Potus ???

[GarethM]

1 minute ago, Doug Tait said:

The critical thing I think being missed is that the people of Dresden are comparable to the people in the camps and all the other victims of politically driven wars. They were not the 'third reich', they were victims.

They didn't want their historic city, filled with beautiful architecture, or their homes, their community, levelled to a pile of rubble with the bodies of their friends and family obliterated along with it any more than they wanted the people of Liverpool or Coventry to suffer that fate.

They wanted to work, go to the museum, take sunny peaceful walks in tree lined parks with dappled sun while their children played, much like the people of our cities 

You do remember a little speech, that said We are at war with nazi Germany ?.

 

You'll be down a Hamas rabbit hole of, you can only target x,y,z even tho the loo roll factory also makes potato masher grenades in the basement.

[Johnsond]

12 minutes ago, sime42 said:

I'd rank the actions of Israel in Gaza to be on a par with some of the worst Allied actions in WW2, but not as bad as the Nazis, (and Hamas).

Fortunately your opinion is worth Jack shit 

1 of those guys who fought for your freedom are worth a thousand of the likes of yourself. Absolutely clueless. This is a serious question have you ever been under fire, in a life or death your or him situation or been on active service?? 

[Doug Tait]

5 minutes ago, GarethM said:

You do remember a little speech, that said We are at war with nazi Germany ?.

 

You'll be down a Hamas rabbit hole of, you can only target x,y,z even tho the loo roll factory also makes potato masher grenades in the basement.

 

You're inventing my thoughts and beliefs to suit your argument.

 

What I do remember is the first hand accounts of people that were given no choice but to be subjected to hell. I'm not distinguishing between races or nationalities or religious beliefs.

[Johnsond]

11 minutes ago, Doug Tait said:

The critical thing I think being missed is that the people of Dresden are comparable to the people in the camps and all the other victims of politically driven wars. They were not the 'third reich', they were victims.

They didn't want their historic city, filled with beautiful architecture, or their homes, their community, levelled to a pile of rubble with the bodies of their friends and family obliterated along with it any more than they wanted the people of Liverpool or Coventry to suffer that fate.

They wanted to work, go to the museum, take sunny peaceful walks in tree lined parks with dappled sun while their children played, much like the people of our cities 

100% Correct Doug just as most of the soldiers on both sides did not want to be there or be killing people. But to look back and judge them as war criminals by using today’s moral standards is just stupidity. End of the day the Allied forces had an obligation to finish the war as quickly as possible with the minimum amount of their own casualties . If that meant destroying cities and inflicting huge numbers of civilian casualties along the way to shorten the war the prevailing mindset at the time was that it was a price that had to be paid by the enemy. 

[GarethM]

Just now, Doug Tait said:

 

You're inventing my thoughts and beliefs to suit your argument.

 

What I do remember is the first hand accounts of people that were given no choice but to be subjected to hell. I'm not distinguishing between races or nationalities or religious beliefs.

Think you'll find I'm not inventing anything, just using your delusional logic.

 

Oh the Germans didn't deserve being bombed, well yes and no. How else are you going to topple for example the Nazis if you don't have the population unmotivated and on its knees financially, by breaking the very structures required to make it operate.

[Doug Tait]

1 minute ago, Johnsond said:

100% Correct Doug just as most of the soldiers on both sides did not want to be there or be killing people. But to look back and judge them as war criminals by using today’s moral standards is just stupidity. End of the day the Allied forces had an obligation to finish the war as quickly as possible with the minimum amount of their own casualties . If that meant destroying cities and inflicting huge numbers of civilian casualties along the way to shorten the war the prevailing mindset at the time was that it was a price that had to be paid by the enemy. 

 

For clarity, I'm not calling them war criminals, and I understand the military argument I'd say (not me personally but I talk to my family who have quite a military pedigree).

Regardless, the experience of all kinds of people that had this inflicted on them was unimaginable.

[Doug Tait]

3 minutes ago, GarethM said:

Think you'll find I'm not inventing anything, just using your delusional logic.

 

Oh the Germans didn't deserve being bombed, well yes and no. How else are you going to topple for example the Nazis if you don't have the population unmotivated and on its knees financially, by breaking the very structures required to make it operate.

 

Well while you've constructed an argument I didn't make around Hamas and how Gerry didn't deserve it, you seem to have missed the salient point that no civilian that is subjected to the actions of a regime deserves to be obliterated in the most horrific manner.

As I said already.

 

Please try not to assume what I believe or how my opinion is formed, you do it every time we engage and you are always mistaken.

[GarethM]

5 minutes ago, Doug Tait said:

 

Well while you've constructed an argument I didn't make around Hamas and how Gerry didn't deserve it, you seem to have missed the salient point that no civilian that is subjected to the actions of a regime deserves to be obliterated in the most horrific manner.

As I said already.

 

Please try not to assume what I believe or how my opinion is formed, you do it every time we engage and you are always mistaken.

It's not assumed or opinion it's a argument you're failing to explain yourself.

 

Well why don't you explain how you would have toppled the Nazis then without civilian casualties!.

 

As my argument is literally a extrapolation of you very poor idea of war, it's not the 1700s we can't just line up in a field when a nation is at war and invaded.

[Doug Tait]

11 minutes ago, GarethM said:

It's not assumed or opinion it's a argument you're failing to explain yourself.

 

Well why don't you explain how you would have toppled the Nazis then without civilian casualties!.

 

As my argument is literally a extrapolation of you very poor idea of war, it's not the 1700s we can't just line up in a field when a nation is at war and invaded.

 

Again you missed the point. I don't need to explain myself on a point you've introduced, I never engaged in this to dictate how it should have been done. How presumptuous would I have to be to claim I knew a better way of conducting WW2! I simply wanted to voice my opinion that subjecting innocent civilians to fire bombing their cities out of existence is horrific, an horrific experience to subject these individuals that are not engaged fighting you to.

 

I disagree I have a poor idea of war, I regularly talk with a few individuals who have actually commanded this countries armed forces in action, at war, and they don't ridicule my opinion.

You embody what they would call the classic armchair general... kill them all, fire and brimstone, my weapons are bangier than theirs.

I suspect one cousin who made these decisions in real life scenarios for both this country and NATO forces, would advise go softly with your big stick hidden, hearts and minds win over obliteration because the obliterated leave a distinct legacy.

[GarethM]

3 minutes ago, Doug Tait said:

 

Again you missed the point. I don't need to explain myself on a point you've introduced, I never engaged in this to dictate how it should have been done. How presumptuous would I have to be to claim I knew a better way of conducting WW2! I simply wanted to voice my opinion that subjecting innocent civilians to fire bombing their cities out of existence is horrific, an horrific experience to subject these individuals that are not engaged fighting you to.

 

I disagree I have a poor idea of war, I regularly talk with a few individuals who have actually commanded this countries armed forces in action, at war, and they don't ridicule my opinion.

You embody what they would call the classic armchair general... kill them all, fire and brimstone, my weapons are bangier than theirs.

I suspect one cousin who made these decisions in real life scenarios for both this country and NATO forces, would advise go softly with your big stick hidden, hearts and minds win over obliteration because the obliterated leave a distinct legacy.

Because they know they can't argue with a wet lettuce when you offer no alternative except oh how bad it was.

 

It's not a case of armchair general or fire and brimstone, I've done my bit making electronics during Afghanistan for our combined forces.

 

It's not a case of bangier or brimstone, it's a case of civilians prop up a regime regardless of their political persuasion and you topple the regime bottom up.

 

And the knowledge of history also helps, what was done HAD to be done, hearts and minds is utter bs. It might lower your deaths but doesn't work long term.