unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7210|PNW

sergeriver wrote:

My bad, I read Hitler or Stalin, yes, and I addressed it.
Address this: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/re … ements.htm



Kmarion wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I see.  No, it's not the same.  Freedom of speech should have certain limits, like insulting other people or advocating Genocide.
thats where I disagree.  Freedom of Speech is just that.  You limit some kinds, you limit it all. I dont understand the thinking behind people who think books should be banned(europe, mein kampf is an example)  Banning books is the first step towards burning them.   Thats what the nazis liked to do.
In other words nobody has the right not to be offended.. Number one now when you search Penn Teller ... aww yea fellas (Searching 1st Amendment also)
Be offended. You can protest to your heart's content.

(apologies if misconstrued: working on a construction project off and on, and don't have time to get sucked into YouTube.)

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-19 16:52:26)

sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7195|Argentina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

My bad, I read Hitler or Stalin, yes, and I addressed it.
Address this: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/re … ements.htm

History Site wrote:

For two years, from 1939 to the summer of 1941, the resistance movements of Europe had found it hard to make much of an impression on the might of the German military. Reports from commanders in the field to the German Army’s headquarters (OKW), indicate that the resistance movements were an irritant but no more than this. The savage repression of local populations usually did enough to put people off of joining any local resistance force. 

However, all this changed in June 1941 with Operation Barbarossa – the attack on Russia. Communist groups throughout Europe had done little to assist any resistance movement in Nazi-occupied Europe. Now, with the attack on Russia, this changed.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7039|132 and Bush

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

My bad, I read Hitler or Stalin, yes, and I addressed it.
Address this: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/re … ements.htm



Kmarion wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

thats where I disagree.  Freedom of Speech is just that.  You limit some kinds, you limit it all. I dont understand the thinking behind people who think books should be banned(europe, mein kampf is an example)  Banning books is the first step towards burning them.   Thats what the nazis liked to do.
In other words nobody has the right not to be offended.. Number one now when you search Penn Teller ... aww yea fellas (Searching 1st Amendment also)
Be offended. You can protest to your heart's content.

(apologies if misconstrued: working on a construction project off and on, and don't have time to get sucked into YouTube.)
Suck it in Damn it!..lol

Xbone Stormsurgezz
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7210|PNW

sergeriver wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

My bad, I read Hitler or Stalin, yes, and I addressed it.
Address this: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/re … ements.htm

History Site wrote:

For two years, from 1939 to the summer of 1941, the resistance movements of Europe had found it hard to make much of an impression on the might of the German military. Reports from commanders in the field to the German Army’s headquarters (OKW), indicate that the resistance movements were an irritant but no more than this. The savage repression of local populations usually did enough to put people off of joining any local resistance force. 

However, all this changed in June 1941 with Operation Barbarossa – the attack on Russia. Communist groups throughout Europe had done little to assist any resistance movement in Nazi-occupied Europe. Now, with the attack on Russia, this changed.
While conveniently skipping the opening paragraph:

The resistance movement in Europe during World War Two played an important part in defeating Nazi Germany's military might. The resistance movement - Europe's secret armies or partisans - gathered intelligence for the Allies, destroyed communication lines, assisted escaped POW's and openly attacked the Germans once the retreats on both the western and eastern fronts had started. Their work was vital for both the Russian's and Allies but it was also extremely dangerous as any slips in security were ruthlessly exploited by the Gestapo. Resistance movements were found in all Nazi-occupied countries.

Of course, you're perfectly entitled to the 'resistance is futile' mindset, if you choose.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-19 16:57:03)

sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7195|Argentina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


Address this: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/re … ements.htm

History Site wrote:

For two years, from 1939 to the summer of 1941, the resistance movements of Europe had found it hard to make much of an impression on the might of the German military. Reports from commanders in the field to the German Army’s headquarters (OKW), indicate that the resistance movements were an irritant but no more than this. The savage repression of local populations usually did enough to put people off of joining any local resistance force. 

However, all this changed in June 1941 with Operation Barbarossa – the attack on Russia. Communist groups throughout Europe had done little to assist any resistance movement in Nazi-occupied Europe. Now, with the attack on Russia, this changed.
While conveniently skipping the opening paragraph:

The resistance movement in Europe during World War Two played an important part in defeating Nazi Germany's military might. The resistance movement - Europe's secret armies or partisans - gathered intelligence for the Allies, destroyed communication lines, assisted escaped POW's and openly attacked the Germans once the retreats on both the western and eastern fronts had started. Their work was vital for both the Russian's and Allies but it was also extremely dangerous as any slips in security were ruthlessly exploited by the Gestapo. Resistance movements were found in all Nazi-occupied countries.

Of course, you're perfectly entitled to the 'resistance is futile' mindset, if you choose.
Yes, they were a pain in the ass for Germany, like a mosquito in a hot summer.  The Russians did most of the job, after Hitler committed suicide with Operation Barbarossa in 1941.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7210|PNW

sergeriver wrote:

Yes, they were a pain in the ass for Germany, like a mosquito in a hot summer.  The Russians did most of the job, after Hitler committed suicide with Operation Barbarossa in 1941.
If you're seriously suggesting that they were useless, then there is no point continuing this.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7195|Argentina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Yes, they were a pain in the ass for Germany, like a mosquito in a hot summer.  The Russians did most of the job, after Hitler committed suicide with Operation Barbarossa in 1941.
If you're seriously suggesting that they were useless, then there is no point continuing this.
No, that would be disrespectful with them.  They contributed in the way they could, undersupplied and risking their lives for a just cause without question of that.  I'm saying no matter how many members the resistance would have had, the German military was powerful enough to crush them.  Hitler lost the war because he was an asshole and had to invade Russia.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7082

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

While I agree with the first part of your post, the last bit is just laughable.
Yeah, it is pretty funny 150,000 US troops can't, over five years, subdue an armed population.
Democracy does indeed flow from the barrel of a gun I guess.
shows how much you know about combat in Iraq.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6849|'Murka

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

While I agree with the first part of your post, the last bit is just laughable.
Yeah, it is pretty funny 150,000 US troops can't, over five years, subdue an armed population.
Democracy does indeed flow from the barrel of a gun I guess.
shows how much you know about combat in Iraq.
I'll defer to the guy who's been there...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7210|PNW

sergeriver wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Yes, they were a pain in the ass for Germany, like a mosquito in a hot summer.  The Russians did most of the job, after Hitler committed suicide with Operation Barbarossa in 1941.
If you're seriously suggesting that they were useless, then there is no point continuing this.
No, that would be disrespectful with them.  They contributed in the way they could, undersupplied and risking their lives for a just cause without question of that.  I'm saying no matter how many members the resistance would have had, the German military was powerful enough to crush them.  Hitler lost the war because he was an asshole and had to invade Russia.
Would you've felt more comfortable if they had absolutely no means with which to defend themselves, not against a horde of tanks, but a group of Germans on patrol? Or would it have been better if the resistance had shut down altogether and stayed out of the Allies' way?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-19 17:29:06)

GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7082
last time I checked, it wasnt too legal to own 155 MM artillery rounds here in the states.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6883|The Land of Scott Walker
*hides 155mm arty rounds under bed*  Who me?  Nah 
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6544|eXtreme to the maX
shows how much you know about combat in Iraq.
Explain yourself then.
Militias in Iraq and Afghanistan have bogged the US down for the past 5 years.
It seems to support the theory an armed population can resist a tyrannical govt.
Fuck Israel
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6843|North Carolina

The_Mac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

The problem is twofold: The liberals and big governments and their lackey media want to suppress the constitution and the people; this means disarming the people for "their protection.".
Liberals don't have a monopoly on suppressing the Constitution.  Neocons are rather good at it as well -- look at the Patriot Act.  Habeas corpus, pshaw, who needs that?
So far, habeas corpus for citizens has not been suspended. It was suspended for non- citizens determined to be unlawful combatants (i.e. terrorists). Habeas Corpus was restored fully with all but one Republicans voting for it. That doesn't seem to me to be much "ne0 c0n infringing of teh ritez."

The Patriot Act supposedly infringes on our rights, but are you disposed to name any sort of rights it infringes on?

Whereas by contrast, banning arms  (fully supported by liberals and lackeys) is a full blown contradiction to the constitution, and a restriction on the right to bear arms is an infringement on citizens' rights.
The Right to Privacy, but I realize that neocons don't really value that right.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7082

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

last time I checked, it wasnt too legal to own 155 MM artillery rounds here in the states.
SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|7223|Perth, Western Australia

Dilbert_X wrote:

shows how much you know about combat in Iraq.
Explain yourself then.
Militias in Iraq and Afghanistan have bogged the US down for the past 5 years.
It seems to support the theory an armed population can resist a tyrannical govt.
Don't worry, they'll avoid the question. See, in their minds they keep guns with one of the reasons being that they can overthrow the oppressors if necessary. But they don't make room for this happening elsewhere to them. People... shooting at the US Army in another countries, THEY MUST BE BAD GUYS (and in effective too!)!

Last edited by SharkyMcshark (2007-12-19 23:53:02)

GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7082

SharkyMcshark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

shows how much you know about combat in Iraq.
Explain yourself then.
Militias in Iraq and Afghanistan have bogged the US down for the past 5 years.
It seems to support the theory an armed population can resist a tyrannical govt.
Don't worry, they'll avoid the question. See, in their minds they keep guns with one of the reasons being that they can overthrow the oppressors if necessary. But they don't make room for this happening elsewhere to them. People... shooting at the US Army in another countries, THEY MUST BE BAD GUYS (and in effective too!)!

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

last time I checked, it wasnt too legal to own 155 MM artillery rounds here in the states.
ARE YOU PEOPLE REALLY THIS RETARDED?
SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|7223|Perth, Western Australia
So what you're saying is that every alleged 'insurgent' is running around with 150MM artillery cannons?

I'm just astounded at the hypocricy of saying that an armed civilian militia is a stumbling block for any power invading the US, but then dismissing the effect that en armed militia is having on the occupations Iraq and Afghanistan (even if you just counted the 'farmers toting AK's' so to speak, and leave the 150MM artillery you seem so fond of out of the equation).
r2zoo
Knowledge is power, guard it well
+126|7034|Michigan, USA

SharkyMcshark wrote:

So what you're saying is that every alleged 'insurgent' is running around with 150MM artillery cannons?

I'm just astounded at the hypocricy of saying that an armed civilian militia is a stumbling block for any power invading the US, but then dismissing the effect that en armed militia is having on the occupations Iraq and Afghanistan (even if you just counted the 'farmers toting AK's' so to speak, and leave the 150MM artillery you seem so fond of out of the equation).
How hard is it to see he's clearing mentioning IEDs here? Often made of any left over explosive devices, such as artillery rounds and the such.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7082

r2zoo wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

So what you're saying is that every alleged 'insurgent' is running around with 150MM artillery cannons?

I'm just astounded at the hypocricy of saying that an armed civilian militia is a stumbling block for any power invading the US, but then dismissing the effect that en armed militia is having on the occupations Iraq and Afghanistan (even if you just counted the 'farmers toting AK's' so to speak, and leave the 150MM artillery you seem so fond of out of the equation).
How hard is it to see he's clearing mentioning IEDs here? Often made of any left over explosive devices, such as artillery rounds and the such.
thankyou.  the two geniuses above you couldnt figure that out.   There is no law in the US guaranteeing the freedom to own munitions of war.  There is no law in Iraq guaranteeing the freedom to own munitions of war.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7082

SharkyMcshark wrote:

So what you're saying is that every alleged 'insurgent' is running around with 150MM artillery cannons?

I'm just astounded at the hypocricy of saying that an armed civilian militia is a stumbling block for any power invading the US, but then dismissing the effect that en armed militia is having on the occupations Iraq and Afghanistan (even if you just counted the 'farmers toting AK's' so to speak, and leave the 150MM artillery you seem so fond of out of the equation).
forget to take your smart pills this morning?
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7195|Argentina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


If you're seriously suggesting that they were useless, then there is no point continuing this.
No, that would be disrespectful with them.  They contributed in the way they could, undersupplied and risking their lives for a just cause without question of that.  I'm saying no matter how many members the resistance would have had, the German military was powerful enough to crush them.  Hitler lost the war because he was an asshole and had to invade Russia.
Would you've felt more comfortable if they had absolutely no means with which to defend themselves, not against a horde of tanks, but a group of Germans on patrol? Or would it have been better if the resistance had shut down altogether and stayed out of the Allies' way?
Would I have felt more comfortable?  This is history, neither me nor you can change it.  So, I don't get your question.  They were undersupplied IMO and they fight with the means they had.  They helped the Allies of course.  But Hitler wasn't defeated by them, he was defeated mostly by the Russians.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7195|Argentina

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

r2zoo wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

So what you're saying is that every alleged 'insurgent' is running around with 150MM artillery cannons?

I'm just astounded at the hypocricy of saying that an armed civilian militia is a stumbling block for any power invading the US, but then dismissing the effect that en armed militia is having on the occupations Iraq and Afghanistan (even if you just counted the 'farmers toting AK's' so to speak, and leave the 150MM artillery you seem so fond of out of the equation).
How hard is it to see he's clearing mentioning IEDs here? Often made of any left over explosive devices, such as artillery rounds and the such.
thankyou.  the two geniuses above you couldnt figure that out.   There is no law in the US guaranteeing the freedom to own munitions of war.  There is no law in Iraq guaranteeing the freedom to own munitions of war.
What about an AK-47?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6544|eXtreme to the maX
Vietnam - A few guys with smallarms managed to tie up the US military for quite a while, until they won.
Afghanistan - A few guys with smallarms managed to tie up the Russian military for quite a while, until they won.
Northern Ireland - A few guys with smallarms and home made bombs managed to tie up the British military for quite a while, until they won.
Somalia - A few guys with smallarms managed to tie up the US military for a while, until they won.
Lebanon - A few guys with smallarms managed to tie up the Israeli military for a while, until they won.
Afghanistan - A few guys with smallarms are still tying up the US military and NATO. The expectation is there are another ten years ahead.
Iraq - A few guys with smallarms and home made bombs - got the picture yet?

It seems impossible for a modern military to win against even a moderately armed population. This is now the nature of warfare.

Does the above support the 2nd amendment idea that an armed population is a useful thing to have to repel invasion or the overthrow a tyrannical govt? I don't know, but I believe its less likely to get to that stage if the population is armed.
The Swiss seem to have a robust democracy and an absence of wars in the last 900 yrs. (And many excellent cheeses).

I think every household in Iraq is allowed to own a smallarm, AK or pistol, and a few mags, someone can correct me I expect.
I guess if 155mm rounds are an issue it might have been an idea to secure them, and all the other military eqpt esp RPGs, instead of the oilfields?
It might also have been sensible not to disband the Iraqi army, putting thousands of military trained personnel out of work without dole.
A tiny bit of pre-war research and post war planning would have gone a long way.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2007-12-20 05:16:37)

Fuck Israel
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7195|Argentina

Dilbert_X wrote:

Vietnam - A few guys with smallarms managed to tie up the US military for quite a while, until they won.
Afghanistan - A few guys with smallarms managed to tie up the Russian military for quite a while, until they won.
Northern Ireland - A few guys with smallarms and home made bombs managed to tie up the British military for quite a while, until they won.
Somalia - A few guys with smallarms managed to tie up the US military for a while, until they won.
Lebanon - A few guys with smallarms managed to tie up the Israeli military for a while, until they won.
Afghanistan - A few guys with smallarms are still tying up the US military and NATO. The expectation is there are another ten years ahead.
Iraq - A few guys with smallarms and home made bombs - got the picture yet?

It seems impossible for a modern military to win against even a moderately armed population. This is now the nature of warfare.

Does the above support the 2nd amendment idea that an armed population is a useful thing to have to repel invasion or the overthrow a tyrannical govt? I don't know, but I believe its less likely to get to that stage if the population is armed.
The Swiss seem to have a robust democracy and an absence of wars in the last 900 yrs. (And many excellent cheeses).

I think every household in Iraq is allowed to own a smallarm, AK or pistol, and a few mags, someone can correct me I expect.
I guess if 155mm rounds are an issue it might have been an idea to secure them, and all the other military eqpt esp RPGs, instead of the oilfields?
It might also have been sensible not to disband the Iraqi army, putting thousands of military trained personnel out of work without dole.
A tiny bit of pre-war research and post war planning would have gone a long way.
I dunno.  Many people argued here that they needed a gun for protection against criminals because they don't trust the cops being efficient, or to protect themselves from a corrupted or dictatorial regime in the US.  They said "I prefer my government being afraid of me than I being afraid of my government".  I don't think guns would help in those situations.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard