Not my #s…
just my emphasis!
:-P
:-)
Comparing Iraq 2005 with Germany 1945
-
Without Germany declaring War on the cowardous US which wouldn’t dare to enter the war on their own, we probably would have won. So, you didn’t save us from total soviet occupation, you introduced the threat of total soviet occupation.
I wonder how many problems the US has solved that would never have been problems had the US not existed the first place.so now you wish the US hadnt entered the war, so that the Nazis could have won? because if not, then there is no point to this whole thing other than to be an a**hole, which you seem to confirm with:
PS: If you think that characterising the population of a nation by an adjective with a semi-appropriate reasoning to explain that characterisation is “insulting”, you might wonder what the rest of world thinks of you if one of your kind calls a billion of people “fuckers”.
-
Without Germany declaring War on the cowardous US which wouldn’t dare to enter the war on their own, we probably would have won. So, you didn’t save us from total soviet occupation, you introduced the threat of total soviet occupation.
I wonder how many problems the US has solved that would never have been problems had the US not existed the first place.WOW this is only the second time i fully agree with Falk… he is not “wishing” Hitler to win, but only pointing out the probable course of what would happen providing certain mistakes werent made on the eastern front. Once they were made its a total fact that eventually the Soviets would have overran all of western Europe and turned it into a vassel of proto- communist states or “buffer states” from the americans/brits.
-
Falk wrote:
Without Germany declaring War on the cowardous US which wouldn’t dare to enter the war on their own, we probably would have won. So, you didn’t save us from total soviet occupation, you introduced the threat of total soviet occupation.
I wonder how many problems the US has solved that would never have been problems had the US not existed the first place.Not try to stir anything up, but why do you consider the US at that time cowards?
Also, I seriously doubt Germany would have been able to beat Russia had the US stayed out of the war. The aid the US provided to Russia through lend/lease was minimal and not really needed by Russia. Before the US/UK were able to open a second front in Italy, Russia was already pushing the Nazi forces back. Russian production of men and war materials alone (not counting the UK or US) quickly grew to become larger than the production by Germany and the quality of these wasn’t that bad either. The Germans in fact copied many ideas from the Soviet tanks in the later years of the war. Considering that an estimated 7/8 of the entire German war effort was put to the Eastern front, I don’t think the full 100% would have made a difference (not that that was even possible considering Germany started the Russian assualt at war with the UK).
Once Germany failed to enter Moscow in the initial assualt it was all over because Russia was a much larger country… Germany tried to decapitate a sleeping bear and having failed to do so, only enraged it…and Stalin was never known to show much mercy. Hence the Soviet occupation was guaranteed, only mitigated by the presence of the US and UK troops. Now had Germany taken Moscow the story could have been different, but this was decided well before the US involvement.
And finally, I don’t think the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Norway and France, not to mention the holocaust, was not a problem…regardless of the presence or absence of the USA.
Now I know you are kind of…irritated … by some of the other comments from other posters lately. But your statements are equally inflammatory. If you want to sling mud just the same as the other posters that is your right, but it doesn’t make you look very good IMO.
-
Also, I seriously doubt Germany would have been able to beat Russia had the US stayed out of the war.
I repost one of my earlier ideas on this very same topic:
Another Pandora’s box to open would be how Germany might have actually defeated the Soviet Union within the time frame of 1941-1942. IMO this would not be possible at any time after this point unless we assume Hitler placed the Reich economy on 'total war" (full mobilization) I assume that the completion of this task would involve the same span of time as when Germany finally accomplished this feat around Dec 1944. So if we take this example we get the factor of 2 years from start to finish, while the Soviets only needed about one year to get at full war making potential.
So as a consequence Hitler would have to begin around the summer of 1939 to be ready for the summer of 1941. The concept of the Whermacht relied on finishing off nations in quick fashion or “victories on the cheap”. Which could be done against any combatant sake the Soviets who could trade space for time until they were ready to strike back with overwhelming odds. In the course of the actual campaign the balance sheet was quite equal, while German production wasn’t vastly outdone until the beginning of the March- April 1942, which is when Stalin had moved his military industrial complex further east (Urals).
Of course losing 6 weeks of good weather fighting in the Balkans against Yugoslavia and Greece didn’t help Hitler for preparation for his Barbarossa campaign, but nevertheless Germany had operational possibilities for victory as long as they kept focus on 1) destroying Soviet Armies 2) control of Stalins ability to coordinate his forces north and south of the front, and 3) disruption of the enemies ability to conduct the war.The first point was formulated upon classic envelopment actions by armored pincers, while the slow Soviet logistical system denied the possibility breakout, unless the trap was set too late. From June 22 to August 31st Germany enjoyed unparcelled success and nearly everything proceeded according to plan, but once Hitler saw the Soviet nation buckle under immense pressure he abruptly changed plans and divided his forces to siege Leningrad in the north, Moscow in the center and Rostov/Kiev in the south with the last battles in this area causing much bloodshed for AGS. The Key IMO was to strike only at Moscow severing the “head” and denying Stalin the critical rail lines which he used to shuffle his forces on the north/south axis. Also, there were important industries in the vicinity of Moscow region and they were turning out war materiel right on the front lines, where Germany had to first convert the rail gauge all the way from Poland and slog everything thru mud to the front. This was a considerable advantage for Stalin and a missed opportunity for Hitler. In the north the siege of Leningrad wasted and tied down a sizeable portions of AGN. I believe only a token force should have been used to “hold down” a relatively smaller Soviet force. The worst use of economy of force occurred with army group south (AGS) which was doing quite well until Hitler decided that forces from AGC should have been detached to help with the enveloping of the Kiev pocket. The necessary waste and loss of tempo certainly resulted in the irremediable demise of the 1941 campaign. Had this last straw not been carried out, Moscow would have fallen and Stalin would have to fight with separate lines both north and south. The result would be a much better defensible situation to hold out thru the winter of 1941-42. The roads and access from the east of Moscow and the south is much more difficult to conduct offensive operations, because their is no" logistical staging area" to support a counteroffensive, while losing Moscow would be quite demoralizing to say the least.
It is quite clear that Stalin was prepared to carry the fight from Kazan and the Urals, while a second army was further south defending the eastern approaches of the don and the area south of Rostov. The spring of 1942 would see a classic mop up campaign whereby now the forces at Moscow could go after Archangel and Leningrad and deny any northern lend lease route to the Soviets. In the south, AGS would not have to cover the northern flank and could spend its time destroying and taking Baku oil center. Even following this scenario its quite clear that Stalin would not give up until he probably lost the Urals due to heavy concentrations of Industry, but in real terms this would amount to no real opposition to a victorious Whermacht in the long term.So the trick was if Germany could have done differently and not got involved with america, then the door would have opened for a possible victory, or defeat would certainly have come by the Soviets occuping the whole of continental Europe.
-
Without Germany declaring War on the cowardous US which wouldn’t dare to enter the war on their own, we probably would have won. So, you didn’t save us from total soviet occupation, you introduced the threat of total soviet occupation.
I wonder how many problems the US has solved that would never have been problems had the US not existed the first place.so now you wish the US hadnt entered the war, so that the Nazis could have won? because if not, then there is no point to this whole thing other than to be an a**hole, which you seem to confirm with:
you seem to be using the second quote to guide you in your interpretation of the first.
Also - i do disagree with F_alk in that i am not so certain that his statement is true. I believe that the Canadian war machine would have been enough to help Britain and the USSR to ultimately defeat Germany, however it would have taken a fair bit more time with brutal results. At the same time, at the end of these things, there is little doubt that the USSR would have covered the vast (VAST) majority of the third reich’s lands and i imagine the low countries as well. Still, i do see F_alk’s point in that the Marshall plan looks more like just another way to “contain communism” without having been that effective at much else.PS: If you think that characterising the population of a nation by an adjective with a semi-appropriate reasoning to explain that characterisation is “insulting”, you might wonder what the rest of world thinks of you if one of your kind calls a billion of people “fuckers”.
the sad fact that Yanny refers to this type of thinking as commonplace in the US is something that should horrify intelligent USans. Great pain if continue down this road you do, i see . . . .
-
Quote
Quote
PS: If you think that characterising the population of a nation by an adjective with a semi-appropriate reasoning to explain that characterisation is “insulting”, you might wonder what the rest of world thinks of you if one of your kind calls a billion of people “fuckers”.
Quote
the sad fact that Yanny refers to this type of thinking as commonplace in the US is something that should horrify intelligent USans. Great pain if continue down this road you do, i see . . . .I strongly agree…
-
you seem to be using the second quote to guide you in your interpretation of the first.
no, it seems to confirm my interpretation of the first. i dont think he really is supporting Hitler, and wishing that we had stayed out so that the nazis could win. i think he is trying to be inflammatory, in response to ignorant viewpoints. like baker said, its his right if he wants to, but its more than a little hypocritical to be so outraged at the ignorant viewpoints of some, and then purposely post something inflammatory, whether he believes it or not (some of what he says im not entirely convinced he doesnt believe, and some im pretty sure he does believe).
the sad fact that Yanny refers to this type of thinking as commonplace in the US is something that should horrify intelligent USans. Great pain if continue down this road you do, i see . . . .
of course it does. but commonplace or not, i think you cant prohibit this kind of speech just because its inflammatory. yes, i realize that i have argued that inciting a crime is not protected speech. now, im not sure what the legal requirement is for something to be considered “inciting a crime”, but i dont think marine’s comments qualify. thats a judgement call, and i may in fact be wrong, but considering 1) im not sure hes sincere, or whether hes just trying to be inflammatory 2) i dont think he actually intends any action, and 3) im fairly certain that no one on this board, if they did believe him to be sincere will actually take action in the manner he wants. this is opinion, like i said, i dont know the legal requirements for it to be unprotected speech. as to the opinion being commonplace: there are ignorant people everywhere. you can never convince them all. and resorting to their level is dangerous. theres an adage “never argue with a fool. he drags you down to his level, then beats you with experience.” like yanny said, civil discourse, or ignore him. besides, if we start locking every thread in which something inflammatory is said, we will have a lot of locked threads, and people will just start getting frustrated. and marine is not the only perpetrator of this <cough><cough>> Still, i do see F_alk’s point in that the Marshall plan looks more like just another way to “contain communism” without having been that effective at much else.
perhaps, but that was his point in an earlier post, not the one i was quoting. also, while it may ultimately have had limited success, the marshall plan was certainly intended for more than to simply “contain communism”.</cough></cough>
-
@cystic:
I believe that the Canadian war machine would have been enough to help Britain and the USSR to ultimately defeat Germany, however it would have taken a fair bit more time with brutal results.
What war machine??? The Snowbirds???
-
I believe that the Canadian war machine would have been enough to help Britain and the USSR to ultimately defeat Germany
I laugh at this as well… but i dont want to rain on his parade. Canada helped the efforts to fight Hitler, but honestly its just a colony of england and Churchill’s final fall back position if Hitler took out Britain in 1940-41. Other than that they made little difference when compared to UK and America’s efforts. While the western allies made respectively much smaller sacrifices compared to the Soviet Union.
-
@Imperious:
but honestly its just a colony of england
Well, since the Head of State for Canada IS the Queen of England…
-
@Imperious:
I believe that the Canadian war machine would have been enough to help Britain and the USSR to ultimately defeat Germany
I laugh at this as well… but i dont want to rain on his parade. Canada helped the efforts to fight Hitler, but honestly its just a colony of england and Churchill’s final fall back position if Hitler took out Britain in 1940-41. Other than that they made little difference when compared to UK and America’s efforts. While the western allies made respectively much smaller sacrifices compared to the Soviet Union.
i was being somewhat facitious, but your knowledge of WWII history is sucking pretty badly. At the end of the war we had the world’s third largest navy and the 4-5th largest army. Also you have ignored the impacts of Juno, Dieppe, the RCAF, our part in securing Italy and the low countries in addition to our efforts in France, nevermind the massive mobilization of supplies to a well blockaded island country.
-
CC,
While I was being facetious in my “snowbirds” comment as well, like it or not, the actions of Canada in WWII are lumped in with the UK and all of the rest of their former Empire that still held the King/Queen of England as their Head of State.
Sorry, but outside of Canada, that is the reality.
In India I am sure they read about the brave contribution of India in the fight for Burma, and the Aussies I am sure teach their kids about the powerful Australian forces that pushed Japan back int he days before the US entered the Pacific war. But outside of those nations, it is still the US, UK, and Russia (perhaps France, but THAT is a joke) against Germany and Japan (and Italy is the joke on the Axis side).
And don;t blame it on me that when Canada went “independent”, they only went part-way, and still have the UK Royals on their money.
-
@ncscswitch:
CC,
While I was being facetious in my “snowbirds” comment as well, like it or not, the actions of Canada in WWII are lumped in with the UK and all of the rest of their former Empire that still held the King/Queen of England as their Head of State.Â
Sorry, but outside of Canada, that is the reality.
In India I am sure they read about the brave contribution of India in the fight for Burma, and the Aussies I am sure teach their kids about the powerful Australian forces that pushed Japan back int he days before the US entered the Pacific war. But outside of those nations, it is still the US, UK, and Russia (perhaps France, but THAT is a joke) against Germany and Japan (and Italy is the joke on the Axis side).
And don;t blame it on me that when Canada went “independent”, they only went part-way, and still have the UK Royals on their money.
if you honestly think that the UK could have lasted alone against Germany without Canadian support, you have to give your head a shake. Also - Juno beach was the only allied position where all objectives were acheived by allied forces. Do you know anything about D-Day?? Do you know anything aside from the US contribution to the war?
-
but your knowledge of WWII history is sucking
CC you have no idea how much i know about the military sciences… when i was at UCLA while persuing a diploma in Both Philosophy and History i basically also took every class offered at the ROTC program for officers which studied the entire span of military history and got higher grades than anybody in any of those classes. The only thing i didnt do was drill.
What you had posted is true for the most part:
1)Soldiers of the Canadian Army fought in the Battle of Hong Kong in 1941.
-
Landed for the disastrous Dieppe Raid of 1942
-
went ashore in 1943 in the Allied invasions of Sicily and mainland Italy (husky) , then fought through the long Italian Campaign. Many of the very first Allied soldiers to enter Rome were Canadian commandos in the Devil’s Brigade.
-
Canadian troops returned to France in June 1944 on D-Day at Juno Beach in the Battle of Normandy and played a crucial role closing the Falaise pocket, then swung north to clear the Channel ports, liberating Calais, Dunkirk,and Dieppe.
5)In several weeks of heavy fighting in the fall of 1944,They cleared the approaches to the vital port of Antwerp in the Battle of the Scheldt. Eventually, the Canadians succeeded in defeating the Germans and liberating the port of Antwerp. The Canadians then turned east and played a central role in the liberation of the Netherlands (Liberation of Holland). By early 1945 Canadian forces had liberated most of the Netherlands and, fighting alongside British and US armies, pushed to the Rhine and across into northern Germany.
-
YES by the wars end they had the 4th largest Navy and Army
-
about 1.5 million served
Now this does not place it as Englands equal in the effort, while clearly all of her colonies fought with equal distinction like India, Austrailia, Poland, and even the free French.They did not as you have posted make up the major portion of that effort… they only helped save the world from the hun. IF you want to talk about who really won the second world war and who’s peoples should be praised for the greatest sacrifice they gave you only need to look at the big nation thats between Poland and China and kiss any Babushka you can find —
-
-
UK could have lasted alone against Germany without Canadian support
I don’t agree because the united states was also supplying UK with “war goods” (e.g. Lend Lease)
We also gave UK 50 destroyers for some naval bases. IN 1940 Destroyers for Bases Agreement had seen fifty obsolete destroyers transferred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange for base rights in the Caribbean.
FDR also had a few tricks up his sleave to basically fight the axis by supplying our allies with war making materials.During the year of 1940 we sent Large quantities of goods to Britain . US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt approved US$1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain on October 30, 1941. Britain did not need to repay the main debt, only the amount for supplies in Britain when Lend Lease was terminated in 1945.when Washington suddenly and unexpectedly terminated Lend Lease on September 2, 1945. These were sold for about 10 cents on the dollar with payment to be stretched out for 50 years at 2% interest. Now that what i call a good deal.
British Commonwealth received some $31 billion by the wars end. That includes Canada as well FYI.
Canada contribution:
Battle of Britian:
Some 80 Canadians flew in the Battle of Britain. Of these, 26 were in the RCAF’s No. 1 Squadron, which arrived soon after Dunkirk; 16 flew as a team in the RAF’s 242 “Canadian” Squadron; the rest among a dozen other RAF squadrons. Leading to some confusion, the dispersed Canadian airmen one who flew with the Poles in 303 Squadron and another in the South African 74 Squadron. Another 200 Canadian airmen fought in RAF Bomber and Coastal commands.Eventually Canada had to reach an accomodation with America, because they were still suffering the effects of the Depression. To preserve their national security and guard against the threat of a world that may see the demise of England in Europe they signed the Ogdensburg Agreement which amoung other things defered control of the defense of North America (including Canada) to America much to the chigrin of supporters of the king and citizens who view Canada in some light other than where they belong. When FDR sent lend lease to England they also helped Canada get back on her feet with what they called the hyde Park Declaration.
Under the terms of the Hyde Park Declaration, the United States would increase defence purchases in Canada, while material exported to Canada for use in supplies for Britain would be charged to Britain’s lend-lease account. This solved Canada’s immediate financial concerns but placed it even further within the American sphere of influence. As King told Parliament, it was “nothing less than a common plan for the economic defence of the western hemisphere.” Like the Ogdensburg Agreement, it has drawn fire from critics for just that reason; like the Ogdensburg Agreement, there was no other choice.
With the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States finally entered the war. Canada suffered a loss of status. It was no longer one of Britain’s most important allies but a junior partner in a great power coalition. From now on, the war was to be run largely by Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union, which entered the fighting in June 1941. Canada had long abandoned its plans to fight a war of “limited liability,” and was making its maximum contribution to the war effort. Even so, the great powers were determined to keep the decision making to themselves, and viewed Canada as one of a number of minor allies that could not be given preferential treatment in case others demanded it.
Canada was outraged to have no say in areas where it was making a large contribution. This was particularly frustrating in connection with the combined boards created by the United States and Great Britain in 1942 to allocate food and war material. Canada was a major producer of food for the Allies, but was shut out of the Combined Food Board.
Hume Wrong of the Department of External Affairs provided an eloquent argument for a greater Canadian role, based on the functional principle. Each country should have a voice in areas where it was a major power; not everyone had an equal right to a voice in every area. It was a neat way of distinguishing Canada from such minor allies as Brazil or Mexico, but it was still a hard sell.
Canadian tenacity eventually resulted in seats on some of the boards that were of interest to Ottawa after long and tedious negotiations, but Canada neither sought nor received significant influence in the military conduct of the war. Even when Roosevelt and Churchill met twice in Quebec City to discuss Allied grand strategy, King was content to play a small role. He took part in limited bilateral discussions with the British and American leaders, and though he appeared in all of the photographs he did not attend the actual planning sessions.The war progressed and engulfed more nations and resulted in the view that Axis Hegemony was a possibility.Further German victories in Europe combined with Japan’s entry into the war in December 1941 ended Canada’s attempt to limit its military role in a conflict that had now become a war of survival. Following the German successes of 1940, the government sent the Second Division overseas and began mobilizing two other divisions. At the request of the British government, Canadian troops were hurriedly sent to defend Hong Kong against Japanese attack in the fall of 1941. Ill-equipped and poorly trained, the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles of Canada were all killed or captured when the Japanese overran the colony in December 1941. The Canadians in England, on the other hand, endured a long period of inactivity. Both the government and the military were anxious to have them see action, which helps explain Canadian participation in the ill-fated Dieppe raid of 1942. During this raid, more Canadians were killed or made prisoner for no military gain.
It was only in 1943 that Canadian forces participated in a major campaign, the Allied landings in Sicily. This was an important occasion for the government, because the Canadian public was becoming increasingly restive about Canada’s lack of involvement. The government therefore was duly disturbed by the original description of the landing force as Anglo-American. After urging from Mackenzie King, Roosevelt agreed that the Canadians should be credited for their participation in the assault.
Now with this being said you can now see how and why we feel the way you do when you say things like “without Canada WW2 is a lost cause”
and im still laughing… :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
-
@221B:
…
Not try to stir anything up, but why do you consider the US at that time cowards?
…
Now I know you are kind of…irritated … by some of the other comments from other posters lately. But your statements are equally inflammatory. If you want to sling mud just the same as the other posters that is your right, but it doesn’t make you look very good IMO.“Tit for tat” is the strategy that i base most of my actions on. In that, you would have a right to complain about me if you had complained about the other guy. Just like i made comments like him and explicitly said so: I marked later in the text that my comments were pure retaliation and meant as “eye-openers”. And honestly, calling someone a coward is not equally inflammatory as wanting to “kill the fuckers”.
If that is not enough for you to understand the point and think over the implicit criticism, then frankly i don’t care. So, yes i want to sling mud, and i want to watch out who is complaining about my slight mud slinging but ignores the stoning that takes place next to me.
CC is right. And i don’t want to go down that road. It would be job of the intelligent countrymen of the idiots to keep the idiots silent. Yet instead, teh intelligent countrymen keep silent, leaving the job to the foreigner.
And Janus, last time you agreed that “kill all muslims” is inciting a crime, while we differed on “the world would be a better place without muslims” which you thought was of unclear status. You implicitly defend your countryman, part of the reason why i ask myself wheter you are a nationalist. And Janus, my comments on the Marshall plan and that the US were cowards are in exactly the same post. Please be precise in your quotations. A last thing for you to consider: usually people “learn” quicker when the punishment is explained. Combine that fact with the use of tit-for-tat: That’s why i (a) complain about something and then (b) do the same to annoy in retaliation. Your rejection of that concept is comparable to you watching how a person is beaten up, and then you complain when a third person slaps you in the face to make you step in and end the brutality.
-
@Imperious:
but your knowledge of WWII history is sucking
CC you have no idea how much i know about the military sciences… when i was at UCLA while persuing a diploma in Both Philosophy and History i basically also took every class offered at the ROTC program for officers which studied the entire span of military history and got higher grades than anybody in any of those classes. The only thing i didnt do was drill.
you are correct. I was basing my assessment on your (IMO) ridiculous comments.
Now this does not place it as Englands equal in the effort, while clearly all of her colonies fought with equal distinction like India, Austrailia, Poland, and even the free French.They did not as you have posted make up the major portion of that effort…
i really had hoped that my remarks would have been considered - AS I REITERATED - in a humorous light. I had not insisted that they made up the major portion of that effort outside of a tongue-in-cheek context. At the same time, i do consider that without our contributions to the UK war effort, the UK would have fallen, and i doubt that the US would have entered the war.
they only helped save the world from the hun. IF you want to talk about who really won the second world war and who’s peoples should be praised for the greatest sacrifice they gave you only need to look at the big nation thats between Poland and China and kiss any Babushka you can find –-
it’s funny, but i already made this statement in another forum - that the allies might still have won if the US did not have war declared on it, if only thanks to the Russians.
Now with this being said you can now see how and why we feel the way you do when you say things like “without Canada WW2 is a lost cause”
i did nowhere make this statement. With this being said, you can now see how and why i feel the way i do about you when you say and invent stupid things.
I guess that these last 7 words need not have been stated as the feeling is there pretty continually (or is it continuously . . . ?).
I made a comment in jest. USans rushed to mock our efforts, and i loosely defended them, and then you come out with this crap?
Oh - and nice cutting and pasting . . . . -
@F_alk:
@221B:
…
Not try to stir anything up, but why do you consider the US at that time cowards?
…
Now I know you are kind of…irritated … by some of the other comments from other posters lately. But your statements are equally inflammatory. If you want to sling mud just the same as the other posters that is your right, but it doesn’t make you look very good IMO.“Tit for tat” is the strategy that i base most of my actions on. In that, you would have a right to complain about me if you had complained about the other guy. Just like i made comments like him and explicitly said so: I marked later in the text that my comments were pure retaliation and meant as “eye-openers”. And honestly, calling someone a coward is not equally inflammatory as wanting to “kill the fuckers”.
If that is not enough for you to understand the point and think over the implicit criticism, then frankly i don’t care. So, yes i want to sling mud, and i want to watch out who is complaining about my slight mud slinging but ignores the stoning that takes place next to me.
CC is right. And i don’t want to go down that road. It would be job of the intelligent countrymen of the idiots to keep the idiots silent. Yet instead, teh intelligent countrymen keep silent, leaving the job to the foreigner.
And Janus, last time you agreed that “kill all muslims” is inciting a crime, while we differed on “the world would be a better place without muslims” which you thought was of unclear status. You implicitly defend your countryman, part of the reason why i ask myself wheter you are a nationalist. And Janus, my comments on the Marshall plan and that the US were cowards are in exactly the same post. Please be precise in your quotations. A last thing for you to consider: usually people “learn” quicker when the punishment is explained. Combine that fact with the use of tit-for-tat: That’s why i (a) complain about something and then (b) do the same to annoy in retaliation. Your rejection of that concept is comparable to you watching how a person is beaten up, and then you complain when a third person slaps you in the face to make you step in and end the brutality.
Ok, if you want “tit for tat” then that is your prerogative, I’m not taking anything as personal between us here. And I have pointed out the same about “the other side” before (even when I agreed with their point of view)…so don’t say I ignore the other side…and besides, one has to start somewhere. Now I only pointed this out because I believed it might do some good. I beleive you are smart enough to not have to resort to insults with additional insults (which only makes you a target for the flamers), there are other options such as a polite but firm reply, or simply ignoring stupid and insulting posts. Since you are determined to retaliate in like kind to the idiots on the board … just remember the saying - if everyone wanted an eye for an eye, we would all become blind. So sling the mud and stones if you must, just leave me out of it. Again, I have no problems with you personally, I just expected better.
Also, as a side issue, calling people “cowards” is equally inflammatory as “kill the fuckers” in my opinion. It is only somewhat less crude/more polite, don’t think I will equate the severity of an insult with explitives that describe it.
-
@221B:
… I’m not taking anything as personal between us here.
That’s very good. I realize some of my wordings were a bit harsh in my last post and could have been misunderstood personally. I am glad you didn’t.
there are other options such as a polite but firm reply, or simply ignoring stupid and insulting posts.
I tried the first adn it didn’t work (long long time ago) and i will not do the second. I had a reason when i chose the “principiis obsta” and the “qui tacet, consentiere videtur” for my sig :).
So sling the mud and stones if you must, just leave me out of it. Again, I have no problems with you personally, I just expected better.
Consider yourself “collateral damage”. I do pity that collateral damage exists, but in the War against Idiocy sometimes non-idiots and even smart people like you have to suffer as well, especially if they have the bad luck of passing by or if they -for some other reasons- stand too close to the idiots.
Also, as a side issue, calling people “cowards” is equally inflammatory as “kill the fuckers” in my opinion. It is only somewhat less crude/more polite, don’t think I will equate the severity of an insult with explitives that describe it.
I very strongly disagree. Thereis nothing more final than killing someone else. An insult based on a perceived character trait is different from the wish to kill each and every of a set of people. The “fuckers” and the “cowards” have about the same quality. The “kill the”-part adds a totally new quality IMHO.
-
@F_alk:
Also, as a side issue, calling people “cowards” is equally inflammatory as “kill the fuckers” in my opinion. It is only somewhat less crude/more polite, don’t think I will equate the severity of an insult with explitives that describe it.
I very strongly disagree. Thereis nothing more final than killing someone else. An insult based on a perceived character trait is different from the wish to kill each and every of a set of people. The “fuckers” and the “cowards” have about the same quality. The “kill the”-part adds a totally new quality IMHO.
Well I see your point. IMO, there are some things worth dying for and there are things that are more final than death and these are related to the character of a person. Here the character assassination, “fuckers” and “cowards” imply similar defects on the character of an individual (not that you or I or anyone else on this board will have the final say on the quality of someones character). The “kill the” part is only incedental to the disrespect.
Suggested Topics
