Worst War Crimes of WW2?

I think you arealluding on the captain of the Gaf Spee,who sank 9 British merchant ships,but saved the crew .
Some points
1) The crews were save,because Langmann had the opportunity to save them
2)Later,there was no more place for the chivalry of Langmann:for both sides,the crews (military or civilian ) were legitimate objectives and both sides were unwilling to risk their ships by saving enemy(or even their own) shipwrecked men .Think on the Laconia order .
3) Fortunately for Lambsdorf,he died at the beginning of the war,when one could have the luxury of being chivalrous,and lucky enough ,he would not experience the war evolving to a point when one had to choose :being chivalrous,or survive.

 

Two (hair-splitting ?) points
1) you asked :was it ethically and morally correct?
IMHO,the question is wrong:ethics and morality have no place in a war .
2) about H and N:I think that for any military commander,the answer would be obvious,if he had to choose between the lives of his men and the lives of enemy civilians .He was responsible for his men,not for enemy civilians .
3) not only is war hell,but war is also deshumanizing every one who is participating in a war:soldiers are doing things in a war,which they never would have done in peace.And,the longer the war,the more atrocious he is becoming:the allied pilots who were shooting at civilians in 1945,would never have done this in 1940.

 

The correct name of the captain of the Admiral Graf Spee is Hans Wilhelm Langsdorff , IMO his suicide is a testmony of the difficulties a honorable man has in resisting the pressures of war.
There were such men in all armies and countries, even in 1945 after six years of horrors, and that's what prevented the war from being even worse that it was. IMO none graced the higher ranks of the strategic bomber forces.

The Laconia order is a testimony that, for some people, like commander Hartenstein of U-156, saving lives was more important than optimizing killing. The reason for Doenitz's indictment was that according to the court "if the commander cannot guarantee rescue of survivors he should not fire" if you apply the same logic to bombers and avoiding civilian deaths .......

As far as I'm concerned ethics and morality are always applicable, you may suspend some laws in wartime but never ethics they are what makes human coexistence possible, a man without ethics is akin to rabid dog, horrible as it may seem you can only kill him as he will always be a threat to society.

 

The Germans fire bombed London. Hence, it is not true that there was no equivalent to the bomber command in Luftwaffe in terms of purpose. The Luftwaffe was not equal to the RAF in effectiveness, but German doctrine for strategic bombing, in principle, was no different than the Allies; in fact Luftwaffe was the first in air force to apply terror systematically as a weapon.

The OKW was rounding up civilians in territories they had conquered to be liquidated. I do not see strategic bombing in the same light.

 

It would be interesting to see the details of those that weren't. I don't doubt it happened but how often and when it did how often was it a case of mistaken identity.

In the quote above you said "some if not many" now you are saying "many, many", a bit contradictory isn't it? And how about some documentaion on the "enforced by the leadership" part.

Not that I've seen even once.

This has been dealt with on other threads but ... Yes they were right to do so. It saved not only the lives of US soldiers but the lives of Japanese civilians as well. Are you aware by the way that the post war mortality rates in Nagasaki and Hiroshim were lower than those in the rest of Japan?

You may be sure but I'm certainly not. No Germans were convicted of war crimes for bombing even fire bombing cities or for uncunditional submarine warfare. Furthermore the use of atomics was not against the conventions. I strongly suspect you are wrong.

Strawman. Everyone here has admitted that war crimes were committed by both sides. On the otherhand such crimes are suppose to be addressed by the armed forces in which the person accused is a member. As such they are usually tried not as "war crimes" but as violations of the rules, regulations, and laws of said power. One of the reasons for Nuremberg was that there was no longer a German government that could conduct the trials.

Sorry but this is the old equivalancy argument and it is wrong. The Nazi's had orders from the top on down that violated the conventions. Atrocities and crimes were as a consequence much more prevelant than they were at least among the western allies. Furthermore they were seldom dealt with by the German military courts unless the crime involved violation of other ordinances.

Name such that the western allies commited.

It is a violation of the coventions of warfare in place at the time.

Certainly some were much worse than others both due to scale and lack of reasonable justification.

 

@ lWD

You are very naive and bias, Can you back up all of your retorts and rebuttles to my comments with evidence? You counter any commenter's opinions with opinions of your own and then have the nerve to say the commenter is "wrong".

I can see you have been greatly influenced by our own (the allies) war propaganda and I will follow up with written evidence shortly. How much research have you done that was written by Germans or Japanese or Russians or Italians? I tend to research warfare from as many perspectives as I can and from all sides involved if there is documentation available. I have read accounts written by Americans, British, German, French, Russain, Italian and Hungarian participants not just viewpoints from the allied side.

I will go through some of the hundreds of books I have on WWII to provide with some written documentation to back up the points I have made. Some of the points you refuted are just plain logical and or made through deductive reasoning or maybe just my opinion, which I am entitled too, but most are right from things I have read and researched.

About Bomber Harris claiming what his intent was with carpet bombing and firebombing of cites was, which is something you claim you never heard of so you said that I was wrong, well you are wrong here is the evidence

here is a direct quote from Arthur "Bomber" Harris

"the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany.It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories." Arthur Harris

So as you can see by Harris's own quote that the damage to the civilian population was not accidental in any way, he makes it clear that it was not a by-products of attempts to hit factories but was in fact his intended aim all along. So you are "wrong".

It was Harris's intent to make rubble of every German city and to kill it's inhabitants in the process, here is some more evidence of that.

Harris did not know the Allied High Command was using high-level German sources to assess exactly how much Allied operations were impairing the German war effort. As a consequence Harris tended to see the directives to bomb specific oil and munitions targets as a high level command "panacea" (his word), and a distraction from the real task of making the rubble bounce in every large German city.

Here is more evidence on Arthur Bomber Harris intent behind the bombing and firebombing of German cities and that it was not aimed at industrial targets but at the civilian population.

Harris argued that the main objectives of night-time blanket bombing of urban areas was to undermine the morale of the civilian population (NOT TO DESTROY INDUSTRIAL TARGETS) and attacks were launched on Hamburg, Berlin, Cologne, Dresden and other German cities. This air campaign killed an estimated 600,000 civilians and destroyed or seriously damaged some six million homes. It was a highly dangerous strategy and during the war Bomber Command had 57,143 men killed.

Churchill, being an historian, became concerned about how these firestorms would be seen during the post-war period. On 28th March, 1945, Churchill wrote to Bomber Harris: “It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing material out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction.”
So as you can see my statement was true and you are "wrong".

In regards to my statement about Allied fighter pilots strafing civilians you also need to read a little closer, I said "some if not many targets were of military importance" refering to the ground attack targets. then I said that ""many many times they attacked civilians, these were two different points, try reading a little closer. Read the book "the mighty eighth", or the book by Norbert Hanning, or by Heinz Knoke, or any interview with the US vietnam naval pilot Dieter Dengler who was a child in Germany during WWII. Read about Zemke and his points of view, It is a known fact that US fighter pilots were told to strafe anything and anyone on the ground, do your own research and you will see this is also true and you are "wrong"!

in reference to the "possibility" that had the Germans used nuclear weapons and lost the war they "probably" would have been accused of war crimes was my opinion, How in the Heck can you say "I am wrong"? how can you say you are right? can you back up that statement in any way? How can you possibly know for sure that they would not have been considered a war crime since it is a speculative scenario to begin with and it is only my opinion?, how can my own opinion and a speculative scenario be "wrong"?

You stated that because the Germans were not accused of war crimes for fire bombing they would not have been for using nuclear weapons (how does one relate to the other?) and then you state that the use of nuclear weapons was not against convention. Two very outrageous remarks. How could nuclear weapons be against convention when no one (other than the Manhatten project insiders) even knew they existed or what they were capable of? so in that point you are "wrong". In reference to the firebombing example there is no way the allies could have used firebombing as a war crime as it was widely praciticed by the allies themselves, in fact on a much greater scale than the germans were even capable of due to the quality and limitations of their bomber forces and their planes. The Allies practiced fire bombing of civilians on a grand scale from Germany to Japan so naturally they would not call it a war crime. So in that point you are "wrong"

Another point I made about war crimes being the perspective of the victor is well known, A lot of countries thought the Nuremburg trials were a farce and a discrace to the allies, it is also known that a lot of the german defendents were tortured and beaten into making confessions (many of them repeatedly kicked in the testicles) so much to the point where a few Amercian lawyers felt the need to try to intervene. If you were not aware of this then once again you have proven your lack of knowledge about these things and you should do some research on your own. Can you show me an example of any country that was the victor in a war being accused or convicted of a war crime? no I don't think so so therefore "you are wrong"

You then wrote, Sorry but this is the old equivalancy argument and it is wrong. The Nazi's had orders from the top on down that violated the conventions. One example of a situation of an atrocity that was commited by the allies (and well documented if you care to do the research) is what is know as "Eisenhower's death camps" look into it, try researching instead of just believing media and propaganda. Just one aspect of an Allied practice that was ordered from the higher ups, so you are "wrong"

You wrote...Are you aware by the way that the post war mortality rates in Nagasaki and Hiroshim were lower than those in the rest of Japan? can you prove this statement? if so let's see your proof. If you don't have any then you are "wrong" and it still does not justify using nuclear weapons on a civilian population from a humanitarian point of view, From a military point of view, maybe not from a humanitary point of view, so you are "wrong"

Lastly here is the Official definition of a WAR CRIME

War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".

From this official definition there are quite a few cases of the allies commiting war crimes.
Eisenhower's POW camps (the mistreatment of the German POWs in the camps at the end of the war)
Bomber Harris's campaign to destroy, fire bomb and intentionally kill civilians and destroy German cities then the US campaign to do the same to Japan's cities and civilian population.
The rape and murder of the citizens of Berlin after the war ended by both Russian and Allied troops.
Killing of german civilians by straffing, shooting pilots in parachutes, shooting soldiers wishing to surrender etc,
yes all sides committed these crimes but only the victor does not get accused of war crimes just the loser who gets to make all of the rules post war.

 

I guess there were not western allied death camps. How many casualties? One million, one million seven hundred thousand? Sources? Sorry the last death toll I found in th net is between two and six millions.

Deliberate starvation? Perhaps there were some problems in providing food to over one hundred million Western Europeans after the most destructive war in history of mankind.

I've had german neighbors since I was born, clients, no one have talked about allies death camps. God we are talking about USA orders. It was impossible to cover it.

 

The following quote by Lieutenant Ernest Fisher, of the 101st Airborne Division and former Senior Historian of the United States Army is from the book "Other Losses":

"Starting in April 1945, the United States Army and the French Army casually annihilated about one million men, most of them in American camps." Ernst Fisher 101st airborn Div.

the term "Eisenhower's death camps" is obviously not an official title but the term given by former US guards and german prisoners, it is estimated that 1.7 million to germans died from mistreatment toward the end of the war and immediately after it by the revenge seeking victors of all of the allied nations. It is also estimated that upwards of 7 to 9 million total germans and eastern europeans died at the end of the war and in the first year after the war due to mistreatment by the allies and the russians.

On March 10, 1945 as World War II was coming to an end, General Eisenhower signed an order creating the status of Disarmed Enemy Forces for the German Prisoners of War who would soon be surrendering to the Americans. This order was a violation of the Geneva Convention because it allowed Eisenhower to disregard the rules for the treatment of Prisoners of War. It allowed him to starve the German POWs, deny them the right to send and receive letters, and to receive Red Cross packages and packages from German civilians. All of these rights were enjoyed by the prisoners in the Nazi POW camps and even in the notorious concentration camps. Eisenhower signed this order before he had even seen the horrors of the concentration camps, which so affected him.

On May 7, 1945, the German army surrendered to General Eisenhower, who refused to shake hands with the German General, as is customary. The neutral country of Switzerland was removed as the Protecting Power for German prisoners, which was another violation of the Geneva Convention. General George S. Patton quickly released the prisoners who had surrendered to his Third Army, but General Eisenhower held his POWs until the end of 1946, forcing them to live on starvation rations. Red Cross packages sent to the German POW camps were returned. The POW camps had no barracks or tents.
The German prisoners were forced to dig holes in the ground for shelter. Even though the American army had plenty of tents, the prisoners lived for months in their holes. When it rained, the holes collapsed and the prisoners died.
there is an article written by a US soldier and guard at one camp that gives details on the treatment of Germans prisoners under the care of the US and French Armies

In October, 1944, at age eighteen, I was drafted into the U.S. army. Largely because of the "Battle of the Bulge," my training was cut short.
In late March or early April, 1945, I was sent to guard a POW camp near Andernach along the Rhine. The men I guarded had no shelter and no blankets; many had no coats. They slept in the mud, wet and cold, with inadequate slit trenches for excrement. It was a cold, wet spring and their misery from exposure alone was evident.
Even more shocking was to see the prisoners throwing grass and weeds into a tin can containing a thin soup. They told me they did this to help ease their hunger pains. Quickly, they grew emaciated. Dysentery raged, and soon they were sleeping in their own excrement, too weak and crowded to reach the slit trenches. Many were begging for food, sickening and dying before our eyes. We had ample food and supplies, but did nothing to help them, including no medical assistance.
These prisoners, I found out, were mostly farmers and workingmen, as simple and ignorant as many of our own troops. As time went on, more of them lapsed into a zombie-like state of listlessness, while others tried to escape in a demented or suicidal fashion, running through open fields in broad daylight towards the Rhine to quench their thirst. They were mowed down.
Hunger made German women more "available," but despite this, rape was prevalent and often accompanied by additional violence. In particular I remember an eighteen-year old woman who had the side of her faced smashed with a rifle butt and was then raped by two G.I.s. Even the French complained that the rapes, looting and drunken destructiveness on the part of our troops was excessive.

"So what?" some would say. "The enemy's atrocities were worse than ours." It is true that I experienced only the end of the war, when we were already the victors. The German opportunity for atrocities had faded; ours was at hand. But two wrongs don't make a right.

here is some of another account of the treatment of prisoners by the allies

Instead of the field being fenced in, there was a fleet of armoured tanks surrounding the grounds. It was strictly verboten to smoke, or light any kind of fire. This was not a problem for myself, but there were a few of die hard smokers who had a cigarette or two stashed away, and of course, could not resist the temptation to light up. They soon found out how dangerous this habit could be. The minute the guards noticed a flicker, they aimed for it, without any hesitation, shooting straight into the masses of bodies huddling on the open ground. Because of the inhumane behavior, we registered a number of deaths and scores of wounded. I can say that the Americans did not discriminate whether they shot smokers or nonsmokers as whoever happened to be in the way of a bullet, bit the dust. I was unclear as to who I hated more, the smokers, or the shooters!
The rules of the Geneva Convention were for the most part totally ignored by the American Army and most of us found this hard to believe. I can honestly say I was stunned. I had expected this from the Russian Army, but now I was faced with a cold reality. In war, nothing is as it should be, and no country is free from showing its inhumanity. Because of the conditions of hunger, thirst, and cold, many of us were brought to the brink of insanity. Again, I considered myself fortunate as I managed to survive with my faculties fairly intact.

The soviet contribution to allied war crimes is also well documented but here is just one quote as to the attitude they had.
here is a quote from Stalin's propaganda minister to the soldiers of the Red Army when they had gotten Germany to surrender

“Kill, kill, you brave Red Army soldiers, kill. There is nothing in the Germans that is innocent. Obey the instructions of comrade Stalin and stamp the fascistic beast in its cave. Break with force the racial arrogance of the German women. Take them as your legal loot. Kill, you brave Red Army soldiers, kill!” Ilya Ehrenburg 1945.

Once again here is the official definition of a War Crime

War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".

the Murder and Ill-treatment of prisoners is considered a war crime.

anyway my whole point was never to point out the allies war crimes until called to task by some comments about my opinions, my point was that war is the crime and the polititions and the leaders are the criminals. The soldiers, from generals to privates, who have to execute the will and policies of the governemtns and the civilians are the victims of the crimes of the governments and the leaderships

 

You are right about that for sure!

But, even if we don't want to compare the actions with the Allies or the Axis, we have to remember that the Allied side didn't act like angels everytime. I am not sure about the bombings of the German civilian targets like Dresden etc. Sure, I'm aware of the "total war concept" as the war actually was at the time, but still...

 

Please don't take what I said as granting absolution for any miss deeds of the Allies. My only point is that both the Germans and the Japanese had a much more liberal interpetation of humane treatment. The Allies at least tried, with exceptions, to avoid unncessary and collateral damage when it was possible.

 

By general convention the proponent is responsible for proving his point. In addition proving the allies didn't have the equivalent of the death camps is asking to prove a negative something that is logically impossible. What I can say is I have seen no evidence for them. If you have anti up.

Then share them. But PLS note the source.

I may be but that doesn't prove it. Please note that what I contested was that he did it exclusively to kill civilians. Several other purposes are noted above. There's also the context of the statement. Note that somewhat similar statement by Nimitz regarding where you could find post war Japanese speakers.

Increasing terror = affecting moral not necessarily killing. If the latter were the case would any German cities have been spared? Also the logical thing to do would be to completely destroy the nearer ones and work across Germany that way. It's pretty clear that industries were still being targeted.

Your actual statement was:

In standard English this reads Not many were not of military importance.

That's a pretty weak reference but it's something. Up until now all we had is your opinion on it. That hardly constitutes proof. In any case I said you haven't proven it and you still haven't.

You really need to read things a bit closer. You are the one who said:

I questioned it both your certainty and gave a rational for why you were probably wrong. Note I said "probably" no certainty implied.

You could turn the question around and ask how could it be "right". One looks at the historical precedents that come closest and draw ones conclusions form there.

You consider the truth outrageous? At the time the effects of an atomic bomb were viewed as similar to conventional weapons. As for use of atomic weapons PLS point out where they were against the conventions if you believe they were.

Not really. The conventions only address a couple of weapons directly. If not addressed then they would fall under the same restrictions as ordinary bombs and those were not against the conventions.

How am I wrong, no Germans were accused of war crimes for bombing cities. Whether or not the allies did was irrelevant. It didn't break the conventions.

Care to give references? I can see some objections to the crimes against humanity as those were not on the books at the time but the crimes committed were so loathsome that some felt that they were required. I'm not convinced that they were wrong.

In that case you won't have any trouble documenting some of them.

Can you give an example of a country that was the loser being convicted of a war crime? I doubt you can because crimes are committed by people not countries. As for soldiers fighting for the victorius armies the two cases in Italy were US soldiers killed some German POWs they were accused and convicted of crimes although since it was a US court they were convicted of violations of the uniform code of military justice, which by the way is how it's suppose to work. The court of first resort is the military court of the army to which they belong. So again how am I wrong.

Sounds like you've been reading Other Losses that's been thoroughly discredited. The post war prison camps were hardly "death camps". Due to a general shortage of food, medicine, and shelter they weren't pleasure camps either.

No if I can't find it then it's not clear whether I'm wrong or right unless you find evidence to the contrary. But lets look at a couple of data points.
From: How many people died at Hiroshima in August 1945?

If we then look at figure 2.5 on Statistics Bureau Home Page/Chapter 2 Population we see that in 1950 the mortality rate was indeed ~1.1%. However it's obviously declining and especially considering the food and housing situation in immediate postwar Japan it is not at all unreasonable to expect that the post war mortality rate from 1945 to 1950 was indeed higher.

The justification from a humanitarian point of view is that it would save lives and it did. So again it doesn't look like I'm wrong. In fact I'm not sure I addressed the humanitarian POV at all previously.

Well let's see.

Not really. For one thing the camps for the most part didn't hold POWs but former enemy combatants. The war was over. In any case the holding them there was considered both a military and civilian necessity.

As long as there were legitimate targets and there were the bomb campaign was not in conflict with the conventions of war.

I never claimed the Soviets weren't guilty of war crimes and their troops were the only ones in Berlin at the end of the war.

This depends on whether it was clear or not they were civilians and that targets of military value weren't the primary target.

This was not illegal in WWII.

This is only a crime if it is clear that the soldiers really intend to surrender and that it is not a ruse. I'm sure it happened but it's not clear how often. Certainly in most cases it was frowned on by both sides at least in the west because POWs were worth more than corpses.

That's really clear.

I'll agree that all sides committed actions that went against the conventions. But it's clear that some on the side of the Western Allies were both accused and a subset of these convicted. Note that not all the Germans accused of war crimes were convicted either. But it's also clear that crimes were much more common in the Japanese and German militaries no doubt in part due to orders encouraging or demanding them from the top.

 

That's what I thought. See: Stephen Ambrose: A Review of 'Other Losses'
[/quote]
On March 10, 1945 as World War II was coming to an end, General Eisenhower signed an order creating the status of Disarmed Enemy Forces for the German Prisoners of War who would soon be surrendering to the Americans. This order was a violation of the Geneva Convention because it allowed Eisenhower to disregard the rules for the treatment of Prisoners of War.
[/quote]
Care to point out how it was a violation of the Geneva convention?

 

lwd

you are hilarious thanks for the laugh

 

Brutality against POW is unnecessary and despicable, but almost inevitable. But I guess that the numbers of Mr Bacque are excessive or erroneous, the result of a statistical error.

Obviously I don´t have acces to the files he cites, but the criticism against him based on his non accurate use of the data is probaly wright (IMHO).

A little rewiew for the SCW and the way of how similar data are employed by modern historians give me and idea: During a brutal war the public records suffer in the same way than the whole aspects of the civilizated live.
So if you want you can blame for all losses to the side of your election.

My favorite answer is that the Volkssturm were released with out any formalities. It would reduce the number of casualties. Wouldn´t it?

Uhmmm but in fact that´s similar but simetric the way of how non very fair historians today reduce the number of the people killed in the "popular juries" in the SCW, actually they free the men (and the women) and then, murdered them.

 

That is a key to the variation in number totals, the men released to just "go home" is erroneously attributed to "deaths" when they are removed from the rolls. A great many of the old men were simply released and told to go home and look out for their grandchildren, and most of the young boys were simply told to "go back to school".

 

COME ON!!

Killing enemy workers in munition factories sustaining their war effort is a crime? Absurd.

Hitler picked a fight and refused to quit when the tides had clearly turned. If he capitulated, German civilians would have been saved. Extermination was never a goal of the Allies or the Soviets. It was Nazi Germany's.

There is no such thing as Eisenhower's death camps. Europe was ravaged by 11 months of war and suffered coldest winter on record. The entire continent was starving. The magnitude of German defeats in 1945 brought an unanticipated number of POWs.

Are you arguing Eisenhower should let Frenchmen, Dutchmen and displaced persons in Germany to starve to death so he could feed the Wehrmacht that was responsible for Europe's destruction?

 

as someone who has a wife who had an uncle die while flying a lancasteron the bombing runs of cities ect i think you may want to hear her point of veiw. at first on hearing what happened to her uncle my wife had the attitude that ""we did to them what they did to us" which i suppose under her cicumstances is true . many women and children died in the blitz and so who knows it could have been a case of tit for tat. but also you have to realise her uncle was only doing what he was tolled , the crews surely took no pleasure from bombing cities. most of his crew were murdered after bailing out we are unsure what officially happened to him ,we are researching it now.as an old soldier of 12 years service i think people have to be put in a situation were they have to make decisions in order to minimise the risk to themselves and their comerades and keep casualties to a minimum this is how its done to-day in 1940 -45 no-one made this kind of decision, training was very basic .to-day the training is 100% better

 

My computer is gone and i'm having to use my mothers. Though when i get my new one, i'll be watching this thread 24/7, seeing sometimes a respectful disagreement can't be taken.

 

Anyone who believes the American government could cover up the deaths of 1.7 million pow's seriously overestimstes the competence of said government, and as an official United States Taxpayer, I am as much an expert in that field as anyone!

 

If anyone found my previous post (#239) offensive in any way, please understand that was not my intent, just a failed attempt to inject humor into a very serious and passionate debate. To any and all offended, I apologize.

respectfully,

Belasar