Guns on boats equals 5 years jail time

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Vipe6

No, but that was a completely different war. The soviet union only came to be in 1917.

I was speaking of US boots on the ground. It was related to someone's previous post.

How it got to this from the OP, don't have the slightest. I can't see the US denigrated for Europe. Civil wars after that is another question not the US military the politics.

[buzzstar]

SiberianHusky-

I do not like your sort much either, Time for you to stand up, open the outhouse door, and do something such as cut trees or kill seals with a club. Try not to forget to wipe this time.

Note to moderator- I realize this is not OK, and will understand if it is deleted, but I thought the the person I am responding to made an unprovoked attack, sort of hike an inflamed hemorrhoid.

[Vipe6]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

I feel the same. Im sick of all this Anti American hatred. I see no one attacking England or France. It just appears it is open season on the United States on this Forum. I understand the rules of this Forum prohibit personal attacks on individuals. I think their should be the same prohibition against attacks against countries. I hate restriction of speech of any kind but this Forum has become a safe haven for anti American trolls. So sad.

I really don't understand why you should mistake criticism for hatred. If it was hate I would want to express I'd use other words.

[Moody46CC]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Are you kidding? Total German Losses in North Africa: 18,594 dead, 130,000 captured. Total German Losses on the Eastern Front: 4,300,000 dead, 4,000,000 KIA/MIA, 3,300,000 captured. Total Soviet forces losses on Eastern Front: 10,651,000 dead 6,651,000 KIA/MIA; 5,280,000 captured.

I think you are missing the point. I made no claim that the war was won in North Africa. One earlier writer stated unequivocally that the Germans were broken at Moscow; another talked about Stalingrad. My point was to show that the Germans managed to launch another major offensive in 1943 (Kursk) after allegedly being broken at Moscow then again at Stalingrad. As for losses, I was hardly arguing about German or Russian losses in the East--I was merely pointing out that the Germans and their Allies lost as many in N. Africa as they did at Stalingrad.

As to the fact advanced that the Russians had more or less won by the time of Normandy, those beaten Germans kept things going for almost another full year--on both fronts.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Vipe6

What money? I don't see any dollars in my pocket.

How about all the money poured into NATO to protect your waffle eating rear end.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Look I have great respect and love for many things about the US and many of its people, genuinely, and much respect for what the US did in both world confilcts, but a peeing contest about the World Wars is rather silly. It was not only the winter which won WWII on the Eastern Front. The Soviets outproduced the US in that conflict by a large margin in terms of combat vehicles (more than 40,000 extra armored fighting vehicles in one example) and the more than 10 million Soviet combat dead in that one theatre outstrip the US WWII war dead in the entire world by more than 20 to 1. Since you speak of WWI, the entire US combat mortality of the whole of WWII barely outstips the British and Commonwealth casualties of the single battle of the Somme, in WWI.

So, Muckle,
Using your above logic, if you needed an extra 1/10 oz of gold to pay a debt to a creditor to avoid bankruptcy and you didn't have it, you would go broke. However, if someone gave you a 1/10 of an ounce of gold that saved you from bankruptcy, you would think it was not significant because it was a small amount. That's your logic above about US contributions to the war. Without the US and in spite of Russia, Europe today would be part of the extended German Empire. There is no mainstream historian that would argue that point to the contrary.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

I feel the same. Im sick of all this Anti American hatred. I see no one attacking England or France. .

Whoa.. don't get me started on Thatcher, Blair, Cameron and the UK's fawning before what they refer to as the Leader of the Free World..
as for the 'Onion Seller's'...!!

[Vipe6]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

How about all the money poured into NATO to protect your waffle eating rear end.

That's more the vocabulary I'd use if I wanted to express hatred.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by Vipe6

No, but that was a completely different war. The soviet union only came to be in 1917.

Vipe6, I am amazed at erroneous tripe you are pretending to pass off as history. Do you think that the war was only fought on the ground? Thousands of Americans died in Europe in the air campaigns and in the battle of the Atlantic well before D-Day. Do you really think that the soviets would have survived the early years of the war if not for the thousands of US sailors that died delivering gasoline and diesel fuel to Murmansk. I know a man still alive that survived several of those trips when sometimes a third of their convoy was lost to German U-boats. Yes the Russian people did a remarkable job of turning the Germans back with the help of the Russian winter and the crappy tanks, fuel and airplanes we sent them so that they could survive long enough to build their own superior tanks and aircraft. They were of course the same crappy tanks our men went to war in. If you knew your history you would also know that we did not enter the war in Europe when Japan attacked us at Pearl harbor on December 7, 1941, but only after Germany and Italy declared war on the US on December 11, 1941. Perhaps the soviet union could have defeated Germany on their own eventually. Perhaps it was our mistake not to let them do so. Of course they might not have stopped at the German border, at least then you would not have had to complain about what happened to eastern Europe. If you are going to try to pass yourself off as a historian at least you should know who was present at Potsdam. I,m sure Roosevelt enjoyed himself.

[adlib2]

No other discussion elicits more response than one on gun control. Why is that?
I can see emotions run high and rationale and logic seems to be abandoned in favour of posturing and promotion of for/against arguments.
I've lived in many countries, Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Russia, South Africa and visited nearly every country in the UN and never experienced the same reaction as here in the US. A phenomena.
I would hazard a guess that most cruising sailors abhor guns on boats, certainly those in this Forum and yet they, like me, feel obliged to join the discussion.
What is so precious about owning a gun?
Evidence shows that Americans cannot be trusted to act responsibly with guns, statistics on gun related deaths are horrifying.

I was a child during WW11 in England and my father was military. When he retired he gave me his .38 service revolver with 36 rounds, I was 7 yrs old. This was symbolic to indicate the son would carry on the fight.
I kept that gun in my bedroom until I was married in my early 20's when my new wife objected. She conspired with my mother for my father to regain ownership and hand it into the police. Seems bizarre today; however, other boys experienced similar.
At 13 yrs I joined the army cadets and received training on the 303 rifle and Bren gun and performed well on the ranges including Bisley. Over the years I visited ranges for target practice. Point being I know how to handle and clean a weapon.
Do I own one? No~ I have no need. I don't feel threatened and I stay away from places where I might be. And I certainly don't wish to be perceived as a threat to anyone else.
My first wife died and I remarried to an American who owned a small French revolver. Not powerful and certainly not accurate.
At a family gathering at a farm in Ohio many guns appeared for target practice. These included high power hunting rifles with scopes. My wife's revolver was completely outclassed and she gave it to her son who's military and a gun collector. She no longer owns a gun.
My own son was there and is current Canadian military of 35 years. He doesn't own a gun. We discussed the prevailing enthusiasm and compared it with Canada. Canadians own per capita just as many guns as Americans, but you would never know it.
I have two brother-in-laws and a cousin that are keen members of rifle clubs in the UK. They always purchased new scopes, etc when visiting me in NA. They rarely discuss guns, if ever.

One of my wife's relatives visited Canada recently in a RV and when asked if he had any weapons replied no, and went on the describe his huge arsenal at home. He was miffed and surprised when Immigration detained him some time for questioning. A simple NO would have sufficed and saved him and his wife a lot of hassle.
Even after I discussed it with him he is very defensive and fails to understand the different attitude other societies have on weaponry.

I don't believe Americans as a people will ever learn their gun laws create more problems for them than they solve when traveling, certainly not in my life time.

[Vipe6]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Whoa.. don't get me started on Thatcher, Blair, Cameron and the UK's fawning before what they refer to as the Leader of the Free World..
as for the 'Onion Seller's'...!!

Can we refer to Cameron and Sus scrofa domesticus in one sentence these days?

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Polux

If you continue like that you will be considered an American hater even if you are American

In fact those bombings should have been considered and investigated as crimes of war, namely the ones responsible for those directives. At a certain point some bright guys come with the idea that it would be much more effective stop bombing military targets and start bombing civilian populations due to the demoralizing effect.

And it was not residential neighborhoods but entire towns:

“Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.”

RAF January 1945

Attempts to exploit the psychological impact of aerial bombardment have a long history and remain central to Air Force doctrine. Examples include the firebombing of Dresden, the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the bombing of North Vietnam. Other examples might include the German bombing of London and the British bombing of German cities in World War II.

Psychological Effects of Aerial Bombardment

Allied bombing of Nazi controlled cities came after and only after Hitler started bombing London. Remember the evacuation of school aged children from London to the English countryside because of the nightly bombing by German V2's. No I suppose you don't. Lets not get facts in the way of anti American propaganda.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

How about all the money poured into NATO to protect your waffle eating rear end.

Actually I think you'll find we are what the Soviets used to call 'Buffer States'..
Your Armed Forces are here to ensure any wars are fought on someone else's territory..

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Lizzy Belle

What I don't understand ...

Some people want to bring guns on board, others don't (me being on of them).
So how about everybody decides for themselves?

I honestly do not understand, AT ALL, why people are trying to convince others that their choice should be everybody's choice, no matter what that choice is.

Why is it that both sides will forget they are usually decent and friendly human beings and get their knickers in a twist over what someone else, who they may never even meet, carries on their boat?

Yep!!!!!

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

SNIP

It is generally agreed by historians today that the strategic bombing of German cities had little military effect.

SNIP

Occasionally our bombing had some significant effect (destruction of Ploesti oil complex in Romania; bombing of shipyards), but mostly we bombed residential neighborhoods (killing 300,000 civilians and rendering millions homeless), which had no effect on the war.

SNIP

These are historical facts.

Almost all the historians I have read say the bombing of the cities caused huge problems for Germany in terms of the massive number of refugees. Look at the problems the current refugee crisis from the unrest in Syria is causing in Europe.

You can't displace hundreds of thousands or millions of people and not cause problems.

I understand the point you are trying to make than in strictly military terms there was little damage to the military. The problem was the German government had to use resources to deal with the refugees instead of using those resources to build up the military.