China...riiiiiight. The United States didnt invade a pacifist country just for kicks and giggles, like the stupid commies did. (I do think either Europe or the U.S should have stepped in and liberated Tibet, of course.)
I feel that most of Europe owes the United States a hell of a lot, because once again...without the US Europe wouldnt be here, and to disrespect the ones who saved their country is wrong. And the only reason why Russia made a significant impact on Germany, is Hitlers forces were spread too thin fighting on both the eastern and western fronts.
/me slaps reasa with his notebook computer, hits him on the head with a 3 foot long gold plated baseball bat, then finishes it off with a crowbar to his neck.
ahem.
edit: wrong. europe would be here if we hadn't intervened. however, a nazi regime would be in its place, and hitler is probably still alive. we would've had a cold war with the thousand year reich, not the russians, and it probably would've resulted in nuclear armageddon. WHEEEE
(Written in handwriting on ballot) <span style='font-family:Geneva'>RALPH NADER 2004 WHOOOOO!!! XXXXX!!!</span>
No, I'm not a resident of Florida. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Sep 12 2004, 03:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Sep 12 2004, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> edit: wrong. europe would be here if we hadn't intervened. however, a nazi regime would be in its place, and hitler is probably still alive. we would've had a cold war with the thousand year reich, not the russians, and it probably would've resulted in nuclear armageddon. WHEEEE <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I won't comment on your unnecessary hypothetical physical attack on me, however I will laugh at you as you pick up your broken notebook.
Actually your wrong, if America stayed out of Europe, Britain would have kept up <i>some</i> pressure on the west, along with the pitiful French resistance, but it most likely would have been enough to keep the Germans busy. This in turn would help the Russians steamroll through Germany, nothing would have stopped them anyway.
Europe would have gone from the rule of Hitler to the rule of Stalin if America had stayed out of it. England would not have stood a chance against Russia after Germany fell. So yea, I think they owe us a little, not only for that but all that money we gave them to put their broken continent back together.
Yeah, I was just thinking that. Stalin was a much, much more terrible person than Hitler ever could have wanted to be.
Hitler killed like...12 million or so. Stalin has close to, if not more than 100 million in his name. (I think my numbers are correct.) I recall hearing that on the History channel a few weeks ago.
<!--QuoteBegin-Perdition Flamethrower+Sep 12 2004, 04:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Perdition Flamethrower @ Sep 12 2004, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah, I was just thinking that. Stalin was a much, much more terrible person than Hitler ever could have wanted to be.
Hitler killed like...12 million or so. Stalin has close to, if not more than 100 million in his name. (I think my numbers are correct.) I recall hearing that on the History channel a few weeks ago. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ya, but Hitler killed Jews, and everyone knows that Jews are cooler than Russians.
<!--QuoteBegin-eediot+Sep 12 2004, 03:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eediot @ Sep 12 2004, 03:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok. It's a Bush vs Kerry election, and people are trying to figure out which one will destroy the deteriorating US economy less.. so they bring up WW2!
1) Nobody owes USA anything. Germany + Japan were steamrolling, and USA had to come in or they would have lost all of Europe to the Nazi's [and I don't think they liked USA that much]. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without the US it's very likely that France and England would be completely different, Israel probably would not be a country as it is today and Germany would probably have beat the crap out of the Russians. Of course, it's all speculation on what could have happened, because Hitler wasn't very good at big decisions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2) The Europeans especially don't owe USA much for WW2 because it was the russians who made the most significant impact on the German warmachine. America's significance was against the Japanese.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As stated somewhere else: The Russians would have been rolled over if the US wasn't in the war. Stalin was mad at the allies for not launching an attack sooner, he thought they were purposefully waiting - just to cost more Russian lives...if that tells you anything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3) Either way, it's a bloody team effort. So you're saying that, since Europe hates USA's guts, if 1939 were to roll around again, you'd just leave them? Wait, don't answer that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Situation: A country is turning fascist. Bush: Attacks the country pre-emptively and disbands the government...too bad it's the wrong country. Kerry: Sits around as an isolationist, preparing to defend his country with "spitballs" (thanks, crazy politician at the convention). Makes a cool alliance with the country, like Russia with Germany in 1939... [hypothetical, of course]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5) Allied concentration camps? They weren't called that, and persecution wasn't as direct ('Hey, we're the "Good" guys!'), but they existed. Americans of german/italian/japanese background would be chucked into these camps so they didn't go running back to the motherland to fight against the allies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It was pretty much only Japanese that were forced into internment camps. While Germans were persecuted during WW1, during WW2 they were pretty much left alone, compared to the Japanese. They're not concentration camps, because the Japanese weren't forced to work for minimal food, in an attempt to work them to death. The big 'warcrime' thing about it is that these Japanese lost a lot of freedom and many of their possessions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4) USA has a history [note: all of it's history] spent looking thinking about themselves only. "America first, last, always". No decision is made without America's immediate and future prosperity in mind. Mind you the economy is so unstable and unappealing that they couldn't have made very many good decisions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. Way to describe every single country in the world. Now, you may think there's an exception...there's not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nobody likes American because you're a bad trading partner, your economy is unstable, you're arrogant and self-serving, you're opressive, and if you add it up, there are more con's than pro's. China would be a better trading option. And protection? Who's there to protect us from? China? North Korea? The only threat would be China, and that's if you and all the other world's armies managed to simultaenously tk themselves in the head.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. China GDP per capita: purchasing power parity - $5,000 (2003 est.) United States GDP per capita: purchasing power parity - $37,800 (2003 est.) ...I think that's sufficient information why the US is still an important trade partner.
2. Of course, a country that hasn't changed its basic governmental structure in over 200 years and we're unstable. Last I checked, the world economy fluctuates pretty much with one-another, not on individual countries.
[Note to some people: the Great Depression didn't just happen in the US.]
3. I don't know where this protection stuff is coming from...since every country in the world has its own international relations. So...whatever's going on with that.
4. Don't see it in here, but someone brought up Canada as a better trading partner: They're part of NAFTA too, so they're not going to be that much better than the US...they also have a lower population. Those decisions need to be made on a product by product, intended consumer group decision.
5. "you're opressive" is probably the most legitimate of these statments. As the US has the power to influence smaller nations. However, I don't know what you expect to come of it. Russia pushed its power onto other countries. England pushed its power onto other countries, Germany pushed its power onto other countries. All in different forms, but with different results. It's what happens when nations get power - they use it. The US mostly influences politics though, unlike Germany and Russia who were into taking territory and economic control. You may think the US controls the economic picture, but the EU has some policies the US doesn't like, and there's not much to be done about them; and people trade with the US not because they want to, but because they need to for the money. They could embargo the US, but they'd lose much of their income (which isn't true for some countries, but probably all of the ones you're associating with this debate).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->P.S. <i>I VOTED FOR RALPH NADER! I hate everyone!!</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pffft, I don't want to vote for either of them. Bush seems to agressive and moronic, Kerry seems to isolationist and too fickle. I'm not sure if I want to vote Kerry or third party yet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
...And there you go, assuming I get through this before anyone else
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> From the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
Simply, Bush is exercising his power as President of the United States of America in the same fashion that Theodore Roosevelt did. I don't understand why the world hates him for that, and quite simply adores what Kerry says he is going to do. The world knows President Bush is a man of action, but Kerry on the other hand...all we have are his 'policy' of saying one thing, then doing another. Plus all of those claims of him cheating his way out of Vietnam...
*edit* The quote above is very appropriate for the discussion because of the fact that the world hates Bush for launching attacks against Afganistan and Iraq. It explains why he did that. It also proves that our friend Saddam Hussein never read it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
wrong, the romans don't exist anymore. all you europeans owe the romans too, by that logic, because without them you would have stayed as nomadic and uncivilized tribes with no centers of higher learning or standardized language.
in short: europe owes us an assload. anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to join the army of their respective nation and provide world peace. sure, americans are arrogant, there are people everywhere who are (plus we can back it up <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->). sure, we're self-serving. show me a country who isn't. i'd like to see anyone else spend as much money on charity as we do. bad trading partner? what? i don't understand that one. unstable economy? yeah, and look at europe's all-but-stagnant one. btw, yes there were 'concentration camps' where we stuffed the japanese, but there were no furnaces or torture. i think it'd best be left to the imagination what would have happened should hitler or stalin have managed to consolidate their territory in europe. 'we only stopped japan'? puh-lease. any moral authority you had was just stripped by that single statement. the japanese were as brutal as their european counterparts, performing biological warfare tests on civilians in captured territories, mass rape/massacres of civilians and children, etc? so basically you're saying that as long as you're not the one being attacked, you don't give a sh*t. thanks for clearing that up.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Sep 12 2004, 04:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Sep 12 2004, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Perdition Flamethrower+Sep 12 2004, 04:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Perdition Flamethrower @ Sep 12 2004, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah, I was just thinking that. Stalin was a much, much more terrible person than Hitler ever could have wanted to be.
Hitler killed like...12 million or so. Stalin has close to, if not more than 100 million in his name. (I think my numbers are correct.) I recall hearing that on the History channel a few weeks ago. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ya, but Hitler killed Jews, and everyone knows that Jews are cooler than Russians. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Eddie Izzard+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eddie Izzard)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Other mass murders got away with it;
Stalin - killed many millions; died in his bed. Well done there. Pol Pot - killed 1.7 million Cambodians; died under house arrest, age 72.
Well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it, is because they killed their own people...and we're sort of fine with that.
"Oh, help yourself!" you know. "We've been trying to kill you for ages. So, go and kill your own people - right on then." <span style='color:orange'>Shrug</span> Seems to be.
Hitler killed people next door - ohhh, stupid man.
After a couple of years: "Oh, we wont stand for that, now will we?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this'll explain it for you.
And if you want to find the worst dictator of the 20th century, I'd suggest visiting <a href='http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm' target='_blank'>this</a> which could give you a better way to judge who you should be hating more - based on how you would consider a death evil.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
Hehe, I'm sure Europe come and pay back eventually.. Afterall europe is soo handsome <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> /nonsense
As I said earlier, take of your nationalistic hat and become a world resident..
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 12 2004, 04:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 12 2004, 04:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> wrong, the romans don't exist anymore. all you europeans owe the romans too, by that logic, because without them you would have stayed as nomadic and uncivilized tribes with no centers of higher learning or standardized language.
[snipped bit where author goes crazy and talks about stuff I haven't touched] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. And? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Every nation so far has been built on the triumphs of other nations, be it martial or inventive. I don't see why the USA's role in WWII should be seen as greater than all of those others. And is it bringing it up <i>really</i> meant to make a reader think, "Wow, if not for America, my country wouldn't be as it is today! How wrong of me to not approve of the invasion of Iraq!" Because if the USA had wanted that, then it should have pulled a U.S.S.R. and annexed as much of Europe as it could.
anyway, the point is this. stop hating on bush for invading iraq. we caused that mess, and we're going to clean it up. there is a time for action, even if it means trampling over other people's feelings/interests/passive feel-good-ism. there are also times to abide by it. face it, the situation in iraq wasn't going to get any better any time soon, and could have gotten a whole lot worse. the diplomatic solution was tried, and failed. the assassination solution was tried, and failed. the trade embargo solution was tried, and failed.
p.s. 'world resident'? yeah. right. the idea of a nation-state will be dead when the last vestiges of civilisation rots and crumbles away in the cold, dead hands of humanity. which might happen in a few hours, but i'm not going to the supermarket to stock up on provisions.
Hay I've got a great idea, lets bring up some history and hypothetical things to prove that we should vote for Bush! Yes that sure does prove a lot. I've got a hint for all of you people arguing about this: It doesn't matter who owes anyone anything. Europe chose not to help the U.S because it didn't help them.
/me activates hypocrite mode.
Now I have question for you. Lets say Britain, our closest ally chose to invade Canada because they had someone in office with anti-British policies in office. Lets say that that person is also killing a few Canadians in the name of science. Would the U.S help Britain invade Canada? The answer is probity no. We have no reason to invade them. We gain nothing from defeating them and we lose is a couple billion dollars and lots of U.S lives. Thats exactly what most of Europe chose to do. Why would you risk YOUR mens lives for something that you gain nothing from? /me ends hypocrite mode.
Also I have another question for all you conservatives on this forum. Aside from the War in Iraq why vote for Bush?
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Sep 12 2004, 04:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Sep 12 2004, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Sep 12 2004, 03:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Sep 12 2004, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> edit: wrong. europe would be here if we hadn't intervened. however, a nazi regime would be in its place, and hitler is probably still alive. we would've had a cold war with the thousand year reich, not the russians, and it probably would've resulted in nuclear armageddon. WHEEEE <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I won't comment on your unnecessary hypothetical physical attack on me, however I will laugh at you as you pick up your broken notebook.
Actually your wrong, if America stayed out of Europe, Britain would have kept up <i>some</i> pressure on the west, along with the pitiful French resistance, but it most likely would have been enough to keep the Germans busy. This in turn would help the Russians steamroll through Germany, nothing would have stopped them anyway.
Europe would have gone from the rule of Hitler to the rule of Stalin if America had stayed out of it. England would not have stood a chance against Russia after Germany fell. So yea, I think they owe us a little, not only for that but all that money we gave them to put their broken continent back together.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> the germans fought two fronts, and still managed to hold its own against the russians. russia isn't going to steam roll through anything, and england ...
<!--QuoteBegin-Ness-Earthbound+Sep 12 2004, 05:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ness-Earthbound @ Sep 12 2004, 05:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now I wonder how many of the people voting know anything about Kerry or his platform beyond "He isn't Bush". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 'He isnt bush' You mean there is another reason to vote 4 kerry?
<!--QuoteBegin-Nuketheplace+Sep 12 2004, 05:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nuketheplace @ Sep 12 2004, 05:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hay I've got a great idea, lets bring up some history and hypothetical things to prove that we should vote for Bush! Yes that sure does prove a lot. I've got a hint for all of you people arguing about this: It doesn't matter who owes anyone anything. Europe chose not to help the U.S because it didn't help them.
/me activates hypocrite mode.
Now I have question for you. Lets say Britain, our closest ally chose to invade Canada because they had someone in office with anti-British policies in office. Lets say that that person is also killing a few Canadians in the name of science. Would the U.S help Britain invade Canada? The answer is probity no. We have no reason to invade them. We gain nothing from defeating them and we lose is a couple billion dollars and lots of U.S lives. Thats exactly what most of Europe chose to do. Why would you risk YOUR mens lives for something that you gain nothing from? /me ends hypocrite mode.
Also I have another question for all you conservatives on this forum. Aside from the War in Iraq why vote for Bush? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would support it if:
1) Britain installed the hypothetical leader, or helped him to gain power. -or- Britain supplied weapons to Canada to counterbalance the military might of the US, which it fears as a destabilizing influence in North America.
2) Said leader replaces then-progressive government with absolute dictatorship, murders all political opposition, and proceeds to oppress his own people for 3 decades.
3) Said leader wages many wars, using biological and chemical agents indiscriminately, and shows signs of trying to acquire nukes.
4) Said leader's regime cannot be changed by a simple assassination or deposition. (Yah, assassination is illegal by international conventions. I'm only positing this)
5) Said leader has repeatedly ignored warnings by the general assembly to disarm.
6) Said leader violates embargoes and lets his own people suffer (although this is partially other countries' faults)
7) Said leader TRIES TO KILL GEORGE BUSH@!!!!!111one. (kidding)
Remember people, just because something is unpopular, doesn't mean it is wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 12 2004, 05:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 12 2004, 05:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Ness-Earthbound+Sep 12 2004, 05:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ness-Earthbound @ Sep 12 2004, 05:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now I wonder how many of the people voting know anything about Kerry or his platform beyond "He isn't Bush". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 'He isnt bush' You mean there is another reason to vote 4 kerry? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Voting for someone simply because he isn't the other guy is, plainly put, stupid. Without knowing anything about him or his platform you could be voting the wrong sort of man into office. If you consider Bush to be a bad person, and just vote for Kerry because he isn't Bush, there's a possiblity (not even all that slim) that he would be less of a leader, etc. Since we are all apparently stuck on this WWII theme today, think of people voting for a monster like Hitler just because he isn't the opposition, when they know nothing of the man or what his plans for the nation are. That's just an easy example, so don't bother going ahead and nitpicking it, since I doubt it will change the overall point behind this post.
<!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Sep 12 2004, 05:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Sep 12 2004, 05:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the germans fought two fronts, and still managed to hold its own against the russians. russia isn't going to steam roll through anything, and england ...
WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Russia was steam rolling through before Normandy.
google Russian Soviet Stalingrad
But of course, previous sabotage works by Allies contributed greatly. (Very ingenious bombs destroyed the dams that powered Germany and Great Britain's air superiority over the English Channel)
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr.Suredeath+Sep 12 2004, 08:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr.Suredeath @ Sep 12 2004, 08:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Sep 12 2004, 05:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Sep 12 2004, 05:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the germans fought two fronts, and still managed to hold its own against the russians. russia isn't going to steam roll through anything, and england ...
WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Russia was steam rolling through before Normandy.
google Russian Soviet Stalingrad
But of course, previous sabotage works by Allies contributed greatly. (Very ingenious bombs destroyed the dams that powered Germany and Great Britain's air superiority over the English Channel) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The Russian "streamroll" was really just throw men at the war and try to win by sheer numbers... I think they lost up around.. 40million men?
Comments
I feel that most of Europe owes the United States a hell of a lot, because once again...without the US Europe wouldnt be here, and to disrespect the ones who saved their country is wrong. And the only reason why Russia made a significant impact on Germany, is Hitlers forces were spread too thin fighting on both the eastern and western fronts.
BUSH O4!! DO IT OR ELSE....
ahem.
edit: wrong. europe would be here if we hadn't intervened. however, a nazi regime would be in its place, and hitler is probably still alive. we would've had a cold war with the thousand year reich, not the russians, and it probably would've resulted in nuclear armageddon. WHEEEE
Ha!
CTHULU 04! DO IT OR ELSE....
Mark the one you wish to vote for.
Bush ___
Kerry ___
(Written in handwriting on ballot)
<span style='font-family:Geneva'>RALPH NADER 2004 WHOOOOO!!! XXXXX!!!</span>
No, I'm not a resident of Florida. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I won't comment on your unnecessary hypothetical physical attack on me, however I will laugh at you as you pick up your broken notebook.
Actually your wrong, if America stayed out of Europe, Britain would have kept up <i>some</i> pressure on the west, along with the pitiful French resistance, but it most likely would have been enough to keep the Germans busy. This in turn would help the Russians steamroll through Germany, nothing would have stopped them anyway.
Europe would have gone from the rule of Hitler to the rule of Stalin if America had stayed out of it. England would not have stood a chance against Russia after Germany fell. So yea, I think they owe us a little, not only for that but all that money we gave them to put their broken continent back together.
:rolleyes:
Hitler killed like...12 million or so. Stalin has close to, if not more than 100 million in his name. (I think my numbers are correct.) I recall hearing that on the History channel a few weeks ago.
Hitler killed like...12 million or so. Stalin has close to, if not more than 100 million in his name. (I think my numbers are correct.) I recall hearing that on the History channel a few weeks ago. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya, but Hitler killed Jews, and everyone knows that Jews are cooler than Russians.
1) Nobody owes USA anything. Germany + Japan were steamrolling, and USA had to come in or they would have lost all of Europe to the Nazi's [and I don't think they liked USA that much]. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without the US it's very likely that France and England would be completely different, Israel probably would not be a country as it is today and Germany would probably have beat the crap out of the Russians. Of course, it's all speculation on what could have happened, because Hitler wasn't very good at big decisions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2) The Europeans especially don't owe USA much for WW2 because it was the russians who made the most significant impact on the German warmachine. America's significance was against the Japanese.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As stated somewhere else: The Russians would have been rolled over if the US wasn't in the war. Stalin was mad at the allies for not launching an attack sooner, he thought they were purposefully waiting - just to cost more Russian lives...if that tells you anything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3) Either way, it's a bloody team effort. So you're saying that, since Europe hates USA's guts, if 1939 were to roll around again, you'd just leave them? Wait, don't answer that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Situation: A country is turning fascist.
Bush: Attacks the country pre-emptively and disbands the government...too bad it's the wrong country.
Kerry: Sits around as an isolationist, preparing to defend his country with "spitballs" (thanks, crazy politician at the convention). Makes a cool alliance with the country, like Russia with Germany in 1939...
[hypothetical, of course]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5) Allied concentration camps? They weren't called that, and persecution wasn't as direct ('Hey, we're the "Good" guys!'), but they existed. Americans of german/italian/japanese background would be chucked into these camps so they didn't go running back to the motherland to fight against the allies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was pretty much only Japanese that were forced into internment camps. While Germans were persecuted during WW1, during WW2 they were pretty much left alone, compared to the Japanese. They're not concentration camps, because the Japanese weren't forced to work for minimal food, in an attempt to work them to death. The big 'warcrime' thing about it is that these Japanese lost a lot of freedom and many of their possessions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4) USA has a history [note: all of it's history] spent looking thinking about themselves only. "America first, last, always". No decision is made without America's immediate and future prosperity in mind. Mind you the economy is so unstable and unappealing that they couldn't have made very many good decisions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. Way to describe every single country in the world. Now, you may think there's an exception...there's not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nobody likes American because you're a bad trading partner, your economy is unstable, you're arrogant and self-serving, you're opressive, and if you add it up, there are more con's than pro's. China would be a better trading option. And protection? Who's there to protect us from? China? North Korea? The only threat would be China, and that's if you and all the other world's armies managed to simultaenously tk themselves in the head.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1.
China GDP per capita: purchasing power parity - $5,000 (2003 est.)
United States GDP per capita: purchasing power parity - $37,800 (2003 est.)
...I think that's sufficient information why the US is still an important trade partner.
2. Of course, a country that hasn't changed its basic governmental structure in over 200 years and we're unstable. Last I checked, the world economy fluctuates pretty much with one-another, not on individual countries.
[Note to some people: the Great Depression didn't just happen in the US.]
3. I don't know where this protection stuff is coming from...since every country in the world has its own international relations. So...whatever's going on with that.
4. Don't see it in here, but someone brought up Canada as a better trading partner: They're part of NAFTA too, so they're not going to be that much better than the US...they also have a lower population. Those decisions need to be made on a product by product, intended consumer group decision.
5. "you're opressive" is probably the most legitimate of these statments. As the US has the power to influence smaller nations. However, I don't know what you expect to come of it. Russia pushed its power onto other countries. England pushed its power onto other countries, Germany pushed its power onto other countries. All in different forms, but with different results. It's what happens when nations get power - they use it. The US mostly influences politics though, unlike Germany and Russia who were into taking territory and economic control. You may think the US controls the economic picture, but the EU has some policies the US doesn't like, and there's not much to be done about them; and people trade with the US not because they want to, but because they need to for the money. They could embargo the US, but they'd lose much of their income (which isn't true for some countries, but probably all of the ones you're associating with this debate).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->P.S. <i>I VOTED FOR RALPH NADER! I hate everyone!!</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pffft, I don't want to vote for either of them. Bush seems to agressive and moronic, Kerry seems to isolationist and too fickle. I'm not sure if I want to vote Kerry or third party yet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
...And there you go, assuming I get through this before anyone else
From the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
Simply, Bush is exercising his power as President of the United States of America in the same fashion that Theodore Roosevelt did. I don't understand why the world hates him for that, and quite simply adores what Kerry says he is going to do. The world knows President Bush is a man of action, but Kerry on the other hand...all we have are his 'policy' of saying one thing, then doing another. Plus all of those claims of him cheating his way out of Vietnam...
*edit* The quote above is very appropriate for the discussion because of the fact that the world hates Bush for launching attacks against Afganistan and Iraq. It explains why he did that. It also proves that our friend Saddam Hussein never read it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
in short: europe owes us an assload. anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to join the army of their respective nation and provide world peace. sure, americans are arrogant, there are people everywhere who are (plus we can back it up <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->). sure, we're self-serving. show me a country who isn't. i'd like to see anyone else spend as much money on charity as we do. bad trading partner? what? i don't understand that one. unstable economy? yeah, and look at europe's all-but-stagnant one. btw, yes there were 'concentration camps' where we stuffed the japanese, but there were no furnaces or torture. i think it'd best be left to the imagination what would have happened should hitler or stalin have managed to consolidate their territory in europe. 'we only stopped japan'? puh-lease. any moral authority you had was just stripped by that single statement. the japanese were as brutal as their european counterparts, performing biological warfare tests on civilians in captured territories, mass rape/massacres of civilians and children, etc? so basically you're saying that as long as you're not the one being attacked, you don't give a sh*t. thanks for clearing that up.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Although I think from now on I'll stay out of these threads - it's not worth the flaming to bother learning.
Hitler killed like...12 million or so. Stalin has close to, if not more than 100 million in his name. (I think my numbers are correct.) I recall hearing that on the History channel a few weeks ago. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya, but Hitler killed Jews, and everyone knows that Jews are cooler than Russians. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Eddie Izzard+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eddie Izzard)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Other mass murders got away with it;
Stalin - killed many millions; died in his bed. Well done there.
Pol Pot - killed 1.7 million Cambodians; died under house arrest, age 72.
Well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it, is because they killed their own people...and we're sort of fine with that.
"Oh, help yourself!" you know. "We've been trying to kill you for ages. So, go and kill your own people - right on then." <span style='color:orange'>Shrug</span> Seems to be.
Hitler killed people next door - ohhh, stupid man.
After a couple of years: "Oh, we wont stand for that, now will we?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this'll explain it for you.
And if you want to find the worst dictator of the 20th century, I'd suggest visiting <a href='http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm' target='_blank'>this</a> which could give you a better way to judge who you should be hating more - based on how you would consider a death evil.
As I said earlier, take of your nationalistic hat and become a world resident..
[snipped bit where author goes crazy and talks about stuff I haven't touched] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. And? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Every nation so far has been built on the triumphs of other nations, be it martial or inventive. I don't see why the USA's role in WWII should be seen as greater than all of those others. And is it bringing it up <i>really</i> meant to make a reader think, "Wow, if not for America, my country wouldn't be as it is today! How wrong of me to not approve of the invasion of Iraq!" Because if the USA had wanted that, then it should have pulled a U.S.S.R. and annexed as much of Europe as it could.
Edit: syntax.
anyway, the point is this. stop hating on bush for invading iraq. we caused that mess, and we're going to clean it up. there is a time for action, even if it means trampling over other people's feelings/interests/passive feel-good-ism. there are also times to abide by it. face it, the situation in iraq wasn't going to get any better any time soon, and could have gotten a whole lot worse. the diplomatic solution was tried, and failed. the assassination solution was tried, and failed. the trade embargo solution was tried, and failed.
p.s. 'world resident'? yeah. right. the idea of a nation-state will be dead when the last vestiges of civilisation rots and crumbles away in the cold, dead hands of humanity. which might happen in a few hours, but i'm not going to the supermarket to stock up on provisions.
/me activates hypocrite mode.
Now I have question for you. Lets say Britain, our closest ally chose to invade Canada because they had someone in office with anti-British policies in office. Lets say that that person is also killing a few Canadians in the name of science. Would the U.S help Britain invade Canada? The answer is probity no. We have no reason to invade them. We gain nothing from defeating them and we lose is a couple billion dollars and lots of U.S lives. Thats exactly what most of Europe chose to do. Why would you risk YOUR mens lives for something that you gain nothing from?
/me ends hypocrite mode.
Also I have another question for all you conservatives on this forum. Aside from the War in Iraq why vote for Bush?
I won't comment on your unnecessary hypothetical physical attack on me, however I will laugh at you as you pick up your broken notebook.
Actually your wrong, if America stayed out of Europe, Britain would have kept up <i>some</i> pressure on the west, along with the pitiful French resistance, but it most likely would have been enough to keep the Germans busy. This in turn would help the Russians steamroll through Germany, nothing would have stopped them anyway.
Europe would have gone from the rule of Hitler to the rule of Stalin if America had stayed out of it. England would not have stood a chance against Russia after Germany fell. So yea, I think they owe us a little, not only for that but all that money we gave them to put their broken continent back together.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the germans fought two fronts, and still managed to hold its own against the russians. russia isn't going to steam roll through anything, and england ...
WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA
'He isnt bush' You mean there is another reason to vote 4 kerry?
/me activates hypocrite mode.
Now I have question for you. Lets say Britain, our closest ally chose to invade Canada because they had someone in office with anti-British policies in office. Lets say that that person is also killing a few Canadians in the name of science. Would the U.S help Britain invade Canada? The answer is probity no. We have no reason to invade them. We gain nothing from defeating them and we lose is a couple billion dollars and lots of U.S lives. Thats exactly what most of Europe chose to do. Why would you risk YOUR mens lives for something that you gain nothing from?
/me ends hypocrite mode.
Also I have another question for all you conservatives on this forum. Aside from the War in Iraq why vote for Bush? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would support it if:
1) Britain installed the hypothetical leader, or helped him to gain power.
-or-
Britain supplied weapons to Canada to counterbalance the military might of the US, which it fears as a destabilizing influence in North America.
2) Said leader replaces then-progressive government with absolute dictatorship, murders all political opposition, and proceeds to oppress his own people for 3 decades.
3) Said leader wages many wars, using biological and chemical agents indiscriminately, and shows signs of trying to acquire nukes.
4) Said leader's regime cannot be changed by a simple assassination or deposition. (Yah, assassination is illegal by international conventions. I'm only positing this)
5) Said leader has repeatedly ignored warnings by the general assembly to disarm.
6) Said leader violates embargoes and lets his own people suffer (although this is partially other countries' faults)
7) Said leader TRIES TO KILL GEORGE BUSH@!!!!!111one. (kidding)
Remember people, just because something is unpopular, doesn't mean it is wrong.
'He isnt bush' You mean there is another reason to vote 4 kerry? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Voting for someone simply because he isn't the other guy is, plainly put, stupid. Without knowing anything about him or his platform you could be voting the wrong sort of man into office. If you consider Bush to be a bad person, and just vote for Kerry because he isn't Bush, there's a possiblity (not even all that slim) that he would be less of a leader, etc. Since we are all apparently stuck on this WWII theme today, think of people voting for a monster like Hitler just because he isn't the opposition, when they know nothing of the man or what his plans for the nation are. That's just an easy example, so don't bother going ahead and nitpicking it, since I doubt it will change the overall point behind this post.
stop wasting your life
WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Russia was steam rolling through before Normandy.
google Russian Soviet Stalingrad
But of course, previous sabotage works by Allies contributed greatly. (Very ingenious bombs destroyed the dams that powered Germany and Great Britain's air superiority over the English Channel)
<span style='font-size:30pt;line-height:100%'>\o/</span>
WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA WACKA <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Russia was steam rolling through before Normandy.
google Russian Soviet Stalingrad
But of course, previous sabotage works by Allies contributed greatly. (Very ingenious bombs destroyed the dams that powered Germany and Great Britain's air superiority over the English Channel) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Russian "streamroll" was really just throw men at the war and try to win by sheer numbers... I think they lost up around.. 40million men?