Posts made by Grigoriy Ivanovitch

@Janus1:

theres a difference between prayer and religion. you can believe in a god, and pray to a god, but not practice a religion. as i was saying, private belief in god is fine, many people privately believe in worse things. this can include prayer. you can still pray, even if religion is abolished.

This. First you say that there is no god, but then you say it’s fine to believe in god. I’m thinking that maybe your problem isn’t with god of any brand, it’s with religion. (probably you’ve said that and I missed it).

@Guerrilla:

what I mean is not your standard taking territory via frontal assualt…

Now I understand…

Weird…I was just looking back over some of this, and Janus actually contradicted himself! I guess I was wrong-he’s not that repetitive. :P

Also, this thread is getting rather confusing. Hopefully we can get

Im currently reading a very interesting book, titled “God?”. It is a debate between a Christian and an Atheist. Both provide some very good points, and argue them very well. Naturally, I think the atheist debater does a better job, but the christian debater does very well also. Personally, I found the Christian’s style to be much like Falk’s, though you may interpret for yourself if you choose to read it. When I finish, Im going to present some of the arguments on here for those of you who do not read it, and hopefully, we can get another debate going. (I will provide both sides, so as to be fair)

this going soon and make it even more so.

@Guerrilla:

Dirty missions, forward assualts, blowing stores, hostafe rescue….

All right, who calls them the untouchables, then?

Yeah, I figured that much, but what are the “untouchables”?

@Guerrilla:

they do the “untouchables”… :wink:

Who does what, now?

@M-4_Sherman:

Nimitz baby. US NAVY all the way!

I can’t argue with you via this topic, because I don’t see how you can compare army vs. navy commanders effectively, however I do agree with you, as far as naval commanders Nimitz was one of, if not the best.

@Guerrilla:

Zhukov led Russia in it’s biggest battle…. Amazing tactics and strategies despite serious handicaps… Zhukov definitely…

I don’t know…Zhukov is good, but he gets all the credit as far as Russian generals. My vote goes to Rokossovsky, who besides having commanded at Kursk, Stalingrad, and Moscow, stood up to Stalin, survived the purges of the 30s, and if memory serves, had false teeth made from steel.

@dezrtfish:

While I agree with the Idea that Montgomery was highly overrated, I disagree completely with the Idea that MacArther was over rated.

MacArther’s Pacific Campaign innovative and successful and his strategy saved lives. He isolated island garrisons and weakened them through bombing and cutting supplies. The Pacific Theater seems to be less popular though for some reason. Just like the Italian campaign. MacArther was a damn fine General and I would say at least comparable to any other general on this list.

I see your point. However, I think that MacArthur was overly egotistical, but maybe that’s just one of the flaws of great commanders and his ego was just more widely reported on.

Why no one likes the Pacific campaign? No tanks! :D

and putting Goering there is a bit of a joke, isn’t it?

Agreed. From the list, I’d go with Patton, Rommel, or Zhukov. Montgomery was definitely overrated, and so too, I think, was MacArthur. Nimitz was an excellent naval commander, but as all the other options were land-based leaders, he’s kind of out of place. Eisenhower was an okay general, but his main claim to fame was smoothing out relations between the various Allies than any actual combat. Unfortunately, though, I know nothing of Kesselring and am not going to judge him at this time.

Yeah, but aren’t they like the only ones who make card games?

Yeah, but aren’t they like the only ones who make card games?

In the spirit of removing redundancy and self-promotion, here’s an earlier thread devoted to this topic:

http://axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2083

@Yanny:

Paranoia is a mental disorder, not something one can control. Therefore, it cannot be justified or unjustified. It just is.

Aha, that means you’re part of the international psychiatric conspiracy!

See, I’ve already uncovered three new conspiracies via this thread. 8)

My last rotation is psychiatry - that will be after i’ve been selected to a residency position. I have a terrible desire to go around to the psychotic/schizophrenic with paranoia wards and pretend to be spying on them, and leave little bits of “evidence of a conspiracy” for them.
evil cc.

Ahhhh! it’s an international quote conspiracy!

btw, I’m glad I’m not in treatment. :P

@F_alk:

Just because you are not paranoid, doesn’t mean that they are not after you……

Oooh, another quote to steal! 8)

Had to be wizards…

I haven’t played it or even heard of it, but if it has to do with the Simpsons, and doesn’t completely suck, then I’d be willing to play it. :wink:

Two questions…one with a poll, one without.

The second one: If paranoia is justified, how much is reasonable?

Bad luck on your opponent’s part?