#1
If you could bring one person back from the dead...who would it be?...it can be anybody real or fictional. It could be somebody famous or a close friend/relative. Anything goes...

I'd bring back Jesus Christ....I am in no way shape or form a religious person. I'm just curious as to what kind of shitstorm that would cause...
#2


£100 a pop to kick him in the balls.

Just think how rich I'd be.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#3
Lol Hitler was my first choice...I would've brought him back to kill him again but your idea is genius.
#4
Just so I'm not being boring I'll go with someone "historical" or "famous"

...Winston Churchill. I'd be interested to hear his take on the cowardly terrorist attacks being committed by stupid impressionable young people and what he'd do to fight it.
#6
Quote by Rebel Scum
Just so I'm not being boring I'll go with someone "historical" or "famous"

...Winston Churchill. I'd be interested to hear his take on the cowardly terrorist attacks being committed by stupid impressionable young people and what he'd do to fight it.

I have a feeling he would have just bombed the middle east until it was all one big smouldering crater tbh you know the whole cut off the snakes head and the body soon follows. I mean he was a bit of a war monger when you look at it.
Last edited by DardySon at Oct 4, 2015,
#7
Quote by DardySon
I have a feeling he would have just bombed the middle east until it was all one big smouldering crater tbh you know the whole cut off the snakes head and the body soon follows. I mean he was a bit of a war monger when you look at it.

Let's look at the history scoreboard:

Wars started by Churchill: 0

Yea, that's a war monger, right there.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#8
Quote by slapsymcdougal
Let's look at the history scoreboard:

Wars started by Churchill: 0

Yea, that's a war monger, right there.

Alright maybe war monger wasn't the right term but the bombing of Dresden was uncalled for and there was Operation Unthinkable. Maybe what I should have said was that he was a military man through and through and didn't really know any other way.
#9
Also he was a wartime prime minister fighting the nazi war machine
being a military man is not the worst thing
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
#10
Quote by DardySon
Alright maybe war monger wasn't the right term but the bombing of Dresden was uncalled for and there was Operation Unthinkable. Maybe what I should have said was that he was a military man through and through and didn't really know any other way.

The method was inappropriate, but Dresden was a wholly viable target. It was a major transport hub for military personnel and materiel, and administration. While contemporary intelligence may have overestimated it's importance in the manufacture of supplies, the potential for disruption of reinforcement and resupply of frontline units should certainly have made the decision HOW to bomb the city, not whether to do so.

And as for Operation Unthinkable, do you really believe for a second noone should have considered what would happen when 2 of the 3 largest armies ever assembled have crushed the 3rd, and faced off? Particularly when they're ideologically polar opposites, and have just beaten their common enemy? Do you believe for a second the Russians hadn't?
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#11
Churchill was a dickhead.

I'd resurrect Dr. King
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#14
Quote by DardySon
I have a feeling he would have just bombed the middle east until it was all one big smouldering crater tbh you know the whole cut off the snakes head and the body soon follows. I mean he was a bit of a war monger when you look at it.

Nah he'd probably send a load of troops into the most heavily defended position he could find in the most vulnerable way he could come up with. Then he'd get drunk.

Being serious, probably Pac. Him and Kendrick could easily make the GOAT album together.
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 

Quote by Bladez22
I'm a moron tho apparently and everyone should listen to you oh wise pretentious one
#15
My faith in UG.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
#17
Yup, definitely my faith in UG.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
#18
Probably kurt cobain tbh. possibly the greatest singer/songwriter of all time. his influence on the masses, and nevermind is HUGE!! possibly the greatest rock album of all time.

I'd also bring back the Rev too. he died way too young and he was my inspiration to play drums...
#19
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
My faith in UG.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_x_4UElTDI

Quote by DQcrewmember
Probably kurt cobain tbh. possibly the greatest singer/songwriter of all time. his influence on the masses, and nevermind is HUGE!! possibly the greatest rock album of all time.

He was a crap musician who talked endless meaningless shit and his death just saved us from more shit music #grungewasamistake
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 

Quote by Bladez22
I'm a moron tho apparently and everyone should listen to you oh wise pretentious one
#20
Quote by JackSaints
I'd bring back Judas, just to annoy TS

Well didn't really expect J.C. to live that long after bringing him back anyways...
#21
Quote by metaldud536 at #33622581
Selena so I could bang her.


yup


Quote by Pastafarian96
I an evety characyer in this story
#22
Quote by Hydra150
Also he was a wartime prime minister fighting the nazi war machine
being a military man is not the worst thing


He was also so inept at everything else that the Brits didn't even wait till the war was over to boot him out of office. But one thing about Churchill...the guy had stones.
#23
Quote by TobusRex
He was also so inept at everything else that the Brits didn't even wait till the war was over to boot him out of office. But one thing about Churchill...the guy had stones.

Yeah, he weighed 21 of 'em.

🔥🔥🔥
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#24
Quote by slapsymcdougal
The method was inappropriate, but Dresden was a wholly viable target. It was a major transport hub for military personnel and materiel, and administration. While contemporary intelligence may have overestimated it's importance in the manufacture of supplies, the potential for disruption of reinforcement and resupply of frontline units should certainly have made the decision HOW to bomb the city, not whether to do so.

And as for Operation Unthinkable, do you really believe for a second noone should have considered what would happen when 2 of the 3 largest armies ever assembled have crushed the 3rd, and faced off? Particularly when they're ideologically polar opposites, and have just beaten their common enemy? Do you believe for a second the Russians hadn't?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Churchill himself said that if the Axis had won the war it would be the British standing trial at Nuremberg over the bombing of Dresden.

In all honestly no. I can't lie, if I had been alive at the time I would have whole heartedly supported an invasion of the USSR.

I do believe that the Russians would have gained early victories pushing the allies back to the French border but once the superior allied technology and resources kicked in then the alies would have been able to march on Moscow and win the war. I mean remember the Soviet line for Stalingrad "one in two men receive a rifle, the first man shoots, then when the first man dies the second man inherits the rifle and he shoots." What I'm saying is that the Russians had arguably the best tank at the time in the T-34 and had more men in their standing military but the allies had better technology and better troop quality.

Don't judge me I was drunk when making this reply I'll work it out again once I'm sober
Last edited by DardySon at Oct 4, 2015,
#25
I have to wonder at the quality of the T-34. The Sherman was blowing T-34s (and Tiger tanks for that matter) away in the Arab-Israeli conflicts. The T-34 was definitely an eye opener for the Germans during World War 2 though.

The Russians best tank in WW2 was the IS- II.
#26
Quote by TobusRex
I have to wonder at the quality of the T-34. The Sherman was blowing T-34s (and Tiger tanks for that matter) away in the Arab-Israeli conflicts. The T-34 was definitely an eye opener for the Germans during World War 2 though.

The Russians best tank in WW2 was the IS- II.

I think at the time the T-34 was better suited to the type of warfare conducted cos the German's had the most heavily armoured tanks and the the highest fire power capability in the Tiger and even the Panzer IV but they lacked the manoeuvrability of the T-34. You have to keep in mind that the Middle Eastern terrain is completely different to the European terrain, especially the Eastern European terrain.
#27
Quote by DardySon
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Churchill himself said that if the Axis had won the war it would be the British standing trial at Nuremberg over the bombing of Dresden.

In all honestly no. I can't lie, if I had been alive at the time I would have whole heartedly supported an invasion of the USSR.

I do believe that the Russians would have gained early victories pushing the allies back to the French border but once the superior allied technology and resources kicked in then the alies would have been able to march on Moscow and win the war. I mean remember the Soviet line for Stalingrad "one in two men receive a rifle, the first man shoots, then when the first man dies the second man inherits the rifle and he shoots." What I'm saying is that the Russians had arguably the best tank at the time in the T-34 and had more men in their standing military but the allies had better technology and better troop quality.

Don't judge me I was drunk when making this reply I'll work it out again once I'm sober

And that bolded part is why the method used to attack Dresden was inappropriate(at best). The munitions used were not accurate enough(this has nothing to do with bombsights, the bombs themselves lacked the aerodynamic properties for accuracy), and the damage they caused to railyards relatively easy to fix.

More lasting damage could have been caused to the marshalling yard(probably the most important strategic target in the city) by a much smaller raid using Tallboys or Grand Slam munitions(which were, incidentally, designed for precision bombing).

Quote by TobusRex
I have to wonder at the quality of the T-34. The Sherman was blowing T-34s (and Tiger tanks for that matter) away in the Arab-Israeli conflicts. The T-34 was definitely an eye opener for the Germans during World War 2 though.

The Russians best tank in WW2 was the IS- II.


Have to allow for differences in training and tactical doctrine between crews, though.

A well trained guy with a Baker rifle will kill a scrub with an AK-47 pretty much every time.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
Last edited by slapsymcdougal at Oct 4, 2015,