Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I'm better at Id'ing computers and tanks.

oooooo....is that a vintage Packard Bell 486 SX/33 you've got there........?

SMOKIN!

lets play X-wing!

I preferred TIE fighter [:-]

Well, his "abilities as a general" are overshadowed by his gargantuan ego. He refused artillery and air support for his infantry fighting in Manilla during the reconquest because he didn't want to flatten it. Would have been bad for his reputation.

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I'm better at Id'ing computers and tanks.

oooooo....is that a vintage Packard Bell 486 SX/33 you've got there........?

SMOKIN!

lets play X-wing!

I preferred TIE fighter [:-]

Me too. Much better game, though X-Wing Alliance was pretty good.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, his "abilities as a general" are overshadowed by his gargantuan ego. He refused artillery and air support for his infantry fighting in Manilla during the reconquest because he didn't want to flatten it. Would have been bad for his reputation.

Whether he wanted to or not, it was pretty well flattened anyway. The worst urban fighting of the Pacific war. The extent of the destruction was kept classified for a long time, but I grew up looking at my Father's photographs of the aftermath.

He probably still has those pictures and many from northern New Guinea, as well.

He was pissing on his own troops by denying them support to bolster his own ego.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

He was pissing on his own troops by denying them support to bolster his own ego.

I'm not defending his unquestioned arrogance, but the battle killed about 1000 US soldiers and about 100,000 Filipino civilians (many of them deliberately killed by the Japanese). Do you reduce your own casualties by increasing the civilian deaths (our own territorial civilians, not the enemy's)? Would 900 US and 200000 Filipino dead be a better outcome? These are the tough decisions a General has to make.

If he'd supported his troops properly, with every weapon in his arsenal, the battle might have been over quicker, leaving less time for the Japs to murder civilians.

Not fighting for Manila might have saved more of both. One of Hasting's big criticisms of Mac in his recent book was his allegation that Mac insisted on liberating every square inch of his beloved Philippines.....regardless of how many American lives it might cost.

I'll be interested in seeing what Manchester has to say about it.

Unfortunately for his troops, he had the same fixation w/ liberating northern Luzon.

[/quote]

Yes both great men, but MacArthur was slightly up himself... maybe a wee-bit.


[/quote]


I just checked with an Australian colleagues and he says it is one of his favorite expressions to describe someone as "up himself". I don't think we have a phrase that expresses that nearly as well. Can we have it in the game? Leaders rated for Leadership, Inspiration, and Up Himself?

ORIGINAL: Terminus

... He refused artillery and air support for his infantry fighting in Manilla during the reconquest because he didn't want to flatten it. Would have been bad for his reputation.

I'm not sure the Philipinos would have appreciated a devestated, albeit liberated, Manilla; it reminds me of that infamous quote by a US officer during the Vietnam War: "we had to destroy the village to save it," or words to that effect.

And I'm sure they appreciated all the extra time Mac handed the Japs to get on with murdering them.

Sometimes it's too easy to accept the destruction of someone else's country. Would you have supported a similar approach to liberating Copenhagen?

in 1967 we invaded Egupt to secure the Suez Channel

Thanks, that explains. The level of your ignorance is total. it was in 1956 that the British invaded Suez and USA made them out of it.

This is the very same type of things as Soviet Union could do

Pathetic. What peaceful American dissident was put in American Gulag because wrote some paper againt the Regime?

ORIGINAL: Dili

in 1967 we invaded Egupt to secure the Suez Channel

Thanks, that explains. The level of your ignorance is total. it was in 1956 that the British invaded Suez and USA made them out of it.

This is the very same type of things as Soviet Union could do

Pathetic. What peaceful American dissident was put in American Gulag because wrote some paper againt the Regime?

Dili,
Your post implies that you are replying to me and I want to make sure that the forum knows this is a response to Japan and not me. I do not support Japan's statements in anyway whatsoever.

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea

Sometimes it's too easy to accept the destruction of someone else's country. Would you have supported a similar approach to liberating Copenhagen?

I don't care, living in the opposite end of the country.

Did you know that the reason Fred Zifflebrugger changed his name to Douglas MacArthur; was that US Army Intelligence learned in the thirties that Japanese staff officers were having problems pronouncing Zifflebrugger. They learned that the Japanese were having problems pronouncing the Z and B in Zifflebrugger, so were saying Wifflewrugger, then getting the giggles. It transpired that Wifflewrugger was the name of a soft-cuddly Children’s toy popular at the time in Japan.


Disclaimer: This statement is meant in no way to criticize Japanese pronunciation of the English language.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And I'm sure they appreciated all the extra time Mac handed the Japs to get on with murdering them.

Are you implying that this was deliberate, similar to Stalin urging the Poles to revolt against the Nazis, and then taking his time abt "liberating" them?

No, I'm implying nothing of the sort. I'm saying flat out that Mac didn't give a rat's arse about Philippino civilians or his own troops, being far more interested in wiping out the stain on his personal honour caused by having to retreat in '42.

Same thing with Mark Clark in the Med. He wanted so desperately to "liberate" Rome that he didn't do the job that the Anzio landing had been intended to accomplish and for which his own troops had suffered so many weeks and months of misery.

Two gigantic egos, two gigantic <expletive deleted>.

ORIGINAL: Dili

Thanks, that explains. The level of your ignorance is total. it was in 1956 that the British invaded Suez and USA made them out of it.

I thought I wrote 1956, anyway i might have miss spelled something, regardless I think USA had more important things to be conserned with, as Soviet Union thretened to join the Egypties side, something who could drawn USA into a war due to its NATO oblications.


The operation, aimed at taking the Suez Canal, was highly successful from a military point of view but was a political disaster due to external forces. Along with Suez crisis, the United States was also dealing with the near-simultaneous Hungarian revolution, and faced the public relations embarrassment of criticizing Hungary's suppression of the revolutionaries there while at the same time avoiding criticism of its two principal European allies' actions. Perhaps more significantly, the United States also feared a wider war after the Soviet Union and the other Warsaw Pact nations threatened to intervene on the Egyptian side



But Dili sir, the point of my post was NOT to surest that all are equal, someone are more equal then others.
And my post was not to surest that we do everything that nations like Soviet did, of course not! But the intention was to say that we do some of the same things, and than... when others do those things we are the first ones to protest about it, but then a few years later we might do those kind of things ourselves... That was the point, not that we are all equal, remember that there will always be someone more equal then others.

... and Regardless of what we do, we will always consider ourselfs as being the "good" ones, I think that however that we are the "good" ones in some incidents and situations, but we are also the "bad" ones in some incidents and situations.