Dazzla Veteran Posted March 10, 2002 Veteran Share Posted March 10, 2002 Originally posted by Neobond Yoshi, are you waiting for me to say thanks or something? because it aint gonna happen. Your logic is flawed. The German army was not on English soil because they were too busy fighting off the Russian advance (starting in 1943) what they were doing was sending over (unmanned) V1 and V2 rockets to London. Englands response was always night raids on major German cities which had a devastating effect. So there you can see that you are talking out of your ass.. The problem England had was KEEPING the trade routes open across the pond (German U-boats were bombing English and American merchant shipping) so American merchant shipping ceased to be during the war years. Get your facts straight before you try to tell me MY history. Man, I don't think I've ever seen neobond this ****ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11212 Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 We don't have to worry about captured spy planes anymore There is a recent article in the Military Justice News Paper about how the NSA has recently launced 5 spy satalites that can see an ant from space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PM5K Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 Yeah, you gotta watch out for those ants, they'll sneak up on you and bite your ass off. Matsushita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoshi Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 Yoshi, are you waiting for me to say thanks or something? because it aint gonna happen. No, I want nothing from the Europeans. Your logic is flawed. The German army was not on English soil because they were too busy fighting off the Russian advance (starting in 1943) Russian "advance"? Is that what they call the retreat of the Soviet Union into Moscow, with their Scorched Earth tactics of burning down their own cities as they retreated further into Russia? The only thing that saved them were tactical mistakes from the German army - notably, underestimating the Russian winters. The Soviet advance happened much later into the war, after it was clear that the German army was falling after fighting a two front war (Americans and Russians). what they were doing was sending over V1 and V2 rockets to London. Englands response was always night raids on major German cities which had a devastating effect. The Royal Air Force did attack Berlin, but their air attacks on Germany were much less brutal than Hitler's attacks on London. So there you can see that you are talking out of your ass.. The problem England had was KEEPING the trade routes open across the pond (German U-boats were bombing English and American merchant shipping) so American merchant shipping ceased to be during the war years. So? What does this prove? Britain is a land-locked island and once again came into conflict with the Germans. Get your facts straight before you try to tell me MY history. MY facts straight? Isn't that ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unspec Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Originally posted by Mike11212 Not really almost every american has 3 to 5 guns so if the army isnt around we can cap some bad guys ass If it wasn't for the fact that school children have killed each other with guns they really shouldn't have access to, that comment might be amusing. Who cares if some spotty adolescent blows another kids brains out. It's a small price to pay for the knowledge that Billy Bob and John Boy Junior are armed to the teeth, ready to knock those British oppressors back to where they came from! THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED Does anyone else find this really rather unsettling? Have you looked at the NRA site? http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?url=http://ww...isonbrigade.com America may be the strongest single power in the world, but they appear to be thinking in the 18th century while living in the 21st. -- unspec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven P. Administrators Posted March 11, 2002 Administrators Share Posted March 11, 2002 The Royal Air Force did attack Berlin, but their air attacks on Germany were much less brutal than Hitler's attacks on London. Now you are taking the ****.. A V1 rocket could take out a house, the V2 could take out a little more than a house. In the war they managed to send over something like 400 including 2 major Air-raids. England on the other hand responded to the V attacks with carpet bombing of Germans major cities (not Berlin but Hamburg, Nurmburg) the CLOSER TO US major cities. which was for the Germans devastating at the time. The only thing that saved them were tactical mistakes from the German army - notably, underestimating the Russian winters. Erm yea? The Germans had an Army of 1 million, while Russia had 3 million at the start of it all. Russia was able to increase its Army because of its huge amount of Resources compared to Germany (note: America has MORE resources than WESTERN EUROPE combined) and tbh if you are stupid enough to attack a country with more men in the dead of winter you are asking to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PM5K Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" I'd rather have a constitution that maybe flawed, then none at all, and no rights for a countries citizens, like places where women must wear vails, or where women are mutalized for many diffrent absurd reasons. The fact is that it's possible at some point Americans would need to defend themselves, imagine how nice it would be to be in some building that's being held hostage by some terrorist and you've got your trusty old hand gun afforded to you by the US constitution and your Texas State concealed handgun permit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11212 Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Originally posted by unspec If it wasn't for the fact that school children have killed each other with guns they really shouldn't have access to, that comment might be amusing. Who cares if some spotty adolescent blows another kids brains out. It's a small price to pay for the knowledge that Billy Bob and John Boy Junior are armed to the teeth, ready to knock those British oppressors back to where they came from! THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED Does anyone else find this really rather unsettling? Have you looked at the NRA site? http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?url=http://ww...isonbrigade.com America may be the strongest single power in the world, but they appear to be thinking in the 18th century while living in the 21st. -- unspec That doesn't just happen in america. And atleast we don't throw rocks at little school girls because there catolic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxikk Veteran Posted March 11, 2002 Veteran Share Posted March 11, 2002 oh well. everything happens for a reason. the us government will turn against its people and we will all be screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven P. Administrators Posted March 11, 2002 Administrators Share Posted March 11, 2002 And atleast we don't throw rocks at little school girls because there chatolic Its Catholic, and at least THEY survived the ordeal. (However wrong the incident) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11212 Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 They may have survived the ordeal but they will never forget the incident and will probably rebel against those who threw the rocks at them causeing more violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven P. Administrators Posted March 11, 2002 Administrators Share Posted March 11, 2002 So you are saying they should of shot them? (I mean is this what you are getting at?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unspec Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Originally posted by PM5K "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" I'd rather have a constitution that maybe flawed, then none at all, and no rights for a countries citizens, like places where women must wear vails, or where women are mutalized for many diffrent absurd reasons. The fact is that it's possible at some point Americans would need to defend themselves, imagine how nice it would be to be in some building that's being held hostage by some terrorist and you've got your trusty old hand gun afforded to you by the US constitution and your Texas State concealed handgun permit. Wait one second. Is it flawed or is it nice? Can't you make up your mind? -- unspec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11212 Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 No I am saying it shouldn't of been done at all. the logical thing to have done was let the girls be there innocent. but us humans americans irish british what ever raise we may be aren't logical. And untill we are logical and can live with one another there will be hatred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven P. Administrators Posted March 11, 2002 Administrators Share Posted March 11, 2002 Amen Mike Edit: so back to the topic.. is it logical to have a Nuclear bomb hanging over your head? In many cases it is.. but does it allow for freedom? yes it does at the expense of others. Am I going to bed? Yes I am. Please dont lecture me on WW2. Hitler was a dumb ****, thats why he lost the war, Americans played a decisive role in WW2 as did the British and her allies. No one nation deserves to take credit for defeating oppresion. If we did that then I would vote the impregnable "Island" (as you call it Yoshi) that managed to fend off the nazis for the better part of 6 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11212 Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 America has its nuclear bombs but the main reason we have them is more to cause fear then to use them. You think Russia China or the US are Crazy enough to launch a nuke against each other. We may have droped 2 on japan but we didn;t know it would cause the carniage it did. And Plus doubt india and the pakies are that stupid either. if they were they would of done it already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PM5K Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Originally posted by unspec Wait one second. Is it flawed or is it nice? Can't you make up your mind? -- unspec The constitution is great, but as that other person wrote, that part if from older times, back when we had things like a Civil War, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to have firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pagal Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Originally posted by Mike11212 And Plus doubt india and the pakies are that stupid either. if they were they would of done it already its Pakistanis, not "pakies". It is considered a racist word. Bush used the same word almost 2 months ago on tv but then apologized for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11212 Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 bush is a woos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pagal Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 he sure is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unspec Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Originally posted by PM5K The constitution is great, but as that other person wrote, that part if from older times, back when we had things like a Civil War, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to have firearms. Well you do live in a democracy, you've had 200 years to change it. It's been pointed out that you have a HUGE armed force, ready to deal with pretty much anything. There is no need to arm the population. IMO you really shouldn't be able to have firearms. -- unspec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickedkitten Veteran Posted March 11, 2002 Veteran Share Posted March 11, 2002 Originally posted by Mike11212 America has its nuclear bombs but the main reason we have them is more to cause fear then to use them. You think Russia China or the US are Crazy enough to launch a nuke against each other. We may have droped 2 on japan but we didn;t know it would cause the carniage it did. And Plus doubt india and the pakies are that stupid either. if they were they would of done it already thats the biggest bunch of bull**** that you've said yet. America knew exactly how much carnage a nuclear bomb would have caused and thats exactly why they dropped them. They had to cause as much havok on as major a scale as they could in a way that Japan wouldn't have any cause to find honour in further warfare like they would have done if the US had kept bombing military targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PM5K Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Originally posted by unspec Well you do live in a democracy, you've had 200 years to change it. It's been pointed out that you have a HUGE armed force, ready to deal with pretty much anything. There is no need to arm the population. IMO you really shouldn't be able to have firearms. -- unspec Actually the original purpose of that part was to protect us from our own Army, and in times of Civil War, although it may be hard to believe, a Civil War is always possible, even now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11212 Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Originally posted by Wickedkitten thats the biggest bunch of bull**** that you've said yet. America knew exactly how much carnage a nuclear bomb would have caused and thats exactly why they dropped them. They had to cause as much havok on as major a scale as they could in a way that Japan wouldn't have any cause to find honour in further warfare like they would have done if the US had kept bombing military targets. Well Japan did a sneack attack on perl harbor. We weren't even in the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topher1078 Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 They had to cause as much havok on as major a scale as they could in a way that Japan wouldn't have any cause to find honour in further warfare like they would have done if the US had kept bombing military targets. Kinda. The reason we dropped the atomic (not nuclear, which cause WAY more damage) bombs on Japan was that it was estimated the only way to end the Pacific war was either to invade Japan with a ground force which would rival the one used on D-Day, or to drop the atomic bombs. Since it was estimated that the bomb would cause less damage overall, we used it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts