And what extra freedom do you hold today that wasn't there after WW2 ended?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
And people say you can support the troops and not politicians. Those crazy bastards.
Soldiers now are no different than soldiers 70 years ago on a basic level. I'm glad soldiers now don't have to die in such great numbers to maintain the same freedoms we hold today.
Lol... actually I was going to make the point that 'European Americans' get special treatment by not being given any sort of racial prefix. I'll just call them "darkies" from now on instead, shall I?deeznutz1245 wrote:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.Braddock wrote:
I have never said that modern day African Americans can claim to have suffered slavery.
Whoa.
African American? Are you racist? So we just generalize black people? Africa is a continent dude, not a country. If you are going to say it then say a country first. There are plenty of folks living in the US that are from France, England, Spain, Ireland and you dont hear me calling them "European American" do you? No you don't sir and that is because I am equal. What is good for one is good for all. So from now on you address them first by their country and not continent. The only exception is Australia. Racism is a crime sir, and crime is not for white people.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-18 06:03:47)
we have lost it. see you in trackr.Braddock wrote:
Lol... actually I was going to make the point that 'European Americans get special treatment by not being given any sort of racial prefix. I'll just call them "darkies" from now on instead, shall I?deeznutz1245 wrote:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.Braddock wrote:
I have never said that modern day African Americans can claim to have suffered slavery.
Whoa.
African American? Are you racist? So we just generalize black people? Africa is a continent dude, not a country. If you are going to say it then say a country first. There are plenty of folks living in the US that are from France, England, Spain, Ireland and you dont hear me calling them "European American" do you? No you don't sir and that is because I am equal. What is good for one is good for all. So from now on you address them first by their country and not continent. The only exception is Australia. Racism is a crime sir, and crime is not for white people.
uh, none. That's the point.Varegg wrote:
And what extra freedom do you hold today that wasn't there after WW2 ended?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
And people say you can support the troops and not politicians. Those crazy bastards.
Soldiers now are no different than soldiers 70 years ago on a basic level. I'm glad soldiers now don't have to die in such great numbers to maintain the same freedoms we hold today.
But still you have soldiers dying overseas ... sounds even more like a waste of good men now than when they died in greater numbers during WW2 tbh ... and they are not the same now and 70 years ago, not even on a basic level, i hold the soldiers back then in greater regard than i do with the present ones ... that is in general terms btwFlaming_Maniac wrote:
uh, none. That's the point.Varegg wrote:
And what extra freedom do you hold today that wasn't there after WW2 ended?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
And people say you can support the troops and not politicians. Those crazy bastards.
Soldiers now are no different than soldiers 70 years ago on a basic level. I'm glad soldiers now don't have to die in such great numbers to maintain the same freedoms we hold today.
"in such great numbers"Varegg wrote:
But still you have soldiers dying overseas ... sounds even more like a waste of good men now than when they died in greater numbers during WW2 tbh ... and they are not the same now and 70 years ago, not even on a basic level, i hold the soldiers back then in greater regard than i do with the present ones ... that is in general terms btwFlaming_Maniac wrote:
uh, none. That's the point.Varegg wrote:
And what extra freedom do you hold today that wasn't there after WW2 ended?
Perhaps one can diiferentiate the two era's of servicemen's "appeal". I for one look at ww2 as a romantic and rebellious time in America's history and the soldiers certainly reflect that image. Going off to fight the Great War, off to help save the world so to speak. Nights of big band jazz with dancing before being deployed, horrific battlefield conditions, a tyrant enemy. It all seems to come together in the history books as a time in our history that is almost so vibrant one would think it is fictional. The fact of the matter reamains that we as society tend to encompass whats going on around the world at the time and associate the conflict's political appeal with the soldier. Those men had it rough back then, I honestly don't think I could do what they did. But then again, I never thought at the age of 15 (and neither did anyone else who knew me) that I would in a few short years become a decorated United States Marine combat veteran. I guess what I am trying to say is that whatever it is that brings the soldier where he is doesn't make him any more or less a soldier. Varegg, dying is just as hard today as it was 70 years ago. Being deployed still sucks, leaving your family behind is just as painfull, writing your own obituary before deployments is still just as awkward and no mother wants to be handed a flag no matter when she lived.Varegg wrote:
But still you have soldiers dying overseas ... sounds even more like a waste of good men now than when they died in greater numbers during WW2 tbh ... and they are not the same now and 70 years ago, not even on a basic level, i hold the soldiers back then in greater regard than i do with the present ones ... that is in general terms btw
I totally agree hence why i said in general terms ...deeznutz1245 wrote:
Perhaps one can diiferentiate the two era's of servicemen's "appeal". I for one look at ww2 as a romantic and rebellious time in America's history and the soldiers certainly reflect that image. Going off to fight the Great War, off to help save the world so to speak. Nights of big band jazz with dancing before being deployed, horrific battlefield conditions, a tyrant enemy. It all seems to come together in the history books as a time in our history that is almost so vibrant one would think it is fictional. The fact of the matter reamains that we as society tend to encompass whats going on around the world at the time and associate the conflict's political appeal with the soldier. Those men had it rough back then, I honestly don't think I could do what they did. But then again, I never thought at the age of 15 (and neither did anyone else who knew me) that I would in a few short years become a decorated United States Marine combat veteran. I guess what I am trying to say is that whatever it is that brings the soldier where he is doesn't make him any more or less a soldier. Varegg, dying is just as hard today as it was 70 years ago. Being deployed still sucks, leaving your family behind is just as painfull, writing your own obituary before deployments is still just as awkward and no mother wants to be handed a flag no matter when she lived.Varegg wrote:
But still you have soldiers dying overseas ... sounds even more like a waste of good men now than when they died in greater numbers during WW2 tbh ... and they are not the same now and 70 years ago, not even on a basic level, i hold the soldiers back then in greater regard than i do with the present ones ... that is in general terms btw
I wasted 5 minutes of my life typing that. The least you could do is argue it. psst.Varegg wrote:
I totally agree hence why i said in general terms ...deeznutz1245 wrote:
Perhaps one can diiferentiate the two era's of servicemen's "appeal". I for one look at ww2 as a romantic and rebellious time in America's history and the soldiers certainly reflect that image. Going off to fight the Great War, off to help save the world so to speak. Nights of big band jazz with dancing before being deployed, horrific battlefield conditions, a tyrant enemy. It all seems to come together in the history books as a time in our history that is almost so vibrant one would think it is fictional. The fact of the matter reamains that we as society tend to encompass whats going on around the world at the time and associate the conflict's political appeal with the soldier. Those men had it rough back then, I honestly don't think I could do what they did. But then again, I never thought at the age of 15 (and neither did anyone else who knew me) that I would in a few short years become a decorated United States Marine combat veteran. I guess what I am trying to say is that whatever it is that brings the soldier where he is doesn't make him any more or less a soldier. Varegg, dying is just as hard today as it was 70 years ago. Being deployed still sucks, leaving your family behind is just as painfull, writing your own obituary before deployments is still just as awkward and no mother wants to be handed a flag no matter when she lived.Varegg wrote:
But still you have soldiers dying overseas ... sounds even more like a waste of good men now than when they died in greater numbers during WW2 tbh ... and they are not the same now and 70 years ago, not even on a basic level, i hold the soldiers back then in greater regard than i do with the present ones ... that is in general terms btw
You make a good point here actually. WW2 has become 'fictionalised' in many ways. It was probably the closest thing you could get to a true 'good' against 'evil' battle and as such the political lines were very clearly delineated unlike the messy, complicated wars of modern times. As people have pointed out in this thread already one could cast a much more critical eye over the entire war and question why the US waited 2 whole years to throw it's hat in the ring or question the political arguments about self interest that were being bandied about in relation to deploying troops in Europe (as is most likely the case in any war). I think the important thing is that at the end of the day Europeans were happy with the outcome, an outcome made possible by US involvement, and as such, as the old saying goes, the end justified the means.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Perhaps one can diiferentiate the two era's of servicemen's "appeal". I for one look at ww2 as a romantic and rebellious time in America's history and the soldiers certainly reflect that image. Going off to fight the Great War, off to help save the world so to speak. Nights of big band jazz with dancing before being deployed, horrific battlefield conditions, a tyrant enemy. It all seems to come together in the history books as a time in our history that is almost so vibrant one would think it is fictional. The fact of the matter reamains that we as society tend to encompass whats going on around the world at the time and associate the conflict's political appeal with the soldier. Those men had it rough back then, I honestly don't think I could do what they did. But then again, I never thought at the age of 15 (and neither did anyone else who knew me) that I would in a few short years become a decorated United States Marine combat veteran. I guess what I am trying to say is that whatever it is that brings the soldier where he is doesn't make him any more or less a soldier. Varegg, dying is just as hard today as it was 70 years ago. Being deployed still sucks, leaving your family behind is just as painfull, writing your own obituary before deployments is still just as awkward and no mother wants to be handed a flag no matter when she lived.Varegg wrote:
But still you have soldiers dying overseas ... sounds even more like a waste of good men now than when they died in greater numbers during WW2 tbh ... and they are not the same now and 70 years ago, not even on a basic level, i hold the soldiers back then in greater regard than i do with the present ones ... that is in general terms btw
I love how you put it.Braddock wrote:
You make a good point here actually. ............
rammunition wrote:
America did nothing during WW2 to help, we didn't need them, by the time they joined in Hitler was almost defeated, yet they write their own deluded version of history.
Right, nothing at all.Kmarion wrote:
With all this talk about WWII I thought it would be a good time to remind everyone that the anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge is tomorrow (December 16, 1944.).
The "bulge" refers to the "dent" the Germans initially put into the Allies' line of advance, as seen in maps presented in newspapers of the time
At the end of the battle the forces included over a million men, about 560,000 Germans, 640,000 Americans (more than fought at Gettysburg) and 55,800 British.
The official US account lists 80,987 American casualties, while other estimates range from 70,000 to 104,000. British losses totaled 1,400. The German High Command's official figure for the campaign was 84,834 casualties, and other estimates range between 60,000 and 100,000.
The German losses in the battle were critical in several respects: the last of the German reserves were now gone; the Luftwaffe had been broken; and the German army in the West was being pushed back. Most importantly, the Eastern Front was now ripe for the taking. In the East, the German army was unable to halt the Soviet juggernaut. German forces were sent reeling on two fronts and never recovered.
American:
89,987 casualties (In one month)
(19,276 dead,
23,218 captured or missing,
47,493 wounded)
British:
201 dead,
1400 wounded and missing
Nazi Germany
84,834 casualties
(15,652 dead,
27,582 captured or missing,
41,600 wounded)
Who thinks the United States won it by themselves? That's just ignorant. That isn't to say Americans didn't play a crucial role though. It took all of us working together in order to defeat the Axis powers. /alliesAutralianChainsaw wrote:
Yep thanks to the USA for their contributions on the battlefield but i would say thanks to the Russian army and people first. They lost 25 millions men in that war and they managed to destroy most of the german army.
Always funny to listen to american thinking they won WW2 by themselves. Germany would have crush the allies if Hitler didnt backstab Stalin.
I would thank the americans more for science, technology and entertainment in general.
Where is that? Georgia?
I hope so.Kmarion wrote:
Where is that? Georgia?
Yeah.. awesome. He managed to do the same shit as hitler, but come out of it unhurt..Uzique wrote:
To be fair Russia is so much better - in every sense of the word - than America.
Go fucking Stalin, you (awesome) conniving bastard.
That pic is straight from CoD 5.
Now I really hate you marine. What you said was NEVER my intention!! I said in my first post I am completely honest in what I'm saying. You are a complete moron. If I wanted this to happen I would just agree with everything other euro guys said but I actually dissagreed with rammunition if you can see my reply.usmarine wrote:
hmmm...
summation for those who dont want to read 5 pages of slop.
euro fags bashing america and downgrading their participation in wwii. you know, the normals (braddock, uzique, rammunucklehead, and others)
americans defending what their grandparents and other families did. as usual.
so....................
i think .sup did this on purpose because he knew the end result. you should close this bullshit because half of you are acting like fucking cunts.
Last edited by .Sup (2008-11-18 15:10:50)
