Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
87 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
VideoGamesSuck.com :: View topic - Alez from romania
No it's not. I just changed my mind about not coming back here, I decided to come back occasionally, as everyone does.
Apparently there is now no home page configured on http://www.videogamessuck.tk, I only get an index listing. Maybe a website of this magnitude is too difficult for Mihai after all?
_________________ Sigs are for n00bs!
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:43 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
its obviously mihai. as i mention this i begin to wonder if alez was mihai all along. ie he never existed. anyone for conspiracy theories?
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:22 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
berzerker wrote:
Just saw a documentary about the US entering WW1. It appears that the US hardly had any army at that time (in comparison to the huge armies in Europe). The US army in the beginning of 1917 was comparable in size to the Belgian army (and was therefore insignificant in comparison with the huge German, French, Russian and English armies).
For those interested (if any at all), I just read this in Keegans "the First World War" too (page 378/389, about the US entering the war):
Quote:
The mobilisation of the United States Navy, with the second largest fleet of modern battleships in the world after Britain's, immediately altered the balance of naval power in the Atlantic and North Sea unchallengeably in the Allies' favour (...). The United States Army, by contrast, was in April 1917 only 108,000 strong and in no condition to take the field; the federalisation of the National Guard, of 130,000 part-time soldiers scarcely added to its effectiveness. The best American units belonged to the Marine Corps, but numbered only 15,000. (...) Meanwhile, conscription would produce a first contingent of a million recruits, with another million to follow.
So the US had a large navy but only a relatively tiny army, much like the British, but the army had virtually no experience or hardware (unlike the British).
Now I still need to find confirmation that the US maintained a large standing army after the war.
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:19 pm
Dick_In_Your_Ass
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jul 03, 2009
Posts: 957
Location: iCarly Studio
Hey zerker?Could you suggest good war history books to me.
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:05 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Here a quote from a 107 year old French survivor of WW1 (probably dead by now, the quote is from 2005):
Quote:
After surviving the trenches, the gas attacks, the Spanish flu pandemic of 1919 and the clandestine risks of a resistance operative in World War II, Gilson finds the modern world "astonishing, dangerous, immoral and lacking respect," according to Suzanne. "For him, there is something deranged about it."
Gilson raises his hand and chips in: "I'll never go to one of those retirement homes," he says with an outburst of chuckling. "They are full of old people."
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:14 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
thats funny
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 10:02 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
berzerker wrote:
berzerker wrote:
Just saw a documentary about the US entering WW1. It appears that the US hardly had any army at that time (in comparison to the huge armies in Europe). The US army in the beginning of 1917 was comparable in size to the Belgian army (and was therefore insignificant in comparison with the huge German, French, Russian and English armies).
For those interested (if any at all), I just read this in Keegans "the First World War" too (page 378/389, about the US entering the war):
Quote:
The mobilisation of the United States Navy, with the second largest fleet of modern battleships in the world after Britain's, immediately altered the balance of naval power in the Atlantic and North Sea unchallengeably in the Allies' favour (...). The United States Army, by contrast, was in April 1917 only 108,000 strong and in no condition to take the field; the federalisation of the National Guard, of 130,000 part-time soldiers scarcely added to its effectiveness. The best American units belonged to the Marine Corps, but numbered only 15,000. (...) Meanwhile, conscription would produce a first contingent of a million recruits, with another million to follow.
So the US had a large navy but only a relatively tiny army, much like the British, but the army had virtually no experience or hardware (unlike the British).
Now I still need to find confirmation that the US maintained a large standing army after the war.
Apparently they didn't. In 1939 the US army was appr 180.000 men, which is quite insignificant really. Material was not much updated since WWI either (maybe with the Navy as an exception?). Just read this in a multi-volume work about WWII, haven't been able to verify this yet.
So apparently it was only after WWII that the US kept a large peacetime army, I guess this was due to the perceived communist threat of that time. Prior to that the taxpayers showed the same reluctance to spend taxpayers money it shows with all other matters.
If this is true, again it proves that it is possible to build a huge army virtually from scratch in a matter of years, given sufficient determination, which negates the need for keeping large peacetime armies, particularly for a country like the US (which has no bordering countries which could pose any threat of invasion). US taxpayers have become accustomed to funding a large peacetime army in the last 60 years or so, so that there are no longer questions raised about it; it also seems to have become a prestige object (quite a costly one I may add).
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:24 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
puk wrote:
You could make the argument that the whole point of capitalism is to make waste, so capitalism and war go hand in hand.
I just ran into this 1935 documentary called dealers in death, you might want to check it out.
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:41 pm
Mr-Fly
Tard
Joined: Jun 18, 2010
Posts: 57
Location: bzzbzz
berzerker wrote:
puk wrote:
You could make the argument that the whole point of capitalism is to make waste, so capitalism and war go hand in hand.
I just ran into this 1935 documentary called dealers in death, you might want to check it out.
bzzzzzzz......
bzzzzzz.....ok i will just buzz it out.......bzzzzzzzzzzz
_________________ catch me if you can
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:26 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
berzerker wrote:
puk wrote:
You could make the argument that the whole point of capitalism is to make waste, so capitalism and war go hand in hand.
I just ran into this 1935 documentary called dealers in death, you might want to check it out.
You really like WWI don't you?
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:43 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
What I meant to say is that the allegations of dirty politics of the weapons industries are not new.
But yes I have been focusing on WWI and the period immediately preceding it for some time now, currently reading this book about Kaiser Wilhelm II (this will be finished shortly) and this one about the first month of the war which I expect to take much more time. Just finished a book about the Gallipoli campaign too and I have a few others left to read too. After that maybe I'll start reading the book on the Boer wars I bought recently, this seemed to have been to the British what the Lebanon war was to the Israeli (i.e. military victory while losing the public opinion all over the world).
Last edited by berzerker on Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:49 pm
Mr-Fly
Tard
Joined: Jun 18, 2010
Posts: 57
Location: bzzbzz
puk wrote:
You really like WWI don't you?
bzzzzzzzzz........
bzzzzzzzzzzz........war is bad...many many flies die...sad sad...bzzzzzzzzzz
_________________ catch me if you can
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:53 pm
Mr-Fly
Tard
Joined: Jun 18, 2010
Posts: 57
Location: bzzbzz
berzerker wrote:
What I meant to say is that the allegations of dirty politics of the weapons industries are not new.
bzzzzz.....ok
berzerker wrote:
But yes I have been focusing on WWI and the period immediately preceding it for some time now, currently reading
me too, i have been focussing on your head for a while, it looks very interesting.....bzzzzzzzz
berzerker wrote:
this book about Kaiser Wilhelm II (this will be finished shortly) and this one about the first month of the war which I expect to take much more time. Just finished a book about the Gallipoli campaign too and I have a few others left to read too. After that maybe I'll start reading the book on the Boer wars I bought recently, this seemed to have been to the British what the Lebanon war was to the Israeli (i.e. military victory while losing the public opinion all over the world).
bzzzzzzzzz.........i am also very interested
bzzzzzzzzzz......i have free membership to libarary too.....bzzzzzzzzz
bzzzzzzzzzzzz......such a nice place.............bzzzzzzzzzz
bzzzzzzzzzzzzz......but books to heavy to read.................bzzzzzzzzzz
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......so can i sit on your shoulder?.................bzzzzzzzzz
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......we can read together....................bzzzzzzzzzzzz
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......i am very fast reader............bzzzzzzzzzzzz
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......top of my class.................bzzzzzzzzzzzzz
_________________ catch me if you can
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:15 pm
FUCK_YOU_ALL
A Winner is me!
Joined: Feb 02, 2009
Posts: 630
Location: Why so serious? Seriously, why? It doesn't make sense.
Mr-Fly wrote:
puk wrote:
You really like WWI don't you?
bzzzzzzzzz........
bzzzzzzzzzzz........war is bad...many many flies die...sad sad...bzzzzzzzzzz
YOU ARE A FUCKING PUSSY
Plus you're stupid. Flies prosper in war, so many dead bodies to chill in.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 9 of 10Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Next
