Screw Tony Blair And War on Terror

[Grungi]

101st would have needed rescuing given another year or even months of the battering they took but at the time they were rescued they didnt need it (if you see what i mean) btw im a massive fan of "band of brothers" its realistic which is what i like about it and the heros in it are real none of this flashy hollywood crap, just simple down to earth and concentrates on how people really fought the war and not on indestructible arnie types (much as im a fan of ole arnie [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) if more people watched that than the normal fare there would be less misconceptions about things.

anyone who likes the history of the 2nd world war watch band of brothers because its absolutely superb. Even if it does use a load of british actors to play americans which is a bit strange spot cameos from tom hanks who directed, dexter fletcher (lock stock and plenty of good british dramas) who has a pivotal role and from loads of other quality british drama actors, also schwimmer from Friends proving he can act and not just be ross the slightly retarded [img]smile.gif[/img]

but even with this its highly focused and ignores what the rest of the allies do in the war its pretty much all about the 101st, would be nice to see some films about the elite SAS who were formed for the 2nd world war and how they formed their reputation and caused all sorts of problems behind enemy lines, unfortunately due to the budgets required as per usual would have to be hollywood who'd create it still get tom hanks and spielberg on it and im a happy man.

actually a good book to read on this whole debate is "fatherland" cant remember the author it has a look at how the world might have been if hitler had of won, very interesting take on things and based heavily in historical fact.

[skywalker]

The book your thinking of, Grungi, was written by Robert Harris.
Here is a link to a review of it I found:

http://www.mysteryguide.com/bkHarrisFatherland.html

And a review of the movie version (1994):

http://www.prairienet.org/ejahiel/fatherland_1994.htm

Mark

[Grungi]

thats the guy, was thinking richard harris but thats the actor who just died, robert harris, thanks i remember now [img]smile.gif[/img] good book anyhows

[Donut]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: In the Pacific though, that was the US Navy and Marines 100%.

Only if you believe Hollywood. Australian, New Zealand, British and Indian troops took part in the Pacific theatre. HMAS Australia was the lead battle cruiser in the Battle of the Coral Sea.

Of course Burma was 100% taken by the US. In fact it was Errol Flynn - all on his own!

[Grungi]

your point was great up until mentioning errol flynn but now you lost half of em try arnie or bruce willis.

and yes i dont know much about the war in the pacific i must admit , i never studied it, but what i do know is britain had a large interest over there in many asian countries so i cannot imagine they didnt have garrisons and also anzac forces would have been helped for sure, its their backyard! so no way was america 100 percent responsible for pushing the japanese back though they were the main party responsible. But i cant really argue much more on this point as i have no hard facts to fall back on unlike european side of ww2, but seems donut knows his stuff so he can field it for me

[Gilgamesh]

posted 11-27-2002 11:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reality war causes terror as much as terrorism does, only in war you can write of the civilians dead as colateral damage, but in terrorism you aim for civilians. Both are pointless in light of better alternatives. Both are sad, and both shall live while fear dwells in people's hearts.

(I agree with ya) No one wins with war, only loose...

[Night Stalker]

I am not so daft as to believe in the swill that Hollywood spews. And I know who Errol Flynn is .... Bruce Willis or Arnie had nothing to do in the Pacific .... it was the Duke in the Sands of Iwo Jima all the way!!! Amazingly enough he came back a few years later and took Vietnam all by himself in the Green Baretts (we won that right? heheh)

I'll have to go with Grungi on the Pacific, I am not as up on that theatre as I am Fortress Europe. As far as I know, since Brittain was mostly tied down on the home front, their garrisons were mostly just holding what they had, not pushing the Japanese back. I know Brittain and Australia did contribute ships but their biggest contribution was providing support and ports for the US forces.

Don't forget that not all Japanese forces were defeated, just key points to weaken the Emperor's will to wage war. The pacific would have neen a dismal failure, or at least a MUCH higher body count, had they tried to engage all Japanese forces.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Grungi: cerek - ya cant plug them trust me or did the dinosaurs all live happily with adam and eve? and how did adam and eve the first and only humans on the planet continue to procreate down to grandchildren with two sons ? we got some serious incest issues going on? anyhows its impossible to convert me even if god did exist and came down and proved it to me my response would be "thats nice, but i didnt ask to worship you, i didnt ask to be created and frankly your not my problem or concern, good job on all the creation and thanks for being a nice guy and all but go find someone else to worship you" just aint happenign with me im afraid [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Grungi - I won't take this thread "off-track" with a religious debate....but I would be happy to offer counter-arguments to any "holes" you have. I've heard the vast majority of arguments to be offered and I can provide an answer to every one of them. Whether you accept the answer or not is up to you.

I'm not trying to convert you. If God Himself wouldn't be able to, then my efforts certainly won't either. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] No worries there.

As for the two examples you gave:
1) Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Book of Job (but not by "name". It's called a behemoth..so it is "open to interpretation" but I can tell you WHY my interpretation supports it being a dinosaur instead of an elephant or hippo).

2)Adam and Eve had many, many children. Their third son was Seth. Genesis 5 lists the generations of Adam. Including the sons and their wives. You are correct that these relationships would be incest, since the husbands and wives would also have been brothers and sisters.

Then again, since Christians believe ALL human life came from Adam & Eve, it could be argued that - technically - ANY relationship any of us have would be incest.

If you want to carry this to a different thread, that would be great. There is already a "Religion" thread that didn't begin as a theological debate, but quickly evolved into one. I would suggest using it as the Mods frown on multiple threads dealing with the same basic issue.

If you don't want to, that's fine also. I'll respect your decision to continue this discussion or not as you see fit.

[Grungi]

to be honest the only people left on this thread will be quite happy to respond on this thread i think so no problem continuing it here, its about 2nd world war and about religion anyway.

and its funny that you can look in the past and say sacrifices of humans were a christian thing to do and incest was a christian thing to do but its completely taboo nowadays, personally i know incest is wrong and the idea of it makes me want to puke but i cannot find any good reason for why it is actually wrong apart from the fact that it almost makes me physically ill just thinking about it [img]tongue.gif[/img] so what im saying is christianity has changed overtime which contradicts the religion as i see it, if religion and god is perfect in the first place then why would it change, because it changes it is something made by man therefore not to any divine being but a means to worship, people need something to believe in so they create a godlike being otherwise in the olden days they'd have gone mad without it. I believe if a religion was truly correct then it would never need to change itself as its morals and edicts would remain the same over time, perfection needs no improvement, and as god was pretty close to adam and eve and their family at the time you'd have thought he'd have frowned on the whole incest thing, as he obviously encouraged it why is incest criminal today in christian societies? God says its okay so why doesnt the christianity based law.... first time i thought of that point but boy is it a good one [img]smile.gif[/img] definately interested to hear what people have to say bout that heh [img]smile.gif[/img]

btw only way you can plug alot of holes is by suggesting supernatural arguments in which case the whole argument falls down yet again as thats the crux of the whole thing, do you believe or not, basically supernatural explanations explain everything away, at least with science you have some proof but even then that gets proved wrong by the next scientist who comes along, i have trouble believing anything these days but the one thing im 100 percent sure on and believe implicitly is that i exist and that i am in control of my life and my thoughts and no god existing could create someone like me, wouldnt be possible, only way to create someone with my qualities and flaws would be random generation based on evolution therefore im not created more sorta moulded over time, i honestly dont believe anyone could (or would even want to) create someone like me [img]tongue.gif[/img] let alone someone like saddam hussein or the like. Cept maybe for a laugh in which case life is one cruel joke for some godlike creatures amusement.

oh and on another note, so what about cavemen? neanderthal man came before or after adam and eve?

[Ronn_Bman]

Ah, but even with science you have to be able to understand the answers and what proof backs those answers. Do you really understand(or even have knowledge of) all of the research, theories, and answers provided by the scientific community on all issues.

All of it?

Of course, you don't because no one has that kind of complete knowledge. You've heard their answers, they sound reasonable to you, so you have "faith" in science. You believe in something you can't possible understand completely.

There was a time when the best scientists thought the earth was flat, maggots came from decaying meat, and that draining the blood out of someone who was sick would actually make them better.

You believe in science despite the fact that scientists can't agree about many things. How the universe began, what caused the dinosaurs to become extinct, is there really global warming, etc.

Lots of scientist have lots of different ideas about these things, and they think they can prove them, but if one contradicts the other, doesn't that make them all invalid for those who believe science holds all the answers?

You believe in science because you choose to trust what you are told, and you choose to have faith in the fact that those who tell you these things are correct.

BTW, that's not a person dig at you. Just a comment from one believer to another kind of believer. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

EDIT - Cerek is right though, this should be moved to the religion thread or a new thread should be started. This debate may be all that's going on now, but since the title has nothing to do with what's going on now, some who may be interested may not take part because the discussion is "hidden".

And those who want to talk crap about Tony Blair will be disappoint to see that no ones talking about him anymore...lol.

[ 11-29-2002, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]