My Public Apology!

[Ming]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
If you're argument is right, why are the numerous anti-Israel threads allowed to stand?

Anti-Israel threads... Anti-American threads... Anti-EU threads... All allowed. People can argue all they want about policies... When it gets personal... or turns into a hate thread instead of a discussion of politics... then it stops.

[Whaleboy]

Really? Whats the difference between an French, Russian, Chinese, and Jewish joke thread?

How far you can go with a joke depends on the situation, before you start hurting people. We're not aliens to the politics and history of it all... we're not objective. The holocaust and anti-semitism hurts me, so I appreciate efforts to keep it out of my face.

Put it this way, when I was in school, I was being bullied, yes you guessed it, for being Jewish... such jokes from one particular individual (who I put in hospital when we were 15 after a year of abuse I'm glad to say) was;
"What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza? A pizza doesn't scream when it's put in the oven".

I very nearly socked him for that but all his friends were there. If they weren't I think it would have been a reasonable reaction. Anyone else agree?

Whether a joke hurts or not depends on the situation. I can only speak for myself when I say that when jokes cross a line, they have the capacity to cause distress. Fine for you if it's water off a ducks back to you, but then I'd assume your only connection with the holocaust is your history lessons. I've spent my entire ****ing life being reminded of it so how do you think I'm going to feel? If you want to have your fun, fine, but keep it out of my face, and out of a public forum where people like me are going to see it and get hurt by it.

Ming... fair enough... I guess my point is that you can take jokes so far and thats fine... political humour and all, but pass a certain point and it becomes personal. Surely that point is a matter of common sense to all.

[Nubclear]

The holocaust and anti-semitism hurts me, so I appreciate efforts to keep it out of my face.

True, but for the less offensive ones (What is the difference between an Israeli and a Saudi Arabian? An Israeli lives in Israel while a Saudi Arabian lives in Saudi Arabia. Ha ha.) would you still advocate the complete and utter destruction of the thread?

For me, the general rule of joking goes:
-If its good natured, even if its completly horrible I won't get too irked by it.
-If the person saying it is saying it to promote hostility, I usually won't get too irked by it (The pizza joke, obviously, is completly unacceptable)

[Whaleboy]

True, but for the less offensive ones (What is the difference between an Israeli and a Saudi Arabian? An Israeli lives in Israel while a Saudi Arabian lives in Saudi Arabia. Ha ha.) would you still advocate the complete and utter destruction of the thread?

For the less offensive ones, as I've said, I'm fine with them. Like I said, its only when they cross a line.

[Heresson]

WTF was a supposedly industrialised country doing with cavalry in the first place in 1939? Don't get me wrong, with the exception of the air force Britain wasn't much better in terms of technology that it was in 1918 but horses?

What were they planning to do? Stop the blitzkrieg in its tracks with horse droppings?

USSR had cavalry too. It wasn't useless at all, especially in lands such as Poland and Russia, cold and with bad roads
Didn't France have any cavalry?
And wasn't blietzkrieg sth new?

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Heresson


USSR had cavalry too. It wasn't useless at all, especially in lands such as Poland and Russia, cold and with bad roads
Didn't France have any cavalry?
And wasn't blietzkrieg sth new?

All armies during world war 2 used horses. One of the major misconceptions of the Germany army from this period is that was fully mechanized. The Germany army, especially in the eastern theatre, used horses extensively for towing artillery, moving supplies and recon.

Want a link? Look at Axis Cavalry in World War II

It really is not that outrageous that cavalry units were in place in 1939 . Poland didn't have the resources to mechanize their forces. By the way, either did America and the rest of the world. And Heresson is correct, the blitzkrieg was a brand new concept.

[Whaleboy]

USSR had cavalry too. It wasn't useless at all, especially in lands such as Poland and Russia, cold and with bad roads
Didn't France have any cavalry?
And wasn't blietzkrieg sth new?

Cavalry was obsolete by the time of the Crimean... the last British cavalry charge was offensively redundant in 1914. Stupid generals

[Whaleboy]

All armies during world war 2 used horses. One of the major misconceptions of the Germany army from this period is that was fully mechanized. The Germany army, especially in the eastern theatre, used horses extensively for towing artillery, moving supplies and recon.

There's a difference between horses and cavalry, though I don't believe the British used horses in any capacity, but I might be wrong about a supporting role.

[MrFun]

There was cavalry in use in the American Civil War, which began a few years after the Crimean War.

[Shogun Gunner]

Yes, Mr. Fun, you are Mr. Right.

Cavalry was a key factor in the South's early success.

Also, cavalry was used extensively in a number of conflicts between world war 1 and world war 2.

I don't recal the Brits fielding a cavalry fighting force in world war 2.

[Whaleboy]

But it was pretty well tactically useless. Add machine guns and bigger artillery to the American Civil War and you've effectively got WWI.

[MrFun]

Need we bring up how the cavalry skirmish actually brought about the onset of the Battle of Gettysburg for the benefit of Whaleboy's memory?

Or how about the Confederate raiders of the Shanandoah Valley?

[Whaleboy]

Ok tactically useless for the North.... cavalry isn't good for defence and generally relies on a prevalent use of hand-hand fighting. It was already dying a death by Agincourt.

[Shogun Gunner]

I wouldn't say tactically useless for the North, but in the later stages of the Civil war, the conflict foreshadowed WWI with trench warfare and more static conflicts.

Agreed, cavalry is not great on defense and with the technology changes was going away. However, these changes don't happen instanteously. It took many, many years for militaries to switch away from horse to mechanized.

I think saying that it started to die in Agincourt is a bit too early. World War I more signfied the useless nature of cavalry in a mechanized conflict.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But it was pretty well tactically useless. Add machine guns and bigger artillery to the American Civil War and you've effectively got WWI.

Just stop here before you embarrass yourself further