war crimes trial/legal questions

[papabear]

Iraqi civilians are preparing a complaint to present in court in Belgium accusing allied commander Gen. Tommy Franks and other U.S. military officials of war crimes in Iraq, according to the attorney representing the plaintiffs.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030428-12027619.htm

This article should be a reminder of how amorphous international law can be, if it does not have solid foundations in sound political theory.

SFTT.org article: "Bringing the Rule of Law to Iraq"
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=64&rnd=605.986094116786

[axl]

war should not mean anarchy and if possible civil casualties should be avoided. if there are soldiers who can't respect that, an international court is quite perfect. no country should be excluded.
if those guys you mentioned want to go to court, why not, may the judges decide. in the usa you go to court for everything, may it be the hot coffee on a grandmas pu***, may it be the jews in german concentration caps or may it be the guy who claimed to be fat only because of mc donalds.
warcrimes are something worse, you can't control it and a court is sometimes the only thing to bring justice to the victims. if you don't do that, if you don't allow that your own soldiers come to court for crimes they did during their job, you will never stop hate and crimes.

regards
axl

[Argyll]

Yeah like thats really going to happen!!
The Belgians like the French need a sharp reminder of the Sacrifices,UK and US troops made to free their country from a brutal regime not in 1 but 2 World Wars!!
Its stuff like this that'll tear the Eurpoen Union apart,small nations wanting to play tough guys to the big Boys in Europe!
Would this be the same country who'll try Saddam and his regime for warcrimes aginst his own people and the Iranians.........christ the world 's gone politacaly mad!!!
Lets wait and see how far this gets will we?

[axl]

@argyll

isn't there something else that you know? how far is your historical knowledge? ww1 was slightly different than ww2.

and why i hear all the time the same answers from american guys, crying about ww2 and the help for france? again, go back and read the words i wrote in that other stupid thread. the story is longer than "we came and freed the world". i also don't think that we should always talk about stuff that happened ages before we all were born.

and what is the real proble with that belgian law? it is only saying the a belgian citizen can go to court for any crime that happened to him. what's your problem with that?

let me just give a hard example. a terrorist comes to the usa and bombs who ever. the usa will react and do whatever necessary to get the terrorists. right?
if us planes attack a pharmaceutical plant as they have done in khartoum/sudan 1998, because they thought there are chemical weapons. investigations showed no wmd in that plant. how should the sudan or the people there react? should they attack the usa? wouldn't it be better if they go to court?
what's the difference in both attacks? one in the usa, one done by the usa. one where everybody would say the usa would have the right to do something. and the other one?

regards
axl

[Bootneck]

...in the usa you go to court for everything, may it be the hot coffee on a grandmas pu***, may it be the jews in german concentration caps or may it be the guy who claimed to be fat only because of mc donalds...

regards
axl

So Axl, you equate Holocaust survivors seeking some redress for the crimes committed against themselves and their families by a monstrous regime (and the companies that benefited from it) with frivolous lawsuits over spilled coffee and roundboys looking for someone to blame?

Ok, now I understand. You're that kind of German...

[axl]

i'm what?

[Seiyuuki]

and why i hear all the time the same answers from american guys, crying about ww2 and the help for france? again, go back and read the words i wrote in that other stupid thread. the story is longer than "we came and freed the world". i also don't think that we should always talk about stuff that happened ages before we all were born.

Since axl insisted...http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1817

...and I like to promote my rebuttal...http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1817&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

[Seiyuuki]

Yeah...I know it is self-center and egotistical of me to promote my own rebuttal...but hey, nobody's perfect and your humble Seiyuuki feel like being self-center and egotistical today...ooooooh...there's an oxymoron for yah.

[Seiyuuki]

What about Iraqis' soldiers using hospital as a holdout and how weapon caches were found in hospital?

What about POW being mistreated in hospital (and it is a fact that Jessica Lynch was mistreated in one)

What about the Feydayeen (I apologize for not knowing how to spell that right) using civilian as human shield?

What about placing military facilities and vehicles within heavy populated center?

What about faking surrendering and then turning the gun on the soldiers accepting the surrender, isn't that a violation of international law?

ARRRRRGGGGGGGG...MIND SWELLING...SO MANY QUESTIONS??????

[papabear]

war should not mean anarchy and if possible civil casualties should be avoided. if there are soldiers who can't respect that, an international court is quite perfect. no country should be excluded.
if those guys you mentioned want to go to court, why not, may the judges decide.


(1) By what authority does the court of a particular country have to try a citizen of another country for a crime committed in a third country? We have here problems of jurisdiction/legal authority, and the limits on that authority. For that matter, by what authority does that court have to try a leader of another country for a crime committed in his country? (Think of the Pinochet debacle.)

(2) If you bring in the International Criminal Court into discussion, then there is this question: by what authority does this body have to try any person on the face of the planet? It is not a sovereign entity, even if various governments delegate/surrender powers to it, because it is disconnected from any particular political community. I haven't read the text of the agreement, but it seems to me that any government which signs the agreement would still be free to withdraw from it, and render any consequent decisions null, or overrule concurrent decisions. And I don't think that having one government for the entire world is a wise or appropriate thing to do.

(3) Finally, as an aside, it seems to me that the practice of one sovereign authority trying another sovereign authority, or the members or agents thereof, is relatively new--I have yet to do more research on this, but war crimes trials, starting with Nuremberg, seem to be a historical anomaly, and it would be interesting to see how it is justified by one political theory rather than another. Perhaps some sort of an extension/comparison can be made to the treatment of Napoleon after he had "finally" lost (both times). If the members of one sovereign government were not under the authority of the other government before the war, what changes after the war? Or do victors simply have the power to do whatever they please to the losers, including assuming authority over them? In which case, are they not, de facto, ruling over them? A very knotty question.


if you don't do that, if you don't allow that your own soldiers come to court for crimes they did during their job, you will never stop hate and crimes.

Courts are there to deal with people primarily after the fact, after the injustice committed, not before. Rehabilitation is a secondary concern to redressing the injustice committed. No system of laws and government, now matter how good, can ever eliminate hate and crimes.

[papabear]

and what is the real proble with that belgian law? it is only saying the a belgian citizen can go to court for any crime that happened to him. what's your problem with that?

What the article says:

Mr. Fermon said the complaint against U.S. officials is based on a 1993 Belgian law that gives a Belgian court authority to judge war crimes committed by noncitizens anywhere in the world. The plaintiffs sought to file the complaint with the recently inaugurated ICC, but "since the United States did not ratify the treaty to join the institution, we felt compelled to go to a court in Belgium," he said.
*****He said Belgium's law of "universal jurisdiction" recently allowed indictments to be issued against Rwandan officials for war crimes. He said a similar process is expected to take place against Gen. Franks and other U.S. military officials.

The article says that under the law in question, a complaint of a war crime committed by a non-citizen of Belgium in another country to may be brought to a Belgian court. It appears that the one bringing forth the complaint need not be a Belgian citizen. It's not clear from the article under whose name the case would be prosecuted.

Sorry any claim of universal jurisdiction is a legal fiction. The power of a court goes only as far as the authority of the government of which it is a part. Any prosecution predicated on such a fiction is intrinsically unjust.


let me just give a hard example. a terrorist comes to the usa and bombs who ever. the usa will react and do whatever necessary to get the terrorists. right?
if us planes attack a pharmaceutical plant as they have done in khartoum/sudan 1998, because they thought there are chemical weapons. investigations showed no wmd in that plant. how should the sudan or the people there react? should they attack the usa? wouldn't it be better if they go to court?
what's the difference in both attacks? one in the usa, one done by the usa. one where everybody would say the usa would have the right to do something. and the other one?


A terrorist who commits a crime on soil is subject to the laws and courts of the [U.S.], not Mexico, not his home country.

If U.S. planes attack another country, it is an act of war, not a criminally unjust act. The pilots/soldiers are acting as agents of a foreign government, and it is the government that is responsible, not the private individuals as such. We're no longer in the sphere of what governs the relations between individuals of the same political community, acts against whom are subject to prosecution by the government/court system of that community; rather we are dealing with the sphere of relations between two countries. [u]Big difference.

The terrorist is not acting as an agent of a foreign government; rather he is more of a private individual. Hence the problems of how he is to be treated once captured, and so on. His act is not an act of war by another country; it is a criminal act committed by an individual, or in a conspiracy with other individuals..

[Sulph8]

Heheh, someone told me that they read in The Economist that at the current rate, in ten years 92 percent of Americans will be either sueing someone or being sued themselves! Funny stuff, at least the economy will keep circulating! :)

[JohnJohn]

too late for me rofl

[FabeYond]

@Bootneck



So Axl, you equate Holocaust survivors seeking some redress for the crimes committed against themselves and their families by a monstrous regime (and the companies that benefited from it) with frivolous lawsuits over spilled coffee and roundboys looking for someone to blame?

Ok, now I understand. You're that kind of German...


I think that's a bit unfair. He mentions it as an example not an equation. The holocaust survivors seeking some redress can be equated to some degree to Iraqis seeking redress for crimes committed by us-soldiers (if that happened). Where should they seek redress? In the US? Why don't the holocaust survivors seek redress in germany instead of the us (well, some do, but some not)?

FabeYond

[axl]

@papabear
the ex iraqi guys are belgien, so they can go to the belgien court.

i totally agree with you that you should not judge the pilots of the planes that bombed the sudan, but the government who gave the order. so what should they do? what about a court?

if you ask about the authority of a court, its the same with a local court. if a state does not support that court, the final decission is just on paper. but why should a normal country not support such a court?

@seiyuuki
1. if your country is attacked you don't really care where are you fighting. its only about your freedom.
2. what's your definition of "mistreating"?
3. where?
4. don't you think that every country should be able to put its military wherever they want? its their damn country! not everybody has the same strategies as the usa. if i expect my industry to be attacked, i place my air defence close to it. if i place my air defence there, i need support there. if i have my support and air defence there, i need my command structure there. what's your point?
5. muahahahaha! every pow has the right to fight. if somebody is just careless with surrenders, he will have to pay the bill. show me the international law...please.

more questions?

regards
axl

[Argyll]

Axl,
to clarify,the point about the 2 world wars was about the Liberation by Allied troops on both accounts,and the regime being the Nazis's during WW2.
Now if you care to re read the article,the doctors were Belgian,not the complainees,the complainees were Iraqis not ex Belgian!!.(10 had approached the doctors saying they were victims of war crimes!!)
If you wish to place Military Hardware next to civilian areas then they inevitably will be attacked,however the coalition did their utmost not to do this!
The market bombing..........ever seen a crater made by a 500lb bomb dropped at altitude? it's big!!,and there wasn't such a crater in that Market place,the crater was very small,from smaller ordnance,such as AAA coming back down.
To put someone on trial without damning evidence is a waste of your taxpayers money,cause that's what'll happen.

[Seiyuuki]

if you ask about the authority of a court, its the same with a local court. if a state does not support that court, the final decission is just on paper. but why should a normal country not support such a court?

I think the point papabear was getting at was "legitimate authority," ask any political scientists or lawyers or judges and they can probably give you a more definite definition on it than probably all of us here. From whom, where, what manner did the Belgium's court receive "legitimate authority" for "universal jurisdiction"?


1. if your country is attacked you don't really care where are you fighting. its only about your freedom.

There you go again with the hypocrisy, blame the U.S. for attacking hospital, but yet you make the case for using the hospital as a military facility. You said you were a soldier once, you tell me, if someone is shooting at you and your comrade...are you really going to say to yourself "wait a minute, it is a hospital...I can't return fire, guess I just sit here and wait it out..."[/quote]

2. what's your definition of "mistreating"?
3. where?
4. don't you think that every country should be able to put its military wherever they want? its their damn country! not everybody has the same strategies as the usa. if i expect my industry to be attacked, i place my air defence close to it. if i place my air defence there, i need support there. if i have my support and air defence there, i need my command structure there. what's your point?
5. muahahahaha! every pow has the right to fight. if somebody is just careless with surrenders, he will have to pay the bill. show me the international law...please.

more questions?

regards
axl[/quote]

got to go...I'll answer the rest later

[papabear]

@papabear
the ex iraqi guys are belgien, so they can go to the belgien court.

i totally agree with you that you should not judge the pilots of the planes that bombed the sudan, but the government who gave the order. so what should they do? what about a court?

if you ask about the authority of a court, its the same with a local court. if a state does not support that court, the final decission is just on paper. but why should a normal country not support such a court?

I assume from the article that the law pertains to the application of criminal procedure by the court, not civil procedure. Criminal procedure deals with infractions against legal justice, while civil procedure deals primarily with disputes related to commutative justice (which governs transactions between individuals, or one individual with a group of other individuals, and so on). Usually in civil cases, the judgment results in a monetary award to the injured individual. On the other hand, in criminal cases, the judgment results in some sort of legally sanctioned punishment of the offender.

The reach of the courts goes only as far as the authority of the government of which they are a part. Authority can be understood as the moral power to direct (or rule or command)--authority extends only as far as the community (the people and the territory which they occupy) over which it is set over, and not beyond that. This is a restriction inherent to the nature of authority. No doubt those in the military can think of better analogies--I'll throw this one out: the commander of a company cannot, as commander of only that company, give orders to soldiers in a different company. His authority does not extend beyond those under his command.

[Seiyuuki]

2. what's your definition of "mistreating"?

Perhaps I can apply the reasoning in your answer to all other questions on my mind, what's my definition for "slavery," what's my definition for "murder," what's my definition for "torture," what's my definition for "terrorism," what's my definition for an "infidel," what's my definition...and so on, etc., it is a ploy I enact in evading all my questions. Since you're trying to make the case for international law, then one would think that a law must be a solid and constant foundation of society, what would happen to that law if the person in question ask everytime "What is your definition of 'murder'?" What is your definition of 'thief'?" The best definition I can give for "mistreating" is that we provide aids to Iraqi POW, treat the wounded, feed them, don't parade them on tv, etc....while the Iraqi, they do the opposite.


3. where?

I guess it is pointless to answer this one since you already establish the fact in the last thread that we are all under the propaganda machination of the government, so all the reports on Iraqis' soldiers using civilian human shield on CNN, FOX, NBC, CBS, BBC, TIME, the Washington Post, and so on...are all just lie and untrue. I swear, you would think at least one of them telling the truth.

4. don't you think that every country should be able to put its military wherever they want? its their damn country! not everybody has the same strategies as the usa. if i expect my industry to be attacked, i place my air defence close to it. if i place my air defence there, i need support there. if i have my support and air defence there, i need my command structure there. what's your point?

There is a big difference in placing your defenses to protect the populace, and using the populace to protect your defenses.


5. muahahahaha! every pow has the right to fight. if somebody is just careless with surrenders, he will have to pay the bill. show me the international law...please.

It is called the Geneva Accords, the Iraqi claim they're following it, the entire world beg both sides to follow it, we did, but the Iraqi didn't.

GOD, WHAT A POINTLESS WASTE OF TIME!!!

You make all this high and noble argument for how international laws should be obey and jump on the bandwagon of how the U.S. break them all, but when the question is raise about the Iraqi, you merely evade by replying with "....what law??? I don't see any law, show me the law!!!"

You make all this high and noble argument for how civilian casulties is horrific and jump on the bandwagon of how the U.S. committed so much atrocities, but when the question is raise about the Iraqi, you merely evade by replying with "...where???"

You make all this high and noble argument for how civilian casulties is horrific and jump on the bandwagon of how the U.S. committed so much atrocities, but when the question is raise about the Iraqi, you merely evade by replying with "...because it is their damn right to be able to use the civil populace as a shield for their defense..."

[axl]

i don't say that everything the iraq did was just fine. but that's mostly internal problems and nobody has the right to fight against that. there are more countries were thousands of people die year by year, why is the usa not "helping" them? why it had to be the iraq? just tell me why them?

and hey, did the usa ever invented to free somebody? when? let's see

ww1: germany declared the war
ww2: fighting against the japanese who attacked them. and in europe it was more to stop the russians from overtaking europe. i know, you freed france. believe what you want.
korea: i don't know enough about this conflict, so i should up
vietnam: nothing to add, right
golf war 2: the world against the bad iraq. nobody really cared about a reason (inkl. germany). but the oil needed to be free.
balkan: how many soldiers are there to work? 9? 12?
afghanistan: same as balkan
golf war 3: the saudis will not support the usa forever. so lets get another source for cheap oil.

the usa did a damn good job to support germany after ww2 with lots of money so the economy came back up. but they did that once, never after that. so what do you expect? the world is not that easy and maybe you have to understand that a military superpower has not the right to attack whoever they want, just because they see any need. and they lie to their own people and the whole world. how long is the usa now in the usa? for weeks? so why they don't find anything around there? if you have seen powels fancy multi-media show within the un security council they should be able to check all those buildings within days and show the stuff to the public. but they can't. so where is the link between iraq and terror. where is the link between iraq and not respecting the un dictate? btw, there is also still no final proof about bin laden being responsible for september 11th. just because everybody is saying the same it does not mean that its the right information.

regards
axl

[hood]

axl, you're basing your argument on ignorance unfortunately. To state a few, we not only helped rebuild Germany, but Japan also. We also helped the Philippines. We're also helping Afghanistan and Iraq. We get a very small percentage of our oil from Saudi Arabia, so saying that we need to find another cheap source instead of them makes no sense. Rumsfeld just ordered all of our troops out of Saudi Arabia. ALL of them. Saying that nobody cared or could find a reason to liberate Kuwait is choosing to ignore a coalition of 50+ countries. Not only did they give aid like Gulf War 2, but they had tons of troops on the ground. The same goes for the operations in Afghanistan. Just look in the gallery on here and see how many countries had combat troops.

[Bootneck]

Just look in the gallery on here and see how many countries had combat troops.

Oh come on Hood, everyone knows that this site is just another gear in the evil Rumsfeld/Perle/Wolfowitz/Cheney (and Mossad) propaganda machine!

:cantbeli:

[Argyll]

Hey hood,
Axl's an uninformed misguided youth,who's probably French!!Or Belgain same thing,they talk the same bullsh*t.!!

[hood]

"Aww jeez, there go the Burmese again. The Burmese are like Belgians with hangovers!" -- Dana Gould

[Seiyuuki]

ww1: germany declared the war

Ask any military historians in France or Germany for all I care, they will all tell you the same thing...before U.S. intervention, it was a virtual stalemate, no matter what, we tip the scale in favor of the Allies.


ww2: fighting against the japanese who attacked them. and in europe it was more to stop the russians from overtaking europe. i know, you freed france. believe what you want.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1817&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

"Let say we didn't intervene...the German doesn't have to worry about its western flank because Britain does not have the necessary manpower and resource to invade mainland Europe, Patton wouldn't be in Northern Africa and the Desert Fox would push the British back all the way to Egypt, Italy wouldn't be invaded from Africa and they wouldn't turn on the German, leaving the German with the resources to concentrate on only one front, Russia. With the Japanese working across Russia from the East and German from the West, not even the Russian's winter could keep Russia from falling for long. Our intervention ensure the Allies victory, we disruptive the alliance between Japan, Italy, and Germany, we open multiple fronts that the German must contend with, stretching their resoures to its limit. Europe was lucky we intervene when we did, Germany was far from its last breath and the Red Army was farther from victory."


korea: i don't know enough about this conflict, so i should up

WTF??? Why the hell this you posted it anyway...??? Just so you know, Korea was officially an UN operation, with the bulk of the forces made up of troops from the U.S.


vietnam: nothing to add, right

WTF??? Why the hell this you posted it anyway...???


golf war 2: the world against the bad iraq. nobody really cared about a reason (inkl. germany). but the oil needed to be free.

Yes...we can all let Kuwait burn!!!


balkan: how many soldiers are there to work? 9? 12?

First was a UN operation, then they screw up, then became a NATO operation...MULTILATERAL!!! Get it, we didn't need to send our entire army, 12 was enough help...


afghanistan: same as balkan

LOL!!! I DON'T EVEN NEED TO ANSWER THIS...JUST TOO DAMN FUNNY!!!


golf war 3: the saudis will not support the usa forever. so lets get another source for cheap oil.

Urg...didn't we just made it official, we're moving all of our troops out of there...

DAMN IT...DO NOT EVER USE ANY MILITARY HISTORY REASONING AGAIN, THIS IS LIKE THE UMPTEENTH TIME AND YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL FREAKING ACCOUNTS!!!


there is also still no final proof about bin laden being responsible for september 11th. just because everybody is saying the same it does not mean that its the right information.

DAMN...CNN, FOX, NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC...all them people lie to me...even Al Jazeer (or however you spell it)...all those tapes showing bin Laden taking credit is wrong!!! but how can that be???

[hood]

Yeah i guess bin Laden saying it himself isn't good enough for some people. :)

[Bing]

axl is funny, lets compliment him on letting us argue with him... rofl

[EliteWolf]

we give them their freedom from opression and this is what we get in return, bring saddam back, hell if i give a damn anymore if he totures them! i swear some people just cant look at the good things we do for them. p-)

[DarkAngel]

Dear Iraqi people,
we have very kindly liberated u. To show such ungratefulness now truly saddens us. Ok, so u lost your wife and kids. Well, stop whining about tt and start enjoying the taste of FREEDOM. Cant u see tt ur being selfish and not caring about THE WHOLE COUNTRY?

Oh whats tt? U say ur a civillian? Oh well, tts called COLLATERAL DAMAGE. We're REAL sorry tt we shot em up, but hey, **** happens. Like they say, u cant make an omelette w/o breakin some eggs, torchin e kitchen and blowin up e house. Move on. And dont even think about bein a terrorist and attacking us sometime in the future. Tt just shows ur extreme ungratefulness, which we just CANNOT FATHOM. If u do retaliate, we promise tt we'll reply w such a load of whoop-ass tt u'll wish ud joined ur wife and kids. Hmm... now tt IS an idea. Captain, this man could grow to become a potential terrorist. I think we better kill him quietly. It'll save many American lives in the future. Heheh, how's tt for some US-style pre-emptive striking, huh?

As for tryin us in court, u gotta be kiddin. Everyone knows tt only the US tries its own service men. Why, even the My Lai killers do NOT answer to their victims. Their mistake was to disobey their orders, and to fabricate a cover-story; tt they murdered the civvies was incidental.

Besides, the US is a sovereign gvt. U cant try indv servicemen. They were actin under orders. Ok, so tt argument doesn't work for EVERYBODY ELSE. But hey, we're e superpower here, kids. As for terrorism, everyone knows only rag-heads and lefties do stuff like tt. As for us, we only do commando raids and deniable ops. Its all legit and above board. Ok, so we didn't declare war on Sudan when we bombed their pharmaceutical plant, but hey, we DO NOT answer to rag-heads, mister. So forget abt EVER seein any US serviceman bein tried by a foreign court.

[axl]

@DarkMindedAngel

thanks for enlighten me!
how could somebody like me or millions of other people come and have any doubts about the god given superiority of the usa? i'm really sorry about my bad thoughts! from now on i will believe in your stupid politicians, i will pray for them every day and hope that soon they will also attack me. if they come over me like a non stopable sicknes i will be there to take all the harm that they cause and i will be thankful if they kill my little sister only for the reason she was there. and yes, i'm sure i will feel free after all that, no question about it.

honestly, you are my hero, my only reason to go on and wait for my attack. thanks man.

regards
axl

[hood]

I always find it funny how you think you represent the people of that country, when you don't. You talk to free Iraqi's and they were 100 percent behind us. A reporter interviewed a bunch of random people on the street in Iraq before the war who said that America must die etc etc. They managed to meet up with some of them again after the war and they said how greatful they were to America and its efforts. They weren't allowed to speak their minds before the action but they finally can now. You know what these Iraqi's say to people like you now? "Not in my name!"

[GazB]

To state a few, we not only helped rebuild Germany, but Japan also. We also helped the Philippines.

WEST Germany and Japan were rebuilt for the anticipated fight against the Soviets, and nothing more noble than that. East Germany was stripped of everything of value in reparations by the Soviets to make up for some of the damage that was done to the Soviets.

Don't you think it is strange. Most of Europe from most of recorded time have been taking gold and resources from the known world, (ie France, Britain, Spain, Portuguese, even Belgium etc etc) yet now there is so much gold in fort knox... perhaps money lending is such a lucrative game that some money could have been given away, but most was called Lend-Lease and often at generous rates for a while.

The UK didn't care about Austria or Czecholslovakia and really only wanted to save Europe when Poland was invaded. The US sold a lot of products in a sellers market till it was attacked itself in '41.

Going back to WWI the US didn't join in till it was almost over... 1917 with the sinking of the Lusitania... nothing to do with saving Europe... just revenge again.

"They weren't allowed to speak their minds before the action but they finally can now. You know what these Iraqi's say to people like you now?"

Are you sure they weren't the Saudi government... they go with the breeze too... it is safer.

"You make all this high and noble argument for how civilian casulties is horrific and jump on the bandwagon of how the U.S. committed so much atrocities, but when the question is raise about the Iraqi, you merely evade by replying with..."

War is not a game. The losers get to die more often than not. The Iraqis didn't start this war, the Americans and British and Aussies did. Who else can be held responsible for any death or damage that results?

What kind of person will stand out in the desert and face the Coalition on fair terms? ...fair for who? Will American troops take off their body armour and get out of their tanks and fight fair?
If you choose not to take advantages of your enemies weaknesses then you are tying your own hands. I doubt the citizens of the US would abide by any convention if they were invaded... not that that would be likely.

"human shield on CNN, FOX, NBC, CBS, BBC, TIME, the Washington Post, and so on...are all just lie and untrue. I swear, you would think at least one of them telling the truth. "

Not necessarily... they often get their news from one or two sources... or is there a reporter from all of these news agencies everywhere in Iraq?

Even if that were true, does that forgive US troops ignoring the values they are supposed to be upholding?

The whole war is a bit of a joke really... if giving Iraq democracy was so important, why not give Saudi Arabia some too, or even Kuwaite... perhaps because the religious nutters that make up such a large percentage of the populations are anti US and anti west.... of course the Shi'a in Iraq love the US... not.

"We get a very small percentage of our oil from Saudi Arabia, so saying that we need to find another cheap source instead of them makes no sense."

It is not supply that is the problem, it is the fact that a large amount of your wealth and prosperity is based on oil, so keeping oil cheap is a necessity. You don't need to actually control Iraqi oil... the Iraqi need to generate revenue to rebuild their country after two wars and 12 years of sanctions should keep oil prices low which is all you want.

"Saying that nobody cared or could find a reason to liberate Kuwait is choosing to ignore a coalition of 50+ countries."

Yes, the majority opposed senseless aggression... both then and now. The difference is that then it was Iraqi Aggression, now it was US and UK aggression.

"With the Japanese working across Russia from the East and German from the West, not even the Russian's winter could keep Russia from falling for long. Our intervention ensure the Allies victory, we disruptive the alliance between Japan, Italy, and Germany, we open multiple fronts that the German must contend with, stretching their resoures to its limit. Europe was lucky we intervene when we did, Germany was far from its last breath and the Red Army was farther from victory." "

But the Japanese got their a$$e$ kicked by the Russians in Gakalin Kol (Spelling). I doubt they'd make much headway across barren frozen tundra... their armour was worse than pathetic... even the prewar tankettes that the germans pulverised would have been a serious challange to the Japanese. The Japs had no intention of invading Russia. And the Germans were stopped and pushed back well before the US got around to doing anything of note.
The US didn't win the war, the SS did. By treating the Russians and Ukrainians as animals they guaranteed the local populations that might otherwise have supported a liberation from the commies would present a problem that certainly wouldn't go away, but only get stronger and stronger.

"we give them their freedom from opression and this is what we get in return, bring saddam back, hell if i give a damn anymore if he totures them! i swear some people just cant look at the good things we do for them. "

At least Saddam is Iraqi. A retire general answerable to a general equates to a US military government.
Maybe if you hadn't left them out to dry and get slaughtered in 91 they'd think more of you... your sanctions haven't helped either... and then when you do go in you avoid the cities and go straight for the oil fields and the ministry of oil, while museums and hospitals are looted. You were obviously in there for the oil... the papers in the minstry of oil would show evidence of past occurances but would have very little to do with the future of Iraq and the Iraqi people... which is what you claimed you were there for.

"we have very kindly liberated u. To show such ungratefulness now truly saddens us. Ok, so u lost your wife and kids. Well, stop whining about tt and start enjoying the taste of FREEDOM. Cant u see tt ur being selfish and not caring about THE WHOLE COUNTRY? "

Yes, you Iraqi dummies... we impose our style government on you while taking no steps to protect hospitals and museums but spare no effort to save our oops your oil, you might have lost family members, but don't say anything bad about us... you are free and shortly we will issue with a list of things you can say about us... none of it will be bad... mostly just nice stuff about your new freedoms... you selfish bastards.
Think about how your loss has helped the global economy by keeping oil cheap you are making more efficient low polluting fuels like hydrogen down... your not just helping your country but helping our world.
...Dark Angel indeed!!!!!

"I always find it funny how you think you represent the people of that country, when you don't. You talk to free Iraqi's and they were 100 percent behind us. A reporter interviewed a bunch of random people on the street in Iraq before the war who said that America must die etc etc."

Well during the war there were reports on the BBC of Iraqis going to Iraq to fight the Americans... they were in Jordan and quite safe from Saddam and so could speak their minds. They didn't even like Saddam, but said at least he was Iraqi.

The Shi'a are very similar to the Iranians in religion. It was local religious leaders that sent young men out to restore order and act as traffic officers or guards at the hospitals.
I doubt if the US will be able to impose democracy for long...

[DarkAngel]

@GazB
I was bein ironic there. The whole post was a satire.

[axl]

why is everybody thinking that democracy is the one and only big thing? its the same as in all ways to control a community, it works in theory. people in general are stupid, give them too much power and they don't know what to do with that. just looks the countries that we call democratic, do they work the way they should? what about corruption and the work of lobbies? or just take the overdemocracy, switzerland. people vote for everything, but they don't really understand when they should better should up. democracy can work, but often its just a waste of money coz one side is afraid to lose against the other. so they fight and talk and do nothing.
eash country should decide if it really wants democracy, some are not ready for that and some simply don't want it. and there are also some who don't need.

regards
axl

[papabear]

eash country should decide if it really wants democracy, some are not ready for that and some simply don't want it. and there are also some who don't need.

And of course the question will end up being decided by a few? (Which I don't have problems with.) Otherwise, it would seem rather silly for all the citizens to vote whether the government should be a democracy or not, since in doing so they would be acting as a democracy.

[Duke]

why is everybody thinking that democracy is the one and only big thing? its the same as in all ways to control a community, it works in theory. people in general are stupid, give them too much power and they don't know what to do with that. just looks the countries that we call democratic, do they work the way they should? what about corruption and the work of lobbies? or just take the overdemocracy, switzerland. people vote for everything, but they don't really understand when they should better should up. democracy can work, but often its just a waste of money coz one side is afraid to lose against the other. so they fight and talk and do nothing.
eash country should decide if it really wants democracy, some are not ready for that and some simply don't want it. and there are also some who don't need

Where do I begin?? May I ask what alternative is there to a democracy??You point out the weaknesses in a democracy and you dont realize you are advocating a dictatorship "...people...are stupid"..."...works in theory." and the best one "...overdemocracy". who are you to decide for others?? What of their opinion??
Then you state each country should "decide". How?? By a democratic election, but wait, that only works in "theory". What of the people, what if they want a democracy? Wait again, people are too "stupid". A democracy is not perfect, but it has the inate ability to constantly improve itself...through elections...through freedom of speech, right to assemble etc etc. These are a democracy's strength, which you fail to mention or highlight, which vastly justifies its use and existence over any other system of government.
Thanks for not using those idiotic analogies, but now I want you to THINK before you POST.

[axl]

why? monarchy with a strong religious part can also work, or just think about about a community of clans? sure, for us western oriented people its difficult to think about that, but maybe you should realize that those types of community existed for thousands of years and worked. they all have advantages and disadvantages. but we should never run into a country and say that they have to have democracy (even if western states like to do so). just take a country like afghanistan, what should it do with democracy? most people can't even read and be sure they prefer somebody else to decide for them. the clans worked just fine for such a long time, why can't they go on? countries normally establish the system that they think its the best for them and even if there is one guy or a small group on top it does not mean that it is dictatorship. a war for a philosophy is not really different from a war for a religion. nobody can say what is the best for somebody else, but people are intelligent enough to go their own way.

regards
axl

[Duke]

STOP POSTING STUPIDASS DRIBBLE, SERIOUSLY STOP.

[axl]

out of arguments?

regards
axl

[Duke]

I REALIZE NOW YOU MUST BE ABOUT 12 TO 14 YEARS OLD. IF YOURE OLDER THEN YOU HAVE A LOW IQ. I DONT WANT TO WASTE MY TIME WITH IGNORANT TRASH.

[axl]

if you have different oppinions than others you are young and have a low iq? doesn't mean democracy to be allowed to have different ideas and spread them out? isn't a forum some kind of micro-democracy where you can share and discuss ideas? if you don't like it, try to bring me to the good side or simply don't read them. if you want from me to stop writing stuff that you don't like i would say you are a kind of small dictator that has not really an idea about the earlier called democracy...

regards
axl

[Duke]

show me a religous monarchy that has worked??? show me a community clan that has also worked. Show me some ****-ing details to back up your argument that people of lesser education should take its cues from the educated. What government is better than a democracy??? im going to give you a hint in composing an arguement. give details facts figures dont spit out **** thats vague and obtuse.
this board represents freedom of speech, something i believe and signed a piece of paper to defend with my life. i can say whatever i say so long those words are not "Fire!" words or threats. Conversely, you believe that speech should be regulated by a few such as a monarchy, religious leaders and clan leaders.
Riddle me this. should speech be regulated or controlled by a few who share common and narrow beliefs, axl. imagine how dangerous that would be. In your perferred system of goverment, the religous monarchy, if one were to say anti-monarchial statements should that person go to jailor be executed?? in your government if a person worships in a different manner should they go to jail or be execute??? its is extremely naive to promote a government that wouldnt rabidly defend its ideas.
****-ING THINK BEFORE YOU POST

[axl]

how many times do people live on that planet and how long do we have something called democracy?

i would say you have a problem with thinking about and understanding the words that i wrote. i never talked about speech regulations and prisons or whatever. i also never told you what my prefered form of ruling a country is. the only thing i stated was that democracy is not perfect and there are other different forms that may fit better in other countries with different types of thinking and living. the usa has one culture, other countries have different ones. in a multi-cultural world you should start to lear to respect others and not try to force them to live your way.
also religious leaders are nothing bad per definition. infact most religions are more or less equal and normally they do not pray hate and war. just take the islam and the christions, they are about freedom, piece and understanding. its always people who start wars. and there it makes no difference if you are a fanatic islamist or a president of a big nation.

regards
axl

[papabear]

a war for a philosophy is not really different from a war for a religion. nobody can say what is the best for somebody else, but people are intelligent enough to go their own way.

Ok--how do you maintain this without falling into some form of moral relativism?

We have to look at the truths we are defending--if we know that murder is wrong, and this is part of our "moral philosophy," then yes waging war for "a philosophy" might be the right thing to do.

So we have to make a distinction between basic principles (of Natural Law), which are the same for everyone (e.g. having a government is good and necessary for society to flourish), and the various conclusions regarding what is to be done in a concrete situation (for example, the form of government that should be chosen) that flow from those principles, which may differ from society to society, as customs and habits, as well as the temperament and character of the people have to be taken into account.

[axl]

totally agree. sure, you need somebody to setup rooles and who makes sure that you as part of a community follows this rules. but what kind of rules are established, who is the ruling group/person should be formed during a process within a culture and not established by another external force after its needs. that would just end with a unified world where democracy is just a phrase and the biggest power decides.

regards
axl

[Seiyuuki]

why? monarchy with a strong religious part can also work, or just think about about a community of clans?

I'm part Japanese...trust me when I say, you don't want the clans system, it look nice at first but it won't work.

[GazB]

"show me a religous monarchy that has worked???"

UK? Henry the 8th thought it was a good idea... (I'm sure you've heard of C of E?)
Funny you think a religious monarchy cannot work yet a religious democracy can. (If you think the US seperates religion from government try marrying your second wife without divorcing your first...)

"give details facts figures dont spit out **** thats vague and obtuse."
"this board represents freedom of speech, something i believe and signed a piece of paper to defend with my life."

You're defending this board with your life... vague and obtuse?

Ohh, sorry you are defending the right to freedom of speech...

"STOP POSTING STUPIDASS DRIBBLE, SERIOUSLY STOP."

"I REALIZE NOW YOU MUST BE ABOUT 12 TO 14 YEARS OLD. IF YOURE OLDER THEN YOU HAVE A LOW IQ. I DONT WANT TO WASTE MY TIME WITH IGNORANT TRASH."

Is that your own freedom of speech or are others entitled to some too... from the comments you have made in various places it is freedom of speech as long as you agree with me.

Shouting, swearing, and personal abuse, and I'd still rate you pledging you life to protect freedom of speech as honourable, shame you can't extend that right to everyone but I'll extend it to you and not call you names.

[Duke]

gaz shut the **** up, again show me a religious monarchy that worked?? ****-ing UK?? What the hell is the Magna Carta??? The English monarchical government failed. What the hell is under Big Ben??? Ohh its the Parliement Building, the UK has parlimentary style republic. did I ever say a religious monarchy would succeed or that i prefer one?? NO, REREAD my post.
Freedom of speech is one thing, freedom to post unintelligent dribble is another gaz.
For example, after someone cites the Wall Street Journal somewhere in the photos section you say WSJ is SOLELY a financial information publication and proceed to critize the citation. what the **** was Daniel Pearl doing in Pakistan??? He wasnt there to calculate the inflationary curves on turbans, or map out the price versus cost of usama bin laden t-shirts. He was doing I-N-V-E-S-T-I-G-A-T-I-V-E reporting on Al-Qaida.
Another unintelligent post is that you claim the M1 and/or its variants had chobham armor, the army based the m1 armor on the chobham, but its different. NO not the same, but different, american armor developement based on the chobham. click here ****-ing idiot its an US Army site and go to the desert storm section
www.amchistory.army.mil/studies/technology.htm
Gaz I would respect you like many on this board if you posted accurate info.

[He219]

Duke, YOU ROCK! rofl

GazB and Axl; don't take the language personal. He does use character blockouts over his explicate characters @#*,hehehehe

Axl wrote:

why is everybody thinking that democracy is the one and only big thing? its the same as in all ways to control a community, it works in theory. people in general are stupid, give them too much power and they don't know what to do with that
monarchy with a strong religious part can also work, or just think about about a community of clans? sure, for us western oriented people its difficult to think about that, but maybe you should realize that those types of community existed for thousands of years and worked. they all have advantages and disadvantages. but we should never run into a country and say that they have to have democracy (even if western states like to do so). just take a country like afghanistan, what should it do with democracy? most people can't even read and be sure they prefer somebody else to decide for them. the clans worked just fine for such a long time, why can't they go on? countries normally establish the system that they think its the best for them and even if there is one guy or a small group on top it does not mean that it is dictatorship. a war for a philosophy is not really different from a war for a religion. nobody can say what is the best for somebody else, but people are intelligent enough to go their own way.

:cantbeli:

No wonder Duke's head is spinnig in disbelief.

Axl, Afghanistan is not ready for democracy and the clan system worked for them?

They have been killing each other since the Bhuddists were kicked out. Klan on Klan fighting has been the instability that prevents the rights of individual man to grow and flourish. Were they better off being governed by terror and civil-war? Now there is a chance for individual opportunity without suppression by threat of death. IT NOW CAN FLOURISH AS GERMANY DID AFTER HITLER.

But you would have us believing that the Germans were not ready for Democracy and that the Nazi system is an acceptible form of government! Oh, I see, it's the SOCIALIST view here. Socialism Vs. Democracy. The group over the individual. Just look at all the people afraid to talk aloud because they are in fear of a repressive government - that can lock them up or kill them if they dare challenge the Status Quo! Democracy is the only forum that gives opportunity for all to present their views. You made a bad case against Democracy.

As for GazB: You certainly are one cynnical Anti-American.
WEST Germany and Japan were rebuilt for the anticipated fight against the Soviets, and nothing more noble than that

That fight was not Anticipated whilst the USSR was seen as an ALLY against the AXIS. The rebuilding of EUROPE was Financed by the Marshall Plan to prevent dire post war economic circumstance from allowing those governments from falling toward COMMUNIST regiemes. 'Those' included GREAT BRITAIN, GERMANY and FRANCE. Unfortunately the SOCIALISTS won modern Europe anyhow. Germany and Japan, as Iraq, have shown themselves to be a progressive and advanced populus. By not helping them restore their own economic viability and autonomy we risk replacing one repressive regieme (NationalSocialists/Japan's Military/Saddam) with another more ardently defiant regieme in resentment if left abandoned.



The UK didn't care about Austria or Czecholslovakia and really only wanted to save Europe when Poland was invaded. The US sold a lot of products in a sellers market till it was attacked itself in '41.
Going back to WWI the US didn't join in till it was almost over... 1917 with the sinking of the Lusitania... nothing to do with saving Europe... just revenge again
:cantbeli:

Ignorance is Bliss, GazB.
Chamberlain did his best to preserve Peace. Appeasement did not work. The Failure of the League of Nations to take direct action against Hitler's anexation of Austria, Saarland and Suedatenland AS A UNIFIED THREAT spelled it's demise - like the VETO for TEETH in UN POLICY today.

Yes, the US violated neutrality by selling to multiple parties. GREAT BRITAIN was weeks away from being starved in WWI and it was far from OVER. Entrance of the US on the side of the Allies marked the shifting of balance against Germany/KK Austria-Hurgary. You interpret this as opportunism. Remember the complex system of alliances that really started WWI.

For all those who believe Germany started WWI:

Europe was Monarchially related amongst themselves. The Kaiser was Queen Victoria's Cousin, as were the Romanovs and the Hapsburgs, etc.

Bosnian Nationalists assasinate Archduke Ferdinand of AUSTRIA-HUNGARY in Serievo. Austria-Hungary invades Serbia. Russia comes to the aide of Serbia, declares war on AUSTRIA-HUNGARY which is allied with GERMANY and sends troops south on FRENSH BUILT railways aimed at GERMANY. The Kaiser protests and Germany declares war on RUSSIA and FRANCE. ENGLAND enters after GERMANY invades BELGIUM en route to FRANCE.

GazB. EUROPE was a BLOODY MESS in WWI. THE US WAS ISOLATIONIST UNTIL ATTACKED AND SHIFTED THE BALANCE TOWARD THE ALLIES. As Germany saw it, it's forces (however on the brink of collapse) agreed to WILSONS 14 PTS and an ARMISTICE was agreed upon. The front collapsed as troops abandon positions. America was thus removed. The Treaty of VERSAILLES was a blatent opportunistic treatise that cut off Germany's legs- thus leading to the anymosity and resentment that gave rise to Hitler and the consequences of WWII. It was EXPLOITED. A BLOODY EUROPEAN MESS. Why would Germany sign the treatise of Versailles and who signed it?

THE US WAS AGAIN ATTACKED IN WWII and ended up bailing out another BLOODY EUROPEAN MESS. This is not US opportunism. It in turn ended up becoming a SUPERPOWER to be RECONED WITH wich is really what you resent.

p-)
-He219

[axl]

@Seiyuuki
again, never said that. just what is right for us does not need to be right for others.

@duke
hey duke, how did that guy answer you in the other forum, "ignorance because of lack of knowledge"? right?
ask you one question: is democracy working the way it should? the answer can't be yes, corruption rulz and you are governed by a bunch of lobbies. do you really know in detail what your state is up to? do you still think that they tell you what they know or isn't it that you get the information where they think its enough for you?

@he219
what do you know about afghanistan? around what time your knowledge is starting, before the russians came or after? history started longer than 30 years before. this is also for duke, menkind is much older than you two together.
you also can't compare afghanistan with the situation of germany in 1945, the reality is completely different. just see the knowledge level or the economic possibilities.
i never mentioned a national socialist society. in a real democracy your freedom of speech stuff may be right. just go out on the street and say "i am a taliban, i like what happened in new york and **** on the president". what will happen? nothing in case democracy exists. just take that ex ibm guy, arrested because he had friends who did maybe plan something. and he had a beard. democracy?
i know that it was great what the usa did with west germany after ww2. but if the "help" for the iraq will be the same as for the balkan or afghanistan...then good night. today the usa is fast with shooting, but slow with build up states after that.
there is no treaty of versailles, it was a dictate. a treaty´is a kind of contract and there both sides should have rights. germany had none. all won with it, inclusing the usa.
when did the usa invent in ww1? wasn't it in 1917? germany at the end, the economy down, no food, nothing? and how was it in ww2? somehow the same, no?

regards
axl

ps: duke, please stup to use you "f***" stuff, doesn't really let you look that intelligent. but maybe at home your understanding of democracy works. the one show screams most wins. and it not he attacks. just to be right.

[He219]

He219 wrote
They have been killing each other since the Bhuddists were kicked out. Klan on Klan fighting has been the instability that prevents the rights of individual man to grow and flourishLet's see, thats around 50AD :bash:
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index.html
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index2.html
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index3.html
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index4.html
Amazing tools are available to us ignorant Americans!

History before the time of the benevolent Bhuddists in Afghanistan was also frought with killing and control, from Darius, Alexander to the earliest Aryan tribes, and yes that's ARYAN. Thus I used Bhuddist Afghanistan as an example of how violent it has become for it's peoples, AXL. Remember your TALIBAN RULERS who blew up any remaining symbols of benevolent Afghan Bhuddist History?
most people can't even read and be sure they prefer somebody else to decide for them. the clans worked just fine for such a long time, why can't they go on?

Yeah, democracy is not perfect - due to the fact that all of mankind is easily corrupted. Democracy is currently the most far reaching system modeled after pan-Hellenic egalitarianism starting with the appearance of fully democratic governments in Athens to US now. Like the pun??


you also can't compare afghanistan with the situation of germany in 1945, the reality is completely different. just see the knowledge level or the economic possibilities

Yeah Axl, those Afghans who are denied the opportunity of learning to read and write are no comparison to those smart Germans given greater opportunities, eh? The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is fantastic at investing in the future of those (unfortunate ones denied the opportunity to be a benefit to themselves and mankind) after battle. Yeah, look at the Balkans. What did the Germans do to stop it? You actually sold lots of H&K's etc. rather than take a stand. It took NATO involvement and AMERICAN AIR ASSAULTS to force a stop to Serbian repression of the Albanian ethnic minority in Serbia. Since then we have seen 'corrupt' strongmen like Milosevic replaced by DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS in Serbia-Montenegro and financed with US and INTERNATIONAL AID to promote the benefit of this fledgeling DEMOCRACY.


i know that it was great what the usa did with west germany after ww2. but if the "help" for the iraq will be the same as for the balkan or afghanistan...then good night. today the usa is fast with shooting, but slow with build up states after that.


How have we failed Karzai's fledgeling government, Axl? How have we failed in the Balkans, Axl? :bash:


when did the usa invent in ww1? wasn't it in 1917? germany at the end, the economy down, no food, nothing? and how was it in ww2? somehow the same, no?


After the United States officialy entered the war on Apri 6th,1917, the balance of power shifter to the Allies. Until then, Germany along with Austria/Hungary posed a credible threat.

July, 15th, 1918: Opening of last phase of German offensive (Second Battle of the Marne)
July, 18th, 1918: Allied counterattack seizes strategical initiative from
Germans; nine US divisions participate

The nail in the coffin is set. And when Germany declared war on the US in WWII in assistance of Japan, where was it at at the time? Let's see..

December 8th,1941:

On the Eastern Front... Soviet counteroffensive continues to press the Germans westward. Red Army is also advancing in the Leningrad sector.

In North Africa... Rommel begins the withdrawal from the siege of Tobruk in an orderly retreat. German strength in the area has been reduced to 40 tanks and the 90th Light division to the strength of two battalions.


germany at the end, the economy down, no food, nothing?


Germany could still have won the war without US intervention.
Really Axl, don't give me that twisted view of history to favor your Anti-Americanist views.

p-)
-He219

[He219]

Axl,

MY USE of ANTI-AMERICANISM is not a blind 'us and them' term. I use it to make an analogy with militant anti-american policy sentiments posted here. But the real purpose is to verify that - inside you really embrace values and ideals we hold dear in democracy - and that a realization should be made that we are in this together. By taking offense it shows that you are indeed an Ally.

Peace!

p-)
-He219

[Seiyuuki]

@Seiyuuki
again, never said that. just what is right for us does not need to be right for others.

You are such a hypocritical idiot.

[axl]

why this time? just because of my different opionion? yours is also different from mine, but i don't start personal attacks.

@he219
its not difficult to become anti-american. there are so many stupid pro-american ideas around. just come and say "wait a minute, something is wrong here and you should not do that". and then you are anti-american. i would more say i'm anti-ignorance or something like that. as this forum is dominated by american guys (i guess) every opinion that is not in sync with the american government wrong. unfortunately i have my own head to think and that's why i come to different results. i have nothing against a country, just against people who say always "yes" to a public opinion without thinking about the background and the consequences.

and no, germany was never able to win ww2. as long as they did not attack russia, everything was under control. but this country was too big, germany never had enough resources for that.

regards
axl

[Seiyuuki]

@Seiyuuki
again, never said that. just what is right for us does not need to be right for others.

You are such a hypocritical idiot.

*sigh* :cantbeli: you still don't get it...I would have been fine with the part "just what is right for us does not need to be right for others," but you had to add in "again, never said that..." See the hypocrisy now...throughout all your posts you seem to pride yourself on arguing about how your and everyone else opinion should be heard no matter how difference it is...but you go and tell someone not to say it...tsk...tsk...tsk...tsk...Hence, you're an idiot for not recognizing your own hypocrisy, have a sense of humor, it wasn't a personal attack, it was a fact :D

[papabear]

Recent news pertaining to the US and the ICC:

U.S., Albania Sign Criminal Court Exemption Deal
Fri May 2, 9:18 AM ET Add World - ******* to My Yahoo!

TIRANA (*******) - Albania signed an agreement with the United States on Friday to exempt Americans from prosecution by the International Criminal Court -- a concession unlikely to impress the European Union (news - web sites) which it hopes to join.

The deal commits Albania not to hand over U.S. citizens to the newly established tribunal, which is opposed by President Bush (news - web sites) on the grounds that it could expose Americans to politically motivated prosecution.

Albania was the 32nd country to accede to the U.S. demand for exemption, most of them small states. The bulk of the 139 nations that signed the ICC's founding treaty, including all 15 EU members, have resisted similar pressure from Washington.

The accord was signed by Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) during a brief visit to Tirana for talks with Prime Minister Fatos Nano, who tried to balance a desire to please the United States with Albania's aspirations to join the European Union.

"What we did today is a further step to strengthening strategic partnership with the United States, but in the meantime a new step toward Europe and Euro-Atlantic standards (news - web sites) and institutions," Nano said.

Powell said the agreement "does show the closeness of the relationship that we enjoy, a relationship that will grow ever closer in the months and years ahead."

Romania, another EU aspirant member from the former communist bloc, signed the so-called Article 98 agreement with the United States last August, while denying it had done so simply in order to win U.S. support for membership of NATO (news - web sites).

Both Albania and Romania vocally backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), and the Albanians sent 70 soldiers to U.S.-held Baghdad.

After thanking Albanian leaders for their support, Powell joined the foreign ministers of Albania, Croatia and Macedonia to sign a "U.S.-Adriatic Partnership Charter."

This is intended to speed the accession to NATO of the three Balkan countries, which were left out of the U.S.-led alliance's latest membership enlargement deal.


New Global Court to Deter Grave Crimes - Prosecutor
Tue Apr 22, 9:24 PM ET Add World - ******* to My Yahoo!

By Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS (*******) - The International Criminal Court's first prosecutor said on Tuesday he hoped the new tribunal's mere existence would deter potential wrongdoers from committing serious crimes against humanity.

Argentine lawyer Luis Moreno Ocampo, elected on Monday as the chief prosecutor of the global court, said he thought it also would encourage national judicial authorities to crack down on atrocities within their borders such as genocide, war crimes and other gross human rights violations.

"There is some dissuasive effect," Moreno Ocampo told a news conference at U.N. headquarters. "The mere existence of the court generates the possibility of presenting a case at the International Criminal Court. So this could convince some states with serious conflicts to take the appropriate action."

In other cases, he will have to decide to step in and investigate a case after making a determination that a national system is unable to act, he said, pledging to use this power "with responsibility and firmness" and in strict compliance with the relevant statutes.

Under the international treaty setting up the new court, the prosecutor would step in and investigate only if the nation where the alleged crimes took place was unable to do so or refused.

Because of its deterrent power, he said he hoped the court would not be judged on the basis of the number of cases it ends up taking on.

"Quite the contrary, because of the exceptional character of the institution, the absence of trials led by this court as a consequence of the regular functioning of national institutions will be its measure of success," he said.


'DIRTY WAR' PROSECUTION A MODEL

The 50-year-old Moreno Ocampo is a specialist in criminal and human rights law and the main partner in the Buenos Aires firm of Moreno Ocampo & Wortman Jofre. He is also a visiting professor at Harvard University Law School.

He helped prosecute Argentina's military junta in 1980-84 for crimes committed during that country's "dirty war" in which many ordinary citizens were kidnapped and tortured and more than 15,000 people killed.

Moreno Ocampo credited pressure on the Argentine government from international human rights activists for the decision to prosecute those responsible and said he hoped the new court would operate in the same fashion.

To date, 139 nations have signed -- and 89 have ratified -- the treaty creating the tribunal, which came into being in The Hague (news - web sites) on March 11 but is not yet fully staffed.

It was the assembly of ratifying nations that elected Moreno Ocampo as the tribunal's first prosecutor on Monday.

But President Bush (news - web sites), fearing a rogue prosecutor would target Americans, has withdrawn former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s signature from the treaty and mounted an aggressive international campaign to protect U.S. officials and soldiers abroad from the tribunal's reach.

Asked whether the new court could function without the United States, Court President Philippe Kirsch of Canada predicted Washington would eventually come on board.

"The next step is for the court... in the next few years to behave in such a way that it becomes clear to all that it does act on the basis of the highest standards (news - web sites) of justice," Kirsch told reporters.

"As that happens, it is reasonable to expect that those states that still have reservations or hesitations about the court now will later provide support. To me it is a matter of time," he said.

[papabear]

ICC Websites:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/index.php
http://www.un.org/law/icc/
http://www.iccnow.org/
http://www.usaforicc.org/
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/icc.html
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol3/v3n4icc.html

Links to texts advancing con position:
http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/pubs/pas/pa-311.html
http://www.state.gov/p/9949.htm
http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=64266&owner=&date=20020714154539

[DE_Six]

Axl wrote:

"its not difficult to become anti-american. "

Indeed, you prove it.

"but i don't start personal attacks."

Oh, really? (see next quote)

"there are so many stupid pro-american ideas around. "

:cantbeli:

Wow, you nailed it yourself. Discarding an idea because it is pro-american by qualifying it of "stupid" is anti-americanism in itself: a blind refusal of everything American, even though in many case, it corresponds to your own values. In simpler words, should tomorrow the US government come up with the greatest foreign policy ever devised, you would probably still reject it as "stupid pro-american", because anti-americanism isn't primarily a reactive process of thinking (that would be mere criticism), it has rather become a "pre-emptive" one, or better yet, a political platform (ie Chirac's efforts -anti-war stance, promotion of unified European military command- to define Europe, and by extension France, by opposing it to the US).


"i have nothing against a country, just against people who say always "yes" to a public opinion without thinking about the background and the consequences. "

How can you be so sure that none of those in support (in part or in it's entirety) of US policies have thought of background and consequences? Has it occured to you that some people have thoroughly examined the stakes and have come to conclusions similar to those carried by the US government, or do you simply discard it as "brainwash"?

"as this forum is dominated by american guys (i guess) every opinion that is not in sync with the american government wrong"

So you assume that since Americans are in majority here, this forum is mostly unidirectional and narrow-minded? As if all Americans here were closed to outside ideas and perfectly "sync'ed" to the government's speech? Now don't tell me you're not anti-american, apparently you can't trust an American to think by himself. That's not very nice. And pretty narrow-minded.

[He219]

Papabear:

Thanks for keeping the discussion on track wrt the ICC.
But I just can't let this one go:

Axl wrote:
its not difficult to become anti-american. there are so many stupid pro-american ideas around


unfortunately i have my own head to think and that's why i come to different results. i have nothing against a country, just against people who say always "yes" to a public opinion without thinking about the background and the consequences.

Axl, I enjoy discussion that bring the facts to opinions and differences in ideology. What are those 'stupid pro-american ideas around'? Why can WE not have OUR 'own head to think' and develop ideas opposite from yours?

Did the people in the UK, Ausralia, Spain and US support action in Iraq prior to hostilities with a resounding 'YES'? I admire people like Tony Blair, John Howard, Jose Maria Aznar and G-Dub who go AGAINST public opinion in belief of their values.

How are SIX MONTHS of criticism in the US (prior to the start of hostilities) discussing the granting of power to G-Dub to use Military Force be - always "yes" to a public opinion without thinking about the background and the consequences? Get your facts right, Axl. Yes we do discuss the background and consequences over here too - and then we support our troops once the decision is made.


..and no, germany was never able to win ww2. as long as they did not attack russia, everything was under control. but this country was too big, germany never had enough resources for that.

Remember that the USSR got CLOBBERED in operation Barbarossa until Hilter overextended his supply lines and found himself in a Winter War - like Napoleon did. Hitler's meddling in the RLM interfered with developments of the Ural Bombers that would have destroyed the equipment made for Russian counterattack.

You are telling me that - Germany couldn't defeat the Russians in any case - regardless that the US was furnishing the USSR with cash and equipment to stabilize a two-front war. Conversely, you are telling me that without attacking Russia, Germany could have won WWII - regardles that the US was big and had more resources than Germany.

You are attempting to discredit the capabilities of the Nazi war-machine while simultaneously marginalizing the effect of US involvement in defeating the Nazis.

And you criticize us of being Ignorant and Oppinionated!

p-)
-He219

[GazB]

"gaz shut the f*** up, again show me a religious monarchy that worked?? f***-ing UK??"

Ahhh, your self control is impressive.

My inference was too subtle... name one government that doesn't claim to rule with the aide or consent of God?

We can ignore your demand for "religious" anything due to the fact that most governments, whether monarchy, or dictatorship, claim the right to govern as being gifted to them by god.


Monarchies predate Democracies and seem to have worked on balance, till replaced by better systems.
The Aztecs used religion to control their societies, and they were only stopped from functioning when the Spanish went in there and slaughtered them.
The Greeks and Egyptians also had great civilisations without anything you'd call democracy, which was a concept introduced by the Romans.


I wrote: The Wall Street Journal is a financial newspaper...

You wrote: gaz youre a raving ****ing idiot!! WSJ doesnt just publish financial info, idiot, why dont you read one. why the **** was daniel pearle in pakistan because WSJ reports the news. ****ing idiot you are a ****ing idiot


Yes, I will probably burn in hell for suggesting the Wall Streeet Journal is a financial newspaper... Gee whiz how could I be so wrong...


Another unintelligent post is that you claim the M1 and/or its variants had chobham armor, the army based the m1 armor on the chobham, but its different.

Of course it is "Different", in the sense that the British 105mm guns that were fitted to the M60 weren't British 105mm guns... they were American... and German 120mm guns currently fitted to Abrams are not German, they are American.

The Abrams has Chobham armour. (And probably not up to British spec either).

"Gaz I would respect you like many on this board if you posted accurate info."

I don't respect you at all. Just because someone has different information to what I have I don't put them down instead of coming up with facts to show their information is wrong.

"That fight was not Anticipated whilst the USSR was seen as an ALLY against the AXIS."

Churchill had made repeated attacks on the Communist system and Stalin before during and after the war. In fact his comment that if Hitler had invaded the gates of hell he would at least make a positive reference to the devil in the British parliment shows what he though of the Soviet Union.

There was plenty of talks at Yalta and other conferences to jockey for position after the war had ended... very little had anything to do with hastening the defeat of the Germans, and more to do with getting a good position in post war europe.

"The rebuilding of EUROPE was Financed by the Marshall Plan to prevent dire post war economic circumstance from allowing those governments from falling toward COMMUNIST regiemes. "

To keep them on our side we propped them up in other words. And a side has an opposition of course and that opposition was communism.

"Unfortunately the SOCIALISTS won modern Europe anyhow."

What has socialism to do with anything?

"Germany and Japan, as Iraq, have shown themselves to be a progressive and advanced populus."

You'd think the Germans almost enjoyed being marked ground zero for WWIII for 50 years.

Of all the countries in Europe Germany actually understands and gets along with Russia the best.
Ironic?

"Ignorance is Bliss, GazB. "

What ignorance?

I said:

The UK didn't care about Austria or Czecholslovakia and really only wanted to save Europe when Poland was invaded. The US sold a lot of products in a sellers market till it was attacked itself in '41.
Going back to WWI the US didn't join in till it was almost over... 1917 with the sinking of the Lusitania... nothing to do with saving Europe... just revenge again

The UK didn't stand up against Germany till Poland was attacked... are you saying I am wrong?
You agree that the US sold a lot of products.
Did the US join before the Lusitania was sunk? No? I guess that makes what I said right.


"The nail in the coffin is set. And when Germany declared war on the US in WWII in assistance of Japan, where was it at at the time? Let's see..

December 8th,1941: "

Hahahaha... yeah it was the Germans that declared war on the Americans... nice bit of revisionist history.

"I admire people like Tony Blair, John Howard, Jose Maria Aznar and G-Dub who go AGAINST public opinion in belief of their values. "

Yes, Stalin was good at ignoring public opinion too.. he's probably your fav leader.

"You are telling me that - Germany couldn't defeat the Russians in any case - regardless that the US was furnishing the USSR with cash and equipment to stabilize a two-front war. "

Ohh yes, it was US dollars that held the germans at bay, I am sure you'd appreciate the French saying how they won WWI... after all they equipped the US soldiers with the magnificent chauchat rifles when they got there.

...and what two front war? The Russians gave the Japanese such an a$$ whipping in 39 they had no interest in round two.

"Conversely, you are telling me that without attacking Russia, Germany could have won WWII - regardles that the US was big and had more resources than Germany. "

If Germany had targetted airbases and radar stations during the battle of britain, even the staunchest pro brit would admit they would have lost their airforce. Without aircover a sea based invasion would have lead to the US losing its unsinkable carrier just off the coast of Europe... where would they base their D-Day attack from?
More resources is nice but if you have sea based airpower against land based airpower... who is going to run out first? ...and where does that leave your ships?

[GazB]

He219:
"GazB and Axl; don't take the language personal. He does use character blockouts over his explicate characters @#*,hehehehe "

No, he doesn't. Try typing the "f" word yourself.

[He219]

GazB wrote:
The Greeks and Egyptians also had great civilisations without anything you'd call democracy, which was a concept introduced by the Romans
GazB, you make me wonder sometimes...

He219 wrote:
Democracy is currently the most far reaching system modeled after pan-Hellenic egalitarianism starting with the appearance of fully democratic governments in Athens to US now. Like the pun??
Thus it is Greece with Athens as the center for the birth of Democracy, not the Roman republic.

GazB also wrote:
Hahahaha... yeah it was the Germans that declared war on the Americans... nice bit of revisionist history.
Revisionist History, GazB? You really make me wonder......December 11th - Germany declares war on USA. The US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor and as an Axis Ally - Germany declared war on the US.

Get your facts right before being sooo opinionated!

p-)
-He219

[cut]

for those who say socialism in europe is a bad thing:

Tony Blair is a socialist (albeit with thatcherite right wing leanings)
Jacques Chirac is conservative

rethink this:


Unfortunately the SOCIALISTS won modern Europe anyhow

:P

[Sabre]

The point is that the germans did not drag the US into the war. They were not a threat to the US. If there had been no alliance between Germany and Japan, then the US would have fought a separate war.

The germans had approximately 90% of their teeth arm units committed to the russian front at the time of the western desert campaign. After D-Day, they actually re-inforced the russian front with units from the west. The ETO was a struggle for the western allies (Ardennes, Bulge etc). How could they have coped with 10x the numbers of enemy and their undivided attention? Not to mention the fact that Hitler broke off operation Seelowe to start Barbarossa. If you examine the invasion of the low countries and France you see that Hitler had planned immensly for it. Down to the last detail. The aim was to humiliate France as she had humiliated germany. Events such as making the French surrender in the rail carriage the germans surrendered in, then blowing it up, capped off with a ceremonial parade down the Camps-Elysee were simply to put right the wrongs as he saw them.
Hitler's main enemy was the USSR. The only reason britain remained in the war was because hitler wanted them out of it! Only Churchill refused. Britain could have been easily overrun and there would have been no base for US troops. I've seen the propaganda of the time, pictures showing german troops on an amphibious exercise (released through the then neutral US embassy). The captions laugh at how much trouble they have manouvering a LMG (actually a mortar) and an HMG (an AT gun) up the cliff. Other pictures show home guard standing next to green painted milk vans as a supposed answer. Without Britain, the US could not invade continental Europe. But then, they weren't in the war when Britain was most threatened because they were not at risk.
It would then have been up to the only power able to oust Hitler, the soviet union, to free europe. Despite some oppinions, the lend-lease equipment consisted of valinine tanks (crap), trucks (copied and mass produced in USSR), Hawker Hurricaines (good, but hopeless starters at temperatures of -40) and were mainly used to defend factories. The fact remains that the russians were unprepared in 41, but there was no greater industrial effort than the war production thereafter. The factories were not at risk from Nazi air attack (the 1000 miles and 1000s of AAA saw to that) and the effort was sustainable. They did not need lend-lease, just look at the defense of Leningrad. It lasted 872 days and cost over 641,000 russian lives. Their equipment was manufactured in the city and there was no idea of surrender. That's what won the war, not US bucks but grit and determination.

[He219]

Cut: Interpretation of Socialism as either Good or Bad is one thing. Modern Europe is quite Socialist. Big Governments and Big Beurocracies where the State comes first and individualism last. What's to rethink? You might believe otherwise - fine. Jacques Chirac may be a conservative- relative French government. That doesn't mean France is not ruled by Socialists. His EU policies reflect quite the Non-protectionist view, thus he is quite conservative amonst socialists. ;)

Sabre:
I'm being quite technical given the response to GazB's revisionist impressions. I relay historical fact. When Germany declares War on the US, it is a fact of history. Why, how and to what effect is quite an interpretation of events. Germany could have not declared war, but.....

Your testemony of how Germany wanted to avenge the injustices of WWI is quite true. It was planned to the last detail. Indeed, Hitler did not intend to fight the US but also underestimated it's industrial potential.

Yes, it was the Brownshirts fighting the communists for control of Germany in the streets of the Weimahr Republic. Hitler's NationalSocialism Vs. Communist Socialism. The USSR was Hitler's greatest rival and threat.

Clearly FDR wanted in on WWII. Convincing the US public was another matter. Japan attacking us and Germany declaring War on us made it easy.

I did say that it was Hitler's own meddling that ended development of bombers capable in hitting targets beyond the Urals. The Me264 was one of those. He did not believe in strategic bombing and focused all his resources on close air support and blitzkrieg tactics.

Sabre: Your hypothesis that Germany would loose to the USSR If the US had not joined is quite limited. Germany had the means, resources and knowhow to defeat Great Britain and the USSR without the US. Imagine if US Strategic Bombing during the Day combined with British Strategic Bombing at night had not existed. The German war machine could have produced massive amounts of technologically superior weapons to defeat the USSR. No Ball-bearing plants bombed. No bombing at Polesti. V2 Ballistic Missiles fired at the USSR with impudence. Jet fighters, King Tigers, etc. etc. They are all hypothetical. Stick to the facts.


Despite some oppinions, the lend-lease equipment consisted of valinine tanks (crap), trucks (copied and mass produced in USSR), Hawker Hurricaines (good, but hopeless starters at temperatures of -40) and were mainly used to defend factories
You are quite exclusionary on this one. What of the 4,700 bell Aircobra's and 860 B-25's you neglected to mention? You are marginalizing US aid to the USSR to substatiate your idea that Germany could never have defeated the USSR. Again, hypothetical. The facts are that the US entered the war and Germany was doomed to loose (against both the USSR and US). Period.

How does this relate to the current situation? The US entered a war against Saddam and removed him from power. You can debate the merits of how, why and to what effect - but it's done!

p-)
-He219

[He219]

Sabre: I Neglected to address...
Without Britain, the US could not invade continental Europe.
Does invading Sicily and fighing up the Italian *****ula not count as 'Continetal Europe'? I think the US could have launced any number of invasions from other locations. However, Britain was ideal.

The Germans fought a phenomenal rear-guard tactical withdrawal from Soviet forces. With Soviet equipment supplies strong (because of a German failure to destroy the Soviet Weapons Making Infrastructure), German equipment supplies devastated by Anglo-American Strategic Bombing and pressure on a western front - Germany was doomed to loose. Your hypothesis would be quite different without a western front and the destruction of the German war industry. Again, more what if's....

p-)
-He219

[axl]

pfffff...muahahahaha....itsalways funny to read stuff like that...muahahahahahahahaha
what about the red army? any effect on the outcome of the war? strange that you don't really see a drop in the military production. infact it increased until the end of the war. what you can see is an increase in killed civilians. the plan was more to terrorise the people and that's what the bombers did. want an example? when did the allied bombers attacked germanies biggest oil refenery? in 1944 and not earlier. to bomb it would have a huge impact on the army. the planes hit also my hometone. they came back from the burning dresden, where they hit no military target, but burned the city and killed thousands of people in early 1945. some bombers had ammo left, so they droped it over a small town with not even 10000 inhabitants. you know what they hit? no, not the small weapon factory which made parts for the k98, they hit the castle, the train station and the hospital. wow, what a target. so don't tell stupid stuff about the influence of american bombing. the only effect was killing civilians and bring the horror to the soldiers at the front, who did not know what happened at home.
lets talk about the landing in africa. the usa again attacked after the british army fought a heavy battle against the german africa corps. the landing in italy...italy was never occupied by german troops. and the only real effect was that germany wasted troopers who really kicked as against a much better equipped army. ever heard about monte cassino? the only thing the invasion of italy was used for was to get bases for the air force. the us army was not able fight its way thru the alps. so better go back to your history books and do your homework.

regards
axl

[He219]

Axl wrote:
...italy was never occupied by german troops. and the only real effect was that germany wasted troopers who really kicked as against a much better equipped army. ever heard about monte cassino? the only thing the invasion of italy was used for was to get bases for the air force. the us army was not able fight its way thru the alps. so better go back to your history books and do your homework.
:bash:
So you say German troops never occupied Italy yet they fought so bravely in Monte Cassino? Those Fallschirmjaeger were quite the elite and they fought a tremendous defensive battle from the heights. It was the pivot to the Italian campaign. German troops were in Sicilly, Palermo and Messina and exacted a heavy toll on Monty and Patton.

Yes, German war production of small arms and planes increased throughout the war to the very end. Operations were moved underground. Do not discount the logistical effects of the Strategic Bombing campaign though. Railraods to move troops and equipment. Transport of oil, fuel and foodstuff. They certainly had an impact on the ability for Germany to field it's units on the front and limited the ability to re-shuffle material where needed.

Strategic Bombing killed more than just civilians. You don't have to tell me about firestorms and bombing that killed Hundreds of Thousands of civilians. You don't have to tell me about Jimmy Doolittle's bombing of 100,000 refugees in Dresden. Indiscriminate Carpet Bombing had a two-edged effect, logistically and in spirit. When the Flak stopped firing on 6000+ formations of B17's my relatives knew it was over. They were in Gelsenkirchen.

Our bombers did not need Italy, Axl. Polesti was reached from North Africa. Munich was reached from England. You are totally foolish in believing that the US needed Italy. It was added pressure on the Western Front. Remember that American Troops moved up Southern France and linked up with the Normandy force. There are such things as amphibius assaults to circumvent the Alps, Axl.

You certainly are defeatist in believing that regardless of US participation in the war, Germany would not have beaten the USSR. Simultaneously you trivialize the effect the US had in defeating Germany. You ARE that Marxist Blowpipe through your own statements. Strange that you believe only the USSR had an effect on the outcome of the war. Maybe you should brush up on your history - or are you just interpreting history to suit your anti-americanist needs?


p-)
He219

[Duke]

He219, that statement by Axl "italy was never occupied by Germany..." cant you see now what kind of person this is??? At first I was drawn to the lunacy, like a moth to a flame, but now, cant you see?? BTW do we have an ignore button???

[Bootneck]

Ah yes, an Ignore Button. How sweet that would be...

[cut]

Axl must of meant occupied like an invasion (or liberating :P ) force.
Otherwise he's not making sense.

[Sabre]

Sicily was invaded from north africa which was previously invaded from british territory.

Lend lease aid was beneficial, I don't dispute that. Those men (and boys, in the case of my relatives) who died to bring that aid to them via murmansk did a very brave job. However, beyond 1942/43 it became inconsequential compared to soviet industrial efforts. Look at the figures:

Lend-lease tanks (mostly out-moded types such as M3s) supplied between 1941-3: about 6,500
(around 4000 of these were M4s, only delivered at the back end of '43)

T-34 production alone: 35,000 (15,000 in 1943)

Lend-lease aircraft delivered (all types): 18,791

Soviet aircraft production: 139,748

Yes of benefit, but not crucial.
It is widely regarded that the Red Air Force had air superiority over the luftwaffe by 1942. Losses do not reflect whether control of the skies was gained/lost. The fact that the Nazis had some excellent pilots is not relevant as the overall effect of the adequately trained, disciplined Soviet crews was to gain air superiority. For example, the Luftwaffe could not re-supply the 6th army in stalingrad due to the heavy defenses, both on the ground and in the air.

[He219]

But Cut, It indeed was an occupation after the Italians switched sides...

Pietro Badoglio, the new prime minister, negotiated a cease-fire with the Allies in early September 1943. German forces quickly occupied most of northern and central Italy. German paratroopers freed Mussolini from prison and installed him as the head of a pro-German puppet government located at Salo in northern Italy. German forces also occupied the Italian zones in Yugoslavia, Greece, and France
From http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?ModuleId=10005455

Duke, I like the Ignore Button Itea. Hood?

I just get fired up with all the 'America In WWII was irrelevant' and that the 'USSR was unbeatable' stuff. The Western Allies were critical to the US. But war is an uncertainty.

Sabre, I agree that Lend-Lease support was more effective in the beginning of the war. Soviet production later in the war far outmatched the contribution of lend-lease. Even the Bell Aircobra was a rejected design in the US. The Russians did use it effectively though. The luftwaffe did not always have control of the skies against the USSR - while it was fighting in Africa and on the Western Front. I believe with fuel and technological innovations developed along with dedication to the Eastern Front alone - that the story would have been different. Therfore the Combined forces of the USSR and US/Western Allies posed an unbeatable force. Alone, I believe the USSR would not have fared so well. And that is my opinion only.

p-)
-He219

[He219]

Sabre: The Luftwaffe could not possibly have met the logistical requirenments to re-supply Paulu's 6th Army. It certainly was not due to URRS forces in the air. The Luftwaffe was already streched to the limit with operations from Arica to Norway to the East. I do give you credit for Soviet ground defences.


Doomed to failure from the start, hundreds of Luftwaffe pilots and aircrews soon set off on an operation to supply Paulus’ army. In the end nearly 500 aircraft were lost to weather and to a sophisticated Soviet defense system combining rings of guns and ground-controlled fighters. Only a steadily diminishing fraction of the required supplies arrived in a pocket under constantly growing pressure on the ground from increasingly superior Soviet forces.


By that time Jeschonnek had investigated further and concluded that the Sixth Army’s bare-minimum requirements of 500 tons of supplies a day could not be met by the available aircraft. Göring ordered him to keep his data to himself.


Tanks and infantry advanced simultaneously in all sectors, against resistance whose initial determination amazed even veterans of the earlier fighting. Even before the few remaining airfields were overrun, the Germans were living on rations measured in ounces, supplemented occasionally by horsemeat and the occasional rat. Conditions in the hospitals were beyond medieval
http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blstalingrad4.htm

German planes were still evacuating wounded until shortly before the collapse. Therefore, the USSR never had Air Superiority over Stalingrad.

p-)
-He219

[Beowulf]

Whoa whoa, everybody slow down, we all know that America didn't even fight in WWII. That was all part of American propaganda and revisionist history. What are you thinking...??!! Book burning fascists every last one of you.
-D

[dez000]

Yeah like thats really going to happen!!
The Belgians like the French need a sharp reminder of the Sacrifices,UK and US troops made to free their country from a brutal regime not in 1 but 2 World Wars!!
Its stuff like this that'll tear the Eurpoen Union apart,small nations wanting to play tough guys to the big Boys in Europe!
Would this be the same country who'll try Saddam and his regime for warcrimes aginst his own people and the Iranians.........christ the world 's gone politacaly mad!!!
Lets wait and see how far this gets will we?


Yes, i agree with that, and i'm from Belgium myself, the goverment we have has this "rebel" outbursts to prove we still exist... Don't worry there elections in Belgium next year, and according to several polls we will have a totally different goverment this time...

Btw: we were holding grounw in WW1, it was in WW2 you really helped us push the Nazi's back... I'm very thankfull for that too..



Hey hood,
Axl's an uninformed misguided youth,who's probably French!!Or Belgain same thing,they talk the same bullsh*t.!!

Wtf, there is a difference between the French and the Belgians, and you shouldn't be talking **** about Belgians because the goverment decides something wich the people don't fully support, the problem is that we have a goverment with more then 1 party which means one party wants this and the others wants this, if the new elections are done Belgium will have a better goverment who will show that we have no problem with the Americans! And ffs Belgium is 60% Dutch and 30% French and some 10% German speaking!

And why the **** are some people talking **** about Belgian soldiers (Wall street journal) when they problaby never seen a Belgian soldier, we do have an bad equipment which is old like ****, but if that ****er who wrote the ****ing article and checked his sources he would have known that Belgian army is reforming and reequiping, raising defence budget and spending more on training and material...

And while im typing this. If the webmaster of this site reads this, can you please tell me why you ain't replying to my emails, thx.

Greetz,

A pro-EU Belgian whose gratefull to the Us for their help in the past! (like many of us are!)

[Sabre]

Fair enough.

Air superiority was probably the wrong term as it implies complete domination of the skies.

I respect your opinions. Everone has them and they can't all be the same.
(avoided the 'they're like arseholes...' line; I don't mean it like that)

Beowulf: Of course the US fought in WW2! No one disputes that. Good effort on the sarcasm though. It's just that people are understandably a little bitter that the US makes such a fuss about it. I suppose you can put it down to a difference in personalities. The British 'musn't grumble' vs US 'yeehaw'.
US troops fought bravely in countries far from their own, the contribution made by those soldiers is not taken for granted. The hypothetical question is could it have been done without the states? I think it could. That doesn't diminish my apreciation for the sacrifice of any combatant, no matter what his/her nationality.

[Sabre]

Fair enough.

Air superiority was probably the wrong term as it implies complete domination of the skies.

I respect your opinions. Everone has them and they can't all be the same.
(avoided the 'they're like arseholes...' line; I don't mean it like that)

Beowulf: Of course the US fought in WW2! No one disputes that. Good effort on the sarcasm though. It's just that people are understandably a little bitter that the US makes such a fuss about it. I suppose you can put it down to a difference in personalities. The British 'musn't grumble' vs US 'yeehaw'.
US troops fought bravely in countries far from their own, the contribution made by those soldiers is not taken for granted. The hypothetical question is could it have been done without the states? I think it could. That doesn't diminish my apreciation for the sacrifice of any combatant, no matter what his/her nationality.

[Sabre]

Fair enough.

Air superiority was probably the wrong term as it implies complete domination of the skies.

I respect your opinions. Everone has them and they can't all be the same.
(avoided the 'they're like arseholes...' line; I don't mean it like that)

Beowulf: Of course the US fought in WW2! No one disputes that. Good effort on the sarcasm though. It's just that people are understandably a little bitter that the US makes such a fuss about it. I suppose you can put it down to a difference in personalities. The British 'musn't grumble' vs US 'yeehaw'.
US troops fought bravely in countries far from their own, the contribution made by those soldiers is not taken for granted. The hypothetical question is could it have been done without the states? I think it could. That doesn't diminish my apreciation for the sacrifice of any combatant, no matter what his/her nationality.

[Sabre]

Fair enough.

Air superiority was probably the wrong term as it implies complete domination of the skies.

I respect your opinions. Everone has them and they can't all be the same.
(avoided the 'they're like arseholes...' line; I don't mean it like that)

Beowulf: Of course the US fought in WW2! No one disputes that. Good effort on the sarcasm though. It's just that people are understandably a little bitter that the US makes such a fuss about it. I suppose you can put it down to a difference in personalities. The British 'musn't grumble' vs US 'yeehaw'.
US troops fought bravely in countries far from their own, the contribution made by those soldiers is not taken for granted. The hypothetical question is could it have been done without the states? I think it could. That doesn't diminish my apreciation for the sacrifice of any combatant, no matter what his/her nationality.

[Sabre]

Bollocks! Sorry about that lads. My computer went a little mental.

[Sabre]

Don't know what happend there.

[Sabre]

Don't know what happend there.