dcsimg
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 124

Thread: U.S. Marine Corps releases Al Qaeda Terrorist

  1. #76
    Senior Member Lgbpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by mireland
    there's a lot of love in these parts for werz..........
    You mean there's a lot of love here for werz in parts?
    Thank God we're not getting all of the government we're paying for!

  2. #77
    Guest leprechaun_40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    In your dreams
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Lgbpop
    You mean there's a lot of love here for werz in parts?
    Yeah, lots of little gooey ones

  3. #78
    Registered User mireland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    3,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Lgbpop
    You mean there's a lot of love here for werz in parts?
    bits, pieces, whatever...

  4. #79
    Registered User BadDriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by mireland
    bits, pieces, whatever...
    Sausage.

  5. #80
    Guest leprechaun_40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    In your dreams
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by BadDriver
    Sausage.
    I wouldn't feed that to my dog

  6. #81
    Registered User BadDriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by leprechaun_40
    I wouldn't feed that to my dog
    Feed it to the lions at the zoo. They already act like they got a belly ache, always growling and grunting around.

  7. #82
    Ultimate Member Billforce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Wee bit O'heaven
    Posts
    1,636
    Interesting data, my son is currently on the USS Stennis.
    "Never corner something that's meaner than you are"

  8. #83
    Senior Member Lgbpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    948
    http://www.nma.gov.au/research/centr...peter_stanley/

    Let's tell the whole truth here, werz......

    Peter Stanley is considered a social historian, quite different from a historian. His main works are considered historical interpretation, rather different from history. One is fact; the other, one's interpretation of fact. One can interpret facts all one wants to, but one can't change the facts.

    Mark Forbes, not exactly an unbiased news reporter, rather glibly turns this occupation into historian, and you rather glibly (and incompletely, therefore out of context) quote Forbes. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of events as they really happened.
    Thank God we're not getting all of the government we're paying for!

  9. #84
    Registered User BadDriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by mireland
    bits, pieces, whatever...
    Chop him up into shark bait, then we can call him our "chum".

  10. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Graf Vinda loo
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by Lgbpop
    http://www.nma.gov.au/research/centr...peter_stanley/

    Let's tell the whole truth here, werz......

    Peter Stanley is considered a social historian, quite different from a historian. His main works are considered historical interpretation, rather different from history. One is fact; the other, one's interpretation of fact. One can interpret facts all one wants to, but one can't change the facts.

    Mark Forbes, not exactly an unbiased news reporter, rather glibly turns this occupation into historian, and you rather glibly (and incompletely, therefore out of context) quote Forbes. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of events as they really happened.
    Why would I invent anything.
    http://www.awm.gov.au/events/talks/oration2006.asp
    Dr Peter Stanley was appointed Director of the Centre for Historical Research in early 2007. He is best known as a military social historian and was principal historian at the Australian War Memorial for 20 years.
    Peter's 19th book, Invading Australia: Japan and the Battle for Australia, 1942, is due to be published by Penguin in July 2008.
    Here you go. Not the Hollywood version.
    That’s not to say that had events gone differently Australia would never have faced an actual threat. Had the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway especially been lost; had Australian and American forces failed to regain the initiative in the Solomons and Papua – then things might have gone differently. But history deals with what happened, not what might have happened. The fact is that there was a potential Japanese threat in 1942, a decision was made not to invade and no further opportunity presented itself. We can only remember and commemorate what happened.
    How dare I say this, some of you may ask. I can assure you, I’m not the first. I take my cue from official historians Gavin Long, Dudley McCarthy, Lionel Wigmore and Paul Hasluck. If they did not endorse the idea of a “Battle for Australia”, then we need to be convinced before we do.

  11. #86
    Ultimate Member herosrest's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Authorised personnel only
    Posts
    2,279
    There is a subtle and ingratious undertone to the interpretation given.
    The significant difference between Japan and the USA was in ability to produce and marshall the material for war. The flood of US resources which overwhelmed Japan kicked in from late 1943 - game over. Until that time US military reserves and production lines provided the resources which enabled UK, Australia, China and the US to hold the line and slug it out with their enemies. USSR received huge assistance. That is the simple truth of the matter.

    Had Midway and New Guinea gone in favour of Japan, they didn't need to invade. You would have been starved of supplies until 1944. The one Division America had available for her own purposes in summer 1942 was thrown onto Guadalcanal at terrible cost. Meanwhile TWO US lnfantry divisions and an absolute mountain of resources were commited to Australia's mainland defence.

    Small US garrisons held a string of lslands from New Zealand up to Midway. With no US carriers each would have been neutralised at Japans whim and the supply routes to Oz cut. The US effort in support of Australia during 1942 was lncredible and unrecognised. They didn't need to do it.

    Last edited by herosrest; 10-05-2008 at 04:32 PM.
    During deep sleep IT came to me and the future of processing is clear.
    Future processors will primarily be digital tuning radios acting as grid computing nodes.
    Voila. See ya in hell.
    PROCESSING

  12. #87
    Ultimate Member herosrest's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Authorised personnel only
    Posts
    2,279
    Arguably, the most heroic warriors of the 20th Century.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT-8
    They are on film here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL_2saZlNjQ before they flew off that day.

    One member of the mission survived. http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq81-8c.htm

    This group of men saved a lot of arses and made things better.
    They are the reason Midway went the way it did.

    There was a design flaw in US torpedo's that wasn't realised at this time.
    The majority of the torpedos would not have detonated on contact.
    They did explode however, as each aircraft was shot down.
    Last edited by herosrest; 10-05-2008 at 04:56 PM.
    During deep sleep IT came to me and the future of processing is clear.
    Future processors will primarily be digital tuning radios acting as grid computing nodes.
    Voila. See ya in hell.
    PROCESSING

  13. #88
    Senior Member Lgbpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    948
    Stop being disingenuous. History does not happen a certain way because of what one historian said or did, especially not when that history is within living memory. History happened, and despite what spin one chooses to put on it the fact remains that events transpired as they transpired. Can a revisionist say that the rail trains to Auschwitz never existed? Of course he could. Does that mean they didn't exist? Of course not. Unless Mr. Stanley was privy to the Japanese War Ministry's confidential planning, all of his supposition is just that - supposition.

    Your social historian, by the article you yourself quote and whose link you posted, is posing an argument for his point - that's far from him saying his point is the truth. The only one I've seen claiming that his argument is the truth is you. No one said you were inventing anything. I said you glibly and misleadingly quoted parts of suspect authors' works. I was right. Matter of fact, it seems you're still doing it; your first two quotes:
    Dr Peter Stanley was appointed Director of the Centre for Historical Research in early 2007. He is best known as a military social historian and was principal historian at the Australian War Memorial for 20 years.
    Peter's 19th book, Invading Australia: Japan and the Battle for Australia, 1942, is due to be published by Penguin in July 2008.
    don't appear to come from the article you cited directly above the quotes, at least not that I can find. Perhaps you'd link directly to the quotes and prove it?
    Thank God we're not getting all of the government we're paying for!

  14. #89
    Ultimate Member herosrest's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Authorised personnel only
    Posts
    2,279
    Just smile Werz. Grin in ya have to. lt's what friends are for.
    During deep sleep IT came to me and the future of processing is clear.
    Future processors will primarily be digital tuning radios acting as grid computing nodes.
    Voila. See ya in hell.
    PROCESSING

  15. #90
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Graf Vinda loo
    Posts
    141
    lgpop you'll find lthe quotes if you bother looking.
    I have no idea how to link directly to the relevant paragraph, so I counted down and it's about the 32nd.
    Other notable historians say the same thing, so the fact that you think that because he's known as a social historian, is something less than a real historian, he was the resident historian at the Aust war museum for 20 years.
    How dare I say this, some of you may ask. I can assure you, I’m not the first. I take my cue from official historians Gavin Long, Dudley McCarthy, Lionel Wigmore and Paul Hasluck. If they did not endorse the idea of a “Battle for Australia”, then we need to be convinced before we do.
    Hero as he says.
    "History is what happened." It's not what could have happened if things were different.
    It's not disingenuous to stick to facts rather than what if, or if this was different, because of this.... It wasn't.
    the evidence shows without doubt that while the Japanese high command considered an invasion it decided against one, and never had the opportunity to change its mind. We need to be careful not to imply that Australians in 1942 were wrong to hold this belief – they clearly weren’t – but in 2006 we cannot continue to talk about Japanese plans or intentions to invade Australia in 1942 when there is no evidence for such plans, and much evidence to show that none was planned.
    I'm not denigrating the sacrifices and heroic effort made by all involved.
    But Australia was used by MacArthur as his HQ and as a base from which resources were marshalled for battles in the islands, once they had Guam the bombers could reach mainland Japan, no doubt the troops and material could have been used to defend Australia, but thats not why they were sent here.
    you find that those in charge knew that the danger of invasion ended not in June 1943, when Curtin admitted it publicly, but in June 1942, when the Advisory War Cabinet accepted that invasion was unlikely and when MacArthur told Curtin that Australia’s security was “assured”.15
    http://www.awm.gov.au/events/talks/oration2006.asp

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •