 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
livid imp
|
 |
Gimme a quarter or I'll touch you
Mar 2004
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ArcLight
Apologies if anyone actually took offence to that, but inaccurate or not it appeals to my childish sense of humour & bearing in mind the rate at which the thread degenerated it seemed rather fitting. |
Hijacked threads aren't rare, might as well get used to them. It is the nature of human conversation. I doubt anyone took any offense, but entering into a long established forum in that manner isn't likely to make you any friends (of course you could be like myself and not give a sh!t if people like you or not, what do I really know)
quote:
Originally posted by ArcLight
Actually tho, i've not read something so unintentionally funny in ages.
Strange how just about any topic can turn into America vs. the world....  |
Used to be I would blow off most criticisms of the USA as jealousy. But in the last four years the US has offered increasingly little to the rest of the world and in exchange we've been ten fold more belligerent. I can now understand why people are so angry with us.
For years the US has made it a big fuss pointing out belligerent rogue states such as Libya, N Korea, Iran, and more recently Iraq for their 'F^ck the world! We'll do as we please' attitude. Now that the world didn't want to take part in Bush's oil war, Bush is the once yelling 'F^ck the world! We'll do as we please!' I'm so irritated with the state of this country right now I wont fly the US Flag over my avatar. If Kerry wins this November I'll fly it again, but right now it is hard to be a proud American when we keep repeating the mistakes of the past **cough** vietnam **cough**.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
livid imp
|
|
Gimme a quarter or I'll touch you
Mar 2004
time: 21:33
|
|
Edit:
Nevermind, dont go there.....off topic is caulk full of crazed conservative trolls just waiting to attack ANYTHING that gets posted there.
Last edited by livid imp on 13-10-2004 at 04:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ellestar
|
|
Russian Federation, Moscow
Feb 2003
time: 08:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
I don't know much, but I do know that WW2 was because of some insane fascist. Okay, so it is fairly arguable that Europe has seen a lot of war in that. But Europe, being stupid, has to go to war because some of it doesn't like Jewish people. If it weren't for America, chances are Germany would have won. I didn't see one of Europes 'glorious' generals leading D-Day, the decisive battle of the war. No, it was an American 5 star general, Eisenhower. And you say America hasn't seen war? |
Haha it's a common joke in Russia that USA won WW2. But still it's funny to see that some of you really think that way. The turning point of war on European theatre was a battle for Stalingrad. After that battle, Germany had no chances. USSR finally refitted heavy industry for a war, and starting from 1943 USSR made more tanks/airplanes/artillery etc. than Germany. Add to that a fact that Germany lost several major battles and it will be obvious that USSR should have won WW2 on european theatre anyway.
Why USA finally participated in WW2, you ask? Well, imagine if all europe was communist and under influence of USSR (like east Germany, Poland etc). Obvioulsly, UK and USA didn't wanted to make USSR a strongest superpower on Earth. So, they waited when USSR, Germany and other participating sides will destroy each other (at least, economically). After that, with a comparatively very small investments they prevented USSR from domination and saved their industry to become a superpower themselves while others suffered from a war greatly.
If you think a little, it wasn't a two-side war even on European WW2 theatre. Why do you think USSR lost one millon people in a battle for Berlin? USSR didn't fought against Hitler, in a battle for Berlin USSR fought for dominance in a world after WW2.
How about a "Western bertrayal"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...War_II_politics
That truly shows what Europe was a can of scorpions before WW2. France didn't helped Czechoslovakia because Czechoslovakia had an agreement with USSR that USSR helps Czechoslovakia to defend against Germany... but helps only if France helps Czechoslovakia in the first place (France had a non-conditional defence agreement with Czechoslovakia). So, France decides that it's better to hand over his ally Czechoslovakia to Germany than to make USSR more powerful (at that time they thought that USSR is a more serious threat than Germany and didn't wanted to increase USSR influence by allowing USSR to help Czechoslovakia). After that, Stalin decides that "allies" can easily break all their agreements with USSR the same way and decided to make an agreements with Germany too (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). Now comes the Poland with "strange war" where "allies" (France/UK) hand over another ally to Nazies. Good work! Unfortunately for these coward "allies", Germany decides to own their cowardly asses instead of attacking USSR. Too bad for them, they thought that Germany will attack USSR first and will exhaust both themselves and USSR in their war (while "allies" will hide against their defence lines, human-made like France one or natural like UK one), and as a result an "allies" will be the ones who will win from this conflict - basically, an exact copy of USA plan for WW2.
All of that happened because someone thought too much about dominance and too little about allies, agreements and human lives.
So, in concluson, you're both right and wrong. USA obviously didn't helped to win a war against Germany in a sense that USA "helped" when Germany was doomed anyway. But USA is probably the only country that "won" a WW2 in a broad sence - they lost almost nothing and became a superpower after WW2. France/UK tried to do that too, but were unsuccessful.
Last edited by Ellestar on 31-01-2005 at 19:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
 |
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:33
|
|
Okay, so I did a little research on WW2 and the US, and for some things (but not all), I stand corrected...
And sorry about my previous posts, I literally just finished up an arguement at some political forum (that I'll never go to again) that day about fascism and all that crap and it really turned me off. And remember, always do your research, so anyway...
Depending on how you interpret 'turning point', there really could be three points, Stalingrad, Moscow, and D-Day.
A book I got from the library, THE BATTLE 100, ranks the top 100 most influential battles of all time.
Stalingrad is number 3
D-Day is number 13
Moscow is number 22
Stalingrad was definitely 'the turning point' as in the place where german offense stopped, however, D-Day was the actual battle that killed germany. Even after Stalingrad, germany was still powerful, still occupied France, and hadn't really lost the war. All Stalingrad did was ensure Russia survived WW2, and because of this, Germany was denied to numerous oil wells and the ability to expand into the mid-east...but that doesn't mean Stalingrad wasn't important. Had Russia lost, the cold war might have been between germany and the US, but even that is doubtful.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:33
|
|
Anyway, back to the US...
For all intensive purpose, lets compare the US, the EU, China, and Russia
Sources are the www.cia.gov website
First, GDP...
1. EU--11,050 billion
2. US--10,990 billion
3. China--6,449 billion
4. Russia--1,282 billion
EU takes the lead, but not by much. For the most part, US and the EU are even. Keep in mind, the EU is a loosely formed confederation, made by individual nations, so the US is by far more powerful than any single individual European nation in the EU. The closest, Germany, has only 2,271 billion and follows after Japan, India, and China. America and Asia appear to triumph over Europe in this category, but that depends on how you look at it...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:33
|
|
Now we have population...
1. China--1,289 million
2. EU--456 million
3. US--293 million
4. Russia--144 million
China takes an obvious lead, and the gap between the EU and the US is considerably large. However, US, compared to any individual European nation, triumphs, as its closest competitor is germany, at 82 million. But, that depends on if you consider the EU one nation...
Of course, as seen in China, population means nothing about quality of life...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:33
|
|
Now just between US and EU, we'll compare a bunch of things.
Literacy rate...
US and most European countries both have 99%, however some Eastern European countries are lower, but still close enough...
As for unemployment...
US--6.00
EU--9.10
Note that Switzerland and Ukrain have 3.7 and the UK has 5.00
Considering its size, I'd give the US credit. After all, when you have countries as small as Switzerland and Luxembourg, it's hard to compare, since smaller generally means higher standards of living, and more manageable. But, they are still better. So it appears, since the UK does have a lot of influence, that some of Europe beats the US here, it just depends on what parts...
Life expectancy
US--77.43
EU--78.10
Europe wins here, and clearly. It looks like the excuse of being larger doesn't work here, since the EU has both more people and more land. Since the EU is an average, that means that about half the countries are better than the US. These include Spain, the UK, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and a few others...
The last part, of course, is personal experience. Facts are important, but ultimately it is your opinion of the country that matters. I think the US is better. That's it, that's final, that's my opinion. Europeans probably think Europe is better. I believe in the American ideals, the American dream. While Europe, or most of it, is similiar, I think America just goes a wee bit farther. But that's all subjective.
In the end, though, it's still always fun to make fun of the American government and president bush...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:33
|
|
Okay, so now back to war...
So, for this thread, how do you define war? If you mean military generals and armies, then you only would see have the combat of America.
America, unlike Europe, fought Indians, constantly, feared Indians everyday, got raided and scalped by them, and what did Europe do? Well, the bloody French told the Indians to scalp people.
So maybe it wasn't organized warfare. Who cares. I didn't see any European battles where people smoked weed and then went around cutting people's scalp off. No, Europe never has had to worry about Indians, never, not since Rome and the celts anyway...
And then there are the odds. There are always odds. And they were usually against America. And yet, America beat the odds, which pretty muchs means America beat Europe everytime. And when I say America, I include Mexico too. You know your little prized emperor, Napolean? Yeah, well he lost to the Mexicans, THE FREAKING MEXICANS. How sad can you get?
Let's see, America beat the British, TWICE. Never mind the fact America was outnumbered. Never mind the fact it had no supplies and no training, nor a navy. And yet, it defeated the largest army in the world, and then it set up a government that modeled for the rest of the world, including Europe.
And then there's the Texas revolution. Ever heard of the Alamo? How about San Jacinto, where a bunch of rogue woodsmen defeated the larger, better trained Mexican army.
And then came both World Wars. I'm sorry, but America won WW2. America planned D-Day, America lead D-Day, and at the same time America defeated Japan. If I remember correctly, it was Indonesia that was attacked, and wasn't that under Dutch and French control? I'm sorry, at least it WAS under their control.
And then there comes Vietnam. Yep, the Americans lost alright. But they didn't lose to the mexicans. And they didn't lose to themselves, no, we'll leave that to France...
Take Iraq. If it weren't for the US, nobody would have attacked, no-body. The European military, the UN military is absolutely nothing without the US. I'm sorry, maybe the US feds have their issues, but atleast they get crap done. The EU and the UN, at best, just send money and rally America. About the only exception to this would be the UK.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:33
|
|
But let's be fair to Europe...
Europe did have some very important battles, including those of Vienna and Tours.
In both battles, against all odds, the Europeans drove back the fanatical muslim armies, and I do give credit for that.
And, last time I checked, I didn't see American soldiers sitting in trenches getting high of nerve gas from the Germans, and I rightly commend the French for that, too...
Europe has had some great military leaders, probably the best of all time, even if they were fascists. It was, after all, the little emperor Napolean that first gave European citizens freedoms and rights...
I don't want to dis Europe. Europe is great. Forget about the US, Europe is a great place. Maybe its better than the US, maybe it's worse, but it's still better than the rest of the world. I just don't appreciate people dissing America for no reason.
It's all cool to dis the feds and George Bush every once in a while, even us Americans do that, but America has come a long way, has pioneered freedom and democracy, and rightly deserves credit for that...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:33
|
|
Numbers, you say? So how much math do you know?
You claim the ratio of UK soldiers to US soldiers is 4 to 1.
Then if there were 100,000 soldiers, 20,000 would be American. MATHEMATICALLY speaking, that is a significant number. Not a majority, but significant, significant enough to mean the difference between complete defeat and immediate victory.
I bet those 80,000 UK soldiers would really appreciate the extra support, even if it is only one fourth of their own number.
And might I remind you, it was American intiative to plan D-Day. True, European leaders did help, but I didn't see Eisenhower fighting for the Royal Air Force.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:33
|
|
And about the Royal Airforce, wasn't it American pilots that joined it? Quite a few, I believe...
And wasn't it America that provided the destroyers to Churchill to defeat the U-boats...
I'm sorry, you can try and argue that germany would have lost without America, and you'd probably be right. But the Americans ended the war quickly, and probably saved thousands, perhaps millions of lives...
And I didn't see Churchill doing to much to fight the Japenese either...so maybe perth got bombed just like pearl harbor, atleast the Americans did something about it...in fact, they gave away boats to the British and fought the Japenese navy at the same time...and won...
And anyway, the arguement is who has seen more war, America or Europe.
So for comparison...
While American Indians were smoking weed...
Europeans were fighting over who was the son of some mother that had 6 husbands...
While Americans were standing in lunch lines...
Nazis were making meth...
While Americans struggled to land space shuttles...
Europeans struggled to launch them...
So for all intensive purposes, I think we're even...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
livid imp
|
|
Gimme a quarter or I'll touch you
Mar 2004
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
German numbers were like 4million on the East and 1.5 million in France + Norway! |
Technically, by the numbers, the USA had the harder fight then. USSR had a 2:1 advantage over the Germans, vs. the USA's 1.3:1
btw BT, you are going way too far on this anti-American kick. You are trying to rewrite history here. Fact is that the US was instrumental in winning both WW1 and WW2. Now grant it, we did come into a fight that was already half-over, but that doesn't diminish the sacrifices that millions of Americans made. You can put down the US all you want, but the bottom line is that Americans died so that Europeans could be free. I think we should get a little credit for that.
Yea the US is a selfish superpower, so what. Show me one industrialized nation that isn't. The US isn't perfect, far from it. At least 51% of the country has their heads up there a$$. I am so embarrassed politically with the US right now, I don't keep the flag over my avatar. But even with that in mind, this is still my home, and I love it. So much like a child behaving badly, you don't abandon it, you try to correct its behavior. I'd say 80% of those with dubious political views are basically good people that truly don't understand the views they defend. Unfortunately the other 20% are evil f@#kers are the ones that control much of America's politics and infrastructure. That 20% will always be there, but the other 80% can be reformed over time.
And claiming that man was never on the moon is the "lunatic fringe". (get it LUNAtic...harhar)
We have rocks from those missions. Are you telling me that the dozens of independent Geologists which have studied these moon rocks are all part of a grand conspiracy? We have sent probes all over the solar system, why would it be so difficult to send men a mere three days away to the moon? It takes more technology to reach the lowest depths of a ocean trench.
I have always seen you as more level-headed and intellectual than this BT. Take a rest and think about what you are saying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
binTravkin
|
 |
Lord of Progress of the Council of Lords of Gaia
Jan 2004
time: 07:33
|
|
quote:
I have always seen you as more level-headed and intellectual than this BT. Take a rest and think about what you are saying. |
You know, there is always a freedom of thought and I dont think that Im less intellectual just because I think that stars on moon shine significantly brighter that on those pics on moon.
And you know what made me think so?
Mostly the arguments of NASA. Some of them are not made for intelligent people, but for those "80%" you mention. And reading them I became quite suspicious about the reality.
The last point was when one of the top astronomers in Latvia - the President Of Latvian Astronomy Association and quite widely known person at least between European astronomers (due to his effort in search for "ecoplanets") G. Vilks showed in a lecture a few examples how can people detect fake astronomy themselves. He by point admitted that he personally doesn't believe US was on moon and as many peope became very frustrated with such news he also explained why.
His explanations were simple and understandable and he also gave some formulas to prove them.
One of them was bout luminosity of moon and it's impact on the picture.
It covered 3 common questioned things - the lack of stars, sudden brightness of some objects and strange shadow angles.
What I remember was I was sitting with open mouth hearing all this because I thougt it couldn't be so..
Im not any specialist to argue with formulas and other proofs, I simply dont know or barely know them, but not a single argument has proved the opposite from what I heard there..
About faking transmissions - rather easy, just send a probe on the same route which accepts incoming transmissions from Earth and then transfers them back to Earth - so people think theyre coming from a spaceship..
It's not so hard technically and Im not the first person who suggested this explanation, some guys from PhysMaths (Institute of Physics&Mathematics of Latvian University).
And rocks can be gathered by automated modules, not only humans.
I understand it's rather hard when your nation gets attacked this way, but I've noticed that most people there even dont bother to check the info and think about other arguments - they just shoot their "US the best, you Europe suck" arguments without answering to other and if they do, sometimes there are answers like "Answer why you dont see stars on Moon pictures are CLOUDS" - see Commys post.
I've saw that picture saying "Arguing over internet is like running in Olympics for retarded", but I never fully believed it.
Now I do.
Many people just dont understand the word "discuss".
They think it's when you blame someone for blaming something, not think about what he's saying and providing something reasonable in exchange.
BTW - have you heard how they confiscted all cameras and other recording devices around Pentagon after the 9-11 attack.
And that picture of missile parts - have you seen that?
Also - noone has yet answered to me how is that possible that the best defended and armed nation in the world can not notice someone with only AK-47 and B-747 in his arsenal flying overheads..
I once heard US is on the way on practically making Planetary Defense Pods..
Seems kinda funny after 9-11
My intent was to make people think more, not to make people think Im testing their patriotism.
I think to blindly defend something is foolish, but many dont even see it that they're doing it blindly (without any brain moving)..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:33
|
|
First off, I have never ever, seen someone just come out and dis europe, never, unless AFTER America is dissed...
While Americans may claim America is better than Europe, I don't see any off them saying they hate Europe, no, all they do is defend their country by simply saying it's better than...big difference, mister history and mathematical buff you appears to be the all knowing...
I'm going to put this as simply as I can...
You have two choices, bintravikin...
Either you wish America never participated in European affairs...gave save you...
Or you give credit to all the work america has done to save your f***ing european a**...never mind the fact it was America's choice...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-10-2004 02:32
on you. She put you in a muscular headlock and give you that not-so-fresh feeling.
)
|