Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 08 Sep 2022, 2:32 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2022, 2:32 pm

They were just carriers.

For aircraft.

To provide air support.

Not like the carries of today, which carry aircraft.

For air support.

Escort carriers did not carry aircraft on D-Day. 

There were not aircraft carriers in the invasion of Normandy. 
 

Cannonpointer » 08 Sep 2022, 2:55 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2022, 2:55 pm

So you're telling me the *** lied?

No, I explained what they carried. 
 

Xavier_Onassis » 08 Sep 2022, 9:14 am » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2022, 9:14 am

No, Volgograd (later Stalingrad and now Volgograd again, was not an industrial area in Napoleon's time. Napoleon got bogged down by the snow and the cold and the exceedingly long supply lines that extended back to what is now Poland.

There are many books about this. Obtain a library card and then you won't ask such dumb questions.

So you mean to tell me Stalingrad wasn't named Stalingrad before Joesph Stalin came to power? 


Get out of town!!!! 

​​​​​​In 1815 when Napoleon was defeated for good it wasn't due to the Russian winter. It was due to his delayed attack of coalition forces led by Wellington at the Waterloo. By Napoleon delaying his attack along with his inability to break the center line of the British forces  the Prussian army had  time to flank Napoleon's left side.   

​​​​​​



 

Pastafarian » 08 Sep 2022, 2:56 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2022, 2:56 pm

Escort carriers did not carry aircraft on D-Day. 

There were not aircraft carriers in the invasion of Normandy.

Just so I understand without having to thumb back through the pages, have we gone from hitler using aircraft carriers to conquer the world, to the us, britain and japan being the only powers in wwii with aircraft carriers, to "Well, they didn't use 'em on d-day?"

How DID we get from the OP to a single issue about a single invasion? Was anyone moving goal posts, or was this some sort of organic thing? Because I know the smell of a goal post move, and this has that smell.

Be honest. Don't make me go back and detect. 
 

Cannonpointer » 08 Sep 2022, 6:03 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2022, 6:03 pm

Just so I understand without having to thumb back through the pages, have we gone from hitler using aircraft carriers to conquer the world, to the us, britain and japan being the only powers in wwii with aircraft carriers, to "Well, they didn't use 'em on d-day?"

How DID we get from the OP to a single issue about a single invasion? Was anyone moving goal posts, or was this some sort of organic thing? Because I know the smell of a goal post move, and this has that smell.

Be honest. Don't make me go back and detect.

It's this typical lefty mentality thing. He tried to zero in on what frankly is a pretty minor point...I said Germany never built an aircraft carrier which supports the idea they didn't want world conquest. 

He said they could have later...which wasn't a point lol. I explained that...

Then he said Normandy invasion didn't use aircraft carriers.

I said it did and told him the 3 used.

He said those weren't aircraft carriers. Despite clearly being called aircraft carriers. He pretended there were no planes on them and the landing strip was used to us...transport artillery.

It's been real bizarre man 
 

FOS » 08 Sep 2022, 6:16 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2022, 6:16 pm

It's this typical lefty mentality thing. He tried to zero in on what frankly is a pretty minor point...I said Germany never built an aircraft carrier which supports the idea they didn't want world conquest. 

He said they could have later...which wasn't a point lol. I explained that...

Then he said Normandy invasion didn't use aircraft carriers.

I said it did and told him the 3 used.

He said those weren't aircraft carriers. Despite clearly being called aircraft carriers. He pretended there were no planes on them and the landing strip was used to us...transport artillery.

It's been real bizarre man

It looks like he got refuted, did some hoogling, moved the goal posts, made some truly hilarious mistakes arguing his case which had me falling over laughing, then spiked the football and did his corky end-zone dance.

That about right?  
 
 

Cannonpointer » 08 Sep 2022, 6:22 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2022, 6:22 pm

It looks like he got refuted, did some hoogling, moved the goal posts, made some truly hilarious mistakes arguing his case which had me falling over laughing, then spiked the football and did his corky end-zone dance.

That about right?

Yup

Cannonpointer » 08 Sep 2022, 6:03 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2022, 6:03 pm

Just so I understand without having to thumb back through the pages, have we gone from hitler using aircraft carriers to conquer the world, to the us, britain and japan being the only powers in wwii with aircraft carriers, to "Well, they didn't use 'em on d-day?"

How DID we get from the OP to a single issue about a single invasion? Was anyone moving goal posts, or was this some sort of organic thing? Because I know the smell of a goal post move, and this has that smell.

Be honest. Don't make me go back and detect.

YES
It is ALWAYS about "moving goal posts" once THE LOSERS realize that all is lost...!!!     

 
 

Cannonpointer » 08 Sep 2022, 2:34 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2022, 2:34 pm

What DID it carry?

Sailors?
 

Pastafarian » 08 Sep 2022, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2022, 1:41 pm

Cannon to his Nazi boyfriend’s rescue. 

Y’all are Ernst Rohm wannabe ****.

YOU lack the moral wherewithal to abnegate MY imbrogliations! You is already a KNOWN transphobe who talk all about trans girls and "real" girls.Trans girls IS real girls, transphobe!

You is RACISS!

Cannonpointer » 08 Sep 2022, 2:01 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2022, 2:01 pm

Saying it again and again, will not make such a silly and easily controverted position true.
 

You may want to put quotations marks each side of "controverted positions".

Hank » 08 Sep 2022, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2022, 4:57 pm

So you mean to tell me Stalingrad wasn't named Stalingrad before Joesph Stalin came to power? 

Get out of town!!!! 

​​​​​​In 1815 when Napoleon was defeated for good it wasn't due to the Russian winter. It was due to his delayed attack of coalition forces led by Wellington at the Waterloo. By Napoleon delaying his attack along with his inability to break the center line of the British forces  the Prussian army had  time to flank Napoleon's left side.   

​​​​​​

I was merely pointing out that Napoleon's attempt to conquer Russia was spectacularly unsuccessful. He lost his best soldiers and a lot of them. Had he won, or never invaded Russia at all, then perhaps he might have won at Waterloo.
I am not much of a fan of Napoleon or Wellington.

The issue here was a comparison between Napoleon and Hitler being defeated by winter in Russia and the possibility that Putin (or Zelinskyy) would be defeated by winter in 2022.  i don't think there is all that much in common.

And yes, there was no Stalingrad in Napoleon's time.   Stalin (Steel) was the revolutionary nickname of Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili. Stalin was  Georgian, not a Russian.

Xavier_Onassis » 13 Sep 2022, 8:25 am » wrote: ↑

13 Sep 2022, 8:25 am

I was merely pointing out that Napoleon's attempt to conquer Russia was spectacularly unsuccessful. He lost his best soldiers and a lot of them. Had he won, or never invaded Russia at all, then perhaps he might have won at Waterloo.
I am not much of a fan of Napoleon or Wellington.

The issue here was a comparison between Napoleon and Hitler being defeated by winter in Russia and the possibility that Putin (or Zelinskyy) would be defeated by winter in 2022.  i don't think there is all that much in common.

And yes, there was no Stalingrad in Napoleon's time.   Stalin (Steel) was the revolutionary nickname of Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili. Stalin was  Georgian, not a Russian.

dude you are not as informed about history as you think. Napoleon technically did conquer russia. he occupied moscow...and russian resistance simply burned the city down.

napoleon did NOT lose many troops in russia, and certainly not his best.

the thing is, russians simply refused to surrender.

this is one example which led to the great prussian military philosopher clauswitz to declare that willpower is just as important as material force in warfare.

Xavier_Onassis » 13 Sep 2022, 8:25 am » wrote: ↑

13 Sep 2022, 8:25 am

I was merely pointing out that Napoleon's attempt to conquer Russia was spectacularly unsuccessful. He lost his best soldiers and a lot of them. Had he won, or never invaded Russia at all, then perhaps he might have won at Waterloo.
I am not much of a fan of Napoleon or Wellington.

The issue here was a comparison between Napoleon and Hitler being defeated by winter in Russia and the possibility that Putin (or Zelinskyy) would be defeated by winter in 2022.  i don't think there is all that much in common.

And yes, there was no Stalingrad in Napoleon's time.   Stalin (Steel) was the revolutionary nickname of Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili. Stalin was  Georgian, not a Russian.

No,

1.You failed to recognize sarcasm 
2. You goofed up and are trying to escape your ignorance


​​​​​​
 

FOS » 13 Sep 2022, 11:47 am » wrote: ↑

13 Sep 2022, 11:47 am

dude you are not as informed about history as you think. Napoleon technically did conquer russia. he occupied moscow...and russian resistance simply burned the city down.

Dummy, he did not HOLD Moscow.

napoleon did NOT lose many troops in russia, and certainly not his best.
Another historical LIE from the resident ignorant Nazi.
The original Grande Armée was selected based on the physical size of the recruits:  shorter soldiers were not enlisted.
I doubt that you have any clue for determining who the best of the French soldiers were,

the thing is, russians simply refused to surrender.
Napoleon retreated from Russia, with the Russians hounding them from behind.
He lost most of the army he left with.

this is one example which led to the great prussian military philosopher clauswitz to declare that willpower is just as important as material force in warfare.
So you are saying that Napoleon could hold Russia because he lacked will power?

Napoleon's usual tactic was to depose the government of a conquered state and replace it with a ruler whom he could trust. He had an adequate supply of brothers and other relations.
It cannot be said that Napoleon won, because he did not replace the Tsar with a Bonaparte.

You should get a library card and do some reading.
A lot of what you "know" is ****.


 

 

Xavier_Onassis » 14 Sep 2022, 10:18 am » wrote: ↑

14 Sep 2022, 10:18 am

 

well I dunno why leftists like you constantly make **** up. It is quite easy to prove you are wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_oc ... _of_Moscow

yes, he occupied Moscow.

Napoleon was not conquering the rest of Europe for fun...he was responding to the fact that European monarchy declared war on liberalism following the French revolution...it was se3n as a political virus that monarchs did not want to see spread..  so his goal was simply to force capitulation and get people to stop **** with France. The largest battle in Russia was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Borodino

Which sure...had significant casualties. But napoleon grand armee numbered 600k while he lost about 40k at most in that battle.. the end of his strength?? Absolutely no reason to think so...and certainly nobody at the time believed so.. 

I personally own a mint condition napoleonic cuirossier rapier...the cuirrosiers were the most elite fighting force of his army....and it is a family heirloom that was handed down many generations. After my DNA test I learned I am 0% french...so I suppose my ancestor who fought for napoleon came from svotland...he recruited many soldiers from foreign countries.

Xavier_Onassis » 14 Sep 2022, 10:18 am » wrote: ↑

14 Sep 2022, 10:18 am

 

Now if you actually want to know what napoleon's worst defeat was...which really resulted in the collapse of his empire...I would expect any decent historian to point to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leipzig

I would also assume that you would be logically consistent and say that because napoleon was ultimately defeated, liberalism is a failed ideology...just like your argument against fascism. Correct?