NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously ban them. They are ineffective and a waste of taxpayer money. That money should be spent on the military or in Americans pockets, your thoughts.

What are you, twelve?

It works fine in the UK. See no reason why it shouldnt work in the US

Seriously ban them. They are ineffective and a waste of taxpayer money. That money should be spent on the military or in Americans pockets, your thoughts.

Yes ... people should not be allowed to learn to read or write or perform basic math skills. Educated working class people are a threat to the ruling elite.

Yeah ...

Ban them ...

*coff*

Right.

That would be an absolutely terrible idea. This country needs more and better public education in order to compete in the world economy, not less.

What are you, twelve?
No Im not, and Im not joking, think about it. Private schools are always better funded and make better students.

The money is already going to the military. Public schools are the training camps/brainwashing centers for tomorrow’s murderers/soldiers.
People around the world look at this country and wonder why we are so fucked up. I’ll tell you why right now.

Our schools don’t just exist to educate us, they exist to instill in us accepted morality and make us servants to the state (their words “productive member of the community”) This isn’t something I’m making up. Something along these lines is in the mission statement of the vast majority of public school districts.

No Im not, and Im not joking, think about it. Private schools are always better funded and make better students.
And so all people who can't afford education don't get it?

(Oh, and I assume you mean American public schools, 'cos in England, Public schools are the ones that charge. The government funded ones are state schools)

No Im not, and Im not joking, think about it. Private schools are always better funded and make better students.

Not really. You get out of an education what you put into it. Some of the best people in the world came from public schools.

Yes ... people should not be allowed to learn to read or write or perform basic math skills. Educated working class people are a threat to the ruling elite.

Yeah ...

Ban them ...

*coff*

Right.
Thank you, at least someone agrees with me.

yes, we don't spend nearly enough on our military. Since we spend many times more than the 2nd highest country.:rolleyes:

Maybe try fixing it, considering the best way to lose any advantage we actually have is by remaining uneducated.

I ditto Nazz's statement.

It works fine in the UK. See no reason why it shouldnt work in the US
The US is much larger and majority opinion is controlled by different ideologues than the UK.

No Im not, and Im not joking, think about it. Private schools are always better funded and make better students.


Troll on another forum please.

At any rate, private schools are more well-funded because they rely on wealthy people to pay large sums as tuition.

Thank you, at least someone agrees with me.

I was being sarcastic. I don't agree with you.

Incidently, did you learn to spell "abassadorship" in private school?

And then what? Replace them with private schools that cost even more? I went to state school, and I turned out fine (as my GCSE result will show you).

And seriously - put the money into the military?! Like America needs more money poured into creative ways to annihilate small third world countries. Maybe it could be put into something beneficial? Like, for example, research into alternatives to fossil fuels? Disaster aid?

And so all people who can't afford education don't get it?
Then you could set up charity scholarship programs where people could voluntarily give to the charity pool for people who cant afford it.

No Im not, and Im not joking, think about it. Private schools are always better funded and make better students.
blanket statements tend to be very wrong. The private school in my town is rapidly becoming bankrupt and has a whole 5 teachers right now. Meanwhile, our public school system sends 99% of each graduating class to higher education, often to ivy and top tier schools.

No Im not, and Im not joking, think about it. Private schools are always better funded and make better students.
No, they're not, except in your deluded little Rush Limbaugh world. If there's a disparity in the scores between private school students and public school students, it comes from the fact that private schools can select out failing students--public schools don't have that option, as they serve the public and have to take all comers.

Then you could set up charity scholarship programs where people could voluntarily give to the charity pool for people who cant afford it.

Nobody would donate.

Let's just keep things the way they are.

I say force the military to beg for donations and put all of that budget into education.

I was being sarcastic. I don't agree with you.

Incidently, did you learn to spell "abassadorship" in private school?
I intentially misspelled ambassadorship for like the 20th time, but thanks for asking.

I go to public school, which allows me the chance to go to http://www.iu29.org/stcenters/ which kicks ass. I like public school.

Not really. You get out of an education what you put into it. Some of the best people in the world came from public schools.
Yeah. Like me! :D

So that all that is left is Private School or homeschooling?

I did Private School, and was not fond of it (not to mention the immorality and what not was far worse then any public school I was a student at), and from my experience with homeschooled people they are less socially apt.

Sounds like a plan to me ! :rolleyes:

No Im not, and Im not joking, think about it. Private schools are always better funded and make better students.

And renforce the class system because (moron) people have to pay. And who are the ones who can pay? The higher end middle classes. So guess what, the children of the families who cant pay dont go to school. Which means they cant get a good job, so their children cant go to school etc.

No, they're not, except in your deluded little Rush Limbaugh world. If there's a disparity in the scores between private school students and public school students, it comes from the fact that private schools can select out failing students--public schools don't have that option, as they serve the public and have to take all comers.
not to mention, when your family is spending 20,000 on your education, you damn well better be getting an A.

I'll assume that you were educated in a state school?

Then you could set up charity scholarship programs where people could voluntarily give to the charity pool for people who cant afford it.

Yes, because so many people will be willing to do that voluntarily. What the hell do you think is the premise behind state schools? People providing funding for those who can't afford private education. Only this way they actually do it, rather than relying on other people to make up for their tight-fistedness.

Here's a thought: Take money out of the military and use it to improve the public school system. The only reason private schools are more effective is that they are better funded and generally better managed.

Yeah. Like me! :D
And modesty is just one of your many fine features:rolleyes: :p

And then what? Replace them with private schools that cost even more? I went to state school, and I turned out fine (as my GCSE result will show you).

And seriously - put the money into the military?! Like America needs more money poured into creative ways to annihilate small third world countries. Maybe it could be put into something beneficial? Like, for example, research into alternatives to fossil fuels? Disaster aid?
We dont need alternatives to fossil fuels and disaster aid is not the Government's responsbilit. Thats one of reasons why I cant understand why so many people are upset at the President over Katrina, he did way more than what should have been expected of him.

not to mention, when your family is spending 20,000 on your education, you damn well better be getting an A.
Of course, if your family is spending more than that--say on special donations to the school--then you do't even have to go to class and you'll pass. But they have to spend a lot. :D

Nobody would donate.

Let's just keep things the way they are.

I say force the military to beg for donations and put all of that budget into education.
Thats the worst idea ever

And renforce the class system because (moron) people have to pay. And who are the ones who can pay? The higher end middle classes. So guess what, the children of the families who cant pay dont go to school. Which means they cant get a good job, so their children cant go to school etc.
Theres nothing wrong with the class society, its a normal part of a thriving society. All it takes to move up the class ladder is hard work.

And modesty is just one of your many fine features:rolleyes: :p
Modesty is my best quality, followed by my humility and grace. :D

. The only reason private schools are more effective is that they are better funded and generally better managed.
Thats why Im saying there needs to be more private schools

Thats the worst idea ever

It's better than abolishing public education.

*imagines a General begging in the street with a sign saying '100,000 soldiers and a tank to support'*:p

We dont need alternatives to fossil fuels

What are you talking out of here?

Of course we need alternatives to fossil fuels. I hate to break it to you but they are finite. Oil will most likly run out before the end of this century if demand keeps increasing at the rate it is. Coal and gas may last the next century or too but we need to start thinking about the altentatives now rather than all the way down the line then.

Theres nothing wrong with the class society, its a normal part of a thriving society. All it takes to move up the class ladder is hard work.
AHHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait, you're serious...

So all these people I see pulling 50 hour weeks just to keep their families solvent are lazy are they?

I intentially misspelled ambassadorship for like the 20th time, but thanks for asking.
what is 'intentially' exactly?

What are you talking out of here?

Of course we need alternatives to fossil fuels. I hate to break it to you but they are finite. Oil will most likly run out before the end of this century if demand keeps increasing at the rate it is. Coal and gas may last the next century or too but we need to start thinking about the altentatives now rather than all the way down the line then.
those are just liberal lies, oil is going to be around for a very long time.

Thats the worst idea ever

Why? If we weren't such assholes to everyone else on the planet, we wouldn't need a military at all. Look at Canada. Not much of a military, but they're free and nobody's trying to attack them.

We dont need alternatives to fossil fuels and disaster aid is not the Government's responsbilit. Thats one of reasons why I cant understand why so many people are upset at the President over Katrina, he did way more than what should have been expected of him.

Yeah, right, suuuuuure we don't - we'll just start using imaginary petrol huh? Or maybe we should just burn them all up and then not use any fuels at all? Then just draft everyone into the military and get them to power all our machines by hand! Greeeaaat!:rolleyes:

And naturally helping people out when their entire livelihood has been devastated (especially when they could and should have done more beforehand). The Government should just be total bastards. Ever heard the term laissez faire?

AHHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait, you're serious...

So all these people I see pulling 50 hour weeks just to keep their families solvent are lazy are they?
maybe they need to be doing a different job or work harder.

maybe they need to be doing a different job or work harder.

Of course - all they need to do is work harder and they'll succeed more than they do. I mean hell, who needs lunch breaks? Commie pinkoes and liberals, right? Sleep - only if you hate the flag, scumbag - get back to work...

Why? If we weren't such assholes to everyone else on the planet, we wouldn't need a military at all. Look at Canada. Not much of a military, but they're free and nobody's trying to attack them.
Canada doesnt have a military because they leach off ours, they know if they were attacked the US would come in and save the day, thats why no one messes with them.

No Im not, and Im not joking, think about it. Private schools are always better funded and make better students.
Actually, I do believe you are completely wrong on this point. I teach at one of the top PUBLIC schools in the country. Kids come out of their private middle schools to come here. :p Private schools are not necessarily better funded, but funding is often what counts. We get over half a million yearly from our PTSA/alumni to run our school.

And private schools don't necessarily make better students. Aside from your definition of "better" there will always be a public school that does just as good a job teaching their students.

those are just liberal lies, oil is going to be around for a very long time.

maybe they need to be doing a different job or work harder.

This guy CANNOT be for real. :eek:

Theres nothing wrong with the class society, its a normal part of a thriving society. All it takes to move up the class ladder is hard work.

You clearly have never studied sociology. It takes far far more than that. Go google a concept known as 'social capital' and get back to me. If you dont understand what you read, you have no authority to make the statement you have just made. Class systems are ultimately about far more than work.

Canada doesnt have a military because they leach off ours, they know if they were attacked the US would come in and save the day, thats why no one messes with them.

Yes. That's right. It has nothing to do with the fact that Canada doesn't piss anyone off.

Yeah, right, suuuuuure we don't - we'll just start using imaginary petrol huh? Or maybe we should just burn them all up and then not use any fuels at all? Then just draft everyone into the military and get them to power all our machines by hand! Greeeaaat!:rolleyes:

And naturally helping people out when their entire livelihood has been devastated (especially when they could and should have done more beforehand). The Government should just be total bastards. Ever heard the term laissez faire?
laissez faire is great and the fact is disaster relief is not the governments job. Those people should have gotten out of there when they had the chance. The mayor could have used those buses, so dont blame Bush, you cant put this one on him.

those are just liberal lies, oil is going to be around for a very long time.

Care to even try to prove that. While a century is a very long time, doesnt mean that you shouldnt start now. Do you know the story of the ant and the grasshopper.

Care to even try to prove that.

Don't you understand? Liberals, that vague grouping of american-hating scumbags, have stated that oil is running out, so it must be false!

Of course, if your family is spending more than that--say on special donations to the school--then you do't even have to go to class and you'll pass. But they have to spend a lot. :D
just need to pay enough to get a building named after you.
and I'm glad to hear that us running out of oil is just liberal lies...
*goes outside and starts pouring oil into the Charles, just for the fun of it.*

Allow me to shoot your theory down.

First of all-

Banning public schools? I'm going to serioiusly ask you-- are you mad?

Public schools provide cheap (or free in some places) education. That's good. And as long as the child isn't a complete idiot, the child learns, which is the desired outcome. Besdies, let's say we banned them. Nobody except the rich would have education, and the rich don't work. Therefore, society would fall straight apart because the only people smart enough to run it woulodn't be doing it.

Of course - all they need to do is work harder and they'll succeed more than they do. I mean hell, who needs lunch breaks? Commie pinkoes and liberals, right? Sleep - only if you hate the flag, scumbag - get back to work...
so you know where Im coming from this right? I mean seriously, although I wouldnt go as far as to say no lunchbreak or sleep, but they should be at least working more hours.

Canada doesnt have a military because they leach off ours, they know if they were attacked the US would come in and save the day, thats why no one messes with them.

Then explain Singapore. One of the freest countries in the world, a champion of human rights, but very little military. They leachin' off us, too?

Thats why Im saying there needs to be more private schools

My point flew right over your head, didn't it? If you increase financial support for the public school system by taking it out of overfunded organizations and projects, such as the military, you can avoid a tax increase while substantially improving public education to a degree that it rivals or even outperforms that of private schools. Hell, even with additional taxes, nearly every American family would save money by improving public schools instead of abolishing them and making private schools mandatory.

so you know where Im coming from this right? I mean seriously, although I wouldnt go as far as to say no lunchbreak or sleep, but they should be at least working more hours.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

no.
Go home and think about what youve done.

Yes. That's right. It has nothing to do with the fact that Canada doesn't piss anyone off.
Canada pisses plenty off people off, they are on al-Qeada's hitlist because they went into Afghanistan.

Then explain Singapore. One of the freest countries in the world, a champion of human rights, but very little military. They leachin' off us, too?
yes, so are western european countries

laissez faire is great and the fact is disaster relief is not the governments job. Those people should have gotten out of there when they had the chance. The mayor could have used those buses, so dont blame Bush, you cant put this one on him.

Good grief - laissez faire is not, in any way, great. Try studying a little more of history besides... well, in fact, just try studying a little of history at all. We tried laissez faire at one point over here too. We ended up with plague and shit.

And yeah, they could've left when they had the chance eh? And gone where? And where does 'mayor' suddenly not become part of 'government' any more? Of course the government should've done more! The whole point of a government is to look out for the welfare of its people!

Tell me, UN ambassadorship, are you completely ignorant? That's one hostility, unlike a certian neighbouring countryt who has lots.

You clearly have never studied sociology. It takes far far more than that. Go google a concept known as 'social capital' and get back to me. If you dont understand what you read, you have no authority to make the statement you have just made. Class systems are ultimately about far more than work.
it seems like a bunch of left-wing non-sense

yes, so are western european countries

Okay, you have to be a troll. I've read your rants and theories for months now, but this is insane. You can't actually believe this shit...

Leaching my ass. We do have militaries, you goddamn self-centered Yank. Don't tell me - you think the US single-handedly won WWII as well, right?

Left-wing isn't bad (unless it goes to communism)> Socialism works very fine. Look at Switzerland!

so you know where Im coming from this right? I mean seriously, although I wouldnt go as far as to say no lunchbreak or sleep, but they should be at least working more hours.

The people who work manual labour jobs possibly work the longest hours of everyone in the workplace. 9-5 with weekends off would be a luxry for a farmer or many factory operators. And what about all those Chinease sweatshops. Considering how long hours they work, why arnt they at the top of the class ladder?

it seems like a bunch of left-wing non-sense

And your arguments seem like the usual right-wing non-sense

yes, so are western european countries
Oh thank mod our military is strong enough to protect every free country on earth while we invade all the countries that aren't "free enough"

The whole point of a government is to look out for the welfare of its people!
by using the military abroad, not by doing pointless stuff for them at home. The government should only do what people cant do for themselves.

Left-wing isn't bad (unless it goes to communism)> Socialism works very fine. Look at Switzerland!

Switzerland works so well and has never been invaded because they control 50% of the world's chocolate supply. All of Europe know that if they even made an agressive move towards Switzerland, all they'd have to do is ally with Belgium and there'd be no more chocolate...

@ Ambassadorship: And on what do you base that?

Leaching my ass. We do have militaries, you goddamn self-centered Yank. Don't tell me - you think the US single-handedly won WWII as well, right?
hell yeah!

This guy CANNOT be for real. :eek:
Yeah--I think he's taking the piss out of a lot of us here.

it seems like a bunch of left-wing non-sense

Go get an A at A-level sociology and then say that.

Frankly, unless you can prove the valitidy of any of these non-senical rabbit droppings you have comming out of your mouth that would be highly complimented to be called "points" then franly I would ask you to stop taking lacatives, or at least if you are, then dont use this thread as a toliet.

The people who work manual labour jobs possibly work the longest hours of everyone in the workplace. 9-5 with weekends off would be a luxry for a farmer or many factory operators. And what about all those Chinease sweatshops. Considering how long hours they work, why arnt they at the top of the class ladder?
because they live in a communist society,duh

Canada pisses plenty off people off, they are on al-Qeada's hitlist because they went into Afghanistan.

And yet they remain remarkably free of terrorist attacks. Hmm, odd that isn't it?

hell yeah!

A-HA! I knew you were a troll....not even the most rabid of conservatives believes half the shit you post and write about.

hell yeah!

Yeah... right. Of COURSE Britain didn't do a good job, and OBVIOUSLY the USSR didn't cause 3/4 of the German caualties! Of COURSE not!

[/sarcasm]:rolleyes:

And your arguments seem like the usual right-wing non-sense

Well, it could actually be described as anarchist, abolishing a government-funded system and all. I bet that'll give him a shock when he reads it. :D

Yeah, your'e right Zanato.

EDIT: 666 posts... creepy.

because they live in a communist society,duh

Well farmers arnt. Farmers are all over the world but they arnt getting anything like what would be considered the salary of a member of the middle classes.

Care to even try to prove that. While a century is a very long time, doesnt mean that you shouldnt start now. Do you know the story of the ant and the grasshopper.
The Saudi Arabians have told us oil will be around for awhile, you shouldn't worry

Next time, say something sensible, like this.
http://images.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://www.angryflower.com/urquan.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.angryflower.com/archive.html&h=425&w=790&sz=63&tbnid=aql2kcKmK1_2wM:&tbnh=75&tbnw=141&hl=sv&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBob%2Bthe%2BAngry%2BFlower%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dsv%26lr%3D

because they live in a communist society,duh

Yes, you only get manual labour jobs in communist societies. And yes, China is sooooo Communist :rolleyes:

Yeah, your'e right Zanato.

EDIT: 666 posts... creepy.

Awesome, I'm the reason for your beast. :cool:

The Saudi Arabians have told us oil will be around for awhile, you shouldn't worry

Yeah....they obviously have nothing to lie about there....naive young fool...

And yet they remain remarkably free of terrorist attacks. Hmm, odd that isn't it?
Because we protect them

Yeah... right. Of COURSE Britain didn't do a good job, and OBVIOUSLY the USSR didn't cause 3/4 of the German caualties! Of COURSE not!

[/sarcasm]:rolleyes:

Obviously not because the USSR were a load of bed wetting pinko commies who didn't even fight when the Germans rolled into Stalingrad. Basically they all cowered in under their beds until the Americans liberated Moscow in 1918. :rolleyes:

@ Ambassadorship: No, it's because they AREN'T TARGETED! NO US miltary assets are in Canada, other than a couple bases INLAND.

The Saudi Arabians have told us oil will be around for awhile, you shouldn't worry

Oh yes, and the Saudi Arabian government are really to be trusted. If you value freedom and liberty so much why dont you look at the Saudi human rights record

Also, you still havent qualified what you mean as "a long time". Oil will (if demand continues to accelerate at the level it is) run out by the end of this century. So I dont see any harm in starting to prepare for that time now.

Don't you understand? Liberals, that vague grouping of american-hating scumbags, have stated that oil is running out, so it must be false!
actually, yeah. Liberals are full of lies, they will feed them to you like candy

The Saudi Arabians have told us oil will be around for awhile, you shouldn't worry

Oh greeeeaaat! The Saudis have said it, so it must be true! And of course they wouldn't be saying that because their economy is based almost solely on oil and want people to keep buying it.

The Saudi Arabians have told us oil will be around for awhile, you shouldn't worry

You are a funny man :D .

Oh yes, and the Saudi Arabian government are really to be trusted. If you value freedom and liberty so much why dont you look at the Saudi human rights record

Also, you still havent qualified what you mean as "a long time". Oil will (if demand continues to accelerate at the level it is) run out by the end of this century. So I dont see any harm in starting to prepare for that time now.
it will last for at least 200 more years.

Because we protect themSo you protect them but not yourseles? How very noble...

I enjoy arguing with trolls, fighting an argument you can't win helps to hone your skills in the ones you can.

@ ambassadorship: Make that 30.

it will last for at least 200 more years.

Really. Now care to prove that. And while your at it, prove why that means we shouldnt start preparing now. Ant and grasshopper.

Because we protect them

So how do you explain, say, 9/11? Isn't it odd how the US can magically protect all these other inoffensive countries and yet can't quite keep those damned terrorists out of their own country.

A-HA! I knew you were a troll....not even the most rabid of conservatives believes half the shit you post and write about.
um, the only reason the nazis lost was because of the US, thats a fact. The western euro countries were crushed from bombing runs and the soviets werent going to hold the eastern front if it wasnt for the US doing work on the western front.

it will last for at least 200 more years.

If we find a way to generate power from ignorant, moronic bullshit then this guy could power the entire world.

So how do you explain, say, 9/11? Isn't it odd how the US can magically protect all these other inoffensive countries and yet can't quite keep those damned terrorists out of their own country.
Have we had another attack in this country? I dont think so

Actually, Russia was about ready to effectively crush Germany. Not saying the US did nothing-- it did help-- but it was mostly Russia's work.

um, the only reason the nazis lost was because of the US, thats a fact. The western euro countries were crushed from bombing runs and the soviets werent going to hold the eastern front if it wasnt for the US doing work on the western front.

You really haven't studied history at all have you?

um, the only reason the nazis lost was because of the US, thats a fact. The western euro countries were crushed from bombing runs and the soviets werent going to hold the eastern front if it wasnt for the US doing work on the western front.

And where did you learn history. St Margerts Playgroup?

Have we had another attack in this country? I dont think so

Have Canada had any attacks? I don't think so. And if you guys are so great then how come you didn't come and 'save our asses' for 7/7? Good job there genius.

I'm assuming UN Abassadorship is a puppet. Nobody in their right mind is this ignorant.

I'm assuming UN Abassadorship is a puppet. Nobody in their right mind is this ignorant.

Its a shame rediculously extreme ignorence isnt a bannable offence.

My point flew right over your head, didn't it? If you increase financial support for the public school system by taking it out of overfunded organizations and projects, such as the military, you can avoid a tax increase while substantially improving public education to a degree that it rivals or even outperforms that of private schools. Hell, even with additional taxes, nearly every American family would save money by improving public schools instead of abolishing them and making private schools mandatory.
1st off, no money should be taken out of the military, if anything they need more. B-with the money people save from not paying taxes for public schools, they would then be able to for private school. Plus I mean if I dont have kids,why should I pay to have someones elses little brat go to school on MY tax dollar.

My god... UN Ambassadorship, tell me...

WHERE ON THIS EARTH DID YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF WWII, GOVERNMENT, SCHOOLING, AND TERRORISM?

Seriously, do you live under a rock?

The OP is either the biggest crackpot ever, or just the clumsiest troll the site has ever seen.


http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/6629/4062178218bl.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Its a shame rediculously extreme ignorence isnt a bannable offence.

It's an even bigger shame that if we were to say what we truly thought of his pathetic stupidity we'd probably get banned for offending public decency :D

Its a shame rediculously extreme ignorence isnt a bannable offence.
Im not ignorant, Im right. Its a shame liberals cant see that

The OP is either the biggest crackpot ever, or just the clumsiest troll the site has ever seen.


http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/6629/4062178218bl.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
All his threads are like this.

1st off, no money should be taken out of the military, if anything they need more. B-with the money people save from not paying taxes for public schools, they would then be able to for private school. Plus I mean if I dont have kids,why should I pay to have someones elses little brat go to school on MY tax dollar.

So that one day that little brat will have sufficient education pay your pension and produce the products you'll buy when you retire.

1st off, no money should be taken out of the military, if anything they need more. B-with the money people save from not paying taxes for public schools, they would then be able to for private school. Plus I mean if I dont have kids,why should I pay to have someones elses little brat go to school on MY tax dollar.

And how about people who can't afford Private School?

If you're right, I'm George Washington. Also, I'm not liberal, and I disagree with you. Actually, I have no political beliefs that can be described in one word.

Im not ignorant, Im right. Its a shame liberals cant see that

Blind assertions for teh win!!!1!!eleventy-one!!

My god... UN Ambassadorship, tell me...

WHERE ON THIS EARTH DID YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF WWII, GOVERNMENT, SCHOOLING, AND TERRORISM?

Seriously, do you live under a rock?
I dont live under a rock, and yes I went to private school and got a far better education than if I hadnt

um, the only reason the nazis lost was because of the US, thats a fact. The western euro countries were crushed from bombing runs and the soviets werent going to hold the eastern front if it wasnt for the US doing work on the western front.

History-wise, I now group you in with David Irving as not even having a shred of clue about WWII

All his threads are like this.
You just dont like me because I dont like Israel, or should I say the illegal occupation forces.

1st off, no money should be taken out of the military, if anything they need more. B-with the money people save from not paying taxes for public schools, they would then be able to for private school. Plus I mean if I dont have kids,why should I pay to have someones elses little brat go to school on MY tax dollar.

1. The US millitary needs no more money than it has. It's budget is the equivlent of the next 14 countires put together. It is now just wasting money on weapons it will not need in future conflicts.

2. If the goverment saves money on public schools and gives that money to private schools then those private schools become public schools. As the definition of a public school is one that recieves money from the government

3. Because your tax dollar doesnt just go to schools. It goes to many other services etc that you use. Besides, ever heard of a little thing called selflessness.

I dont live under a rock, and yes I went to private school and got a far better education than if I hadnt

Hmm? They caal ignorance a good education there? Huh?

I dont live under a rock, and yes I went to private school and got a far better education than if I hadnt

You're claim of going to a private school is going against your claim of how good it is.

And how about people who can't afford Private School?
Thats not really my problem is it? But charity scholarships work well

Hmm? They caal ignorance a good education there? Huh?

It's not ignorance, it's just US-Centrism crap - ie the US won WWII single-handedly, Vietnam was only lost because of liberal commie anti-war protestors, Iraq was completely justified etc etc etc

You're claim of going to a private school is going against your claim of how good it is.
I dont follow

I dont live under a rock, and yes I went to private school and got a far better education than if I hadnt

No, thats right. You went to St Margerts playgroup and got held back for 18 years and called it an education. It was private school in so far as your mum had to pay $50 for the month

Yes ... people should not be allowed to learn to read or write or perform basic math skills. Educated working class people are a threat to the ruling elite.
Oh God, Keruvalia is on to our vast proletarian conspiracy! :eek:

Thats not really my problem is it? But charity scholarships work well

That's the most selfish thing I ever heard.

I dont follow

You say you've had an excellent private-schooled education...yet you're knowledge on WWII, welfare and economic policies and liberalism point to a very basic and ignorant teaching, if any at all

It's not ignorance, it's just US-Centrism crap - ie the US won WWII single-handedly, Vietnam was only lost because of liberal commie anti-war protestors, Iraq was completely justified etc etc etc
um, the US did win WWII single handly, Vietnam was "lost" because of liberal commies(although I think the US did win that one) and Iraq is 110% justified and necessary, if we werent in there we would have been attacked already.

um, the US did win WWII single handly, Vietnam was "lost" because of liberal commies(although I think the US did win that one) and Iraq is 110% justified and necessary, if we werent in there we would have been attacked already.

Okay....

Fellow posters, with this statement, I have just proven that this man is a goddamn troll, and not a great one.

"Um, the US did win WWII single-handly" - Not even the most rabid of conservatives can admit to this being true. No-one with one shred of historical evidence can think this true.

I dont follow

Exactly.

Thats not really my problem is it? But charity scholarships work well

Amazing. You just hit three sins at once.

That's the most selfish thing I ever heard.
Why? I should have to pay for other peoples problems. I just want to do my thing, get MY money(without it being taxed) and not worry about people.

um, the US did win WWII single handly, Vietnam was "lost" because of liberal commies(although I think the US did win that one) and Iraq is 110% justified and necessary, if we werent in there we would have been attacked already.

At your first "point":

The US did not win the war single-handedly. The USSR caused 3/4 of German casualties, and was ready to crush Germany.

At your second "point":

They... didn't win Vietnam...

At your third "point":

Couldn't you defend yourselves only and NOT go into poor countries purely for oil?

You say you've had an excellent private-schooled education...yet you're knowledge on WWII, welfare and economic policies and liberalism point to a very basic and ignorant teaching, if any at all

And, quite amusingly, failed to follow such a simple point :D

Okay....

Fellow posters, with this statement, I have just proven that this man is a goddamn troll, and not a great one.

"Um, the US did win WWII single-handly" - Not even the most rabid of conservatives can admit to this being true. No-one with one shred of historical evidence can think this true.
ok... without the US, hilter would have won the war, tell me where Im wrong.

ok... without the US, hilter would have won the war, tell me where Im wrong.

Read my post.

You say you've had an excellent private-schooled education...yet you're knowledge on WWII, welfare and economic policies and liberalism point to a very basic and ignorant teaching, if any at all
actually its excellent thank you

ok... without the US, hilter would have won the war, tell me where Im wrong.
Without the US, the USSR would have won the war. No country "beat" Germany - The Russian Winter did that job for us.

um, the US did win WWII single handly, Vietnam was "lost" because of liberal commies(although I think the US did win that one) and Iraq is 110% justified and necessary, if we werent in there we would have been attacked already.

You are offically an idiot

1. The US did not win the war single handedly. It was a colaberative effort between the US, Britain, Russia and the commonwealth, as well as the French and Norwegian resistance movements. In fact had the Americans listend to the British at Omaha beach, there would have been far less casulaties

2. Vietnam was lost because of the American armies inability to combat gurrilua warfare effectively. And in what idea did the US win? Their forces had to leave, North Vietnam took control of the south and the US army had been humilliated

3. If Iraq was justified, it was only something like 60%. The evidence shows that it was more a nipping in the bud than a case of Saddam having the ability to attack at any moment.

Read my post.
no, the soviet line was about to collaspe if it werent for America coming from the west

I dont live under a rock, and yes I went to private school and got a far better education than if I hadnt

That just blew your whole argument out of the water. I almost feel bad for pointing it out. It's not your fault, I blame the gene pool. :(

Arguing against you can bring nothing but shame and dishonor, I withdraw.

actually its excellent thank you

Did you read my post?

*beep*

Sorry, my Troll-o-meter is detecting something.

ok... without the US, hilter would have won the war, tell me where Im wrong.

I don't know where to begin to be honest

US supplies, troops and equipment aided the western powers to a certain extent, but not completely, as the other western powers fought just as well and would have continued fighting, at a much diminished capacity, without US aid, especially after 1941 and the concentration by Nazi Germany on Barbaross and the Ostfront.

As to the Ostfront itself, US supplies aided the USSR in supplying troops and feeding them, but they were already pushing the Wehrmacht back as US supplies came in. Without the Murmansk convoy's and US food supplies, it might have taken the Soviets a few more years to push to Berlin and further on, but not much further. Hitler would have lost, US intervention or none.

Did you read my post?

*beep*

Sorry, my Troll-o-meter is detecting something.
My troll-o-meter exploded on page two...

First problem with the OP's proposition. Public schools aren't failing in the US. Some are, and accountability for those failures isn't really evident. But there are plenty of successful school districts, and I see no reason as to why something that can be fixed should be junked.

no, the soviet line was about to collaspe if it werent for America coming from the west

No, the Soviets were advancing on Germany before the D-Day landings.

1. The US millitary needs no more money than it has. It's budget is the equivlent of the next 14 countires put together. It is now just wasting money on weapons it will not need in future conflicts.

2. If the goverment saves money on public schools and gives that money to private schools then those private schools become public schools. As the definition of a public school is one that recieves money from the government

3. Because your tax dollar doesnt just go to schools. It goes to many other services etc that you use. Besides, ever heard of a little thing called selflessness.
1. So...
2. I was saying private citizens could use the money to pay for school, not the Government
3. I dont care, call selfish, as long as I get mine, free markets are great

no, the soviet line was about to collaspe if it werent for America coming from the west

The Russians were the one who defended and pushed back at Stalingrad and were the first to reach Berlin.

Well, I havw a super-high endurance model Troll-o-meter 75,000.

My troll-o-meter exploded on page two...

Really? Ah you must eb using an older version - I have Troll 8.2.1, and it went off the freakin' scale first post. It also has a much higher Trollage-capacity to deal with such vast amounts of disgusting Trollage as can be found here.

Exactly.



Amazing. You just hit three sins at once.
I sin alot , big freaking whoop. What do you want me to do about it?

The Russians were the one who defended and pushed back at Stalingrad and were the first to reach Berlin.

Indeed. The only difference to US isolationism would have been a USSR-occupied Western Europe, possibly including Britain.

Well, I havw a super-high endurance model Troll-o-meter 75,000.
Damn, I'm using the old 50,000. I didn't even know the upgrade was out!

You are offically an idiot

1. The US did not win the war single handedly. It was a colaberative effort between the US, Britain, Russia and the commonwealth, as well as the French and Norwegian resistance movements. In fact had the Americans listend to the British at Omaha beach, there would have been far less casulaties

2. Vietnam was lost because of the American armies inability to combat gurrilua warfare effectively. And in what idea did the US win? Their forces had to leave, North Vietnam took control of the south and the US army had been humilliated

3. If Iraq was justified, it was only something like 60%. The evidence shows that it was more a nipping in the bud than a case of Saddam having the ability to attack at any moment.
1. The FRENCH? hahhah
2. We stopped the spread of COmmunism to Australia
3. you say 60, I say 110.

Ah, don't worry, I'm saving up for a new 100,000 model.

That just blew your whole argument out of the water. I almost feel bad for pointing it out. It's not your fault, I blame the gene pool. :(

Arguing against you can bring nothing but shame and dishonor, I withdraw.
I dont follow

I sin alot , big freaking whoop. What do you want me to do about it?

I would certainly want to troll against you, but I'm not stooping to your level.

1. So...

So there is no need to expand any more.


2. I was saying private citizens could use the money to pay for school, not the Government.

And how likly will it be that all this private money will be donated to the private school sector


3. I dont care, call selfish, as long as I get mine, free markets are great

Selfishness is what destroies societies. Fortunetly people as mindbogglingly idiotic as you are now small in number seeing as your self important opinions of yourself has lead to your head swelling to the point at which not only can you not leave the room but no one else or nothing else can come in so you stave to death.

I don't know where to begin to be honest

US supplies, troops and equipment aided the western powers to a certain extent, but not completely, as the other western powers fought just as well and would have continued fighting, at a much diminished capacity, without US aid, especially after 1941 and the concentration by Nazi Germany on Barbaross and the Ostfront.

As to the Ostfront itself, US supplies aided the USSR in supplying troops and feeding them, but they were already pushing the Wehrmacht back as US supplies came in. Without the Murmansk convoy's and US food supplies, it might have taken the Soviets a few more years to push to Berlin and further on, but not much further. Hitler would have lost, US intervention or none.
I know this is incredibly off topic, but if I recall Marshall Zhukov himself wrote that without the US supplies during the winter of 1942 the Soviet Military would have collapsed. You must remember that the Soviet forces received most of their steel, oil, food, weapons designs, machine tools and the rest from the United States. It is doubtful without US aid that the Soviet forces could have beaten Hitler. And, if you might remember correctly, even more US supplies came from the Pacific route. Ships flying under the Soviet flag were protected from Japanese attack, and suffered virtually no casualties. Few casualties were suffered by US ships that circled down around Africa and up to Iran, where the convoys unloaded, and the stuff was transported by rail to the USSR.

On top of that, there was only one western power fighting on the western front in 1941, and that was the British Empire. And if they had not received US supplies in Egypt and North Africa, it's likely that they would have been crushed there. And with the Suez canal cut, the Brits would have probably not been able to reinforce Australia or India, and they would have been unable to get resources from there either, thus it's likely that they'd have folded pretty quickly as well.

Sorry for going off topic, but this misconception is annoying, because it degrades one power in favor of the others. Instead the Allied operation must be viewed as it was. Every member was vital for success, and failure was likely if one of them was not involved.

I don't know where to begin to be honest

US supplies, troops and equipment aided the western powers to a certain extent, but not completely, as the other western powers fought just as well and would have continued fighting, at a much diminished capacity, without US aid, especially after 1941 and the concentration by Nazi Germany on Barbaross and the Ostfront.

As to the Ostfront itself, US supplies aided the USSR in supplying troops and feeding them, but they were already pushing the Wehrmacht back as US supplies came in. Without the Murmansk convoy's and US food supplies, it might have taken the Soviets a few more years to push to Berlin and further on, but not much further. Hitler would have lost, US intervention or none.
Thats liberal propaganda, did you get that out of European textbook? Why dont you read an American one so you can learn the truth?

1. The FRENCH? hahhah
2. We stopped the spread of COmmunism to Australia
3. you say 60, I say 110.

1. The French resistance aided ths allied war effort considerably, especially moving into D-Day and the Second Front. The sabotaging of telecommunication line, destruction of vital bridges, assassination of high-ranking officals, destroying and delaying troop movements once the invasion began, aiding allied troops as they moved through France and into the Netherlands...the list goes on - without them, the invasion would have been much bloodier

2. Australia? Please. You may not have learnt in your 'history' classes, but Ho Chi Minh did not want to spread communism anywhere but Vietnam - he and the Soviet and Chinese leaders often sparked over Chi's views and needs. So spreading to Australia is crap. Chi just wanted a democratically elected government - one that the US destroyed by ignoring the '54 agreement

3. Given your previous views, I'll leave that comment to speak for itself...

1. The FRENCH? hahhah.

Go to an actual education institute as opposed to the playgroup's extra curricular activities section. The French resistance were instrumental to the winning of WW2.


2. We stopped the spread of COmmunism to Australia.

Excuse me while I fall on the floor in fits of convulsive laughter.

Are you serious. You failed. Communism did spread throught Vietnam, but your domino effect theory was wrong. I think the Austrailians had more to do with stopping the spread of communsim to Austraila than you did.


3. you say 60, I say 110.

Even the US government admited after the war that they did not have evidence of WMD, only evidence of WMD programs.

1. The FRENCH? hahhah
2. We stopped the spread of COmmunism to Australia
3. you say 60, I say 110.
Hint:

It's PERCENT. You can't have over 100 PERCENT by definition of the word.


The spread of communism to australia? Are you daft?


(Though he unintentionally makes a good point about lend lease. I really don't think that the Russians would have been able to stop the germans where they did without US trucks. Somewhere else, maybe, but not along that line.)

I would certainly want to troll against you, but I'm not stooping to your level.
Im not trolling, my point is is that Im not a religiuos person so telling me i sinned doesnt do much.

Indeed. The only difference to US isolationism would have been a USSR-occupied Western Europe, possibly including Britain.

As I pointed out earlier, the Soviet success at Stalingrad was facilitated by US supplies, and the Soviet arrival in Berlin was facilitated by the Yalta Agreement. Eisenhower, being the pragmatist that he was stopped the US forces at the dividing line of Germany, where the US forces would be forced to withdraw to. The Mechanized US/UK force would have likely beaten the Soviets to Berlin, had we not taken political considerations into the equation. He also held Patton from advancing on Prague and Vienna.

Thats liberal propaganda, did you get that out of European textbook? Why dont you read an American one so you can learn the truth?

Would you care to even offer a shread of proof to your claims? I'm currently doing a degree in International relations and politics with international history. S87's description is accurate. Go back to the playgroup and open a book or two

I know this is incredibly off topic, but if I recall Marshall Zhukov himself wrote that without the US supplies during the winter of 1942 the Soviet Military would have collapsed. You must remember that the Soviet forces received most of their steel, oil, food, weapons designs, machine tools and the rest from the United States. It is doubtful without US aid that the Soviet forces could have beaten Hitler. And, if you might remember correctly, even more US supplies came from the Pacific route. Ships flying under the Soviet flag were protected from Japanese attack, and suffered virtually no casualties. Few casualties were suffered by US ships that circled down around Africa and up to Iran, where the convoys unloaded, and the stuff was transported by rail to the USSR.

On top of that, there was only one western power fighting on the western front in 1941, and that was the British Empire. And if they had not received US supplies in Egypt and North Africa, it's likely that they would have been crushed there. And with the Suez canal cut, the Brits would have probably not been able to reinforce Australia or India, and they would have been unable to get resources from there either, thus it's likely that they'd have folded pretty quickly as well.

Sorry for going off topic, but this misconception is annoying, because it degrades one power in favor of the others. Instead the Allied operation must be viewed as it was. Every member was vital for success, and failure was likely if one of them was not involved.

I'll be honest - I know. I've read Zhukov's comments and I know that without US supplies a Desert Offensive would have been difficult, and that Stalingrad might not have been held. I've no excuse except I'm tired, and debating points with USA is even more tiring and he doesn't seem to understand big concepts.

OK...

I've tried to be nice here, but you, UN Ambassadorship, are, in esscence, a mind-numbing, idiotic troll.

You deny all reason and insult people due to political stature without good reason. You are an American imperialist too.

You qualify as a Ferrous Cranius.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

Oh, I'm not saying you were trolling, I'm just saying your claims are outrageous and unapplicable.

I know this is incredibly off topic, but if I recall Marshall Zhukov himself wrote that without the US supplies during the winter of 1942 the Soviet Military would have collapsed. You must remember that the Soviet forces received most of their steel, oil, food, weapons designs, machine tools and the rest from the United States. It is doubtful without US aid that the Soviet forces could have beaten Hitler. And, if you might remember correctly, even more US supplies came from the Pacific route. Ships flying under the Soviet flag were protected from Japanese attack, and suffered virtually no casualties. Few casualties were suffered by US ships that circled down around Africa and up to Iran, where the convoys unloaded, and the stuff was transported by rail to the USSR.

On top of that, there was only one western power fighting on the western front in 1941, and that was the British Empire. And if they had not received US supplies in Egypt and North Africa, it's likely that they would have been crushed there. And with the Suez canal cut, the Brits would have probably not been able to reinforce Australia or India, and they would have been unable to get resources from there either, thus it's likely that they'd have folded pretty quickly as well.

Sorry for going off topic, but this misconception is annoying, because it degrades one power in favor of the others. Instead the Allied operation must be viewed as it was. Every member was vital for success, and failure was likely if one of them was not involved.

Oh granted America was definitely a fairly major player in the whole effort, but they sure as hell didn't win it single handedly.

As I pointed out earlier, the Soviet success at Stalingrad was facilitated by US supplies, and the Soviet arrival in Berlin was facilitated by the Yalta Agreement. Eisenhower, being the pragmatist that he was stopped the US forces at the dividing line of Germany, where the US forces would be forced to withdraw to. The Mechanized US/UK force would have likely beaten the Soviets to Berlin, had we not taken political considerations into the equation. He also held Patton from advancing on Prague and Vienna.

*Hangs head in shame*

I know...it's just so tempting to try and shut USA up through any means possible...and I call myself a historian...

1. The French resistance aided ths allied war effort considerably, especially moving into D-Day and the Second Front. The sabotaging of telecommunication line, destruction of vital bridges, assassination of high-ranking officals, destroying and delaying troop movements once the invasion began, aiding allied troops as they moved through France and into the Netherlands...the list goes on - without them, the invasion would have been much bloodier

2. Australia? Please. You may not have learnt in your 'history' classes, but Ho Chi Minh did not want to spread communism anywhere but Vietnam - he and the Soviet and Chinese leaders often sparked over Chi's views and needs. So spreading to Australia is crap. Chi just wanted a democratically elected government - one that the US destroyed by ignoring the '54 agreement

3. Given your previous views, I'll leave that comment to speak for itself...
1. Everyone knows the french surrendered the mintue nazis crossed the border, and then setup a nazi government there.
2. Minh did want to go to Australia, thats fact.
3. so you agree with me then

OK...

I've tried to be nice here, but you, UN Ambassadorship, are, in esscence, a mind-numbing, idiotic troll.

You deny all reason and insult people due to political stature without good reason. You are an American imperialist too.

You qualify as a Ferrous Cranius.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

I was getting ready to post that. :p

1. Everyone knows the french surrendered the mintue nazis crossed the border, and then setup a nazi government there.
2. Minh did want to go to Australia, thats fact.
3. so you agree with me then
....


That shows that you have no concept of history.

I was getting ready to post that. :p

Yes! I beat someone to something!

*Hangs head in shame*

I know...it's just so tempting to try and shut USA up through any means possible...and I call myself a historian...
I told you Im right, you just wouldnt listen

Everyone knows the french surrendered the mintue nazis crossed the border, and then setup a nazi government there.


Because a massive German army was right in the heart of France. You can either surrender without losing any civilian casualties (hence saving more lives) than going into conventional warfare. Besides, they were pinned. The only chance was to surrender and go underground.

1. Everyone knows the french surrendered the mintue nazis crossed the border, and then setup a nazi government there.

We are talking about the French resistance. The Maquis as otherwise known.


2. Minh did want to go to Australia, thats fact.

Proof please.

OK...

I've tried to be nice here, but you, UN Ambassadorship, are, in esscence, a mind-numbing, idiotic troll.

You deny all reason and insult people due to political stature without good reason. You are an American imperialist too.

You qualify as a Ferrous Cranius.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm
Thats a bunch of bull, you just dont like admitting your wrong. Why should I change my position when its right?

I told you Im right, you just wouldnt listen

And I'm telling you. Everyone who opposes you here is right. You just wouldnt listen

You can see where this will get us.

Because a massive German army was right in the heart of France. You can either surrender without losing any civilian casualties (hence saving more lives) than going into conventional warfare. Besides, they were pinned. The only chance was to surrender and go underground.
No they surrendered because they dont know how to fight and are girly men(no offence to the french)

And I'm telling you. Everyone who opposes you here is right. You just wouldnt listen

You can see where this will get us.
I dont follow

1. Everyone knows the french surrendered the mintue nazis crossed the border, and then setup a nazi government there.
2. Minh did want to go to Australia, thats fact.
3. so you agree with me then

1. Surrendered immediately? Please. The French military put up a determined and often gallant defense of their country against a more technologically advanced enemy in military terms and an enemy that used superior tactics and closer use of inter-unit tactics. Even after the official surrender, Free French forces fought on alongside their British allies, and the French Resistance proved invaluable in France throughout the conflict.

2. Evidence for this please?

2. No. Statistically that isn't even possible, and why not invade North Korea, for example, instead of Iraq? It was closer and actually had working nuclear weapons.

No they surrendered because they dont know how to fight and are girly men(no offence to the french)

You just said Girly Men, when after you said No offence. You just insulted them and said you didn't.

No they surrendered because they dont know how to fight and are girly men(no offence to the french)

1. They surrenderd because there was a massive tank army jamming its foot in their door and they were disorganised.

2. How can that statement possibly be reconsiled with "no offence". Of course you meant offence.

The french surrendered in the same way the Iraqi's did after Bush when in.

1. Surrendered immediately? Please. The French military put up a determined and often gallant defense of their country against a more technologically advanced enemy in military terms and an enemy that used superior tactics and closer use of inter-unit tactics. Even after the official surrender, Free French forces fought on alongside their British allies, and the French Resistance proved invaluable in France throughout the conflict.

2. Evidence for this please?

2. No. Statistically that isn't even possible, and why not invade North Korea, for example, instead of Iraq? It was closer and actually had working nuclear weapons.
1. hahhahhaha, gallant come on you cant be serious. Face it the germans and Americans were just better than they were.

2. dont need any

3. btw you posted 2 twice, N. Korea aint a problem

No they surrendered because they dont know how to fight and are girly men(no offence to the french)
Really? Explain then how a double handful of french units held up the german advance singlehandedly for almost a day, and damn near managed to destroy the blitzkreig?

Everyone seems to think that the german advance was unstoppable. It wasn't. It was on a shoestring, and if the german's hadn't managed to completely outflank the main french defensive line and blast into the rear before the french had a chance to reorganize (in many places the fault of the french military leadership, not the individual fighting man) they would have been stopped cold.

1. They surrenderd because there was a massive tank army jamming its foot in their door and they were disorganised.

2. How can that statement possibly be reconsiled with "no offence". Of course you meant offence.
1. So whats your saying is they were failures.
2. whatever

I dont follow

Your an even bigger idiot than you seem.

You said.

I told you Im right, you just wouldnt listen

And i say to you. I told you that I am right, you just wouldnt listen.

You can see where this gets us?

I'm sad, my well researched and logical posts that come to a delighful and correct center ground (free of propaganda, I might add) are being ignored.

I just had a spectacular idea. We can create a UN Abassador Q&A thread, and fill it with deep philosophical and political questions for him to answer. I guarantee it would be a hit, kind of like a monkey dancing around with a tip hat on a busy street. Before it gets run over by oncoming traffic.

1. hahhahhaha, gallant come on you cant be serious. Face it the germans and Americans were just better than they were.

2. dont need any

3. btw you posted 2 twice, N. Korea aint a problem

1. The French were excellent fighters. They surrendered only after an often fractured government decided that surrender was the only viable option, and much of their military was outflanked and crushed through superior tactics. The Maquis and Free French forces fought throughout the war and were excellent soldiers - the Maquis especially took many losses to conduct operations to hurt their occupiers during the German occupation

2. Okay. Bush is a fascist dictator - Evidence? dont need any

3. Of course not...

You know, that's one awesome idea. Someone make it!

Really? Explain then how a double handful of french units held up the german advance singlehandedly for almost a day, and damn near managed to destroy the blitzkreig?

Everyone seems to think that the german advance was unstoppable. It wasn't. It was on a shoestring, and if the german's hadn't managed to completely outflank the main french defensive line and blast into the rear before the french had a chance to reorganize (in many places the fault of the french military leadership, not the individual fighting man) they would have been stopped cold.
They werent even able to hold them off for a day? weak. The US made the germans look stupid and kicked their ass no thanks to the you know who.

1. So whats your saying is they were failures.

No. I'm saying they failed but you need to look at the failure in context.

Also I would ask you to stop looking at WW2 from your American-centric standpoint. The US was the only country in WW2 not to enter a total war. It suffered practically no civillian casulities. There were no attacks on American civllian centres, just millitary bases. Every other country in WW2 suffered on a catostrophic level, the likes of which America did not experiance.

I'm sad, my well researched and logical posts that come to a delighful and correct center ground (free of propaganda, I might add) are being ignored.

Well, they don't fit USA's US-centric view of history. But I'll freely admit that they're excellent and completely correct - the sort of stuff I should have put out if he hadn't got me angry and responded without thinking. I must apologise, one historian to another - I feel idiotic for that.

Are you studying history at all?

Your an even bigger idiot than you seem.

You said.



And i say to you. I told you that I am right, you just wouldnt listen.

You can see where this gets us?
not really

1. hahhahhaha, gallant come on you cant be serious. Face it the germans and Americans were just better than they were.

2. dont need any

3. btw you posted 2 twice, N. Korea aint a problem

What makes you think Ho Chi Minh wanted to go to Australia despite the fact that he never fled Vietnam?

2. dont need any


Err, yes you do. You need to be able to prove a point in order for it to be considered true. And even if it was true, guess what. He failed. But no thanks to the US since the US had to leave because the US army was incapable of fighting a gurrelia war.

I just had a spectacular idea. We can create a UN Abassador Q&A thread, and fill it with deep philosophical and political questions for him to answer. I guarantee it would be a hit, kind of like a monkey dancing around with a tip hat on a busy street. Before it gets run over by oncoming traffic.
Fine, make it. I can answer anything you throw at me

I love the way USA accuses the French of cowardice but ignores the fact that his country didn't even join the war until very late on.

They werent even able to hold them off for a day? weak. The US made the germans look stupid and kicked their ass no thanks to the you know who.
No, the french, all in all, held out for more then a month. A few regiments in the start held on against entire divisions for a day. That's damn near impossible, and besides, the US was facing a defeated Germany and second rate reserves. The best were in Russia attempting to salvage a victory from the ashes of defeat, and failing miserably.

Fine, make it. I can answer anything you throw at me
What is the meaning of life?

not really

You say "I'm right, your just not listening"

I say "I'm right, your just not listening"

Where does that go. If you cant see the mind bogglingly obvious, I'm going to go to moderation and ask them to shut this thread down on the basis of you being a troll and a pupet since no real person is this ignorent.

Your stupidity astounds me, Ambassadorship.

No. I'm saying they failed
Thats what I thought. You heard it hear 1st folks, the French failed

I love the way USA accuses the French of cowardice but ignores the fact that his country didn't even join the war until very late on.
we didnt have to

About the French: After doing a heroic deed. They were outnumbered and utgunned. If I could, I'd give them all medals and build them a monument.

Seriously ban them. They are ineffective and a waste of taxpayer money. That money should be spent on the military or in Americans pockets, your thoughts.
Ban books, too. They kill trees.

They werent even able to hold them off for a day? weak. The US made the germans look stupid and kicked their ass no thanks to the you know who.

Against superior military technology and leadership? A day was brilliant. For example, there was the battle where a small group of French Officer Cadets held off a German attack for sometime with only small-arms, a few outdated tanks and a fieldgun against the best German technology there was. Oh, and to US kicking ass, have you ever heard of the Scnee Eiffel in 1944?

Thats what I thought. You heard it hear 1st folks, the French failed

Read the whole sentence.

Seriously ban them. They are ineffective and a waste of taxpayer money. That money should be spent on the military or in Americans pockets, your thoughts.

Now I'm not one to flame people, but you are seriously one dumb ****. How are people who cant pay for school supposed to get an education? We should ban private schools instead, then the government would have to improve the public ones, and the crime rate would go down.

You say "I'm right, your just not listening"

I say "I'm right, your just not listening"

Where does that go. If you cant see the mind bogglingly obvious, I'm going to go to moderation and ask them to shut this thread down on the basis of you being a troll and a pupet since no real person is this ignorent.
I get it, your saying we would go aruond in circles right? you shuold have made that clearier

I get it, your saying we would go aruond in circles right? you shuold have made that clearier

You didn't get that? God...

1. They surrenderd because there was a massive tank army jamming its foot in their door and they were disorganised.
Actually they surrendered because they placed old reservist units on the Belgian border, thinking that a force could not possibly break through there. Then when Plan Yellow kicked in and bowled them under, they were overrun by a massive mechanized force, equipped with modern tanks, airplanes, trucks, scout cars, armored personnel carriers, motorcycles and the rest. The old reservists who only had anti-infantry weapons, and a precious few anti-tank guns were smashed.

The German force wheeled into the rear of the strong French forces, cut them off, and trapped the BEF in Belgium. The BEF, equipped with no armored forces in France, lacked these vital units that should have been used to break out of the Dunkirk area, smash the rear of the German assault and trap a German mechanized force behind hostile lines, force them to use their fuel up and then chop them to bits.

As the Germans roared into France, the French military was woefully underequipped, with virtually all of their forces being equipped with anti-infantry weapons. As the Germans progressed through northern France the chain of command disintegrated. The Government changed several times, and units became increasingly isolated from commands from their superiors. Eventually panic took over, the French infantry fled en masse down roads, where the JU-88s cut them to ribbons with machine gun and cannon. Finally, the Germans moved on Paris, while a second force raced down to the Swiss border, totally encircling the Magnot line. The French knew that they would lose at this point and further resistance would only kill civies. At which point, Petain surrendered.

There was very little cowardice, just a massive clusterfuck.

What is the meaning of life?
Theres really not one. Just eat, poop, have fun and maybe produce offspring

we didnt have to

You were cowards who left the Europeans (including the French) to do your fighting for you. How do you like it?;)

I get it, your saying we would go aruond in circles right? you shuold have made that clearier

I'm not sure how I could have made it clearer beyond spelling it out to you. The whole point of it was to prove you had some capacity for independent thought within you.

Actually they surrendered because they placed old reservist units on the Belgian border, thinking that a force could not possibly break through there. Then when Plan Yellow kicked in and bowled them under, they were overrun by a massive mechanized force, equipped with modern tanks, airplanes, trucks, scout cars, armored personnel carriers, motorcycles and the rest. The old reservists who only had anti-infantry weapons, and a precious few anti-tank guns were smashed.

The German force wheeled into the rear of the strong French forces, cut them off, and trapped the BEF in Belgium. The BEF, equipped with no armored forces in France, lacked these vital units that should have been used to break out of the Dunkirk area, smash the rear of the German assault and trap a German mechanized force behind hostile lines, force them to use their fuel up and then chop them to bits.

As the Germans roared into France, the French military was woefully underequipped, with virtually all of their forces being equipped with anti-infantry weapons. As the Germans progressed through northern France the chain of command disintegrated. The Government changed several times, and units became increasingly isolated from commands from their superiors. Eventually panic took over, the French infantry fled en masse down roads, where the JU-88s cut them to ribbons with machine gun and cannon. Finally, the Germans moved on Paris, while a second force raced down to the Swiss border, totally encircling the Magnot line. The French knew that they would lose at this point and further resistance would only kill civies. At which point, Petain surrendered.

There was very little cowardice, just a massive clusterfuck.

I say, that's a brilliantly concise post - are you studying history at Uni somewhere?

EDIT: The BEF did have some armoured units - Matilda's, I believe. They tried to take on Rommel's Panzer Group at...Sedan or the Somme, my knowledge is fuzzy there...but nearly suceeded until the Germans 88mm were turned against the British tanks.

Fine, make it. I can answer anything you throw at me

I'll let you finish up here first. It'd be unfair, otherwise.

I get it, your saying we would go aruond in circles right? you shuold have made that clearier

No, you should have not been a retard - say, why didn't you use your 'excellent' private educationa nd figure it out? Odd how I managed to get it first time (along with all the other things you didn't follow) despite my horrifically inferior state education.

Now I'm not one to flame people, but you are seriously one dumb ****. How are people who cant pay for school supposed to get an education? We should ban private schools instead, then the government would have to improve the public ones, and the crime rate would go down.
why must you flame?

You were cowards who left the Europeans (including the French) to do your fighting for you. How do you like it?;)
whatever, we still won

why must you flame?

Not to be rude, but, "Why must yoyu be utterly correct" would have been better there.

why must you flame?

Why don't you respond to the points he raises?

Well, they don't fit USA's US-centric view of history. But I'll freely admit that they're excellent and completely correct - the sort of stuff I should have put out if he hadn't got me angry and responded without thinking. I must apologise, one historian to another - I feel idiotic for that.

Are you studying history at all?
I am a Political Scientist, and I focus espescially in the international arena. As such, the last hundred years are of vital importance to me, so I study them regularly.

And thank you, not many people are decent enough to admit they got a bit hot under their collars around here.

About the French: After doing a heroic deed. They were outnumbered and utgunned. If I could, I'd give them all medals and build them a monument.
Why would you build a monument for surrender and failure?

I say, that's a brilliantly concise post - are you studying history at Uni somewhere?

I particularly liked the last line :D A very nice summation.

Why don't you respond to the points he raises?
Because he just spits out liberal talking points

I say, that's a brilliantly concise post - are you studying history at Uni somewhere?

EDIT: The BEF did have some armoured units - Matilda's, I believe. They tried to take on Rommel's Panzer Group at...Sedan or the Somme, my knowledge is fuzzy there...but nearly suceeded until the Germans 88mm were turned against the British tanks.
Had the misfortune to run smack damn into the middle of the anti tank regiment of the division, with Rommel around. Would have at least stopped the advance for a little bit if they hadn't had that bit of bad luck.

Why would you build a monument for surrender and failure?

I would not build a monument to that-- I would build a monument to their heroics. Outnumbered, outgunned, and then they held them off.

Let's see the US at that time in that situation, with the smae equipment.

whatever, we still won

A confession of cowardice, I'm surprised.

I am a Political Scientist, and I focus espescially in the international arena. As such, the last hundred years are of vital importance to me, so I study them regularly.

And thank you, not many people are decent enough to admit they got a bit hot under their collars around here.

Yes, I did. Stupid, stupid of me, but I get a little overzealous at times. Plus my knowledge of WWII is quite widespread, but not detailed enough in places, so I don't know everything I perhaps should at times. Political Scientist? That's sounds rather interesting - what does it entail?

No, you should have not been a retard - say, why didn't you use your 'excellent' private educationa nd figure it out? Odd how I managed to get it first time (along with all the other things you didn't follow) despite my horrifically inferior state education.
it was the way it was worded ok

Had the misfortune to run smack damn into the middle of the anti tank regiment of the division, with Rommel around. Would have at least stopped the advance for a little bit if they hadn't had that bit of bad luck.

Yeah, that was quite bad luck. We had quite a bit of it in that campaign.

Because he just spits out liberal talking points

Then rebut them, it can't be so hard if they're such weak arguments.

whatever, we still won

You forget. We is plural. The US and Russia couldnt have won the war without Britain. Britain and Russia couldnt have won the war without the US. And the US and Brtiain couldnt have won the war without Russia. It was a colaberative effort. And those three are just the starters. The Maquis, the Norwegian resistance, everyone helped together to the downfall of Hitler. It was not just the US.

A confession of cowardice, I'm surprised.
No, we werent cowards, it wasnt in our interests until China attacked us in Pearl Harbor. Is that better?

No, we werent cowards, it wasnt in our interests until China attacked us in Pearl Harbor. Is that better?

You are dumb! China never attacked, that was Japan!

I would not build a monument to that-- I would build a monument to their heroics. Outnumbered, outgunned, and then they held them off.

Let's see the US at that time in that situation, with the smae equipment.

Damn straight. Although let's not let anti-US-ism run wild here. US troops proved they could be just as brave at times - Bastogne springs to mind, as well as most of the later stages of the Ardennes Campaign.

Britain and Russia couldnt have won the war without the US.
thank you, thats what Ive been trying to tell you.

No, we werent cowards, it wasnt in our interests until China attacked us in Pearl Harbor. Is that better?

China!

Oh...COME ON!

Can anyone be this ignorant of history?

Damn straight. Although let's not let anti-US-ism run wild here. US troops proved they could be just as brave at times - Bastogne springs to mind, as well as most of the later stages of the Ardennes Campaign.

Of course the US is a good army, but they couldn't have done the same there.

No, we werent cowards, it wasnt in our interests until China attacked us in Pearl Harbor. Is that better?

Yes, China attacked you in Pearl Harbor. And Britian and Morsely were defeated in 1932. Hows the playgroup these days. Still got the old flinstones phone.

I would not build a monument to that-- I would build a monument to their heroics. Outnumbered, outgunned, and then they held them off.

Let's see the US at that time in that situation, with the smae equipment.
the US would have won

thank you, thats what Ive been trying to tell you.

Oncer again you ignore the whole post and only take what suits you...