I asked two history teachers today and they said 'Russia, obviously'. And my country is a US puppet as well.

What did you ask them?

Tenchu; "Moral force" would make sure all the Jews got murdered by Hitler because you wouldn't do anything to stop the Germans due to the probability civilans might get killed. I'm sorry, but that's Chamberlin thinking and I'm not going to think that way.

War is hell, and it has to be made abundantly clear to any who would seek war against the US, that hell will come visit them personally. Makeing war as horrible as possible for the enemy, while Keeping American civilans safe, is the primary goal.

Agent Orange was designed to keep American troops safe, it did what it was supposed to do. Did it have unintended effects? yes it did. I still won't apologize for the US trying to keep it's soldiers safe from ambush.

Right now, American's are safe because sinister men are doing sinister things in the dark. It's an unfriendly world in many places and it takes these types of men to keep free people free.

No, that kind of thinking is for cowardly and not noble people.

If you fight with a rifle, you can chose who you shoot. There is no chance you will make a mistake.

When your time to die comes, it comes. This used to be called the Way of the Warrior; Bushido, in Japan. Nowadays, people call it foolishness, because peasants have replaced Warriors as the ones who make the difficult decisions; but peasants always were cowards and fools.

If your rifle can not win the war, maybe you should go home. Or keep fighting if you wish. You will die. That is war; people die. Warriors die. The true Way is found in death.

Nowadays, however, lowlier folk set out the door to do good in this world. They say they want to protect the innocent. They murder thousands of children. They call themselves Hero. They are soaked stained with the blood of the innocent.

If you wanted to stop your enemy because of the sole reason he treats the innocent poorly and harms them, why do you go and do it yourself? It's because you're a fool.

Yes, doing it my way is not the sure road to physical victory. But being liberated within is much more pure a victory than batheing in the blood of the innocent.

Nowadays, people are stupid. They know not what they do.

Of course having the world over-run by evil because you refuse to lower yourself to their level is a miserable thing. But the solution is not found in becoming what you set out to destroy.

The final and greatest challenge of a Warrior is learning to accept defeat; in all its forms.

Childishly simplistic moralizing by childishly simple people is what cowardly terrorists count on when deciding to hide in hospitals and mosques or behind passing groups of innocents. Reacting exactly the way they want guarantees that they will continue to do it and continue to sacrifice the innocent. Standing around with your hands on your hips and nose in the air, gassing on about a 'warrior's code' while some cowardly little snake hides behind one little child and shoots at ten others is not only idiotic, it is immoral and irresponsible.

It's quite amazing to me that you can say this stuff while at the same time simply brushing off the mass war crimes committed by the Russians in Germany:

The Russian's rape and killing of civilians/POWs is absolutely incomparable in scale to what happened in Vietnam.

You take this, you brush it off and instead bring up American war crimes in Vietnam, and then go on to talk all this nonsense about being Bushido and pure in war.

:eek:

Yes, please continue to praise Stalin and bring up Vietnam when you feel the need to change the subject. Am I defending what happened in Vietnam? Hell no. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy.

Which country was the main factor of the end of WW2?

It was you who brought the rape issue of Russia at first place. He was merely pointing out that the US is not that different.

However you can take your morals about war somewhere else. I don't care how they ended the war, it ended. Enough said.

While I agree with some of this, I think there is something more basic that is wrong here. First of all, regardless of the body count, killing of civilians is deplorable so there is no "this was worse than that".

Secondly, the even more disgusting crime in both of these instances was the the leadership of countries turning a blind eye to the slaughter, tacit support of the perpetrators and when the truth became known worldwide claiming either expedience or ignorance of what was done.

There is no country on this planet that can claim never to have perpetrated such war crimes!

Tenchu, you are in the Phillipines. How can you condem another country when thousands of Filipinos were tortured, slaughtered and driven from their land by Ferdinand Marco, while Imelda "shoe queen" played with her fetish? And that was not even a war. Look to your own history before you condemn others. Lets see you justify the Phillipine death squads that the U.N. is investigating now. Even the Pinoy press reports on it regularly.

Try again. It was not Hatredcopter. I was me and Seiki who first raised that issue in response to the original post - not the later discourse.

You - as the people against Russia.

I'm not against Russia, I'm just not going to agree with the notion it was they who beat Germany all alone, and nobody else did anything but watch. You can think what you like, I'm just not going to buy into it..

Tenchu: When the US is determined and motivated in a war, it goes all out, General Sherman called it Total War. You may find that barbaric, and that's your right to think thus. However, winning is more important than trying to die nobly. The Victor's can dictate how the peace will be, the dead can't do anything.

Before you lamblast me about how the US did this and that to some country, remember that America practiced Total War against itself durring the Civil War, essentially the US was the first test case for it's new style. We certainly won't be worrid about bringing such destruction to some other country, if we were so willing to do it to ourselves.

Our reasoning is simple. If I want my family to have a safe liveing enviroment, where they can watch thier football, go to thier proms and what have you. I must ensure that my enemy doesn't live to change it. The US will do what ever it takes to protect thier own. Think of it as a mother bear protecting her cub, morality doesn't concern her at that moment, just protecting her cub does.

No I'm not. Who told you that?

Dude, refusing to kill innocent people is not childish. This is how some of the most effective Warriors in history functioned for nearly 1,000 years.

And what I'm talking about is what terrorists do not want you to do. They want America to get all fired up and storm in with flame bombs and white gas and kill everyone.

Islamic recruiting is thriving on the carelessness of Israel and America and their war crimes. I would go as far as to say every child or woman that is murdered by Israel and America is ten new recruits for Osama.

It's evil that thrives on the blind determination of fools to win, not the other way around.

I can rest easily on this arguement as I have many times before, anyway; there's nothing wrong with saying it's cowardly to kill innocent people.

I never overlooked anything.

I said America has simply done the same thing. You're the one overlooking that.

This is the most selfish and evil thing a person can say.

These are the words that will justify dropping 1,000 nuclear bombs on Asia. Think about that and tell me who's got it right again.

Fighting like this does not produce what I'd say constitutes a victory.

This is the same as the example of saying the enemy hides inside a school, so you have the right to blow it up when it's packed. It's just more cowardice. Events should be considered and conducted independantly, free from bias; only this way can you do it properly and honorably.

Anyway, wasn't the civil war about fighting the British back more so?

EDIT: Wait a minute, there was no chemical weapons, flame bombing, destructive air raids, mass slaughter of civilians in the American civil war, was there?

I'm not talking about war, I'm talking about killing innocent people.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure by the clear definition of every religion (or at least what their prophets say, not their leaders), you guys are all evil.

But I never said that.

My mistake, Tenchu. In my irritation over the content of this thread I did not re-check your location. I certainly know the difference between the the Phillipines and Thailand, as my father was involved in government work in both.

But the premise is the same. Anyone who starts condemning acts of other nations during war, needs to acknowledge for their own country's history of similar atrocities first.

Except in the more racists and backwater areas of the U.S., Sherman's March to the Sea with his policy of total destruction is condemned in most American History texts. This tactic is taught as having been effective, but morally wrong. And the "Scorched Earth" strategy predates even the founding of America by centuries, so it was no test case for anyone other than Grant's planning.

And if you think it doesn't raise concern whenever this method of destruction is considered, you must be severely editing your political history and current events.

For example, the bombing of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is rarely regarded as "winning" WWII or a victorious act. In fact, such a reference would be considered deplorable even within the ranks of the U.S. Armed Forces. Instead it is acknowledged only as the acts which stopped the Japanese aggression.

This may seem like merely semantics, but there is a vast difference between a nation being defeated in battle, and standing down to spare loss of life. They were not defeated. The Germans and Italians were defeated. But the Japanese chose to end the war to spare their people. That takes far more courage and intelligence to than to wage war.

Well, lucky for my sake I've no country I really belong to, then, isn't it?

It's irrelevant, anyway; nobody is tied to a certain way of thinking just because of what their country has done.

That's true; terrorists won WW2 with the Japanese.

They may have surrendered before being Invaded proper, yet they did so because they could see the hand writeing on the wall. Japan did what the American general in Bataan did when he surrended 76,000 American troops. Good thing the US didn't institute a "Death March" when Japan surrendered it's nation.

Tenchu; Those people who hide in schools won't stop if you don't bomb that school, they'll just come over and bomb your school after you leave. These guys want everyone to convert to thier crazy version of islam or die. There is no negotiateing with them and I'm not willing to convert or die, wich doesn't leave many options. Lableing someone evil because they are willing to protect thier family by any means available is disingenious.

Also, those "History" teachers that teach history in the US are elitists liberals who hate the US almost as much as other nations do. I have had to discuss things with them several times, they have little idea what the US really stands for and I have little time trying to educate them. Those nukes were justified from our perspective, they saved American lives, wich was our primary goal. We also wanted to demonstrate to Russia that we had "it" and they didn't, wich was a secondary goal.

Also, the south wasn't a "backwater full of uneducated racists" that's more elitist BS. Still, it does proove my point that winners write the history books and looser's become the backwater uneducated racists in those histroy books.
Yes, the South was pretty much ruined like Japan was. Several southern cities were bombed out shells. ( yes, the north shelled cities) Reconstruction was a 30 year nightmare afterward, where the North "re educated" the south.

In a state of nature you would have been consumed and pooped out long ago. You are prey, and the likes of you only have the luxury of spouting self-destructive nonsense because society has disrupted natural selection. How fortunate for you that you live under the protection of more practical and reasoned people.

I find this interesting.

Sorry to stroke my own ego here, but to prove a point, I could confidently say I'm the biggest and strongest man in Nakhon Si Thammarat (home province); probably the most dangerous unarmed man in southern Thailand.

For you to tell me I'm some sort of natural failure when I could handle myself better than anyone I know or can see, it's clear you're either deluded or just failing at trying to launch your subtle personal attacks you've been doing since you met me.

Anyway, it's nice to know having high moral standrads and putting the lives of others before yourself and your own political and moral views is what you class as a natural failure.

So, to stop them bombing a school, you're going to bomb a school? That's not logical.

I know you won't change your mind, so I should walk away now.

Keep roasting those kiddies! :vsign:

- «Estimates of rape victims from the city's two main hospitals ranged from 95,000 to 130,000. One doctor deduced that out of approximately 100,000 women raped in the city, some 10,000 died as a result, mostly from suicide. The death rate was thought to have been much higher among the 1.4 million estimated victims in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia. Altogether at least two million German women are thought to have been raped, and a substantial minority, if not a majority, appear to have suffered multiple rape.»

Absolute falsehood. When Russian were at war, on yours? Or all of them troops forced women. Whence these crazy digits? The Soviet troops were winners. If you study the list of staff of the Soviet troops will find there, politruka, zampolita - these people were responsible for moral shape and political spirit. There were still special departments. All of them were responsible for moral spirit of the Soviet troops. They inspected behaviour of soldiers. The Russian`s soldiers permanently clarified, that they liberators. Violence single instances were, but as soon as about them it became known - guilty were severely punished. Military courts too did not sleep - punishment for such offence was very severe. And for other offences in territory of the released countries.

You can start with something simple, like wikipedia. They are more or less neutral. Or this site: Welcome to the World War II Multimedia Database

There is also a big special forum about WWII. Of course like in all forums a lot of people post a lot of stuff. Some of the stuff is really useful:
World War II Forums

That is true. My ex-neighbor took part in the battle for Berlin. He told one soldier was executed without any military trial at all for that kind of misbehavior.

In general, very good thread. I could get a lot of info about some posters` "bright" minds.

So you have met all those who teach history in the U.S.? When did we meet and discuss this? Date and time please. I taught history in the 1990's, so cite your evidence. Not all teachers teach with the same perspective or even the same textbooks.

I did not say that the south was a backwater full of uneducated racists. I said only where that is the case is such biased and offensive versions of history presented. And I know of a district in Ohio, as well as in Mississippi where this was the case (and probably still is). I sat through the distortion personally, and was punished in one case for questioning the teacher's personal version of history.

First of all, LOLOLOL!!!!!


Second, it wouldn't matter if you were 20 feet tall with battle axes for hands and laserbeam eyes if you are as determined as it seems to lay down before bad people. That's fine for you, but it is not fine to demand it of others.

You exist at the pleasure of others and if you are not made someone's lunch it will just be a matter of luck.

Good luck.

TalnSG; My home High school back in 84. Midland High, Wyoming Iowa. William Penn University, Oskaloosa Iowa. 1990. It's unlikely the same teachers are there as then. Still, those were two area's with different teachers at different levels of the educational system informing me how "cruel and vicious" White American's were to everyone, from slaves, Native Americans to all those poor innocent people overseas.

I'm a history major myself, so I'm not unfamiler with all the asorted stories that are around reguarding America and it's foundations. Some are partly true, some are exagerated and some are out right misinformation. Trying to figure what really happened and what they were really about can be difficult at times I understand that. However, they were not evil men out to screw everyone over. Certainly not the Founding Fathers, many of whom died in poverty, after spending everything they had on freedom's cause.

I won't deny that American's have done bad things in the past or acted poorly in certain situations. That doesn't mean it was done malciously or with evil intent every single time. True sometimes it was dispicable, for instance, giveing smallpox laden blankets to the Indians was horrid. Yet sometimes it was just ignorance of the local region, other times it was misplaced atempts at trying to do the right thing. Nobody's perfect, not even America.

Blameing the US for every world problem though, is just silly.


Tenchu; It's your life, I'm not going to tell you how to live it. I even agree it would be nice if the world handled it's problems with that type of grace. However, it doesn't allways work out that way.

Case in point, I met an ex army fella at work a few years ago, who was crippled from the Engagement in Somalia. You know, the "Black Hawk" down thing? He was at the base camp when a woman with a baby came up to the fence, she placed a live gernade in the baby's dyper and threw the baby over the fence. The blast crippled this soldier, and yes, a companion shot the woman, who was obviosuly an enemy combatant. That's the mentality of the enemy they face and that's why so many "civilian's" get shot.

total recount
 

Required reading,


Putin's preferred memory of World War II | The Japan Times Online

Putin summarizes his understanding of the scale of the war by recalling the loss of "27 million lives of my compatriots." That number has grown over the years, as Soviet officials broadened the definition of wartime deaths to mean total "population loss," rather than direct military casualties. Official estimates of Soviet deaths in World War II thus rose from 7 million (the figure put forth under Joseph Stalin) to 20 million (Khrushchev) to 26.6 million (Gorbachev), with civilian deaths accounting for at least two-thirds of Putin's estimate.

Unfortunately, Putin does not explain whom he counts as his compatriots. If he meant those who lived within Russia's contemporary borders, the number would have been much lower. Instead, he includes all citizens of the Soviet Union who died during the war, including millions of Ukrainians, Belarusians, and others. And, when the Soviet Union annexed the Baltic countries and parts of Poland, Finland, Moldova and Japan, their citizens, too, became Soviet compatriots.

It also sounds like he's inclueding the 7 million Jews butchered by Germany. Eventually it will be everyone killed dureing the war period. It's like that ever exspanding fish, you know..the one the fisherman caught that was so big, how it keeps getting bigger everytime he talks about it.

No. I hunt down and beat the fuck out of those who piss me off. I've done it before and have no objection to doing it again and again and again.

You're just calling me weak because I won't kill innocent people. But that is my strength; it's what seperates me from evil people.

overcompensation in action
 

LOLOLolololololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:rolleyes:

Here discuss other subject!!!!! And where a moderator who watches dialogue?:mad:

Ironically, it's easy to see how wars get started, just by reading the threads on various boards.