The War - Page 6

xxx · #51 01-18-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ylwjacket

Oh, so the Russians ended WWII. What was I thinking. The US, I suppose, had nothing to do with it. About as big a role as Canada did, I guess.

Read it again....thats not what I said.

Sponsored Links

Eric5273 · #52 01-18-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

Eric, BS pie chart bro. That was a direct result of Russia getting invaded and HAMMERED. Troop deaths could also be handed to Stalin who guided his military forces as well as a blind man running through a maze. Not to mention, Russia switched sides in the middle of the conflict, much like Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern..._(World_War_II)

The Eastern Front was by far the largest and bloodiest theatre of World War II. It is generally accepted as being the most costly conflict in human history with over 30 million dead as a result. It involved more land combat than all other World War II theatres combined.

http://www.answers.com/topic/world-war-ii-casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern...II)#Casualties

According to these websites, the German Military casualties in the Western war were approximately 340,000, while in the Eastern war they were 4.3 million (13 times as much).

Still think the war on the Western front was what brought Germany down?

B-Line · #53 01-18-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxx

Your civil war dosent count becouse they were all Americans. You lost the war of 1812 and Hitler killed him self when the Russians were at his door step not Americans. I guess you lost that race as well. I dont know much about Korea but you lost Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Is that not valid enough?

xxx, what can I say. You are right. Maybe we should learn from the Canadians, we should just bend over and do nothing. -- Maybe we should learn French too!
And, I don't know how you "win" a war. There are no winners in war. Our objectives in entering Iraq were to oust Saddam. We did that. No more Saddam or his kids... They dead !!
So we were successful in that manner. We beat his army. Now we are fighting a different war in Iraq. We are no longer fighting the Iraq Army which we beat. We are fighting guerillas that had nothing to do with the war, rather they are the "POST WAR".
Matter of fact, I just thought of a good marketing idea. I don't think the war in Iraq should be called the war in Iraq anymore. It should be called, "The war against the people who hate democracy that is taking place on the soil of Iraq" ... Would that fit on a bumper sticker? EH ?

Ohhh but just in case your counting:
1) Won the Gulf War (Desert Storm/Shield)
2) Beat Saddam, his kids, his National Guard, his army.
2) Won the Cold War (how quickly you forget.)
3) Won WWI
4) Won WWII
-- And I wasn't quoting the civil war, I was quoting the Revolutionary War...But:
5) I am from the North, so technically, yes, I won the civil war too.

6) Didn't we have a two day war in Panama.. I think we won that one too.
7) We did win the war in Afghanistan, even if it was only temporary. We got rid of the Taliban. But what should we be fighting for there, a couple of unscathed rocks?

So XXX what's next? You going to tell us that we lost the War on Drugs as well?

B

xxx · #54 01-18-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

love that, the war doesn't count because.....

As for the Russians were at his door...that was because he was getting TORCHED on every single front, the only door left was Russia. Had Germany not been in a fight with every other nation, Russia would have been lost to Germany.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, definition of "winning" really depends on what your agenda was. If you defined winning in Iraq by removing Saddam...we won. If you consider winning in Afghanistan as removing the Taliban from power, we did that as well. If you define winning as coming in and creating stable peace loving countries that drink wine and collect art, then no...we didn't succeed....

poor US.

The Afghanistan was for Osama.....if they went into Iraq for Saddam dont you think they could have eliminated him in a less expensive way. As far as ww2 the same could have been said the other way around. Im not saying anything bad about the US im just saying the Russians were the first there and thats why Hitler killed himself.

Wagner · #55 01-18-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxx

The Afghanistan was for Osama.....if they went into Iraq for Saddam dont you think they could have eliminated him in a less expensive way. As far as ww2 the same could have been said the other way around. Im not saying anything bad about the US im just saying the Russians were the first there and thats why Hitler killed himself.

The Russians were there AFTER the US troops were in Germany on their way to Berlin. Truman wanted Stalin on the Allies side against, Japan. Stalin wouldn't commit without some perks, one being taking Berlin..the other Hiroshima.

Now you've changed your tune on Afghanistan and Iraq, nobody ever said the US was cost efficient in war time. Afghanistan was NEVER defined as lets go kill Bin Laden, that was just a portion of the effort. The goal was to remove the Taliban and instill a leadership more in line with the West. Goal achieved.

BTW, I'm not concerned with whether you like the US or not, just keep the facts straight.

Eric5273 · #56 01-18-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

The Russians were there AFTER the US troops were in Germany on their way to Berlin.

Yes, American troops did cross into Germany about a month before Russian troops did, but if you look at the map, you will see why:

Berlin is near the eastern border. The Germans had more troops in western Poland and Austria than they did in Western Germany. The goal at the end was to protect Berlin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

Afghanistan was NEVER defined as lets go kill Bin Laden, that was just a portion of the effort. The goal was to remove the Taliban and instill a leadership more in line with the West. Goal achieved.

Ummm....the military says this:

The military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom, as articulated by President George W. Bush in his Sept. 20th Address to a Joint Session of Congress and his Oct. 7th address to the country, include the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan.

Of course you are correct, and they were full of BS, but that is what they said. You should add a couple of important words to your statement:

The goal was to remove the Taliban and instill a leadership more in line with Western business interests.

pm_belo · #57 01-18-2007, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Yes, American troops did cross into Germany about a month before Russian troops did, but if you look at the map, you will see why:

Berlin is near the eastern border. The Germans had more troops in western Poland and Austria than they did in Western Germany. The goal at the end was to protect Berlin.

Ummm....the military says this:

The military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom, as articulated by President George W. Bush in his Sept. 20th Address to a Joint Session of Congress and his Oct. 7th address to the country, include the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan.

You’re the best Eric !!

Wagner · #58 01-18-2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern..._(World_War_II)

The Eastern Front was by far the largest and bloodiest theatre of World War II. It is generally accepted as being the most costly conflict in human history with over 30 million dead as a result. It involved more land combat than all other World War II theatres combined.

http://www.answers.com/topic/world-war-ii-casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern...II)#Casualties

According to these websites, the German Military casualties in the Western war were approximately 340,000, while in the Eastern war they were 4.3 million (13 times as much).

Still think the war on the Western front was what brought Germany down?

Yes I do. You're not making a point, just naming statistics. Just because more people died doesn't mean ANYTHING was accomplished.

Wagner · #59 01-18-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Yes, American troops did cross into Germany about a month before Russian troops did, but if you look at the map, you will see why:

Berlin is near the eastern border. The Germans had more troops in western Poland and Austria than they did in Western Germany. The goal at the end was to protect Berlin.

Ummm....the military says this:

The military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom, as articulated by President George W. Bush in his Sept. 20th Address to a Joint Session of Congress and his Oct. 7th address to the country, include the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan.

Of course you are correct, and they were full of BS, but that is what they said. You should add a couple of important words to your statement:

The goal was to remove the Taliban and instill a leadership more in line with Western business interests.

And where does it say Bin Laden? It doesn't. And apparently you are discounting who achieved what based on where the bulk of the troops were. The US forces still pulled into Berlin and could have removed Hitler before the Russians. This of course is directed to the populous that thinks "Russia" was the reason Hitler killed himself.