OT: Words from a great man

  • Thread starter Kurgan Gringioni
  • Start date



On Nov 10, 3:34 pm, Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:31:43 -0800, Kurgan Gringioni
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Yet you are willing to allow 2 million dead Jews be made dead.

>
> >> Libs generally do not care about genocide, do they? After all..their
> >> root core..Communism is responsible for 175,000,000 deaths.

>
> >> Clinton and Rwanda....further proof Libs care not about the lives and
> >> deaths of those not Liberal.

>
> >Well then, what is the point of Israel having nuclear weapons?

>
> >As far as I can tell, the reason they have the nuclear weapons is to
> >defend themselves. So let them. They are perfectly capable.

>
> So you wish 2 million Jews to be flamb'ed, before they fly their own
> nukes. Now if they used a nuke in a proactive preventative manner,
> you would be screeching about how Da Ebil Juzzz was murderers.
>
> Its obvious that you wish to see millions of Jews dead.




Dumbass -


Not at all.

They've got an estimated 200 nukes w/ missiles to deliver them. Let
Israel use them for their intended purpose: to defend herself. If she
were to be incapable of defending herself, that is when one knows that
the nuking of Israel would be an inevitability. Fortunately, that is
not the case. She is more than capable of defending herself and
moreover, I'd wager that the Israelis wouldn't want us to fight their
war for them. They are quite willing and able to fight their wars for
themselves. They've proven it many times.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
On Nov 11, 12:21 am, Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It wasnt until the lessons of Vietnam and all the other wars were
> gamed, that our current OpFor planning has taken in account past and
> future warfare and planned doctrines for all eventualities.


<snip>


Maybe by our military, which up until WW2 was isolationist, but all
the military experts in the colonial nations knew what we were in for.
They'd been operating overseas for centuries and in the mid-late 50's,
it was either Graham Greene or Halberstam, I can't remember which, was
at a meeting of those experts and to a man they thought that putting
down a Vietnamese insurgency would take at least a generation. So,
yes, *our* military did fight the last war (WW2 and Korea) in Vietnam
which was a mistake, but an example of our military doing the perfect
strategy was Gulf War I in 1991. Take advantage of our mobility, air
superiority, avoid the strengths of the enemy and attack his
weaknesses. Textbook.

As for the current war, it was the civilian leadership (Rumsfeld et
al) that discouraged any sort of postwar planning. The guys who had
been in Vietnam knew what an occupation might entail. The Joint Chiefs
of Staff was against the enterprise on this account, but like the good
soldiers that they are, they followed orders.
 
On Nov 11, 12:21 am, Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It wasnt until the lessons of Vietnam and all the other wars were
> gamed, that our current OpFor planning has taken in account past and
> future warfare and planned doctrines for all eventualities.


<snip>


Maybe by our military, which up until WW2 was isolationist, but all
the military experts in the colonial nations knew what we were in for.
They'd been operating overseas for centuries and in the mid-late 50's,
it was either Graham Greene or Halberstam, I can't remember which, was
at a meeting of those experts and to a man they thought that putting
down a Vietnamese insurgency would take at least a generation. So,
yes, *our* military did fight the last war (WW2 and Korea) in Vietnam
which was a mistake, but an example of our military doing the perfect
strategy was Gulf War I in 1991. Take advantage of our mobility, air
superiority, avoid the strengths of the enemy and attack his
weaknesses. Textbook.

As for the current war, it was the civilian leadership (Rumsfeld et
al) that discouraged any sort of postwar planning. The guys who had
been in Vietnam knew what an occupation might entail. The Joint Chiefs
of Staff was against the enterprise on this account, but like the good
soldiers that they are, they followed orders.
 
On Nov 11, 12:21 am, Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It wasnt until the lessons of Vietnam and all the other wars were
> gamed, that our current OpFor planning has taken in account past and
> future warfare and planned doctrines for all eventualities.


<snip>


Maybe by our military, which up until WW2 was isolationist, but all
the military experts in the colonial nations knew what we were in for.
They'd been operating overseas for centuries and in the mid-late 50's,
it was either Graham Greene or Halberstam, I can't remember which, was
at a meeting of those experts and to a man they thought that putting
down a Vietnamese insurgency would take at least a generation. So,
yes, *our* military did fight the last war (WW2 and Korea) in Vietnam
which was a mistake, but an example of our military doing the perfect
strategy was Gulf War I in 1991. Take advantage of our mobility, air
superiority, avoid the strengths of the enemy and attack his
weaknesses. Textbook.

As for the current war, it was the civilian leadership (Rumsfeld et
al) that discouraged any sort of postwar planning. The guys who had
been in Vietnam knew what an occupation might entail. The Joint Chiefs
of Staff was against the enterprise on this account, but like the good
soldiers that they are, they followed orders.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 9 Nov, 23:44, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> On 9 Nov, 02:54, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> The US was in a strongly isolationist for the decade or so before
>>>>> Pearl
>>>>> Harbor. They weren't going to fight Germany for any reason. Even
>>>>> after Pearl Harbor, it's arguable that going to war in Europe was
>>>>> largely a war on slight pretexts.
>>>
>>>> I think most people consider it acceptable to go to war when the
>>>> other guy declares war on you.
>>>
>>> Psst - Japan didn't declare war on us until AFTER the attack. Most
>>> wars weren't declared at all.

>>
>> Tom. Look at what you are replying to. It is an answer to the comment
>> 'the war in Europe was largely a war on slight pretexts'. Now, I know
>> that you may be confused here, but there is an important difference
>> between Europe and Japan. They are in very different places.
>>
>> Try standing still, facing north. Repeat to yourself: Europe is on my
>> RIGHT. Japan is on my LEFT.
>>
>> Germany and Italy declared war on the US in the morning of 11
>> December 1941. This is after the US declared war on Japan (8th), but
>> the US only joined the European war formally in the afternoon of 11
>> December.

>
> So - let's get this straight - the USA declared war on the Axis
> powers in Europe ONLY after they declared war on the US? Is that your
> definition of "slight pretexts"?


Once again, try to read what was written. Apparently it is Ryan's
definition of slight pretexts (since he wrote it). I disagreed. Then
you forgot that Japan and Europe are different.

>>> Is there some reason that you feel the need to repeat the Liberal
>>> line about
>>> the Treaty of Versailles? Though I do enjoy watching you people
>>> write about
>>> stuff you know absolutely nothing about.

>>
>> That is not 'the Liberal line', it's the line every serious historian
>> takes. Find someone with a university position to disagree and quote
>> them, or explain to me your take on the treaty.

>
> As I pointed out, Germany had been treated better than most countries
> losing wars in those days. By the 30's the problem was essentially
> PAST and so it wasn't an economic problem but a case of German anger
> at having been treated like they treated everyone else in the past.
>
> Because you're incapable of studying a problem but prefer instead to
> relegate all serious thought on a subject to some author of a book
> doesn't mean that you're somehow noble.


In other words, you haven't thought about it and you haven't even
found anyone to do your thinking for you - but still you must be
right.

The Treaty of Versailles lead to hyperinflation in the 1920s; that
allowed ****** to be taken seriously. By the 1930s Germany was
ignoring the treaty, but the damage was already done.

If you want to disagree, explain why you disagree. Don't just call me
'a Liberal' and pretend that is an argument.

Pete
 
Pete wrote:
> If you want to disagree, explain why you disagree. Don't just call me 'a
> Liberal' and pretend that is an argument.


Apparently you're not used to arguing with US 'conservatives'.
 
On Nov 10, 6:52 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Tom you need to go back and reread both Rommel and Guderian. The basis
> > of blitzkrieg, or any form of movement warfare is to avoid those
> > obstacle, exploit a concentrated attack on a weakpoint, and cut off
> > the strong points.

>
> Bill, did you somehow mistake what I wrote for something else? Of COURSE the
> idea is to cut off the strong points by using the weakpoints so rapidly that
> the enemy doesn't have time to reenforce their weak spots. But nevertheless
> the German military machine was so powerful at that point that they could
> have rolled over the Maginot line barely slowing. Remember that the Maginot
> line was designed mostly to counter infantry and artillary - not tanks and
> seriously effective aircraft like the Stuka.
>
> - Show quoted text -


Tom I can answer you and Mike in the same response. The Stuka and
most of the luftwffe were maximised for close airsupport. They were
designed to deliver small bomb loads incredibly, for the time,
accurately on hard points blocking an advance. They had very little in
the way of even medium bombers, and nothing for heavy strategic
bombers. ****** fought against those vigorously, until the "Mighty
8th" started pounding him.
The range limitations of most ofd the German aircraft, along with the
British radar, and the fact that the Brits could actually put up more
fighters longer all really shifted the Battle of Britain. Legend says
it was heroic, and it was, but the tactical situation says the result,
without a cross channel invasion to start shutting radar sites and
provide forward bases made the end result almost inevitable. That said
I don't remember doing any reading, in depth, on the switch to
civilian targets, other than ******, more than the General Staff, was
amazed how weak the Brit and French troops had been, how easily they'd
been defeated, and was convinced their will to fight could be broken.
Not sure who ordered the switch in roles, or how it came about.
The heavy bomber, and massive artillery is what the German army was
lacking at the beginning of the war Tom. They didn't have the
capability to pound through things like the Maginot Line. The massive
artillery batteries in the lines would've smashed most of the armor,
and lighter German artillery before it ever got into range to be
effective.
Rommel actually did the same type of thing many times in N. Africa.
He'd launch a strike, with his armor, making sure everything was fast
and mechanized, no infantry support. Then after a short, minimally
damaging fight would retreat with the Brits/US following back through
a prepared artillery ambush using the dreadded 88s which wreaked havoc
until later in the war when the allied forces adapted to this tactic,
and their amor improved.
Bill C
 
On Nov 11, 5:44 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> The range limitations of most ofd the German aircraft, along with the
> British radar, and the fact that the Brits could actually put up more
> fighters longer all really shifted the Battle of Britain. Legend says
> it was heroic, and it was, but the tactical situation says the result,
> without a cross channel invasion to start shutting radar sites and
> provide forward bases made the end result almost inevitable. That said
> I don't remember doing any reading, in depth, on the switch to
> civilian targets,


<snip>



Dumbass -


It was an incredible piece of luck.

From:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/about-blitz.htm

The Blitz refers to the strategic bombing campaign conducted by the
Germans against London and other cities in England from September of
1940 through May of 1941, targeting populated areas, factories and
dock yards.

The first German attack on London actually occurred by accident. On
the night of August 24, 1940, Luftwaffe bombers aiming for military
targets on the outskirts of London drifted off course and instead
dropped their bombs on the center of London destroying several homes
and killing civilians. Amid the public outrage that followed, Prime
Minister Winston Churchill, believing it was a deliberate attack,
ordered Berlin to be bombed the next evening.

About 40 British bombers managed to reach Berlin and inflicted minimal
property damage. However, the Germans were utterly stunned by the
British air-attack on ******'s capital. It was the first time bombs
had ever fallen on Berlin. Making matters worse, they had been
repeatedly assured by Luftwaffe Chief, Hermann Göring, that it could
never happen. A second British bombing raid on the night of August
28/29 resulted in Germans killed on the ground. Two nights later, a
third attack occurred.

German nerves were frayed. The Nazis were outraged. In a speech
delivered on September 4, ****** threatened, "...When the British Air
Force drops two or three or four thousand kilograms of bombs, then we
will in one night drop 150-, 230-, 300- or 400,000 kilograms. When
they declare that they will increase their attacks on our cities, then
we will raze their cities to the ground. We will stop the handiwork of
those night air pirates, so help us God!"

Beginning on September 7, 1940, and for a total of 57 consecutive
nights, London was bombed. The decision to wage a massive bombing
campaign against London and other English cities would prove to be one
of the most fateful of the war. Up to that point, the Luftwaffe had
targeted Royal Air Force airfields and support installations and had
nearly destroyed the entire British air defense system. Switching to
an all-out attack on British cities gave RAF Fighter Command a
desperately needed break and the opportunity to rebuild damaged
airfields, train new pilots and repair aircraft. "It was," Churchill
later wrote, "therefore with a sense of relief that Fighter Command
felt the German attack turn on to London..."

<snip><end>


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The Treaty of Versailles lead to hyperinflation in the 1920s; that
> allowed ****** to be taken seriously. By the 1930s Germany was
> ignoring the treaty, but the damage was already done.


Say, didn't that lead to the Great Depression here and the election of
Roosevelt? I wonder what your explanation is of how the treaty led to
******. Oh, that's right - because you're incapable of actually thinking
about anything so relegate your thinking to your Liberal masters.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The Treaty of Versailles lead to hyperinflation in the 1920s; that
>> allowed ****** to be taken seriously. By the 1930s Germany was
>> ignoring the treaty, but the damage was already done.

>
> Say, didn't that lead to the Great Depression here and the election of
> Roosevelt? I wonder what your explanation is of how the treaty led to
> ******. Oh, that's right - because you're incapable of actually
> thinking about anything so relegate your thinking to your Liberal
> masters.


Actually, I just explained it. You forgot to read it. Again. And no,
the
Depression was not a result of the German hyperinflation.

Learn to read. And stop assuming I'm a Liberal: just because I think
Bush Jr
has screwed up virtually everything he's gone near doesn't mean I
think the
US Democrats are all that much better.

Pete
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:

> I can understand why the Iranians would want the bomb as a deterrent.
> They lost a million soldiers in the Iran/Iraq War. In the last 25
> years, that's more casualties than any other conflict on the face of
> the planet. They've acted rationally since then. I don't worry about
> Iran. The country to worry about is Pakistan. Their secret police were
> the enablers of the Taliban. If Musharaff ever gets assassinated . . .


It will likely be by someone associated with Pakistan's Inter-Services
Intelligence (ISI), their version of the CIA (and the people you describe as being
enablers of the Taliban). There are many extremist Islamists in the ISI and various
segments of the ISI have been known to work at counterpurposes to each other.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On Nov 11, 8:07 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message


>
> Say, didn't that lead to the Great Depression here and the election of
> Roosevelt? I wonder what your explanation is of how the treaty led to
> ******. Oh, that's right - because you're incapable of actually thinking
> about anything so relegate your thinking to your Liberal masters.




Dumbass -


The notion that the Treaty of Versailles created conditions that
facilitated the rise of ****** isn't a "liberal" view. It is a
historical consensus.

Google "treaty of versailles rise of ******"

and read the results.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

ps. why do you think we implemented the Marshall Plan after WW2
instead of making the Germans pay us back for all the money spent on
the war?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:

> ps. why do you think we implemented the Marshall Plan after WW2
> instead of making the Germans pay us back for all the money spent on
> the war?


Because between 1946 and 1947 the USA and allies actually tried to
implement the Morgenthau plan (approved by the allies in 1943), which
aimed precisely at completely eradicating German industry and reducing
Germany to a pastoral state. At some point HJ Hoover was sent to
Germany as an older statesman observer and concluded that for the plan
to work, 20 to 25 million Germans would have to be killed or moved. The
Marshall plan was the form that the backpedalling took.

jyh.
 
On 11 Nov, 18:23, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
> ps. why do you think we implemented the Marshall Plan after WW2
> instead of making the Germans pay us back for all the money spent on
> the war?


I think you misunderstand the Marshall Plan (and the timeline).
Immediately after WWII we implemented (parts of, anyway) the
Morgenthau Plan, which was meant to reduce Germany to a pastoral
state, not require them to pay anything but also not allow basically
any industry.

Shortly after this the Marshall Plan was implemented, with the aim of
rebuilding the European economy. West Germany was specifically
excluded.

Then in 1947, with living conditions in West Germany significantly
worse than they had been in 1945 (most of the population was starving)
Hoover wrote a report which essentially said that the Morgenthau Plan
would not work unless Germany had a population density similar to
France, and that would mean killing or moving 25 million. At about the
same time it was getting obvious that the broken West German economy
wasn't helping the rest of Europe recover, and the Marshall plan was
extended to West Germany, while a lot of the Morgenthau Plan
conditions were removed (though up till 1950 or so there were still
factories being demolished - ship parts and so on, and still sharp
caps on iron output were imposed).

Pete
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The notion that the Treaty of Versailles created conditions that
> facilitated the rise of ****** isn't a "liberal" view. It is a
> historical consensus.


Then how do you explain Fascism in Italy?
 
"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Then in 1947, with living conditions in West Germany significantly
> worse than they had been in 1945 (most of the population was starving)
> Hoover wrote a report which essentially said that the Morgenthau Plan
> would not work unless Germany had a population density similar to
> France, and that would mean killing or moving 25 million. At about the
> same time it was getting obvious that the broken West German economy
> wasn't helping the rest of Europe recover, and the Marshall plan was
> extended to West Germany, while a lot of the Morgenthau Plan
> conditions were removed (though up till 1950 or so there were still
> factories being demolished - ship parts and so on, and still sharp
> caps on iron output were imposed).


Let's remember that Herbert Hoover is considered the father of the
Depression by today's Democrats. Of course they don't bother to actually
learn anything about what was going on that caused the depression.
 
On 11 Nov, 20:35, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> > Then in 1947, with living conditions in West Germany significantly
> > worse than they had been in 1945 (most of the population was starving)
> > Hoover wrote a report which essentially said that the Morgenthau Plan
> > would not work unless Germany had a population density similar to
> > France, and that would mean killing or moving 25 million. At about the
> > same time it was getting obvious that the broken West German economy
> > wasn't helping the rest of Europe recover, and the Marshall plan was
> > extended to West Germany, while a lot of the Morgenthau Plan
> > conditions were removed (though up till 1950 or so there were still
> > factories being demolished - ship parts and so on, and still sharp
> > caps on iron output were imposed).

>
> Let's remember that Herbert Hoover is considered the father of the
> Depression by today's Democrats. Of course they don't bother to actually
> learn anything about what was going on that caused the depression.


Possibly the stupid ones who assume that Republicans are automatically
responsible for all bad things do think that (but then, there are more
than a few Republican idiots who seem to have the opposite belief). I
think most people who have bothered to read more than the fact that
Hoover was in power when the Depression started and was also a
Republican conclude that he wasn't basically at fault. Part of the
problem was the US living on credit (and people should be more worried
than they are now about this...) which wasn't Hoover's fault in any
way. Part was the raising of tariffs on imports which disrupted the
global economy: although that raise was a Republican-sponsored law,
Hoover himself was against it (he asked for lower tariffs). He chose
not to veto it, but since at the time no-one thought it would cause
that much of a problem, it's hardly surprising he allowed his party to
push him into signing it.

Well known political fact: if the economy goes to pot, then the next
election will kick out the party in power, whether or not they were
actually at fault.

Pete
 
On Nov 11, 1:21 am, Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It always takes men, materials and time to learn to fight THIS war.
> The nature of the beast.
>
> Clauswitz stated that no battle plan survives first contact with the
> enemy.


Our strategists (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith et al)
decided to cut out the middleman, by disposing with
the battle plan _before_ contact with the enemy.
Very efficient. Part of the Revolution in Military
Affairs, I expect.

Ben
 
In article <[email protected]>, Kyle Legate <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Gunner Asch wrote:
> >
> > Iraq has been an interesting conflict. We won the war..and the peace
> > has been kicking our asses until recently. No thanks to continued
> > support to our enemies by Iran.
> >

> You haven't won anything but scorn and contempt. Never mind the Jews in
> Israel, you're perfectly happy murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
> for no reason.


He doesn't understand the difference between winning the "battle" and winning the
"war". The battle was won but the war is far from won - and will likely never be won.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:38:02 -0000, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Nov 11, 1:21 am, Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> It always takes men, materials and time to learn to fight THIS war.
>> The nature of the beast.
>>
>> Clauswitz stated that no battle plan survives first contact with the
>> enemy.

>
>Our strategists (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith et al)
>decided to cut out the middleman, by disposing with
>the battle plan _before_ contact with the enemy.
>Very efficient. Part of the Revolution in Military
>Affairs, I expect.
>
>Ben


Which battle plan did they dispose of?

Your opinion..that of a Bush/Conservative basher, is noted.

Or will you actually provide some proof that they "disposed of the
battle plan" and what it was.

Iraq has been an interesting conflict. We won the war..and the peace
has been kicking our asses until recently. No thanks to continued
support to our enemies by Iran.

Gunner