Who Sucked the Most?

[Disdain]

Well, if I could just chime in and give respect to those of you who have done their homework.
My hats off to you. It is very refreshing to know the kids are all right.  :wink:

Seriously, Neo, Volkov, Vengerak, disagreements aside, you all have an amazing grasp of history. I wish I would have paid better attention while in school. But, I'm an 80's child and that was time for party's and not school. ??dreams of my youth???

I can only hope my kids care to learn as well as you have.


And now back to your regularly scheduled program....

[Gen. Volkov]

LOL. Thank you. And I'm a college kid myself, child of the late 80's and 90's, so the atmosphere was quite similar in my school. Oh people were studious enough and got homework done, but they also partied, ALOT.

Unfortunately very little of what I know was learned in public schools, at least in class. I did have a teacher in High School who liked WW2 as much as I do(the study of that is), and he reccomended several good books on the subject. The majority of my knowledge stems from books, The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, and the The Military channel. Books make up the major part because of the four sources, I trust them the most, the discovery channel and its affiliate the military channel, and the history channel a distant third. They tend to get things wrong to often for my taste.

[Vengerak]

Crediting Hitler with everyone that died in the war is utterly ludicrous.  The entire Pacific theatre had nothing to do with him.  The atomic bombings had nothing to do with him.  The terror bombing over Germany had nothing to do with him.  The millions of civilians raped, brutalised and murdered by the Red Army had nothing to do with him.  The wars started by the Italians cannot be blamed on him.  The war on facist Poland cannot, in my opinion, be blamed on him, nor, when you realise this, can the subsequent world war, which was declared by Britain and France.

What are these books you've read, Volkov?  I'm curious--perhaps you're reading out of date material.  A lot of my older general histories of the war certainly contain a lot of it.

[Juska]

Crediting Hitler with everyone that died in the war is utterly ludicrous.  The entire Pacific theatre had nothing to do with him.  The atomic bombings had nothing to do with him.  The terror bombing over Germany had nothing to do with him.  The millions of civilians raped, brutalised and murdered by the Red Army had nothing to do with him.  The wars started by the Italians cannot be blamed on him.  The war on facist Poland cannot, in my opinion, be blamed on him, nor, when you realise this, can the subsequent world war, which was declared by Britain and France.

Who then can the war be "blamed" upon? Or are you saying it just was a bunch of I'll fated events going off at the same time. The fact of the matter is it all hinged on him.

[Vengerak]

Pfft.? The Pacific theatre and the Red Army's rampages didn't hinge on him at all, and nor did the Allied policy of immolating masses of civilians.

Yes, Juska, I would say the war or great strife of some kind was inevitable pretty much from the moment the Allies imposed their draconian Treaty of Versailles.? This is a view I share with, oh, pretty much every historian out there.

[Gen. Volkov]

I agree that the Treaty set up the conditions for Hitler's rise to power, but without him it wouldn't have happened, in my opinion. One of the few people in history who shaped events instead of being shaped by them. At least later in life. Pacific Theater can be blamed on him for created the alliance with Japan. True Japan was already at war, and the sneak attack that brought us into it was for their own reasons, but there was also alot of German instigation going on, just like the beggining of WW1. The atom bomb was created because of him, we were racing him and the Japanese to create the first one, and without his threat, there would have been no impetus to set up the Manhattan project. The millions of whose civilians raped an brutalized by the Red Army, who were royally pissed off at the Germans for the rapine and brutilization commited by THEM when they invaded Russia in Barbarossa. Italy's wars cannot be directly blamed on him, but again there was alot of German instigation going on. They also had alot of help from the Germans. And WHAT terror bombing? You mean the allies strategic air campaign to knock out German industry? The allies didn't really care who they hit, because of what the Germans had already done to them. You ask what? What about the Blitz on London? That was specifically focused on destroying British morale. Hitler actually abandoned a winning strategy to pursue that goal. He had the Royal Air on its last legs, and he STOPPED attacking them. THE IDIOT. HE could have TAKEN britain. But NOOOO. He had to try and terrify them into sumbission, meanwhile the Royal Air Force rebuilds and wins the the BAttle of Britain.
And the war on facist Poland.. WHAT? GERMANY was the facist nation, what have you been reading? The Onion???? they attacked Poland because it had cut out of their flank in the Treaty of Versailles, and they wanted it back. And it can be DIRECTLY blamed on Hitler, as he was the one who planned, strategized and authorized the attack. KNOWING that it would invoke Britain's and France's treaties with Poland, and cause them to declare war, because Hitler WANTED a war. He was extremely angry at the injustices suffered by the Germans after they lost WW1. France and Britain are the REASON the Treaty off Versailles was the way it was. He absolutely HATED the French, and the Brits only slightly less. America he was ambivalent too, because of Wilson's attempts to moderate the extreme measures France wanted, but he was mad that America hadn't done more.

As to what books I've read, well I can't remember all the titles, but here's a short list, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, WW2 in Brief(Not sure if that is the exact title), The Battle of the Bulge, one about Operation Barbarossa, umm shoot a bunch of others, both current and fairly old. Plus alot of info gleaned from the 6 family members I have who actually fought in WW2, plus the other 8 who lived through it. Oh and don't forget the multitudes of shows I've watched on the subject. Where do you get YOUR information?

[Vengerak]

I agree that the Treaty set up the conditions for Hitler's rise to power, but without him it wouldn't have happened, in my opinion.

There was always going to be war.  Perhaps it would have taken another form, but it would have come.  Poland had designs on Germany.  Russia had its designs on Finland (without a war with Germany the Franco-British troops intended to intervene in the Winter War would almost certainly have made it through).  Russia had its designs on the Baltic states and the Ukraine, and also on Poland and Germany.  Japan had designs on Russia and south-east asia.  Italy had designs on Africa and the Balkans.  This could go on for ages.

Hitler, ironically, sort've saved Europe, from a utilitarian perspective, given the implications of his Reich's replacement in world history by the USSR.  What a disaster that would have been.

Pacific Theater can be blamed on him for created the alliance with Japan.

Garbage.  The Japanese alliance was purely incidental.  Hitler would have much rather the Japanese had adopted their Go North strategy (if you can even tell me what that was without the aid of Wikipedia).

True Japan was already at war, and the sneak attack that brought us into it was for their own reasons, but there was also alot of German instigation going on, just like the beggining of WW1.

The Germans had nothing to do with "instigating" a war in the Pacific.  And it was America that instigated the war with Germany.  There are innumerable books on Roosevelt's undeclared war.

The atom bomb was created because of him, we were racing him and the Japanese to create the first one, and without his threat, there would have been no impetus to set up the Manhattan project.

There is absolutely no logic involved in the above at all.

The millions of whose civilians raped an brutalized by the Red Army, who were royally pissed off at the Germans for the rapine and brutilization commited by THEM when they invaded Russia in Barbarossa.

The Germans did no such thing.  The Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Belorussians (to a lesser degree), Cossaks, Tatars, Turks etc. regarded the Germans as liberators.  They were far better off under the umbrella of the Reich, and there are countless personal accounts to say so.  Whole divisions of SS were formed of native volunteers.  Countless more would have been had Hitler not been so wary of creating these units--some 500,000 Russians hiwis fought alongisde the wermacht, and General Vlasov could have raised 2 million more given the go-ahead.

land Italy's wars cannot be directly blamed on him, but again there was alot of German instigation going on. They also had alot of help from the Germans.

Ridiculous!  The Italian adventures in the Balkans and North Africa were hinderances to Germany which they anything but encouraged.  The Italians were a total liability.

And WHAT terror bombing? You mean the allies strategic air campaign to knock out German industry?

What a joke.  The millions of German civilians the Allies slaughtered were killed as part of a policy of area bombing designed to destroy morale.  The firestorms engineered in Dresden, Tokyo et al  were designed purely to eliminate as many civilians as possible.  Take Dresden alone, which had zero strategic military significance at all and which had become a huge refugee city for civilians fleeing the Red Terror (facts the Allies were well aware of when they put out their memoranda re the raid.

For a time you were worse off at home than fighting on the western front.

The allies didn't really care who they hit, because of what the Germans had already done to them. You ask what? What about the Blitz on London? That was specifically focused on destroying British morale.

The "Blitz", compared to your "strategic bombing campaign", was peanuts.  It is suggested that as many as six hundred and fifty thousand were immolated in that raid.  The heaviest raids of the blitz killed a few hundred.

And the reason for the blitz?  Revenge.  As you babble later, the Germans had for a long time conducted a (poor) bombing campaign against viable military targets.  Then what happened?  Churchill authorised a raid against German civilians in Berlin.

Hitler actually abandoned a winning strategy to pursue that goal. He had the Royal Air on its last legs, and he STOPPED attacking them. THE IDIOT. HE could have TAKEN britain. But NOOOO. He had to try and terrify them into sumbission, meanwhile the Royal Air Force rebuilds and wins the the BAttle of Britain.

1.  You sound as though you're frothing at the mouth.

2.  This is sheer myth.  The RAF, with this strategy, would simply have moved to bases further north where the German fighters could not provide the bombers any cover.  The Royal Navy was practically unscathed.  And, to cap it off, recent evidence emerging with the declassification of German archives (alongside war memoirs and logic) suggests that the Germans never intended to invade Britain.  Sealion was a ruse designed to allay Russian suspicions.  Hitler even claimed the reason the panzers were moving east was to keep them out of RAF Bomber Command's range.

And the war on facist Poland.. WHAT? GERMANY was the facist nation, what have you been reading? The Onion???? they attacked Poland because it had cut out of their flank in the Treaty of Versailles, and they wanted it back.

Look, I'm going to be sporting.  You clearly[/b[ don't know anything about the Polish leadership, long term plans, policy up till 1939... Hell, you don't even seem to know about Danzig.  So I'll let you research that a little, edit and come back to me, rather than tear you apart like rotten cloth here.

And national socialism and fascism (which you can't even spell?) aren't really the same.

And it can be DIRECTLY blamed on Hitler, as he was the one who planned, strategized and authorized the attack. KNOWING that it would invoke Britain's and France's treaties with Poland, and cause them to declare war, because Hitler WANTED a war.

Poland forced Germany's hand.  More on this once you've done some reading on Poland.

Hitler didn't want war until 1942.  He didn't expect the Allies to honour their treaty. Read a book.

He was extremely angry at the injustices suffered by the Germans after they lost WW1.

True....

France and Britain are the REASON the Treaty off Versailles was the way it was.

...true....

He absolutely HATED the French,

...somewhat true...

and the Brits only slightly less.

...bullshit.  Hitler saw Britain and Germany as partners, and hoped they could be even after the Battle of France.  I honestly believe you're just assuming these hatreds to exist--seriously, look into it.  It's interesting material.

America he was ambivalent too, because of Wilson's attempts to moderate the extreme measures France wanted, but he was mad that America hadn't done more.

America had an agenda right through the war.

As to what books I've read, well I can't remember all the titles, but here's a short list, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,

God, that travesty by that axe-grinding journalist buffoon Shirer?  Not worth the paper it's written on.  It seems to me you've read mostly general histories and history shows.  These are a start, but you'd be amazed at how much information you simply don't get from them.  I'd recommend reading more specific books on the ostfront and some of its more important battles (Decision in the Ukraine is an excellent piece.  Totally explodes the Kursk myths) and some material regarding the political backdrop.  Not that Shirer crap or that programs like "Inside the Nazi State" (logo ablaze) either; something academic.  Some revisionist material, too, just so you see both sides of the coin (there's some interesting stuff even in the Rudolf-Hess-Wasn't-Really-Rudolf-Hess school of literature).

[Gen. Volkov]

Raine, you can have that last word. I don't care. I could point out your own inconstitencies, and the fact that you haven't told me where you get YOUR information. But honestly, you need alot of re-education in the area of WW2. You seem to have read alot of Pro-Nazi literature. All I will say is this, there would have been no Pan-European War without Hitler, thus no WW2 as we know it. There were several paths Germany could have taken, they chose the route of fascism. And it WAS fascism. (Screw the spelling, you can read it can't you?) Go ahead and post a reply, I won't answer. Neo-Nazi's are no fun to argue with. I may or may not know as much as you, but I know enough to know at least some what you said is wrong, but I'm running on too little sleep to care, and your lucky you even got the one post out of me. So I say, GOOD NIGHT to you sirrah, and have fun taking apart, or trying to take apart anyone who disagrees with you in a poll where you asked ppl's opinions. If you wanted us to confirm what you think, you shouldn't have given us the choice. Have fun now, and good bye.

[Juska]

Raine isn't a neo-nazi.

He isn't saying what Hilter did was right, he's saying that what other did was worse.

[Gen. Volkov]

Well he certainly doesn't seem to not like him very much.

[Vengerak]

Raine, you can have that last word. I don't care.

Nice try at obtaining the moral high ground and exempting yourself from having to respond to me.? I mean, it was pretty crude, but you could maybe have pulled it off.? Had you not, of course, immediately responded to Juska after their response to you.

I could point out your own inconstitencies,

Then why don't you?? Aside from the fact that there's no such thing, I mean.

and the fact that you haven't told me where you get YOUR information.

I was asking you out of genuine curiosity. With the opening of German and Soviet archives in the last decade a lot of established general histories are now known to be bullshit.? I wondered if maybe you were basing a lot of your assertions on some of those.? It seems, given a heavy reliance on television shows and such, that you may have been.? If you want me to provide you with a bibliography I'll make an effort to compile a shortlist for you.? You need but ask.

But honestly, you need alot of re-education in the area of WW2. You seem to have read alot of Pro-Nazi literature.

Now the problem here is that you have totally failed to demonstrate why this is the case by refusing to refute any of my points or defend any of your own.? If you would show me where I am wrong or need re-education; [haties], if you would even make some effort to defend yourself rather than simply failing to acknowledge the existence of my arguments against you, I would take you a lot more seriously.

All I will say is this, there would have been no Pan-European War without Hitler, thus no WW2 as we know it.

Show me why this is the case.? I have pointed to areas which I think would have been flashpoints for a pan-European war without a Nazi Germany.? Why do you insist on simply saying that there wouldn't have been one and not addressing my arguments?? Could it be that you are simply clutching unreasoningly to these beliefs and cannot address them?

"All I will say is something I've already said and has already been rebutted".? Well, who cares?? You won't prove it just by saying it over and over again.

There were several paths Germany could have taken, they chose the route of fascism. And it WAS fascism.

People have written theses on the difference(s) between fascism and national socialism.? You, meanwhile, have learned your history from the TV and through a friend who is studying history.?

Yeah, I'm not compelled, somehow.

Go ahead and post a reply, I won't answer.

Like you didn't respond to Juska?? You won't answer, Volky, because you cannot.

Neo-Nazi's are no fun to argue with.

Oh yeah, because I'm totally a member of the defunct National Socialist German Workers' Party.? :roll:

Please.? This is needless ad hominen bullshit.? I am not a "neo-Nazi".? If you can't discredit my arguments with reason you're not going to be able to do it by throwing swastikas made out of velcro at me.

I may or may not know as much as you,

Yes, I think we've established which of the above is true, haven't we?? :-D

but I know enough to know at least some what you said is wrong, but I'm running on too little sleep to care, and your lucky you even got the one post out of me.

YES! It's just like winning the lottery! I feel so privileged!

Seriously, man, if you know enough to know I'm wrong, show me that I'm wrong.? Don't just say it.? You've got to back up your statements with evidence.? This is the very foundation of debate.

And the "I was/am tired" thing?? There's not a forum-goer left who dosen't know that that's bullshit.? It's cut from the same cloth as the "Oh, my little brother posted under my account." school of excuses; no one's buying it.

So I say, GOOD NIGHT to you sirrah, and have fun taking apart, or trying to take apart anyone who disagrees with you in a poll where you asked ppl's opinions. If you wanted us to confirm what you think, you shouldn't have given us the choice. Have fun now, and good bye.

I'm simply debating the topic the poll is about.? That dosen't stop people from picking whatever option they like, does it?

In conclusion, given your insistence on failing to acknowledge arguments against you, throwing up of excuses for not offering any sort of constructive argument and, worst of all, endless repitition of the same debunked points, I have no choice but to label you as:

Ferrous Cranus (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm).?

Hope you had a good night's sleep.

~Raine

[Neobaron]

*hugs raine*

*smacks raine*

=-P

---

Poland was fascist: Yes... their democracy collapsed just like the majority of the other upstart democracies... the people werent used to it and power hungry remnants of the Austrian, Prussian, Russian, and Turkish empires didnt like the people being so powerful.

Poland wanted German territory: Yes.. East prussia to be exact... they didnt like having a little Danzig corridor being surrouned on both sides by the heart of the German people.

Poland wanted Russian territory too: Yes... Byeloruskaya... but that was a bunk claim based on a 16th century map.

Poland was going to attack Germany: Not likely. It would have been logistically impossible. Remember, the poles still sent hussars with spears into battle against the Wermacht's shiny new tanks... However, Hitler /did/ have units of his army attack german radio stations while wearing polish uniforms... No polish army unit ever stepped foot into germany.

The was was Britain/France' "fault": We musnt forget that that silly man in Berlin just wouldnt stop being greedy... the was was his fault, thought the declaration was in fact done by Britain, and subsequently France (who I still hold wasnt willing to fight).

---

All of you are right depending on what positions you take...

I myself am of international mind on this, though i despise american history texts. I try to read foreign histoy's when i can, and do avoid anything on the History channels as, 9 times out of 10, they are super-biased and full of "GO America" mentality.

---

If you /really/ wanna get into it, read "The Second World War", or for that matter, andthing by Keegan... the best historian of our time =-P

Frontsoldaten, as well as actually reading Mein Kampf (ive read it 4 times).

Statistics: The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, or simply "The Holocaust"

General books? Yes. But each one has something to offer.

---

For the record, Stalin was still worse of a person xD

[Vengerak]

The cavalry-against-tanks thing is kind've a myth.? The cavalry rode against what they thought were formations of infantry, only to then discover that they were panzers.? At this point they attempted to escape by riding through the panzer columns (getting in amongst them, you know).? This actually worked quite well.  Cavalry could be put to good use on the Ostrfront harrying supply routes and retreating formations out on the Russian steppes; they weren't as redundant as is commonly supposed.

About Poland: Poland thought it was the man.? I wrote a paper on this, but it's not on my comp.? Off the top of my head, though, I think the statement that "Germany cannot avoid war with Poland even if she wants to." says a lot about what they thought of their capabilities, as does the attempts of their pre-war dictator to entice France into a joint dissection of Germany in 1933 before Hitler had even done anything (incidentally 1933 was also the year, I'm fairly certain, that the World Jewish Congress declared economic war on Germany).? The Poles were also responsible for a campaign of ethnic cleansing similar to the one the Germans are accused of, slaughtering some 6,000 Germans in the worst such instance.

Now, Hitler can (rightly) be accused of a lot of things, but I can see, with a lot of honesty, that his moves to reunite Germany were just.? The Sudetenland was a German land oppressed by the Czechs (they were told right up until the last moment that they were still going to be part of Austria in 1919--Czech soldiers even went so far as to occupy it disguised as Austrians!).? Their right to self-determination was nil.? Many were killed when Czechs simply opened fire on a protest march.? With the Rhineland--as many mainstream historians have said, Hitler was just moving troops into his own backyard.? The people of the Rhine felt threatened with an ungaurded border after the Franco-Belgian invasion of the Rhur.? The Memel--again, the Lithuanians were oppressing the Germans (despite the fact that it was the Germans that gave them their independence in 1918) and Hitler had every right to bring them back into the fold.? Austria--in a right old mess.? There was, admittedly, a lot of underhandedness going on here, but that assassinated Dolfuss guy was a megalomaniac dictator who ruled by decree.? The people were glad to be rid of him and the Austrians, as any fool knows, were overjoyed by the Anschluss.? Danzig, again, the Poles were being very difficult when they had no right to be.? Danzig was a German city.? They were severing the link between Germany and East Prussia--the German heartland, really, and they were conducting a genocidal campaign against the Germans.? The sought to provoke a war, indeed, told the British ambassador that if Germany did not attack them they would attack Germany, and, frankly, got what they deserved.? All the Germans did before the outbreak of the war was take back pieces of Germany.  And what was wrong with that, may I ask?  It's not like they were re-invading lost colonies, they were liberating their own oppressed people from places that had been part of Germany a couple of decades ago.  Lebensraum, the Holocaust, yes, there are cases against Hitler to be found there, but pre-war foreign policy was, unfortunately, pretty much whiter than white.

Oddly enough, I didn't see the Western allies declaring war against the Soviets when they invaded Poland at practically the same time.? Could it be that, as Churchill said in 1946, that the war was not so much about putting an end to German fascism as it was obtaining German sales markets?? Chilling.? And let's not forget the fate of this nation we started a war over--it was thrown to the Soviet invaders.? Churchill's response to the Free Polish?? Whatever, essentially. "We no longer need your divisions.".  Lovely.  Another moral crusade victorious.

WWII was totally lacking in any sort of good guys, in my opinion, aside from some of the individual participants.

Keegan: bleh.? I've got The Second World War.? I'm not a fan.? It's also out of date.? All sorts of new information has come to light since he wrote it.? The whole Kursk battle he describes couldn't be more fantastical.? It was a good starting point, but really, the man's work is very lacking in detail.? Practically no attention payed to Norway and Finland, no attention payed to the war in the horn of Africa.? Rather too many inaccuracies for my liking.

[Neobaron]

Not  a whole lot went on in Norway...

Noway McNorwegerson
"EGADS! The Germans are coming!!!! RUN AWAY!!!!"

Hun.
"EGADS, the British are coming!!! Oh wait, what do we care we're not even really occupying it... We only have one division in Oslo and the surrounding area to make sure none of those sneaky British types try to go through the channel."

---

The Fins fought bravely, and Mannerheim was Pro-Nazi because nobody else loved him, albeit he wasnt out of the closet about it...

They Refused to go past pre 1938 boundries even when Germany was kicking butt... just because they feared Soviet reprisals... otherwise they just sat on St. Petersburg and thats pretty much it...

---

I agree that reuniting Germany was right, and I agree that the German minorities in the slavic states were treated with the same kind of respect as the slavs were treated with in Germany.

I /do not/ agree with the idea thata a Poland whose armed forces consisted of a handful of destroyers, 2 air bridgades of outdated aeroplanes, and ~55 divisions of infantry/cavalry had a chance against germany, who by wars start could boast 120 something divisions of motorized infantry alone, not including the Panzerarmeekorps and the legions of airplanes.

It would be impossible from any standpoint for a Poland whose only divison of tanks were comparable to Mark VIIIs, and whose best fighter, the PZL.11 could barely exceed the speed of the Swordfish Torpedo bombers that GB used.

I apologize sir, but i will not accept the idea that Poland had any intention to actually /attack/ Germany at any time. Maybe they wanted ti so bad that they were brooding it, but they would have never done it. (Not to be a smart-butt, but please link me somewhere where I can find this information that you speak of... perhaps its being misunderstood?)

---

The Cavvy did in fact knowingly go up against the PKzs...          they didnt expect the MGs on them though. Their idea was for the Cavalrymen to dismount and take the tanks manually, then turn them around and use them that way. They knew what they were gettign in to, but the addition of the AP MGs on the Panzers wasnt knownat the time. The lances of the Polish cavalry brigades at the begginign were also coated in a nasty form of super glue as well, another sneaky idea would have been for them to be stuffed into the barrels of the tanks, causing them to self-destruct when fired....

They knew what they were getting in to on that account, no doubt about it.

And yes I know that Cavalry was still very usefull ont he eastern front. They could go where most vehicles couldnt in the thaw, and ifs a fact that 80% of the German artillery through 1943 was in fact horse drawn. SO much for total mechanization eh? ;-)

---

Churchill was a dude... I never really have liked him much. It is said that his intelligence corps approached him with information that would have been able to allow americans to prepare for Pearl Harbour, but he said to keep it a secret lest the Americans might not recieve what he thought to be a "necessary blow" for America to be drawn into his (Churchills) conflict...

As to his market interests? I cant say for sure... but the invasion of Poland by the USSR was a well kept secret, and when it was discovered this had been done, they USSR was already fighting alongside the US/GB etc... nothing could be done.

Thats a murky topic, one that I love to discuss, but never goes anywhere... Please avoid doing that to a discussion thats already going downhill with emotions running high and information becoming scarecly accounted for ;-(

---

*shrug* I rather like Keegans bland style, he gets his points across with a certain manner that cannot be avoided as being to the. Most of what ive read of his is WW1 though, which seems to be his passion, so I may be at a loss to make a certain judgement on his WW2 writings, though I do not see them being much different.

---

I just wrote 3 papers yesterday evening concerning, and using much of the same phrases you just did sir. =-) Seems we are of like mind

neobaron434@hotmail.com

Shoot me some reading lists, and Ill do the same for you.