NationStates Jolt Archive

whats bosch is that boschoviecks crap i cant spell

nah - 'Bosch' = Germans.

Yes and by allied, that really meant 90% US.don't forget the japanese death toll, they would have lost far more.

nah - 'Bosh' = Germans.

I wish I were as smart as you, BWO. :(

whats bosch is that boschoviecks crap i cant spell


the bosch, the krauts, the sausage suckers. AKA the germans.

not so, with the annihilation of the nazi empire, the soviet union was preparing for a large invasion of japan, wanting a few pieces of land over there

Military expences doesn't increase during low conjectures, because of the low conjectures.

What? What is a "conjecture". Anyway, WWII is widely considered validation of Keynsian theory. Oddly enough the biggest increase in spending was millitary.

don't forget the japanese death toll, they would have lost far more.

and in 1945 the USA was worried about japanese death tolls that dont really enter into it considering the public opinion in teh USA at the time.

That's what I say about the USSR, but it always falls on deaf ears. We did do more fighting though. Our deployments were much bigger.

As to the USSR trade thing. It's one thing to sell oil for a profit. It is another to hand over military material on credit, which stalin did,
Well, Stalin was stupid, he needed money to move factories over the ural mountains to safety from potential attack, Stalin knew that Hitler was his eventual enemy. I don't think that I am the only one that thinks that Stalin would have invaded Europe anyway, games like C&C Red Alert explore what could have happened had there been no Hitler to invade the Soviet Union- Hitler was even stupider to think that he could be General Frost- the Soviet Winter was more than a match for him than than their army. By the time it was over, the Soviets had regrouped- their time had come.

not so, with the annihilation of the nazi empire, the soviet union was preparing for a large invasion of japan, wanting a few pieces of land over there


50,000 men in the Kurils does not a mighty invasion make.

In any event, Stalin only declared war after the first bomb was dropped. He had no intention of getting into that fight. Had he been serious he would have at least declared as soon as Germany was defeated so we could have used Vladivostok as an air base. The fact that he didn't only goes to show how full of shit he was. The only reason for his late declaration was in the hope of getting some territory.

Anyway, he needed to keep his 400 divisions in Europe.

Honestly I cannot understand this obsession with the USSR's millitary potential. It really wasn't all that.

not so, with the annihilation of the nazi empire, the soviet union was preparing for a large invasion of japan, wanting a few pieces of land over there
yes it was. It even got an archipeligo off the Northwest of Japan for agreeing to declare war on Japan. Not a single man was lost for it.

What? What is a "conjecture". Anyway, WWII is widely considered validation of Keynsian theory. Oddly enough the biggest increase in spending was millitary.
i always thought a conjecture was an inference, but that wouldn't make any sense w/ the way he's using the word

Well, Stalin was stupid, he needed money to move factories over the ural mountains to safety from potential attack, Stalin knew that Hitler was his eventual enemy. I don't think that I am the only one that thinks that Stalin would have invaded Europe anyway, games like C&C Red Alert explore what could have happened had there been no Hitler to invade the Soviet Union- Hitler was even stupider to think that he could be General Frost- the Soviet Winter was more than a match for him than than their army. By the time it was over, the Soviets had regrouped- their time had come.


People say that Stalin believed that Hitler was his eventual enemy. I am not so sure. Given the recent history, I am fairly sure that Stalin had a fairly large grudge against the UK. What is more, his actions belie that idea.

People say that Stalin believed that Hitler was his eventual enemy. I am not so sure. Given the recent history, I am fairly sure that Stalin had a fairly large grudge against the UK. What is more, his actions belie that idea.

I think it would probably be safe to say that Stalin considered everyone to be his enemy.

Honestly I cannot understand this obsession with the USSR's millitary potential. It really wasn't all that.
Wha? Are you kidding about here? That's similar to something that the Western European powers were saying in 1938/1939.
If the U.S.S.R had no military potential, then after the war why was everyone so scared of it? Perhaps it was a big bluff and all they had were rubber duckies to throw at tanks!

Well as much as they "owe" us I frankly dout they give a flying fuck. No use trying to bring up old debts becuase they will just throw it in our face and laugh wihile they make money off our enemies and try and make us look like fools when ever get a shot. Its easier to insult and make jokes about the big kid on the block rather than thank and assist him for saving their sorry ass.
besides thye could try pulling up shit all the way back to the revolution as stupid as that is.

Wha? Are you kidding about here? That's similar to something that the Western European powers were saying in 1938/1939.
If the U.S.S.R had no military potential, then after the war why was everyone so scared of it? Perhaps it was a big bluff and all they had were rubber duckies to throw at tanks!

I'm not saying that on the eastern front, the willingness to spend men didn't make it a potent force. What I am saying is that it is not the millitary juggernaut that everyone seems to think it was.

It did not have the infra structure to launch major operations in the pacific. Hell, the whole reason for the Artic convoy system was because vladivostok couldn't be used as a port due to the inadquacy of the land communications with European Russia.

I think it would probably be safe to say that Stalin considered everyone to be his enemy.

In a larger sense yes.

My point is, if you look at the history of relationships 1919-1939 in Europe, there is good reason to believe that Stalin would not see Germany as his biggest enemy. Moreover, Stalin's own actions do much to militate against the interpretation that he believed hitler would be fighting him anytime soon.

In all I think the whole "Stalin knew" thing is a bit of a myth, started by Stalin himself.

Wha? Are you kidding about here? That's similar to something that the Western European powers were saying in 1938/1939.
If the U.S.S.R had no military potential, then after the war why was everyone so scared of it? Perhaps it was a big bluff and all they had were rubber duckies to throw at tanks!

Their big, bad military was made up entirely of Western- mostly American- technology. Were it not for the U.S., the Soviet Union would have collapsed under its own weight as early as 1921. Read all about it in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Antony Sutton, The Russian Space Bluff by Leonid Vladimirov, and Are the Russians Ten Feet Tall? by Werner Keller.

Well as much as they "owe" us I frankly dout they give a flying fuck. No use trying to bring up old debts becuase they will just throw it in our face and laugh wihile they make money off our enemies and try and make us look like fools when ever get a shot. Its easier to insult and make jokes about the big kid on the block rather than thank and assist him for saving their sorry ass.
besides thye could try pulling up shit all the way back to the revolution as stupid as that is.
You saved my 'sorry ass'? Could you go in specifics please?

Responding to several previous arguments...

Stalin did invade Europe. The Russian army met the US army in Berlin at the same time. The Russians lost 20 million people to Hitler in that war and if the Russians had not fought Germany we would have never been close to winning that war (conventionally). Half of Europe then became part of the U.S.S.R. Despite the fact that they were a horrible regime, the world owes them just as much thanks as the US for stomping out Hitler. As far as Europe "owing" us for WWII, don't forget France's support during the US fight for Independence. You might say we are even now.

Regarding illegal arms sales to Iraq (French and German) do not forget that the US sold illegal arms to Iran (while we had them on the terrorist list) in order to fund an illegal (deemed so by the US congress) war in Nicaragua. The contras comitted some of the worst atrocities in recent history on illegal US funding. Oh, and the chief perpetrators of said illegal activities now have talk shows, corporate executive positions and senior government advisory positions.

Don't forget that Rumsfeld was in Iraq in '83 trying to land the big Iraqi oil contracts (Iraq went with the French and Russians). And the Taliban were invited to Texas in 1999 and 2000 to be wooed by the US oil industry (they also went with the Russians). And, we as a nation (US) currently do about $200 billion a year in business with an oppressive communist regime (China). That far exceeds any revenues the French and Russians generated from their oil ventures.

Pointing fingers is all well and good but make sure you are aware of what your own country is doing/has done before you start.

The Russian army met the US army in Berlin at the same time.

Eh?

The contras comitted some of the worst atrocities in recent history on illegal US funding.

However bad the contras may have been, I'm sure they were angels compared to the Sandinistas.

Their big, bad military was made up entirely of Western- mostly American- technology. Were it not for the U.S., the Soviet Union would have collapsed under its own weight as early as 1921. Read all about it in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Antony Sutton, The Russian Space Bluff by Leonid Vladimirov, and Are the Russians Ten Feet Tall? by Werner Keller.
hmmm interesting. so their whole series of extremely successful tanks, e.g the T52, were Western tech? fascinating. The Soviet Union wouldn't have even existed if it wasn't for Germany (cheers).

Responding to several previous arguments...

Stalin did invade Europe. The Russian army met the US army in Berlin at the same time. The Russians lost 20 million people to Hitler in that war and if the Russians had not fought Germany we would have never been close to winning that war (conventionally). Half of Europe then became part of the U.S.S.R. Despite the fact that they were a horrible regime, the world owes them just as much thanks as the US for stomping out Hitler. As far as Europe "owing" us for WWII, don't forget France's support during the US fight for Independence. You might say we are even now.

Regarding illegal arms sales to Iraq (French and German) do not forget that the US sold illegal arms to Iran (while we had them on the terrorist list) in order to fund an illegal (deemed so by the US congress) war in Nicaragua. The contras comitted some of the worst atrocities in recent history on illegal US funding. Oh, and the chief perpetrators of said illegal activities now have talk shows, corporate executive positions and senior government advisory positions.

Don't forget that Rumsfeld was in Iraq in '83 trying to land the big Iraqi oil contracts (Iraq went with the French and Russians). And the Taliban were invited to Texas in 1999 and 2000 to be wooed by the US oil industry (they also went with the Russians). And, we as a nation (US) currently do about $200 billion a year in business with an oppressive communist regime (China). That far exceeds any revenues the French and Russians generated from their oil ventures.

Pointing fingers is all well and good but make sure you are aware of what your own country is doing/has done before you start.

You forgot the Marshall plan. So yes you do owe us. Now say thank you for us rebuilding your country.

And, as has been pointed out many times before, if we hadn't propped up the USSR they would have been in the shitter.

hmmm interesting. so their whole series of extremely successful tanks, e.g the T52, were Western tech? fascinating. The Soviet Union wouldn't have even existed if it wasn't for Germany (cheers).

Yes, German technology played a big role as well.

hmmm interesting. so their whole series of extremely successful tanks, e.g the T52, were Western tech? fascinating. The Soviet Union wouldn't have even existed if it wasn't for Germany (cheers).

The T-34 was invented by an american.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberated Citizens
The Russian army met the US army in Berlin at the same time.

Eh?
double eh?

However bad the contras may have been, I'm sure they were angels compared to the Sandinistas.

The Sandinistas captured, tortured, and shot Lt. Juan Ocon. While he was still alive, his head was cut off. His family could not find his head so the family buried him with a plaster head attached to the body.

Alvaro Sanchez was taken out of his home and shot in the presence of his mother and children.

Pedro Pablo Espinoza, newspaperman and member of the Liberal Party, was captured by the Sandinistas in El Dorado. He was tortured, had his eyes gouged out, and was then shot.

In Leon, thirteen young members of the Guardia Nacional surrendered to the Sandinistas. They were taken to the football stadium in Leon where they were all shot.

While Lt. Rene Silva, a member of the Guardia Nacional from Matagalpa, was at the battle front, the Sandinistas went to his home and murdered his wife and two children, four and two years old.

Dr. Rafael Saavedra, General Director of Customs, was burned alive by the Sandinistas and his two sons killed.

Two female police students were captured. One of them was four months pregnant. They opened her up and pulled the fetus out. According to sworn testimony given to the U.S. House of Representatives and which appears in the February 26, 1980 Congressional Record, this group was under the command of an American by the name of Clifford Scott.

Major Domingo Gutierrez and six of his men were captured. They were placed in a hole, sprayed with gasoline, and burned alive.

Sergeant Edwin R. Ordonez of the infantry training school was captured and burned alive.

Dr. Cornelio Hueck, former President of the Congress, was captured at his ranch near Rivas. He was taken to the town square of Tola where he was shot several times in non-vital areas. Then, with the people of the town present, he was placed on a table and, while he was still alive, his heart was cut out.

Major Pablo Emilio Salazar, better known as "Commandante Bravo," was captured by the Sandinistas in Honduras after the war was over, and tortured to death. His face was beaten beyond recognition, his arms broken, his ears cut off, his genitals severed, strips of his skin peeled from his body and, finally, he was shot in the head.

Finally, we have General Reynaldo Perez Vega. First, he was beaten into a bloody pulp. Then, his eyes were gouged out, his throat cut, his body burned with cigarettes, and as a final act of torture, his genitals were cut off and stuffed in his mouth. Attending doctors estimated it took several hours for the General to die.

hmmm interesting. so their whole series of extremely successful tanks, e.g the T52,

T-52?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberated Citizens
The Russian army met the US army in Berlin at the same time.


double eh?


I think BWO is pointing out that the Western allies never got to berlin before the war ended.

The T-34 was invented by an american.
actually, they were the first nation to embrace the unique suspension system of US inventor J. Walter Christie. The rest was Soviet design.

T-52?
yes, it's late here and I was reading Iraqi war bulletins, I meant T-34 :p

The war in Iraq was, without a doubt, a massive blunder and should never have happened. However, Europe OWES the US big time and should commit all available troops to supporing our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. They owe us not only because we saved them in 2 World Wars, but because we defended them throughout the Cold War. Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs. Furthermore, their assistance could improve the situation in the Middle East, certainly the world will be worse off if the US fails than if we succeed. So is there any reasonable arguement that European nations that refuse to pull their weight are anything beyond ungrateful cowards that have more concern for oil prices than the welfare of the world?
BAH America owes Europe for not getting into WWI and WWII till the end missing out on the kickoff its so typical of you guys turn up and then you pick a winner half way thu the game BAH

You don't need one now, because WE WON THE COLD WAR. No thanks to our feckless European allies, BTW.
BAH The Pope won the Cold War read a book!!!!

OK- here's what's been said by the ever wise Hiberian States:
The war in Iraq was, without a doubt, a massive blunder
Whos blunder?
America's blunder!

However, Europe OWES the US big time and should commit all available troops to supporing our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan.
Why?

They owe us not only because we saved them in 2 World Wars
nah-uh, the use of the word 'save' is misdirecting- America was not our Knight in shining armour, but an equal and valued ally, as I think we have established tonight.

Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs.
I think there were some people talking about that, and this was disproved by some economic theory that I don't understand because economics scares me.

Furthermore, their assistance could improve the situation in the Middle East, certainly the world will be worse off if the US fails than if we succeed. finally, a part of your argument I agree with

So is there any reasonable arguement that European nations that refuse to pull their weight are anything beyond ungrateful cowards that have more concern for oil prices than the welfare of the world?
Refuse to pull weight? Or just peaceful? As for suggesting that WE have more concern for oil prices than the American government, sir that is plain stupid.

BAH America owes Europe for not getting into WWI and WWII till the end missing out on the kickoff its so typical of you guys turn up and then you pick a winner half way thu the game BAH
Huh, oh and you British and French could of delt with the Germans without us, huh? Thats what I thought, you may not like America or her citizens but you'd be a lieing dog if you thought you Brits could hold of an attack from Al Sharpta with your Navy, weak ass Army, and second rate Airforce, don't lie we all know UK is just a falling country, you lost all your colonies and you're about to loss Ireland. Deal with it, I'm Texan, born and raised, my blood is that of Marines and and GI's who fought and died before me, my own great grand dad, my grand pa, my uncle, I'd like to see you Euro's hold out without America watching your backs. And he's right if it wasn't for America you'd all be struggling to support a "Decent" Mllitary, I stress the term "Decent" for you Euro's. SO, GO SHOVE YOUR BRITISH SUPPIRIORITY COMPLEX UP YOUR BIG FAT BRITISH ASS, DUNKAUPFT.

... don't lie we all know UK is just a falling country, you lost all your colonies and you're about to loss Ireland.

You do know that the Republic of Ireland gained independence from the UK in 1921, and that the majority of the Northern Ireland populations remains in favour of staying in the UK, don't you?

All this talk about the US or the USSR 'saving' Europe during two World Wars seems to miss the point that both World Wars were at heart conflicts between the nations of Europe.

Huh, oh and you British and French could of delt with the Germans without us, huh? Thats what I thought, you may not like America or her citizens but you'd be a lieing dog if you thought you Brits could hold of an attack from Al Sharpta with your Navy, weak ass Army, and second rate Airforce, don't lie we all know UK is just a falling country, you lost all your colonies and you're about to loss Ireland. Deal with it, I'm Texan, born and raised, my blood is that of Marines and and GI's who fought and died before me, my own great grand dad, my grand pa, my uncle, I'd like to see you Euro's hold out without America watching your backs. And he's right if it wasn't for America you'd all be struggling to support a "Decent" Mllitary, I stress the term "Decent" for you Euro's. SO, GO SHOVE YOUR BRITISH SUPPIRIORITY COMPLEX UP YOUR BIG FAT BRITISH ASS, DUNKAUPFT.
Oooh a texan, finally. Are you up for President next? Funny you didn't put an adjective in front of our Navy. You might want to use excellent, but I suppose that's too long for you. Our Army is- "the best in the world", our Airforce is second to none- we invented the Harrier. We don't actually own Ireland really, and one cannot 'loss' something. I see you are proud of your family heritage. I'm sure your wife/cousin is as well, plus I think us 'Euro's' are 'holding out' pretty ok at the moment, due to there being no war- peace broke out across Europe about 50 years ago.
I'm glad you can spell 'decent', you used it twice in a sentence, and made sure we could see!
Perhaps we might take seriously someone with a Secondary Level of schooling.
Taking into consideration spelling and punctuation errors, I give your argument 6/10- because you used mighty long words for a texan.

All this talk about the US or the USSR 'saving' Europe during two World Wars seems to miss the point that both World Wars were at heart conflicts between the nations of Europe.

*Applause*

...plus I think us 'Euro's' are 'holding out' pretty ok at the moment, due to there being no war- peace broke out across Europe about 50 years ago.

~cough~ Bosnia Yugoslavia Cyprus ~cough~

Not only that but your still sore that America stole Britians thunder, you used to be a big bad empire before we rebeled, after that you guys went down hill double time, you lost India, Australlia, your African colonies, and now your afraid you'll just be a little island playing second fiddles to Americas millitary might when you lose Ireland, oh yes, I said it your going to get you asses kicked bad by the Irish, Am I wrong? No? Thought this much.

Anyone who thinks the USSR 'saved' Europe, need only read The Rape of Poland: Pattern of Soviet Aggression by Stanislaw Mikolajczyk.

All this talk about the US or the USSR 'saving' Europe during two World Wars seems to miss the point that both World Wars were at heart conflicts between the nations of Europe.


Yes, and we saved them. From themselves. Twice. Then we wasted money on rebuilding.

Now they laugh at us and say that we are stupid, unsophisticated, crass &ct.

But, where were they during the Civil War eh?

DUNKAUPFT.

'Dummkopf'?

'Dummkopf'?

No, its DUNKAUPFT. He learned that from General Von Buren during the revolutionary war.

What? What is a "conjecture". Anyway, WWII is widely considered validation of Keynsian theory. Oddly enough the biggest increase in spending was millitary.

Hm, my apologies. I've discussed keynes general theory with a couple americans before, and they used the word conjecture, so I assumed it excisted. I looked it up in my dictionary now because you asked, to see if I maybe misspelled it or something, and it means guesswork :p Right, so it doesn't excist, what I ment with low conjecture was depression.

You are right that military expences stimulate the economy thru an increase in demand. A keynesian tool is an automatic stabilisator, it's basically welfare and taxes. When the economy goes down into a depression, welfare automatically kicks in to fight the depression and stabilize the economy, ditty with taxes (if setup to do that, ie flat taxes etc).

The point I was making, was that the creator of this thread doesn't seem to comprehend that it's not an either-or situation with welfare vs military expences all the time, just like that, black and white.

Yes, the government can increase it's demand in a depression thru military programs and unemployment go down, the economy stabilize. But it's absolutely not the ultimate way of stabilizing the economy, because the creation of wealth thru military programs is minimal, though it does employ people.

If resources are rather invested in the sectors that have the most profit, the government get more in taxes and have more money to spend on the military. Thus, in the situation europe was in after worldwar2, was that welfare wouldn't hurt the nations ability to have a military, quite the contrary.

But, if welfare was all good and there was nothing else to it, an economy could consist of nothing but welfare and noone would haveto even work or anything. Yeah, there can be too much welfare too. In my opinion, the ultimate amount of welfare is the least amount that is required to help someone unproductive, get as soon as possible, into a (as much as possible) productive position, and not a cent more. (add: and to those who simply cannot be productive, so they don't haveto starve to death etc, and to keep demand up) Today, east europe requires help to rebuild after all the damage ww2 and communism did to them, but I am of the opinion that the west spend too much on welfare.

and now your afraid you'll just be a little island playing second fiddles to Americas millitary might when you lose Ireland, oh yes, I said it your going to get you asses kicked bad by the Irish, Am I wrong? No? Thought this much.

Eire is already independent, and has been for a long time.

...so would you point out the factors that you think are going to lead to Northern Ireland breaking away from the Union, despite the fact that majority of the population here wish to remain in it?

Not only that but your still sore that America stole Britians thunder, you used to be a big bad empire before we rebeled, after that you guys went down hill double time, you lost India, Australlia, your African colonies, and now your afraid you'll just be a little island playing second fiddles to Americas millitary might when you lose Ireland, oh yes, I said it your going to get you asses kicked bad by the Irish, Am I wrong? No? Thought this much.
First off, you forgot to put:
"My teacher/mum says that:"
Lack of punctuation and grammar throughout.
You might want to read "the rise and fall of British Naval Mastery" to find out the reasons for the decline of empire. But first, go to a school- there you learn to read and write correctly, it'll help you. The fall of empire was more to do with the invention of the railroad than America rebelled (note the double l).
I already noted that losing Ireland would be hard to do since we don't own it.
Are you wrong? yes
you ARE the weakest link- run for president.

But, where were they during the Civil War eh?

What? - between 1642 and 1649?

What? - between 1642 and 1649?

I think s/he meant the War Between the States (aka American Civil War).

Yes, and we saved them.

I thought you were from Northumberland?

What? - between 1642 and 1649?

I want a New Model Army.

Europe, who the hell needs um? The US sure as hell doesn’t! The whole continent consists of a bunch of freaking snobs. The French, who owe us for saving their asses in WWII have turned their noses up at us, the Germans who owe us for the freedom, democracy, and capitalistic economy that they have so come to love stuck their noses up at us. F*ck you, all of you (Europeans). With the exception of a few (Most of the UK I might add) you’re all a bunch of useless, sorry, no good, idiots. The next time Russia comes a knocking, or even Germany for that matter, because you know one day they will, the next time they come a knocking with their war mongering ways don’t look to the west for help, you don’t deserve it!

I want a New Model Army.

We just keep coming back to fascists in jackboots, don't we?

Oooh a texan, finally. Are you up for President next? Funny you didn't put an adjective in front of our Navy. You might want to use excellent, but I suppose that's too long for you. Our Army is- "the best in the world", our Airforce is second to none- we invented the Harrier. We don't actually own Ireland really, and one cannot 'loss' something. I see you are proud of your family heritage. I'm sure your wife/cousin is as well, plus I think us 'Euro's' are 'holding out' pretty ok at the moment, due to there being no war- peace broke out across Europe about 50 years ago.
I'm glad you can spell 'decent', you used it twice in a sentence, and made sure we could see!
Perhaps we might take seriously someone with a Secondary Level of schooling.
Taking into consideration spelling and punctuation errors, I give your argument 6/10- because you used mighty long words for a texan.
Yeah might be, might even nuke you asses while im at it, he. Oh yes i forgot you guys still use Battle ships, old stlye, how many carriers you got, like three? Hmm? Huh, like you could stand against the chinese with that weak army, hell I could take over your country with a militia group I know, yeah and look at the failure rating for the harrier huh, only you and Thailand plan to use Harriers in the future, oh you pissed we got NASA is it? Beat you guys to space, so sad, bohobohohoho, just eccept the facts:

1) The "UK" (how many names does one country need, seriously) is a country in decline, you no longer have any of you holdings.

2) You rely to heavily on American protection, ever since WWII we became the king of the seas, we became airforce A #1, our Army has had few problems it couldn't solve, and you guys/girls haven't been to war since when was it, 1941? around there

3) Your economy, ie the "pound" (what exactly is a pound, a pund of shit?) is being swamped by the EC "Euro"

4) You guys are the most arrogant egomanical centerillists, no wonder Germany wanted and still wants to kick your ass

5) You are one of the smallest countries of the world, nothing else to add

and you guys/girls haven't been to war since when was it, 1941? around there

Ever heard of a thing called 'the Gulf War'?

I thought you were from Northumberland?

erm... Yes! Northunberland Pa. (Home of Jacob Preistly in the Americas)

I really must start to keep better track of my "stories."

We just keep coming back to fascists in jackboots, don't we?

I believe the New Model Army was fairly ragged in dress towards the end.

First off, you forgot to put:
"My teacher/mum says that:"
Lack of punctuation and grammar throughout.
You might want to read "the rise and fall of British Naval Mastery" to find out the reasons for the decline of empire. But first, go to a school- there you learn to read and write correctly, it'll help you. The fall of empire was more to do with the invention of the railroad than America rebelled (note the double l).
I already noted that losing Ireland would be hard to do since we don't own it.
Are you wrong? yes
you ARE the weakest link- run for president.

Exactly, "Rise and FALL" and thats why you guy are pissed at us, you know your time came and went, it happens, you love you county, OK, don't care, hell I used to like the British till I acctually meet one of you, now I know you to be the snobs you are, I'm glad I'm more German then British. At lest the act like the respect us.

I thought there was only one NMA.

Ever heard of a thing called 'the Gulf War'?
Oh yeah, thanks for the two thousand guys you sent, yeah thanks alot (if you don't smell the sarcasim you're dumber then I thought).

Oh yeah, thanks for the two thousand guys you sent, yeah thanks alot (if you don't smell the sarcasim you're dumber then I thought).

Dude, don't even joke. BWO is one of the smartest men/women I ever met.

In response to roach-busters, neither side in Nicaragua could be considered angels. My point was that Europe is not alone in supporting/doing business with despotic regimes.

As far as invading Iraq being a blunder, that has yet to be seen. I think the pretenses used to invade Iraq are invalid, i.e. Saddam was terrible to his people, supported terrorists, wanted nukes, etc. By that argument we could be in wars all over the world. I think it was a mistake to not throw all our efforts at Afghanistan and solve that problem first (assuming invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do). 18,000 troops is nowhere near enough to settle that country. Instead, it is still run by warlords, the Taliban is still active and it still supplies 80% of the world's heroin.

From a purely strategic point of view, I think Rumsfeld screwed us by forcing his plan down our military's throat and seriously miscalculated everybody's response to our actions. I think it's obvious that he ignored the sound judgement of military veterans that had been on the ground in past conflicts.

Overall, regardless of right or wrong, our political leaders made serious judgement errors and our troops are paying the price. They've set our men and women up as targets for every fanatic in the middle east and it's only going to get worse. In the years to come, we'll find that the fanatics have a far greater supply of troops, better supply lines, greater support from the locals, etc. Plus, they are defending their homeland (the foreign fighters included, as they believe they are defending Islam).

The Kurds are starting to make trouble in the north as elections come nearer, and the Shiites will start shooting again if the elections fail. We invaded without strong international support and it's pointless to ask countries that opposed our invasion to get involved as things get worse. We'd have had better success in Afghanistan.

Don't know why you guys are acting like children, I know why I'm acting like a child, it's because I am one, what's your excuses, Huh?

1) The "UK" (how many names does one country need, seriously) is a country in decline, you no longer have any of you holdings.

OK, first off, that is possibly the most inane thing I have ever heard (why does America also need the names US, USA, and the amusing "Land of the Free"? Why for that matter do you all have to still maintain individual little mottoes for your states?).
Second, oh dear, we no longer have the Empire. It's not a massive surprise, mate. In case it escaped your attention, the colonies had their own people living there, and they were getting just a mite tired of British rule. Think we wanted to try and defend it, having bankrupted ourselves in World War 2?

(WHICH I might add you stayed neutral in for TWO FUCKING YEARS while we were fighting the Nazis, and indeed only entered because the Japanese caught you so off-guard that when the radar on Oahu picked up a large number of incoming planes from the west, your radar-ops boys were told that they were B-17s, which should have been coming from the east!)

Well, we didn't. And we were wise to. We would have gone totally broke, which would probably have led to Britain's collapse - and where would your precious "unsinkable carrier" have been then? I think the decision was vindicated rather by Dien Bien Phu. Not only that, but even if we'd wanted to, we couldn't. Six years of war had bankrupted Britain. We lost our empire so that the Nazis couldn't get theirs, one might say. When America has made that kind of sacrifice, well, I might take you a bit more seriously.

2) You rely to heavily on American protection, ever since WWII we became the king of the seas, we became airforce A #1, our Army has had few problems it couldn't solve, and you guys/girls haven't been to war since when was it, 1941? around there

Your armed forces are second to ours in a lot of ways. Not least of these is the way in which you use our inventions, such as Chobham armour, the AV-8, and the angled flight-deck and ski-jump on aircraft carriers. Every time British and American forces have fought together, we've come away with a poor impression of them. The sole exception is the Navy, which seems to be pretty bloody good; that said, I'd always prefer to have the Royal navy on my side than the USN. And since when did we rely on yanks to shield us? OK, we had the Cold War, and yes, I acknowledge, you made one hell of a contribution to Europe's defence. Doesn't mean we owe you. We would equally make the case that you owe us, because we didn't cave in and let the Russians gain access to our rather nifty industrial and military capacities. Could've happened, duckie; and wouldn't the world be different?

3) Your economy, ie the "pound" (what exactly is a pound, a pund of shit?) is being swamped by the EC "Euro"

Since when? The fact it's still in existence (and pretty strong) refutes that statement nicely. And last time I checked, the dollar was weaker than the piund, by the way.

4) You guys are the most arrogant egomanical centerillists, no wonder Germany wanted and still wants to kick your ass

This coming from you, a man who seems to think that it's not so much a case of the universe rotating around the earth as the universe rotating around the USA? Sorry, doesn't hold much water. Oh, and by the way, for a long time, while you lot were still chewing grass and guiding cattle around swamps, we controlled a quarter of the globe and gave God only knows how much to that world. Don't you go on about us being self-centred. Look at yourself, and then think hard on what you say.

5) You are one of the smallest countries of the world, nothing else to add

Now that's just comical. The USA is smaller than Brazil, or Russia, or China, ergo it is inferior. No? Best revise that "argument" then.

Oh yeah, thanks for the two thousand guys you sent, yeah thanks alot (if you don't smell the sarcasim you're dumber then I thought).

At least 8,000 in the three armoured brigades alone, but hey, don't let anything as mundane as facts get in your way.

Oh yeah, thanks for the two thousand guys you sent, yeah thanks alot (if you don't smell the sarcasim you're dumber then I thought).

Amusing fact: the largest single allied loss in the war was 12 US marines, who were killed by - hey-hey! - 12 US marines. At least our men can aim. Always helps.

Dude, don't even joke. BWO is one of the smartest men/women I ever met.
What the hell is a he/she some kind of Homaphodite?

Amusing fact: the largest single allied loss in the war was 12 US marines, who were killed by - hey-hey! - 12 US marines. At least our men can aim. Always helps.

'Our?' Where are you from, DPUO?

What the hell is a he/she some kind of Homaphodite?

No, I just don't know his/her gender. I'm assuming BWO is a female, but I could be wrong.

What the hell is a he/she some kind of Homaphodite?

Ever occur that he's doing BWO the courtesy of not ascribing him/her a gender when he doesn't know it? oh wait! Of course! You don't know what courtesy is!

RB: British and proud of it. I live In Manchester, home of rain, an annoying football team, and a large stadium that we used for some sporting event...:D

Ever occur that he's doing BWO the courtesy of not ascribing him/her a gender when he doesn't know it? oh wait! Of course! You don't know what courtesy is!

RB: British and proud of it. I live In Manchester, home of rain, an annoying football team, and a large stadium that we used for some sporting event...:D

Oh, really? I always assumed you were either American or Australian.

Amusing fact: the largest single allied loss in the war was 12 US marines, who were killed by - hey-hey! - 12 US marines. At least our men can aim. Always helps.
One shot one kill don't apply to droping bombs dude, and that is uncalled for loss of life is stil loss of life no matter what county they're from, you don't here me talking about British dead, do you? No, so show some respect for the dead, shit for brains.

I do think the US should buy the license to manufacture the Challenger 2 tank though. It really is better than the Abrams.

Oh, really? I always assumed you were either American or Australian.

Wow, that's curious...I always thought I gave off a fairly British flavour. Ah well, yep, British. Rule, Britannia, et cetera.

Another way in which Britain > America: better patriotic songs :P

(N.B. This is a joke and is not intended to spark another 20 pages of "debate" conducted by groups of yelling idiots who appear to be crackheads as well. Since this is the only thing that can possibly result from this statement I will now simply give an exasperated sigh.

*Sigh*)

At least 8,000 in the three armoured brigades alone, but hey, don't let anything as mundane as facts get in your way.

Actually, I think it was a lot more than that.

Read a history book.

If it weren't for Europe, America wouldn't be here. Lets face it, you owe Britain far more than it owes you:

a) You have our language which you continue to subvert. The English created english so therefore we should set how it is spoken.

b) Your system of government is near enough a direct copy of the British one

c) Your justice system is near enough a direct copy of the British one

d) You still use the Anglican church


In the end America is nothing but a runtling upstart of a nation, a twisted and ruined clone of Britain. You don't have the power to create anything of your own: you have only the power to copy and then destroy. America as a nation makes me sick to the very pit of my stomach: a hell hole full of xenophobic, obese red necks who think that they are the world and that no one else matters. You claim to have saved Europe: oh yes you did contribute but only after the Europeans had fought for 3 years. Only after Britain had spilled all her blood did you slink in like a mangy cur. Well let me tell you this: America couldn't have beaten Germany alone. Not without 1 million British soliders and the countless Commonwealth troops.


wow that's not stereotyping at ALL..seriously. you can't sound intelligent or expect anyone to listen to you when you make blatant moronic stereotyping statements like that. come on.

One shot one kill don't apply to droping bombs dude, and that is uncalled for loss of life is stil loss of life no matter what county they're from, you don't here me talking about British dead, do you? No, so show some respect for the dead, shit for brains.

Show some respect for your enemies and your allies, shit for brains. You know, the ones who can aim? The ones who buy most of your goods? The ones who you have to use for bases? The ones who supply your equipment designs? The ones who've helped you in this war in spite of the fact we didn't need to? The ones whose sector is, incidentally, far quieter and safer than yours?

You really should step back and take a long, hard look at your country and what it does. I did with mine, and I didn't much like it, but I felt satisfied, because I knew.

One shot one kill don't apply to droping bombs dude, and that is uncalled for loss of life is stil loss of life no matter what county they're from, you don't here me talking about British dead, do you? No, so show some respect for the dead, shit for brains.
Draconis Federation: Official Warning - Flaming.

Show some respect for your enemies and your allies, shit for brains. You know, the ones who can aim? The ones who buy most of your goods? The ones who you have to use for bases? The ones who supply your equipment designs? The ones who've helped you in this war in spite of the fact we didn't need to? The ones whose sector is, incidentally, far quieter and safer than yours?

You really should step back and take a long, hard look at your country and what it does. I did with mine, and I didn't much like it, but I felt satisfied, because I knew.
DontPissUsOff: Official Warning - Flaming.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Show some respect for your enemies and your allies, crap for brains. You know, the ones who can aim? The ones who buy most of your goods? The ones who you have to use for bases? The ones who supply your equipment designs? The ones who've helped you in this war in spite of the fact we didn't need to? The ones whose sector is, incidentally, far quieter and safer than yours?

You really should step back and take a long, hard look at your country and what it does. I did with mine, and I didn't much like it, but I felt satisfied, because I knew.

Don't worry about him, DPUO, I already reported him to the mods.

Heh. Thanks man. And btw, sorry about that thing before in the Zinn thread. I dunno, I know he defends the indefensible, but so do not a few people; nonetheless, I overreacted, so I'm sorry. And thanks for editing my post, Cog (I assume); again, Out-of-line.

Heh. Thanks man. And btw, sorry about that thing before in the Zinn thread. I dunno, I know he defends the indefensible, but so do not a few people; nonetheless, I overreacted, so I'm sorry. And thanks for editing my post, Cog (I assume); again, Out-of-line.

No prob. ;) I have nothing against Zinn as a person, I just figured he'd be great for an RP.

Actually, I think it was a lot more than that.

That's not including the Air Force that deployed 50 planes, the Royal Navy and their 11 fighting ships, nor the rest of the British Army (Artillery, Engineers, Military Police and SAS) - but I can't find exact figures for them right now, and I think the 8,000 might only refer to two of the 3 Armoured Brigades.

Anyhow: the whole point is that war is the last resort. Going to war is not in itself a good thing, but solving the problem by other methods is.

That's not including the Air Force that deployed 50 planes, the Royal Navy and their 11 fighting ships, nor the rest of the British Army (Artillery, Engineers, Military Police and SAS) - but I can't find exact figures for them right now, and I think the 8,000 might only refer to two of the 3 Armoured Brigades.

Anyhow: the whole point is that war is the last resort. Going to war is not in itself a good thing, but solving the problem by other methods is.

Either way, it was a helluva lot more than 2,000. ;)

I ain't gonna waste time quoting you.

Agreed, but they did as they were told

Ever heard of the cold war, huh, who was it that keept the communist form nuking the world, oh wait that was us.

Perhaps you should have, hate to say it but it would have united the world

Oh well excuse us for not being money grubing yanks as you put it, damn brits

No, the world don't revolve around the US, we just make sure it continues to revolve with the huamn species on it, we learned from the best

Less land mass, smaller then Japan (which last time I checked was still flying the US flag along side theirs)

I thought he referred to GW1 when he mentioned the 2,000.

I ain't gonna waste time quoting you.

Agreed, but they did as they were told

Ever heard of the cold war, huh, who was it that keept the communist form nuking the world, oh wait that was us.

Perhaps you should have, hate to say it but it would have united the world

Oh well excuse us for not being money grubing yanks as you put it, damn brits

No, the world don't revolve around the US, we just make sure it continues to revolve with the huamn species on it, we learned from the best

Less land mass, smaller then Japan (which last time I checked was still flying the US flag along side theirs)

No need for racist comments (even though I'm not British, I have deep respect for their nation, their people, and their culture).

And the only reason the USSR didn't collapse was because of us. We were a greater contributor to the spread of communism than any other nation.

Show some respect for your enemies and your allies, shit for brains. You know, the ones who can aim? The ones who buy most of your goods? The ones who you have to use for bases? The ones who supply your equipment designs? The ones who've helped you in this war in spite of the fact we didn't need to? The ones whose sector is, incidentally, far quieter and safer than yours?

You really should step back and take a long, hard look at your country and what it does. I did with mine, and I didn't much like it, but I felt satisfied, because I knew.
Oh well i forgot you guys were our suppioriors, Im sorry master Toby is your humble servant, phew

I was in the USAF during GW1 and I don't recall anybody complaining about the support the Brits gave us. As a matter of fact, we were pretty damn happy.

Either way, it was a helluva lot more than 2,000. ;)

Ah here we go - 45,000 - but I'm still unclear if that includes the Navy and RAF.

The war in Iraq was, without a doubt, a massive blunder and should never have happened. However, Europe OWES the US big time and should commit all available troops to supporing our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. They owe us not only because we saved them in 2 World Wars, but because we defended them throughout the Cold War. Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs. Furthermore, their assistance could improve the situation in the Middle East, certainly the world will be worse off if the US fails than if we succeed. So is there any reasonable arguement that European nations that refuse to pull their weight are anything beyond ungrateful cowards that have more concern for oil prices than the welfare of the world?

There are so many inaccuracies and misconceptions in this thread it is difficult to know where to begin.

First, the United States only got into World War I in the last year, and while the American contribution was important, the U.S. by no means "saved" Europe.

As to World War II, the U.S. got into that war because it was attacked by Japan. The war in Europe had been going on for two years without the U.S. stepping in. If fact had Germany not declared war on the U.S. there is some doubt as to whether Congress would have gone beyond a declaration of war against Japan to also include Italy and Germany.

Also, if any one nation is responsible for defeating Germany and "saving" Europe it was the Soviet Union which faced the brunt of the war against Germany, shouldered the greatest number of casualties, and turned the war around at Stalingrad.

Finally, countries do not "owe" each other. Any leader who acts on behalf of any other interest than the people he/she is elected to serve should be impeached, thrown out, receive a vote of no confidence, or however else he/she can be removed.

After the American colonies received French help, which made the American Revolution possible, the Americans were asked by France to help in their battle against England. The new American nation said no. Did we have an obligation to repay that debt - a debt so great that we would not even exist as a nation hadit not been for the French?

Absolutely not.

A country has an obligation to its own people and its own self interest and to no one else. The Europeans should help the American war effort against Iraq only if it serves their interest.

I ain't gonna waste time quoting you.

Agreed, but they did as they were told

Ever heard of the cold war, huh, who was it that keept the communist form nuking the world, oh wait that was us.

Perhaps you should have, hate to say it but it would have united the world

Oh well excuse us for not being money grubing yanks as you put it, damn brits

No, the world don't revolve around the US, we just make sure it continues to revolve with the huamn species on it, we learned from the best

Less land mass, smaller then Japan (which last time I checked was still flying the US flag along side theirs)

You really have som delusions, don'tcha? Let me set you straight.

The Soviets kept the Soviets from nuking the world, and don't forget it. If they'd wanted to, they would have done. They would have been exceedingly stupid to do it, but they didn't. Yes, the USA provided part of the deterrent (along with France and Britain), but ultimately, the decision rested with them.

We should have caved in? Right. Don't know what the results would be, but I'll wager you wouldn't be sitting here saying "look how we won the cold war", owing to the fact it'd still be going on.

You're not money-grubbing? News to me, but then again, I always was a bit of a Scrooge.

Learned from the best? Oh yeah, sure. You learned the art of making countries and people despise you. Can't see who taught you that.

And this last point is just laughable. What has land-mass to do with anything? Nothing! Japan's land-mass is wholly irrelevant! (Oh, and by the way, they have the strongest electronics and maunfacturing indstury on earth, last I checked; maybe you'd best start examining that theory.)

I thought he referred to GW1 when he mentioned the 2,000.

Personally I'm talking about 1991. 45,000 of the British Army were deployed in the Gulf then, whereas 43,000 seem to have been deployed there during the more recent fracas.

Im out, this ain't nothin but a flame thread, at first I thought I could shame you into being gentlemen but that seems impossible. One Fact holds true, both nations can stand alone but choose to remain allies because the fact we all want the best for our species.

Peace, Jerks

Why thankyou. I'm so glad you called me a "jerk." It's really made me quite happy for some reason. Good day.

Ever heard of the cold war, huh, who was it that keept the communist form nuking the world, oh wait that was us.

Explain to me why the Soviets would have wanted to nuke the world, would you? It seems to me that doing so would but something of an obstacle in the way of the global communist state they were supposed to be working towards...

Gawd, I would have thought that these Pissing matches between the Americans and Europeans would have fizzled out during Christmas break...

*Sigh* Cant wait till I move to Canada, or Ireland...

I don't like what's going on in America, but then again, I don't like whats going on across the entire world. I mean, we're out there playing soldier in Iraq, when North Korea is rearming its nuclear forces.

We are pissing off the rest of the nations, by ignoring the UN, something we tried so hard to create. Pretty Sqrewy world indeed...

Aye, the sad truth. What a sad world we live in, I suppose.

It's funny how no-one has anything to say about the Marshall plan. As I said, ungrateful.

When you insult people here it is no wonder that they do not respond well to you.

I for one am reasonable enough to bare in mind that you don't speak for all Americans.

But others forget that, hence the anti-Americanism.

The war in Iraq was, without a doubt, a massive blunder and should never have happened. However, Europe OWES the US big time and should commit all available troops to supporing our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. They owe us not only because we saved them in 2 World Wars, but because we defended them throughout the Cold War

Europe owes the US NOTHING!

First of all, the US left Europe and her allies to fight alone from 1939 till the US had NO CHOICE but to enter WWII as they had been attacked and Hitler declared war on the US on Dec.11/41. Why do Americans always think they "saved" Europe? They saved themselves.. and they reaped all the goodies after the war too I might add. America had no choice but to join.

As for the cold war... well that was a war only in name. Nothing actually ever happened. So no defending happened.

I suppose im grateful to the Americans but the insults i have seen in this thread and made me think twice about ever being nice to an American again, you dont need such a big army and i think the US is out for imperialism like the Marshal Plan, flooding millions into Europe was not all its cracked up to be. The millions could only be spent in America and your "Dollar Imperialism" was just a way to get back at the USSR. Americas fear of Communism has led to some bad decisions such as the pointless vietnam war which was hardly national self-determination, even worse was the incident in Paraguay where the natives DEMOCRATICALLY elected a communist leader but your American leaders encouraged extremeist riots to get rid of this DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader and put one of the worst dictators in History in power "Pinochet" who commited horrible atrocities to the Paraguay people who democratically voted a communist leader. The Americans set a bad example of democracy to the world and try ot infect it with their political ideas rather than what the people really want. Once again you dragged Britain into a war that more than 80% of the British people was against, teenagers in schools around the country were protesting and huge marches were made against the Goverment but we still fought against the public majority. HOWEVER America said that DEMOCRACY IS IMPORTANT YET YOU BROUGHT OUR COUNTRY INTO A WAR THE PEOPLE DID NOT WANT.

DURRR I R STUPID TEXAN!
I ain't gonna waste time quoting you. QUOTES ARE FOR EUROPEANS

Agreed, but they did as they were told

Ever heard of the cold war, huh, who was it that keept the communist form nuking the world, oh wait that was us. GUNS R GOOD!

Perhaps you should have, hate to say it but it would have united the world COMMUNISM R GOOD ! DURRR!

Oh well excuse us for not being money grubing yanks as you put it, damn brits AND YOUR MONEY

No, the world don't revolve around the US, we just make sure it continues to revolve with the huamn species on it, we learned from the best WE R AMAZIN

Less land mass, smaller then Japan DURRR I H8 GEOGRAPHY(which last time I checked was still flying the US flag along side theirs)LIKE ALL COUNTRIES SHUD!!!111 OMFG ROFL DURRR
guess which bits i added ;)

I would also like you to reflect upon the billions of dollars we pissed away rebuilding your ungrateful little nations after the war. Of course in your world view the USSR is probably to thank for that as well.
You do realise that the rebuilding wasn't out of the kindness of your hearts, but out of fear that Socialist governments may take over, more conducive to dealing with the USSR than the USA?
If that fear hadn't been there, America would have done nothing and let Europe rot. They only helped because it was in America's best interests to do so. So why should Europe feel gratitude towards America who only helped them because it was important to American first and foremost?

Geez, everyone gives us crap when we free a country and run into a little bit of trouble. I guess the basic human rights got thrown out the window then. As an American though, I don't think Europe owes us anything for the fact they have stood at our sides through thick and thin.

You do realise that the rebuilding wasn't out of the kindness of your hearts, but out of fear that Socialist governments may take over, more conducive to dealing with the USSR than the USA?
If that fear hadn't been there, America would have done nothing and let Europe rot. They only helped because it was in America's best interests to do so. So why should Europe feel gratitude towards America who only helped them because it was important to American first and foremost?

Of course, it was all out of American self interest just like about every thing else they ever do!

Most countries act primarily out of their own self-interest. It's called realpolitik. The US is definitely not alone in that.

Most countries act primarily out of their own self-interest. It's called realpolitik. The US is definitely not alone in that.

I won't argue that. I just wish more Americans knew that.. ;)

Of course, it was all out of American self interest just like about every thing else they ever do!


Yes, that is how nation states and public corporations work. Problems arise when people lose sight of that.

Yes, that is how nation states and public corporations work. Problems arise when people lose sight of that.
And realising that, you must also accept that gratitude may not be in a Nation's best interests at that particular time.
So therefore Europe does not owe the US anything, as by your definition, all nation states are inherently selfish.

And realising that, you must also accept that gratitude may not be in a Nation's best interests at that particular time.
So therefore Europe does not owe the US anything, as by your definition, all nation states are inherently selfish.

*Nod*

...And some more than others!

We do not owe USA a cent. If you want to claim that we do, list the exact amount of $ (or number of lives lost to defend our nation).

guess which bits i added ;)

The flames, perchance?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5457349&postcount=1

The war in Iraq was, without a doubt, a massive blunder and should never have happened. However, Europe OWES the US big time and should commit all available troops to supporing our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. They owe us not only because we saved them in 2 World Wars, but because we defended them throughout the Cold War. Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs. Furthermore, their assistance could improve the situation in the Middle East, certainly the world will be worse off if the US fails than if we succeed. So is there any reasonable arguement that European nations that refuse to pull their weight are anything beyond ungrateful cowards that have more concern for oil prices than the welfare of the world?

There are so many inaccuracies and misconceptions in this thread it is difficult to know where to begin.

First, the United States only got into World War I in the last year, and while the American contribution was important, the U.S. by no means "saved" Europe.

As to World War II, the U.S. got into that war because it was attacked by Japan. The war in Europe had been going on for two years without the U.S. stepping in. If fact had Germany not declared war on the U.S. there is some doubt as to whether Congress would have gone beyond a declaration of war against Japan to also include Italy and Germany.

Also, if any one nation is responsible for defeating Germany and "saving" Europe it was the Soviet Union which faced the brunt of the war against Germany, shouldered the greatest number of casualties, and turned the war around at Stalingrad.

Finally, countries do not "owe" each other. Any leader who acts on behalf of any other interest than the people he/she is elected to serve should be impeached, thrown out, receive a vote of no confidence, or however else he/she can be removed.

After the American colonies received French help, which made the American Revolution possible, the Americans were asked by France to help in their battle against England. The new American nation said no. Did we have an obligation to repay that debt - a debt so great that we would not even exist as a nation hadit not been for the French?

Absolutely not.

A country has an obligation to its own people and its own self interest and to no one else. The Europeans should help the American war effort against Iraq only if it serves their interest.

Of course, it was all out of American self interest just like about every thing else they ever do!

Unless you believe that the second invasion of Iraq was primarily motivated by the personal grudge that George Bush Jr felt after Saddam remained in power after the first Gulf War...

A country has an obligation to its own people and its own self interest and to no one else.

It would be nice if moral issues were actually that cut-and-dried.

Also, if any one nation is responsible for defeating Germany and "saving" Europe it was the Soviet Union which faced the brunt of the war against Germany, shouldered the greatest number of casualties, and turned the war around at Stalingrad.

What are you talking about? The Soviet Union was one of the aggressors in WWII, just like the Nazis, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy.

Unless you believe that the second invasion of Iraq was primarily motivated by the personal grudge that George Bush Jr felt after Saddam remained in power after the first Gulf War...

I find that hard to believe.

Unless you believe that the second invasion of Iraq was primarily motivated by the personal grudge that George Bush Jr felt after Saddam remained in power after the first Gulf War...

True and as long as the oil keeps pumping.

Thus far the only thing the American's have liberated the Iraqi's from is pretty much their lives. If you use stats per capita, the Americans are killing Iraqi's at a far greater rate then Saddam ever did or could have!. Via la Revolution!

And realising that, you must also accept that gratitude may not be in a Nation's best interests at that particular time.
So therefore Europe does not owe the US anything, as by your definition, all nation states are inherently selfish.

I take that European nations will stop complaining about how the US is acting now then?

I find that hard to believe.

In that case, what do you consider the primary motivation for the second invasion?

What are you talking about? The Soviet Union was one of the aggressors in WWII, just like the Nazis, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy.

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. The former U.S.S.R. was first to Germany and without them, WWII probably never would of been won when it was. More Russians died fighting Germany than any other ally. America was weak. Only after WWII did America become a super power and they did so by looting Europe after WWII. That's a fact. Pick up a history book! (That wasn't written in the USA)

There are two tacks we can start from:
1. Bush is a complete idiot. or
2. Bush is smart, and the idiot thing is for show.

A lot of people like #1, so we'll go with that. Since he's an idiot, it's not likely that he would be able to come up with an idea and do anything, so if we assume Option 1, we have to also assume that he is letting Cheney and Rove and anyone else operate as his brain.

You'll notice that during the Reagan Administration, there was a similar arrangement. Reagan was a figurehead - a fatherly figure.

If other people are doing his thinking for him, then although they may tell him the "Saddam and your father" thing to try and convince him, that's NOT the real reason.

That's why I don't think that's the real reason.

What are you talking about? The Soviet Union was one of the aggressors in WWII, just like the Nazis, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy.

YOU have no idea what you're talking about.

Invasion of Poland?
Winter War?

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. The former U.S.S.R. was first to Germany and without them, WWII probably never would of been won when it was. More Russians died fighting Germany than any other ally. America was weak. Only after WWII did America become a super power and they did so by looting Europe after WWII. That's a fact. Pick up a history book! (That wasn't written in the USA)

The U.S.S.R were also first to Finland in 1939 in a massive and unprovoked attack. Bolsheviks were really no better than the Nazis.

The U.S.S.R were also first to Finland in 1939 in a massive and unprovoked attack. Bolsheviks were really no better than the Nazis.

I suppose THAT is a matter of opinion.

What are you talking about? The Soviet Union was one of the aggressors in WWII, just like the Nazis, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy.

I'm not talking about the rightness or wrongness of political systems. Only that it was the Soviet Union that was primarily responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany.

I suppose THAT is a matter of opinion.

Let's ask the millions of Ukranians starved to death by Bolsheviks what they think of Bolshevism.

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. The former U.S.S.R. was first to Germany and without them, WWII probably never would of been won when it was. More Russians died fighting Germany than any other ally. America was weak. Only after WWII did America become a super power and they did so by looting Europe after WWII. That's a fact. Pick up a history book! (That wasn't written in the USA)


No, its not a fact. A lot of Russians died, yes. But a lot of Russians didn't even have boots or rifles in 1941. Without US logistics the USSR would have collapsed. In fact, the USSR didn't even begin to make real gains against the Germans until operations in the western theater weakened the industrial base of Germany and started to cause major draw down of troop strength from the eastern front.

Finally, if you look at the number of divisions engaged and destroyed, you will find that the USSR did not destroy the vast majority of German troops.

I could also point out that the western allies destriyed germany's air forces. If that hadn't happened the USSR would have been up shit creek.

Finally, I we hadn't been fighting japan, Stalin would have been in a two front war, which would have finished Russia. (As it was the withdrawl of Siberian divisions from the east after concluding a neutrality pact with Japan that allowed Moscow to be saved in earlier 1942).

In fact, now that I think about it, not only did Stalin bring a lot of these massive casualities on his own head, he also actively made things difficult for the western allies in the far east.

I am tired of this revisionist history that spins the USSR as the only nation to actually fight Germany.

I suppose THAT is a matter of opinion.

So is the "evilness" of Nazis, by that logic. About 60 million people were killed in Stalin's purges. Entire ethnicities in Siberia have been lost forever as tribal communities were purged of political heresy.

In reality, America was pretty screwed when the war began, when Hitler was asked if he was worried about america he answered: -

"what is america but movie stars and drama queens?"

and in a nut shell he was right, at the time the pacific fleet was gone, and your army was 100,000 poorly trained GIs, had the Japanesse and Germans invaded what would america have mobilised against them? the national guard (a group of farm boys with shot-guns) im sure the Wehrmacht was quaking in its boots from that threat....
Anyways, the point is that they didnt, why? because the British, Canadians, Austrailians, New Zealanders, Indians, South Africans, Poles, French and the Soviets (albiet unwillingly) fought and died to buy you 3 years to prepare, thats why the allies didnt launch the second front until 1943, because we werent ready.
Im English, so i will say that its true we couldnt beat the Germans and the Japanesse together, i also say that neither could the USA, it took the Anglo-American allies along with the Soviets and all the other resistance and free fighters TOGETHER to win the war.
Oh and by the way, had you minded your own pissing buisiness in WW1 world war 2 wouldnt have happenned, you did not win it, you were in it for one year, so dont talk bullshit.
And on the subject of the cold war (which ended 14 years ago) why are US soldiers still based in Europe? i wonder if we asked to have European military forces (for the new EU standard military) bases in the USA whether Americans would allow it? somehow i doubt it, it would seem that there is one rule for america and another for us.....
Oh and i have to say im not anti-american in anyway, i love americans and america, i associate with you guys more than the Europeans, its these outragous statements i hate, especially when i was in the palace at Versailes (The EUs most important historical site) and some American said "This is borring, we should have gone to Euro-Disney" (the equivalent would be me going to Arlington cemetary or the Lincoln Memorial and saying that the place was rubbish and borring).
Also its a bad idea to argue history with the Europeans for this reason: -

"Europeans are obsessed by it [History] and Americans are ignorant of it" (cant remember who said it).

I think youve opened a pandoras box here mate :)

Let's ask the millions of Ukranians starved to death by Bolsheviks what they think of Bolshevism.

Perhaps.. but I don't believe nor do I think the majority believes that they were "no better" than Nazi Germany.

No European help. North Vietnam 1 USA 0. Say no more!

I suppose THAT is a matter of opinion.


Don't forget, in 1939 Stalin started to send jews to the gulag in an effort to please Hitler. He started the final solution before the Nazis.

Perhaps.. but I don't believe nor do I think the majority believes that they were "no better" than Nazi Germany.

I am always of the opinion that the dead never have a good thing to say about the government that intentionally killed them.

So, the typical dead Iraqi wouldn't have anything good to say about the US.
The typical dead Ukrainian wouldn't have anything good to say about Bolshevism (it being the root philosophy that allowed Stalin to kill them).
The typical dead Jew wouldn't have anything good to say about Hitler.

And, in the next world, each would probably be saying that the government that killed "them" was worse than the government that killed the others.

Perhaps.. but I don't believe nor do I think the majority believes that they were "no better" than Nazi Germany.

Popular opinion is irrelevant since history is written by the victors. The Nazis were not all wicked baby-eaters either. They actually implemented several political reforms, improved welfare and literacy. They also had an active environmentalist movement (driven by mythological ideology rather than scientific thinking).

Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs.

- And you need your massive military because...? What, are all the mainland Chinese poised to swim the Bering Strait and take America by foot?

Furthermore, their assistance could improve the situation in the Middle East, certainly the world will be worse off if the US fails than if we succeed.

- How's that? I think you mean to say that George bush will be worse off if the US fails. The civilians currently getting their heads blown off in Iraq would probably dispute this point, as a US failure would almost certainly mean there'd be less of a chance that their heads would get blown off.

So is there any reasonable arguement that European nations that refuse to pull their weight are anything beyond ungrateful cowards that have more concern for oil prices than the welfare of the world?

- Do you have a reasonable question to ask, or do you just prefer to elicit heated responses by asking loaded questions?




DT.

Perhaps.. but I don't believe nor do I think the majority believes that they were "no better" than Nazi Germany.

The USSR and the Nazis were completely different: one was trying to establish a new world order which had no place for the Jewish people within it, whilst the other was trying to establish a new world order which had no place for the Jewish people with in it.

I am tired of this revisionist history that spins the USSR as the only nation to actually fight Germany.

The reality is by the time the USA had no choice but to show up in 41, Germany had already been weaken to a state is was almost over but the crying for Germany. How nice of the USA to try and take credit (as usual) now your real victory was nuking the thousands of innocents in Japan. I mean, lets give credit where credit is due.

Oh and don't bother with it saved millions of lives. It didn't. Japan was already willing to give when Truman dropped the A-bombs. To this day, birth defects and cancer is 1000 times more prevalent in those cities than any ratio in any other country. Way to go. The USA, our hero's! :rolleyes:

The USSR and the Nazis were completely different: one was trying to establish a new world order which had no place for the Jewish people within it, whilst the other was trying to establish a new world order which had no place for the Jewish people with in it.

Now that is brilliant.

How nice of the USA to try and take credit (as usual) now your real victory was nuking the thousands of innocents in Japan. I mean, lets give credit where credit is due.

I understand your point of view in the sense that people often overestimate America's significance in the war. I just think that your effort to laud Russia in WWII is misguided.

The reality is by the time the USA had no choice but to show up in 41, Germany had already been weaken to a state is was almost over but the crying for Germany.

In 1941??? The accepted view is that it wasn't until Stalingrad (summer 42 - spring 43) that the tide was turned.

I understand your point of view in the sense that people often overestimate America's significance in the war. I just think that your effort to laud Russia in WWII is misguided.

Fair enough, we are both entitled to our opinion. I only state what I believe to be true and I'm certainly not always right, nor is any one. It just gets annoying when some I state some because I know not all Americans think that way, believe the world would be gone by now if had not been for them.

Fair enough, we are both entitled to our opinion. I only state what I believe to be true and I'm certainly not always right, nor is any one. It just gets annoying when some I state some because I know not all Americans think that way, believe the world would be gone by now if had not been for them.

If the US had entered the war on the side of the Axis, I think that the world would be very different. The Axis would have won.

i completely disagree

thats it

The reality is by the time the USA had no choice but to show up in 41, Germany had already been weaken to a state is was almost over but the crying for Germany. How nice of the USA to try and take credit (as usual) now your real victory was nuking the thousands of innocents in Japan. I mean, lets give credit where credit is due.

Oh and don't bother with it saved millions of lives. It didn't. Japan was already willing to give when Truman dropped the A-bombs. To this day, birth defects and cancer is 1000 times more prevalent in those cities than any ratio in any other country. Way to go. The USA, our hero's! :rolleyes:

Are you seriously saying that Germany was almost destroyed by 1941?

There war production didn't reach its peak until early 1943, and if it hadn't been for allied bombing it would have continued to grow.

Had the US not entered the war in Europe in 1941, the Battle of the Atlantic would probably have been lost, and hitler could have left the UK to wither on the vine while throwing a much greater punch at the USSR.

Given the fact that the USSR total war production capacity for things like aircraft and truck was miserable, it is almost certain they would have been smashed too. Yes the USSR lost a hell of a lot of men, but that's not how wars are won.

I would remind you that the US lost more men than the UK did in WWII. And did the bulk of the fighting after d-day.

Also the entire pacific was pretty much the US.

Finally the point of the A-bomb was not to save japanese lives, but to save american lives. In that respect it worked fine.

If the US had entered the war on the side of the Axis, I think that the world would be very different. The Axis would have won.

That's pure speculation on your part. Believe it or not we were doing okay even without the USA. It may of taken longer.. the world may even be different today.. but it's not like the world over the last few years is any thing to brag about any way in my opinion.

That's pure speculation on your part. Believe it or not we were doing okay even without the USA. It may of taken longer.. the world may even be different today.. but it's not like the world over the last few years is any thing to brag about any way in my opinion.

Churchill says different.

It can be argued that the only reason America won its revolution is because France joined the war, the british army needed 100,000 men to control the North American continent, but was only given 30,000, and after the french joined the war, 10,000 of them were moved to defend the sugar islands, so it could be argued America OWED France (as well as for the Statue of Liberty) and WW2 was simply payback....

That's pure speculation on your part. Believe it or not we were doing okay even without the USA. It may of taken longer.. the world may even be different today.. but it's not like the world over the last few years is any thing to brag about any way in my opinion.

I'm just looking at it from the perspective that all those resources that the US expended in the Pacific would have been available if the US were Axis. And, the Axis would have had the bomb first under those conditions.

The US was a production powerhouse far greater than the other allies put together. In a war of attrition, the Axis/US combination would have won.

Wouldn't have been a good day in history, but perhaps we've only delayed the inevitable.

Yes the USSR lost a hell of a lot of men, but that's not how wars are won.


"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win by making the other poor bastard die for his" - Patton.

True to a certain extent, but given the Soviet predeliction to trade both land and lives for time, so as to take advantage of the Russian Winter and the muddy conditions come the springtime, the deaths of the Soviets were not as pointless as they might first appear.

I'm just looking at it from the perspective that all those resources that the US expended in the Pacific would have been available if the US were Axis. And, the Axis would have had the bomb first under those conditions.

The US was a production powerhouse far greater than the other allies put together. In a war of attrition, the Axis/US combination would have won.

Wouldn't have been a good day in history, but perhaps we've only delayed the inevitable.

I'd love to debate this more and I may come back to do so later. But I really have to feed my daughter her lunch. I'm late by 20 minutes. :)

"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win by making the other poor bastard die for his" - Patton.

True to a certain extent, but given the Soviet predeliction to trade both land and lives for time, so as to take advantage of the Russian Winter and the muddy conditions come the springtime, the deaths of the Soviets were not as pointless as they might first appear.


Wasn't pointless for them in that case, because trading time to get to the Winter (and fall and spring mud), effectively stalls any campaign. But that only worked for them because ulitmately US involvment allowed them to nourish their own army with American supplies in the interim, as well as gain a local advantage of the Germans as more divions were drawn from the east to counter the western allies growing offensive operations.

Had the US not entered, the USSR would never have been able to produce its own large tank force, and it would have faced a much greater offensive punch during the renewed camapaign season.

In the event that the USSR had to go it alone against the Germans, all trading lives for space and time would have accomplished is the dely of the inevitable.

Had the US not entered, the USSR would never have been able to produce its own large tank force, and it would have faced a much greater offensive punch during the renewed camapaign season.

In the event that the USSR had to go it alone against the Germans, all trading lives for space and time would have accomplished is the dely of the inevitable.

Ah, remember that I'm holding the position that it was a combination of Soviet ruthlessness and preparedness to sustain massive casualties, in combination with the US's massive logistical power and over-production of munitions and supplies that lead to victory in Europe.

i think New British Glory made the point quite well on page 4, america cant take that all it really is is a twisted clone of Britain,Canada is what america could have been.
you think that you are the saviors of the world and that gives you the right to not listen to any other country when it comes to american matters like settling the score with saddam, but we all know it was because he was a menace to the world and he was going to drop nukes on europe and israel.

isnt it funny that america owes its freedom to france and that the all american girl lady liberty is really french, but that is all fogotten because it would be too much of an embarressment to admit that it should really be 'US owes France'

if you really hate europe do you mind giving us back our language, your placenames, all the money WE put into colonising your pittiful country and finally you can outlaw football because it is a pale immitation of rugby,thank you

ps while you are liberating countrys do you mind giving back the native americans all their land you took of them seeing you feel that jews should have palestine because they were kicked out 2000 years ago

Wasn't pointless for them in that case, because trading time to get to the Winter (and fall and spring mud), effectively stalls any campaign. But that only worked for them because ulitmately US involvment allowed them to nourish their own army with American supplies in the interim, as well as gain a local advantage of the Germans as more divions were drawn from the east to counter the western allies growing offensive operations.

Had the US not entered, the USSR would never have been able to produce its own large tank force, and it would have faced a much greater offensive punch during the renewed camapaign season.

In the event that the USSR had to go it alone against the Germans, all trading lives for space and time would have accomplished is the dely of the inevitable.

You are correct that the tractor plants at Stalingrad, Kharkov, and Chelyabinsk, which were later converted into tank production facilities, were erected with almost complete American assistance and equipment. Also, the Kirov plant in Leningrad was reconstructed by Ford. However, these plants were ALL built prior to the outbreak of war.

The American Lend-Lease program did provide the U.S.S.R. with approximately $11 billion (of the $50 billion given to all European countries). However, after the German offensive Russia moved their tank plants behind the Ural mountains.

Had the U.S. not joined the war it is certain that the war would have lasted longer, but it is highly likely that the Soviet Union would have still defeated Nazi Germany.

Okay for all you people who think Europe owes the US something needs a wake up on their facts.

World War 1:
Germany launched one massive offenseive in March 1918 as a last desperate chance to break the Allied lines. The offensive was stopped due to counter attack by British, Australian and Canadian forces at Amiens. The British blockade of Germany also meant that there was a massive food shortage and starvation was everywhere. Also, Germany's allies were defeated soon after by French and British forces. So I am sorry America but Germany still would have lost no matter how many troops you sent.

World War 2:
Now here it is a little more tricky. For sure America was responisble for heavily heavily damaging Japan and played a big role in D-Day, however America didn't win the war. If Britian had been defeated, then Hitler would have completely dominated Europe, not to mention that Britisah colonies in Africa (i.e. Egypt) would have surrendered to Italy giving Mussolini a huge advantage in Africa. As for Soviets, they definetly benefitted in the early fighting by American and British supplies. What they really did was they refused to give up and forced Hitler into a two front war. With most of Germanys armies in the East, it gave the other Allies opportunites like D-Day and the Invasion of Italy.
Most importanly, we must remeber that it took the combined might of 26 nations to defeat Germany, Japan and Italy. No one nation could have stood up to them, making it a combined victory.

Cold War:
America would have been in a much weaker position if Western Europe became Communist.

So stop saying one country owes another country.

Had the U.S. not joined the war it is certain that the war would have lasted longer, but it is highly likely that the Soviet Union would have still defeated Nazi Germany.

Leaving what as a result? Three superpowers? The US, USSR and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?

Most importanly, we must remeber that it took the combined might of 26 nations to defeat Germany, Japan and Italy. No one nation could have stood up to them, making it a combined victory.


I get 34 nations as the Allies, and relegating the Axis to just being the big three is ignoring Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Finland (-ish).

You are correct that the tractor plants at Stalingrad, Kharkov, and Chelyabinsk, which were later converted into tank production facilities, were erected with almost complete American assistance and equipment. Also, the Kirov plant in Leningrad was reconstructed by Ford. However, these plants were ALL built prior to the outbreak of war.

The American Lend-Lease program did provide the U.S.S.R. with approximately $11 billion (of the $50 billion given to all European countries). However, after the German offensive Russia moved their tank plants behind the Ural mountains.

Had the U.S. not joined the war it is certain that the war would have lasted longer, but it is highly likely that the Soviet Union would have still defeated Nazi Germany.

No. Because the only reason that the USSR was able to concentrate those plants soley on tractor production is becuase of the little things like 50,000 trucks we gave them.

World War II, is an interesting study in logistics. On the allied side, on the US had anything like the industrial potential required to mount major and sustained offensives. Both the UK and the USSR lacked the industrial capacity.

As a consequence of this, the USSR and UK defense industries became largely vertically integrated into an overall production scheme, allowing each nation to concentrate the majority of production efforts in areas where it held the most expertise: aircraft in the case of the british; tanks for the russians.

They were able to do this however, only because US excess capacity more than adequately supplied them with vital equipment that their domestic industry was not producing.

Had it not been for this US aid - which is nominally priced at $11bn, but is in all reality probably far greater - the USSR would not have had the option of efficiently streamling its production for tank production. The upshot of this would have been twofold: First, the USSR would never assembled the size of tank forces needed to gain victories at Kursk and the rest, and would have been far less able to withstand Geman armoured thrust; and, second, the USSR war productivity as a whole would have fallen, and it dealt with an increasingly complex production schedule.

Without US aid, the Soviets just would not have had the material to fight.

Edit: Had the US not enetered the war at all, USSR would have been fighting a two front war as well.

i think New British Glory made the point quite well on page 4, america cant take that all it really is is a twisted clone of Britain,Canada is what america could have been.
you think that you are the saviors of the world and that gives you the right to not listen to any other country when it comes to american matters like settling the score with saddam, but we all know it was because he was a menace to the world and he was going to drop nukes on europe and israel.

isnt it funny that america owes its freedom to france and that the all american girl lady liberty is really french, but that is all fogotten because it would be too much of an embarressment to admit that it should really be 'US owes France'

if you really hate europe do you mind giving us back our language, your placenames, all the money WE put into colonising your pittiful country and finally you can outlaw football because it is a pale immitation of rugby,thank you

ps while you are liberating countrys do you mind giving back the native americans all their land you took of them seeing you feel that jews should have palestine because they were kicked out 2000 years ago

You Arrogant, Narrow minded, Fucking Retard! Your logic is more screwy than ne1 yet. First of all we don't owe France a thing, we more than payed them back for the minor aid they gave us in the last 6 months of the American Revolution...God i can't belive ur still sore about that. Secondly, every nation that has ever been has taken its land from some1 else, Rome took it from the Huns, Mexico from the Indians, ETC. Finaly, "Your Pitiful Country" How, How can you even say that. It doesn't matter what country in Europe your from, it will still "Pale in comparison" to the US. And, as for your sur names and your language, you can have whats left of them back, US english and British english is very different, by the way, so Fuck OFF

You Arrogant, Narrow minded, Fucking Retard! Your logic is more screwy than ne1 yet .... so Fuck OFF

Way to show your intellectual superiority.


http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5457349&postcount=1

Secondly, every nation that has ever been has taken its land from some1 else, Rome took it from the Huns, Mexico from the Indians, ETC.

Iceland?

Rome took it from the Huns
Realy? :rolleyes: When did this happen?

The war in Iraq was, without a doubt, a massive blunder and should never have happened. However, Europe OWES the US big time and should commit all available troops to supporing our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. They owe us not only because we saved them in 2 World Wars, but because we defended them throughout the Cold War. Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs. Furthermore, their assistance could improve the situation in the Middle East, certainly the world will be worse off if the US fails than if we succeed. So is there any reasonable arguement that European nations that refuse to pull their weight are anything beyond ungrateful cowards that have more concern for oil prices than the welfare of the world?
1) You didnt win WWI. The British blockade would have had Germany on her knees in another few months to a year.

2) You made BILLIONS, nay, TRILLIONS out of selling us weapons in WWII, and if you dont remember, you were actually attacked in WWII. You didnt help just to be nice to Europe. Also if the UK had fallen to German and British North Africa had too then you would have had no supply base and no real way to invade Germany, so you could equally say that you owe Britain because you would have lost without us.

3) WWs I and II were fought for a reason. Ie, we were attacked. Not some trumped up crap about Iraq harbouring terrorists, which has never been substantiated and even the White House has backed away from.

4) It depends what the US succeeds in. So far through Guantanimo Bay and Abu-Graib, all they've done is succeed in alienating the Middle East, especially when added to the US bias toward Israel over the Israel / Palestine situation. That isnt going to get anywhere.

5) As for oil prices, it's the US that will benefit through lower oil prices once they get the pumps up and running in Iraq, so I dont see your point.

Just because you helped us out 60 years ago doesnt mean we should bend to your every whim, not to mention that the same government isnt in place now as was in WWI, WWII or the Cold War, so it's not a fair comparisson.

Rome took it from the Huns, Mexico from the Indians,
Rome took land from everyone, not just the Huns- e.g The Franks, Vandals, Persians. As for Mexico? I think that the Spanish were the ones who stole from the Aztecs and Incas etc- Mexico as a state didn't exist until the 19th Century.

It doesn't matter what country in Europe your from, it will still "Pale in comparison" to the US. And, as for your sur names and your language, you can have whats left of them back{/QUOTE] erm, cheers? We don't really want them back, they're too mangled. Plus you're only saying that- we pointed out these things to show that Americans have a European heritege.

[QUOTE=The Irish Isle] US english and British english is very different, by the way, so Fuck OFF
US and British English are different, but I think the words Fuck OFF mean the same on both sides of the Atlantic. You changed our language, but it's still a dialect of English- it's called English because that's where it came from. Last time I checked England was a part of Europe, another way to show your heritege. Stop badmouthing us and telling us to go forth and multiply, it's not necessary in a debate like this.

I don't really go for this whole 'you owe us' argument. It's the job of of my government to work for the interests of this country, whatever the circumstances of the past may be. I don't think Iraq was in our interets so I don't think our government should have bothered with it.

I'm still waiting for the 'Germany owes the US' subject to make an appearance - hey! we shot you, bombed you, bayonetted you, so the least you can do is stand by us in our future wars and offer us your whole-hearted support...

If Britian had been defeated, then Hitler would have completely dominated Europe, not to mention that Britisah colonies in Africa (i.e. Egypt) would have surrendered to Italy giving Mussolini a huge advantage in Africa.
Mussolini couldn't even subdue Greece on his own. And the Italians lost over 100,000 men in Africa before the arrival of the Africa corps. Despite outnumbering the British forces 5 to 1.

Rome took land from everyone, not just the Huns- e.g The Franks, Vandals.
Rome didn't take any land from them.

Rome took land from everyone, not just the Huns- ...

Rome didn't take land from the Huns - they didn't show up in Europe till about 370AD, and it was them taking lands from the Romans after that.




Edit: due to a brainspasm I wrote 'BC' instead of 'AD' originally. Curse you stupid brain.

I'm an American but Europe owes us notihng. Everyboy talks this BS about how France owes us for D-Day when really that was us repaying them for the f**king EXISTENCE of our country! As for the rest of Europe, what, exactly, do they owe us for? Screwing up the war on terror and putting all of Western civilization in jeopardy? Oh, and we owe England for not bombing the s**t out of us and taking back their colonies when they had the chance.

Rome didn't take land from the Huns - they didn't show up in Europe till about 370AD, and it was them taking lands from the Romans after that.

I already mentioned this twice but noone seems to listen to me.

twas give and take with the Huns, they arrived in Europe and started mass migration. They then moved into Roman occupied areas, and when the Romans took back more land then they were pushed back again. They started the decline of the Roman Empire.

twas give and take with the Huns, they arrived in Europe and started mass migration. They then moved into Roman occupied areas, and when the Romans took back more land then they were pushed back again. They started the decline of the Roman Empire.

No, if anything it was the 'Germans'* that took land back from the Huns.




* ie. Gepids, Rugians, Franks, Alemanni, Thuringians, Lombards, Saxons, Uncle Tom Cobbley, and all.

twas give and take with the Huns, they arrived in Europe and started mass migration. They then moved into Roman occupied areas, and when the Romans took back more land then they were pushed back again. They started the decline of the Roman Empire.
The Roman empire was already in decline. The Huns just speaded up the process.

* ie. Gepids, Rugians, Franks, Alemanni, Thuringians, Lombards, Saxons, Uncle Tom Cobbley, and all.
Leaving out the big ones? Ostrogoths and Visigoths.

the only reason America stuck up for Europe in both world wars etc, is because they cant stand to see Europe united under one flag. If we were, then America would have some serious compotition in the global economy. they couldnt have that now, could they? therefore, they keep us arguing and bickering amoungst ourselves by keeping us as small countries - easy-to-deal-with in other words.

Leaving out the big ones? Ostrogoths and Visigoths.

As I understand it the Visigoths were no longer a 'nation' by the time the territories of Central Europe were being taken back from the Huns, and the Ostrogoths only carved out a slice roughly the same size and location as the former-Yugoslavia. I certainly left out the Slavs, who seemed to gain the most land out of the affair, but their new holdings had never been part of the Roman Empire, and so didn't seem entirely germane to the matter.


EDIT: my source for this is the extremely handy Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, by Colin McEvedy from 1961. Anyhow, got to go, flame you all later.

As I understand it the Visigoths were no longer a 'nation' by the time the territories of Central Europe were being taken back from the Huns, and the Ostrogoths only carved out a slice roughly the same size and location as the former-Yugoslavia. I certainly left out the Slavs, who seemed to gain the most land out of the affair, but their new holdings had never been part of the Roman Empire, and so didn't seem entirely germane to the matter.
The fate of the Huns and their empire was sealed after they lost the battle on the Plains of Chalons. They make a gamble to take Rome the next year but still. They had been defeated and their Germanic subjects now knew they were not invincible and started rebelling after Atilla's death in 453. During the battle of Chalons the German tribes on both sides were the bulk of the soldiers. Even among the Roman legions. As the majority of Romes soldiers by this time consisted of Germanic mercenaries. The Visigoths fought on the side of Rome and the Ostrogoths, beeing subject to the Huns, on the other side.
Both where fundamental, mostly the Visigoths, since they provided Rome with the largests contingent. The Visigoth kingdom existed in the south of France and all of Spain and Portugal, after their defeat by the Franks in 506 just Spain and Portugal, untill 711. Then they were destroyed by the Arabs.
And untill the late 5th and early 6th century there were hardly any Slavs in Eastern Europe. They moved west once the East was clear of Germanic tribes.

As I understand it the Visigoths were no longer a 'nation' by the time the territories of Central Europe were being taken back from the Huns, and the Ostrogoths only carved out a slice roughly the same size and location as the former-Yugoslavia. I certainly left out the Slavs, who seemed to gain the most land out of the affair, but their new holdings had never been part of the Roman Empire, and so didn't seem entirely germane to the matter.


EDIT: my source for this is the extremely handy Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, by Colin McEvedy from 1961. Anyhow, got to go, flame you all later.
The atlas is v.handy- I used it for my Knighthood module.
since you have that, then you'll know that Aetius made an alliance with the Visigoths who were living in southern France, and together they beat the Huns in a big battle in 451 AD.

The T-34 was invented by an american.
Not quite accurate. The Christie type suspension used in the T-34 was indeed invented by a american, but the rest of the tank was 100% Russian. Christie didn't even live long enough to see his suspension become a world beater, he died during the war, embroiled in a legal battle with the US military over his varios patents.

The atlas is v.handy- I used it for my Knighthood module.
since you have that, then you'll know that Aetius made an alliance with the Visigoths who were living in southern France, and together they beat the Huns in a big battle in 451 AD.
Didn't you read my post above yours? :mad:

The Visigoth kingdom existed in the south of France and all of Spain and Portugal, after their defeat by the Franks in 506 just Spain and Portugal, untill 711.


(back very briefly)

Ah, yes, you are right. Mea culpa. However, none of this territory was occupied by the Huns, although it certainly had been part of the Roman Empire.

(and away again)

(back very briefly)

Ah, yes, you are right. Mea culpa. However, none of this territory was occupied by the Huns, although it certainly had been part of the Roman Empire.

(and away again)
I didn't mean it like that. But the Visigoths were fundamental in bringing down the Huns. Eventhough they didn't live in Hunnic territory.

- And you need your massive military because...? What, are all the mainland Chinese poised to swim the Bering Strait and take America by foot?

Nah, just gives us something to do with the billions we have laying around. Be real.

Truthfully the military was built up somewhat under Reagan (Remember the cold war and all that ) and cut by about 40 to 50% under Bush I and Clinton.

After all you can not lay off some 4 million workers directly employeed by the Department of Defense (Active Duty Military, Reserves, Cilvi service support personnel ectra ) and cause the collapse of all the industries that support the military ( and the millions lad off by that ) without causing an economic disaster could you?

And how would have an economic disaster in the US reverberated around the world?
Well for one, the billions spent in Foreign aid would have simply disappeared, causing famine in various spots around the world.

It also would have likely percipitated economic depressions in every free market country in the world. When, if for no other reason, the US stopped making intrest payments on the national debt.

And truthfully Bush II has not cause all that much a build up in Armed forces, certainly has not called for a draft ( since he cant actually institute a draft, only Congress can do that ) in fact he has stated numersous times that he is against a draft.

So we have a massive military because we had one during the Cold war and couldnt dissasemble it any faster than we were doing anyway.

I would guess we were lucky we still had it when 9/11 took place.

- How's that? I think you mean to say that George bush will be worse off if the US fails. The civilians currently getting their heads blown off in Iraq would probably dispute this point, as a US failure would almost certainly mean there'd be less of a chance that their heads would get blown off.

Oh I dont know about that...Imagine if you will the US left tomorrow.Now you have the Sunni's (20% of the population) that was favored by the former government and made up the bulk of that government that oppressed and tortured and slaughtered the Kurds ( 20%) and the Shi`a ( pretty much the remaining 60%)...You also have the visitors but I think they are a small small percentage so we will disregaurd them in the wider conflict.

Do you think that the Shi`a would not recall the decades of oppresion and victimization heaped upon them by the Sunni's? DO you think everything will come up roses and they will all embrace each other like brothers once the mean and evil USA is gone?

Hardly a likely scenario given the regions propensity for things like suicide bombers dont you think?

As for Iraqi casualties, Saddam was causing quite a few dont you think?
Torture
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140082001?open&of=ENG-IRQ

100's of thousands "dissapeared"
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE010062001?open&of=ENG-IRQ

More dissapearences
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140051997?open&of=ENG-IRQ

Some Iraqi official have claimed that at least 1,000,000 Iraqis were killed during the reign od Saddam Husien, we will use that since I am certain any refutation will cite the largest mubers you can find. So..

1,000,000 / 25 years = 40,000 per year or about 110 a day


Amnesty International Annual Report 2004 - Iraq - Hundreds dead, thousands wounded
(Please note it doesnt say 10s of thousands it says hundreds)
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/irq-summary-eng

Well, while not by any means something to be proud over it does appear to be considereably fewer than what Saddam was doing on an annual basis doesnt it?

Amnesty International is, I feel, a source you might believe. Please read the reports from previous years as well, it makes fascinating reading, to think that a popultion would not rise up in arms and over throw such a government is to me increadible.

Is it that you just have something against the US so no matter what we do or how much better we do manage to make things your still going to point the finger and accuse the US of being Evil.

And just to get back on topic

How Evil was the Marshall plan in Europe after WW2?

Could we not have just left Europe alone to build themselves back up?

I mean its not like we HAD to pour billions into rebuilding the infrastructure of Europe. We could have spent the money elsewhere. our own infrastructure, or we could have used it to pay off some of our own national debt at the time

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

About half way down the page it shows the national debt in terms of FY 2000
dollars all the way back to 1940. Just as the war drew to a close the US owed approximately 2 trillion dollars in National debt or about 200 billion in 1945 dollars. We have never been out of debt since.

Certainly the Soviets didnt bother to do anything on that scale in Eastern Germany did they? If they had, wouldnt German unification have had a much lower cost to West Germany when absorbing the East German economy?

When did the Governments assisted by the Marshall plan repay those funds?

It might be argued that WW1 and WW2 we just paid back the French for the treasure and what? 10,000 troops they lent to us during the revolutionary war?

Humm...How many US troops are buried in France?
Approximately 75,000?...wonder how they ended up there..looks like a 7.5 to one ratio...that is if every singe French soldeir sent to the US during the revolutionary war died here. Do you have figures on their mortality rate?

All that said,

No the French doesnt OWE the US anything, but as allies you opposed us and and it appears more and more that the corrupt Oil for Food program might have had influance with your desicion.

You wonder why we recall those of us who died freeing your country twice in the past century?

No the Germans dont OWE the US anything, but as allies you opposed us and it apears more and more likely that you had economic reasons for doing so
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jcbw/jcbw030417_1_n.shtml

At least you didnt state outright you would veto any UN resolution authorizing force making the US and UK having to do this with fewer allies and fewer resources.

the only reason America stuck up for Europe in both world wars etc, is because they cant stand to see Europe united under one flag. If we were, then America would have some serious compotition in the global economy. they couldnt have that now, could they? therefore, they keep us arguing and bickering amoungst ourselves by keeping us as small countries - easy-to-deal-with in other words.
Do it, it might give us insentive to unite both North and South America under one flag. Then we won't need any more oil from the Arab countries.

I'm still waiting for the 'Germany owes the US' subject to make an appearance - hey! we shot you, bombed you, bayonetted you, so the least you can do is stand by us in our future wars and offer us your whole-hearted support...
Hmm, you ever notice that all of Americas allies are countries America went to war with at some time, France, Frence and Indian war, Britian, Revolutionary war/war of 1812, Mexico, Texas' Revolution/Spanish American war, Germany, WWI/WWII, Japan, WWII, Afganistan(Have we been to war with them?). You seem America defeats her enemies, rebuilds them then offers to be allies, it works, bet you in 4 years Iraq will be on the list.

i think New British Glory made the point quite well on page 4, america cant take that all it really is is a twisted clone of Britain,Canada is what america could have been.
you think that you are the saviors of the world and that gives you the right to not listen to any other country when it comes to american matters like settling the score with saddam, but we all know it was because he was a menace to the world and he was going to drop nukes on europe and israel.

isnt it funny that america owes its freedom to france and that the all american girl lady liberty is really french, but that is all fogotten because it would be too much of an embarressment to admit that it should really be 'US owes France'

if you really hate europe do you mind giving us back our language, your placenames, all the money WE put into colonising your pittiful country and finally you can outlaw football because it is a pale immitation of rugby,thank you

ps while you are liberating countrys do you mind giving back the native americans all their land you took of them seeing you feel that jews should have palestine because they were kicked out 2000 years ago
1) Oh yeah like we want to be like the Canadians, D'sL
2) Oh yeah if it's such a big inconvenience why is it that I learned that france gave us Lady liberty, and helped us repel Britian, if it was all an inconvenience then I wasted a year learning that.
2.0) Not really we paid France back with d-day
3) We all ready have stoped speaking British English, Frence French, Spain Spanish we all ready have the native language's, American english, Cajin, and Mexican spanish, not includeing our own slang, which might I remind you alot of BRITISH IMIGRANTS use.
3.0) Hmm yeah just like India, huh, only gave us your left overs.
3.1) Foot Ball, is nothing like rugby, if you say that then hell golf's like polo, and soccers like cricket, so who dive a damn.
4) We can't because we are natives, "We've gone native" I beleive the term is.

No matter what you say, you Euro's have a funny way of allways asking for America's help when something goes awall, WWI, WWII, Veitnam. The fact is we don't need you guys, it's just nice to have other people who's language we can speak. Look at asia, we're in good with China, Japan is still as loyal as can be, South Korea looks up to us, the Phillipines still praise America's name. I ask my self why don't we just give up on Europe, you've been no help, and start talks with other asian countries, unitity through trade I say. You Euro's bite the hand that feeds you (not really feeds as does pat) not nice. You don't hear Americans talking bad bout J'pan, China, S Korea, The Phillipines, you wonder why, they show respect, and we show it in return.

You don't hear Americans talking bad bout J'pan, China, S Korea, The Phillipines, you wonder why, they show respect, and we show it in return.
Fact is you don't deserve any respect.

Fact is you don't deserve any respect.

Likewise.

Some nasty shit on this threat. Wonder if our respective politicians carry on at each other like this.... yeah... probably!

No matter what you say, you Euro's have a funny way of allways asking for America's help when something goes awall, WWI, WWII, Veitnam. The fact is we don't need you guys, it's just nice to have other people who's language we can speak. Look at asia, we're in good with China, Japan is still as loyal as can be, South Korea looks up to us, the Phillipines still praise America's name. I ask my self why don't we just give up on Europe, you've been no help, and start talks with other asian countries, unitity through trade I say. You Euro's bite the hand that feeds you (not really feeds as does pat) not nice. You don't hear Americans talking bad bout J'pan, China, S Korea, The Phillipines, you wonder why, they show respect, and we show it in return.

Ummm...no. China still hates our guts.

Hmm, you ever notice that all of Americas allies are countries America went to war with at some time, France, Frence and Indian war, Britian, Revolutionary war/war of 1812, Mexico, Texas' Revolution/Spanish American war, Germany, WWI/WWII, Japan, WWII, Afganistan(Have we been to war with them?). You seem America defeats her enemies, rebuilds them then offers to be allies, it works, bet you in 4 years Iraq will be on the list.


We never went to war with Afghanistan, though we helped them during the Cold War when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Afghanistan was known as the USSR's Vietnam. The USSR pulled out of Afghanistan after not being able to hold it.

Yes Eurpore owes us, dinner and drinks. We paid last time and they didn't sleep with us so fair is fair.

Likewise.
We're not the ones whining for it.

Ummm...no. China still hates our guts.
But they love our $$$$$$$$$$!

We're not the ones whining for it.

Neither am I.

We're not the ones whining for it.
ahem...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=383870

But they love our $$$$$$$$$$!

That they do. Lenin once said that, when it was time to hang the capitalists, the capitalists would try to sell rope to the hangman (or something to that effect). How right he was!

ahem...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=383870
Ahem.....
Drunk commies
Location: New Jersey
:rolleyes:

Go to the British war graves on the Normandy beaches and say that you cold bastard. Two of the beaches were British (Sword and Juno).

Not to be nit picky but just a correction ... Brits took Gold & Sword. Canadians took Juno.

Ahem.....
Drunk commies
Location: New Jersey
:rolleyes:
More than drunk commies has posted on the thread...

But they love our $$$$$$$$$$!

Are you aware that if China stopped buying US dollars and goods, your economy would collapse? China will soon rule the world. And that, is a true story

And as for socialist welfare policies - its called caring. We don't make pregnant women pay £30,000 to give birth like in your hospitals. And we don't let the poor starve to death on our door steps. If you think having some milk of human kindness is socialism then God help you.

GO YOU! HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!

Are you aware that if China stopped buying US dollars and goods, your economy would collapse? China will soon rule the world. And that, is a true story
If they tried economic sabotage you can expect:

A) A war
B) The US government freezing the dollar
C) The Economy Switching over to a wartime economy.

GO YOU! HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!
And we don't do that either.

The war in Iraq was, without a doubt, a massive blunder and should never have happened. However, Europe OWES the US big time and should commit all available troops to supporing our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. They owe us not only because we saved them in 2 World Wars, but because we defended them throughout the Cold War. Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs. Furthermore, their assistance could improve the situation in the Middle East, certainly the world will be worse off if the US fails than if we succeed. So is there any reasonable arguement that European nations that refuse to pull their weight are anything beyond ungrateful cowards that have more concern for oil prices than the welfare of the world?

So because we helped Europe in it's time of need, this then requires all of Europe to support us in any hair-brained, half baked, cock-eyed, asinine imperialist scheme we come up with?? Thats like buying your friend a 99 cent order of fast food fries and then hounding him to take you out to an expensive restaurant to pay you back; not smart, and not very friendly in my opinion.

and another thing


3) We all ready have stoped speaking British English, Frence French, Spain Spanish we all ready have the native language's, American english, Cajin, and Mexican spanish, not includeing our own slang, which might I remind you alot of BRITISH IMIGRANTS use.


3.1) Foot Ball, is nothing like rugby, if you say that then hell golf's like polo, and soccers like cricket, so who dive a damn.
is.

You still speak english my friend. Slang means nothing. Cockneys dont claim to speak a different language because of slang. We accept people in yorkshire speak english, even if we cant understand them

Your 'football' ( football being an english game, so we should get the say in what football is ) is extremly like rugby. Have you not seen a game of rugby. essentially its your game, only with no padding and less tedious

If they tried economic sabotage you can expect:

A) A war
B) The US government freezing the dollar
C) The Economy Switching over to a wartime economy.

a war all experts agree you would lose. so why declare it? not being an irresponsible, foolish redneck are we???

The vast majority of Europeans are grateful for the US role in liberating them from fascism and soviet communism. But does that mean we should put up with ignorant American arrogance??
Just to let you know, not all of us Americans are arrogant, although I must agree that a lot are. And also, dont be prejudice against all of us Americans, remember, within each country, race and religion there are those of us that would fit the stereotypes, and those of us that do not. Try to use the words "some" or at least "most".

And I do not believe that the Europeans owe us anything. And for those people who keep saying britian found America... o.o Spain funded columbus, if you want to say he was the one that found america, and he was Italian, so do not take all the credit. And the english language was actually a blend of many other languages. Originally includeing Flemish, dutch, german, Icelandic, Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish. This was till about the year 1000 when the french language had a profound impact on the language. Uhm, I seem to have gotten off subject...

I think that the smarter Americans would appreciate help from Europe, and would like it if they didn't criticize every move we make, and blame all of us, because we do not really have say over what our government does. We get to chose from the puppet on the right, or the puppet on the left. And even then we don't directly chose our president, the electoral college choses for us, and they do not have to agree with us.

Sorry for being long winded all, I just had nothing else to do.

If they tried economic sabotage you can expect:

A) A war
B) The US government freezing the dollar
C) The Economy Switching over to a wartime economy.
now nuclear war would not be pretty

If they tried economic sabotage you can expect:

A) A war
B) The US government freezing the dollar
C) The Economy Switching over to a wartime economy.

So are you claiming here that economic sanctions do in fact work, and so the massive US military is not as needed as is claimed?

So are you claiming here that economic sanctions do in fact work, and so the massive US military is not as needed as is claimed?


I see nothing there that talks about the effectiveness of Economic Sanctions, cause from what he is saying, if China placed economic sanctions on America, and China had no army because it believed "Economic Sanctions" work, then America would invade China without resistance other then militia and the socialist army that some(unnamed) european countries have.

I see nothing there that talks about the effectiveness of Economic Sanctions, cause from what he is saying, if China placed economic sanctions on America, and China had no army because it believed "Economic Sanctions" work, then America would invade China without resistance other then militia and the socialist army that some(unnamed) european countries have.

Go back to the post that Andalucaie was responding to:


Are you aware that if China stopped buying US dollars and goods, your economy would collapse? China will soon rule the world. And that, is a true story

Note how Andalucaie has equated refusing to buy US dollars and goods (ie. economic sanctions) with 'sabotage' - the emplacement of sanctions by China on the US is seen to drastically alter the status of the US... depsite the repeated US claim that such sanctions don't in fact work.

Go back to the post that Andalucaie was responding to:



Note how Andalucaie has equated refusing to buy US dollars and goods (ie. economic sanctions) with 'sabotage' - the emplacement of sanctions by China on the US is seen to drastically alter the status of the US... depsite the repeated US claim that such sanctions don't in fact work.


It Depends on what nations put sanctions on who. If a nation like USA were to put a trade sanction on Ethiopia, but the two nations have no trade agreements at all, then trade sanctions would be worthless.

And as for socialist welfare policies - its called caring. We don't make pregnant women pay £30,000 to give birth like in your hospitals. And we don't let the poor starve to death on our door steps. If you think having some milk of human kindness is socialism then God help you.

Please read this transcript (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/sinclair.htm) in its entirety.

As for your war in Iraq, it was an ill managed folly. You were right to do it and Britain was right to help but in Britain we supported the war for Iraqi liberty. You went there out of a greedy urrge to grab some cheap oil. Its interesting the first targets the American troops secrued were the oil rigs.

My favorite Canuck exposes the specious "Blood for Oil" fallacy (http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20030328) best. As for the high priority placed on protecting oil wells, oil well conflagrations are extraordinarily dangerous, cannot be extinguished without the aid of elite specialized firefighting teams, and cost millions of dollars to subdue. The colossal amount of time, money, and effort expended on such operations is better devoted to less tenable concerns. An ounce of prevention, eh muchacho?

I mean no offense, but I advise that you invest more than five seconds of cogitation into such matters the next time you feel the need to brandish your soap box. :(

Come on, you europeans are always on about how Americans love polluting the air and ruining the environment, but when we help the environment by stopping terrorist of lighting oil wells on fire, we still take flak from it by you europeans, never satisfied, they ask for our help when they cannot do something by themselves, but despise us when we get things done.

Please read this transcript (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/sinclair.htm) in its entirety.
I did, it is no better backed up or sourced and no truer than any of the ranting that we tend to do here.

My favorite Canuck exposes the specious "Blood for Oil" fallacy (http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20030328) best. As for the high priority placed on protecting oil wells, oil well conflagrations are extraordinarily dangerous, cannot be extinguished without the aid of elite specialized firefighting teams, and cost millions of dollars to subdue. The colossal amount of time, money, and effort expended on such operations is better devoted to less tenable concerns. An ounce of prevention, eh muchacho?

I mean no offense, but I advise that you invest more than five seconds of cogitation into such matters the next time you feel the need to brandish your soap box. :(
Like the cartoon - don't agree as I think it presents the oil arguement over simplistically but it is well done. The best way to prevent massive and uneccessary use of resources is not to have wars which waste resources on an unbelievable scale. So in your scenario in order to prevent pollution the US has caused even more pollution.

I think the US was wrong to defend western europe from the USSR after WWII. We should have let stalin have them, and concentrated on keeping China free instead.

After all, what did we get for guarding the Fulda gap and the marshall plan? I'll tell you a bunch of whiney, snobish idiots who look down there nose at us and constantly undermine our interests.

At least Japan is grateful, and we nuked them. Twice.

Please confim what you have just said, That China and Europe are things for the US to play with?

If ignorace is bliss, your well up on cloud 9

Please, I mean just.....

*walks away shaking head*

Said it before, say it again. The UK was denied Marshall Plan aid as payback for electing a socialist government - thats why rationing continued here well into the fifties.

Yeah, sure, not like European scientists came up with the atom bomb...
Well actually they did numpty! Where do you think more than half of the manhattan project scientist were from! Christ. get a bloody real education.

A great what if but the fact Hitler had the pond in his way kind of suggests we were not high on the list.

a shame really cos if the german plans in wwi and wwii to bomb america hadn't been thwarted by lack of a plane that had the fuel capacity to reach you, perhaps you would have learnt some fucking humility.

Yah, we could have beaten germany alone. As long as we could use your little island as a starting base.

Frankly, the brits were more of a hinderance than a help after 43. But hell, you guys didn't even win a battle until we joined the effort and started helping you. I admit you are a plucky bunch though.
I am amazed at the ingorance of the facts displayd by Americans on this forum. How many US soldiers were fighting the Germans and Itialians in Africa? None! A well trained army of the British empire defeated one of the best generals known on the planet, with no help from the US.
Yes supplies sent by the US to Britian helped, which the British paid for in spades. Yes the support of the US was welcome. But as Hitler would have been happy to leave the UK alone andthe start of the war if we agreed to carve up the rest of the world I think the US owes Britian and France for standing up for what was right.
As to the hinderance of the British, if was not the British that fouled up in the battle of the bulge and nearly lost it, it was not the British than ran so fast through Italy that more time was spent mopping up than should have been required. It was not Britain that took so long to get off the landing places on D day. It was the British that gave the US Radar, the jet engine, the merlin engine, crack the enigma code and captured an enigma machine, stopped heavy water production and slowed the production of the german atom bomb, took out V weapon launch sites, performed all precision bombing raids and low level attacks, used paratroops effectivly (bar Arhnem) to secure forward positions, had the most effect and first special forces (SAS), had the first and best war time special opps (SOE).
Can we not agree that what the US lacked in quality it more than made up for in quantity and that the reverse is true for Britian. And lets not forget the contribution of the Anzacs in the far east.
No wonder there is a bubbling resentment of the US in many european nation if this is the attidiute of the people they contact!

Said it before, say it again. The UK was denied Marshall Plan aid as payback for electing a socialist government - thats why rationing continued here well into the fifties. Yes a terrible thing democracy no wonder the US did not want it to flourish!

You forgot we invented the computer when try to crack the enigma code too, then sold it to the US for almost nothing. Churchill really didn't get technology.

a shame really cos if the german plans in wwi and wwii to bomb america hadn't been thwarted by lack of a plane that had the fuel capacity to reach you, perhaps you would have learnt some fucking humility.
Germany was working on a number of aircraft that could fly to the US from bases in europe, they flew one to within 50 miles of new york. They also had a two stage V2 in the pipe line that could hit the US from europe. Maybe if the Uk had made peace and shared it's tegnoligies with germany rather than the US we would not have to feel so grateful. After all Hitler saw the UK as an allied spirit at the start of the war. The germans could then have had the A bomb first and adelivery system that could hit the US from France. That would have changed the world.
Shame of it is he was up to so much other terrible stuff that we would never have forgiven our selves for not opposing him at the earliest opportunity.

You forgot we invented the computer when try to crack the enigma code too, then sold it to the US for almost nothing. Churchill really didn't get technology.
Yes we have so much to thank the US for. There was also the time we gave them all our supersonic research information in exchange for theirs, only they never gave us theirs.

Yes, as in we wore the Soviet system down. It is now a shattered wreck, no longer capable of invading and destroying western europe.

We however are just fine thank you.


it was always a fucking wreck. do you seriously think that post 1950 there was anything to fear from the east? not a fucking chance. people queued for fucking cabbage for hours. no exactly the kind of organization that represents a state in the throes of power and glory. Communism never worked. never will in a single country (except one that is rich enough in resources to be fully self sufficient and not have to rely on economic bullies like the USA whose 'free trade' policies and sanctions have fucked the world over a thousand times). The USA did not destroy the soviets by militarycontention. they helped (along with the rest of the americanized, capitalist world) to economically pressure a system that could have worked if left alone.

The ignorance of some of the US posters here is the same as those that still believe that eddison invented the light bulb or that the Wright brothers were the first to flay a powered heavier that air aircraft. Do some bloody research!

Ummm...no. China still hates our guts.

Actually it's more like they hated America, then they loved America and now they're not particularly keen. For a while in the 90s America was incredibly well regarded by the youth, but Bush (and to a lesser extent Clinton) has created a lot of negative feeling. The returning students from the US helped create a more positive impression in the 90s, countering the official government line, but unless the visa system is sorted out soonish then there'll be a dwindling number of them in future. The vast majority of students I teach are considering places in Europe, Canada and Australia with very few considering the US.

But they love our $$$$$$$$$$!

And you'll learn to love their RMBs. Expect a lot of Chinese investment in the US (ala Legend and IBM) in the future.

[snip]
And you'll learn to love their RMBs. Expect a lot of Chinese investment in the US (ala Legend and IBM) in the future.
Excellent point.

Maybe the US governement's previous (and somewhat still) anti-communist inclinations may have something to do with China's less than enthusiatic outlook on the states?

Merry Christmas!

Seems like US here is begging help from Europe, but they are too proud to say it without insulting Europeans in the same sentence. ;)

((Edit: Typo))

I am amazed at the ingorance of the facts displayd by Americans on this forum.

Wait for it...

How many US soldiers were fighting the Germans and Itialians in Africa? None! A well trained army of the British empire defeated one of the best generals known on the planet, with no help from the US.

Ha. Ha. No, but seriously... 'Kasserine Pass' ring any bells?, or is your understanding of history really that bad?

Maybe the US governement's previous (and somewhat still) anti-communist inclinations may have something to do with China's less than enthusiatic outlook on the states?

Not really, I mean, it's not like there's any communists running China anymore. The government's antipathy is mostly about Taiwan and certain US economic policies, plus it's always nice to have a big bad to distract the populous (though it's mainly Japan that serves that purpose).

I hate to disapoint you all but after Franklin D Roosevelt died we had no reason to support the USA anymore. When the veterans of WWII die we have no reason to thank America for what it did anymore. Even when the trucks, weapons and ships from that time are scrapped we have no obligation left. The World Wars are over, and times have changed again. Why should we thank a nation that has changed as well as our opinions, priorities and world views? Did we defend the South African boers when they where accused of Apartheid because they so bravely resisted English Imperialism hundred years ago? Do we harbor any hate for the Spanish because they unleashed their "Spanish Fury" on their lowland territories, while we aided and fought beside them in the civil war (unoficially)? Do we break eachother's neck over which is better: France for introducing law and order under Napoleon or the Russians, English and Germans for beating them out of our country? Face it: look for now allies or reform. The large majorities of Europeans critize every act of hostility from the USA, but are not above eating at Burger King or watching MTV. I don't think that's hypocricy though, it's seeing the difference between government and country. And besides, you might shout "Frog F***ing French" all the time but where does your cheese, wine and expensive cars come from? Not just France, but from all over Europe. That's the genius of the Marshall plan: to promote trade. I don't believe Truman or any president after that would have helped Europe for the common good. Berlin was walled off, but because it wasn't easy to trade with it anyway Chruchev was allowed to get away with it. Actually, the reason why it fell again was due to the efforts of Germany and Russia to melt down the entire Cold War. And also, the Sovjet Union fell because of Breshnef, not because of Reagen. The man did nothing as damaging to the USSR as Breshnef and his selfish, arrogant imperialist policies. I would have given the USSR only ten more years at most until its collapse if Reagen had ignored it like nearly every other president. America did as little to destroy the Sovjet Union as the Sovjet Union did to conquer Europe after WWII. And hey, if the USSR had existed ten more years maybe Putin wouldn't be telling us all to stay away from Ukraine and his Spetznazis stationed there.

Europe does not owe America, America does not owe Europe. America gave Britain money and weaponry, and they gave America a defensive position to strike from. America gave Stalin trucks, tanks and handweapons and Stalin gave America the Cold War. Canada gave the USA reinforcement, and America gave...yes, what did America ever give Canada? Australia gave the US a base of operations, the USA gave them defense. The Dutch Indies gave the US another (temporary) base of operations, the US gave the dutch 'the finger' when Indonesians and Dutch killed each other. America gave Nationalist China (a fascist state) resources, China gave Japan heck. The US gave Italy freedom again, Italy gave them Berlusconi or Bush man's best friend. The US gave South Vietnam troops, South Vietnam adopted their 'Communists eat babies!' doctrine. The US (and the UK, Canada and refugees) gave Europe freedom, Europe gave them lots of demonstrations in their honor and held up a mirror for the USA.

The US helped Europe 'to preserve freedom and democracy'. Thanks to your freedom and democracy we can now protest your every decision as we see fit and there is no legal way of preventing us from doing so. If you had wanted Europe to agree with you on everything then your should have made satelite states out of Germany, France, Italy, etc. The US of that time did not ask for anything in return, so you can claim nothing. You will not get it. If you want something from us, earn back our frienship. I would like to see that happen, I sincerely want to see Europe and America agree and be friends. But the way the USA has been behaving these last four years we do not agree with. Fortunately in four years the US will change their ways and hopefully for the better. Untill then, have fun with Japan, Iraq, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Israel, China, Cuba and the UN. I'm sure they all want to give you something, nice or less pleasant.

The us didn't save us in the first world war, the helped us yes but save??
The second we couldn't have won without the US. We admit that.
As for the cold war, isn't that the fault of the US? Aren't they one of the biggest reasons it begon?

And to say that Europe has such good welfare thx to the US army, phuh
It just o so sad that the US pound billions of dollars into their army. Europeans are smart enough to see that. We have other priority's then an army. Europe didn't support the war and neither did the nato. So the us got pissed and did it anyway. And now they want help of europe. How sad. We already sended more then enough troops and thats just to make sure the US doesn't screw it up even more. I admit Europe istn't perfect, but i'm sure as hell fucking happy that i live in Europe and not in the US.

The second we couldn't have won without the US. We admit that.


I don't.

<snip>

Don't you just know that when somebody who's been around for almost 2 years and made 33 posts contributes something it'll be worth reading. I don't normally do this but, bravo, excellent post.

HAHAHAHAHAHA, this is awesome, why the heck should Europe owe the US, we have supported all your wars against every country, furthermore, the US was always given the best deals in all their import/export products, that's why their economy is so big... for the rest, they killed all oil-based economies... if any, the US owes Europe, but if you don't agree with me you probably also believe the US can survive without the support of Europe...

I don't agree. Europe has not aggreed with a lout of wars of the US. And to say that their economy is based on us?? Hmm don't really know. All I know is that the US economy is stagnating.

Yeah might be, might even nuke you asses while im at it, he. Oh yes i forgot you guys still use Battle ships, old stlye, how many carriers you got, like three? Hmm? Huh, like you could stand against the chinese with that weak army, hell I could take over your country with a militia group I know, yeah and look at the failure rating for the harrier huh, only you and Thailand plan to use Harriers in the future, oh you pissed we got NASA is it? Beat you guys to space, so sad, bohobohohoho, just eccept the facts:

1) The "UK" (how many names does one country need, seriously) is a country in decline, you no longer have any of you holdings.

2) You rely to heavily on American protection, ever since WWII we became the king of the seas, we became airforce A #1, our Army has had few problems it couldn't solve, and you guys/girls haven't been to war since when was it, 1941? around there

3) Your economy, ie the "pound" (what exactly is a pound, a pund of shit?) is being swamped by the EC "Euro"

4) You guys are the most arrogant egomanical centerillists, no wonder Germany wanted and still wants to kick your ass

5) You are one of the smallest countries of the world, nothing else to add

1) Well actually we do have some of our holdings: Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, the Falkland Isles and some other isles. Not to mention Canada, Australia and New Zealand who still hold the Queen as head of state willingly.

2) Well actually the 2nd World War ended in 1945 so yes we have been to war since 1941. And by the way, of the Allied forces in Europe 2 million were Americans but 1 million were British. Oh yes and then there was the Suez Canal crisis where America forced Britain to surrender our territory through the threat of economic sanctions. Then there was the Falkland Isles and the two Iraq wars. The reason we have no empire left is because of America - because after WW2 you threatened to impose ecomoic sanction on us unless we granted the colonies independce. So we were forced to rush out of Africa, leaving barely any plans or infrastructure behind. So in reality Britain has more reason to hate you than love you.

3) The pound is still far stronger than your Mickey Mouse dollar or the Donald Duck euro and is still considerable a far more viable currency than either of them. And actually I think it was meant to mean a pound of gold, you ignorant red kneck. And by the way its the EU not EC.

4) You are calling us that?! Ha! At least most of our people can point the USA out on a map. If you handed one of your redneck Texan friends a map, he probably couldn't point out the UK. Or the USA for that matter. He'd probably just dribble on it.

5) Yes but that didn't stop us from ruling 1/4 of the world, creating the first truly capitalist society, creating the first industrialised economy and from creating America did it?

I actually am beginning to pity some Americans. They have to live in the same country as you.

In my opinion the Americans are the bad guys, and are not that much different than the countries they fight against.

1: The Americans think they are the best. But are they? (Ghetto's, gangs, prison's are full)
2: Everybody who thinks different then them is "evil". And they will try to spread their will over the world. (with force if necessary)

Ofcourse we have to thank them for their help in WW1 and WW2, but they wouldn't have helpt in WW2 if they weren't attacked too (besides the the support to the UK).

And to the cold-war issue, they didn't win, they just outlasted the russians, whose political system failed, because of bad implementation of Marxisme. A good implemented Socialist political system works just as good, maybe even better then a Capitalist system.

Aih. Joined this thread a day late.

Don't think Europe owes US would commit to war because of it.

However Iraq war getting the messed cleaned up ASAP with the help of Europe would benefit everybody in the long run a hell alot more than letting it run down the way it is.

Aih. Joined this thread a day late.

Don't think Europe owes US would commit to war because of it.

However Iraq war getting the messed cleaned up ASAP with the help of Europe would benefit everybody in the long run a hell alot more than letting it run down the way it is.

Europe help the US? After all they made us put through? What? Europeans are wussies when they dont want to go to an unjustified war, but when the heat is too much for the USA, they are useful after all! The US kicked everyone out of Iraq in the beggining. It didnt even wanted the UN there (and after it got out, they didnt made any efforts to bring them back again). And clean up iraq? Where do we start? Following the non-existant american plan? They are just screwing up the Iraquis. Europe wont go with that, and i dont think even the Bush administration wants that - Especially the Bush admnistration. For accepting help from countries that didnt kissed their asses, would be accepting that they fucked up in iraq. And their little plans (whatever those are) for iraq, would have to go down the drain. Are you seeing Rumsfeld coming out to the public and saying "For the sake of the iraqui people and us all, could the world help the USA on iraq, just a bit?" I DONT THINK SO.

1) Well actually we do have some of our holdings: Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, the Falkland Isles and some other isles.

Northern Ireland is hardly a 'holding' as it is part of the United Kingdom. Gibralatar and the Falkland Islands are overseas territories of the UK, but not actually part of it. If you are going to claim that 'we' still have Northern Ireland, then you might as well claim that 'we' still have Scotland, Wales or England.

Frankly, Who gives a Fu*k? Why would you want Europe to owe America, or America to owe Europe? Heck, heres my next point, can countries really owe each other? I don't think so, only people can owe each other, you guys are thinking in terms of how things work in Nation States, where countries can owe each other... Why? Cause in NS, countries are singular individuals under an alias. Now, should a majority of the population or either europe, or the US, decide they owe one another, great for them. But that will happen the day I build my own country, develop FTL technology, and wage massive wars in space, where one day, is equil to one earth year.
I mean, why don't we just drop this ridiculous subject, its worse than those jokes that people use over and over until its dead. I mean, this is the same thing over and over again. Lets all go find a good RP or find an intelligent subject to discuss, and stop all this BS.

Ofcourse we have to thank them for their help in WW1 and WW2, but they wouldn't have helpt in WW2 if they weren't attacked too (besides the the support to the UK).

They were also operating the lend-lease programme giving support to the USSR prior to Pearl Harbour, and their escorting of convoys in the west Atlantic prior to that shows that it was not solely the attack which caused them to help.