Skimmer and Stas Bush

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-22 12:08am

Stas Bush wrote:Nathan F,
I believe Saddam is opressing his people, but it's NONE of US business.

None of the US's business? We have been enforcing the UN sanctioned no fly zones for the last 12 years, and have been continually shot at. That automatically MAKES it our business.

The man is a totalitarian dictator. He must be dealt with. If no other country MAKES it their business, then it will continue to happen. This is the same thing as what was happening right before WW2 in Germany. I know this enacts Godwin's Law, but, had other nations not made it their business, nothing would have stopped the holocaust.

<edit: I got to thinking, this might not be the US's personal business, but it is more of Humanities business, and apparently the US lead Coalition are the only ones with the backbone to try and take out this madman>

<Edit 2: Will a mod PLEASE shut down this troll>

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-22 12:15am

Stas Bush wrote:. So why should Iraq be kicked for PREVIOUS war action?

Know what a cease fire is? Thats all there ever was between the US and Iraq, signed in 1991. You see, when one side violates such an agreement, such as Iraq did in 1998 when it made continued inspections impossible, and both sides start shooting at each other as also happened in 1998 you no longer have a cease fire. Instead you have a continuation of something called a WAR.

Hope your troll mind can handel all that.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-22 12:18am

Darth Fanboy

Which is why all ofthose Russian soldiers leaving Grozny had large bags full of loot, I saw it in the News, you're the victim of selectiv reporting.

Full of LOOT? In the NEWS? Of course! It's you who are misinformed - you believe your anti-russian news (still left from anti-soviet news). I prefere to believe my own experience.

May be looting occured. But NOT lots of looting. And in case you didn't know, we did judgement over those soldiers who broke the law in Chechnya.

You only won at Stalingrad because of the allies.

Blatant lie! Have you ever read even this guy, Liddel-Gart?

but the Germans had you outgunned and outclassed

And out-maneuvered.
Of course. But the Germans lose. Russians had them out-numbered. As for a study of WWII - I did quite a lot on that. The Allies took no serious action against Germany UNTIL 1943. So don't lie. The Allies watched the Russians DIE in huge numbers to secure victory, Moscow, then Stalingrad (there my grandfather was captured by the Russians), and then - only then - the Allies took part.

meanwhile you guys laid waste to Cechnya in the interest of keeping under control, was it really worth it?

No. As I said, it was a mistake.

Kuwait is being protected by fighter defense and patriot missles

Patriot? Oh sorry. It missed missiles in 1991, it missed missiles now. I really think if Saddam had WMD, Kuwait was laid waste.

The big fact is though is that north Korea will implode soon and Iraq, even without Saddam, Saddams Children and followers can maintain their aggression.

U are right. Dictatorships continue to survive. Trying to kill anyone who's not democratic will only cause the world to hate U, because most of the countries are NOT democratic, what a pity!
But dictatoships show no argession and maintain authority policy. They are nonbelligerent. Why you keep killing everyone you don't like?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-03-22 12:24am

This ignorant support of dictatorship really saddens me. How can such people with such ideas be allowed to roam free? The blatantly selfish 'It's not affecting me, so I don't care' attitude is also annoying(Sure, Bush has it to, but that's just one of many things I bitch about when talking about the ass).

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-22 12:25am

Nathan F,

This is the same thing as what was happening right before WW2 in Germany. I know this enacts Godwin's Law, but, had other nations not made it their business, nothing would have stopped the holocaust.

What the fuck? Until German agression, nothing was done to prevent the Holocaust. Even as war broke out, NOTHING was done for months, if not for years! "Phony war".
Made it their business? Fuck off. It became their business when they or their allies were attacked. So don't U brag about the "good allies" - the Stalin regime was the force which stopped Hitler, and what Allies did is stopped Japan. So stop bragging on Germany vs. Russia, I know that NOT from some "Discovery" propaganda channel.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-22 12:26am

Stas Bush wrote: Of course. But the Germans lose. Russians had them out-numbered. As for a study of WWII - I did quite a lot on that. The Allies took no serious action against Germany UNTIL 1943. So don't lie.

Why dont you take your own advice? Explain Greece, Norway, the battles for North Africa and the Allied bombing campaign, much of which happen BEFORE Russia was even part of the War. Course, Russia was a bit busy swallowing up its share of Poland and attacking Finland at the time.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-03-22 12:27am

Stas Bush wrote:Nathan F,
This is the same thing as what was happening right before WW2 in Germany. I know this enacts Godwin's Law, but, had other nations not made it their business, nothing would have stopped the holocaust.
What the fuck? Until German agression, nothing was done to prevent the Holocaust. Even as war broke out, NOTHING was done for months, if not for years! "Phony war".
Made it their business? Fuck off. It became their business when they or their allies were attacked. So don't U brag about the "good allies" - the Stalin regime was the force which stopped Hitler, and what Allies did is stopped Japan. So stop bragging on Germany vs. Russia, I know that NOT from some "Discovery" propaganda channel, I had relatives fighting on BOTH sides.

I know a few thousand British veterans who know you are talking out of your ass.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-22 12:29am

Stas Bush wrote:
Those two nations were lucky enough that the US and England kicked a royal amount of ass in WWII
What? REMEMBER STALINGRAD! You're thinking USSR didn't win the WAR? WOW!!! Now I think it's time to defend Russia seriously. The Soviets did ALL the dirty job. The Allies were so (silent?) that they opened the second front only in 1944!

Nice convenient forgetting of the Battle of Britain, the constant bombing of Germany by bombers based in England, and the Lend-Lease Act. When adjusted for inflation, the Lend-Lease Act supplied the USSR with $74.83 BILLION dollars in supplies (FY 2002 US$). Considering that was an extra 18% on top of the USSR's TOTAL Gross Domestic Product, it was a vital portion of the Red Army. Russian units often used American and British vehicles, including tanks and aircraft. Zhukov himself said the USSR would have lost the war without American support.

Marshal Zhukov wrote:one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war. . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel.

You should as well, seeing as how your Chechen enemies derive support from Al Qaeda.

Well, the US tried to kick Al Quaeda or Osama Bin Laden. And? Nothing.[/quote]We've captured the head of operations. Bin Laden himself is not as important except as a symbol and provider of money. He's no planner. It would be nice to capture or kill him to prevent him from finding another planner, but it would be more effective to promote moderate Islam in the Middle East over the extreme Wahhabism currently in favor in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Also, my suggestion is, that when and if USA will attack NK, China and Russia will be against and may even take part in the war. WWIII can break out. Because Russians have interest on the far east. So do Chinese.

If it were to come down to that, either the United States would win or nobody would win. In a conventional war, neither Russia nor China have the ability to project power, and both armies are technologically obsolete. The majority of China's fighters are MiG-19 derivatives, inferior to an F-4 Phantom II, let alone a moden jet. Russia's army is underequipped and undertrained due to the lack of funding available. The only way they could keep from losing would be the deployment of nuclear weapons, which is a losing situation for everyone. Hopefully it will never come to any of the possibilities I have mentioned.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-03-22 12:30am

Ah, the Battle Of Britain. 27,000 Luftwaffe shot down, 2,000 RAF shot down in one month. I love that tidbit.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-22 12:34am

SirNitram

Ah, the Battle Of Britain. 27,000 Luftwaffe shot down, 2,000 RAF shot down in one month. I love that tidbit.

Dude, did you ever seriously read WWII books or you just watch "discovery"?
German losses: 1733
English losses: 915
B. Liddel Hart.
Idiot.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-03-22 12:35am

Stas Bush wrote:SirNitram
Ah, the Battle Of Britain. 27,000 Luftwaffe shot down, 2,000 RAF shot down in one month. I love that tidbit.
Dude, did you ever seriously read WWII books or you just watch "discovery"?
German losses: 1733
English losses: 915
B. Liddel Hart.
Idiot.

I spoke to people who were there. Mind you, I may have dropped a 0. And you calling anyone an idiot is quite amusing, considering what you've said.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-22 12:38am

SirNitram

I spoke to people who were there.

To fighter pilots? Oh obviously, the English did a good job of overestimating German losses, but they were never even NEAR to the LIE you told.
To Winston Churchill? Doubt that. I'd rather believe Liddel Hart, a world-recognised history writer.
By the way, Liddel Hart's book is the official british view of WWII. He's from Britain. So shut the fuck up.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-03-22 12:40am

Stas Bush wrote:SirNitram
I spoke to people who were there.
To fighter pilots? Oh obviously, the English did a good job of overestimating German losses, but they were never even NEAR to the LIE you told.
To Winston Churchill? Doubt that. I'd rather believe Liddel Hart, a world-recognised history writer.
By the way, Liddel Hart's book is the official british view of WWII. He's from Britain. So shut the fuck up.

I'm from Britain, you ignorant pile of shit. I have spoken to people who fought in that war. You claiming lies based off one history book(Amusingly, you would ultimately deride any history book I put forth, no doubt), and insulting me personally. Then again, this is the last gasp of the morons.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-22 12:42am

SirNitram wrote:Ah, the Battle Of Britain. 27,000 Luftwaffe shot down, 2,000 RAF shot down in one month. I love that tidbit.

Which is utter bullshit. Total German losses where about 1733, Total British 915 for the whole multi month Campaign. Germany only had around 3000 aircraft at the start, and only produced 10,250 aircraft in all of 1940, with 11,770 in 1941.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-03-22 12:43am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Ah, the Battle Of Britain. 27,000 Luftwaffe shot down, 2,000 RAF shot down in one month. I love that tidbit.
Which is utter bullshit. Total German losses where about 1733, Total British 915 for the whole multi month Campaign. Germany only had around 3000 aircraft at the start, and only produced 10,250 aircraft in all of 1940, with 11,770 in 1941.

You sure? I could have sworn those were the numbers..

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-03-22 12:44am

Full of LOOT? In the NEWS? Of course! It's you who are misinformed - you believe your anti-russian news (still left from anti-soviet news). I prefere to believe my own experience.

this was followed by

May be looting occured. But NOT lots of looting. And in case you didn't know, we did judgement over those soldiers who broke the law in Chechnya.

pick a side and stick with it. We'll im glad you tried those soldiers who did commit crimes but it wasn't every last one.

Blatant lie! Have you ever read even this guy, Liddel-Gart?

Accusations of lying coming from a guy who has lost all credibility he had to begin with in this thread. You might have had numbers but umbers dont help when they get defeated in waves. Germany had the technology and the ability to use it (except in winter). I mean no disrespect to the honorable fight put up by the Soviet soldiers but dying in lage numbers alone does not mean victory. If Germany hadn't needed to deal with the US/UK front then the Luftwafe would have roamed the skies over Russia and destroyed everything.

Patriot? Oh sorry. It missed missiles in 1991, it missed missiles now. I really think if Saddam had WMD, Kuwait was laid waste.

in the Persian Gulf Saddam wanted the Kuwait oil fields. he DOES NOT want to use WMD against other Arab nations because it erodes all of his support. And it would cause him to lose all of his anti-war international suport. Thats the dumbest thing he could do. If he gets WMD he passes it on to terrorists who hate the US. Then he gets the best of each side, keeps internation anti war support and gets to kill Americans.

U are right. Dictatorships continue to survive. Trying to kill anyone who's not democratic will only cause the world to hate U, because most of the countries are NOT democratic, what a pity!
But dictatoships show no argession and maintain authority policy. They are nonbelligerent. Why you keep killing everyone you don't like?

how dumb are you, you missed the point entirely. In North Korea, the dictator will die and the government collapses, in Iraq the leader dies yet the government goes on. Hence, we can wait out NK and not Iraq. You seem to ignore my point about protecting allies as well.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-22 12:46am

SirNitram wrote:
You sure? I could have sworn those were the numbers..

I'm very sure. Even WW2 propaganda films only place German losses as around 5000.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-22 12:46am

The WWII matter:

I know a few thousand British veterans who know you are talking out of your ass.

Try spelling the word: Dunkirk. Or the Battle of France.
What they did in 1940 was irrelevant for everyone else but THEM. What they did in 1944 was also irrelevant. Triumphing over a beaten enemy is not really something to be proud of.

Considering that was an extra 18% on top of the USSR's TOTAL Gross Domestic Product

Lend-lease? FUCK YOU. 3%.

Russian units often used American and British vehicles, including tanks and aircraft.

3%

Zhukov himself said the USSR would have lost the war without American support.

Try this - Battle of Moscow. Of course, USSR would lose. You ever compared Germany to USSR?

It's about 2 times more productive. But the "support" mostly occured AFTER Stalingrad, when it became clear who's the winner.

and both armies are technologically obsolete

Shut up. China is not in my area, but don't u brag about the RUSSIAN army. But you're right, US is by far the most powerful country in the world. But against 2 or more opponents...

Hopefully it will never come to any of the possibilities I have mentioned.

Yes.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-03-22 12:47am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
You sure? I could have sworn those were the numbers..
I'm very sure. Even WW2 propaganda films only place German losses as around 5000.

I must have mixed something up. Well, while I greatly suspected the troll of lying, I must concede to the knowledge of a HAB. Sorry for the mistake.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-22 12:47am

Official English deaths were 1,255. 537 from Fighter Command and 718 from Bomber Command. This from http://www.rafa.org.uk/batofbrit.htm
Considering that quite a few pilots survived having planes shot out from under them, 2,000 RAF aircraft shot down is probably not far off. Information on German losses has not been quick to find, so I'll leave that for another night, although I will say I think 27k is a touch high.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-22 12:49am

Sea Skimmer
Thanx.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-22 12:55am

Darht Fanboy
Oh god, try making some serious research into WWII matters.
Have you seen Luftwaffe losses? Uh... That's enough to make Hitler go awya from Britain, but certainly nothing to help other countries.
Luftwaffe ROAMING OVER RUSSIA? Yes, it was. It was roaming only as far as it's short-range bomber allowed. Germany had no long-range bomber even NEAR to B-17, in case you didn't know.
The Germans were technologically superior in the War, but NOT in all aspects

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-22 12:57am

Darth Fanboy
The North Korea regime seemed to have a crisis, but recent news show they have somehow avoided it. Let's see if they'll be capable of holding the communist regime weiter.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-22 01:03am

Stas Bush wrote:T
Try spelling the word: Dunkirk. Or the Battle of France.
What they did in 1940 was irrelevant for everyone else but THEM.

Lets see, what was Russia doing in 1939-40 to fight Nazi Germany? Nothing, it fact it was supplying Hitler with vast amounts of raw materials while taking three nations outright, and large chunks of Romania and Poland, not to mention attacking Finland.

What they did in 1944 was also irrelevant. Triumphing over a beaten enemy is not really something to be proud of.

Shut the fuck up moron. In mid 1944 Germany had 410 fighters on the Eastern Front. It had 4400 defending Germany from Allied Bombers. Over two million men where needed just to repair the damaging from bombing with several million more manning defences, amoung them 8000 heavy anti aircraft guns that where quite effective against tanks.

Thats ignoring all the other resources which where tied up in the U-boat offensive or the troops and resources in the Atlantic wall and Italy. And all the resources which had been destroy with the flatting of Gean cities and factories.

Lend-lease? FUCK YOU. 3%.

I'm sure Russia would have had an easy time without the millions of tons of food it received or the 300,000 truck to move it with. Those three guards tank armies that where totaly equiped with Shermans would have loved infantry I'm sure.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-22 01:06am

Stas Bush wrote:The WWII matter:
I know a few thousand British veterans who know you are talking out of your ass.
Try spelling the word: Dunkirk. Or the Battle of France.
What they did in 1940 was irrelevant for everyone else but THEM. What they did in 1944 was also irrelevant. Triumphing over a beaten enemy is not really something to be proud of.

The tactics of the Allies had not evolved to meet the times. Russia had the same problem. That was how they were forced from Poland all the way back to Moscow.

Considering that was an extra 18% on top of the USSR's TOTAL Gross Domestic Product
Lend-lease? FUCK YOU. 3%.

OK, I was wrong. I ran my numbers again and forgot to divide by the number of years the Lend-Lease was provided. 4.25% is what it comes out to after that. The difference is minor, so I won't quibble 3 or 4%, but it's still significant.

Russian units often used American and British vehicles, including tanks and aircraft.
3%

*cough*bullshit*cough* The USSR produced a total of 70,740 aircraft during World War II. The Lend-Lease act added 14,982, or 16.69% of the USSR's total Air Force. 1,285 of those were in 1941, many BEFORE the United States even entered the war (to provide a counterpoint to the whole "late gift" theory). While only about 30% were supplied before 1944, America's industry was still gearing up and refitting the American forces during this time, developing advanced versions of the P-38, P-39, P-47, P-51, P-61, F4F, F6F, F8F, F7F, F4U, B-17, B-20, B-24, B-29, and other aircraft. 64% of its trucks were American, used for hauling artillery. Over 9,000 tanks were given to the Soviets. Over 5 million tons of food were supplied by the USA alone, enough to feed an army of 12 million for the entire war. This is according to Andrew Gregorovich, who said "the USSR tried to keep this information limited and the role of Lend-Lease is generally not well known although it constituted about 15 per cent of the total equipment used by the USSR."

Zhukov himself said the USSR would have lost the war without American support.
Try this - Battle of Moscow. Of course, USSR would lose. You ever compared Germany to USSR? It's about 2 times more productive. But the "support" mostly occured AFTER Stalingrad, when it became clear who's the winner.

I see. That's why the rifles in Stalingrad used American gunpowder.

and both armies are technologically obsolete
Shut up. China is not in my area, but don't u brag about the RUSSIAN army. But you're right, US is by far the most powerful country in the world. But against 2 or more opponents...

The only things I would truly worry about militarily, avoiding the nuclear weapons, would be Foxhounds, Flankers, and T-90 tanks. The Foxhound and Flanker are each relatively rare and roughly equivalent to current fighters, inferior to the Raptor. The T-90 could take on anything, but is still outclassed by the Abrams. The Russian army is still one of the most powerful in the world, but it has always relied on quantity over technology, and the maintenance costs have been excessive considering the recession at the fall of the Soviet regime. However, this is not important as far as the current discussion is involved. If you would like to discuss this, we could start a new thread on current trends in military development.

Hopefully it will never come to any of the possibilities I have mentioned.
Yes.

Good to see we agree on something

.