America's Army Sucks, Fact

In article ,
on Sun, 20 Jun 2004 09:31:59 -0700,
Marc Reeve attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote:

In article ,
on Sat, 5 Jun 2004 10:48:37 +0100,
Keith Willshaw attempted to say .....


Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development

4 types in service
B17
B24
B29
B32 (one wing in the Pacific)

Wow. Had not known the B-32 ever made it into service. Interesting.

One wing with the 20th AF in the Pacific.
Didn't fly many missions.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Tank Fixer wrote in
k.net:

[snip]

Wow. Had not known the B-32 ever made it into service. Interesting.

One wing with the 20th AF in the Pacific.
Didn't fly many missions.

Grand total of 2 IIRC.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

In message , robert
arndt writes
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
The repetitive "If"...the continuing mantra of those who cannot accept the
fact that Germany screwed the pooch in WWII and lost.

Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
winning half the time.

On the other hand, it took on Britain (smaller, less populated, less
resourced) than Germany - and couldn't even knock her out of the war. Of
course the Nazis had all sorts of war-winning devices to beat Britain,
but for some reason chose not to use them.

Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
ensuring postwar victories without any real effort on your part to
develop them yourself... in areas so unimportant as say... aviation
and space technology... just to name two!

Some of the German technology was useful. Some was useless. And some
developments were thoroughly independent of German ideas: for instance,
the Sidewinder missile was a US project that predated the fall of
Germany and the assimilation of technology.

Read a f**king history book Brooks. It was Rommel who inspected the
Atlantic Wall and criticized its lack of any strategic depth. He made
a short but futile attempt to rectify parts of the wall realizing that
the armored reserves would be needed in the first 48 hrs to throw the
invaders back from Normandy. Hitler refused to allow Rommel to move
them closer to the coast.

Well, the superior Nazi intelligence services had calculated that
Normandy was just a diversion and the main landing would be led into the
Pas de Calais by Patton.

Whoops.

And criticizing a man of such dignity that he chose to take poison to
save his family and not dishonor his nation (Germany, not Hitler nor
the Nazi Party) is
repugnant even for a ******* like you. Rommel wanted the war to end
and Hitler dead as Hitler was to him a greater threat to Germany than
the Allies.

Fighting the *******'s war for five years is a really strange way of
showing it. Or did he just change sides when Hitler started losing?

WTF more do you want from the guy? He is a true hero for
mankind, a man of honor respected by friend and foe alike.
You Brooks, OTOH, are a jackass.

Mr Kevin Brooks is often irascible and sometimes downright rude, but he
at least believes in what he says.

Rommel was a good commander, but if he despised his regime as much as
you say... why was he trying to hard to spread it?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
got things more right than wrong.

Keith

And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
the Italians!
One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
to Guderian as well???

The repetitive "If"...the continuing mantra of those who cannot accept
the
fact that Germany screwed the pooch in WWII and lost.

Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
winning half the time.

You have trotted this nonsense out before, and were soundly trounced when
the populations of the US and Germany in 1940 were noted; ISTR Keith was
just the first to take you to task that time. Trying again?

Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
ensuring postwar victories without any real effort on your part to
develop them yourself... in areas so unimportant as say... aviation
and space technology... just to name two!

Blah-blah-blah. More fanciful nonsense from the resident Nazi Lover.

As much as I respect
Rommel, wasn't he the guy who commanded the losing side at Normandy,
having
taken a quick getaway trip back to see his family when the invasion
began
because he thought there was no *way* the allies would attack in that
kind
of weather...?

Read a f**king history book Brooks. It was Rommel who inspected the
Atlantic Wall and criticized its lack of any strategic depth. He made
a short but futile attempt to rectify parts of the wall realizing that
the armored reserves would be needed in the first 48 hrs to throw the
invaders back from Normandy. Hitler refused to allow Rommel to move
them closer to the coast.
And criticizing a man of such dignity that he chose to take poison to
save his family and not dishonor his nation (Germany, not Hitler nor
the Nazi Party) is
repugnant even for a ******* like you. Rommel wanted the war to end
and Hitler dead as Hitler was to him a greater threat to Germany than
the Allies. WTF more do you want from the guy? He is a true hero for
mankind, a man of honor respected by friend and foe alike.
You Brooks, OTOH, are a jackass.

Uhmmm...you did not answer the questions--was it not Rommel who lost at
Normandy, and didn't he choose to absent himself from the A/O right before
the attack commenced?

Thanks for the other kind words...I know it is hard for you to accept, but
yes, The Reich was soundly defeated during the last World War, and it truly
was full of bumbling idiots who helped assure that outcome.

Brooks


Rob

p.s. Can't wait for the two pinheads to chime in too- Keith Willshaw
and Al Minyard.

Brooks


Rob

You have trotted this nonsense out before, and were soundly trounced when
the populations of the US and Germany in 1940 were noted; ISTR Keith was
just the first to take you to task that time. Trying again?

Just curious,but did you add up the populations of
US,UK,USSR,India,Canada,Australia,NZ,
Poland,France and lots of other countries in 3 continents?

The Reich was soundly defeated during the last World War, and it truly
was full of bumbling idiots who helped assure that outcome.

So?
King Leonidas was soundly defeated at Thermoplyae,Confederates during Civil War
and Germans during WWII.
All of them were soundly defeated because of very same reason.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...


So?
King Leonidas was soundly defeated at Thermoplyae,Confederates during
Civil War
and Germans during WWII.
All of them were soundly defeated because of very same reason.



Sure -**** poor judgement.

Leonidas knew about the goat path that would allow bad guys
to get behind him but didnt send reliable sentries to watch it.
DOH !

The Confederates were disorganised and inept, hell
they couldnt agree on ANYTHING, so every army
they fielded was a quartermasters nightmare with a
dozen different types of personal weapon and no
commonality in uniforms. This latter led to Confederates
being all too often shot at by fellow rebs from anuther state.

The Germans in WW2 were so convined of their natural
superiority over the untermencshen that were their enemies
that they didnt merely content themselves with fighting on 2
fronts like their Fathers in WW1 but opened hostilities
in the Mediterranean and Balkans as well as Western Europe
and Russia

Keith

Leonidas knew about the goat path that would allow bad guys
to get behind him but didnt send reliable sentries to watch it.
DOH !

He would be defeated anyway,but a little bit later maybe .


The Confederates were disorganised and inept, hell
they couldnt agree on ANYTHING, so every army
they fielded was a quartermasters nightmare with a
dozen different types of personal weapon and no
commonality in uniforms. This latter led to Confederates

Excellent description plus they faced a 4,5 times bigger opponent.
So why mighty union needed four years to defeat a such incompetent ragtop
opponents and lost more soldiers than incompetent and poor Confederates ?.
BTW,Among confederate foot soldiers there were many sons of southern dynasties
and they together with the sons of less priveledged families fought wars even
without shoes till the bitter end.
Confederates were truly Aristocrats and Knights of North America.

The Germans in WW2 were so convined of their natural
superiority over the untermencshen that were their enemies
that they didnt merely content themselves with fighting on 2
fronts like their Fathers in WW1 but opened hostilities
in the Mediterranean and Balkans

But every time to contain and defeat Germans you needed to create a "Global
Alliance" of countless nations and countries.
As far as I know GB did not need a global alliance to subdue Boers which tells
something about the caliber of Germans.

(Denyav) wrote:

But every time to contain and defeat Germans you needed to create a "Global
Alliance" of countless nations and countries.
As far as I know GB did not need a global alliance to subdue Boers which tells
something about the caliber of Germans.

Rubbish. Soldiers from all over the empire were needed to subdue a
handful of Boers. The only difference between Germans and Boers is
numbers. Boers are top-quality fighters. Tough as nails.

Grantland

Rubbish. Soldiers from all over the empire were needed to subdue a
handful of Boers. The only difference between Germans and Boers is
numbers. Boers are top-quality fighters. Tough as nails.

True,Boer war a foretaste what was coming as Boers,unlike populations british
colonies,were continrntal Europeans.
But still British managed to subdue Boers without help from US,USSR etc.

Soldiers all over empire were obviously present during both world wars.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Leonidas knew about the goat path that would allow bad guys
to get behind him but didnt send reliable sentries to watch it.
DOH !

He would be defeated anyway,but a little bit later maybe .


The Confederates were disorganised and inept, hell
they couldnt agree on ANYTHING, so every army
they fielded was a quartermasters nightmare with a
dozen different types of personal weapon and no
commonality in uniforms. This latter led to Confederates

Excellent description plus they faced a 4,5 times bigger opponent.

In terms of the field army perhaps double

So why mighty union needed four years to defeat a such incompetent ragtop
opponents and lost more soldiers than incompetent and poor Confederates ?.

Because attacking an entrenched enemy with late 19th century
weapons was as difficult as it was to prove in WW1


BTW,Among confederate foot soldiers there were many sons of southern
dynasties
and they together with the sons of less priveledged families fought wars
even
without shoes till the bitter end.
Confederates were truly Aristocrats and Knights of North America.


Not to mention slavemasters

The Germans in WW2 were so convined of their natural
superiority over the untermencshen that were their enemies
that they didnt merely content themselves with fighting on 2
fronts like their Fathers in WW1 but opened hostilities
in the Mediterranean and Balkans

But every time to contain and defeat Germans you needed to create a
"Global
Alliance" of countless nations and countries.

Note that in neither WW1 nor WW2 did Germany fight on its
own. In WW1 it allied with the Austro-Hungarian Empire
and Turkey. In WW2 its allies included Italy, Rumania, Hungary
and Bulgaria

As far as I know GB did not need a global alliance to subdue Boers which
tells
something about the caliber of Germans.


The Boers were rather fewer in number than Germans

Keith