Stop the America-bashing!

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I'm not making the claim. The quote was from an introduction to the Penguin edition of Panzer Leader written by Kenneth Macksey in 1996.

The paragraph in question begin: "I learned from them the concentration of armour, as employed in the battle of Cambrai. Further, it was Liddell Hart who emphasized the use of armoured forces for long-range strokes..."

Macksey claims that Hart inserted that paragraph into the book.

Interesting! My version is from 1967 (Ballantine Books) with only Liddel-Harts intro. I'll check when I get back home!

[SpencerH]

Tingkai

Preceeding paragraph

"It was principaly the works of the Englishmen, Fuller, Liddel Hart, and Martel, that excited my interest and gave me food for thought. These far-sighted soldiers were even then trying to make of the tank something more than just an infantry support weapon"

My text is all first person (Guderian speaking). Therefore I think its clear that he was clearly influenced at an early stage by the British (even if Liddel-Hart beefed up his importance).

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Beren


I would like to see it otherwise, but frankly: yes, the most of the Europeans don't care either how much people died. They only care if there is video. Images have a much larger impact than just plain numbers.

And BTW: Maybe you are right and the report is not very accurate or indeed very unaccurate, but for me it is hard to believe that a (English) newspaper with quite a reputation for objectivity (The Guardian) did not check the report. (NRC (THE Dutch sophisticated daily paper) published it too, I don't know 'bout other papers.) I talked to an editor of the foreign page of NRC and he told me that Herold double-checked his information.

Beren,

Without trying to sound too pompous, dont be too pessimistic about this. If the civilian casualties are that high (and are being hidden) it will come out and people will take notice.

[lorddread]

Afghanastan

Beren,

Let me ask you a question concerning your figures. Are you saying thousands of civilians were killed. If so let me state for the record you are incredibly wrong. Very few civilians were killed due to the fact that the US didn't bobm cities. We may have launched a few air to ground missiles at buildings but these are incredibly accurate. Just ask Saddam Hussein.

But let's say for the sake of arguing that 4000 civilians died. It is estimated that 3-4 million civilians (not including the 6 million Jews or the up to 3-8 million Soviets killed by the Russians) died in WWII. 1 million in Korea. 1-3 Million in Vietnam. 1000 in the Gulf War. I would say that war is getting more presise, wouldn't you?

How many people died in Yugoslavia during its 10 year war?

By the way, what's with all the America abshing coming from you? At least I can respect the dude from Siberia, he stands up for his country. All you do is espouse hate. It wouldn't be so bad if your facts were correct.

Keep up the good work!!!!

[Spiffor]

1000 in the Gulf War

We have probably different figures, I heard about more than 150.000 civilian Irakis being dead. I won't argue here if the Gulf War was right or not, but I will only argue taht there is no such thing as a "clean" war... even when the Americans wage it.

[Whoha]

its not right, those figures come from the sanctions, though you can farm and boil water without trade. In closing:dont feed the trolls, and beren's source relies on Al Jazeera.

[lorddread]

clean war

Originally posted by Spiffor
We have probably different figures, I heard about more than 150.000 civilian Irakis being dead. I won't argue here if the Gulf War was right or not, but I will only argue taht there is no such thing as a "clean" war... even when the Americans wage it.

Are you out of your mind? 150,000 dead civilians? There weren't even that many Iraqi soldiers killed. This is what I can't stand about the "European" spin on history. It often makes no sense. Just like the news reports circulating Europe that the US killed 20,000 civilians in Afghanastan. WHen asked to verify that, the reporters found they couldn't. Why? Because it was made up. Imagine the embarrassment Belgium, German and BRitish news reporters felt. Must have not been too much becaause the exact same news services did it again except this time it was the Israeli's turn. Once again the news services couldn't back up their claims.

Now to correct your version of history.

The Iraqis made a HUGE fuss over when the smart bomb took out a bunker that had 40 civilians in it. I would love to know where you got 150,000 civilians killed. Bush Sr. would have been up on genocide charges.

Here again we see what happens when the truth is held hostage. A famous Soviet official once said: When you take away the people's believes, the danger is not that they will believe in nothing. The danger is they will believe anything.

Much like what is happening in Europe today.

[Beren]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Beren,

Without trying to sound too pompous, dont be too pessimistic about this. If the civilian casualties are that high (and are being hidden) it will come out and people will take notice.

Are you saying truth always wins? Most people don't know how many deaths they caused. When these figures come out, people take notice and criticise it: see what happens on this forum. When there are no images avaiable people don't care. The crimes Assad committed in Syria are not commonly known, because he made sure no press was in the region or that the entire village was destroyed. His worst crimes are now known (we think) but most people don't take notice.
People don't trust information when there is no video avaiable.

You can of course always claim that the truth will always come out eventually. (Read what Karl Popper, has to say about this: it can't be attacked. A proposition is checkable, whenever it can't be united with certain events.)

BTW: It wouldn't be the first time American government committed some horrible lies to keep the coalition together.

[Beren]

Re: Afghanastan

Originally posted by lorddread
Beren,

Let me ask you a question concerning your figures. Are you saying thousands of civilians were killed. If so let me state for the record you are incredibly wrong. Very few civilians were killed due to the fact that the US didn't bobm cities. We may have launched a few air to ground missiles at buildings but these are incredibly accurate. Just ask Saddam Hussein.

You did bomb cities: the buildings bombed were mainly in cities. And they claim their weapons are so precise, but they are not that good. I think all of you know at least a few stories about Red Cross posts bombed.
Clusterbombs are precise?
About Saddam: America lied how precise the weapons were. They were not as precise as we were told.

Originally posted by lorddread
But let's say for the sake of arguing that 4000 civilians died. It is estimated that 3-4 million civilians (not including the 6 million Jews or the up to 3-8 million Soviets killed by the Russians) died in WWII. 1 million in Korea. 1-3 Million in Vietnam. 1000 in the Gulf War. I would say that war is getting more presise, wouldn't you?

How many people died in Yugoslavia during its 10 year war?

By the way, what's with all the America abshing coming from you? At least I can respect the dude from Siberia, he stands up for his country. All you do is espouse hate. It wouldn't be so bad if your facts were correct.

Keep up the good work!!!!

I give more facts: look in the last five pages I am the only one who did come up with something: a scientific report. (All right it was criticised, but hey, this is a discussion thread.)
I don't create hate (or whatever espouse means.) I disagree with your policies and I would like to convince you that you are doing the wrong thing. Is that a hateful act?
All right more people died in other wars, but all I was trying to say that America should have been more careful in Afghanistan. I would agree too much people died in these other wars too.

[Beren]

Re: clean war

Originally posted by lorddread


Are you out of your mind? 150,000 dead civilians? There weren't even that many Iraqi soldiers killed. This is what I can't stand about the "European" spin on history. It often makes no sense. Just like the news reports circulating Europe that the US killed 20,000 civilians in Afghanastan. WHen asked to verify that, the reporters found they couldn't. Why? Because it was made up. Imagine the embarrassment Belgium, German and BRitish news reporters felt. Must have not been too much becaause the exact same news services did it again except this time it was the Israeli's turn. Once again the news services couldn't back up their claims.

Now to correct your version of history.

The Iraqis made a HUGE fuss over when the smart bomb took out a bunker that had 40 civilians in it. I would love to know where you got 150,000 civilians killed. Bush Sr. would have been up on genocide charges.

Here again we see what happens when the truth is held hostage. A famous Soviet official once said: When you take away the people's believes, the danger is not that they will believe in nothing. The danger is they will believe anything.

Much like what is happening in Europe today.

OK, he made a mistake. That's possible. Everybody makes mistakes.

I don't know entire Europe, but I DO believe in things, such as human rights, dignity of human life and peace.

[Whoha]

so no one read my post, good to know. The 150k figure comes from the sanctions imposed on iraq, or that around that many people have died since the sanctions were imposed, now as to whether or not it is as a result of the sanctions, is up for debate. The iraqis sit on some of the more fertile growing land on the world in general and in the middle east in particular.

"but I DO believe in things, such as human rights, dignity of human life and peace."

As do we, which is why we are not indescriminately slaughtering civilians. If we really wanted a bunch of them dead we would not have sent food and medical supplies to the refuge camps in pakistan. There would have been several million dead if that were the case, as many of them chose to leave afghanistan(very good move) in preparation for our attack. this argument is getting old, so lets switch it over to this one: Do you feel what the US did in afghanistan, and what it will do in other countries, is wrong? We can only guess that you do, but you seem to be dodging this one. If you dont, then you are complaining for the sake of complaining, if you do, you dont care about the rights of the people in these countries who are being oppressed.

In both cases, Iraq and Afghanistan, those civilians that died did so because they chose to remain in these countries, even when the shooting started. No where in the Quran does it state that you have to remain in one place, and indeed it states to the contrary that if you do not like where you are there is no reason why you should not leave. God states something to the effect of "My earth is vast". And when you have over a months warning that a devistating attack by a bunch of really, really angry people will be happening, there is no excuse.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Whoha
"but I DO believe in things, such as human rights, dignity of human life and peace."

As do we, which is why we are not indescriminately slaughtering civilians.

I understand that and that was not my point in the first place: I was refering to what somebody else said.

[CRAZY]

Here again we see what happens when the truth is held hostage. A famous Soviet official once said: When you take away the people's believes, the danger is not that they will believe in nothing. The danger is they will believe anything.

exzactly!!! sounds like something that can be applied to you americans! Your government has the biggest and most sophiscated media machine in the world working for it! Twisting the truth and putting the US verision of the story in everyones heads. They choose what info is best heard and what is best kept secret. Everywhere else in the world this is a known thing but the people from america will fight to the death believing what their government tells them.

Now what is worse you tell me..opression by brainwashing like the american government does or opression from any other means? If you ask me its the same thing altho when be opressed by other means you still know the truth most of the time and are aloud to speak it, can't say as much about 95% of americans.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by lorddread
Here again we see what happens when the truth is held hostage. A famous Soviet official once said: When you take away the people's believes, the danger is not that they will believe in nothing. The danger is they will believe anything.

Much like what is happening in Europe today.

People won't believe anything and everything - they will believe whatever fits in with their current worldview. Hence they will believe anything that confirms their preconceived notions.

This is not a European trait, this is a human trait.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Beren

Are you saying truth always wins?

No, I only hope it does, and I believe we have a better chance of that now than in previous times.

Most people don't know how many deaths they caused.

I believe its true that many people with the ability to know of these events dont think of how many have died in Afghanistan on a daily basis. (By "they" I assume you're referring to the Military actions in Afghanistan)

When these figures come out, people take notice and criticise it: see what happens on this forum.

But the point is that they did take notice, whether they agree or not.

When there are no images avaiable people don't care. The crimes Assad committed in Syria are not commonly known, because he made sure no press was in the region or that the entire village was destroyed. His worst crimes are now known (we think) but most people don't take notice.
People don't trust information when there is no video avaiable.

The old adage of "picture is worth a thousand words" is often true in many fields. It's therefore even easier to twist the truth with a picture than with words. A picture wont take the place of an open mind and critical evaluation of the evidence.

You can of course always claim that the truth will always come out eventually. (Read what Karl Popper, has to say about this: it can't be attacked. A proposition is checkable, whenever it can't be united with certain events.)

I cant claim more than passing familiarity with Popper, but as I read it, his views dont deny the possibility of establishing "the truth" but suggest instead that truth can only be established by elimination of the untrue (very Holmesian). An important tenet of his philosophy was that we should avoid the easy answers from those wishing to provide us with "the truth". Isnt that whats going on here? (sometimes) .

BTW: It wouldn't be the first time American government committed some horrible lies to keep the coalition together.

Gotta have some specifics