PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
If you're following along PT2 you'll see it's really not a fight. B/C just has the facts against him.
So did those Soviets, and we beat them, too! :nanner:
If you're following along PT2 you'll see it's really not a fight. B/C just has the facts against him.
With this sentence you're implying America fought and won both world wars on its own and by doing so bailed out many countries. I do hope you know that's not true?
Also, you probably weren't even alive during that time. It was a previous generation that did the fighting. Do you think America is entitled to recieve help because of what another generation accomplished? That would be like me asking the Dutch government to send me through university because my grandfather was a member of the Dutch resistance. I think it's very sad you want to take credit for what another generation died for.
I thought all this America bashing was going to cease once The Great Messiah took office.
Katrina was a few years ago...so...how is this relevant now?
Understood. It's archives day.
But does Namreg love us yet?
^ Gentlemen, gentlemen, stop the fighting.
The only thing that matters is that we won. :tongue:
So did those Soviets, and we beat them, too! :nanner:
This is why you're not an American, and I can thank God for that. :hatsoff:
Also, because our family members fought in those wars. It's still relevant.
Your country is so small Hitler or any country could just walk in and plant their flag.
So did those Soviets, and we beat them, too! :nanner:
B/C you are lost...so much so you're making shit up now...
I'll let others decide between the 2 posts if you have a clue or not. We had no option in going to war with the Axis powers because we were attacked by them. Just because the Japanese were the particular wing that threw the first punch at us doesn't mitigate the fact that it was part of their strategy to take over the world. But keep back tracking you might get to the point where you're at 1940 and you can see for yourself.
http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=4057892&postcount=35
http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=4057942&postcount=36
As much as you try and cover your ass on this and as much as you want to equate agreements as officially being involved in a war, it just doesn't fly. You said officially which we were not. We probably would have been involved without the attack on Pearl Harbor, but there is nothing to indicate that we absolutely would have been.
I will stand corrected on the time line when Hitler and Mussolini declared war on the US, but I don't see you calling out the poster that made that misstatement first.
It's also funny that you are happy that the US didn't wait until we were "encircled" yet you are probably one of those that think Iran wants nuclear weapons to detonate in the desert during a Ramadan celebration.
& exactly how did you defeat the Soviet Union?
The USSR was beaten by itself, not by the US. If the US had not existed, it would still have fallen apart & probably sooner than later, since it's partially the hatred of the US that kept the USSR alive.
As history especially WW2 is something I think I know a little about I will weigh in here.
Our president at the time (FDR) very much beleived we needed to be part of the fight against Hiltler.What prevented him from doing more before pearl harbor then lend lease etc. for the English was the american populations very strong isolationist stay out of this new war the euopeans are having sentiment.FDR beleived and correctly so IMO that once Hitler had disposed of the english and russians he would have turned his attention to the US.IMO there is absolutely no way the english could have held out much longer without more then just supplies against the germans.Hitler and the other axis powers posed a very real and clear danger to all the western democracies,I would add that is in very sharp contrast to the situation today with Iran who even if they build nukes only really threatens Israel with those (but of course they would be nuked back by Israel so I don't see it happening).But a nuclear Iran would not now or in the near future have any capabability to actually attack the US with such weapons,they like a lot of countries might be able to develope nukes but it's delivery systems (ICBM's) that you need to be able to get them very far and that is even tougher technology to develope.
America played a key role in defeating the axis (especially our role as the arsenal of democracy as we were called).Without us entering the war England and Russia would have surely fallen.But that does not mean we won the war,any look at the casualties of the allied powers will show you by far it was the russians who did the fighting and dying and after them the english in the european theatre.As was said in the outstanding documentary on the war "The World at war" what we did win was the peace.Meaning europe had a civil war which none of them got to win and reap the spoils of from winning when it was over.The US got that,we emerged undamaged with much lower dead and wounded numbers then the other euopean allies did and got to dictate for the most part excluding the area dominated by the soviets how post war europe would be, to our benefit.
What an ignorant statement. The Soviet Union was driven to collapse because of military spending it could not sustain . The costs of the invasion of Afghanistan as well trying to match the US in beefing up it's military coupled with the domestic expenditures brought them down. Had the US not existed the chances of the Soviet Union still existing today are pretty damn good. Or they could have been in a struggle for world domination with China.
Even Gorbachev saw the handwriting on the wall, and it was the main reason he decided to negotiate with Reagan.
IMO the cassette tape and the beatles and western culture in general had MUCH more to do with the collapse of the soviets then anything.People in Russia wanted Levis,rock and roll and VCRS.
Hitler and the other axis powers posed a very real and clear danger to all the western democracies,I would add that is in very sharp contrast to the situation today with Iran who even if they build nukes only really threatens Israel with those (but of course they would be nuked back by Israel so I don't see it happening).But a nuclear Iran would not now or in the near future have any capabability to actually attack the US with such weapons,they like a lot of countries might be able to develope nukes but it's delivery systems (ICBM's) that you need to be able to get them very far and that is even tougher technology to develope.
Funny, I never saw Gorbachev request that the US stop making blue jeans or VCR's in any of the summits.
If he had his request would have been laughed at.:1orglaugh
There was a recent documentary on PBS called "How the Beatles rocked the kremlin" which I posted about here.Yes most here scoffed at the idea that somehow the Beatles were a major factor in the demise of the soviets,but they are wrong.
When the Russians got to see just how great and hip and cool life in the west seemed to be they wanted it and wanted it bad.Even today it was said there literally are hundreds of beatles impersonator bands in Russia.Those are the kinds of desires and wants that cause social change.
Yeah, Iran has absolutely zero aspirations to land a nuke in the hands of a terrorist. It's only Israel.
What a crock of bullshit.
If that's what your really worried about (personally I'm not) then Pakistan which already has nukes ,is actually full of taliban Al queda supporters is much more of a danger.People just don't understand nukes IMO,they aren't something you just carry around easily and there are other considerations and barriers to them being used as well.Lets for a moment consider a terrorist group got one and was able to smuggle it into NYC in a conatainer ship and detonate it.What would be our response.
A. Nothing? Right we got nuked and do nothing,not likely
B. Do our best to trace the origin country of supply of the device and turn them into a parking lot. This is what would be our response
I mean c'mon if it was really that easy for a country to just give a nuke to someone and have them use it on an enemy without it being traced back why didn't the russians or the chinease or even the USA do that already?
Good question, but here is my answer. Before a few years ago terrorists gaining control of nuclear weapons was not something that many thought would be possible. Even by those in the most classified of positions within the intelligence community.
Up to that point, The only countries that possessed these weapons were the superpowers and a few countries like India and Pakistan. Now China, Russia and the US knew the ramifications of allowing the weapons to fall in the hands of individuals or an individual. The fact that while devastating, a single nuclear attack would not have destroyed a whole country and would certainly illicit a response from the country victimized. It also would have been traceable. Terrorists OTOH or countries that sponsor it have no qualms in using a nuclear weapon in the name of Jihad and you are being quite naive if you think that it is not one of their goals.
It's what they said about the russian communists.Godless atheists who would actually use them.I don't buy it,no one wants to be wiped off the map.Not christians,not atheist communists,not jihadists.That doesn't mean a nuclear war will never happen ,it just means it will not happen as a rational strategic occurrence.It will happen when a country or govt feels their backs are against the wall or via just any everyday accident.By accident which has almost occured a few times already is probably the most likely way the first nuke ever gets used.
I see you are in New jersey. Close to New York City are you?
I hope I am wrong. I will say that. Let me ask you something, if the 9/11 terrorists could have detonated a nuke instead of ramming planes into buildings, do you think they would have done it?
Just an F.Y.I...
Thanks for a thread pointing out the ignorance here of those who would have one believe that other countries/people don't give a damn about us 'poor' Americans It is estimated that nearly a billion dollars in aid(roughly $850 million dollars) was offered during Katrina even from many of the world's poorest developing nations(Some of which was graciously declined by the US).
Many nations too poor to offer money sent or offered to send volunteer nurses/Doctors & rescue workers.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/d...-hurricane-katrina-international-aid-response
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_katrina
Cuba who 'routuinely' sends volunteer Nurse/Doctors even offered to send around 1600 medical personnel to New Orleans ,but the offer was rebuffed by the 'poor' Americans:dunno:
And everyone knows the outpouring of goodwill from around the world the US got during 9/11 until the Bush Administartion decided to go "cowboy" & foolishly attack a nation that had nothing to do with it. A decision that is costing the US billions still.