NationStates Jolt Archive

Lookie here chaps. So what if America saved Europe twice? So what if America wouldn't exist if France wasn't here? If America is wrong today then it is wrong, and Europe perfectly has the right to criticise it.

Yesterday David saved you from drowning.
Today you saw him he kill a person on purpose.
You have the uttermost right to stand against him. David cannot say: oh i saved your life, so you must listen to me and worship me.

Yesterday America saved Europe from drowning.
Today America committed wrongdoings such as invading Iraq.
Europe has the uttermost right to criticise America. America cannot say: oh i saved Europe's life, so Europe must listen to me and worship me.

If you start taking things to personal levels you will begin to fine that many national policies are very undesirable. Now stop using "history" as a means to squash your opponent's arugment.

Why are we still having this argument? We stopped yelling at our allies at least 6 months ago.

Why are we still having this argument? We stopped yelling at our allies at least 6 months ago.
not your governments. i mean posters of this forum.

That's sort of why I included "Why are we still having this argument?"

It was referring in general to the number of threads we still see around here regarding who was right to go to war in Iraq.

That's sort of why I included "Why are we still having this argument?"

It was referring in general to the number of threads we still see around here regarding who was right to go to war in Iraq.

oh. this choice of evidence for an international debate has started since i was on. sorta a final, concluding summary, i hope.

O.K. let me get one thing straight, America did not, I repeat di not save europe twice, the first world war you helped turn the tide (bit late) and it ended in armastice, and in the second world war, again you only helped turn the tide of the war in the pacific mainly (again a bit late), you are not the most holy of holy countries and you really need to read your history and have your teachers teach rteal history not just what you want ot hear about how great america is.

O.K. let me get one thing straight, America did not, I repeat di not save europe twice, the first world war you helped turn the tide (bit late) and it ended in armastice, and in the second world war, again you only helped turn the tide of the war in the pacific mainly (again a bit late), you are not the most holy of holy countries and you really need to read your history and have your teachers teach rteal history not just what you want ot hear about how great america is.

Turn the tide eh? So your saying the hundreds of thousands of lives saved in the Pacific and the defeat of the Japanese using an atomic bomb was merely a "turn of the tide"?

Your saying that the millions of Jews in concentration camps were waiting for the Americans to arrive to Europe because they'll "turn the tide"?

Your only semi-right. We did "turn the tide" in Europe. But what if we never fought? I'd like to see Europe speaking Russian, wouldn't you?

Anyways, this is an old arguement.

O.K. let me get one thing straight, America did not, I repeat di not save europe twice, the first world war you helped turn the tide (bit late) and it ended in armastice, and in the second world war, again you only helped turn the tide of the war in the pacific mainly (again a bit late), you are not the most holy of holy countries and you really need to read your history and have your teachers teach rteal history not just what you want ot hear about how great america is.
oh yeah, we just didn't drop an atomic bomb, we dropped two of them fuck ers!

Your only semi-right. We did "turn the tide" in Europe. But what if we never fought? I'd like to see Europe speaking Russian, wouldn't you..

Ада камрад да

Anyway in WWII the Americans were decisive. The lend lease especially, which help the other decisive factor, Russia, emensely (sp). However they weren't in WWI. So an 80 year old Americans has ever right to say that they "[helped] save our asses {sic} once. But the rest of you cannot claim that you saves us twice.

...I still don't see why this is worth arguing over. Opinions have been heard, and everybody is entitled to have their own opinion. Given the number of history buffs on this forum, and the number of arguments that have been put forward, I doubt that this issue will ever be conclusively "won" by either side.

Why can't we all just get along? :?

Well, if you count the Marshall Plan separate from World War II, we can technically be arrogant and say that we saved your asses twice. :D

Who really cares?

America wasnt decisive in WW2, that distinction goes to Russia.

Lookie here chaps. So what if America saved Europe twice? So what if America wouldn't exist if France wasn't here? If America is wrong today then it is wrong, and Europe perfectly has the right to criticise it.

Yesterday David saved you from drowning.
Today you saw him he kill a person on purpose.
You have the uttermost right to stand against him. David cannot say: oh i saved your life, so you must listen to me and worship me.

Yesterday America saved Europe from drowning.
Today America committed wrongdoings such as invading Iraq.
Europe has the uttermost right to criticise America. America cannot say: oh i saved Europe's life, so Europe must listen to me and worship me.

If you start taking things to personal levels you will begin to fine that many national policies are very undesirable. Now stop using "history" as a means to squash your opponent's arugment.

The analogy is distasteful but on the main issue I agree. Emotionality has it's limits at some point the cerebral processes must take the forefront and hyperbole needs to be, if not restrained, at least acknowledged as such. We all have common interests that will continue long after this current situation fades into history.

Taking it a step further I think it would help on the discussion of other political issues discussed here. As for the Temple To The Mods crew and other posts intended to be silly, who cares? Just play nice.

SHL

I think it is interesting, until America was attacked "no american boys would die on Europe's battlefields". And then during the war the main focus was on their attackers, Japan, not to free Europe.

Note: I am NOT saying that I am proud over my country's role in WW2, staying neutral and licking allied as well as nazi asses isn't really the history I want Sweden to have.

God let it go!

It's the same old boring arguments and not matter how wrong they are proven, the same people keep parroting them.

The Allies won the *censored* war. Not the Russians, Not the British, Not the Americans!, etc. etc.

Russia could not have done it on its own. Think about it. Allied bombing and German Aryan attitudes crippeled atomic research. Could the Russians have dealt with V1 and V2's landing in the Urals? If the Germans had the bomb, they would have used them on the Russians as fast as they could have made them.

If the British had not held out, then the Suez would have been lost and as such a German and Japanese forces would have had a nice Oil source.

As to the claim of American History teachers. Sorry but you also need to look at some of your European History teachers as they obviously have an agenda as well.

So says one that has had over 13 relatives(from all families) in several branches of the service. All saw combat in both Theaters.

My Grandad was a Pole so he fought the Germans for Poland and for England.

Ahhh what ifs are always fun.

I think it is interesting, until America was attacked "no american boys would die on Europe's battlefields". And then during the war the main focus was on their attackers, Japan, not to free Europe.

Note: I am NOT saying that I am proud over my country's role in WW2, staying neutral and licking allied as well as nazi asses isn't really the history I want Sweden to have.

Actually that is not true.

The comment was based on the prevelant attitude of Isolationism. It was on a generation since the last war to end all wars.

Focus was always Europe first. If you read some of the writings of the Pacific commanders, they lamented the lack of needed resources as Hitler was viewed far more dangerous then the Japanese. Since it was a navel/Island war, the Japanese could be delayed until wartime production could get ramped up.

You are a Swede?

How was Sweden licking Allied well you know what I mean?

There is no dishonor with being Neutral. Could Sweden have defended itself from a Nazi attack?

Now stop using "history" as a means to squash your opponent's arugment.
What if we debate history? I find myself debating about the effects of The American Revolution and the War of 1812 with (fiercly and thick-skulled) Brits. I get all the luck.

...I still don't see why this is worth arguing over. Opinions have been heard, and everybody is entitled to have their own opinion. Given the number of history buffs on this forum, and the number of arguments that have been put forward, I doubt that this issue will ever be conclusively "won" by either side.

Why can't we all just get along? :?

AMEN!

...I still don't see why this is worth arguing over. Opinions have been heard, and everybody is entitled to have their own opinion. Given the number of history buffs on this forum, and the number of arguments that have been put forward, I doubt that this issue will ever be conclusively "won" by either side.

Why can't we all just get along? :?

AMEN!

...I still don't see why this is worth arguing over. Opinions have been heard, and everybody is entitled to have their own opinion. Given the number of history buffs on this forum, and the number of arguments that have been put forward, I doubt that this issue will ever be conclusively "won" by either side.

Why can't we all just get along? :?

AMEN!

America wasnt decisive in WW2, that distinction goes to Russia.

Actually, without America the USSR would have been defeated.

Up until 1943 the kill ratio between the Ruskies and Germans were: 20 Soviets to 1 German. Not good at all. The Red Army's equipment (with a few exceptions) was obsolete, not even having radios.

The Lend Lease program saved the USSR from defeat. By 1943, the Red Army began to modernize from grants from the US and American technology. The Russians had rebuilt, because of the US and were able to capture Berlin.

Without US cash, they would have fallen.

If Britain did not recieve constant US supplies in the Battle of Britain, who's to say they would have starved.

The Americans were descisive in WWI too. Remember, by the time the Americans entered the Great War, Europe was a stalemate, with neither side being able to defeat the other. When fresh American troops arrived, Europeans marveled at their courage, pushing back the Germans and keeping France in the war.

Yes, the Americans saved Europe twice... but wait, let's not forget the Marshall Plan.

After WWII, Europe's economy and society was in shambles, Eastern Europe was becoming what would later be the Soviet Bloc, and Western Europe was facing Communism.

However, George Marshall proposed a plan to save Western Europe by rebuilding it's economy and cities.

This Marshall Plan is considered to be the Greatest Giving of Aid to Another Region or Country of All Time. Marhsall won the Nobel Prize for it. So yes we saved Europe 3 times.

But let's not forget how America saved China, much of South East Asia, and even Australia.

Let's face it, if America had never entered the Pacific theater, things would be alot different now.

Dragons Bay, your Chinese right? If Americans had not driven out the Japanese, where do you think your nation would be right now? Because of the US, your country is on it's way to being a Super Power.

You should also note that much of China's economy comes from American industries there, if you didn't have so much of your citizens working in American factories, where would your economy be?

If America had never stopped the Japanese advance, Australia would have more than likely became a Japanese territory instead of the great nation it is today.

Wow, gotten off topic a little here. :wink:

Let's face it people -

Nobody's going to beat the Americans in this argument because there are more of them on here than anyone else.

I have to agree with the geezer who said that the allies as a whole won the war. I also don't think that we should bring history into modern politics unless it's relevant - which WWII etc is not in the context of the Iraq war. What's more relevant is that there is an attitude of holier-than-thou-ness (whoa, new word :wink: ) in the United States and Great Britain (and some other countries) towards the rest of the world. Should we impose our way of life on other people, even if we then leave? We should get that question sorted out before we invade places (and no, I'm not condoning Saddam Hussein's regime).

President of HoopHoopland

P.S. If we hadn't have beaten the Spanish Armada then America wouldn't be here! :wink: :lol:

If America really wants gratitude for supposedly saving people, perhaps it shouldn't treat them with contempt afterwards. Money does not buy respect.

It is useless to argue on the basis of history since the academic as well as political charcter of history has ceased being an intellectual disipline and has become a pliable tool of propoganda.

thus speaks the disgruntled history major

Let's face it people -

Nobody's going to beat the Americans in this argument because there are more of them on here than anyone else.

I have to agree with the geezer who said that the allies as a whole won the war. I also don't think that we should bring history into modern politics unless it's relevant - which WWII etc is not in the context of the Iraq war. What's more relevant is that there is an attitude of holier-than-thou-ness (whoa, new word :wink: ) in the United States and Great Britain (and some other countries) towards the rest of the world. Should we impose our way of life on other people, even if we then leave? We should get that question sorted out before we invade places (and no, I'm not condoning Saddam Hussein's regime).

President of HoopHoopland

P.S. If we hadn't have beaten the Spanish Armada then America wouldn't be here! :wink: :lol:

Geezer!!?!?!?!!?

Why you little snot nosed..... :P


The amount of Americans does not matter in the argument. It's just interesting how Europes youth seems hell bent on eliminating America's war contributions. I guess it part of the process as the people involved die off. Myth starts to happen :?:

Just keep in mind when you hear "you owe us" such people tend to barely know the history themselves.

The same could be said for the "America didn't really do anything types"

All in all you are right. This tends to be a case of Modern Politics looking to the past.....

Finally, the Spanish Armada? Nahhh we probably would have been speaking Spanish! :wink:

If America really wants gratitude for supposedly saving people, perhaps it shouldn't treat them with contempt afterwards. Money does not buy respect.

It doesn't?!?!?!?!?

You mean you can..can..can't buy friendship?!?!?!

*SOBS*

*Tears of the cheque to Tactical Grace*

:P

Just look, we only stopped giving money to Chalabi's party in Iraq as of the end of this month, and already he hates us!

Just look, we only stopped giving money to Chalabi's party in Iraq as of the end of this month, and already he hates us!

A good pose for one who is perhaps primed to if not become PM, at be least the power behind the throne. Smoke and mirrors might be more like it. International politics is more like if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it is probably a sheep in wolves clothing. UPI (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040329-094918-2616r) offers one such view. In short form, How much of this is posturing to distract observers?

Despite the apparently factual and commonly asserted belief that Chalabi was the puppet master whose disinformation led the Bushies into attacking Saddam (by providing false information regarding WMD and especially the development of nukes) he has a seat on the Iraqi Governing Council with White House support for his legitimacy as a representative of the people of Iraq.

This is a questionable assertion since he has been out of the country for 45 years. His ability as an upright administrator begs discussion of his 1992 Jordanian conviction in absentia on 31 counts of theft, embezzlement and illegal currency speculation that occurred at his hand at his Petra (roughly translated "Rock:) Bank. $500 million evaporated. Eight short years later he finds himself seated next to Laura Bush at the January 2004 State Of The Union address as befits his position as, (drumroll please) the senior member of the Governing Council’s economic and finance committee.

Not surprisingly, evidence has begun to emerge that Chalabi is, once again, involved in corrupt activity. Two contracts worth a total of $400 million have recently been awarded to a start-up company run by Chalabi’s old friend and business partner, Abdul Huda Farouki. One of the contracts was for securing Iraq’s oil infrastructure. Members of Chalabi’s militia now staff Farouki’s security force, which guards a number of oil installations and pipelines. Newsday cited an “industry source” who claimed that Chalabi received a $2 million kickback for ensuring that his friend won the contract.

Chalabi is widely despised by ordinary Iraqis. He topped the list in a recent opinion poll in which respondents were asked who was the least trusted political figure in Iraq. (Saddam had an approval rating of 3.3% while Chalabi earned a 0.2%. When asked about who they distrust Chalabi topped the poll with a 10.3% coming in second to Saddam Hussein who got a 3.1% ) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf) Viewed as nothing more than a puppet of the Bush administration, Chalabi’s ritual denial of any desire to rule Iraq is regarded as a diplomatic ploy. “George Washington turned [the presidency] down many times,” his chief aide, Francis Brooke, told Business Week. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the Iraqi people prevail on (Chalabi).”

So then I stand corrected on many issues. Not the least of which is Ahmed Chalabi is a wolf in sheep's clothing posing as a sheep in wolf's clothing. Today we voice strong emotion against each other. Tomorrow a reapproachment and reconciliation is in the cards. But this is not too surprising in the surreal world of geopolitics.

SHL