OT:splendid WWII movie you'll never see:(

[Puke]

yeah, well, remind me not to get high on transmission fluid when i might need it to drive back home.

[newbie123]

sorry to bring up an old thread, but i just love WW2 debates and one thing in this thread couldn't be overlooked. The germans DID try and develop the nuclear bomb. And from what I read over the years, were very succesful, although I can't recall the sources off the top of my head. However, I do know that british commandos succesfully kept hard water out of the hands of the germans through raids on the ships transporting it.

It is late, and currently the only sources I could find aren't what you would call official historical sources. But anyway here are two of what I found http://www.ehistory.com/world/amit/d...m?amit_id=1502

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...v/kurzman.html

The next thing I want to touch on is the statement made about strategically bombing cities which have a citizen population. This type of boombing has a huge effect, and I guarantee no country would refrain from it should there be a world war 3. For current examples, think of the current terror strikes going on around the world. The most recent example being in spain. An attack placed at the right moment influenced a country's election, which resulted in the withdrawal of that country from the war in Iraq.(please try and leave your feelings about that conflict out of this, everyone has their opinions and noone will be able to convince the other of their point of view)

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is an attack against the population of a country is one of the most powerful attacks a country has at its disposal. It is also the most brutal. It cripples the economy, instills fear in the population, and hampers the war effort. If this wasn't the case, than a bunch of cave dwellers that know how to make a bomb wouldn't be threatening the most powerful country in the world right now.(and many others)


Another thing, many attrocities were committed by all sides during the war. The worse part about war is that no one is completely innocent. The simple fact of being at war forces a country to do things that it doesn't want to do.

sorry for bringing up an old thread

[ March 22, 2004, 07:58: Message edited by: newbie123 ]

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by newbie123:

For current examples, think of the current terror strikes going on around the world. The most recent example being in spain. An attack placed at the right moment influenced a country's election, which resulted in the withdrawal of that country from the war in Iraq.

Wrong.
Prime minister Aznar was ousted because he was perceived to manipulate the bombing to his own ends. Two days after the bombing, one of the most used slogan from the demonstrations was "Our dead deserve the truth". In the meantime the gouvernment was still adamantly saying "it's ETA and nothing else", despite growing evidences pointing to radical islamists.

[Intimidator]

Agree with UE.

And don't forget 911, I didn't look to, me the Last couple of years, that the Americans are withdrawing their troops from Sauidi Arabia and Kuwait (one of the Al Qaida demands).
In the contrary, since 911 there are even more troops in the middle east.

So my opinion is that bombing cities has 'usualy' the oposite effect.

[newbie123]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by newbie123:

For current examples, think of the current terror strikes going on around the world. The most recent example being in spain. An attack placed at the right moment influenced a country's election, which resulted in the withdrawal of that country from the war in Iraq.

Wrong.
Prime minister Aznar was ousted because he was perceived to manipulate the bombing to his own ends. Two days after the bombing, one of the most used slogan from the demonstrations was "Our dead deserve the truth". In the meantime the gouvernment was still adamantly saying "it's ETA and nothing else", despite growing evidences pointing to radical islamists.

---

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here because honestly the only things I heard about this event were from US mass media. And like the media in any country, they are completely unbiased . Propaganda sucks. However, can you argue that targeting civilian populations is not an effective startegy from the other things I said?

[newbie123]

Originally posted by Intimidator:
Agree with UE.

And don't forget 911, I didn't look to, me the Last couple of years, that the Americans are withdrawing their troops from Sauidi Arabia and Kuwait (one of the Al Qaida demands).
In the contrary, since 911 there are even more troops in the middle east.

So my opinion is that bombing cities has 'usualy' the oposite effect.

Well as a person living in America, I can tell you that it did have the effect that al Quada was hoping for.I currently go to school in philadelphia, and anytime the terror alert is raised, it seems like a good deal of people(not all) become afraid. While right off the bat, everybody in this country was waving flags, had ribbons on their car, etc.

Now, 9/11 is mentioned occaisionally, but the will to fight seems to be diminishing. People here seem to think we have a better chance just sitting around trying to defend an attack, which may work at first but will ultimately fail because all it takes is for one man to get through to create chaos. And The U.S.'s joke of INS service will let that person through sooner than you think.

There may be even more troops in the middle east, but what are they doing? While Bush had the right idea of taking out the terrorist networks, he went about it the entirely wrong way. Its like using a broadsword to remove a cancer. It'll create a bigger mess before it gets the job done.( despite not agreeing with bush on everythign, I will still vote for him. IMO if Gore(or Kerry) was in office during 9/11, we would be in a lot worse position. Of course, that is all speculation and personal opinion. Worse thing about american politics, you can only choose the lesser of 2 evils)

That being said, sorry. I didn't want to go to current conflicts and politics because the "debates" usually become nothing more than name-calling contests and in the end it just creates a divide between people. I was just trying to prove that a small group of people willing to brutally attackt the population of countries can wage a somewhat succesful war against a country that would obliterate them in conventional war.

[PvK]

I don't think bombing civilian populations is an effective strategy overall, because it makes all sorts of people despise the perpetrators, eventually, and for good reason. One may not only want to overcome one's present enemy, but also to not end up being hated as an indescriminate killer of many innocents, which can lead to endless problems eventually. Moreover, hopefully one wants to actually avoid becoming a mass-murdering monster, as a goal in itself.

Defeating someone you are fighting because they are terrible, by means of becoming just as terrible, is in perhaps the most important way, a terrible defeat.

Kind of like protecting our freedom by first throwing it away (see Patriot Act).

PvK

[ March 22, 2004, 18:31: Message edited by: PvK ]

[newbie123]

Let me just say that I'm not condoning the strategy at all. I despise anyone who attacks innocent people, on the massive scale and the personal scale. I'm just trying to make the argument that to say its not an effective strategy is not smart.

[primitive]

This is an old topic for us newb, debatet several times over the years. I don't think anybody has ever tried to debate that targeting civilians is not effective or smart strategy. What there is dissidesence over, is the necessity and usefulness of the bombing of Dresden and the second nuke over Nagasaki. Both actions without any military value or any sort of propaganda value (IMHO).

[PvK]

It will certainly have effects, and they might seem to be positive at first, but in the long run I think they tend to be very negative, even from the perspective of someone like Hitler. If the Nazis hadn't bombed civilians, I don't think German cities likely would have been bombed so terribly, for example.

If Al Qaeda hadn't launched 9/11, I don't think the US would have invaded Afghanistan and perhaps not Iraq again, etc.

PvK