What nationality would you be?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Manec @ July 16 2002,06:56)</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 (Manec @ July 16 2002,06:32)

is anyone listening to NetRadio? I found an excellent audio streaming ripper. best of all, its free, no spyware, pop-up's  commercials or DJ's. I can rip 5 different channels averaging 130KB apiece at the same time! NO SH*T! To me, that's good. I downloaded 537 songs in a four hour period right to my hard drive, sort them anyway I want and burn what I want to either CD or DVD. For an old fart like me, that's pretty cool        !!!!

Why post this here?  

<span id='postcolor'>

because I have an audience, and,... I can! lol

Paratrooper, play with the big dogs, learn to pee on big trees, ok? iow, lighten up, man. it ain't parliment! nor church...it's only a BS session. we're not trying to save the world, only trying to find out where we'd all want to live.  <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Back to the topic at hand. In general, you Europeans think your poopy no smelly. Well, guess what? You liberal pacifist would be goose-stepping and listening to oom-pah-pah bands if we hadn't pulled your balls out of the fire. And what do we get for it? A bunch of whiny, sniveling sh*ts who are jealous of what America is, stands for and has become, and, because you don't have it, you'll fight us, politically, with more pacifistic BS until, poof, there goes London or Paris, then all of a sudden we gotta come a'runnin' again and get killed for you. Or worse, because you whiny little snots allow the Muslim slimebag terrorists to bring a bomb to America through your country, we lose a million people or more. So where would I like to live? USA, USA, USA! and I will shout it from every mountain, Big Ben, Eifell Tower, frickin' downtown Mecca and anyone that doesn't want to listen can change the channel. I'm not saying we don't have problems, but comparatively speaking, I'll take our problems any day if they come with our freedoms and liberty. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">edit what? do it!

seriously, edit what?

That's right, I don't have 1st amendment rights here, do I? Oh my God, Banished for speaking my mind? If that is the case, maybe I don't want to be a part of this anyway! Not my intention to hurt anyones "feelings" but why would my "opinion", my thoughts, be a threat or whatever? If OFP isn't a place to be able to say whatever you want, take the American GI off the cover and put French, German, Dutch, English, EUROPEAN troops in to defend those little islands! As long as it's Americans that are fighting and dying for Everon, I will say my peace! And you, as an American, should join with me for "together we stand, for apart we surely will die!" Either that or get rid of your avantar (sp) and name!

<span id='postcolor'>

Bye bye Manec. Posting rights removed. You'll get them back when you realise why flaming and spamming make a bad combination.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I hear this over and over again, this argument of "Paris would be Nazi-downtown if we wouldnt have helped you!" Now to get this straight. America did not enter the war because they felt sorry for the europeans but to save its own future. If Germany would have been able to hold europe for more than a year, then America would have been doomed to fall next. So the war was declared on America and America had to fight in Europe, got it?

"you are just jelous!" that is a childish argument and doesnt belong in a forum with many members being older than 16.

Just for your understanding. They are not "muslim terrorists" they are "muslim extremists" (and of course terorists), get the difference?

Why the hell you want to shout in Mecca-downtown that you love USA? What would you do in Mecca then? I dont get you!

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 0]

America declared war on Germany because Germany declared war on them.

The argument of "If America hadnt saved all of our asses in Europe, Germany would have taken over America" is speculation and highly unlikely. If Germany couldn't take Russia, why would it be able to take America?

Muslim terrorists and Muslims extremists are the same thing. There is no difference. Ones just a slightly more PC term.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 16 2002,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">America declared war on Germany because Germany declared war on them.

The argument of "If America hadnt saved all of our asses in Europe, Germany would have taken over America" is speculation and highly unlikely.  If Germany couldn't take Russia, why would it be able to take America?  

Muslim terrorists and Muslims extremists are the same thing.  There is no difference.  Ones just a slightly more PC term.<span id='postcolor'>

No, the difference lies in the fact that those terorists do not correctly interpret the Quaran and therefore are not muslims but extremists.

Of course it is pure speculation. But speculation can be justified. Hitlers intention was to conquer the world, as terrible crazy as this might sound, he would have dared the step. To say that he would not have been able to cope with Russia whether or not the Allies attacked, that is strange speculation.  Since a 50% release on the southern front would make you 70% stronger on the eastern front.

As you might have known there were german submarines in the Missippi sinking ships. In terms of logistics this over-continental war would have worked very well. And it would definetly have started on the sea!

Furthermore was the US not aware of most cruelties done by the germans because American citizens were deliberately treated well, so they did not have direct motivations to attack Germany untill Germany had the chance to become more powerful than the US => owning entire Europe

(BTW Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around)

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 0]

Well if you really want to get into it...

I don't think U-boats sinking merchant ships would have forced US to surrender to them. Considering Germany did not have allies in North America (even though they tried with Mexico) a trans contintal war just would not have worked.

I consider Russia very much like the US in that it is huge and not really to keen on losing homeland wars. If Germany couldn't take Russia, I don't think it could take America. And America is across the Ocean.

And BTW, America DID delcare war on Germany in response to Germany declaring war on them. Which I noted in the previous post.

Don't believe me? Here's the declaration

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 16 2002,18:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well if you really want to get into it...

I don't think U-boats sinking merchant ships would have forced US to surrender to them.  Considering Germany did not have allies in North America (even though they tried with Mexico) a trans contintal war just would not have worked.

I consider Russia very much like the US in that it is huge and not really to keen on losing homeland wars.  If Germany couldn't take Russia, I don't think it could take America.  And America is across the Ocean.

And BTW, America DID delcare war on Germany in response to Germany declaring war on them.  Which I noted in the previous post.

Don't believe me?  Here's the declaration<span id='postcolor'>

My point was, that only by owning the sea and therefore major merchant routes, you would force countries into war.

As I said, without the Allies attacking in from the west, the Axis would have won in the East. I have absolutely no doubt about that. Holding the entire europe in your hands, being able to use new production facilities, none being destroyed by your opponent, Russia would have been overrun. Just imagine all the technological developements that would have been able to be financed. The resources from the Normandie ..damm, you must be kiddin!

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 0]

I don't see how Germany could possibly fight America 2000 miles away with no allies on the continent.

[Sadico 1]

Have you ever heard of the v-2 rocket? If they had time to develop them a bit more they would have been able to hit your east coast from France.

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 0]

Pfft.. The thing could barely go 200 miles.

[Sadico 1]

They had blueprints of a two-stage winged v-2 that could have flown over the Atlantic Ocean.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 16 2002,12:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't see how Germany could possibly fight America 2000 miles away with no allies on the continent.<span id='postcolor'>

It seems you under estimate Hitlers ability in war and strategy. Not only was his war organized well, but he was like no other leader in the past. His main advantage was that his and his peoples power was so underestimated. Poland at the time was just as inattentive as the US was with Bin Laden... thinking it could never happen.

His investment in military sciences (jet propulsion, rockets, nuclear ) would have given him Russia and America in a relatively short time. I have no doubt about it.

It would be prudent for the US to learn from the past as the EU has.

[Satchel 0]

Hitler was megalomaniac with an increasing loss of reality.

Neither had he been a decent military strategist, nor did he accept the advice of his generals as offensives began to stagnate and fronts to crumble.

Rather than putting an effort on wonder weapons, it would have been wiser to put all effort into already approved systems.

As Hitler put himself in charge of the whole Wehrmacht as commander in chief, and later after the first failures, only loyal NS Officers were put in charge of other important instruments, the high command was composed out of mostly incomptent military strategists and tactists, with very few exceptions.

He held his generals on a short chain, that rivalled each other for Hitler´s favor, what in the end made the troops ineffective, especially in operations involving combined arms.

For example, the Panzertruppe was stationed to far inland during D-Day, although Rommel, one of the most capable Generals and Army Group Commander on the Westwall, requested their immediate support on the coast, he said; "the war will be won or lost on the beaches. We'll have only one chance to stop the enemy, and that's while he's in the water . . . struggling to get ashore."

Because of quarreling with the commander in chief of the West, Rundstedt (who himself was quarreling with Keitl, Jodl and later Hitler), tanks were not ordered support, as Rundstedt believed in a deep defense, wearing the allied attack out, for a later german counterattack.

Rundstedt's plan to hold the reserves back and then launch a massive stroke, was greatly praised by many generals, and many thought it would have been very beneficial.... had it been executed.

Rommel was one of the few who did expect the invasion exactly where it occured, in the Normandy, but hardly anyone listened to him although it was quite logical that the invasion would not take part in an area where the strongest fortifications had been build, so that many resources were concentrated on other parts such as the area between Le Havre and Calais, the major strongpoints.

As Rommel visited the Westwall the first time, he was dissapointed how lackluster an ineffective it was setup, he himself was not convinced that it could fend of an invasion.

In a hurry defenses were build that later would be manned by inexperienced troops, mostly with obsolete equipment and mainly composed of very young or elderly men that were not suited to be deployed on the eastern- or other fronts.

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 0]

Megalomaniac sounds like a Dinosaur.

[Paratrooper 0]

Excuse me but this has nothing to do with the thread I started. We have all debated the bloody war till were blue in the face. We all know that the determination of Britain and the Industry of the USSR and America won the war. Now no more please! I'm begging you!

[Sadico 1]

Ok, ok!!

[hovmand 0]

I would pick Norway, i can understand what they are saying and its a very beautiful country, but since i cant pick a neighbouring country i think i would pick Austria, no particular reason actually, i drove through there once and thought it looked nice

[PitViper 0]

it's really sad that any international thread will devolve into intercontinental flaming. This topic is unique in that it can provide something different than usual.

[Satchel 0]

Ok, back to the original question....i´d pick Bermuda.

Why? because far away from heavy industrialisation and major polution problems, while having one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, it´s known for it´s financial services for companys worldwide.

Beautiful water, very nice landscape and many islands in the surrounding to do some island hopping.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not only that but you "Americans" are just children of Europe, and I stress children, in the most literal sense. You took all the inventions and tools from Europe to set up the US and Canada, and fight the Natives into submission. Now you are trying to impose your little opinions on the EU... go kill terrorists and tell each other to jump off bridges and stop bothering Europeans, cuz you are messing with people who are still a level above.

<span id='postcolor'>

Way to go! Countering an assenine comment with an even more assenine comment. A people that are a level above? What the hell are you talking about? Americans are the children of nobody, we are simply Americans. Just because our country is young, that makes us unrefined? We have become our own people. Our little opinions? I'm no opponent of isolationism. I would be more than happy to see the U.S. withdraw it's support and assets from both NATO and the U.N. You guys can go fend for yourselves with your miniscule armies. Then we'll see how much the opinions of the United States count. Congratulations bn880, you win the forum's prestigious idiotic bigot award. Ethnocentric much?

[Guest]

bn880 is American (or Canadian).

Anyway, stop flaming or I'll close the thread

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @ July 17 2002,01:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, back to the original question....i´d pick Bermuda.

Why? because far away from heavy industrialisation and major polution problems, while having one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, it´s known for it´s financial services for companys worldwide.

Beautiful water, very nice landscape and many islands in the surrounding to do some island hopping.<span id='postcolor'>

Right. I'm back from my collaspes into sleep (which I really needed), Satchel, you can't have Bermuda because it's a colony.

If we have anymore country discussions there must be no flaming, not because I don't like arguing, but because its tedious and I'm sick of it!

[RedStorm 0]

It's nice to hear that so many people have picked Holland as their favorite country. It flatters me! I would pick...lets see..ehh..dunno actually. Holland I guess either that or Austria.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedStorm @ July 17 2002,16:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's nice to hear that so many people have picked Holland as their favorite country. It flatters me! I would pick...lets see..ehh..dunno actually. Holland I guess either that or Austria.<span id='postcolor'>

Why Austria?

[Satchel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 17 2002,17:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @ July 17 2002,01:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, back to the original question....i´d pick Bermuda.

Why? because far away from heavy industrialisation and major polution problems, while having one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, it´s known for it´s financial services for companys worldwide.

Beautiful water, very nice landscape and many islands in the surrounding to do some island hopping.<span id='postcolor'>

Right. I'm back from my collaspes into sleep (which I really needed), Satchel, you can't have Bermuda because it's a colony.

If we have anymore country discussions there must be no flaming, not because I don't like arguing, but because its tedious and I'm sick of it!<span id='postcolor'>

Bermuda got as little to do with the UK, as the Bush administration with world piece .

The inhabitants nationality is Bermudian(s), not english, so yes Bermuda is a valid choice, the only area i would switch for my beloved Germany .

[RedStorm 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 17 2002,17:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedStorm @ July 17 2002,16:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's nice to hear that so many people have picked Holland as their favorite country. It flatters me! I would pick...lets see..ehh..dunno actually. Holland I guess either that or Austria.<span id='postcolor'>

Why Austria?<span id='postcolor'>

Because I went there on vacation and I sorta liked the Landscape there. Nice mountains etc.