glacierdog Posted February 1, 2003 Author Posted February 1, 2003 That’s one opinion I suppose. But why do we keep mucking around we’re not wanted? That money could be spent on better causes. Back in the 60’s the world had a different view of America. Back then we spent about 2% of foreign aid in World Health Programs, US AID, agriculture, engineering, etc. Now non-military spending around the world for the US is about .02%. So more and more they see us as some type of occupying force or the backers of repressive regimes. Israel is a good example. We spout the democracy thing, wave the flag, and then bomb the shit outta people or support their non-democratic governments. Oh that’s right – it’s in our “national interest” Who says we're not wanted? I'm sure the people not affiliated with the Taliban are more than happy we showed up. Women are starting to get some BASIC rights over there. Way I see it, we have the ability to help right some of the more terrible injustices in the world, and therefore, we also have the responsibility. Indifference just doesn't cut it. Quote
Ade Posted February 1, 2003 Posted February 1, 2003 Your fictional Marine states: Since we had come to France's rescue in World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and the Cold War WW1 - The US entered the war on April 6, 1917, three years after the war started, provoked by Germany's unrestricted U Boat warfare (the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915). The US suffered 48,900 casualties out of a total of 7,450,200 for all enguaged nations. WW2 - The US entered the war on December 8th 1941, two years after Germany invaded Poland. On the 7th Japan had attacked Pearl Harbour, the US declared war on Japan the following day. On the 11th Germany/Italy declared war on the US and the US responds by declaring war on the Axis powers. Prior to this the US had lent Britain equipment in return for later payment or use of British bases, but had not moved to stop Germany's expansion across Europe or Japan's invasion of Manchuria. Vietnam - After the French (who were backed with US finacial aid) and Vietminh (similarly backed by the Chinese) signed the Geneva Accords in July 1954 in the aftermath of the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. At Dien Bien Phu the French were beseiged for 55 days taking 7,184 casualties within the 16,000 strong garrison. At one point the US considered using tactical nuclear weopons to destroy the Vietminh positions but declined to take unilatteral action to save the French garrison. France then withdrew from Indochina leaving the South, below the 17th parallel, and the North above it. The Accords stated that elections would be held in 1956. The S Vietnam Govt, under Ngo Dinh Diem, was backed by the US. The US supported Diem in refusing to hold elections in 56 and started sending military advisors in serious numbers in the early 60s. Quote
Scott_J Posted February 1, 2003 Posted February 1, 2003 Ade, you should read history a little better. The US never expected nor did it ever get repayment for the equipment "lent" to the English. WW1 and WW2 would NEVER of had the outcome they had without US intervention. Go drink some more of your English beer, dude, and read some more history. Quote
AlpineK Posted February 1, 2003 Posted February 1, 2003 (edited) You right wing freaks are fucked up. You seem to think that there is only one correct view and anyone who has a slightly different view of things is unamerican. NEWS FLASH... America is a democracy...differing oppinions are expected and should be encouraged. Maybe you right wing fuckos should leave the country. It sounds like you would all do well if you moved to Iraq. You could get a job with Saddams secret police where you could beat the shit out of anyone who questions the party line. Either that or take one of those guns you all love so much and stick it up your ass. Edited February 1, 2003 by AlpineK Quote
allthumbs Posted February 1, 2003 Posted February 1, 2003 Alpine, relax. It's traitors like DFA the communist that I can't stomach. Party-line disagreements and differing opinions are all good. Nobody is saying that Democrats or liberals should be "offed". Disagreement is good...it gets shit out in the open. Go smoke a bowl and chill. Quote
Ade Posted February 1, 2003 Posted February 1, 2003 I have read my history. The Lend-Lease bill was passed 11th March 1941. "The United States should loan what articles were needed, as a man would loan his garden hose to help his neighbor put out a fire without reference to payment, but with the expectation that the hose itself would be returned." - FDR About $50bn was distributed under the terms of the Lend-Lease Act to over 35 countries. All countries but the Soviet Union (as it was after WW2) started to repay their debts when Truman cancelled the terms of the agreement in 1945. The Soviet Union recommenced loan repayments after the end of the Cold War in 1990 (under the terms of the Johnson Debt -Default Act they had to do this to qualify for any further US aid). The UK will finish repaying it's balance on the final loan settlement on December 31 2006 (as stated in a written answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey to the Lords in Feb 2002). Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 You right wing freaks are fucked up. You seem to think that there is only one correct view and anyone who has a slightly different view of things is unamerican. NEWS FLASH... America is a democracy...differing oppinions are expected and should be encouraged. Maybe you right wing fuckos should leave the country. It sounds like you would all do well if you moved to Iraq. You could get a job with Saddams secret police where you could beat the shit out of anyone who questions the party line. Either that or take one of those guns you all love so much and stick it up your ass. Well alpinek, I dont think that anyone should not have the right to voice their opinions. But if they want to shit on our country and dont like it I hope they leave because we have enough immigrants willing to contribute and that are grateful. They can go to Iraq or Sudan or wherever they like and try to make peace with some dipshit dictator. Implying that anyone wants to beat up people because of questioning political party lines agendas is almost as bad as listening to bleeding heart drivel some other people here want to rake their souls over and over again. Face it Ade, the US saved your British asses twice last century. Otherwise you'd be a drawstring lampshade or some 2 bit science experiment. I'm not asking for any personal thanks since I had nothing to do with it but some things are just plain true. Quote
Ade Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 Face it Ade, the US saved your British asses twice last century. Otherwise you'd be a drawstring lampshade or some 2 bit science experiment. I'm not asking for any personal thanks since I had nothing to do with it but some things are just plain true Like the original statement I tried to add some historical background too this is another really gross oversimplification. Did your mother send you to school with some sort of note "Ray can't do history today, he has a cold", every day, for ten years? Whatever happened to the Allies defeating the Axis? The "Allies" that's the USA and... oh yeah, some other guys. Now who might they be? Whatever happened to the Free French, whom the US Government didn't even recognise as the true French authority until 41, prefering to consider the Vichy Government as ligitimate. Whatever happened to the 8,000,000 Russians who died fighting the Nazis, count them eight million, I guess they're communists so their views and lives don't count. Or the half million Poles (I can't think of a reason you might discount them, you'll have to help me out). Whatever happened to all the other Nations that fought the Japanese? Or were they just spoilers who barged in on your war and weren't really helping out? No one ever said that the US wasn't vital to the war or that the Marshall Plan (look it up) didn't ensure the long term stability of Europe. Nobody ever said it wasn't a great thing that American chose to enter the war. This really is a waste of time isn't it? To put it in terms you might understand Ray. "You sound just like some fifteen year old prick on a football team who announces afterwards that "he" won the match. Like none of his team mates counted." Is that better? Was that easier to understand? Glad to see you're not asking for any personal thanks. Really big of you to let me off the hook on that one. Do I get a pass on WW1 too? Do yourself a really big favour and buy a history book, and a dictionary for those big words, and read them. Then maybe you'll realise that your version of the "plain truth" is a bit more complex than you care to make out. Which was the only point I was trying to make in the first place. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 Ade I dont believe there was many russians, poles or any of the sort fighting over the uk skies or invading from your bitter lands. Also I dont think anyone considered the Vichy Govt legit. That's a pretty far out there statement You can thank my relatives for kicking some nazi ass that yours were too weak to finish off Yeah and the brits were major contributors in the gulf war too. Ade you sound like some arrogant brit just like that alasdair. You guys have your head in so much shit you think your own does not stink. If you think britain doesn't have it's own share of brutal colony rule and oppression or even disregard for dictator government then well maybe you should read your own history books. We'd all be better if you'd go back to the UK where you belong. Face it ade your just pissed because it is true that you would have been born as some siamese science experiment for the nazis if the us had not come to save your parents from bitter war. Quote
fleblebleb Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 How come the Brits don't deserve every bit as much credit for defeating the Nazis as the US and the Soviets do? If the Brits had capitulated or Britain had been overrun in '40-'41 then the nearest entry points to Europe from the west would have been Iceland and sub-Saharan Africa, neither of which is a very tenable option. Then Hitler would have been free to duke it out with Stalin on one front, with three possible outcomes - a Nazi Eurasia, a Communist Eurasia, or a stalemate and something like an even split between Hitler, Stalin and Mao. None of these options sound all that great to me. In any case the US and the Aussies would have been isolated as the only democratic nations left in the world. It's not so clear that the Japanese would have been defeated then - instead there would have been a possibility of Australian and South-American wars. Without the sheer stubbornness of the Brits the US would not have been able to save democracy in Europe - just like the Brits would eventually have been overrun without the help of the US. In the aftermath the US might not have been able to save itself from the Japanese. So Ray, how about giving Ade a big hug eh? Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 So Ray, how about giving Ade a big hug eh? Because he's proven to be a 2 faced tool he is in the recent past. Pummeling him with his own dung is better. Last remark I heard from one of my buds ade and his lad were bragging how GREAT himalayan climbers they were at a meeting. Hasn't everyone out there heard of the great Adrian Miller Himalayan expert I think my friend got so sick of it he almost puked that evening. I'm glad you've spared the rest of us the bullshit Quote
Ade Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 You're recycling the same old insults and still not getting your history right. This is troubling... I dont believe there was many russians, poles or any of the sort fighting over the uk skies or invading from your bitter lands You weren't supposed to take it literally. The point is there were more than a dozen nations fighting the Axis powers. They collectively defeated the Axis, the US peak mobilization was 12.5m out of a total of well over 40m Allied troops, so it's not like nobody else turned up to help the US win. But as it happens... There were Polish airmen fighting in the Battle of Britain (the battle for air superiority that was part of the buildup to operation Sealion). One in eight pilots were Polish as many Polish airmen escaped the fall of Poland, and accounted for nearly 20% of the Luftwaffe's total losses. Where we the Russians? Fighting off 120 German divisions on the Russian Front from June 22nd onwards. In case you'd forgotten it's possible to be fighting the same war on the same side without all being in the same place. Supplies from the UK to the Russians were sent by convoy protected by the Royal Navy. You know it's called strategy, you help your allies who help you, in this case by keeping lots of enemy units enguaged so they can't be elsewhere. By the way, you might like to read up on the North Africa Campaign, it's not like the whole British armed forces were just sitting on an island waiting for you to turn up. Also I dont think anyone considered the Vichy Govt legit. Unfortunately... wrong again. They did. FDR and the US did not recognise the DeGaulle and the French National Committee until July 1942, DeGaulle himself was not recognised as the French Head of State by the US until August 1944. Churchill also had reservations about the DeGaulle but managed to make up his mind by mid 1940. arrogant brit just like that Alasdair Wrong again... he has a US passport. And he's arrogant? Last time I saw him he didn't waive his right to be personally thanked for th defeat of Germany in WW2. Thanks for passing on WW1 by the way, super nice of you. Your insults aren't improving. Yeah and the brits were major contributors in the gulf war too. Desert Storm, I'm so glad you brought that up. Bit snide of you though. Again the allied force consisted of 34 different nations, you seem to have managed to forget the other 32. Like a lot of other countries we sent troops, the 1st Armoured Division and supporting units. Sure the US sent more but as you may have noticed when you look at a map (hint: the US is the really large country near the top left the UK is the really small island somewhere in the middle) the US is quite a bit bigger. Most nations lost soldiers during the battle to free Kuwait. Oddly enough Britain lost 24, nine of whom seem to have been killed by US fire. Bit over zealous if you ask me, pretty lucky we didn't send any more troops for you to shoot. Still you've got Canadians instead now. But we all know friendly fire is a fact of warfare, if you weren't being such a complete idiot I wouldn't have mentioned it, best forgotten if you ask me. I know you're going to think I made this up so here's the link If you think britain doesn't have it's own share of brutal colony rule and oppression or even disregard for dictator government then well maybe you should read your own history books. Colonialism is a completely separate issue, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. I'm not fan of colonialism or imperialist expansionism, so don't expect me to defend it, although I might add some more historical insight. Perhaps you'd like to consider it in the context of invading a foreign country to "liberate" it when it just so happens to have a lot of say... oil. No, the country in question is not Iraq, try again. By the way Britain as a capital 'B'. Seems like you need some help picking a good history book too. I would try to get one written from more than one country's perspective, unless you're interested in history prior to the invention of sea travel. Of the history of some chronically isolationist country, but let's not go there. It'll give you a more global perspective which seems to be lacking. No way am I going back to the UK. I LIKE it here, lots of mountains and most of the people are pretty friendly too (boy I could sure use that hug). And let's be honest you're not really saying "if you don't like it go home" you're really saying "I don't like what you have to say, don't say it where I have to listen", which is a bit different. Besides, seems like you need a bit of help. Maybe if there's no more software to write I'll teach history instead, no shortage of jobs I bet. Quote
snoboy Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Besides, seems like you need a bit of help. Maybe if there's no more software to write I'll teach history instead, no shortage of jobs I bet. Ade: I don't know if there is many jobs for someone with your views of history... Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Face it ade it really boils back to your ass would be german territory if it wasnt for us. I'll take your previous comments as a gracious thanks. I'm glad we could "assist" with a majority of the funding and troops during Iraqu war last time too. It's obvious you'd rather reference british history all day long. I think I know how it really went down. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Ade here's some stats to boil over. It appears the uk was not in superior stats here: WWII Statistics Following is a basic list of some of the statistics of World War II Battle of Britain Statistics will appear shortly Cost of the War World War II was by far the costliest war in terms of material and human resources expended. Three quarters of the world's population took part. That is 1.7 billion people in 61 countries. 110 million people were mobilised for military service. More than 50% of them were from only three countries. 22 to 30 million from the USSR, 17 million from Germany and 16 million from the USA. The largest number of people on duty at any one time were: Country People on duty USSR 12,500,000 USA 12,245,000 Germany 10,938,000 British Empire & Commonwealth 8,720,000 Japan 7,193,000 China 5,000,000 Due to the war's vast and sometimes chaotic nature, most statistics are only estimates. Most agencies concentrated on the war effort rather than keeping statistics. Logistics were so vast that some governments could not keep control. Most resorted to manipulation of figures and reporting, for political and propaganda purposes. A rough tally has been reached on the total cost of the war. It makes startling, grim and sometimes horrific reading, even by today's standards. In terms of human cost: Country Total Dead Allied military & civilian 44,000,000 Axis military & civilian 11,000,000 Total military deaths in Europe 19,000,000 Total military deaths in Japan 6,000,000 USSR military 13,000,000 USSR civilian 7,000,000 China military 3,500,000 China civilian 10,000,000 Germany military 3,500,000 Germany civilian 3,800,000 Poland military 120,000 Poland civilian 5,300,000 Japan military 1,700,000 Japan civilian 380,000 Yugoslavia military 300,000 Yugoslavia civilian 1,300,000 Romania military 200,000 Romania civilian 465,000 France military 250,000 France civilian 360,000 British Empire & Commonwealth military 452,000 British Empire & Commonwealth civilian 60,000 Italy military 330,000 Italy civilian 80,000 Hungary military 120,000 Hungary civilian 280,000 Czechoslovakia military 10,000 Czechoslovakia civilian 330,000 USA 407,300 Estimates for the total dead are some 60 million. 25 million of these are military, 35 million civilian. 5 million were Jews killed in the Holocaust. Economic Statistics It has been estimated that the war cost $1 trillion. Remember, this is 50 years ago! It was more expensive than all other wars put togester. The USA spent the most money, an estimated $341 billion, including $50 billion for lend-lease supplies, of which $31 billion went to Britain, $11 billion to the Soviet Union, $5 billion to China, and $3 billion to 35 other countries. Germany was next, with $272 billion; followed by the Soviet Union, $192 billion; and then Britain, $120 billion; Italy, $94 billion; and Japan, $56 billion. Except for the USA., however, and some of the less militarily active Allies, the money spent does not come close to being the war's true cost. The Soviet government has calculated that the USSR lost 30 percent of its national wealth, while Nazi exactions and looting were of incalculable amounts in the occupied countries. The full cost to Japan has been estimated at $562 billion. In Germany, bombing and shelling had produced 4 billion cu m (5 billion cu yd) of rubble. The words "Lest we forget" seem quite poignant now Quote
Ade Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 What is really boils down to is that you've just run out of insults, so you're just recycling the same one. I thought you'd at least start on the Queen. You keep promising and I'm so waiting to hear what you don't know about the Royal Family. I'm hoping less than you don't know about the 20th Century. Smaller subject so I'm optimistic. I'm not thanking you for something that took place over thirty years before you were born, where did you read that? Same place you learnt how it really "went down"? Hollywood? The Wizard of Oz? Geez and there you go again. Did you read that CNN article? Obviously not. Too many numbers and big words? The US didn't fund the Iraqi War, it got paid for it, mainly by the Gulf States: "The U.S. Department of Defense has estimated the cost of the Gulf War at $61 billion; however, other sources say that number could be as high as $71 billion. The operation was financed by more than $53 billion pledged by countries around the world, most of which came from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States ($36 billion) and Germany and Japan ($16 billion). " It's not British (capital 'B') history it's World history. Can anyone recommend a big picture book of 20th Century World History for Ray? Quote
Billygoat Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Yeah, so why add to this carnage so that we can control access to cheap oil??!!?? I would just as soon pay $3.50 a gallon. The situation would lead to innovation like vehicles that get 50mpg and better mass transit. If we are worried about terrorism lets go and talk to the Saudis If we care about the economy lets go after corporate theives Quote
Ade Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Ade here's some stats to boil over. It appears the uk was not in superior stats here: Good Ray. Excellent. These are the similar to the numbers I used (they're from the internet so I try and get at least two corroborating sources). You're missing some countries to some up with the 40+million Allied troops. France, 5m for instance I think, and the 40m doesn't include Germany and Japan (they weren't fighting for the Allies). As I must have said at least four times the Allies were over a dozen countries, including the UK and the USA. It's not about the USA winning the war and the UK couldn't have defeated the Axis without the Allies. If you want to make it about numbers I think you'll find the USSR comes out ahead on troops committed, casualties and finacial loss all told. And of course overall possession as they made it to Berlin on their own whereas the advance from the West (I'll say it again) was a team effort. But that would be like a football game... not a global conflict. Quote
iain Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 James Bond has cooler cars a gets laid more often than the CIA. That's straight-up fact all you Uncle Sams Quote
snoboy Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Have you seen xXx ? He has some cool shit. That stunt where they jumped the dirt bike over the exploding barn at the drug ranch? Holy Shit! They really did that too! Or the "Making Of" was a crock... Quote
iain Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 so's margret thatcher what a hottie. she knows who's boss. Quote
iain Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Wuss who broke his legs on the Ogre back in '77(?) Fortunately another Brit to the rescue! Quote
Billygoat Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 He's only the greatest sufferfest master of the world behind Shakleton, another Brit Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.