What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Rarely seen WWII tools of warfare

  • #21
My comment on all this neat stuff is if as much ingenuity had/is put into things like our educational system, Green technology, social issues, and all the other things cool....the world would be a lot better of a place!

True enough, if Obama announced to the auto manufacturers right now that the only way they would get bailout money under his reign would be by making no car in 2009 with a fuel efficiency of under 40 mpg, then it would be so. Money may not be able to buy anything but if something CAN be changed and there is enough money wagered on it, it WILL be changed. Stand up and ask for your piece of the bailout, ask the federal government to buy you a Nepenthes!!!
 
  • #22
NFT is absolutely correct. I grew up in awe of military technology and seeing every air show that came anywhere near us. It took me too long to realize what is lost when so much of our resources are directed in that direction. I'm glad the German museum has the boxcar as a cold shower to temper the militaristic arousal. Everyone should stand alone in there before leaving and there should be one at every military exhibit, airshow, etc. People won't all get it the way Av8tor1 did, but it'll offer some perspective to a lot of them.
 
  • #23
"National security is the chief cause of national insecurity."
-Buckminster Fuller

If you take a single dollar and divide it by "defense spending" it illustrates a point nicely.
"Defense" takes up 78% or $0.78 of every tax dollar, goes to defense spending. Which includes: international and domestic espionage or "national security", weapons / technology R & D, etc. The final 22% or the last $0.22 of each tax dollar, has to pay for everything else: schools, infrastructure, welfare, medical science, etc.

This is the sort of spending that goes on even in "peacetime". There are those who wish to increase defense spending and reduce the other % even further. Just imagine how the conditions of living in this country could be improved if those figures were reversed for only one year. I should note these figs are from before the war on terror. I've no idea how much additional spending % has been added. The fact we're in the tank to China for most of the cost of the Iraq war is a good indication to me that we're not even able to spend enough of our own money anymore on the fantasy of omnipresence.

I like Obama less with every person he appoints to cabinet positions, the idea of creating more Tsars and keeping the ones we already have... So we'll just have to see what happens. My love affair with the idea of him actually achieving the presidency is over, now he has to prove something to me. With my Cynicism, he has a lot of work ahead of him to earn that vote I cast for him. lol!
 
  • #24
I didn't realize the Nazis employed midget subs. They were used at the beginning of the conflict between Japan and America at Pearl Harbor with lackluster results. Certainly good for more short term missions (such as defensive as you mentioned).
 
  • #25
nice pics B. :D looks like u had fun. The only subs I know about are the U-boats from Silent hunter series of games. :p Do they have an airforce museum as well? A luftwaffe mig 29 is an awsome jet to see in person.
 
  • #26
You forgot the rest of the story though..
the cars might be similar..but what happened to the occupants is very different..

I assume you are not actually trying to compare modern POW's in Afghanistan and their treatment by US forces to Jews and their treatment by the Nazis during WWII.
no one could really be that sick and demented..so im just going to assume you meant no such comparison..

Scot

How is ending in mass graves different?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/65473
 
  • #27
How is ending in mass graves different?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/65473

The difference is that the holocaust was real..
while your story has 15 confirmed corpses, and then a bunch of speculation and guesses about how they died..

the rumors of "2,000 bodies" is just hearsay..could be simply made up.
there is zero evidence to support it..

there are a lot of people who would like to believe the USA is responsible for a mass-grave
of taliban prisoners..and I dont see any reason why such a story couldn't be simply fabricated for propaganda purposes..Im not surprised certain segments of the Arab world are thrilled to pass along such a flimsy story as true..its sad however that so many Americans are also so quick to believe it..

so..hardly the same thing as WWII.. not even close..nice try though.
maybe you can find more made-up stories and offer them as factual proof..
thats always fun..

Scot
 
  • #28
Despite the obvious difference in scale (and organization), I think the major difference is that the Germans reached a point where they were fairly open and unapologetic about what they were doing. The US has been an accessory to, if not directly involved in a variety of atrocities, but hasn't yet stopped trying to conceal them from us. That's evidence that our society isn't too far gone - we still want our government to lie to us rather than tell us the bad that's done in our names.
 
  • #29
Despite the obvious difference in scale (and organization), I think the major difference is that the Germans reached a point where they were fairly open and unapologetic about what they were doing. The US has been an accessory to, if not directly involved in a variety of atrocities, but hasn't yet stopped trying to conceal them from us. That's evidence that our society isn't too far gone - we still want our government to lie to us rather than tell us the bad that's done in our names.

or..
for some reason I cant comprehend, some want to believe our government is lying to us..even when the only "evidence" is enemy propaganda..

I will never understand how such thought processes come to exist..

its like..a few people claim they have seen Bigfoot..therefore I will believe bigfoot is 100% fact...some people think the US government covered up a UFO crash at Roswell..
I will therefore use that as PROOF that the US government covered up a UFO crash at Roswell..

totally amazing..

Scot
 
  • #30
It isn't that I want to believe government lies to us; it does lie to us. That's what a government can do when its feet aren't held to the fire, whether it's a national government lying about what happened in a war zone or a local government lying about what's happened in a zoning commission meeting. The Bush administration does it a lot and, when it isn't, it's misrepresenting, covering up, exaggerating... But it's following a long tradition, other than for the greatly increased magnitude.

edit: I forgot to get back to my main point - I think it's good that our society still wants to be told that we don't do bad things. I'd rather Americans pay closer attention and insist that we don't do those things, but I guess I can't have everything.
 
  • #31
(Donning cheesy truckstop American flag jacket)
Yeah I just can't reckon how anybody gets the idea that our government would lie to us. there just hasn't been any hard evidence that's ever happened...

I love this one:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/12/cheney_waterboarding_was_appro.html

Cheney, almost in the same sentence, talks of the 16 Security Council resolutions Hussein had violated (necessitating, obviously an invasion of Iraq, but just a quick one) while discussing his support of the practice of waterboarding and other torture techniques which are against U.N. resolutions. I know we're immune to U.N. resolutions and all but, come on - these people are sadistic. And on the "lies" front, I love how gently and vaguely Cheney concedes that "that the original NIE was off in some of its major judgments" referring to the "intelligence" that was supposedly used to support this war in the first place. I trust these people... to serve themselves
 
  • #32
You forgot the rest of the story though..
the cars might be similar..but what happened to the occupants is very different..

I assume you are not actually trying to compare modern POW's in Afghanistan and their treatment by US forces to Jews and their treatment by the Nazis during WWII.
no one could really be that sick and demented..so im just going to assume you meant no such comparison..

That's the way I read it too. I certainly hope he wasn't comparing US forces to Nazi death-squads. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though...
 
  • #33
How is ending in mass graves different?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/65473


Wow. Newsweek; now there is a bastion of Truth and Impartiality. What do you have; like a total of 156 subscribers now?

Though really, how fully did/does Big Media report the atrocities of Saddam and the Baathists, and of the Taliban? As well as the current Iranian regime? Yeah, next to none.




Mass graves?? Do we wanna see modern mass graves? You'll find 'em made of plastic bags and surgical gauze in the garbage pails out behind our abortion-mills. The Final Solution is in effect here in America sad to say...........
 
  • #34
Wow. Newsweek; now there is a bastion of Truth and Impartiality. What do you have; like a total of 156 subscribers now?

Though really, how fully did/does Big Media report the atrocities of Saddam and the Baathists, and of the Taliban? As well as the current Iranian regime? Yeah, next to none.




Mass graves?? Do we wanna see modern mass graves? You'll find 'em made of plastic bags and surgical gauze in the garbage pails out behind our abortion-mills. The Final Solution is in effect here in America sad to say...........

Well the big media never reports US funded atrocities. Currently a country who's defense minister promised a new holocaust is using munitions payed for by the US to carry out this promise. But its not ethnic cleansing because brown people aren't real people. Remember its only a crime if brown people kill white people. Yet we justify it by ignoring the fact that blockades are an act of war, but our government blames the side defending its self. Do these not count as lies because we have dehumanized those who are being bombed? Or do Americans like to ignore these lies because they fit nicely in their dogma?


As for the current Iranian regime guess what country help to put them in power. Same with Saddam and the Baathists. And since lies is the subject where are all those WMD we used to justify our invasion?
 
  • #35
And since lies is the subject where are all those WMD we used to justify our invasion?

I was hoping someone would bring that up..
yeah, I was really disappointed that Hillary Clinton LIED about the WMD's in Iraq..
its funny though that you hardly ever see it mentioned in the media about how she lied..
strange..

of course in reality, we know she didnt lie..neither did Bush..
it is true that Saddam had WMD's..he used them against his own people..the fact that they once existed is not in doubt..

the US government assumed they were still there..and they probably were still there when the president and Hillary "lied" about it after 9/11..
but with many months warning that we were coming..surprise! they WMD's were all gone when we got there..wow..what a shock..

Just remember..if you want to believe the Lie that the president lied about the WMD's, you also have to believe that Hillary also lied, along with the president..
So how about it ktulu? did Hillary lie too? yes or no?

Scot
 
  • #36
Yes she did. I am not in doubt of her lying and what was she doing then, thats right serving in the senate, which last time I checked is part of the government, but I could be wrong about that. Also Iraq had WMD's during the first Gulf War. We told them to dismantle the WMD's and stop producing them. Unless there is proof that they had them the gov't lied to the world to justify its invasion. Unless they can produce evidence that there were WMD's when the invasion took place they lied. Simple as that. Unless you purposely decieve yourself its still a lie unless there is proof. Scotty you were screaming about people believing things without proof and now your complaining when people demand proof before they will believe that there were WMD's. Pick a side here dont decided proof is needed when you dont want to believe something and then demand no proof when you want believe something. Unless you are a politician in which case this is expected. LOL.
 
  • #37
Scotty you were screaming about people believing things without proof and now your complaining when people demand proof before they will believe that there were WMD's. Pick a side here dont decided proof is needed when you dont want to believe something and then demand no proof when you want believe something. Unless you are a politician in which case this is expected. LOL.

sorry, but im totally not following that..
"then demand no proof when you want believe something"
I cant figure out what that means.."demand no proof?"

could you please explain that better?
thanks,
Scot

ps..im glad you admitted hillary lied! of course, she didnt..
but still, im happy to see some consistancy! ;)

(wow..a liberal saying hillary lied..and a conservative saying she didnt lie...what is wrong with this picture?? ;)

Scot
 
  • #38
sorry, but im totally not following that..
"then demand no proof when you want believe something"
I cant figure out what that means.."demand no proof?"

could you please explain that better?
thanks,
Scot

ps..im glad you admitted hillary lied! of course, she didnt..
but still, im happy to see some consistancy! ;)

(wow..a liberal saying hillary lied..and a conservative saying she didnt lie...what is wrong with this picture?? ;)

Scot

No proof has been produced to show Iraq had the WMD's the US used to justify its invasion. Why arent you demanding proof of these WMD's. You presented your argument as if you believe they were there and that the invasion was justified, infact you seemed to be some what satirical about me saying that the WMD justification was lie yet I have seen no proof that the weapons were present when we launched the invasion. Not a single shred of evidence that justifies the invasion based on WMDs has been shown other than the lies our government tells us, which you argued earlier it doesn't do. In fact you call believing things with out proof a thought pattern you can not understand and totally amazing that people believe these things without proof. It seems as if your contradicting yourself.

P.S. dont label me a liberal I dont want to be associated with those nut jobs. LOL. Though the fact that you are agreeing with something Hillary said may indicate the universe has a tare in it and we are all going to die. LOL.
 
  • #39
ah! ok..I underdstand now..thanks..

I dont need proof the WMD's were there..
I know they were there..
everyone knows they were there..
the fact they existed is not in dispute..

the only question is *when* they were there and when they were removed..

so im not contradicting myself..
Im still saying "you shouldnt believe, as an absolute fact, that "bush lied" when there is no evidence to support the accusation that he lied"..

saying "bush lied" implies there were never ANY WMD's..thats flat out false.
yes, its possible they were gone before Bush used them as justification..but that is unlikely..
and it cant be proved either way, because no one has yet admitted when and where they were moved or destroyed..
its far more likely they disappeared during the 6 month time lag between the time Bush made it clear were going to Iraq (September 2002) and the time we actually got there (March 2003)..

6 months is enough time to hide or destroy anything you dont want found..
and even before September 12, 2002 it was pretty obvious the US was probably coming to Iraq..
really they had over a year "notice"..

Its like the police announcing on the evening news and newspspers "one year from now will be raiding the known drug house at 25 main street....bad guys..take note!"

"only 6 months until the big raid on the drug house"..

"countdown to the big drug house raid..only 3 weeks remaining"..

then they get there, kick down the door, and find a bunch of old ladies reading their bibles..
then the media kicks up the stories about "those evil, nasty police picking on those innocent old ladies in the drug house..the police are bad..they didnt find ANY evidence those old ladies were involved in drugs! the police LIED about the whole thing!" etc etc..

tell me how that analogy is not valid! ;)

just because something isnt found, doesnt mean it didnt exist..
and in this case, it is known for a fact it did exist..it was just gone by the time we got there to look for it...which is not "proof" of a "lie"..

Scot
 
  • #40
Unless they can show the WMD were present during the invasion. If they were not, as the US gov't claimed they were it is a lie. The timing of the removal of the WMD only matters if they were disposed of after the invasion. If they were disposed before the invasion then the US lied not only to its own people but to the world again. We justified our invasion by saying WMDs were present and said that if Saddam disposed of them we wouldnt invade. Yet we did invade and none were found. How is this not a lie? Something that was not true, that Iraq had WMDs, was stated by the Gov't of the USA. Until WMDs or evidence of their existence at the time of the invasion is produced the statement is a lie. Its a simple as that. You want to believe the weapons were there when the US invaded regardless of any proof. Did Iraq have WMDs yes but the last time we can confirm that they were present in their arsenal is when they were used during the first Gulf war. After that we cant say one way or the other if they were present. Please explain to me how justifying the invasion with the presence of WMDs is not a lie when no WMDs were present? I do not see how the presence of WMDs 12+ years earlier justified the invasion in 2003 when no WMDs were found.
 
Back
Top