Scook Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Scook, Wilson was not the only one who knew the Treaty was WAY to harsh and was just going to cause more problems. Quite a few Generals and one in particular (can't remember his name) stated something along the lines of "see you in 25 years to repeat all of this". I think even Churchill was vocal about it being too punitive (am I right here?). You are correct, I just put down Wilson as he was the biggest detractor of the Versaille Treaty. I just didnt have time to put it all in a reply. And to Jon J. no Sherman's march is a different ideology. Research that a bit further and you will see very clear differences. On a grander scale however, Sherman has a strategic goal compared to the tactics involved in creating mobile warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 AL-ZARQAWI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by Retributar: Honch! ... im with you on your comment's,...i just sold my house in 'Oregon City', Oregon and have moved back to Canada for some of the reason's you just stated!. Im afraid that 'George Bush' may have some underhanded plan up his sleeve to stay in power after his Presidency legitimately comes to it's end!. What he is doing right now reminds me of how 'Adolf Hitler' consolidated the situation and rose to the postion of 'Full Time Dictator'!. George Bush bashing drives me crazy. America is a right-leaning, conservative nation. The ideology of the average american is much, much closer to that of George Bush than John Kerry or Screamin' Dean. So when you guys pounce on Bush, you are stepping on the toes of lots of Americans. And when you are back in canada safe and secure - remember that it is the US military (built under the direction of right-wing politicians) that protects your county. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P Wagner Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 How this thread has not yet been locked amazes me as there is more bull**** here than in your average cattle yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Much of hte ability of the US military to protect the free world is of course based around contributions by all sorts of other nations - the US could not and did not "go it alone" in this task. As for stepping on the toes of lots of americans - what's your point? americans have no problems stepping on the toes of those who's politics they disagree with, so why should you expect others to treat you any different? It's all politics anyway - belongs in anotehr forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: Much of hte ability of the US military to protect the free world is of course based around contributions by all sorts of other nations - the US could not and did not "go it alone" in this task. As for stepping on the toes of lots of americans - what's your point? The point is that IMO many people, esp europeans, have the faulty idea that Americans dont even like GWB so it is ok to bash on him. But the reality is that America is a much more conservative place than europe or canada, and so I dont think that political speech should be denounced unless someone is bashing on GWB. How this thread has not yet been locked amazes me as there is more bull**** here than in your average cattle yard. Agreed - and here is a monster pile. We Canadians generally join with the Europeans in denouncing: 1. the Invasion of Iraq (In my opinion the invasion of Afghanistan was a good thing and there was just cause); 2. Rampant American aggression around the world; 3. Disregard for the opinions of other nations; 4. The rise of the religious conservatives in your country; 5. Ignorance of anything non-American; 6. George Bush and his good ol' boys club in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Can we please stop the "my country is better your countries all suck" posts here... it's kind of retarded making generalizations of millions of people, regardless of whether it is America, France, or Nepal. Or if you want to, go to the proper forum to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by Normal Dude: Can we please stop the "my country is better your countries all suck" posts here... it's kind of retarded making generalizations of millions of people, regardless of whether it is America, France, or Nepal. Or if you want to, go to the proper forum to do it. I hope you arent referring to me, because I there is no "your country sucks" in my post. what i dont like is the "no political speech unless it is GWB bashing" attitude - which your post reinforces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 No not you, and not to everyone either. They know who they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KG Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by Retributar: Honch! ... im with you on your comment's,...i just sold my house in 'Oregon City', Oregon and have moved back to Canada for some of the reason's you just stated!. Im afraid that 'George Bush' may have some underhanded plan up his sleeve to stay in power after his Presidency legitimately comes to it's end!. What he is doing right now reminds me of how 'Adolf Hitler' consolidated the situation and rose to the postion of 'Full Time Dictator'!. Uh, yeah, right. To many late night movies I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.J. Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by Honch: We Canadians generally join with the Europeans in denouncing: ...You spend way too much time listening to the CBC. Originally posted by Retributar: What (Bush) is doing right now reminds me of how 'Adolf Hitler' consolidated the situation and rose to the postion of 'Full Time Dictator'!. Remember: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. BTW, I've given your name to Stockwell Day, he'll put it on a watch list for CSIS, and you'll probably disappear in the middle of the night pretty soon. (for non-Canucks, Day is Public Safety Minister in Canada and an evangelical Christian lifetime member of the vast right-wing conspiracy). Sleep well. [ June 09, 2006, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: R.J. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 Nice take(s) David Chapuis, rack 'em! Back to the game, Spain Diplo is dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellraiser Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Back to the game - the only thing f*cked up now is still the difficulty to defend Great Britain pre - barbarossa. I have really no issue with diplomacy. @the previous discussion - USA, lightning war, etc The WW2 was won/lost in Russia. The western allies had like 20-25% relevance in that war (militarily speaking OFC) - exactly how much of axis' strength was deployed in west. 75-80% of axis' units were where the danger was - Russia. Blitzkrieg doctrine - Sir Basil Lidell Hart, Fuller, Eimansberger, Guderian; Soviet deep battle doctrine - Marshall Tukachewsky (waxed during the purges of 37-39). 2 modern doctrines, ahead of their time and I see no north american guy amongst those names Why? Because the only officer which actually understood the role of armoured formations and inter-arm coop during the 2 great wars , was general Patton but cuz of his big mouth, no one listened to him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by hellraiser: Why? Because the only officer which actually understood the role of armoured formations and inter-arm coop during the 2 great wars , was general Patton but cuz of his big mouth, no one listened to him Er, think you meant Gen McNair. To bad the USAAF dropped a few short, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by David Chapuis: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Retributar: Honch! ... im with you on your comment's,...i just sold my house in 'Oregon City', Oregon and have moved back to Canada for some of the reason's you just stated!. Im afraid that 'George Bush' may have some underhanded plan up his sleeve to stay in power after his Presidency legitimately comes to it's end!. What he is doing right now reminds me of how 'Adolf Hitler' consolidated the situation and rose to the postion of 'Full Time Dictator'!. George Bush bashing drives me crazy. America is a right-leaning, conservative nation. The ideology of the average american is much, much closer to that of George Bush than John Kerry or Screamin' Dean. So when you guys pounce on Bush, you are stepping on the toes of lots of Americans. And when you are back in canada safe and secure - remember that it is the US military (built under the direction of right-wing politicians) that protects your county. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I was going to make a comment about politics but decided not to get drug into it even though I would like to. Please guys can we stick to the game, all this kind of crap does is devide the comunity and then we start taking sides about game issues based on personal issues rather then game issues. PLEASE lets leave the politics for other forums and talk about this fun game SC 2 and how we can all make it better. .... Gets off soap box and can't believe he said "can't we all just get along" sigggghhhhh I am getting old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agamemnon Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Kerry was a pathetic candidate from the start, mister no charisma (yawn). No, more like Mr. Cut and Run. That is the problem with liberals, they truly believe that if, "we are nice to the misunderstood terrorists they would like us, and we would not have anymore 9/11's". Yeah Right. Nevelle Chamberlin had the same attitude. "Those who cried appease appease, were killed by those they wished to please" Spanish poet circa 1938. Weather you beleive it or not, weather you agree with it or not, you are at war. It's a kill or be killed world out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Hopefully a few changes in the futur will make diplomacy more flexible and not simply a run and gun for Spain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by Blashy: Bush got less votes than Al Gore, he did not get a big margin of victory over John Kerry and Kerry was a pathetic candidate from the start, mister no charisma (yawn). And Al Gore was'nt? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandemic Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I think Jon makes some valid posts, Franco would never have allied with Hitler due to the Poland agreement between Ribbentrov and Molotov. However the RAF were very weak compared to the Luftwafe had not the madman in Berlin directed his bombers against English cities we would have lost the Battle of Britain. As it was Fighter Command was what 1 or 2 weeks away from abandoning the South East before Germany changed tactics? As to the USA, well wasnt the biggest contribution from the USA during WW2 suppling trucks to Russia? Seem to remember 27 million Russians died but 1 million French, British, American combined Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Sorry Pandemic, don't agree. JJ has already stated the case for Franco's alignment and I concur. If Canaris had not been so forthcoming and perhaps with intelligence reaching Franco of German troops massing on the Pyrenees, it could have been a different story. There's nothing wrong with this model other than what Blashy has refered to, chit neutralization. Franco wanted attention in the form of resources for Spain, to build his administration. Sure he wanted to be on the winning side, but at the time of this diplomacy, what was the winning side? If he(Franco) had been wooed by Axis presents and Raeder had convinced Hitler to support Op. Phoenix, the winning side may have been different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agamemnon Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Hopefully a few changes in the futur will make diplomacy more flexible and not simply a run and gun for Spain. I agree with that 100%. Spain is basically the only diplo target. Neither side can afford ignore them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Originally posted by Agamemnon: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Hopefully a few changes in the futur will make diplomacy more flexible and not simply a run and gun for Spain. I agree with that 100%. Spain is basically the only diplo target. Neither side can afford ignore them. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.J. Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Originally posted by SeaMonkey: Franco wanted attention in the form of resources... If he(Franco) had been wooed by Axis presents...The "presents" though should be higher than they are (IMHO), and the amount should rise as the war goes on (someone mentioned Spain joining after D-Day?). The Spanish economy was in ruins from the civil war, and joining they axis would have meant being completely dependant on Germany for oil – the US would have cut them off – and Germany had its own oil problems. Originally posted by Blashy: I totally disagree, most US Citizens (55-60%+) support gay marriage...Every US state (about 20 so far) that has had a ballot initiative to constitutionally ban ss marriage has passed by a wide margin – from 60% to 40% in the most liberal states, to 87% to 13% in the most conservative. What part of that could you possibly construe as most people? If it wasn't for out of control "we want to impose our values on you" lib left judges reading spurious "rights" into constitutions in the first place, there'd be no need to amend them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverik Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Originally posted by R.J.: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SeaMonkey: Franco wanted attention in the form of resources... If he(Franco) had been wooed by Axis presents...The "presents" though should be higher than they are (IMHO), and the amount should rise as the war goes on (someone mentioned Spain joining after D-Day?). The Spanish economy was in ruins from the civil war, and joining they axis would have meant being completely dependant on Germany for oil – the US would have cut them off – and Germany had its own oil problems. Originally posted by Blashy: I totally disagree, most US Citizens (55-60%+) support gay marriage...Every US state (about 20 so far) that has had a ballot initiative to constitutionally ban ss marriage has passed by a wide margin – from 60% to 40% in the most liberal states, to 87% to 13% in the most conservative. What part of that could you possibly construe as most people? If it wasn't for out of control "we want to impose our values on you" lib left judges reading spurious "rights" into constitutions in the first place, there'd be no need to amend them. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts