Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Oligo

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    954

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Oligo

  1. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 20 2002,08:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But anyhow I don't think the main purpose of that tape was to show that AQ kills dogs, but they have the capabilites to produce chemical weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

    I wonder whether the next "news" will be that Iraq supplied these chem weapons to Al Qaeda? Bush has to do something about the eroding international support for his Gulf War II The Vengeance. What better way than this?

  2. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 20 2002,07:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oh yeah...forgot that CNN is controlled by US gov't.... biggrin.gif<span id='postcolor'>

    U.S. government controls which Al-Qaeda material is released to the press. Therefore they can also fabricate videos and then "leak" it to the press, which of course publishes all good stories they can find.

    So in a way, yes, governments partially control the media.

  3. Posted

    Makes you wonder why this tape was released... Smells like cheap propaganda. Maybe the government of U.S. wants to make sure that the public support for wars will not erode.

    Brings to my mind those stories about throwing babies out of incubators, which proved to be crap in the end.

  4. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Aug. 19 2002,10:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- Three Kings (shittiest war/action movie ever? And the storyline was just a mangled version of Kelly's Heroes)

    - Human Traffic (I hate these "hey, drugs are so cool, the rave generation is so cool" movies)<span id='postcolor'>

    Three Kings is not an action movie. It's more an anti-war statement. Anyway, I just loved this film, because it takes the absurdity of war to new heights.

    -Are we still shooting?

    -What?

    -Are we still shooting people?

    -I don't know, are we?

    -I don't know either, that's why I'm asking... Well, he definitely has a weapon...

    <BLAM>

    -Oh, cool, take a picture, quick!

    -Nice, I thought I wasn't going to see anybody killed in this war...

    Also, Human Traffic is one of the nicest movies I have seen for a long time. And it's definitely not a "drugs are so cool et cetera"-movie. I think the movie is trying to ask why we work the jobs we hate so we can buy shit that we don't need?

  5. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 08 2002,08:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">grains were exploited from Korea and China, rest of resources were same too.<span id='postcolor'>

    So you should have just let the soviets make a drive for it. I'm sure they could have taken those areas in weeks with their oiled end-of-WWII army if you yanks lacked the balls. wink.gif Anyway, the resources from China and Korea had to be ferried to Japan, which a naval blockade would have prevented.

    I don't think Japs had much time to stockpile anything in Japan, considering that they were on full war production since the start of hostilities.

  6. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Aug. 07 2002,15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A long time, while building up their weapons ready for an invasion. Certainly longer than the allied forces could maintain a naval blockade when the population wanted their sons, fathers, brothers and husbands home.

    Why? Those people were building the weapons which would have been used against allied forces, and would have done whatever they could to kill those forces themselves in the event of an invasion; the distinction between 'soldier' and 'civilian' is a minor one in a total war like WWII.<span id='postcolor'>

    Oh, man. You're talking about Japan! There is NOTHING resourcewise on those small islands. How the hell can you build weapons without metal? How can you drive your economy without gasoline and coal? How can you feed your population without grain?

  7. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Aug. 07 2002,14:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now explain how you're supposed to "sit it out" when your navy is being decimated by kamikaze attacks? And then explain how you'd tell the population at home that you know they've been fighting a total war for years and are tired of the whole thing, you know their husbands, brothers, fathers and sons are being killed daily in the Pacific, but you've decided to sit and wait for as long as neccesary because it would be awful to use nuclear weapons on the cities which are building the weapons being used against you.

    It's also worth remembering that shortly before the bombs were dropped the US or Canadian navy captured a U-boat on its way to Japan with a cargo of radioactive materials (the full details have never been officially released, so there's still a lot of debate as to what exactly it was), which apparently scared the hell out of the US military chiefs. Knowing that, why would any rational leader sit and wait for the Japanese to use nuclear weapons (either actual fission bombs or simpler radiation weapons) against them?<span id='postcolor'>

    U.S. navy was not being "decimated" by kamikaze attacks, since these attacks were rarely succesfull. And it would have been very easy to sit it out by enforcing a naval blockade with minimal casualties. How long do you think those japs would have been able to sit in their island inside a naval blockade? How many long range kamikaze planes do you think they could have built before running out of ball bearings, aviation fuel, aluminium sheeting, etc.?

    The truth is that you had to go for a quick victory in order to please the voting masses back home. A few hundred thousand dead slit-eyes is a small price to pay for popularity figures.

    Anyway, good intentions NEVER have justified anything. So we should remove the a-bombing from the context of avoiding allied deaths and just consider it as a simple act: Killing 100s of thousands of civvies with nukes is an atrocity, whatever the justification. When you realize the horror of this act, you should feel for the victims and keep in your mind what your nation has done and maybe you'll just keep the lid of that nuclear trigger under a bigger lock, instead of nuking everybody who pisses into your apple pie.

  8. Posted

    You know, Japan is a small island, which is definitely not self-sufficient. Around the time of the nukes dropped, it was hemmed in by soviets in the continent of Asia and yanks in the sea. There was absolutely no need to invade mainland Japan. All that had to be done was to sit it out. After resources in Japan would have ran out, it would not have taken long for Japan to capitulate. Simple as that.

    It is the most elementary strategy there is: Avoid engaging the enemy and encircle him instead. Then you just sit it out. This is the way to avoid casualties.

    Anyway, WWII was a war where every single participating nation performed atrocities, for example:

    -Germany: Holocaust and killing of russian civilians

    -Soviet Union: Killing of their own people and mass rape/loot/kill in Germany

    -Japan: Mass rape/loot/kill in conquered areas

    -U.K.: Conventional bombing of civilians

    -U.S.: Conventional and nuclear bombing of civilians

    Judging from this thread, the germans at least have accepted that they did atrocities in WWII. I don't know about the japanese (no japs here), but clearly some of the citizens of the victors of WWII are unable to accept that WWII was a dirty war and that their people got filth on their hands as well. Grow up and accept the past, so you will not repeat it in the future.

  9. Posted

    I read a recollection by a german soldier about a really freakish impact one of his buddies suffered. It seems that a russian shot him in high-forehead. The bullet penetrated the top of the helmet (a slanted surface) and lost a lot of energy. The bullet wasn't able to pierce the skull of the soldier, so it skimmed along the inside of the helmet, ending up exiting under the lip of the helmet in the back. From there it travelled inside the jacket of the soldier, skimming straight down and ended up wedged between the ass-cheeks of the victim.

    So all this soldier got was a bleeding wound in the head, but no skull fracture. Freaking amazing.

  11. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 02 2002,10:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you are saying when the Russians took your territory, then Sweden is to blame, but when Sweden took terrotiry, then Finland is to get the credit. Forget it either you say that it was all Sweden and we share the credit/blame or you accept that Finland was not Sweden and then we take the credit/blame. Make up your mind smile.gif

    Anyway the majority of the soldiers were from mainland Sweden and not Finland.

    Oh, yes, we can see how well that turned out, can't we? We leave you alone for five minutes and you go picking a fight with the Soviets and loose our valuable territory that we have bled for. And now the Nokia shares are plummeting making me loose money. Yeah, hip hip hooray for Finland! biggrin.gif<span id='postcolor'>

    Nope. I'm saying that the swedish-finnish army commanded by the swedish aristocrats was pulled back without a proper fight and finnish civvies were left to be raped and pillaged by russians so that swedish civilians would be safe. It's what I'm saying.  tounge.gif

    You didn't exactly "leave us alone for five minutes". Russians kicked the ass of the swedish-finnish army (commanded by swedes) and took Finland as the trophy. Then WE liberated ourselves and then the soviets picked a fight with us (Winter War) and then we picked a fight with soviets. That's how it went.  biggrin.gif

    Anyway, it's good that you did not invest in swedish Ericksson or you would be losing even more money. Hooray Sweden!

    Also, all yanks should note how Denoir bashes Finland and I'm bashing Sweden. So it's not always U.S. bashing what goes on around here.

  12. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 02 2002,09:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1554-1557 "Great Russian War". Russians took Finland, Sweden took it back.

    1561 - We got Estland and parts of southern Finland from the Russians

    1570-1595 "25-year Russian war" - Finland was occupied/liberated several times. Sweden ended up getting Narva and loosing nothing.

    1609-1610 "The La Gardian War" - We take Moscow (yey!wink.gif and in the peace deal we get Karelen and Viborg.

    1610-1617 "The Ingermanland war", Sweden wins the Kexholm and Ingermanland areas

    1656-1661 "Karl X's Russian Campaign", Sweden attacks Russia, Russia takes Finland, Sweden takes back Finland.<span id='postcolor'>

    Ok, regarding you "saving our ass": First of all you conquered us in the beginning. We'd been perfectly happy without your bloody christianity, living in our isolated tribal communities, thank you. biggrin.gif

    Anyway, from there on, Finland and Sweden were one country (ruled from Sweden). That means that you recruited as much from Finland as from Sweden, which means that what you call "your" victories were actually "your and our" victories.

    So from 1554 to 1561, Finns and Swedes fought agains russians and did pretty nicely. However, during 1570-1595, swedes bailed from Finland and ran back to mama, so russians were free to pillage and rape finnish civvies. When russians got bored and went home, you came back and started ruling us again (bastards). wink.gif

    In 1609-1610 you (and us) intervene in a russian civilian war and "march the streets of Moscow". What a feat. Then you finally get back some of what you still hadn't regained in the 1554-1561 conflict (Karelen and Viborg). In 1610-1617, you finally get back all that you lost during 1554-1561 (southeast Finland and Baltic province).

    In 1656-1661 YOU start a war and sacrifice US for the russian, then "liberate" us (with an army having finns in it of course). Than you very much. tounge.gif

    What I can say is that if only swedes and russians had stayed out of our land, we would have been perfectly happy here, thank you. biggrin.gif

  13. Posted

    I'm pretty sure you could make it go a lot faster. You have to remember that this one is designed for minimum impact on forest floor. If you didn't have to give a damn about shit flying up in the air, I think it could be much faster (after some R&D).

    And I was thinking about terrain where tanks cannot go. There is such terrain, you know, just maybe not in Israel.

  14. Posted

    Denoir:

    I don't agree with you about Winter War. Soviets lost so much men and materiel (although Stalin didn't care, the russian people surely did) for a small piece of land that it cannot be classified as nothing else but a stalemate like I said, not a draw or defeat for us. A stalemate is a situation where neither party cannot or is not willing to act decisively anymore.

    Continuation war was, I grant it, a partial defeat (definitely not a total defeat or we'd been commies). Luckily all the shit we had to pay for the russians made us build up our industry and the resulting long term economic growth made us one of the many prosperous countries in the world today. Just look at the russian now. biggrin.gif

    Oh and when did you save us? Please, provide an example. wow.gif

  16. Posted

    Well, consider Winter War. Stalin annexed the Baltic states and had the same intention for Finland. His initial plans called for a thrust into Helsinki in a week or so. After fierce fighting, he settled for some pieces of land.

    Stalin's objective: Take Finland. Failed.

    Finnish objective: Protect whole of our land. Failed.

    Makes it a stalemate, no?

    And then the Continuation War. Lots of fierce fighting around a wide area of land. In the end, we again give some land.

    Finnish objective: Unite the finnish tribes living in russia and their land to Finland. Failed.

    Stalin's objective: Finland's fate is to be the same as Germany's fate, convert to communism. Failed.

    Makes it a stalemate, no?

    Maybe you can enlighten how my objectivity has failed with your unbiased swedish military analysis skills, Denoir. I'd just love to hear advice from the land which has always hidden behind our backs from the russians and sacrificed us for their own safety a couple of times. tounge.gif

  17. Posted

    Germans the best tourists... What the hell? I like the germans, don't get me wrong, as long as they stay in their own country. wink.gif

    Having spent four hours in a bus with a bunch of germans yelling like crazy at each other, I was ready to be committed to an insane asylum. I like tourists who are quiet, like the japanese. It fits our finnish culture. We are very quiet people, so we don't like it when those foreigners come here and yell. Otherwise you're all welcome (just be quiet).

    A funny joke springs to mind. My friend once heard some germans wondering loudly in Lapland: "I wonder why all the buildings are brand new?" So my friend went over there and said: "Because you burned the old ones..." biggrin.gif

  18. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rhubarbman @ Aug. 02 2002,04:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US did not get raped by the NVA,VC why u ask,

    NVA/VC casualties 3,000,000 roughly

    And yes most modern war films r to Soft on the subject due to recent events, i find most movies around the 70's,80's where the best FMJ, Hamburger Hill, Platoon etc etc..<span id='postcolor'>

    Victory does not depend on casualties, not at all. U.S. did not accomplish their objectives in Nam, whereas NVA/VC did, so U.S. "got raped". Way more russians were killed in WWII than germans, yet russians won, because they achieved their objectives. Way more russians than finns were killed in our little clash in WWII and still it was a stalemate, because neither side achieved all of their objectives (after the war it was pretty much back to status quo).

  19. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 01 2002,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's how the Bastogne fighting was.  Imagine sitting in trenches for days in the coldest weather you've ever experienced in your life while having to deal with all kinds of shelling.  I just finished the book (haven't seen the movie yet) and it says that some of the guys had the temptation to shoot themselves in the foot to get off the front lines.<span id='postcolor'>

    It just cannot get very cold in France. They had what, minus 5 degrees celcius? When I was serving we had to squat two weeks in minus 42 degrees celcius. There was about 1.5 meters of snow. That sucked. Soft yanks... wink.gif

  20. Posted

    wow.gif1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 01 2002,14wow.gif1)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Enemy at the gates is a modern movie and about the russian front. Unfortunately it was in my opinion very weak and not very convincing.<span id='postcolor'>

    Yes, it was quite a lame movie. Replace the soviets with americans and it could have (almost) been a movie modern U.S. flick from the western front.

    Anyway, who the hell wrote the script of that thing? In the scene where Zaitsev has lost his rifle and is trying to pull it to him with a piece of string, the evil nazi sniper cuts the STRING with a single shot. What any REAL sniper would have done, IMO, is to shoot at Zaitsev's fucking rifle aiming at the lock! That rifle would have been unusable after that.

  21. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (R. Gerschwarzenge @ Aug. 01 2002,13:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can you remember any names of good Russian war movies?<span id='postcolor'>

    The names are in russian, which is kind of hard to remember, since I don't speak it.

    Anyway, there was one cool movie about Afganistan. I loved when the main character, a sergeant, says (roughly translated): "Yeah, we got to assault that village tomorrow. There probably aren't any Mujahediin there by then, but who gives a fuck?"

    Another nice one was about a platoon of russian guarding a road in some generic land (very much like Chechnya) being ocassionally harrashed by a sniper in the nearby woods. One nice scene in the movie shows one of the soldiers seeing movement in the woods and shooting there with his Dragunov. Instantly, a sergeant yells: "Cease fucking fire! It's the lieutenant! He's in the woods scouting!" In a short while, the lieutenant comes back and asks with an angry voice: "Who the fuck fired?" After a while, the soldier who did it steps forward. The lieutenant looks at the soldier for a while and says: "You'll use the Dragunov from here on..." biggrin.gif

    The third one I've seen tells about some engagement in the first Chechnyan war, specifically about a team of speznaz operatives.

    I wish I remembered the names. Maybe Blaegis can help if he sees this...

  22. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (R. Gerschwarzenge @ Aug. 01 2002,13:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you want to see some good war movies then you should try Russian movies. I've seen a few of those and most of them were really good and they are far from the Hollywood bullshit. Too bad I can't remember any particular names though.<span id='postcolor'>

    I've seen a bunch of russian war movies and they're really good. No bullshit in them. It seems that after being liberated from commie oppression, the russian film makers have no reason to try to depict the russian as the "good guys". They concentrate more on the fact that war is crap and that both sides of the conflict get stained with atrocities and madness.

  23. Posted

    It might be flammable all right, but if I was german I'd be really pissed how my grandparents who fought in WWII are all labelled as nazis and slaughtered like dumb animals in new U.S. war flicks without any respect granted for the bravery and skill of the german soldier. A little payback would be in order, I think.

    I guess I'd want to see Das Boot on land. biggrin.gif

  24. Posted

    Ruud, I agree completely with you. The reasons for this heroic presentation of WWII is probably commercial. I wish the germans would make a movie of the western front from their point of view. I think enough time has passed for them to actually do that.

×