The French are Evil!

[Collegeboy]

Re: Re: Re: Bigger Fool then I thought!

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Again, all innuendo. No facts. You are digging yourself a bigger and bigger hole! Just shut up already! You can't demand facts and show up with rumors. This is like you showing up to a gun fight with a knife. You will lose and look stupid doing it!

As for the suspected training center, it was suspected, and never confirmed. Even if it had been, there is a big difference between a covertly run camp and an Iraqi Government sponsored and protected camp! Your comparrison is just plain dumb!

What if the UN and the US were protecting those camps in Iraq, what would you say to that? The camps were in the No Fly zone in northern Iraq (Both Saddam, UN, and the US agree to this), near Kurdish villages. SADDAM WAS NOT SUPPORTING HIS ENEMIES THAT WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THEN TO KILL HIM.

Please name the one place Saddam can not take troops near.

And no that site provides what happened, when he joined, what happened, when he went AWOL, when he left, what he did, what he didn't do. (Those are facts if you can't tell) You make your conclusion from it.

[1stdeadeye]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bigger Fool then I thought!

Originally posted by Collegeboy


What if the UN and the US were protecting those camps in Iraq, what would you say to that? The camps were in the No Fly zone in northern Iraq (Both Saddam, UN, and the US agree to this), near Kurdish villages. SADDAM WAS NOT SUPPORTING HIS ENEMIES THAT WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THEN TO KILL HIM.

Guess what, Saddam had troops in the northern section of Iraq. It was a NO FLY ZONE! He still had troops there or were the US troops that parachuted into northern iraq fighting phantoms for the media?

Please name the one place Saddam can not take troops near.

His troops were accross the ENTIRE COUNTRY OF IRAQ! If not, why did we have to fight in EVERY SECTION OF IRAQ!

And no that site provides what happened, when he joined, what happened, when he went AWOL, when he left, what he did, what he didn't do. (Those are facts if you can't tell) You make your conclusion from it.

No, that site provide rumors of what happened. It admits that it is a liberal Anti-Bush site. It's sources are libereal newspaper articles. Not military records or any other public documents that can be verified! So it is not a source, it is rumor and innuendo!

BTW, you never answered earlier posts! Want to tell us about the "Siege" of Moscow?

Or why not tell us about the heroic Russian bombers that destroyed German war production in WWII contributing greatly to the Nazi defeat?

Bah, I am done with you. I am going to the boardwalk!

[Collegeboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bigger Fool then I thought!

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by Collegeboy


What if the UN and the US were protecting those camps in Iraq, what would you say to that? The camps were in the No Fly zone in northern Iraq (Both Saddam, UN, and the US agree to this), near Kurdish villages. SADDAM WAS NOT SUPPORTING HIS ENEMIES THAT WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THEN TO KILL HIM.

Guess what, Saddam had troops in the northern section of Iraq. It was a NO FLY ZONE! He still had troops there or were the US troops that parachuted into northern iraq fighting phantoms for the media?

Please name the one place Saddam can not take troops near.

His troops were accross the ENTIRE COUNTRY OF IRAQ! If not, why did we have to fight in EVERY SECTION OF IRAQ!

And no that site provides what happened, when he joined, what happened, when he went AWOL, when he left, what he did, what he didn't do. (Those are facts if you can't tell) You make your conclusion from it.

No, that site provide rumors of what happened. It admits that it is a liberal Anti-Bush site. It's sources are libereal newspaper articles. Not military records or any other public documents that can be verified! So it is not a source, it is rumor and innuendo!

BTW, you never answered earlier posts! Want to tell us about the "Siege" of Moscow?

Or why not tell us about the heroic Russian bombers that destroyed German war production in WWII contributing greatly to the Nazi defeat?

Bah, I am done with you. I am going to the boardwalk!

Saddam could not take troops near Kurdish Villages.

That site provides information about his joining and the facts behind it.

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archives/reports/reports11.html

[1stdeadeye]

CB, you should move to Russia. You are a fan of their revisionist history.

We beat an arguably more formibale foe (Japan) at the same time we beat Germany. Had the entire US might been thrown at Germany, the Nazi's still would have fallen. Air power won WWII. Allied Air power won on both fronts. Without American bombers, Germany might have had a few hydrogen bombs to use on Russia before the end of the war. Without Allied bombers, the Germans would have maintained air superiority over the Russians. And so on and so on.

BTW, what about the "siege" of Moscow.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
CB, you should move to Russia. You are a fan of their revisionist history.

We beat an arguably more formibale foe (Japan) at the same time we beat Germany. Had the entire US might been thrown at Germany, the Nazi's still would have fallen. Air power won WWII. Allied Air power won on both fronts. Without American bombers, Germany might have had a few hydrogen bombs to use on Russia before the end of the war. Without Allied bombers, the Germans would have maintained air superiority over the Russians. And so on and so on.

BTW, what about the "siege" of Moscow.

I provided info on the seige of moscow.

And no I am not a fan on the revisionist history of Russia, I am a Russian history major and fan of Russian history.

No if the US would have faced the Nazis with the Nazis in full strength and the US in full Stength the US would have lost. Allied air power helped, but didn't win the war. Russia if you had to pick one thing that won the war, won the war. But it was a collective effort that won the war with Russia doing more then either side.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
But it was a collective effort that won the war with Russia doing more then either side.

At least you show some intelligence in saying it was a collective effort. Without us supporting Russia they would have fallen. They were hanging on by fingernails. The Russians fought extremely valiantly but they were close to collapse.

I heard an interview once where they asked a German soldier when he knew the war was over. The German answered that when he saw the allied soldiers riddling every suspected enemy position with bullets he knew the war was over. His rationale was if they had enough ammunition to do that they were done for.

As for could the allies have won the war without Russia that is a matter open to debate but I think the answer is yes (we did eventually develop the nuclear bomb after all). Could Russia single handedly have defeated Germany? Again it is open for debate but it is not very likely.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


At least you show some intelligence in saying it was a collective effort. Without us supporting Russia they would have fallen. They were hanging on by fingernails. The Russians fought extremely valiantly but they were close to collapse.

I heard an interview once where they asked a German soldier when he knew the war was over. The German answered that when he saw the allied soldiers riddling every suspected enemy position with bullets he knew the war was over. His rationale was if they had enough ammunition to do that they were done for.

As for could the allies have won the war without Russia that is a matter open to debate but I think the answer is yes (we did eventually develop the nuclear bomb after all). Could Russia single handedly have defeated Germany? Again it is open for debate but it is not very likely.

I think it is the other way around.

US support to Russia was late and wasn't very necessary to the war effort. (giving what Russia has and is going through)

There is no way US citizens would have supported losing the amount of soldiers Russia did, even half that amount, even 1/4 that amount, even 1/8, get the idea.

US equipment was no match for a German army that was not worn down from years of fighting on the eastern front. US troops got lucky and defeated the German army when it was low on supplies, low on equipment, low on morale, battle tired, etc... And they barely defeated them. So how could the US defeat Germany at full strength, I don't see it.

Now Russia took on Germany at full strength. Thanks to Stalin not believing his generals, and having moved is front line from eastern Poland to mid Poland, Germany attacked and pushed the unprepared Russian army back to the cities. Russian industries were carted back to the Urals and Siberia. Now until those get set up and the army has a chance to regroup and reequip they did fall back, but once the amazing soviet industry was reestablished, the Soviets picked up their pace and began defeating the Germans and pushing them back. Now did US aide make it easier to do so, yes, but they still would have done it. Maybe 40,000,000 would have died, instead of 30,000,000, but they still would have done it.

[m-98]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bigger Fool then I thought!

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Saddam could not take troops near Kurdish Villages.

That site provides information about his joining and the facts behind it.

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archives/reports/reports11.html

Russia hasn't been successfully invaded because of the people as you said, and look at its size, Russia is extremely large. Plus they have terrible winters and in the spring in WWII many of their roads turned to mud making it impossible to travel.

Russia may have been able to do it alone but we gave them many supplies before they started to mass produce their own equipment.

By the way, Russia never officially released the number of casualties that they suffered in WWII.

[m-98]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
CB, you should move to Russia. You are a fan of their revisionist history.

We beat an arguably more formibale foe (Japan) at the same time we beat Germany. Had the entire US might been thrown at Germany, the Nazi's still would have fallen. Air power won WWII. Allied Air power won on both fronts. Without American bombers, Germany might have had a few hydrogen bombs to use on Russia before the end of the war. Without Allied bombers, the Germans would have maintained air superiority over the Russians. And so on and so on.

BTW, what about the "siege" of Moscow.

I don't want to start an argument with you but air power did not win WWII, it played a major part, but one cannot win a war with airplanes because they cannot hold ground.

CB, yes tell us everything about the seige of Moscow I must have fallen asleep in my history class, and your revisionist history class is much better than my real history class.

[m-98]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I provided info on the seige of moscow.

And no I am not a fan on the revisionist history of Russia, I am a Russian history major and fan of Russian history.

No if the US would have faced the Nazis with the Nazis in full strength and the US in full Stength the US would have lost. Allied air power helped, but didn't win the war. Russia if you had to pick one thing that won the war, won the war. But it was a collective effort that won the war with Russia doing more then either side.

Russia did more because we were fighting on 2 fronts, and we had no major ground forces in Europe for some time.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
There is no way US citizens would have supported losing the amount of soldiers Russia did, even half that amount, even 1/4 that amount, even 1/8, get the idea.

If they were on our soil (as they were in Russia) of course we would accept those casulty rates. I am going to stop arguing with you now because nothing we say can prove anything since neither path (Russia fighting by itself or the rest of the allies fighting by themselves) was ever tried. Still if you truly believe that the U.S. "was not needed" to defeat Germany it is my opinion that you are insane....

[m-98]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bigger Fool then I thought!

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Saddam could not take troops near Kurdish Villages.

That site provides information about his joining and the facts behind it.

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archives/reports/reports11.html

The Russian people fought for fear of being executed, partly. Stalin once said that it takes a brave man not to be a hero in the Soviet army. He was responding to a comment about the about the Red Army's bravery during WWII.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I provided info on the seige of moscow.

THERE WAS NO SIEGE OF MOSCOW!

And no I am not a fan on the revisionist history of Russia, I am a Russian history major and fan of Russian history.

And the Russians did not lose to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War either!

No if the US would have faced the Nazis with the Nazis in full strength and the US in full Stength the US would have lost. Allied air power helped, but didn't win the war. Russia if you had to pick one thing that won the war, won the war. But it was a collective effort that won the war with Russia doing more then either side.

FOOL! The US faught two wars at the same time. Could Russia have survived had the Japanese invaded from the East? Probably not. The US defeated the Japanese almost single handedly. Further, we supplied the Russians with the arms they needed to fight. Had the US not entered the war could Russia have won? Maybe. Had US planes not bombed the daylights out of Germany, the Germans may have completed their Atom Bomb. Do you think mushroom clouds over Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad would have forced the Russians to surrender?

Allied air power opened the door for the Soviet advance. The Soviets could not have made the progress they did if up against the fully supplied and armed German armies. If they could have, the Germans would not have moved so far into Soviet territory. Also, if Hitler had let his generals run the eastern front, the Soviets might very well have been forced to sue for peace. Hitler helped the allies win the war as much as anyone. That fool made decisions that allowed for the capture of 100's of thousands of German troops.

Air power never won a war? Hey WWII! Japan surrendered without a single allied soldier invading the mainland! Air power did pretty much defeat the Japanese in the end did it not!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


There is no way US citizens would have supported losing the amount of soldiers Russia did, even half that amount, even 1/4 that amount, even 1/8, get the idea.

If the US was invaded, the American people would accept any casualty count to win!

US equipment was no match for a German army that was not worn down from years of fighting on the eastern front. US troops got lucky and defeated the German army when it was low on supplies, low on equipment, low on morale, battle tired, etc... And they barely defeated them. So how could the US defeat Germany at full strength, I don't see it.

Who wore down and destroyed the German Armies? Who destroyed their supply lines? Who destroyed the German industrial machine that supplied the German Armies? Barely defeated the Germans? The US/British forces launched a cross channel invasion and pushed the Germans back very quickly. Which is more difficult: A cross channel invasion against a fortress or a fight accross open fields? The US/British faught a much more difficult campaign and did it well!

Now Russia took on Germany at full strength. Thanks to Stalin not believing his generals, and having moved is front line from eastern Poland to mid Poland, Germany attacked and pushed the unprepared Russian army back to the cities. Russian industries were carted back to the Urals and Siberia. Now until those get set up and the army has a chance to regroup and reequip they did fall back, but once the amazing soviet industry was reestablished, the Soviets picked up their pace and began defeating the Germans and pushing them back. Now did US aide make it easier to do so, yes, but they still would have done it. Maybe 40,000,000 would have died, instead of 30,000,000, but they still would have done it.

When Russia fought Germany at full strength, the got their heads handed to them. Without allied support, the Russians would not have survived long enough to move their factories. Amazing, not really. They copied ally designs at their factories. The Germans ran out of supplies. They were overwhelmed by Allied industrial might. All of the allies!

[aaron_mag]

Also while we are at it how can you be a "fan" of Russian history? It can be your primary interest but a "fan" makes it sound like you root for the Russians while studying their history. While it is true that many people do this (what 1stdeadeye calls revisionist history) it is not what we are supposed to do in the study of history.