View Full Version : america outa saudia ?
thought i saw on the news last night that they have been asked to leave
in my option once the oil runs out over there no-one will give a f**k about them anyways
Hilandor
Jan 19 2002, 12:46
theres not much chance of oil in saudi running out in the near future
Thehamster
Jan 19 2002, 12:50
If they were asked to leave they would have to go or face a world of trouble with every other country in the world.
I dont think thye should leave, Middle east is just a big place for terrorism to flourish and no offense but we should just quash it, with whatever cost and measn possible.
KingBeast
Jan 19 2002, 13:10
Errm there are many places other than the middle east and perhaps more so than the middle east where terrorism "flourishes"
If a foreign force was occupying my country (albeit in a non hostile manner) and I asked them to leave, I would full well expect them to do so.
Thehamster
Jan 19 2002, 13:10
But the Americans being there is what cause a lot of the hate. Most Arabs just what them out as the feel the US is violating there land and believes.
Osama Bin Laden main hate of America came partially from them putting troops in Saudi which he really did not want there and was angered by it and still no doubt has a grudege about it.
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 19 2002, 14:04
Why does America need bases overseas? They don't have any colonies, or a Commonwealth, unlike the UK?
Even American bases on NATO territory seems a bit outdated to me, the Soviet Union is gone after all ffs.
Just a thought. ALways wondered how they are trying to justify that one...
at peacetime.......why does one need to have a army outside own borders?
Well, teachnically the falklands are outside of britians borders but we need troops there.
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 19 2002, 14:33
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Fenna @<hidden> Jan. 19 2002,16:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, teachnically the falklands are outside of britians borders but we need troops there.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No they're not, they're British territory.
The Saudis are NOT our friends. They used us in the Gulf War, we used them. That's all there is to it. There is no great bond between us. They harbor terrorists, they pay for terrorists, and generally we overlook this because they have oil. If our politicians weren't so damn corrupt we'd already have broken our dependancy on foreign oil. There is NO reason we should still be needing these people. Let them turn back into the desert wasteland that God intended them to be living in. Then they can ride around on their camels and curse the US all they want. Without the money to buy boats or even plane tickets, we're not gonna have much to fear.
madmike
Jan 19 2002, 18:58
Britian has alot of bases overseas to help defend contries or for training.
A few examples
Belize- the british went out there because Guatamala wanted to invade so the british acted as a deterent and trained the Belize Defence Force(BDF) now they do jungle training and a small base with around 80 troops (support training exercises)
Seirra Leonne- fairly recent so no need for detail, the british stoped rebels from entering the capital and later trained the SLA(seirra leonne army).
The UN force did a very bad job out there
I hope they do tell us to leave.Maybe iraq can do us a favor and just attack them.Then we can sit on the sidelines and tell them to have fun.
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 19 2002, 19:02
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmike @<hidden> Jan. 19 2002,20:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Britian has alot of bases overseas to help defend contries or for training.
A few examples
Belize- the british went out there because Guatamala wanted to invade so the british acted as a deterent and trained the Belize Defence Force(BDF) now they do jungle training and a small base with around 80 troops (support training exercises)
Seirra Leonne- fairly recent so no need for detail, the british stoped rebels from entering the capital and later trained the SLA(seirra leonne army).
The UN force did a very bad job out there[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Is it just me or are your examples part of the former british empire???
Most of the empire is still in the commonwealth, so it kinda makes sense for britain to have bases there etc.
But the US dont have something like that, not even the commonwealth to hide behind and use it as an excuse. u getting my point?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @<hidden> Jan. 19 2002,21:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Britian has alot of bases overseas to help defend contries or for training.
A few examples
Belize- the british went out there because Guatamala wanted to invade so the british acted as a deterent and trained the Belize Defence Force(BDF) now they do jungle training and a small base with around 80 troops (support training exercises)
Seirra Leonne- fairly recent so no need for detail, the british stoped rebels from entering the capital and later trained the SLA(seirra leonne army).
The UN force did a very bad job out there[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Is it just me or are your examples part of the former british empire???
Most of the empire is still in the commonwealth, so it kinda makes sense for britain to have bases there etc.
But the US dont have something like that, not even the commonwealth to hide behind and use it as an excuse. u getting my point?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think they the bases over there for the next big conflict.What abouut kosvo,bosnia,others(?).
madmike
Jan 19 2002, 20:18
@<hidden> RONIN, im backing you up by giving those examples.
@<hidden>, Kosovo and bosnia are diferent because the US is part of the NATO stabilisation force out there
US is over there because Saddam refuses to let UN inspectors check for bio and Nuclear weapons and weapon facilities, which was a MAJOR part of the "cese fire" (surrender) terms.. so untill he complies the US and NATO will stay up his ass..
he's the one keeping the US over there.. not the US..
besides, he may be the next target.
vitoal125
Jan 20 2002, 00:02
why US needs bases everywhere:
to fuel ships for the navy that project force to stabalize/keep peace in regions
to provide runways for times when air power is needed.
to have a place where troops can quickly respond from if and when trouble comes up
to protect us interests abroad
I'd say the biggest reason is, if something starts going down someplace, and we had no bases, it would take much much longer to mobilize a force to react to whatever threat there is. By the time the cavalry made it to where ever it needed to be, it might be too late to be effective. This would cause many more casualties than there would be if we had bases in the region where we could respond quickly from.
RalphWiggum
Jan 20 2002, 00:46
Here are some intersting points regarding US bases around the world.
1.they were losers of war. Japan lost WW2, and thus US occupies them. No one asked Japanese to bomb US. Germany. Also a looser in WW2. Italy..also same thing
2. countries that were under above countries but was freeded by US's war against Axis; Phillipines, Korea, Guam.
3.countries that opened doors for reluctant reasons.; Saudi Arabia(thanx to that mustache-ed psycho from neighboring country)
So basically, US only has bases when they either had to get into war, or had to use the land to prevent other country from invading other land.
Afghanistan. We sent them loads of stuff, yet never bothered to set up a base even after the soviets left. I think they now will keep a base there.
US base basically allows US to send troops fast. If US had no base in Saudi Arabia, war against terrorism would have been a lot more difficult. so for US's sake bases are important.
This current issue about Saudi asking US to move out..well...we'll loose shit load of advantage....but for once, why don't we let them do whatever they want, and when things get rough for them and they need US's intervention(like stopping another Saddam Insane) make them realize how much they need to depend upon US?
Of course, if US pulls out, then Arabs should not stick their nose into non-Arab world, like supporting those bandits of Phillipines who claim to be fighting(what a joke) for Islamic state(Abu-Sharif?).
RedRogue
Jan 20 2002, 01:23
I say leave, every situation the United States encounters in foreign affairs is damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So I would prefer damned if you don't, and save a ****load of tax money while you are at it.
brgnorway
Jan 20 2002, 01:32
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @<hidden> Jan. 20 2002,03:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I say leave, every situation the United States encounters in foreign affairs is damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So I would prefer damned if you don't, and save a ****load of tax money while you are at it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
...but thats the drawback isn't it? You/US have an interest in being present. To dominate as much as possible simply by being there, is your benefit.
Well here is how it works for the US in forigen war/peackeeping...
If we go we will be criticized for everything we do, no matter what.
If we dont we will be accused of letting innocent people suffer and turning out back on them.
when every little dickhead on the face of the earth collects and examines every shit you take its rather hard to appear perfect.. even if you do something completely right and the best way possable.. its still not good enough for some people..
and as they say the squeeky hinge gets the greese.. the only opinions that are generally heard are the negative, not many people feel like announcing when they are content.. but will roar like wild animals when they get pissy..
my solution? fuck em..usually the reason they are bitching is because its all they are worth a shit at..
its kinda pathetic to sit back and do nothing about a situation and then bitch and moan about the people who are doing it..
as they say.. if you want something done right DO IT YOURSELF.
RalphWiggum
Jan 20 2002, 01:59
Here's another example of what Wobble's saying.
Kosovo(I might be wrong on some names of places)
When Kosovo's slughterting ethnic cleansing began(i think it was around 93), human rights groups were yelling at US for not doing a thing as an international community's member. Those human rights groups were protesting, yelling...but the slaughter only stopped when US attacked Kosovo, and forcing the Butcher of Balkan(Milosevich) get his ass in Serbia.
But what happened during the attack? HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS ACCUSED US OF USING FORCE!!!!! For god sakes!!! onetime you are accusing US of doing nothing, and when it does something you are saying 'Don't do it!'
And just what happened? Those idiots finally got their wish of stopping genocide only after US went 'barbaric'.
Man i'am happy these forums merged.Before the merge it was just me and some other defending the usa.Now we got lot more american to fight these commie europeans off http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .
brgnorway
Jan 20 2002, 02:22
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Well here is how it works for the US in forigen war/peackeeping...
If we go we will be criticized for everything we do, no matter what.
If we dont we will be accused of letting innocent people suffer and turning out back on them.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
...of course. After all, most people/contries have friends and allies. Some will say you do too much - others too little. It would amaze me if they didn't. After all, the world is not homogenous. The various Balkan incidents all resulted in different reactions among the european countries. Some sympathized with Serbia, others Croatia or bosnian muslims. Hardly surprising. That was also the reason for a lack of unified front against the aggressors (Serbs and in some instances the Croatians).
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
my solution? fuck em..usually the reason they are bitching is because its all they are worth a shit at..
its kinda pathetic to sit back and do nothing about a situation and then bitch and moan about the people who are doing it..
as they say.. if you want something done right DO IT YOURSELF.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
To isolate oneself (USA) and moan and complain, hardly solves anything. It is in USA's interest to have peace in Europe. The reason: trade and political influence.
I do agree however that Europe should be more united in its aproach towards solving problems on its own doorstep, but the current problem is that smaller countries fear the large countries/power blocks will dominate the politics.
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
What you fail to understand that it is in Europe's interests to have peace in Europe and they are not pulling their own weight. We've defended Europe for almost 90 years now. It's getting a bit old. In the Balkans, our European allies were very disturbed to realize how few troops they could quickly field, whereas we could quickly field large numbers quite easily. That's saying something especially since our numbers are way down from what they used to be.... If we are gonna do this peacekeeping bullshit around the world then the other countries demanding we do it better be ready to match troops with us. Otherwise they should have to do it themselves. We are not the world's parents, and people need to stop treating us like it. Especially since they bash us so often.
madmike
Jan 20 2002, 11:24
One thing you are forgetting is that the US military is 5 times larger than the UK although the UK has more troops in Bosnia and Kosovo as well as peacekeeping in Afganistan, Seirra Leonne, Cypress and a few other countries.
So you are comiting less troops than some countries.
I can understand why britian has been asked to lead nearly all the peacekeeping forces recently, it is because of the experience we have from Northern Ireland
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 20 2002, 11:46
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @<hidden> Jan. 20 2002,02:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here are some intersting points regarding US bases around the world.
1.they were losers of war. Japan lost WW2, and thus US occupies them. No one asked Japanese to bomb US. Germany. Also a looser in WW2. Italy..also same thing
2. countries that were under above countries but was freeded by US's war against Axis; Phillipines, Korea, Guam.
3.countries that opened doors for reluctant reasons.; Saudi Arabia(thanx to that mustache-ed psycho from neighboring country)
So basically, US only has bases when they either had to get into war, or had to use the land to prevent other country from invading other land.
Afghanistan. We sent them loads of stuff, yet never bothered to set up a base even after the soviets left. I think they now will keep a base there.
US base basically allows US to send troops fast. If US had no base in Saudi Arabia, war against terrorism would have been a lot more difficult. so for US's sake bases are important.
This current issue about Saudi asking US to move out..well...we'll loose shit load of advantage....but for once, why don't we let them do whatever they want, and when things get rough for them and they need US's intervention(like stopping another Saddam Insane) make them realize how much they need to depend upon US?
Of course, if US pulls out, then Arabs should not stick their nose into non-Arab world, like supporting those bandits of Phillipines who claim to be fighting(what a joke) for Islamic state(Abu-Sharif?).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is exactly what the Roman Empire did. There was some trouble in Spain, they went over there to settle the score, then stayed there and absorbed it.
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 20 2002, 11:51
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dangus @<hidden> Jan. 20 2002,07:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What you fail to understand that it is in Europe's interests to have peace in Europe and they are not pulling their own weight. We've defended Europe for almost 90 years now. It's getting a bit old. In the Balkans, our European allies were very disturbed to realize how few troops they could quickly field, whereas we could quickly field large numbers quite easily. That's saying something especially since our numbers are way down from what they used to be.... If we are gonna do this peacekeeping bullshit around the world then the other countries demanding we do it better be ready to match troops with us. Otherwise they should have to do it themselves. We are not the world's parents, and people need to stop treating us like it. Especially since they bash us so often.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
YOU defended Europe? The last 90 yrs?
Hahahahahaha, what a load of BOLLOX!!!
You probably believe that as well, dont you?
90 yrs, I assume you are referring to WW1+2, huh? Right, WW1. YOu didn't do jack shit. The front line was more or less frozen, but towards the end Germany was out of resources, and Britain fielded tanks. THIS is what changed the war. Germany still didn't lose, btw. Not ONE bullet was fired on German territory.
As for WW2, please tell me WHO came up with plans for d-day, WHO was fighting the Nazis behind enemy lines, WHO made them bleed in the cold russian winter, WHO managed to fight off the Luftwaffe.
Europe can take care of itself, thank you very much.
madmike
Jan 20 2002, 11:57
Next they'll say they won the Gulf war on thier own along with the war against the taliban.
No it was nothing to do with the Northern alliance or the SAS from britian,Australia and other countries.
In WW2 the british did all the fighting while the Americans stayed in Britian doing jack sh*t.
The russians also did a hell of a lot of fighting the germans.
Oh yeah,no americans died in ww 1/2 they didn't even fill a ditch,they didn't do crap.The brits/canada did it all, america was just there to watch.
What a lot of hate on this board...
There have been situations where the intervention by American forces has indeed helped. If you honestly think WWII could have been won without American troops, you are severely deluded.
The Germans lost the second world war on both fronts due to the overwhelming numbers of the opposition... this could not have been achieved without US intervention.
However, I continually hear Americans going on about how they are damned if they do and damned if they don't... Incorrect! You are not damned if you do it right... people object to intervention in the Middle East because it was done purely to keep American fuel prices low... yet it is made out to be some great humanitarian effort.
Fenix83
Jan 20 2002, 16:36
I wanted to say bush is an as***e. He should have been strangled with its bretzel. I hate guys who want to rule the world. This guy seems to think that there is nothing except america in the world and he seems to be a megalo....
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Thehamster
Jan 20 2002, 20:37
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ssh @<hidden> Jan. 20 2002,15:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What a lot of hate on this board...
There have been situations where the intervention by American forces has indeed helped. If you honestly think WWII could have been won without American troops, you are severely deluded.
The Germans lost the second world war on both fronts due to the overwhelming numbers of the opposition... this could not have been achieved without US intervention.
However, I continually hear Americans going on about how they are damned if they do and damned if they don't... Incorrect! You are not damned if you do it right... people object to intervention in the Middle East because it was done purely to keep American fuel prices low... yet it is made out to be some great humanitarian effort.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sure we would have won with out American troops it might have taken a couple more years but we probably would have not won if we did not get any American supplies during the war.
I agree with what you say about Kuwait. If they did not have oil I belive that America would not have given a damn about them being invaded.
brgnorway
Jan 20 2002, 21:01
Topic: america outa saudia ?
Yes, if the saudis wants them to. Like in the Philiphines and possibly Okinawa in Japan (in the future).
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @<hidden> Jan. 20 2002,23:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Topic: america outa saudia ?
Yes, if the saudis wants them to. Like in the Philiphines and possibly Okinawa in Japan (in the future).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Okinawa in Japan
They don't want america outta there,only some(in the thousands) people do.Do you know how much that place make with the US base there ?
brgnorway
Jan 20 2002, 22:01
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @<hidden> Jan. 20 2002,23:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Topic: america outa saudia ?
Yes, if the saudis wants them to. Like in the Philiphines and possibly Okinawa in Japan (in the future).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Okinawa in Japan
They don't want america outta there,only some(in the thousands) people do.Do you know how much that place make with the US base there ?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, that's the problem isn't it! Lots of people (not just some) want the base to disappear, but the local economy is dependent on it.
Sounds like a difficult dilemma, if you ask me!
but the local economy is dependent on it.
Sounds like a difficult dilemma, if you ask me!
True.
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 20 2002, 22:05
U$ = Evil Empire
'nuff said http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
US = Good Empire if they take all their troops, go back home, and leave the rest of us the heck alone
Heck, we might even allow you back into the British Empire http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Alternatively, I could stop drinking http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Assault (CAN)
Jan 20 2002, 22:15
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Thehamster @<hidden> Jan. 20 2002,22:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree with what you say about Kuwait. If they did not have oil I belive that America would not have given a damn about them being invaded[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Uhhhh, a COALITION of countries invaded Kuwait not just the U.S. Afterall, its not only the Yanks who get most of their oil from the middle east, so does the rest of the world, including Europe and Britain. It was in everyones interest to get Saddam out of Kuwait, not just the U.S.'s
If I am correct, the Brits still have fighter jets patrolling the Iragi "no-fly zone" along with the U.S.
Tyler
Assault (CAN)
Jan 20 2002, 22:23
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @<hidden> Jan. 21 2002,00:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U$ = Evil Empire
'nuff said http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
US = Good Empire if they take all their troops, go back home, and leave the rest of us the heck alone[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You have been listening to too much R.A.T.M. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
What makes the U.S. so evil?
What makes you Euro commies think yourselves so high and mighty?
If Britain or France or Germany or whatever had the same power as the U.S. You guys would do the same f*cking thing. Remember, the Brits had an empire once too. Hell, so did France. Anyone remember what the Germans did when they had power? twice?
You have corrupt politicians and corporations too. This thing just isn't a U.S. problem. So quit balming the U.S. for everything. I bet Blair is just as backwards as Bush or Clinton is, they just have different labels.
Tyler
Assault (CAN),
This is how the forums are,If the usa does it,it's only for themself.if european does it ,theres a reason. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif go look at the thread "I.R.A Fired on british paras 1st on bloody sunday (Pages 1 2 3 ..4 )" It's too funny,sounds like another israel thing,and you know how some people say it israel fault for shooting protesters ? Well when the british does it,it's not their fault.But they blame israel for shooting protesters.Gotta love these forums.
Remember europe has hidden oil fields they get no oil from the middle-east,or they pump from the ocean. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 20 2002, 22:30
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U$ = Evil Empire
'nuff said
US = Good Empire if they take all their troops, go back home, and leave the rest of us the heck alone[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You have been listening to too much R.A.T.M.
What makes the U.S. so evil?
What makes you Euro commies think yourselves so high and mighty?
If Britain or France or Germany or whatever had the same power as the U.S. You guys would do the same f*cking thing. Remember, the Brits had an empire once too. Hell, so did France. Anyone remember what the Germans did when they had power? twice?
You have corrupt politicians and corporations too. This thing just isn't a U.S. problem. So quit balming the U.S. for everything. I bet Blair is just as backwards as Bush or Clinton is, they just have different labels.
Tyler[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We think so high and mighty because we INVENTED CIVILIZATION http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
The US are evil because they are like the Ottoman or Roman Empire. They are Empires. Total disregard for the individual. THAT is pissing me off, hence me labelling the US=Evil Empire! (RATM had their say as well http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )
NOBODY is as moronic as bush!!! OUR politicians know how to talk, know how to eat a Bretzel, and know how to behave properly and not piss everyone off with stupid cowboy speeches!!! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
And no, we would NOT do the same thing! We might have done so in the past (like centuries ago), but unlike others we learn from our mistakes!!!!!!
European Civilization >> US melting pot thingy meh jig http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
I don't see how the USA is soo evil,Do we control your country ? even though we could ? have we attacked canada and mexico yet ? no,have we took over south america yet ? No.Do we go to europe and fight their wars for them(kosvo) ? yes. Do we give lots money to europe countries ? probably. do we give lots money to middle-east countries,heck yes we do.Did americans stay on the frontline during the cold war ? Yes. If america didn't enter the war in ww2 ,more western europe countries could look like eastern europe. and soo on.
brgnorway
Jan 20 2002, 22:38
If Britain or France or Germany or whatever had the same power as the U.S. You guys would do the same f*cking thing. Remember, the Brits had an empire once too. Hell, so did France. Anyone remember what the Germans did when they had power? twice?
You have corrupt politicians and corporations too. This thing just isn't a U.S. problem. So quit balming the U.S. for everything. I bet Blair is just as backwards as Bush or Clinton is, they just have different labels.
This is mostly true. Europe is probably responsible for a lot more wrongdoings all over the world (historically), and that's depressing. However, US has done a few things themselves under a much shorter span of time. Which is also correct. And I'm certainly not a commie.
I don't believe Blair is as backwards as Bush. It's not possible. The man is so stupid that he cant even eat properly.
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 21 2002, 09:36
Yurop OWNZ J00 ALL http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Longinius
Jan 21 2002, 09:49
"I don't see how the USA is soo evil,Do we control your country ?"
Yes, in many ways America controls other nations. No nation has more influence over others than America. This is achieved through veto's, muscle and economical domination. In many ways, America controls aspects of every nation.
"Do we go to europe and fight their wars for them(kosvo) ? yes. "
Their wars? Name one war in Europe that America has fought that they did not have a direct tie with prior to engaging.
"Do we give lots money to europe countries ? probably."
This is a mute point Foxer because every rich nation gives money to the poorer nations. You know this. We know this. The point is mute.
"do we give lots money to middle-east countries,heck yes we do."
See above.
"Did americans stay on the frontline during the cold war ? Yes. If america didn't enter the war in ww2 ,more western europe countries could look like eastern europe. and soo on. "
Yeah, so? I doubt America did it for those European countries. More likely, they did it for themselves. Had Europe fell and become a Nazi empire, the US would have been next. They HAD to act. It was a do or die situation.
Placebo
Jan 21 2002, 11:38
America is a damn fine nation, best sex I ever had was with an American, there ya go, end of discussion http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Fenix83
Jan 21 2002, 11:40
In June 1997, after 7 years of criminal sanctions, the United Nations, the UNICEF, the WHO (the World Health Organization) and of WFP (World Food Program) estimated at 1,2 million the number of deaths, because of the shortage of food and drugs, including 750.000 children of less than 5 years.
The first secretary Madeleine Albreight (make me think has Tatcher) said, when she knew that :
It is the price to be paid.
If I knew that my government had caused that, I would not be proud to be an american... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Fenix83
Jan 21 2002, 11:43
wooops, Albreight said better : "the price is worth paying"
and not "Its the price to be paid" http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Thehamster
Jan 21 2002, 16:30
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @<hidden> Jan. 20 2002,22:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree with what you say about Kuwait. If they did not have oil I belive that America would not have given a damn about them being invaded[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Uhhhh, a COALITION of countries invaded Kuwait not just the U.S. Afterall, its not only the Yanks who get most of their oil from the middle east, so does the rest of the world, including Europe and Britain. It was in everyones interest to get Saddam out of Kuwait, not just the U.S.'s
If I am correct, the Brits still have fighter jets patrolling the Iragi "no-fly zone" along with the U.S.
Tyler[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Granted this was the case all countries wanted oil cheap right.
But hey if there was no oil there as I said in my original post the US sure would have not given a damn at all not saying that Europe would have either. But Europe is not a country nor a super power as the US has the title as the worlds only super power maybe they should act like one and look after the little guy in the world but no they screw the rest of the world over by there selfishness. The poor stay poor as US Corporation continue to exploit the 3rd world. European corporations do this to but nowhere as much as the US does.
In brief summary the US causes most of the problems in the world but they are too uncaring out of touch to know it.
madmike
Jan 21 2002, 20:57
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do we go to europe and fight their wars for them(kosvo) ? yes. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You are not fighting a war for them you are peacekepping along with nearly all other members of NATO.
So do you have a clue about what is going on in the Balkans? NO!
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @<hidden> Jan. 21 2002,00:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U$ = Evil Empire
'nuff said http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
US = Good Empire if they take all their troops, go back home, and leave the rest of us the heck alone
Heck, we might even allow you back into the British Empire http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Alternatively, I could stop drinking http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Last time we left you Euro's alone to play nicely with each other (after WWI) you guys had to go and start WWII!
Oh and Britian has an empire? I don't consider some measly little island in the Carribean sea to be much of an empire! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
At least the Canadians have some perspective.
Ok, here is how it looks to the only socalist ever born in Texas.
1. Bush is an Idiot but he makes up for it by surrounding himself with people who are much smarter than he is. I voted for him instead of Gore, who I agree with on many more topics than Bush because I trust Powell, Chaney and their spokesman Bush to strengthen the US military, keep China from invading Taiwan, keep India and Pakistan from comming to blows and arbitrate peace in Isreal. It's worth putting off clean air a few more years to prevent WW3.
2. Blair is very sharp. I am very impressed watching him on cspan (american cable channel)
3. There is no such thing as altruism. Every action, even good actions are motivated in part by benefit to one's self. Action in Kosovo and Somalia were intended to help people as well as provide stability and peace in general. This is good for everyone. People in Somalia refused to be helped, and the UN left.
4. The Gulf War was an international effort led by us because we have the largest military. Everyone involved had intrests there. The sanctions are a horrible political quagmire. A failed attempt to keep Sadam from terrorizing his neighbors peacefully.
5. If Saudi wants us out we are obligated to leave. We can not keep an unwelcome presence in an allied nation. Kuwait does owe us a huge favor that I hope they would respect.
6. Most Europeans are not communists. There is nothing wrong with being a communist. However, communism is an extreme form of government that does not work in most countries.
7. We helped more in ww1 with economic support rather than military. The situation of who had a large powerful military to lend to it's allies defence was quite reversed at that time. We were a back water port for people being kicked out of all the decent countries at that time.
8. WW2 could not have been won without the combined effort of UK, US, and USSR. Don't you dare tell the 8th air force that the USA didn't contribute. Thousands died in daylight bombing raids to cripple the third Reich.
9. We are Damned if we do and Damned if we don't. You just can't please everyone and angry people are always the loudest. Further more, geopolitics is very complicated and actions by any government are subject to being misunderstood by it's people and everyone else's as well. There are plenty of old sayings about good intentions.
10. Europe is in a state of flux between many fragmented nations and one cohesive nation. The transition is liable to take many, many years and is the natural progression of an ever shrinking world. The US should be willing to provide military assistance to the EU with places like the Balkins when they start to heat up.
Lets all quit playing the blame game and try to get along and solve problems before something unbelieveably horrible happens.
The US gives more money and more equiptment and more people to the UN than any other country has come close to..
so if you wish to talk the talk you need to first walk the walk.
COMMON BUDGET CONTRIBUTIONS BY NATO MEMBERS IN 2000 IN U.S. DOLLARS AND AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE WHOLE
Country/ Civil Budget /Military Budget/ Security & Investment Programme
Belgium 4 300 000 (2.7%) 25 500 000 (3.3%) 20 800 00(4.5%)
Canada 8 800 000 (5.6%) 56 400 000 (6.5%) 18 400 000 (3.9%)
Denmark 2 500 000 (2.5%) 15 100 000 (1.9%) 16 800 000 (3.6%)
France 25 900 000 (16.5%) 33 300 000 (6.1%) 18 400 000 (3.9%)
Germany 24 500 000 (15.6%) 160 800 000 (18.0%) 115 600 000 (24.8%)
Greece 600 000 (0.4%) 3 800 000 (0.4%) 4 800 000 (1.0%)
Iceland 100 000 (0.1%) 300 000 (0.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Italy 9 100 000 (5.8%) 53 500 000 (6.9%) 38 400 000 (8.2%)
Luxembourg 100 000 (0.1%) 700 000 (0.1%) 800 000 (0.2%)
Netherlands 4 300 000 (2.7%) 26 200 000 (3.3%) 23 600 000 (5.1%)
Norway 1 700 000 (1.1%) 10 500 000 (1.3%) 14 000 000 (3.0%)
Portugal 1 000 000 (0.6%) 5 600 000 (0.7%) 1 600 000 (0.3%)
Spain 5 500 000 (3.5%) 5 300 000 (1.0%) 2 400 000 (0.5%)
Turkey 2 500 000 (1.6%) 13 700 000 (1.9%) 6 000 000 (1.3%)
United Kingdom 29 600 000 (18.8%) 111 300 000 (20.4%) 52 800 000 (11.3%)
United States 36 523 000 (23.3%) 284 500 000 (28.0%) 132 000 000 (28.3%)
Us is 1/16 of the nato countries.. and proovides over 1.4th of all its money.
Longinius
Jan 22 2002, 06:50
Nato is not the only ones giving money to the UN you know. And it is not so strange that America can give so much, they are the largest nation IN Nato. And probably the largest and richest in UN.
yes but if we were soo greedy and evil like most of these IDIOTS make us out to be we wuldent give so much money to INTERNATIONAL funds and communities..
Longinius
Jan 22 2002, 07:34
Don't you think America actually gains from giving that money? Its not like all that money is for nothing. It has a purpose other than paying UN bills.
Don't you think America actually gains from giving that money?
It gains no more than any of the other countries who pay much less.. I know it doesent make a profit from it.. seeing as how the US doesent have any more say than any other nation as far as deciding who does and and whot goes where.... so lots of times.. MOST of the time the things it does, the money it spends has no possable possitive effect on it..
like for instance if Britian announced a War on the IRA (hypothetical) even though the IRA has pretty much NO effect on the US in any way.. the US would pay more for the operation than any other of the countries.. both in man power and money.
Look at ethopia. what does the US have to gain by sending million and millions of dollers there? nothing I can think of.. and yet its the biggest contributer by a wide margine..
the US benifits from being in the UN.. but as far as "you get what you pay for" the US gets a lot less than waht it pays for.
Die Alive
Jan 22 2002, 15:50
A little off topic (well, on topic as it relates to US Military in Saudi Arabia). I was watching 60 Minutes this weekend (it's a hour "news magazine" in North America) and they had this female A-10 pilot (she's Irish Catholic, by the way) on saying how it's unfair that women serving in S.A. are ordered to wear "host nation attire” - a traditional Muslim head-to-toe garment called an "abaya" when off the base, and cannot drive a vehicle and, if stopped and ask by S.A. police, must "pretend" to be married with a male US serviceman who she is with at all times. So her beef is with the command and she's started a lawsuite (surprise, surprise) trying to get this order abolished (she doesn't want money from the suite).
I think she's just pissed because she's Catholic and doesn't want to dress like a Muslim.
Here's the link to the story 60 Minutes (http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,324757-412,00.shtml)
-=Die Alive=-
madmike
Jan 22 2002, 17:49
Religion causes most wars, good job I dont have one.
I wasnt even babtised http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Thehamster
Jan 22 2002, 19:29
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmike @<hidden> Jan. 22 2002,17:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Religion causes most wars, good job I dont have one.
I wasnt even babtised http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Religion does not casues wars people do. Religion is just used as a excuse for them.
madmike
Jan 22 2002, 19:54
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Thehamster @<hidden> Jan. 22 2002,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Religion causes most wars, good job I dont have one.
I wasnt even babtised http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Religion does not casues wars people do. Religion is just used as a excuse for them.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
True but if people didnt believe so strongly in thier beliefs then it could be avioded
Thehamster
Jan 22 2002, 19:58
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Religion causes most wars, good job I dont have one.
I wasnt even babtised http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Religion does not casues wars people do. Religion is just used as a excuse for them.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
True but if people didnt believe so strongly in thier beliefs then it could be avioded[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If it was not religion it would be something else.
It is in human nature to kill eachother
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @<hidden> Jan. 20 2002,04:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What you fail to understand that it is in Europe's interests to have peace in Europe and they are not pulling their own weight. We've defended Europe for almost 90 years now. It's getting a bit old. In the Balkans, our European allies were very disturbed to realize how few troops they could quickly field, whereas we could quickly field large numbers quite easily. That's saying something especially since our numbers are way down from what they used to be.... If we are gonna do this peacekeeping bullshit around the world then the other countries demanding we do it better be ready to match troops with us. Otherwise they should have to do it themselves. We are not the world's parents, and people need to stop treating us like it. Especially since they bash us so often.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
YOU defended Europe? The last 90 yrs?
Hahahahahaha, what a load of BOLLOX!!!
You probably believe that as well, dont you?
90 yrs, I assume you are referring to WW1+2, huh? Right, WW1. YOu didn't do jack shit. The front line was more or less frozen, but towards the end Germany was out of resources, and Britain fielded tanks. THIS is what changed the war. Germany still didn't lose, btw. Not ONE bullet was fired on German territory.
As for WW2, please tell me WHO came up with plans for d-day, WHO was fighting the Nazis behind enemy lines, WHO made them bleed in the cold russian winter, WHO managed to fight off the Luftwaffe.
Europe can take care of itself, thank you very much.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Europe can take care of itself? I guess by this you mean they can let nazi germany take over almost all of europe? hmmmm So where do the US, Russia, Canada, and all the other countries that helped out europe in WW II come into play?
Oh yeah,
D-day... Eisenhower... supreme allied commander...ring a bell?
Fighting nazis behind enemy lines... you mean the 101st on d-day?
Cold russian winter? would that be ASIA's most powerful country at the time, the USSR? hmmmmm
no offense to the uk or ex ronnin http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Black Op
Jan 22 2002, 20:32
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Brentk @<hidden> Jan. 22 2002,21:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What you fail to understand that it is in Europe's interests to have peace in Europe and they are not pulling their own weight. We've defended Europe for almost 90 years now. It's getting a bit old. In the Balkans, our European allies were very disturbed to realize how few troops they could quickly field, whereas we could quickly field large numbers quite easily. That's saying something especially since our numbers are way down from what they used to be.... If we are gonna do this peacekeeping bullshit around the world then the other countries demanding we do it better be ready to match troops with us. Otherwise they should have to do it themselves. We are not the world's parents, and people need to stop treating us like it. Especially since they bash us so often.[/quote][/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
WW1 was not won by the use of the tank, go read up on it, too much detail to explain in a post
and fighting did thake place in Germany, the russians mobilized much quicker than expected and began advancing into Germany in 1914
Black Op
Jan 22 2002, 20:33
damn wrong quote, post above (brentks quote of ex ronin) to understand mine http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Thehamster
Jan 22 2002, 20:37
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What you fail to understand that it is in Europe's interests to have peace in Europe and they are not pulling their own weight. We've defended Europe for almost 90 years now. It's getting a bit old. In the Balkans, our European allies were very disturbed to realize how few troops they could quickly field, whereas we could quickly field large numbers quite easily. That's saying something especially since our numbers are way down from what they used to be.... If we are gonna do this peacekeeping bullshit around the world then the other countries demanding we do it better be ready to match troops with us. Otherwise they should have to do it themselves. We are not the world's parents, and people need to stop treating us like it. Especially since they bash us so often.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
YOU defended Europe? The last 90 yrs?
Hahahahahaha, what a load of BOLLOX!!!
You probably believe that as well, dont you?
90 yrs, I assume you are referring to WW1+2, huh? Right, WW1. YOu didn't do jack shit. The front line was more or less frozen, but towards the end Germany was out of resources, and Britain fielded tanks. THIS is what changed the war. Germany still didn't lose, btw. Not ONE bullet was fired on German territory.
As for WW2, please tell me WHO came up with plans for d-day, WHO was fighting the Nazis behind enemy lines, WHO made them bleed in the cold russian winter, WHO managed to fight off the Luftwaffe.
Europe can take care of itself, thank you very much.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Europe can take care of itself? I guess by this you mean they can let nazi germany take over almost all of europe? hmmmm So where do the US, Russia, Canada, and all the other countries that helped out europe in WW II come into play?
Oh yeah,
D-day... Eisenhower... supreme allied commander...ring a bell?
Fighting nazis behind enemy lines... you mean the 101st on d-day?
Cold russian winter? would that be ASIA's most powerful country at the time, the USSR? hmmmmm
no offense to the uk or ex ronnin http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Number 1 Russia is part of Europe.
Number 2. Russia did most of the fighting
Number 3. By the time the US joined the war Britain had long secured their safety and were starting to beat the Germans.
Number 4. Eisenhower was not vital to wining the war. Montgomery would have just done fine.
Number 5. D-day probably would have happened eventually just that it would have taken a little longer.
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 22 2002, 20:41
D-day was planned by the British HQ.
The Russians were beaten VERY easily in WW-1.
And Russia IS part of Europe ffs.
Black Op
Jan 22 2002, 21:13
it took 3 years to beat the russians, i wouldnt call that easy, and they werent beaten they signed a truce
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 22 2002, 21:32
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Black Op @<hidden> Jan. 22 2002,23:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it took 3 years to beat the russians, i wouldnt call that easy, and they werent beaten they signed a truce[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
in 3 years germany sent them from their eastern border back to the border between ukraine and russia!!!!!!!!!!
that is quite far...and the russian losses went into the millions....sounds pld to me
Black Op
Jan 22 2002, 21:38
the russians did push the germans back quite far in the 1915 counter offensive but eventually had to pull out because of the revoloution
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 22 2002, 21:39
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the russians did push the germans back quite far in the 1915 counter offensive but eventually had to pull out because of the revoloution[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What do I care, that was 80 odd yrs ago http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
OK the russians left the war because of lenin and that whole story, i know russia is PART of europe, but it is MAINLY ASIA. i have a point there. anyway YOU WERE BY NO MEANS BEATING THE GERMANS in WW II prior to the US's entry. Rommel was still heading the Afrika Korps, europe was all but german. THE UK was being bombed by the luftwaffe. Russia was being slaughtered.
Final thoughs
The US could not have won the war with european allies.
The US would not have been in the war if not for european allies(sorta)
Germany could have taken over england if they hadn't been so stupid as to open a front against the vast nation of USSR(part of asia http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )
The UK was partially supplied by the US
yeeeaaah
EDIT- No one won world war I, we just signed a peace treaty and treaty the central powers unfairly. stupid us
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 22 2002, 22:27
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Brentk @<hidden> Jan. 23 2002,00:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK the russians left the war because of lenin and that whole story, i know russia is PART of europe, but it is MAINLY ASIA. i have a point there. anyway YOU WERE BY NO MEANS BEATING THE GERMANS in WW II prior to the US's entry. Rommel was still heading the Afrika Korps, europe was all but german. THE UK was being bombed by the luftwaffe. Russia was being slaughtered.
Final thoughs
The US could not have won the war with european allies.
The US would not have been in the war if not for european allies(sorta)
Germany could have taken over england if they hadn't been so stupid as to open a front against the vast nation of USSR(part of asia http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )
The UK was partially supplied by the US
yeeeaaah[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Germany didn't take over the UK 'cos they didn't want to. Operation Sea Lion was a scam. I saw it on discovery.
lol, i never said it was or wasn't I just said they could have. just as japan could have invaded the USA. lalalalalalalalaallaalalalala
nazi soldiers=best soldiers ever
nazis=bastards
brentk=doesn't like nazis(just to clear things up!)
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 22 2002, 22:44
oh, i agree, the nazi army was one of the best and most efficient in that period...but the nazis themselves were vicious bastards http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
we were able to fight of the italians (even though we were outnumbered and outgunned), but the nazis were too much for us http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
they were just as bad as the turks http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
main part of the german army was not Nazi, nor would the main part of russian army at the time be Communist, or american dito's democrats (capitalists)....
it was the nazis who were sending the german army to war, the commies send the russian army to war etc etc
i just thought id post this here before any angry german sees this and stops supplying beer to YOUR contries.
as for who saved europe....
anyone ever thought that IF the germans would have won, they would have been seen as the saviours of europe today...the winners write the history.
and the what if.....without ussr (europe, goddamit!!..the battles were fought in european part of russia, so there!http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif ) nothing would have stopped the germans.
85% of german army were lose on the eastern front...can you imagine what odds you would have faced with a D-day against the germans who would NOT be sending troops to fight a untoppable enemy in the east.
if you want to make a list of who contributed most, the first place goes to russia, no argument there.
and who comes second, usa or uk?
who cares?...still a ALLIED effort.
without USA more russian had died, england MIGHT have been starved to death by german subs and forced to surrender eventually.
but russia still would not have lost, they took millions of casualties and come back stronger, germany never would have had the manpower to conguer them...perhaps germans had reached moscow, but if you look at the map you see that moscow is not even halfway into russia..there is a lot of strenght left behind moscow.
true pete, but when one is from a country, they are usually considered a "commie"(commie country) or a "nazi"(nazi germany). That good easily go either way though. oh well. I still call German soldiers nazis(WW II ones) and USSR ones commies.... as the call the british brits and as the US are called "yanks"
whats up with that? why the sh.t do europeans call us yanks still? i mean i don't mind but why not call us "Americans" lol uhhh huhhhh
*note -last 2 examples are stupid
yeah, i know.....ive seen before on the forums angry germans reply on "nazi soldiers" comments...its a sensitive issue.
many germans i met are ashamed of there country, still...after so long time and even if it was only the granddaddys who did the dirty stuff.....
perhaps the next generation? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
btw.....yanks is for me not a bad thing, it doesnt have a negative meaning in it either.......if anything then it has a positive meaning http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
americans.....too much to type, yanks is better http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
and.....why the hell everyone call us "finns" or "finnish"?...we are "suomalaisia"...damn it!! lol
dont forget that before US joined the war it send all that stuff over there...
and just because the Russians managed to lose the most men doesent make them the best... the Russians didnt beat Germany, the Russian winter did.
some people actually think Japan surrendered because the russians were coming LOL!!
yes Im sure being hit by single bombs that destroy entire cities tiwce had nothing to do with it..
during/after stalingrad (far before us entered the war) russian and german losses were almost at the same level.
the vast majority of russian total losses were civilian, not soldiers.
and the winter was a great problem for the germans, true..but russians were in the same conditions, the winter alone didnt stop the germans...they fought nearly 5 years...that is 5 summers that they were stopped by the russians, 5 autumns and springs also, if the winter would be what stopped the germans and not the russian army im sure they would have just marched onwards moscow as soon the winter was over.
the truth is more likely that the winter gave the russians some time to breath and regroup..not much more than that.
you show a lot of disrespect towards russia who killed 85% of a enemy usa + the rest of allies combined killed the remaining 15% of.
im not saying usa did nothing, and they did "aid" a lot even before they entered the war..but they were not decisive to the outcome of the war, the russians were.
my nation sided with the germans..so im not supporting russia or other european nations becouse my nation was a part of beating them, usa did add a enourmous effort to the war, but so did all other nations...and none more than mother russia.
Placebo
Jan 23 2002, 17:31
The thing I don't understand is this irresistable urge to have the exact same discussion every few months?
Thehamster
Jan 23 2002, 20:16
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @<hidden> Jan. 23 2002,17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The thing I don't understand is this irresistable urge to have the exact same discussion every few months?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
More like every other week.
Assault (CAN)
Jan 23 2002, 20:16
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the over-extended supply lines that the Germans had in WWII when they invaded Russia, the same with troops, they were spread very thinly.
IMO, the Germans lost WWII not because of allied superiority but because of Hitlers dumb decisions and a few flukes. I shall attempt to touch on a few of them.
1. Deciding to bomb London instead of continuing to bomb tactical targets. The Germans first bombed London by accident and the RAF followed up by bombing Berlin, then Hitler decided to try and demoralize the Brits by bombing cities. The Luftwaffe nearly had the RAF beat. The number of skilled pilots were low, ditto with aircraft numbers. A few more months of this and the RAF would have been history. Few people can argue this.
The blitz on London gave the RAF the break it needed to regroup and get stronger.
2. The alliance with Japan. They should have stayed out to avoid conflict with the Americans.
3. Operation Barbarosa. Why invade a country that is too big for your current army to handle?
4. Declaring war on the U.S.
5. Not making any long term design developments before the war. Hitler thought the war would be over in a few months so he would not commit funding to projects such as the Rocket program or long range bombers.
6. Invading North Africa.
7. Believing that the allies would land at Calais and not Normandy. Even when the Allies did land, Hitler refused to send his best units to Normandy becasue he thought it was a diversion for the "real" attack at Calais.
8. Not commiting enough money to the German Navy. The system was corrupt and the U-Boats did not get enough funding, most of it went to the surface fleet.
Those are the reasons that I could think of off the top of my head. Does anyone else have anything they would like to add?
Also IMO, the major reason WWI ended was because of the Influenza virus and also because the Germans could not keep up with production.
Imagine, our whole world would have been differnet VERY different if a 19 year old boy by the name of Gavrillo Princip would not have assasinated the Arch Duke Ferdinand that fatefull day in Serbia.
Tyler
P.S. sorry for the LONG post. HTH
if 85% of german casualties were from Russin.. then it only took 15%of the german army to almost literally squeeze briton dry... destroy its airforce.. etc etc..
I dont know where the 85% figure camr from... probably from the Russian gov.
Ex-RoNiN
Jan 23 2002, 21:15
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @<hidden> Jan. 23 2002,22:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the over-extended supply lines that the Germans had in WWII when they invaded Russia, the same with troops, they were spread very thinly.
IMO, the Germans lost WWII not because of allied superiority but because of Hitlers dumb decisions and a few flukes. I shall attempt to touch on a few of them.
1. Deciding to bomb London instead of continuing to bomb tactical targets. The Germans first bombed London by accident and the RAF followed up by bombing Berlin, then Hitler decided to try and demoralize the Brits by bombing cities. The Luftwaffe nearly had the RAF beat. The number of skilled pilots were low, ditto with aircraft numbers. A few more months of this and the RAF would have been history. Few people can argue this.
The blitz on London gave the RAF the break it needed to regroup and get stronger.
2. The alliance with Japan. They should have stayed out to avoid conflict with the Americans.
3. Operation Barbarosa. Why invade a country that is too big for your current army to handle?
4. Declaring war on the U.S.
5. Not making any long term design developments before the war. Hitler thought the war would be over in a few months so he would not commit funding to projects such as the Rocket program or long range bombers.
6. Invading North Africa.
7. Believing that the allies would land at Calais and not Normandy. Even when the Allies did land, Hitler refused to send his best units to Normandy becasue he thought it was a diversion for the "real" attack at Calais.
8. Not commiting enough money to the German Navy. The system was corrupt and the U-Boats did not get enough funding, most of it went to the surface fleet.
Those are the reasons that I could think of off the top of my head. Does anyone else have anything they would like to add?
Also IMO, the major reason WWI ended was because of the Influenza virus and also because the Germans could not keep up with production.
Imagine, our whole world would have been differnet VERY different if a 19 year old boy by the name of Gavrillo Princip would not have assasinated the Arch Duke Ferdinand that fatefull day in Serbia.
Tyler
P.S. sorry for the LONG post. HTH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
i forgot to say - THREAD HIJACKING DETECTED THREAD HIJACKING DETECTED
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Placebo
Jan 23 2002, 21:34
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @<hidden> Jan. 23 2002,21:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Luftwaffe nearly had the RAF beat. The number of skilled pilots were low, ditto with aircraft numbers. A few more months of this and the RAF would have been history. Few people can argue this.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The RAF was only 6 weeks from extinction at the time Germany switched to bombing London http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Frizbee
Jan 23 2002, 22:41
If America does leave, they should tear down and take with them every little piece of equipment and shelter that could be at all useful to a foreign force. Every piece of chicken wire and chainlink fence.. barb wire..
tables, chairs.. barracks, tents..
They should leave NOTHING but scorched earth.
then say "There, just as we found it"
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @<hidden> Jan. 24 2002,00:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If America does leave, they should tear down and take with them every little piece of equipment and shelter that could be at all useful to a foreign force. Every piece of chicken wire and chainlink fence.. barb wire..
tables, chairs.. barracks, tents..
They should leave NOTHING but scorched earth.
then say "There, just as we found it"[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
back to the topic i see http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
yup, if they leave and do that..im sure the saudis will not be dissapointed for you cleaning up after you http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
america outa saudia ?
should be NATO out of saudi arabia.... not just the US.. its a NATO operation not a US only one..
fucking hipocrits.
Assault (CAN)
Jan 24 2002, 04:04
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @<hidden> Jan. 23 2002,23:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i forgot to say - THREAD HIJACKING DETECTED THREAD HIJACKING DETECTED
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
SPAMMING DETECTED!, SPAMMING DETECTED!
LOL, http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
If the Saudis don't want the Americans there, screw 'em. That place will continue to be a problem area in the future, I would like to see what those people will do when their oil runs low. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Though I might not be around when it happens, who knows.
Tyler
Frizbee
Jan 24 2002, 07:11
A few low yield-low radiation nuclear warheads, and we could make the entire middle east a tourist attraction..
"VISIT THE GREAT GLASS FIELDS - Once the Middle Eastern Deserts, now, thanks to nuclear might, its just a solid patch of GLASS"
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Brentk @<hidden> Jan. 23 2002,02:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">whats up with that? why the sh.t do europeans call us yanks still? i mean i don't mind but why not call us "Americans" lol uhhh huhhhh[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Probably coz your president referred to Pakistanis as "Pakis" http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
christophercles
Jan 24 2002, 12:25
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (e.coli @<hidden> Jan. 22 2002,14:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">keep India and Pakistan from comming to blows and arbitrate peace in Isreal[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I just find that a bit funny, since india and pakistan fire artillary at eachother every day.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.