Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Obviously the US does...

We didn't start it, we just ended it. And made sure that any radical thinks twice about pullin that shit again.

Taliban = owned

Saddam = owned

We've effectively changed two countries because Osama wanted to fly a few planes into a building. The more pressure that is put on the middle east countries to police their own, the better. Basically Bush has made it clear that if you are in the same neighborhood as Osama, you better have a bomb shelter. If you are harboring terrorists, we will find a reason to invade.

I'm all for it. I don't want my kids to ever have to worry about acts of terrorism. It takes a good throwdown to settle these things, diplomacy only works against civilized people.

Next in queue:

Iran/Syria in 2005

North Korea 2007

Posted

Goody, warmongering. Has it occured to you that maybe these people do what they do for a reason? That maybe it would be better to find a peaceful solution as opposed to wading in, guns blazing?

Posted

The people of Europe have had centuries of experience of war, death, and more war. America has only existed for two hundred years. People remember that kind of thing, and this is why Europeans are so much more cautious. We've 'been there' for much longer.

nope sorry dont buy it... people dont remember shit that happens the night before after getting drunk... and i doubt they remember shit that happened thousands of years ago....

Blacks living in harlem now dont know

Posted

Poor logic. We don't have pacifist defence policies because we have smaller militaries, we have smaller militaries because we have pacifist defence policies. We don't want large armies.

The nazi party was formed during a time of severe depression, unrest, anger and frustration. Anything is possible under those conditions. Furthermore the germanic peoples at the time remembered the glory days after the Franco-Prussian war. Memory plays a part again. And I wasn't talking about individual memory, I was talking about cultural memory, something that we have and you, comparitively, don't. Modern Jews know that their ancestors were gassed by Hitler and it will effect their thinking. There, that was brief.

Edit: Damn right the people don't. Again with the international polls...

Posted

Goody, warmongering. Has it occured to you that maybe these people do what they do for a reason? That maybe it would be better to find a peaceful solution as opposed to wading in, guns blazing?

Jeffrey Dalmer ate people for a reason.... having a reason for doing something doest count for squat.

Secondly ... some people only understand one language.... pain.

Thirdly ....negotiation cannot overcome hatred....

Posted

1) Saudi, a cut off of oil.  Losing vital bases in the region.  Pakistan, vital bases, oh and they have nukes. 

2) If D.C. goes up in a mushroom cloud, the fallout, if nothing else, directly effects my life.

Fifty years ago, some were still colonies of Britain most likely.  As for bellyaching, I'm sorry, I consider life sacred.  When a hundred thousand people die, I become unhappy.  When the regular army of a nation that is a tangible target is replaced by, at my last count, 30+ rebel guerrilla groups, I become unhappy.  When the one government that was 'owned' is rebuilding in its neighbor, one of our allies, and among their villages for when we leave so they can come back into power, I become unhappy.

Now, I know my happiness doesn't count.  Neither do hundreds of thousands of lives apparently either.

Posted

I know we were withdrawing, but are we still, while pumping more troops into the region from South Korea and Europe? 

As for far fetched, in an old issue of U.S. News and World Report the Pentagon was doing war scenarios about Saddam's sons being in power in 2020 with nuclear missiles to hit America.  I'd have called that far fetched pre-death of Saddam's sons, impossible now, but taxpayer money paid to think it up.

Posted

My point was that, without the United States in World War II, Japan and Germany are free to concentrate on the final two real Allied powers; Britain and Russia. I can only assume that Japan would, in some way, relieve the pressure put on their German allies by doing something to hamper the Russian war effort. I did not explicitly say "invasion." Further, I count Italy+Germany to be one half of the Axis effort in the war, and Japan to be the other half. Pacific-Atlantic. It was easier to argue this that way. In any case, the mistakes I made don't exactly stack up to calling World War II a UN intervention.

EDIT: And, typically, I rarely resort to name-calling of any kind. This is perhaps the first or second instance it has ever happened on Fed2K. That is how much I'm fed up with this crap.

And, Edric? You are totally right. I apologize. I'm very sensitive to this because this is my country we're talking about. This is where I live.

Posted

just my two cents, WWI was in a dead-lock when we entered and crushed germany's final oiffensive, securing hte path to victory, we gave the allies fresh troops which helped ALOT

WWII, US was key to winning the europe theatre, end of story.

tthough britain and canada put in about 35% and the french resistance and russia did another 35% and the US gave that final 30% (my sole opinion) battle of britain was what secured the victory in WII (my opinion again)

Posted

American version of history appear to be slightly diferent to Britains. ::)

All those movies where hollywood rewrite history and give you the impression that they won all the wars!!! :)

Guns you amase me sometimes. ;) Taliban supported andtrained by America Shaddam and Ba'ath party supported and supplied by America.

WAR America has fought without Europe = Vietnam lost that one.

and who's pulling who's ass out of the fire in Iraq !!! >:(

Posted

Us europeans.

If it was up to me, we'd call back our troops from Iraq. Our guv is just butt-kissung US.

Who should rule the world? NO ONE. If you think like that then you're and idiot. Why? Well, if some power would rulse the world, then it would be onlyone big country (instead of many small countries) with only one type of culture, and one way of thinking. In America, even if you are democrat or republican, or even something else... you think as an american. Each country has its own way of thinking.

It is like globalisation: tha standardisation of the world. That would lead to stagnation. Stagnation leads to death. REMEMBER?

What would you like: the collapse of a planetary state, that would lead to a dark age, just as the fall of the western roman empire led to the dark ages in western europe, OR, lots of smaller countries, each with its own culture, way of thinking, etc. that will eventually wage war against each other, but would keep the world ALIVE. I like diversity because it means life.

So that's what I had to say about the "whos should rule the world" stuff.

About the US elections: why should I care too much? Around here it's been se mediatised, as it was our own elections. That seemed to me over-reacted by the media: "The Star Wars", as some idiotic TV channel called it. I can be concerned, 'cause I really don't like Bush. On the other hand he might be a brilliand social tactician that knows how the population react to certain factors and therefore compresses the social energies with conservatorism in order to make the society more permisive after his mandate. That would be a plan, but Bush really isn't the man to doit. He is the BEST example ever that it's not the guvernement that rules US. I's a little bit like the theory of conspiracy, I know,but how can such a man lead a country like US?

About history: In bith WW we threw ourselves into the onslought head-first. We never started a war beaing really prepared. The US did its part in the WWs but, that doesen't mean the rest of countries don't matter. Oh, and BTW, thanx for selling East Europe to Stalin. We'll be forever grateful.

About the thing that history matters: the collective memory. Well, it does. Ussually we take great pride in our history, and I for one, would behave in order to match the deeds of my ancestors: from the Dacian-Roman wars to the WWII. And yes, the europeans guvs are always cautios, because they know their prople ALWAYS HAVE SOME SCORE TO SETTLE WITH THEIR NEIGHNORS!!!

If they wouldn't be cautios, chaos would break loose. You cannot comprehend the energies ( social, cultural, etc) compressed in EU. The people of europe always had an apetite for war - and they still have, that is why the guvs are trying to decrease the military. I may not have said it as I should but that is the main idea.

Posted

My point was that, without the United States in World War II, Japan and Germany are free to concentrate on the final two real Allied powers; Britain and Russia. I can only assume that Japan would, in some way, relieve the pressure put on their German allies by doing something to hamper the Russian war effort. I did not explicitly say "invasion." Further, I count Italy+Germany to be one half of the Axis effort in the war, and Japan to be the other half. Pacific-Atlantic. It was easier to argue this that way. In any case, the mistakes I made don't exactly stack up to calling World War II a UN intervention.

Well when you said "assault from the east" I assume you meant a land invasion, since planes would not reach far enough into Russia to strike key targets. And since Russia had such an huge pool of potential manpower and an equally impressive industrial potential, they probably could muster enough forces to keep the Japanese at bay and push towards Berlin at the same time.

About the axis thing, that would be an easy mistake to make. Italy never did much to help the axis and had to be bailed out by the Germans everytime they messed up.

Posted

Well when you said "assault from the east" I assume you meant a land invasion, since planes would not reach far enough into Russia to strike key targets. And since Russia had such an huge pool of potential manpower and an equally impressive industrial potential, they probably could muster enough forces to keep the Japanese at bay and push towards Berlin at the same time.

About the axis thing, that would be an easy mistake to make. Italy never did much to help the axis and had to be bailed out by the Germans everytime they messed up.

untrained boys without guns following other untrained boys with guns (waiting for them to die so they can pick up the gun) is not an impressive potential of manpower IMO.  The russians were desperate and would have been defeated.

Posted

Has the best standard of living

Not true actually. The UN human development index puts the US on the 8th spot for 2004:

1.Norway

2.Sweden

3.Australia

4.Canada

5.Netherlands

6.Belgium

7.Iceland

8.United States

9.Japan

10.Ireland

(source: Wikipedia)

Also neither the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq was unilateral, in both cases there were multiple participating nations.

And I agree with Davidu that standardation will bring along stagnation. A clear example in history is China: they were the centre of the Asian world for centuries, most of the time they had little to fear from outsiders and they had firm political and cultural unity. While they were way ahead of everybody before Europe emerged from the dark ages, they were slowly but surely outpaced on every plain by European powers that were competing with eachother for their slice of the Asian merchant market.

untrained young boys without guns following other untrained young boys with guns (waiting for them to die so they can pick up the gun) is not an impressive potential of manpower IMO. The russians were desperate and would have been defeated.

As far as I know there was only a shortage of weapons until shortly after Stalingrad, when the Russian industry reall started taking it's full potential. It's true that Soviet soldiers were generally poorly trained, but what was really impressive was their numbers. Also maybe they weren't enthousiastic, but they weren't desperate, especially after the great victory at Stalingrad wich proved to be a decisive moral boost for the Red Army.

Besides, the Japanese weren't particulary well trained either, they just were a good deal more fanatical then the Americans (or Russians for that matter). Their military equipment was totally inferior to what the Soviet Union had developed by 1944.

Posted

Jeffrey Dalmer ate people for a reason.... having a reason for doing something doest count for squat.

Reason = motive. When you have the motive for an action, you can attempt to diplomatically meet someone

Posted

And I agree with Davidu that standardation will bring along stagnation. A clear example in history is China

I think he was talking about global standardization.... not just one particular area.

If the Globe was standardized or united then nobody would fall behind or be alienated.  Then there wouldnt be "outsiders"  ... so china is not a good example of what a global government would be like.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.