Reagan’s Atrocities

[Tigerace117]

Do enlighten us further with your limitless knowledge of military matters...and your unending self contradiction.

Do enlighten further with your comical inability to understand basic history....and your unending apologism for US atrocities.

 

[RF667799]

Wow, someone is really struggling with basic history because he just can’t wrap his head around units being rebuilt.

Your gibbering attempts to handwave away genocide because you got a vacation certainly are hilarious, yes.

You said they never recovered, before you said they did.

 

[RF667799]

Do enlighten further with your comical inability to understand basic history....and your unending apologism for US atrocities.

Never recovered...until they recovered. You write self contradictory nonsense.

 

[Tigerace117]

Never recovered...until they recovered. You write self contradictory nonsense.

You not being able to understand a concept I’ve explained at least a half a dozen times by now is not my problem.

 

[Tigerace117]

You said they never recovered, before you said they did.

Still cowering away from the fact you tried to excuse US complicity in genocide I see.

 

[RF667799]

You not being able to understand a concept I’ve explained at least a half a dozen times by now is not my problem.

It's hard to reconcile "never recovered" with "did recover".

Nevertheless, both are your story.

 

[Tigerace117]

It's hard to reconcile "never recovered" with "did recover".

Nevertheless, both are your story.

Again, I’ve explained what happened at least a half a dozen times. You don’t want to pay attention, that’s your problem.

More frantic cowering away from your excuses I see.

 

[RF667799]

Still cowering away from the fact you tried to excuse US complicity in genocide I see.

I simply told you of my vacation, courtesy of RR. I didn't notice any genocide, though our opponents had lined up a bunch of members of the previous administration against a wall, and turned their machineguns into a crowd of protesting citizens as well.

 

[Tigerace117]

I simply told you of my vacation, courtesy of RR. I didn't notice any genocide, though our opponents had lined up a bunch of members of the previous administration against a wall, and turned their machineguns into a crowd of protesting citizens as well.

Yes, the hardline Marxists killed the less hardline Marxists in Grenada. Maurice Bishop wasn’t moving fast enough to suit the extremists in his government, despite literally naming one of his sons Vladimir Lenin.

Here’s a amusing fact: the airstrip the US to help “justify” its invasion, due to its supposed role as a staging base for the “commies”? That was started under the previous administration.

Not sure why you are under the impression that excuses Reagan supporting genocide in Guatemala and terrorists in Nicaragua.

 

[RF667799]

Again, I’ve explained what happened at least a half a dozen times. You don’t want to pay attention, that’s your problem.

More frantic cowering away from your excuses I see.

I paid attention.

I noticed you said "never recovered", and are now trying to reconcile that with "did recover".

The biggest hit to your credibility comes from your unwillingness to admit one of your contradictory statements must be wrong.

 

[RF667799]

Yes, the hardline Marxists killed the less hardline Marxists in Grenada. Maurice Bishop wasn’t moving fast enough to suit the extremists in his government, despite literally naming one of his sons Vladimir Lenin.

Here’s a amusing fact: the airstrip the US to help “justify” its invasion, due to its supposed role as a staging base for the “commies”? That was started under the previous administration.

Not sure why you are under the impression that excuses Reagan supporting genocide in Guatemala and terrorists in Nicaragua.

Not sure why you are under the impression that was my claim.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Nope, the Vietnamese communist forces were anything but defeated….as shown by the fact that South Vietnam promptly collapsed.

"Promptly"... over 2 years later.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You never showed them surrendering.

Because they did not.

WWI ended in an armistice. There was no surrender.

In fact, it was an armistice of over 7 months, lasting from November 1918 to June 1919, when they finally got together to formalize the end of the war. However, during that time Germany was wracked with a revolution, and the government in charge at that time was only barely in charge. The German soldiers had already been pulled from combat, and most had been released from the military. Germany never did surrender, but the Allied Powers did force through some major concessions, as they did still have forces on the border.

In short, Germany pretty much had to agree to giving up territory or risk being invaded. But they did not "surrender".

There is a reason why I bring this up whenever some moron tries to talk about the Japanese attempts to end WWII in 1945. Because Japan was trying the same thing, not a surrender but an armistice. But the Allies learned their lesson after WWI, which is why they refused to consider an armistice and would only deal with a surrender.

But I welcome Tiger to show us the "Instrument of Surrender" of Germany from WWI. There is none, only the "Treaty of Versailles". Which opens as follows:

Bearing in mind that on the request of the Imperial German Government an Armistice was granted on November 11, 1918,9 to Germany by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in order that a Treaty of Peace might be concluded with her, and The Allied and Associated Powers being equally desirous that the war in which they were successively involved directly or indirectly and which originated in the declaration of war by Austria-Hungary on July 28,1914, against Serbia, the declaration of war by Germany against Russia on August 1, 1914, and against France on August 3,1914, and in the invasion of Belgium, should be replaced by a firm, just and durable Peace

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/treaty_of_versailles-112018.pdf

"Treaty of Peace", to make the armistice of 11 November 1918 permanent. There was no surrender, just a state of permanence on the previous armistice.

In fact, the word "surrender" only occurs way down in Article 169 and lower, where it talks about the Central Powers surrendering excess military supplies.

And I have yet to see Tiger provide any proof of any of his claims. None, it is actually rather funny to be honest. Especially as I can see no way it is possible to realistically confuse a surrender with an armistice.

The Korean War ended with an Armistice. Neither side surrendered.

The Vietnam War ended with North Vietnam suing for peace, and in the Paris Peace Accords agreeing to never invade South Vietnam again.

Which they then did 2 years later.

 

[Tigerace117]

I paid attention.

I noticed you said "never recovered", and are now trying to reconcile that with "did recover".

The biggest hit to your credibility comes from your unwillingness to admit one of your contradictory statements must be wrong.

No you didn’t.

If you did, you’d be able to figure it out.

But since this whole tact is nothing more than a frantic attempt to deflect from your efforts to excuse US complicity in genocide, it’s even more meaningless.

 

[Tigerace117]

"Promptly"... over 2 years later.

Yep, as far as history goes that’s pretty damn prompt.

A country which can’t even last three years on its own isn’t much of a country.

 

[Tigerace117]

Because they did not.

WWI ended in an armistice. There was no surrender.

In fact, it was an armistice of over 7 months, lasting from November 1918 to June 1919, when they finally got together to formalize the end of the war. However, during that time Germany was wracked with a revolution, and the government in charge at that time was only barely in charge. The German soldiers had already been pulled from combat, and most had been released from the military. Germany never did surrender, but the Allied Powers did force through some major concessions, as they did still have forces on the border.

In short, Germany pretty much had to agree to giving up territory or risk being invaded. But they did not "surrender".

There is a reason why I bring this up whenever some moron tries to talk about the Japanese attempts to end WWII in 1945. Because Japan was trying the same thing, not a surrender but an armistice. But the Allies learned their lesson after WWI, which is why they refused to consider an armistice and would only deal with a surrender.

But I welcome Tiger to show us the "Instrument of Surrender" of Germany from WWI. There is none, only the "Treaty of Versailles". Which opens as follows:

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/treaty_of_versailles-112018.pdf

"Treaty of Peace", to make the armistice of 11 November 1918 permanent. There was no surrender, just a state of permanence on the previous armistice.

In fact, the word "surrender" only occurs way down in Article 169 and lower, where it talks about the Central Powers surrendering excess military supplies.

And I have yet to see Tiger provide any proof of any of his claims. None, it is actually rather funny to be honest. Especially as I can see no way it is possible to realistically confuse a surrender with an armistice.

The Korean War ended with an Armistice. Neither side surrendered.

The Vietnam War ended with North Vietnam suing for peace, and in the Paris Peace Accords agreeing to never invade South Vietnam again.

Which they then did 2 years later.

Coming from the guy who frantically tried to deny that Germany lost World War One— despite losing thirteen percent of its core European territory, ALL of its colonies, and a tenth of its population, that’s a laugh.

That’s a loss, any way you slice it.

And not only was it a loss, it was such a traumatic defeat that Hitler went all the way out of his way to find the exact same train carriage for the 1940 armistice agreement.

It’s rather funny watching die hards humiliate themselves over and over by being utterly incapable of facing the fact the US failed in Vietnam.....even after forty plus years.

No wonder the US keeps getting its ass whooped and losing wars.

 

[RF667799]

No you didn’t.

If you did, you’d be able to figure it out.

But since this whole tact is nothing more than a frantic attempt to deflect from your efforts to excuse US complicity in genocide, it’s even more meaningless.

Do you deny you are trying (and failing) to reconcile two contradictory statements?

Never recovered vs Did recover.

You want it both ways. You can't have it both ways. It's impossible. But you won't admit that both of your statements can't simultaneously be true.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yep, as far as history goes that’s pretty damn prompt.

A country which can’t even last three years on its own isn’t much of a country.

Ultra biased and uneducated opinion noted.

 

[Tigerace117]

Not sure why you are under the impression that was my claim.

Not sure why you are under the impression the US being complicit in genocide is a-okay because you got a vacation.

 

[Fledermaus]

Coming from the guy who frantically tried to deny that Germany lost World War One— despite losing thirteen percent of its core European territory, ALL of its colonies, and a tenth of its population, that’s a laugh.

That’s a loss, any way you slice it.

And not only was it a loss, it was such a traumatic defeat that Hitler went all the way out of his way to find the exact same train carriage for the 1940 armistice agreement.

It’s rather funny watching die hards humiliate themselves over and over by being utterly incapable of facing the fact the US failed in Vietnam.....even after forty plus years.

No wonder the US keeps getting its ass whooped and losing wars.

It is fun watching you misunderstand so much of history.

 

[Tigerace117]

Do you deny you are trying (and failing) to reconcile two contradictory statements?

Never recovered vs Did recover.

You want it both ways. You can't have it both ways. It's impossible. But you won't admit that both of your statements can't simultaneously be true.

The only reason you “can’t reconcile” it is because you buried your head in the sand screaming “no no no” in order to avoid me pointing out precisely how they connect.

 

[RF667799]

Coming from the guy who frantically tried to deny that Germany lost World War One— despite losing thirteen percent of its core European territory, ALL of its colonies, and a tenth of its population, that’s a laugh.

That’s a loss, any way you slice it.

And not only was it a loss, it was such a traumatic defeat that Hitler went all the way out of his way to find the exact same train carriage for the 1940 armistice agreement.

It’s rather funny watching die hards humiliate themselves over and over by being utterly incapable of facing the fact the US failed in Vietnam.....even after forty plus years.

No wonder the US keeps getting its ass whooped and losing wars.

He supported his claim that they didn't surrender pretty well.

You support your claim by referring to Hitler's choice of railway car, as if that is relevant to anything.

 

[Fledermaus]

The only reason you “can’t reconcile” it is because you buried your head in the sand screaming “no no no” in order to avoid me pointing out precisely how they connect.

Spin spin, spin.

 

[RF667799]

Not sure why you are under the impression the US being complicit in genocide is a-okay because you got a vacation.

Oh look...he still doesn't support his accusation.

 

[Tigerace117]

He supported his claim that they didn't surrender pretty well.

You support your claim by referring to Hitler's choice of railway car, as if that is relevant to anything.

Irrelevant. They lost the war, which was the point.

You can’t pretend Germany didn’t lose World War One when they not only did so, but did so in such a traumatic way that Hitler went out of his way to find the EXACT SAME boxcar to symbolically “wipe away” that defeat.