• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Obama Deploying More Troops To Aid In The Fight Against The Taliban

esmith

Veteran Member
My problem with your post is you provide a statement, under heavy bias, when the very same source you provide to support your statement, counters it.
And what part do you see that counters what I wrote? Is it that the A.N.S.F is getting their butts kicked in there or that the troops there will not come under hostile fire? Just need to clarify your statement.
Now as far as bias goes, you mean you think that a 4 star General might have a better handle on it than either you or the civilians that the Obama is listing to including Obama's own desires?
 

esmith

Veteran Member
I think you're missing out the part where the Russians and British did most of the work in combatting that particular event.
And what history book have you been reading....."The History of WWII by IDon'tHaveAClue"
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
And what history book have you been reading....."The History of WWII by IDon'tHaveAClue"

No. At school we read real history books, unaltered by American BS. Most of the work was done at storming of Madagascar, the Battle of Westerplatte, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Kursk, the epically ****** Kokoda Track, the pilots of the Polish Underground State, the details of El Alamein or the HMS Bulldog. And of course the final turning point of the war: The Battle of Stalingrad, which was "four times the scale" of the whole Western front, larger than all other phases of the war put together. The Soviet military suffered eight million soldiers dead, more than 20 times the number of U.S. casualties.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
And what part do you see that counters what I wrote? Is it that the A.N.S.F is getting their butts kicked in there or that the troops there will not come under hostile fire? Just need to clarify your statement.
Now as far as bias goes, you mean you think that a 4 star General might have a better handle on it than either you or the civilians that the Obama is listing to including Obama's own desires?
Sure. Your claim is that they will act in combat missions. The article says they are not. o_O You say one thing, the article you cite says the other. Your political bias against Obama is evident in posts I have seen from you in the past. This just adds to the collection.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
No. At school we read real history books, unaltered by American BS. Most of the work was done at storming of Madagascar, the Battle of Westerplatte, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Kursk, the epically ****** Kokoda Track, the pilots of the Polish Underground State, the details of El Alamein or the HMS Bulldog. And of course the final turning point of the war: The Battle of Stalingrad, which was "four times the scale" of the whole Western front, larger than all other phases of the war put together. The Soviet military suffered eight million soldiers dead, more than 20 times the number of U.S. casualties.
Right, but the idea is that you are turning a horrific conflict into a twisted competition when it simply isn't needed. Taking pride in casualties and trying to put participants into a tier system is stupid and a waste of time.
 

Wirey

Fartist
I think you're missing out the part where the Russians and British did most of the work in combatting that particular event.

I think you need to read a little more history. Try Lend Lease and tell me how much fighting the Russians and Brits would have done once starved.
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
I think you need to read a little more history. Try Lend Lease and tell me how much fighting the Russians and Brits would have done once starved.

But at the same time, the US were selling munitions to the Nazi's. :p
 

Wirey

Fartist
But at the same time, the US were selling munitions to the Nazi's. :p

Without US involvement, Britain struggles mightily. Russia almost certainly signs a separate peace as they would have been isolated. The involvement of the US pretty much saved the day.
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
Without US involvement, Britain struggles mightily. Russia almost certainly signs a separate peace as they would have been isolated. The involvement of the US pretty much saved the day.

Without US involvement, the Nazi's wouldn't have got half as far as they did...

But the Nazi regime would have collapsed in on itself before taking England anyway. That or the NSDAP would have eliminated Hitler and then surrendered.
 
Top