|
I can't think of anyone who doesn't refer to D-Day as being the invasion of occupied France. Hell everyone at the time concieved of it as an invasion.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 21:08 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 16:11 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:What? I can't think of many people who would have a problem referring to the 'invasion of France in 1944'. That's what happened. That's what the word means. This is the semantic argument I knew was coming. I mean invaders, not invasion - I do not believe it is common to refer to the US forces in Europe as "the US invaders" (and I don't think I'm being pedantic here). Invaders is a loaded word with a clear and distinct connotation. I try to avoid normative terminology whenever I can. Some examples would be: freedom fighters, liberators, GWOT, collateral murder, spreading democracy, axis of evil, benevolent occupation, and invaders.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 21:13 |
|
|
The Downfall posted:What is the actual number killed in the Holocaust? I keep hearing different numbers being tossed around. All the jewish holocaust sites say 6 Million while alot of Historian websites say between 1 Million to 2 Million and some say no more than 100,000 The generally accepted full number is between 11-13 million total killed in the Holocaust, with between 5-7 million of those being ethnic Jews. The problem with properly understanding the scale of murder comes from the fact that while we have very good records of what happened in Western Europe, on the Eastern front we don't and have to rely on estimates. If you're really curious, the gold standard for the Jewish holocaust is Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of European Jews. It is, by far, the best study on the situation, but it's massive and difficult to get through. I wish I knew of similar works with regards to other peoples, but unfortunately some other goon will have to fill us in on that front. Stalin's murders, while bad, aren't nearly that high (assuming you mean the holodomor/gulags/repression and not counting for instance the war dead in WWII). For that, you're looking at 10-20 million, with 20 being a high estimate. In the past, historians claimed higher, but as more information comes out, estimates have been revised downward. As said before, there are lots of memorials all around Russia/Ukraine/etc., it's just that westerners don't care. Immediately after Stalin's death, the upper echelons of the Communist Party repudiated Stalin's methods (although Kruschev and Malenkov blocked some of Beria's more liberal reforms) and Soviet society pretty quickly embarked on a system of destalinisation. Nenonen posted:Would you like to tell us more about forged evidence for the holocaust and also about how Stalin really was the true monster, Mr. Downfall... or should I say Herr Untergang? Stalin was a true monster, and I think you're being a bit unfair here. There's a lot of bad/misinformation with regards to the genocides of the time, people without any real research training aren't always able to evaluate sources properly, and even the good stuff can be confusing if he comes from somewhere where education about these things isn't very good.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 21:15 |
|
|
Zionist_en_fuego posted:This is the semantic argument I knew was coming. I mean invaders, not invasion - I do not believe it is common to refer to the US forces in Europe as "the US invaders" (and I don't think I'm being pedantic here). Invaders is a loaded word with a clear and distinct connotation. I try to avoid normative terminology whenever I can. Some examples would be: freedom fighters, liberators, GWOT, collateral murder, spreading democracy, axis of evil, benevolent occupation, and invaders. I think that's a fair point, whilst describing the Israeli invasion is objective fact, using the term 'Israeli invaders' certainly has a pejorative aspect to it.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 21:28 |
|
|
Zionist_en_fuego posted:This is the semantic argument I knew was coming. I mean invaders, not invasion - I do not believe it is common to refer to the US forces in Europe as "the US invaders" (and I don't think I'm being pedantic here). Invaders is a loaded word with a clear and distinct connotation. I try to avoid normative terminology whenever I can. Some examples would be: freedom fighters, liberators, GWOT, collateral murder, spreading democracy, axis of evil, benevolent occupation, and invaders.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 21:32 |
|
|
HisMajestyBOB posted:This is from a few pages back, but I have to add another interesting bit to it. After the war, Argentina wanted major territorial gains, if not an outright partitioning of Paraguay. However, President Rutherford B. Hayes, who arbitrated the disputes after the war, sided with Paraguay, and Argentina got much less land than they wanted. In gratitude, the Paraguayan government renamed a department and its capital city after Hayes. The writeup you quoted caused me to pick up To the bitter end: Paraguay and the War of the Triple Alliance by Christopher Leuchars, which I just finished the other day. It is a straight military history of the conflict that mostly stays away from the politics and people (which were pretty interesting in their own right), but is at pains to provide a balanced account. It was fascinating: lots of artillery and trench warfare, a paddle-boat navy, suicidal bayonet charges, Congreve rockets and primitive torpedoes.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 21:37 |
|
man
|
R. Mute posted:Again, you decided to start this discussion. I guess i did, so let's play it out. R. Mute posted:-, it's entirely appropriate. If you consider the distinction between Lebanon and Hezbollah, it's even more appropriate. I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning - are you agreeing with my contention that invaders is a loaded term, and then saying that it is appropriate to use it in the case of Israel invading Lebanon? Hypothetically, if I were to make an argument on legal, political, or even moral grounds (which it seems I now am), I would find it hard to fault Israel's decision to invade Lebanon in response to a deadly cross border raid and rocket and mortar attack against its northern cities and towns. To remind everyone, the northern border of Israel is not a disputed territory like the Golan or West Bank. But having said that, I don't really care to make claims as to the 'rightness' or 'fairness' of Israel's actions, (or the Hezzbolah's for that matter). To the Nazi's, the Americans were the invaders, and to the Lebanese, the Israelis were the invaders. I don't dispute this point at all. The main contention I have is with the term being used - and it has nothing to do with it's application to this specific scenario. It's simply a poor choice of words, designed to trigger an emotional response and not a logical one. EDIT: Caught myself using a loaded term as well Zionist_en_fuego fucked around with this message at Dec 26, 2011 around 21:53 |
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 21:46 |
|
|
Not sure if this was intentional or not but you just compared the Lebanese to Nazis. Did Nazi Germany also favor really spicy food and women with noticeable mustaches?Zionist_en_fuego posted:don't assume that all Israelis are hasbara spewing likudniks. What does this mean? Is Hasbara like Israeli Fox News and likudniks are rednecks? Not all of us are too clear on politics in the Holy Land.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 21:59 |
|
|
edit: ^^^ Likudniks are supporters of the Likud party. Right wing hawks. Hasbara is pro-Israel propaganda. ^^^ What I'm saying is that whenever one nation invades another, the people doing the invading are generally called 'invaders'. The second the IDF decided to enter Lebanon, they became invaders. When the US entered Afghanistan, they became invaders. If used in a certain way, it can be a loaded term, but it isn't by default. You have to look at the context and in this context, invaders is apt and doesn't invoke anything other than the fact that the IDF invaded Lebanon. As to the grounds for the invasion, I don't agree, but I think it'd just start another derail and might be better suited for the I/P thread. It seems like a petty thing to bring up as a criticism of gohuskies' post. The fact that you did bring it up says a lot more than the fact that he used the word. R. Mute fucked around with this message at Dec 26, 2011 around 22:06 |
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 22:03 |
|
|
R. Mute posted:It seems like a petty thing to bring up as a criticism of gohuskies' post. The fact that you did bring it up says a lot more than the fact that he used the word. I think that the fact that he wrote that South Lebanon is in the desert says enough. The sad truth is that some people can't discuss anything involving Israel without the instant assumption that someone is trying to 'couch' terms in one way or another. I'm guilty of it myself when I accused gohuskies of using loaded terms, but I feel that in my defense, I had good standing to do it. His post was heavy on rhetoric and short on facts. You, on the other hand, seem determined to pigeonhole me into the "pro-israel" camp, based on your belief that I am defending Israel in my posts with weasel words and absurd abbreviations, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Grand Prize Winner posted:Did Nazi Germany also favor really spicy food and women with noticeable mustaches? Definitely unintentional, although your understanding of Lebanese cuisine and Lebanese woman is a bit off...
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 22:21 |
|
|
Dopilsya posted:The generally accepted full number is between 11-13 million total killed in the Holocaust, with between 5-7 million of those being ethnic Jews. The problem with properly understanding the scale of murder comes from the fact that while we have very good records of what happened in Western Europe, on the Eastern front we don't and have to rely on estimates. Also I haven't been trolling in my above posts or in this post. I think I'm going to close my discussion on The Holocaust as to not start any flame wars or a derail.  to the few posters who bared with my mis-informed mind on the matter and helped me out.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 22:23 |
|
|
Zionist_en_fuego posted:To remind everyone, the northern border of Israel is not a disputed territory like the Golan or West Bank. The Lebanese government, and Hezbollah even more so, claims the Shebaa farms as Lebanese territory. The "blue line" drawn by the UN placed the Shebaa Farms as Syrian and attached it to the Golan Heights, so it was subject to Israeli occupation. However, there's apparently a pretty good case that it is actually part of Lebanon. The whole issue was greatly confused by the historical hostility between Syria and Lebanon, and the sometimes variable claims by Syria on Lebanese territory. At any rate, the statement that the Israeli-Lebanese border is not disputed is patently false. Shebaa Farms has been the stated casus belli as well as the territorial locus for fighting between Hezbollah and Israel since the IDF withdrew from Lebanon proper in 2000. Either you didn't know this, or you intentionally omitted to mention it, and neither one has good implications for what you're saying. So when you write quote:I think that the fact that he wrote that South Lebanon is in the desert says enough. EvanSchenck fucked around with this message at Dec 26, 2011 around 22:48 |
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 22:43 |
|
|
Zionist_en_fuego posted:I think that the fact that he wrote that South Lebanon is in the desert says enough. quote:You, on the other hand, seem determined to pigeonhole me into the "pro-israel" camp, based on your belief that I am defending Israel in my posts with weasel words and absurd abbreviations, which couldn't be farther from the truth. quote:Definitely unintentional, although your understanding of Lebanese cuisine and Lebanese woman is a bit off...  quote:A Lebanese woman working at an advertising company dressed, along with other colleagues, like men and poses for pictures to make a statement about gender inequalities in Lebanon as they mark the International Women's Day in Beirut on March 8. Women in Lebanon are still discriminated against in the Nationality Law, Personal Status Law, Penal Law, and Labour and Social Security laws. Well, I thought it was funny.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 22:46 |
|
|
R. Mute posted:That's all in your head. If anything, I'd pigeonhole you as a stereotypical soldier, the type of person that would call himself a 'security professional'. Then you wouldn't be defending Israel specifically, but you probably would defend the IDF in the same way as any soldier would defend the army he's a part of. Now, I'm aware of this and I'll try to avoid pigeon-holing you, but you're not making the best case for yourself here. I would advise avoiding an argument about his personal motivations and reactions to the war. The way that the Israeli government and the IDF leadership conduct the 2006 Lebanon War was a tremendous scandal in Israel and severely rocked the government of Ehud Olmert and led to a wave of resignations by high-level military and intelligence officials. I obviously don't know anything about what might be in his head, but I definitely wouldn't be surprised if serving in that conflict was a bitter experience for Zionist_en_fuego. Israel has mandatory conscription, so not every IDF soldier is as gung-ho as you seem to think. Also I want to dispute a minor thing from his first post: Zionist_en_fuego posted:Lastly, you end by describing how a "relatively low-tech force could beat a high-tech modern force and hold the field at the end of the day." It should now be apparent, after reading through my corrections, that Hezzbolah's army is anything but low-tech. Analysts use the term Hybrid warfare when describing the Hezzbolah, which means combining conventional and irregular warfare, terror, and info-ops, which I find is pretty accurate. The key word is 'relatively.' You're quite right that Hezbollah is probably the best equipped and most technically skilled asymmetric warfare force anywhere. But relative to Israel Hezbollah is very much "low-tech." Kornets are advanced for ATGMs, and RPG-29s are advanced for RPGs, but both categories of weapon are simple, low-cost counters to much more advanced weapons systems like, say, the Merkava series. The point of the comparison is that Hezbollah managed to use built-up fortifications and asymmetric tactics to stall the IDF, in spite of being dramatically outgunned.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 23:20 |
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Israel has mandatory conscription, so not every IDF soldier is as gung-ho as you seem to think.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2011 23:28 |
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:At any rate, the statement that the Israeli-Lebanese border is not disputed is patently false. Shebaa Farms has been the stated casus belli as well as the territorial locus for fighting between Hezbollah and Israel since the IDF withdrew from Lebanon proper in 2000. Either you didn't know this, or you intentionally omitted to mention it, and neither one has good implications for what you're saying. Except that the 2006 cross border raid at Zarit took place nowhere near the Shebaa farms. And you have grossly misinterpreted passion for my field of expertise (hybrid warfare and non-state actors) for passion for the IDF and Zionism (which is non-existent). I admit the scant biographical tidbit i included was pretty misleading in this regard. To clear things up, I finished my active duty service at the end of 2006, so I am not a professional soldier. But as fun as your professional psychoanalysis of my war traumas is, someone actually moved this discussion back OT. EvanSchenck posted:The key word is 'relatively.' You're quite right that Hezbollah is probably the best equipped and most technically skilled asymmetric warfare force anywhere. But relative to Israel Hezbollah is very much "low-tech." Kornets are advanced for ATGMs, and RPG-29s are advanced for RPGs, but both categories of weapon are simple, low-cost counters to much more advanced weapons systems like, say, the Merkava series. The point of the comparison is that Hezbollah managed to use built-up fortifications and asymmetric tactics to stall the IDF, in spite of being dramatically outgunned. You raise a good point, and it's one that is pretty hotly debated in Israeli defense circles. My argument states that equipment used by the Hezzbolah was in many cases just as advanced as the latest and greatest IDF gear. They established a fiber optic underground communications network, redundant C4I systems, and advanced guided missiles on par with Western technology. Furthermore, their approach to fighting the Israeli invaders was more often than not 'conventional', with massed forces, strategic reserves, and supply and communications lines. Overall, the conflict was most definitely asymmetric, but with unique elements of conventional warfare interspersed into the mix. I guess you could say that the 2006 war in Lebanon has more in common w/ Russia vs Georgia than it does with the US vs the Taliban. EDIT: R. Mute posted:First page: Touche Zionist_en_fuego fucked around with this message at Dec 27, 2011 around 00:29 |
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 00:16 |
|
|
Invaders are the armed people that invade another country? Invaders are just that, people who invade. Unless English is your second language, I don't get your point. Invaders don't have to stay or do anything specific except invade. ------------ About IEDs, one more question about the tactics involved in cleaning them up. I understand that it's important to dig them up and figure out who made them but if they are clearing a quarter to a half mile that leads directly to a Taliban strong hold, why were they digging those up instead of just clearing them as easily and quickly as possible? I definitely understand cleaning up the ones some rear end in a top hat puts in a village or on a longer route but just this section of road I thought it would have been more beneficial to just get to the end as easy as possible. Again, if I'm not remembering something clearly about the story I apologize, I'm not an expert on this so I ask you guys.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 00:19 |
|
|
Zionist_en_fuego posted:Except that the 2006 cross border raid at Zarit took place nowhere near the Shebaa farms. Most of the engagements between the IDF and Hezbollah in the 2000-2006 period took place in and around the disputed area, and Hezbollah officially claims Israeli control of Shebaa farms as their casus belli for continuing hostilities with Israel. As to the Zarit raid, that was actually something of a departure. Hezbollah had launched their first kidnapping against IDF soldiers in de jure Israeli territory in 2000, near the Shebaa farms. They also had made an apparent prior attempt to kidnap IDF soldiers at Ghajar in 2005, which was in the vicinity of Shebaa Farms though not actually inside it: Haaretz. That article alleges that Hezbollah had information that Zarit was more poorly defended than areas nearer the disputed territory, and it would be easier to achieve their strategic objective of kidnapping IDF soldiers if they crossed the border there rather than near Shebaa farms, where the IDF was on constant alert. The IDF got intelligence about a possible upcoming abduction effort near Zarit and stepped up security, so Hezbollah delayed their operation until after the IDF relaxed its guard in the area. But as you say, this is off-topic. quote:You raise a good point, and it's one that is pretty hotly debated in Israeli defense circles. My argument states that equipment used by the Hezzbolah was in many cases just as advanced as the latest and greatest IDF gear. They established a fiber optic underground communications network, redundant C4I systems, and advanced guided missiles on par with Western technology. This is true, but you're still comparing a force whose trademark weapons are ATGMs and unguided artillery rockets to the IDF, which is a modern combined arms army with some of the most advanced AFVs. At this point it's just an argument over what constitutes high- or low-technology. Hezbollah is extremely sophisticated for guerrillas, to the point that (as you say) analysts consider them to fall somewhere between guerrillas and a conventional army. They're still the most useful example for how a military force facing a large deficit in firepower, manpower, and combined arms can trade blows with a modern combined-arms force, given the right strategy and conditions. EDIT \/\/\/ It's fine, it just looked like you were replying to me there quote. EvanSchenck fucked around with this message at Dec 27, 2011 around 01:06 |
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 00:58 |
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:What are you talking about? I wasn't 'analyzing' you or saying you were traumatized at all, and in fact I specifically said that I didn't know anything about your mindset. All I said was there was no reason to assume that being an IDF veteran automatically means you must be here to defend the IDF and the 2006 Lebanon War. That comment was meant for the other person - my apologies.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 01:03 |
|
|
I'm reading a book about the 50s, and I'd like to know more about the Korean war. The book I'm reading has told me all about how MacArthur was neglecting Korea at the onset of the war, and it said that he basically worked magic to get Inchon to work, but how was the U.S. army allowed to get so out of shape that it was no match for the North Koreans at the beginning of the war and later the Chinese? Were the forces in Asia just not experienced in land warfare?
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 04:51 |
|
|
Zionist_en_fuego posted:The general gist of your post is right, but only barely. In your excitement to show how badass Hezzbolah is, you made some pretty huge mistakes and assumptions - like referring to South Lebanon as "the desert". Thanks for the reply. A lot of discussion has happened in the mean time and I will try to not repeat some of the material already covered, but I would like to make some points in my defense. The terrain of South Lebanon is not the desert. It is, however, quite hot - average August temperature in Beirut is 30 degrees Centigrade. I used the word "desert" in the context of saying that an example of how advanced Hezbollah's bunkers were was that some had AC and how that was a big deal in a hot climate, and in my haste I used "desert" and "hot" synonymously. I shouldn't have used the word "desert", but it wasn't like I was saying that South Lebanon was the Sahara. So it's not like I'm some retard as you smugly imply when you write "I think that the fact that he wrote that South Lebanon is in the desert says enough." in a later post. quote:First off, in the security and defense world, we shy away from terms like "invaders" - unless you are working for Al Manar. Second, Hezzbolah didn't "spank" anyone with RPGs. They used the much more advanced Kornet missile. Third, Hezzbolah was not happy to "give up ground" at all. They fought tenaciously to hold territory; the vast majority of Israeli and Hezzbolah casualties took place within 10km of the border. Already covered by others. We'll agree to disagree. To me, D-Day was an invasion of Nazi-occupied France, and this war was an invasion of Lebanon. New York Times Headline for June 6, 1944: "Great Invasion Is Under Way" quote:Next up, we have your comment about "not contesting Israel's blockade". Here, ironically, you missed a chance to describe one of Hezzbolah's great successes of the war - hitting Israel's most advanced naval vessel with a Chinese/Iranian Silkworm missile, fired on live TV. I didn't mention it because it wasn't strategically significant. Despite this engagement, the IDF still managed to close the ports. In comparison, Hezbollah's use of missiles against IDF ground armor was strategically significant, which is why I focused on that instead. quote:Moving on, you describe how the IAF couldn't hit Hezzbolah, so they resorted to "bombing civilians instead". What actually happened was that the IAF doctrine called for punishing strikes against Lebanese civilian infrastructure (retroactively coined the Dehiya Doctrine) in order to pressure the Lebanese government to reign in Hezzbolah, and in an attempt to link responsibility for Hezzbolah's actions to the greater Lebanese state. As a matter of fact, for all of the bad press Israel got for killing civilians, this seems to be one of their only strategic successes in the war, since Nasrallah went on to apologize and claim that he wouldn't have started the war had he known the IAF would pummel Lebanon so viciously. And as for the Hezzbolah, all of their strategic long range missiles were destroyed by the IAF within the first couple hours of the air campaign. The IAFs main failure in the war was in CAS, not strategic bombing. We don't disagree here. I think their main failure was in CAS, too. The fact that they weren't doing CAS effectively instead is why I described them as "bombing civilians instead", as you quote. quote:Lastly, you end by describing how a "relatively low-tech force could beat a high-tech modern force and hold the field at the end of the day." It should now be apparent, after reading through my corrections, that Hezzbolah's army is anything but low-tech. Analysts use the term Hybrid warfare when describing the Hezzbolah, which means combining conventional and irregular warfare, terror, and info-ops, which I find is pretty accurate. I think Hezbollah was relatively low-tech compared to the IDF. You mention in later posts their use of advanced C4I tech (though they used far far more RPG-29s than the Kornets you mention), but that still pales in comparison to the tech level of the IDF. The IDF had an army generally agreed to be one of the top armies in the world and Hezbollah were guerrilla fighters covertly supplied across borders by Iran. quote:In the end, you're mostly right, but for the wrong reasons. The Hezzbolah "beat" Israel because the Israeli government and IDF could not adapt to the unique challenges of fighting a well armed, high tech guerrilla army in the limited time frame middle-east wars offer, which is between 3-4 weeks at the maximum. We disagree on less than you may think. My original post was in reference to someone asking: Algol Star posted:Also do you think a modern unequal war is possible to win from the side of the defenders (probably against the Americans) and how you would do this / how history's lessons are relevant? I've always been interested in how the smaller forces defended against the stronger army but can't see how you could do this in modern times without going the whole conquered but insurgency route. Not saying that this isn't effective for long term goals but is it possible to win in the short term? I think my post answered that question relatively accurately. I gave an example of an inferior force fighting a modern army and holding the field at the end of the day without becoming a long-term insurgency, and explained generally how they did that - through prepared defense in depth and repeated costly ambushes in favorable situations. gohuskies fucked around with this message at Dec 27, 2011 around 05:27 |
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 05:24 |
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I'm reading a book about the 50s, and I'd like to know more about the Korean war. The book I'm reading has told me all about how MacArthur was neglecting Korea at the onset of the war, and it said that he basically worked magic to get Inchon to work, but how was the U.S. army allowed to get so out of shape that it was no match for the North Koreans at the beginning of the war and later the Chinese? Were the forces in Asia just not experienced in land warfare? Most, if not all, of the US troops in the area were still stationed in Japan. After the end of World War 2, the US demobilized most of the army that had been raised during the war, and most of those soldiers were needed in occupied Europe and Japan. The US also didn't trust the South Korean president (i.e., strongman), Syngman Rhee, to not start a war with the North,* so they didn't supply the South Korean army with any heavy weapons - no artillery, tanks, or aircraft, and few mortars and machine guns. Needless to say, the South Korean army fared very poorly against the well-equipped Soviet-supported North Korean army. North Korea, under Kim Il Sung, had been petitioning Stalin and Mao to give him the go ahead to reunify the country. Stalin was reluctant, but after the US Secretary of State (forgot his name) did not list South Korea as part of the US's security perimeter in the Pacific, he gave the green light to Kim. The initial US forces rushed to Korea (Task Force Smith) were woefully underequipped and undermanned. They had no real anti-tank equipment, and were pushed back by the North Korean army and it's T34s. It takes time to send all the heavy equipment and supplies from the US to Korea. When the US sent more men and equipment to Korea and bombed bridges and interdicted North Korean supply lines, they were able to stop the North Korean army. The Incheon landings cut the North's supply lines, and North Korean army was forced to withdraw quickly. *Rhee staunchly opposed the partitioning of Korea, and petitioned the US to force reunification. Even in 1953 when the armistice was signed, he refused to join the negotiations, wanting to continue the war until victory.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 06:42 |
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:The Lebanese government, and Hezbollah even more so, claims the Shebaa farms as Lebanese territory. The "blue line" drawn by the UN placed the Shebaa Farms as Syrian and attached it to the Golan Heights, so it was subject to Israeli occupation. However, there's apparently a pretty good case that it is actually part of Lebanon. The whole issue was greatly confused by the historical hostility between Syria and Lebanon, and the sometimes variable claims by Syria on Lebanese territory. I would like to point out here, that the actual claim of sovereignty over the Shebaa farms is very, very murky, from both the Syrian point of view and the Lebanese point of view. There are even different opinions within the respective governments, which makes things even murkier. There is no 'good-case' for either side. See here. This is a map of Lebanon from the Lebanese army: http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/Arabic/po...c/1sur50000.jpg Note how in that map, the Shebaa farms are clearly not part of Lebanon. However, in this map, ALSO from the Lebanese army, the map shows that the Shebaa is clearly part of Lebanon. http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/Arabic/po.../1sur100000.jpg Not only that, Walid Jumblatt (basically the druze kingmaker in Lebanese politics) has been on record stating that the Shebaa doesn't form part of Lebanon, [http://www.daylife.com/article/09xQ4IN8Fb7WF?q=Beirut] however it's the practice of the Lebanese Prime Minister and President that the Shebaa is part of Lebanon. On that note, we turn to Syria. On a map from the Syrian Tourism website, run by the Syrian government, we note that they mark the Shebaa as part of Syria. [http://www.syriatourism.org/modules...jpg&n=123457746] Now, in a conversation in 2000 to Kofi Annan, the foreign minister of Syria said that Syria supported Lebanons claims to the Shebaa. However, Syria is not willing to support a demarcation of the border between Lebanon/Syria in regards to the Shebaa until Israel withdraws from all of the Golan Heights. Since Israel is not willing to do that without a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and Syria, there is a stonewalling of the demarcation of the border between Lebanon and Syria. A former vice president of Syria, Abdel-Halim Khaddam, is on record saying, "...that the farms are occupied, and hence cannot be demarcated, is nothing but a pretext. The demarcation would not take more than an hour if there was the political will." [http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article...rticle_id=75088 Considering that the UN can-not act without the demarcation of the border, we should make a decision here based on president, that due to the question of who owns the Shebaa farms being really loving complicated, with many cross claims and what not, that Israel should be considered as having withdrawn from all of Lebanon, until there is an exact understanding on who it is that owns the Shebaa farms. Consequently, Hezbollah must give up their arms, and Lebanon must renounce hostility against Israel. We all know that is not going to happen, however. Even if Israel gives up the Shebaa to Lebanon, Hezbollah will find a reason to be hostile to Israel, and not give up their arms. Corny fucked around with this message at Dec 27, 2011 around 07:09 |
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 07:03 |
|
|
Corny posted:Considering that the UN can-not act without the demarcation of the border, we should make a decision here based on president, that due to the question of who owns the Shebaa farms being really loving complicated, with many cross claims and what not, that Israel should be considered as having withdrawn from all of Lebanon, until there is an exact understanding on who it is that owns the Shebaa farms. The UN drew the line for Israeli withdrawal at the same time as they protested the Israeli invasion of 1975. Shebaa farms are south of that line, as (IIRC) they were held by Syria and then captured by Israel along with the Golan in 1967. This means that pending real negotiations for revision, they're not part of Lebanon. Hezbollah feels differently, however. quote:Consequently, Hezbollah must give up their arms, and Lebanon must renounce hostility against Israel. We all know that is not going to happen, however. Even if Israel gives up the Shebaa to Lebanon, Hezbollah will find a reason to be hostile to Israel, and not give up their arms. This isn't really the thread for this type of argument, but it's worth pointing out that since 2006 Hezbollah has moved away from direct action against Israel and instead concentrated on extending their control of Lebanon. This effort has had significant results for them, as they're now the key faction in the country; they collapsed the government last January when it seemed some of their members would be indicted for the assassination of Rafic Hariri, and now they're part of the coalition that's in government. Of course at the same time they've been stockpiling weapons and expanding their arsenal all the time, and I think most analysts believe that their armed strength is significantly higher than it was in 2006. I think neither Israel nor Hezbollah is eager for a rematch, but Hezbollah definitely wants to be prepared for the possibility.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 07:30 |
|
|
I have some pictures from when my grandfather was one of the first to liberate a nazi death camp, what would be the best way to both preserve these and share them.? I am wary of putting them into a fully israeli group's hands because I don't agree with their treatment of Palestine, but I want them to be seen, and they are extremely graphic.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 08:27 |
|
|
uinfuirudo posted:I have some pictures from when my grandfather was one of the first to liberate a nazi death camp, what would be the best way to both preserve these and share them.? In all honesty, I would send them to Yad Vashem. It's run by the Israeli government, but I can't think of a better group/organization to send them to, they will receive the proper attention needed.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 08:41 |
|
|
uinfuirudo posted:I am wary of putting them into a fully israeli group's hands because I don't agree with their treatment of Palestine, but I want them to be seen, and they are extremely graphic. I'm not a fan of Israel's actions either, but I think it's unfair to the various organizations and museums devoted to the history of the Holocaust to assume that they must be closely affiliated with Israel. Israel is not the Jewish people, after all. However, they are your photos and its up to you to do what you will with them. What you should do first of all is find out if there are any museums, universities, or historical societies in your vicinity, and contact them (e.g. if there's a college nearby, you could try the history department). Even if it's something like a heritage museum wholly unrelated to the Holocaust, they can still give you some help advice. If you explain what you have they'd probably be happy to meet with you and explain how to best preserve the photographs while you've got them, and they'll also probably be able to point you towards someone who might be interested in studying, archiving, or even displaying what you have. EDIT: Also, unless you're way out in the hinterland far from cities, there's almost certainly a Jewish community center within a reasonable distance that could probably name some organizations for you to contact. EvanSchenck fucked around with this message at Dec 27, 2011 around 08:49 |
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 08:47 |
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I'm reading a book about the 50s, and I'd like to know more about the Korean war. The book I'm reading has told me all about how MacArthur was neglecting Korea at the onset of the war, and it said that he basically worked magic to get Inchon to work, but how was the U.S. army allowed to get so out of shape that it was no match for the North Koreans at the beginning of the war and later the Chinese? Were the forces in Asia just not experienced in land warfare? After WWII, the US demobilised most of the armed forces. The guys in Korea were mostly green draftees. The Norks had the advantage of numbers, surprise and better equipment during their original attack, especially as the south korean army was completely bereft of anti-tank capability, with the US troops not much better equipped initially. It was only by the time they were pushed into the Pusan perimeter that the longer north koprena supply lines and the delivery of reinforcements, supplies and new equipment enabled the US/SK forces to hold. The same lack of experience by the US forces became again prevalent when the Chinese intervened. The green US troops were mostly roadbound due to their reliance on motorised transport while the People's Volunteer Army consisted of hardened veterans experienced in both conventional and guerilla warfare. That allowed the Chinese to carry out extensive night marches, find gaps in the US/UN lines to exploit and in the end enabled them to carry out what can be summed up as Blitzkrieg on foot. In the end, the Chinese advance was less stopped by US/UN resistance but simply because they outran their own logistics and were forced to delegate combat troops to carrying more supplies to the front. (A fun fact going with this is that the reports about "chinese hordes" were quite a bit overblown. The PVA never enjoyed much of a numerical superiority in-theatre due to lacking the logistics for troop contingents that large. They had a large pool of replacements, but their strenght in the field never evne reached a mere 1.5:1 superiority in numbers over the US/UN forces.)
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 12:15 |
|
|
uinfuirudo posted:I have some pictures from when my grandfather was one of the first to liberate a nazi death camp, what would be the best way to both preserve these and share them.?
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 14:57 |
|
|
What caused the stagnation of formation warfare and tactics in the mid to late 18th century which was the perfect situation for a certain Corsican to rise to power with the basics once again? I know it is a pretty vague general question but I am curious to see why ranks of drilled men armed with deadly muskets lost some of their steam in some of the pre-Revolution era of Europe.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 14:59 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:What caused the stagnation of formation warfare and tactics in the mid to late 18th century which was the perfect situation for a certain Corsican to rise to power with the basics once again? You think the Seven Years War was a time of stagnation of warfare and tactics? e: long answer short though, industrial production of arms and conscrpition means that you end up with much larger battles, which means that command and control has to be delegated from a single army commander to the divisional and corps level. This also means that battles become much more about different wings of each army jockeying for position and advantage rather than a straight up collision. There were many battles in the ACW for example which were decided at points which were out of the view of the Army Commander. Alchenar fucked around with this message at Dec 27, 2011 around 15:25 |
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 15:19 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:I can't think of anyone who doesn't refer to D-Day as being the invasion of occupied France. I've seen a german news reel about the figthing around Metz use the word allied occupied france
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 15:24 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:You think the Seven Years War was a time of stagnation of warfare and tactics? Woah, I didn't say that. I was looking at mainland Europe with the lesser Imperial nations in general. But I'm sort of getting an idea now yeah.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 15:28 |
|
|
Magni posted:(A fun fact going with this is that the reports about "chinese hordes" were quite a bit overblown. The PVA never enjoyed much of a numerical superiority in-theatre due to lacking the logistics for troop contingents that large. They had a large pool of replacements, but their strenght in the field never evne reached a mere 1.5:1 superiority in numbers over the US/UN forces.) Looking at the mere numerical strengths is stupid. You made an excellent observation regarding the Chinese ability to conduct long foot marches in order to exploit gaps and weak points in the UN lines but you failed to come full circle. The PLA's advantage lay in it's ability to bring huge numbers against weak points in the UN lines in relatively short time frames. Overall, the Chinese may not have enjoyed a significant numerical advantage but at various times and places they were able to create a localized numerical superiority and use that to their advantage. "The Chinese hordes" comment comes from numerically inferior UN forces fighting off significantly superior PLA units. Also, minor point of note: US forces that participated in the breakout from Pusan and the Incheon landing were hardly green. The Army and Marine Corps stripped stateside units to supply Korean bound units with men and equipment. The leadership of these units were generally veterans. Green troops don't fight their way out of an encirclement by a numerically superior force while also maintaining possession of their equipment and bringing out their wounded and dead. Edit: I don't mean to suggest that the United States was prepared to fight the Korean War. It clearly wasn't.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 18:57 |
|
|
Corny posted:In all honesty, I would send them to Yad Vashem. It's run by the Israeli government, but I can't think of a better group/organization to send them to, they will receive the proper attention needed. This was exactly the people I didn't want to deal with, I would rather deal with a more impartial group not a government organization, an NGO would be good. I do not want this to be "look at how the jews suffered" when very clearly there were communists, gays, gypsies, "non-whites", slavs, eastern orthodox christians, Jehovah's witnesses, and the disabled, to name a few, also suffered in those horrid conditions. I may post a couple of the ones we scanned a while back just to add actual content.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 21:14 |
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Overall, the Chinese may not have enjoyed a significant numerical advantage but at various times and places they were able to create a localized numerical superiority and use that to their advantage. "The Chinese hordes" comment comes from numerically inferior UN forces fighting off significantly superior PLA units. Right. The PLA was much more lightly equipped than the UN, so they relied on operational deception and camouflage to disguise their maneuvers and concentrate troops for overwhelming infiltration assaults launched at night, to minimize the effect of American firepower. Because of combat experience from the Sino-Japanese War and Chinese Civil War the PLA was hardened and their leaders were experienced with this kind of maneuver warfare. At first UN forces were caught by surprise and didn't know how to deal with what was being done to them, which accounts for how rapidly they were pushed back out of North Korea by the initial Chinese offensives. Eventually they were able to work out how to counter the Chinese tactics, and they established the firm line across the peninsula which is still held today. EvanSchenck fucked around with this message at Dec 28, 2011 around 04:47 |
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 21:20 |
|
|
Keep posting stuff about the Korean war, its fascinating.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 21:29 |
|
|
I get the impression that most of the equipment both sides used were WWII leftovers. Is that true? Could have sworn I've seen pictures of US soldiers with Garands and Chinese/N. Korean troops with PPSh's or a Chinese clone. The war was fought with mostly WWII materiel, then how did US equipment stack up against North Koreans' (which was presumably Russian surplus)? edit: I know that materiel kind of takes a second place to logistics and strategy, but so help me I still find it more interesting than the other two.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 21:36 |
|
|
The US absolutely destroyed the North Koreans in nearly every way. The Chinese attacking is the only reason why we don't have a unified Korea today.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 21:41 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 16:11 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I get the impression that most of the equipment both sides used were WWII leftovers. Is that true? Could have sworn I've seen pictures of US soldiers with Garands and Chinese/N. Korean troops with PPSh's or a Chinese clone. It was pretty much entirely WWII stuff except for a handful of planes and tanks. The biggest difference was the planes: at the start of the war it was mostly late WWII-era piston engined fighters (La-9 and Yak-9 vs P-51 and F4U); the Allies enjoyed a very brief period of dominance with the early jets, then were completely blown away by the MiG-15 when it arrived. I've always thought the F-86 vs MiG-15 fight was one of the more interesting aerial matchups. The tanks were largely WWII surplus with a few new designs (Centurion was by far the best in the theater); they didn't do a whole lot during the war though. One of my FA compatriots here has indicated that there were a ton of tactical advances in fires targeting due mainly to the fact that there were a ton of experienced forward observers and they were really, really dependent on artillery, but I can't speak much to this personally.
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2011 22:08 |
|
