SPAM random annoying things

[Scouse]

Fucking snackbars have been ruining our bath-spots. They are touching females (from 10-20~ years) in bad spots, so they are putting officers there. Fucking deport their asses.

In bulk?

Or arrest the ones that are guilty of such actions and deport those?

 

[Gwadien]

Writing an essay about WW2 Allied Bombing.

Saying whether it was good or bad.

FUCKING LIKE THE MOST MORAL FUCKERY

 

[Scouse]

Writing an essay about WW2 Allied Bombing.

Saying whether it was good or bad.

FUCKING LIKE THE MOST MORAL FUCKERY

Split it out. Can the bombing of Dresden be justified by any moral standard?

 

[Gwadien]

Split it out. Can the bombing of Dresden be justified by any moral standard?

That's kind of the point though, do you approach it from a moral standard or do you approach it from a patriotic WE DONT WANNA BE GERMAN or from a communist we were protecting our masters, not ourselves!

@Deebs I didn't get a popup notification for this btw (when clicking on notifications I saw it though)

 

[Deebs]

@Deebs I didn't get a popup notification for this btw (when clicking on notifications I saw it though)

See this?

 

[Gwadien]

See this?

no, i'll reply over there now

 

[DaGaffer]

That's kind of the point though, do you approach it from a moral standard or do you approach it from a patriotic WE DONT WANNA BE GERMAN or from a communist we were protecting our masters, not ourselves!

@Deebs I didn't get a popup notification for this btw (when clicking on notifications I saw it though)

Try approaching it from the "don't use 21st century standards to judge people with 1940s values who'd been fighting a war for six years" angle?

There's also the time of the war argument; justified in 1942 isn't the same as justified in 1945 (in Europe), but probably is justified in Japan (because of the experience of Okinawa).

 

[Gwadien]

Try approaching it from the "don't use 21st century standards to judge people with 1940s values who'd been fighting a war for six years" angle?

There's also the time of the war argument; justified in 1942 isn't the same as justified in 1945 (in Europe), but probably is justified in Japan (because of the experience of Okinawa).

Well, it's not just the moral argument, it's about was it actually worth it financially.

 

[Bodhi]

I'm pretty sure by that point financial considerations were fairly low priority, by that point it was mainly about winning.

 

[Gwadien]

I'm pretty sure by that point financial considerations were fairly low priority, by that point it was mainly about winning.

Nah, there was quite a lot of complaints, Bomber Command made up a large chunk of the military expenditure and a large chunk of the deaths of the most experienced soldiers.

There's also debate about the amount of resources put into things such as blowing up the cities, which didn't have much effect.

Both American and British reports say afterwards it was far far far more effective to blow up railway lines than it was to destroy the factories. The former is also cheaper and safer.

 

[DaGaffer]

Nah, there was quite a lot of complaints, Bomber Command made up a large chunk of the military expenditure and a large chunk of the deaths of the most experienced soldiers.

There's also debate about the amount of resources put into things such as blowing up the cities, which didn't have much effect.

Both American and British reports say afterwards it was far far far more effective to blow up railway lines than it was to destroy the factories. The former is also cheaper and safer.

Always has to be put into the context of "what was the alternative?" Until 1943 there were few practical alternatives to bombing; the Americans weren't battle-hardened, and the British needed American kit to re-equip after Dunkirk, whereas the bomber factories could churn out Lancasters straight away. The debate about railways versus cities is also misleading because the bombers weren't accurate enough to do anything cleverer than hit something the size of a town.

There is one fairly clear cut cost/benefit you can do though; The Bomb. The Manhattan project cost US$2bn (about $23bn in today's money); after Okinawa they reckoned an invasion of the home islands would have cost the lives of 1m American troops, so there's your cost/benefit; was an individual US soldier worth $2000? Over their productive lifetime and also the potential cost of widows pensions etc. yes, easily.

 

[Moriath]

Always has to be put into the context of "what was the alternative?" Until 1943 there were few practical alternatives to bombing; the Americans weren't battle-hardened, and the British needed American kit to re-equip after Dunkirk, whereas the bomber factories could churn out Lancasters straight away. The debate about railways versus cities is also misleading because the bombers weren't accurate enough to do anything cleverer than hit something the size of a town.

There is one fairly clear cut cost/benefit you can do though; The Bomb. The Manhattan project cost US$2bn (about $23bn in today's money); after Okinawa they reckoned an invasion of the home islands would have cost the lives of 1m American troops, so there's your cost/benefit; was an individual US soldier worth $2000? Over their productive lifetime and also the potential cost of widows pensions etc. yes, easily.

Things like dresden were big moral boosters to a flagging population too. Being seen to hit back at the hun after being driven out at dunkirk etc. Moral of the poplulous was important at that time. Same reason the dam busters was publicised so much. Not that it stopped much production but it was giving bosch a bloody nose

 

[Scouse]

Things like dresden were big moral boosters to a flagging population too.

Still makes us scum. (As a race)

But given your lack of empathy for animals I'm guessing you wouldn't give two hoots about that either? :\

 

[Gwadien]

Always has to be put into the context of "what was the alternative?" Until 1943 there were few practical alternatives to bombing; the Americans weren't battle-hardened, and the British needed American kit to re-equip after Dunkirk, whereas the bomber factories could churn out Lancasters straight away. The debate about railways versus cities is also misleading because the bombers weren't accurate enough to do anything cleverer than hit something the size of a town.

There is one fairly clear cut cost/benefit you can do though; The Bomb. The Manhattan project cost US$2bn (about $23bn in today's money); after Okinawa they reckoned an invasion of the home islands would have cost the lives of 1m American troops, so there's your cost/benefit; was an individual US soldier worth $2000? Over their productive lifetime and also the potential cost of widows pensions etc. yes, easily.

Bombers did hit railways (When I say railways, I mean hubs, rather than actual tracks)

That's why they knew it was more effective.

That's the problem with the bombings, 5000 more died at the bombing at Hamburg than they did at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, can't remember which one, cba to check... But my point is that it's pretty interesting to see that it was the awe of a single weapon which caused so much destruction, not necessarily the death-count.

It also shows that the myth of the Germans giving up quickly was the furthest thing from the truth too; they took -so- much shit. Hitler refused to go to Hamburg after it was destroyed, bit of a cunt move really.

The more I read about the details it gets more fascinating, WW2 really was a battle of the workshops, bombing of hamburg = counter measures fucked up the German response bombing of Berlin = Germans had a solution to the counter measures.

 

[DaGaffer]

Bombers did hit railways (When I say railways, I mean hubs, rather than actual tracks)

That's why they knew it was more effective.

That's the problem with the bombings, 5000 more died at the bombing at Hamburg than they did at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, can't remember which one, cba to check... But my point is that it's pretty interesting to see that it was the awe of a single weapon which caused so much destruction, not necessarily the death-count.

It also shows that the myth of the Germans giving up quickly was the furthest thing from the truth too; they took -so- much shit. Hitler refused to go to Hamburg after it was destroyed, bit of a cunt move really.

The more I read about the details it gets more fascinating, WW2 really was a battle of the workshops, bombing of hamburg = counter measures fucked up the German response bombing of Berlin = Germans had a solution to the counter measures.

Most railheads are in towns...

You're thinking of the Hamburg firestorm, which was a relatively rare event in Europe. The Tokyo firestorm on the other hand, killed more people than either atomic bomb but didn't deter the Japanese.

As for expecting the Germans to give up because of bombing, it comes back to my original point; if the allies could have bombed accurately, they would have (and the Americans in particular wasted a lot of lives trying really hard to precision bomb) but especially for the British, the justification of terrorising the Germans into surrender became the only available logic because the RAF had to fly at night (to give limited manpower some protection) which meant the bombers were lucky to hit within five miles of a target so they could only hit urban areas, because frankly that was as accurate as they could get. The narrative came to fit the reality rather than be the objective of the exercise. Unfortunately by 1945 it became of case of "well we've built all these bombers now, we may as well use them".

 

[Moriath]

Still makes us scum. (As a race)

But given your lack of empathy for animals I'm guessing you wouldn't give two hoots about that either? :\

Different times. You cant judge on todays values what was done then.

And no i see it as historic fact rather than anything emotional.

 

[georgie]

The more I read about the details it gets more fascinating, WW2 really was a battle of the workshops, bombing of hamburg = counter measures fucked up the German response bombing of Berlin = Germans had a solution to the counter measures.

Some say it was final.

 

[Gwadien]

Some say it was final.

They didn't use gas bullets m9.

 

[Scouse]

British drivers...

 

[Raven]

British drivers...

It must suck hard to live in a country you hate.

Your post should read..."this driver" please stop with the racism (your name for it)

 

[soze]

British drivers...

Little bit ott that guy is obviously a cunt but here are like 30m drivers in the UK including you and I am sure you would never do that

 

[Scouse]

That exact thing has actually happened to me and a friend. I was going to post it under the title "this is news?!".

Only once from the front tho. Happens a lot from behind when 18 year olds in shitty novas are in the same lane as you as they think it's "funny"...

Little bit ott that guy is obviously a cunt but here are like 30m drivers in the UK including you and I am sure you would never do that

Yep. The vast majority don't. But getting swerved at from behind is a regular occurance for me. There's like the whole other side of the road to overtake so why they get pissy is beyond me.

 

[Bodhi]

British drivers...

I'll assume thats the British drivers that help to make the UK's roads some of the safest in the world?

I suspect if you went to India or anywhere in South East Asia you'd shit yourself.

No, the only weak link on our roads are Peugeot drivers.

/me checks article.

Ah. Explains everything.

 

[Scouse]

I suspect if you went to India or anywhere in South East Asia you'd shit yourself.

Been to both and done exactly that. Yep, there's a higher incidence of mishap - but no malice.


Edit: It's actually not the "British drivers" that make the safest in the world - it's the system they live under. Stick anyone else under the same system and they'd be the same - including the overprivileged pricks who get kicks out of scaring cyclists.

 

[Ormorof]

Upstairs neighbours

Hes a retired alcoholic with a dog that howls along when he plays the accordion

He also has a piano but he only ever plays the postman pat theme tune

I cant get that damn tune out of my head aaaaaargh

Also he seems to assemble furniture every day at 10pm

Man i miss living on the top floor

 

[Bodhi]

Didn't really expect you to give the British population any credit to be fair, so your comment is about as surprising as the local McDonald's menu.

 

[DaGaffer]

Been to both and done exactly that. Yep, there's a higher incidence of mishap - but no malice.


Edit: It's actually not the "British drivers" that make the safest in the world - it's the system they live under. Stick anyone else under the same system and they'd be the same - including the overprivileged pricks who get kicks out of scaring cyclists.

Sorry, Ireland is a very direct and pertinent comparison to the UK and the drivers here are fucking rubbish. UK drivers are actually remarkably good, nearly as good as Scandis despite much higher traffic density, and that was true before speed cameras and CCTV were a thing.

 

[Scouse]

Sorry, Ireland is a very direct and pertinent comparison to the UK and the drivers here are fucking rubbish. UK drivers are actually remarkably good, nearly as good as Scandis despite much higher traffic density, and that was true before speed cameras and CCTV were a thing.

Actually, I was coming from the angle of "human animals".

Take an indian child and bring him up in blighty and he'll drive like a brit. Same with any other human. But yep, I can see where there's a mix.

The point I tried (and failed because my language mustn't have been clear enough) was there's nothing special about the British - in that we're all the same animal - and if you bring another human animal into that system then they'll act the same...

...meh.


Edit:

Didn't really expect you to give the British population any credit to be fair.

Good. You're catching on! I don't care where people are from and I don't assign credit based on anything so frivolous and nebulous as nationality.

 

[old.user4556]

Bottom line is that driver is a solid gold cunt, glad he's locked up because he's clearly got something wrong with his brain.

 

[Bodhi]

Actually, I was coming from the angle of "human animals".

Take an indian child and bring him up in blighty and he'll drive like a brit. Same with any other human. But yep, I can see where there's a mix.

The point I tried (and failed because my language mustn't have been clear enough) was there's nothing special about the British - in that we're all the same animal - and if you bring another human animal into that system then they'll act the same...

...meh.


Edit:

Good. You're catching on! I don't care where people are from and I don't assign credit based on anything so frivolous and nebulous as nationality.

So by your logic, if we're all the same animal and there's nothing special about British drivers, it must also follow that there is nothing deficient about them either, so why mention the British aspect in the first place?

I'd hardly say the actions of one nutter are indicative of a country's driving standards, in fact it's clear that this is an outlier because it's on the news.