@superbattleshipyamato Agreed, I knew of his damaged arm. I didn’t know he lost a kidney.
Yet another reason . . .
-
Back on topic… A recent poll indicates a majority of Iraqi’s feel life is much better after Saddam than before. And- I’d like to point out to the cynics that the 2 biggest messes the US cleaned up are Germany and Japan. In both cases it was years before either had a democratic government.
The question SHOULD be why is Europe wanting to RUSH this along?
What is their interest in Iraq having it’s own government in 6 months?
Why are they making Iraqi soverignty a priority BEFORE they will help? -
Falk, Ive said it before, and I will say it again.
- Dont make arguments using rhetorical questions, it makes people think you do not know what you are talking about, and understand the weakness of your argument (whether or not this is true of you, I cannot say, but thats the impression it gives)
- you are getting majorly sidetracked, as you have on many occasions. youve taken examples from people arguments, and gone off on them, rather than focus on the main argument (not that nobody else does this, myself included. but you seem to do it the most, and the most severly, and i just plain dont like you, so im more inclined to criticize you, and call you on things.)
-
Back on topic… A recent poll indicates a majority of Iraqi’s feel life is much better after Saddam than before. And- I’d like to point out to the cynics that the 2 biggest messes the US cleaned up are Germany and Japan. In both cases it was years before either had a democratic government.
The question SHOULD be why is Europe wanting to RUSH this along?
What is their interest in Iraq having it’s own government in 6 months?
Why are they making Iraqi soverignty a priority BEFORE they will help?I think that given the fact that most of the world appears lied to about the reasons for the attack on Iraq (links to 9/11, wmd that the CIA still can’t dig up) gives us the impression that Bush and America is not to be trusted with regards to oil-rich Iraq. Why should we dump a ton of resources into Iraq when America stnads to benefit from it, and when they caused these problems in the first place.
-
Yes, early attacks where aimed at industry and infrastructure. But later attacks were totally unneeded. How can you explain the attack on Hamburg in 1945? By no means there was much left that would have been worth bombing.
What exactly do you mean by “later” attacks? The war was very much still in effect by even early 1945. As for Hamburg, perhaps civilians were the target, I don’t know. You may be right. Perhaps the Allies wanted revenge for what happened to Britain during the Blitz, and in your opinion, they were wrong for doing so. However, an arguement can be made that these bombings broke the German peoples’ morale and spirit - shortening the war and bringing the war to the homefront (as was proven in Hamburg 1943).
In February of 1945, with the Russian army threatening the heart of Saxony, I was called upon to attack Dresden; this was considered a target of the first importance for the offensive on the Eastern front. Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front and it was considered that a heavy air attack would disorganise these communications and also make Dresden useless as a controlling centre for the defence. It was also by far the largest city in Germany-the pre-war population was 630,000-which had been left intact; it had never before been bombed. As a large centre of war industry it was also of the highest importance.
So, i don’t go against your point in the way you say it here, but you did not relativate it before with the term “majority”, before that it sounded like all, and that is simply not true.
How many bombing missions did the USAF conduct during the war? Hundreds? Thousands? Probably even more. So a few missions turned sour, I would have expected that to happen, given the law of probability. However, for the most part, the bombers were sent against military targets.
The civilian deaths and the civil destruction were not only taken into account, but more or less embraced (with P-49s (AFAIR) strafing the ground of Dresden to “increase the chaos” in the late phase of the attacks).
I never read of P-49’s given orders to strafe the ground for the purpose “increasing chaos” so I will have to see more then you AFAIR on this. As for Dresden, consider what Air Marshall Arthur Harris had to say on this:
"In February of 1945, with the Russian army threatening the heart of Saxony, I was called upon to attack Dresden; this was considered a target of the first importance for the offensive on the Eastern front. Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front and it was considered that a heavy air attack would disorganise these communications and also make Dresden useless as a controlling centre for the defence. It was also by far the largest city in Germany-the pre-war population was 630,000-which had been left intact; it had never before been bombed. As a large centre of war industry it was also of the highest importance. "
Why don’t you not just admit that your nation has commited war crimes, instead of fleeing from one weak excuse to the other?
(As Swinemuende can by no means explained by the above)F_alk, could you just shut up for once? I’m serious, enough with the rhetoric. I never said my nation didn’t “commit war crimes” - not once anywhere in all my postings. Therefore, if you interpreted my postings as “weak excuses” it’s because THEY ARE - it was never my intent to say American never commited war crimes - it was never my goal in the first place. Jezzzz…
-
@TG:
However, an arguement can be made that these bombings broke the German peoples’ morale and spirit - shortening the war and bringing the war to the homefront (as was proven in Hamburg 1943).
True.
I never read of P-49’s given orders to strafe the ground for the purpose “increasing chaos” so I will have to see more then you AFAIR on this.
A simple search on google would have brought you:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/raids/dresden.htmlread the last paragraph.
Another site i faound said it was P-51 that did the strafing. My AFAIR was aimed at the type of planes.F_alk, could you just shut up for once? I’m serious, enough with the rhetoric. I never said my nation didn’t “commit war crimes” - not once anywhere in all my postings….
I never said you didn’t deny it.
See the difference? The difference between admitting one thing and not denying it. It may not look big, but (exp. for lawyers and people directly affected) it is huge.
No, you never denied it, but also, you never admitted it. You tried to explain/excuse that.Anyway. Let us rest this part.
Falk, …i just plain dont like you, so im more inclined to criticize you, and call you on things.)
Finish your school! And visit one or two discussion courses. And have a look how many postings had been OT before i stepped in.
Or in one sentence:
Try to make qualified postings on the matter.…What was up with V- weapons raining down on London? What does the “V” stand for?..
V actually stands for Vergeltung, which by chance can be translated into an english word which also starts with V.
-
i had figured Dresden to be a revenge for the evil rained on Coventry. I had also considered that appropriate enough. Interesting point there Moses.
-
@cystic:
i had figured Dresden to be a revenge for the evil rained on Coventry. I had also considered that appropriate enough. Interesting point there Moses.
um… why is Dresden ok but Coventry not???
-
@Guerrilla:
@cystic:
i had figured Dresden to be a revenge for the evil rained on Coventry. I had also considered that appropriate enough. Interesting point there Moses.
um… why is Dresden ok but Coventry not???
Coventry was the unprovoked, militarily insignificant home of hundreds of thousands of Brittains that was virtually demolished out of sheer hubristic evilness.
Dresden i had taken to be the “punishment” or revenge for Coventry, however it apparently was of strategic significance to punsh them.
(although i do not support bombing of civi’s, i can kind of see why . . . ) -
read the last paragraph.
Another site i faound said it was P-51 that did the strafing. My AFAIR was aimed at the type of planes.THen you are right and the Allies went overboard in their bombing, though perhaps the strafing was done to blockade the city-streets and make it impossible for the Germans to move reinforcements into the city.
I never said you didn’t deny it.
See the difference? The difference between admitting one thing and not denying it. It may not look big, but (exp. for lawyers and people directly affected) it is huge.Really?
“Why don’t you not just admit that your nation has commited war crimes, instead of fleeing from one weak excuse to the other?”Huh? Last time I heard, these words were meant awfully close to codemning for not “admiting war crimes.” But the point still stands, it was you who brought up these “war crimes.” Read how the post started. It began with Guerrilla Guy saying that America was wrong was dropping the A-Bombs, which I argued it was right for doing so. I then commented (trying to bring to light the matter) that countless civilians died in Germany also (not just Japan). Then you swoop in blatantly bringing up Dresden, Hamburg, ect and when I respond, you say I am a apologist for defending US War Crimes, to which no previous examples of the above were made. Once again, you have jumped to conclusions and equated that US was wrong for it’s strat bombing campaign - punishable by war crimes. Nice Job.
No, you never denied it, but also, you never admitted it. You tried to explain/excuse that.
Anyway. Let us rest this part.
-
TG…I’m sorry for starting this Wayward-thread…I’ll pull out of it… before Yanny kills me 8) …
Cheers,
GG -
Yeah, good going GG,
you took another discussion topic on American incompetance w.r.t. Iraq and turned it into a F_alk/TG love-fest.
darn it all anyway, and it was just getting interesting . . . (hit him with your purse F_alk!) -
@cystic:
Yeah, good going GG,
you took another discussion topic on American incompetance w.r.t. Iraq and turned it into a F_alk/TG love-fest.
darn it all anyway, and it was just getting interesting . . . (hit him with your purse F_alk!)sorry CC…
-
@TG:
… But the point still stands, it was you who brought up these “war crimes.” Read how the post started. …
Well, yes. I kept on this, one class of war crimes. War crimes in general were a topic already though.
Why i jumped onto it was your notion of unfortunate cilvilians in the crossfire. That did upset me. Expecially, as you say in the following sentence, that these massacres had the strategic sense of lowering the morale. This means, they were not in the crossfire and not unfortunate, but clearly aimed at and in some cases the main target.@cystic:
i had figured Dresden to be a revenge for the evil rained on Coventry. …
Hmm, there had been to many other terror bombings before that, i don’t think that one of the last … just because it’s one of the most famous … can be considered the revenge attack.
But, did you know that it was actually the British air force that first bombed civil targets in WW2? The Germans already had blodd on their list from the Spanish Civil War though.@cystic:
Yeah, good going GG,
you took another discussion topic on American incompetance w.r.t. Iraq and turned it into a F_alk/TG love-fest.
darn it all anyway, and it was just getting interesting . . . (hit him with your purse F_alk!)lol
-
I thought I would get complemented for stopping it :-? :lol:
-
Why i jumped onto it was your notion of unfortunate cilvilians in the crossfire. That did upset me. Expecially, as you say in the following sentence, that these massacres had the strategic sense of lowering the morale. This means, they were not in the crossfire and not unfortunate, but clearly aimed at and in some cases the main target.
I think you really need to polish up on your English a bit more. :-? “Unfortunate” does not means: expendable, necessary, or otherwise. For clearification, the lives lost to SBR was tragic, but nevertheless it happened. As for the lowering morale, they did - as much as Doolittle’s raid was more psychological than physical. Instead, you see the correlation (civilian deaths) and take it as causation (the reason for SBRs) - to which you were wrong.
Hmm, there had been to many other terror bombings before that, i don’t think that one of the last … just because it’s one of the most famous … can be considered the revenge attack.
Really? And what city was this?
-
@TG:
I think you really need to polish up on your English a bit more. :-?
Why don’t you express yourself that there is no chance of misunderstanding? :roll: … And, i try to polish up my English.
“Unfortunate” does not means: expendable, necessary, or otherwise.
Exactly, i understand it as something like unlucky… Fortuna, roman goddess of luck… Well, then you had some unfortunate civilians in the Twin Towers, and surely you can understand and appreciate that those arabs who see the US as an enemy cheered when the towers were attacked.
For clearification, the lives lost to SBR was tragic, but nevertheless it happened. … Instead, you see the correlation (civilian deaths) and take it as causation (the reason for SBRs) - to which you were wrong.
That i am wrong still has to be proven, and is absolutely not necessary for making the bombings a war crime.
From:
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)
Section II, Article 85
3. …the following acts shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of this Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health:Making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack;
Launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, … Launching an attack against works or installations containing dangerous forces in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, …
Making non-defended localities and demilitarized zones the object of attack; …Yes, that was set up after WWII, but if you want to argue on that, then i can’t help you at all. Just remember which crimes have been done “legally” through-out history, which were (or were not) later condemned.
But, when i look at this: Has anyone of the USAF or gov’t ever been charged for the bombings during the Vietnam “police action”?
Hmm, there had been to many other terror bombings before that, i don’t think that one of the last … just because it’s one of the most famous … can be considered the revenge attack.
Really? And what city was this?
I really have to polish my English as it seems.
-
alright you two, what do you want the topic’s name to be? is WW2 legality ok?
-
@Guerrilla:
alright you two, what do you want the topic’s name to be? is WW2 legality ok?
hey!! no corrupting my blasting the US police action in Iraq.
And F_alk - your English is not bad, but you Germans seem to have a tendency of making people read between the lines. An interesting device, but for some of us with the sleepy minds, it gets tricky. -
Exactly, i understand it as something like unlucky… Fortuna, roman goddess of luck… Well, then you had some unfortunate civilians in the Twin Towers, and surely you can understand and appreciate that those arabs who see the US as an enemy cheered when the towers were attacked.
Yeah, I would too if I thought of the US as the enemy. Though I still don’t see where you’re going with this…
-
Well, i think the term term “unfortunate” is way too sarcastic to be used.
But … i probably really only read too much into/between your lines.
Suggested Topics
