The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
62 dead is the figure at the moment. I hate hearing about things like this, wherever they are. Nothing can justify ripping through peoples' lives in a supposedly safe environment.
Page:
Skarra wrote:
> Its not really fair to say that about the German people though is it?
> I mean i'm sure if more knew about the death camps and so on, they
> would have opposed Hitler. Even if they had, what could they have
> done, with the SS and the like in place.
Yes it is. Jews were rounded up all over Germany. Jews were forced to work for germans and german companies. Even death camps were near rural villages and towns. They allowed Hitler in and supported him for the most part - it was clear what Hitler thought of the Jews and others before he came to power with NO resistance whatsoever. The SS was comprised of germans, the massive military was - from all over the country. There was no denying what was going on. Maybe people chose not to see, or to ignore, but that is no defence.
> To be fair, it could be argued that their troops might have been
> using Europe as a buffer, or a potential spring board for invasion of
> the USSR, had war broken out. However, i do agree the US does care
> about Europe.
Nope, because the US already had a buffer. It's called the Atlantic. Nor was it a springboard as NATO had no interest in invading the USSR. Even if war broke out the first move in the USSR strategy (and this is proven) was to invade straight into Western Germany in overwhelming force. One book - Red Thrust - which talks about this estimates that the US and NATO forces would have been able to hold back this invasion for only hours at best, under an hour at worst.
> Had Eta been in London you mean?
No, not what I mean. My point is if any one had said yesterday that ETA would launch this attack with this many killed and injured it would have been unbelievable because, in the context of the past, it makes no sense at all - the most ETA has killed before is about 30 in one go. And this attack today was something no one knew about or even had the chance to stop. No one believes it will happen until it is too late.
> Its not really fair to say that about the German people though is it?
> I mean i'm sure if more knew about the death camps and so on, they
> would have opposed Hitler. Even if they had, what could they have
> done, with the SS and the like in place.
Yes it is. Jews were rounded up all over Germany. Jews were forced to work for germans and german companies. Even death camps were near rural villages and towns. They allowed Hitler in and supported him for the most part - it was clear what Hitler thought of the Jews and others before he came to power with NO resistance whatsoever. The SS was comprised of germans, the massive military was - from all over the country. There was no denying what was going on. Maybe people chose not to see, or to ignore, but that is no defence.
> To be fair, it could be argued that their troops might have been
> using Europe as a buffer, or a potential spring board for invasion of
> the USSR, had war broken out. However, i do agree the US does care
> about Europe.
Nope, because the US already had a buffer. It's called the Atlantic. Nor was it a springboard as NATO had no interest in invading the USSR. Even if war broke out the first move in the USSR strategy (and this is proven) was to invade straight into Western Germany in overwhelming force. One book - Red Thrust - which talks about this estimates that the US and NATO forces would have been able to hold back this invasion for only hours at best, under an hour at worst.
> Had Eta been in London you mean?
No, not what I mean. My point is if any one had said yesterday that ETA would launch this attack with this many killed and injured it would have been unbelievable because, in the context of the past, it makes no sense at all - the most ETA has killed before is about 30 in one go. And this attack today was something no one knew about or even had the chance to stop. No one believes it will happen until it is too late.
Belldandy wrote:
> The Japanese public were quite happy from all accounts when their
> forces killed hundreds at Pearl Harbour, and happy to see Allied
> POW's work on projects which killed tens of thousands. In the same
> way very few Germans opposed Hitler even in secret until war began to
> look like it wasn't a dead cert in Germany's favour.
There's a difference between being happy about something being done, and doing that something yourself. Apart from the fact that the public by nature are not military trained, and therefore completely vulnerable, the parties voted into power, once they are there, do not require the publics consent to do anything regarding military action.
When have anti-war demonstrations ever stopped a war? Most germans were behind hitler as they considered his actions reasonable - just as we see it as perfectly reasonable to go and invade Afghanistan, and then Iraq.
> The Japanese public were quite happy from all accounts when their
> forces killed hundreds at Pearl Harbour, and happy to see Allied
> POW's work on projects which killed tens of thousands. In the same
> way very few Germans opposed Hitler even in secret until war began to
> look like it wasn't a dead cert in Germany's favour.
There's a difference between being happy about something being done, and doing that something yourself. Apart from the fact that the public by nature are not military trained, and therefore completely vulnerable, the parties voted into power, once they are there, do not require the publics consent to do anything regarding military action.
When have anti-war demonstrations ever stopped a war? Most germans were behind hitler as they considered his actions reasonable - just as we see it as perfectly reasonable to go and invade Afghanistan, and then Iraq.
SHEEPY wrote:
> Just like the American public was happy to drop to nuclear bombs on
> Japan
>
> I like you Bellandy but just give the pro-American stuff a break
> sometimes.
Try and actually think what you are saying.
The alternative to the bombs was a massive invasion of Japan - an allied report into the feasability of this concluded that the initial KIA's on the allied side would be in the thousands. On day one. Beating the Japanese would have involved levelling the country and a slow advance through the country, akin to the eventual invasion of Germany in 144-45. Total devestation, millions dead from fighting and millions more injured.
Faced with sending thousands of allied servicemen to their deaths, the decision was taken that the bomb would be used to bring Japan to the peace table. The Japanese were warned via diplomatic channels that, one week beforehand, they would be the victims of a weapon of "unimaginable devestation" if they did not surrender. That was ignored (by them and by people like you Sheepy who harp on about it). The first bomb was dropped. Still no surrender. Second bomb dropped. Surrender. The Japanese war leadership was willing to sacrifice it's own people despite knowing that, with war in Europe over, it could not now win the war, only prolong the inevitable.
Another often missed or ignored point is that the attacks destroyed the only research the Japanese had on making their own bombs - ones which they would have used with far less moral reasoning than the Allies did.
Faced with a choice between sending thousands of young men to their deaths, and having to attack the nation which attacked and slaughtered, without provocation or even declaring war, your own nation, I know which I would choose every time.
Sheepy however would send the men to their deaths...
> Just like the American public was happy to drop to nuclear bombs on
> Japan
>
> I like you Bellandy but just give the pro-American stuff a break
> sometimes.
Try and actually think what you are saying.
The alternative to the bombs was a massive invasion of Japan - an allied report into the feasability of this concluded that the initial KIA's on the allied side would be in the thousands. On day one. Beating the Japanese would have involved levelling the country and a slow advance through the country, akin to the eventual invasion of Germany in 144-45. Total devestation, millions dead from fighting and millions more injured.
Faced with sending thousands of allied servicemen to their deaths, the decision was taken that the bomb would be used to bring Japan to the peace table. The Japanese were warned via diplomatic channels that, one week beforehand, they would be the victims of a weapon of "unimaginable devestation" if they did not surrender. That was ignored (by them and by people like you Sheepy who harp on about it). The first bomb was dropped. Still no surrender. Second bomb dropped. Surrender. The Japanese war leadership was willing to sacrifice it's own people despite knowing that, with war in Europe over, it could not now win the war, only prolong the inevitable.
Another often missed or ignored point is that the attacks destroyed the only research the Japanese had on making their own bombs - ones which they would have used with far less moral reasoning than the Allies did.
Faced with a choice between sending thousands of young men to their deaths, and having to attack the nation which attacked and slaughtered, without provocation or even declaring war, your own nation, I know which I would choose every time.
Sheepy however would send the men to their deaths...
SHEEPY wrote:
> Just like the American public was happy to drop to nuclear bombs on
> Japan
I don't think it was a decision taken lightly though. And, just out of curiosity, what would you have done in place of the Nukes?
> Just like the American public was happy to drop to nuclear bombs on
> Japan
I don't think it was a decision taken lightly though. And, just out of curiosity, what would you have done in place of the Nukes?
Belldandy wrote:
> The Japanese public were quite happy from all accounts when their
> forces killed hundreds at Pearl Harbour, and happy to see Allied
> POW's work on projects which killed tens of thousands. In the same
> way very few Germans opposed Hitler even in secret until war began to
> look like it wasn't a dead cert in Germany's favour.
Its not really fair to say that about the German people though is it? I mean i'm sure if more knew about the death camps and so on, they would have opposed Hitler. Even if they had, what could they have done, with the SS and the like in place.
> I'd also argue the US "does" and always has "given a
> damn about Europe" - many many of their forces spent the Cold
> War positioned in Europe and had the USSR invaded it would have been
> Americans who laid down their lives to stop them in the first hours
> and days.
To be fair, it could be argued that their troops might have been using Europe as a buffer, or a potential spring board for invasion of the USSR, had war broken out. However, i do agree the US does care about Europe.
> During World War 2 allied victory in Europe and Asia was
> simply not possible without the US joining - even before Pearl
> Harbour Roosevelt risked his career by finding whatever way he could
> to supply us with what we needed to hold out.
Agreed. Well, if the allies had hindsight, they might have taken advantage during the 'phoney war', but i don't blame them for not having hindsight.
> The Spanish PM has blamed ETA but it makes no sense - why do this
> close to an election which could have seen the party that was hard on
> terrorism being ousted by a party considered soft on terrorism? It'll
> only swing voters back towards the current party. Then again who says
> terrorism has to make logical sense? 9/11 succeeded in mobilising the
> US into using more power than it has since World War 2.
Blowing up innocent people on mass has never made much sense to me.
> This also underlines what the like of Blair and Bush have been saying
> - terrorism threatens everyone no matter where you are, and it's not
> just terrorism from one source. It could just as easily have been
> London.
Had Eta been in London you mean?
> The Japanese public were quite happy from all accounts when their
> forces killed hundreds at Pearl Harbour, and happy to see Allied
> POW's work on projects which killed tens of thousands. In the same
> way very few Germans opposed Hitler even in secret until war began to
> look like it wasn't a dead cert in Germany's favour.
Its not really fair to say that about the German people though is it? I mean i'm sure if more knew about the death camps and so on, they would have opposed Hitler. Even if they had, what could they have done, with the SS and the like in place.
> I'd also argue the US "does" and always has "given a
> damn about Europe" - many many of their forces spent the Cold
> War positioned in Europe and had the USSR invaded it would have been
> Americans who laid down their lives to stop them in the first hours
> and days.
To be fair, it could be argued that their troops might have been using Europe as a buffer, or a potential spring board for invasion of the USSR, had war broken out. However, i do agree the US does care about Europe.
> During World War 2 allied victory in Europe and Asia was
> simply not possible without the US joining - even before Pearl
> Harbour Roosevelt risked his career by finding whatever way he could
> to supply us with what we needed to hold out.
Agreed. Well, if the allies had hindsight, they might have taken advantage during the 'phoney war', but i don't blame them for not having hindsight.
> The Spanish PM has blamed ETA but it makes no sense - why do this
> close to an election which could have seen the party that was hard on
> terrorism being ousted by a party considered soft on terrorism? It'll
> only swing voters back towards the current party. Then again who says
> terrorism has to make logical sense? 9/11 succeeded in mobilising the
> US into using more power than it has since World War 2.
Blowing up innocent people on mass has never made much sense to me.
> This also underlines what the like of Blair and Bush have been saying
> - terrorism threatens everyone no matter where you are, and it's not
> just terrorism from one source. It could just as easily have been
> London.
Had Eta been in London you mean?
ßulle†† wrote:
> The US doesn't give a damn about Europe, yet Tony Blair still kisses
> Bush's árse...
Isn't the Son of Star Wars going to include parts of Europe?
> The US doesn't give a damn about Europe, yet Tony Blair still kisses
> Bush's árse...
Isn't the Son of Star Wars going to include parts of Europe?
Lindgren wrote:
> This "War on Terror" mullarkey is ridiculous. Terror cannot
> be defeated. It doesnt matter who is captured, killed, or otherwise
> got rid of, there will always be someone waiting in the wings to take
> their place. Personally, I feel Bushs' "War on Terror"
> campaign amounts to nothing more than a form of terrorism itself.
What would you have him do? Forget about 9/11 and hope the problem goes away?
> This "War on Terror" mullarkey is ridiculous. Terror cannot
> be defeated. It doesnt matter who is captured, killed, or otherwise
> got rid of, there will always be someone waiting in the wings to take
> their place. Personally, I feel Bushs' "War on Terror"
> campaign amounts to nothing more than a form of terrorism itself.
What would you have him do? Forget about 9/11 and hope the problem goes away?
Damn killed the stock market today too.
Bloody idiots.
Bloody idiots.
Just like the American public was happy to drop to nuclear bombs on Japan
I like you Bellandy but just give the pro-American stuff a break sometimes.
I like you Bellandy but just give the pro-American stuff a break sometimes.
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> Yeah, politicians and the military fight wars, but it is always joe
> public who gets it in the neck ....
Who allows the government and polticians to have power? The public...
The Japanese public were quite happy from all accounts when their forces killed hundreds at Pearl Harbour, and happy to see Allied POW's work on projects which killed tens of thousands. In the same way very few Germans opposed Hitler even in secret until war began to look like it wasn't a dead cert in Germany's favour.
I'd also argue the US "does" and always has "given a damn about Europe" - many many of their forces spent the Cold War positioned in Europe and had the USSR invaded it would have been Americans who laid down their lives to stop them in the first hours and days. During World War 2 allied victory in Europe and Asia was simply not possible without the US joining - even before Pearl Harbour Roosevelt risked his career by finding whatever way he could to supply us with what we needed to hold out.
From what I know, part of the problem with ETA, or specifically attacking ETA, is they don't have some big HQ or likewise you can go after, they're small groups, even individuals, living in the area they believe should be seperate from Spain, and even in Spain itself. They don't wear another nations flag on their shoulder, they don't look different from another spanish person.
The Spanish PM has blamed ETA but it makes no sense - why do this close to an election which could have seen the party that was hard on terrorism being ousted by a party considered soft on terrorism? It'll only swing voters back towards the current party. Then again who says terrorism has to make logical sense? 9/11 succeeded in mobilising the US into using more power than it has since World War 2.
This also underlines what the like of Blair and Bush have been saying - terrorism threatens everyone no matter where you are, and it's not just terrorism from one source. It could just as easily have been London.
> Yeah, politicians and the military fight wars, but it is always joe
> public who gets it in the neck ....
Who allows the government and polticians to have power? The public...
The Japanese public were quite happy from all accounts when their forces killed hundreds at Pearl Harbour, and happy to see Allied POW's work on projects which killed tens of thousands. In the same way very few Germans opposed Hitler even in secret until war began to look like it wasn't a dead cert in Germany's favour.
I'd also argue the US "does" and always has "given a damn about Europe" - many many of their forces spent the Cold War positioned in Europe and had the USSR invaded it would have been Americans who laid down their lives to stop them in the first hours and days. During World War 2 allied victory in Europe and Asia was simply not possible without the US joining - even before Pearl Harbour Roosevelt risked his career by finding whatever way he could to supply us with what we needed to hold out.
From what I know, part of the problem with ETA, or specifically attacking ETA, is they don't have some big HQ or likewise you can go after, they're small groups, even individuals, living in the area they believe should be seperate from Spain, and even in Spain itself. They don't wear another nations flag on their shoulder, they don't look different from another spanish person.
The Spanish PM has blamed ETA but it makes no sense - why do this close to an election which could have seen the party that was hard on terrorism being ousted by a party considered soft on terrorism? It'll only swing voters back towards the current party. Then again who says terrorism has to make logical sense? 9/11 succeeded in mobilising the US into using more power than it has since World War 2.
This also underlines what the like of Blair and Bush have been saying - terrorism threatens everyone no matter where you are, and it's not just terrorism from one source. It could just as easily have been London.
Page: