English is Easy?

[cdbeck]

So, I don't understand soccor well (or at all). I'm guessing that the scrunched faced guy on the left is the Argentinian and that he cheated by putting his hand on the ball, causing England to lose? What is the "Hand of God" thing? Oh, and that guy on the right looks like he is reaching for the ball too, is that kosher?

SoM

[PunkReaper]

The one on the left is Maradonna, who was the greatest footballer in the world at the time, but he cheated in the world cup against England handling the ball into the net. The only people in the stadium not to see the foul was the referee and his assisstant. When asked about it he called it the Hand of God.....So much talent but still a cheat.....says so much about sport.

[BoredStiff]

The guy on the left is Argentinian Diego Maradona, at the time (World Cup, 1986) arguably the best soccer player in the world.
In the picture, he can be seen using his hand to punch the ball past the English Goalkeeper (who is allowed to use his hands) into the net to score. That made the score 1:0 and Argentina went on to win 2:1. It was a quarterfinal match.
I didn't see the game, but have seen replays. Apparently many people saw the illegal handball, but unforunately, neither the referee nor the linesman did.

As for England possibly going all the way if this hadn't happened - lol. [;)]

Edit: I might add that mistakes of this magnitude by referees in soccer are thankfully very rare. But when they happen, they're talked about forever.

Here's the short video.

[Ike99]

We, and that includes me personally, were there to insure that people like you are able to thumb your nose at the people who selflessly defended your country for more than sixty years...

If it was ¨selfless¨ as you say then why do you keep talking about it all the time as if they owe you something!! If it was true so ¨selfless¨ you wouldn´t say anything about it at all now would you?

[:-]

Because you couldn´t ¨buy your own beer¨ and were freezing your ¨ass off on some mountaintop in the Rhoene¨ Well, these are your problems, not theirs.

I think you're wrong here. Not tanks or soldiers saved us from another great tragedy, but nuclear deterrence. Regarding conventional warfare the Sovjets had outnumbered NATO forces by far and probably crossed the Rhine before your 300k soldiers even knew what happened.

I agree with you. The Russians are a tough people. They would have went through those 300,000 wifes, children and soldiers wishing to ¨buy their own beer¨ with no difficulty. Having Moscow nuked was much more of a concern for them.

[andym]

ORIGINAL: BoredStiff

ORIGINAL: andym

Just thought i would say that the Russians fired an ICBM from a Nuclear Sub in the Barents Sea this week.Scary or what?

Why should this be any scarier than the US, France, Britain or China testing their nukes?

Have you seen the state of thier Nuclear fleet????

[Dennistoun]

Why not? After England beating Belgium in the S-Final, they would have faced a German side who mostly struggled thru that whole competition. Leading UP to the S-Finals, Germany only scored 4 goals to Gaz Lineker's 5! That Final would have been all to play for.
And with Lineker (World Cup 1986 top scorer) on fire...



[quote]ORIGINAL: BoredStiff




As for England possibly going all the way if this hadn't happened - lol. [;)]

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

[If it was ¨selfless¨ as you say then why do you keep talking about it all the time as if they owe you something!! If it was true so ¨selfless¨ you wouldn´t say anything about it at all now would you?

Well Ike99, the deployment was to a very large degree, a selfless task. Billions of dollars were pumped into the German economy by the US presence there, and not much was asked in return. It is true that we got something in return; being able to counter a threat to the U.S. thousands of miles from home instead of right in our front yard. On the other hand, Germany, and all of Western Europe were able to maintain their freedom. Keep in mind that the U.S. could have easily turned its back on Europe and still had been quite safe-Germany would have been a "workers paradise" long ago. In view of the great success of "free trade", especially the one sided type, I know that the U.S. would have been much better off to become isolationist-except those that play by the same rules.

It could be said we were the the "gravy train" for Germany. Not only were billions pumped into the economy by the normal means, but there were other little benefits. Occasionally, during winter only, the U.S. Army would conduct exercises in local areas instead of the major training bases such as Graffenweer (spell?), Hohenfells, and a couple of others. In every village, the people would come out to right down our convoy numbers so they could cash in on payouts for anything we allegedly damaged (streets, curbs, fencing, etc.) I know that on occasions, the damage was not cause by us-they were simply suckling on Uncle Sam. Farm fields were another great source of income-even without crops, due to our presence. IIRC, it was ten dollars a lineal foot of track rut in a field-and there were a lot of them. These local training areas were necessary to use as we were training to fight, and win being out numbered at least 5 to one-it was for the common cause. There was on uproar when the American public found out about a few 600 dollar toilet seats for the Air Force-good thing they never heard about the farm field ruts. Speaking of farms, a German farmer visiting us in the field told my platoon he was happy to have the U.S. Army using his land because, "Americans bury there crap, the other armies just leave it on the ground.

As for the actual presence of ground units in Germany; they were essential to the Western defensive strategy. I surely hope that no one here believes that the U.S. would have fired a nuke at Moscow as soon as the first Polish mortar round hit FRG's soil. There would have to be a real ground war, a war involving U.S. troops, before anyone would support the use of strategic nukes. The threat of tactical nukes is what made the Russians hold back. In particular, the development of the "neutron bomb", with its low blast yield, brought an end to any Soviet plans (even with their silly anti radiation pills) for a conventional war in Western Europe.

I have to agree with you that U.S. motives are not 100% altruistic, but judging on a curve, the U.S. looks pretty damn good in comparison to the rest of the world. Germans, and others have been gracious in their thanks to Americans; I've witnessed this many times-even from those which lived near major support facilities full of wanna be pimps (rear echelon types).

I don't recall having seen an American soliciting thanks for our real national and personal sacrifice unless someone states (or insinuates) that our efforts were meaningless, or selfish. Such statements are clearly false, and many Americans will feel obliged to respond. Do not misunderstand, I am not saying the U.S. is beyond criticism, but it should be factual-from my point of view, of course.[8D]

[E]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: E

ORIGINAL: Neilster



I'm a mathematician who specialises in probability. There is no such thing as a no-lose system. There is stuff you can do if you have an infinite pool to play with. Got one of those?

I'm not a mathematician, but I can assure you that if I only play with complimentary chips, I cannot lose any of my own money. That is a no-lose system! Granted, it's not necessarily a winning system either, but I suffer no monetary losses from gambling using it. *grin*

OK. It's a no-lose-your-own-money system. It's not a no-lose system. All the best.

Cheers, Neilster

Ah, but a no-lose-your-own-money system is a no-lose system in my book**! *grin* (sorry we can't use your book, as it is obviously upside down *grin*) Let's move on to something that is debatable... which side would you like to play? "Your country sucks" or "My country can do no wrong?" *grin*

**See page 4 under the connect the dots illustration 1-2.

[NefariousKoel]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

I don't recall having seen an American soliciting thanks for our real national and personal sacrifice unless someone states (or insinuates) that our efforts were meaningless, or selfish. Such statements are clearly false, and many Americans will feel obliged to respond.

Nicely summed 'up'.

[Ike99]

There would have to be a real ground war, a war involving U.S. troops, before anyone would support the use of strategic nukes.

These local training areas were necessary to use as we were training to fight, and win being out numbered at least 5 to one-it was for the common cause.

I don´t agree. I think you would have been dead and in a very short time with much of Europe with you. Just look through Soviet war plans.

Soviet plans to annihilate Europe revealed

Red and blue mushroom clouds are marked on the map, showing Soviet nuclear bombs raining down on cities including Brussels, Antwerp, Munich and Stuttgart...

Soviet plan for WW3 nuclear attack unearthed

Chilling Soviet plans to launch massive nuclear strikes in Europe followed by a ground offensive in Germany and southern France have been unearthed by a Nato historian.

On the ninth day the troops would take Lyon, south eastern France.

[cdbeck]

Ok, my only political commentary.

I think its funny that a person from the country of Juan and Eva Peron is lecturing anyone on the ethics of nations. Puh-leese. [8|]

Denigrating the service record of the armed forces here is a dangrous thing to do.

If you ask current West Germans if they appreciated Nato, and American, troops stationed in their lands for over 30 years, you will get a near resounding "Ja!" No one was soliciting thanks for this sort of thing. America shouldn't be given full credit for "saving the world," but it was, to a large extent, the diplomatic efforts of presidents such as Nixon and Reagan that allowed for democratic regimes to triumph over international communist ones. Did the west also sponsor dictatorial regimes, particularly in South America? You betcha. But at the time, this seemed to be the best course of action, although it seems abominable now. Hard to say what had happened if these actions had not been taken.

Lastly, I doubt the Soviet Union actually had the strength to pull off what you are arguing above. Historians mostly assert now that Soviet strength was more of a paper tiger than once thought, and that there was less central control of the Soviet military than once believed. Double agents, particularly Aldrich Ames, were responsible for extending the length of the cold war and exaggerating Soviet readiness and military strength. They may have been powerful, but they were in no way as strong as we believed in the 70s-80s.

SoM

[06 Maestro]

Ike 99

Well; when the "ball goes UP", all bets are off. If they were UPtty enough to think they could have achieved surprise, and they did, then they may have "succeeded". If we, and the German Army ( a very well trained, equipped and motivated force) had a chance to deploy, they would have bled dearly. With the use of tactical nukes, they would have been stopped dead. If anyone resorted to strategic nukes, escalation would likely have been rapid and disastrous for the world-perhaps the very end of western civilization. If they actually planned on preliminary strategic nuclear strikes, that just shows how insane they were. Fortunately, the Russians were not willing to destroy the earth for some archaic belief as (oops, slapping my fingers-almost screwed UP).

I doubt there were many who had visions of any meaningful victory, or survival. I remember the red alert during the Yom Kippur war. It took the smile off everyones face real fast. The WP boys were gearing UP also. Perhaps the time of year (bad flying weather for ground support, muddy ground) of that event stopped a possible clash. The world was close to "giving UP the ghost" in October of '73. It would be a good setting for a war game.

BTW, what's UP with your links? Those titles look interesting, but are not active.

[SireChaos]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Ok, my only political commentary.

I think its funny that a person from the country of Juan and Eva Peron is lecturing anyone on the ethics of nations. Puh-leese. [8|]

Denigrating the service record of the armed forces here is a dangrous thing to do.

If you ask current West Germans if they appreciated Nato, and American, troops stationed in their lands for over 30 years, you will get a near resounding "Ja!" No one was soliciting thanks for this sort of thing. America shouldn't be given full credit for "saving the world," but it was, to a large extent, the diplomatic efforts of presidents such as Nixon and Reagan that allowed for democratic regimes to triumph over international communist ones. Did the west also sponsor dictatorial regimes, particularly in South America? You betcha. But at the time, this seemed to be the best course of action, although it seems abominable now. Hard to say what had happened if these actions had not been taken.

As I said - enlightened self-interest. Sadly, in some cases, not so enlightened, and I think you will find that these are the cases which draw the majority of the criticism. Those, and the people who demand that the US be eternally celebrated as heroes for exercising said enlightened self-interest.

Lastly, I doubt the Soviet Union actually had the strength to pull off what you are arguing above. Historians mostly assert now that Soviet strength was more of a paper tiger than once thought, and that there was less central control of the Soviet military than once believed. Double agents, particularly Aldrich Ames, were responsible for extending the length of the cold war and exaggerating Soviet readiness and military strength. They may have been powerful, but they were in no way as strong as we believed in the 70s-80s.

SoM

Hell, yes. By the accounts, East Germany was among the healthier Warsaw Pact economies, and... well, I´ve been there several times shortly after the Wall fell, and, let´s say, I was not impressed. Downtrodden, backwards, in disrepair, derelict... you´ll have to excuse me, English is not my first language and I´m running out of applicable terms.

[ilovestrategy]

My wife is Filipino and she told me that English is one(bad word goes here!) up language!

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: Lützow

I think you're wrong here.

Hey what do I know? I was only there at the time.

Not tanks or soldiers saved us from another great tragedy, but nuclear deterrence.

Did you know that American nuclear weapons were stored near Erwin Rommel's home town of Herrlingen? I did. And so did the Russians. There was something called the Soviet Military Laison Mission in West Germany at the time, and their job was to find out stuff like that. They knew to within one hundred meters where every nuclear device in Western Europe was kept. How long do you think a German owned "nuclear deterrent" would have lasted?

The "nuclear deterrant" was located in the fields of Iowa and under the North Atlantic. You think Jimmy Carter would have risked a retaliatory strike on Washington, D.C. because Russian troops were over running a West Germany where all the "obolete" American troops had been withdrawn? An act of war like seizing the United States embassy in Iran wasn't enough to get Jimmy Carter to do anything.

The "detterent" to invading West Germany was the fact that it couldn't be done without going over the dead bodies of about half a million American "human shields". Human sheilds who put their asses where their mouths were.

Regarding conventional warfare the Sovjets had outnumbered NATO forces by far and probably crossed the Rhine before your 300k soldiers even knew what happened.

Just like Iraqi troops using Soviet equipment and Soviet doctrine walked all over American troops in Iraq, right?

My reasoning here was just, that merely allied restrictions in terms of German rearmament made American presence necessary.

Allied restrictions on German re armqament are the only reason Germany still exists. An announcement about a Bundeswehr atomic weapons program in 1950 would have been the first page in the history of World War III.

Aside of this I respect those GI's serving in Germany during Cold War. It was a retired US army Sergeant who instructed me at shooting range and I'm not biased toward your country at all. However, what made me upset and interfere with this thread is rather your arrogant attitude, conjuring the picture of the obnoxious American. Maybe you should contemplate before insulting people.

Yes, I understand that interjecting facts into left wing fantasies is considered "arrogant". After all, some Green Party college boy born a decade after I left cold war Germany knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do. And how obnoxious and insulting of me to thank the german people I met during that time for their graciousness and generosity. I am sorry I insulted your country by volunteering to defend it for more than eight years while your own young pacifists were overdosing on heroin in Bahnhof toilets.

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

On the ninth day the troops would take Lyon, south eastern France.[/color]

Yeah. And on the ninth day, Argentian stormtroopers would have held a victory dance at Port Stanley.[8|]

But look how much Argentina appreciates them

Two months after Argentine forces surrendered to the British on the Falkland Islands, this nation appears to have all but forgotten its nearly 11,000 war veterans.

It has done little to eulogize its 600 dead or console its 1,300 wounded. There have been no medals awarded to any survivors. Few veterans' benefits are available. And the army is still studying the matter of compensating those who suffered crippling wounds

They got to buy their own beer, even in their own country. German kids followed us around every where we went. Crowds gathered on the streets when we drove by. Children run away from your blood thirsty butchers.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Lützow

ORIGINAL: SireChaos
Nuclear weapons are (or were, during the Cold War) the weapons of great powers. Every time Germany becomes a great power, a disaster Made in Germany happens. ´nuff said.

Guess I have a different view on history then. The european tragedy started at Sarajevo in 1914 and everything worse happened during 20th century can be traced back to this incident - till Kosovo war in late 90'ish. Other major powers were involved as well and pursued their own policies. I could quote Churchill here, but elaborating this would derail this thread.

So let's rather go back and bash somebody else. [:'(]

I have to agree with you on this point, Lutzow. Germany was not to blame for the Great War. A thread on Germany's "militarism" would be very interesting-and educational. The victors of WW1 had a chance to create a new beginning, but fell far short of the task at Versailles. The following conflict with Germany should have been predictable given the dictates. Keep in mind though that the U.S. government had nothing to do with the Treaty of Versailles. Our government recognized it for what it was-vindictive garbage. Once again, we were above the fray.

In view of the current reality, the idea of a nuclear armed Germany would make some folks quite nervous. In the future, German commanders will have to be able to control nuclear arsenals-I can'r envision an integrated European defence force which would preclude this.

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: SireChaos




English is not my first language and I´m running out of applicable terms.

Wow, English is not your second language? Your vocabulary is really good. [&o]
Did you have a formal education? I'm just curious.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: SireChaos
Hell, yes. By the accounts, East Germany was among the healthier Warsaw Pact economies, and... well, I´ve been there several times shortly after the Wall fell, and, let´s say, I was not impressed. Downtrodden, backwards, in disrepair, derelict... you´ll have to excuse me, English is not my first language and I´m running out of applicable terms.

LOL-I know of which you speak. I made several trips into Berlin on mandatory R&R's (circa 1973 to '76). My unit went into East Berlin twice. The difference between the 2 cities was remarkable. West Berlin was a modern, vibrant city, full of color, new buildings, fancy cars, clubs, and an apparently happy population. Just across the wall was the 'showplace of communism". The difference is in fact hard to picture. Buildings built of rubble, empty/damaged apartments near the wall, a couple hundred meters of dirt with tank obstacles (facing away from W Berlin) from the wall, those loud/smelly/tiny/funky/grey cars occasionally sputtering down the street, few people moving about, nearly everyone wearing some drab grey clothing, an eery lack of color, not a smile to be seen anywhere-it was almost surreal. The only thing that had some color and looked new was the Soviet war memorial-and even that was not very impressive-(not bad though).

If East Berlin was the "Showplace of Communism", the Soviet block had to be one horrible place to live. The funny part of this is that West Berliners could see and hear the East German woe's. Therefore, all of Germany knew what a wreck it was, and anyone else who had an interest could have found out. The reality of the situation didn't stop Angela Davis from making a "defection" to the east in broad daylight (right at Brandenburg Gate IIRC). Not very far from where many east Germans had died trying to get out. A good commie she was-how brave, too.[;)]

[SLAAKMAN]

The only language I speak these days is......WORLD IN FLAMES!!! [:D]