Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eaglecz on July 02, 2002, 07:54:50 AM
-
just few ideas
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.03D.bw.911.dum.htm
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020702/ts_nm/afghan_usa_bombing_dc_21&e=3&ncid=578
pitty.. i cant find any news about International law and US citizen outside US ....
Why should not be people of USA responsibile per their actions outside USA, when anyone other is ? Why are they scared by internation law ? its seems like legalization of killing as they need or what
Who are those US`s candidates to the jail per genocide ? (only read this but there were no names)
if you saw any other news related to that topic, i will be glad to see them here with your oponions
just few ideas passing my head
-
stupid Euro vs. USA thread I said I wouldn't get envolved with these..... by bad.......
-
That whole "someone might take it out on us" is such a pitiful excuse.
If an International court has no right to prosecute "Crimes against Humanity" against any US personnel that may commit such acts in the future, the US has NO fediddlein right to go into another country and try to prosecute it's citizens for anything.
The US sure seems to be on a roll lately for grabbing other countries citizens and hauling them off to jail :D
-
So, Udie, can you explain to me why some German citizens were tried and convicted at Nuremburg?
-
Now don't start agreeing with me Hortlund if your headed that way, it'd break our track record :D
-
hehe, yeah, Im starting to panic over here.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So, Udie, can you explain to me why some German citizens were tried and convicted at Nuremburg?
Oh ummm something about 6 million dead jews? I don't think America has ever done that or anything even close to that.....
-
Well, Udie, what do you call that type of crime?
Crime against humanity perhaps?
And what kind of crimes did the International court of justice want to be able to prosecute US personnel for?
Explain the logic please?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Explain the logic please?
We don't do that. We help..... Care to prove otherwise? How does your country help the world? How many starving babies in Africa has your country saved? How many countries have your people liberated and set up democracy in? How many economies has your country saved? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
-
That whole "someone might take it out on us" is such a pitiful excuse.
Have to agree with Udie. Point 2 speaks for itself, and point 1 is not an excuse -- it's a reality. Look at the cable-car incident in Italy a few years back. Was the A-6 pilot guilty of negliance in the deaths of those people? Sure, but there were certainly local politicians who had issues with NATO and the US who were working to create a show trial instead of trying to find justice. Did the pilot get off lightly? Perhaps, but we give the people risking their lives in such a dangerous but absolutely necessiary profession some leeway (you can debate if its too much or too little) to make mistakes, even if they end up killing people. An alternative for Europeans who don't like an american military presence is to massively increase your domestic spending on the military and take self-defense fully into your own hands. Then you can do with your military pilots as you wish.
Look a Europe today. Want to win votes in France and other parts of Europe? Bash America (at least that's what the British papers and BBC say). Obviously, you Europeans know your local politics better than I do, so tell me, is it unreasonable for an American to expect a politics-free trial in this European court?
Come on, Hortlund. When the US invades most of Europe, and starts gassing northern european Aryans, and the rest of the World has to unite to drive them out, then try who you like and do with them as you wish. Hell, I certainly won't feel bad about it. In fact, please free me from whatever camp I was put in after I burned an American flag in protest of such naked, nationalist agression (wow, got an extra one in there :)).
Charon
-
Hey Udie read your history books. Whatever happened to the Native Americans. The whole history of the Western US was formed on Genocide.
Also, 11 Million German civilians died thanks to the bombing raids of the Allies during WW2. Though it is understandable,not excusable, mind you, why it happened of course there were no PGMs back then like we have now so they had to resort to area bombing to reduce the war making potential of the nation.
-
Also, 11 Million German civilians died thanks to the bombing raids of the Allies during WW2.
The USSBS puts the figure at around 350,000. The German government says about 550,000. I have never seen an estimate much above that, let alone approaching a million.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Come on, Hortlund. When the US invades most of Europe, and starts gassing northern european Aryans, and the rest of the World has to unite to drive them out, then try who you like and do with them as you wish. Hell, I certainly won't feel bad about it. In fact, please free me from whatever camp I was put in after I burned an American flag in protest of such naked, nationalist agression (wow, got an extra one in there :)).
Charon
No Charon they just dropped incendiary and high explosive bombs over their heads killing thousands and wiping off entire towns in one night. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Udie
We don't do that. We help..... Care to prove otherwise? How does your country help the world? How many starving babies in Africa has your country saved? How many countries have your people liberated and set up democracy in? How many economies has your country saved? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
uh...15
(at least try to answer the question instead)
So what if you have saved starving babies in Africa, you have killed babies in Africa and in other countries too.
So what if you have liberated contries and set up democracies in them, you have toppled democracies and backed military dictators too.
So what if you have saved many economies, you have ruined economies and driven nations to bankruptcy too.
Get it in your head that what you have listed doesnt give you any right whatsoever to act as if you were above the law all the rest of us has to follow.
-
Nashwan that's including directly and inderictly of starvation , disease, etc. that were mainly caused by the bombing raids is what I meant.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Hey Udie read your history books. Whatever happened to the Native Americans. The whole history of the Western US was formed on Genocide.
Never said we didn't make mistakes along the way. Native Americans have there own soil here in America and they play by special rules now. As far as I know they are pretty much free to do what ever they want (not murder) on the reservations. We also had slavery, but hey you know what? We freed them. And I guaranty that any African American here today is WAY better off than say any country in Africa today. Point is they are free today...
Also, 11 Million German civilians died thanks to the bombing raids of the Allies during WW2. Though it is understandable,not excusable, mind you, why it happened of course there were no PGMs back then like we have now so they had to resort to area bombing to reduce the war making potential of the nation.
It's totaly excusable from an American perspective. We didn't start the war, we didn't want in the war. We didn't start area bombing we used it as the tool that GERMANY turned it into to stop GERMANY from making war. Then we saved them from the Russians and helped them turn themselves in to one of, if not the most thriving democracy in Europe!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Heck if your gonna bring up the native americans and go back in history, lets dig up Europes peaceful non-violent one:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Dnil
Heck if your gonna bring up the native americans and go back in history, lets dig up Europes peaceful non-violent one:rolleyes:
hehehehehe!
-
Originally posted by Udie Native Americans have there own soil here in America and they play by special rules now. As far as I know they are pretty much free to do what ever they want (not murder) on the reservations.
A kinda interesting perspective on something called "ethnical cleansing". When Amercians do it, it is ok if the people being driven off gets to do what they want in their "new lands". If someone else tries to do it in...well..I dunno...say Serbia or Bosina, then it becomes a horrible crime and the US gets to bomb any nation of their choice to submission and enforce their will on said nation.
And btw..thanks so very /%#¤¤ much for guaranteeing an independent Bosnia, a muslim enclave with close ties to Iran and Syria is just what we wanted in the middle of Europe.
There was a reason why the EU wanted to stay out of Bosnia you know...
-
Nashwan that's including directly and inderictly of starvation , disease, etc. that were mainly caused by the bombing raids is what I meant.
I'm confused here. Weren't those deaths, and some 30 million others mainly caused by Adolph Hitler's war of agression?
No Charon they just dropped incendiary and high explosive bombs over their heads killing thousands and wiping off entire towns in one night.
Glasses, I might as well post my standard reply then try to get some work done so I can enjoy our national holiday.
A lot of what we know about the relative success or failure of any bombing approach was learned after the fact. The bombing surveys did not come out until AFTER the war. At the time, both strategic and dehousing were considered to be more successful than they were (at least directly, see ancillary benefits below). [edit: Nashwan also provided some compelling, specific examples of the impact of the bombing campaign on production in that thread] However, they were very successful in some areas (petroleum) and provided at least short-term disruption in most areas attacked -- a week, two weeks, a month -- it all added up.
The terror concept was also still alive and well [as a military philosophy], in some circles at least. Hitler, for example, seems to have held on to it longer than most with his wasteful V-weapon programs. Terror hadn't been "soundly" rejected, though it was certainly questioned.
There were a lot of ancillary factors as well:
1. You have to factor in a reduction in quality, reliability and service life with the weapons produced.
2. You have to factor in the impact on resources with having to defend the homeland. Each plane defending the homeland couldn't be used out East. Each experienced pilot killed couldn't be replaced (some claim that this aspect made the campaign successful in its own right). Even the "bombing round the clock" concept, that started as a sales pitch to save daylight bombardment, caused a increased dilution of the defense infrastructure compared to a daylight only approach. All of these factors made D-day that much easier, the Russian advance that much easier, and helped speed the end of the war.
3. The fact that we don't know what the final German production numbers would have been without the disruption, drain from relocation, death of skilled workers, and the damage of heavy equipment that couldn't be replaced or relocated. Remember too, those surging production numbers late in the war reflect, in part, Germany's belated switch to a war economy and I believe Speer's partial cleaning of up of the corruption and lack of coordination that had plagued German industry earlier. 25 fewer submarines or several hundred fewer Tigers here or there, and the war is that much shorter with fewer allied causalities.
Hindsight is great, but what's the alternative at the time? Allow unhindered production and say: "The lives of my soldiers and sailors and the life and well being of all those people living [and dying daily in great numbers] in the occupied territories is less important than the lives of German civilians who are supporting their country's war of conquest?" How do you sell that to the families of your soldiers, whose husbands and sons wouldn't even be putting their lives on the line in the first place if it wasn't for Axis aggression? In my estimation, a soldier fighting in defense or to liberate occupied lands is no less valuable than a German housewife. And hell, even in America, hardly the worst sufferer of the war, we lost over 3 "World Trade Centers" a month in war dead.
In an industrial war, one lasting half a decade, production has to be stopped. Tanks that are not made don't kill your tank crews. Torpedoes that aren't fired, because a submarine is not in existence to be on station, allow your troops and weapons to arrive where they are needed...
...I've seen similarly horrible pictures of German housewives and children killed in an air raid. That is very tragic and horrible. But I would exchange their lives, as a necessary evil, to save as many lives as possible from an unnecessary evil. I would even be fairly generous about the ratio. I would even do it if I didn't know for sure it would be 100 percent effective But strategic bombing did have, in many facets including its main purpose, more than a minor effect on the length of the war. Tragic, but not as tragic as stopping Nazi aggression as rapidly as possible.
What would you have done to end the war in the same time frame without any additional allied losses? (And remember, the bombing surveys are not compiled until after the war.) Or are the lives of additional allied soldier ok to lose in this cause, but civilians supporting the Nazi war effort totally off limits?
From my point of view, I had a grandfather who missed the first five years of my mother's life -- and, in places like North Africa, Sicily, Normandy (later, in the Pacific, Iwo Jima and Okinawa) had his life threatened many times by bombers, bombs, glide bombs, shells, submarines and torpedoes manufactured by German civilians supporting their war effort. He was a coal miner from West Virginia who had no interest in a foreign war until one was thrust upon him, and I don't really see a distinction between the value of his life and that of a civilian supporting the war effort of a regime that started the most destructive war in world history [if their deaths mean the war is shortened and the toll on the non agressors is thus reduced].
Charon
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
uh...15
(at least try to answer the question instead)
So what if you have saved starving babies in Africa, you have killed babies in Africa and in other countries too.
So what if you have liberated contries and set up democracies in them, you have toppled democracies and backed military dictators too.
So what if you have saved many economies, you have ruined economies and driven nations to bankruptcy too.
Get it in your head that what you have listed doesnt give you any right whatsoever to act as if you were above the law all the rest of us has to follow.
No get it through your head. No international court has the right to try an American, PERIOD. Never will. Don't like it? Hehe cool that makes me feel a little bit better. Basicly you can kiss our collective asses. Want to adopt our constitution and make the EU the 51st state? Then maybe we can talk, othewise keep your court to yourself. We have better laws here.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Look a Europe today. Want to win votes in France and other parts of Europe? Bash America (at least that's what the British papers and BBC say).
Charon
It's not likely to work :D
I'm shocked that BBC can say such BS :(
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And btw..thanks so very /%#¤¤ much for guaranteeing an independent Bosnia, a muslim enclave with close ties to Iran and Syria is just what we wanted in the middle of Europe.
diddly you very much hortland. America wanted no part of that either. Something about seeing people murdered and placed in camps and starved to death that makes us leap into action. learn to keep you own yard clean and maybe just maybe the good ole USofA can stop having to waste our lives cleaning up your messes. Hmmm lets see what side of the planet did all the genocide happen last century? Hmmm European side if I remember.
There was a reason why the EU wanted to stay out of Bosnia you know...
Yeah your a bunch of rutabagas who don't have a clue how to solve a problem without thousands/milliions of people dying.
You know hortland you really are a pompus amazinhunk......
[edit]
This thread has legs :D
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
A kinda interesting perspective on something called "ethnical cleansing". When Amercians do it, it is ok if the people being driven off gets to do what they want in their "new lands". If someone else tries to do it in...well..I dunno...say Serbia or Bosina, then it becomes a horrible crime and the US gets to bomb any nation of their choice to submission and enforce their will on said nation.
You are comparing the 1700s to modern day.....
-SW
-
Come on guys, debate nicely!
-
Politics
that is why the US will not subscribe to a court run by who for what?
As we have a justice system that handles our own affairs just fine. We don't need a bunch of lefty Europes judging us. But thanks anyway ...
What "crime" do you think will be first on its agenda? Israel maybe or the Pals ??? my bet is they go after Israel ....
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Politics
that is why the US will not subscribe to a court run by who for what?
As we have a justice system that handles our own affairs just fine. We don't need a bunch of lefty Europes judging us. But thanks anyway ...
What "crime" do you think will be first on its agenda? Israel maybe or the Pals ??? my bet is they go after Israel ....
Oh but Eagler they will judge us regardless ;) Hypocrites.....
-
And as for native Americans and Slavery (throw in Japanese internment as well), I make no excuses. Both are reprehensible, even for the social norms in the time frame they occurred. It is a great tragic irony that our great democratic republic was founded with the support of slavery, largely for economic reasons (the more things change...)
Now there are people who do try and excuse these things (Africans sold their brothers first... They were better off as slaves... It was a war for states rights... times were different then...), but you won’t find excuses at most of our national and local museums or school history books. And, you won't find excuses from me, or whitewashing, or some attempt to dilute the truth. Humanity is a work in progress, and it seems to be getting better all the time. Perhaps some day, it will live up to its potential.
Charon
-
Is anyone honestly equating the tragic incident in Afghanistan to a crime against humanity? I sure hope not.
We Americans are pretty stingy with our sovereignty, and while we have made mistakes we are well aware of them. We have also been the least imperialistic of any great power in the history of the world.
A World Court is just an admission of failure on the part of the Countries involved AFAIK. If you can't keep your own house clean, hire a maid. If you can't bring your own people to justice, hire a world court.
-
It's not likely to work
I'm shocked that BBC can say such BS
Straffo
When I was in London, several papers and at least one TV news segment (it might not have been BBC proper) looked at anti-americanism, particularly related to the French elections. That was a main theme. True or not, you're a better judge than I. FWIW I found some of the coverage of American issues to be, well, a bit of an odd take on American politics at first read.
Charon
-
The debate were more abut security than US bashing ...
except some not representatives party who are doing US bashing since ages ...
-
If President Wilson had stood firm in his feeling towards the unjust Versaille Treaty and not allowing it to be thrown to Germany by France and Britain at the end of WW1 then maybe during the 20s there would have not been an atmosphere by which an organization like the Nazis would have come to power in Germany thus starting WW2. So there you go it's all relative.
Considering the "Evil" German military respected the Genova convention greatly(except the SS of course) and seldom saw civilians as targets,not that they didn't bomb them they sure did ,but it being a tactical minded military they preffered to destroy the enemy in the field, (though the Blitz on London was a gamble on Churchill's part after the single JU88 bomber dropped it's bombs on the city by mistake which he took to stride to exploit the situation calling it a deliberate attack on civilians and retaliate on Germany making the volatile Hitler do the same to them and make military targets in England have a breather,it worked nicely for them at the end. :D ) they did use it as a last resort.
I do agree Udie in the fact the US had the right to attack because Hitler did declare War what he thought was complying with his "alliance" with the Japanese empire which was a defensive not an offensive alliance, an idiotic gamble that cost Germany the war and the lives of many innocent civilians, there's no doubt about that.
Udie it was excusable because they told the aircrews they were killing Nazis and no matter who you were if you were living in Germany during the period of 1933-1945 the propaganda said you were a Nazi thus the de humanization effect took stride that the Nazi propaganda used against the Jews and the Allies did to justify the mass murder of civilians, that still lives today .
The US did help to reconstruct Germany after the war but not because they were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts it was because the new enemy was the Soviet Union and in a war of propaganda like the Cold War was they had to do everything in their power to make their enemy look bad and what they hoped would stop the spread of communism through out Western Europe.The point is that it wasn't a political descision it was a sound strategy to descredit communism and descredit what the Soviet system stood for. Simple as that.
-
Originally posted by Udie
No get it through your head. No international court has the right to try an American, PERIOD. Never will. Don't like it? Hehe cool that makes me feel a little bit better. Basicly you can kiss our collective asses.
Udie... :(
Then you people ask why you are generally unpopular in the rest of the world. Paragraphs like this show a level of arrogance that will get no sympathies anywhere else. And is an arrogance shared by many of you in USA -at least what I can see from this limited point of view-.
One thing is to feel proud of your nation, another is to bash other countries because you feel proud of your nation.
Respect, in order to be respected. If you go over the world saying things like those, then don't be surprised if people don't like america as you think they should do.
Want to adopt our constitution and make the EU the 51st state? Then maybe we can talk, othewise keep your court to yourself. We have better laws here.
I repeat what I've said a lot of times. Yours is a great nation, and you have reasons to feel proud of it. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the nations are automatically WORSE than yours at anything, including laws.
You assume too much saying that "We have better laws here". What makes them so superior to, say, Spanish or British or German law?.
-
Originally posted by RRAM
Udie...
Then you people ask why you are generally unpopular in the rest of the world. Paragraphs like this show a level of arrogance that will get no sympathies anywhere else. And is an arrogance shared by many of you in USA -at least what I can see from this limited point of view-.
Well I should say that I don't like to be arrogant. But to me, when I list out the good things that my country has done for the world it's not being arrogant. It's informing a stupid European person like good old judge Hortland that America is not evil, but that we are good. I'm fully aware of the mistakes we have made in the past and that we will make them again, we are afterall human.
I repeat what I've said a lot of times. Yours is a great nation, and you have reasons to feel proud of it. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the nations are automatically WORSE than yours at anything, including laws.
I don't think any of the European nations are any worse than us. Never said that never will. I do however believe that the US has the best laws ever in the history of man. And that doesn't mean I like them all. I think we have way to many. I just haven't seen anything better in history or from my limited travel and/or limited knowledge of the world.
You assume too much saying that "We have better laws here". What makes them so superior to, say, Spanish or British or German law?.
To me as an American that statement is true, sorry buddy. I'm sure that the laws in Spain are the best to you. But to me I don't need, as Eagler put it, "Lefty Europes" judging us. Which is something I know they do already. But why should we add bite to their bark?
Sorry for the tone of my posts but Im getting tired of Euro's trashing/bashing America. We're supposed to be friends remember?
-
That's it im outa this thread......
[edit]
I need to learn to listen to myself.....
-
:eek: I agreed with Eagler!!:eek:
I think a swarm a locusts must be right around the corner.
-
If President Wilson had stood firm in his feeling towards the unjust Versailles Treaty and not allowing it to be thrown to Germany by France and Britain at the end of WW1 then maybe during the 20s there would have not been an atmosphere by which an organization like the Nazis would have come to power in Germany thus starting WW2. So there you go it's all relative.
If you look at the change in voter patterns around 1932, the shift from the SPD on the left, and from the various competitive rightist parties to the Nazi's was driven by the worldwide depression arriving in Germany more than any other factor. Many socialists either found themselves out of a job, or off the dole, making the SPD less attractive to the middle of the road supporters. Ironically, many of the Nazi's early economic successes were actually related to SPD infrastructure programs finally getting underway. As for the rightists, well, their small, stogy parties were hardly dynamic in this time of crisis, so there was a shift to the Nazis on the right. In some areas, additional issues like Versailles played well, in others the Jews, in most the Communists, factor in Hitler's personality-- but the main driver was apparently economic fear with a clear cause and effect.
So, it's not really all relative if you look at actual voter records. Versailles had been around for 15 years, the Nazis for much of that, and the electoral support shifted only when the first impacts of the great depression hit home. Try reading, among numerous academic works on the subject, "The Nazi Seizure of Power, the experience of a single German Town, 1930-1935" (updated recently to include 1935-45).
Udie it was excusable because they told the aircrews they were killing Nazis and no matter who you were if you were living in Germany during the period of 1933-1945 the propaganda said you were a Nazi thus the de humanization effect took stride that the Nazi propaganda used against the Jews and the Allies did to justify the mass murder of civilians, that still lives today.
Well, not every German was a Nazi, just most of them apparently [edit: or at least passive to active supporters].
Here is some factual information from, of all places, a revisionist Web site. Still, the material is verifiable.
THE FUHRER’S SWEEPING ELECTORAL VICTORIES
The election on July 31st 1932 was a victory for the National Socialists. They polled 13,574,000 votes and with 38% of the total votes cast legitimately and democratically became the largest Party in the Reichstag with 230 seats. The Social Democrats had 133 seats and the Communists 89. On January 30th, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany.
At the polls of March, 5th, the NSDAP polled 17,277,180 votes; an increase of 5.5 million bringing their voting percentage up to 44% which when placed in coalition with the Nationalists led by Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg who had polled 3,136,760 votes, showed an overwhelming majority of Germans had in free and open elections made their preference for German nationalism clear.
Immediately after his appointment as Chancellor, Adolf Hitler in his first appeal to the German nation on February 1st 1933 asked to be allowed just four years in order to carry out the task of national reconstruction. He repeated the same request when a few days later, when at a speech in the Berlin Sportpalast, he said:
ONE CHOICE – THE PEOPLES CHOICE
"During fourteen years the German nation has been at the mercy of decadent elements which have abused its confidence. During fourteen years those elements have done nothing but destroy, disintegrate and dissolve. Hence it is neither temerity nor presumption if, appearing before the nation today, I ask: German nation, give us four years time, after which you can arraign us before your tribunal and you can judge me! Allow me four years, and I swear to you, as truly as I have now undertaken my duties, I will depart. It is not for any reward or benefit that I have taken office, but only for your sake. It has been the greatest decision of my whole life.
I cannot rid myself of my faith in my people, nor lose the conviction that this people will resuscitate again one day. I cannot be severed from the love of a people that I know to be my own. And I nourish the conviction that the hour will come when millions of men who now curse us will take their stand behind us to welcome the new Reich, our common creation born of a painful and laborious struggle and an arduous triumph - a Reich which is the symbol of greatness, honour, strength, honesty and justice."
True to his word, on March 29th 1936, the German nation was given as promised the opportunity to express their approval or disapproval of the National Socialist state. It was an entirely free election without fear or intimidation with adequate provision made for monitoring by neutral observers.
THE GERMAN NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS MARCH 29th 1936
TOTAL QUALIFIED VOTES 45,453,691
TOTAL VOTES CAST 45,001,489 99.0%
VOTES 'NO' OR INVALID 540,211
VOTES FOR HITLER'S NSDAP 44,461,278
98.8%
Now Hitler did work to solidify power after 1932 [edit: thus the rise of the first concentration camps, and it was a proactive move from an employment standpoint to be an active supporter of the Nazi party during the 1930s], but there is plenty of primary source and secondary source research that seems to support the "free" nature [edit: general, free support based on Nazi "successes"] of the 1936 elections. Hitler was the man with the plan who was delivering the goods. Unfortunately, most of his supporters seem to have overlooked the passages in Mein Kampf where he talked about a colonial homeland in the East. If there was a victim of nazi-related propaganda, I would have to say it was the German people, and not the bomber crews.
Charon
-
"It's informing a stupid European person like good old judge Hortland that America is not evil, but that we are good."
The average American is good, but our current leadership fails the test, chimpy is the perfect example of "do as I say....not as I do."
With a toejamhead like him setting policy it's no wonder that anti-american sentiment is reaching new heights.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
:eek: I agreed with Eagler!!:eek:
I think a swarm a locusts must be right around the corner.
Repent! :)
bout the only thing that unites our Country, if only for a few months, is a threat from outside its border
same for the world, we need some mean E.T.'s for us to get our act together globally :)
-
Originally posted by weazel
"It's informing a stupid European person like good old judge Hortland that America is not evil, but that we are good."
The average American is good, but our current leadership fails the test, chimpy is the perfect example of "do as I say....not as I do."
With a toejamhead like him setting policy it's no wonder that anti-american sentiment is reaching new heights.
hehe , I think weazel is against the court, not sure
Go Chimpy!!!! :)
-
No crime will be considered BEFORE July 1st,2002 when the court opened. It's purpose is to investigate and launch criminal proceedings against countries that will not or does not have the means to prosecute.
I find it un-f@@@ing believable that we (American gov) feel we can demand justice for crimes against humanity in countries across the world when we will not hold ourselves to the same standard.
You can't read the future and in no way can you know that in the future some American wouldn't fall underneath this type of crime. I can think of a couple 1st hand accounts (not mine mind you) from Vietnam where US authorities did not prosecute flagrant crimes.
This our way or the highway is f@@@ing ridiculous and I for one hope our allies tell us, " Hey enough of your double standard roadkill, get out of our business". You'll have what you want then. A 1930's leave us alone America. If anyone's a pompous prettythang it's ppl that subscribe to this type of belief that are the problem.
Why does history repeat itself? Because of dumbprettythanges that think, oh no that could never happen here, not us, we wouldn't do that and their blind eye opens one day after the fact to realize they created the dam problem.
-
"A 1930's leave us alone America. If anyone's a pompous bellybutton it's ppl that subscribe to this type of belief ..."
I'm a pompuss bellybutton by your definition
nice f-wording there too
:rolleyes:
-
It's purpose is to investigate and launch criminal proceedings against countries that will not or does not have the means to prosecute.
Thanks, then there is no need for us to participate.
-
Originally posted by Udie
diddly you very much hortland. America wanted no part of that either. Something about seeing people murdered and placed in camps and starved to death that makes us leap into action. learn to keep you own yard clean and maybe just maybe the good ole USofA can stop having to waste our lives cleaning up your messes. Hmmm lets see what side of the planet did all the genocide happen last century? Hmmm European side if I remember.
[/b]
Udie, if you wanted no part of Bosnia or Kosovo, then why did you come over here in the first place? I have one name for you: Madeleine Albright. As I tried to say, the EU did not want to get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo for various reasons. Just like the US does not want to get involved in the current India-Pakistan conflict. Apparently this is something you might not want to admit, nevertheless it is true.
And seriously Udie what kind of quote is this:
Something about seeing people murdered and placed in camps and starved to death that makes us leap into action.
Once again we return to the plight of the Native Americans. You should read up on your own history Udie. Hypocritical? Apparently not, after all it was so long ago. Well, what about the camps you guys built for your Japanese citizens in 42 was it? Could that qualify as being placed in a camp? I guess not huh?
So apparently Americans doesnt like seeing people get murdered or placed in camps. Yet America did not lift a finger when Rwanda lost its mind and killed itself a couple of years ago. How many killed was that? 1 000 000? Who went in there to try to stop the slaughter? The Belgians and the French. The US however, for some reason you might want to explain to me, chose to stay out of that one. As well as Zaire/Congo too.
Yeah your a bunch of rutabagas who don't have a clue how to solve a problem without thousands/milliions of people dying.
[/b]
Well, perhaps our idea of problem solving is a bit more complicated than "send in the cruise missiles and blow them all up". The problem with the US and what you did in Bosnia and Kosovo was that you guys went in, gunz blazing. But (as usual) you really dont have a clue what to do after the smoke has cleared. When you go in like that, you create lots of hate, lots of misery, and lots of damage. Then you sail back to your side of the pond and look for the next target. Meanwhile, we are stuck here with clearing out the mess you left behind.
Next time just leave us the /&%#¤ alone.
You know hortland you really are a pompus amazinhunk......
And you Udie, are a very nice gentleman. I thank you for your thoughtful inputs to this discussion, and I hope that you will some day let me buy you a beer.
-
Eagler I figured if Udie went their I might as well too.
And yes I think that describes you to a T. Are you sure you aren't Jerry Falwell? I say post a pic to prove it.
:D
-
Originally posted by Udie
No get it through your head. No international court has the right to try an American, PERIOD. Never will. Don't like it? Hehe cool that makes me feel a little bit better. Basicly you can kiss our collective asses. Want to adopt our constitution and make the EU the 51st state? Then maybe we can talk, othewise keep your court to yourself. We have better laws here.
Udie, just out of curiosity. When you invade Afghanistan and ship off their citizens to the US and put them on trial for various crimes. What right do you base that on? Just the right of the strong? But isnt that kinda dangerous, because if you claim the right of the strong, what then would give you any right to object when someone like Saddam Hussein does the same thing?
As for what country has the best laws, I suspect everyone feels their country have the superior laws. You can keep your constitution, and we will keep ours ok? And thanks for the offer, but I think we have it pretty good over here in Europe, and I'd much rather keep things the way they are here. (and for some weird reason, most of the world doesnt hate Europe. Maybe we are doing somethings right)
-
There was a reason why the EU wanted to stay out of Bosnia you know...
Yeah, the same reason Chamberlain turned Checzoslovakia over to Hitler. You figured if you closed your eyes maybe all the "bad stuff" would just go away.
In your own back yard.
-
......
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And you Udie, are a very nice gentleman. I thank you for your thoughtful inputs to this discussion, and I hope that you will some day let me buy you a beer.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Udie, if you wanted no part of Bosnia or Kosovo, then why did you come over here in the first place? I have one name for you: Madeleine Albright. As I tried to say, the EU did not want to get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo for various reasons. Just like the US does not want to get involved in the current India-Pakistan conflict. Apparently this is something you might not want to admit, nevertheless it is true.
Of course you didn't want to get envolved you guys appear to have no problem with genocide on your turf... That's why we got in, that and to cover slick willie's arse.
And seriously Udie what kind of quote is this:
Something about seeing people murdered and placed in camps and starved to death that makes us leap into action.
Once again we return to the plight of the Native Americans. You should read up on your own history Udie. Hypocritical? Apparently not, after all it was so long ago. Well, what about the camps you guys built for your Japanese citizens in 42 was it? Could that qualify as being placed in a camp? I guess not huh?
Yeah we did the Indians wrong. Yup we put the japanese in camps. A few generations ago we made up with the native Americans and started actually respecting the reservations we put them on. Now they have their own rules to play by. You also may remember that we let the Japanese go after the war and paid them reperations. I'm still looking for the millions of graves over here from the GENOCIDE, oops it didn't happen. That kind of stuff goes on where you are at.
So apparently Americans doesnt like seeing people get murdered or placed in camps. Yet America did not lift a finger when Rwanda lost its mind and killed itself a couple of years ago. How many killed was that? 1 000 000? Who went in there to try to stop the slaughter? The Belgians and the French. The US however, for some reason you might want to explain to me, chose to stay out of that one. As well as Zaire/Congo too.
Ask president Clinton why not. There were plenty of us here that believed we should have been in Africa er... .wait we are there now and have been for 50 years or so. It's called the pease corps it's called missionaries. Where is Sweden? Again, exactly what countries has your country helped? I can think of none...
Well, perhaps our idea of problem solving is a bit more complicated than "send in the cruise missiles and blow them all up". The problem with the US and what you did in Bosnia and Kosovo was that you guys went in, gunz blazing. But (as usual) you really dont have a clue what to do after the smoke has cleared. When you go in like that, you create lots of hate, lots of misery, and lots of damage. Then you sail back to your side of the pond and look for the next target. Meanwhile, we are stuck here with clearing out the mess you left behind.
F&ck you dude you don't know what the hell you are talking about. We've been cleaning up your dead bodies for about 89 to 90 years now.
Next time just leave us the /&%#¤ alone.
Believe me I wish we would. As far as I'm concerned people like you deserve to rot in the hell on earth that your hemisphere keeps inflicting upon this planet. Lucky for you though we have enough friends on that side of the planet and we love life too much to let you guys destroy it. I'm still trying to think of which world war was started over here. So go back to living in your security that was provided by the blood sweat and tears of my country. Your welcome.
And you Udie, are a very nice gentleman. I thank you for your thoughtful inputs to this discussion, and I hope that you will some day let me buy you a beer. [/QUOTE]
Absolutely not. I would poor said beer on top of your head and tell you to get the hell away from me.
-
Let's see :)
Originally posted by Udie
Sorry for the tone of my posts but Im getting tired of Euro's trashing/bashing America. We're supposed to be friends remember?
Hummmm, Udie, from what I see, what Hortlund is making is not Trashing America, but just being critic with it. I think that americans in general don't take well direct critics about USA, and feel trashed if we do emphasize some defects your nation MAY have (I'm not saying hortlund's right or not, I'm talking about a more wide view here; in the 30 months that I've been around here, this is what I see ;)).
I won't talk on Hortlund's name here, but in mine. Yes, Euros and americans are friends and have been for a long while. And this is as much as for historical reasons, as, (like someone said not that long ago in this same board) because USA and europe go hand by hand in so many things that we can't simply allow ourselves get angry at each others :). We all live in our own countries, but we live in a world so we have to deal with the rest of it, is a law of life :).
Now, it's a fact that we are friends, and that most of Europe owes USA a debt of honor for what you did here in WWII (and,yes, I said "most" and not "all"....Remember, Spain owes not too much to USA, after all Franco stayed until 1975 only because american support :). Still I think that your intervention was basical for the freedom we live in today).
Agreeing on that point, you must understand now, that our generation lives in today's world,that Hitler died 57 years ago, and that communist Russia is gone since more or less 15 years ago (Since Glasnost until today). That means that from this point forward, those things will be part of the PAST for the youth of today.
People may know that once upon a time you helped europe. But people live in TODAY's world, not constantly remembering the world of 50 years ago. After all, human people have a limited memory on that regard. Today we live in a different world than that of 20 years ago...you can't live with your eyes put on what you did in the past.
Today you're the most powerful nation in the world, a nation with lots of good things, and with no less bad ones (as any nation in this world :)), but overall a nation to respect and in certain matters to admire. You've got the economic heart of the world, and most of the political power in this planet is in your side of the pond...
but that -IMHO- doesn't mean you're OVER the international community. By refusing to being part of the international jury being formed at this point, you're telling the world that you, as a nation, and your people, as citizens of it, are OVER the rest of the international community.
This has nothing to do with history ,or with who did what in the past...this is something wich has a meaning in TODAY's world. With this measure you're separating yourselfs from the rest of the world. You live in a community but you don't want to live by the rules the rest of it lives by.
And that is something that can't be done, IMO. And here is the heart of the matter for me. Is a tendence I'm seeing again since some time ago...you're closing into your own nation once again. You're isolating yourself from the rest of the world, just like you did some years ago. You are once again closing into your own greatness, forgetting you're part of a bigger world.
But this ain't no 20-30's...we live in 2002 and the consecuences of falling in the same error may be much bigger than what they were 70 years ago....Learn the past not to repeat it in the future. You're part of a big proud nation, but even part of a bigger world...
if you forget that, then we're in for a big problem :(.
That's my take on this matter...and this is how I see it. Mind you, I'm not american and I'm just 24...so you might disregard this as a kid's opinion :)...but ,well, this is what I think.
-
Originally posted by RRAM
Let's see :)
Hummmm, Udie, from what I see, what Hortlund is making is not Trashing America, but just being critic with it. I think that americans in general don't take well direct critics about USA, and feel trashed if we do emphasize some defects your nation MAY have
Kinda like Spaniards with professional Soccer players eh? :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Kinda like Spaniards with professional Soccer players eh? :D
:D
now, stay on topic!!! :D
-
Holy Hell, that's the most single respectful and down right truthful post that I have ever read out of you RRAM.
Bravo!
-
Originally posted by RRAM
Let's see :)
Hummmm, Udie, from what I see, what Hortlund is making is not Trashing America, but just being critic with it. I think that americans in general don't take well direct critics about USA, and feel trashed if we do emphasize some defects your nation MAY have (I'm not saying hortlund's right or not, I'm talking about a more wide view here; in the 30 months that I've been around here, this is what I see ;)).
I won't talk on Hortlund's name here, but in mine. Yes, Euros and americans are friends and have been for a long while. And this is as much as for historical reasons, as, (like someone said not that long ago in this same board) because USA and europe go hand by hand in so many things that we can't simply allow ourselves get angry at each others :). We all live in our own countries, but we live in a world so we have to deal with the rest of it, is a law of life :).
Now, it's a fact that we are friends, and that most of Europe owes USA a debt of honor for what you did here in WWII (and,yes, I said "most" and not "all"....Remember, Spain owes not too much to USA, after all Franco stayed until 1975 only because american support :). Still I think that your intervention was basical for the freedom we live in today).
Agreeing on that point, you must understand now, that our generation lives in today's world,that Hitler died 57 years ago, and that communist Russia is gone since more or less 15 years ago (Since Glasnost until today). That means that from this point forward, those things will be part of the PAST for the youth of today.
People may know that once upon a time you helped europe. But people live in TODAY's world, not constantly remembering the world of 50 years ago. After all, human people have a limited memory on that regard. Today we live in a different world than that of 20 years ago...you can't live with your eyes put on what you did in the past.
Today you're the most powerful nation in the world, a nation with lots of good things, and with no less bad ones (as any nation in this world :)), but overall a nation to respect and in certain matters to admire. You've got the economic heart of the world, and most of the political power in this planet is in your side of the pond...
but that -IMHO- doesn't mean you're OVER the international community. By refusing to being part of the international jury being formed at this point, you're telling the world that you, as a nation, and your people, as citizens of it, are OVER the rest of the international community.
This has nothing to do with history ,or with who did what in the past...this is something wich has a meaning in TODAY's world. With this measure you're separating yourselfs from the rest of the world. You live in a community but you don't want to live by the rules the rest of it lives by.
And that is something that can't be done, IMO. And here is the heart of the matter for me. Is a tendence I'm seeing again since some time ago...you're closing into your own nation once again. You're isolating yourself from the rest of the world, just like you did some years ago. You are once again closing into your own greatness, forgetting you're part of a bigger world.
But this ain't no 20-30's...we live in 2002 and the consecuences of falling in the same error may be much bigger than what they were 70 years ago....Learn the past not to repeat it in the future. You're part of a big proud nation, but even part of a bigger world...
if you forget that, then we're in for a big problem :(.
That's my take on this matter...and this is how I see it. Mind you, I'm not american and I'm just 24...so you might disregard this as a kid's opinion :)...but ,well, this is what I think.
WHEW now that is refreshing :) Thanks for posting this. After a quick read I don't see anything that I would contradict in your post RAM :) You are right about TODAY's world. One thing to remember about our world today is that there are a LOT of people/countries out there that HATE the USA and what we stand for. They will use any tool at their disposal to get at us and hurt us. This would be a HUGE tool for them that IMO we can not let them have. Remember not one month after 9/11 the USA was voted off the UN human rights commitee and SYRIA was voted on in our place. That right there tells me all I need to know.
Like I said earlier, this may be arrogant and I'm sorry if it is, adopt our constitution and laws and maybe we can talk about this international court. As it stands now it's no good from our (USA) viewpoint. Why should we be forced to agree to something we disagree with? Where's the democracy in that?
and for the record I'm sorry about Franco......
-
Originally posted by Udie
Well in that vain, what gives you the right to even come here and post? I'll tell you what gives us the right, the FACT that we kept 1/2 of Europe and the 80% of the rest of the world from emploding for 60+ years. You don't like it? Tough toejam buddy build your own army and kick ours out :)
[/b]
Fine Udie, gloves are off.
To answer your post I think I'm gonna divide it in segments.
First, I fail to see the connection between me posting on the internet and US troops entering Afghanistan capturing terrorists. Perhaps you could elaborate on that one a bit further?
Anyway, so I asked you what gives you the right to invade Afghanistan and ship off their citizens to the US and put them on trial for various crimes. Your answer to this is: "the FACT that we kept 1/2 of Europe and the 80% of the rest of the world from emploding for 60+ years"
A "normal" answer would be somewhere along the lines of "The Afghan government was harboring and aiding terrorist organizations, these organizations has carried out a series of attacks against the US, and against US interests all over the world. We therefore claim the right to self defence against these terrorists and anyone aiding them or protecting them".
But no, to you Udie, the fact that the US "kept half of Europe and 80% of the rest of the world from "emploding" gives you that right. I interpret this as "we have the right of the strong"
There weren't over 100 million murders/ war deaths on my hemisphere of the planet last century.
[/b]
So what? How many war dead in western europe since the creation of the EU? And during the past century you have probably alot more deaths on your side of the pond just counting your homicide statistics.
Last thing the US needs is people like you sitting in judgement over us. Of course you'll do it anyway as is the nature of a hypocrite.
[/b]
Do you actually understand what the word hypocrite means? Because it is painfully obvious to everyone reading this thread that the only hypocrite in this conversation is you.
As for the moral high ground, you are damn right that we in Europe have the moral high ground. I suppose that is pissing you off somewhat. That and the classical american inferiority complex.
Pretty easy to sit back and critisize the one country that has tried to help in most of the trouble spots in the world. Why don't you put up or shut up?
[/b]
This would actually be extremely funny if it wasnt so tragic. I suppose you are just another victim of the combination of poor education and an image of the world created by cnn. Do you actually believe that the motivation for what the US has done since 1945 has been charity? Let me make a list for you Udie. You tell me which ones of these countries you went into out of the goodness of your hearts, and which ones you went into out of pure econimic interests or other self interests.
Korea
Taiwan
Vietnam
Cambodia
Laos
Nicaragua
Chile
Kosovo/Serbia
Bosnia
Sudan
Somalia
Iraq
Iran
Kuweit
Libya
Lebanon
El Salvador
Grenada
Panama
Cuba
Honduras
I can look at each of my paycheck stubs for my whole working career and see the money that I personaly have paid to make the world a better place. I'd like to go do something hands on to help the world but I have to work and earn a living so I can survive in this world. I can look at my family members who served and went and actually hands on helped people. You on the otherhand can sit there and squeak about stuff that somebody else had the balls enough to try and fix the worlds problems. You will sit there and squeak and moan and groan if we do nothing, then you will turn around and moan and groan about what we do when we finaly get tired of hearing your pompass whining. In short screw you and the horse you rode in on. You want to try and help fix the problems we'll listen to you. If your going to squeak about what we're doing to actually help, f%ck you.
[/b]
Mostly incoherent ramblings here, not much to comment.
And why the /%¤ would we want to help you with whatever problems you have when you have some screwed "we have the God given right to do whatever we please, so *¤&¤ you all" -attitude
When we envade Afganistan we do it to protect OUR nation because there are alot of people there that want to kill us.
[/b]
Well, Im not complaining, I have no sympathy for the arabs. But if you are going to invade every country because there are alot of people there who wants to kill you, you should start with France.
If inocent people get killed, well I'm truely sorry but they shouldn't have let the evil mother f$ckers take control of their country, oh wait that's America's fault too.
[/b]
Sometimes Udie, the world is a little bit more complex than that.
The keep the terrorist/enemy combatants/POW's what ever you want to call them at Gitmo so they won't kill us anymore. Who knows what will happen to them? I really don't care, they want me dead so I want the same for them.
[/b]
As I said, I have no problem with the US invading Afghanistan and shipping off the terrorists to Gitmo. What I do have a problem with is the hypocricy of your statements about what right you have to do that. I think the US has the right to obliterate pretty much any country in the mid east that supports or harbors terrorists. I dont think this is a God given right to americans though. I think the US has the right to self defence, just as every country has. But I also think that the US needs to follow the laws, just as every other country does.
Well you know I don't see them banging down the doors to get into your country. That tells me something...... Oh and get your stinkin UN out of my country......
You have to start watching the news or something. We have like 1000 Africans trying to cross the straits of Gibraltar every week. We have hundreds of immigrants stopped every day between Italy and Albania.
And it is not my UN, its yours. Well you are the ones who were the driving force behind creating it anyway.
-
Sorry Hortlund, there ain't no way in hell that we have more deaths related to our "homicides" than Europe.
Sure, we killed a lot of Indians... but of course, when you look at those times- those were the times of conquest and conquer. So you are basically comparing apples to bananas.
In the '40s alone, Germany erradicated well over 6 million jews. We may have killed that many Indians, I dunno the exact figure... but this was in 1940s compared to the 1700s. We definitely killed far more of ourselves during our Civil War than we did Native Americans, or the African slaves we had...
I hardly doubt we have more homicide deaths in our own country than Europe does since it's creation.. unless you are counting the Civil War... but even then I'm willing to bet we don't even come close to Europe.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Udie
Where is Sweden? Again, exactly what countries has your country helped? I can think of none...
[/b]
LOL, that is probably because you would not be able to point out Sweden on a map. :D (hint it is not the place with the alps and the chocholade)
F&ck you dude you don't know what the hell you are talking about. We've been cleaning up your dead bodies for about 89 to 90 years now.
[/b]
You should make a list of priorities. Nr 1 on that list should be "get an education".
As far as I'm concerned people like you deserve to rot in the hell on earth that your hemisphere keeps inflicting upon this planet. Lucky for you though we have enough friends on that side of the planet and we love life too much to let you guys destroy it.
[/b]
Because if there is one thing we can trust the US with, it is our environment, after all the Kyoto accoard proved that...uh..no wait..
So go back to living in your security that was provided by the blood sweat and tears of my country. Your welcome.
[/b]
Yeah, back to the history books Udie, why dont you count how many times the US has saved or protected Sweden.
-
I gotta agree with Hortland on one point. Udie, it is painful watching you try and debate something. You are all over the place and are not very concise with your points. I make is very hard to understand what you are trying to say. Please, pickup a book on critical thought and logic, or somethng.
PS: Yeah, what RAM said.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yeah, back to the history books Udie, why dont you count how many times the US has saved or protected Sweden. [/B]
I hardly doubt Hitler would of stopped conquering lands if he had taken Britain. He had a non-aggression pact with Russia, look how long that lasted.
-SW
-
Yeah, back to the history books Udie, why dont you count how many times the US has saved or protected Sweden.
Is this the same Sweden that declared neutrality in WW2?
Or is this the one that stood up to Hitler and put its men into harm's way?
Oh wait, sorry, I remember now. It's the first one.
-
If Sweden fell off the planet, would the world even notice? Sure no more meatballs or Volvo's but hey I like Italian versions better anyway.
What has Sweden given anyone? Other then weapons to fight wars? Nice to sit on the sidelines and watch everyone else get involved.
-
You know hor, I could waste another hour of my day responding to this. But you are an amazinhunk and I think I'll waste my time working rather than talking to some jerk.
I'll just leave it at this. You don't like the USA being all powerful? Fine get up off your bellybutton and change it. Until then shut up because what you think don't mean toejam, even if it smells like it...
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I gotta agree with Hortland on one point. Udie, it is painful watching you try and debate something. You are all over the place and are not very concise with your points. I make is very hard to understand what you are trying to say
that's because I'm pissed off at hort....
-
Originally posted by Dnil
If Sweden fell off the planet, would the world even notice? Sure no more meatballs or Volvo's but hey I like Italian versions better anyway.
What has Sweden given anyone? Other then weapons to fight wars? Nice to sit on the sidelines and watch everyone else get involved.
See thrawn Dnil understood my ramblings :D
-
Attempting civility..... so back off!! ;)
The USA's refusal to join the World Court stems not from recent history, but from our roots. We started out as a breakaway republic from European colonization, and those feelings of freedom and "never again" still run pretty strong here. We set a policy very early in our existance of fighting any control by foreign powers. The war of 1812 was started for this very reason, and believe me, in 1812 fighting a war with England was pretty foolhardy. (even though we won Thrawn ;) )
The Monroe Doctrine extended this policy to our entire hemisphere. We failed to join the League of Nations (an American's Idea) because of this. We have never been very trusting souls about sovereignty. Now maybe this is passe', and maybe we are just wrong, but I will guarantee the US will never abdicate sovereignty over ourselves to anyone ever.
-
nevermind.....
-
Originally posted by Udie
WHEW now that is refreshing :) Thanks for posting this. After a quick read I don't see anything that I would contradict in your post RAM :) You are right about TODAY's world. One thing to remember about our world today is that there are a LOT of people/countries out there that HATE the USA and what we stand for. They will use any tool at their disposal to get at us and hurt us. This would be a HUGE tool for them that IMO we can not let them have. Remember not one month after 9/11 the USA was voted off the UN human rights commitee and SYRIA was voted on in our place. That right there tells me all I need to know.
Hummmm well, as far as I can say, the international court will have power over international issues as Crimes against the humanity, international terrorism, international criminal organizations, etc.
Not over internal issues, which will still be treated by each nation by itself. I don't see, either, where is sovereignty abdicated in this thing. Its HIGHLY unlikely that any kind of genocide ,crime against the humanity ,etc, will happen in the USA, so in fact you're not giving up anything at all in that sense.
I simply can't see the reason of the dispute here. With this international court there would be no arguing at all about human rights, US treatment of al-qaeda prisoners, etc...in fact I'd say it would be better for the international image of USA.
But that's just me :)
Like I said earlier, this may be arrogant and I'm sorry if it is, adopt our constitution and laws and maybe we can talk about this international court. As it stands now it's no good from our (USA) viewpoint. Why should we be forced to agree to something we disagree with? Where's the democracy in that?
Udie, the US constitution has little to do with this AFAIK, as the laws of any of our countries. We're talking about an INTERNATIONAL jury which is intended to deal with INTERNATIONAL crimes...at least that is the way I understand it. Maybe I'm wrong, tho.
so you'll keep on judging your people in your country, we do judge our people in ours, etc...
the only instance of people sent to this new court would be someone who's commited crimes against the humanity or who's part of an international terrorist organization...which as far as concerns me SHOULD be trialled by an international court anyway.
and for the record I'm sorry about Franco......
Past things belong to the past. Only a stupid would have a real problem with US supporting Franco 27 years ago. I got some family lost to franquism, but that is past, and today's USA is different from that USA, as today's Spain is different from that Spain :).
-
Originally posted by koala
Is this the same Sweden that declared neutrality in WW2?
Or is this the one that stood up to Hitler and put its men into harm's way?
Oh wait, sorry, I remember now. It's the first one.
No, actually its worse than that. It is more like
"Sweden who almost joined the war on the German side in 1941, and who let German troops move through Sweden, and who sold Iron ore to Germany all through the war"
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
No, actually its worse than that. It is more like
"Sweden who almost joined the war on the German side in 1941, and who let German troops move through Sweden, and who sold Iron ore to Germany all through the war"
and who bought gold fillings that the Nazi's pulled from the mouths of dead Jews? Same Sweden right?
that's what I though......
yeah America is bad.... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Udie
that's because I'm pissed off at hort....
Understood.
Originally posted by midnight Target
(even though we won Thrawn )
Curses!
-
Originally posted by Udie
and who bought gold fillings that the Nazi's pulled from the mouths of dead Jews? Same Sweden right?
that's what I though......
Nope, Udie, that was Switzerland ,not sweden...
and even when they knew it was gold coming from the plunder carried against the Jews, I really doubt they did knew about the Nazi concentration and extermination camps...so about the gold pulled from the Jews' teeths...well, I wouldn't say that.
-
Hmmm, was that Americans that killed of the Native Americans? ... or was it English, French, Spanish etc?
Be careful about what you through around glasses ;)
Originally posted by Glasses
Hey Udie read your history books. Whatever happened to the Native Americans. The whole history of the Western US was formed on Genocide.
Also, 11 Million German civilians died thanks to the bombing raids of the Allies during WW2. Though it is understandable,not excusable, mind you, why it happened of course there were no PGMs back then like we have now so they had to resort to area bombing to reduce the war making potential of the nation.
-
The problem is who determines its a crime against humanity. Say the Judges just happen to not like the USA this week and decide that the accident in afghanistan was a crime. So they try to pick up the crew and put them on trial.
Thats the problem for the US. now maybe the euros are used to people running through their country every once and awhile and its no big deal. but it is here. Having some Judges rule over US citizens with no US say so a big NO-NO. Kinda like no taxation without representation.
-
I think except for nations whose residents or government are at war against the US, we should bring all of our troops home.
We'll keep Mexico and Canada in line, and the rest of yall can take care of your neighbors. Have fun. I'm sure your court will have plenty of business.
Just don't start throwing nukes at each other because the hammer WILL come down.
Toodles.
-
RAM,
Answer me this. What's wrong with the system that's in place now? We tried the nazi's, Sloberdan Melochovich (misspelled on purpose) is on trial. You want to unite the left and the right in America? This is a quick way to do it :)
Read Tahgut's last post. It's to the point and says it all in a couple of sentences. Much better than I can in my irrational/irate state that Im in today. (don't ya just love bad days at work :D)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Hmmm, was that Americans that killed of the Native Americans? ... or was it English, French, Spanish etc?
Be careful about what you through around glasses ;)
Just an off-topic here...
Vulcan, the french were renowned for their good relations with the natives in america :)
Not like the spanish, tho... :(
-
Originally posted by Udie
and who bought gold fillings that the Nazi's pulled from the mouths of dead Jews? Same Sweden right?
that's what I though......[edit] er... well RAM just corrected me :o Switzerland..... Sweden..... they're all the same ;)
yeah America is bad.... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by funkedup
We'll keep Mexico and Canada in line, and the rest of yall can take care of your neighbors.
Now, what the fuk is that supposed to mean.
Don't see any nations cursing my country. Canada is working with the other nations of the international community to make the world a better place. The US is being completely unilateral in doing the opposite.
We play well with others, the US is the country that needs to get in line.
-
Originally posted by Udie
RAM,
Answer me this. What's wrong with the system that's in place now? We tried the nazi's, Sloberdan Melochovich (misspelled on purpose) is on trial. You want to unite the left and the right in America? This is a quick way to do it :)
What's wrong with it?. Nothing, I guess...
But what I sai, is that to trial an international criminal in an international jury is better. By many reasons, but the most evindent one is because is a way to say that the criminal is not only trialled by those who captured him, but by EVERYONE in the world who takes part in that trial.
Is to present an UNITED front against international criminals ,terrorists, genocides, etc. There's nothing wrong in each nation to trial the criminals they capture on their own...
it is just...that this is better. At least I think is better.
Read Tahgut's last post. It's to the point and says it all in a couple of sentences. Much better than I can in my irrational/irate state that Im in today. (don't ya just love bad days at work :D)
Tahgut's point is that you don't want to surrender your sovereignty...and with this court, you won't. At least up to where my understanding of what it is, you won't.
So, where's the problem?...I honestly can't see it. :).
(About your irate state...LOL tell me...remember I'm a hot blooded spaniard, so I understand your anger perfectly...been there lots of times, done that lots of times too :D)
-
Thrawn,
What I mean is that UN and NATO always want the USA to come and babysit their unstable neighbors and protect them from boogeymen. But then out of their other mouth the cry that we are interfering around the world blaah blaaah blaaaaaaaaah. And now they want a court so they can judge us if we screw up when they cry for help.
Instead of this, I propose that USA take responsibility for our neighbors, and UN/NATO/EU take care of their own neighbors.
USA's region of responsibility would therefore shrink to Mexico, Canada, and various islands.
-
Passing strange that most of the US's allies don't have problem with the world court.
I think that secretly you guys are worried that they'll did up Kissenger and put him before this court.
-
Canada is working with the other nations of the international community to make the world a better place. The US is being completely unilateral in doing the opposite.
NM my previous post, yer fuggin clueless.
-
// french US bashin mode on ...
When I think of USA I wonder why we didn't help the Brit in 1776 ...
Don't shot it's a troll !!! ;)
-
Originally posted by straffo
// french US bashin mode on ...
When I think of USA I wonder why we didn't help the Brit in 1776 ...
Don't shot it's a troll !!! ;)
Oh yeah?! Well, I saw the movie Patriot and you guys only sent one fat dude! He kept saying "vait unteel my countrymen arive!" But they never did! What the hell kind of help is that?! :D
-
don't have seen the patriot ... it's a comedie ? ;)
btw the best french help was Jean Reno in Godzilla :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
don't have seen the patriot ... it's a comedie ? ;)
btw the best french help was Jean Reno in Godzilla :D
Oh jeez so now Godzilla is America's fault too! We can't do anything right! :D
-
rotflmoa :)
It's because we explained the "how to diddly thing fast" first :p
-
The EU may not have wanted to get involved in Bosnia, but last I heard France and England did (not to mention quite a few non-european countries). Quite frankly the US was essential because they have most of all the guns.
Although a 'world court' would appear to be a good idea, there is a good argument to be had over sovereignty and the courts ability to be independant of that sovereignty. The willingness of certain countries to abide by the courts ruling and the ability to enforce their rulings ESPECIALLY over the more truculent signees, this does include the western powers.
Tronsky
-
udie, when was the last time you was on a reservation? maybe you should visit one. they aint all that pleasant.
-
Originally posted by krazyhorse
udie, when was the last time you was on a reservation? maybe you should visit one. they aint all that pleasant.
No idea...
btw I'm like 1/8th Indian :)
-
Most of the reservations around here are now casinos.
-
actualy midnite , the casino's are on the reservations not the reservation itself, you'd be suprised how many on the reservation do not have indoor plumbing or electricity, and good for you udie, being 1/8 indian. i'm not going into bloodlines just telling ya reservations aint all that great.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
NM my previous post, yer fuggin clueless.
No, yer fuggin clueless.
-
Originally posted by krazyhorse
udie, when was the last time you was on a reservation? maybe you should visit one. they aint all that pleasant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea...
btw I'm like 1/8th Indian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heh Udie your lucky. What about the other 7/8s?
Me Im part French, part Chinese, Mostly Vietmamese. I aint go no reservations. Wheres mine?
:)
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Hey Udie read your history books. Whatever happened to the Native Americans. The whole history of the Western US was formed on Genocide.
Also, 11 Million German civilians died thanks to the bombing raids of the Allies during WW2. Though it is understandable,not excusable, mind you, why it happened of course there were no PGMs back then like we have now so they had to resort to area bombing to reduce the war making potential of the nation.
So put Custer and a bunch of WW2 Generals on Trial... go ahead, really :D
-
Originally posted by krazyhorse
actualy midnite , the casino's are on the reservations not the reservation itself, you'd be suprised how many on the reservation do not have indoor plumbing or electricity, and good for you udie, being 1/8 indian. i'm not going into bloodlines just telling ya reservations aint all that great.
You are probably right krazyhorse, but that is changing. At least near here. The Morongo Valley reservation (near Palm Springs) used to be as you described, a chithole. They now have what can only be described as a Las Vegas sized casino, and a degree of wealth that is envied by their neighbors. I say good for them.
and they are expanding to a Water bottling plant (http://www.waterchat.com/News/Indian/02/Q1/ind_020111-01.htm) and other forms of income.
-
wow , thats interesting it actually sound like they have a decent peice of property as compared to most tribes, good for them:)
-
but that -IMHO- doesn't mean you're OVER the international community. By refusing to being part of the international jury being formed at this point, you're telling the world that you, as a nation, and your people, as citizens of it, are OVER the rest of the international community.
I disagree. We are chosing to remain a soveriegn nation, and we exercized our rights by not joining a court that is not in our nations security interests. We are not saying we are above the court, we are saying we have so many concerns about it's nature and possible misuse, that we choose not to be a party to it.... and that is our right as a nation. We are not obligated in any way to join any world court, no matter how many other nations have joined it.
Think about our possition: We carry the brunt of most UN and NATO operations. We simply are at a huge risk of being exposed to frivolous actions by countries that simpley do not like us, or just resent us, or maybe have an axe to grind or a point to prove.
I believe that the USA is put in a very different risk catagory and would be very much a target for whomever could write a good sounding, lawyer-speak, nonsense case that the court would buy.
How many countries would dance for joy at the prospect of a US President indicted by thr court, no matter how frivolous the reason? You know that a lot of people would be waiting for any reason to bring Americans before the court.
I am glad we are not going to allow our men and women to be exposed to this world court. Maybe its a good thing, so that we will not join UN peacekeepers and maybe other countries will have to provide the will, manpower and money for future operations.
Nuke
-
Passing strange that most of the US's allies don't have problem with the world court.
What's so strange about it?
Most of our allies don't have a problem with the Kyoto treaty either. Thank God we rejected that piece of toejam as well.
Just because we aren't lemmings doesn't mean we're wrong.
And "because our allies have joined too" is about the last reason we'd use to join anything :p
-
Originally posted by Udie
You know hor, I could waste another hour of my day responding to this. But you are an amazinhunk and I think I'll waste my time working rather than talking to some jerk.
lol you are an American arent you ?
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Also, 11 Million German civilians died thanks to the bombing raids of the Allies during WW2. Though it is understandable,not excusable, mind you, why it happened of course there were no PGMs back then like we have now so they had to resort to area bombing to reduce the war making potential of the nation.
I bet the reliable source for this digits is the German Propaganda Ministry, and it's boss, dr. Goebbels.
"Terror bombings" were his favourite baby roadkill together with "Jewish cossaks" and "Asian bolshevik horde".
-
ahh yes Boroda and all that the Soviet union said was true right gotta love those Commie "History" books. But I guess since they won we can't make them accountable for more deaths than the Nazis ,that's the way the history goes huh? :rolleyes:
-
Glasses, I strongly recommend you to think before you post some other roadkill here.
Let me give you an example. Goebbels stated 250,000 civilians dead in Dresden. After the War Allied data reduced it to 40,000. Whom will you believe?
Waiting for Toad to come here and accuse Russians of the Dresden bombing.
-
Hortlund wrote"
"Well, Im not complaining, I have no sympathy for the arabs. But if you are going to invade every country because there are alot of people there who wants to kill you, you should start with France."
That's the best idea i've heard in a long time!! ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Glasses, I strongly recommend you to think before you post some other roadkill here.
Let me give you an example. Goebbels stated 250,000 civilians dead in Dresden. After the War Allied data reduced it to 40,000. Whom will you believe?
Waiting for Toad to come here and accuse Russians of the Dresden bombing.
Read this Boroda, you might learn a thing or two.
Dresden (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46882&highlight=dresden)
Couple of points:
1. The attack on Dresden was a direct result of the demand from the Soviet Union to disrupt German west -> east troop movement.
2. No one will ever know how many died in Dresden that night, because no one will ever know how many people were inside the city when the first bombers arrived.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Couple of points:
1. The attack on Dresden was a direct result of the demand from the Soviet Union to disrupt German west -> east troop movement.
What a crap. Hortlund, you said it even before Toad appeared here.
I want documents. Otherwise I'll state that there was only one reason for demolition of Dresden: not to let Soviets take the city intact.
You are an interesting person, Hortlund. You switch sides in a discussion immediately when there appears an opportunity to bash evil Asian bolshevik hordes, also known as Soviets.
I agree that noone will ever know the exact number of victims, but if I'll have to choose from Allied and nazi data - I'll choose Allied side.
Anton, ty kuda propal? Ne sobiraeshsya v gosti k nam? ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
What a crap. Hortlund, you said it even before Toad appeared here.
I want documents. Otherwise I'll state that there was only one reason for demolition of Dresden: not to let Soviets take the city intact.
You are an interesting person, Hortlund. You switch sides in a discussion immediately when there appears an opportunity to bash evil Asian bolshevik hordes, also known as Soviets.
I agree that noone will ever know the exact number of victims, but if I'll have to choose from Allied and nazi data - I'll choose Allied side.
Anton, ty kuda propal? Ne sobiraeshsya v gosti k nam? ;)
From the Yalta transcripts:
Soviet General Antonov
"Our wishes are:
a. To speed up the advance of the Allied troops on the Western Front, for which the present situation is very favorable: (1) To defeat the Germans on the Eastern Front. (2) To defeat the German groupings which have advanced into the Ardennes. (3) The weakening of the German forces in the West in connection with the shifting of their reserves to the East (It is desirable to begin the advance during the first half of February).
b. By air action on communications hinder the enemy from carrying out the shifting of his troops to the East from the Western Front, from Norway, and from Italy (In particular, to paralyze the junctions of Berlin and Leipzig).
c. Not permit the enemy to remove his forces from Italy."
On German casualties at Dresden.
After the war, the German government discovered that a number varying from 1,000,000 to 4,500,000 (depending on what sources you use) German civilians were unaccounted for. That is German civilians that went MIA in the last year of the war. No one knows the fate of these civilians. Now, do you think it might be possible that some of these civilians might have been in Dresden that night?
As for the part in russian, I am sorry, but I do not understand russian.
-
Breaking railway communications in Soviet way is bombing of "node" stations, destroying rails and structures.
BTW, one of the classic problems solved by US Navy Opertional Research group was bombing the railway stations. It was published in a Morse & Kimbell book in late-40s.
No tell me where the hell should i look at that transcript to find the request to bomb the city that was supposed to be in Soviet occupation zone down to ashes?!
All I can say - cold war propaganda it is.
Sorry, the Russian part was adressed to Red Ant.
Hehe, I typed several paragraphs about the "int-l court" problem, but now I don't feel like posting it here... Re-read it and found it too offencive for both sides here. :(
-
Now, do you think it might be possible that some of these civilians might have been in Dresden that night?
Yes, some of them were. However, if you read the Dresden thread again, you'll see that one of the men responsible for housing them made an estimate of the numbers. Without rereading it myself, iirc he said the numbers of refugees wasn't that high, with no mass refugee camps etc set up.
There's also estimates from the clean up authorities on the spot, based on the numbers of bodies recovered, and the fact that it was extremely rare for bodies to be destroyed with no trace.
The men who were there and responsible for the clear up don't seem to believe the stories of tens of thousands of bodies disappearing into thin air.
Well respected authors and researchers seem to agree on a figure of 25 - 40,000. Neo Nazis seem to agree on a figure of 120 - 250,000.
-
I disagree with your observation(?) that "well respected authors and researchers seem to agree on a figure of 25 - 40,000. Neo Nazis seem to agree on a figure of 120 - 250,000." If that is the level you want to keep this debate on, then you will have to debate alone. I am sick and tired of insinuations and accusations of me being a revisionist or worse. Suppose I am of the belief that the real number is in the 80-135 000 range, now since you set the ground rules with your "neo nazis seems to agree on 120 -above" that puts me in the suspect category...no? Guilt by accusation. Argue around the facts, not who came up with what numbers and why.
Anyway, just one observation. At Dresden, the combination of firebombs, explosives and meteorological conditions created something that had never been seen before, nor has it been seen anywhere else (with the possible exeption of some japanese raid, I dont know too much about those) ..at Dresden, on that first night, there was a firestorm. As I said to midnight in the other Dresden thread, that makes any comparrison with any other city bombing pointless. What happened at Dresden was unique, and to my knowledge it has only happened there.
Now nashwan, if you want to argue over this, we can, and I think it would make an interesting discussion, buit I will not stand being called revisionist or neo nazi, nor have it implied again. Your call.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I disagree with your observation(?) that "well respected authors and researchers seem to agree on a figure of 25 - 40,000. Neo Nazis seem to agree on a figure of 120 - 250,000." If that is the level you want to keep this debate on, then you will have to debate alone. I am sick and tired of insinuations and accusations of me being a revisionist or worse. Suppose I am of the belief that the real number is in the 80-135 000 range, now since you set the ground rules with your "neo nazis seems to agree on 120 -above" that puts me in the suspect category...no? Guilt by accusation. Argue around the facts, not who came up with what numbers and why.
Anyway, just one observation. At Dresden, the combination of firebombs, explosives and meteorological conditions created something that had never been seen before, nor has it been seen anywhere else (with the possible exeption of some japanese raid, I dont know too much about those) ..at Dresden, on that first night, there was a firestorm. As I said to midnight in the other Dresden thread, that makes any comparrison with any other city bombing pointless. What happened at Dresden was unique, and to my knowledge it has only happened there.
Now nashwan, if you want to argue over this, we can, and I think it would make an interesting discussion, buit I will not stand being called revisionist or neo nazi, nor have it implied again. Your call.
I think the fire bombing of Tokyo and other japanese cities caused fire storms too. I've read accounts that it was so hot that people's clothes started bursting into flames and that rubber on shoes melted and what not, tornados of fire.... Must have been horifying to live through something like that.
-
Most of the latest German post-war estimates are that about 25,000 persons were killed and about 30,000 were wounded, virtually all of these being casualties from the RAF incendiary attack of 13/14
From This Site (http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/soi/dresden.htm)
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE 14-15 FEBRUARY 1945
BOMBINGS OF DRESDEN
Prepared by:
USAF Historical Division
Research Studies Institute
Air University
Hello again Steve. :D
-
Pretty horrific casualty totals no matter which ones you believe.
The only ones who know for sure are the Dead.
-
So Midnight...pop quiz...do you think I have read that analysis before or not? :)
Some people believe that the key to knowledge is to get information from many sources and compare them against eachother...
-
Hortlund, I wasn't trying to imply you're a Nazi, neo or otherwise.
I was trying to show that of the people who've studied the attacks, in far greater detail than you or I, the majority seem to agree on the lower figure. Neo Nazis, who have an obvious agenda, claim the much higher figures.
That doesn't mean everyone claiming the higher figures is a neo nazi. It just means you should look into who is saying what. I haven't actually seen you post any support for the higher figures. If that's because you can't find that support, except on sites you find dubious, that should tell you something.
Anyway, just one observation. At Dresden, the combination of firebombs, explosives and meteorological conditions created something that had never been seen before, nor has it been seen anywhere else (with the possible exeption of some japanese raid, I dont know too much about those) ..at Dresden, on that first night, there was a firestorm. As I said to midnight in the other Dresden thread, that makes any comparrison with any other city bombing pointless. What happened at Dresden was unique, and to my knowledge it has only happened there.
Hamburg suffered at least one firestorm, as did Kaassel and several other German cities.
Now nashwan, if you want to argue over this, we can, and I think it would make an interesting discussion, buit I will not stand being called revisionist or neo nazi, nor have it implied again. Your call.
I could use your own logic and call you a Nazi. You described me as a "terrorist supporter", because I pointed out things Israel has done that cause the Palestinians to turn to terrorism, and crimes commited by the Israelis.
Using that logic, your posts pointing out the injustices of Versailles, and pointing out crimes commited by allied troops, make you a Nazi supporter. I don't believe your logic is justified, so I don't consider you a Nazi.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So Midnight...pop quiz...do you think I have read that analysis before or not? :)
Some people believe that the key to knowledge is to get information from many sources and compare them against eachother...
I agree 100%. Helps you determine the difference between an objective site, and one that isn't.
This is the former.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Hamburg suffered at least one firestorm, as did Kaassel and several other German cities.
No, there is a difference. At Hamburg, the bombings created several large fires that merged into one big wall of fire moving across the city, same with Kassel, although it was in smaller scale.
At Dresden it was different, a "firestorm" was created. Basically all the incediaries created an intensly heated "core-fire". This fire was so hot and so large that it created its own meteorological system around it. Air flowed into this core with hurricane strength. Basically anyone or anything caught outside was sucked into the flames where the intense heat obliterated any remains. This "core" fire basically stayed in one place, getting air and fuel from the winds rushing into it.
You cannot compare Dresden to any other bomb attack in Germany, beacuse that firestorm never happened anyplace else.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I agree 100%. Helps you determine the difference between an objective site, and one that isn't.
This is the former.
:)
Actually Im not sure whether I should laugh or cry.
ehrm..
Exactly how do you reach the conclusion that the USAF Historical Division should be considered an objective site, when the question we are arguing about is whether the destruction of Dresden was a crime or not?
Let me rephrase the question like this: Did the USAF take part in the raid against Dresden? Did the USAF recieve critique for its part in the Dresden raid afterwords?
You want to take the USAF historical division analysis as some kind of pillar of objective truth in this question, I think that is like letting a crime suspect handle the crimescene investigation.
-
Well go ahead and cry. But if the "suspect" provides the court with the type of objective documented evidence that is found on that site I will accept it. I guess some foxes can be trusted to guard the hen house.
Maybe you could suggest a better source?
-
At Dresden it was different, a "firestorm" was created. Basically all the incediaries created an intensly heated "core-fire". This fire was so hot and so large that it created its own meteorological system around it. Air flowed into this core with hurricane strength. Basically anyone or anything caught outside was sucked into the flames where the intense heat obliterated any remains. This "core" fire basically stayed in one place, getting air and fuel from the winds rushing into it.
You cannot compare Dresden to any other bomb attack in Germany, beacuse that firestorm never happened anyplace else.
Before half an hour had passed, the districts upon which the weight of the attack fell were transformed into a lake of fire covering an area of twenty-two square kilometres. The effect of this was to heat the air to a temperature which at times was estimated to approach 1,000 degrees centigrade. A vast suction was in this way created so that the air "stormed through the streets with immense force, bearing upon it sparks, timber and roof beams and thus spreading the fire still further and further till it became a typhoon such as had never before been witnessed, and against which all human resistance was powerless." Trees three feet thick were broken off or uprooted, human beings were thrown to the ground or flung alive into the flames by winds which exceeded 150 miles an hour. The panic-stricken citizens knew not where to turn. Flames drove them from the shelters, but high-explosive bombs sent them scurrying back again. Once inside, they were suffocated by carbon-monoxide poisoning and their bodies reduced to ashes as though they had been placed in a crematorium, which was indeed what each shelter proved to be.
Major-General Kehrl, Hamburg police commisioner
-
I am sick and tired of insinuations and accusations of me being a revisionist or worse.
Hortlund, "Slaughterhouse Five" is one of my favourite books, and I will never call Kurt Vonnegut a "revisionist". His figure is 135,000.
You only have to understand that choosing such a deliberate style of protecting nazis and believing any Goebbels's roadkill (including the ones that were adopted by superpowers during the cold war) will probably not serve you well if you want to be taken seriously.
Anyway, OUR cause was just, the enemy was defeated, the Victory is OURS.
(http://mina.ru/posters/soviet2/63.jpg)
-
"Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., a survivor of the Dresden bombing who wrote Slaughterhouse-Five on the experience, actually cites (David) Irving's "Dresden" in the book. "
Irving is a noted and convicted revisionist. Even Vonnegut can be wrong.
-
Originally posted by RRAM
You assume too much saying that "We have better laws here". What makes them so superior to, say, Spanish or British or German law?.
I lived in the U.K. for 3 solid years. So from one who know's... I feel we in the U.S. have MUCH better laws. So THERE :D
-
Originally posted by Udie
Originally posted by Hortlund
Absolutely not. I would poor said beer on top of your head and tell you to get the hell away from me.
ROTFL!!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
"Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., a survivor of the Dresden bombing who wrote Slaughterhouse-Five on the experience, actually cites (David) Irving's "Dresden" in the book. "
Irving is a noted and convicted revisionist. Even Vonnegut can be wrong.
But the USAF sure as he** cant huh?
-
Nashwan...did you have a point with your quote?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well go ahead and cry. But if the "suspect" provides the court with the type of objective documented evidence that is found on that site I will accept it. I guess some foxes can be trusted to guard the hen house.
Maybe you could suggest a better source?
Oh man this is so rich on so many levels.
Midnight, before I use this *points to big axe* let me just ask you what your view is on the US refusal to let US military personnel be tried for crimes against humanity by the international court of justice?
(Have you read Vonneguts book btw? Or is that one on your "automatically disqualified" -list, since somewhere you have read that Vonnegut quotes Irvin in his book?)
-
Interesting thread, and not least because RAM seems to have suddenly found a brain! (really good postings RAM; maybe if we glued you into a Spit for a tour or two you'd be more likeable).
One snippet really lept out at me: Charon's German election figures. 98.8% for Hitler!
That means (I believe) a goodly number of German Jews voted for the Nazi's (they were allowed to vote??). I'd be interested to see if there any extrapolations of what procentage of the German pre-war Judaic community actually did vote for the Nazi's, and I'd be _fascinated_ to read of any German Jew's explanation of it.
What an incredible thought. People so blinded by Nationalism they voted for their own executioners.
-
That was the 1936 vote I believe, and I'm sure the Jews weren't voting by then, though I may be wrong.
What is surprising, as an American (with all of our voter apathy), was the high level of political interest in Germany during the period. The Nazi's and other parties campaigned hard for the votes at least until 1932. Life in many areas seemed to revolve around the various rallies, concerts, functions and other political activites as a form of weekly entertainment almost.
By 1936 Hitler had managed to solifdify his power, both through repressing serious political competition and, perhaps more significantly, by being in power during the economic recover (started by the SPD ironically) and promiting patriotism and Germanic pride. He also represented a comfortable return to an autocratic rule for a people who were still new to the republic/democracy concept after WW1, and who seemed to distrust the chaos and messiness such a system involves. Democracy is messy, but you have to accept that to have true freedom.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Oh man this is so rich on so many levels.
Midnight, before I use this *points to big axe* let me just ask you what your view is on the US refusal to let US military personnel be tried for crimes against humanity by the international court of justice?
(Have you read Vonneguts book btw? Or is that one on your "automatically disqualified" -list, since somewhere you have read that Vonnegut quotes Irvin in his book?)
There you go again. Trying to change the subject. I will be happy to answer your question if you were to answer the one I posed earlier. Do you know of a better site than the one I provided?
I have read Slaughterhouse Five, and I have seen the movie. Enjoyed both very much. I have read the Bible also, but I do not see it as a biology text, just as I wouldn't use Vonnegut as a history text. I did not say Vonnegut quoted Irving, I said he cited him. There is a difference.
-
Nashwan...did you have a point with your quote?
Hortlund, you claimed this:
At Dresden it was different, a "firestorm" was created. Basically all the incediaries created an intensly heated "core-fire". This fire was so hot and so large that it created its own meteorological system around it. Air flowed into this core with hurricane strength. Basically anyone or anything caught outside was sucked into the flames where the intense heat obliterated any remains. This "core" fire basically stayed in one place, getting air and fuel from the winds rushing into it.
You cannot compare Dresden to any other bomb attack in Germany, beacuse that firestorm never happened anyplace else.
The Hamburg police comminisioner said:
Before half an hour had passed, the districts upon which the weight of the attack fell were transformed into a lake of fire covering an area of twenty-two square kilometres. The effect of this was to heat the air to a temperature which at times was estimated to approach 1,000 degrees centigrade. A vast suction was in this way created so that the air "stormed through the streets with immense force, bearing upon it sparks, timber and roof beams and thus spreading the fire still further and further till it became a typhoon such as had never before been witnessed, and against which all human resistance was powerless." Trees three feet thick were broken off or uprooted, human beings were thrown to the ground or flung alive into the flames by winds which exceeded 150 miles an hour. The panic-stricken citizens knew not where to turn. Flames drove them from the shelters, but high-explosive bombs sent them scurrying back again. Once inside, they were suffocated by carbon-monoxide poisoning and their bodies reduced to ashes as though they had been placed in a crematorium, which was indeed what each shelter proved to be.
The point is, a firesorm did occur at Hamburg. The things you claimed as unique at Dresden also happened at Hamburg.
-
No they didnt Nashwan. I am suprised because I thought this was common knowledge. Hamburg and Dresden was devastated by fire, but the nature of the fire was completely different in Hamburg and Dresden.
In Hamburg it was a wall of fire moving across the city in the direction of the wind, in Dresden it was a "static" firestorm.
These both phenomenon has been evaluated thoroughly after the war, and the reason I came across them was when I was in college writing a paper about thermonuclear bombs (of all things). In a book, I think it was named "fate of the earth" or something like that, the writer, Jonathan Schell something discussed what would happen if a nuclear device detonated over a normal city. In that chapter there was an extensive discussion about the effects of conventional bombs in Hamburg and Dresden.
I have no doubt that several aspects of the fire was similar in both Hamburg and Dresden, such as heat and winds, and I have no doubt that any survivor of both bombings might think that they were similar. But there is a huge and fundamental difference between the nature of those fires.