Congrats everyone on 200 posts without too much fire or smoke!

Has anyone mentioned the chute-killing and civilian-straffing 'honourable' Luftwaffe pilots yet during the Poland 1939 campaign (not to mention the bombing of civilian cities way before Rotterdam or London)? Thought it might be worth a mention since some posters here seem to have amnesia when mentioning the Luftwaffe pilots were 'just doing their job'... or is that OK since they didn't do that in the West (apparently?)?

Forgive me if this has been brought up already (I've only read the first few pages) however we must also remember the act of conscription and the penalties for desertion.

My grandfather served as a machine gunner in the Wehrmacht, he’d often mention that if you refused to obey or desert your unit not only did you face a court-marshal (if caught) but there was the possibility of reprisals against family members.


Choice was limited.

Wasn't that their job (the bombing civilian targets anyway)? Even if it is a poorly thought out job - and one done with too much zeal.

That is very interesting. I could especially see this being the case towards the end of the war.

I remember a study that showed that the worst that soldiers generally received for refusing to stay in an einsatzgruppen was being yelled at, humiliated and skipped over for promotion - but refusing to kill civilians is very different from desertion.

It is interesting to think that Nazi Germany - despite everything that was done, recognised this distinction just as we do today.

The bombing of civilian poeple hasn´t begun 1939.
WW I , Iraq 1937 ...............

Any link? I am just curious to read, not suggesting anything.

All major air forces bombed civilians and maybe strafed too. So if you say Germans were bastards please do say Englanders and Americans were bastards too. Or maybe say those who gave such orders were bastards? By the way what you would had done as a pilot of B-17?

Regarding chute shooting there are two valid views. One is chutes should not be shot and the other one is chutes are legal target and there is no laws nor Geneve deals saying the opposite. Were Polish pilots bastards for shooting chutes? I would not say so. They maybe just took things personally and wanted to eliminate the enemy. If you are a soldier, you are risking you life in order to defeat the enemy and protect your people. You are not safe and can't ask to be safe untill you have surrendered.

Or what do you think? In the meanwhile watch this and see what will happen when SoW is released :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8omGCPpoSJo

Make a special note on how Luftwaffe pilots has cleaned the skies of enemies.

My ass.
Both, refusal to obey orders and desertion could be punished by the death penalty.
In both cases your supervisor could do that on the field, without trial.

Have you ever wondered why(in most armies) only officers carry a handgun?
(In Switzerland we call the officers SIG P220: leadership support tool '75)

...and a really awesome weapon! Need me one of those....maybe my chihuahua will start to listen to me?

Splitter

Actually I'm pretty good in doggy education too(Dobermann experience).

Your problem is: This rat has a brain the size of a pea. :mrgreen:

There is not a single case in history, in all of it, in which ppl - civilians, as they are called here, where NOT an utterly important! - startegic and tactical - target(s).

You win, by killing as much as possible of them, preferably in the shortest time possible - keeping the $ost low.

There is not a single army in history, in all of it, which haddnt done so.
Till today....you shot cats and dogs jung and old civilians out of helicoptes, like on a Wolf hunt, sporting. Its called asymetrical war, which means hugh armys kill ppl which hardly got any weapony. We Germans call it: "Mit Kanonen auf Spatzen schiessen". And you got away with it!

Just to see where we are standing today!

As for the question: "Ethics of pilots fighting for the sides in WWII" and wether they had to refuse killing ppl - it doesent make any sense to destingush between German pilots or British, US, Russian etc pilots, cos all of them killed civilians; I'd say, of course they had to stand down of such tasks!
Cos you cant kill for peace, you just keep it!
And killing is bad, periot.

The dilemma we face is, in most cases, esp. in the German case of WWII, your dead if you refuse to do so. The first victoms of the NSDAP were of course Germans. The simply truth is, you have a right to live, if one is threatened you march and kill. And although its a tragedy, no couch potato has the right to point the finger - some 60 years later - and make big, meaningless gestures!

The right question should be : WHAT WOULD HAVE YOU! DONE???:confused:

There is no excuse for shooting pilots on chutes. Bombing cities. Strafing ppl.
Mugging countrys.
And somesuch.

Doesent it make you laugh, to hear your army is killing for peace? Of course all shot dead where bad guys, those are supposed to be shot right?

Its ridiculous, all history books, writen by the winner long after the war(s) are full of self-righteousness, proclaiming, once again!, how they served peace by killing all the other(bad) ppl.

Wouldnt you think, that by now, after all this thousends of years - killing, all "bad" should be dead once and for all???:confused:
Everyone has the right to defend himself or others. Its just a thin line ....

Well, think your yourself.

I for my part dont believe in killing for peace and shoting bad ppl anymore.
We all are free by nature!, its your own government, in the first case, that oppresses ppl. And motivates ppl to kill each other for greed...

S!

Well said Dietger. Human nature has never changed, never will. We are masters when it comes to find ways killing another human being...

Unfortunately, freedom isn't free.
There will be always ppl who try to take it from you.

Is killing for freedom justified? Hell - YES!

Say to the politicians on each side, if you want to have this war fine, but you're going to fight too. You're going to fight along side all of the young sons and daughters who are going to die in this. Do you still want to have this war or do you want to work the problem out somehow.


If only that were possible but it's not.

The last thing I saw where anything was done that way was Henry V and the war between England and France.

Oh also a little later Napoleon was also along on the battlefields. I am certain he enjoyed his trip back from Moscow.

I beg to differ!

As a human being, I believe peace and freedom are free!
And by their very nature easy to keep!

If someone wants to make you "pay" for it, they lie.

Being attacked or helping a poor soul is as well your right. Notwehr-Selfdefense!

But that is, be no means PEACE-KEEPING, cos some morron already broke it! Read Herbert Markuse on it in: "The one dimentional man".
You have to use force. And everyone has the right to do so....after trying to solf the problem peacefully and in mature mannor.

But.

You defend yourself: >>STANDING YOUR OWN GROUND<< sence this phrase literally!

If you find yourself taking other mens live, somewhere far from home - somthing is going utterly wrong. And (!) your probably be infact the "bad" guy, the attacker - NOT the defender.

If materialism, struggle for resource, dominance, simple greed drive the governments around the globe, its of course hard to "keep" peace, LOL since you constantley seek to suppress others!

In the case of WWII, the world had to face Hitler and there for the axis.

But that doesent mean that masskilling by Bristish or US or (whom ever), is better then masskilling by Germans or Japanese!

In regards of todays "asymetrical war(s)": there is no defense against terror!

- other then(real heartfelt) dialog.

Again, its a thin line ....

[QUOTE=Richie;204946]Say to the politicians on each side, if you want to have this war fine, but you're going to fight too. You're going to fight along side all of the young sons and daughters who are going to die in this. Do you still want to have this war or do you want to work the problem out somehow.
QUOTE]

Then America could send in Arnold Schwarzenegger and we all know how that would end!!!!!

:)

Richie, I didnt think I would, or had done, anything better then our forebears.
Its easy to see better and know it all afterwards, thats what I tried to say here.
S!

This is pure psychopathic sentence. (I don't say that Swiss is psychopath, he is just being taken by them)

I suggest you guys to read the book "Political Ponerology" by Andrew M. Lobaczewski. Its not about politics its about psychology and how handful of psychopaths rule our world with the help from the phrases like that.

Hitler was psychopath, but Roosevelt and Stalin was also (from some reason psychologists say that Churchill wasn't). Sadam was also, can you guess for Bush or Obama?

Also, back in 1999 when USAF bombed my country (and killed 5000 civilians), that was just their job. Nothing bad . . .

S!
Yes Flanker an old and sad story. Only good thing: war and weapon make for nice games afterwards LOL :rolleyes:

Your model needs the ppl to be identical, if you were right, communism would work.

In history, freedom was never free.
Also the urge to suppress, to dominate, seems to be in our genetic code, at least for some.

Compare an chipmunk family or a wolf pack.

Maybe war is just part of our evolution. ;)

Funny, I dont know of any free country which achieved this status without bloodshed.
Please explain.

Or, maybe wee should discuss the term "free".
The Taliban f.i. probably consider their system very free(and right).
It all lies in the eye of the beholder.

Btw: I am not a psychopath for sure, but a Machiavellian maybe.

You're saying that ALL wars have been won by killing as many civilians as possible? Obviously that's incorrect.

Well all sides killed civilians, but not all pilots did. And I think there are reasons to distinguish between aggressors and defenders in different conflicts.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree again. Shooting at a madman that's wandering through the streets killing civilians is not a bad thing to do. And there can be occasions when peace will be reached more quickly by killing.

I think I probably agree with your underlying point that it's all too easy for us to judge when we really have no idea about a lot of these things, and it's unfair to judge a lot of it from our armchairs - but we do have the right to judge, that's the point about freedom.

That's just as hard to answer - again all to easy to swagger and say what we'd have done, but until we're put in that position we can't always be sure.

As I've written enough in the other thread, I disagree. And fortunately, so did the allied commanders.

I agree that history is generally distorted by those that have won - but in recent wars around the world, the losers are often equally able to write history books on the subject. If talking about WWII, the Germans are totally free to write history books on it.

There's one born every minute.

Lol, you think Peace is easy to keep? There's never been peace in the world, it can't be that easy. The saying that freedom isn't free doesn't mean that you should have to pay for it, it just means that it's not easy to keep freedom and it does cost you. So when the Polish were free before WWII, and Germany invaded, were the Poles supposed to say 'freedom is free, you lie, please leave'? Obviously they wanted freedom, and to get it they'd have to pay in the form of a war.

There are plenty of wars where I agree with you there, but it is also possible that the poor soul that you're helping is a long way from home. For example, you agree it was right of the Americans to help in Europe in WWII I take it?

Terrorism is certainly not easy to defend against, but are there any examples in history where 'real heartfelt dialog' has worked against terror?

With this type of attitude, why don't you Euro's stop trying to justify the actions of your ancestors by dragging the USA into the conversation all the time. Their is a price for freedom.

Look at the terrible past actions of your own European countries before you try to drag the actions of the USA down to that level. The actions of the US government do not even come close to the atrocities, death, destruction and sheer numbers of killed caused by European countries throughout their history. Unfortunately we were dragged into your dirty business twice in the past century, but at least we were able to stop a third world war. Without the actions of the "terrible" USA you would have all destroyed yourselves (and the world) long ago.

It is because of our money that you are able to sit in relative safety in your homes and even begin to give biased and propaganda opinions about the actions of the USA.

It's only because the USA is so young. You're pretty much all Europeans (if you are white at least) so they were your ancestors too.

Nobody in the western world can claim that they don't have blood on thier hands somewhere along the line.

As for your money.. where did that all come from?

Blimey. I think you should have a nice cup of coffee Shark. Dietger didn't even pick on the US did he? And if he did, what's that got to do with everone else in Europe? Your comments are a bit out of line IMO.

Exactly - except there's no blood on my hands, I won't take responsibility for my ancestors and I don't expect anyone else to take responsibilty or blame for theirs.

Shark, that's too direct and too vehement. Not wrong, just....harsh.

In fairness, I think a lot of Europeans appreciate the US as allies just as we appreciate them. But I do think the anti-US and socialist crowds are growing. We could argue about why, but it wouldn't change the fact.

A lot of Americans felt that way prior to 9/11 too. That tragic event woke up some of them (some are slipping back into their old thought processes now though). Europeans didn't have a 9/11 and have no idea how "personal" our war on terror is to most of us. Many are "with us" but can't appreciate the depth of the hurt and anger....I guess we can't expect them to. It is hard for them to comprehend what 9+ years of foiled attacks here are worth to us.

They say we torture and thus are evil. Most have no idea that three terrorists have been waterboarded and that those interrogations account for more than 50% of our information on Al Qaeda. As for the practice itself, I have gone through it and it's terrible but has no lasting effects.

It's hard people outside of the US to understand we are fighting a group of radicals who would kill us all "over there" rather than "over here". This is much like WWII to us in that respect. We were late to this party too.

Anyway, Shark, I am sure you will get blasted for your comments. I probably will too. That's sad but....does it really matter?

Splitter

i wish we would pull all of our troops and expense out as fast as possible

You're spot on. I live right here right now. If we all had to pay for our ancestors crimes we'd all be in prison for something.

@ theshark : A load of stuff that a bunch of long dead people did a long time ago has nothing to do with the ethics of world war 2 pilots.. And to roll out the 'we saved your asses' routine is also completley idiotic.

Sure, the governments in power aprreciate us (I'm not sure about the "man on the street") but also use us as the "punching bag" to deflect from their own problems. This goes on all the time in the Euro media and the masses fall for it.

Splitter-it doesn't matter what others think. Sometimes the present generations of Euro's need to be reminded of their own history before they obsess with ours.

Lol u just came and kill stealed twice :lol:

And remember Europe has been a mess. In WW1 it was Germany who helped Finland to get independence. In WW2 it was Germany who helped Finland to maintain independence. How did USA help Finland? Did you knew Finland had plans to get a German prince as king of Finland? I bet you did not.

Lol? Without USA I wonder would there be this "war against terrorism" at all :roll:

Actually, it was both.

They do. But people here criticise the British government for sending our troops to war to 'police the world', not just yours.

What are you talking about? Britain has had a lot more than 9 years of terrorist attacks - more than the 39 years I've been here. But the IRA that were blowing up parts of Britain for decades seemed to get less funding from the US after 9/11. Every cloud.

What utter nonsense. Firstly, these 3 alleged 'terrorists': One has never been charged with a crime, the second was charged but had the charges dropped, and the third has been charged but has not been found guilty. And like my country, you're innocent until proven guilty right? And 50% of your information? Again that is utter nonsense. If waterboarding was legal, and proving so successful in preventing terrorist attacks, why on earth did the US only waterboard 3 people - that would be daft. The fact is that people under torture will admit to anything and say anything to make it stop. As someone that's gone through it you must know that the other ways you gather information is much more successful.

Firstly, that doesn't mean it's not torture, and secondly, you haven't gone through the same thing unless you were a prisoner, because someone like a CIA member saying 'yep, I'm ready for it, lets see how I do' knows that they're not going to die, and that if something did go wrong they'd have the best medical care to save them. That's different to someone that's been a prisoner for years, without the human rights to see a lawyer, who's been told that no one knows they even exist and no one will know if they die today. Re "They say we torture and thus are evil." You don't like others making sweeping accusations about the US, but you're happy to make those sweeping accusations about others. I don't think the US are evil, far from it. But I do think that when you appoint yourself as world police, you need to get your shop in order and stand up to scrutiny. And it seems your president agrees with me. Do you realise how easy you make it for fundamentalist to recruit when you condone torture yourselves?

So you think we don't understand? How can you be so insular, we're fighting the same people as you.

You feel so hard done by, the US being criticised all the time. I didn't even see Dietger criticising the US (maybe he did, but I didn't see it). But I'm picking you up on your comments not because it's about the US, and not because I have any ill feelings towards the US, but because your comments are nonsense.

So you feel unappreciated by your Euro allies. You clearly don't know what the people over here think. The British media (I can't speak for the rest of Europe) are very critical of both Britain and the US going to war without any clear goal or reason, you're not picked on over here. Elements of the US media are also pretty critical of some of your country's actions.

Where do your ancestors come from? Do you really think that the rest of world is bad, and that the US are the only good people, constantly helping everyone out but not getting thanked for it? As Ed Rooney would say, wake up and smell the coffee.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I haven't seen in ages anything like that. The first sentence says it all about USA. With the exception in that USA is like angry over sensitive teenager (we Euros have history) bully boy :lol: So, It doesn't matter what you talk about USA, as long as you talk what USA wants to hear :lol:

I don't agree with Shark and Splitter, but don't confuse them with the whole of the USA.

I wont. I know good Americans. They just live live in China :lol:

Seriously, this is very interesting discussion again. I may or may not do some constructive postings later.

And remember USA people, I don't hate you. In general I don't hate people no matter of the nationality.

In general! So you're saying there are some people you hate because of their nationality. My dreams of world peace seem so distant.

Trigaaaar, I am not putting you in with moilami. He likes to stir the pot and try to cause anger. He thinks he's just a little smarter than you and me.

Edited by Author because it's like trying to explain Mozart or to the deaf.

Splitter

Hey man we are the USA:grin: You have to realize that most of us stand up for our country as much as you do yours.

I am in a forum about a WW2 game that I am really looking forward to. Threads will start about ethics in WW2 that eventually get into helicopters killing civi's or illegal wars and torture and I'm just floored.

Every conversation with a European nowadays leads to the war in Afghanistan and I just do not understand it. If I was in a forum about current events, great , let's mix it up. I just don't get the obsession with bad-mouthing/making fun of the USA:confused: Isn't there enough going on across the pond to talk about:grin:

You do realize you'll never win this war? Just look at the topography and the surrounding countries.
It's impossible.
So, unless you "clean" the whole region with gamma rays, this war is just a waste of lives and money.

Assuming it is so....what is your answer to the problems?

Splitter

We as a species are hopeless...we will never get along...there will never be peace...and as usual we will destroy everything we touch...


Humans are the worst thing that ever happend to this beautiful planet.

:confused:Misconception :confused:

Is what you read into a sentence, not meant or writen.
So, some here read things into texts and postings.
I understand, some ppl feel threatened or confused - you hear/understand what you want to. Not, what actually is written.
It may help to stop watching TV and start thinking for yourself ....
(no offense)

As for my question: "What would I've done on their part?" its really not a complicated thing. You dont have to swagger about the topic, just to be (silently) honest to yourself. So, since you then!, know where you stand, you may judge others, measured on what they've done or dont. It also is helpfull, to look at todays pressing matters and our relation and responsibility in this regard. Mostlikely, our forbears thought and felt the same!

Triggaaar, your questions about my intentions are already answered in my previous postings. I think I made myself very clear.

-----------













@swiss (or anyone interested)



<Or, maybe wee should discuss the term "free".>

swiss, yes!
What is freedom for you? And how you think, you keep it?

I for my part believe, the matter is closely related to concepts like: peace , responsibility , honesty


S!

Maybe we should discuss the problem before we try to find a solution.

-Israel is a problem, as this conflict fuels the fundamentalist recruiting efforts.
Finding a solution here is easy, however you can't be sure the results are the ones we hope for.

-The spread of Islam is another problem.
The solution here is even easier, it could mean we give up some fundamental freedom of the western society.
> close the gate for those F***s
> zero tolerance must be counteracted with zero tolerance - i.e. instead of giving them all the times, maybe we should try it the other way around; taking some of their freedoms. [this is what we try in Switzerland]

Back to Afghanistan, even if this country was taliban free, the surrounding countries all full of them.
You want to fight the remaining countries, one by one? Enjoy.

We should rather find a way take them their reason to exist.


BTW: Dietger: I am not going to discuss it, I already wrote there is only a personal definition of freedom, not a universal one.




Don't worry about the planet, this piece of rock will be here for eternity, with or without us. ;)

I also think war is a vital part of our evolution, so I don't share this peace, unity, "it's small, small world dadadidada" attitude.

Actually, I don't stand up for my country as much as you, because I know my country does things it shouldn't. If someone say on a forum that my country shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq the second time, I'll agree with them - the people here didn't want us to go to war, it was done for political reasons (like backing up our allies, not that you appreciate it). Although I'll probably also point out that those countries against going to war, like France and Russia, had motives as equally out of place as ours (oil).

Don't be. Think of how many non war forum arguements that get out of hand and eventually end with someone being accused of being Hitler. Think how annoying that must be for the Germans and Austrians - but how often do they jump in and complain? If someone brings up the USA and it's not relevant, either ignore it or just say it's irrelevant. I certainly didn't bring it up, I responded to posts from you and Splitter, because you brought the Europeans up, chucking us all into one basket as if we don't see the US as allies. I appreciate that you get frustrated with the criticism the US gets, but as I've told you before, you have to rise above it. Just disagree, but don't become as bad as them by slagging off a whole continent. And also do appreciate that some criticism may be deserved, we don't have to defend everything our countries do.

You do realise that no matter what we humans do, this planet will be fine. There are cataclismic events every few million years, ice ages every few thousand. Species were going extinct long before we got here, and it's not like the other species on this planet are more caring than us, or able to live in harmony - they all kill each other too.

Haha, what I was saying I don't even hate (OMG!) Iraqies of Afghan people because of their nationality :shock: Would be just too stupid to do.

Now that Europe is dragged into Americas dirty business in the middle east, it would be nice if you can stop the chest beating, because the USA isnt in a position to do that.
Welcome into the 21th century.

Simply put, its a new world out there. Whatever effects Europe, effects the USA and effects Asia. We all depend on each other. Our economies are much more fragile in the digital age. Chest beating and talking xxxx is simply stupid, if one of us falls we're all in trouble.

Interesting.

Is this US chest beating or frustration at European pacifism?

It's very clear from the posts that a bunch of people here believe it is never right to fight. Or that one should only fight on their own territory. And that diplomacy works with fanatics.

The world you live in is better than mine. I respect your idealism, please forgive my realism.

I guess this pacifist feeling is left over from fighting two large sale wars in the past century. Neville would be proud. Peace at any cost is noble.

Ok, we get it.

My prediction: When a major terrorist attack occurs in Europe (Spain and England are the most probable targets), the peace protests will break out within 48 hours. Critics will blame the USA for driving the terrorists to their actions.

Oh, we'll sympathize with your plight (been there). Heck, we'll even send aid and help you rebuild. We'll even offer our assistance in going to get the perpetrators or those that enabled them. Britain will be on a war footing, most of the rest of Europe will want to analyze and negotiate. The UN will pass resolutions condemning the terrorists and....nothing.

Splitter

What are you talking about, there have been major terrorist attacks in Spain and England :confused:

And who should you be fighting, terrorists are often people living in a western country preparing an attack in their own neighbourhood
You cant stop that bombing afghan caves...

But why are people plotting? You can kill individuals, destroy towns anhilate an entire region but defeating an 'idea' is impossible. The state of Israel was borne from 'terrorism' with acts of terrorism plotted and carried out not least against the British Army. 'Terrorism' is a tactical strategy to a political end. Israeli, IRA, Basque separists, French Resistance, Al-Quaeda, Taliban, etc use subversive tacitcs that we brand as 'terrorism' and essentially for the same reasons.
The West should and must do more to give Palestine its freedom and, make no mistake, the Taliban will be offered some political control over Afghanistan. It is already recognised that we cannot defeat them militarily but to continue the hostility and try to force them into the political arena.

Come on now...the PLO had it's chance when Clinton was in office with the Oslo peace accords. So close...it is really a shame. Remember the West does support Palestine. Also remember that the USA did not create Israel or be the cause of it's creation either;)

What you have stated sounds a lot like appeasement to me! Did you not learn from the history of Europe in the 1930's??:!::!: The USA sure did and that is why we land up being the world's policeman:-)

So you would advocate for capitulation.

I would say it is a fallacy that an "idea" cannot be beaten. The superiority of the Aryan race was an idea that was defeated. The superiority of the Japanese people and their "destiny" to rule Asia was an idea that was defeated. "Death to non believers" is an idea that can be defeated.

Thank you for your views on Israel, they are telling. Thank you also for legitimizing the use of terror tactics as a logical means to an end. Again, that is telling. The moral equivalencies you see are chilling, but I thank you for your honesty.

BTW, the Palestinians will never have a homeland that would satisfy those who hate Israel. The only solution that would satisfy people of that mind would be to wipe out Israel....hmmmm....sounds chillingly familiar. As long as Israel exists (and let's face it, that means as long as the Jews have a homeland, right?) the Palestinians will continue to be used as pawns by those who would seek to destroy Israel and, thus, the Jews.

Or....we all make such a mindset untenable.

Splitter

You really need to study the facts more.

Eugenics and racial superiority was a tenant of National Socialism.

The issue in Japan was the rise of Militarism. In particular the principle that civilians had no right interfering in military affairs. There was also the belief that if a country/culture had the strongest army that was proof that the morals and philosophy of that country were superior.

They are quite different.

Whilst often accused of Fascism, of the two, the 21st century United States is far closer to the views of Japanese Militarism than it is to National Socialism.

No Galway, apparently you need to study the facts more. Or take the blinders off. I'm not sure which prompted your response, you are usually not like that. You know that eugenics and racism were not exclusive to the Nazis. Heck, I am sure you are itching to point out how the US sent Japanese to concentration camps (without the torture, starvation, ovens, and gas chambers but still, admittedly, racist).

First hint is chancorro. A very similar term was used by the Nazis. I think we could agree that racism was practiced by the Nazis leading up to and during WWII, yes?

This term and a perversion of the practice of Shinto (normally a very peaceful religion) led to the atrocities committed by the Japanese military. These atrocities were every bit as sickening as what was done in the Nazi concentration camps.

Now....you call it militarism. It was used and encouraged by the military, but the bottom line is that it was a belief in racial superiority. It was a view that the Japanese were superior as a race and anything done to the the lesser races was fine because they were "chancorro". The Japanese were created by the Sun Goddess (or God, I forget which). I am fairly sure that is symbolized by the rising sun, but don't quote me on it.

Your last barb made me lol. (c'mon, you're better than that)

Splitter

You really believe that?
(Well, maybe, I'll get to it later)


Maybe - maybe not. I think it's worth a try.
There two problems which have to be solved.
1st:
Stop building Jewish construction on conquered land.
(If you did that my country I'd bomb you too)
http://www.leedspsc.org.uk/?page_id=23


2nd:
Solve economical problems.
If you let them develop some level of prosperity, their interest to fight the Jews next door will decrease too.
(Yes I now, the Palestinians, and Israelis, involved in the back market will actually fight this idea)
- Make sure they get a working trading harbor
- Give them access to an airport, maybe build them a small one
- a "land bridge" to the gaza strip wouldn't hurt either


And: Make sure they learn to read and write. illiterates are way easier to manipulate than ppl who can fall back to different sources of information.
First ones have to believe all the crap you tell them.
This last point would also serve in Afghanistan and Afrika. In Afghanistan they are at least trying.
This way, maybe, you can also fight the "death to infidels" ideology.


Seriously, you really think they are stockpiling "chemical, biological, or radioactive weapons" in their f***ing caves?


If you really want to cut their resources, you'll have to stop using oil, that's where the big money comes from. The opium in Afghanistan probably can only finance their domestic operations.

We see, we cant cut their money flow off, concerning their ABC weapons you'll have to rely on intel.
(waterboarding is ok as far as I am concerned, personally I'd go even further)

You have finally realized there is nothing much you can do against modern querilla warfare? It took long. I bet it would had helped if you first asked Germans about French underground movement and RAF, Spanish about ETA, Italians about Mafia, British about IRA, and Israelis about PLO.

You Americans have this problem that you think you can just declare a war and get what you want. However you failed in War against drugs, you failed in Vietnam, and you fail in Afghanistan and Iraq.

No, this is not "hindsight". I have said this 10 years ago. I said also it was anyway clever move by you to begin to cry for help by stating "if you are not with us, you are against us" or whatever bullshit it was. Governments around Europe felt the need to show how "terrorism is not tolerated" in addition to begin to be colonialism wannabees in the name of "international co-operation". However anyone who has read Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern knew modern querilla warfare would move to Europe as a result, and therefore EU should not participate on a fight it can't even engage with conventional warfare.

So, you got the oil and we got the xxxx. Things went as planned. Bush also got his second season as your president, weapon companies and military got more money and relevant shareholders become richer. Talk about who won the war. But who lost the war? Common people around Europe, USA, Iraq, and Afghanistan, to name a few. Yeah, that is you.

I personally can’t see this thread leading anywhere positive. It is has gone off topic and degenerated into something nasty. I think it should be locked.

That being said, I work on a daily basis with adolescents, many who come from refugee backgrounds (from all over the world). Some of these children come from families that fled the atrocities inflicted upon the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein. In the last year or so there have been a couple of these families that have gained the confidence to return to their homeland and rejoin their people.

If anyone is the winner from the Iraqi conflict it is people like these families.

Was the conflict in Iraq worth it? Only time will tell.

Would it have been better for the Coalition to have done nothing? I doubt it. Hussein was a butcher! http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

The worst thing that could possibly happen for Iraq would be for the Coalition to pull out before the Iraqi Government is able to maintain law and order.

With the deadline for the US withdrawal of its troops fast approaching, it will be interesting to see in two years time if the US is going to be condemned for leaving Iraq too early!

I never mentioned the USA nor did I advocate the use of terrorism in my post. I have poltical views but I don't believe forums are for discussing complex political issues. However, what I will say is that 'terrorist' acts are, and will continue to be carried out, in the absence of a 'conventional' military option or a recognised political platform.

We are told to be worried of a new and equally subversive 'terrorist' threat - 'Cyber Terrorism'! Iran, China, the USA, WIKI Leaks, etc, either engaging in or being victims.

So, who are these terrorists? Who are they attacking and why?
Simple questions but answering them is riddled with complexities brought about by the lies, popular misconceptions and political agendas of all involved.

You have to address the 'causes' that radicalise people and not confuse poltical agenda's with the basic instincts of self determination and its this idea that you cannot change or destroy. Rightly or wrongly, the current state of affairs in Palestine, the wests involvement in the Middle East has radicalised many Muslims - that is the point I am making and most accept that point of view.

Poltical agenda's are fluid and complex- the Taliban along with the Mujahadeen were given arms and miltary support when Russia invaded Afghanistan, Saddam HUssein was supported as 'our son of a bitch' when he engaged in war against Iran..........there are two edges to every sword and which edge you consider the most threatening depends on........?

Is Wikileaks now considered to be a "terrorist organization" :lol: :lol: :lol:

This is going to be absurd par excellence, and I can say I have already laughed very big time as I watched some news about the panic on different governments regarding Wikileaks. They did not even know what exactly was leaked - yet panicked totally. 'nuff said.

Anyway for me it is all the same what we discuss here. I could not care less because nothing will change for good as a result.

Alright, as my last words I say "the coalition" would had got better results in Iraq by educating 1000 Iraquese women in Universities in USA, Sweden, and Finland in feminist studies and after that sending them back to Iraq :lol: :lol: :lol:

And as funny and ridiculous as that may sound, there is no reasonable doubts about it being by far much bigger win for the world than this "war against terrorism" xxxx.

(Note I totally deny being a feminist.)


Edit: Some may not get the strategy so I explain. The 1000 iraquese feminists would start a change where at first they would get free marriages for women. After that men would have to begin to please women in islamic countries, which would lead men begin to reinterpret the Koran in a way women want. The rest would be history.

Edit: Some may argue it is against Geneve rules of "fair play" and comparable to terrorism to send 1000 feminists to Iraq, but oh well, don't blame me, I am just specialized in creative solutions and someone asked for better solutions :lol:

Or those 1000 Iraquese women would be jailed or killed when criticising the Koran in Iraq. I dont think Islam would modernize anywhere in the near future in the Middle East, even in my home country they wont do so, the most that is.

No they would not. Remember I talked about University quality feminist studies students. They would not cross the line. Or maybe some would but it would make the rest of the "sisters" even more dedicated and careful.

Going so softly into the Islamic culture just isnt going to help in a short while, will take at least a 100 years if you slowly and carefully want the Islam to modernize that way.

I don't really care about the people who are following the Islam in the middle east in the way they do it, let them be, the only thing that annoys me that they wont change in my country, but that has little to do with Ethics of Pilots during WW2 isnt it?

Where were we, oh yeah, shooting shutes, right, if my superior would have forbidden me to do so I wouldn't shoot anyone on a shute, clear. If however my superior allows it, my instinct would rise up and say to me, if he lands walks back to base and kills you the other day, it would be better to end his life, or shoot off both arms so he cant fly any more, but that would be too cruel. If however the pilot you just shot down was clearly over your lines I think the ground troops would enjoy his presence by putting him in jail.

By the way I have been thinking.

Could it be possible that I could fly with your squadron in Ostfront? I have a squadron though, but I would like to contribute in your efforts. It could happen that one other pilot from my current squadron could come help too.

Same here. But then I guess you knew that :)

Please check your facts as to where most Middle East oil goes to. If we were trying to control the ME oilfields, how come the price of fuel in the USA has doubled? How come we still pay for Iraqi oil?

You didn't even got oil then? What a fail :lol:

Western governments don't get the oil, but the huge oil contracts go to western companies, and corrupt officials (*cough* bush) get massive payouts. The $millions make it easier for people like Blair and Bush to sleep and forget about the soldiers they've sacrificed for their greed.

I wish SoW would be released soon so Chute Shooters Club could do some Friday Night Specials :lol: SoW hopefully brings a new generation of not so emo pilots. Though I still guess how it goes in TS.

- omg they picked our server
- woot
- chute shooters
- lol i pwn them

<time passes and chute shooting happens>

- omg
- nooooo
- kick and ban them!!!


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I know I will be hated because of this, but it is ok :lol: Virtual Air Warfare needs some more passion and less "yay we all are friends k". It is supposed to be war and not some tea and bisquit party.


Edit: Seriously, this is simulation. I would expect Japanese to chute shoot me, if that happened in real for American pilots. I fly only for Axis though now, but in SoW I hope Polish squadrons will chute shoot me, if they did that in real. Will be more entertaining to watch what happens after I am forced to bailout.

What's the difference between a "corrupt" western corporations or a state run dictatorship "corrupt" corporation?

The USA is not large/rich enough so our president (Bush) attacked Iraq in order to make billions of dollars and settle down on his ranch and write a book? And Blair joined along to gain wealth also? :o Do you realize how foolish your conspiracy theories actually sound? Don't you think there are easier ways for a corporation or president for that matter, to make billions of dollars instead of going to war?

That's the American way I'm afraid:-) The evil country that we are:evil::evil:

Lol, I will someday travel in America and talk with people...just to see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4FXHunHMw

:lol:

Seriously, I will see someday "real America" and meet real American people.

Sorry, not all American women look like that :). Sadly, I don't even have to watch the video to remember that there is this one gal in there in a blue bikini, dark Rayban shades....yeah, when I was young I saw it a few times <cough>.

Apparently Bush was really bad at the whole making money in war thing because his net worth is about $25 million. Of course, that's before his number one selling book. Now, that's comfortable, even very wealthy. But....it pales in comparison to many past presidents.

To believe that presidents go to war for money, you have to believe that:
1) they are evil. You must bring yourself to believe that they are eager to sacrifice lives for money, even American lives ('cause wouldn't it make sense that, given their evilness, they only value American lives?).
2) they are really bad at turning a profit because we always end up spending a lot more than we take in.

Feminism: Actually, over 2 million little girls are now in school in Afghanistan. They were prohibited from being educated under the Taliban. I think the Afghan constitution even calls for 25% of the governing body to be female. It would be hard for anyone to put that genie back the bottle (thank goodness).

PS...I am not a huge Bush fan. I have read his book and I am still not a huge fan. But now I understand why he made some of the decisions he did. If you have an opinion on the wars, you should read what the source has to say and then decide for yourself.

Splitter

Lol I know. And I am not looking for that kind of girls. I would have nothing in common with them and they are uninteresting except as art of the nature, that is in pictures.

Lol Bush has published a book? I wonder who wrote it for him :lol: Anyway it is a must to read.

(I don't by the way argue with you about politics. I have got enough of it. Will just soon continue conquering France with Bf 109. I wonder by the way what are the differences between FW-190 and Bf 109 in IL-2 the game? Should start a thread for that and call for pilot opinions. I am rather undecided between those two planes.)

Not for defense companies.

It also serves all kind of government programs.

If you have ever served, maybe you had the chance to check an inventory list.
All of the sudden, a standard toilet seat worth $20, is worth $150.
Where does this money go?

Oh, btw, you did get the oil, or at least some of it:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html



talk about fringe benefits, lol

Oh my....Lots of differences. With the early 109s up to the G2s if you know how to fly them well you can dogfight with almost anything. I've made a Spitfire IX stall into the sea with an F4 in a turning fight and I've done the same thing with P-40s. On the other had Spitfire Vs are very very hard. An F4 is much faster than a Spitfire V, with your rads closed and downward trim you can almost get 500 kms out of her. But I wouldn't turn with a V. With a 190 you always have full control in dives at high speed making it an ultimate zoomer boomer. 190s take a long time to over heat also but then so to early 109s especially Daimler Benz 601s. One thing that needs to be corrected in IL-2 is the speed of the K4. It should be faster than a 51. That would be a problem in some missions for the Allies LOL. Late model 109s aren't bad but they are more difficult. They are heavier and need more attention. They aren't fast at all at ground level..only on boost. You need to get 5, 6 k then you start to move. I would take a G6/AS, G-10, G14/AS. The only thing you'll have problems with in a dogfight is the Spitfire. 51s are always a problem until he's dumb enough to dogfight. If the 109 pilot knows his 109 the 51 won't win. I don't really fly 190s at all but the early ones can dogfight if you know them well. I liked the A6. If you dive a 109 fast and you have to make a turn to shoot forget it. Like the books say it does get awful stiff. You can dive it faster than most people think though and it has great exhileration in the dive. Franz Stigler in interviews was saying all of this stuff about 109s wings flying off under the slightest stress was nonsense. Sure don't dive with a P-47 that thing is built like a tiger tank. Last thoughts are simple.. They are tricky and need time to master but both are great aeroplanes.

wrong thread?

Ethics?...moilami was wondering the difference between the two. A 109 and 190?

lol, he was "rich" before he entered office. As was Clinton and as is Obama.

BTW, the whole "war for money" thing must also apply to Obama because we are still there and even doing a troop surge in Afghanistan. Now, I guess since Obama is only worth about $10 million, he needs the money too :).

Splitter

Ok thanks, I think I will fly tens of missions with each Bf 109 variant before beginning to study 190.

I don't shoot chutes in IL2. You don't get anything for it and it's annoying for the other players - and it's against the rules in the servers I use. I a real war you do get something for it, you save the lives of real people on your side.

Choice of drink?

It's not about how wealthy a country is, it's about the leaders. Bush, for example, was a fine puppet, put into power by very wealthy industry men, who need their slice. Blair proposed to our MPs that the oil revenues be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN, and that the UK should get a Security Council Resolution guarantying the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Good idea we'd think, but did that happen? Hell no! Instead the US and UK sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Now the US and UK don't actually take the oil, but they have been trying to force Iraq into agreeing 30 year deals with our oil companies, from which there will kick backs.

Do I believe that Bush would take his country to war solely for money - no. Bush and Blair are somewhat religious warmongers, believing their cause. They took us to war on the premise of eradicating WOMD, but they had no proof that there were any such weapons or the ability to produce them. So what exactly did they take us to war for?

Oh go on, this'll be good - what's his latest reason for sending us to war? (and please don't take that as anti US, I blame my own PM as much as Bush, and as posted earlier the reasons for France and Russia oppossing the war was just as bad IMO).

I don't want to quote the book directly, but here are a few reasons he gives as I recall (make up you own mind about them):

In 1999 and 2000 Saddam's regime had fired 700 times on aircraft patrolling the UN sanctioned "no fly zone".
Saddam had already invaded two of his neighbors.
He had violated 16 UN sanctions.
He paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
He had issued a statement praising the 9/11 attacks.
He protected Abu Nidal in Iraq.
He tried to assassinate a former US president (turns out it was Bush I).
He had tortured his people and dumped tens of thousands into mass graves.
He had used WMD's on both his own people (about 5000 dead Kurds in one incident I remember vividly) and on Iran.
Diplomacy had failed, he was still not working with UN inspectors and even kicked them out.
Saddam had also passed on an offer to go into exile with a boat load of money put up by another Middle East country whom I cannot remember.

Lastly, and most controversial, was WMD's. Nearly every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMD's. I think what Bush wrote was something along the lines of, "No one was lying, we were all just wrong".

Here is a publicized excerpt from a presidential address:

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

...

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

Oh wait....that was Bill Clinton in December of '98. This speech was made after he gave the order for airstrikes on Iraqi WMD facilities. Yes, the Brits joined in the operation.

But yeah, Bush took us to war for oil :).

Don't take my word for anything, reading the book will allow you to decide for yourself.

Splitter

.....bit too old for fairy stories........but if you like them.........OK by me!

s~ :)

Defense industries make much more by selling there goods to other countries. They can tack on training costs, etc. I have worked for the evil military complex and the reason why so much of the military goods cost so much is simply a supply and demand issue. Because the military is a government run organization, the powers that be cannot just take a toilet seat off the shelf. They must design a complete new one, with special military options and then they order 500. That toilet seat at the store was made in quantities of 10,000 or more and it's a simple cost per unit issue. Happens all the time...no conspiracy here.

We still "buy" Iraqi oil, we should have taken over their oil industry and sent the oil home for free to pay for ther war. We could even give the Europeans a discount:)

Bush was more in line with domestic matters and was probably over his head when 9/11 happened. He did what he thought best and the country was with him up to a point. Obama is the same, he probably has more book smart than Bush (don't really know as Obama is hiding his records) but has no foreign affairs or real leadership credentials....he is the one to be afraid of.

That would be correct if it was so.
The products I'm talking about are standard ones you could buy everywhere.
standard(!) toilet seat, or even a normal ($40!) 500gr hammer.

And yes, I know of those special gov. needs: The Swiss felt need for their F18 to have a Titanium frame for prolonged service use.

I mean, just a thought, the F18 is made for carrier use - but the Swiss still think the cell is too weak?
wtf.

I am pobably wrong, but don't they earmark sections of autobarns/major roads for use as airfields as part of their contingency plans? This would require a fairly robust airframe. I wonder if they use arrestor wires for 'short' strips ?

Also when operating in very mountainous area having dual engines would be an advantage.


One of my friend was working as a fireman foir the RAAF many years ago. One of our F/A-18's wen down in the outback and he was one of the men sent to recover the plane. They needed to separate one of the rudders from the plane which are held by titanium hinges so they got the 'Jaws of life' fromthe back of the firetruck and tried to cut the hinge. Unfortunately the hinge remained intact but the sheers of the jaws of life splayed open, destroying the tool. Titanium is tough stuff!
Cheers

Governments overpay for normal items all the time. This is not a military supplier only issue. Add in union contracts and the prices of items sold and installed by the government run 5 to 10 times the going rate...I know , I deal with this all the time. I don't know how you Euros can get anything done at a fair price:grin:

My whole point is that a President of the USA and his "military establishment buddies" have a whole range of ways to make money without creating a fake war in Iraq and then not keeping the oil for ourselves. If they were smart enough to carry this out and made up the WMD issue don't you think they would realize after we took over the country no weapons would be found. If they were that evil wouldn't they have created some fake storage facility with Iraqi WMD's?:grin:

Let me get this straight>>>>>>>The USA goes through this whole conspiracy to take over oil because of a fake WMD issue and then "forgets" to plant fake WMD's in the country and then "forgets" to get the free oil. All this to give some oil/military suppliers some government contracts????? See how silly this sounds:-P

Didn't know that about the titanium F-18's...good info.

I don't know how the Swiss do it, but a government spec on something as simple as a switch or a desk can take up several pages. And in most instances, a contractor must charge the government less than its' largest commercial clients. When I sell to the government, I am usually making 10% gross profit, about half what I make off of any commercial entity.

Many times when you see these inflated prices the government pays, they were part of a package deal. Example: a contractor is tasked with keeping a machine running. The machine has 1,000 parts. The contractor bids $100,000 for the job. So each part costs $100 on average and that's what the government pays per part. Now, the part may actually cost $3,000 or it might cost $5 individually to the contractor, but the government is billed at the average cost of $100 per item.

The waste in government really comes from the 12 agencies that wrote the spec for each part. In each agency the spec was reviewed by dozens of people. They all have their opinions and they all write in their own little part of the spec. In the end, that little switch that cost the manufacturer $3 to make costs the government $20 to procure in quantity, more if they buy one or two.

I swear that government employees must get paid by the pound of paperwork they generate.

Oh....and once the spec is all but written, then the government does an environmental impact study on the switch lol.

No business could operate the way the government does.

Splitter

Tell me...
We had a gov. Contract too, we made about 15% instead of >33%.
But we wanted the contract come hell or high water. Of course there was also a perspective for future contracts(which would more than make up for the discount) from other agencies and some media coverage.
It worked. :)



It gets really funny when they change the specs although they are already field testing the product.
One of those example is was the swiss development of the P16 Fighter-Bomber.
It was doomed - the wing however saw later use in the Learjet.
http://www.leica-geosystems.com/down...seum_CS_en.pdf




Not very long, lol.




No, you 're right
Germany has them too btw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx7Meo7w-pY



They Swiss were last time tested in 1991.
The concept was abandoned 1995.


No sir.