Soviet Death Toll In WW2 | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 295 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614128
Today 0
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
Soviet Death Toll In WW2
 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-05-09 11:37 [#01592749]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to mrgypsum: #01592743



totally true. but at the same time, i can't think of any
modern war more acceptable to have been involved in than
ww2, and i say that as a vehemently anti-war pacifist.

BUT, what the americans did with internment camps for the
japanese and dropping the bombs is totally utterly
inexcusable. the bombs didn't even need to be dropped
because the japanese leaders tried to surrender to the
soviets. it was a despicable act. they wanted to show up
the soviets and start the cold war because they wanted an
arms race for the economy.


 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-05-09 11:38 [#01592754]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to epohs: #01592745



i don't want to skew anything you say. please elaborate.


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2005-05-09 11:40 [#01592756]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to r40f: #01592754



I just think you characterized Iraq (read: saddam) as a
benign leader of a helpless little country... which, I don't
think is exactly accurate.


 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-05-09 11:45 [#01592761]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to epohs: #01592756



he was a shitty dictator who killed lots of people over the
years. he committed awful crimes, sure. on the other hand,
iraq had no nukes or wmds and they weren't even close to
being as powerful as saudi arabi or iran. we went in there
with the full knowledge that there was nothing to be gained
except the murders of thousands more innocent women and
children and an oil pipeline. there was no legitimate
reason for choosing iraq to topple rather than the much
worse oppressive dictatorships all over the world except
that it's how we have our economics/diplomatic relations set
up with iraq as the punching bag.


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2005-05-09 11:48 [#01592762]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker



I don't really see how the killing of civilians would be a
goal for us. I mean, I could buy the argument of blatant
recklessness, but purposfully targetting civilians?


 

offline mrgypsum on 2005-05-09 11:49 [#01592765]
Points: 5103 Status: Lurker | Followup to r40f: #01592749



if you ask me - WW2 has been sold absolutely....meaning the
justifications for going to war have ripples we still feel
to this day - and probably will always feel whenever a
chance for war arises. that to me is very dangerous - the
government can always pick the scab and get the people all
charged up for war, just by bringing WW2 terms into the mix.



 

offline big from lsg on 2005-05-09 11:51 [#01592769]
Points: 23730 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



1 iraqee per 1000 has died an unnatural death since the
invasion by the us


 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-05-09 11:52 [#01592770]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to epohs: #01592762



that's not what i meant by that. i meant we knew it was
going to happen. the insiders organizing this knew that we
were going to have to get our hands really dirty. there's
just no way around it. that's part of war.


 

offline big from lsg on 2005-05-09 11:53 [#01592772]
Points: 23730 Status: Lurker | Followup to big: #01592769 | Show recordbag



mm, that's 'just' a few thousand, anyhoo, it's a big mess
now, though that's to blame on extremists and stuff in the
first place


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2005-05-09 11:54 [#01592775]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker



I think we legitimately thought there was a good chance
Saddam had wmd. Was the intelligence as strong as they
tried to have us believe? No. But, did the admin know for a
fact that they didn't have it? No, I don't believe so.

And, the burden of proof, for showing that they did not have
wmd layed squarely on Saddam. The UN agreed on that several
times, and yet did nothing. The sanctions were killing
thousands of innocent civilians every month. The course of
action that the UN was choosing was not working. It was not
saving lives and it was not accomplishing it's core goals.


 

offline brokephones from Londontario on 2005-05-09 11:59 [#01592780]
Points: 6113 Status: Lurker



We need some extra terrestrials to attack us. Maybe then we
will unite.


 

offline Skink from A cesspool in eden on 2005-05-09 12:01 [#01592781]
Points: 7483 Status: Lurker



It is also fair to say that the cold war was a lie in the
first place. The Soviet union didn't have the economy to
build loads of weapons. Which is why the soviet union fell,
because the american administration made up a cock and bull
story.


 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2005-05-09 12:02 [#01592783]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict | Followup to epohs: #01592745



well yours is even more flawed.

the war didn't take place years ago, it took place now, when
iraq is/was a helpless benign nation.


 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-05-09 12:03 [#01592785]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to epohs: #01592775



i don't know how anyone bought that nonsense about the wmds,
i'm sorry man. they had collin powell with a blurry b&w of
a toolshed and he was going, "uh yeah, there's nukes in here
i guess". it was total bullshit. i didn't believe it for a
second. they lied to us. nothing short of complete lies.

and who do you think loves sanctions, the least effective
method of dealing with dictators ever? i'll give you a hint
- the country that's been starving out cuba for a while...
the country that laughs in the face of that extraneous
UN...

besides, even if saddam somehow hypothetically had nukes,
that was absolutely no reason to invade iraq. what about
all the other insane dictators with nukes? we didn't invade
them... but we did need that pipeline and we did need to
fight our war on terr.


 

offline mrgypsum on 2005-05-09 12:03 [#01592786]
Points: 5103 Status: Lurker | Followup to brokephones: #01592780



yes - this would rule - think about what would happen if
that actually occurred - anti war protests - gone (for the
most part, only those wierd cults would not want us to kill
the aliens) - wmd - USE THEM, need something that will show
then who's the boss, it would really be a unifying factor
"all humans must come together and destroy the enemy"

reminds me of the film starship troopers


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2005-05-09 12:06 [#01592793]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to redrum: #01592783



The only (at least the main) reason they were so hobbled is
because of the sanctions. The sanctions were manipulated by
Saddam so that they were almost solely targetting civilians,
and they were not really putting pressure on him to comply
with the resolutions that the UN was trying to impose.


 

offline brokephones from Londontario on 2005-05-09 12:07 [#01592795]
Points: 6113 Status: Lurker | Followup to mrgypsum: #01592786



Ironically enough, that movie had nazi undertones.


 

offline brokephones from Londontario on 2005-05-09 12:08 [#01592797]
Points: 6113 Status: Lurker | Followup to brokephones: #01592795



And book


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2005-05-09 12:09 [#01592802]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to r40f: #01592785



I'm not claiming he had nukes, and I'm claiming that oil was
not a factor. But, I do think the ball was in Saddam's court
to prove that he didn't have them, and I don't think that he
did... in fact, I think he actively tried to twart all
attempts to verify the truth.


 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-05-09 12:09 [#01592803]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to epohs: #01592793



you need to kill more civilians to save them? i don't get
that at all. we killed way more innocent people in the
invasion than saddam ever did over the years.


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2005-05-09 12:10 [#01592806]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to epohs: #01592802



and I'm not claiming that oil was not a factor.



 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2005-05-09 12:10 [#01592807]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict



and anyhow - bush was talking about invading iraq the second
he got into office in his first term. the wmd thing was made
up - everyone knew iraq didn't have capabilities to make
wmd, and that the only reason saddam was being a bollocks
with weapons inspectors was that he viewed them as both an
insult and a violation of Iraq's sovereignty and Iraqi
pride.

so that just leaves the current idea perpetuated by blair
and bush - that it's good they went in because they also
went in to LIBERATE the iraqi people.

If they had ever given a shit about the Iraqis they would've
-
1) not provided them with weapons and chemicals to perform
ethnic clensing
2) done something about it in the late 80s early 90s when
all that horrific stuff was at its peak (and US
contributions of arms and chemicals were at their peak)
3) stopped the UN sanctions and performed regime change from
the inside out, the way that the Americans have proved
works, with all the other regime changes they've performed
over the years, in order to topple economically unfavourable
governments.

They didn't do this last point because it would've left the
Iraqis in charge to decide who would be in power, instead of
the Americans to choose a prime minister who would keep Iraq
selling oil by the dollar and not euro and would set up a
government that would play kindly with the American economy.


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2005-05-09 12:10 [#01592808]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to r40f: #01592803



well, what is the solution then? lift the sanctions and
hope that saddam behaves?


 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-05-09 12:11 [#01592809]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to epohs: #01592802



maybe he did, who knows? you don't invade a country based
on maybe someone thinks he has a nuke hidden away that he
can't deploy without being annhilated by the real countries
in the area.


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2005-05-09 12:12 [#01592811]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to redrum: #01592807



if everyone knew that Saddam didn't have wmd, then why was
Hanz Blix looking for them?


 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2005-05-09 12:12 [#01592812]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict | Followup to epohs: #01592808



third point of my post. i'll put up information about regime
changes that've occured from the inside out, due to american
funding, to appease american interests, if you wish.


 

offline brokephones from Londontario on 2005-05-09 12:13 [#01592814]
Points: 6113 Status: Lurker



Hanz Bwix!


Attached picture

 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2005-05-09 12:14 [#01592815]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict | Followup to epohs: #01592811



To prove to the world, on paper, that they didn't have them.
It's beaurocracy.

I'm not at all complaining about it, it's right to have
weapons inspectors, and to prove outright that a country has
no capability of making wmds.. but it was the opinion of
anyone with common sense that they didn't.


 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-05-09 12:14 [#01592816]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to redrum: #01592807



yes.


 

offline bogala from NYC (United States) on 2005-05-09 12:16 [#01592819]
Points: 5125 Status: Regular



It was the Russian winter that won ww2


 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2005-05-09 12:17 [#01592820]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict | Followup to bogala: #01592819



and their scorched earth policy.

wow, it was my reply to this thread that turned this into an
Iraq War discussion.

POWA.


 

offline bogala from NYC (United States) on 2005-05-09 12:17 [#01592821]
Points: 5125 Status: Regular



I can think of a few countries that are shady and blatantly
developing WMD's..Let's roll baby. Kill'em all. woohoo.


 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2005-05-09 12:19 [#01592823]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict | Followup to bogala: #01592821



Looks like North Korea is next on your list.

You might get bitten badly this time. And the whole world
will suffer as a result.



 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-05-09 12:19 [#01592825]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to bogala: #01592821



great idea! let's start with north korea! ready for the
draft? ready for all your friends to die? another vietnam?
ready to tangle with china? another cold war?

sounds good, you go first.


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2005-05-09 12:20 [#01592826]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker



geopolitics is awesome!


 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2005-05-09 12:23 [#01592829]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict



WELL IT'S ONE TWO THREE
WHAT ARE WE FIGHTIN FOR
DON'T ASK ME I DON'T GIVE A DAMN
NEXT STOP IS VIETNAM

AND IT'S FIVE SIX SEVEN
OPEN UP THE PEARLY GATES
WELL, HELL, THERE AIN'T NO TIME TO WONDER WHY
WHOOPEE WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE


 

offline E-man from Rixensart (Belgium) on 2005-05-10 05:04 [#01593481]
Points: 3000 Status: Regular



:|


 

offline big from lsg on 2005-05-10 05:06 [#01593482]
Points: 23730 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



why would you blame the americans on this board? imo they're
pretty alrighty :)


 

offline manicminer from Paris (France) on 2005-05-10 05:17 [#01593489]
Points: 1423 Status: Lurker | Followup to big: #01592577



Netherlands didn't have the biggest percentage decimation of
Jews - it was here, in Lithuania.


 

offline Bob Mcbob on 2005-05-10 05:25 [#01593495]
Points: 9939 Status: Regular



i stab myself in the leg with a fork every time i laugh
while watching MASH, to remind myself war isnt all fun and
games...


 

offline brokephones from Londontario on 2005-05-10 09:59 [#01593694]
Points: 6113 Status: Lurker | Followup to Bob Mcbob: #01593495



I would also stab myself if i laughed while watching MASH
because it sucks.


 


Messageboard index