Dresden was by British Bomber command.... The war was lost because of the "two front" policy as with Napoleon before him. There would not have continued to be two fronts without the US; we were literally penned into our own coast line until they joined the war. Other than luck and one bad decision by Hitler to switch from military target bombing to civilian targets the war would have been over for us and he could have concentrated on Russia alone. Well that and the treaty with an impatient Japan. Revisionism based on current dislikes is......disappointing.. Oh and most of what you leveled as current bad behaviour by the US can also be leveled at the Russians and Chinese in the Middle East and African Nations. Funding, arms, resource theft, puppet governments etc etc etc... It's exactly the same game in the same locations as the 19th century but instead of the players being France, Gernany, Britain and Italy it has since the 1960's been USSR/Russia, China and the USA. The US isn't special, it hasn't done anything different than any other world power or empire has in the history of states back to the Greeks! And if they were to stop tomorrow the Chinese & Russians would simply take over in the areas the US vacates and I guarantee you their touch would be more brutal.....this false idea that a removal of the big bad Americans would make this a more peaceful world is just simply ludicrous.
Just two responses to your historical analysis: firstly, you talk of genocides, Israel and the Middle-east, yet you leave out the biggest genocide in the area in the last 100 years - Dafur. More people have been killed there by Moslem extremists by the hundreds of thousands more than Israel have killed since '47. That's NOT to justify the Israeli occupation or American support, just that rabid anti-Americanism skewers the prism whenever middle -east/Moslem politics is debated. Secondly, I've spoken before about the Allied effort in western Europe and the Soviet history of first siding with Hitler in '39, murdering its best officers under Stalin's purges and ignoring continued british warnings over Barbarosa (ironically supplied by Goering, terrified that hitler was over-extended Germany), but the simple fact is this - had it not been for the battle of Britain the Nazi's would have attacked an unprepared Soviet union in April/may of 1941 and not June, and not been caught up in a Russian winter before they reached Moscow. and the bombing campaign alone, even without the African and Italian invasions, diverted millions of men, 88mm guns, fighter airplanes (1000's of Focke Wulfs and Me 109's that the Germans couldn't afford to be without) and industrial effort away from its eastern front. No wonder Hitler was desperate for Britain to come to terms in early '41 (though there is evidence the US didn't as it was making a damn fortune from bleeding Britain dry selling them arms on credit!). In short, had Britain sued for peace in '41 the USSR was ****ed. had we taken the attitude the Soviets took in '39 there was NOTHING stopping the Nazi Germany owning Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. And what's more, in order to pay off the Us, Britain could have supplied all the grain, oil and natural resources the Nazi's needed from its empire, with Edward VIII back on the throne as a Quisling leader. Lot's of ifs and buts, but one final thought - Stalin killed more Soviet civillians in the 20's and 30's than Hitler managed in WW2. A great number of Russians would have sided with the germans and grown them grain and produced munitions too. Nonetheless, you're right to say, as I did too, that the scenario of either a Nazi or soviet dominated Europe was the final outcome of WW2 had the US not been involved, and again I say that for that I am grateful. And even in 'neutral' Ireland, there would have been a fearful reckoning in any of the scenarios spoken of.
With respect - what a load of cobblers. The History of the Middle East has always been written in blood; only the hand holding the knife has changed - Roman, Persian, Arab, Jew, Muslim, Christian. For every massacre, there have been reprisals aplenty. As for WWII, you're overlooking a few differing points and scenarios. Had Adolf just concentrated on getting the Poles on side, he could have launched an invasion into the Soviet Union and beaten them in '39 and Churchill would have been quite content to have seen off the Communist menace. The Empire would have been intact But given his abdication in 1936, I don't see how Edward VIII would have been on the throne, and given the constitutional limits on Royal power in this country, I don't see how this would have even been relevant. And it wasn't Russians in general that sided with the Germans during the War, but members of the smaller member states of the Soviet Union - Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Moldovans all joined fighting SS Units. Many of them saw service on the Western Front (the Wehrmacht didn't trust them to change sides).
Seems very large numbers of Americans feel the same way about the Zimmerman case. Guy's a ****ing murderer, stalked a kid cos he was black and shot him in the heart cos he lost a fight he started, "**** yeah"
That definitely isn't what happened. Zimmerman phoned the police himself before it started. His call ended and the shot was fired 3 minutes later. The first police officer arrived on the scene a minute after that. There wouldn't have been time to get someone else to beat him up. The only reliable eye witness said that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman hitting him "MMA style" and the gunshot was consistent with being fired from a low point against the top when it was away from Martin's body. Zimmerman didn't have hand injuries, either. He had a broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head. please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image The only known racial factor to this case were a couple of things said by the deceased. Zimmerman was charged. Not sure why you think he wasn't. The jury found him not guilty of both 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. The prosecution also tried to include 3rd degree murder, which was completely incompatible with any theory of what could've happened. They were awful throughout the trial.
While I suspect this may be the case, I've not heard the evidence in full, and I wasn't there, so I'll hold back on the rabin-sounding kneejerk condemnation.
...and given the evidence of the images (if correct and undoctored), a single blow to the face resulting in Zimmerman falling and cutting his head would account for the injuries. I would suggest that the use of a firearm at this stage would be disproportionate. I'm not sure how reliable that witness is given how serious (or not) the injuries appear to be.
That to me, not the undercurrent of racism, is the terrifying thing in this if I were American. How do you go and give a law to people to shoot someone because you're losing a fist-fight that you started?
Er, respect and bollocks backatcha. Now then, Edward VIII WAS lined up by the Nazis to take back the throne in the event of a Nazi victory in 1940, and constitutionally he'd have been a Nazi puppet with more power than a castrated Parliament. In 1941 we'd have been negotiating from a position of a lot more strength, but nonetheless the then royal family were prepared to be evacuated to Canada, which would have formed a government in exile and, possibly, become absorbed into the US. Not my postulating that because all of that was released in cabinet records around twenty years ago. It'll be interesting what the 75 year records throw up in 2015. And many, many rural Russians DID hate Stalin, not just those of satellite states. That said, the poor buggers caught between Germans killing them from one side and Bolsheviks on the other. As to the Poland thing, the whole point of hitler's initial strategy was to win back, by military or diplomat means, the pre Versailles Germany. there could never be an alliance with Poland, but the Soviets did join the Germans in carving up Poland in '39 (after the germans had battered the poles first, natch) and invaded Finland into the bargain as well.
(bold with bold, underlined with underlined) The hypocrisy in this is astounding. I don't know whether to laugh, marvel, or be disappointed in your apparent lack of intelligence...
I usually just ignore your posts, but this one is just astounding. 1. Zimmerman was not a 'wanna-be cop,' he was on the neighborhood watch. 2. He confronted Treyvon because there were multiple robberies in the gated community recently, and he hadn't seen Treyvon before, so naturally he was suspicious of him. 3. The only reason anyone even thought it was because of race was because of the doctored tape that CNBC later APOLOGIZED for because it was so bad. In the actual tape of him describing Treyvon, the only time he even mentioned that Treyvon was black was when he was asked the skin color. He hesitated and then said, 'Oh, he's... black. Yeah, he's black.' 4. Treyvon called his sister and said 'There's a cracker following me.' If anyone was racist, it was Treyvon (because it wasn't just a man is following me, it was a cracker) 5. In the 911 call, there was screaming. The mother was sure it was Treyvon, however it was discovered the screaming (from being beaten) was in fact Zimmerman. 6. Yes, this could've been avoided, but both parties were at fault, not just Zimmerman. Zimmerman should have listened to the dispatcher (the dispatcher didn't have the authority to say he must stay in the car, only that they advise he does.) Treyvon knew someone was following him, and instead of calling the cops, or running, or anything else, he turned and attacked Zimmerman. 7. The fact that you keep insisting that it was racial, as if you know for a fact, is actually disappointing to me. Like you almost need it to be about racism, because you want another reason to hate America. Just how it seems to me.
I still don't see why he had to shoot the kid. The rentacop must have been angry that he just got bashed by a scrawny 17 year old kid but shooting the kid dead was a bit much, surely he could have used a tazer or something less lethal on a kid.
part of the problem for me is I suspect Zimmerman's defence managed to exclude any possible jurors that were black. the jury also ignored the fact that the kid was just buying a snack and heading home and was followed and approached by Zimmerman who was already disposed to a confrontation whilst being armed. Zimmerman instigated the confrontation there is little doubt on that, he obviously approached a kid cos he was black and said something or tried to run him off or even shake him down, the kid obviously doing no wrong got angered as I would have with some uppity fool who approached me for no good reason, after an altercation with a kid he shot him in the heart. Zimmerman was 100% responsible for what happened. My big issue is that an all white jury found him not guilty of anything. Reminds me of the Rodney King incident in some ways. I still believe Zimmerman had some injuries added after the shooting, I truly believe that.
so from the pictures posted looks like he unlawfully approached a kid with a weapon, got a punch, I'd probably have done the same, and cos he got punched in the face he killed the boy not even an adult, cowardly chicken**** piece of crap who deserves to get locked up. meanwhile in the same state a woman who fires warning shots to deter an abusive husband gets 20 years, she was black. Race definitely has a lot to do with this, had Mrs Jackson been white she would have not got 20 years and if Martin was a white college student Zimmerman would be looking at jail time.
That's the biggest load of racialist bollocks that I've read in a long time! The charge was not racially oriented. Hence the colour of the jurors was totally insignificant.
Sisu, suppose you're right (I'm not saying you are) and all of this is about racism. You still though have the problem that you have a law (and a culture) whereby an altercation can be acceptably resolved by shooting someone). Don't get me wrong, I wish Lee rigby had been armed a couple of months ago, but the idea that this means all squaddies should be armed because of that is horrifying, and inevitably some squaddie somewhere would settle an argument or family dispute with a gun. There are racial undercurrents in the US, and the OJ Simpson case proves it cuts both ways, but I still say that the biggest problem in this case is a law and judicial system that encourages individuals to be armed and shoot each other to resolve human transactions. If I were a young black man that would be my conclusion to this.
But Sisu You are still deliberately mixing up issues which are very very seperate. Lets say we accept your claim that Zimmerman was racist, Hispanic but racist against black people. You've got to prove it not just think it. This isn't an FA panel. This has absolutely nothing to do with: 1) a not guilty verdict; the jury (not all white, one Hispanic woman although your suggestion that 6 white women are inherently racist and will ignore the rule of law to protect a stranger based solely on the similarity to their skin colour without providing any evidence to back it up is racist in itself. The jury were duty bound to find him not guilty based on the evidence required to be provided under the stand your ground law because the prosecution didn't have it and didn't provide it. There was enough evidence & witness testimony to create reasonable doubt under the law= not guilty, you believing it all doesn't matter: if there's reasonable doubt then it's a not guilty verdict. The cops knew this would be the case, as the law stands which was the reason for the reluctance to charge him. Not because they too were all racist: we're they all white too?.... This law, with all its dangers and inadequacy has been proven to have been applied equally regardless of race in the state of Florida since its introduction. I find it astonishing that liberals everywhere are attempting to subvert a basic principle of a democratic justice system because they didn't like the result and it doesnt fit with an already existing (no matter how noble) agenda. And thank god this is why a jury system exists: otherwise people would be making sheep like half assed assumptions based on what the guardian tells them to think after glancing at the snippets of evidence printed in said publications. By all means mate, go away and read the entire court transcripts, come back and build the case where the prosecution missed that vital and obvious bit of evidence that states without doubt that this man shot another man with intent and under no threat to his own well being and then add the evidence that proves his motive was racial. Until then its simply unfounded speculation. So far the lawyers (you know the guys actually qualified to tell) I've read outside of the Interest groups have all said it was a weak case while that ludicrous law stands. Yet again the mixing of an anti racism agenda and removal of a bad legislation agenda will probably confuse the issue enough for neither to progress further than making a couple more people famous for spouting their opinions on talk shows...
