Author Topic: What do you think about this quote? (Read 2767 times)

Viking · « **Reply #105 on:** December 20, 2006, 09:23:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Nowhere in that clip does the US Marine Officer say that given the exact same circumstances and orders that he would have surrendered without a fight.

He clearly says it was unreasonable to expect the Dutch to sacrifice themselves under those circumstances. And he is right of course.

I don't claim to know what US Marines would do in their place, but I do know how quickly US Marines surrender in NATO exercises up here when their situation becomes hopeless. Marines do not fight to the death, even simulated death. And they are right of course.

Toad · « **Reply #106 on:** December 20, 2006, 09:34:24 PM »

Shoot, everyone expected the Dutch to surrender...even the Serbs.

Yah, they surrender in an exercise exactly as they would do in a RL engagement.

This one's for you American Spartans

Viking · « **Reply #107 on:** December 20, 2006, 09:42:47 PM »

Strange how the author chooses to start at Iwo Jima rather than Wake Island where the Marines surrendered to the Japanese when their situation became untenable. The Dutch fought longer at Srebrenica and their situation was untenable from the start. In fact there are interesting parallels between those two battles. Both forces were surrounded and cut off from support. Both forces faced a much stronger enemy. Both forces repelled their enemy's first attack. Both surrendered when the situation was hopeless.

Marines surrender.

ByeBye · « **Reply #108 on:** December 20, 2006, 09:47:39 PM »

The Dutch really don't have a history of honorable fighting.

Maverick · « **Reply #109 on:** December 20, 2006, 09:58:55 PM »

Why are you wasting time discissing anything with shulz?

Viking · « **Reply #110 on:** December 20, 2006, 10:07:24 PM »

A better question would be: Why does he continuously try to discuss with someone who has him on ignore?

Toad · « **Reply #111 on:** December 21, 2006, 08:58:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
The Dutch fought longer at Srebrenica and their situation was untenable from the start.

Marines surrender.

Your analogy falls down right there. To compare Dutch resistance at Srebenica to the Marine resistance at Wake is laughable.

Yes, Marines surrendered. After enduring air attacks, naval gunfire and multiple amphibious assault for three weeks.

The Dutch fought no all-out pitched battle against the Serbs. In fact, there is not even a record of any skirmishes between the Dutch and the Serbs. The only Dutchbat soldier lost was killed by a grenade lobbed from a column of retreating Bosniak soldiers.

Where's your evidence that the Dutch mounted ANY meaningful resistance to the Serb takeover of a UN declared "safe area"? There is none.

OTOH, the Marines at Wake fought a pitched battle, enduring and responding to three days of air strikes. In the final battle, the were under combined assault by sea, air and land forces, vastly outnumbered in all respects.

The initial Japanese invasion force consisted of three light cruisers, six destroyers and two transports.

During the first naval bombardment by the Japanese, the Marines sunk a destroyer, landed 4 hits on the flagship cruiser, hit 3 other destroyers and set a transport afire. Their remaining Four Wildcats strafed another destroyer setting off its depth charges; it eventually sank as well.

They then totally repulsed the first wave of the invasion, earning the distinction of being the only force in the entire war to defeat an amphibious assault.

The next Japanese invasion force took the island after a fierce pitched battle that cost them a significant number of casualties. It should be noted that the Navy commander of the island initiated the surrender.

Now, had the Dutch presented even half the resistance to the Serb takeover of the Srebenica "safe area" as the Marines presented to an overwhelming combined force of Japanese airpower, seapower and assault troops, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion.

Instead, I'd be praising the Dutch.

But they didn't and as a result the UN once again lost an opportunity to become a relevant force in protecting the innocent from genocide.

storch · « **Reply #112 on:** December 21, 2006, 09:30:35 AM »

comparing the United States Marines Corps to the dutch huh? the french, hell, all of continental western european society is and has been soft for centuries. in my opinion outside of great britain europe is just a hinderance full of envious effeminates. It saddens me to think of the great sacrifices we Americans have made for close to 100 years to assure your freedom and the ingratitude and often contempt which is often displayed by the members of your countries to ourselves and our leadership. who needs you?

straffo · « **Reply #113 on:** December 21, 2006, 09:44:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
comparing the United States Marines Corps to the dutch huh? the french, hell, all of continental western european society is and has been soft for centuries. in my opinion outside of great britain europe is just a hinderance full of envious effeminates. It saddens me to think of the great sacrifices we Americans have made for close to 100 years to assure your freedom and the ingratitude and often contempt which is often displayed by the members of your countries to ourselves and our leadership. who needs you?

Want some EU perfume ?

moot · « **Reply #114 on:** December 21, 2006, 09:50:21 AM »

Storch, keep it about warfare.. tying in effemination to this sort of affair won't give America much of an advantage over Europe.
There's plenty of ways that the overall virility and masculinity pretty much evens out, all things considered.

storch · « **Reply #115 on:** December 21, 2006, 10:22:59 AM »

I don't know about that moot. we here are certainly catching up to our euro cousins in things effeminate but you have a long head start and are simply more genetically predisposed.

moot · « **Reply #116 on:** December 21, 2006, 11:42:14 AM »

I'm not european. I was born in France but my parents are oceanic and south-american.
I don't think it's genetic so much as certain conditionings - mainly upbringing.
It and social habits of a given culture might seem like chicken and egg, but I'm pretty sure the former is the latter's precursor.

Inability to live with no earthly goods but your brain, guts and balls is a common trend in the US. The lack of grit and truly pragmatic street smarts of most of american youths is in part due to, e.g., not having had to fight for all the comforts america has amassed. What sort of comfort is any comfort when it's all you've ever known, when you've never really had it hard?
Simply going about all pink and plastic, queerl and MTV sexual is not exactly a manly trait.
Lazs has covered that quite a bit, so it's not just me the outsider who's saying it.

And the opposite extreme is no good either, all brawn is no use if no brain guides it.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #117 on:** December 21, 2006, 12:10:51 PM »

This one has wandered around long enough. Does not appear to be getting any prettier as it meanders either.