Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: indy007 on March 11, 2005, 12:15:34 PM
-
link (http://www.financegates.com/news/world_news/2005-03-11/1103_plane_protestors.html)
Police escorts Iranian protesters off the plane
(by Natalie Novak)
56 Iranian protesters were removed from the board of the airplane at Brussels. Police said the incident ended peacefully.
"The plane is empty now. There was no violence at all," said police spokesman Olivier Vincent. The Iranian men, women and children on board refused to leave the Boeing 737 flight from Frankfurt for 16 hours in a protest against Iran’s Islamic government.
One of the protesters said: "We want the European Union to remove the Islamic leaders from Iran.”
The jet landed at 2 p.m. (1300 GMT) Thursday and had 103 passengers on the board. 56 passengers refused to disembark from the board. At 3:30 a.m. (0230 GMT) the protesters were given a written ultimatum saying they would be arrested if they did not leave immediately.
The protesters faced only administrative arrest after leaving the board.
-
Sixteen hours in a 737? Man, now THAT is what I call being dedicated to your cause!
-
Originally posted by indy007
One of the protesters said: "We want the European Union to remove the Islamic leaders from Iran.”
This will one day be the example under the definition of "incredible optimism" in Webster's.
-
You're right Toad. We learned from the history that invading other countries can backfire quickly.
-
we also learned time and again that aiding and abetting terrorist makes them stronger not weaker.
-
So stop doing it then. Sheesh.
-
ya thats right I was skimming billions off the oil for food program and proping up dictatorships that promote terrorism as well as murder their citizens by the tens of thousands per year to stay in power.
-
Are you talking about Saddam now? Does your history end at the beginning of gulf1?
Oh right, I forgot.. he used to be a good guy back then. Right. :D
I'm sure he didn't gas any kurds or murder any citizens when Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand in agreement.
-
what are you trying to say saif? that you don't like american foreign policy? why don't you just say so, instead of giving vague references to something?
-
I asked rabbit a very valid question.
Either he has a selective memory or he doesn't know - or even worse - doesn't understand.
He slammed me with something that I could backfire on him. Simple as that.
-
no.. I simply pointed out that your jab was myopic. You then assumed much more.
-
My jab being?
I stated that europe is not ready to start invading other countries based on recent history.
Was that a jab? If it was, I don't understand the definition of jab. Were you referring to the boxing term?
-
given your insults towards me and tone of the statement it sure looks like a jab to me. I simply poked you back.
"He slammed me with something that I could backfire on him." And I , you...
-
Am I missing something here rabbit?
Because to me it seems you inititated the slamming by falsely claiming europeans aid terrorists (well actually, UN which you also take part in.)
-
I think mostly what was learned was "don't get involved...no matter what, don't get involved".
Of course, we get slammed for that attitude which we held in the period between the wars when Congress passed our neutrality acts.
Makes sense that we should get slammed on this board for our neutrality then but slammed for not being neutral now.
Neutral was way uncool in the '30's but it ultra cool now.
Right?
-
Well Toad, I can only speak for myself but the last thing I need at this time is another war.
-
Gee... I think that's what US citizens were saying in 1939 as they read over the Neutrality Acts passed by Congress.
But of course, the US gets slammed for the attitude they held then... that you seem to hold now... on this BBS.
-
Hey Toad war sucks. We all could live without the events that took place back then. We all could live without fundamentalism and terror. We all could live without other countries invading others under false pretenses.
I'm not going to start an argument with you about this because I know it will be neverending. You're too good an opponent for that. I've learned it the hard way. ;)
All I'm saying is that I'm not prepared to mess up my life with another war now or in the near future and I'm sure many of the europeans think the same way. You took a different path, which you have to walk through accordingly.
-
you don't think supporting regimes like Saddams equates to supporting terrorism?
-
Dunno rabbit, you tell me. You can't blame anyone for doing something you did yourself so it's a moot point.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
All I'm saying is that I'm not prepared to mess up my life with another war now or in the near future and I'm sure many of the europeans think the same way.
Actually, I have no problem with that.
However, I do get tired of seeing the slams on the US about not getting into WW2 as early as some folks seem to think we should have.
The experience we had in WW1 led directly to our numerous Neutrality Laws, meant to keep our politicoes from getting us involved in more slaughter on the European continent. In order to keep Americans from messing up their lives with another war; very many Americans thought that exact way.
Yet now we're slammed for it.
Oh, the irony, eh?
-
Yes Toad. As usual, politics is something that rarely holds decent discussion.
Too much emotion and strong personal opinnions are involved.
And I've learned to respect you as the opponent. :p
-
I'm using blanket statements like you did. If you want to parse it down a bit for an actual debate then lets do it.
"You can't blame anyone for doing something you did yourself so it's a moot point."
Are you saying supporting Saddam in his war against Iran is the same as taking money to support a Saddams regime recently?
-
I'm saying the dictator, the regime and his actions were exactly the same. And that's all I'm going to say on the subject at this point.
Fine enough?
-
Sounds like they just made an attempt to bolster their case for political Asylum. Or do they just let anyone stay in europe?
-
Sometimes it feels like that Raider. For example Sweden has quite big problems with all the 'material' they've accepted there.
It's said that there are quite many semi-active al-khaeda groups as refugees in Sweden at this time. The SAPO is tracking them, but Swedish police is notoriously inefficient.
-
Well wether or not America came late into WW2 we sure appreciated the help when it came.
Though remember the fact that Britain stood alone for three years against the rest of the axis. Fought bloody hard against overwhelming odds and suffered destruction that the US is lucky enough not to have suffered on its homeland. So that when the US did finaly did join the right side they had somewhere to launch the war in Europe from. Any chance of this being recognised on this board just once in a while?
Fact without Britain and her ( at the time ) Colonies,Canada Australia, New Zealand, India etc there wouldn't have been a WW2 for you guys to fight!
But hey our fathers and forefathers salute yours as does anyone else here with a sense of their own history and justice.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Any chance of this being recognised on this board just once in a while?
Zulu7, I'll assume you mean recognized by US posters.
I'd say the chance is about equal to the chance of the US getting credit for anything from the Euro posters.
Funny how what goes around, comes around.
-
I think you'll find that I did give the US credit in my last post!
I quote myself!
"Well wether or not America came late into WW2 we sure appreciated the help when it came"
"But hey our fathers and forefathers salute yours as does anyone else here with a sense of their own history and justice."
Oh and we are not Euro's we are British!
So quit the sour grapes and give credit where its due huh? It would be a nice gesture.
:)
-
You wish Britain to have credit for for standing againt the Germans from 39 to 42ish? Sure, they entered a war and fought it. What other credit is there?
-
I have no trouble saying that Churchill saved the world by not giving in to Hitler after the summer 1940 disasters.
-
I bet that plane stank afterwards.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
I think you'll find that I did give the US credit in my last post!
I quote myself!
"Well wether or not America came late into WW2 we sure appreciated the help when it came"
"But hey our fathers and forefathers salute yours as does anyone else here with a sense of their own history and justice."
Oh and we are not Euro's we are British!
So quit the sour grapes and give credit where its due huh? It would be a nice gesture.
:)
I give credit to the brave British who gave and gave >>S<<
I also give credit to the rest of the world that fought back. Some didnt fight at the beginning but when they realized the truth then they came forward. >>S<<
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Well wether or not America came late into WW2 we sure appreciated the help when it came.
Though remember the fact that Britain stood alone for three years against the rest of the axis. Fought bloody hard against overwhelming odds and suffered destruction that the US is lucky enough not to have suffered on its homeland. So that when the US did finaly did join the right side they had somewhere to launch the war in Europe from. Any chance of this being recognised on this board just once in a while?
Fact without Britain and her ( at the time ) Colonies,Canada Australia, New Zealand, India etc there wouldn't have been a WW2 for you guys to fight!
But hey our fathers and forefathers salute yours as does anyone else here with a sense of their own history and justice.
You might want to give the Red Army a little credit. Even after D Day, 77% of the German Army was on the Eastern Front.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
I think you'll find that I did give the US credit in my last post!
I quote myself!
"Well wether or not America came late into WW2 we sure appreciated the help when it came"
:)
That's a backhanded comment from your typical Euro Amerihater.
Rather than enter late into WW2 I wish we hadn't entered at all. Instead of defeating the Nazis, then holding the USSR at bay for 40 years in the Cold War we should have expanded our sphere of influence and annexed Canada, Mexico and Central America all the way to Panama- and built their industry instead of rebuilding yours.
We might have a few brush wars here and there, but it's the Euros who start the ones that are assigned numbers. I hope the next one we stay out of.
-
the US should have never invaded france, france was no threat to the US.
-
Originally posted by greentail
You might want to give the Red Army a little credit. Even after D Day, 77% of the German Army was on the Eastern Front.
The Mongrel Bolshevik Hordes of the Red Army are overrated. If he had his way Patton would have been in Moscow before Christmas...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The Mongrel Bolshevik Hordes of the Red Army are overrated. If he had his way Patton would have been in Moscow before Christmas...
Patton was a student of military history. I'm sure that he knew the fates of others who had said the exact same thing.
-
I think the Brits were extremely tough considering what they had to face. I think Churchill did a great job inspiring and leading them on in very dark times.
I'm glad we could come to their rescue a second time, sending our sons to die in Europe for their freedom.
I bet you aren't really to keen on that sort of compliment are you Zulu?
That's what Airhead meant about your comment. I took it as a backhanded compliment myself, which is why I answered you the way I did.
In truth, WW2 was a very collective effort. The Russkies did a lot of fighting and dying, along with several other countries. There was sacrifice and heroism from all the countries.
As I said, though, I get a bit tired of the "late" comment. IMO, it merely shows a very superficial understanding of world and US history between 1865 and 1941.
-
No guys you have me wrong.
I'm not a Euro I'm a Brit. I do not have a particular antipathy toward America. It just seems in this world of ours that he who shouts loudest makes the movies etc, often times likes to take most of the credit. Lets all be glad that we did fight it. Where I grew up the evidence of the US contribution was all around me. In the form of empty derelict airfields. So I don't say it was not so. I also have family who's lives were torn apart by it all and the physical evidence of what this little Island withstood is all around us too.
As for the Red army definate credit is due. However Maybe ( and Hindsight is a wonderful thing ) Patton was right though and for once, despite his dislike of Monty, they and Churchill were in agreement . They recognised that the Soviets weren't the benevolent allies and that it might have been better for Europe if the Allies had pushed east and taken Berlin.
Interesting note. I went to the Czech Republic bout 8 years ago. Visited Pilsen. There is a street there named Patton street or something similar. It was renamed after the Soviet Union collapsed. The US army had liberated Bohemia and parts of what is now Czech Republic. they were oblidged under agreements with the Soviets to hand it to them. The Soviets wre wrote history and taught people that this area was liberated by the Russians. Hollwierd would have been proud of them ;) :)
( urm I think this thread has been inadvertantly Hijacked! oops)
-
And while europe, usa and some arab nations argue and shoot eachother, the chinese winns it all...atleast in the marketplace.
Whats the import/export ratio that China has again?
-
good point nilsen.
yep.
-
Patton was a student of military history. I'm sure that he knew the fates of others who had said the exact same thing.
Remember we had the bomb. The Soviets did not.
:D
On a completely different note. Both Europeans and Americans need to recognize that since September 11th the United States has fundamentally changed its Foreign Policy philosophy.
Before Europe and the United States saw eye to eye. Now our policies are completely different. Both have the objective of maintaining peace and stability.
Europe still believes in maintaining the status quo is the best route to achieving peace and stability. Even if that means getting in bed with dictators, murderers, etc...
The United States believes the road to peace and stability is by advancing individual rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The theory being if people are happy with their stuff, they will not want to come and take your stuff.
The reforms you see in USA friendly Middle Eastern Governments are a direct result of this fundatmental policy shift.
This philosophy brings the old argument of "worlds policeman" to the forefront. Is it the right path? Can't say for sure. I do think it is a better way as long as the noble outstrips the pragmatic. One thing though is certain. The old policy of maintaining the status quo did not work for us. As the worlds "superpower" there is a tendency for the third world to place the blame for their problems on the USA. If they place the blame, don't be surprised when a solution is offered.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Sigh...I can't believe the commonwealth saved all your collective arses....twice!
Tronsky
-
There's some truth there. The Commonwealth did help save our arses! That is very true.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Remember we had the bomb. The Soviets did not.
:D
On a completely different note. Both Europeans and Americans need to recognize that since September 11th the United States has fundamentally changed its Foreign Policy philosophy.
Before Europe and the United States saw eye to eye. Now our policies are completely different. Both have the objective of maintaining peace and stability.
Europe still believes in maintaining the status quo is the best route to achieving peace and stability. Even if that means getting in bed with dictators, murderers, etc...
The United States believes the road to peace and stability is by advancing individual rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The theory being if people are happy with their stuff, they will not want to come and take your stuff.
The reforms you see in USA friendly Middle Eastern Governments are a direct result of this fundatmental policy shift.
This philosophy brings the old argument of "worlds policeman" to the forefront. Is it the right path? Can't say for sure. I do think it is a better way as long as the noble outstrips the pragmatic. One thing though is certain. The old policy of maintaining the status quo did not work for us. As the worlds "superpower" there is a tendency for the third world to place the blame for their problems on the USA. If they place the blame, don't be surprised when a solution is offered.
All the best,
Crumpp
technically that is not entirely true. the truman doctrine laid out the statement that the united states reserved the rights to act to protect its interests and/or the interests of its allies. it paved the way for all of the interventionist activities that the united states has taken on since its creation.
so its not a new concept. nor was it new when reagan ordered the libyan bombing in retaliation for lockerbie. one of those convenient times when european interests were exactly the same as ours.
as for the united states spreading freedom and democracy...well, this is where i have a tendancy to take umbrage...
our first instinct was to curtail freedom and democracy within our own society through the patriot act and an increasingly conservative backlash against those who would oppose its desired order. we set up detention facilities which denied other the due process of law which we were founded upon and we have even begun to erode that freedom for our own people.
the traits that we have begun to adopt are more reminiscent of hardline anti-freedom societies than the america that i grew up in. i am not saying that we are one, but the danger of becoming such a society exists. i believe that this is something that all americans stand to gain from opposing because it is our freedom and liberty which have allowed us to prosper.
my greatest concern is that. that the tradeoff for our policies is our best qualites. only time will tell.
-
technically that is not entirely true. the truman doctrine laid out the statement that the united states reserved the rights to act to protect its interests and/or the interests of its allies . it paved the way for all of the interventionist activities that the united states has taken on since its creation.
Which has NOTHING to do with Post 911 doctrine. Post 911 doctrine is a fundamental change from any previous doctrine.
Under the Truman doctrine if oppressive regimes did not interfer with US interest we were hands off IAW the policy of "maintain the status quo".
Post 911 the United States deals with oppressive regimes completely differently. It is not in our "pragmatic" interest to pressure countries such as Russia, Pakistan, Suadi Arabia, Kuwiat, and Eygpt for real democratic reforms.
After the September 11 attacks, our Nation faced hard choices. We could fight a narrow war against al Qaeda and the Taliban or we could fight a broad war against a global menace. We could seek a narrow victory or we could work for a lasting peace and a better world. President Bush chose the bolder course.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/
our first instinct was to curtail freedom and democracy within our own society through the patriot act and an increasingly conservative backlash against those who would oppose its desired order. we set up detention facilities which denied other the due process of law which we were founded upon and we have even begun to erode that freedom for our own people.
You need to educate yourself on the patriot act. Your pretty ignorant of it's actual meaning. It does not restrict anyones freedoms.
It just makes finding folks who want to hurt other folks much easier.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
Is there room for abuse? Sure, as with anything. Fortunately our courts are doing a pretty good job of protecting individual freedoms.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
our courts are doing a great job? just so long as we have independant minded "activist judges" right?
i have read the patriot act sir and it is a dangerous departure from our fundemental system of beliefs as a people.
there are those who would argue that the patriot act was little more than a broadened RICO act. i couldnt disagree more. the government now views all of its people as potential enemies (notice is said enemies rather than criminals) it has stripped the government of any accountability to due process, eroded rights to privacy and has validated unconstitutional covert activities that had already occurred.
it is a beast turning itself inward and it is a dangerous precept, especially given the fundementalism that seems to be digging its heels in.
i will continue to live by american values, i hope that we can count on the others to do so as well.
i disagree with your assesment of post 9/11 doctrine. vietnam is a great parrallel.
it is how we use the doctrine that is different...not the premise.
to some, this is the worst possible outcome of that doctrine. to others, it is the best.
time will tell on all things...but history shows us much already.
88
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
My jab being?
I stated that europe is not ready to start invading other countries based on recent history.
Was that a jab? If it was, I don't understand the definition of jab. Were you referring to the boxing term?
Why should they? No sense getting the hands dirty when the U.S. can do it and become the whipping boy to boot.
-
i disagree with your assesment of post 9/11 doctrine. vietnam is a great parrallel.
It is not my assesment. It's the State Departments.
Totally different and nothing to do with Vietnam. Except for a few "wish we lived in the 60's" liberals.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
spread of communism.
spread of terrorism.
call it what you will...maybe it should be neo-truman doctrine.
lol.
-
I think I could search out multiple posts of what I (and I'm sure other Americans) consider "slams". It'd take some time but it could be done. Much easier to highlight it for you the next time it comes around though.
However, I'd love to hear how we got in it to "save our own ass".
Do tell.
-
Toad my personal opinnion is that most of us europeans would like nothing but have good relations with you folks.
Granted, there are exceptions. But I personally don't know anyone who would be really anti-american. My wife is an exception, but she had a bad love affair with an american once so that might affect. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You do not get slammed for not getting into WWII earlier. However that particular fact is used as a counterpoint when Americans claim they selflessly saved Europe. You got in it to save your own ass, not ours.
That is more than a bit over dramatic.
The US could easily committed much less to control Hitler and the Japs but went for the liberation of the other countries instead at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.
-
Rabbit, let's let him explain that comment.
I'm sure I'm going to just love this one.
Siaf, I don't doubt that. I'm sure you realize most American return that sentiment.
Still the somewhat continual drumbeat of beeching about Bush, about Amreeka's foreign policy, the comparisons to Hitler, etc., etc. get pretty tiresome.
Why? Because here's the bottom line as Colin Powell put it so eloquently:
"We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace.
But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works."
I think that statement resonates very deeply amongst a very large number of American families that have lost relatives when we have gone forth from our shores.
Say all you like about "national interest" but the bottom line is that unlike Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, we returned home to seek our own lives in peace.
We'll leave Afghanistan before too awfully long after helping to establish a freely elected government. The same can be said about Iraq. Now whether or not those folks have the gumption and grit to maintain their freedom remains to be seen. It's not an easy thing by any means; there will be problems.
That's the reason I think so many of us American get majorly P.O.'d when we see the comparisons to Hitler and such.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Dunno rabbit, you tell me. You can't blame anyone for doing something you did yourself so it's a moot point.
Funny how you tapdance on landmines and never answer questions. Do us a favor, stop posting.
Karaya
-
The whole question was not worth an answer given the circumstance. If I had answered it, he would have found reason for a flame, which I would have to counter etc.
When I see someone is trolling, I try not to feed him. Often I fail though.
-
Toad. I don't realy disagree, with you about the fact that American servicemen gave their lives for a good cause or to help liberate Europe from Nazism.
But I do on this point
"Say all you like about "national interest" but the bottom line is that unlike Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, we returned home to seek our own lives in peace."
Simply because I grew up with an awfull lot of American Hardware and personnel not many miles from my folks home! East Anglia sometimes felt a bit like one big US base. So I gues your troops did not all go home. And still there are an awfull lot of you guys stationed throughout the world very far from the US.
Now I'm not saying thats a bad thing. Simply that your above statement isn't exactly true!
-
there is a huge difference between them and and invading army sky.
Saif,
You were not interested in a discussion. You just took a cheap shot and I did the same.
-
Saving europe was certainly high on the list or America could simply have held Germany at bay. Germany was never a serious threat to the us domestically. regardless of how you phrase it, it was Europe who pulled the US into both world wars.
-
Indeed they would. Research was still being carried out on the Nazi atom bomb and the delivery system, either a two stage ICBM or the Hortens Flying wing. when the war ended.
-
We are splitting hairs are we not? The US could have restricted it's involvement to keeping England as a buffer and finishing off the Japs in half the time but it didn't. Thats the point I was making.
-
As you said, the US dedicated the greater majority of it's resources towards the third Reich. If not being used there the buildup for the Pacific would have gone much faster. 1/2 the time 2/3rds of the time.. any which way it would have been significantly faster.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If it is not intended to be a “slam” then it is not a “slam”. What you (and other Americans) consider “slams” is irrelevant.
[/b]
I suppose you're the judge, right? It's not hard to tell intent, especially with the history some posters have created for themselves.
Originally posted by GScholz
However I do look forward to you highlighting them (not like you’re really going to do it though).
[/b]
I'll be sure and do so... just for you.
As for your version of "why America...." I believe you're just baiting the hook.
The history of WW2 is clearly documented and the various intents and intrigues have been researched as well.
What you present doesn't jibe with the history and you know it.
You want to start in? Good, start with Roosevelt and the various Neutrality Acts and explain your theory from there.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I believe the US Navy’s resources in the Pacific FAR outstrips the resources spent in Europe during the war.
The US put most of it's total resources into the war in Europe. It was decided that the defeat of Germany was the number one goal.
Also, was not much of a need for navy resources in Europe.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes it is a clearly documented fact that the Americans cared so much for what happened in Europe that they waited to the third year of the war, after being attacked themselves to get involved. We feel so privileged over here! Thank you America!
Seriously, why should you have acted earlier? I see no good reason beyond preventive defence.
We did not have to go to war in Europe. We could have just whiped out Japan.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
How much did the US Navy spend in the Pacific theatre compared to the USAAF and Army in Europe. I think you will find that both in Dollars and American lives the Pacific war was by far the most costly.
The US put more resources into Europe.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If the Germans and Japanese had won, America would literally face the threat of the rest of the world.
We would have whiped out the Japanese. Maybe Germany could have won Europe. Nothing was going to whipe out the US.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Except for Germany after she had countered the whole of Eurasia, Africa and the Middle East.
Germany had almost no Navy and no way to get to the US. The US could get to Germany. Germany had no long range bombers like the US had.
The US was by far the most powerful nation on earth near the end of WWII.
-
Did Germany have an operational bomber better than the B-29???
And yes, a Navy does take a long time and many resources to build.
-
Germnay was in what way superior to the US?
The US had B-29's, the A-bomb, the best navy in the world and plenty of resources.
-
well, in a sense, we too were responsible for the failed experiment that was the treaty of versailles...so we already had an interest from the first time we had decided to chip in.
but no, we really didnt have too.
i think that it had something to do with honor and family...
love of our defeated mother england and
the french opposing that mother at the right time too perhaps.
long blood fueds cannot be so easilly compartmentalised, though it is the sentiments of some americans that we came here to escape that very thing.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Remember, the Nazis only ruled Germany for SIX years before the war. In those SIX years they build the mightiest war machine the world had seen.
The US built the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen in about 4 years TOTAL.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes ... it does NOT take long to build a navy. Thanks for making my point.
So why have no nations other than the UK, Japan and the US have had a world class navy???
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Because they can’t afford one, or don’t see a need for one.
Btw. you forgot Italy and Germany.
Can't see the need for one???? lol.
Can't afford one and can't build one.
Germany had no navy compaired to the UK, US or Japan.
Italy basically was a joke.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Last post for tonight.
Perhaps you should just go back to making toy airplanes, or you could pick up a history book and learn something.
LOL!
what a great argument.
-
So, if I read some history books I will learn that Germany had a world class navy?
LOL!
The only nations that ever had a world class navy (no order) :
1. Great Britain
2. The US
3. Japan.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If I were to go by your posting history I would have to consider all your recent post as honest, fair and level-headed. However, we both know you are no longer the moderate poster you once were so I don’t.
[/b]
I haven't changed my views, nor my style. I don't think you're exactly an unbiased observer.
Originally posted by GScholz
If you can’t tell intent from the content of the actual post
[/b]
Re read what I said. "It's not hard to tell intent, especially with the history some posters have created for themselves.
"Not hard to tell". Still confused?
Originally posted by GScholz
they waited to the third year of the war, after being attacked themselves to get involved.
[/b]
I see you don't want to talk about Roosevelt and the Neutrality Acts.
Maybe you want to start with Wilson's 14 points? Nah, I bet you don't want to talk about either one of those.
Originally posted by GScholz
Seriously, why should you have acted earlier? I see no good reason beyond preventive defence.
A much better question would be how could we have acted earlier. Again, you need to do a little research on the US after WWI, through the Neutrality Acts and then up to Pearl.
-
Toad, try this-
GScholz This person is on your Ignore List.
He's much more palatable this way.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
In 1940 the Italian navy had 6 battleships, 7 cruisers, 14 light cruisers, 59 destroyers, 69 torpedo boats and 117 submarines of varied type and tonnage.
Only an idiot like you would not call that a “world class” navy.
Like I said, not world class.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Toad. I don't realy disagree, with you about the fact that American servicemen gave their lives for a good cause or to help liberate Europe from Nazism.
But I do on this point
"Say all you like about "national interest" but the bottom line is that unlike Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, we returned home to seek our own lives in peace."
Simply because I grew up with an awfull lot of American Hardware and personnel not many miles from my folks home! East Anglia sometimes felt a bit like one big US base. So I gues your troops did not all go home. And still there are an awfull lot of you guys stationed throughout the world very far from the US.
Now I'm not saying thats a bad thing. Simply that your above statement isn't exactly true!
Right, Skydancer- we still have troops in Europe to keep the peace. Sad you can't take care of yourselves, but...(shrug) You can't.
Wait a sec- Weren't you Zulu7? From overseas?
On the list with you, shades boy.
-
Someone needs a hug!
-
Right, Skydancer- we still have troops in Europe to keep the peace. Sad you can't take care of yourselves, but...(shrug) You can't.
Actually the subject of withdrawal of our troops comes up every few years. Economically and even defense wise it would be better for the United States if we withdrew our troops from Europe. European Powers are more than capable of providing for their own defense.
Economically for the countries we are in however we bring in LOTS of cash. Contracts for base services, troops with disposable income, etc...
Usually means that the host nation does not want to lose their cash cow so the troops stay.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Agreed Crumpp.
You may notice I did not say it was a bad thing. Simply that it was incorrect to state that US forces go fight wars then go straight back home.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The US put more resources into Europe.
[/b]
Originally posted by GScholz
No they didn't.
[/b]
The Basis of Strategy from CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY, UNITED STATES ARMY, WASHINGTON, D. C., 1990
(http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/sp1943-44/introduction.htm)
All in all, by 31 December 1942 slightly more than half of the divisions and about a third of the air combat groups overseas were deployed in the war against Japan. The remaining divisions overseas and over one half of the air combat groups overseas were deployed in the war against Germany.
It's a very long piece with mutiple chapters. Scholz especially could benefit from reading it.
-
Originally posted by JB88
well, in a sense, we too were responsible for the failed experiment that was the treaty of versailles...so we already had an interest from the first time we had decided to chip in.
Maybe in the sense that the victorious European powers totally rejected Wilson's "14 Points", which, while certainly not perfect, were a far better chance of avoiding another war than the Treaty of Versailles was by a huge margin.
-
but we won that one too...why didnt they listen to us!!! lol.
:)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I’m afraid you have. Your posts of late are rarely more than whines about perceived “anti-Americanism”.
[/b]
"Perceived" is laughable. It's there, it's real. I'm not the only one that sees it.
Here you go on with you whining about how some posters have created a “history” of anti-American “intent”.
[/b]
There are anti-American posters. I'll be happy to highlight some that continually denigrate American efforts. Review, for example, your posts in this thread.
Your internal pre-war politics does not interest me.
[/b]
Which is why you don't really know what you're talking about.
If you did, you'd realize that Hitler's incredibly stupid move of declaring war on the US was a gift of incredible magnitude to the European Allies.
-
Originally posted by JB88
but we won that one too...why didnt they listen to us!!! lol.
:)
Because they like fighting so much they wanted to do it again?
Because they were vengeful little foxxers who had no idea that they were setting the stage for another global war?
-
it's true. that was quite the gift.
-
though i wouldnt put it beyond us americans to walk in the vengeful little foxxer shoes either.
;)
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
You may notice I did not say it was a bad thing. Simply that it was incorrect to state that US forces go fight wars then go straight back home.
Don't be obtuse. Any US troops that stayed in Europe after WW2 were not there colonize the host nation or make them an American vassal.
There was, of course, an initial occupation of the belligerent countries and a period of "drawdown"of troops that had been deployed to fight the war.
We brought as many troops home as we could and left a necessary number of troops to meet an accurately perceived threat from a potential adversary.
You're familiar with NATO right? It was formed for what reason? Where would it get it's troops to perform it's mission? Were US troops required or was post-war Europe ready to defend itself against the Red Army?
Our troops DO go home, as rapidly as possible consistent with the chance of peace without them deployed.
You won't find anyone in the US that actually wants their son in Iraq or Afghanistan a moment longer than is necessary for those two countries to defend themselves.
-
Gsholz, you are the one who claimed Italy had a world class navy in WWII. :lol
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I don’t even know what you define as a “world class navy” in that glue damaged brain of yours. Nor do I care.
Well compair the British navy of almost 900 major warships, or the US Navy and all it's CV's and hundreds and hundreds of major warships and then tell me Italy had a world class ( as in, equal to the best Navies of the world) navy.
It's like I said:
US, UK and Japan were all world class and the only one's that were in WWII