Dutch Hunter Life Cycle

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 10:25 am

Knun,

Good Post.

Here is an excerpt of Powell's statements:

"There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power -- and here I think you're referring to military power -- then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can't deal with.

I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.

So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world. (Applause.)

We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years -- and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan -- and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.

We have seen these sorts of evil leaders before. We have seen them throughout history. And they are still alive today. There are still leaders around who will say, "You do not have the will to prevail over my evil." And I think we are facing one of those times now."

When asked on February 14, 2002, how he felt representing a country commonly perceived as "the Satan of contemporary politics", he said (in part) "Far from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression. We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II. We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of preserving the rights of people.

And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we say, 'Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us'? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are."

Unless people like DED manage to rewrite history, we will have no reason to hang our heads.

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

For anyone interested in the truth concerning "friendly fire" in WWII, read chapter 3 "Someone Had Blundered" in, "Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War" by, Paul Fussell. It starts on page 19.

dutch elm disease · Post by **dutch elm disease** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:37 am

for a country that was "eager willing and glad" to "save" europe my answer might be 2" well you certainly took your time entering the fray" joe with respect take off those rose coloured glasses and look from an impartial stance .you might be able to see the whole and true picture.as for "we only ask enough land to bury our warriors" line.who said tat? the widows ? the orphans? no corse not it was the politicians.indeed politicians love people like your good self. as for me rewriting history i guess tats an interesting answer to my post when you cant refute anything ive said. sigh

dutch elm disease · Post by **dutch elm disease** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:47 am

to he who has got the two bob bits with me
re caen
http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/ISSUE ... _caen.html

Knun · Post by **Knun** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:55 am

The Russians were only defending themselves during the cold war (with Stalin at the helm) ????

I think there are a couple million dead Russians who would disagree with you if they were alive today. But they can't because the one time they tried to voice their opinions openly (as we are right now) they were killed for it. There are probably ten million or so East Germans who would disagree as well. How about a hundred million Eastern Europeans? They might disagree as well.

Look at the sad state of affairs for the Russian people today????

The United States never persued military action in the old Soviet Union. It crumbled under it's own oppression. The Soviet people and leadership finally recognized the folly of Communism and embraced Capitalism. Their choice DED. Go ask some Russians if they are better off now than they were in the 70's. I work with many and have asked. All are sad......sad that it didn't happen 50 years ago. Sad for the wasted lives and wasted effort of an entire Country for so long. Sad that it will take two or three generations to pull themselves out of the mess Communism created.

I have an idea! Come on out west to Apache Junction. We'll grab some supplies. I'll loan you a nice gun to carry (I know you no longer have the right to own one where you come from). We'll go back into the mountains and look for some clues/treasure. Maybe do a little hunting. Fresh Quail over a campfire is great. You really have to get out more and listen to views other than that Socialistic conspiracy drival.

dutch elm disease · Post by **dutch elm disease** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 3:18 pm

knun
you are correct we dont have the right to carry guns in this country(and thank the lord ofor that) if we did i guess our crime rate particularly homicide would be as high as yours.god knows theres emnough crime here as there is.
america never pursued action against the soviets? come on america like russia encouraged dissension and opposition and unrest in soviet satellites.they pursued an aggressive policy towards to russia as russia did to the west they were both as bad as each other. and just what were the american missiles pointed towards all through the cold war if not russia? inever tried to extoll russias virtues and yes of corse stalin was an oppressor to his own people.what leader (s) arent?the people in any country are merely pawns to be sacrificied for the greater good.its nothing new.
i noted your statement about a few russians responses to the question asked but i presume they were russians living in the united states.posed with the question you asked them....well ..they would say that wouldnt they?i dont understand the obsession in america with communism or rather anti communism.communism in theory is a fairer more humane and just system than capitalism dog eat dog idealogy...the problem is human nature that is the corrupting influence not the idealogy. all politiciansof every denomination creed colour etc are corrupt some to a greater degree than others of course.but nonetheless the old adage "the very fact that a person wants to be a politician should bar him /her from all eternity from ever becoming one"holds true.
russia now is a shambles.... run by the russian mafia class corruption bribery etc is the order of the day.maybe your previous question should be asked to soviet citizens livin in russia not to emigrants...the response would be different im sure.
im not so sure the russian people"recognises d the folly of communism "as u put it ..they had no real choice ..ordinary man in the street that is.wars are not just fought militarily but econimically also as u r well aware...it was the economics with brought down communism not i think a sudden realisation of communisms defects.
im not filled with socialist principles or conspiracy politics but neither am i redneck..i just try to see both sides thats all..nothing is as black and white as america is right every other country is wrong etc.
thanks for your invitation(although methinks its tongue in cheek)lol but who knows i visit new mexico 3-5 times a year as a rule so if you want to withdraw the invitation u best do it now lol9( joking)
ican respect anothers views without necessarilly agreeing with their beliefs so thanks for the conversation.it seems the dutchman is getting sidetracked somewhat hmm

Knun · Post by **Knun** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:20 pm

Man o' man. You bounce around to suit your fancy without addressing any issues brought up in response to your "USA - the original evil empire" rhetoric. You must be a lawyer or politician.

One last time I will try and carry on a dialoge with you and present my views.

Crime Rates - Please refer to the Interpol website. The crime rate (crime per 100,000 population) in "Cowboy Land" (the USA) was 4161 in 2001. In 1995 it was 5278. In England 2001 it was 9927 and in 1995 it was 7206. Please notice two things...1) the inverse trend relationship (USA down, UK up since 1995).....2) The UK is higher. If you do go to the Interpol website you may want to take a look at the Breaking and Entering data. Five times as many successful Home Invasions occur in Britian as in "Cowboy Land." Probably could get some pretty good deals on family jewels in London if you know the right scumbag.
Homicide is another matter. In "Cowboy Land" it has dropped from a high of 10.9 in 1980 to 5.1 in 2001. The UK stands consistanly around 2.0 for the same time period. Inner (Gang & Drug) city murders in the US are a epidemic problem for us and skew the data emmensly. Don't want to get lost in LA, Detroit, or Washington DC, that's for sure. All three have the strictest gun control laws in the US but the highest homicide and crime rates. Surely don't understand how you can corelate gun ownership to crime. I see the opposite corelation. I'll gladly live where I'm at and I'm sure you would rather be where you are at. I'm also glad because you are there you cannot vote here LOL.

Amazingly, you never addressed the dead Russian analogy I presented in my previous post. Why not?

You blithly stated, "inever tried to extoll russias virtues and yes of corse stalin was an oppressor to his own people. what leader (s) arent?"
That's it!!!! Stalin was simply an oppressor like all other leaders??? I have one simply question. Are you insane???

You stated, "i noted your statement about a few russians responses to the question asked but i presume they were russians living in the united states." They were here on Visa's for technical training and returned to Russia after a month. That wouldn't of happened 10 years ago. They were all amazed with the freedom of choice we enjoy. What do you think DED, they were probably brainwashed before they came.

"i don't understand the obsession in america with communism or rather anti communism." Soviet communism was a threat to this country for fifty years. Soviet leaders stated publicly they would destroy us. Also see the next response. You quite frankly don't understand anything about america.

"communism in thoery is a fairer more humane and just system than capitalism dog eat dog idealogy...the problem is human nature that is the corrupting influence not the idealogy." In "Cowboy Land" we all believe (a form of patriotism....us all believing in the same thing) that hard work is rewarded by personal gain. We believe everyone has the right to opportunity for personal gain. We believe illegal gain should be punished.
Hard work resulting in a successful individual (financially or prestige) is not looked upon as taking from other less fortunates. This is looked upon as a person who obtained his just reward and is what we all espire to. Capitalism promotes the efforts of the individual and not the state. It is a proven economic idealogy that works. Is it perfect...we (a form of patriotism....us all believing in the same thing) know it's not but we haven't discovered anything better (yet). This Country of Cowboys produces more goods and services than any other country in the history of this world. We, the US of A, rebuild entire nations with the fruits of this capitalistic idealogy. We give more to other nations than the rest of the world combined and still maintain the highest standard of living in the world. Last I checked no other country helped us to do that...we did it on our own. We are kind of proud of that. Communism will always fail. Sharing the wealth is inherently flawed and been proven time and time again. You yourself stated this by saying, "the problem is human nature that is the corrupting influence not the idealogy." Has there been a single successful communist state? China seems to have come the closest but I sure wouldn't want to live there. Would you??? Communism is more humane....again I must ask, Are you insane???
I am happy with my life, extremely proud of what my country has done for this world, agree with my current leaders assessments and believe my country should continue the current course. I also believe you can almost touch the jealosy of this country by most of the world. That concerns me.
My invitation was sincere however after your last post I must withdraw it.

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 9:05 pm

Knun,

I believe you are wasting your time here. That was a great post. The reason it was great was because it is all true and you gave sources. DED's source is a waste of time. He is yet to give a source for his charges concerning Caen. There are a number of books which give detailed accounts of the battle for Caen. DED is yet to provide a source which backs up his statement that the Germans had left that town. For the true story and the real facts, you could read these books: "The Supreme Command" by, Forrest Pogue. Pages 183-199 is the chapter on "The Battle for Caen"; "The Strategic Bombing of Germany" by, Alan Levine. Page 140; "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II" by Belton Cooper. page 60; "Contemporary Europe: A History" by H. Stuart Hughes. Page 348.

It is never a good idea to make any historical statement without a source.

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

dutch elm disease · Post by **dutch elm disease** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:20 pm

boy o boy
stalin"analogy" ok nobody is denying the russian loss of life during stalins reign.its a matter of history is it not? so what reply do you require/?
crime rates...no problem with that crime is rising in britain i ever denied that although there is at present controversy in this country concerning the manner or te interpretation of said crime figures and the method of calculating them. gun crime i believe was the issue. i stated that i for one was thankfull that the ownership of guns was prohibited in this countryy and i see no reason to change that opinion.indeed the uk was proud up to a decade ago or slightly more that our own police were unarmed. the tide has turned unfortunately and now every town has at least 1 armed response unit..a sad reflection of the times we live in.in a country such as this where weapons (guns) are prohibited we are experiencing an upturn in crimes committed with firearms.so how much worse might it be if the right to bear arms was adopted and legalised.?that is why i said thank god it isnt. to say there is no connection between the ownership of guns and gun crime beggars belief .my turn to ask you if you are insane? your reference to the states /cities with strictest gun controls experiencing increases in gun crime proves nothing... the guns are allready in place both legal and illicit...the cancer of gun ownership is allready firmly set in place too late to alter that.why you keep relating to america as 2cowboy land" probabley has some significance to you.. i hesitate to ask and frankly am not waiting with baited breath for an answer. and yes youre correct in your assumption that im glad to be here and not there.
russia was americas enemy for 50 years you say..quite right..but surely russia would say the same but also in reverse.
you have given me americas thoughts on how the system works or how you believe the system should work.no problem with that but i note you made no reference to the underprivileged and im talking now about theindividuals who from no fault of their own ..i.e handicapped physically mentally etc the migrant workers exploited by their employers etc who are all excluded from the lunatic american dream.i am also aware that your vision (although from your post it seems that you imagine you are speaking for all america0)a great number of your countrymen would raise issue with you on a number of things.you are happy with your life? thats great.proud of your country? thats good too..
i still maintain communism in theory and i repeat in THEORY is fairer more humane ..can anybody argue with the tenet "from each according to his ability..too each according to his needs.if you can find fault with that id be interested to hear.it certainly is preferable to "im allright jack" and "the devil take the hindmost"
dont worry bout the invitation or the withdrawal of..its of no consequencelolololololol.
i could answer joes post but im not talking through a third party to do it...that seems pretty childish so ill resist the temptation but the answers are available.

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 10:57 am

Knun,

Carolyn recomemded that I make things a little easier by quoting some of the passages from my sources.

"The successful culmination of the Cherbourg campaign found neither the battle for Caen nor the attack toward St. Lo progressing well. Heavy concentrations of German armor helped slow British forces to the east hedgerows of the Gocahe country slowed the advance of the British right wing and the entire U.S. Army....." The danger of "an attritional battle such as the Allies had fought in Flanders in World War I might be imminent." Page 183 of "The Supreme Command".

Same book, page 187: General Montgomery reminded his commanders that his broad policy remained unchanged: "I is to draw the main enemy forces in to the battle on our eastern flank, and to fight them there, so that our affairs on the western flank may proceed the easier." He then added that since the enemy had been able to bring up reinforcements to oppose the First Army's advance......." Sounds like DEDs claim that the Germans were gone, may have a few problems here.

"I shall put everything into it." General Montgomery commenting on the Second Army's attack on Caen and what would be forthcomming on Monday morning (July 10). (emphasis in bold is Joe's).

General Montgomery again. p. 186 "I wanted Caen too, but we could not manage both (Cherbourg) at the same time and it was clear to me that the enemy would resist fiercely in the Caen sector." (emphasis in bold is Joe's) Sounds like the Germans had no interest in
keeping Caen.

From the same chapter, p. 185; "An all-out attack to seize Caen was launched by the Second British Army on 8 July with three infantry divisions and two armored brigades. As a means of preparing the way, GENERAL MONTGOMERY HAD REQUESTED A HEAVY BOMBARDMENT OF THE NORTHERN OUTSKIRTS OF THE CITY."

(emphasis by Joe) "In accordance with his request, Bomber Command dropped 2,300 tons of bombs between 2150 and 2230, 7 July. At 0420 the following morning, 1 British Corps attacked west and north of Caen. Canadian forces pushed into the city; mopping up was completed on the 10th. The Second British Army had thus finished the task of capturing that part of Caen which lay west of the Orne, but the large suburban areas (Faubourg de Vaucelles and Colombelles) east of the river remained in enemy hands." Sounds like the Germans were long gone to me.

Air Chief Marshal Harris, chief of Bomber Command, declared after the war that, while the effect of the bombing attack at Caen was such that the enemy temporarily lost all power of offensive action, the British Army had not exploited its opportunities. This was due, he said, partly to its delay in starting the attack after the bombing, and to its failure to continue the offensive after the initial successes of 8-3 July. General Montgomery, in his account of the battle, has stated that it was obviously desirable to carry out the bombing immediately before the attack, but that owing to the weather forecast it was decided to carry out the bombing on the evening before the attack. He adds that the advance was slowed by cratering and obstruction from masses of debris caused by the force of the bombing."
Page 188. Montegomery said, referring specifically to his operations between Caen and Falaise "This operation will take place on Monday 17th July. The operation on Monday may have far-reaching results..."
From the same page: "Allied airmen were particularly impressed by the scale of air power requested to support the Caen attack. General Montgomery's request came at a time when plans were being made for the First Army's breakout west of St. Lo. Although the latter offensive was listed as the main operation in the lodgment area, the attack near Caen was supported by 7,700 tons of bombs as opposed to 4,790 tons near St Lo." Air Marshal LeighMallory in his survey of the six major air attack in Normandy declared that the bombing offensive at Caen was "the heaviest and most concentrated air attack in support of ground troops ever attempted." (emphasis in bold by Joe). A description of the actual bombing and British attack on the city of Caen follows the above.

From the book, "The Strategic Bombing of Germany", p 140 comes the following:
"Despite the failure of the attacks on D-Day, the Allies persisted in using the heavy bombers against German defenses in the field. The British particularly stressed what became known as "carpet bombing" in support of their offensives in Normandy. Sometimes this achieved remarkable results, but it could be dangerous to Allied soldiers if a mistake was made.
Attacks on towns in the Germans' immediate rear--Caen was an especially bad case-- sometimes killed many French people. The Eighth Air Force's attack on July 25, the most effective carpet bombing of the campaign, showed both the effectiveness and the danger of such operations. After an abortive attack the day before, in which some American soldiers were killed by bombs that had fallen short, 1,507 heavies joined the mediums in plastering the battle area to blow a hole for the breakout." (emphasis in bold by Joe)

DED,

For your information, the German 7th. Army was holding this area. There were many "friendlies" killed by the Allies. From "The Supreme Command" by, Forrest Pogue comes this comment on p. 199:
"One tragic feature of the air assault was the death of General McNair, who had gone forward to view the attack and was struck by one of the U.S. bombs which fell short." It's war, shit happens.

Sorry to make this such a long missive, but when history is being rewritten it is important to provide sources for that rewrite. We are still waiting for the sources for your unsupported statements. You should admit you have none, provide some or retract your statements. I believe you are uninformed and not a liar but if you continue with your (sourcesless) claims, I will change my mind on that issue.

Joe Ribaudo

dutch elm disease · Post by **dutch elm disease** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 2:26 pm

joe
im not afraid to admit that my statement was in error but it was a honest mistake. its some years since pursued any interest in specific parts of world war.2 so an apology i agree is due. i hope this suffices.
howeverthe issues we were arguing i believe included friendly fire and the reasons why the french still harbour resentment towards the americans and the british.
now caen is but 1 example of many im giving here a few sources hurriedly compiled. now im not suggesting that america is responsible for every civilian death indeed the allies as a whole shoulder the responsibility. and yes shit does occur in war.
caen-anvil of victory-mckee 1964 pan books
the bombardment of caen was absolutely futile.there were no serious military objectives in caen. all the bombardment did was to choke the streets and hinder the allies.----- professor rene streiff...native of caen

header
GERMANS DID NOT DIE-CIVILIANS DID
pre invasion bombing had allready killed 12000 civilians in france hundreds more were buried in the rubble of caen.
valour and horror

a thousand years in the buildingthe medieval city was destroyed in fourty minutes.. the truth is a search of the rubble failed to turn up a single german casualty
valour and horror
"what they meant by liberating a town.surely it was liquidating"
donald pearce (nov scotia regiment)
valour and honour
almost every convent in caen had been hit
caen -anvil of victory 78page
just a waste of brick and stone the people gazed at us without any emotions.we could hardly look them in the eye.these were the people we came to liberate and this was the price freedom cost
caen -anvil of victory
despite the fact the german defence was centred outside the old norman city the allied forces decoided to boost allied moral by levelling the place
caen-anvil of victory
the only real effect the bombing hadwas to kill hundreds of french civilians and alert the germans to the comingground attack following day
valour and honour.

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 3:29 pm

DED,

I accept your apology on behalf of the Americans who are buried in France and are unable to accept for themselves. They are the ones who were insulted.

The appraisal of "Professor Rene Streiff...native of Caen" tells his side of the battle for Caen, from his viewpoint. While he may be historically correct, he may also have a slightly skewed opinion of what took place.

"the bombardment of caen was absolutely futile.there were no serious military objectives in caen. all the bombardment did was to choke the streets and hinder the allies.----- professor rene streiff...native of caen"

Professor Streiff was not responsable for sending troops into harms way.
The Allies had some of the greatest military minds working with the situation on the ground and with the information they had. I will go with the historical records that are available to everyone and a faith that we did the best we could with a bad situation.
For another view on what was going on, read about the Cobra Operation,
The Falaise Pocket, Goodwood and Overlord.
You and the good professor are both wrong about this battle.

"Valour and Honour" is "based on a television series which also contained contrary opinions" That is from their web site. Where are these "contrary opinions" found on their site?

If you went through their site you would have found this interesting note:
In "Death by Moonlight: Bomber Command" the film discusses secret British policy of bombing German civilians. Those civilian deaths were not the results of accidents or bombs falling short, long or whatever. They were targets. Shit happens in war, but this was done on purpose.

Caen was an important and pivotal turning point in the battles to drive the Germans out of France. You need to study this in greater depth before you make further comments.

I will try to find "Caen-Anvil of Victory".

There is no need to worry about the direction this thread has turned. No one is talking LDM anyway.

Joe Ribaudo

dutch elm disease · Post by **dutch elm disease** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 3:56 pm

joe
since my post i have been wracking my brains to try and remember how i formed the opinion that the germans had departed pre bombing. it came to me that i was told this by my stepfather some years ago 9(he was an infantryman in british army at the time involved in the push through europe)although not at caen at time of events he was in near vicinity 9relatively). ive phoned him tonight and he is adamant that the germans had left caen previous to the bombing although of course they remained in the vicinity. the general view as he recalls amongst the british and corse im now talking bout the ordinary squaddie was that even in war the bombing was futile and needless. now okhe is now 88 -89 i think.and memories fail especially when relating to events a lifetime ago.but he will not budge from that opinion. so i dont know i do tend to believe hes speaking truthfully at least hes not deliberately lying. im 50 - 50 as regards this but when i have the time ill try myself to look more thoroughly into it also.
i did not (intentionally) insult any american dead or brits new zealanders..ausies .canadians even germans so if u grasped that impression you are mistaken.

TC ASKEY · Post by **TC ASKEY** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 4:32 pm

Disease,
I think you are just upset over all of the Tea that was thrown into Boston Harbor 230 years ago. We understand. We know how the folks in England enjoy their tea.

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 4:40 pm

DED,

From "The Supreme Command" page 189, you can read the following:
"Heavy bombers opened the attack south and east of Caen at 0545, 18 July, with a forty-five minute pounding. After an interval of thirty minutes, medium bombers attacked for another three quarters of an hour. In all some 1,676 heavy bombers and 343 medium and light bombers of the Bomber Command and the Eighth and Ninth Air Forces hit the German positiohs, dropping more than three times the tonnage loosed on Caen ten days earlier. Ground attacks began at 0745. Three armored divisions operating in the center of the line progressed well in the morning, but were brought to a standstill in the afternoon by heavy antitank fire and armored counterattacks. To the right and left of the armored units, the infantry made limited advances in heavy rain on the 19th and 20th. By the evening of the 20th, the British forces had come to a halt. The infantry relieved the armored units, which were drawn back into reserve, and plans were made for a later advance to push the left flank eastward to the Dives and gain additional ground between the Odon and the Orne. Of the 18-20 July attack, General Montgomery said: "We had, however, largely attained our purpose; in the centre 8 Corps, had advanced ten thousand yards, fought and destroyed many enemy tanks, and taken two thousand prisoners. The eastern suburbs of Caen had been cleared and the Orne bridgehead had been more than doubled in size."

If you read my posts a little more carefully, you will pick up on a few points you seem to be avoiding. Eisenhower, against the advise he was receiving from British advisors, would not interfere with Montgomery's Command of the battle. Montgomery was "on the ground" and had full backing for his tactical decisions by Eisenhower. It was Montgomery who ordered the bombing of Caen and British and Canadian troops that did the ground fighting for the most part. There were enough Germans to stop the advance of the troops a number of times during this battle.

It seems to me, that if you want to castigate anyone for the way this battle was waged, you might want to consider Montgomery. You have placed (originally) your scorn for the way this battle was fought directly in the laps of the American forces. As you can see, that is a wide distance from the facts. If the French have placed the blame for what happened while we were liberating their entire country on America, they do not have all of the facts.

Joe Ribaudo

dutch elm disease · Post by **dutch elm disease** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 7:08 pm

if anyone needs to be castigated then yes montgomery is a prime candidate IF he ordered the bombing.but then if as you say eisenhower refused to intervene then he also could be held responsible.if you delegate then you are answerable for the conduct of the people you delegated to surely.
yes tc we like our tea and no tc the boston tea episode didnt even enter my thoughts until you so kindly reminded me.methinks in a few days this conversation migh t involve a discussion/discourse on the merits/demerits of the boston tea party ....the relative merits or otherwise of the stamp duty ..the drinking abits of the english majority...benedict arnold...tecumseh...george washingtons pet staffordshire terrier and a host of other things .i genuinely hope not ...but fear it might

dutch elm disease · Post by **dutch elm disease** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 12:22 am

aircommodoreb kingston-mccloughry and sir zuckerman conducted a survey immediately after the bombing in order todetermine its effectiveness.what they found totally contradicts the official version and montgomerys attitude.their report stated that there was virtually no sign of enemy gun positions tanks or german dead in the target area.they intervieweda number of officers and men of the 3rd division who expressed bewilderment over why the bombers had ever been deployed.
decision innormandy ...carlos de estes
it seems indeed there are conflicting stories..which side to believe? apology suspended.

TC ASKEY · Post by **TC ASKEY** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 7:37 am

Elm,

I think we can all live without a filibuster on The Revolutionary War. Besides, it will not change the outcome.

It is a shame you are not my next door neighbor. My "Country Charm and Dynamic Personality" would soon convince you to reconsider gun ownership.

Maybe we should all call a truce and return to the purpose of this website. " Before" Ron gets upset and pulls the plug on everyone.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 8:05 am

<<Maybe we should all call a truce and return to the purpose of this website. " Before" Ron gets upset and pulls the plug on everyone.>>

TC

Now thats the first intelligent posting I have seen in some time.

P

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 9:42 am

DED,

You should stop reading the critiques of Montgomery, the Canadians and the Americans and read some accounts of the actual battle for Caen. That would give you a more rounded and fair view of what took place.
Try "The Canadian Army and the Normandy Campaign: A Study of Failure in High Command" by, John English. While the title seems right up your political alley, a fair rendering of the battle for Caen can be found there. "Decision in Normandy" is used as a source fourteen times.

"Naturally, since the city and rivers together constituted serious barriers to movement, the Germans viewed this area as a gateway to Paris and key to the defense of Normandy. On the afternoon of D-Day, 1st SS Panzer Corps under SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Joeseph "Sepp" Dietrich assumed responsibility for defense of the Caen sector with orders to hurl the invaders back to the sea." No Germans? Not important?
T.C.,

To "return to the purpose of this website", go to "reply" or "new topic" and enter something that deals with "the purpose of this website".

Peter,

It is good to have you back making insightful statements on the lack of intelligent posts on this website. That has truly been missed, at least by some, I am sure.

If you are unhappy with the quality and content of the recent posts, please follow the directions I just gave to T.C. We will all follow your lead.

For anyone who is wasting or feels like they are wasting their time reading this defense of history, there are a few other conversations taking taking place right now. No need to follow this one, just confine your reading to the others and (horror of horrors) make your own "intelligent" contribution, like Peter just did here.

Personally, I would love to leave this discussion with DED behind but, for me, it holds the most interest and participation right now. Want to go back to the Stone Maps?

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 10:10 am

Forum members -

The point I was attempting to make (and that has been apparently lost on some..surprise surprise) is that the name of this particular forum and website is The Lost Dutchman Goldmine. TC suggested that perhaps some participants have strayed off topic a tad (unless, of course, the LDM has really been buried in downtown Caen or perhaps in the bocage of Falaise...and who knows, maybe someone will get the Stone Maps to fit that area sooner or later..lol). This website has cost money to produce and costs money to maintain. As far as I know Ron hasnt asked any of us for donations and maintains this site in order to have a common forum that can in some small way bring the LDM community together.

It would be a shame to see it vanish due to the machinations of a few folks, apparently bored with recent content.

P

PS My sources for the above include my own wits and common sense. I'd get out my notes and volumes concerning common sense and how to get along with others...but dont feel like getting up right now. Sorry....

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 10:59 am

Peter,

Thank you for your "third party" reply.

I was pretty sure I addressed the "point" of your post, but perhaps you were unable to see that. Let me assure you that I will try in the future not to get off the subject, as you have outlined it in your post.

[You said]:
"This website has cost money to produce and costs money to maintain. As far as I know Ron hasnt asked any of us for donations and maintains this site in order to have a common forum that can in some small way bring the LDM community together."

While I agree with what you have said here, Ron has not assigned me to speak for him, and so I will leave that job to others who are more presumptive.

I have never known Ron to have a problem speaking his own mind, but assume you know him and his thoughts much better than I.

You have obviously missed the "point" of my last reply, so once again I would like to suggest that you follow my directions to T.C. in order to get the conversation flowing in the correct direction again.

I do wonder if Ron is just happy to have any conversation going on in his web-site. Defending the history of Americans (Indians excluded) has not been something you are well know for here, but others may find it important enough to discuss from our point (American) of view.

That is a personal observation, so, of course, I could be wrong. I certainly hope so.

Are you back to having fun now???

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

dutch elm disease · Post by **dutch elm disease** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:32 am

tc
your country charm and dynamic personality i doubt would lead me to consider ir indeed reconsider anything.if itwas a veiled threat to shoot me..alli can say is it made noimpression.although if every anti gun ownership individual wasshot by yourself and no doubt a few of your gun toting cohorts then obviously theanti firearm lobby would rapidly dissappear. theends justify the means?
i believe peters comments are correct "back tothe subject" should be the order of theday.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:46 am

<<Defending the history of Americans (Indians excluded) has not been something you are well know for here, but others may find it important enough to discuss from our point (American) of view. >>

Anyone who has spent even a few minutes with me when the conversation has turned to politics or history (Ron knows about this up close and personal in fact...) knows where I stand on the above. However, I believe THIS forum is not the place for off-topic political or historical squabbles. There must be plenty of forums out there in cyber-land where folks can pontificate at length about any political or historical subject they like.

P

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 12:04 pm

Peter,

Once again you are off the subject as you have outlined it for the forum.

Why do you insist on continuing this dialog?

It would seem that you are intent on having the last word on this subject. OK!

"To 'return to the purpose of this website', go to 'reply' or 'new topic' and enter something that deals with 'the purpose of this website'".

Seems like instructions that anyone with "intelligence" could follow.

Are you having a hard time with that concept?

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

Knun · Post by **Knun** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 2:55 pm

Peter,

The right to bear arms is something dear to me. Your comments concerning this topic begged for a response and I tried to bite my tongue, or should I say keyboard. But alas, after your last comment to TC I can’t help myself. So here goes:
Your first post, “you are correct we dont have the right to carry guns in this country(and thank the lord ofor that) if we did i guess our crime rate particularly homicide would be as high as yours.god knows theres emnough crime here as there is.”
But I pointed out that the US overall crime rate is lower than Britian’s. Remember my Interpol statistics. USA was 4161 in 2001. In 1995 it was 5278 which is a decrease by 21%. A country in which 47% of the population owns guns. In England 2001 it was 9927 and in 1995 it was 7206 which is an increase of 38%. A country where it is illegal to own a gun. You followed with:
“crime rates...no problem with that crime is rising in britain i ever denied that although there is at present controversy in this country concerning the manner or te interpretation of said crime figures and the method of calculating them.”
So the numbers and interpretation is wrong? Is there a more reliable source of information I can review concerning crime rates in Britian? I assume you do see the rise in crime since you conceeded that point. Have you ever thought there may be a correlation to higher crime because you can’t own firearms? Here’s what happened in this country when ownership was promoted (Ref. http http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html) “In 1966 the police in Orlando, Florida, responded to a rape epidemic by embarking on a highly publicized program to train 2,500 women in firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease that year); burglary fell by 25 percent. Not one of the 2,500 women actually ended up firing her weapon; the deterrent effect of the publicity sufficed. Five years later Orlando's rape rate was still 13 percent below the pre-program level, whereas the surrounding standard metropolitan area had suffered a 308 percent increase.[6] During a 1974 police strike in Albuquerque armed citizens patrolled their neighborhoods and shop owners publicly armed themselves; felonies dropped significantly.[7] In March 1982 Kennesaw, Georgia, law requiring householders to keep a gun at home; house burglaries fell from 65 per year to 26, and to 11 the following year.[8] “
Another point of yours was, “gun crime i believe was the issue. i stated that i for one was thankfull that the ownership of guns was prohibited in this countryy and i see no reason to change that opinion.indeed the uk was proud up to a decade ago or slightly more that our own police were unarmed. the tide has turned unfortunately and now every town has at least 1 armed response unit..a sad reflection of the times we live in.in a country such as this where weapons (guns) are prohibited we are experiencing an upturn in crimes committed with firearms.so how much worse might it be if the right to bear arms was adopted and legalised.?” Consider this: Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals about 760,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 15 nationwide polls done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times.
(Ref. www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm) A whole lot of Brits could have saved themselves! Also concider this: “There is no simple statistical correlation between gun ownership and homicide or other violent crimes. In the first 30 years of this century, U.S. per capita handgun ownership remained stable, but the homicide rate rose tenfold.[2] Subsequently, between 1937 and 1963, handgun ownership rose by 250 percent, but the homicide rate fell by 35.7 percent.[3] “
You also stated: “your reference to the states /cities with strictest gun controls experiencing increases in gun crime proves nothing... the guns are allready in place both legal and illicit...the cancer of gun ownership is allready firmly set in place too late to alter that.” Have you ever considered that criminals will obtain guns no matter what? Your countries sad statistics on the increase in gun crimes has continued to convince me that gun ownership is a necessity. Are there illegal drugs in Great Britian? I assume that is a problem for your country (as it is here). Do you not think that guns are smuggled into your country as are drugs? As the price of an illegal weapons rise more will be smuggled. Just think who will obtain those weapons. It sure isn’t a law abiding citizen. Here in Washington DC you know what the thugs did to obtain guns. “A 1986 federal government study found that one-fifth of the guns seized by the police in Washington, D.C., were homemade.[22]”
Here’s what happened in this country when we trained our citizens how to responsibly carry a weapon if you so choose to do so.
* Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created no change in suicide rates, a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths, a 5% decline in rapes, a 7% decline in aggravated assaults, and an 8% decline in murder for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992.
* Using 1995 numbers, this amounts to 1 more accidental gun death, 316 less murders, 939 less rapes, and 14,702 less aggravated assaults in these 10 states annually. (Ref. 1996, Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School)
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%

By the way your gunphobia is amazing. TC wrote, “It is a shame you are not my next door neighbor. My "Country Charm and Dynamic Personality" would soon convince you to reconsider gun ownership.” And you responded with, “your country charm and dynamic personality i doubt would lead me to consider ir indeed reconsider anything.if itwas a veiled threat to shoot me..alli can say is it made noimpression.although if every anti gun ownership individual wasshot by yourself and no doubt a few of your gun toting cohorts then obviously theanti firearm lobby would rapidly dissappear. theends justify the means?”
Where did you get shooting people out of that string???? A good Shrink could cure you of your gun phobia. The evil politicians sure have you programmed….you apparently think anyone with a gun would shoot you if you disagree with them. An expatriot of your country said ,
“Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people . . . . 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe . . . depository of the public interest.”
You appear to fall into the first category. For me the gun control debate in this country poses the basic question: Who is more trustworthy, the government or the people? I trust the people. By the way, the expatriot was Thomas Jefferson.

Lost Dutchman Goldmine