Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on January 23, 2006, 02:00:46 PM
-
And the reason they believe it's growing?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article340224.ece
Sadly we've already been through all this in some areas of the U.S. and the answer for us doesn't seem to work for the Britts.............
What's really sad is sooooo many seem to ignore the warnings given by those from the past.
such as...........
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
W. R. Inge (1860-1954)
Dean of St. Paul's, London
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils of this world can be cured by legislation."
Thomas B. Reed (1839-1902)
American lawyer, politician
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt English politician, prime minister.
"The great mass of people . . . will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)
German dictator
"The generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fear rather than reverence, and to refrain from evil rather because of the punishment that it brings than because of its own foulness."
Aristotle (384-322 bc)
Greek philosopher
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy, to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon a supposition that he may abuse it."
Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658)
lord protector of England
"Many politicians lay it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free until they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water until he had
learned to swim."
from Lord Macaulay an English historian.
"I think that the sacredness of human life is a purely municipal ideal of no validity outside the jurisdiction. I believe that force, mitigated as far as may be by good manners, is the ultimate ratio, and between two groups of men
that want to make inconsistent kinds of world I see no remedy except force . . . It seems to me that every society rests on
the death of men."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935)
American jurist
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that did not. And each meekly inherit only an earthin plot............"
Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est. (A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands_ -- Lucius Seneca "The Younger" (ca 4BC - AD65)
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." —Jeff Snyder
"The defense of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law." - James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, 1896
Hope I'm not the only one that notice's all the Brittish/English names within the above.
Also hope I'm not the only one that notice's some of the quotes are over 2000 years old!
Amazing isn't it? We have known for over 2000 years how to deal with those that seek to harm others with little or NO justification. And suddenly, within the last 50 years we have someone telling us it's all wrong and to do it their way.
We have known for over 2000 years!!!
2000 YEARS!
All this makes me think of the writtings of Tsun Tzu.
-
I had heard that England (might have been scotland) have been telling the people how to act differently.
On their local police website, the police have advised people to no longer call out "Help me!" when in trouble, but to call out "Call the police!"
How true it is, I do not know.
-
I read the article, and the prices for the Glocks seem about right fo a gun shop here in the States. I wonder where they are coming in from? They're made in Austria, a country that has pretty strict gun control.
Hmmmmm....
-
I am sure some english woman abuser will be here soon to tell you all how wrong you are.
-
Originally posted by wrag
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy, to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon a supposition that he may abuse it."
Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658)
lord protector of England
cromwell was not refering to the Irish when he said that.
<>
In the summer of 1649, Cromwell was sent to Ireland with two objectives: to place it firmly under English control; to superintend the confiscation the land of all 'rebels' - as a result almost forty per cent of the land of Ireland was redistributed from Catholics born in Ireland to Protestants born in Britain. His first target was the town of Drogheda north of Dublin which he stormed and captured. Perhaps 2,500 men, mainly in arms, were killed during the storm and several hundred more - all the officers, all Catholic priests and friars, every tenth common soldier - were killed, many clubbed to death. It was in accordance with the laws of war, but it went far beyond what any General had done in England. Cromwell then perpetrated a messier massacre at Wexford.
-
Read the stats closely before making ASSumptions:
"Outside London, the figures also show a disturbing rise in the use of guns. In Bedfordshire, gun-related offences have risen by 20 per cent over the past two years, from 173 in 2004 to 207 in 2005. The number of cases where people were found carrying a gun more than doubled from 19 to 43 in the same period. There was also a rise in the number of stolen firearms seized - 18 compared with one the year before"
Look at the raw numbers, then compare with the USA.
-
but with guns banned the raw number should be 0?:confused: :confused: :confused:
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
but with guns banned the raw number should be 0?:confused: :confused: :confused:
OH???? How you figure????
MAYBE IF you ignore..................
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
-
Maybe they attack people with cricket paddles
-
Originally posted by john9001
cromwell was not refering to the Irish when he said that.
<>
In the summer of 1649, Cromwell was sent to Ireland with two objectives: to place it firmly under English control; to superintend the confiscation the land of all 'rebels' - as a result almost forty per cent of the land of Ireland was redistributed from Catholics born in Ireland to Protestants born in Britain. His first target was the town of Drogheda north of Dublin which he stormed and captured. Perhaps 2,500 men, mainly in arms, were killed during the storm and several hundred more - all the officers, all Catholic priests and friars, every tenth common soldier - were killed, many clubbed to death. It was in accordance with the laws of war, but it went far beyond what any General had done in England. Cromwell then perpetrated a messier massacre at Wexford.
Hmmm sad really. To say such a thing but mean it only for your own people?
Think Edward/Longshanks was kinda that way as well. :(
An me been part Irish an all.
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
but with guns banned the raw number should be 0?:confused: :confused: :confused:
Guns aren't banned in the UK. Try again ;)
-
True, only handguns are banned in Britain.
You can have some firearms if you have a "firearms certificate". Here's the general outlook on what you can and can't have:
The main control is the Firearms Act 1968, which divides firearms into four broad categories:
Prohibited Weapons under Section 5 of the Act. This includes machine guns,
most self-loading rifles, rocket-launchers, and weapons that “discharge any
noxious liquid, gas or other thing”. These can only be held under the authority of the Secretrary of State for Home Affairs, granted by the Home Office to those who have need to trade in or handle these weapons (e.g. defence manufacturers).
Following the Dunblane shootings, most handguns were raised to this category by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.
Firearms described in Section 1 of the Act may be held on a firearms certificate, which is issued by the local police. This includes most hunting and target rifles, long barrelled pump-action shotguns and muzzle-loading pistols. The police must be satisfied that the applicant can be trusted to possess firearms, and that he has a “good reason” for possessing them. Target shooting and game shooting are generally considered good reasons. Firearms certificates are not issued for selfdefence to residents of mainland Britain.
Shotguns described in Section 2 of the 1968 Act may be held on a shotgun
certificate, which is issued by the local police. Shotguns of this kind must be
long-barrelled and have a limited or no magazine. The police must be satisfied that the applicant can be trusted to have a shotgun, but the applicant does not have to prove that he has a particular good reason to possess the gun. Shotguns of this kind are commonly used for vermin control, game shooting, and for shooting at clay targets.
Low-powered air guns, that is to say guns with a muzzle energy of less than 6ft/1bs for pistols and 12 ft/1bs for other guns, are not subject to certificate control, though there are controls on their use by young people.
A firearms certificate takes just a bit of paperwork.
The advice given here is general, but is believed to be correct as of December 2003, it will be updated as required by changes to the law.
A Firearms Certificate (FAC) is required before you can purchase, or posses any firearm, ammunition, or certain parts of a firearm, e.g. a spare barrel. It is important that any prospective applicant reads fully the section on Gun Law before attempting to apply.
There are two main ways that civilians can obtain an FAC:
a) if they can demonstrate that they have shooting rights over suitable land.
b) if they can demonstrate membership of a target shooting club, such as Marple Rifle and Pistol Club (MRPC).
What follows assumes membership of a target shooting club.
In order to become a full member of MRPC a prospective member must join the club as a probationary member and complete a minimum of 18 visits in a 6 month time period. To join the club it is necessary to both pay the subscription fee and complete an application form giving the names and addresses of two referees who have known the applicant for at least two years. A part of the application includes a signed declaration that the applicant is not debarred from firearms use or possession. After the end of this probationary period, subject to satisfactory behaviour and no adverse reports from any source, membership will be confirmed at the next committee meeting.
After membership has been confirmed an FAC can be applied for. The Police will not entertain any application that is not confirmed by the club secretary, so it is a waste of time trying before full membership is granted.
When the FAC application is is received by the police (you get the form from them) along with the necessary fee, they will make an appointment with you to come and inspect your home and security arrangements for storing the firearms and ammunition.
When applying for the FAC it is worth while specifying more guns than you need, this is to allow the purchase of a new gun, before the sale of an old gun has gone through. There is no limit as to the number of guns or quantity of ammunition you can ask for, but the more you want, the more security the police may insist on before granting the FAC.
Basically they will expect a steel cabinet of at least 16 swg bolted to the floor and / or wall and secured with 5 lever lock(s). Connection to an alarm would be a bonus and in some locations may be a requirement. If your premises has shared access, for example if it is in a block of flats, the requirements may be more stringent.
It is worth remembering that unless anyone else living at your address has an FAC listing your guns, then that person cannot legally handle them even in the home.
If you are intending to reload centrefire ammunition, rather surprisingly you do not need an FAC to buy any of the components. An FAC is only needed to make and keep assembled ammunition. You must specify on your application how many rounds you intend to have at any one time. It is not necessary to enter any details of your home reloaded ammunition, or how many times you reload. The only requirement is that you do not exceed your maximum holding in your specified calibres at any one time.
A part of the application form is to specify the names and addresses of two referees that are willing to support your application for an FAC. There are restrictions as to who can act as a referee, family members being barred as is anyone with a criminal record. It is not possible to have your application supported by two members of your club, you must find independent referees who are willing to complete a questionnaire about you and return it directly to the police (so that you cannot see what they have written).
The best advice to any new FAC applicant is to ask existing members for advice before filling out the application form.
oh..yeah..
New as of 20 January 2004: It is now an offence to posses any rifle, pistol, or other form of air gun that uses a self-contained gas cartridge system, for example the Brocock type of revolver. Such guns are now classed as Section 1 firearms.
-
1776,
british major<<" sir the colonials have gathered powder and shot in a town called concord"
british general<<< " bloody hell, fall in the troops , we will march up there and take it off them"
-
It is estimated that there are between 300,000 and half a million illegal handguns in england at this time... more are smuggled in all the time.
this is more than enough to feed all the criminals that might want to use a gun. I have said many times that if I wanted to.... I bet I could be the illegal owner of a handgun in england a week after stepping off the plane.
So why aren't their more gun crimes? Why weren't there more when handguns were pretty much unrestricted?
Seems that the penalties for gun crimes have a far bigger effect (and social reasons) than any law that bans or makes available handguns (or any other gun)
Up till recently a brit could leave the insane asylum and go buy the most deadly short range firearm in existence... a shotgun... social pressures and penalties were the only thing stopping said nutcase from using it to slaughter his fellow subjects.
Here... we have combined tougher penalties for gun crime with allowing more guns to be held by the law abiding citizen to achieve a lowering of our crime and homicide rates.
lazs
-
It is estimated that there are between 300,000 and half a million illegal handguns in england at this time.
Estimated by whom?
this is more than enough to feed all the criminals that might want to use a gun.
It probably would be if it bore any relation to reality.
Operation trident is the London police team set up to combat firearms crime among the black community. They boast:
* 420 firearms seized
* 1839 rounds of ammunition seized
* 217 kilos of class A drugs seized
* £586,024 in cash seized
However, of the 420 firearms seized, over 70% were replicas, toys or blank firers.
The press, and police and politicians, rarely differentiate between replicas and real guns, because they get good publicity by seizing "guns", and because talking up the number of guns makes good publicity and brings in more resources for the police.
Take for example this press release from the Trident team, from 11th Jan:
Eight arrested and guns taken off the streets in Trident new year blitz
The Met's Operation Trident has got off to a flying start this year after arresting eight people and recovering 32 firearms during three separate proactive operations to combat gun crime.
Trident's proactive south team searched two addresses in Sussex and Derbyshire during an intelligence-led operation. Thirteen imitation and deactivated guns, including a Mac 10, were seized from the address in Castle Gresley, Derbyshire, and a 30-year-old man was arrested. A further 17 imitation and deactivated firearms were recovered from the address in East Grinstead, Sussex, and a 21-year-old man was arrested. Both men have been released on police bail pending further inquiries.
Officers from Trident's proactive north team, assisted by colleagues from CO19 Specialist Firearms Unit, recovered a 7.65 calibre automatic self-loaded pistol and three rounds of live ammunition in Oakdale Road, Streatham, at 2.20pm on Monday. Three men, aged 25, 26 and 27, were arrested and remain in custody at two south London police stations.
Two hours later in nearby Mitcham Road, Streatham, the proactive north team and CO19 recovered a 38 revolver with ten rounds of ammunition during an intelligence-led operation. Three men - aged 18, 23 and 46 - were arrested at the scene and are in custody at a north-west London police station.
http://cms.met.police.uk/news/arrests_and_charges/eight_arrested_and_guns_taken_off_the_streets_in_trident_new_year_blitz
So the "32 firearms" turned out to be 1 7.65mm pistol with 3 rounds, 1 38 revolver with ten rounds, and 30 things that look like guns but aren't.
The last firearms crime figures released were published in October last year. Fatal injuries from firearms crime had fallen 14%, the number of handguns used in crimes fell 8%, the number of shotguns 13%. Crimes involving imitation weapons went up 28%.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It is estimated that there are between 300,000 and half a million illegal handguns in england at this time... more are smuggled in all the time.
this is more than enough to feed all the criminals that might want to use a gun. I have said many times that if I wanted to.... I bet I could be the illegal owner of a handgun in england a week after stepping off the plane.
Despite being totally incorrect factually, your argument is also flawed logicially lazs. IF there were that many illegal handguns in the UK it would vindicate the gun laws. IE if guns are so freely available in the UK, compare the gun crime rate per capita with the UK and the US and I think you'd find its something like one hundredth of the US rate... conclusion the UK gun laws are working.
Try again lazs ;)
-
after the latest gun ban in england 160,000 legal handguns were estimated to have been turned in... it is estimated that the number is about half of the legal handguns out there... there were many illegal weapons that had been smuggled in before that.. These figures are by Koppel.
More handguns have been smuggled in every year in those ten years.... only a few thousand have been confiscated.... It is common to rent a handgun in england if you need one for a crime. The prices for illegal handguns are not high in england but the penalties for possesing or using one are.
So say there are between 150,000 and who knows how many handguns still floating around.... That is more than enough to supply all the criminals that want one... I know I could get one within a week of getting off the plane in london... they are still easy to come by.
So vulcan... my point is... it is not the fact that you can't get one it is the fact that the penalties are so high.... you coulda had the penalties without the ban (high penalties for gun crime but relatively easy access to handguns for subjects of the crown) and the results would have been the same except......
you wouldn't have to hide under the bed when a trio of burglars broke into your house.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you wouldn't have to hide under the bed when a trio of burglars broke into your house.
lazs
I've never been burgled (or threatened with a weapon, mugged etc). The worst thing thats happened to me is some toe-rag smashed a window on my car to get my radar detector.
-
My god - 173 in 2004 to 207 in 2005!!!!!
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
(http://217.158.99.53/images/smiles/deadhorse.gif)
-
Well the fact is that most of you US guys are dead worried about personal safety, constantly talk about guns and how important they are for personal safety..
As for the rest of us.. we just couldn't care less. Aside from a hobby point they're utterly useless for me.
-
No we talk about guns because we like them.
Being able to have one for defense is a bonus.
I don't know one gun person here who ever said they worry about needing one.
We just demand all our rights and are glad we have the ability if we ever need it.
-
Why do you like guns?
-
Because they are fascinating mechanical marvels.
They are fun to shoot.
They are fun to modify.
They are fun to take apart.
Hell they are fun to build.
They are like Mini hotrods.
-
it is impossible to compare the US and england on the need for guns by the general population.
England is an island, much easier to control the borders, also it is much smaller. less people, and is more of a homogenous society.
Englands neighbors are nations that have been civilized longer and have had multiple wars (with thier neighbors) and armed revolts (to overthrow Corrupt goverments)
Which tend to reduce the violence for generations after that.
England does not have gangs and criminals come in from Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, etc.
England does not share a border with a terrorist haven like canada, (although france is trying hard to catch up)
All of these factors contribute to a smaller crime rate in general.
US has no controllable border. shorter history, much larger land mass. and because of this larger land mass, has no way to have an effective mass transit system. It has gangs and criminals from many countries migrating here. We are a melting pot of different nationalities.
Our founding fathers instilled in our rights Quote
" the right to keep and bear arms which the rulers of the european countries are afraid to do"
The US has a standing army and the people are trained in the use of weapons both for thier individual protection and protection of freedoms around the world.
For this right and freedom, we do pay a price.
We also pay a price to protect the freedoms of the countries around the world. In fact lets count the number of times the boy scouts of the US had to fight back the hitler youth to protect England. Wasnt it twice in the same half century ?? and provided the only incentive for russia not to invade europe for 40 years.
Now everyone from Europe ....tell us how you dislike that Americans have guns and know how to use them ? and in the same sentence you can thank us for writing in english instead of german.
( Your Welcome ! )
then lets ask the people of the world who americans have died defending thier freedoms ?
We are also a nation with much more land, so we do not have the benefit of having police right down the street. So for most americans the access to law enforcement in a timely manner is not possible.
We also provide more than half of the worlds food.
-
PS
Im sure the people of Ireland who are under Englands control, are happy thier forefathers had no access to guns.
-
Originally posted by mydavis
it is impossible to compare the US and england on the need for guns by the general population.
England is an island, much easier to control the borders, also it is much smaller. less people, and is more of a homogenous society.
Englands neighbors are nations that have been civilized longer and have had multiple wars (with thier neighbors) and armed revolts (to overthrow Corrupt goverments)
Which tend to reduce the violence for generations after that.
England does not have gangs and criminals come in from Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, etc.
England does not share a border with a terrorist haven like canada, (although france is trying hard to catch up)
All of these factors contribute to a smaller crime rate in general.
US has no controllable border. shorter history, much larger land mass. and because of this larger land mass, has no way to have an effective mass transit system. It has gangs and criminals from many countries migrating here. We are a melting pot of different nationalities.
Our founding fathers instilled in our rights Quote
" the right to keep and bear arms which the rulers of the european countries are afraid to do"
The US has a standing army and the people are trained in the use of weapons both for thier individual protection and protection of freedoms around the world.
For this right and freedom, we do pay a price.
We also pay a price to protect the freedoms of the countries around the world. In fact lets count the number of times the boy scouts of the US had to fight back the hitler youth to protect England. Wasnt it twice in the same half century ?? and provided the only incentive for russia not to invade europe for 40 years.
Now everyone from Europe ....tell us how you dislike that Americans have guns and know how to use them ? and in the same sentence you can thank us for writing in english instead of german.
( Your Welcome ! )
then lets ask the people of the world who americans have died defending thier freedoms ?
We are also a nation with much more land, so we do not have the benefit of having police right down the street. So for most americans the access to law enforcement in a timely manner is not possible.
We also provide more than half of the worlds food.
The purpose of the "right to keep and bear arms" is to keep the Bloody British on their side of the pond. We fired our guns and the British kept a comin. There wasn't nye as many as there was a while ago. We fired once more and they began a runnin. On down the Mississipi to the Gulf of mexico.
-
This appears to be the way crime is handle over there?????
http://icberkshire.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200berkshireheadlines/tm_objectid=16602070&method=full&siteid=50102&headline=farmer-robbed---and-police-confiscate-his-shotgun-name_page.html
-
These kinda crimes are normal???
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/24/nslap24.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/24/ixnewstop.html
-
As for the rest of us.. we just couldn't care less. Aside from a hobby point they're utterly useless for me.
sound just like my liberal freind i went camping with..i took my black powder 44 dragoon with me loaded..just in cass of bears..bucks..cougars..or misbehaving people..lol..when your 100miles from anyone..its nice to have some help...well he moaned about me packing that thing with us..till 2 days into the camping trip..a pack of hunting dogs ran across are camp in the middle of the night...suddenly a bunch of 4x4's pulled up and they started spot lighting are camp...they were freaked to see us up there so far..im sure they were illegaly hunting for bear....first thing my liberal freind said is..get your gun!! hurry!!..lol.after they rolled off from are camp..i laughed so hard tears were coming down my face..lol.i gave him crap about it all week...get your gun!! i would yell to him...he never touches them..but when somthing went down he was yelling for the thing he hated most..kinda ironic..lol
Well the fact is that most of you US guys are dead worried about personal safety,
so your saying people outside the US are not worried about there personal safety? thats pure silly..lol...unless your crazy..there is not a person on this planet who is not worried about there safety...why lock your house? why worry about about guns? why go to the doctor? you must worry about somthing to make those kinda remarks as a fact..lol
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
but with guns banned the raw number should be 0?:confused: :confused: :confused:
Guns are not banned in the UK.
-
Originally posted by mydavis
it is impossible to compare the US and england on the need for guns by the general population.
England is an island, much easier to control the borders, also it is much smaller. less people, and is more of a homogenous society.
Englands neighbors are nations that have been civilized longer and have had multiple wars (with thier neighbors) and armed revolts (to overthrow Corrupt goverments)
Which tend to reduce the violence for generations after that.
England does not have gangs and criminals come in from Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, etc.
England does not share a border with a terrorist haven like canada, (although france is trying hard to catch up)
All of these factors contribute to a smaller crime rate in general.
US has no controllable border. shorter history, much larger land mass. and because of this larger land mass, has no way to have an effective mass transit system. It has gangs and criminals from many countries migrating here. We are a melting pot of different nationalities.
Our founding fathers instilled in our rights Quote
" the right to keep and bear arms which the rulers of the european countries are afraid to do"
The US has a standing army and the people are trained in the use of weapons both for thier individual protection and protection of freedoms around the world.
For this right and freedom, we do pay a price.
We also pay a price to protect the freedoms of the countries around the world. In fact lets count the number of times the boy scouts of the US had to fight back the hitler youth to protect England. Wasnt it twice in the same half century ?? and provided the only incentive for russia not to invade europe for 40 years.
Now everyone from Europe ....tell us how you dislike that Americans have guns and know how to use them ? and in the same sentence you can thank us for writing in english instead of german.
( Your Welcome ! )
then lets ask the people of the world who americans have died defending thier freedoms ?
We are also a nation with much more land, so we do not have the benefit of having police right down the street. So for most americans the access to law enforcement in a timely manner is not possible.
We also provide more than half of the worlds food.
Well it entertaining at least :)
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Because they are fascinating mechanical marvels.
They are fun to shoot.
They are fun to modify.
They are fun to take apart.
I have a small willy.
Hell they are fun to build.
They are like Mini hotrods.
:aok
-
Someone on this post called Canada a "Terrorist Haven."
5 points to the first person who guesses correctly who it was. No cheating by using search.
-
But...but...but...but....
They have those gun laws!
crimes with guns should not be going up but be going down!
this defys all logic that anti gun laws will reduce gun crime!
And..and..and
if its against the law to commit a crime with a gun then no crimes should be committed with them.
This can only mean that people are....ignoring the law
Shocking!
I for one am appalled!
-
england has law breakers?? omg... call the bobbies, detain the bloody bananas.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
:aok
Oh how original of you.:aok
-
So he's just like everyone else who's seen it?
:p
-
Shhhhhh SOB!
Besides I could be hung like an gnat and still have more junk then most anzacs.
:D
-
Hyena it does seem like everywhere you go, you will run into criminals on rampage. In that case I would wield one too.
Down here you can safely go where ever you want without giving it a second thought. Only in Helsinki there starts to be a problem with immigrant gangs. IMO every immigrant should be deported on the account of first violent crime in the host country. WTF do they think they are to come to leech our country and then become gangbangers?
-
safely? your country is in the top 10 of highest crime...i dont care were you live..anything can happen..let alone animals that will kill ya..been alot more camping deaths now days..cause of tree huggers going out in the woods with out any protection and get mauled by bears or bucks..lol..just isnt safe..i would rather have my gun than try to out run a bear that can run 30miles a hour..lol
map of the 10 highest crime rates in the world http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Because they are fascinating mechanical marvels.
They are fun to shoot.
They are fun to modify.
They are fun to take apart.
Hell they are fun to build.
They are like Mini hotrods.
He who plays with fire....
-
safely? your country is in the top 10 of highest crime...
Almost all violent crime in finland happens within people who know eachothers i.e. alcoholics fighting. Random attacks on people are extremely rare with the exclusion of Helsinki and the said immigrant gangbanging. Even there nobody carries guns for safety though - or thinks about needing them.
So yes, I can safely walk any streets / forest at any given time. Definately without a concealed carry for protection. :D
Besides the makers of that intardnet map withdraw any responsibility for any accuracy of that map (read the fine print) and it's painfully obvious that the map is flawed. Crime rates in russia for example are astronomical but they're left out from the map.
For a more comparative study, here are results as compiled by the Taiwan
government which covers several countries. (data was taken from various
statistical sources for 1998)
Murders per 100,000.
1. Russia Federation 18.07
2. United States 6.32
3. Malaysia 2.73
Taiwan 1.17
Spain 1.08
Japan 0.58
Rape per 100,000.
1. United States 34.20
2. England and Wales 14.69
3. France 13.38
Taiwan 8.82
South Korea 4.38
Spain 3.23
Japan 1.48
Serious Assault per 100,000.
1. Australia 713.68
2. England & Wales 405.20
3. United States 357.94
Taiwan 37.30
Spain 23.94
Japan 15.40
Robbery/Violent Theft per 100,000.
1. Spain 169.85
2. United States 169.02
3. France 144.10
Taiwan 14.35
South Korea 11.74
Japan 2.71
From The Analysis and Comparison on Statistics of Criminal Cases in Various
Countries
http://www.moi.gov.tw/W3/stat/english/etopic/89criminal.htm
Additional information:
U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rob.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/aslt.htm
Sourcebook of Crimnal Justice
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/
Source: Google answers
-
Originally posted by mydavis
it is impossible to compare the US and england on the need for guns by the general population.
England is an island, much easier to control the borders, also it is much smaller. less people, and is more of a homogenous society.
Englands neighbors are nations that have been civilized longer and have had multiple wars (with thier neighbors) and armed revolts (to overthrow Corrupt goverments)
Which tend to reduce the violence for generations after that.
England does not have gangs and criminals come in from Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, etc.
England does not share a border with a terrorist haven like canada, (although france is trying hard to catch up)
I was starting to read your post when I noticed you were likely misinformed ...
Ever heard of "Londonistan" ,"Rachid Ramda" or "Djamel Beghal" ?
It took about 10 years to have Rachid Ramda extraded from England to have a proper trial in France.
-
im not hear to argu or dis on your country..i was just explaining there are good reasons to own a gun here...and in my years,,i have never needed one in defence.used it too scare off wild life before....never had to use it too kill..in usa you would be silly to be in the woods with out a gun...im allways out fishing or camping..you can be 100miles away from anything...lots of hungry animals out there that can smell you and your food 20miles away.. better safe then sorry
hardly anyone carries guns in big towns..unless there gangster or afraid of the gangsters..lol..most big towns it is illegal to carry a gun..no one is afraid..we got more imigrants then you can shake a stick at..and less crime than most big countries..considering we got more people in my state than your whole country..i would say the odds of somthing bad happing..is minimal..but the odds of runing into bad people is higher..cause of the higher population..random chances are going to be higher with more numbers...but if you break it down into small groups..the over all crime looks better because less people are involved..
ps..you must be diggin,notice ya allready changed your reply before i could reply,,lol
even the un says you have a higher crime rate than england..i guess you better talk to the un about that one..lol..this is from a uk web sitehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html
The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales.
According to the comparison of international crime statistics produced by the UN's Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, England and Wales had 9,766 crimes for every 100,000 people in the year 2000. America had 8,517, South Africa 7,997, Germany 7,621 and Russia 2,022.
During the period 1998-2000, Britain went from fifth to fourth worst in the world league table. An analysis of total recorded crime figures before 1998 also suggests that England and Wales have moved sharply up the league table since Labour came to power in 1997. Crimes fell from 5.5 million in 1993 to 4.5 million in 1997. By 1999, total crimes had risen again to 5.3 million.
Last night Oliver Letwin, the shadow home secretary, said: "This does rather blow a hole in David Blunkett's claim that New Labour has crime under control. It is a damning picture."
The UN reports also shows that England and Wales are the second-worst places in the world for assaults, with 851 people assaulted per 100,000, and seventh for burglaries and car theft, with 1,579 burglaries per 100,000 population.
-
We do have a huge problem with car thefts which may play for increasing rates. The government has all but legalized car thefts. They're called use without permission in the law. Totally f'ed up and results in car theft being comparable to shoplifting.
As what goes with violent crime / guncrime, the above said stands. Crimes here happen almost totally between people who are either related or drinking together. They do happen but they happen in private. It's practically impossible to see violent crime if you stay out of private drinking parties of the alcoholics or nightclubs. In the bars and clubs fistfights (or even chairfights :lol) are daily and common. No guns allowed there though. :D
I've never met anyone who would have got held at knife or gunpoint except when having a tourist trip to Brazil. ;)
-
There's so much conflicting information.
Snip from travel.state.gov US official travel information:
CRIME: Although the crime rate in Finland is low compared to the U.S. and most European countries, it has increased in recent years. However, Finland remains a relatively safe environment. Americans visiting Finland are seldom victims of crime, but visitors should not be complacent regarding personal safety or the protection of valuables. The same precautions employed in the U.S. should be followed in Finland. Finnish police services are excellent, however, some police officers speak little English. Due to the low crime rate, Finland has one of the lowest numbers of police of any European nation. Outside of key sites in major urban centers, they rarely project a visible presence; consequently, response times to crisis situations may be unpredictable. The telephone number for police and other emergency services throughout Finland is 112. All forms of public transportation are considered safe. Street crimes, such as muggings and pick-pocketing, remain relatively uncommon, but do occur.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1115.html
-
Most americans don't obsess about guns. I'm 52 and can truthfully say I've never pulled a gun on another person yet. That doesn't mean there wasn't a time or 2 I wasn't tempted.
But discretion was bred into my generation, and when you hate conflict you try to avoid it. But, for at least 30 of those 52 years I have slept better knowing if I needed it, it was there. Also knowing that no one had the right to take it away from me as long as I didn't abuse it.
That is peace of mind for this gun owning pacifist.
BTW I personally tend to prefer shotguns, I have 3.
And yes the 12 gauge is loaded and within easy reach of my bed.
-
Do you have kids ghosth?
-
This is pretty funny... Americans are too worried about personal safety? LOL..
Ok so the top countries have about a 500-700 per 100k chance for each and every citizen being seriously assualted.... A handgun for the weak or woman or infirm can weigh 12 oz and fit in your front pocket and be no more trouble than a cell phone... hardly a big deal... and.. as GTO points out.. they are fun to own shoot and reload for... and talk about...
Now... your chance of getting into a car wreck in all these countries where a seatbelt will save you from serious injury is about 1 in 100k or a little more... but...
you all wear seatbelts like good little sheep... you cinch em up every time you get in the car... they cut into your nexck and restrict your movement and get in the way and take up your time... they are never any fun and no one every talks about em..
Using carrying a gun for personal safety against possible serious assault against wearing a seatbelt every time you drive in order to prevent serious injury...
It would appear that the seatbelt wearer is far more neurotic about "personal safety" than the gun toter and.... with no redeeming value other than to look dorky and be uncomfortable.
Any criminal in england could get a handgun in less than a week. Your bans did not change availability...Your penalties may have changed usage and stronger penalties for criminals using guns makes sense to me.
lazs
-
you all wear seatbelts like good little sheep... you cinch em up every time you get in the car... they cut into your nexck and restrict your movement and get in the way and take up your time... they are never any fun and no one every talks about em..
:rofl
Is that a direct quote from darwin awards site? :lol
-
Who can blame them for wanting a gun?
You never know when a mean ol' Grey American Squirrel might attack.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Because they are fascinating mechanical marvels.
They are fun to shoot.
They are fun to modify.
They are fun to take apart.
Hell they are fun to build.
They are like Mini hotrods.
Good answer.
-
Originally posted by mydavis
Now everyone from Europe ....tell us how you dislike that Americans have guns and know how to use them ? and in the same sentence you can thank us for writing in english instead of german.
( Your Welcome ! )
Why should I thank you? Don’t tell me you fought in WWII?
Originally posted by mydavis
then lets ask the people of the world who americans have died defending thier freedoms ?
Who exactly are you referring to? I bet for every one person you can find that thanks America I can find ten who curse you.
Originally posted by mydavis
PS
Im sure the people of Ireland who are under Englands control, are happy thier forefathers had no access to guns.
I’m not sure what you mean. The People of Ireland are not under English control, they are a free nation. The People of Northern Ireland chose to be a part of Great Britain in a referendum.
-
no I didnt fight in WWII, but members of my family did. you could thank them but for the fact that their dead !!
so not only are you defenseless, you seem to be ungrateful as well.
You mean the people of england actually think the Irish choose of thier own free will (without any undue influence) to live under british law.
You also believe the Irish wanted to be conquered by England and starve to death when the Potatoe blight wiped out the only crop they were allowed to grow.
hmmmm, do you think India also decided to live under british law and be looted by the english ? wonder what Gandi was complaining about ? that ungrateful heathen !!
If you think these people didnt mind living under a foreign invaders rule, why the disagreements you englanders had with the germans a few years ago ?
-
And yes you can say without any doubt,
The gun laws in the UK are working !!
The citizens dont have guns, but the criminals do.
So any time a criminal wants to Rape, Rob, assault a citizen, the citizen cant fight back. (Which is AWESOME if your the criminal)
So the UK gun laws are working to disarm the law abiding citizens.
this is why there are fewer gun deaths in the UK, but the rate of all other crime is very high in a country where all other factors contribute to a low crime rate.
Here in the US, the rate of death from handguns is higher, because we shoot the criminals. contributing to lower rate of other crimes but adding to the number of gun deaths.
I actually feel very safe knowing that the law abiding citizens I know are carrying guns, I wish more would.
-
Originally posted by mydavis
no I didnt fight in WWII, but members of my family did. you could thank them but for the fact that their dead !!
My point exactly. I don’t owe you anything, not even my respect (unless YOU earn it). We both know that the people that fought in WWII are mostly gone, and that America today is not the same America. America today is the hated military juggernaut that conducts preemptive warfare … much like WWII America used to hate Japan for doing.
Originally posted by mydavis
so not only are you defenseless, you seem to be ungrateful as well.
I’m grateful your forefathers, in the course of defending themselves, happened to help my forefathers as well. To bad their sons and grandsons turned out to be so similar to what they fought against.
Originally posted by mydavis
You mean the people of england actually think the Irish choose of thier own free will (without any undue influence) to live under british law.
You also believe the Irish wanted to be conquered by England and starve to death when the Potatoe blight wiped out the only crop they were allowed to grow.
When Ireland was invaded by the British there was no such thing as a handgun. Spears and swords were the weapons of the day, and the Irish had plenty of weapons themselves so your point is mute. In 1922 the many different Irish counties held a referendum on whether to leave the United Kingdom and form an independent Irish state. What now is the sovereign state of Ireland elected to leave. What now is known as Northern Ireland elected to stay British. End of history lesson.
-
ripley... if you are far more likely to be seriously assaulted that to get into a car wreck where seatbelts will save you from serious harm and you wear a seatbelt but choose not to have a gun...
It is you who is the darwin awards poster child.
lazs
-
Why is it that Europeans are constantly worried about US gun laws? For that matter, why are Americans worried about British and European gun laws?
Does it really matter? I mean, I'm not going to carry my handgun when I go to Europe...*shrug*
-
No lazs.. I'm nowhere near as likely to be assaulted lifethreateningly as I am in danger while driving 50 000km a year. And a seatbelt is an easy and free lifepolicy which helps the most in low speed collisions like on urban areas. I feel uneasy if I leave the belt off and it's a complete automation to put it on even for 10 yards distances.
I could carry a gun all day long, but it would be more likely that I'd accidentally shoot myself in the leg or one of my kids would play with it than having to use it for self defense. When you pull a gun you must be ready to shoot to kill, too. The other party might be armed too and shoot in self defense. Perfect example of a simple pickpocketing escalating into use of deadly force. It is however way more likely that the other party is not carrying if such a situation should arise.
Which it won't. I've had 2 car crashes so far but never have I faced a situation where I needed or even wished I had a gun with me.
You just can't understand that in our society people do not feel so unsecure that they have to arm themselves for whatever imaginable threats.
-
Originally posted by Harry
Why do you like guns?
I love shooting my gun, wait, yer talking about my USP 45 ain't ya?
Aside from that fact, I CHOSE to, because of the US Constitution allowing me to MAKE THAT CHOICE.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I love shooting my gun, wait, yer talking about my USP 45 ain't ya?
Aside from that fact, I CHOSE to, because of the US Constitution allowing me to MAKE THAT CHOICE.
Karaya
Also a good answer. (Got to love the USP)
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
No lazs.. I'm nowhere near as likely to be assaulted lifethreateningly as I am in danger while driving 50 000km a year. And a seatbelt is an easy and free lifepolicy which helps the most in low speed collisions like on urban areas. I feel uneasy if I leave the belt off and it's a complete automation to put it on even for 10 yards distances.
I could carry a gun all day long, but it would be more likely that I'd accidentally shoot myself in the leg or one of my kids would play with it than having to use it for self defense. When you pull a gun you must be ready to shoot to kill, too. The other party might be armed too and shoot in self defense. Perfect example of a simple pickpocketing escalating into use of deadly force. It is however way more likely that the other party is not carrying if such a situation should arise.
Which it won't. I've had 2 car crashes so far but never have I faced a situation where I needed or even wished I had a gun with me.
You just can't understand that in our society people do not feel so unsecure that they have to arm themselves for whatever imaginable threats.
Hmmm...... Your very last statement says more then perhaps you realize.
Americans don't see it that way. At one time the government was NOT expected to protect you. The courts here still recognise that. The statement has been made by ht ecourts that the police are NOT required by law to protect you.
BTW I have a question. There is something I do not understand. How exactly is it possible that the people accept the current situation?
You can NOT defend your home or your property? If you do it seems you go to jail as if your some common criminal.
Your home and your possesions are material things I grant that. Yet these things represent probably years of your life spent creating/aquiring and your government basicaly spits on those years and the effort and tells you so??? It's as if your government is telling you nothing you have done, or can do means anything. It has NO value. Your home is open to pretty much any and all that wish to invade and you BETTER run away if the decide your home is next?
Further the criminals life appears to have a greater value then the lives of others? The criminals seem to spend far less time in jail then that Martin guy.
Perhaps somehoe somewhere within this I have misunderstood something. So I ask these questions. Please, someone living within the UK, answer them.
-
Record levels of gun crime are being blamed on the fact that more people than ever are carrying firearms as fashion accessories.
i have a hard time just matching shoes with purse.
-
Whoa!!!!!!!!!!
Thinkin the crime rate in this country may start to drop?????
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4645228.stm
-
Wrag: It is allowed to protect your proprety by force, just not by deadly force.
For example if someone would break in my car, I have a right to use necessary force to detain the perp. It means that I can bang him in the head with a flashlight if he resists citizens arrest.
But if I pull a gun on him (and he's not armed himself) I will be taken to court most likely for violation of firearms legislation. The argument is that material things are not just cause to threaten someones life, even if he's a perp.
Now this is one of the things I hate in our country. The lawmakers give way too many priviledges to criminals. Just couple weeks ago a cop was taken to court for shooting and wounding a store robber. He tried to run over the cop with his getaway car. That is seriously messed up IMO even if it will never pass in court.
As a sidenote, in Italy people really need that kind of a thing - they not only have the mafia to worry about but a rampant thievery problem.
An italian friend of mine said many times that a good place to test your car alarm is to take it to italy. If it's top of the line it will take 5 minutes for the car to disappear instead of 3. :D
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Wrag: It is allowed to protect your proprety by force, just not by deadly force.
For example if someone would break in my car, I have a right to use necessary force to detain the perp. It means that I can bang him in the head with a flashlight if he resists citizens arrest.
That's why you should always have handy a clean, unregistered throwdown and some rubber gloves. So you can place the gun in his dead hand and claim he was armed.
-
Umm.. I prefer to cash in from car insurance instead of killing someone over my car.
But thanks for the suggestion. :O
-
ripley... the chances of you getting seriously assaulted are about 500-800 per 100k... the chances of getting into a car wreck where the seatbelt would save you from serious injury are much less.
I don't ask you to wear or not wear a seatbelt... I also don't ask you to carry or not carry a gun.
Unlike you... I believe that both of those things are your choice and that I have no right to tell you what to do about either one. I do not believe that I can tell you what to do.
I also belive that you have no right to tell your countrymen what to do ion either case.
lazs
-
Harry
I’m grateful your forefathers, in the course of defending themselves, happened to help my forefathers as well. To bad their sons and grandsons turned out to be so similar to what they fought against.
Our forefathers were not defending themselves when they decided to come over to Eurupe and fight World War I, We were at no risk at all, and additionally decided to declare war on germany in WWII, we could have beaten Japan a lot quicker and with less loss of american life, if we were not fighting a war in europe at the same time. Your flippant remark and the elitist and arrogant attitudes about the Americans right to bear arms is what (IMHO) really irks americans (US) .
This attitude is rampant throughout the Europe,
I spent 6 years as a heavy weapons programmer for the US navy, and when we traveled to Europe to share our technology and training with our Allies the Europeans always acted like they were doing the US a favor. (and snubbed us every chance they got )
You avoid the fact that americans familiarity with weapons and defending ourselves is what allowed americans to beat your invader Twice !!
You also avoid the facts that the average citizen is defenseless and as a result all other crimes are rampant, and just pick the facts that fit your attitudes instead of facing the truth.
-
When Ireland was invaded by the British there was no such thing as a handgun. Spears and swords were the weapons of the day, and the Irish had plenty of weapons themselves so your point is mute. In 1922 the many different Irish counties held a referendum on whether to leave the United Kingdom and form an independent Irish state. What now is the sovereign state of Ireland elected to leave. What now is known as Northern Ireland elected to stay British. End of history lesson.
When Ireland was invaded by britain, the Irish serfs did not have Swords, or spears, many times they fought the british with axes, pitchforks and hunting implements. They also were not trained in combat as the british were, not did they have the consolidated central goverment which is the key factor in protecting ones homeland. So the british were able to seperate the irish fuedal lords loyalaty and fight them individualy and pit them against one another.
Even when the irish were able to arm themselves they were not trained in thier use and cooperative combat tactics. These were farmers not soldiers. And these farmers were trying to overthrow the fuedal lords at the same time.
The point is not mute, it is a classic example of the inability of the common man to determine his own destiny because he has given up his duty and his right to defend himself and his homeland to the very goverments whos power needs to be kept in check by the citizens that are governed.
(and as always its for thier own good)
however we can pick other examples. lets try
the invasion of France by the Nazis, the invasion of india by the british, the invasion of Indo-china by Japan. etc, etc.
Everyone has seen the footage of German armies marching through France while the entire population is standing at the sides of the streets unable to do anything.
Now imagine a foriegn army marching through any street in the US while the armed population was still alive.
now lets compare the landing of germans and japanese on american shores during WWII, and the citizens who were armed responded and protected thier homeland.
or we can pick the reluntance of Hitler to invade the Swiss, because of every citizens having a gun.
-
Originally posted by mydavis
Now imagine a foriegn army marching through any street in the US while the armed population was still alive.
now lets compare the landing of germans and japanese on american shores during WWII, and the citizens who were armed responded and protected thier homeland.
We will see dead US citizen and a lot.
it's not any more 1776.
or we can pick the reluntance of Hitler to invade the Swiss, because of every citizens having a gun. [/B]
I guess the lack of stragegic target and the mountain played no role ?
-
Originally posted by mydavis
Our forefathers were not defending themselves when they decided to come over to Eurupe and fight World War I …
Oh WWI? My country wasn’t involved in that one so I withdraw my expressed gratitude to your forefathers.
Originally posted by mydavis
We were at no risk at all, and additionally decided to declare war on germany in WWII, we could have beaten Japan a lot quicker and with less loss of american life, if we were not fighting a war in europe at the same time.
Well I’m sure that’s how you learned history. However in the real world Germany declared war on you first and attacked you after the Japanese attack on PH. The USA was forced into WWII after the rest of the world had been fighting the Axis for more than two years.
Originally posted by mydavis
Your flippant remark and the elitist and arrogant attitudes about the Americans right to bear arms is what (IMHO) really irks americans (US) .
This attitude is rampant throughout the Europe,
LOL you’re seeing things. When did I make any remark whatsoever about American’s right to bear arms? Why would I? I sometimes bear arms.
Originally posted by mydavis
You avoid the fact that americans familiarity with weapons and defending ourselves is what allowed americans to beat your invader Twice !!
Funny, you seem to think I live someplace I’m not. Germany invaded my country in WWII, but no American soldier set foot on our soil and certainly never “liberated” my country. My country owe the Soviets a lot more than America.
Btw. If you think an armed populous can successfully defend against an invasion you’ve seen Red Dawn one too many times. WOLVERINES!!!
Originally posted by mydavis
You also avoid the facts that the average citizen is defenseless and as a result all other crimes are rampant, and just pick the facts that fit your attitudes instead of facing the truth.
How do you figure? In my country there are more firearms in private ownership per household than in America. The armed forces sponsor gun clubs to maintain the populous’ firearms skills. Crime is negligible here, but strangely enough (by your logic) we don’t use guns to defend ourselves from criminals.
If we seem “superior” or “elitist” to you, perhaps we actually are a superior and more developed society. I’ll never have to face the prospect of having to gun down a fellow citizen over a piece of property. I live in my country’s 7th largest city, but my house is unlocked, as are my two cars parked out front. Some people even leave the keys in the ignition. Any violent crime is national front page news here. In America it’s a daily statistic.
-
(http://www.watchfarscape.com/forums/images/smilies/xt.GIF)
-
We are no better than Europeans...
...but Europeans are no better than us.
We may not be perfect, but no country is.
-
Bingo! So why are we arguing again?
-
I also belive that you have no right to tell your countrymen what to do ion either case.
I have a right because if some retard doesn't wear his seatbelt for no reason whatsoever except for being negligent and dumb, I'm going to pay for his medicare and rehab from my tax money. There is not a single justifiable reason not to wear a seatbelt. Period.
-
MrRipley
I have a stepdaughter, she came into my life when she was 12. She was shown where it was, what it was, warned that it was loaded. Taught how to load, unload & use it. She wanted nothing else to do with it, which is fine.
But she knew that
She only saw the wrong end of it once when she was 16. Said she wouldn't be home that night, as she was staying at a friends. I heard the door open a bit after midnight, then noises in the kitchen. When I flipped on the lights she found herself looking down the wrong end of ol betsy.
Now, if plans change or if its after 10 at night she calls first, lets us know she's coming. :)
Education is the key.
BTW I taught firearm safety in Minnesota for 15 years
Grin
Granted with small children its tougher. For years as a child I was not allowed into our parents bedroom unless one of them was there. Didn't find out till years later it was because dad had a shotgun by the dresser.
But then people don't teach their children nowdays. They would rather remove the problem from the scenario than take the time to educate.
-
Originally posted by Harry
Well I’m sure that’s how you learned history. However in the real world Germany declared war on you first and attacked you after the Japanese attack on PH. The USA was forced into WWII after the rest of the world had been fighting the Axis for more than two years.
I am unaware of the German attack on the USA; please enlighten me.
You may also note that Japan had been fighting in China since 1931. It makes me wonder why we think the war started with the invasion of Poland.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You may also note that Japan had been fighting in China since 1931. It makes me wonder why we think the war started with the invasion of Poland.
Makes me wonder why the Euros were so late arriving to help the Chinese. ;)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It makes me wonder why we think the war started with the invasion of Poland.
Actually I wonder how many think WWII started 7/12/1941.
Following your logic the cold war started in February 1919.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I am unaware of the German attack on the USA; please enlighten me.
War against America
With the japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec 7, 1941 Hitler was bound by a promise to Japan to also declare war on the US. He did so promptly on Dec 11 and after that all restrictions on German U-boats (which had been attacked and hunted by US convoy escorts in the North Atlantic for the last 5-6 months of 1941 anyway without permission to attack the US escorts) not to attack American shipping were removed. This opened up a whole new field for Dönitz which immediately drew up plans for a devastatingly swift blow on the US eastern seaboard.
Dönitz wanted to strike with 12 type IX boats, the only boats capable of cruising that far. But he was forced to reduce that number to 6 boats due to other engagements of Hitler's preferences of the Gibraltar area. One of the 6 boats marked for this opertation, U-128 was in need of urgent repairs and could not make it in time. Thus only 5 boats sailed.
The drumbeaters disembark
U-125 (Folkers) was the first to sail on 18 Dec, 1941, followed by U-123 (Hardegen) on the 23rd and U-66 (Zapp) on the 24th, finally the last two of the Paukenschlag boats, U-130 (Kals) and U-109 (Bleichrodt) sailed together on the 27th. It would take then just over 2 weeks to reach US waters. They were under strict orders not to attack anything on the outbound cruise unless a especially attractive target was located (this meant a big warship like a cruiser, carrier or a battleship, but like Dönitz said "We never let a 10,000 tonner pass us by").
First torpedoes strike
All the boats were to be in position on Jan 13 and begin their attacks at the same time on that date. However, U-123 sank the first ship, the SS Cyclops on the 11th and Kals in U-130 sank two ships the next two days and after that they fell more than one a day as far south as the Cape Hatteras.
The Drumbeat boats ended operations of the coast of America on Feb 6 and headed home. They sank 25 ships for a total of 156,939 tons. Hardegen (U-123) sank 9 ships for a total of 53,173 tons.
America operations continued
This may surprise many of you but Operation Drumbeat really was just the inital wave of 5 large U-boats, Paukenschlag was meant to be a fast and surprise attack on the eastern seaboard of the US, and it succeeded as such. Then there were several other "waves" of U-boats that went into American waters but those don't really count as Drumbeaters.
By the time the Paukenschlag were returning to their French bases in February the next wave of boats had already hit hard In the following waves came many of Germany's most experienced commanders like Topp (U-552), Hardegen in U-123 again, Witt (U-129), Degen (U-701), Schnee (U-201), Mohr (U-124) and Lassen (U-160) to name a few.
In order to make the journey, even with the Milkcow support, some of the smaller VII boats even sacrificed large portion of their drinking water and put diesel fuel in the tanks instead.
Refueling from the Milkcows
During early May the Milkcow U-459 refueled 15 U-boats northwest of Bermuda and thus greatly extended the range and patrol time of the fighting boats, Type IX by 8 weeks and type VII by 4 weeks. This also gave Dönitz the option of attacking much further south than previously possible.
Gulf of Mexico
U-507 (Schacht) sank the first ship in the Gulf of Mexico on May 4, 1942 when he torpedoed the 2,686ton freighter Norlindo west-northwest of Key West. During the rest of May a ship would be lost roughly every day. The last ship to be sunk in the Gulf went down on 4 September.
The Caribbean
Convoy systems were started in the Caribbean in July, this convoy system was more complex than the one established on the US seaboard but it still required the assistance of British and Canadian corvettes. 20 ships were sunk in the waters of Panama. See map of U-boat losses in the Caribbean here.
Convoy system started
In middle of May the US finally started running convoys on the east coast, over 4 months too late. They proved to be effective right from the start like the British had known for more than 2 years at that time and had told the US Navy command again and again.
On 19 July Dönitz withdrew the last two boats operating of Cape Hatteras, U-754 and U-458, and 8 days later he shifted the effort back into the North Atlantic where it had all began and would eventually end.
The statistics
During the first 6 months of the German U-boat offensive out of the US east coast some 397 ships totalling over 2 million tons were sunk, costing roughly 5000 lives. In the process only 7 U-boats (U-85, U-352, U-157, U-158, U-701, U-153 and U-576) were lost. There were only survivors from U-352 (33) and U-701 (7), the rest went down with all hands. 302 Germans were lost on these 7 boats."
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You may also note that Japan had been fighting in China since 1931. It makes me wonder why we think the war started with the invasion of Poland.
China didn't have any defense treaties so it was just a Japanese-Chinese conflict. Poland had defense treaties with Britain and France. This is why the German invasion of Poland started World War II.
-
So the Germans attacked first on January 11th, a full month after we decared war on them on Dec 11th, just hours after they declared war on us.
Got it. But then they were attacking shipping in the western approches to the UK for years before that, and much of that shipping was American.
370,000 Chinese killed in Nanking alone in '37, and still just a Japan China thing...
The Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the war mobilization efforts attempted to create a strong empire which could eventually compete with the world powers of the Soviet Union, the United States, the UK, and France, all of which had Pacific and Asian interests. It was a move on the world, not just a regional, stage.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So the Germans attacked first on January 11th, a full month after we decared war on them on Dec 11th, just hours after they declared war on us.
Germany declared war on you and attacked USN ships in the Atlantic on December 11th 1941.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
370,000 Chinese killed in Nanking alone in '37, and still just a Japan China thing...
Yes.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the war mobilization efforts attempted to create a strong empire which could eventually compete with the world powers of the Soviet Union, the United States, the UK, and France, all of which had Pacific and Asian interests. It was a move on the world, not just a regional, stage.
"Eventually", "woulda, shoulda, coulda". You're talking hypotheticals, I'm talking facts. Two nations fighting a regional conflict is not a world war, and before that conflict had time to escalate the Germans started WWII by going to war against three world-spanning empires.
-
Originally posted by Harry
First torpedoes strike
All the boats were to be in position on Jan 13 and begin their attacks at the same time on that date. However, U-123 sank the first ship, the SS Cyclops on the 11th
Originally posted by Harry
Germany declared war on you and attacked USN ships in the Atlantic on December 11th 1941.
So according to you, the first torpedos were sent on December 11, 1941 and January 11, 1942.
okie dokie....
-
Those were the first shots fired in Operation Paukenschlag, not the war.
Originally posted by Harry
War against America
With the japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec 7, 1941 Hitler was bound by a promise to Japan to also declare war on the US. He did so promptly on Dec 11 and after that all restrictions on German U-boats (which had been attacked and hunted by US convoy escorts in the North Atlantic for the last 5-6 months of 1941 anyway without permission to attack the US escorts) not to attack American shipping were removed.
On December 11th 1941 German U-boats were given free reign the Atlantic against American shipping (not only those in British convoys).
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So according to you, the first torpedos were sent on December 11, 1941 and January 11, 1942.
okie dokie....
No. I don't know the exact date the first torpedo was fired after unrestricted submarine warfare against US vessels was declared on December 11th, but if not on the 11th then surely within days.
US ships had been sunk before, but contrary to popular belief the sinking of a civilian ship is not an act of war if the ship is in a war zone and actively supporting a contestant. The only act of war perpetrated by Germany against USA prior to 11th December 1941 was the accidental sinking by U-562 of the USS Ruben James on the 31st of October 1941.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Makes me wonder why the Euros were so late arriving to help the Chinese. ;)
They weren't, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia both gave aid to the Chinese well before anyone else did.
-
In the, Merchant Marine, December 41, 82 attacks on ships are tallied. Only one in the N Atlantic; the Astral a tanker which was sunk on Dec 1.
In January 42, 31 ships lost, about half in the N Atlantic, the first being the General Richard Arnold, a minelayer, on January 8 capsized and sunk. The next N Atlantic loss was on the Friar Rock on the 13th.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Wrag: It is allowed to protect your proprety by force, just not by deadly force.
For example if someone would break in my car, I have a right to use necessary force to detain the perp. It means that I can bang him in the head with a flashlight if he resists citizens arrest.
But if I pull a gun on him (and he's not armed himself) I will be taken to court most likely for violation of firearms legislation. The argument is that material things are not just cause to threaten someones life, even if he's a perp.
Now this is one of the things I hate in our country. The lawmakers give way too many priviledges to criminals. Just couple weeks ago a cop was taken to court for shooting and wounding a store robber. He tried to run over the cop with his getaway car. That is seriously messed up IMO even if it will never pass in court.
As a sidenote, in Italy people really need that kind of a thing - they not only have the mafia to worry about but a rampant thievery problem.
An italian friend of mine said many times that a good place to test your car alarm is to take it to italy. If it's top of the line it will take 5 minutes for the car to disappear instead of 3. :D
I read your reply. Yet.....................
I had to pause. Thus the length of time in responding has been, well a while.
I have soooo much trouble with that reply. Is that the OFFICAL response given by those that govern you?
If it is then IMHO............
NO!!!!!
You may not bang anyone over the head with anything.
NO!!!!!!!!!
You may not defend your property.
It's really quite simple you know!
Banging someone over the head is and can be construed as, in a court of law, attempted MUDDER! AKA assualt with intent............
Should you in defending your property, or your family, or your own life, bang someone over the head too hard and they die then you SIR have used DEADLY FORCE!
Banging someone over the head can make them very dead! For that matter hitting them with anything, even you fist can result in death. SoOOOOooo give it up, you may NOT use deadly force!
IMHO the people of your country are being treated in a manner that makes me think of kindergarteners.
NO little Billy you may not hit little Charlie! What's that little Billy?, he took your crumpet? That does not matter, you may not use violence little Billy. What's that little Billy? He was vilolent 1st? Well I didn't see it little Billy so you will leave little Charlie alone this instant!
Sad so sad............... and we, the whole world, have known for so many years.
"He was one of those men who think that the world can be saved by writing a pamphlet."
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)
English prime minister
"Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race."
William Howard Taft (1857-1930)
American president
These words mean little to those that govern you???
"The generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fearrather than reverence, and to refrain from evil rather becauseof the punishment that it brings than because of its own foulness."
Aristotle (384-322 bc)
Greek philosopher
What does the criminal have to fear in your country? What is the punishment? Jail time?
What do you do if there is more then one perp?
Perhaps your nation is being used for some sort of social experament?
-
so ripley... if it costs you money then it is allright for you to take away other peoples rights?
Another good reason to not have socialized medicine.
harry... I have no idea in what paradise of low crime that you live in. I can tell you however that lack of firearms is not making it so that you can leave your doors unlocked in your major cities. If you have something of value someone will steal it if you leave it lying around... if that is not true in your country then you do not fit into the worldwide stats. and... you are at the very least, a country with very little ethnic mixing.
name your country and we will look at it's crime stats and see if you are full of it or not.
lazs
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Umm.. I prefer to cash in from car insurance instead of killing someone over my car.
But thanks for the suggestion. :O
AND???
If it is your house?, your home?, your family? Are any of those worth more then the insurance money?
So all your years of effort and dreaming are nothing? The time you and perhaps your family has spent building, putting in place what you have are nothing. Those valuable second, minutes, hours, days, months, years, of your life spent in effort for the betterment of you and yours mean NOTHING. You goals for yourself and family mean NOTHING!
So why do you bother?
Why get a one of a kind item? Why get an expensive item? It's not yours anyway.
Be happy you are allowed to make use of things perhaps?
Be happy you are allowed to reside in a location that isn't yours anyway?
Sounds very much to me like you are being told you and what is yours are nothing.
So why do you bother?
"Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race."
William Howard Taft (1857-1930)
American president
"The generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fear rather than reverence, and to refrain from evil rather because of the punishment that it brings than because of its own foulness."
Aristotle (384-322 bc)
Greek philosopher
-
The more I look at the repsonses within this thread the more I think upon..............
"There are three reasons to own a gun. To protect yourself and your family, to hunt dangerous and delicious animals, and to keep the King of England out of your face." - Krusty the Clown
hmmmm the words of a clown in a cartoon? Yet the words kinda make a certain .... sense? The words kinda make one .............. happy?
-
So why do you bother?
Why get a one of a kind item? Why get an expensive item? It's not yours anyway.
Umm.. we do have things called locks in the door you know.
We do have an extremely effective armed police force, too.
About every finn today owns a cellular phone to call them if necessary.
Nobody has ever stolen anything from me ever, or threatened my or my familys safety in any way.
So tell me again, why should I play somekind of a home police or John Rambo? Nobody I know has ever even considered of arming themselves for safety. It's unheard of down here.
Sport shooting, hunting.. now that's a different ballpark. I enjoy occasional shooting myself too. But I don't own a gun.
And if you think that owning a gun makes something yours, you're wrong. It's all taken away from you in death anyway. Which may come sooner than you think if everyone is armed to the teeth. :aok
-
ripley... are you saying that a cell phone would be effective against a home invasion? Would a cell phone in your opinion be enough to stop a rape? Has anyone in your lilly white country ever been assaulted or raped or murdered and if so....
did they have a cell phone?
My .357 weighs allmost exactly the same as a cell phone and is not much bigger BTW. (it won't call AAA tho)
lazs
-
Originally posted by wrag
The more I look at the repsonses within this thread the more I think upon..............
And the more I look at your posts the more I think, why should you care?
Seeing that there are countries with similar levels of gun ownership as you and yet have much lower murder and general crime rates I'm not quite sure why you think you as a nation are qualified to give any advice. If we want to go down that road we can talk to the Canadians or the Swiss.
If and when the public here feel they need arming to counter crime then they will communicate that to their elected representatives and the law will be changed. If you think that the statisically insignificant number of enthusiasts who had to hand in their weapons in 1997 were having any kind of deterrent effect on pre-ban crime levels then you are welcome to provide evidence to suppport that position. I've been waiting for anyone of your ilk here to do so for the last 3 years, and so far nothing.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In the, Merchant Marine, December 41, 82 attacks on ships are tallied. Only one in the N Atlantic; the Astral a tanker which was sunk on Dec 1.
In January 42, 31 ships lost, about half in the N Atlantic, the first being the General Richard Arnold, a minelayer, on January 8 capsized and sunk. The next N Atlantic loss was on the Friar Rock on the 13th.
So the inevitable conclusion is that America waited more than two years before going to war against Germany. Germany did declare war on you first, and as a formality you returned the favor. Also Germany attacked America first, you just defended yourselves.
Lazs, we've been over this a long time ago. I live in Nilsenland.
-
momus... no one said that the insignificant amount of gun owners had any effect really on crime in limeyland... the laws that make your subjects less able to defend themselves or make defending themselves a crime coupled with disarming them have had an effect..
I also think that your gun owners (oops..former gun owners) do not really feel that they are insignificant...
That is why we have a bill of rights here to keep the likes of you from taking away the rights of the "insignificant".
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In the, Merchant Marine, December 41, 82 attacks on ships are tallied. Only one in the N Atlantic; the Astral a tanker which was sunk on Dec 1.
In January 42, 31 ships lost, about half in the N Atlantic, the first being the General Richard Arnold, a minelayer, on January 8 capsized and sunk. The next N Atlantic loss was on the Friar Rock on the 13th.
So the inevitable conclusion is that America waited more than two years before going to war against Germany. Germany did declare war on you first, and as a formality you returned the favor. Also Germany attacked America first, you just defended yourselves.
Lazs, we've been over this a long time ago. I live in Nilsenland.
-
Originally posted by Harry
So the inevitable conclusion is that America waited more than two years before going to war against Germany.
A few Euro nations fighting a regional conflict is not a world war; no need to join a regional conflict.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Toad
A few Euro nations fighting a regional conflict is not a world war; no need to join a regional conflict.
:rofl
Yes "regional" is a good description for the British, French and Dutch empires. What a brilliant example of American education. :rofl
Edit: However I do agree with you that America had no need to join the war before you were attacked yourselves. Which is why I see no reason for this perceived deep felt gratitude I'm supposed to have for America.
-
Lazs I don't know anyone who would have got raped or their house burglarized.
We can make a deal.. The first case of something like that happens somewhere nearby, I'll get a magnum 357. You can even recommend me the type.
My uncle has a ruger 357 with a 6" barrell. Sometimes we go out on the sandpit to blow chunks of cans with it.
As a sidethought to lazs.. How free do u think David Koresh and the rest of waco people feel now that they had free access to automatic firearms? :D
-
Umm.. we do have things called locks in the door you know.
We do have an extremely effective armed police force, too.
About every finn today owns a cellular phone to call them if necessary.
Ripley, you are aware that you yourself said that the police had some atrocious response times away from the city?
-
Let's see how that went.
March 7, 1936 - German troops occupy the Rhineland. This violation of a "regional" aspect of the Versailles treaty is ignored by later to be "Allied" powers in Europe. They wait instead.
March 12/13, 1938. - Germany announces 'Anschluss' (union) with Austria. This "regional" occupation of a foreign country ignored by later to be "Allied" powers in Europe. They wait instead.
Oct 15, 1938 - German troops occupy the Sudetenland. This "regional" occupation of a foreign country ignored by later to be "Allied" powers in Europe. They wait instead.
March 15/16, 1939 - Nazis take the rest of Czechoslovakia. This "regional" occupation of a foreign country ignored by later to be "Allied" powers in Europe. They wait instead.
Sept 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland. The "allies" FINALLY get involved in a regional conflict with an amazing, devastating new tactic: Sitzkrieg.
Nov 30, 1939 - Soviets attack Finland. The Western European "allies" essentially ignore this "regional" attack and Finland eventually has to turn to the Nazis for War Material.
June 10, 1940 - Norway surrenders to the Nazis, essentially without a fight, thus joining right in and helping the "allied" cause. Norway's contribution is huge, much greather than the US contribution that came over the later years.
-
And TWO years later when the war has spilled to Russia, Africa, the Middle-East, Asia, Oceania, and the Pacific ... America reluctantly joins the fight after being attacked herself. THANK YOU AMERICA! :rofl
-
Yep, there was overwhelmingly strong sentiment to never get involved in Europe's regional conflicts again after WW1.
We even had laws against it. But I'm sure a Norsk education covered the US Neutrality Acts of 1935-1941.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let's see how that went.
March 7, 1936 - German troops occupy the Rhineland. This violation of a "regional" aspect of the Versailles treaty is ignored by later to be "Allied" powers in Europe. They wait instead.
March 12/13, 1938. - Germany announces 'Anschluss' (union) with Austria. This "regional" occupation of a foreign country ignored by later to be "Allied" powers in Europe. They wait instead.
Oct 15, 1938 - German troops occupy the Sudetenland. This "regional" occupation of a foreign country ignored by later to be "Allied" powers in Europe. They wait instead.
March 15/16, 1939 - Nazis take the rest of Czechoslovakia. This "regional" occupation of a foreign country ignored by later to be "Allied" powers in Europe. They wait instead.
The problem with your argument is that notwithstanding any subsequent domestic legislation, as a signatory of the Versailles Treaty on the allied side the USA also failed to live up to its responsibilities to enforce the subsequent peace.
So, if you're going to plead domestic political expediency then the European powers can too. Where does that leave your trol..I mean your argument?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yep, there was overwhelmingly strong sentiment to never get involved in Europe's regional conflicts again after WW1.
We even had laws against it. But I'm sure a Norsk education covered the US Neutrality Acts of 1935-1941.
That exactly my point; I don't blame you for not joining earlier, but I don't see why I should thank you either. Thank you America for defending yourselves? :huh
Edit: If we were to follow your example if and when you get attacked we’ll just sit tight and watch. Maybe make a buck or two by selling you overpriced guns and outdated warships. And when we ourselves are attacked years later we join the fight and take all the credit for “saving you”. Then you can say “Thank you Europe!” (Yeah right! Like that’ll ever happen).
-
Ripley, you are aware that you yourself said that the police had some atrocious response times away from the city?
I'm aware that they have atrocious response times because they're so rarely needed outside the cities. I know some villages which get 1 visit per week from police, and that's passing by for coffee.
In the large cities there are a lot of ethnic minorities, unemployed persons, career criminals and worst of all drug addicts. Wouldn't want to live there - and if I did I'd probably consider somekind of protection.
In our huge town of 60 000 population and living in rural area we don't keep our doors locked. That's how scared we are. Even though I disagree with her my wife always leaves her car unlocked on our yard. It's still there though.
Lately we've locked it for the night though because our house is so large that we can't hear if someone enters downstairs while we're in the bedroom. Mostly we lock it so nobody interrupts us in the bedroom when the kids are asleep.. :p
-
Originally posted by straffo
We will see dead US citizen and a lot.
Maybe. But me thinks you would also see dead invaders alot too
From another thread (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151) :eek:
-
That exactly my point; I don't blame you for not joining earlier, but I don't see why I should thank you either. Thank you America for defending yourselves?
The US voluntarily supplied war time materials to all allied countries. Had they not done this, europe would have folded like a cheap tent.
-
And had it folded Hitler would have had nothing else to do except to cut your oil supply lines and force you in.
-
harry... never heard of you.
mr ripley.. I don't think we are that far off... if you stay in the lilly white countryside with little crime it is not as important have a way to protect yourself than if you live in your cities which are more like our general population makeup (minus the real bad cities) but...
I believe that you are being naive in that you seem to think that it is impossible for crime to come to you or that even... you are more likely to be hurt in an automobile accident that a seatbelt would help you than to be injured in crime that may injure you..
I hope for you and your families sake that your ignorance will not really matter and that the odds will be good enough to insure that it is not a factor. Still... it makes you look silly all bundled up in a seatbelt all the time when you drive yet going around with a big trusting grin about crime and criminals.
As for the so called world wars.... you eurobarbarians start em.... we end em.
lazs
-
No Ripley. Germany was not a super power. They could not have extended power very far.
Japan and the US were.
Anyway, had Europe folded, Hitler would have stopped. He would have achieved what he set out to. Afterwards, very slowly he'd start conquering more land, but he would not be able to cross into the americas.
-
Originally posted by Harry
And TWO years later when the war has spilled to Russia, Africa, the Middle-East, Asia, Oceania, and the Pacific ... America reluctantly joins the fight after being attacked herself. THANK YOU AMERICA! :rofl
The war spilled into Asia in 1931, but that was just a regional conflict.
I find it ironic that some give us grief for our reluctance to join World Wars (both of them) and many of the same now hold us accountable for being too quick on the trigger.
Harry, to not thankful and respect the sacrifice of any ally in WW2 is not a knowlegable position. To realize that without the industrial power of the USA the allied effort probably would have come up short.
I respect the losses of the Soviet Union, and realize that their sacrifice was a huge piece of the allied victory, and without their effort the allies probably would have come up short. Even though they were not fighting the Axis until they were attacked.
-
Yes , why would germany declare war on the US and sink boats over a certain tonnage but try to keep passenger liners from being sunk ?, hmmmm
Maybe it was because the USA was shipping Iron, Oil, Munitions, etc to England and Europe and germany was trying to stop the support of the countries he was trying to conquer.
-
Anyway, had Europe folded, Hitler would have stopped. He would have achieved what he set out to. Afterwards, very slowly he'd start conquering more land, but he would not be able to cross into the americas.
Hitler had no idea about that, hence Africa Corps.
Lazs: Unless something changes radically I'm going to continue living the same way my father and forefathers lived their lives.. That life never included having personal weapons for self defense. Count out the wars.
Finland has very low differences in income. That brings good stability to the society. There aren't two million hispanics coveting my every valuable. Also the drug problem here is relatively low. In city owned housing you will see troubled people even here - but I've passed that stage luckily.
The main point is that the amount of handguns down here is so low that 99% of burglars never carry anything more than the odd crowbar. If an armed robber is caught somewhere it's major news headlines immediately.
And I like to keep it that way, too.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
The problem with your argument is that notwithstanding any subsequent domestic legislation, as a signatory of the Versailles Treaty on the allied side the USA also failed to live up to its responsibilities to enforce the subsequent peace.
Sorry, Chum.
In March 1920 the US Senate finally killed the Versailles treaty. The United States did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles and we did not join the League of Nations.
No ratification by Congress, no treaty by/with the US. No treaty, no obligations or responsibilities to "enforce the subsequent peace".
The US signed completely separate treaties with Germany and Austria on August 24/25, 1921.
Note this part of both treaties:
(2) That the United States shall not be bound by the provisions of Part I of that Treaty nor by any provisions of that Treaty including those mentioned in paragraph (I) of this Article which relate to the unless the United States shall expressly give its assent to such action.
The "Treaty" mentioned is the Versailles treaty. As in "shall not be bound by the provisions of Part I of that Versailles Treaty nor by any provisions of that Versailles Treaty".
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I find it ironic that some give us grief for our reluctance to join World Wars (both of them) and many of the same now hold us accountable for being too quick on the trigger.
I have yet to see anyone “give you grief” for your reluctance to enter the war earlier. I have however on numerous occasions seen Americans playing the “WWII debt card” provoking a reaction from the European posters (like this one)
If someone owes you gratitude its Germany, Japan and possibly Italy for allowing them to exist. The rest of us owe you nothing.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I respect the losses of the Soviet Union, and realize that their sacrifice was a huge piece of the allied victory, and without their effort the allies probably would have come up short. Even though they were not fighting the Axis until they were attacked.
I would call that an understatement considering the Germans lost the battle for Moscow and started the long retreat to Berlin before you entered the war. Germany had practically lost the war already.
Originally posted by mydavis
Yes , why would germany declare war on the US and sink boats over a certain tonnage but try to keep passenger liners from being sunk ?, hmmmm
They didn’t. After December 11, 1941 the Germans conducted unrestricted submarine warfare against the Allies.
Originally posted by mydavis
Maybe it was because the USA was shipping Iron, Oil, Munitions, etc to England and Europe and germany was trying to stop the support of the countries he was trying to conquer.
When did Britain finally manage to pay off her war debts to you? In fact until the German declaration of war the US Government didn’t even stop American trade with Germany. Only the Royal Navy did that. What you call support, I call war profiteering.
-
Originally posted by Harry
That exactly my point; I don't blame you for not joining earlier,
[/b]
As a Norwegian, you probably shouldn't point the finger at anyone vis-a-vis WW2.
However, it's an oft heard refrain here, issuing forth from the Euro contingent.
The truth is that after WW1, the US wanted no more of European entanglements.
Defend ourselves? Check the history books on Hitler's view of a separate peace with America. Had we so decided, I do believe he'd have been happy to work that out with us, probably in early 1942 no less.
If we were to follow your example if and when you get attacked we’ll just sit tight and watch.
[/b]
Isn't that pretty much what Norway did?
take all the credit for “saving you”.
You don't keep up on these boards. The Russians actually won WW2 all by themselves and the aid given to them by the US sat unused in their warehouses for the duration.
Then you can say “Thank you Europe!” (Yeah right! Like that’ll ever happen).
You are right at last. It'll never happen. For more reasons than you want to read, reasons that primarily have their origin in the nature of Europe itself.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As a Norwegian, you probably shouldn't point the finger at anyone vis-a-vis WW2.
However, it's an oft heard refrain here, issuing forth from the Euro contingent.
The truth is that after WW1, the US wanted no more of European entanglements. [/B]
Like I said: I don’t blame you, but I don’t see any reason to thank you either.
Originally posted by Toad
Defend ourselves? Check the history books on Hitler's view of a separate peace with America. Had we so decided, I do believe he'd have been happy to work that out with us, probably in early 1942 no less. [/B]
Americans backing down after being attacked? Never heard of it (well there is Vietnam). A separate peace with America or perhaps even an alliance against Russia was Hitlers pipedream. He had already lost the war in Russia.
Originally posted by Toad
[BYou don't keep up on these boards. The Russians actually won WW2 all by themselves and the aid given to them by the US sat unused in their warehouses for the duration. [/B]
Yeah they pretty much did win the war all by themselves. Your supplies were a drop in the ocean and much of it did sit unused in warehouses. At least until they were sent to the smelters.
Originally posted by Toad
You are right at last. It'll never happen. For more reasons than you want to read, reasons that primarily have their origin in the nature of Europe itself.
You digress.
-
Originally posted by Harry
Yeah they pretty much did win the war all by themselves. Your supplies were a drop in the ocean and much of it did sit unused in warehouses. At least until they were sent to the smelters.
[/b]
There you go! THAT's the old EURO SPIRIT!!!
You digress.
Check and see who brought it up first, Mr. Digressionaire.
-
Ah, you fold. Thanks.
-
Yeah they pretty much did win the war all by themselves. Your supplies were a drop in the ocean and much of it did sit unused in warehouses. At least until they were sent to the smelters.
While most of this post shows conflicting views, this is a flagrant lie.
Russia WOULD HAVE LOST had we not been feeding them supplies. And lots of supplies at that.
-
I beg to differ. The war would have lasted longer, but I don’t think Germany stood a chance after the defeat at Moscow in 1941. Remember this is only months after Germany attacked Russia. Few if any US supplies had reached Russia at that time.
-
Harry, I beg you to pull your head out of your ass.
We had been feeding all allied nations since 1939. It didn't start in 1941.
Russia barely held on. They were a hair's width away from losing the war at stalingrad. Logic (it's a powerful thing) would lead you to assume that had Russia not recieved any supplies, they would have lost.
-
Perhaps you should be more concerned about how far up your own head is. Germany attacked Russia on the 22nd of June 1941. Up till that time Russia and Germany had a non-aggression pact. If this is the limit of your knowledge, why do you even bother to post?
-
You still haven't countered what I said. You just dodged the topic and insulted me.
I'll be waiting for you to respond to what I wrote.
-
Germany never stood a chance at winning Stalingrad. It was a trap designed to draw the 6th army into the city, surround them and starve them into submission. It worked perfectly. The entire 6th army was enveloped and destroyed by far superior Russian forces. It was never a close call, only a time consuming and bloody affair.
-
No. Not even close. The german army pushed the russian army so far back that the remnants of the Russian army had their back up against the volga (river, name could be off).
The ONLY WAY russia held on was by literally throwing men and soldiers at the german army. Throughout the months that Germany and Russia fought in stalingrad, russia continuously threw men into the battle with very rudimentary training. There were times and places where the russian lines were no further then 200 yards way from the river banks.
Only after months of fighting, did the russians flank the germans with an entirely seperate army. Had that been the plan, the russians would have done it way earlier and at the cost of many less men.
Had stalingrad been taken, Russia would be all but beat. Only a christmas miracle could save them then.
-
I’m not even going to bother lecturing you. Just read up on Operation Uranus.
Good night sir.
-
Originally posted by Harry
Ah, you fold. Thanks.
Hardly.
However, it is difficult to discuss this with anyone not cognizant of the size of the US supply effort to Russia.
The list below is the amount of war material shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program. It is the total amount of matériel from the beginning to September 30, 1945.
Aircraft..................... ........14,795
Tanks........................ .........7,056
Jeeps........................ ........51,503
Trucks....................... .......375,883
Motorcycles.................. ........35,170
Tractors..................... .........8,071
Guns......................... .........8,218
Machine guns........................1 31,633
Explosives................... .......345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives.................. .........1,981
Cargo ships........................ ......90
Submarine hunters...................... .105
Torpedo boats........................ ...197
Ship engines...................... ....7,784
Food supplies..................... 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals......................8 02,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals.................... .......842,000 tons
Cotton....................... ...106,893,000 tons
Leather...................... ........49,860 tons
Tires........................ .....3,786,000
Army boots.......................1 5,417,000 pairs
Regardless of Soviet cold-war attempts to forget (or at least diminish) the importance of Lend-lease, the total impact of the Lend-Lease shipment for the Soviet war effort and entire national economy can only be characterized as both dramatic and of decisive importance.
-
How much of those supplies had reached the Russians by the battle of Moscow, not 6 months after Russia became an “ally”? How much of those supplies had reached Russia by the time of Stalingrad one year into the GPW? Insignificant amounts.
Toad, I’m not going to dig up numbers to match your list, but just for illustration while you gave them 14,795 planes during the war they themselves built 136,314. Tanks? 7,056 / 99,488. A drop in the ocean.
-
Originally posted by Harry
Toad, I’m not going to dig up numbers to match your list, but just for illustration while you gave them 14,795 planes during the war they themselves built 136,314. Tanks? 7,056 / 99,488. A drop in the ocean.
So given Toads numbers, 11% of the planes and 7% of the tanks...
If the ocean were the Pacific the drop would have been the size of what... the Australian continent?
-
Giving them 10% of their aircraft total build is a drop in the bucket?
Say...how did they build those tanks and planes?
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Count those decimal places. You think that much machinery might have helped BUILD their tanks and planes? Maybe?
And an army marches on it's stomach and feet:
Food supplies..................... 4,478,000 tons
Army boots.......................1 5,417,000 pairs
A few random notes:
The lend lease shipments accounted for some 15% of the total Russian tank force in 1941-1942.
Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers and 16% of all fighters and 29% of all naval aircraft.
Lend-leasde supplied 317,000 tons of explosive materials including 22 million shells that was equal to just over half of the total Soviet production of approximately 600,000 tons. Additionally the Lend-lease supplied 103,000 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of TNT. In addition to explosives and ammunition, 991 million miscellaneous shell cartridges were also provided to speed up the manufacturing of ammunition.
10% of all Soviet war material.... "a drop in the ocean".
:rofl
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
We had been feeding all allied nations since 1939. It didn't start in 1941.
Oh, I wouldn't say all of them.
-
Well, only the important ones. ;) :aok :p
-
so ripley... if it costs you money then it is allright for you to take away other peoples rights?
Lazs one of the things you may not understand again is that a democratically elected government passed automotive safety laws such as speeding limits, seatbelt wear etc. which the voters (the people) are obliged to follow.
The governments best interests include keeping its citizens uninjured and healthy. Just as an employer looks after its workers to keep things running.
IMO refusing to wear a seatbelt just for hte sake of being rebel is not so smart on your part Lazs. Let's hope you will never end up in a 50mph collision and explain your freedom to the plastic surgeon who tries to stitch your face back in after leaving a birthmark to the windshield with your nose. For no reason other than being rebel and free. :lol
-
Originally posted by Toad
10% of all Soviet war material.... "a drop in the ocean".
:rofl
I repeat: How much of those supplies had reached the Russians by the battle of Moscow, not 6 months after Russia became an “ally”? How much of those supplies had reached Russia by the time of Stalingrad one year into the GPW? Insignificant amounts.
A drop in the ocean. It may hurt your pride, but the Russians had won the war before America even joined the fight.
-
Regardless of Soviet cold-war attempts to forget (or at least diminish) the importance of Lend-lease, the total impact of the Lend-Lease shipment for the Soviet war effort and entire national economy can only be characterized as both dramatic and of decisive importance.
But it's nice to see a Norwegian picking up the torch for the Soviets. :rofl
-
ripley... first of all... I have never said if I wear seatbelts or not... I allways do in my Hot Rods as they are more likely to be the car I will need em in... I rarely wear em in my Lincoln.. I choose.
The government is not my mommy or daddy and I really don't care what their motives are for keeping me healthy... it is none of their business.... unless you espouse socialism as a viable way for humans to live which I do not.
As for handguns... do as you please. so long as you do nothing criminal with em. What is wrong with that? You say that the worst that can happen to you is someone attacking you with a crowbar... that is of course not true but even if it were... I want to meet (the attacker with) a crowbar with a firearm... he won't be smashing my tender body today thank you..
If you feel that choice in the matter of firearms is proper then we agree... If you don't feel that firearms are a right to self defense or simple ownership and/or that you can take someone elses rights away by merely voting em away or letting your nanny government decide....
Then we dissagree... and..
You don't know anything about David Koresh and Waco it would appear. Both Waco and Ruby ridge happened during the time that we were experimenting with a socialist president and both were admitted to be massive screw ups.
lazs
-
Wrong lazs. If anything those cases proved that a single individual or even group of individuals has no leverage against the government regardless of the firepower they have.
I personally have nothing against firearms. But I disagree with you in having to obtain one for protection. I do not see a scenario where I'd need one.
-
wrong ripley... you got the wrong lesson... What those examples proved was that even a fringe person has rights and that mo matter how you demonize em.... or... how demonic that they may be... the people distrust the government...
Heads rolled... millions on investigations were spent... reparations were paid... the government socialism experiment died klinton or that murdering witch reno never got to act against citizens again..
The other lesson is.... that even a hundred such uprisings across the country would overwhelm the government forces and bring the government in power crashing down. If the matter were less fringe and a small percentage of the people agreed with it... the government would have to relent.
I find your "the government is too powereful there is nothing we can do but roll over and give em our belly" attitude.....
sickening. It would appear that socialism has bred out every bit of individualism out of you.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Well, only the important ones. ;) :aok :p
:D
-
Lol lazs.. I consider our government something good and worth fighting for, not to fight against.
If you're so full of discontent why do you continue to live in the US?
-
Good question ripley... I stay here because with all it's faults.... it is the best one there is.... that don't mean I want to swap spit with every socialist that get's into power here.
A healthy government is one that fears it's people. A sick one is one where the people either fear or have absolute trust in it.
No government on the face of the planet or in all of history has ever been deserving of slavish devotion as you profess to have. In the end... they all slaughter a bunch of the sheep that gave em the power.
Trick is to keep em off guard and keep the power in check.
lazs
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Lol lazs.. I consider our government something good and worth fighting for, not to fight against.
If you're so full of discontent why do you continue to live in the US?
Hmmmmmmm...............
Makes me wonder.
Anyone have an opinion on the following.................
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." ~~ Bertrand de Juvenal
"According to my observations, mankind are among the most easily tamable and domesticable of all creatures in the animal world. They are readily reducible to submission, so readily conditionable (to coin a word) as to exhibit and almost incredibly enduring patience under restraint and oppression of the most flagrant character. So far are they from displaying any overweening love of freedom that they show a show a singular contentment with a condition of servitorship, often showing a curious canine pride in it, and again often simply unaware that they are existing in that condition." ~~ Albert Jay Nock; The Memoirs of a Superfluous Man
-
Originally posted by Toad
Say...how did they build those tanks and planes?
Count those decimal places.
Dont forget to mention while those decimal places are being counted to count them in WWII era money and not todays.
That kinda money bought ALOT more back then then it does now.
;)
And 10% is hardly a drop in the well.
I think anyone would be quite upset if they were told that they were getting a 10% pay cut
-
Originally posted by Toad
But it's nice to see a Norwegian picking up the torch for the Soviets. :rofl
I don't know who wrote those words or why I should lend any credence to them.
Again: How much of those supplies had reached the Russians by the battle of Moscow, not 6 months after Russia became an “ally”? How much of those supplies had reached Russia by the time of Stalingrad one year into the GPW? Insignificant amounts.
A drop in the ocean. It may hurt your pride, but the Russians had won the war before America even joined the fight.
-
So Harry, The Battle of Moscow was where the the war was won?
Why did it take four years to mop up and how many Soviets died after the war was over?
The US did not win the Pacific war at Midway. It was just the first battle to fall in our favor.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So Harry, The Battle of Moscow was where the the war was won?
Yes. Never again did the Germans threaten Russia's existence. Not even at Stalingrad or Kursk.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Why did it take four years to mop up and how many Soviets died after the war was over?
Same reason it took more than three years to mop up Japan; they didn't surrender even when the most stanch Nazi knew the war was lost.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The US did not win the Pacific war at Midway. It was just the first battle to fall in our favor.
No, the US won the Pacific War at Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December 1941. The Japanese had mistakenly calculated that the attack would buy them six months of free reign in the Pacific. After that they gambled on that defensive deterrents and the promise of a long and bloody war would persuade the US to settle for peace. They never intended to win a war with the US. The Japanese leadership knew they couldn't win a war with the US before they started it. They gambled you didn't have a stomach for war, and lost.
-
Originally posted by Harry
No, the US won the Pacific War at Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December 1941.
We sure spent a lot of time, money, and lives on a war that we already won.
I wonder if we won the war on terror on Sept. 11 2001?
You have an interesting, if somewhat flawed, view of history.
-
Wrag, lazs..
If you would have had to fight the way we did in order to maintain independence and our land, you would probably think different too.
Studies show that Finland is the least corrupted country in the world. We can trust our police and to some extent, politicians too. Unlike your society where money rules everything, here things still go in somewhat democratic way. Instead of arming ourselves and forming militia we go to the voting ballots.
Finland has a good balance in society, a good social security network, free education etc etc. I find it a very nice place to grow my children in, knowing that they can study regardless of my financial situation, knowing they won't be subjected to junkies at every other corner, knowing that if I became disabled or dead, their well being would always be covered - no fear of going to the streets.
If I had to dig for real downsides to living here I'd say high taxing and having Russia as our neighbour would be the two biggest downsides.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
We sure spent a lot of time, money, and lives on a war that we already won.
I wonder if we won the war on terror on Sept. 11 2001?
You have an interesting, if somewhat flawed, view of history.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
We sure spent a lot of time, money, and lives on a war that we already won.
At what point did the US stand a chance of losing the Pacific War? Never. It was a forgone conclusion. That does not mean you don't have to work for it.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I wonder if we won the war on terror on Sept. 11 2001?
Perhaps. It surly was a turning point in the way terrorism is perceived and dealt with. Whether or not it was the time the "war on terror" was won can only be determined after the conflict is over.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You have an interesting, if somewhat flawed, view of history.
You're mistaking complex for flawed. The notion that wars are won when the enemy surrenders/are defeated is simplistic and false. The outcome of every war always comes down to one battle. Be it Waterloo, Gettysburg, Moscow or Pearl Harbor, that's where the course of the war was determined and ultimately if the war was won or lost. The rest was just as you put it: "Mopping up".
-
Name a war that was won without defeating an enemy.
Like I say... flawed
Just because Karpov is a great chess player doesn't mean that I could not get lucky and defeat him. Obviously the chances against it are astronomical, but you still have to move the pieces.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Name a war that was won without defeating an enemy.
I could name many, but let’s pick one you surly must be familiar with. The American war of independence. You won the war, but the British Empire wasn’t defeated, they’re still around.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Just because Karpov is a great chess player doesn't mean that I could not get lucky and defeat him. Obviously the chances against it are astronomical, but you still have to move the pieces.
Yes and after the match I’m sure Karpov could tell you exactly what move lost you the game. In fact I’m pretty sure Karpov would say “checkmate in [inset number] moves” during the match at the point where you could do nothing but react to his attacks, and the outcome would be as definitive as it would be inevitable.
-
Originally posted by Harry
I could name many, but let’s pick one you surly must be familiar with. The American war of independence. You won the war, but the British Empire wasn’t defeated, they’re still around.
A defeat does not mean complete destruction. When Cornwallis offered his surrender to the American Army, the British colonial presence was defeated, hence the American Victory.
Originally posted by Harry
No, the US won the Pacific War at Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December 1941.
If you really feel that the USA won the war on that date, when it suffered a great loss of men and material, then perhaps by your definition, you have won this arguement.
-
Ding!
That's the end of round one. The fighters move off to their corners and we'll take a short commercial break. This looks like it could be the longest World Semantic Boxing fight in decades, so don't change that channel!
-
Originally posted by Harry
At what point did the US stand a chance of losing the Pacific War? Never. It was a forgone conclusion. That does not mean you don't have to work for it.
Ah. I see. So Germany lost WW2 when it invaded Poland. Gotcha.
:rofl
-
The quote is from: http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/index.htm
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sorry, Chum.
In March 1920 the US Senate finally killed the Versailles treaty. The United States did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles and we did not join the League of Nations.
No ratification by Congress, no treaty by/with the US. No treaty, no obligations or responsibilities to "enforce the subsequent peace".
Words. As a victorious power in WW1 you had a moral responsibility the equal of France or Britain to ensure that the Central Powers abode by the terms of Versailles. Just because the Senate lacked the political fortitude and foresight to stand by Wilson doesn't excuse that any more than French or British desires to avoid another war excuses their attitude in 1936. Senate didn't like it? YOUR problem. Want to take credit for ending the great war but none of the blame when the peace didn't hold? Can you say double standard? Yes, of course you can, "chum".
Interesting that you try and hide behind subsequent treaties that were ratified by Congress. Referring to the seperate peace treaty signed with Germany after the Senate welched on the Treaty of Versailles, you'll note:
...there are expressly reserved to the United States of America and its nationals any and all rights, privileges, indemnities, reparations, or advantages, together with the right to enforce the same, to which it or they have become entitled under the terms of the armistice signed November 11, 1918..
The treaties with Austria and Hungary contain similar clauses as well.
So in actual fact, there were no legal constraints actually preventing you from enforcing the Peace along with the other Allies, just the same absence of will that afflicted the other victorious powers.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah. I see. So Germany lost WW2 when it invaded Poland. Gotcha.
:rofl
No they still had a pretty good chance at the battle for Moscow, but after they lost there was nothing that they could do to win the war. The Japanese never had a chance to win the war.
You know I'm right, but you'll never admit it. I can live with that.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If you really feel that the USA won the war on that date, when it suffered a great loss of men and material, then perhaps by your definition, you have won this arguement.
No. Considering you now quite clearly state that you argue to "win" rather than come to an agreement, you will never admit I'm right, but rather offer crude insults when you run out of valid arguments. Debating with you is pointless, so I guess I never had a chance to "win" this argument.
-
Please quote me where I "quite clearly state" or where I insulted you.
-
Originally posted by Harry
You know I'm right, but you'll never admit it. I can live with that.
Nah, I know you're wrong but you'll never admit it. Don't bother me a lick, either.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
As a victorious power in WW1 you had a moral responsibility the equal of France or Britain to ensure that the Central Powers abode by the terms of Versailles.
[/b]
We most certainly DID NOT. We didn't start it, we didn't want to be in it and we wanted OUT of the whole area as soon as it was over. Even after the 15 Lodge reservations the treaty was defeated 49-35 in the Senate. They merely reflected the views of the people of the US, who were isolationist before WW1 and became even MORE isolationist after WW1.
Disgust was deepening. Hundreds of thousands of American boys were returning from Europe, irritated by cheating French shopkeepers, and most favorably impressed by the blonde German girls. American's everywhere were saying that Europe could jolly well "stew in its own juice." In the face of such wide spread disillusionment Wilson would have troubles in arousing people again.
-Thomas A. Bailey, Historian
Our leaders had a moral responsibility to OUR people to do what the people desired which was to end foreign entanglements.
Want to take credit for ending the great war but none of the blame when the peace didn't hold? Can you say double standard? Yes, of course you can, "chum".
[/b]
Well, Chum, it wasn't the US that crafted a "peace that didn't hold". The only chance there was of a lasting peace was in Wilson's 14 points. Neither France nor Britain were interested in Wilson's plan, were they?
As for taking credit, can you say 2nd Battle of the Marne?
The German Commander quoted:
...All [German] divisions [along the Marne] achieved brilliant successes, with the exception of the one division on our right wing. This encountered American units! Here only did the Seventh Army, In the course of the first day of the offensive, confront serious difficulties. It met with the unexpectedly stubborn and active resistance of fresh American troops.
While the rest of the divisions of the Seventh Army succeeded in gaining ground and gaining tremendous booty, it proved impossible for us to move the right apex of our line, to the south of the Marne, into a position advantageous for the development of the ensuing fight. The check we thus received was one result of the stupendous fighting between our 10th Division of infantry and American troops...
Erich von Ludendorff, Quartermaster General
So in actual fact, there were no legal constraints actually preventing you from enforcing the Peace along with the other Allies, just the same absence of will that afflicted the other victorious powers.
No. There were no legal obligations for the US to enforce the Peace along with the other Allies.
I think this is a fundamental difference between Euros and Americans and it plays into the later "late joining WW2" comments we always hear.
Apparently Euros feel the Americans were somehow obligated to help them in both wars rather than the true fact that we had absolutely no obligations, no treaties, no agreements whatsoever to join European wars.
This despite the fact that even a cursory study of US history in the years before WWI and the intervening years between WWI and WWII show the US to be extremely isolationist.
Again: An isolationist nation with no treaties or agreements that would obligate participation in European wars of conquest.
It's like Europe was a bunch of pyromaniacs that expected a fire department from halfway around the world to bail them out everytime their fires got out of hand. The US wanted no part of it pre-WWI, post-WWI and pre-WW2.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Please quote me where I "quite clearly state" or where I insulted you.
I did.
-
ripley... while toad is kicking the crap outa your countrymen and some limeys..
Let's get back to it. You say that you trust and worship your government because it provides all these "free" services for you and that it is "balanced" meaning to you.... that, no matter what your abilities or work ethic or desires or ambition... you end up making the same as everyone else...
What I see is that no government is ever deserving of your trust... you are living on borrowed time... history proves this. No government gives people anything... How does your government give free health care? does it come from the pockets of the politicians? are they all doctors working for free? or... does the government take money away from you and redistribute it?
You seem to prove my point... if the government takes over as mommy and splits up everything then... they also have the "right" to make sure that everyone washes their face and hands and sits at the table with no elbows...
This works so long as society is all one poeple (lilly white in your case) with generations of inbreeding and social tradition and taboo.. It works if all individualism and ambition is bred out of your people. Or... like the old soviet russia... if things threaten to change... Mommy will simply build a wall around the place to keep you in and outside influence out.
What you have I want no part of. I would not last a year in your society.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ripley... while toad is kicking the crap outa your countrymen and some limeys..
Let's get back to it. You say that you trust and worship your government because it provides all these "free" services for you and that it is "balanced" meaning to you.... that, no matter what your abilities or work ethic or desires or ambition... you end up making the same as everyone else...
What I see is that no government is ever deserving of your trust... you are living on borrowed time... history proves this. No government gives people anything... How does your government give free health care? does it come from the pockets of the politicians? are they all doctors working for free? or... does the government take money away from you and redistribute it?
You seem to prove my point... if the government takes over as mommy and splits up everything then... they also have the "right" to make sure that everyone washes their face and hands and sits at the table with no elbows...
This works so long as society is all one poeple (lilly white in your case) with generations of inbreeding and social tradition and taboo.. It works if all individualism and ambition is bred out of your people. Or... like the old soviet russia... if things threaten to change... Mommy will simply build a wall around the place to keep you in and outside influence out.
What you have I want no part of. I would not last a year in your society.
lazs
Wrong again lazs I don't see anything in Toads posts that would be addressed directly to my countrymen.
Nobody has claimed any service comes for free even if they ARE free for occupants (yes, even you if you choose to come down here). I recall making a comment about the high tax level, which doesn't look high when you consider what you folks have to pay for medicare alone. :D Let alone pensions, unemployment security and the works.
are they all doctors working for free? or... does the government take money away from you and redistribute it?
Yep, that's called taxing. Happens there in US of A too you know.
they also have the "right" to make sure that everyone washes their face and hands and sits at the table with no elbows...
The situation doesn't differ from what you got now. Also your government has interests IN you. You're bound by laws which often are more strict than the ones here. Plus you're owned by RIAA/MPAA and any imaginable corporation with a million dollars for attourneys.
This works so long as society is all one poeple (lilly white in your case) with generations of inbreeding and social tradition and taboo.. It works if all individualism and ambition is bred out of your people. Or... like the old soviet russia... if things threaten to change... Mommy will simply build a wall around the place to keep you in and outside influence out.
Lol I think I know about soviet russia and it's comparability to us a little more than you. We killed hundreds of thousands of them, remember? Our society structure of mainly caucasians is just fine to me and I want to keep it that way. The alternative is to have the swedish model and huge problems with ethnic minorities (or even worse, majorities without work or orientation).
And I wouldn't even mention the word taboo - because your society is riddled with them compared to ours. One very simple but telltale thing is that US late night shows are broadcasted on primetime here. Your late night 'taboo' and risky is child material here.
As what goes for individualism and ambition, you're talking to a private entrepenaur. Do you own your own business by any chance?
-
H McG
Please quote me where I "quite clearly state" or where I insulted you.
Originally posted by Harry
I did.
The comment you quoted:
H McG
If you really feel that the USA won the war on that date, when it suffered a great loss of men and material, then perhaps by your definition, you have won this arguement.
You will notice I was discussing your possible motives, and if you think that comment is an insult, you may consider investing in a new dictionary.
-
Ok ripley fair enough.... You think that excessive taxation is a fair price to pay for "free" medical and services... When you look at what we pay for medical you have to factor in that most of our medical cost is because of litigation insurance... Our doctors can be sued. If we couldn't sue our doctors then our medical insurance would be about half... I am not sure that it would be as good as it is tho.... but certainly... as good as yours.
You want a land with no variety and no vibrant people... no diversity in cultures or in incomes and living... Americans are not willing to give up their individuality and divirsity and freedom so for that.
As for taboos? You are talking about adult vs children (prime time vs late nite TV) I do not think that comercial TV should show questionable programing when young children can see it... Any adult can see whatever he likes with few exceptions... We have more diversity in programing I would imagine than you do.
Cultural diversity does cause problems but we put up with em cause it also brings us good mexican resteraunts....
lazs
-
Lazs the point here is that we live in two very different countries. I can dig just as many downsides to living there as you can dig to living here. And we can continue to argue about it as long as we like.
Maybe we could just reach a conclusion that there are aeroplanes which transport people from country to country. If the way of life in a certain country doesnt appeal, we both have feet.
That does not, however, mean that finns should adopt every law or habit of the americans or vice versa. That's why your crusade looks more like Don Quiote.
-
I don't ask you to adopt any policy except to recognize that it is a human right to bear arms and not a government one.. I am simply amazed that you think that you, or your government has the right to choose for your neighbors.
But... you are right.. we would probly both enjoy visiting in each others countries but we would not like each other to vote on each others countries laws..
Neither of us would say..... like the UN to have any control over us.... right?
lazs
-
The UN is much like EU - a lot of talk, spending of money and no real results done. We don't have guns ban here Lazs.. you just need to obtain a permit thats all.
If you feel like freezing your bellybutton this winter, you're welcome to visit. ;)
-
Sorry Toad. Fact is that you can't wag your finger at the rest of the allies on this issue and not expect to see that same finger wagging right back at you. Isolationism didn't stop sections of the US business community getting into bed with the Nazis or the Marine Corps from getting involved in any number of dubious adventures south of Panama in the inter-war years did it? Another double standard? Avoid international entanglements; unless we really want to, is that right?
Wilson understood the importance of enforcing the subsequent peace, when he said:
"If the treaty is not ratified by the Senate, the war will have been fought in vain, and the world will be thrown into chaos. I promised our soldiers, when I asked them to take up arms, that it was a war to end wars..."
Just a shame that a major lack of judgment and moral fiber prevented Wilson's vision from being realised for another 30 years.
-
What's really a shame is that the English and French didn't adopt the 14 points. Had they done so, with or without US ratification, WW2 had a chance of being avoided.
Again, claiming that the US had some "responsiblity" to police Europe's warlike empires after WW1 is typically what I expect from that side of the pond.
It's a basic difference in philosophy. "Mind your own affairs" vs the "mind everyone else's affairs" point of view.
The US had had enough of European war; we were isolationist before and were isolationist afterwards.
Like the firemen putting out a conflageration started by a group of bickering pyromaniacs, our only responsiblity was to get back home and hope the pyros learned their lesson. After all, the pyromaniacs had their own fire department; no need to involve ours all the time.
We got dragged into WW2 by the Japanese and were inevitably dragged into Europe's war again by Germany's stupid declaration. Even Harry is probably smart enough to realise that Hitler made a huge mistake in declaring war on the US.
Unfortunately, after WW2 we DID take a role in world affairs. The UN, Wilson's would be League of Nations, became a reality. Judging by its success, it looks like Wilson had that part totally wrong.
Sure, we dealt with the Nazis prior to the war. In business relationships, just like almost all the European countries did. What of it?
If you'd like to discuss particular incidents in our hemisphere, that's fine. Not everything done between 1776 and 1918 was beyond reproach. OTOH, I'll be waiting for you to show me where the US started a multinational war that killed millions. Twice. Please proceed.
Just a shame that a major lack of judgment and moral fiber prevented Wilson's vision from being realised for another 30 years.
[/b]
It wasn't lack of judgement or moral fiber. The American people in the post-WW1 era had more than enough of both. They also had the good sense to extricate themselves from Europe's mess. League or not, WW2 was a certainty because of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Again, note that it was France and England that discarded Wilson's 14 points, perhaps the only chance of avoiding WW2. You of course realize that the "victorious powers" could have followed Wilson's 14 point plan with or without US ratification.
Of course, they did not, making WW2 inevitable irregardless of US ratification of the Treaty. Thus your comment
to ensure that the Central Powers abode by the terms of Versailles
[/b]
shows a lack of understanding of the cause of WW2. it was the very terms of Versailles that made WW2 inevitable. Germany could not abide by them. Any US attempt to make them do so probably would have merely hastened WW2. The entire chance for peace was DOOMED by the "terms of Versailles".
And now we have the UN. Is there peace? No? Is there Euro happiness because the US now DOES take an active role in world affairs. No, I don't think that happened. :rofl
Be careful what you ask for, I guess. :rofl
I still think isolationism is our best course. I'd love to see every US troop home ASAP. Washington had it right in his Farewell Address:
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.
Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Wise man.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Washington...Wise man.
that's an understatement
-
Originally posted by Toad
shows a lack of understanding of the cause of WW2. it was the very terms of Versailles that made WW2 inevitable.
I thought it was the German ...
If you can read the 1870 treaty between France and Prussia the treaty is equivalent to the Versailles treaty and France yet didn't started WWI.
-
Scholars argue for years over this stuff.
Suffice it to say that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles are thought by many learned scholars to have lead to the rise of Adolph Hitler as Chancellor of Germany and the rise National Socialism in Germany.
You can find whatever path to war you like from there.
-
The treaty is one of the reason ,not the reason , I'm convinced WWII would have happen with or without.
-
ripley... My point is that I don't want the UN to get anything "done" they are pure evil in my opinion. I would like to kick em out of our country and knock down the building they stunk up.
And... I don't like the cold. I don't even like to see snow in movies.
lazs
-
Well at least we have that in common lazs. :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
The treaty is one of the reason ,not the reason , I'm convinced WWII would have happen with or without.
Then you would agree that US ratification or non-ratification of the ToV made no difference either way. Thanks.
-
Well I didn't even adressed this point :)
-
Sorry Toad, but you're still wrong. Wilson and Lodge may have been at odds over The League of Nations but they still had a common view on America's moral role in guarding the peace after WW2, just differing views of how to fulfil that role. To quote Lodge:
Our first ideal is our country, and we see her in the future, as in the past, giving service to all her people and to the world. Our ideal of the future is that she should continue to render that service of her own free will....Our ideal is to make her ever stronger and better and finer, because in that way alone, as we believe, can she be of the greatest service to the world's peace and to the welfare of mankind.
Lodge actually saw the US as having a role in enforcing the subsequent peace; he just thought that such a role would be better served outside of the League.
Your opinion is at odds with Wilson and at odds with Lodge. Your legal objections are baseless since the separate treaties with the Central Powers allowed for you to participate in the enforcement of the peace. All you are left with is your desire to hold France and Great Britain to a standard to which you are unwilling to hold the USA. That is it. Keep arguing on defence of a double standard; it won't be the first time. ;)
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Your legal objections are baseless since the separate treaties with the Central Powers allowed for you to participate in the enforcement of the peace.
You do so like to tell only your side of the story don't you. "Allowed" has nothing..repeat nothing... in common with "obligated". We were free to choose and we were not bound to do anything at all.
Tough for your argument but there it is.
To wit:
(2) That the United States shall not be bound by the provisions of Part I of that Treaty, nor by any provisions of that Treaty including those mentioned in paragraph (I) of this Article, which relate to the Covenant of the League of Nations, nor shall the United States be bound by any action taken by the League of Nations, or by the Council or by the Assembly thereof, unless the United States shall expressly give its assent to such action.
(3) That the United States assumes no obligations under or with respect to the provisions of Part II, Part III, Sections 2 to 8 inclusive of Part IV, and Part XIII of that Treaty.
(4) That, while the United States is privileged to participate in the Reparation Commission, according to the terms of Part VIII of that Treaty, and in any other Commission established under the Treaty or under any agreement supplemental thereto, [the United States is not bound to participate in any such commission unless it shall elect to do so.
See any common elements in the Treaty with Germany there? I bet even you see them.
We were not bound, not obliged to do ANYTHING we didn't want to do in any way shape or form.
I know that's just an incredibly foreign thought for a lot of Euros but it's the truth.
And, it's historically obvious that the US wanted no part of European entanglements after the war. The end of WW1 began a period of isolationism that lasted until the Japanese attack at Pearl.
So it's historically correct that the US had NO OBLIGATIONS with respect to the Treaty of Versailles other than those we freely chose to accept or do. It's also historically correct that the vast majority of the US public became even more isolationist after WW1. Particular evidence of this is the passage of the Neutrality Acts here as the war clouds gathered over Europe for the second time.
The pyromaniacs got out of hand once again; their own fire departments couldn't handle the blaze. Once again, the fire department half a world away had to be called.
That last time you got what you wanted. A US that decided it HAD to enforce the peace or there would be yet another world war in Pyromania.
How are you liking the way it's turning out now? :)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The comment you quoted:
You will notice I was discussing your possible motives, and if you think that comment is an insult, you may consider investing in a new dictionary.
While “discussing my motives” you brought up “winning” this argument. Clearly an indication as to how you “discuss”. Your post did not add anything to the discussion or provide any facts. It was just a jab at me, a crude insult.
-
If I wanted to insult you, I would have said something like, ""I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works!" Please note that I did not do that.
What I did was suggest (not at all crudely) that your argument was without merit. This is not an insult.
-
Toad - the Versailles treaty was not the primary reason for the rise of the Nazis. There was no singular reason. It wasn't until the Wall Street Crash and the subsequent bankruptcy of the German middle classes that the Nazis gained popular support. The election results say it all. Hitler promised the earth, and the people in their desperation fell for it. Prior to this, the Nazis were a fringe extremist party.
So, you need both the Versailles Treaty and the Crash for Hitler's rise to executive power.
-
Yes, Dowding, that is one of the scholarly opinions out there.
-
I'm so very happy that finally a thread has been made to house all the pro-gun/anti-gun nutters.
the O'club has halved its thread numbers since this post.
well done.
-
Then welcome to the house, anti-gun nutter.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers and 16% of all fighters and 29% of all naval aircraft.
Not to mention some of their leading air aces flew the P39 and racked up some 250+ or so kills. Their mechanics pretty much worked miracles keeping them flying in weather they were not designed for. And the rooskies re-invented tactics that made the P39 a sucsess where it had failed elswhere.
Leand Lease kept the Russians in the game there really can't be any doubt of that.