NationStates Jolt Archive

if it wasn't for our aid, britain would've crumbled and that was before we entered WWII. Don't forget Lend-Lease.


The usual ill-informed rubbish. Germany had given up on seriously invading Britain by the end of 1940 and had turned it's attention to The Soviet Union, which took up alot of German resources and manpower by the time the US joined somewhat reluctantly.

And Lend-Lease is what bankrupted Britain, so the post war crumbling of The British Empire and indeed, Britain itself is down to the huge financial debts Britain owed America.

So please, everyone, spare the 'America is Britain's best friend' piffle, because the WW2 'Friendship' did not come for free, but at a great cost.

Giving away of territory to the US, huge money debts... Britain reduced to being America's slave post war.....yeah, some friend America was, and is.

America saw an oppurtunity to make a buck out of the war to compensate for it's depression and took it.

And of course, it blossomed.

Some would say that's immoral, others would say that is common sense capital profiteering.

Some historians looking at the weapons development of Nazi Germany and early war plans believe that Hitler was planning world conquest to start around 1944 or 1945. What forced his hand early was mounting debt and the possibility of economic collapse inherent in the National Socialist economic system.

Essentially Hitler's economic house of cards was always on the verge of collapse, the only way to hold it off and give the German people a sense of prosperity was to conquer and loot another country.

The usual ill-informed rubbish. Germany had given up on seriously invading Britain by the end of 1940 and had turned it's attention to The Soviet Union, which took up alot of German resources and manpower by the time the US joined somewhat reluctantly.

And that was Germany's downfall. Britain couldn't do much anyway until Lend Lease. It isn't ill-informed rubbish, just a matter of opinion.

And Lend-Lease is what bankrupted Britain, so the post war crumbling of The British Empire and indeed, Britain itself is down to the huge financial debts Britain owed America.

Proof that it bankrupted Britain? As for the debt, I'm sure that we'll never call in those debts because that is the type of nation the US is.

So please, everyone, spare the 'America is Britain's best friend' piffle, because the WW2 'Friendship' did not come for free, but at a great cost.

And yet, that is what started our friendship to the point where it is now. I think you need to learn your history better.

Giving away of territory to the US, huge money debts... Britain reduced to being America's slave post war.....yeah, some friend America was, and is.

What territory did Britain give away to the US? That is what I want to know.

America saw an oppurtunity to make a buck out of the war to compensate for it's depression and took it.

We didn't need outside help to break us out of the depression! The war did that for us because it brought the war industry and that ment jobs.

And of course, it blossomed.

Still blossoming too despite a war.

Some would say that's immoral, others would say that is common sense capital profiteering.

One man's opinion

Some historians looking at the weapons development of Nazi Germany and early war plans believe that Hitler was planning world conquest to start around 1944 or 1945. What forced his hand early was mounting debt and the possibility of economic collapse inherent in the National Socialist economic system.

Essentially Hitler's economic house of cards was always on the verge of collapse, the only way to hold it off and give the German people a sense of prosperity was to conquer and loot another country.

Yep! Hitler should've waited and he probably would've conquered the world too if he just had waited. With his weapons, no nation would've been able to stop him.

Why is everyone always against the Nazis? There were only a few bad ones. The rest were just following orders?

Why is everyone always against the Nazis? There were only a few bad ones. The rest were just following orders?

And most of them illegal.

And that was Germany's downfall. Britain couldn't do much anyway until Lend Lease. It isn't ill-informed rubbish, just a matter of opinion.



Proof that it bankrupted Britain? As for the debt, I'm sure that we'll never call in those debts because that is the type of nation the US is.



And yet, that is what started our friendship to the point where it is now. I think you need to learn your history better.



What territory did Britain give away to the US? That is what I want to know.



We didn't need outside help to break us out of the depression! The war did that for us because it brought the war industry and that ment jobs.



Still blossoming too despite a war.



One man's opinion
Those debts were being repaid yearly and it was under Thatcher I think that the last payments were made ( correct me if I am wwrong on the year).
The US forced the UK to lease them islands and lands all round the world, upon which the US has constructed bases. After the 99 years has expired it will be nice to see the US like the UK honour the lease agreements!
Part of the US conditions for lend lease were that the UK give up control of terrotories around the world, which is why the UK pulled out of many countries in a hurry and why so many are in the war torn state they are now.
The US was given the Jet engine, was given radar. They were given the research on supersonic flight including the idea for a fully rotating tail, on the condition the US shared thier research, which they never did.
I have friends but I have never needed to pay for a friends help, the UK never charged Russia for the help it gave them and never thought to ask France for cash etc. I suppose it comes down to what values a country thinks is important, money or trying to do what is right.

Britian repaid the US $31 billion for it's 'help' in WWII. Sorry the last payment ws made in 1972.
The US got eight atlantic bases in exchange for forty old and decrepid war ships that the US was going to scrap.

Suggested is one thing, approving it is another. US was not part of the LoN ever. Therefor, we can't be blamed for its faults.
No, you can't be blamed for it's faults. But you can be blamed for not joining

The usual ill-informed rubbish. Germany had given up on seriously invading Britain by the end of 1940 and had turned it's attention to The Soviet Union, which took up alot of German resources and manpower by the time the US joined somewhat reluctantly.

And Lend-Lease is what bankrupted Britain, so the post war crumbling of The British Empire and indeed, Britain itself is down to the huge financial debts Britain owed America.

So please, everyone, spare the 'America is Britain's best friend' piffle, because the WW2 'Friendship' did not come for free, but at a great cost.

Giving away of territory to the US, huge money debts... Britain reduced to being America's slave post war.....yeah, some friend America was, and is.

America saw an oppurtunity to make a buck out of the war to compensate for it's depression and took it.

And of course, it blossomed.

Some would say that's immoral, others would say that is common sense capital profiteering.

Rubbish met with rubbish, a MASSIVE portion of the debts were forgiven under the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe. Not only was the debt forgiven, but money was GIVEN at either very low interest or debt free. If anything the US ended up hurting itself in the long run as now we're the ones in debt and we have no debt to call upon to bail us out. The reason we came out stronger in terms of economy after WWII is that we didnt get have our industries bombed and were in a position to supply consumer goods on a near almost monopoly basis upto a good 20 years after WWII.

Rubbish met with rubbish, a MASSIVE portion of the debts were forgiven under the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe. Not only was the debt forgiven, but money was GIVEN at either very low interest or debt free. If anything the US ended up hurting itself in the long run as now we're the ones in debt and we have no debt to call upon to bail us out. The reason we came out stronger in terms of economy after WWII is that we didnt get have our industries bombed and were in a position to supply consumer goods on a near almost monopoly basis upto a good 20 years after WWII.
That you are now in debts is not the fault of WWII. Remember in 1999 the US was debt-free.

The Achilles, along with the Leander and several destroyers and a number smaller warships were manned entirely the the RNZN.... a creditable performance.... the RNZAF also manned nearly 28 squadrons during the war, plus had crews throughout the RAF and RAAF.
My Hat off to you thats right we also captured the First German General Ravenstien Of the 21st Panzer.
NZ Boxing above her weight since 1900 :p

That you are now in debts is not the fault of WWII. Remember in 1999 the US was debt-free.

It took how long? And not only that was dependent upon many of the same things to which caused the Great Depression..notice how quickly it disappeared when the stock market bubble burst in 2000?

Said in a earlier reply, World war II probably would have never existed if the USA, UK, and France gave such harsh penalties on Germany. In reality, the Allies didn't really win World War I, a peace treaty was signed. Progress was starting to favour the Allies, but not by much. It was the Allies fault as much as the Nazi's fault for WWII.
True but Haig was a Fool and it wasnt his Grand Stratergy that one thee day it was his subordinates who believed in massed tank manouvers.Allies had 4000+ Germany 20 :(

The US population was 100 million give or take 10 mil, and out of that 100 million we managed to put out 12-15 million uniformed personnel at the height of the war..thats MORE people than what New Zealand had all together..you can use percentages all you want to make you feel better but frankly when those percentages translate into real numbers your still behind the US.
Are you a slow one?
Didnt you know NZ population of 1.6million put out 4million troops as well as 40 Battleships :rolleyes:
Like i said PERCENTAGE so as a PERCENTAGEWE CONTRIBUTED MORE PEOPLE

PERCENTAGE

Now no more complaing if you cant understand go back to school LOL

And that was Germany's downfall. Britain couldn't do much anyway until Lend Lease. It isn't ill-informed rubbish, just a matter of opinion.


To say that Britain could not do much until lend lease is wrong. There was British Expeditionary Forces in Norway and France, there was the British Royal Navy, and of course the RAF. If Britain had not been able to do much, they would have falled to Hitler very early.



Proof that it bankrupted Britain? As for the debt, I'm sure that we'll never call in those debts because that is the type of nation the US is.


The shrinking of the empire, unable to keep up the running costs, Britain being on rationing well until the 50's.



And yet, that is what started our friendship to the point where it is now. I think you need to learn your history better.


A strange definition of a friendship if I ever heard one. There are friends, and there are users who call themselves friends but are anything but.



What territory did Britain give away to the US? That is what I want to know.


Diego Garcia is just one example.



We didn't need outside help to break us out of the depression! The war did that for us because it brought the war industry and that ment jobs.


The war was outside help...as you say, the war industry meant jobs, but it also meant oppurtunities to profiteer from war that was readly taken as a result of the depression thaty boosted US Economy.





Still blossoming too despite a war.


Almost certainly not a universal opinion.



One man's opinion

Indeed.

Those debts were being repaid yearly and it was under Thatcher I think that the last payments were made ( correct me if I am wwrong on the year).
The US forced the UK to lease them islands and lands all round the world, upon which the US has constructed bases. After the 99 years has expired it will be nice to see the US like the UK honour the lease agreements!
Part of the US conditions for lend lease were that the UK give up control of terrotories around the world, which is why the UK pulled out of many countries in a hurry and why so many are in the war torn state they are now.
The US was given the Jet engine, was given radar. They were given the research on supersonic flight including the idea for a fully rotating tail, on the condition the US shared thier research, which they never did.
I have friends but I have never needed to pay for a friends help, the UK never charged Russia for the help it gave them and never thought to ask France for cash etc. I suppose it comes down to what values a country thinks is important, money or trying to do what is right.


Well said.

Remember that US entrance in the war the nazis were running low on fuel. Soviets had lots and lots of oil fields, mainland europe has jack and thats all the nazis conquered, well parts of africa but only the desert there.

Wrong, Romania is in mainland Europe, was an allie and has a large production (the Ploesti fields), more then enough for Germany. Further, they had Lybia for a while (called Syrenaica then) and Vichy delivered oil and gas from Algeria.

It took how long? And not only that was dependent upon many of the same things to which caused the Great Depression..notice how quickly it disappeared when the stock market bubble burst in 2000?
Four years. And the stock market bubble could be one reason.The other a incompetent Government

Four years. And the stock market bubble could be one reason.The other a incompetent Government

Umm...more than 4 years..the US had been running at a defecit since the 1930s. And it was the stockmarket bubble burst..Clinton was still in office and decided to let the next president handle the problem instead of taking on the problem himself. Although Allen Greenspan himself said the bubble bursting was inevitable and not to get happy with it.

Are you a slow one?
Didnt you know NZ population of 1.6million put out 4million troops as well as 40 Battleships :rolleyes:
Like i said PERCENTAGE so as a PERCENTAGEWE CONTRIBUTED MORE PEOPLE

PERCENTAGE

Now no more complaing if you cant understand go back to school LOL

Your making percentages out to be more than they really are..I'm disputing the fact..maybe you should head back to school. What I'm saying is that real numbers wise...so what?

The usual ill-informed rubbish. Germany had given up on seriously invading Britain by the end of 1940 and had turned it's attention to The Soviet Union, which took up alot of German resources and manpower by the time the US joined somewhat reluctantly.

And Lend-Lease is what bankrupted Britain, so the post war crumbling of The British Empire and indeed, Britain itself is down to the huge financial debts Britain owed America.

So please, everyone, spare the 'America is Britain's best friend' piffle, because the WW2 'Friendship' did not come for free, but at a great cost.

Giving away of territory to the US, huge money debts... Britain reduced to being America's slave post war.....yeah, some friend America was, and is.

America saw an oppurtunity to make a buck out of the war to compensate for it's depression and took it.

And of course, it blossomed.

Some would say that's immoral, others would say that is common sense capital profiteering.

lets discuss point by point your arguement here..

first, Lend Lease was put into effect because the British Empire was financially broke (no more gold reserves available) by mid 1940 as it was still in a poor economic fix from the Great Depression and World War I. So Lend Lease didn't make the British any poorer, it allowed the British to continue fighting and made a huge difference to the Soviets (nearly 500,000 trucks were sent to the Soviet Union during the war.... so they could build tanks instead)

Yes, the US didn't want to go into World War II... most Americans blamed the EUROPEANs for the whole mess of World War I and weren't too excited about doing it again... although compared to the war losses of France and Britian the number is relatively small, nevertheless, nearly 200,000 Americans were killed in the 18 months the US was involved in World War I.... a very large number in real terms.

50 US destroyers were given to the British in exchange for bases in Canada and the Caribbean plus Bermuda. Both sides were happy with the deal, as it helped the US with its security and helped replace the 40 British destroyers lost in action to date in 1939 -40. The 4 stackers were old, (1917-1919 construction dates) but the US had nearly 30 ships of identical type in service in the Pacific and elsewhere, and they performed reasonably well.

the US was the only nation in 1940 to have substantial amounts of industrial slack (using only about 60% of its total industry).... so yes, the US definitely benefited from the war in that respect (as it was at 100% by 1942)... this made the US an economic gaint post war because everybody elses industry had been severely damaged or crushed and by the way... Canada also substantially benefited economically and industrially because of World War II

that makes neither country immoral, but simply lucky in that respect.

A serious and valid arguement could also be made that US efforts in Europe postwar prevented Stalin from charging on to the Atlantic as well.... as the British were still on rationing well into 1950 because of economic problems and serious imperial overstretch, and only the US had nuclear weapons during most of this time.

I wont say the US saved Europe, but Churchill basically said as much, and he is generally viewed as a pretty bright guy.

That you are now in debts is not the fault of WWII. Remember in 1999 the US was debt-free.

I have no idea where you got that idea.... the US National Debt in 1999 was still in the Trillions of dollars.... that year we didn't have a govenment deficit, but the debt was still there, and payments continued as well.

But the US suggested the League of nations (or mere Pres. Wilson)

the League of Nations was one of Wilsons 14 Points. His stroke that left him a physical wreck and the failure of the Administration to defend the idea when he was unable to are blamed by most historians for the reason why it failed to be approved by the US Senate.

Americans were shortsighted at that time, just like many Europeans were. Part of that can be blamed by the sheer traumatic awfulness of the First World War (as nothing like it had ever been seen before)

Those debts were being repaid yearly and it was under Thatcher I think that the last payments were made ( correct me if I am wwrong on the year).
The US forced the UK to lease them islands and lands all round the world, upon which the US has constructed bases. After the 99 years has expired it will be nice to see the US like the UK honour the lease agreements!
Part of the US conditions for lend lease were that the UK give up control of terrotories around the world, which is why the UK pulled out of many countries in a hurry and why so many are in the war torn state they are now.
The US was given the Jet engine, was given radar. They were given the research on supersonic flight including the idea for a fully rotating tail, on the condition the US shared thier research, which they never did.
I have friends but I have never needed to pay for a friends help, the UK never charged Russia for the help it gave them and never thought to ask France for cash etc. I suppose it comes down to what values a country thinks is important, money or trying to do what is right.

lets talk examples.... the Destroyers for bases deal was a necessity for both parties at the time. None of the bases the US acquired were used much past World War II

US bases in the UK are still there, and the US pays the UK lease payments.

The joint US/UK bases at Ascension Island and Diego Garcia are joint use, and the British found that helpful in the Falklands War when the USAF provided fueling facilities during that time. Not to mention real time satellite information.

Care to come up with any other bases the US is using on British soil?

No, you can't be blamed for it's faults. But you can be blamed for not joining

HAHA!!! Go ahead then and blame us. I for one am glad that we didn't because it did NOTHING!!! Much like the modern day UN. That organization does nothing either.

To say that Britain could not do much until lend lease is wrong. There was British Expeditionary Forces in Norway and France, there was the British Royal Navy, and of course the RAF. If Britain had not been able to do much, they would have falled to Hitler very early.


France=Dunkirk and you retreated from there. Norway was a disaster. RAF did a wonderful job in the Battle of Britain thanks to radar however, if Hitler hadn't ordered the letting up on RAF forces, you would've been in even dire straights than you were. It was that order that gave the RAF the time it needed to reorganize and thus win the Battle of Britain.

The shrinking of the empire, unable to keep up the running costs, Britain being on rationing well until the 50's.


The US was on rationing too don't forget. My grandmother remembers the rationing as does my dad's side of the family.

A strange definition of a friendship if I ever heard one. There are friends, and there are users who call themselves friends but are anything but.

Prove that we used you! You have no proof of that. Allies assist eachother under any circumstances which is why I don't consider France an ally.


Diego Garcia is just one example.


Still owned by the british and they allow us to use it. Try again.

The war was outside help...as you say, the war industry meant jobs, but it also meant oppurtunities to profiteer from war that was readly taken as a result of the depression thaty boosted US Economy.


Actually it was the war that brought us out of the depression. People going to the war factories to build the tanks, planes, rifles, bullets, bombs, spare parts, etc. People going to the ship yards to build the warships and the merchant ships. This ment government money and government contracts. That brought us out of the depression. Cash and Carry helped because you come with cash and you can leave with what you ordered. Lend-Lease was nearly the same way we lend it to you and you leased it.



Almost certainly not a universal opinion.

Stock market closed at its highest point since JUNE 2001 and the economy grew by 4%, slightly faster than anticipated according to the Commerce department. Yep, our economy is definitely blossoming.


Indeed.

Glad we could agree on something.

Stock market closed at its highest point since JUNE 2001 and the economy grew by 4%, slightly faster than anticipated according to the Commerce department. Yep, our economy is definitely blossoming.




.

Yet America is still in debt of over 3 trillion dollars today, I wouldn't call that economic blossoming...

Yet America is still in debt of over 3 trillion dollars today, I wouldn't call that economic blossoming...

Debt and economic growth are 2 seperate things. Our economy is booming no matter how you try to spin it.

Your making percentages out to be more than they really are..I'm disputing the fact..maybe you should head back to school. What I'm saying is that real numbers wise...so what?
New Zealand and Australia contributed above their weight and you wish to minimilise this because were not 50 and 10 times bigger. ????

Had war never broken out, not even close to that many people would have died. A huge percentage of the Jew, disabled people, Gypsies, Communists and politicians etc who were murdered by the Nazis were from Eastern Europe, in particular Poland. Yes the jews in Germany would have been killed but it is a very small number compared to the millions during the war.
I voted for Axis but in no way do I support the brutal murder of innocent civilians. I voted for the fact of military power and early successes by the Axis. If mistakes made in the middle of the war had not happened than an Axis victory may not have been far from happening.


In no way, shape, or form did the Axis powers have equal military strength with the Allies. Once the US joined the war, it was all but over. The US produced more than every other country involved in the war, Allied or Axis, combined. Once the US entered the war, it was downhill for the Germans until they surrendered. Sheer numbers prevented a German victory.

And yet the US did alot in WWII! Basically liberated the entire pacific ALONE! Guadalcanal and a few other places did NZ and Aussie forces assist us but it was mostly US Troops and sailors and airmen that ruled the skies, the land, and sea. Our industrial capacity saw to that and if it wasn't for our aid, britain would've crumbled and that was before we entered WWII. Don't forget Lend-Lease.
Yeah but how did you get your departure points thru Australia and New Zealand of Course.

Anyway RNZN ship Kiwi rammed a bloody Jap sub and sunk it.-GUTS
We would have been happy to boot the japs out just turns out we were more valuable in Africa.
Besides we won the Battle of Manners Street

I have no idea where you got that idea.... the US National Debt in 1999 was still in the Trillions of dollars.... that year we didn't have a govenment deficit, but the debt was still there, and payments continued as well.

I really don't think you understand the basis of a national debt. It's like a credit, only on a much larger scale. As long as you use that credit card, you will always have debt. The US always is paying somebody back for something somewhere, but that does not mean that we are in financial danger. We make more money than we owe, so the national debt is not an issue. Anyway, it is always in our best interests to mantain trillions of dollars in national debt because it provides a deterrent to potential enemies from attacking, as their economies will be devastated if we stop payments on the debt.

Yet America is still in debt of over 3 trillion dollars today, I wouldn't call that economic blossoming...

You kids need to stop referring to the national debt. It is an irrelevant number that does not prove anything. Just because you have a debt doesn't mean that you are in financial trouble. Get a basic knowledge of financing before you make comments on the national debt. Every country has a national debt, because every government on the planet owes someone some amount of money. It doesn't mean they are unable to pay them back, it just means that it is impractical and stupid to pay everything back at one time.

make no mistake it's not good for the economy, there is a reason countries are all trying to pay it off there debt's. besides mr. Bush ordering so meany f-22's is a bad idea considering the lack of usefullness it has.
when the origanal order of 1500 f-22's was made lockheed laughed. thats why it was reduced to 500. anyhow the JSF (incorperation all the latest of russian and non-russian technoligy, i'm reffering to the yak freestyle.) was made.
i know i'm off topic but it's a good thing to know.

lets talk examples.... the Destroyers for bases deal was a necessity for both parties at the time. None of the bases the US acquired were used much past World War II

US bases in the UK are still there, and the US pays the UK lease payments.

The joint US/UK bases at Ascension Island and Diego Garcia are joint use, and the British found that helpful in the Falklands War when the USAF provided fueling facilities during that time. Not to mention real time satellite information.

Care to come up with any other bases the US is using on British soil?
I'm not saying the US deliberatly went out to make a profit from the war, all I want to point out is that what it did was not out of the goodness of it's own heart and was paid for.
The UK on the other hand gave tanks, planes, technologies to russsia because they were fighting on the same side, no payment was ever expected for these.
As to the bases I never said they were given over, they are on 99 year leases, which means even if the UK wanted to rind themselves of the involvement they could not.
So to sum up I view the Us as a Ronin that happed to share some of the same objectives rather than a shining white night or Samuria.

make no mistake it's not good for the economy, there is a reason countries are all trying to pay it off there debt's. besides mr. Bush ordering so meany f-22's is a bad idea considering the lack of usefullness it has.
when the origanal order of 1500 f-22's was made lockheed laughed. thats why it was reduced to 500. anyhow the JSF (incorperation all the latest of russian and non-russian technoligy, i'm reffering to the yak freestyle.) was made.
i know i'm off topic but it's a good thing to know.

Umm..the F-22 is replacing the F-15 which when the production is finally completed will be around 30 years old. Great aircraft but they've fallen behind the times and there is only so many times you can redevelop the same concept before it just becomes to expensive to maintain and the airframes cant support further modification to the design.

As for the JSF incorporating Russian and non-russian technology..just what the heck are you talking about?

make no mistake it's not good for the economy, there is a reason countries are all trying to pay it off there debt's. besides mr. Bush ordering so meany f-22's is a bad idea considering the lack of usefullness it has.

Lack of usefulness? It is only the most advanced fighter in the entire WORLD!!!! It'll serve many usefull purposes. Read up on it dude and see for yourself if you have the guts to see that your wrong.

when the origanal order of 1500 f-22's was made lockheed laughed. thats why it was reduced to 500. anyhow the JSF (incorperation all the latest of russian and non-russian technoligy, i'm reffering to the yak freestyle.) was made.
i know i'm off topic but it's a good thing to know.

Both fighters are joining our military! Thank God too. Now we have a much up to date air force.

Umm..the F-22 is replacing the F-15 which when the production is finally completed will be around 30 years old. Great aircraft but they've fallen behind the times and there is only so many times you can redevelop the same concept before it just becomes to expensive to maintain and the airframes cant support further modification to the design.

As for the JSF incorporating Russian and non-russian technology..just what the heck are you talking about?

Exactly what I want to know!

I can't see any side of the WWII as moral. Even my own, since the Continuation War turned into a war of aggression instead of defence.

To any who think that the Allies were "good guys", nice and simple, defend the following:

-Josef Stalin

-Bombing of Dresden

-Atomic bombing of civilian targets

-Internment of American Japanese

I can't see any side of the WWII as moral. Even my own, since the Continuation War turned into a war of aggression instead of defence.

Huh? No one wins a defensive war. Look at Germany! They were on the defensive for the last half of the war and lost. Same with Japan.

To any who think that the Allies were "good guys", nice and simple, defend the following:

Did anyone say this? Nope!

-Josef Stalin

Correct! He was very evil but then, the enemy of thy enemy is thy friend.

-Bombing of Dresden

Wasn't necessary but was done anyway for whatever reason!

-Atomic bombing of civilian targets

Something I guess you haven't figured out is that it saved lives. Millions of them as well as hundreds of thousands of US troops. Would you rather that we have invaded and kill millions because they won't surrender or kill a couple hundred thousand in 2 attacks to save said millions?

-Internment of American Japanese

Terribly unfortunate that it happened. I can see why but it was unnecessary.

I can't see any side of the WWII as moral. Even my own, since the Continuation War turned into a war of aggression instead of defence.

To any who think that the Allies were "good guys", nice and simple, defend the following:

-Josef Stalin

-Bombing of Dresden

-Atomic bombing of civilian targets

-Internment of American Japanese

I don't think the Allies were good guys. The winners write the history, and the losers don't.

Stalin - well, there's no justifying that, but he made sure the Soviet Union did their share and more of the fighting and dying (probably a lot of the second).
Dresden and the atom bomb are very similar - attacking civilian targets with the idea of causing massive casualties. Not "good", in the moral sense. It did get results - the Germans admitted after the war that if we had burned just a few more cities, they would have surrendered without further invasion. And the Japanese did surrender.
Internment - bad idea, not effective in any sense, but perfectly legal to this day in the US

I don't think the Allies were good guys. The winners write the history, and the losers don't.

Stalin - well, there's no justifying that, but he made sure the Soviet Union did their share and more of the fighting and dying (probably a lot of the second).
Dresden and the atom bomb are very similar - attacking civilian targets with the idea of causing massive casualties. Not "good", in the moral sense. It did get results - the Germans admitted after the war that if we had burned just a few more cities, they would have surrendered without further invasion. And the Japanese did surrender.
Internment - bad idea, not effective in any sense, but perfectly legal to this day in the US
Still legal? In the land of the free? To imprson some one because of the colour of their skin or the place of birth of their father, or indeed their own place of birth, regardless of how long they were resident? What a great place to live!

Still legal? In the land of the free? To imprson some one because of the colour of their skin or the place of birth of their father, or indeed their own place of birth, regardless of how long they were resident? What a great place to live!

Its not still legal NianNorth! For one thing, its a different time and if the government tried to do that, there will be an outrage so I don't think we have to fear it happening again. Besides, the government later said it was a mistake to do what they did so, on that, I don't think it'll happen again.

Its not still legal NianNorth! For one thing, its a different time and if the government tried to do that, there will be an outrage so I don't think we have to fear it happening again. Besides, the government later said it was a mistake to do what they did so, on that, I don't think it'll happen again.
So what happened to those people who were marched off to a warehouse on a pier for having the nerve to consider protesting at a political convention? were they all charged and convicted of an offence?
I should hope it is not legal. Did the US gov pay compensation to those wrongly imprisoned during WWII?

Still legal? In the land of the free? To imprson some one because of the colour of their skin or the place of birth of their father, or indeed their own place of birth, regardless of how long they were resident? What a great place to live!

Yes, unfortunately, the law was validated some time ago by the high court. Our government officially apologized, and gave meager compensation, but it's still law. Technically, you could round up virtually anyone using that as a precedent.

Yes, unfortunately, the law was validated some time ago by the high court. Our government officially apologized, and gave meager compensation, but it's still law. Technically, you could round up virtually anyone using that as a precedent.
In the UK we were holding potential terrorist without charge for years, our high court/law lords have told the gov it is illegal and they should be freed. Can't see a problem with putting them back on a plane to where ever it was they came from.

In the UK we were holding potential terrorist without charge for years, our high court/law lords have told the gov it is illegal and they should be freed. Can't see a problem with putting them back on a plane to where ever it was they came from.

A lot of the interned Japanese were born here. Can't really send them back to Japan. I'm sure they would have been glad to have been sent back to California where they were born.

A lot of the interned Japanese were born here. Can't really send them back to Japan. I'm sure they would have been glad to have been sent back to California where they were born.
No what I was saying was that the UK recently held people illegally, they were all foriegn nationals. Of course if they were UK citizens they would be free to live in the UK. If you read my previous post I think it incredible that country that espouses democracy and states it is the land of the free and is 95% made up of imigrant can think of locing people up because of a possible association with an enemy state.

No what I was saying was that the UK recently held people illegally, they were all foriegn nationals. Of course if they were UK citizens they would be free to live in the UK. If you read my previous post I think it incredible that country that espouses democracy and states it is the land of the free and is 95% made up of imigrant can think of locing people up because of a possible association with an enemy state.

The problem is that its an old ruling by the Supreme Court. It's really hard to overturn something like that. I think that the reason no one has overturned it is because they always wanted something like that in their back pocket.

The problem is that its an old ruling by the Supreme Court. It's really hard to overturn something like that.

Hypothetically speaking, what would it take to accomplish that? What type of precedents are there and can it be done nowadays?

Hypothetically speaking, what would it take to accomplish that? What type of precedents are there and can it be done nowadays?

It would have to be challenged again in the courts on different grounds, and they would have to work all the way up to the Supreme Court. Probably take 5 to 10 years. I don't think anyone's doing it.

Technically, it could be done today. It's a provision of executive power that falls under the condition "in time of war or national emergency".

If the President were to declare a national emergency, there would be nothing to stop him from rounding up, say, Muslims, and putting them in camps. It would be perfectly legal (and harder to challenge) as long as he used those provisions and not the provisions of the more tenuous Patriot Act.

By the time it got through the courts, a considerable amount of time will have elapsed.

Alternatively, someone could propose legislation to modify the power of the executive. Not only would that be difficult, but no one, not even the Democrats, have proposed such a thing. Not one. So they, without saying it, must also be secretly interested in wielding that sort of power someday.

Hope I don't sound too paranoid.

So what happened to those people who were marched off to a warehouse on a pier for having the nerve to consider protesting at a political convention? were they all charged and convicted of an offence?
I should hope it is not legal. Did the US gov pay compensation to those wrongly imprisoned during WWII?

They were released! There is a fine line when it comes to demostrating. Do it peacefully and nothing happens. Most of the protestors weren't doing it peacefully so they got hauled off. Totally legal in the eyes of the law. Also, if you don't have a permit, you can be tossed in jail too. Where they charged? Some where but then were released. As for reparations, that is like giving slaves reparations! Do you suggest we do that too? Sorry dude but I don't think so.

The problem of reparation is "who should pay?"

If we wanted to pay reparations to descendants of US slavery, would you take money from me to make those payments? None of my ancestors were in the US prior to 1955, a long, long time after slavery was ended. Nor were my ancestors here in the US when the Japanese were interned during WW II.

I'm not willing to pay one cent towards reparations for something I and my ancestors had nothing to do with.

The problem of reparation is "who should pay?"

If we wanted to pay reparations to descendants of US slavery, would you take money from me to make those payments? None of my ancestors were in the US prior to 1955, a long, long time after slavery was ended. Nor were my ancestors here in the US when the Japanese were interned during WW II.

I'm not willing to pay one cent towards reparations for something I and my ancestors had nothing to do with.

And what of the families that didn't own slaves? Would they have to pay? As far as I know of, the people of the North already paid...Paid with their lives as they fought the South. That is the highest payment.

You sir, have hit the nail on the head. Who pays?

So what happened to those people who were marched off to a warehouse on a pier for having the nerve to consider protesting at a political convention? were they all charged and convicted of an offence?
I should hope it is not legal. Did the US gov pay compensation to those wrongly imprisoned during WWII?

1)Living in the city where those protestors were taken to the Pier and having family in the police department I can assure you a good portion of those protestors werent exactly innocent. A lot of them were out of towners who wanted to start something and ran up against a police department that wasnt going to tolerate knucklehead idiots from god knows where blocking traffic, and causing more of a general disturbance than the law permits. People actually live in NYC.

2)Yes the US government paid those interrened at the camps. Why?

And what of the families that didn't own slaves? Would they have to pay? As far as I know of, the people of the North already paid...Paid with their lives as they fought the South. That is the highest payment.

You sir, have hit the nail on the head. Who pays?

People like to go into the past to find injustices and get money. Everyone has been oppressed in some way in history. Should everyone be compensated for historical pain?

The Germans could have EASILY won WWII it's a proven fact. They could have by, after finishing France, concentrating in the meditirean and takeing
the middle-east and invadeing Russia from Europe and the Caccuss(spelling).
The German army was the best in the world they could have easily crushed the Allies. Keep in mind that without Russia the Allies could have never won the war because the Russians fought 80% of the German army.

1)Living in the city where those protestors were taken to the Pier and having family in the police department I can assure you a good portion of those protestors werent exactly innocent. A lot of them were out of towners who wanted to start something and ran up against a police department that wasnt going to tolerate knucklehead idiots from god knows where blocking traffic, and causing more of a general disturbance than the law permits. People actually live in NYC.

Thanks for this information. I followed those protests and I remember that cop getting hurt at the RNC convention. So much for being the peace party eh?

2)Yes the US government paid those interrened at the camps. Why?

I don't know. I didn't know that piece of info.

People like to go into the past to find injustices and get money. Everyone has been oppressed in some way in history. Should everyone be compensated for historical pain?

Then I want compensation from the British for all the trouble they caused us from the Revolutionary War to the War of 1812. I take that back. I don't want the British Pound or the Euro just an apology for making us fight them.

I don't know. I didn't know that piece of info.

Yea we paid the cash directly to the survivors. Which is why I never had a problem paying the survivors than I do paying the ancestors of slavery.

Then I want compensation from the British for all the trouble they caused us from the Revolutionary War to the War of 1812. I take that back. I don't want the British Pound or the Euro just an apology for making us fight them.
Rebels and revolutionaries asking for reparation from the legally constituted goverment of the day! Don't thinks so!
As to why compensate those who were interned during WWII. Well if the gov't accepts it was wrong they accept culpability. This was an act of the gov't rather than that of individuals (as slavery was), it was controled and organised by the gov't.
As to who should pay, well if your ancestors were not there at the time tough, you become a citizen of the US and as such you have to accept what has gone before, your ancestors were not there when the country ran up it's national debt but your taxes pay for it none the less. As a emmber of US society you accept the responsibilites of the nation as well as the privelages. With rights and privelage comes responsibility.
I just find the fact that this happend in a modern, supposed civilised and democratic country a little disturbing. What I find more disturbing is that people today don't appear to be disturbed when they live in that country.

sorry i'm not posting that often but i do read them.

As for the f-22 issue that i mentioned earlier.
The f-22 if over priced. (see quiness book of records) has an airframe that allows only for low speed manuverabilty, and was designed to shoot down older migs. all i'm saying is that it's overhyped. besides stealth is not at all effective at a speed faster the 0.9 mach. as for it's uselessness, it's radar does not have as good of a range as the israili or french radars. (the french make the current best radar, the israili's buy them.) also it is twice as large as the highly respectible f-18 and only slighty more manuverable. i'm not saying it's a bad plane i'm just saying it's overhyped and the cheeper planes are sometimes better. that and it falls just below the newer, cheeper su-37's and mig 35's. i'm sorry if i came off as rude before.

Now an admirable airframe is that f-4 phantom wich manuvers better at high speeds(note it's tailflaps so close to the engine, i didn't belive it at first either ,fairly unstable.). the f-22's airframe does not allow that, it's geared toward stabilty.(which is good in a scary situation.) it's a pro's and cons thing really. but ask yourself is the price right? an f-14 pushed to it's stuctual limits can almost get the same manuverability of the f-22 although it would need an overhaul after. don't get me wrong i like the f-22, but i'd rather have like 7 f-20's for the price (or a couple israili f-4 2000's)

as for the JSF it incorperates technoligy that the YAK Freestyle incorperated first. like that freaky vtal system, look at picture's you'll know what i mean.

Rebels and revolutionaries asking for reparation from the legally constituted goverment of the day! Don't thinks so!

Then why do blacks want compensation from the legally constituted government of its day? Its along the same lines dude.

As to why compensate those who were interned during WWII. Well if the gov't accepts it was wrong they accept culpability. This was an act of the gov't rather than that of individuals (as slavery was), it was controled and organised by the gov't.

Agreed but how many taxpayer dollars went to it. I want to know that.

As to who should pay, well if your ancestors were not there at the time tough, you become a citizen of the US and as such you have to accept what has gone before, your ancestors were not there when the country ran up it's national debt but your taxes pay for it none the less. As a emmber of US society you accept the responsibilites of the nation as well as the privelages. With rights and privelage comes responsibility.

If it was legal practice back then they deserve not a cent and I will not pay my taxes if tax payer dollars are going to be used for slavery reparations. I am 100% against it.

I just find the fact that this happend in a modern, supposed civilised and democratic country a little disturbing. What I find more disturbing is that people today don't appear to be disturbed when they live in that country.

Welcome to the real world where no one knows what is going on around them.

Yea we paid the cash directly to the survivors. Which is why I never had a problem paying the survivors than I do paying the ancestors of slavery.

I agree because they were actually around when it occured. That is one thing but going back over a hundred years? Sorry. That I don't tolerate.

sorry i'm not posting that often but i do read them.

I think it's safer to read than post anymore! LOL

As for the f-22 issue that i mentioned earlier.
The f-22 if over priced. (see quiness book of records) has an airframe that allows only for low speed manuverabilty, and was designed to shoot down older migs. all i'm saying is that it's overhyped. besides stealth is not at all effective at a speed faster the 0.9 mach. as for it's uselessness, it's radar does not have as good of a range as the israili or french radars. (the french make the current best radar, the israili's buy them.) also it is twice as large as the highly respectible f-18 and only slighty more manuverable. i'm not saying it's a bad plane i'm just saying it's overhyped and the cheeper planes are sometimes better. that and it falls just below the newer, cheeper su-37's and mig 35's. i'm sorry if i came off as rude before.

And yet the F-22 is in service and is the most advanced fighter in the world. It is totally stealth and can shoot down just about ANYTHING. Not just older migs. I suggest you check out your facts better! I am reading up on the F-22 and from my opinion and what my dad says about (Who is in the Air Force), its better than half the fighters we have now. Now do you have military experience to say what your saying because right now, I'm going on what the military is saying and they can't wait to start to fly these things.

Now an admirable airframe is that f-4 phantom wich manuvers better at high speeds(note it's tailflaps so close to the engine, i didn't belive it at first either ,fairly unstable.). the f-22's airframe does not allow that, it's geared toward stabilty.(which is good in a scary situation.) it's a pro's and cons thing really. but ask yourself is the price right? an f-14 pushed to it's stuctual limits can almost get the same manuverability of the f-22 although it would need an overhaul after. don't get me wrong i like the f-22, but i'd rather have like 7 f-20's for the price (or a couple israili f-4 2000's)

F-4 were good but have their problems. No plane is perfect. Frankly, I'll take a F-16 over an F-4 and a F-22 over the F-16

as for the JSF it incorperates technoligy that the YAK Freestyle incorperated first. like that freaky vtal system, look at picture's you'll know what i mean.

Proof of this please or do I have to go hunting down the JSF website?

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/yak-141_freestyle.pl
http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/yak41.htm
thats for your YAK

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRLCA.htm
thats your JSF

i'd be happy to argue the f-22 thing off the forum, like on msn or some thing.

And yet the F-22 is in service and is the most advanced fighter in the world. It is totally stealth and can shoot down just about ANYTHING.

You do realise that most of what goes on the F-22, technology wise, is the standard build right now, right?
As for totally stealthy. . . If you consider it as being able to be seen, detected by radar, detected by infared, and. . . Well. . . .SEEN! Then, yes, it is very stealthy.

Not just older migs. I suggest you check out your facts better! I am reading up on the F-22

Congradulations, you can type www.usarmy.com and read what they have to say, good lad, good lad.

and from my opinion and what my dad says about (Who is in the Air Force),

Yes, we know, every american is an 6'2 perfect build ex football pro who currently serves as a high spot in the army.

its better than half the fighters we have now.

And worst then anything that came out after 1960!

Now do you have military experience to say what your saying because right now, I'm going on what the military is saying and they can't wait to start to fly these things.

They say the same thing for the Eurofighter and SU-47, guess that means we have three "ultimate god planes that can't be matched by any planes for centuries to come! Until the next god plane, that is."

F-4 were good but have their problems. No plane is perfect. Frankly, I'll take a F-16 over an F-4 and a F-22 over the F-16

I'd take an F-2 over an F-22 anyday. . . What is this plane loving contest suppose to tell us?

Proof of this please or do I have to go hunting down the JSF website?

<caters>

Go to google, go to images. . . Type in Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF, look at it. . . Go to google again, go to images again. . . Type in Yak Freestyle and look at it. They are both nearly the same. Production cost is the only basic difference.

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/yak-141_freestyle.pl
http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/yak41.htm
thats for your YAK

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRLCA.htm
thats your JSF

i'd be happy to argue the f-22 thing off the forum, like on msn or some thing.


Umm..that third link isnt the JSF...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/x-35.htm

That however is the X-35.

Now the Yak-141 and the JSF are completely different aircraft using completely different tech. The JSF is only VTOL for the Royal Navy, and USMC, for the Air Force and for the USN, it doesnt need to be VTOL. Thats one major difference right there, the fact this aircraft serves more than just one role. Heck the 141 isnt even considered a plasuable combat aircraft, more of a tech bed for possible future aircraft. Also the 141 has to use its afterburner to take off..I'm failing to see how they compare...If your trying to say it isnt an original design..well then sorry, it is. The class idea(VTOL) aircraft isnt an original design..there have been VTOL aircraft for decades.

Now the Yak-141 and the JSF are completely different aircraft using completely different tech. The JSF is only VTOL for the Royal Navy, and USMC, for the Air Force and for the USN, it doesnt need to be VTOL. Thats one major difference right there, the fact this aircraft serves more than just one role. Heck the 141 isnt even considered a plasuable combat aircraft, more of a tech bed for possible future aircraft. Also the 141 has to use its afterburner to take off..I'm failing to see how they compare...If your trying to say it isnt an original design..well then sorry, it is. The class idea(VTOL) aircraft isnt an original design..there have been VTOL aircraft for decades.

Where does it say this about the free style? i'd like a real site not a geocities or a tripod site. and saying "my daddy said this," just won't cut it.
Sorry that the JSF link changed, i count on it to change again later.

Where does it say this about the free style? i'd like a real site not a geocities or a tripod site. and saying "my daddy said this," just won't cut it.
Sorry that the JSF link changed, i count on it to change again later.


Try the second link you put up. If your going to reference something make sure you read it before putting it up. Both issues were addressed right in the very first paragraph, and I quote: "The Yak-141 seems to be more a technology demonstrator than an actual fighter aircraft, and the need to use afterburner for take-off is a distinct problem."

Edit:

Further proof of the afterburner issue:
http://homepage.idx.com.au/markvine/yak41/yak41page2.html

ok so it was designed in 1975 what do you expect?

i never said it was the first VTAL, i said it was the first supersonic VTAL. and if you look at the way the engine moves, the two planes work off the same VTAL concept. the JSF looks more like a VTAL f-22 and the yak oddly resembles a mig-21.

Question what would you rather have 2 f-22's or 14 f-20's? the answer is clear because numbers always win in air combat. bush said it himself. (don't ask me to qoute him please) but you should remember him saying his plan was to have more planes then everyone else. (also more of the most expensive planes wich is not in anyones budget.)

ok so it was designed in 1975 what do you expect?

i never said it was the first VTAL, i said it was the first supersonic VTAL. and if you look at the way the engine moves, the two planes work off the same VTAL concept. the JSF looks more like a VTAL f-22 and the yak oddly resembles a mig-21.

Question what would you rather have 2 f-22's or 14 f-20's? the answer is clear because numbers always win in air combat. bush said it himself. (don't ask me to qoute him please) but you should remember him saying his plan was to have more planes then everyone else. (also more of the most expensive planes wich is not in anyones budget.)

I'll take a more advanced plane. I'll take the F-22 and the JSF!

ok so it was designed in 1975 what do you expect?

i never said it was the first VTAL, i said it was the first supersonic VTAL. and if you look at the way the engine moves, the two planes work off the same VTAL concept. the JSF looks more like a VTAL f-22 and the yak oddly resembles a mig-21.

Question what would you rather have 2 f-22's or 14 f-20's? the answer is clear because numbers always win in air combat. bush said it himself. (don't ask me to qoute him please) but you should remember him saying his plan was to have more planes then everyone else. (also more of the most expensive planes wich is not in anyones budget.)

Your entire thing was that the JSF was a ripoff of Russian technology. And I'm arguing that its using american technology.

And the JSF is considered a mini F-22 so it really doesnt surprise me. Not to mention the 22 and JSF are both designed by the same company (Lockheed Martin)

Also it doesnt matter the number of planes, it matters the support behind those planes. Do the 2 F-22s have AWACs support? Because if they do then 12 of those F-20s are screwed because the F-22 will see the F-20 long before the F-20s pick up the more steathly Raptor. There are plenty of examples in which a lower number of superior aircraft managed to decimate a larger less superior airforce.

Also the F-22 is expected to number from 250-500 planes(about the current number of F-15s)

And the JSF is expected to number several thousand(replacing the 16,and 18s in number)

The Germans could have EASILY won WWII it's a proven fact. They could have by, after finishing France, concentrating in the meditirean and takeing
the middle-east and invadeing Russia from Europe and the Caccuss(spelling).
The German army was the best in the world they could have easily crushed the Allies. Keep in mind that without Russia the Allies could have never won the war because the Russians fought 80% of the German army.

How exactly do you plan on getting the supplies and resources needed to field a large enough army in the Middle East and Caucasus before Barbarossa to push the British out? Sure, they did a hell of a job with only 3 divisions, but they also had a hell of a time keeping those 3 divisions in supply. Not to mention the risk in getting those troops there in the first place. So now you have a big force that is out of food and oil, waiting to be crushed by the British, and unavailable for the thrust into Russia. Even assuming you somehow magically took the Middle East, a drive into the Caucasus is taking away a lot of forces from your primary campaign (A drive into European Russia), into inhospitable land when they could be far btter used.

Keep in mind without the Allies (specifically United States), Russia would not have had many of the things they needed to win the war, things like trucks or aviation gasoline, copper, etc. As for the German Army being the best in the world, that is very debatable (especially since they lose in the end). Had a few more tanks been available for the counter attacks at Laons and Arras, the great German sweep through France might never have been, and the entire Sickle Stroke campaign a disaster. Then the German Army would be considered to bold and stupid.

Anyway RNZN ship Kiwi rammed a bloody Jap sub and sunk it.-GUTS


I am in now way putting down the Kiwi cotribution to the war efforts, but that was a common and accepted way of destroying a sub, used extensively in the opening months of World War One and whenever possible in World War Two, as subs were extremely fragile vessels and easily sunk that way.

Your entire thing was that the JSF was a ripoff of Russian technology. And I'm arguing that its using american technology.

Thank You! American Tech is better than Russian Tech so why do we have to use Russian Tech for our state of the art planes?

And the JSF is considered a mini F-22 so it really doesnt surprise me. Not to mention the 22 and JSF are both designed by the same company (Lockheed Martin)

Yep! Correct! Can't wait to see these puppies in combat!

Also it doesnt matter the number of planes, it matters the support behind those planes. Do the 2 F-22s have AWACs support? Because if they do then 12 of those F-20s are screwed because the F-22 will see the F-20 long before the F-20s pick up the more steathly Raptor. There are plenty of examples in which a lower number of superior aircraft managed to decimate a larger less superior airforce.

Off we go, into the wild blue yonder, climbing high! Into the sun. Here they come, zooming to meet our thunder, at'em boys give her the gun. Down we dive spouting our flame from under, off with one hell of a roar. We live in fame or go down in flames, nothing'll stop the US Air Force. :)

Also the F-22 is expected to number from 250-500 planes(about the current number of F-15s)

Yep. It is the plane replacing them!

And the JSF is expected to number several thousand(replacing the 16,and 18s in number)

And the JSF is replacing the F-16s and 18s!

But sometimes, the american aircraft industry produced real shit.(like the F104, which we called 'Widowmaker')

But sometimes, the american aircraft industry produced real shit.(like the F104, which we called 'Widowmaker')
or the starlifter/fighter of the 50's bloody dog it was

or the starlifter/fighter of the 50's bloody dog it was

Catch a falling Starfighter
Put it in the pocket of your jeans
You can use it as a cigarette lighter
Or as an opener for a can of beans
Catch a falling Starfighter
Shine it up and wear it on a chain
You will find that it will be much lighter
If you empty out its contents
Down the Drain

Catch A Falling Starfighter by Captain Lockheed & The Starfighters (Bob Calvert)

Catch a falling Starfighter
Put it in the pocket of your jeans
You can use it as a cigarette lighter
Or as an opener for a can of beans
Catch a falling Starfighter
Shine it up and wear it on a chain
You will find that it will be much lighter
If you empty out its contents
Down the Drain

Catch A Falling Starfighter by Captain Lockheed & The Starfighters (Bob Calvert)

LOL!!!

I think Germany shoulda been nuked, as well as anywhere occupied, because they would go on to make Israel

I think Germany shoulda been nuked, as well as anywhere occupied, because they would go on to make Israel


Huh? WTF are you rambling about?

1)Germany surrendered in May, the first A-bomb wasnt tested until the next month.
2)WTF are you going on about?

I think Germany shoulda been nuked, as well as anywhere occupied, because they would go on to make Israel

Some problems here

1. The Majority of your Military is deployed there (68 of 90 Divisions)
2. There are these allies of yours like France and Britain there too, and the Soviets on the other side, the friendly casualties keep getting bigger.
3. The Trinity Test occurred after Germany's surrender (May 8th, 1945)
4. The US produced atomic weapons painfully slow, they had one left after the 2 drops on Japan (Truman delayed its delivery to Tianin)
5. While powerful, they weren't exactly country destroying weapons yet, no where near the power of today.
6. No matter how many times you nuke something, someone will be left alive.

Catch a falling Starfighter
Put it in the pocket of your jeans
You can use it as a cigarette lighter
Or as an opener for a can of beans
Catch a falling Starfighter
Shine it up and wear it on a chain
You will find that it will be much lighter
If you empty out its contents
Down the Drain

Catch A Falling Starfighter by Captain Lockheed & The Starfighters (Bob Calvert)
thanks.
Go SR_53 and 177 better than that Flying Weakness.
Damn Politics.