Conquer Club

Burrito wrote:Well aside form the fact that I said you did win the BOB without us, If Germany did conquer you then they would have more than likely been forced into a peace with Russia, because they couldn't mount a proper invasion, and Russia couldn't conquered the whole of Europe under german control. My point was that you couldn't have held out indefinitely against German blockades, etc., and they would eventually gain air superiority. Even if you were able to hold out, there would be no way in hell that you would be able to launch a successful counterattack without U.S. help.

Evil Semp wrote:As bad as yo might think the USA is, I would be willing to bet that if it wasn't for the USA the out come of WWII might have been different and you might not have the freedom to voice your opinion. Don't thank the USA, but do thank all the service men and women from all over the world that died to give you that freedom.
lgoasklucyl say all you want, good or bad but please just do one thing, thank the men and women like Tyr who protect your right of freedom of speech.

Titanic wrote:I agree that civilian and ally casualties are inevitable, but it seems that the USA makes a hell of alot more of these mistakes then any other nation.

Titanic wrote:Add onto this that when you do kill British troops you refuse to release the videos and surveillance to the coroner and British Army even though you just killed one of their troops.

Titanic wrote:Also even if the USA did not join WWII I would still have freedom because we won the Battle of Britain without your help, you never liberated us.

Titanic wrote:

Burrito wrote:Well aside form the fact that I said you did win the BOB without us, If Germany did conquer you then they would have more than likely been forced into a peace with Russia, because they couldn't mount a proper invasion, and Russia couldn't conquered the whole of Europe under german control. My point was that you couldn't have held out indefinitely against German blockades, etc., and they would eventually gain air superiority. Even if you were able to hold out, there would be no way in hell that you would be able to launch a successful counterattack without U.S. help.

How could have not held out indefinitely against German blockades? The Germans did everything they could to sink supply ships during the war, but after a change of tactics and better intelligence for the British the attacks slowed down to a level where enough supplies were getting through for Britain to survive. After the German failure in the Battle of Britain, on European soil they only fought Russia (until D-Day) and it was Russia who ultimately defeated them, so your points do not stand as a) Germany did not and could not blockade Britain indefinitely, and b) the Russians did defeat Germany when they were 1v1.

Your last point in not relevant as I never denied that we needed US support to defeat Nazi Germany, my point was simply that we managed to defend ourself without US help.

thegreekdog wrote:I would posit that if the USA did not get involved in WWII in Europe and Germany still invaded the Soviet Union, the Soviets would have liberated France and we'd have had a "red" Europe with only England as the non-communist bastion. We'd have communist France, Germany, Italy, Greece, etc. Doesn't really have anything to do with US soldiers killing innocent people or allies, but I like alternate histories.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You forget the atomic bomb. Germany was close to achieving one, though debate will always rage over how close. That could have changed the entire picture, and was a very real reason for US involvement.

72o wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

zodiak wrote:First of all the U.S is doing the brunt of the fighting so naturally more "mistakes" would be made by our forces,when's the last time the Brits spearheaded any major operation?

The fact that you say "mistakes" probably means you don't give a f*ck if innocent Iraqis die.

One of the marines stated earlier in this thread that they are taught very specific protocols on how and when to use force. If you have to make a split second decision about firing on a speeding car approaching a checkpoint, or an individual carrying a suspected IED, and you follow the protocol and kill a civilian or group of civilians, it's not a mistake. You are performing the actions that your training prepared you for. The training is designed to minimize the threat to the soldiers and civilians. Note that minimize does not mean eliminate.

Me personally, if I was to make that decision, and it's a potential "him or me" situation, it's going to be him. I would have absolutely no qualms about splattering someone all over the sidewalk if I thought he was endangering me or any of my fellow soldiers. If it turns out that that person was innocent, oh well. He should know better than to speed towards my checkpoint, or throw down his backpack near me.

Lucky for all you liberals, I'm not out there. But I'm damn glad that there are Americans out there on my behalf, so I can sit here on my ass and bullshit on the internet. I'm also glad they are protecting (sometimes at the expense of their own lives) your right to bitch and moan about how they don't do it how you would like. I may prefer that you use your right to free speech to speak upon their service more positively, but, you can't always get your way.

thegreekdog wrote:Those things are all wrong.

However, unfortunately all of those incidents are used as evidence to show that all military men and women behave badly and that the US military is full of hooligans and criminals. That is what I have a major problem with.

Titanic wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Those things are all wrong.

However, unfortunately all of those incidents are used as evidence to show that all military men and women behave badly and that the US military is full of hooligans and criminals. That is what I have a major problem with.

How are they all wrong?

I don't think that anyone is saying that the whole US military is full of thugs and dumb jocks, just that the proportion of soldiers who abuse their position and the arrogance of them is much larger then in other militaries around the world.

Titanic wrote:How are they all wrong?

I don't think that anyone is saying that the whole US military is full of thugs and dumb jocks, just that the proportion of soldiers who abuse their position and the arrogance of them is much larger then in other militaries around the world.

pimpdave wrote::roll: Now you're looking really, really dumb. Also like a vindictive jerk.

People are the same everywhere. The number of bad apples exist in the same proportion everywhere.

Also, ATTN: ALL SANCTIMONIOUS BRITS, your empire was quite brutal and unkind. So shut up with your "we're so much better than the USA" dance. It makes you look even more foppish and gay than you do already, and no one likes having an ally that's always whining about how much they hate you for having cooler airplanes and stuff.

Titanic wrote:When was the last time Canada, Netherlands or Germany had troops which were accused of the things that the Americans or Brits have been (our soldiers aren't perfect either, a lot of dirty crap went down in Basra).

pimpdave wrote:

Titanic wrote:When was the last time Canada, Netherlands or Germany had troops which were accused of the things that the Americans or Brits have been (our soldiers aren't perfect either, a lot of dirty crap went down in Basra).

Probably, the last time they served in a role that the Americans or Brits are currently. Which proves my point, and further demonstrates your bias.

You have your conclusions then work backwards looking for evidence that proves them. My axiom that human nature doesn't change holds true.

Titanic wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Those things are all wrong.

However, unfortunately all of those incidents are used as evidence to show that all military men and women behave badly and that the US military is full of hooligans and criminals. That is what I have a major problem with.

How are they all wrong?

I don't think that anyone is saying that the whole US military is full of thugs and dumb jocks, just that the proportion of soldiers who abuse their position and the arrogance of them is much larger then in other militaries around the world.

Titanic wrote:I don't look for proof to back up my conclusions, my conclusions come from the proof. The USA may be in more wars and fight more often, but even the rare times that other developed nations to war there are never really any abuses or unreasonable civilian killings. IMO, I think the arrogance has a large part to play as it probably leads a lot of the people within the military to think that they are superior to the enemy and the surrounding country.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Solidiers are always going to be more arrogant and "macho" than your average person. It tends to come with the job.

Snorri1234 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Solidiers are always going to be more arrogant and "macho" than your average person. It tends to come with the job.

Seriously though, the way the American military brainwashes it's troops fucking scares me. It is far more severe than that of other countries.

Snorri1234 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Solidiers are always going to be more arrogant and "macho" than your average person. It tends to come with the job.

Seriously though, the way the American military brainwashes it's troops fucking scares me. It is far more severe than that of other countries.

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Solidiers are always going to be more arrogant and "macho" than your average person. It tends to come with the job.

Seriously though, the way the American military brainwashes it's troops fucking scares me. It is far more severe than that of other countries.

Have I often come across to you as brainwashed, Snorri? We've disagreed on issues, to be sure...but brainwashed? My 23 years in the American military and recent retirement (thus being fairly current to any potential "brainwashing") says your assumptions on this one are full of crap.

I would have absolutely no qualms about splattering someone all over the sidewalk if I thought he was endangering me or any of my fellow soldiers. If it turns out that that person was innocent, oh well. He should know better than to speed towards my checkpoint, or throw down his backpack near me.

Snorri1234 wrote:When I read things like this:

I would have absolutely no qualms about splattering someone all over the sidewalk if I thought he was endangering me or any of my fellow soldiers. If it turns out that that person was innocent, oh well. He should know better than to speed towards my checkpoint, or throw down his backpack near me.

I feel a little bit sick. I know the guy isn't even in the military, but I also know that opinions offered by several soldiers closely echo those sentiments.

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:When I read things like this:

I would have absolutely no qualms about splattering someone all over the sidewalk if I thought he was endangering me or any of my fellow soldiers. If it turns out that that person was innocent, oh well. He should know better than to speed towards my checkpoint, or throw down his backpack near me.

I feel a little bit sick. I know the guy isn't even in the military, but I also know that opinions offered by several soldiers closely echo those sentiments.

So you don't think a German soldier would say the same thing?

thegreekdog wrote:Brainwashes? More severe? Please elaborate. I have some friends and relatives in the US military and they have not reported any brainwashing to me.

colton24 (from 9/11 thread earlier in the month..This idiot is still at school) wrote:This thread made me cry for the fourth time today. Damnit.........A moment of silence.*Military Funeral Horn Plays* Damn.....I wish I could go over now and bomb the terrorists in a B-52.