WORLD WAR II Question

**Seshmeister** · 02-22-2007, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Warham
Imagine if Bush had 13,000 citizens in this country arrested, including members of the Democratic party, and called them enemies of the state.

How would he be treated by the press?

Badly you would hope.

If you are aluding to internment it's an entirely different situation because in WWII you were at war with foreign countries.

No matter how many times Bush says it, his war on terror is no more a war than saying we should have a war on litter.

**BigBadBrian** · 02-22-2007, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Seshmeister

If your reading of his post is correct then basically he is saying he knows more than all the historians...

No, I'm not saying that, but....

Read Grimsdale post above again.

I agree with him totally.

I've read quite a few books on the Eastern Front (as one who devours WWII history, it's my favorite theatre to read about) and maintain the Red Army wasn't the almight juggernaut it was made out to be. Hell, even when they were within 30 miles of Berlin it took them an additional five months to conquer the city because their frontline units had suffered extremely heavy casualties (the Germans killed them at a 9 to 1 ratio) and their supplies were spent.

Soviet commanders had a different mindset: feed the troops into the meatgrinder no matter the costs. It was common to march entire battalions over mine fields and feed platoon after platoon into machine gun nests just to take out that one gun. The Red Army soldier couldn't retreat or refuse either with NKVD troops at their backs ready to shoot them if they did.

Look, I'm not downplaying the role the Soviets played in defeating the Germans. They did a lot of fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis. However, they would have had a much harder time without a second front in France. Hell, I'll even suggest the Germans would have defeated the Russians had Hitler let his Generals fight the war and if he had a proper economic policy.

**Warham** · 02-22-2007, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And stop hijacking this thread fuckwit, the adults are talking here. Not the inbred bible thumpers that cannot question their own beliefs because of fear and insecurities...If you want to start some bullshit parallels between the "War on Terrah" and WWII, fine. But do it some place else nimrod...

Who's an inbred bible thumper? If you are referring to me, I have no insecurities about my beliefs at all, but I think you do.

Actually, I was comparing the War on TerrOR to the Civil War. I figured somebody with your level of historal education could have figured that out.

**binnie** · 02-22-2007, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Warham
Imagine if Bush had 13,000 citizens in this country arrested, including members of the Democratic party, and called them enemies of the state.

How would he be treated by the press?

He's already treated pretty bad for invading Iraq and imprisoning people illegally at the Bay....

**Warham** · 02-22-2007, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by binnie
He's already treated pretty bad for invading Iraq and imprisoning people illegally at the Bay....

I don't remember a Supreme Court ruling that said imprisoning foreign terrorists was unconstitutional.

**Seshmeister** · 02-22-2007, 10:51 AM

Who says they are terrorists?

Plenty have been releassed without charge after 2 or 3 years of torture.

What we do know is this sick barbaric action has led to the creation of terrorists.

Even fucking Blair has said it was unacceptable.

**Seshmeister** · 02-22-2007, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
No, I'm not saying that, but....

Read Grimsdale post above again.

I agree with him totally.

I've read quite a few books on the Eastern Front (as one who devours WWII history, it's my favorite theatre to read about) and maintain the Red Army wasn't the almight juggernaut it was made out to be. Hell, even when they were within 30 miles of Berlin it took them an additional five months to conquer the city because their frontline units had suffered extremely heavy casualties (the Germans killed them at a 9 to 1 ratio) and their supplies were spent.

Soviet commanders had a different mindset: feed the troops into the meatgrinder no matter the costs. It was common to march entire battalions over mine fields and feed platoon after platoon into machine gun nests just to take out that one gun. The Red Army soldier couldn't retreat or refuse either with NKVD troops at their backs ready to shoot them if they did.

Look, I'm not downplaying the role the Soviets played in defeating the Germans. They did a lot of fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis. However, they would have had a much harder time without a second front in France. Hell, I'll even suggest the Germans would have defeated the Russians had Hitler let his Generals fight the war and if he had a proper economic policy.

I don't disagree that the USSR having such high casualties proves their significance. That would be like saying the Iraqis in the 1st gulf war put up a great fight,

What is significant is the number of Germans they killed. Also in 1944 3/4 of the German army was in Russia with the other 1/4 spread around Europe.

In simplistic terms then you could argue that Russia was 75% responsible for the defeat of Germany.

Hitlers mismanagement, constant killing of his gernerals(84) and the fact that everyone was too scared to tell him what was going on half the time was obviously a huge problem.

In happier moments I liked to think that it kind of proves that evil is inherently weak.

Then Bush got re-elected...

**BigBadBrian** · 02-22-2007, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Seshmeister

What we do know is this sick barbaric action has led to the creation of terrorists.

Even fucking Blair has said it was unacceptable.

Ridiculous. That's like saying the beheading of Americans over in the sand box has created terrorists here. I think you have a low opinion of the Arab people.

Besides, it's not like they didn't already want to kill us.

**BigBadBrian** · 02-22-2007, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by binnie
He's already treated pretty bad for invading Iraq and imprisoning people illegally at the Bay....

The only thing "illegal" about it is the Democrats don't approve. Just another way they are helping the evil-doers.

**Seshmeister** · 02-22-2007, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Ridiculous. That's like saying the beheading of Americans over in the sand box has created terrorists here.

9-11 definitely created plenty of terrrorists in the US government.

**Seshmeister** · 02-22-2007, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by BigBadBrian

Besides, it's not like they didn't already want to kill us.

Who is this 'they'.

The guy that runs your local 711?

The guy that was walking along the street in Bagdhad and lifted and taken to Guantanamo?

The western muslim who was at a wedding in Afghanistan with bad timing?

**Seshmeister** · 02-22-2007, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
The only thing "illegal" about it is the Democrats don't approve. Just another way they are helping the evil-doers.

The Democrats are the least of it. The whole rest of the world doesn't approve.

And the US government became the 'evil doers' so you could say the Democrats helped them by being pussys for the last few years.

**Seshmeister** · 02-22-2007, 11:49 AM

**binnie** · 02-22-2007, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
The only thing "illegal" about it is the Democrats don't approve. Just another way they are helping the evil-doers.

So, lets say your in Saudi Arabi and someone there doesn't like the look of you, arrests you, doesn't tell you why you've been arrested and then proceeds to hold you indefinatley whilst they find evidence - that fair?

Thought not.

**FORD** · 02-22-2007, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Warham
I don't remember a Supreme Court ruling that said imprisoning foreign terrorists was unconstitutional.

Imprisoning ANYONE without charging them is unconstitutional.

If you have evidence that they're a terrorist, charge them with a crime and put them on trial.

What's the problem with that?

Unless there's no evidence....... which means you probably had no reason to hold that person in the first place.

WORLD WAR II Question

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment