The Untold Battle of Britain

yeah give me the nukes and I will set things right
youtube.com/watch?v=ns3M1Sj6x4o

Lunatics are called Lunatics because they are lunatic....contrary to reasonable or realistic...
Ideology, religious fanatism etc. make for stupid decisions!

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bought us world peace (at least the absent of world war) for 70 years now.
The US never used them again and never will...no double standards as the dictators of Iran or North Korea are no democratic governments. The former using their nukes to cement and secure an atrocious, inhuman, brutal regime, the latter wanting to broaden his influence for his religious fanatical reasons. Think Taliban with a nuke!

If he believes his god, his belief, wants him to use the nukes he WILL use them, just think one moment about that one...

Well, I can hardly disagree with that :)

Well, one piece was badly damaged (Hiroshima) but peace came, yes ;) ;) Although I dislike what happened to innocent people, it was an effective end to the war in those times. There were no ideal solutions.

Iran would be obliterated if they used them. Besides, they don't want to kill Palestinians.

That's what I wanted to say....idealism is all good and peachy...but then there is the real world.
;)
PS: Doesn't mean ethical discussions are wrong, we need them!


After they had used them...what do you think that means for millions of people?


No, WE are his enemies, Seanie...WE!!! He would like to kill US if he could! Feel better now?

*goes for the shower*

murder is unlawful killing of human being with intent .....and state of mind distinguishes it from other forms of homicide.
For murder
there few exceptions like :
manslaughter
capital punishment
and killing enemy combatants

intent or guilty mind, which means that soldiers could be found of intent to kill but they are not investigated that way because they actions are exception and not treated like murder.....

governments are not above the law but they can sanction a war and killings and you cannot call it murder because you don't like it, anyway As long as only combatants are being killed ...

period

BB, why be so sure? You want to adopt the pre-emptive doctrine and strike him now, go ahead.

The repercussions need not be stated :(

We certainly do need those discussions :) :)

Ironside, I did this in my Masters international criminal law course. I'm arguing, based on the logic picked up from my Bachelor's, that I see inconsistencies here. It's a bit neat and tidy that they get off the hook, wouldn't you say? God wouldn't have sanctioned that nonsense so what gives the right to leaders to do so? Are they above God? Were Iraq and Afghanistan 'necessary'? No, they were mass murder, further rubbing salt in the wounds from the first Gulf War and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Put yourself in their shoes, watch your family die through targetted bombing and tell me then that it isn't murder.

Period!!

well that the different kettle of fish - inconsistencies well may be - but I'm talking about the way it is ....


sure it is as killing civilians is murder ....


No, but you are talking morals here .....and that yet another "kettle of fish":)

What's the sense in that, Ironside? All you need is one line to state it, or even one link from an authoritative source. There is then no argument but the function of a democracy is, as citizens, to question the underlying logic and rationale of those laws. Are you aware how unpopular the decisions to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan were? When you go against the mandated will of your people, you are just taking the law into your own hands and murdering.

So you are telling me that innocent lives were taken unnecessarily, IS? In fact, that's exactly what you are saying. Was it by accident or intention? By dropping bombs, your intentions are clear. By sending in ground troops to intentionally kill, your intentions are clear. I think this 'kettle of fish' needs to be explored further.

Sorry, look at the bombing of Serbia. What did those innocent Serbs, who largely didn't support Milosevic by that time anyway, do to deserve being blown to smithereens? Why did they have to live in fear? I advocate what BB said, that we should send in units of elite fighting forces to take out those troublemakers and leave the people alone. They are for that kind of thing. They haven't turned the tables in Afghanistan so why employ them there?

Bad choice of examples as it is pretty clear that neither event played any difference in the eventuall outcome of the war. Japan was on the point of surrender,negotiations had started some weeks prior to the bomb being dropped(a "look what we've got Uncle Joe" from the US) and dresden was also targeted for the same Soviet pleasing/baiting attitude.

Should Piolts have objected? Many did,ended up LMF ,thing is though, Goering was (sentenced to be) hung, Adolf Galland wasnt,so I stand by my point Arthur Harris should have been in the dock at Nurenburg along side the NKVD from Katyn etc.

That all wasn't the question Isathu2...

The bombing campaign didn't consisted only of Dresden but YEARS of Dresdens and Hamburgs!
It flattened the whole country!
The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki FOR SURE brought us Europeans a cold war instead of a hot one because both Superpowers were to scared to start something bigger than the many small proxy wars around the globe.

If Dresden and Hiroshima is ALL what stands between you,peace, freedom and a Nazi-conquered Europe, what would you choose?

It isn't a question of Arthur Harris being a hero, he is also in my opinion a war criminal. But the question stands...

So, what price for peace, BB? How about 20 other cities in there, would that be acceptable? Would you push the greater good argument right down to the letter and leave it at that? Maybe we should have nuked Italy too for supporting Nazi Germany? Where are the lines drawn?

Well...that was my question Seanie!

Would you really spare the innocent civilians of Dresden and Hiroshima to enter a dark time under a brutal dictatorship with probably millions more people enslaved and murdered?

Be honest here...


At surrender!

Blood, lots and lots of blood, sometimes of others sometimes your own but always blood.

Is it moral to kill in the name of peace? No, is it the right thing to do? Sometimes, i know its an anathema to you, the professional fence sitter but sometimes responsibility needs to be taken and hands need to be dirtied.

To quote our foreign minister Józef Beck from directly before WW2:

Ale pokój, jak prawie wszystkie sprawy tego świata, ma swoją cenę, wysoką, ale wymierną. My w Polsce nie znamy pojęcia pokoju za wszelką cenę.

But peace, as with almost all things on this world has its price, high but adequate. We in Poland do not know the notion of peace at any price.

Sometimes Sean life grabs you by the balls and you cant sit on your comfy fence any longer.

Dresden was a reprisal, BB. It was hardly going for the jugular.

When I come off that fence, the consequences are quite rough so I stay on it :)

Anyway, regressions abound. There are some excellent accounts of pilot bravado but also of desperation. Some Spitfire pilots went kamikaze and got caught out. Still, we had luck and skill on our side.

What is it Seanie?

It's all of what I said :) :)

You ARE a fence sitter, aren't you ! ;)

.. Sometimes he is and other times he is. :- D

Sometimes I am and sometimes I am not :) :) Anyway, that is neither here nor there. I'm not an opinionated git like many I see here ;) ;)

Luftwaffe, LOL. What a whooping they took :)

... but when I'm not - I go strait to conspiracy theories :)

Sean your fence is like a f*cking Great Wall of China, you never get off the bloody thing!

What's a conspiracy theory, Bzibby? I'm not acquainted with that term.

Maybe I should switch to my cloud. Hey hey, you you, get off of ma cloud :)

I facilitate discussion and that's my job. I don't take strong sides unless sb offends either myself or my family.

Now, that untold battle? I wonder if Franek is around. He could tell an interesting tale. Listening to war tales is one thing, living them out is quite another :)

What got me about this programme was that it was billed as "the untold story" and yet NOTHING in it was new. I'd read it all (and more) in "For your freedom and ours".

Former squadron leader Franciszek Kornicki, now aged 93, again had the chance to sit in the cockpit of his old Spitfire plane after it flew in specially to RAF Northolt, west London.


worthingherald.co.uk/news/local/findon_man_93_back_in_the_spitfire_cockpit_for_battle_of_britain_70th_anniversary_1_1376251

Eagle20

What a great story, what a great photo.....God bless you Franciszek Kornicki

Just watched the polish battle of britain on aus televison. I must say it was a well done documentary, esp the part about the english squad commander spying on the squadron as he didin't believe the amount of kills they got but was then totally convinced. Or the polish pilot who parachuted to safetly only to be shot at to stop him from moving because he was in a minefield. ! liveleak.com/view?i=a61_1277853853 for the doco if u missed it

It's a wonder any Poles died, they all went to British ports before the shots were fired. It's a wonder that the Hel Peninsula held out so long since no Poles were there to defend it, or the heroic actions at Westerplatte not to mention the years of struggle and all the fighting in Warsaw.

Yes sir Mr Harry, you truly dishonor all the brave Poles who died with your hateful comments. Only a sad man has so much hate.

Yes Harry the same way Jews run to concentration camps without fighting and singing on way there.

Harry has previously stated that he holds dual British and South African citizenship. As a South African, Harry is undoubtedly an expert on racism and racists, since there was so much there under the Apartheid regime.


Polish pilots accounted for 145 of the 2,937 Allied pilots who fought the Battle of Britain, which works out to 4.9%:

bbm.org.uk/participants.htm

In other words roughly one in twenty Pilots defending Britain's skies at this critical time were Poles. The Poles made a significant contribution to winning that battle:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-British_personnel_in_the_RAF_during_the_Battle_of_Britain#Polish_contribution

Undoubtedly, the Polish pilots in the Battle of Britain were significant numbers of the "few" to whom so many owe so much.

Our resident troll here thinks that educating ignorant Brits about their debt to the Polish flyers contributes to anti-Polonism in the U.K. Consider the source, who never has a source for his "facts"...

4.9% is a significant contribution? ROFL!


A superb source which manages the impressive trick of not only contradicting the far more reliable Battle of Britain Monument source and also contradicting itself. Funny how it doesn't mention the fact that 303 squadron claimed more planes than they shot down.

Sadly Chris is lying here, as regular posters here will know. Of course he is welcome to quote me (but the PF search engine shows he's lying).


As a noted fantasist, Chris is well known for making things up and then making up further things on the basis of the things which he has just made up.