Iraq...

It is understandable to be angry at the "rich elitists", when your women run down to the south of France every winter to get boned by them.

Haha.. what? I dont think our women dig 1.5-1.6 meters tall frenchmen.
Thailand is by far the most popular tourist destination, and I dont think they go there for the cocks.

Seriously though, I know Swedes hate any show of wealth, but doesn\'t being the same as everyone else get boring?  Is it true that most of the population is in a drunken stupor most of the time to drown their misery?

I never said that. I said the rich elite, you know the peeps that send boys off to war just so they can make some money for themselves, Bush and his "have-mores".

And no its not true. And by the way, per capita the pure alcohol consumption is higher in the US than it is in Sweden. 7.0 liters for Swedes and 8.4 liters for USAians. :thumb:

Not at all. Each nation is self governing. The union is mostly economical, a majority of the europeans do not want a United States of Europe, thats one of the reasons we voted down the Euro.



I am well aware we started some shit, but that was 200+ years ago. Pfft.



I never did.

I meant that to be directed more towards the typical asshole who likes to shit on the US and its people than you but thanks for being above that...

[clips]

More iraq news....


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_signs_of_strain;_ylt=Auf1jMtxyT7TfXlw0kJEmx2yFz4D


"Some 27 percent of soldiers on their third or fourth combat tours suffered anxiety, depression, post-combat stress and other problems, according to an Army survey released last month. That compared with 12 percent among those on their first tour"

"As many as 121 troops committed suicide in 2007, an increase of some 20 percent over 2006, according to preliminary figures released in January"


"It contributes to the difficulty in getting other Americans to join the volunteer military. The Army struggles to find enough recruits each year and to keep career soldiers."





There\'s no denying that u.s, has one of the best military forces in the world,..possibly the best...but it\'s apparent that this war is putting a strain even on the best of soldiers out there,...i know soldiers have a strong sense of will...but five years of tough fighting, seeing your friends die and other horrors, have pushed these military units to the breaking point....and McCain want these troops on the ground indefinitely?.....if you want to break the back of the military completely, then this most certainly will be the way to do it.

More iraq news....


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_signs_of_strain;_ylt=Auf1jMtxyT7TfXlw0kJEmx2yFz4D


"Some 27 percent of soldiers on their third or fourth combat tours suffered anxiety, depression, post-combat stress and other problems, according to an Army survey released last month. That compared with 12 percent among those on their first tour"

"As many as 121 troops committed suicide in 2007, an increase of some 20 percent over 2006, according to preliminary figures released in January"


"It contributes to the difficulty in getting other Americans to join the volunteer military. The Army struggles to find enough recruits each year and to keep career soldiers."





There\'s no denying that u.s, has one of the best military forces in the world,..possibly the best...but it\'s apparent that this war is putting a strain even on the best of soldiers out there,...i know soldiers have a strong sense of will...but five years of tough fighting, seeing your friends die and other horrors, have pushed these military units to the breaking point....and McCain want these troops on the ground indefinitely?.....if you want to break the back of the military completely, then this most certainly will be the way to do it.

EDIT:  Edited For Wrong Information

Clips... you have no idea what you are talking about.

The suicide rate among the troops, adjusted for sex and age is now almost as high as it is in the general civilian population. From a prewar level of 12 per 100,000, the rate has risen to 17.5 per 100,000. By comparison, the adjusted rate in the civilian population is 20 per 100,000.

Our military personnel are so well put together mentally, that when they begin acting like the rest of us it appears as a crisis. Even in this “crisis” they are more stable than your average New York Times reader, let alone the columnists.

Wait a second what are we discussing here? The fact that troops are dying/committing suicide or because they are supposed to be less than in the other administrations?

Anyways that information will be much more informative if we studied the numbers better such us the amount of soldiers that died vs the amount that were actually sent.

I meant that to be directed more towards the typical asshole who likes to shit on the US and its people than you but thanks for being above that...

I dont know who you are talking about but I didnt see anyone shitting on its people. Just on the government. Which is perfectly justified.

perhaps America should have ignored hitler too and avoided getting involved.

One word: Russia

Wait a second what are we discussing here? The fact that troops are dying/committing suicide or because they are supposed to be less than in the other administrations?

Anyways that information will be much more informative if we studied the numbers better such us the amount of soldiers that died vs the amount that were actually sent.

I dont know who you are talking about but I didnt see anyone shitting on its people. Just on the government. Which is perfectly justified.

One word: Russia

What is your point Unicron?  I have pointed out that suicide rates are normal compared with the rest of the population and that fatalities are actually low considering we are engaged in a conflict.

As for Russia - Two words:  Lend Lease.

What is your point Unicron?  I have pointed out that suicide rates are normal compared with the rest of the population and that fatalities are actually low considering we are engaged in a conflict.

I didnt have any particular point. I was only suggesting that the numbers probably may need further analysis. I did not conclude to anything

Edit btw I didnt put the effort to read the whole PDF yet you posted but the very first page says

A spam e-mail making the rounds in the military community serves as a reminder that
facts can be flexible when they are launched anonymously into the vast void of
cyberspace.

The e-mail, entitled, “Some very interesting statistics: Military losses, 1980 through
2006,” states that more U.S. service members died on active duty during the eight years
of the Clinton administration, when there were no major U.S. military conflicts, than in
the first six years of the George W. Bush administration, during which the military was
fighting two large-scale wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The e-mail offers year-by-year U.S. military death totals from all causes — operations,
illness, accidents, suicides, etc. — from 1980 through 2006.

The data supposedly were taken from a periodically updated Congressional Research
Service report on the subject, which in turn is based on statistics compiled by the
Pentagon’s Defense Manpower and Data Center.

[SIZE="6"]There’s just one problem: The figures listed in the email are wrong. They vary markedly
from the figures published in the cited CRS source document.[/SIZE]

I suspect the email had something to do with the elections

As for Russia - Two words:  Lend Lease.

I dont know what you are trying to say there but Russia fought the Germans with no help at all from the "allied" forces, and lost 20 million Russians.

I didnt have any particular point. I was only suggesting that the numbers probably may need further analysis. I did not conclude to anything

Edit btw I didnt put the effort to read the whole PDF yet you posted but the very first page says



I suspect the email had something to do with the elections


I dont know what you are trying to say there but Russia fought the Germans with no help at all from the "allied" forces, and lost 20 million Russians.

It seems the pdf has since changed from when I originally read it a few weeks ago.  

As for your Russia claim... where the hell do you think the Russians got all the tanks, ammo and fuel to fight the Germans?  Lend Lease - google it.

I dont know what you are trying to say there but Russia fought the Germans with no help at all from the "allied" forces, and lost 20 million Russians.

Actually they did get some help.. There were convoys going to the Barents Sea. Mostly fuel and ammo was provided.

Anyway, its not like one country could have taken on Germany. Without Russia providing cannon-fodder the allies (UK/US) would not have taken down Germany.

Russia did scare the living shit out of the Germans. And they made an impression on Hitler.

From YLEs secret recording of Hitler and Mannerheim.

Hitler: ...a very serious danger, perhaps the most serious one - it\'s whole extent we can only now judge. We did not ourselves understand - just how strong this state [the USSR] was armed.

Mannerheim: No, we hadn\'t thought of this.

Hitler: No, I too, no.

Mannerheim: During the Winter War - during the Winter War we had not even thought of this. Of course...

Hitler: (Interrupting) Yes.

Mannerheim: But so, how they - in reality - and now there is no doubt all they had - what they had in their stocks!

Hitler: Absolutely, This is - they had the most immense armaments that, uh, people could imagine. Well - if somebody had told me that a country - with...(Hitler is interrupted by the sound of a door opening and closing.) If somebody had told me a nation could start with 35,000 tanks, then I\'d have said: "You are crazy!"

Mannerheim: Thirty-five?

Hitler: Thirty-five thousand tanks.

Another Voice In Background: Thirty-five thousand! Yes!

Hitler: We have destroyed - right now - more than 34,000 tanks. If someone had told me this, I\'d have said: "You!" If you are one of my generals had stated that any nation has 35,000 tanks I\'d have said: "You, my good sir, you see everything twice or ten times. You are crazy; you see ghosts." This I would have deemed possible. I told you earlier we found factories, one of them at Kramatorskaja, for example, Two years ago there were just a couple hundred [tanks]. We didn\'t know anything. Today, there is a tank plant, where - during the first shift a little more than 30,000, and \'round the clock a little more than 60,000, workers would have labored - a single tank plant! A gigantic factory! Masses of workers who certainly, lived like animals and...

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/bdvisit2.asp

[clips]

EDIT:  Edited For Wrong Information

Clips... you have no idea what you are talking about.

The suicide rate among the troops, adjusted for sex and age is now almost as high as it is in the general civilian population. From a prewar level of 12 per 100,000, the rate has risen to 17.5 per 100,000. By comparison, the adjusted rate in the civilian population is 20 per 100,000.

Our military personnel are so well put together mentally, that when they begin acting like the rest of us it appears as a crisis. Even in this “crisis” they are more stable than your average New York Times reader, let alone the columnists.

I was mainly just pointing out that this war was putting a strain on our military...the numbers from the suicidal rate came directly from the article....

It seems the pdf has since changed from when I originally read it a few weeks ago.  

Well I did a small excel spreadsheet calculation and the numbers I picked if correct show a much different image than the one originally posted.

As for your Russia claim... where the hell do you think the Russians got all the tanks, ammo and fuel to fight the Germans?  Lend Lease - google it.

That "help" demanded other gains in return. It was nothing more than the typical exchange of interests. Only at that age it was even more unethical. "Help" was provided ONLY under their terms. Otherwise no care.

Russia had the most casualties in population and probably economically as well.
The allied European forces had the least population casualties. During Russia\'s "victory" the US and the allied European forces (because Europeans are no better) unleashed a whole system of propaganda to strip Russia from any form of credibility. They turned the heads towards the Jewish Holocaust, they exaggerated some events and have written history as they saw it fit. The allied European forces have done lots of inhumane horrible things to the Germans as well. But none is mentioned in todays history books. Today history is again rewritten to cover many of the events. Even in Russia. But the real events will disappear with the deaths of the war veterans.

And what exactly have the Western Allied Forces exaggerated?  What was expected of the Russians in return for the equipment they received other than to actually use it.  I might also add that Russia has never repaid the west for any of the lend lease program.  During 1942, the Russians could not have stopped Germany if not for the aid they received from the west.  

Maybe you are also forgetting that your "glorious" Soviet Union partitioned Poland in agreement with Germany.  Anyway as for the lend/lease:

American deliveries to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:

    * "pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941 (paid for in gold)
    * first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
    * second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
    * third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)
    * fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered on the 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to Russia was terminated.

The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945.
Aircraft    14,795
Tanks    7,056
Jeeps    51,503
Trucks    375,883
Motorcycles    35,170
Tractors    8,071
Guns    8,218
Machine guns    131,633
Explosives    345,735 tons
Building equipment valued    $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars    11,155
Locomotives    1,981
Cargo ships    90
Submarine hunters    105
Torpedo boats    197
Ship engines    7,784
Food supplies    4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment    $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals    802,000 tons
Petroleum products    2,670,000 tons
Chemicals    842,000 tons
Cotton    106,893,000 tons
Leather    49,860 tons
Tires    3,786,000
Army boots    15,417,001 pairs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Zhukov even stated the War would have been lost without American aid.

Quoting Zhukov:
"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one\'s reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers\' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries."

Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a
backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov\'s
truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and
1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of
eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

You are also forgetting to take something in account when looking at casualty figures on the Eastern Front.  Both the Germans and the Russians would fight to the death rather than surrender since both hated each other.  In the West, the Germans would surrender knowing that they would be treated humanely by the US or the British.

Who also put Europe back on its feet after WW2?  It sure as hell wasn\'t the Soviet Union.

I think you are assuming too much about my impression about the Soviet Union and based on that assumption you are bringing arguments that are completely irrelevant. I do not view the Soviet Union as any better than anyone else. I question history as it is being taught and I question the motives. All countries try to present their selves to their people as the good ones, the philanthropists, the great helpers. They are nothing more than "loan sharks". That includes Soviet Union. I do not show any empathy for the Soviet Union government or Stalin. But I do show empathy on people. Your country, the Soviet Union, and the European Allies have done a lot of bad things in history that none is trying to teach.

 Going back to the Soviet Union: The US may have provided the Soviet Union with "equipment" (that was lent and the SU had to pay back just like any other debt) but that does not change the fact that US and the European allied forced used propaganda later on to reduce any "compassion" towards the Russians. When the Germans attacked Russia, Russia did not receive any real help from its "allies".  Russia lost 20 million Russians. The supposed help came later in the form of "equipping". The Russian genocide was out shadowed by propaganda that emphasized on the Jewish holocaust, their death numbers were intentionally overestimated, and many of the events were exaggerated. The Jewish repaid with a US base in their imposed government in the middle east by the allies. And since then WW2 movies, media, books give emphasis on the Jewish deaths, and their rescue from either the US or the other European countries in Berlin. When in reality it was the Russians that entered Berlin and stopped the Jewish holocaust.

As for help from the US after the WW2 any crisis in the world outside the US is an opportunity. And no matter which country takes the role of a superpower that country will be no different.

edit: Btw just found something interesting

"How Bush\'s grandfather helped Hitler\'s rise to power"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

so what, the US (along with other countries) helped to finance, arm and train al qaeda.

war is profitable, until it\'s turned around on you.

Btw I think the US didnt exactly lend leased the Russians in 1941 but only enabled them to use their Russian owned assets in the US to purchase their weapons.

so what, the US (along with other countries) helped to finance, arm and train al qaeda.

war is profitable, until it\'s turned around on you.

And thats a huge problem

Profit comes at an expense of someone else. They dont care until it comes against them.

Shouldnt that make us more aware of whats going on, oppose such tactics instead of viewing everything as "natural" and given??