View Full Version : US hospitality
http://www.cbc.ca/deadlineiraq/index.html
MonsterZero
02 Feb 04, 13:30
Boo Hoo...we cry when we meet opposition.
When US soldiers meet opposition they will kill Islamists as long as they are capable of holding the rifle. You and the people you cheer Marko know that very well. That is why in the cultures of Islamists and fundamentalist roadside bombs and car bombs are the weapons of choice. Face to face combat is too dreadful to Islamists. They are not afraid to die (death is easy), that's for sure, but they are afraid of facing American men and women.
The champions of the Arab nationalist, Islamist and fundamentalist cause, people Saddam, Osama, mullah Omar and Al-Quaida in general-they run like rabbits when they meet active opposition. Run and hide. Bin Laden is so freaking out with fear of American people he doesn't even make videos anymore, just audio casettes. He's afraid to show his face on TV lest somebody finds some visual clue in the background and learns his location.
Come back with A SINGLE story of an American soldier who faces an Islamist, turnes around and runs and I will give your Mujahideen their honor back. I will issue a public apology.
Afghanistan, Iraq, the destruction of pre-9/11 Al Quaida, I can see nothing but constant American advances around the world. Is this country really on the run? The only issue is money really. As long as the public here wants to keep on spending, the enemies of America keep on losing and there is no way to reverse this.
There is no hope of Islamists and other anti-Americans even making a dent in this society and this culture and there is no hope for fundamentalism poisoning our minds. It's a huge, huge country of unlimited resources. Come over here to take a car ride only from Chicago to Springfield and it will take the spirit of Jihad right out of you-when you experience the vastness and might of this land. And that's just a single state. You'll understand.
I don't know what Bin Laden was thinking, all I can say is the Muslim world needs a substitute enemy to hate and to wage their Jihad against, an enemy it can actually handle. The Republic of Slovenia maybe?
When this country finally collapses in the distant future, it will go because of social, economic and environmental issues beyond the scope of the little contest of Islam vs. Christianity. But by that time Islam as we know it today will be finished. It will remain Islam in name only. And the Arab world, with its precious fossil fuel reserves depleted, will dissolve back into the dunes of the desert. There will be no more funds to finances terrorist activities around the world.
http://www.ogrish.com/view_attachment.php?id=6413
When US soldiers meet opposition they will kill Islamists as long as they are capable of holding the rifle. You and the people you cheer Marko know that very well. That is why in the cultures of Islamists and fundamentalist roadside bombs and car bombs are the weapons of choice. Face to face combat is too dreadful to Islamists. They are not afraid to die (death is easy), that's for sure, but they are afraid of facing American men and women.
The champions of the Arab nationalist, Islamist and fundamentalist cause, people Saddam, Osama, mullah Omar and Al-Quaida in general-they run like rabbits when they meet active opposition. Run and hide. Bin Laden is so freaking out with fear of American people he doesn't even make videos anymore, just audio casettes. He's afraid to show his face on TV lest somebody finds some visual clue in the background and learns his location.
Come back with A SINGLE story of an American soldier who faces an Islamist, turnes around and runs and I will give your Mujahideen their honor back. I will issue a public apology.
Afghanistan, Iraq, the destruction of pre-9/11 Al Quaida, I can see nothing but constant American advances around the world. Is this country really on the run? The only issue is money really. As long as the public here wants to keep on spending, the enemies of America keep on losing and there is no way to reverse this.
There is no hope of Islamists and other anti-Americans even making a dent in this society and this culture and there is no hope for fundamentalism poisoning our minds. It's a huge, huge country of unlimited resources. Come over here to take a car ride only from Chicago to Springfield and it will take the spirit of Jihad right out of you-when you experience the vastness and might of this land. And that's just a single state. You'll understand.
I don't know what Bin Laden was thinking, all I can say is the Muslim world needs a substitute enemy to hate and to wage their Jihad against, an enemy it can actually handle. The Republic of Slovenia maybe?
When this country finally collapses in the distant future, it will go because of social, economic and environmental issues beyond the scope of the little contest of Islam vs. Christianity. But by that time Islam as we know it today will be finished. It will remain Islam in name only. And the Arab world, with its precious fossil fuel reserves depleted, will dissolve back into the dunes of the desert. There will be no more funds to finances terrorist activities around the world.
http://www.ogrish.com/view_attachment.php?id=6413
Of course they run when they are out gunned - simple rule of warfare. Or don't you comprehend that ? Like i am sure a group of lightly armed national guard would attack faydeen, backed up with artillery and planes now would they ? So get real. Any nation could kick the iraq army ass - they are pathetic. One thing the yannks can't handle though is terrorism. You need to address the problem you see, as it will never go away. NEVER
Of course they run when they are out gunned - simple rule of warfare. Or don't you comprehend that ? Like i am sure a group of lightly armed national guard would attack faydeen, backed up with artillery and planes now would they ? So get real. Any nation could kick the iraq army ass - they are pathetic. One thing the yannks can't handle though is terrorism. You need to address the problem you see, as it will never go away. NEVER
That's a mighty big "YOU" you're using there. I believe your country has been a willing partner in this operation since its inception and still has thousands of forces on the ground. I know a few of you would love to turn the Iraq debate into a a debate on "US unilateral cowboyism," however, the hard reality is that there is quite a strong coalition of forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
There are currently 48 nations that are publicly supporting the operation or have forces deployed to Iraq. I would venture to say that many of these do so because they feel it is the right thing to do.
So who's against the operation? Mainly China, Russia, Germany, France and, of course, the various Islamic dictatorships. I know which side my money's on.
That's a mighty big "YOU" you're using there. I believe your country has been a willing partner in this operation since its inception and still has thousands of forces on the ground. I know a few of you would love to turn the Iraq debate into a a debate on "US unilateral cowboyism," however, the hard reality is that there is quite a strong coalition of forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
There are currently 48 nations that are publicly supporting the operation or have forces deployed to Iraq. I would venture to say that many of these do so because they feel it is the right thing to do.
So who's against the operation? Mainly China, Russia, Germany, France and, of course, the various Islamic dictatorships. I know which side my money's on.
Now take all those countries away that rely on US aid in someway:
BIG FAT ZERO.
Now take all those countries away that rely on US aid in someway:
BIG FAT ZERO.
OH yes and how many of those countries voted in a natiopnal referrndum to send troops ? None
Ummm... France relied only slightly on U.S. aid during WWII...
And Germany did as well after the war.
And yet, these two countries are some of the two most opposed to the war.
So forget your "the US bribed them" excuse.
Ummm... France relied only slightly on U.S. aid during WWII...
And Germany did as well after the war.
And yet, these two countries are some of the two most opposed to the war.
So forget your "the US bribed them" excuse.
Beer.
Goblin
Beer.
Goblin
Thanks, but I'm underage ;)
MonsterZero
06 Feb 04, 22:27
Marko, the United States has no obligation to "the Arab countries, Muslim countries or developing countries". America is for Americans and it has no business making citizens from those countries happy. This is for the same reason why the Republic of Slovenia has no obligation to Antarctica. I know most of the people from the places you mention would like to come over here and enjoy the American standard of living but unfortunately there isn't enough space for everyone. If that's the reason for the hate-unfortunately nothing can be done to solve the problem.
"Shock, rage and grief there has been aplenty. But any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process - or why the United States is hated with such bitterness, not only in Arab and Muslim countries, but across the developing world - seems almost entirely absent."
MonsterZero
08 Feb 04, 14:59
BTW, the community college I take my nursing classes in has a staggering number of Muslim/Arab students walking up and down the halls in their head scarves and black leather jackets. My rough estimate is that their presence has at least doubled since 1993 when I took my very first class at that institution.
Muslims are highly idealistic people when confronting the United States and accusing it of this and that but then they sell their idealism cheap-they'll trade anything for an American visa. Same thing for US haters from other develping countries.
Same thing for US haters from other develping countries.
Please would people differentiate between Bush haters and US haters.
MonsterZero
08 Feb 04, 19:31
Please would people differentiate between Bush haters and US haters.
That's right! It's all about Bush. Islam's assault on American values will go away as soon as Kerry gets elected.
Deltapooh
08 Feb 04, 21:08
Now take all those countries away that rely on US aid in someway:
BIG FAT ZERO.
If that were true, the first Gulf War was an unilateral effort. The UK and US bought the Coalition. We looked past human rights violations, endorsed loans, provided aid packages, etc to convince nations to join the Coalition against Iraq. Those who didn't support the effort found themselves isolated. King Hussein of Jordan spoke aboout how the US cut aid to his country when he refused to back the war. A number of people died of starvation.
So the US is use to purchasing international support. This is one reason why people like Bush have so little respect for these international bodies.
Muslims are highly idealistic people when confronting the United States and accusing it of this and that but then they sell their idealism cheap-they'll trade anything for an American visa. Same thing for US haters from other develping countries.
I doubt most of the people who desire visa's are anti-American. We complain about our own government daily, that doesn't mean we hate it. People can hate the policies of a government without hating the country that govern-ment represents. Bush employed that strategy during the war. He made it clear the war was against Saddam, not the Iraqi people.
That's right! It's all about Bush. Islam's assault on American values will go away as soon as Kerry gets elected.
I don't think Wolf meant it like that. Alot of people saw their opinion as more anti-Bush than anti-American. For example: in France, many people were shocked how offended we became when they expressed their disliking for the President.
It is possible to dislike the President, but still look favorably upon the nation. Americans practice this daily. The problem is many people support Bush's policies. Thus, the likelihood of Anti-Bushism being interpreted as anti-Americanism increases.
[QUOTE=Deltapooh
It is possible to dislike the President, but still look favorably upon the nation. Americans practice this daily. The problem is many people support Bush's policies. Thus, the likelihood of Anti-Bushism being interpreted as anti-Americanism increases.[/QUOTE]
That's right
As Bush's approval rating drops, does that mean more Americans are anti-american?? :rolleyes:
Deltapooh
09 Feb 04, 06:12
I think to a number of Americans, the answer might be closer to yes. Americans who feel we are at war are more inclined to place a greater emphasis on loyalty rather than competence. Their views are also less likely to be objetive.
This is one reason Bush is trying to sell himself as a President at war, and thinking in those terms. He is banking on the belief that his experience and position in the ongoing fight will make it less acceptible to remove him. It served FDR well. This strategy will backfire if the American people either see our nation as not one at war, or in need of waging one.
This trend is not limited to the US. A number of great leaders were booted after excellent service during a war. People found them less useful in the peace.
Personally, I don't see much of what I read in foriegn newspapers as Anti-Ameri-canism. If you want anti-American sentiment, people should read some of the Arab newspaper. Their articles are based completely on lies and written with the intent to create hostility and violence toward the United States.
Ummm... France relied only slightly on U.S. aid during WWII...
And Germany did as well after the war.
And yet, these two countries are some of the two most opposed to the war.
So forget your "the US bribed them" excuse.
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration today cut over $89 million in military aid to 32 friendly countries because they refused to exempt U.S. citizens and soldiers from the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court (ICC)--the world's first permanent tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1001-01.htm
The US bribes other countries and harbors terrorists just like any other rouge nation.
MonsterZero
15 Feb 04, 20:38
The US bribes other countries and harbors terrorists just like any other rouge nation.
:surprise:
Why don't you name some terrorists the US harbors?
Deltapooh
16 Feb 04, 00:18
The US bribes other countries and harbors terrorists just like any other rouge nation.
Individual national interest often dominates foriegn policy. The tradegy of bribery is rarely the offer. Individuals who accept bribes sell their ideals. The people who makes the proposal doesn't. Unfortunately, America accepts bribes as much as it offers them.
Why don't you name some terrorists the US harbors?
I'm not sure about harboring terrorists, but America does have a spotty record when it comes to dealing with them. For example, there are a number of people who feel the US did not do enough to crack down on PIRA sympathizers that provided financial support.
laszlo.nemedi
16 Feb 04, 03:46
...
Personally, I don't see much of what I read in foriegn newspapers as Anti-Ameri-canism. If you want anti-American sentiment, people should read some of the Arab newspaper. Their articles are based completely on lies and written with the intent to create hostility and violence toward the United States.
Can you name some of this type of newspaper? I choose some of them randomly and I cannot find this type of hateness.
If they are only few of them we cannot generalize (same as the US newspaper are not anti-Arabs, but some extrem newspaper can be)...
But I am ready to change my view if you point me to some (big) Arabic newspaper...
invasion - the act of invading; the act of an army that invades for conquest or plunder
war - the waging of armed conflict against an enemy
victory - a successful ending of a struggle or contest; "the general always gets credit for his army's victory"; "the agreement was a triumph for common sense
freedom - the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
external - outward features
liberty - immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence
independence - freedom from control or influence of another or others
So by the definition of words themselves, Iraq is far from free and far from being the second US state in the middle east. The first being Afghanistan - lol. When will Americans realise that democracy, freedom and liberty when shoved down your throat are not always easy to digest. US culture is not the norm - it is the exception - it is not perfect and in it's own corporate fashion kills thousands just like Saddam. Infact isn't the US the only place where children are sentenced to death and then executed when they are adults ? With regards to the US and terrorists:
Wielding Aid, U.S. Targets Sudan, The Washington Post
Nearly $20 million in surplus U.S. military equipment will be sent to Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda, the officials said, adding that the three countries support Sudanese opposition groups preparing a joint offensive to topple the government of Sudan. -- November 10, 1996
America to Fund Arms for Iraqi Rebels, The Independent
The bill allocating $97m worth of military equipment to the Iraqi opposition was forced on the administration by Congress . . . Laith Kubba, an Iraqi intellectual, said: "The only result of this will be to turn Iraq into another Lebanon, with the development of militias armed by foreign powers in the name of democracy." -- October 16, 1998
The U.S. bombing of Iraq, June 26, 1993, in retaliation for an alleged Iraqi plot to assassinate former president George Bush, "was essential," said President Clinton, "to send a message to those who engage in state-sponsored terrorism . . . and to affirm the expectation of civilized behavior among nations."
Following is a list of prominent individuals whose assassination (or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the end of the Second World War. The list does not include several assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro Cubans employed by the CIA and headquartered in the United States.
1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in West Germany
1955 - Jose Antonio Remon, President of Panama
1950s - Chou En-Lai, Prime Minister of China, several attempts on his life
1950s - Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 - Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1957 - Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1959 and 1963 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1960 - Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1950s-70s - Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
1961 - Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire)
1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life
1960s - Raul Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 - Francisco Caamano, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965 - Pierre Ngendandumwe, Prime Minister of Burundi
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader 1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 - Gen Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s, 1981 - Gen. Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-1986 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts on his life
1982 - Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
1983 - Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander
1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate
1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in attempt)
1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq
During 1997 there were a total of 123 attacks against the U.S. Of these, 97 occurred in Latin America; 4 in the Middle East.
On average far fewer Americans are killed each year by terrorists than are killed by lightning, deer accidents, or peanut allergies. To call terrorism a threat to national security is scarcely plausible.
... economic sanctions may well have been a necessary cause of the deaths of more people in Iraq than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history
Why don't you name some terrorists the US harbors?
Venezuela Electronic News
Venezuelanalysis.com correspondent Eva Golinger writes that the US press is not reporting on the contradictory actions of the Bush administration when it comes to dealing with Venezuela and its progressive, democratically-elected president Hugo Chavez Frias ... as Bush continues to increase his defense budget by $ billions and justifies unwarranted aggression and violence against other nations as part of his ‘war against terror,’ the US Department of Homeland Security looks the other way as terrorists flood through the arrival gates in Miami.
The US Citizenship & Immigration Services ... the division of the Department of Homeland Security that handles asylum petitions and immigration matters ... is currently considering asylum applications filed by two terror suspects fleeing from justice in Venezuela. An Interpol alert has been issued for the two rebel military officers who are suspects in the terrorist attacks against the Spanish Embassy and Consulate of Colombia in Caracas last February.
Major newspapers in the US are not reporting that Venezuelan military rebels and suspected terrorists Jose Antonio Colina and German Varela may very well soon be lawful permanent US residents ... shacked up in the safe-haven of Miami ... along with fellow fugitive from justice, Carlos Fernandez, one of the leaders of a business lock-out and sabotage of Venezuela’s oil industry which caused $10 billion in losses last year ... who is also awaiting his asylum hearing. Varela and Colina are part of a group of military officers who have sought to overthrow the Venezuelan government.
The US media’s conduct comes as no surprise as The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, Newsday and the Washington Post cheered on a short-lived coup d’etat against Chavez Frias in 2002. Some of them later apologized when the pro-US dictator was forced to step down by mass mobilizations and Chavez returned to power.
But, how can President Bush claim to be fighting a war against terrorism and at the same time, welcome terror suspects and coup leaders conspiring against democratic governments with open arms?
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/230104friendlyterrorists.html
This article only deals with Venezuela but the "free" Cubans seeking refuge in South Florida are also responsible for car bombings and other acts of terror in Cuba which would also constitute harboring terrorists. :clap:
The main point is a simple one and should be understandable by most: US hypocrisy. Obviously this hypocrisy is evident in every country in the world today. However, it is the level and intensity of hypocrisy that leaves a sour taste in the mouths of the decent people of this world. So in what areas is the US hypocritical ?
How about:
War crimes
Human rights
Trade
International Law
International Treaties
UN Resolutions
Supporting terrorism
So the war in Iraq can be used as an example:
Broke International Law in invasion, war crimes against civilians, human rights abuses with prisoners, opting out of ICC, SF ops to fuel terrorism before war, and finally a failure to listen to the UN or get UN approval. And of course there is one huge factor overlooked by all of this – LYING. Colin Powel and Bush and Blair and Rice – standing up in front of the world’s media and lying. As the investigations begin into an illegal war – the politicians start to blame the spies, so add cowards to the list. This is obviously not a reflection of the US populace – just the ruling powers – which unfortunately is the way in which the world judge a nation. I mean to the US most Palestinian people are dogs due to the Palestinian freedom fighters and the image they portray, but Palestinians just like Iraqis are normal people – simply have differing beliefs.
I hate to be the guy that brings up the past... but no one has done it yet (I think), so I am going to go for the World War Two argument. In the end... my British friend, if America hadn't been there for Britain (Not to mention those that don't support us: France, China, Russia, etc.), their beloved sovereignty would have been destroyed. When you speak of the United States of America as a nation that is fundamentally 'bad' you are just fooling yourself. Everyday you wake up you should thank us that you're still living in a Her Majesty's Consitutional Monarchy and not the Third Reich. Not to mention everything else that this American ingenuity brought you. In addition to our Abrams, Bradleys, 16s, and everything else.
And do you know what happens if America does nothing? You know yourself of the huge numbers of muslims, many of them sympathetic to the Al-Qaeda cause, that live in the United Kingdom. You become just a slave to the ambitions of madmen. When did it occur to any other country that they had the right to tell America what to do and when to do it, when we're the ones who they owe their very existence to.
I'm an American Imperialist - The Future is Coming. Hah.
And not to throw you one, but...
I'm voting Kerry in 2004, I don't particularly like Bush.
I hate to be the guy that brings up the past...
If you want to bring up the past you can make the argument the US owes its very existence to France. Without its help you would still be living in Her Majesty's Monarchy and pledging allegiance to the Union Jack.
If you want to bring the Berets into this.. we can do that.
World War One.. we saved France from being obliterated, and.. World War Two.. we did the same thing. Without America, France would be done, twice. So they still owe us one. I'll be patiently waiting.
If you want to bring the Berets into this.. we can do that.
World War One.. we saved France from being obliterated, and.. World War Two.. we did the same thing. Without America, France would be done, twice. So they still owe us one. I'll be patiently waiting.
Technically, they tied down the bulk of Britain's strength fighting Napolean during the War of 1812. So, in that respect, I'd say we are even. Two wars where they helped us get on our feet with, and two wars that we kept them in the ring, or gave them cpr afterwards.
Let's say they owe us.. "Maybe one." Because we don't know for sure that if Britain was set free it would have won. Besides, Britain was building an Empire throughout the 19th-Century, and they did send many of their best, battle-hardened forces after Napoleon was defeated. We do know that France would've bit the dust in both World War I and World War II.
Let's say they owe us.. "Maybe one." Because we don't know for sure that if Britain was set free it would have won. Besides, Britain was building an Empire throughout the 19th-Century, and they did send many of their best, battle-hardened forces after Napoleon was defeated. We do know that France would've bit the dust in both World War I and World War II.
France didn't and wouldn't hade bitten the dust in world War I - the US helped shorten the war, but I refuse to believe that the US won WWI - WWII is different, but don't forget your unsinkable aircraft carrier.
What you think the bloodied BEF (British Expeditionary Force) could've held a candle to Imperial Germany if America had stayed neutral during the war? No way.
France would have fallen, if not sooner, than later. The United States not only broke the back of Germany with its Arsenal, but also with the political effectiveness of the U.S. entrance into the war. It was getting more and more apparent to the Germans that it was a lost conflict. When America joined it it was just a matter of time.
France owes its independence to America... Twice.
Let's say they owe us.. "Maybe one." Because we don't know for sure that if Britain was set free it would have won. Besides, Britain was building an Empire throughout the 19th-Century, and they did send many of their best, battle-hardened forces after Napoleon was defeated. We do know that France would've bit the dust in both World War I and World War II.
Y'know, I always wonder how so many people believe America won the 2 world wars...
Germany, in WWI, was economically broke by the time USA entered WWI, and although I don't deny the entry of US forces had no impact, I simply refuse to accept they "saved" France.
Germany, by 1944, when America finally came along to 'liberate' France, was already beaten, again, with financial assistance, and eventual ground forces, they shortened the whole affair, but to assume the USA came along and won it by themselves is stupid.
France would have fallen, if not sooner, than later. The United States not only broke the back of Germany with its Arsenal, but also with the political effectiveness of the U.S. entrance into the war. It was getting more and more apparent to the Germans that it was a lost conflict. When America joined it it was just a matter of time.
Cortez, are we talking WWI or II here?
If its WWII, can you explain how the arsenal and political impact of USA declaring war on Germany in 1941 broke her back?
Or was it maybe Barbarossa?
Prester John
23 Feb 04, 01:19
Y'know, I always wonder how so many people believe America won the 2 world wars...
Germany, in WWI, was economically broke by the time USA entered WWI, and although I don't deny the entry of US forces had no impact, I simply refuse to accept they "saved" France.
Germany, by 1944, when America finally came along to 'liberate' France, was already beaten, again, with financial assistance, and eventual ground forces, they shortened the whole affair, but to assume the USA came along and won it by themselves is stupid.
You obviously don't watch enough Hollywood movies. Biggest laugh I had watching a WW2 movie, U-571, was when they changed it from Royal to US Navy capturing the German submarine enigma machine. I can now imagine what the Soviet history books must be like too.
I hate to be the guy that brings up the past... but no one has done it yet (I think), so I am going to go for the World War Two argument. In the end... my British friend, if America hadn't been there for Britain (Not to mention those that don't support us: France, China, Russia, etc.), their beloved sovereignty would have been destroyed. When you speak of the United States of America as a nation that is fundamentally 'bad' you are just fooling yourself. Everyday you wake up you should thank us that you're still living in a Her Majesty's Consitutional Monarchy and not the Third Reich. Not to mention everything else that this American ingenuity brought you. In addition to our Abrams, Bradleys, 16s, and everything else.
And do you know what happens if America does nothing? You know yourself of the huge numbers of muslims, many of them sympathetic to the Al-Qaeda cause, that live in the United Kingdom. You become just a slave to the ambitions of madmen. When did it occur to any other country that they had the right to tell America what to do and when to do it, when we're the ones who they owe their very existence to.
I'm an American Imperialist - The Future is Coming. Hah.
Oh jesus H Christ...and if it wasn't for Britain there would be no f88king US of A .... muppet. So if wasn't for us you'd be an Indian - native indian that is.
And Indian native? Shouldn't you be calling them savages, Tommy?
What are you talking about the U.S.. "Liberated" France in quotation marks?
Read a history book.
The arsenal of democracy was present in both cases, without American help, Europe would be Hun-ruled.
And Indian native? Shouldn't you be calling them savages, Tommy?
What are you talking about the U.S.. "Liberated" France in quotation marks?
Read a history book.
The arsenal of democracy was present in both cases, without American help, Europe would be Hun-ruled.
I take it the last 2 paragraphs are for me, and not Marko?
I read plenty of history books, I just dont see where you can justify your statement about USA alone breaking Germany's back.
By the time D-Day happened, Germany was a shadow of its former strength.
Not taking anything away from strategic bombing and lend-lease/war loans, to take all the credit is downright arrogant and just plain wrong, Germanys back was broken on the Eastern front, where the arsenal of communism was :cheeky:
U.S. Declaration of War - December, 1941
Invasion of Normandy - June 6th, 1944
No one ever said that the U.S. had all the credit. The United States of America invaded North Africa first, launched massive bomber campaigns with enormous early losses, invaded Sicily and then mainland Italy itself, fought naval battles in the North Atlantic and Pacific. Brought empires to its knees. Without the U.S. Your country would be part of the Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere (If you don't know what that is.. ask me.) Without us they would've lost the war. And just the thought of that not being true disgraces the thousands that died in that war. On every allied side.
No one ever said that the U.S. had all the credit.
World War One.. we saved France from being obliterated, and.. World War Two.. we did the same thing. Without America, France would be done, twice. So they still owe us one. I'll be patiently waiting.
But your impying it, all this "we" stuff, they still owe "us" etc etc
The United States of America invaded North Africa first, launched massive bomber campaigns with enormous early losses, invaded Sicily and then mainland Italy itself, fought naval battles in the North Atlantic and Pacific. Brought empires to its knees. Without the U.S. Your country would be part of the Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere (If you don't know what that is.. ask me.) Without us they would've lost the war. And just the thought of that not being true disgraces the thousands that died in that war. On every allied side.
I know what it is, and at the time, "my country" was probably Holland, as thats where my grandparents were.
I never said those things you mentioned didnt help, but revise what you said please:
The USA invaded North Africa, you forget the French, British, NZ, Aussie, South Africans, Indians and more than likely a whole bunch of other Allied forces were already there, and had the Africa Corps on the back foot.
And had been fighting for quite some time.
The massive bomber campaigns (I assume you mean Europe here) did have an effect on German industry, and slowed down production, even though overall Germany Productivity went up in '43 and '44. And again, it wasnt just the USA doing all the work.
Invasion of Sicily/North Atlantic - do I need to mention the other allied forces again?
The Pacific was not really relevant to bringing Germany to its knees, I guess that was a little off topic to try and involve my current country of residence, and how much we must grovel whenever an American speaks.
Your lack of acknowledgement of the other forces does them injustice.
Who you speak of in regards to "they" I do not know, as you are now going off-topic and mentioning other areas, but if you mean Britain and Russia, I beg to differ.
While I defer to what I have already said in regards to American assistance, to say for 100% certainty that without American assistance 'they' would have lost, I do not agree with.
One fact remains clear: Without "us"... "You" wouldn't be here.
I believe thats called 'speculation'.
I might be speaking Russian or something, but I see no facts here.
Speculation? That's a disgrace.
So you're saying the thousands who died, died in vain? And if the United States hadn't entered.. everybody would've been fine?
Ridiculous.
Speculation? That's a disgrace.
So you're saying the thousands who died, died in vain? And if the United States hadn't entered.. everybody would've been fine?
Ridiculous.
Wheres the disgrace? Your saying as a fact that without US intervention everyone would be speaking German, since that didn't happen, its called "speculation".
To help you out, heres some definitions:
Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
Speculation: Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.
Nowhere have I reasoned that thousands died in vain, nor everybody would be fine.
The only thing ridiculous is your assumptions.
One fact remains clear: Without "us"... "You" wouldn't be here.
LOl. And without us you wouldn't be here.
By the way the US peak strength during WWII was 12.3 million.
The peak strength of the British (& Commonwealth) was 9.1 million.
Peak Russian 20 million.
Peak Chinese (fighting Japan) 5 million.
Did you also know that 9/10 Germans killed in the war were killed by Russia ? If you had not entered the war, Russia would have destroyed Germany. And you my friend would be talking a mix of British and Russian.
Did you also know that 9/10 Germans killed in the war were killed by Russia ? If you had not entered the war, Russia would have destroyed Germany. And you my friend would be talking a mix of British and Russian.
To be picky, I was under the impression that it was 80% of German casualties were caused by the Russians, so its more like 8/10 :D
Though, the whole concept seems to elude our friend... :cheeky:
To be picky, I was under the impression that it was 80% of German casualties were caused by the Russians, so its more like 8/10 :D
Though, the whole concept seems to elude our friend... :cheeky:
Alternatively, without "us" he might be speaking Japanese by now - I don't have the figures but there were an awful lot of BACF troops in the Pacific.
Speaking.. "British" .. it's English.. is it not.
It's not speculation when as a result of something happening creating a "fact" that would not be there unless the United States entered.
I'd like to see New Zealand or Australia survive without the U.S. They were begging for troops back in 1942. Britain's basically the same thing. Without U.S. fighting men, aircraft, tanks, and huge amounts of aid. There would be no RAF.
Speaking.. "British" .. it's English.. is it not.
? :confused: ? Is this in reference to what Marko said?
If so, British includes the commonwealth of nations, England does not, since he said & Commonwealth, I thought that was as obvious as one could make it without having to list everything.
It's not speculation when as a result of something happening creating a "fact" that would not be there unless the United States entered.
Yes, but we are talking about the US not being there, therefore, its speculation. Its not that hard a concept is it?
I'd like to see New Zealand or Australia survive without the U.S. They were begging for troops back in 1942. Britain's basically the same thing. Without U.S. fighting men, aircraft, tanks, and huge amounts of aid. There would be no RAF.
I dont think they would have lasted long against Germany, but we all know this, and its off-topic, if again you are trying to attack my country of residence, let me tell you something, I know NZ or Oz wouldnt have held a candle to Imperial Germany in the late 30's/early 40's, in "fact", I would have liked to have seen USA try to attack them alone, I doubt they would they achieved much as well.
? :confused: ? Is this in reference to what Marko said?
If so, British includes the commonwealth of nations, England does not, since he said & Commonwealth, I thought that was as obvious as one could make it without having to list everything.
It is obvious, but it's an incorrect term. Shouldn't you be the one to jump on him for that. Afterall Tripps, you seem to love to lay out lengthy definitions of terminology. "English" is the name of the language. Not British.
I dont think they would have lasted long against Germany, but we all know this, and its off-topic, if again you are trying to attack my country of residence, let me tell you something, I know NZ or Oz wouldnt have held a candle to Imperial Germany in the late 30's/early 40's, in "fact", I would have liked to see USA try to attack them, I doubt they would they achieved much as well.
And do you actually think that NZ or Australia could've held a candle to the Imperial Japanese in World War Two? No. The problem is you're getting mixed up in all this terminology talk, yet you're missing the point that the United States was the prime factor in why Australia and New Zealand aren't part of a Co-Prosperity sphere under Japan.
How dare you question the role the United States played. If you say that it's speculation that without the U.S. that your nation, or any other free and allied could have sustained their sovereignty, then it's speculation if you say they could've survived is it not? It's entirely speculative, the whole thing.
But how can you speculate on the impact that the U.S. forces did to the World War II axis? You can't. That's the problem with your argument.
It is obvious, but it's an incorrect term. Shouldn't you be the one to jump on him for that. Afterall Tripps, you seem to love to lay out lengthy definitions of terminology. "English" is the name of the language. Not British.
Ok, number one, no one apart from you has made mention to the word "English", hence why I asked was your comments in regards to what Marko said.
You have declined to point out what you were referring to, so its a little difficult to understand just where you are coming from.
Number two, the word English:
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of England or its people or culture.
2. Of or relating to the English language.
So you are wrong there.
And do you actually think that NZ or Australia could've held a candle to the Imperial Japanese in World War Two? No. The problem is you're getting mixed up in all this terminology talk, yet you're missing the point that the United States was the prime factor in why Australia and New Zealand aren't part of a Co-Prosperity sphere under Japan.
No I dont think so, I have no idea why you would think I think this, just where do I even mention anything to do about this???
This is completely off topic regarding USA and Germany, If you would please stay on topic, maybe we can get somewhere.
How dare you question the role the United States played. If you say that it's speculation that without the U.S. that your nation, or any other free and allied could have sustained their sovereignty, then it's speculation if you say they could've survived is it not? It's entirely speculative, the whole thing.
I dont question the role the US played, I question your over-emphasis of it.
You say the US beat Germany thus saving France from the Germans, I say Russia had them beat before D-Day, all that did was shorten the whole affair, and maybe save France/Western Europe from communism.
But how can you speculate on the impact that the U.S. forces did to the World War II axis? You can't. That's the problem with your argument.
Problem is, you dont understand your argument, let alone mine...
Martin Schenkel
26 Feb 04, 01:44
France owes its independence to America... Twice.
France helped out the fledgling American colonists in the war of independence, so I guess the USA owes its independence to France.
Ok, number one, no one apart from you has made mention to the word "English", hence why I asked was your comments in regards to what Marko said.
You have declined to point out what you were referring to, so its a little difficult to understand just where you are coming from.
Number two, the word English:
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of England or its people or culture.
2. Of or relating to the English language.
So you are wrong there.
Marko had said.. that someone (I forget who) spoke.. "British" the name of the LANGUAGE is not British it's English.
So you're wrong.
No I dont think so, I have no idea why you would think I think this, just where do I even mention anything to do about this???
This is completely off topic regarding USA and Germany, If you would please stay on topic, maybe we can get somewhere.
We're talking the results of World War II without U.S. intervention. Get your priorities straight and stop acting like you don't know what I'm talking about just to make your argument "better".
I dont question the role the US played, I question your over-emphasis of it.
You say the US beat Germany thus saving France from the Germans, I say Russia had them beat before D-Day, all that did was shorten the whole affair, and maybe save France/Western Europe from communism.
Over-emphasis? The United States of America was fighting on two fronts. Russia was fighting on one. Russia did not have them beat on D-Day. Without an expected second front where do you think numerous important Panzer Korps would've been? In the East. And you say that it "maybe" saved Western Europe from Communism? What? You think that Russia would've just said.. "Ok, have a democracy" after they had conquered the rest of Europe. You're just dreaming their my Oceanic friend.
Problem is, you dont understand your argument, let alone mine...
Too bad I think the same thing... about your argument. :dead:
Martin Schenkel
26 Feb 04, 22:13
Over-emphasis? The United States of America was fighting on two fronts. Russia was fighting on one. Russia did not have them beat on D-Day. Without an expected second front where do you think numerous important Panzer Korps would've been? In the East.
The three most decisive battles on the eastern front had been fought by July 1943 (Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk). The Russians had gained the strategic initiative before the western allies set foot on mainland Europe.
The three most decisive battles on the eastern front had been fought by July 1943 (Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk). The Russians had gained the strategic initiative before the western allies set foot on mainland Europe.
And where do you think a huge chunk of divisions that could've fought in those battles had it not been for preparation of an invasion of mainland Europe? At MOSCOW. At STALINGRAD.. and At KURSK.
Russians without American help = :dead:
They were tied down, awaiting an American/British invasion.
Martin Schenkel
26 Feb 04, 22:30
And where do you think a huge chunk of divisions that could've fought in those battles had it not been for preparation of an invasion of mainland Europe? At MOSCOW. At STALINGRAD.. and At KURSK.
The majority of German divisions in the west prior to 1943 were understrength and second rate. It wasn't until late 43 and early 44 that Hitler really began making preparations for an Allied landing in NW Europe. The Atlantic wall had been largely neglected until this point. The best divisions in the west were the ones being rotated out of Russia, after suffering heavy losses or being destroyed.
Russians without American help = :dead:
While Allied lend-lease in the end was quite effective, US lend-lease didn't really start to kick in until the summer of 1943, after the Russians had gained the strategic initiative. Most lend-lease recieved by Russia up to this point, was in fact from Britain.
Alternatively, without "us" he might be speaking Japanese by now - I don't have the figures but there were an awful lot of BACF troops in the Pacific.
well if you consider the troops sacrificed at singapore by the british there would not have been a need for assistance.
but really the brits did nothing in the pacific but move back to secure their old interests after the japs haed been turned back by the US and ANZACS
And where do you think Britain got the money and the lend-lease equipment from?
Hah. Hah. Hah. You know the answer to that question.
Martin Schenkel
26 Feb 04, 22:41
And where do you think Britain got the money and the lend-lease equipment from?
The equipment sent to Russia by Britain was British designed, and British built (also a lot of Canadian built equipment too). US lend-lease to Britain similarly didn't really kick in until the summmer of 1943.
British equipment, funded by American money.
They were tied down, awaiting an American/British invasion.
now that is a twisted view of reality. maybe you should look at the amount of resources and manpower that was poured into (and wasted) on the eastern front by germany before making statements like that, it may enhance other peoples respect for your opinion.
Maybe you should capitalize the first letter in your sentences.
It may enhance other people's respect for your opinion.
Martin Schenkel
26 Feb 04, 22:50
British equipment, funded by American money.
US lend-lease (both money and equipment), didn't really kick in until mid 1943.
Maybe you should capitalize the first letter in your sentences.
It may enhance other people's respect for your opinion.
Yes, a nice neat presentation devoid of factual evidence is far more superior. :p
Marko had said.. that someone (I forget who) spoke.. "British" the name of the LANGUAGE is not British it's English.
So you're wrong.
FYI: British - Of or relating to Great Britain or its people, language, or culture.
So please explain where i'm wrong, I suggest you might want to open a dictionary, its usually a large book with lots of words and explains the meaning.
Over-emphasis? The United States of America was fighting on two fronts. Russia was fighting on one. Russia did not have them beat on D-Day.
Look at a Eastern Europe situation map at the start of each summer 1941, 1942, 1943, and then 1944, and ask yourself was Germany in the sh*t or not before D-day.
Without an expected second front where do you think numerous important Panzer Korps would've been? In the East.
Take those 'numerous' divisions in each year, 1941, 42, 43, and 44, and then compare them to the actual number of divisions in the East on each year.
And you say that it "maybe" saved Western Europe from Communism? What? You think that Russia would've just said.. "Ok, have a democracy" after they had conquered the rest of Europe. You're just dreaming their my Oceanic friend.
No I dont think that, a possibility is England and Canada and the free French etc etc etc have D-day by themselves, maybe a little later, maybe even after Berlin has fallen and the Germans in W.E. dont wanna fight no more, who knows, the point is, I said maybe because there are to many variables to accurately say, even maybe yours is valid.
And where do you think a huge chunk of divisions that could've fought in those battles had it not been for preparation of an invasion of mainland Europe? At MOSCOW. At STALINGRAD.. and At KURSK.
Russians without American help = :dead:
Come on now, just how many Americans were steaming their way towards Europe during the battle for Moscow??
Just how big is this "chunk" compared to the actual forces in Russia?
Read up a little.
The equipment sent to Russia by Britain was British designed, and British built (also a lot of Canadian built equipment too). US lend-lease to Britain similarly didn't really kick in until the summmer of 1943.
I believe a stubstantial amount of Stuarts and Grants were sent to Africa in 1942 to ease British AFV's woes there.
I can probably dig out the actual figures, but in comparrison to the total amounts of lend-lease by the end of WWII it's pretty negligible.
Martin Schenkel
27 Feb 04, 01:14
I believe a stubstantial amount of Stuarts and Grants were sent to Africa in 1942 to ease British AFV's woes there.
I can probably dig out the actual figures, but in comparrison to the total amounts of lend-lease by the end of WWII it's pretty negligible.
Yes, the Stuarts, Grants (and even a few Shermans) played a big part in the victory at El Alamein. Then again, there were many other factors involved, and even the relatively small amount of Stuarts and (in particular) Grants made a large impact on the heavily depleted German panzers. I don't know if the Stuarts and Grants were the single decisive factor at El Alamein.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.