History shows that America beats up the powerless in retaliation

Yeah that was a bit off topic, but I'm just tired of everyone saying that America was the savior of World War 2 while completely discounting the role of Russia. They helped us win the fight for Normany just as surely as any other ally.

 

because the events of the WHOLE war are interconnected. The battle would have gone MUCH differently if it was just russia vs germany. You seem to forget all the fighting that took place in africa, all the bombing of germany and german positions in the west. You forget 20 billion dollars worth of lend-lease provided to the russians that kept them IN the war while they struggled to build factories behind the urals since the nazis OWNED virtually EVERYTHING Before the urals.

The British, the Canadians, the Americans and others played a tremendous part in helping the russians win the battle of stalingrad even though it was indirect.

Do you know where you got the 70% of german troops were in russia. I wouldnt b surprised though....part of the greatness of normandy was keeping IT SECRET so it didnt get reinforced with everything. Landing on a beach and trying to take a fortified position is a lot harder than rolling the tanks through finland...not to underestimate what the russians did, it was tremendous.

Anyways, everything in the war was interconnected. I would agree that the battle of stalingrad was the real turning point. D-day turned out to be as much about stopping the soviet advance in europe as it did of freeing france and beating hitler.

 

Hey man, of course I agree that all of the war was interconnected. I'm not discounting all of the Western front fighting that was conducted by America, Britain, and even France. Their ability to cooperate was of course what made the allies strong. But if you look at all the battles and campaigns fought during the war, time and time again it was the Russians who outwitted and duped the germans in battle after battle. The battles of Stalingrad and Kursk and the subsequent counterattacks on the German lines were some of the most amazing military victories ever accomplished. But then again, you could easily say the D-Day counter-intelligence campaign was just as brilliant.

Still, even without allied aid I would wager that Russia still could have stood up to Germany. The very fact that they were able to move their factories hundreds of miles, disassembling and reassembling them piece by piece and amazing enough in itself. And second to Germany, Russia was able to produce some of the most technologically advanced equipment during the war. Regardless though, without the allies the war would have dragged on for a very long time, maybe 3-5 more years. So of course their intervention was vital, but imho, they still coulda won. I could be wrong though. Anyways this has really gone off topic. My bad.....

 

After 13 pages there's no way a thread could stay on topic.

And just to throw my 2 cents in, I'd like to point out that around 20 million Russians (or Soviets, since all of the U.S.S.R.'s casualties weren't Russians) died in WW2. That's just as many if not more than all of the othe Allies combined. Of course they played the biggest role, they tied down millions of German troops in the Russian winter (which is no picnic, especially when you're surrounded by enemeis), basically luring them to their deaths in the heart of Russia. BUT, if all the troops that were occupied in Western Europe were re assigned to Russia, I'm pretty sure the U.S.S.R. wouldn't have had a chance, especially if Japan decided to jump on as well.

You could say it would work the opposite way too, if all the troops used in Operation Babarossa were sent to France and Africa, the Americans and Brits wouldn't have had a chance either.

Like I said before, if you remove any one major Ally from the mix, the entire war would have been lost. Russia just had a bigger role than any other Ally.

 

In addition to the points other forum goers have raised against your post, I'll add this:

Flashback to the year 1775, the start of the American Revolutionary War. Common fighting tactics: line up shoulder to shoulder, facing the enemy, and fire your one shot musket. Move to the back allowing the next line to shoot, while you reload.
When the Americans started doing thigns like ambushing British soldiers and hiding while fighting, the British considered it a very dirty tactic. But who won? The Americans.
WW1: modernized (the machinegun, poison gas, and tanks, to name a few)weapons kill massive amounts of soldiers.
Now, onto WW2. The Nazis are runnign a very effective bombing campaign agaisnt england(Battle of Britian), targeting civilians. After this event, bombing of civilian targets became widely accepted.
Now, from a military standpoint, the bombing of civilian targets makes sense, as the cities produce goods and foods which supply the soldiers, and you weaken the moral of the opposing country.

True, it may be MORALY wrong to attack civilians, but that's the evolution of war.

 

Uncivilized? Like we're so civil.

America is full of barbaric mindless drones and followers just like those countries. We're not better, we're not different so stop with all that.

 

So, most of our population muders on the base of religion? Or restricts the will of women? Or goes without proper medical care? How about no human rights? Do we not believe in innocent until proven guilty? How about law, and enforcement of those laws?
Are you blind, or am I, because I don't see the similarities.

 

Maverick I wonder sometimes if you read the news, or just prefer to see what you want, because your views are so obviously on the right side of the view, it's incredible.

1. We murder based on religion. Don't you ever read about some fucking nut murdering his kids because god told him to, the woman who stoned her kids because she thought they were evil, or that exercism in which the parents thought their daughter was possessed and suffocated her when really she was epileptic. I'd call those murders based on religion, wouldn't you?

2. I'll give you that one.

3. Unless you have an HMO in this country you don't get the best of medical care. Certain health plans prohibit certain care, and I've seen it.

4. We don't have human rights because we're not allowed to move freely in this country without being called un-American or unpatriotic. We're monitored on the internet, and there's a thing called racial profiling. I'm not sure if you've heard of it.

5. In this country we're guilty until proven innocent and it's a fact. There have been many people who have died for terrible reasons. Amidul dialo for instance who wasn't even questioned just shot at.

I'm not blind, I just like to see both sides, not the right wing of the topic.

For the record, I'm not bashing this country, I just like to look at both sides of the issue before making any judgements. We're not perfect is all. And some people seem to think we are.

What makes us so high and mighty? What makes us so special that god is on our side like Bush said and not on the other countries sides?

 

Bush is a religous nut just like some of these terrorists.

I have just one statement... Religion is the biggest downfall of human society.

 

I said most of the population. Read.

As apossed to, say, having none at all? Because that's what they have.

Racial profiling? Your brining that into this? That bares nothing. We all have rights in this country, there are guidline on how to treat everybody in this country. Anyone whom breaks those, is properly prosecuted. We have rights, they do not.

That was one of few rare ocasions. If it were common practice, I'd be up in arms too. But we are innocent until proven guilty. Police officers require warrants to enter homes, or they are prosecuted. They need permission to do a lot of their jobs.

If you can't see what makes us better than everyone else, then you are blind.

 

Oh, most of the population, I didn't know this debate had guidelines and specifics. Now you're just making up stuff to win the debate.

It's people like you that will be the downfall of this country. People who think we're invincible and better than everyone else. That's why the towers fell because the FBI and CIA were all arrogant and we paid the price for it.

In case you didn't notice, we live in this world not in America. America is not an island onto it's own, we have other people in other countries who need help and we're not better.

I'm not arguing with you anymore, because it's obvious by your signature, and right wing comments that this will be endless, so I'll take the initiative and move along. Go wave your flag or pray to bush or something.

 

Oh definitely. People murder and start wars for the sake of it. People use it as a tool of fear and intimidation.

People use it as an excuse to judge, they use it to blanket their own insecurities and prejudices.

The Catholic church and Christian church use it to judge and none of the priests are ever punished for their sex crimes because their holy men! Ooh!

While it's rarely ever used as a positive tool, religion is a dumb concept.

 

I'm blind to the fascists in this country pretending to be doing things for the good of Americans when really its for the good of their own asses and for their corporations.

I'm blind to the fact that so many people can follow Bush, a man whose turned our allies and entire countries against us.

So, please, explain to me what makes us better and I bet I can think of other reasons why we're not.

Remember, we're a country, not a holyland.

 

So you think I changed my debate?

See, right there. Not a thing changed. You truly are blind.

 

No, you silly bird, not changed, tailored it to fit your views.

I pointed out some examples how we murder for religion and you didn't even admit I was right, you just said, "I said most".

Moving on.

 

So if 99% of America's population dosen't discriminate based on religion, and if 100%of the Middle East's theocracies do discriminate based on religion, than there's still no difference between us?

 

No, I'd have to disagree. The trouble begins when a religious group begins to see themselves as superior to every other religious group. Point is, too many people fail to at least understand others before claiming superiority over them.

 

The problem is that you have one group here (Muslim extremists) who want to eliminate all other religions.

So ... the proper logic here is to suggest that 'eliminating' other religions is the real problem.

Having said all that - there is no comparison between the USA position and the Islamic militant positions.
Bush jr. being a Christian does not make this a 'Christians vs Muslims' war.
Bin Lauden IS making this Islam vs The Jewnited States.

Hmm.. yep.
Thats at least one post or mine guarunteed to make things less clear in the minds of those already confused.

Blep.

 

Arab identity has been systematically stripped of its dignity by Western Colonial Imperialism.

Since the Battle of the Pyrimids over two hundred years ago, the West has colonized and exploited the peoples of the Middle East.

It's out of shear desperation, that the Arabs turn to leaders like Saddam Hussein and the Ba'th party.

Leaders who promise to liberate them from us.
Leaders who promise to liberate their identity for our cultural colonization.

Ossama Bin Ladin is simply further proof of the depths of their desperation.

It's as certain as day follows night. Yet many of us like to imagine our Western motives in the Middle East as innocent as the blushing virgin.

That's also a reaction of an insecure identity.

Under the stressful struggle of hierarchy, the identity of civilized man is always fragile and insecure.

Insecurity is the root of aggression.

Such a struggle is a zero sum plus game. Where stripping them of their dignity adds to the delusion of our own dignified identity.

Remember, in hierarchical civilization, religion like nationalism becomes a function of identity.

 

No, they hate us because we support Israel. Prior to 1948, Muslims in the Middle East didn't give 2 shits about the U.S., but as soon as the Israeli conflict fired up, we became the "western capitalist devils."