Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10

Topic closed

Poll

Should Israel negotiate with Hezbollah?

Yes47%47% - 53
No40%40% - 45
I don't give a shit about them11%11% - 13
Total: 111
2006-08-31 11:26:31
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7002|Argentina

sgt_mango333 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:


Wow Serge...that was a powerful and eloquent argument.  Not a single fact of refute or anything productive to say...really what was the point in showing everyone your ignorance?
Why should I bother in answering with eloquence and wisdom when people like you is getting involved?
Thank you for further proving my point...not a single shred of enlightenment on any of the issues being discussed.  Your poorly translated English tyrades do nothing but drag these forums down.
My poor translated English tyrades?  You aren't even ignorant.  I don't know how to call you, let me seek in my englis-spanish dictionary.  I may write a poor English, but I think who is dragging the forum down is you.
Btw, I write my poor English alone at least.
2006-08-31 11:28:44
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6897

CameronPoe wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

In a rational compromise with two sides agreeing and honoring the agreement this would work.  Unfortunately, the middle east will never be peaceful until the Arab nations have their way and Israel is destroyed.  No amount of compromise will be sufficient on the Israeli side to prevent attacks from the likes of Hezbollah.

Please remember, Israel conceded and moved out of Lebanon several years ago.  They had no presence in country and only maintained the border.  So what was the provocation that got two soldiers kidnapped?  Their very existence.  This is all the rest of the middle east needs as provocation against Israel and all they need to break faith with any treaty involving Israel. 

A middle east cease fire is really only a break in fighting for anti-Israeli forces to regroup for another attack.
Au contraire, Israel and Palestine for instance have agreed a great many things in the past. What once seemed unthinkable, the PLO conceding that the state of Israel had a right to exist, came to pass and why can't similar agreements occur in the future? Israel negotiated the release of Elchanan Tenenbaum from Hezbollah captivity two years ago, in exchange for the release of some 400 Lebanese imprisoned in Israel since the 1982 invasion. Egypt and Jordan agreed to recognise Israel if Israel agreed to withdraw from the illegally occupied Sinai peninsula. Jewish tourists even frequent Jordan and Egypt now, unthinkable decades ago (I saw them myself in Petra). To be closed-minded about compromise is not very helpful. If Israel doesn't start falling back from its own hardline positions then it can never expect the rest of the middle east to. As such, by weight of numbers alone, an end to the existence of Israel at some point in the future may be inevitable.

PS Israel did not withdraw fully from Lebanon. It still occupies the Shebaa Farms area. As such, based on their charter, Hezbollah would have deemed themselves to be in the right with respect to attacking Israel. It also illegally holds over a thousand Lebanese prisoners of war from the 1982 invasion, which it was supposed to release upon evacuation of southern Lebanon circa 2000.
You've posted a lot of data and I appreciate you staying on topic.  I'll have to investigate further some of what you say.  However, on first glance from the examples of compromise you have given, they all seem very lopsided to me.  400 prisoners released for one man?  Recognition for retreat?

I still have to disagree with you on the compromise issue for now.  Israel is surrounded by enemies.  It's hardline stance is what has allowed it to survive.  If Israel continues to give an inch here, a plot of land there, they will be driven into the sea.  This is the ultimate goal of its neighbors.  Of course, there are many here who pray for this to occur, but I am not one of them.
2006-08-31 11:30:25
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7002|Argentina

sgt_mango333 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

HM1{N} wrote:


Actually, most of the stuff we get here in the U.S. doesn't come from Europe, except of course for crappy wine and over-priced pompous vehicles.

Therefore, I would think it's funny...
Good another ignorant American... stopping trade to America would also mean no imports from America meaning less money for you to pay off your huge national debt due to your low taxs. I would like to point out commonwealth trade could also stop due to a change like that.

http://www.export.gov/about/benefits_exporting.asp
Yes, yes us poor ignorant Americans, so consumed with ourselves and not realizing we need the rest of the world to make us relevant.  Get over your self!

You know what would be REALLY funny...is if America called in all of its loans given in good faith to its "allies".  It would be down right hillarious if we decided you pompous asses owed us for our rebuilding and protection of your continent.  And then maybe for an encore, America pulls out of the UN all together and leaves you guys to fend for yourselves - you fix Kosovo, you figure out how to prevent communism, you recover from your own natural disasters.
You are so full of shit man.  Please, read what you write.  Do you understand the words I'm trying to write in something like English here, but I can't because I'm a poor sudaca dude?  I wouldn't say ignorant americans, but you certainly are ignorant.
2006-08-31 11:31:49
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7002|Argentina

Vilham wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

Vilham wrote:


Another person that literally knows jack shit about WWII and tries to bring up something that is entirely irrelivent  in this day and age. Europe is no ones bitch. If we wanted the EU could place trade restrictions to the US and then your economy would be fucked in the face and your country wouldnt be so great then so stop thinking it is now.
Bring your restrictions and embargos; please.  Give Americans one more reason to turn their backs on an ungrateful Europe.  As for my knowing nothing of WWII history, you know nothing of what I know and speaking on it only proves your foolishness.  France was under German rule, Great Britain was struggling to tread water, and the rest of Europe...well let's just say they fought valiantly.  How much more do I need to go into detail?
1. Britain wasnt treading water at all, get your facts right.
2. Russia is what saved Europe not USA, even without your help Russia could NOT be conquered by Germany, have you even any idea how huge the Steppes are? The Germans would take the whole mobile stage of a year just to cross them before winter came and the Russians used to fighting in those conditions pushed them back, Russias population was so huge and Stalins commitment to beating Germany was huge. ofcourse there is some opinion that Stalin would agree to have a ceasefire with Hitler but this would just stop Hitler in his tracks, with a ruined economy and population. Invading England was never an option due to lack of fuel and naval power, therefore England was sorted as far as that was concerned, the commonwealth was fully prepared to aid England through out the war much to their credit.

Go read up before you try and comment on WWII PLZ! I literally beg of you.
I agree with you.  +1 for you.
2006-08-31 11:32:47
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6897

sergeriver wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


Why should I bother in answering with eloquence and wisdom when people like you is getting involved?
Thank you for further proving my point...not a single shred of enlightenment on any of the issues being discussed.  Your poorly translated English tyrades do nothing but drag these forums down.
My poor translated English tyrades?  You aren't even ignorant.  I don't know how to call you, let me seek in my englis-spanish dictionary.  I may write a poor English, but I think who is dragging the forum down is you.
Btw, I write my poor English alone at least.
You are correct...I should have checked my spelling.  What I meant to say was, your poorly translated English tirades.  So sorry.

For the purposes of this discussion you can call me mango or sarge or even sgt mango.  All will work...thank you please drive through.
2006-08-31 11:34:47
HM1{N}
Member
+86|6889|East Coast via Los Angeles, CA

Vilham wrote:

HM1{N} wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Another person that literally knows jack shit about WWII and tries to bring up something that is entirely irrelivent  in this day and age. Europe is no ones bitch. If we wanted the EU could place trade restrictions to the US and then your economy would be fucked in the face and your country wouldnt be so great then so stop thinking it is now.
Actually, most of the stuff we get here in the U.S. doesn't come from Europe, except of course for crappy wine and over-priced pompous vehicles.

Therefore, I would think it's funny...
Good another ignorant American... stopping trade to America would also mean no imports from America meaning less money for you to pay off your huge national debt due to your low taxs. I would like to point out commonwealth trade could also stop due to a change like that.

http://www.export.gov/about/benefits_exporting.asp
First of all, I'm not an "ignorant" american you arrogant...does your mustache have a hemi?

Second of all, not exporting to your beloved EU would hurt you more than us.  We can always export to 3rd world countries and build them up to take your place.

I'm sure Africa would rather eat our corn than your beloved EU would.

Last edited by HM1{N} (2006-08-31 11:47:15)

2006-08-31 11:39:29
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7002|Argentina

sgt_mango333 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:


In a rational compromise with two sides agreeing and honoring the agreement this would work.  Unfortunately, the middle east will never be peaceful until the Arab nations have their way and Israel is destroyed.  No amount of compromise will be sufficient on the Israeli side to prevent attacks from the likes of Hezbollah.

Please remember, Israel conceded and moved out of Lebanon several years ago.  They had no presence in country and only maintained the border.  So what was the provocation that got two soldiers kidnapped?  Their very existence.  This is all the rest of the middle east needs as provocation against Israel and all they need to break faith with any treaty involving Israel. 

A middle east cease fire is really only a break in fighting for anti-Israeli forces to regroup for another attack.
So, kidnapping two soldiers is enough to strike more than 7000 lebanese targets, to kill more than 1000 lebanese people, mostly civilians, to displace 1 million lebanese people and 500k isaraeli people.  Your ignorance appears to be at least as great as mine.
No, Serge, your right that response was inappropriate.  They should have pressed deeper into Lebanon and made an example out of them for the rest of the middle east.  When will you peacenicks get it through your head that war is sometimes the unfortunate answer and that it has solved most of the world's major conflicts, for better or worse.
Peacenicks?  Lol.  Do you have website, so I stop searching in the wikipedia.  You enlight everyone with your wisdom.  Is there an english for dummies or something else in your website?  It was www.imamajordumbass.com?
2006-08-31 11:40:39
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7002|Argentina

sgt_mango333 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:


Yes, yes us poor ignorant Americans, so consumed with ourselves and not realizing we need the rest of the world to make us relevant.  Get over your self!

You know what would be REALLY funny...is if America called in all of its loans given in good faith to its "allies".  It would be down right hillarious if we decided you pompous asses owed us for our rebuilding and protection of your continent.  And then maybe for an encore, America pulls out of the UN all together and leaves you guys to fend for yourselves - you fix Kosovo, you figure out how to prevent communism, you recover from your own natural disasters.
Yeah it would be realy funny coz you would get nearly no cash as England and the majority of the loans from WWII are paid back this year anyway!!! HAHA IN YOUR FACE! lol communism!!! hahaha your one of those yanks that thinks communism is coming to take over the world!
You amaze me...communism is nearly dead because the Americans were the only ones doing anything about it.  Your baseless and derogatory comments do nothing for this discussion. Please refrain as you only show a low maturity level when you do so.  As to England's debts...I know your going to find this hard to swallow, but England still isn't the center of the world.
Neither is America dude.
2006-08-31 11:41:39
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6897

Vilham wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

Vilham wrote:


Another person that literally knows jack shit about WWII and tries to bring up something that is entirely irrelivent  in this day and age. Europe is no ones bitch. If we wanted the EU could place trade restrictions to the US and then your economy would be fucked in the face and your country wouldnt be so great then so stop thinking it is now.
Bring your restrictions and embargos; please.  Give Americans one more reason to turn their backs on an ungrateful Europe.  As for my knowing nothing of WWII history, you know nothing of what I know and speaking on it only proves your foolishness.  France was under German rule, Great Britain was struggling to tread water, and the rest of Europe...well let's just say they fought valiantly.  How much more do I need to go into detail?
1. Britain wasnt treading water at all, get your facts right.
2. Russia is what saved Europe not USA, even without your help Russia could NOT be conquered by Germany, have you even any idea how huge the Steppes are? The Germans would take the whole mobile stage of a year just to cross them before winter came and the Russians used to fighting in those conditions pushed them back, Russias population was so huge and Stalins commitment to beating Germany was huge. ofcourse there is some opinion that Stalin would agree to have a ceasefire with Hitler but this would just stop Hitler in his tracks, with a ruined economy and population. Invading England was never an option due to lack of fuel and naval power, therefore England was sorted as far as that was concerned, the commonwealth was fully prepared to aid England through out the war much to their credit.

Go read up before you try and comment on WWII PLZ! I literally beg of you.
I'm not going to argue with you about WWII, you certainly sound like you know your stuff.  But I would like to point out a couple of things you didn't post about and invite your explanations:

1.  PLease correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia is in Asia and we're talking about Europe.
2.  If Germany hadn't attacked the Russians (stupid move on Hitler's part) there would have been plenty of fuel.  As to naval power, I have to concede that to the Brits as the majority of the American naval power was in the Pacific.  Even, so my guess would be that a German invasion of Great Britain would have been imminant. 
3.  Please explain how the Russians stopped Germany?
2006-08-31 11:47:49
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6897

sergeriver wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


So, kidnapping two soldiers is enough to strike more than 7000 lebanese targets, to kill more than 1000 lebanese people, mostly civilians, to displace 1 million lebanese people and 500k isaraeli people.  Your ignorance appears to be at least as great as mine.
No, Serge, your right that response was inappropriate.  They should have pressed deeper into Lebanon and made an example out of them for the rest of the middle east.  When will you peacenicks get it through your head that war is sometimes the unfortunate answer and that it has solved most of the world's major conflicts, for better or worse.
Peacenicks?  Lol.  Do you have website, so I stop searching in the wikipedia.  You enlight everyone with your wisdom.  Is there an english for dummies or something else in your website?  It was www.imamajordumbass.com?
This area is for debate and SERIOUS discussion, please provide some or go away.  My opinions are just as valid as the next guy's.  If your arguments are too weak to warrant discussion on their own merit, I can't help that, but please stop the antagonistic name calling in discussion's place as it is not providing a thing to the discussion.
2006-08-31 11:50:48
HM1{N}
Member
+86|6889|East Coast via Los Angeles, CA

sgt_mango333 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:


Bring your restrictions and embargos; please.  Give Americans one more reason to turn their backs on an ungrateful Europe.  As for my knowing nothing of WWII history, you know nothing of what I know and speaking on it only proves your foolishness.  France was under German rule, Great Britain was struggling to tread water, and the rest of Europe...well let's just say they fought valiantly.  How much more do I need to go into detail?
1. Britain wasnt treading water at all, get your facts right.
2. Russia is what saved Europe not USA, even without your help Russia could NOT be conquered by Germany, have you even any idea how huge the Steppes are? The Germans would take the whole mobile stage of a year just to cross them before winter came and the Russians used to fighting in those conditions pushed them back, Russias population was so huge and Stalins commitment to beating Germany was huge. ofcourse there is some opinion that Stalin would agree to have a ceasefire with Hitler but this would just stop Hitler in his tracks, with a ruined economy and population. Invading England was never an option due to lack of fuel and naval power, therefore England was sorted as far as that was concerned, the commonwealth was fully prepared to aid England through out the war much to their credit.

Go read up before you try and comment on WWII PLZ! I literally beg of you.
I'm not going to argue with you about WWII, you certainly sound like you know your stuff.  But I would like to point out a couple of things you didn't post about and invite your explanations:

1.  PLease correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia is in Asia and we're talking about Europe.
2.  If Germany hadn't attacked the Russians (stupid move on Hitler's part) there would have been plenty of fuel.  As to naval power, I have to concede that to the Brits as the majority of the American naval power was in the Pacific.  Even, so my guess would be that a German invasion of Great Britain would have been imminant. 
3.  Please explain how the Russians stopped Germany?
Seems to me the Russians REALLY needed our help bad:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/t … e.htm#1945

And without the U.S. the Russians wouldn't have beaten Germany.

Go read up before you try and comment on WWII PLZ!
2006-08-31 11:51:01
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7002|Argentina

sgt_mango333 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:


Serge, dude...you gotta think about your posts before you submit them - really.  Israel's very presence is an afront to most of the middle east nations due the differences between Judaism and Islam.  There will be no peace so long as they exist.

Negotiation and compromise is a two way street.  Check the books and you will find Israel as the victim of many a broken treaty.  Because Israel's existence is so offensive to Islamic nations there can never be peace.

No one should be labeling you as a terrorist supporter unless they have proof of such an atrocity.  However, negotiation with terrorists can never happen - give them an inch they will ask for a foot and continue to commit violent attrocities to gain that foot.  Compromise with these entities only encourages the actions they employ to get their way.
You have such an ego to tell me how to post.  I think you should understand that the fact Israel is where it is now, has no solution.  So, you have two ways: one is let them to get wiped, the other is to negotiate.  Don't talk me of books, I checked a few so far, and Israel ain't no victim.  You should know that terrorism is not only a dude blowing himself with C4 in a market of Tel Aviv.  It's also bombing during 20 years Lebanon or oppressing millions of palestine people.  And don't tell me I'm antisemite or else.  I'm jewish myself, but what Israel is doing is terrorism as well.  But, I didn't think before posting this one so whatever.
Finally, some actual opinions on topic...I'm proud of you Serge.  I knew you could do it. 

Israel is a legitimate country with a legitimate army.  Your precious UN has so recognized this fact.  Hezbollah is a terrorist organization without a country or legimate recognition.  Israeli/Lebanese tensions can hardly be construed as terrorism on Israel's part. 

And by the way, just because your Jewish doesn't mean you can't be antisemitic.  It's called self hate and is very common.
Israel has been legitimated, that's different, by your precious UN.  Hezbollah is a lebanese political party which is only consider a terrorist organization by US, Canada and Israel.  The EU doesn't consider Hezbollah as terrorists.  Hezbollah is 10% of Lebanon Parliament, so someone voted them.  And if you hate that much Hezbollah well, thank Israel for invading Lebanon in 1982, giving Hezbollah a reason to be created.
By the way I don't hate jewish but I kinda hate Israel.  It's called common sense.
2006-08-31 11:53:39
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6897

HM1{N} wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

Vilham wrote:


1. Britain wasnt treading water at all, get your facts right.
2. Russia is what saved Europe not USA, even without your help Russia could NOT be conquered by Germany, have you even any idea how huge the Steppes are? The Germans would take the whole mobile stage of a year just to cross them before winter came and the Russians used to fighting in those conditions pushed them back, Russias population was so huge and Stalins commitment to beating Germany was huge. ofcourse there is some opinion that Stalin would agree to have a ceasefire with Hitler but this would just stop Hitler in his tracks, with a ruined economy and population. Invading England was never an option due to lack of fuel and naval power, therefore England was sorted as far as that was concerned, the commonwealth was fully prepared to aid England through out the war much to their credit.

Go read up before you try and comment on WWII PLZ! I literally beg of you.
I'm not going to argue with you about WWII, you certainly sound like you know your stuff.  But I would like to point out a couple of things you didn't post about and invite your explanations:

1.  PLease correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia is in Asia and we're talking about Europe.
2.  If Germany hadn't attacked the Russians (stupid move on Hitler's part) there would have been plenty of fuel.  As to naval power, I have to concede that to the Brits as the majority of the American naval power was in the Pacific.  Even, so my guess would be that a German invasion of Great Britain would have been imminant. 
3.  Please explain how the Russians stopped Germany?
Seems to me the Russians REALLY needed our help bad:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/t … e.htm#1945

And without the U.S. the Russians wouldn't have beaten Germany.

Go read up before you try and comment on WWII PLZ!
I was asking questions because I don't know...that's allowed isn't it?
2006-08-31 11:56:23
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7002|Argentina

sgt_mango333 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

Bring your restrictions and embargos; please.  Give Americans one more reason to turn their backs on an ungrateful Europe.  As for my knowing nothing of WWII history, you know nothing of what I know and speaking on it only proves your foolishness.  France was under German rule, Great Britain was struggling to tread water, and the rest of Europe...well let's just say they fought valiantly.  How much more do I need to go into detail?
1. Britain wasnt treading water at all, get your facts right.
2. Russia is what saved Europe not USA, even without your help Russia could NOT be conquered by Germany, have you even any idea how huge the Steppes are? The Germans would take the whole mobile stage of a year just to cross them before winter came and the Russians used to fighting in those conditions pushed them back, Russias population was so huge and Stalins commitment to beating Germany was huge. ofcourse there is some opinion that Stalin would agree to have a ceasefire with Hitler but this would just stop Hitler in his tracks, with a ruined economy and population. Invading England was never an option due to lack of fuel and naval power, therefore England was sorted as far as that was concerned, the commonwealth was fully prepared to aid England through out the war much to their credit.

Go read up before you try and comment on WWII PLZ! I literally beg of you.
I'm not going to argue with you about WWII, you certainly sound like you know your stuff.  But I would like to point out a couple of things you didn't post about and invite your explanations:

1.  PLease correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia is in Asia and we're talking about Europe.
2.  If Germany hadn't attacked the Russians (stupid move on Hitler's part) there would have been plenty of fuel.  As to naval power, I have to concede that to the Brits as the majority of the American naval power was in the Pacific.  Even, so my guess would be that a German invasion of Great Britain would have been imminant. 
3.  Please explain how the Russians stopped Germany?
1-Russia is in Europe.  Perhaps you mean Siberia.
2-But they did attack Russia.  You are making suppositions.
3-Russia stoped Germany simply, letting their soldier dying or starving in a cold weather and without the proper logistics, because in WWII Germany didn't constructed airplanes with four engines, they did with 3, so their airplanes couldn't cover the long distance to Russia.

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-08-31 11:58:49)

2006-08-31 12:01:38
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6897

sergeriver wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

1. Britain wasnt treading water at all, get your facts right.
2. Russia is what saved Europe not USA, even without your help Russia could NOT be conquered by Germany, have you even any idea how huge the Steppes are? The Germans would take the whole mobile stage of a year just to cross them before winter came and the Russians used to fighting in those conditions pushed them back, Russias population was so huge and Stalins commitment to beating Germany was huge. ofcourse there is some opinion that Stalin would agree to have a ceasefire with Hitler but this would just stop Hitler in his tracks, with a ruined economy and population. Invading England was never an option due to lack of fuel and naval power, therefore England was sorted as far as that was concerned, the commonwealth was fully prepared to aid England through out the war much to their credit.

Go read up before you try and comment on WWII PLZ! I literally beg of you.
I'm not going to argue with you about WWII, you certainly sound like you know your stuff.  But I would like to point out a couple of things you didn't post about and invite your explanations:

1.  PLease correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia is in Asia and we're talking about Europe.
2.  If Germany hadn't attacked the Russians (stupid move on Hitler's part) there would have been plenty of fuel.  As to naval power, I have to concede that to the Brits as the majority of the American naval power was in the Pacific.  Even, so my guess would be that a German invasion of Great Britain would have been imminant. 
3.  Please explain how the Russians stopped Germany?
1-Russi is in Europe you ignorant.
2-But they did attack Russia.  You are making suppositions.
3-Russia stoped Germany simply, letting their soldier dying or starving in a cold weather and without the proper logistics, because in WWII Germany didn't constructed airplanes with four engines, they did with 3, so their airplanes couldn't cover the long distance to Russia.
1.  Thanks for clearing up my ignorance...thought it was on the other side
2.  Supposition enters into the place of ignorance when one is seeking the truth
3.  Aside from Germany's aborted attack on Russia, how did the Russian's stop the Germans from conquering Europe?  You don't need to answer, just clarifying the original question.  HM already posted a very useful sight in this regard. 

Thanks.

Last edited by sgt_mango333 (2006-08-31 12:02:18)

2006-08-31 12:03:45
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7011|UK

HM1{N} wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

Vilham wrote:


1. Britain wasnt treading water at all, get your facts right.
2. Russia is what saved Europe not USA, even without your help Russia could NOT be conquered by Germany, have you even any idea how huge the Steppes are? The Germans would take the whole mobile stage of a year just to cross them before winter came and the Russians used to fighting in those conditions pushed them back, Russias population was so huge and Stalins commitment to beating Germany was huge. ofcourse there is some opinion that Stalin would agree to have a ceasefire with Hitler but this would just stop Hitler in his tracks, with a ruined economy and population. Invading England was never an option due to lack of fuel and naval power, therefore England was sorted as far as that was concerned, the commonwealth was fully prepared to aid England through out the war much to their credit.

Go read up before you try and comment on WWII PLZ! I literally beg of you.
I'm not going to argue with you about WWII, you certainly sound like you know your stuff.  But I would like to point out a couple of things you didn't post about and invite your explanations:

1.  PLease correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia is in Asia and we're talking about Europe.
2.  If Germany hadn't attacked the Russians (stupid move on Hitler's part) there would have been plenty of fuel.  As to naval power, I have to concede that to the Brits as the majority of the American naval power was in the Pacific.  Even, so my guess would be that a German invasion of Great Britain would have been imminant. 
3.  Please explain how the Russians stopped Germany?
Seems to me the Russians REALLY needed our help bad:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/t … e.htm#1945

And without the U.S. the Russians wouldn't have beaten Germany.

Go read up before you try and comment on WWII PLZ!
Lol you have posted a link that has no support for your argument, the Russians needed NO support from America. The percentage of American material in Russia was something like 1%.

Go read up your own links before you try and comment on WWII PLZ!
2006-08-31 12:05:12
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7002|Argentina

sgt_mango333 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:


Thank you for further proving my point...not a single shred of enlightenment on any of the issues being discussed.  Your poorly translated English tyrades do nothing but drag these forums down.
My poor translated English tyrades?  You aren't even ignorant.  I don't know how to call you, let me seek in my englis-spanish dictionary.  I may write a poor English, but I think who is dragging the forum down is you.
Btw, I write my poor English alone at least.
You are correct...I should have checked my spelling.  What I meant to say was, your poorly translated English tirades.  So sorry.

For the purposes of this discussion you can call me mango or sarge or even sgt mango.  All will work...thank you please drive through.
And what does it mean anyway?  What are my poor translated Englishg tirades?  Please, teach me as I'm ignorant of all knowledge.
2006-08-31 12:06:39
HM1{N}
Member
+86|6889|East Coast via Los Angeles, CA

sgt_mango333 wrote:

HM1{N} wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:


I'm not going to argue with you about WWII, you certainly sound like you know your stuff.  But I would like to point out a couple of things you didn't post about and invite your explanations:

1.  PLease correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia is in Asia and we're talking about Europe.
2.  If Germany hadn't attacked the Russians (stupid move on Hitler's part) there would have been plenty of fuel.  As to naval power, I have to concede that to the Brits as the majority of the American naval power was in the Pacific.  Even, so my guess would be that a German invasion of Great Britain would have been imminant. 
3.  Please explain how the Russians stopped Germany?
Seems to me the Russians REALLY needed our help bad:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/t … e.htm#1945

And without the U.S. the Russians wouldn't have beaten Germany.

Go read up before you try and comment on WWII PLZ!
I was asking questions because I don't know...that's allowed isn't it?
I was directing that at vilham, not you, sorry.
2006-08-31 12:09:05
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7011|UK

sgt_mango333 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:


I'm not going to argue with you about WWII, you certainly sound like you know your stuff.  But I would like to point out a couple of things you didn't post about and invite your explanations:

1.  PLease correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia is in Asia and we're talking about Europe.
2.  If Germany hadn't attacked the Russians (stupid move on Hitler's part) there would have been plenty of fuel.  As to naval power, I have to concede that to the Brits as the majority of the American naval power was in the Pacific.  Even, so my guess would be that a German invasion of Great Britain would have been imminant. 
3.  Please explain how the Russians stopped Germany?
1-Russi is in Europe you ignorant.
2-But they did attack Russia.  You are making suppositions.
3-Russia stoped Germany simply, letting their soldier dying or starving in a cold weather and without the proper logistics, because in WWII Germany didn't constructed airplanes with four engines, they did with 3, so their airplanes couldn't cover the long distance to Russia.
1.  Thanks for clearing up my ignorance...thought it was on the other side
2.  Supposition enters into the place of ignorance when one is seeking the truth
3.  Aside from Germany's aborted attack on Russia, how did the Russian's stop the Germans from conquering Europe?  You don't need to answer, just clarifying the original question.  HM already posted a very useful sight in this regard. 

Thanks.
Well to 1 you are half right, it spans Europe and Asia.
To 3 they stopped Germany by keeping something like 90% of its military might occupied, North Africa had about i think if memory serves 3 divisions, along the Channel coast line they had about another 8 or so and in Russia they had close to 50. Imagine the rest of those 50 divisions rampaging about Spain/N.Africa/Scandanavia/etc thats alot of territory they could have conquered. That is how Russia saved Europe.
2006-08-31 12:09:11
HM1{N}
Member
+86|6889|East Coast via Los Angeles, CA

Vilham wrote:

HM1{N} wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

I'm not going to argue with you about WWII, you certainly sound like you know your stuff.  But I would like to point out a couple of things you didn't post about and invite your explanations:

1.  PLease correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia is in Asia and we're talking about Europe.
2.  If Germany hadn't attacked the Russians (stupid move on Hitler's part) there would have been plenty of fuel.  As to naval power, I have to concede that to the Brits as the majority of the American naval power was in the Pacific.  Even, so my guess would be that a German invasion of Great Britain would have been imminant. 
3.  Please explain how the Russians stopped Germany?
Seems to me the Russians REALLY needed our help bad:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/t … e.htm#1945

And without the U.S. the Russians wouldn't have beaten Germany.

Go read up before you try and comment on WWII PLZ!
Lol you have posted a link that has no support for your argument, the Russians needed NO support from America. The percentage of American material in Russia was something like 1%.

Go read up your own links before you try and comment on WWII PLZ!
OH, I'm so sorry a historical timeline doesn't suit you, how about this timeline?

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2timeline/Europe09.html

Does that suit you better?  Or do we need to rewrite history for you so that it will show no U.S. help to Europe in WWII?

Let me guess, you're Russian?

Last edited by HM1{N} (2006-08-31 12:11:20)

2006-08-31 12:11:51
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6897

sergeriver wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


My poor translated English tyrades?  You aren't even ignorant.  I don't know how to call you, let me seek in my englis-spanish dictionary.  I may write a poor English, but I think who is dragging the forum down is you.
Btw, I write my poor English alone at least.
You are correct...I should have checked my spelling.  What I meant to say was, your poorly translated English tirades.  So sorry.

For the purposes of this discussion you can call me mango or sarge or even sgt mango.  All will work...thank you please drive through.
And what does it mean anyway?  What are my poor translated Englishg tirades?  Please, teach me as I'm ignorant of all knowledge.
Just go away please...wait this is your thread...I'll go away.  You are annoying.
2006-08-31 12:12:00
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6826|SE London

HM1{N} wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

HM1{N} wrote:


Seems to me the Russians REALLY needed our help bad:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/t … e.htm#1945

And without the U.S. the Russians wouldn't have beaten Germany.

Go read up before you try and comment on WWII PLZ!
I was asking questions because I don't know...that's allowed isn't it?
I was directing that at vilham, not you, sorry.
The Russians didn't really need much help at all to beat the Nazis. They had many more men and much better tanks.

The Americans helped, but the Russians were the deciding factor. Britain provided the majority of naval and air support.
2006-08-31 12:12:08
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7002|Argentina

sgt_mango333 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:


I'm not going to argue with you about WWII, you certainly sound like you know your stuff.  But I would like to point out a couple of things you didn't post about and invite your explanations:

1.  PLease correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia is in Asia and we're talking about Europe.
2.  If Germany hadn't attacked the Russians (stupid move on Hitler's part) there would have been plenty of fuel.  As to naval power, I have to concede that to the Brits as the majority of the American naval power was in the Pacific.  Even, so my guess would be that a German invasion of Great Britain would have been imminant. 
3.  Please explain how the Russians stopped Germany?
1-Russi is in Europe you ignorant.
2-But they did attack Russia.  You are making suppositions.
3-Russia stoped Germany simply, letting their soldier dying or starving in a cold weather and without the proper logistics, because in WWII Germany didn't constructed airplanes with four engines, they did with 3, so their airplanes couldn't cover the long distance to Russia.
1.  Thanks for clearing up my ignorance...thought it was on the other side
2.  Supposition enters into the place of ignorance when one is seeking the truth
3.  Aside from Germany's aborted attack on Russia, how did the Russian's stop the Germans from conquering Europe?  You don't need to answer, just clarifying the original question.  HM already posted a very useful sight in this regard. 

Thanks.
1-You're welcome.
2-You started making suppositions.
3-Aside what I mention before as a mistake by Germany, Russia fought Germany taking them from Ukraine to Budapest.  They crashed Germany by themselves.
2006-08-31 12:12:23
EricTViking
Yes, I am Queeg
+48|6796|UK

sgt_mango333 wrote:

I'm not going to argue with you about WWII, you certainly sound like you know your stuff.  But I would like to point out a couple of things you didn't post about and invite your explanations:

1.  PLease correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia is in Asia and we're talking about Europe.
2.  If Germany hadn't attacked the Russians (stupid move on Hitler's part) there would have been plenty of fuel.  As to naval power, I have to concede that to the Brits as the majority of the American naval power was in the Pacific.  Even, so my guess would be that a German invasion of Great Britain would have been imminant. 
3.  Please explain how the Russians stopped Germany?
1. Eurasia?

2. More correct to say that the majority of the American naval power was *under* the Pacific after Pearl Harbour.  On the same point, Britain had gained air superiority over Germany in summer of 1940 so the chances of success for a German seabound invasion were about none (Britain already had sea superiority).

3. The Russians just fell back as the Germans attacked and drew the German supply line out so far that the German armies ground to a halt. When the winter set in the German vehicles seized up because they weren't designed for the cold weather - and their soldiers froze because they didn't have winter gear.  When the Russians had rebuilt their factories and churned out a few hundred thousand T34s they just rolled back towards Germany oblitorating them as they went.  Amongst other things.

There's no doubting the huge American contribution in WW2 but it should be illustrated with Historical Facts and not like the script of U571.
2006-08-31 12:14:41
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7002|Argentina

Vilham wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


1-Russi is in Europe you ignorant.
2-But they did attack Russia.  You are making suppositions.
3-Russia stoped Germany simply, letting their soldier dying or starving in a cold weather and without the proper logistics, because in WWII Germany didn't constructed airplanes with four engines, they did with 3, so their airplanes couldn't cover the long distance to Russia.
1.  Thanks for clearing up my ignorance...thought it was on the other side
2.  Supposition enters into the place of ignorance when one is seeking the truth
3.  Aside from Germany's aborted attack on Russia, how did the Russian's stop the Germans from conquering Europe?  You don't need to answer, just clarifying the original question.  HM already posted a very useful sight in this regard. 

Thanks.
Well to 1 you are half right, it spans Europe and Asia.
To 3 they stopped Germany by keeping something like 90% of its military might occupied, North Africa had about i think if memory serves 3 divisions, along the Channel coast line they had about another 8 or so and in Russia they had close to 50. Imagine the rest of those 50 divisions rampaging about Spain/N.Africa/Scandanavia/etc thats alot of territory they could have conquered. That is how Russia saved Europe.
But Russia certainly is in Europe, despite a great part of it is Asia.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard