417 Forum Posts by "PharaohRamsesII"
Hey, what do ya'll think of this video? Criticisms? Pointers? Compliments?
What do ya think could be done to make this better? We are lookin' to make a series of little shorts, the last four minutes is sort of the stuff we are shootin' for, the first four minutes was just...well fuckin' around.
Found this on youtube, what do you all think?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QjSEjzmmt7w
It gets really good after the halfway mark.
Found this on youtube, what do you all think?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QjSEjzmmt7w
It gets really good after the halfway mark.
31. Have you invested time in making a "do you suck at life questionnaire"?
If you answered yes to the above question, you probaly suck at life.
What I'm saying you asshole, is that if "America" in name never existed, the SAME FUCKING PEOPLE WOULD HAVE EXISTED.
THEY WOULD JUST LIVE UNDER DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.
Holy fuck, your a dumbass.
Yea that was pretty fucking gay....
lol
OK all the time I see people posting shit and then below it they have that stuff in lighter text, that looks like a quote....But it's from them.
What a noob question, but how do you do that?
::
This doesn't work.
That's fucking gay.
Get off your high horse asshole.
At 3/15/06 08:49 PM, Dinodoode wrote:
Durrr......WWII Would never of happened if the Germans had won
OH MY FUCKING GOD
THE IGNORANCE DOES NOT STOP
God I love this country.
I only wish that Belgium hadn't revolted against the Dutch ):
Then my great land would be bigger than it is, and therefore that much sexier.
Uhm......For fucks sake.
You are making it seem that if America never existed we would still be living in te 1600's.
Fuck you asshole, I'm pretty sure over 400 years the European World would have invented more shit to further make advances in all fields of life.
At 3/14/06 08:42 PM, DestroyerOfMan wrote: Oh my God. What a fucking loser.
Have a good time playing Runescape in Hell on a 56k, jerkoff.
Lol, golden.
At 3/15/06 01:39 PM, Karl_Pilkington wrote:At 3/15/06 01:36 PM, Guardian wrote: Meh, its ok. The main thing I don't like about it, is that if you set yourself as appearing offline, you can't talk to anyone. Yahoo! Messenger, you can set yourself as offline, and still talk to people.That's the most stupid reason yet.
You can set yourself as away/busy/on the phone etc, and people can still contact you on MSN. The whole point of "apearing offline" is so that people don't instant message you.
If you want to talk, why are you "offline", anyway?
You set it as offline, so you don't have to talk to certain people sometimes.
Fucking idiot. Instead of blocking your whole list, or scores of people, it would be easier to just set as offline, and talk to the one or two people you need to.
At 3/15/06 11:34 AM, Imperator wrote
::
Germans invented the first Jet fighter and bomber. Does that mean if Germany never existed they wouldn't have been invented. Probably not, but they certainly wouldn't exist in the same way they are today. WWII and Vietnam would still be fought with little propeller planes........
Uhm...I'm pretty sure sooner or later the rest of the world would have invented Jet planes.
Would a vaccine for Polio never be invented? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it would have been invented when it was. If not for America, you might STILL have to worry about dying of Polio.
Maybe if it wasn't for America, we wouldn't have polio?
I doubt such a large and serious disease would have gone on much longer without someone finding a cure.
I think you're drastically underestimating America's contribution to modern society due to arrogance, ignorance, or hate...........
I think your vastly overestimating it. Everyone here is being such an asshole about who invented this, and who the fuck invented that.
Newflash, if one asshole invented device X in country A, he could have just as easily invented device X in country B. Sure cultural and social patterns will be different in Country B, but sooner or a later a mind will come along in Country B, and will invent something that someone from country A would have invented had they existed.
Everyone just fuck off on the argument of we wouldn't have this, and wouldn't have that. We would be just fine without the fucking Americas, we would probaly be better off without them. Of course the world wouldn't be so god damn globally connected and everyone having a share in world markets and etc, but who the fuck says that is a good thing? If America hadn't existed, it would just have been a British/French/Mexican habited land.
Whoa seriously? I've been wanting to get this game for a while, but didn't feel like buying crappy unreal tournament to get it ):
So it is stand alone from Steam? You can pay and DL? Or do you need unreal ); ?
Ah yes, because of one policy we are all of a sudden mini america.
Get fucked.
Open up my computer, Right click on your Harddrive C:/ D: whatever it is, and go to format.
Too bad Christians go from Both Old and New Testaments.
And Jews go from the Torah, and Old Testament.
But yea, I guess they are the same right?
Idiot.
There is a show really close to that,
It's called Battle Royale done by the Japanese.
It's a movie, not a reality show though. But none the less awesome.
These people where thinking, Oh my god a dubai owned port?
That must mean every security guard is going to be from the Middle East, Islamic, and Anti-American.
Newsflash, The company owns it, it's not going to ship over hundreds of Middle Eastern men to secure the ports.
When I was talking about the 8th Army mauling Rommel, I meant after the Alam Hafa battle and onwards, the 8th was beating Rommel back constantly all the way to Tunisia. And obviously it was not a mauling of Epic Porportions, but percantage wise of what Rommel had before Alam Hafa, El Alamein, and what he had at the time of Operation Torch it was quite a bit of a mauling.
I'm not saying there was no way Rommel could have turned things around because of El Alamein and the large losses. I'm saying it due to the fact that to Hitler the African campaign was a sideshow overshadowed by the Eastern Campaign. And if something didn't interest Hitler we all know what happened to it. The African campaign was largely ignored by Hitler and little supplies got to Rommel, Rommel had to continually press for supplies and troops, even while he said it was urgent, it still took a while for Hitler to allow things to Africa. Rommel no doubt could have played out some impressive defensive and small counter offensive manevuers causing great loses on the Commonwealth forces. However, Due to large reinforcments and supplies on the Commonwealth side, and dwindling resources on Rommels side, eventually the Commonwealth would have knocked him out of Africa.
At 3/14/06 02:57 PM, furball1 wrote: Pharoah, socialism is a form of communism.
Are you fucking retarded?
It's a stepping stone on the WAY TO Communism, it isn't a form of Communism.
At 3/13/06 06:26 PM, Imperator wrote:
No see, the Persians got "mauled" at Marathon, 6500 Persian compared to 124 (or whatever) Athenians. That's a mauling, with a 54-1 kill rate. Vietnam was a mauling, 60,000 Americans compared to 2 MILLION enemy. 33-1 ratio. But 1.5 to one is hardly a mauling, it proves that the British lost just as much as Rommel. The difference was that Rommel's men weren't replacable.........I'll consider it a mauling if you find a site that says the British lost 4 men and 1 tank, compared to Rommel's 10,000+. THAT'S a mauling......
El Alamein British rate was 1.5-1. That ain't as impressive.......especially looking at comparisons to the dead, and tanks lost.......
And plus, as I said before, you are OVERRELYING on ONE battle. The Americans lost a devastating loss at Kasserine Pass (especially telling how much fight Rommel still had left........), didn't mean the whole US was crippled. We lost at Pearl Harbor, MASSIVE naval defeat. We came back and kicked the shit out of the Japs at Midway. Even Midway didn't end the war in the Pacific......
That's what happened after Tobruk. Massive British loss, did it put Britain out of the theater? Aparently not! There's no guarantee that the Germans couldn't do the same thing......
Rommel's supplies may have been lingering, but a nice retreat away from the Brits would have meant, rest, regroup, and most importantly, the ability to dig in.
You are a complete idiot, the 8th army chased Rommel all the way back to the Tunisian highlands. Ok so Rommel didn't get "Mauled" compared to the Persians vs the Spartans, But who really gives a shit about a impressive victory or not.
The point is it WAS a victory, and a very critical turning point in the African Campaign. Rommel didn't have enough supplies, men, and material to carry on the fight much longer. The Eastern Front was eating up the majority of Germany's resources and Hitlers attention. If you had of read my post, Rommel had massive percentage wise loses in tanks, and had very few left after retreating to Tunisia.
I've studied World War II for at least 5 years now, I've read a ton of books, taken History classes in school, and had many World War II debates. Did you study World War II at all? If you did you would know the Nazis had just suffered a massive lose of the 6th army in Stalingrad around the time before El Alamein and Hitler was paying so much attention to the east, and the German Army was in a dangerous situation in the Caucasus. Operation Uranus and Saturn threatened to encircle even more German divisions and Hitler was rushing more men and material to the East. Rommel was a brilliant general, he just did not have the men and material available to him due to the massive war on the Eastern Front.
At 3/13/06 12:27 PM, mayeram wrote: That’s how communist countries (and recently much of Europe) portrays America. We are capitalist and since we are so rich, we are fat and greedy, rather then working far harder and longer then much of Europe.
The largest reason that the rest of the world does not like america is the arrogance of the current government.
To bad Russia and Europe isn't Communist idiot.
You don't work "far harder and longer than much of Europe" either, what an absolutely ridiculous claim.
At 3/13/06 04:23 PM, mackid wrote: Only inherently STABLE nations that are free nations (US, most of NATO, Israel etc.) should be allowed to have nukes. Nations such as Iran and the like should have no access to such weapons.
The Soviet Union had Nuclear weapons, and they broke up. Now you have Nuclear Weapons in some of the most unstable and insecure countries in the world.
The same could happen in any western country in hundreds of years. I'm not saying they will break up into smaller nations, but revolutions could come, civil wars could come, and Nuclear Weapons could be in the hands of some dangerous people.
You can't use that argument in deciding who gets Nuclear Weapons or not, Becuase not every nation stays a stable secure power forever.
Second Battle of El Alamein
October 23 to November 3, 1942.
Commonwealth :
200,000 men, 1,030 tanks, 900 guns, 530 aircraft
Afrika Korps
100,000 men, 500 tanks, 500 guns, 350 aircraft
Just prior to the Second Battle of El Alamein was the battle of Alam Halfa, Rommel had to pull his units back due to supply problems. With ever decreasing fuel, and no reinforcements from the Mainland Rommel was forced to move cautiously and fight rear guard actions after his small offensive failed. The British Desert Air Force the whole time was shooting up his supply lines and fuel depots causing great fuel problems for Rommel. With the failure of the Axis Offensive in Alam Halfa, the Axis forces were seriously depleted in their fighting strength. The Army was over-stretched and exhausted and was now relying on captured Allied supplies and equipment.
In August, Rommel still had an advantage in men and materials but this was quickly turning against him as no major reinforcements were being sent to him and the British Commonwealth forces were being massively re-supplied with men and materials from Britain, India, Australia. Rommel continued to request equipment and supplies but the main focus of the German war machine was on the Eastern Front and very limited supplies reached North Africa.
By the 3rd of November Rommel had only 30 serviceable tanks in action and on the following day began organising his withdrawal.
November 4 - Rommels Axis forces are forced to retreat from El Alamein. Italian soldiers withdraw on foot through the desert. Eventually 16,000 Italians are captured in 14 days. Rommel loses 32,000 men, 1,000 guns and 450 tanks. The Afrika Korps now only consists of 35 German tanks and almost 100 obsolete Italian tanks. British Commonwealth Forces lose 13,500 troops, but win in a decisive victory over the Axis Forces. The following day Rommel begins organising his withdrawal.
At the end of "Supercharge" the 8th Army still had 600 battle worthy tanks, while Rommel only had 130, mostly Italian M13's, under his command. Abandoning the un-motorised Italian infantry the Germans fled west, taking the Italians transport where necessary, trying to regroup. They were pursued by the three British Armoured Divisions, as Montgomery was determined he was not going allow this to happen. The chase went past the old battlefield of Fuka, Daba and Mersa Matruh, but on 6th November heavy rain, turning the road into a sea of mud. This plus a shortage of fuel caused the British to halt. By 8th November 30,000 prisoners had been taken and the Axis had lost a great deal of equipment, including all the Italian tanks and 1,000 guns.
Commonwealth forces had traveled nearly 1,400 miles in three months.
The outcome of the Battle of El Alamein,
Commonwealth loses
23,500 dead and wounded, 710 tanks
Afrika Korps loses
12,000 dead and wounded, 25,000 captured, 355 tanks
I'm pretty sure Rommel did get "Mauled" in Africa. With very little supplies coming from Germany due to the massive battle in Stalingrad and the size of the Eastern Front war, almost all of Hitlers attention was on the Russian Campaign. The Italians were the ones supply Rommel with the bare minimum he needed to survive. After El Alamein Rommel had taken massive loses, as you can see if you can read anything, and it was now just time telling when Rommel would have been pushed out of Africa.
The American forces landing in West Africa and starting Operation Torch only sped up the process of Rommels defeat, without them Rommel still would have been beaten back and driven out of Africa.
Sources: Battle Maps Credit to Afrika Korps; Ballantine's Illustrated History of World War Two; Campaign Book, No. 1; Major K.J. Macksey, M.C. World War II, Time Life Books, Italy at War; World War II, Time Life Books, The War in the Desert; , SIEGE: MALTA 1940-1943 by Ernle Bradford, World War II, by McCombs and Worth. The Mediterranean; World War II-Time Life Books-Alexandria, Virginia; Whipple. Lucio Ceva. Decisive Campaigns of the Second World War; Edited by John Gooch: Journal of Strategic Studies. Volume 13. March 1990. "Of Myths and Men: Rommel and the Italians in North Africa, 1940-1942"; James J. Sadkovich. The International History Review, XIII. 2. May 1991, pp.221-440. I Paracadutisti Italiani 1937/45; Giuseppe Lundari, Pietro Compagni. Editrice Militare Italiano-Serie "De Bello" 09. "The battle for the Mediteranean", Donald Macintyre (Courtesy Pasquale di Gesu) .
At 3/10/06 08:35 PM, Imperator wrote: I want in on this bullshit of a WWII debate!!!!!
::
No, Hitler would not be bogged down in Russia. Hitler had to worry constantly about other fronts, Africa, Italy, and D-day. The Brits lost in Africa, and Rommel would have been transferred to the Eastern Front with highly experienced troops. Hitler would not have had to worry about a massive invasion from JUST the Brits, cause there was no way British manpower was sufficient enough to re-conquer Europe. And since Italy wouldn't have been invaded either, there's even more troops and supplies to be moved to the East. Hitler would have had enough manpower to protect his supply lines had America not harassed the shit out of him, and come summer, one massive push, led by Rommel would have ended Russia.
So...did you not read my posts about Africa at all? The British and Commonwealth troops had mauled the Afrika Korps even before the Americans landed in Africa and started Operation Torch. Hitler would not have been able to send more troops and supplies to Russia. By 1943 the British had driven the Afrika Korps back a considerable distance and caused quite a bit of damage. On the Eastern Front, the end of Stalingrad, and massive failure of Operation Citadel ( Kursk ). Even if Rommel had been able to turn things around in Africa and utterly crush the British by the end of 1943, the Russians on the Eastern Front had already smashed the largest German Tank army, mauled their new panthers and tigers, and turned the tide for good on the Eastern Front. The British forces in Africa would have drained the Nazi troops so much that little would have changed on the Eastern Front. After such a catastrophic lose at Kursk, the Nazis had never again launched a large scale attack on the Eastern Front, if they had of won in Africa at the end of 1943 ( Being generous as Nazi supplies were dwindling by now) the extra troops would mean little to the outcome of the Eastern Front.
Japan would be a HUGE Empire had America not been involved. In fact, a Sea Lion in say, 43 would have been possible. Japan's Imperial Navy had only one enemy: The US Navy. Without the US navy, there's no guarantee Japan wouldn't use it's navy to aid Hitler and invade Britain. And if America never entered the war, Japan would have been a major strain on already stretched Russia. Russia would have been fighting TWO fronts, and Germany was already more than capable of knockin on Moscow's door with only 1/3 of their total forces (most of Italy, Africa, and the Western theater troops and supplies would have been redirected to the East.).
Sea Lion would not have been a possibility in 1943, again look at my argument refuting your claim that Hitler would have defeated the Russians. And there is no way, Japan would have sent any ships to help Hitler invade Britian. Hitler had postponed Operation Sea Lion indeffinetly when it failed. Japan and Germany weren't exactly "Allies" more so just on paper, and they had no intention of helping each other out in any way. Japan couldn't even handle China by it's own, by the time of 1943, Japan had taken Manchuria and was invovled in ferocious fighting between Communist and Nationalist Chinese Forces. The fight in China would have consumed vast resources of the Japanese as the Nationalist and Communist forces were fanatical in the defense of their homeland. And as for Japan fighting the Soviet Union, we need to only look at the Soviet Unions offensive in 1945 in which they crushed the entire Japanese army in Manchuria in less than two weeks.
I just don't see how people can say Russia would have "crushed" or "rolled over" (and other colorful words) the Germans had America not become involved.......I don't think many of you are thinking in a wide enough spectrum, it was a WORLD War, there are a lot more factors to these things than many of you are considering......
America had very little to do with the outcome on the Eastern Front. They supplied the Soviets with tanks and arms sure, but the Soviets didn't even like using the Sherman Tanks because they caught fire so easily, and were not used to any great extent during the war.
