Us vs. rest of the world

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">to help rebuilding, one needs resource, europe made mistake of wasting it on war. so it's hard to say that europe has mature attitude anyway<span id='postcolor'> I must take exeption to this. Not all of us consider ourselves to be citizens of a Greater European Reich. Britain never asked for war; we fought tooth and nail against a terrible tyranny. So don't make the rediculous conceit of suggesting the Second World War was a "European civil war" because that it was not!

It cost Britain untold lives and over a quarter of the globe in territory. We didn't ask for it, and we were the only ones to fight it for a time. Europe didn't just decide to 'have a war'.

P.S many of us are grateful to America for helping Britain, and consider the USA to be close national freinds.

[ralphwiggum 6]

"So, instead of wasting resources on war Europe should have just let Hitler take over?"

no..but could europe done better to stop Hitler?

""and Kuwait ppl were masochits?"

What does that have to do with anything?"

i was refering that Kuwait ppl getting tortured by Iraq soldiers.

""Eh, EU is closest thing."

Yes, but not all European nations are members of EU."

well, one step at a time

[xmurderx 0]

I love the argument "if it wasnt for us (britan) you wouldnt be here", well you know if it wasnt for us there would be no australia, and if it wasnt for the *insert primal tribe here* britan wouldnt exist. blah blah blah. and no we wouldnt be singing german songs, Iam sure russia could have taken germany out eventually if america didnt enter the war, by the time we got in it 3/4 of germanys military resorces had been used and the war had been decided. oh yeah, and if it wasnt for the russians Iam sure that you brits would be under the swatstika. why argue about all this bs when we all know that one day we are going to be rulled by some large council governing the world, blah blah blah, new world order.

just remember to aim for the blue helmets

[Longinius 1]

"no..but could europe done better to stop Hitler?"

No, Europe did all it could. Or maybe you should tell the veterans of that war that they didn't do their best? Or maybe we should have adopted the American way and attacked Germany first, before they even did anything?

"i was refering that Kuwait ppl getting tortured by Iraq soldiers."

Don't tell me you honestly believe America went to free Kuwait because Iraqi soldiers tortured people...

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (xmurderx @ July 18 2002,08:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I love the argument "if it wasnt for us (britan) you wouldnt be here", well you know if it wasnt for us there would be no australia, and if it wasnt for the *insert primal tribe here* britan wouldnt exist. blah blah blah. and no we wouldnt be singing german songs, Iam sure russia could have taken germany out eventually if america didnt enter the war, by the time we got in it 3/4 of germanys military resorces had been used and the war had been decided. oh yeah, and if it wasnt for the russians Iam sure that you brits would be under the swatstika. why argue about all this bs when we all know that one day we are going to be rulled by some large council governing the world, blah blah blah, new world order.

just remember to aim for the blue helmets <span id='postcolor'>

You seem to have a poor grasp of recent history. Learn something about the Second World War, then you'll know that the Nazis were in the Russian capital, they were only just turned back. Germany and Russia even had a pact up untill 1942. Without the British struggle the war could not have been won, this is not to denigrate the part of other nations in the war, to whom as I have already said most Britons are profoundy grateful.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't tell me you honestly believe America went to free Kuwait because Iraqi soldiers tortured people...<span id='postcolor'>

Don't tell that to me neither!

[Paratrooper 0]

"no..but could europe done better to stop Hitler?"

After the fields of the Somme and Pascendale, British leaders were understandably reluctant to waste young lives untill war could not be avoided. I think you have adopted deliberatly an over simplistic attitude to history.

[ralphwiggum 6]

"No, Europe did all it could. Or maybe you should tell the veterans of that war that they didn't do their best? Or maybe we should have adopted the American way and attacked Germany first, before they even did anything?"

well then. let's make sure that this doesn't happen again. And did US attack Osama b4 he did anything to US? nah...

"Don't tell me you honestly believe America went to free Kuwait because Iraqi soldiers tortured people..."

nope. but oil wasn't every reason.

[Paratrooper 0]

The Gulf War was not a simply American action, It was done under UN mandate.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well then. let's make sure that this doesn't happen again. And did US attack Osama b4 he did anything to US? nah...<span id='postcolor'>

What do you mean with that?

And what does one pathetic Osama mean?

[Longinius 1]

"The Gulf War was not a simply American action, It was done under UN mandate."

And the US had nothing to do with that mandate, I am sure...

"well then. let's make sure that this doesn't happen again. And did US attack Osama b4 he did anything to US? nah..."

Attacking Usama bin Ladin is one thing. Attacking Afghanistan is another thing all together. Bin Ladin does not equal Afghanistan. They are not the same. Yes, the taliban supposedly supported and hid Bin Ladin. But where is the proof they had anything to actually do with the attack on America?

"nope. but oil wasn't every reason."

No, but it was the main reason. The driving reason. The reason to actually go to war. People are being tortured in South America, in Africa, in China. I dont see the US rushing to their aid.

[Paratrooper 0]

Well the mandate was to free a sovreign nation from foreign invasion. The US had no more part of it than their vote on the security council. Britain, France and Saudi Arabia were also fighters in the war. Get your facts straight, of course it was important to free the Kuwaiti oil, but the war was about more than this. Do a bit of reading, your grasp of history seems as if you'e just picked a few facts up.

[Longinius 1]

"Well the mandate was to free a sovreign nation from foreign invasion."

An invasion that occured because the US led Saddam to believe they would not intervene. Also, a mandate heavily influenced by the actions of the US. The entire coalition basically consisted by the US and the UN, not by the UN.

"The US had no more part of it than their vote on the security council."

Right, not like they were a driving force at all. Not like they actually took control of many aspects around the conflict.

"Britain, France and Saudi Arabia were also fighters in the war."

Saudi Arabia, yes, the guys that invited the US to come help them. Funny, they invited the US, not the UN...

"Get your facts straight, of course it was important to free the Kuwaiti oil, but the war was about more than this. Do a bit of reading, your grasp of history seems as if you'e just picked a few facts up."

OK, you say it was about more than oil. Then I assume you refer to humanitarian reasons, human rights and such. If that was such a driving force, why hasnt America gotten more involved in Africa, where thousands and thousands are dieing every day because of petty wars, famine and decease?

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ July 18 2002,09:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Well the mandate was to free a sovreign nation from foreign invasion."

An invasion that occured because the US led Saddam to believe they would not intervene. Also, a mandate heavily influenced by the actions of the US. The entire coalition basically consisted by the US and the UN, not by the UN.

"The US had no more part of it than their vote on the security council."

Right, not like they were a driving force at all. Not like they actually took control of many aspects around the conflict.

"Britain, France and Saudi Arabia were also fighters in the war."

Saudi Arabia, yes, the guys that invited the US to come help them. Funny, they invited the US, not the UN...

"Get your facts straight, of course it was important to free the Kuwaiti oil, but the war was about more than this. Do a bit of reading, your grasp of history seems as if you'e just picked a few facts up."

OK, you say it was about more than oil. Then I assume you refer to humanitarian reasons, human rights and such. If that was such a driving force, why hasnt America gotten more involved in Africa, where thousands and thousands are dieing every day because of petty wars, famine and decease?<span id='postcolor'>

It has nothing to do with African wars, long running wars are not the business of the UN to phsically intervene, nor are they able. The Mandate was issued because of Iraqi invasion.

I'm not saying that the US was not involved, but the US didn't just launch the action screaming "The Oil! the Oil!"

IT WAS UNDER A COLILITION ACTING ON A UN MANDATE! America does not control the UN. That's partly why the don't pay their bills to the UN.

[Longinius 1]

"IT WAS UNDER A COLILITION ACTING ON A UN MANDATE! America does not control the UN. That's partly why the don't pay their bills to the UN."

They dont? I'd say they have a fair share of control over the UN. Just look at the ICC circus, the Israel vs Palestine incidents and many other things. A veto gives you alot of control (yes others have veto to ofcourse, but we are talking control). The influence America has over many other nations does not exactly give them any less of control either. I'd say they are the nation with most control and influence in the entire UN, and they arent afraid to use it for their own needs.

[Oligo 1]

People are selfish. U.S. is a sovereign country full of selfish people and the leaders of that country are also selfish. The leaders want more for their people, but even more for themselves. The result is a controlling system in which the good given to the common people is optimized to a level to shut them up and of course most good is funneled to the leaders. All actions made to get the goodies are justified by the hammering indoctrination of the media, which starts when you're a child and goes on for the rest of your life. There is NO WAY that anybody in U.S. can have an unbiased opinion, because of this conditioning. Even if you think you're unbiased, you're affected.

EU is a loose union of sovereign countries. The leaders of the EU organization are selfish, the national leaders are selfish and the people of each country are selfish. The result is a controlling system in which the good given to the common people is optimized to a level to shut them up and of course most good is funneled to the leaders. All actions made to get the goodies are justified by the hammering indoctrination of the media, which starts when you're a child and goes on for the rest of your life. There is NO WAY that anybody in any EU country can have an unbiased opinion, because of this conditioning. Even if you think you're unbiased, you're affected.

When these two systems brush against each other, exchanges like this thread occur. What both parties should see is that they don't even really speak the same language because of the different indoctrination they have received during their lives (such differences in mindscape also exist between the people from different U.S. states and different E.U. nations). You speak to each other, but cannot really HEAR each other.

Ever wondered why the people from China can seem a little... strange, like you're not quite on the same wavelength? Look above, there's the reason.

[xmurderx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 18 2002,08:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (xmurderx @ July 18 2002,08:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I love the argument "if it wasnt for us (britan) you wouldnt be here", well you know if it wasnt for us there would be no australia, and if it wasnt for the *insert primal tribe here* britan wouldnt exist. blah blah blah. and no we wouldnt be singing german songs, Iam sure russia could have taken germany out eventually if america didnt enter the war, by the time we got in it 3/4 of germanys military resorces had been used and the war had been decided. oh yeah, and if it wasnt for the russians Iam sure that you brits would be under the swatstika. why argue about all this bs when we all know that one day we are going to be rulled by some large council governing the world, blah blah blah, new world order.

just remember to aim for the blue helmets <span id='postcolor'>

You seem to have a poor grasp of recent history. Learn something about the Second World War, then you'll know that the Nazis were in the Russian capital, they were only just turned back. Germany and Russia even had a pact up untill 1942. Without the British struggle the war could not have been won, this is not to denigrate the part of other nations in the war, to whom as I have already said most Britons are profoundy grateful.<span id='postcolor'>

oh they were? Iam sure most historians can tell you the closest they got was 19 miles from the capital, if to you 19 miles is in it then I say Ive been to alot more places then I think. and just to let you know, moscow was the capital, not stalingrad if thats what your thinking. recent history? recent is the gulf war, not ww2. what if operation sea lion was sucessful? just a thought

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">recent is the gulf war, not ww2<span id='postcolor'>

WWII took place just 60 years ago. What do you consider "ancient" if WWII is not recent to you?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the closest they got was 19 miles from the capital<span id='postcolor'>

19 miles is nothing, at least when compared to the thousand miles they pushed their troops into Russian territory.

Don't just stare at the numbers, look at the "big picture".

[MDRZulu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, but it was the main reason. The driving reason. The reason to actually go to war. People are being tortured in South America, in Africa, in China. I dont see the US rushing to their aid.<span id='postcolor'>

We do aid South America today but from torturing??, I cant say I hear of too much torturing going on down there... or any. If you forgot already we did aid africa and some americans got killed so we left, they werent worth it I guess. by the way we wanted no oil from Somalia maybe because there isnt any I dont know. Ok and China now that is just stupid because that would do more harm than good right now. China and the US going at it in a full scale war would definetly not be good.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">China and the US going at it in a full scale war would definetly not be good.<span id='postcolor'>

too compatible opponent?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I cant say I hear of too much torturing going on down there... or any<span id='postcolor'>

Well maybe you should open your ears then?

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LauryThorn @ July 18 2002,10:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">19 miles is nothing, at least when compared to the thousand miles they pushed their troops into Russian territory.

Don't just stare at the numbers, look at the "big picture".<span id='postcolor'>

The german attack at Moscow culminated (ran out of momentum) at 19 miles from Moscow. That was still outside the outmost of the three consecutive prepared defensive fortifications around the city and it was the high-point of german offensive to russia. A well prepared russian counterattack then struck the germans and the russian armoured spearheads penetrated several hundred kilometers to german-occupied territory.

Moscow was not even THAT important. Stalin had already moved almost all industrial production way back to Ural. So if the germans had managed to take Moscow (another city-fight like Stalingrad I bet), the imminent russian counterattack would have hammered them back anyway.

My hypothesis is that Germany could not have won the war against Russia even if the war had been fought one on one.

[xmurderx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LauryThorn @ July 18 2002,10:27)</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">recent is the gulf war, not ww2<span id='postcolor'>

WWII took place just 60 years ago. What do you consider "ancient" if WWII is not recent to you?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the closest they got was 19 miles from the capital<span id='postcolor'>

19 miles is nothing, at least when compared to the thousand miles they pushed their troops into Russian territory.

Don't just stare at the numbers, look at the "big picture".<span id='postcolor'>

ancient is "columbus discovered america". Iam probley alot younger than alot of people on this board so to me its not recent.

19 miles maybe nothing, but to state the fact that they were "in the capital" is another thing. if Iam going to look at the big picture I will see that being in the capital would mean

1) lower moral for russian troops setting in doubt of ever removing the germans

2) control of a vast reigon of very important military and politcal land

3) another stalingrad

4) shut down of alot of major factories causing a slowing in the production of russian amaments.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My hypothesis is that Germany could not have won the war against Russia even if the war had been fought one on one.<span id='postcolor'>

i agree with that. Russia is so large country that

it can give couple of thousands miles and then strike back.

But if Finland would have had F/A-18 Hornets back then, then

Moscow would be our capital!

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (xmurderx @ July 18 2002,10:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4) shut down of alot of major factories causing a slowing in the production of russian amaments.<span id='postcolor'>

The factories were empty. All the machinery had been removed and moved way back to Ural. Sometimes they even set them up under the naked sky!

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ancient is "columbus discovered america".<span id='postcolor'>

What is the 'vikings discovered america', then? or 'indians living peacefully in the continent now known as america'?. or the empire of rome? or stone age?