Posted on 11/18/2002 5:07:02 PM PST by MadIvan
Our enemy this time around has shown a willingness to specifically target women and children. That's what this article is all about, should the New Allies be bombing in civilian areas (knowing that collateral damage may include women and children) or targeting the power grid (which plunges a developing nation into the stone age and hurts innocent civilians).
As Rush says, the purpose of war is to kill people and break things. We don't specifically target day care centers, elementry schools, mosques, hostpitals, and universities so we do show some restraint but people die in war. Are we willing to let the opposition continue to mount armorments (of increasing casualty yield), knowing that they hold no such restraints on civilians (knowing that Saddam has attacked Iraqi citizens himself)?
Best regards to you and your wife.
Regards, Ivan
SOME ONE TELL THOSE FUCKING DISHONORABLE LEFTIST FASCIST GERMANS THAT THEY CANNOT START ANOTHER WAR THAT WE ENDED
SOMEONE TELL THEM THAT IF NEED BE OF FURTHER DISARMAMENT THEY BE GAGGED!!!!!!! THEY ARE TO DISARM AND SHUT UP ABOUT IT, NOT US, IN ALL HONOR!!!!
I think the best analogy I can come up with is for Americans to imagine a serialized book excerpt in the New York Post. No, it's not the Wall Street Journal, but millions will read about it and talk about it to others.
What a disgrace and shame this is! I also agree with the poster who said that there are probably a lot of "Made in Germany" stamps on equipment in Saddam's arsenal. Bah!
A Nazi propaganda poster dated 1941 shows Winston Churchill wearing a high bowler hat, a bowtie, and a dark pinstriped suit, with a fat cigar stuck on his bottom lip and a submachine gun under his arm. He is standing behind a wall and the poster says simply, "Heckenchutzen" which may be translated as "sniper". The circumstances are strange, but this is undoubtedly a photograph. The creator of this poster did not have to put Churchill's head on a gangster's body: he simply used a newsphoto of Churchill holding a submachine gun during a visit to a military base.
(There are 4 other figures in the original shot, at least one in uniform, this was the only one I found online. There is a figure in a suit on the left that is missing).
The creator of the nazi poster cut out the figure of Churchill, tilted his head a bit to give him a more sinister appearance, and then put him in a new very simple setting with a black strip suggesting a wall.
Another version of this retouched, cut-out picture was distributed in the form of leaflets dropped over England from German aircraft. This photomontage has a fairly distinctive character, however. No one, not even the most naive of those for whom such a poster was intended, believed for a moment that the British PM was a sniper.
Even though, in this case, the original situation was real, the scene in the poster is improbable. And it was understood as such by everyone who saw the poster, but the message it was intended to convey was nevertheless immediately perceived: Churchill is a crafty, double-dealing, dangerous enemy ("He is not even a gentleman," Hitler said of him.)
Interestingly enough, the original photograph was used in the British press as a propaganda image conveying exactly the opposite message (the prime minister is interested in every contribution to the war effort).
I couldn't find the doctored poster online.
Exactly right!
Not just Britain --- the Poles, the Ukranians, the Russians, whether Jews or Gentiles, men or women, young or old, did not vote for Hitler and had their villages raised to the ground by him and those who did.
If you don't like how Brits and, in particular, Churchill fight, don't start the war.
Ivan, this reminds me of Shaw, the wittiest of the witty Brits, yet apparently the nuttiest (of socialist variety) as well. In reply to his pacifistic remarks, someone asked, "What should we do if Hitler crosses the Channel and lands on the British Isles?" He replied: "We should meet him with open arms."
This line of thinking was alive and well long ago. I find it interesting, that even the scale and consequences of WWII have not taught these people a lesson. If that was instructive for self-haters, nothing will probably be. Visiting Auschwitz can touch one's heart and elicit profound thoughts about the nature of man. But one has to have a heart and a brain for that. It appears that the heartless will never learn, no matter what evidence you put before them. So today, those who did nothing for Britain and try to take away her heritage poke at Churchill in his grave, someone to whom that country owes a great deal. May these people not become the majority.
I do not want to depend upon the Russians for keeping Germany in line with civilized society.
BTW, I looked at your profile and just laughed when I read Heros? the hunter who shot Bambi's mum. My co-workers are wondering about me now.
Incidentally, who here on this forum wouldn't approve of an a-bomb blast on Berlin if possible early in the war knowing the millions that Hitler and his minions had slaughtered and would continue to? This was not a gentleman's war if there was ever such a thing.
So you'd have given NAZI U-boats fresh supplies, fuel and a safe harbour during the battle of the Atlantic would you? Because that's what Franco did. How about torturing to death Catalan civilians and people with the wrong political affiliations? He did that too. Hitler sent help to Franco and the Luftwaffe flew bombing raids for him against undefended Basque civilian targets, like Guernica in 1937. Franco was just a fascist, please don't rewrite history to make him out to be a hero. He was better than Hitler - but that's not saying much.
Regards, Ivan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.