Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


To claim that the gulf war was not combat is pure idiocy. Drop this moronic line of reasoning, cut your losses and move on.

You're telling a combat vet from GW1 how he should characterize his own war. I'd say he's earned the right to describe it any darn way he wants to - and I can understand how he might feel that it just doesn't compare to fighting in the PTO. Seems to me to be an example of humility rather than idiocy.

I'm grateful for his service as I would hope your fellow countrymen would be of yours, combat vet or not.

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I'll leave you to your delusions. I'm outta here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWKdokcvM7A

ORIGINAL: mjk428
You're telling a combat vet from GW1 how he should characterize his own war. I'd say he's earned the right to describe it any darn way he wants to - and I can understand how he might feel that it just doesn't compare to fighting in the PTO. Seems to me to be an example of humility rather than idiocy.

Like I said, I dont think a Tornado pilot would characterize GW1 as "non-combat". Nor would any of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties. Now, if you want to jump on the retard-bandwaggon, be my guest, but his statement was as idiotic as your defence of it.

Back to the movies; I watched FOOF in the comfort of my home a while back. I was really let down by C. Eastwood; the whole story was useless (IMHO), and the combat portions-all of them, absolutely sucked-it was almost a comedy. I am not interested in supporting such rag films; it's too bad the other movie sounds almost good, as I'm not interested in giving any more of my money.

As for the other subject here of "collective guilt"; I'm not sure if the writers are speaking from a philosophical point of view, or are stating what they perceive as reality. The reality is that "collective guilt" is alive and well. Regardless whether it is right or wrong, it has been a normal part of life for a long. long, time. Does anyone know haw many billions of dollars that German taxpayers have paid in restitution to Jews since 1945-and continue to pay to this day? How much Germany doles out to Israel every year? How many Germans were slaughtered or driven from their ancestral homes in eastern Europe, and was that because they suddenly became bad neighbors? Italians booted out of Libya due to??? Anyone heard from a Tatar recently? Seems like they had their own little diaspora arranged by good old "uncle Joe" after the Great Patriotic War.

Is Zionism racism? It appears that there are a few billion people that think so-they may be right, but what about the Jew who just wants to live in peace in Israel? If he believes in Israel, then he is a Zionist, and you know what we should do with those Zionist, don't you? What about those nasty khafirs that support the Zionist? I have read OBL's statements justifying attacks on civilians in America; "they are tax payers that support our enemies" (or words to that effect). White Americans loosing jobs to minorities (even if those "minorities" are a majority) due to past wrongs committed by people of the same skin color is what? Paying a restitution as a group for something someone else did from the same group. long, long, ago, is what?

Collective guilt does seem wrong to me, but it exists-always has, and most likely, always will.

One more note, I had the honor of knowing dozens of WW2 vets from my membership in an American Legion post. To a man, the ones that fought against the Japanese hated them with a passion-40 years after the fact. The fellows that fought in Africa, and Europe had a completely different outlook on their foes. The Japanese are largely responsible for the way people around the world look at them. There may have been W's of thousands of Japanese that just wanted to go home to Mommy, or their honey, but that does not change the reality of the brutality that the Japanese forces engaged in on every front.

Although I know that American and Allied forces did commit some atrocities during that war, those actions are really quite insignificant compared to what the Japanese dished out.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Like I said, I dont think a Tornado pilot would characterize GW1 as "non-combat". Nor would any of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties. Now, if you want to jump on the retard-bandwaggon, be my guest, but his statement was as idiotic as your defence of it.

You just don't have a clue. You're telling someone that was actually there how he should characterize GW1. I'm sure there are GW1 vets that would take issue with Sarge, but they don't need you to defend them.

I seriously doubt a GW1 Tornado pilot would be bragging about his combat record to a BoB Spitfire pilot. Obviously GW1 was combat but it wasn't Iwo. Also, no doubt it was very real combat for the Iraqis. It's the only war I'm aware that got called off because too many of the enemy were being killed (Highway of Death).

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

Back to the movies; I watched FOOF in the comfort of my home a while back. I was really let down by C. Eastwood; the whole story was useless (IMHO), and the combat portions-all of them, absolutely sucked-it was almost a comedy. I am not interested in supporting such rag films; it's too bad the other movie sounds almost good, as I'm not interested in giving any more of my money.

It's really a shame that "Flags" wasn't focused on the battle. Basically "Letters" from the US side. Especially after all the terrible WW2 movies from Hollywood lately. Still, "Letters" is worth a rent. The studio (& Clint) won't see much from that.

As for the other subject here of "collective guilt"; I'm not sure if the writers are speaking from a philosophical point of view, or are stating what they perceive as reality. The reality is that "collective guilt" is alive and well. Regardless whether it is right or wrong, it has been a normal part of life for a long. long, time. Does anyone know haw many billions of dollars that German taxpayers have paid in restitution to Jews since 1945-and continue to pay to this day? How much Germany doles out to Israel every year? How many Germans were slaughtered or driven from their ancestral homes in eastern Europe, and was that because they suddenly became bad neighbors? Italians booted out of Libya due to??? Anyone heard from a Tatar recently? Seems like they had their own little diaspora arranged by good old "uncle Joe" after the Great Patriotic War.

Is Zionism racism? It appears that there are a few billion people that think so-they may be right, but what about the Jew who just wants to live in peace in Israel? If he believes in Israel, then he is a Zionist, and you know what we should do with those Zionist, don't you? What about those nasty khafirs that support the Zionist? I have read OBL's statements justifying attacks on civilians in America; "they are tax payers that support our enemies" (or words to that effect). White Americans loosing jobs to minorities (even if those "minorities" are a majority) due to past wrongs committed by people of the same skin color is what? Paying a restitution as a group for something someone else did from the same group. long, long, ago, is what?

Collective guilt does seem wrong to me, but it exists-always has, and most likely, always will.

One more note, I had the honor of knowing dozens of WW2 vets from my membership in an American Legion post. To a man, the ones that fought against the Japanese hated them with a passion-40 years after the fact. The fellows that fought in Africa, and Europe had a completely different outlook on their foes. The Japanese are largely responsible for the way people around the world look at them. There may have been W's of thousands of Japanese that just wanted to go home to Mommy, or their honey, but that does not change the reality of the brutality that the Japanese forces engaged in on every front.

Although I know that American and Allied forces did commit some atrocities during that war, those actions are really quite insignificant compared to what the Japanese dished out.

Beer!

Actually I am calling BS on your claim that Sweden had concentration camps. Its a lie. Period.

Actually, It's not. If you were not a pathological liar you would not ignore what is common knowledge. Nice try the with the"I won't lower myself to the level of Ad Hom personal attacks like the racist, ignorant, warmongering American fascists" hypocrisy.[8|]

Doggie would not be able to fight his way out of a wet paper-bag, much less defend his own views. Have you actually been looking at his posts in this thread?

Looks to me like you're the guy who can't defend his own views, that's why you got nothing outside of "you're a racist doo doo head". That's what you're left with when it's obvious to everyone you have no clue what you're blubbering about.

His views on world are,maybe,slightly better than hitler or stallin views. Fortunately his backward views are in minor in USA

Another "expert" on the United States from eastern Europe.[8|]

But ok, I was a squadleader in the Swedish army 1992-1993, and Ive been in the Swedish National guards from 2000 to now.

Bahahaha. A squadleader in an army that hasn't fired a shot in 600 years. You got a merit badge in "pissing in fijords"?

As for the British, we lost more to friendly fire from the Americans.

Because the stupid yanks killed any Iraqis before they could get close enough to shoot at any British troops. Hundreds of British troops who would be dead are alive today because of American airpower. Compare to the Falkland Islands, where there was no American airpower. Another college boy "military expert".[8|]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

And you do personally know what it's like? You're a combat veteran?

Unlike some people, I'm entitled to wear U.S. Army division patches from the First Infantry Division and the XVIII Airborne Corps. But you don't see posting an avatar pic of Audie Murphy and commenting on things I know absolutely nothing about.
Unlike some people, I actually was a member of the United States Army aviation company starting in 1972 and another combat aviation company of the NCARNG during 1991. I do not represent myself to be something I'm not, such as a United States Marine.

And like many other people here who are not European college boy "experts" on military history, I knew hundreds of people who actually were combat marines, sailors, and soldier in the Pacific during world war II, and to a man, every one of them despised the Japanese and not one of them regretting killing them in mass quantities. Most regret they did not kill more of them.

To claim that the gulf war was not combat is pure idiocy. Drop this moronic line of reasoning, cut your losses and move on.

To claim you know more about the Gulf War than people who actually participated is the absolute height of imbecilic arrogancance. Perhaps Mjk and Sarge should tell you what it's like to engage in homosexual orgies in a Swedish Army barracks? The difference between them and you is they don't make habit of designating themselves as experts on subjects they know nothing about. You, however, may feel free to enlighten us as to your distinguished service in a military organization that has not awarded a decoration for combat valor in centuries.

Like I said, I dont think a Tornado pilot would characterize GW1 as "non-combat

That pilot would be one of less than a dozen Tornado pilots that actually pickeled a bomb.
The overwhelming majority of combat air sorties were flown by American naval and airforce aircraft. And even their experiences were a day at the park compared to world war II. The United States armed forces lost more men in a single day on
Tarawa than all the coalition forces put together have lost in six years of combat in both Gulf wars and Afghanistan.

ORIGINAL: Doggie
Actually, It's not. If you were not a pathological liar you would not ignore what is common knowledge. Nice try the with the"I won't lower myself to the level of Ad Hom personal attacks like the racist, ignorant, warmongering American fascists" hypocrisy.[8|]

No, doggie. Its still a lie. Sweden never had concentration camps. We had internment camps for foreign airmen who were shot down over Sweden, but that is not the same thing, and we never put swedish citizens in them. I guess this goes to show how dangerous it is for someone to try to wikipedia his way to knowledge.

Bahahaha. A squadleader in an army that hasn't fired a shot in 600 years. You got a merit badge in "pissing in fijords"?

He asked if I had served. I told him the answer. The fact that my service does not impress you is something I shall have to live with.

To claim you know more about the Gulf War than people who actually participated is the absolute height of imbecilic arrogancance.

Actually, here we are arguing semantics "what is combat", "what action should be considered combat" etc. To fail to understand that, and the difference between that and some personal recollection of gw1 must be considered remarkable.

Perhaps Mjk and Sarge should tell you what it's like to engage in homosexual orgies in a Swedish Army barracks?

Nah, that is something the three of you can talk about in your msn-conversations or whatever.

That pilot would be one of less than a dozen Tornado pilots that actually pickeled a bomb.
The overwhelming majority of combat air sorties were flown by American naval and airforce aircraft. And even their experiences were a day at the park compared to world war II.

Keep digging yourself deeper into that hole, you are only putting your own ignorance on a brighter display for all of us to be dazzled by. To the rest of the world, the question "was gw1 combat?" can be answered without comparing gw1 to ww2.

The United States armed forces lost more men in a single day on
Tarawa than all the coalition forces put together have lost in six years of combat in both Gulf wars and Afghanistan.

Heh, so the definition of combat depends on how many US troops were killed?

Have you noticed, btw, what has happened when you ran out of arguments to defend your outrageous position on japan in ww2? Have you noticed that you havent even tried to counter the arguments I put forth. Instead we get this rubbish? Its funny, in a sad and pathetic way.

ORIGINAL: mjk428

You just don't have a clue. You're telling someone that was actually there how he should characterize GW1. I'm sure there are GW1 vets that would take issue with Sarge, but they don't need you to defend them.

I seriously doubt a GW1 Tornado pilot would be bragging about his combat record to a BoB Spitfire pilot. Obviously GW1 was combat but it wasn't Iwo. Also, no doubt it was very real combat for the Iraqis. It's the only war I'm aware that got called off because too many of the enemy were being killed (Highway of Death).

Well, it seems we are in agreement. GW1 was combat. Thank you.

ORIGINAL: Doggie
Perhaps Mjk and Sarge should tell you what it's like to engage in homosexual orgies in a Swedish Army barracks?

This is too funny. Going into my sigline.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

This is too funny. Going into my sigline.

Thanks Panzerjaeger. It's good to get the funny bits of doggie without having to read the rest.

The other thing, is that I notice that someone said that allied soldiers didn't have combat stress during GW1(or something similar). Well, it's true I wasn't there, but I have seen allied soldiers that DID get combat stress. You can get combat stress for a whole variety of reasons. Among those is the fact that it's not only what you "they do to you" as "what you do to them". There REALLY is no wider point being made here, honestly. It's just that I've seen people who were just as good soldiers as anybody else.

I'm also not wanting to draw the discussion away from WW2. Personally I think that "culpability" for atrocious behaviour, among all the very many countries involved, at different times, and in different places, is something that's just too complex for me to want to dabble in here, as it's almost certain that somebody will take exception to something I might write, and then it will stop being a sensible discussion, and I don't really think I want that.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


Like I said, I dont think a Tornado pilot would characterize GW1 as "non-combat". Nor would any of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties. Now, if you want to jump on the retard-bandwaggon, be my guest, but his statement was as idiotic as your defence of it.

LOL,

Now that American and its vets are the subject you have gone from Individual to Collective experience.
Wonder why that would be ?

But anyaway, nice partisan shot with the civilian death figure, civilian deaths are always collective in the context of American military.



As in your little fan boy KG aka the turd enlightened us with earlier,

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Really? Tell the widows of the soldiers who died in that non-combat that complete BS.

I'll leave you to your delusions. I'm outta here.

I as a vet of the 1GW should offer up apologies to the family that lost a loved one in the conflicted .
After a statement like that the only thing I am going to offer is assistance in helping shove KG teeth out his a$$.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
But...and I seem to be forced to return to this again... all of the above is beside the point. The point is that guilt is always individual, never collective. And blind, racist stereotyping is not really that productive.

Unless you count being in the SS in which the entire organization was deemed a criminal organization by the international military tribunal.

"The IMT indicted the defendants on charges of crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The IMT defined crimes against humanity as "murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation...or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds." A fourth charge of conspiracy was added both to cover crimes committed under domestic Nazi law before the start of World War II and so that subsequent tribunals would have jurisdiction to prosecute any individual belonging to a proven criminal organization. Therefore the IMT also indicted several Nazi organizations deemed to be criminal, namely: the Reich Cabinet, the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, the Elite Guard (SS), the Security Service (SD), the Secret State Police (Gestapo), the Stormtroopers (SA), and the General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces."

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?la ... d=10007069

Thus this collective guilt was used as a means to deprive members of the waffen ss of military benefits after the war that were given to members of the wermacht, luftwaffe, etc.

It is clear then, that guilt was collective and not individual in this case as simple membership in an organization, regardless of a persons individual actions while in that organization was enough to merit guilt.

ORIGINAL: Sarge

LOL,

Now that American and its vets are the subject you have gone from Individual to Collective experience.
Wonder why that would be ?

But anyaway, nice partisan shot with the civilian death figure, civilian deaths are always collective in the context of American military.

Sarge. Straight question. Was GW1 combat or not? If you answer this question with "no", then you need to tell us what sort of definition of "combat" you are using.

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

Unless you count being in the SS in which the entire organization was deemed a criminal organization by the international military tribunal.

Indeed, congratulations for having genuine knowledge on this topic. At Nuremberg it was decided that the SS shared a collective guilt, meaning that every member of the SS shared the same guilt.

This of cource meant that the female switchboard operators at the Reichstag (who were members of the SS) were as guilty of warcrimes as the members of the einzatsgruppen who massacred tens of thousands of civilians. That this is a ludicrous and indefensible position is quite clear, which is why the collective guilt-idea is a non-starter.

But you are correct. And the one example I was referring to earlier was this desicion at Nuremberg.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Indeed, congratulations for having genuine knowledge on this topic. At Nuremberg it was decided that the SS shared a collective guilt, meaning that every member of the SS shared the same guilt.

This of cource meant that the female switchboard operators at the Reichstag (who were members of the SS) were as guilty of warcrimes as the members of the einzatsgruppen who massacred tens of thousands of civilians. That this is a ludicrous and indefensible position is quite clear, which is why the collective guilt-idea is a non-starter.

But you are correct. And the one example I was referring to earlier was this desicion at Nuremberg.

Aside from one's personal view on the matter, the point is that yes, collective guilt does exist and members have been held accountable due to it regardless of personal actions.

The point here is that collective guilt does not necessarily depend upon 'racist stereotyping' as you earlier posited but rather depends on the overarching nature of a particular group -- be that the SS, the SA, the SD, or in this case the japanese army.

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

Aside from one's personal view on the matter, the point is that yes, collective guilt does exist and members have been held accountable due to it regardless of personal actions.

Well, yes and no. Like I said earlier, Nuremberg is the one exception to the rule, a rule that has been at the very heart of morality and jurisprudence in the western civilization since pretty much the dawn of time.

And no, today the verdict of Nuremberg has lost all legal relevance, no one could be tried and convicted in a court of law today on the sole basis of SS membership, some form of individual culpability must exist aswell.

The point here is that collective guilt does not necessarily depend upon 'racist stereotyping' as you earlier posited but rather depends on the overarching nature of a particular group -- be that the SS, the SA, the SD, or in this case the japanese army.

I am well aware that collective guilt need not be dependent on racist stereotyping. However, in doggies case it is based on that, and that is what we were discussing.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Well, yes and no. Like I said earlier, Nuremberg is the one exception to the rule, a rule that has been at the very heart of morality and jurisprudence in the western civilization since pretty much the dawn of time.

It's actually not the exception to the rule as one can see collective guilt being applied in lawsuits all the time (at least here in the US). When a particular employee engages in illegal behavior, the company can often be held responsible in addition to the individual.

And no, today the verdict of Nuremberg has lost all legal relevance, no one could be tried and convicted in a court of law today on the sole basis of SS membership, some form of individual culpability must exist aswell.

Even today SS membership denies one from receiving military benefits, no? This is predicated upon the collective guilt of being in the SS in the first place.

I am well aware that collective guilt need not be dependent on racist stereotyping. However, in doggies case it is based on that, and that is what we were discussing.

I see nothing in doggie's post that denotes it was based upon racist stereotyping.

His first post:

"Yep, the poor Japanese were such swell guys

Too bad any movie that portrayed them as they really were would be worse than the most graphic slasher film imaginable."

He then provides a link to some despicable actions. What he does is apply the same collective guilt notion to the japanese army that is applied to the SS, SA, and so on. You'll find some people also think that all members of the SS were barbarians, but such a judgement isn't based upon race, but rather upon the actions of the organization as a whole.

Thus doggie's assertion isn't based upon race but rather upon the actions of this organization. You may not like the concept of collective guilt, but it has precedent in law.

I think the situation regarding "Corporate Responsibilty" is a little different from that regarding "collective guilt". I am no lawyer, but there is the other thorny issue of where responsibility lies for any one particular atrocity. That is to say, at which point in the chain of command. I would use the example of the My Lai massacre as an example, for no political reason, but because I was of an age and location such that it impinged on my memory, and also the recent death of that amazing american soldier Hugh Thompson, who, along with his gunship crew, faced down the over-ranking perpetrators, and effectively stopped the massacre. The story touched me, all over again, when I heard of his death. It seems to me, that in a case like that, a lot of people managed to escape responsibility, including Lt. Calley, who though found guilty (and was arguably the fall guy, as well as being guilty) was released after only a few years house arrest. Hugh and his team (one died in combat shortly after the events), were awfully  pilloried by the establsihment, until the US got over the wounds of it's Vietnam experience, and he, and his crew, were then given the honour he desreved. The Soldier's medal, I believe.

I lived in Australia, as a teenager during these events, and that is the only reason they are so strong in my mind. The massacre was so terribly tragic, but the legal procedure that followed, and the way the Hugh Thompson's crew were treated, create a picture which is confusinfg almost beyond comprehension. It makes discussions about collective and individual guilt somehow, for me, just seem too simplistic, even if they are, as I suspect, also extremely important to discuss.

I know that may not be of much relevance, but I have to sing Hugh Thompson's praises somewhere and this time and place seems as good as any.

ORIGINAL: Mart

I think the situation regarding "Corporate Responsibilty" is a little different from that regarding "collective guilt".

The idea is that the 'corporate responsibility' that you allude to has to do with a collective (the corporate organization) is responsible for the actions of it's individual parts. It's not different than the organization of the SS being held responsible for the actions of it's members (as well as it's policies).

It makes discussions about collective and individual guilt somehow, for me, just seem too simplistic, even if they are, as I suspect, also extremely important to discuss.

Can we agree that some things really are simplistic?