Bush/Cheney have disgraced their office; they should resign



limerickman said:
Your country's education textbooks are factually incorrect : how else can you explain why those textbooks state that your country won the Vietnam war ?
At least our textbooks don't refer to WW2 as "The Emergency"! How was WW2 a emergency for Ireland when Ireland never entered the war?

Do Irish history books tell about IRA involvement with the Nazi's? Does it tell about the Kathleen Plan?

Do the Irish books tell us about Sean Russell? He was buried at sea from a German u-boat with full Nazi honors. They even erected a statue in his honor in Dublin.

http://www.victims.org.uk/russellstatue.jpg

"enduring symbol of Ireland’s shame".

Do the history books in Ireland tell us about Eoin O'Duffy? He promised ****** he could raise a "Green Legion" to fight for the Germans on the eastern front.

Is it coincidence that the Irish prime minister and president were the only neutral government leaders to offer condolences upon ******'s death?

Here is a quote from the prime minister about offering condolences....

"would have been an act of unpardonable discourtesy to the German nation and to Dr. Hempel himself. During the whole of the war, Dr. Hempel's conduct was irreproachable. ... I certainly was not going to add to his humiliation in the hour of defeat."
 
wolfix said:
What is the explanation to the bomb being 'Unnecessary & Immoral ?"

Immoral because those city levelling raids were specifically aimed at (and achieved) massive civillian casualties. I believe that those raids were unnecessary because Albert Speer who was in charge of war production at the time pointed out that the Allies just needed to bomb a couple more factories to the ground to halt ball bearing production for a lot of very long months.

For those long months and for many months afterwards just about everything mechanical that used ball bearings (ie: engines, guns, guidence, etc) would have simply stopped working. The German forces would have been reduced to fighting with kites, rubber dingys, rifles, grenades and spades.

Apparently that was the same conclusion drawn by the RAF's reconnaisance analysts, but the order was given to switch from destroying war production and start carrying out attacks on Civillians instead. The motivation was Revenge as stated by Bomber Harris and Churchill, Churchill said that he came to regret authorising those attacks (and that is why I insist that those attacks were immoral).
 
darkboong said:
Immoral because those city levelling raids were specifically aimed at (and achieved) massive civillian casualties. I believe that those raids were unnecessary because Albert Speer who was in charge of war production at the time pointed out that the Allies just needed to bomb a couple more factories to the ground to halt ball bearing production for a lot of very long months.

For those long months and for many months afterwards just about everything mechanical that used ball bearings (ie: engines, guns, guidence, etc) would have simply stopped working. The German forces would have been reduced to fighting with kites, rubber dingys, rifles, grenades and spades.

Apparently that was the same conclusion drawn by the RAF's reconnaisance analysts, but the order was given to switch from destroying war production and start carrying out attacks on Civillians instead. The motivation was Revenge as stated by Bomber Harris and Churchill, Churchill said that he came to regret authorising those attacks (and that is why I insist that those attacks were immoral).
Misunderstanding on my part....... I thought you were talking of Japanese cities being "flattened."
 
wolfix said:
Misunderstanding on my part....... I thought you were talking of Japanese cities being "flattened."

I don't know enough details about that, but there are at least 3 raids on Japan that appear to meet my criteria for Unncessary and Immoral attacks on Civillians.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
Never said the US won the european war singlehandedly. The Soviets paid a steep price but again they deserved everything they lost.

Including all the mums and kiddies who got murdered in cold blood ?

That style of thinking doesn't cut any ice with me, you should know that by now.
 
darkboong said:
Including all the mums and kiddies who got murdered in cold blood ?

That style of thinking doesn't cut any ice with me, you should know that by now.
I should have clarified that as military deaths. Russian people paid the price of the Soviet government daliances with the devils.
The Soviets signed a non-agression pact with Germany and agreed to split up Poland. When the war started in 1939, Stalin was happy to see two of his enemies(capitalist and socialist)fighting each other.
The Soviets invade Finland.
In April 1941 the Soviets signed a non-agression pact with the Japanese. The Soviets have now made a deal with a second devil.
Now comes June 1941. The first devil comes looking for his due.
While Stalin was happy to see his enemies fighting, he didn't realize that the western powers would be happy to see their enemies(Nazis and communist) fighting each other.
Then comes 1945. Stalin sees a chance to get some territory in the Far East. Fortunately, Japan surrendered before the Soviets could make any inroads. Stalin was shut out of post war Japan.
People talk about how the Soviets defeated Germany and liberated europe. I don't see it that way. All the Soviets did was remove one dictator from eastern europe and install their own dictators in his place. If that is liberation then their definition is different from mine. If the Soviets didn't make their pact with the devils perhaps the war would have ended sooner.
The Russian people paid a steep price for Stalin's ambitions.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
Sure the Australians, Kiwis, British, and a few others fought. The lionshare of the work was left to the Americans. The Australians, Kiwis, Brits stood no chance of beating the Japanese on their own. The US could have beaten Japan without any other help.
So, CR, perhaps you would like to give us a run-down on all the fronts where the Japanese Forces were engaged without American Troop involvement? That didn't help the cause? The US version of Asia-Pacific seems to be that the War was only fought in places where the Americans had victories. Never mind that others were doing battle throughout the Malay Archipeligo, PNG and Indo-China. WW2 was not just the Battle of the Coral Sea and the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
I find it difficult to believe that American WW2 Vets would agree with what you are saying. I feel sorry for all the people of many Nationalities who died fighting the Japanese as, apparently, it was completely unnecessary.
You seem to believe that the Europeans are ungrateful for the sacrifices made by US Forces in the European Campaigns. You appear at least as ungrateful for the sacrifices the rest of us made in assisting the US after Pearl Harbour. Not impressed, CR.
A mate of mine (now deceased) who was shot down over (what is now) PNG would have been glad to know that he could have stayed home on the farm in Western Australia, as the US didn't need his help fighting the Japanese who had taken the North and East of PNG.
Strange that the Americans didn't say so at the time. Perhaps they did appreciate a little assistance - more than you seem to.
I very much hope that your version of history is not representative of that believed by the people of the USA today.
Let me know when you are making your next trip to Sandakan Military Cemetary in Sabah, Borneo and I'll come over and meet you there.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
People talk about how the Soviets defeated Germany and liberated europe.

Which people ?

I have not met anyone here or elsewhere in real life who claims that the Soviets "Liberated" Europe (including Russian Communists). Incidentally many Russians (and Poles for that matter) *still* harbour a deep mistrust of Germans, even kids of my generation.

Colorado Ryder said:
The Russian people paid a steep price for Stalin's ambitions.

No ****. I haven't heard anyone claim that Stalin was good for Russia.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
At least our textbooks don't refer to WW2 as "The Emergency"! How was WW2 a emergency for Ireland when Ireland never entered the war?

Do Irish history books tell about IRA involvement with the Nazi's? Does it tell about the Kathleen Plan?

Do the Irish books tell us about Sean Russell? He was buried at sea from a German u-boat with full Nazi honors. They even erected a statue in his honor in Dublin.

http://www.victims.org.uk/russellstatue.jpg

"enduring symbol of Ireland’s shame".

Do the history books in Ireland tell us about Eoin O'Duffy? He promised ****** he could raise a "Green Legion" to fight for the Germans on the eastern front.

Is it coincidence that the Irish prime minister and president were the only neutral government leaders to offer condolences upon ******'s death?

Here is a quote from the prime minister about offering condolences....

"would have been an act of unpardonable discourtesy to the German nation and to Dr. Hempel himself. During the whole of the war, Dr. Hempel's conduct was irreproachable. ... I certainly was not going to add to his humiliation in the hour of defeat."

Unlike you, I never claimed that my country single handedly liberated anywhere during the second world war.
You need to stick with the topic and not try to change the subject.

You stated that the US single handedly beat the Japanese.
That's complete ****.

You were also caught out on Herbert Hoover and his speeches regarding German invasion of Czechozlovakia.

You claim that your country contributed to the war effort.
It only contributed after 1941 - until 1941 it filled it's pockets on the misery
of the war in Europe.


Isolationism was the phrase you used to excuse yer country's profiteeting
between 1939-1941.
Your country and it's industry made huge money from shipments of goods and services to both sides of the conflict between 1939-1941.
Only when Japan forced you in to the war did your country feel obliged
to "fight evil", as you call it.

In the meantime, Prescott Bush, Joe Jennedy, Henry Ford, IBM, General Motors, Chase Bank, Consolidated Steel, were all happy to do plenty of business with the Nazi's.
 
EoinC said:
So, CR, perhaps you would like to give us a run-down on all the fronts where the Japanese Forces were engaged without American Troop involvement? That didn't help the cause? The US version of Asia-Pacific seems to be that the War was only fought in places where the Americans had victories. Never mind that others were doing battle throughout the Malay Archipeligo, PNG and Indo-China. WW2 was not just the Battle of the Coral Sea and the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
I find it difficult to believe that American WW2 Vets would agree with what you are saying. I feel sorry for all the people of many Nationalities who died fighting the Japanese as, apparently, it was completely unnecessary.
You seem to believe that the Europeans are ungrateful for the sacrifices made by US Forces in the European Campaigns. You appear at least as ungrateful for the sacrifices the rest of us made in assisting the US after Pearl Harbour. Not impressed, CR.
A mate of mine (now deceased) who was shot down over (what is now) PNG would have been glad to know that he could have stayed home on the farm in Western Australia, as the US didn't need his help fighting the Japanese who had taken the North and East of PNG.
Strange that the Americans didn't say so at the time. Perhaps they did appreciate a little assistance - more than you seem to.
I very much hope that your version of history is not representative of that believed by the people of the USA today.
Let me know when you are making your next trip to Sandakan Military Cemetary in Sabah, Borneo and I'll come over and meet you there.
I never said Aussie, Kiwi, and British assistance wasn't appreciated. Their fighting shortened the war. They kept Jap troops engaged. The fact remains that the US would have defeated Japan without assistance if it came to that. It would have taken longer but the outcome would have still been the same.

Where were the Japanese engaged without American forces? Borneo and Burma. Pretty much where the Aussies and Brits stayed for the war. In 1942 the Aussies and the British gave strategic responsibility for defeating Japan to the US. Now if you give us the resonsibility to defeat Japan and we do it, don't critisize us when we take the credit for it.

Ungrateful? You mean like Limerickman? He accuses the US of war profiteering because we didn't rush into war in 1939. Then claims that the US contribution to european war was equal to all the other nations. Then goes on about how the Marshall Plan was only something to help US companies. Something that worked out well for europe and he chastises the US because it benefited as well. That is ungrateful.

Next time I take a trip to Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Guam, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa I'll let you know. You can help point out which graves are not American soldiers or Japanese soldiers.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
...How many non-Americans participated in the landings on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, or Okinawa?
Here is your answer: zero!...
Wrong. Guadalcanal (to those who don't know) was the Battle for the Solomans. The Australian Cruiser "Canberra" was sunk during the battle - quite difficult to do if you're not participating?
CR, you didn't even know that we had been called in to assist you - "HMNZ Ships ACHILLES, LEANDER and MONOWAI were retained with several destroyers in a separate task group employed on convoy escort duties outside the operational theatre. However by September, American losses in cruisers were such that they became actively employed in operations to the beachhead."
(Ref - http://www.navy.mil.nz/know-your-navy/history/navy-solomons.htm)
Perhaps others involved then appreciated the efforts of 18.4% of our population than you do now.
 
limerickman said:
Unlike you, I never claimed that my country single handedly liberated anywhere during the second world war.
You need to stick with the topic and not try to change the subject.

You stated that the US single handedly beat the Japanese.
That's complete ****.

You were also caught out on Herbert Hoover and his speeches regarding German invasion of Czechozlovakia.

You claim that your country contributed to the war effort.
It only contributed after 1941 - until 1941 it filled it's pockets on the misery
of the war in Europe.

Isolationism was the phrase you used to excuse yer country's profiteeting
between 1939-1941.
Your country and it's industry made huge money from shipments of goods and services to both sides of the conflict between 1939-1941.
Only when Japan forced you in to the war did your country feel obliged
to "fight evil", as you call it.

In the meantime, Prescott Bush, Joe Jennedy, Henry Ford, IBM, General Motors, Chase Bank, Consolidated Steel, were all happy to do plenty of business with the Nazi's.
I guess Irish kids are not taught about the shame of Ireland. You accuse the US of adding to the misery, but you're own countrymen were aiding and abetting the Nazis. What is that saying, I think you know what it is, "England's misfortune is Ireland's opportunity" or something like that.

Our country did fight evil. Yours did not. It decided to sit out the "emergency". In fact your prime minister thought it would be rude if the government did not express condolences to the German people after ******'s death.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
I never said Aussie, Kiwi, and British assistance wasn't appreciated.

That's correct you didn't.

What you did say was the the USA liberated the Pacific.
That's what you said.


Colorado Ryder said:
The fact remains that the US would have defeated Japan without assistance if it came to that.

That's speculation at best.



Colorado Ryder said:
Now if you give us the resonsibility to defeat Japan and we do it, don't critisize us when we take the credit for it.

The allies beat the Japanese : the Allies get the credit.



Colorado Ryder said:
He accuses the US of war profiteering because we didn't rush into war in 1939.

That's correct, your country was profiteering from the misery in Europe by selling to both sides in the conflict.

Colorado Ryder said:
Then claims that the US contribution to european war was equal to all the other nations.

The usa contribution to the war in Europe was, in my opinion, less than the contribution of the USSR and Britain



Colorado Ryder said:
Then goes on about how the Marshall Plan was only something to help US companies. Something that worked out well for europe and he chastises the US because it benefited as well. That is ungrateful.

I highlighted the myth. about the Marshall Plan being some sort if usa benevolent gesture.
The Marshall Plan wasn't some altruistic gesture with no payback.
Of course there was payback.
The Marshall Plan was a usa bridgehead for usa commerce.
Look at the deals that were struck for usa multinational like Coca-Cola and IBM in the aftermath of the war.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
I guess Irish kids are not taught about the shame of Ireland. You accuse the US of adding to the misery, but you're own countrymen were aiding and abetting the Nazis. What is that saying, I think you know what it is, "England's misfortune is Ireland's opportunity" or something like that.

Our country did fight evil. Yours did not. It decided to sit out the "emergency". In fact your prime minister thought it would be rude if the government did not express condolences to the German people after ******'s death.

We don't make false claims about liberating regions.
Nor do we make false claims about what our country did or did not do in WW2.

As I read it, you made several claims concerning WW2 and your country.
No one here disputed your country's involvement.
But fair is fair, by accusing others of appeasement while trying to claim credit
for contributions is what has got you in to this difficulty CR.

I never claimed my country liberated anywhere during WW2.

But you deny that your country profitted from staying out of the war.
You also tried to downplay the role of the other brave allies.
And you inadvertently appeared to support the contention that America
was solely responsible for the liberation of Europe and you appear to try
to claim precedence over the British/Australian/New Zealand fight in the Pacific.
 
EoinC said:
Wrong. Guadalcanal (to those who don't know) was the Battle for the Solomans. The Australian Cruiser "Canberra" was sunk during the battle - quite difficult to do if you're not participating?
CR, you didn't even know that we had been called in to assist you - "HMNZ Ships ACHILLES, LEANDER and MONOWAI were retained with several destroyers in a separate task group employed on convoy escort duties outside the operational theatre. However by September, American losses in cruisers were such that they became actively employed in operations to the beachhead."
(Ref - http://www.navy.mil.nz/know-your-navy/history/navy-solomons.htm)
Perhaps others involved then appreciated the efforts of 18.4% of our population than you do now.

In relation to WW2, the Australian and New Zealand forces were not only deployed in the Pacific against the Japanese, but they were also deployed in Africa and in the Mediterranean and fought between 1939-1941.
The ANZACS provided essential manpower in battles such as Tobruk, El Alamein.
Effectively the ANZACS were in both the war in Europe and the Pacific.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
...The Americans had already broken the Japanese code before the war...
"Despite Herculean efforts and technical breakthroughs, the complete recovery of Japanese Army codes still defied the Central Bureau's skilled decryptanalysts, and consequently much of the Japanese Army order of battle information depended on the less reliable system of traffic analysis.7 Then in late January 1944 the capture of the main Japanese Army codes and ciphers "brought a sudden embarrassment of riches to Arlington Hall, and early in February the Japanese section began to be deluged with a daily flow of thousands of readable Japanese Army messages.""
(Ref - http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Drea/Drea.asp)
'Central Bureau' was a joint American / Australian interception and decrytion service, operating out of Brisbane, Australia, feeding information to the Military Intelligence Service in Virginia, USA.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
...In 1942 the Aussies and the British gave strategic responsibility for defeating Japan to the US. Now if you give us the resonsibility to defeat Japan and we do it, don't critisize us when we take the credit for it...
Handing over strategic responsibility to a Nation with immense resources does not mean that we abrogated our fighting responsibilities. You are mixing the two when you talk of responsibility for defeating Japan. I give credit and appreciation for the Americans who fought, together with all the others, in the defeat of the Japanese Forces. I do not give credit to your do-it-alone ****. The Japanese were severly stretched because their frontline was absolutely enormous and contained several Nations which were fighting back with (poorly armed) guerrilla warfare. Their supply lines had reached a very tenuous stage, with many combat troops being completely cut-off.
I have never heard any WW2 Pacific Theatre Vet's (no matter what their Nationality) claim that they could have done it singlehandedly. Perhaps you are able to bring some forward?
Attached (hopefully) is a photo of the HMAS Canberra after being fatally hit during the Battle of Savo Island (part of the Battle of Guadalcanal). It went down, along with the USS Vincennes, USS Quincy and USS Astoria.
Perhaps we shall find some recognition of the 84 crew who were killed on the Canberra during our trip to Guadalcanal, CR? Oh, that's right, there were "zero" non-Americans involved.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
Here we go with the dishonorable **** again.
Defend what was left of democracy. Well the Brits did a **** poor job of that. Hell the Germans ran the Brits out of France at Dunkirk. That was a great contribution. The Brits were lucky that ****** turned his attention to the Soviets.

What war material did the US supply to Germany?
The company that manufactured bomb sights for the luftwaffe was the german subsidiary of a us company.When the factory was destroyed by allied bombing they sued,successfully,the us government for compensation.
:D
 
Colorado Ryder said:
Did the Soviets not invade Finland? What other facts are pertinent? The Soviets saw a chance to get some land back that they lost.


The Americans had already broken the Japanese code before the war. Likewise the British had broken the German code.


Can you provide a source for the RAF flying combat support for Soviet military operations?
The P-39 was well armored but was considered to slow and unmaneuverable for the US and British. It turned out well suited for ground support and tank busting.
If the us had broken japanese codes before the war,how could they not have seen that an attack on pearl harbour was imminent?Isn't the reason for breaking each others codes so you can see your enemy's intentions ?
:confused:
 

Similar threads