberlain made a debacle out of his "peace treaty" with
> the Nazis, and when England signed the military support treaty
> with Poland, Americans wanted no part of it. In fact, during the
> early war years, considering the amount of Irish and Germans in
> this country, helping England was political suicide for any
> American politician.
Chamberlain was a fool. But the British army/navy/RAF were so depleted
by years of poverty (thank you, Wall Street Crash) that by the time
Hitler begun taking countries left right and centre we had nothing to
fight him with. Had we not appeased him, and gone to war sooner,
Britain would have fallen. Appeasement was a complete failure, but it
did keep Britain in the game - thus kept the war alive....
> President Roosevelt was a staunch supporter of England, although
> he was very much alone at that time. As it turned out, he was
> right to do what he did, although it required the sacrifice of
> thousands of Americans in the Pacific just so we could help the
> English. You and the rest of the English should be grateful,
> not arrogant Mike. You have no idea how our country suffered
> from a war that we did not start nor have any reason to fight.
We are grateful, but also resent this trans-atlantic assumption that
we were so completely useless that our only contribution to the war
was happening to float on a convenient rock near Europe. And our
country suffered too, with hundreds of thousands dead, both civilian
and military. It just (as you can see) still makes our blood boil to
hear us described in the same breath as countries like France,
especially considering the given facts, and our immensely proud
history.
> Yet back to the present Mike. Do you know what brought tears to
> the eyes of most Americans recently? When the Brits played the
> Star Spangled Banner at Windsor Mike. There was not a dry eye in
> this country when that happened.
Really?
> We appreciate England's help in
> a war they also have no real reason to fight. And I for one will
> gladly give them all the credit they deserve. We Americans are
> not arrogant Mike, we are just as proud of our nation as you
> clearly are of yours.
Amen. Handshake all round.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
The made it back home because the Nazis chose not to attack. Had
they attacked, the Brits would have been slaughtered. The
British commanders were inept. That is why they were relieved.
> > See above. England lost an army in the field in France, and
was
> > a defeated nation until America started sending in the war
> > supplies. That was in 1939 Mike. We were losing more ships
and
> > American merchant marine than were dying in London. America
was
> > in the war supporting Britton long before 1940 Mike. The
U-Boat
> > commanders were not sent to destroy American convoys for the
fun
> > of it Mike. They knew what was keeping your island afloat.
> > America to the rescue as usual.
>
> Interesting. I don't deny that the supplies were vital - but
you must
> reconsider your mindset as goes Britain at the time. Britain
was still
> a collosal world power, and the Royal Navy and Air Force had
done
> their respective jobs superbly. The Army was staffed, not by
idiots,
> but by commanders who had no experience in the war which took
place.
I will agree that all Brits, always, in every war, *fight*
bravely. Whether their commanders should have understood the
kind of war they were confronting, *before* they committed their
troops is another matter. There are many reasons for defeats
and victories. Since Americans were not involved, public opinion
at that time in respect to the British officers was not
favorable. That Dunkirk defeat did much to keep America out of
the war.
North Africa was fought with American tanks Mike. Without them
Montgomery would not have won North Africa. Yet I concede it was
a great victory for Montgomery.
>
> >
> > There were no "Dunkirk's" when the Americans were in charge
> > Mike. I know all about this debate Mike. I have had it
before
> > with many of my English friends. It is a point of honor with
> > many Englishmen as no doubt the Blitz and all that left
lasting
> > scars. It would appear we are picking nits, and it is enough
to
> > say that allied forces won the war against the Nazis and
Imperial
> > Japan.
>
> Fair enough. But again, I must ask that at least consider the
fact
> that Britain did not simply pack it up in 1941. We were back,
with a
> vengence. And whatever else you may critisice, the enormous
success of
> the Royal Air Force was possibly one of the greatest victories
against
> overwhelming odds ... with radar... ;-)
The Superior technology won the day. And of course the RAF
pilots who were, in my opinion and my Father's , nothing less
than heroes.
That point was never challenged Mike. On the contrary it was an
*allied* effort. I accept that as does all Americans. Hell we
do not want to steal England's glory Mike. England gave us our
laws and those laws made our country great. We want to preserve
England and its glorious history. Americans do not resent the
Brits, I suspect it is more the other way around.
>
> > Why is that truth so hard for some Englishmen to admit? Big
> > deal, you would have lost a war without American help.
England
> > lost a war before, at Yorktown Virginia and again at New
Orleans
> > and at Dunkirk yet England still managed to survive as a
great
> > nation because England has more friends in the world than
> > enemies.
>
> Seriously, there has been a lot of examination over Hitler's
motives.
> He really did admire the British, and when his airforce and
navy were
> decimated he really did call off the invasion. I grant you,
Britain
> could not have possibly *won* the war without America and
Russia, but
> it is debatable whether they would have *lost* it either ie:
been
> invaded.
You are correct. Hitler thought he could always strike a peace
barging (only to be violated later at his convenience) with
England. His main target was Russia and Eastern Europe. When
Rudolph Hess tried to contact Count Montbatton by flying over the
channel, that was what it was all about. Some deal to stop the
hostilities between England and Germany. Churchill was too smart
to fall for that stall, and rightfully imprisoned Hess. When
Hitler found out Hess was imprisoned, of course for propaganda
reasons he was forced to denounce Hess. But later, the real
reason for the Hess flight was revealed when we captured German
documents, and declassified them in 1996!
>
> > Mike, there are over 50 million German Americans in America.
> > When Chamberlain made a debacle out of his "peace treaty"
with
> > the Nazis, and when England signed the military support
treaty
> > with Poland, Americans wanted no part of it. In fact, during
the
> > early war years, considering the amount of Irish and Germans
in
> > this country, helping England was political suicide for any
> > American politician.
>
> Chamberlain was a fool. But the British army/navy/RAF were so
depleted
> by years of poverty (thank you, Wall Street Crash) that by the
time
> Hitler begun taking countries left right and centre we had
nothing to
> fight him with. Had we not appeased him, and gone to war
sooner,
> Britain would have fallen. Appeasement was a complete failure,
but it
> did keep Britain in the game - thus kept the war alive....
Interesting perspective.
If I have offended you then I apologize. It was not my intention
to do so. I simply posted what most Americans think and believe.
None that I know sincerely believe that England did not
contribute to winning WWII - on the contrary we know better.
But we also know that it took America and all allied nations,
England, all of her commonwealths, and Russia to defeat the
Nazis. We all came very close to losing this world to a form of
government that would have ultimately destroyed it.
.
> > Yet back to the present Mike. Do you know what brought tears
to
> > the eyes of most Americans recently? When the Brits played
the
> > Star Spangled Banner at Windsor Mike. There was not a dry
eye in
> > this country when that happened.
>
> Really?
You bet.
> > We appreciate England's help in
> > a war they also have no real reason to fight. And I for one
will
> > gladly give them all the credit they deserve. We Americans
are
> > not arrogant Mike, we are just as proud of our nation as you
> > clearly are of yours.
>
> Amen. Handshake all round.
I will drink to that Mike. I will toast England.
Doug Grant (Tm)
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Here is to the next "turkey
>shoot."
It has already occurred in Afghanistan, and the mind-numbed Taliban
hasn't recovered. The media is disappointed because they were not
allowed to telecast the blasts, the disintegration of bodies and
machines, the screams of the doomed, or ground stained black and red,
or describe the smell of burning flesh followed by the stench of
rotting flesh. They were also not allowed to tip the enemy off where
the next strike was coming.
#vonroach
>The fact that you conform to such ignorant
>stereotypes like "saved yer ass" without looking at the above facts
>(which in Britain every fifteen-year-old learns) truly shows that you
>are either so patriotic you are blind or that America has become so
>arrogant they need not look at history from any angle other than the
>one they learn in Kindergarten.
Do they really propagandize your little heads full of mush with biased
brain washing in school. Churchill and Hitler's staff shared (unusual
as it was) a common appreciation of the consequences of the US entry
into the war. Montgomery was adequate when he wasn't dawling about
and taking a spot of tea while Patton was killing Germans and
destroying things as in the brief fight in the Ardennes around
Christmas. RAF pilots prayed that they be given and American plane.
Eisenhower was the architect of the Normandy invasion. The Russians
were enabled to hang on in the East with guts and American lend-lease
equipment delivered by the American Merchant Marines across the
treacherous winter North Atlantic and North Sea. I won't mention the
long retreat of the British in SE Asia until the American Armed Forces
finally stopped the Japan Imperial forces in the South Pacific,
namely, at Guadalcanal , near Northern Australia. The Australian
Forces were off helping the British in Libya. Rommel was defeated
every time he faced Patton. Etc...etc...
#vonroach
wrote:
>Completely lost Utah force? are you nuts or just don't know history.
>
>Omaha was different terrain than the other beaches and despite the
>best of the German forces being stationed at Omaha Beach the Americans
>prevailed and despite the losses German loses were greater.
The guy is nuts. The American deliberately took the tough beaches.
Omaha was the only contest. The Germans LOST in Normandy, because they
withheld tank reserves that should have been immediately committed
while the invaders were on the beach. Hitler was drugged up or bombed
out and didn;t want to be disturbed until it was too late. The Allies
almost immediately took complete command of the air over the battle
zone. The Allies had St Lo surrounded while the dumb bastards in
Berlin were still `bracing' for the main invasion at Dover by Patton.
Allan Larsen
a dismal showing at the onset of WW-2.
It seems to me that the vacuum left by
the Foreign Legion may have contributed
to their early loses. Put another way,
by being assholes and trying to colonize
the rest of the world,they were short of
manpower at home and were overrun by the Germans. The same almost happen
to the British.
The geopolitical reality of the time was
how much of your military to keep at home (unproductive) and how much to
keep in the pursuit
of colonies( productive). Is it any wonder
that it took Pearl Harbor to get the US
involved. They were essentially looking
to the US to fill in the gap when their
gamble as to how to deploy their military
went wrong.
Let me take this opportunity to salute the first meaningful combat
victory by the French in memory, the stopping of Richard Ried by that
French airline attendant.
Mike
> destroying things as in the brief fight in the Ardennes around
> Christmas.
"Taking a spot ot tea"..? Ahh, what fresh stereotypes you bring to us
in this forum... I'll just go talk to my guv'nor and shine a few
boots, then take tea with the Queen.
> RAF pilots prayed that they be given and American plane.
When? Despite Doug's references about the Spitfire plant in Kentucky,
all the other RAF aircraft were British. Typhoon, Spitfire, Hurricane
were all extremely good planes. So were the P-51 Mustang and the B-17
bomber, and you flew them while we flew ours.
The RAF never prayed for American aircraft.. we had our own. If they
hadn't been up to the job, we *would* be speaking German right now.
> Eisenhower was the architect of the Normandy invasion. The Russians
> were enabled to hang on in the East with guts and American lend-lease
> equipment delivered by the American Merchant Marines across the
> treacherous winter North Atlantic and North Sea. I won't mention the
> long retreat of the British in SE Asia until the American Armed Forces
> finally stopped the Japan Imperial forces in the South Pacific,
> namely, at Guadalcanal , near Northern Australia.
That's both documented and fair. The British and Commonwealth suffered
in the East and the majority of the war effort there was, indeed,
American. However, Commonwealth forces - notably from India and
Australia - also played their part.
> The Australian
> Forces were off helping the British in Libya. Rommel was defeated
> every time he faced Patton. Etc...etc...
And when he faced Monty, as I recall.
Mike
Er yes. The Utah forces landed off their designated beach, and had to
strike inland a different way. As I understand it, it all turned out
fine in the end, but the fact remains they did hit the wrong beach.
> Omaha was different terrain than the other beaches and despite the
> best of the German forces being stationed at Omaha Beach the Americans
> prevailed and despite the losses German loses were greater.
I know, it was a very brave effort. But intelligence, air support and
naval covering fire all failed.
> The movie people like to cluster fuck history.
Don't they just - we know more about that than you can, trust me on
this. You know U-571? Absolute bollocks - it portrays the epic
American capture of the Enigma codebooks, despite the fact that (a) it
was a British operation and (b) took place before America was in the
war.
> I think it was a European War, by what stretch of the imagination was
> America responsible for the second European cluster fuck in 20 years.
> America was already limitedly engaged in China and Burma in the late
> 30s. Ever herd of the Flying Tigers? They helped keep the Japanese
> out of India when they were knocking on the door.
No, I haven't, but I can tell you now it's not true. The Japanese
interest in the Far East expansion during the 30s was directed at
China and Manchuria, so much so that it sparked a crisis in which the
League of Nations ineffectually intervened. British India was never
under threat - we send an LoN ambassador by boat, and it took him
three months to report on his findings. Does that sound like the kind
of urgency of a country on the brink of colonial war?
> Despite the fact we set on the side for awhile, England would have
> went down the tubes if not supplied by us. Inevitably we entered the
> war on the British side. Would Britain ever have gotten off that
> little Island without us colonials?
Probably not, even though our navy ruled the surface against the E-
and S-boats, although counter-submarine warfare was distinctly
lacking. I also doubt that the Germans would have got onto our 'little
island' either.
> For saving your asses we have had to endure 50 years of pompous
> bullshit
> about how you gloriously won WWII with only a little colonial help.
>
> Bullshit!
Really? I thought we had to endure 50 years of ill-informed
arrogance.... Amazing how perspective changes, isn't it? Thank god for
people like Doug, who actually read and make their minds up on the
basis of hard study rather than arrogant nonsense.
> I note the British contribution to America's War with Japan was
> extremely minimal, The Aussies would have been bowing to Japan in 6
> months had we not sent our first forces to South Asia.
I don't know much about it, I admit. However, I do know that the
British and Commonwealth were at least there - the Anzacs and the
Chindits (of which my uncle was one) were noted for their prowess. The
Indian forces were extensive, if somewhat under-trained, and India
never fell. However, it is accepted that America bore the brunt of the
Pacific war.
> American pilots flying B17 were flying by the hundreds into daylight
> Germany wile the British Lancaster's only flew at night.
>
> Which plane would you rather have been in?
Is this a trick question? The Lancaster, any day!!! Your Mustang
escorts peeled off over France, your bombers were intercepted - it was
a turkey shoot. The average life expectancy was worse than an RAF
pilot in the Battle of Britain!! The night bombing by the Lancasters
was a success, if morally a little dodgy (see Dresden... or what's
left). The B17 raids were absolute massacres, and not truly
successful. I have to say, night raid were much more successful - and
with long-range aircraft like the Mosquito, we could cover our bombers
a little better. Dambusters for christ's sake..!
>
> Do you have any idea of how many American Ships were crossing the
> Atlantic and the North See to Murmask?
>
> How many British?
I don't know the relative figures, but I can tell you that the British
merchant navy took that voyage almost every day. Not just that, but on
entry of the war the British navy, depleted as it was, was both large
and proffessional. You may find cause to doubt other parts of the
British war effort, but her navy remains a source of pride, as the
best of the German surface fleet were sunk very early on indeed. As
for the rest, the RN ran a long, bloody and large successful campaign
in the North Sea... except against Subs.
>
> Napoleon said an army travels on its stomach, this means army's
> without supplies can't travel, and if you can't travel, your a setting
> duck.
>
> Kinda like England in 1941. Hitler was so sure you would fall he went
> off to fight Russia. He did not calculate that Japan would bomb the
> US and the US would destroy him, along with British and russian
> assistance.
We were recoving by 1941. Maybe you mean 1940? Sigh, read history -
Hitler did not think we would fall. As I have clarified before, the
invasion of Britain was called off as the RAF destroyed the Luftwaffe
and thus an invasion was doomed. It was only after Hitler had called
off the invasion that he turned towards Russia in Operation
Barborossa, almost a year after Operation Sea Lion had been ditched.
By that time, Montgomery had started fighting in North Africa and
Mountbatten (wasn't he supreme allied commander in the Far East? I
forget) in the East. Check your facts - with other Americans. Hitler
was not sure of finishing us off - he gave up. He turned to Russia
because (as I have made an extensive study of) that was his intention
all along. His plan, not dissimilar to that of Schlieffen in the First
World War, was to neutralise France and Britain as a ground force and
then turn to Russia for Lebensraum - an intention he declared as early
as 1931!! Once he was reasonably sure that Britain couldn't invade
immediately and posed no immediate threat, he turned on Russia. He
didn't count on America, or the Russian resistence, or the British
revival.
> The US 8th Air Force destroyed Germany's ability to fashion or supply
> its army before D Day ever commenced.
>
> After that it was only how long and at what price, but victory was in
> the bag.
Can you give me some comparitive examples of relative air force sizes?
You may have sent thousands of planes over here, but you also lost a
lot, while most of our planes came straight off the production line
into Germany. I think that we performed just as much bombing as you -
see Dresden, for one.
Mike
> bravely. Whether their commanders should have understood the
> kind of war they were confronting, *before* they committed their
> troops is another matter. There are many reasons for defeats
> and victories. Since Americans were not involved, public opinion
> at that time in respect to the British officers was not
> favorable. That Dunkirk defeat did much to keep America out of
> the war.
> North Africa was fought with American tanks Mike. Without them
> Montgomery would not have won North Africa. Yet I concede it was
> a great victory for Montgomery.
> The Superior technology won the day. And of course the RAF
> pilots who were, in my opinion and my Father's , nothing less
> than heroes.
> That point was never challenged Mike. On the contrary it was an
> *allied* effort. I accept that as does all Americans. Hell we
> do not want to steal England's glory Mike. England gave us our
> laws and those laws made our country great. We want to preserve
> England and its glorious history. Americans do not resent the
> Brits, I suspect it is more the other way around.
That is very true - some people (myself included) do resent America,
not so much our of jealousy but more anger at the statements of some
of the less intelligent members of our population. As I'm sure that
ignorant little Englanders have been annoying you.
> > Chamberlain was a fool. But the British army/navy/RAF were so
> depleted
> > by years of poverty (thank you, Wall Street Crash) that by the
> time
> > Hitler begun taking countries left right and centre we had
> nothing to
> > fight him with. Had we not appeased him, and gone to war
> sooner,
> > Britain would have fallen. Appeasement was a complete failure,
> but it
> > did keep Britain in the game - thus kept the war alive....
>
> Interesting perspective.
It's a point of view. It is is arguable that an invasion of Europe
from - say - Iceland would have been successful. And with Britain out
of the war, it seems likely that America would have finished the
Japanese, and then made peace with Germany. Without British and
American fighting in the West, Russia could well have fallen - thus
depriving the US of allies. I have to say, keeping Britain in the war
may have saved it in the long run. As I said, a point of view.
> If I have offended you then I apologize. It was not my intention
> to do so. I simply posted what most Americans think and believe.
> None that I know sincerely believe that England did not
> contribute to winning WWII - on the contrary we know better.
> But we also know that it took America and all allied nations,
> England, all of her commonwealths, and Russia to defeat the
> Nazis. We all came very close to losing this world to a form of
> government that would have ultimately destroyed it.
It really does mean a lot to me to hear you say that... it is in stark
contrast to much of what we hear from the USA, but if someone as
clearly intelligent and professional as you think this way I'm sure
that you are not alone.
Thank you... and I also apologise for any offence I have caused you -
I became somewhat heated back there.
> I will drink to that Mike. I will toast England.
Glasses raised on both sides of the Atlantic. ;-)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
> > destroying things as in the brief fight in the Ardennes
around
> > Christmas.
>
> "Taking a spot ot tea"..? Ahh, what fresh stereotypes you bring
to us
> in this forum... I'll just go talk to my guv'nor and shine a
few
> boots, then take tea with the Queen.
>
> > RAF pilots prayed that they be given and American plane.
>
> When? Despite Doug's references about the Spitfire plant in
Kentucky,
> all the other RAF aircraft were British. Typhoon, Spitfire,
Hurricane
> were all extremely good planes. So were the P-51 Mustang and
the B-17
> bomber, and you flew them while we flew ours.
Actually Mike, the plant was in New Jersey not Kentucky. And you
are right about everyone from all forces flying allied planes.
The Spitfire had some advantageous over our P-51.
le nouveau nbc
> > you forget that it was the US that funded and organized his
> 'guerilla war'
> > against the Russians. Who is there to help him now?
>
CHINA. It is not dificult to understand it. Just look at the map and
see ( if you have eyes to see.)
#vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Actually Mike, the plant was in New Jersey not Kentucky. And you
>are right about everyone from all forces flying allied planes.
>The Spitfire had some advantageous over our P-51.
Perhaps you should detail them for us, The RAF boys (most were
actually quite young as were their american counterparts, the RAF
fliers preferred the Mustangs to the Spitfires almost to a man. It was
a matter of life and death to them.
#vonroach
>> I will agree that all Brits, always, in every war, *fight*
>> bravely. Whether their commanders should have understood the
>> kind of war they were confronting, *before* they committed their
>> troops is another matter. There are many reasons for defeats
>> and victories. Since Americans were not involved, public opinion
>> at that time in respect to the British officers was not
>> favorable. That Dunkirk defeat did much to keep America out of
>> the war.
What a shallow knowledge of history.
>> North Africa was fought with American tanks Mike. Without them
>> Montgomery would not have won North Africa. Yet I concede it was
>> a great victory for Montgomery.
With the aid of the American landings in west Africa and Patton's
campaign there.
>> The Superior technology won the day. And of course the RAF
>> pilots who were, in my opinion and my Father's , nothing less
>> than heroes.
True and they all coveted Mustangs so that they might survive as
living heros.
>> That point was never challenged Mike. On the contrary it was an
>> *allied* effort. I accept that as does all Americans. Hell we
>> do not want to steal England's glory Mike. England gave us our
>> laws and those laws made our country great. We want to preserve
>> England and its glorious history. Americans do not resent the
>> Brits, I suspect it is more the other way around.
And where did England get their laws? From God?
>That is very true - some people (myself included) do resent America,
>not so much our of jealousy but more anger at the statements of some
>of the less intelligent members of our population. As I'm sure that
>ignorant little Englanders have been annoying you.
Not at all, always glad to set matters straight.
>> > Chamberlain was a fool.
As are all appeasers!
>> >the British army/navy/RAF were so
>> depleted
>> > by years of poverty (thank you, Wall Street Crash) that by the
>> time
>> > Hitler begun taking countries left right and centre we had
>> nothing to
>> > fight him with. Had we not appeased him, and gone to war
>> sooner,
>> > Britain would have fallen. Appeasement was a complete failure,
>> but it
>> > did keep Britain in the game - thus kept the war alive....
Sheer speculation on your part.
>>
>> Interesting perspective.
>
>It's a point of view. It is is arguable that an invasion of Europe
>from - say - Iceland would have been successful. And with Britain out
>of the war, it seems likely that America would have finished the
>Japanese, and then made peace with Germany. Without British and
>American fighting in the West, Russia could well have fallen - thus
>depriving the US of allies. I have to say, keeping Britain in the war
>may have saved it in the long run. As I said, a point of view.
Perhaps your `point of view' is near-sighted. The Americans had
already invaded `the soft underbelly of Europe' from Africa, and
controlled most of Italy with more to follow at the time of the
Normandy invasion. Iceland wasn't even in the picture, other than a
pleasant neutral third world country.
>> If I have offended you then I apologize. It was not my intention
>> to do so. I simply posted what most Americans think and believe.
>> None that I know sincerely believe that England did not
>> contribute to winning WWII - on the contrary we know better.
>> But we also know that it took America and all allied nations,
>> England, all of her commonwealths, and Russia to defeat the
>> Nazis. We all came very close to losing this world to a form of
>> government that would have ultimately destroyed it.
And when we recognize the contribution of `Britain', we also include
Australia, India, et al.
>It really does mean a lot to me to hear you say that... it is in stark
>contrast to much of what we hear from the USA, but if someone as
>clearly intelligent and professional as you think this way I'm sure
>that you are not alone.
>
>Thank you... and I also apologise for any offence I have caused you -
>I became somewhat heated back there.
>
>> I will drink to that Mike. I will toast England.
>
>Glasses raised on both sides of the Atlantic. ;-)
A fool toasting with a UK nationalist flag waver.
Mike
I'm sorry, this is "vonroach" vs a lifetime career soldier who had
studied tactics at West Point here? Sod off mate, you are completely
out of his league...
> >> North Africa was fought with American tanks Mike. Without them
> >> Montgomery would not have won North Africa. Yet I concede it was
> >> a great victory for Montgomery.
>
> With the aid of the American landings in west Africa and Patton's
> campaign there.
Aid yes.
> >> The Superior technology won the day. And of course the RAF
> >> pilots who were, in my opinion and my Father's , nothing less
> >> than heroes.
>
> True and they all coveted Mustangs so that they might survive as
> living heros.
Where do you get this oft-repeated fact from, you idiot?! The
Supermarine Spitfire won fighter aircraft of the year on it's release,
was an extremely well-armed all-round fighter which was more
manoeverable than the ME109. What advantages did the Mustangs actually
have? And can you cite a single RAF pilot who actually wanted one,
because I have an entire country-load of them over here and not one of
them has mentioned it.
> And where did England get their laws? From God?
Where did you get your country from? From England. We can go on like
this all day, but you are an imbecile, as you've already proved very
neatly.
> >That is very true - some people (myself included) do resent America,
> >not so much our of jealousy but more anger at the statements of some
> >of the less intelligent members of our population. As I'm sure that
> >ignorant little Englanders have been annoying you.
>
> Not at all, always glad to set matters straight.
No, fuck you. I was referring to the intelligent, not you. You are a
fool. A complete waste of oxygen, a drain on resources, you are
single-handedly dragging down the entire IQ rating of the USA.
> >> > Chamberlain was a fool.
>
> As are all appeasers!
Yeah, yeah, gung ho! I pity the foo', make war not peace, go talk to
someone who has actually fought huh?
> Perhaps your `point of view' is near-sighted. The Americans had
> already invaded `the soft underbelly of Europe' from Africa, and
> controlled most of Italy with more to follow at the time of the
> Normandy invasion. Iceland wasn't even in the picture, other than a
> pleasant neutral third world country.
Har har har. Nearsightedness from ME, here?! The invasion of Italy was
*completely* an allied effort, with a huge British army in the field
and British intelligence being the only reason that Sicily was so
unprepared for the attack. Again, look at history...
> And when we recognize the contribution of `Britain', we also include
> Australia, India, et al.
As is mentioned when he says "Commonwealths". Yet more ignorance on
your part...
> A fool toasting with a UK nationalist flag waver.
Hey, here's an idea!! Go home, fuck your mother, sodomise yourself,
pour the contents into a beaker and drink it. Frankly, you are a
complete and utter imbecile, and a fucking idiot to boot.
You not only have a retarded version of world events, you also dismiss
as "a fool" a man who has given thirty years to the service of your
country and has studied military history with the best military
strategists in the whole of the USA. And then there is you, who is
frankly a gimp, who has no grasp of anything. Not only that, you then
rant on about the foolishness of appeasers at the same time you
impugne the reputation of a decorated soldier who has in fact served
in combat since Vietnam.
Maybe you should think about shutting up before I personally come over
to your country and cruficy you with iron-hot nails, because if you
dare utter another single world to slur the memory and repution not
only my own country's forces, but also that of a soldier who has been
fighting for dickheads like you since you were sucking milk from your
mother tits, I will end up killing you.
Now fuck off.
#vonroach
wrote:
Er...Sadam, Arafat, some Somali warlord, Yemen, Swiss bankers, France
(who also hate the US), Kashmere, perhaps Pakistan, Philippines,
Indonesia, Cuba, Libya, some ignorant American factions, Columbian or
Mexican drug lords -- still a cruddy world out there when you get
beyond the US, lots of holes for rats to build nests in. Probably
unoccupied caves in mountains of Switzerland.
#vonroach
>> What a shallow knowledge of history.
>
>I'm sorry, this is "vonroach" vs a lifetime career soldier who had
>studied tactics at West Point here? Sod off mate, you are completely
>out of his league...
A pathetic UK flag-waver who can be identified by his profanity and
complete ignorance of what he attempts to discuss. Some schoolchild
most likely, who identifies with Chamberlain, appeasement, and
`negotiations', ie. a peacenik at any price.
Mike
> complete ignorance of what he attempts to discuss. Some schoolchild
> most likely, who identifies with Chamberlain, appeasement, and
> `negotiations', ie. a peacenik at any price.
Yeah, sure, whatever. I refuse to even discuss with you any more,
because while I have studied the entire second world war in depth, and
Nazi Germany in particular, you clearly know nothing. Even Doug, who
is not only a soldier but has been for thirty years (ie: not a
"peacenik", and an American), clearly identifies you as a fool.
Let's face it, you know nothing about anything. If you did, you would
not be so stupid as to accuse a career soldier of being a "peacenik",
while I suspect that you have never fired a shot in your life and
would faint with terror if anyone even suggested it. It's armchair
soldiers like you who sit there wildly attacking anyone who disagrees
with any kind of war, even people who will be doing the killing for
you. How can you blithely send other people's sons and daughters off
to their deaths and then sit there like a smug little warrior in your
nice safe home in the middle of the USA? You are so pathetic that it
pains me even to talk to you; you loudly condemn other people to death
while you sit, hundreds of miles away from any action, mouthing off
about things that you know nothing about. And while I fully suspect
that your witty retort would be something along the lines of "exactly
what I'd expect from a peacenik", it just shows what little you know
of conducting intelligent conversation.
Interestingly, a quick search reveals that your idiocy has been
well-noted, and so I have no need to highlight it further. And save
your breath in whatever stilted and ignorant reply you write, as I
won't bother to return here to listen to more of your bollocks.