Why should you die for U.S Imperialism?

[El Che]

An audiotape purported to be from Osama Bin Laden has been broadcast by the pan-Arab al-Arabiya and al-Jazeera satellite channels. In the tape the voice offers conditional reconciliation with Europe. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3628069.stm)

Heard one commentator say: "This tape is meant to exploit the rift between the US and Europe; and between Europian goverments and public." Indeed there is a growing realization that if the US wants to pursue its Imperialist aims (euphemistically reffered to as 'interests') it should pay the price, alone.

[Capitalist Imperial]

El Che, you are doing exactly what OBL wants you to do: Support the driving of a wedge between the US and Europe. He is holding out the bait and you are biting, big time.

Whether you agree with the US or not, you should not negotiate, agree with, or respond to terrorist requests. It only shows them that their tactics work, and validates their actions. Are you Spanish or something?

It is not surprising at all, though, for me to see leftists easily roll over and capitulate to terrorists. This is the typical stance that you take, roll over and let the true villains rub your belly, and fight for nothing.

Man, am I glad Bush is president.

[Misodoctakleidist]

So instead of letting the US deal with the consequences of their actions we should leap to their defense and make our selves targets as well.

[El Che]

The thing is, CI, most people here in europe, and I daresay around the world, are against most of what the US does. They're against what is happening in palestine and Iraq. The goverments here are going against the people and when, on top of that, people start dying then goverments start falling.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 05:37 PM
So instead of letting the US deal with the consequences of their actions we should leap to their defense and make our selves targets as well.
Wow, I''m sure that there are many european nations that are glad that the USA didn't ask that question in WWI, WWII, and throughout the Cold war. Your lack of memory and appreciation is sickening.

Besides, one of many reasons is that because in the last 100 years we have backed many of your plays, and given you a lot of aid, relief, and investment, so I think that a little reciprocation is in order.

Besides, there are many nations that are in the coalition of the willing that should stay the course. They were with us from the beginning.

And the "consequences of our actions" will be a free and democratic Iraq, which has already cascaded to libya dismantling their weapons program.

[Misodoctakleidist]

The USA did very little to help europe during world war two, Russia defeat something like 90% of the german army. The only reason the USA got involves in WW2 is becuase they were attacked by japan and needed some help.

Should we also be gratefull that you sold arms to the Hitler, Mussolini and Franco? The USA sold oil to the Italian army making an embargo impossible and allowing them to invade abyssinia setting an example to Hitler, should we also be grateful for that?

If it wasn't for the USA there wouldn't have been a cold war.

[mysticofthewest]

Capitalist Imperial wise up States only do what is in the own best intrest
so called political loyalties have nothing to do with it u do not understand the tru nature of politics

[toastedmonkey]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2004, 06:29 PM
Whether you agree with the US or not, you should not negotiate, agree with, or respond

Are you Spanish or something?
So there shouldnt of been negotiations with the IRA or Libya? both bringing a form of peace

Shouldnt respond to terrorists?
like america didnt respond against the terrorist attacks on 9/11?

What is your point with "are you spanish or something?"

is it reasonable for the spainards not to want to be blown up? if so why cant anyone else hold those feelings?

[cubist]

crapitalist,

your memory is shit isn't it

i always thought america started in the war becuse of the pearl harbour bombing by japan, when japan announced allegance with germany it became into the war, yes if america hadn't helped it would be nazi europe.

but it would be nazi everything, nazi nasa as the head of nasa who developed the first moon rocket was a former nazi weapons specialist who developed the V1 and V2 rockets. so america wouldn't be the super power germany would be.

america has never stopped to ask that question, aslong as there money is not safe there guns will blaze without hesitation.


as for the cold war, well america was scared of the consequences of large scale economic communism so it formed NATO with europe the north atlantic treaty org, i believe, to fight the eastern economic growth of communism, we didn't ask it to it invited itself as per usual and said can we help you defend against our evil twin communism!!

shall we remember vietnam capitalist imperial or was that another just american war

[cubist]

Man, am I glad Bush is president.

yes a man with a lower iq than coco the monkey

a man who believes imports coming from other countries is a new thing!

a man who thinks iraq is a happy iarq now that sadman is gone, such a happy iraq that its people maimed 5 westerners burnt them and hung them above a road

yes i am happy bush is in power it as woken up a larger movement of socialists scared of bush and his proactive imperialism

[Capitalist Imperial]

The USA did very little to help europe during world war two, Russia defeat something like 90% of the german army. The only reason the USA got involves in WW2 is becuase they were attacked by japan and needed some help.

Thus is simply way to ignorant to justify a response from me. Go read up on your history, sir.

How, logically, did we get help in Japan? We took on Japan by ourselves, [/I]and[I] helped out in Europe. Your comment makes absolutely no sense.

[Capitalist Imperial]

The USA did very little to help europe during world war two

D-Day

The Battle of the Buldge

The "Mighty 8th" Airforce

Pattons Army liberating France.

...all while handling the pacific theater almost by ourselves

yeah, very little indeed.


What an ignorant puke. You have lost all sense of credibilty.

[Misodoctakleidist]

"you" helped very little in europe, australia helped "you" fight japan.:lol:

EDIT: didn't see your last post. Yeah, you were almost as important as Britian and the French resitence in fighting 10% of an army that had all but been defeated. Well Done!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 06:57 PM
"you" helped very little in europe, australia helped "you" fight japan.:lol:

EDIT: didn't see your last post. Yeah, you were almost as important as Britian and the French resitence in fighting 10% of an army that had all but been defeated. Well Done!
Honestly, dude, you really need to go and read more.

did you read the contributions I listed?

how is that a "little" help?

europe was under nazi control when we arrrived. when we left, it was liberated

thats the bottom line, pinko puke

[Misodoctakleidist]

That becuase "you" arrived when the Russians were already pushing back the German army, the tide of the war had already been changes and the Nazi's we're heading for defeat, "you" only accelerated their downfall a little.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 06:57 PM
"you" helped very little in europe, australia helped "you" fight japan.:lol:

EDIT: didn't see your last post. Yeah, you were almost as important as Britian and the French resitence in fighting 10% of an army that had all but been defeated. Well Done!
292,131 combat deaths
115,185 other deaths
670,846 wounded

Total of 1,078,162 casualties. KIA per month of 6,639 US soldiers.

= We barely did anything.

Russian casualties were much higher but they were actually fighting for their homeland. The US sent troops overseas and many died fighting on Europian soil. Downplaying the US's contribution to the War is nothing short of ignorant.

[toastedmonkey]

America played a role, but its always over exagerated, like it was when they helped cuba for the last few days of their war of independence against the spanish

[Misodoctakleidist]

Total of 1,078,162 casualties

That's only becuase they were so incompetant.

Seriously though, the USA did make a contribution but it was nowhere near as big as people like CI pretend and it certainly wasn't the biggest. The Nazi's would have been defeated whether the USA had got involved or not.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Also, the US and allies were uprooting an established occupying force from held ground and actually liberating territory, on soil completely forein to the US in the 1st place, which is much, much, much harder than merely defending held ground as the soviets did. Any military analyst or field tactician will tell you this.

You are comparing apples and oranges when you compare the western and eatern fronts of WWII. Both were important and equally earned victories.

Besides, as I said in another post, the russian Winter killed as many germans as the red army did.

And to say "australia Helped" in the Pacific is technically correct, and I appreciate it, but the size and scope of the help was small, it was merely supplemental. It was not a true "allied effort" as in europe.

America fully committed to 2 theaters, and one of those theaters pretty much alone.

That is huge.

No other nation can lay claim to full committment to 2 major theaters

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:31 PM
That's only becuase they were so incompetant.

This just proves, to anyone with logic, that your just a bitter anti-american asshole. I am sure there are plenty of British WW II vets that would spit in your face over such an ignorant and heartless comment.

[Capitalist Imperial]

The Nazi's would have been defeated whether the USA had got involved or not.

Any, and I mean pretty much any and every, military historian, and I will even go so far as to say most on this board, will tell you that this is utter B.S.

[toastedmonkey]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2004, 08:37 PM
And to say "australia Helped" in the Pacific is technically correct, and I appreciate it, but the size and scope of the help was small, it was merely supplemental.
just like america

[Capitalist Imperial]

This just proves, to anyone with logic, that your just a bitter anti-american asshole. I am sure there are plenty of British WW II vets that would spit in your face over such an ignorant and heartless comment.

Here Here, brother.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Of course OBL wants to Europe to stop attacking muslims, he knows there is a significant portion of the european public who think the US's behaviour is disgraceful.

I think Europe should stop spilling muslim blood.

Is it so bad to seek a peaceful solution?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:37 PM
This just proves, to anyone with logic, that your just a bitter anti-american asshole. I am sure there are plenty of British WW II vets that would spit in your face over such an ignorant and heartless comment.
That was a rather distasteful joke not a serious comment.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by toastedmonkey+Apr 15 2004, 07:40 PM--> (toastedmonkey @ Apr 15 2004, 07:40 PM)
Capitalist Imperia[email protected] 15 2004, 08:37 PM
And to say "australia Helped" in the Pacific is technically correct, and I appreciate it, but the size and scope of the help was small, it was merely supplemental.
just like america [/b]
The eighth air force destroying the nazi war factories, only bombers to fly over and hit berlin in daylight

spearheading D-day

battle of the bulge

patton's army liberating france

lend/lease support

taking the pacific on our shoulders, USA and empire of Japan conducted largest and greatest naval battles in world history


If this is what you call "supplemental", then I suggest that you go out and buy a dictionary right now.

[lucid]

Of course OBL wants to Europe to stop attacking muslims, he knows there is a significant portion of the european public who think the US's behaviour is disgraceful.

After running your comment through my "Remove illogicall lefty crap" computer I come up with the following;

OBL knows that the liberal europian's would rather bury their heads in the sand and ignore the whole thing. OBL knows that the liberals will even go as far as leaning towards his side just to avoid getting involved. OBL knows he cannot finish forcing his beliefs on the Middle East people unless everyone, including the US, buries their heads in the sand.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Delaying the opening of the western front untill the Russians had already gained the upper hand and no longer needed it.

selling arms to the axis.

Overcharging the allies for weaponry in the knowledge that they were desperate for it and would get into massive debt so the USA could make even more from giving them loans.

Refusing to help untill they were dragged into it by Japan.

[toastedmonkey]

U$A bankrupted the UK

the american president even said "we have been bleeding dry the british bank" and some comment on it being over priced, i cant remember the exact quote
before annoucing they were gonna let the uk go in debt, how helpful

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

After running your comment through my "Remove illogicall lefty crap" computer I come up with the following;

OBL knows that the liberal europian's would rather bury their heads in the sand and ignore the whole thing. OBL knows that the liberals will even go as far as leaning towards his side just to avoid getting involved. OBL knows he cannot finish forcing his beliefs on the Middle East people unless everyone, including the US, buries their heads in the sand.

If we in europe 'bury our heads in the sand' and ignore everything as you so put it, why is that a bad thing? Just because we refuse to clean up after Baby Bush has been playing with his toys?

Madagascar is not sending troops into iraq- and madagascar is not being bombed by OBL.

Logic dictates that if europe keeps its nose out of the Middle East, it won't get pulled off and eaten.

As for forcing his beliefs, I believe there is the small matter of the popular Iraqi resistance. They want the US out as much as OBL does.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:58 PM

As for forcing his beliefs, I believe there is the small matter of the popular Iraqi resistance. They want the US out as much as OBL does.

As for forcing his beliefs, I believe there is the small matter of the popular Iraqi resistance. They want the US out as much as OBL does.

Actually, it is not a popular resistance.

It is a handful of insurgent holdouts consisting of embittered sunnis who lost the most from the fall of Saddam, and a relative handful islamic fundamentalists.

They will be dealt with very soon.

However, whet the sensationalist media does not show you is that the vast majority in Iraq are not disrupting the democratic process, and are peacefully in their homes awaiting a democratic Iraq, and a few ex-ba'athist regime holdouts and religious zealots will not stop a democratic Iraq friendly to US interests from happening.

[Misodoctakleidist]

What makes you think they aren't in their homes awaiting a resistance victory?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:11 PM
What makes you think they aren't in their homes awaiting a resistance victory?
Because reports and polls on the street suggest that Iraqis want democracy, not a pure religious fundamentalist state. Of course, muslims will have a large portion of representation in a representative government, but not absolute power.

[toastedmonkey]

howcome the kurds are being so quite?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Don't rely on polls to prove anything CI, statistics could "prove" either case if twisted the right way.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:23 PM
Don't rely on polls to prove anything CI, statistics could "prove" either case if twisted the right way.
That I agree with.

We'll have to see how it plays out. I think that when it comes down to brass tacks, most people just want the war to stop, but if given a chice between democratic rule and oppresive islamic rule, what would most pick?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:20 PM
howcome the kurds are being so quite?
the vast majority of kurds are far north of the action

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:20 PM
howcome the kurds are being so quite?
the vast majority of kurds are far north of the action

[mysticofthewest]

in 1941 Stalin asked the allies to opean a second front in europe if the U.S would have done this then C.I. u can say that the U.S. freed europe but in 1944 when D day took place the russians had already turned the tide and were pushing the germans back by d day the cream of the german army was long dead on the eastern front so most of the men killed by the U.S in europe were green troops mere boys. the western allies were fighting about 30% of the german army while the other 70% were in russia

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:35 PM
in 1941 Stalin asked the allies to opean a second front in europe if the U.S would have done this then C.I. u can say that the U.S. freed europe but in 1944 when D day took place the russians had already turned the tide and were pushing the germans back by d day the cream of the german army was long dead on the eastern front so most of the men killed by the U.S in europe were green troops mere boys. the western allies were fighting about 30% of the german army while the other 70% were in russia
But don't forget to add to what the US contributed in Europe the fact that we handled the Pacific pretty much by ourselves.

Besides, as I have said, the western front in europe was a battle of liberating occupied land, a much harder task that defending land that you already hold, as the soviets did.

It is apples and oranges.

It is funny how leftists will do anything they can to minimize anything America did, regardless of the facts.

[Osman Ghazi]

Besides, as I have said, the western front in europe was a battle of liberating occupied land, a much harder task that defending land that you already hold, as the soviets did.


Oh, Berlin was in Soviet territory and the Soviets were just defending it at the Battle of Berlin? Thanks for the geography lesson. The Soviets were pushed back almost out of European Russia. If anything, they sucked balls on the defense but kicked ass on the attack. And we are the ones trying to minimize the war effort?

Also, liberating France is a fairly easy task when:

A) The French Resistance softened them up first.
B)Americans were greeted by crowds of cheering Frenchmen rather than the Soviets who were greeted by crowds of off Germans who thought that they were the worst thing to ever see the face of the earth.

Also, Japan all by yourself? Ha! Don't make me laugh. Maybe you've never heard of a tiny little country called China and the anti-Japanese National United Front? More than half of Japan's forces were tied up in the garrisonning of China. And still, on top of that you had to resort to threatening the entire population with death to finally make them bow in submission.

It is funny how rightists will do anything they can to maximize anything America did, regardless of facts.

[Edward Norton]

Whether ppl on here are to the right pr the left these facts:

*The two main battles that 'turned the tide of the war' so to speak, were Al Alamien in 1942 and Stalingrad in 1943. These were both fought by British and British colonial forces and for the latter the Soviet Army and partisans.

*Lend lease was not giveaway aid but a pure and simple business deal between a country at war and what was then supposed to be an officialy nuetral nation. The British had to pay back all that it took from America, even after the US entered on the British side.

*Whilst the US DID contribute to the European campaign, the US ONLY entered the war after the Japanese attacks and until 1944 the US was almost entirely engaged with the Pacific war.

*Most of the heavy blows to the German army were done by the USSR and military historians have talked of the order Hitler gave on the 3rd of July 1944 when he ordered the pulling out of many german army units and special forces from Normandy to the eastern front, this being three days before the 'D-day' landings, whilst it was a though battle, the Normandy landing would have been defeated if they had landed a few days before, but this had nothing to do with how much the US played a part in the battle, just crap strategic thinking (or lack of!!!) by Hitler.

*The Western front mainly dealt with german army units whereas the eastern front also had SS and Nazi militia units to fight alongside the German army, the SS were not as battle hardend, but fanatical and fought to death, as opposed to the army who would surrender if the odds were against them.

*Many thousands of Canadians, South Africans and other also took part in the 'D-day' landings too.

Im not going to downplay the US or any other countires effort, because the facts are there, but without Russia, the US would have NOT gone into Europe, even if it wanted to, coz it would have just been logistically impossible. If that was the case the US would of just fought the Pacific war and Japan, and come to some sort of deal with Germany.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Edward [email protected] 15 2004, 11:28 PM
Whether ppl on here are to the right pr the left these facts:

*The two main battles that 'turned the tide of the war' so to speak, were Al Alamien in 1942 and Stalingrad in 1943. These were both fought by British and British colonial forces and for the latter the Soviet Army and partisans.

*Lend lease was not giveaway aid but a pure and simple business deal between a country at war and what was then supposed to be an officialy nuetral nation. The British had to pay back all that it took from America, even after the US entered on the British side.

*Whilst the US DID contribute to the European campaign, the US ONLY entered the war after the Japanese attacks and until 1944 the US was almost entirely engaged with the Pacific war.

*Most of the heavy blows to the German army were done by the USSR and military historians have talked of the order Hitler gave on the 3rd of July 1944 when he ordered the pulling out of many german army units and special forces from Normandy to the eastern front, this being three days before the 'D-day' landings, whilst it was a though battle, the Normandy landing would have been defeated if they had landed a few days before, but this had nothing to do with how much the US played a part in the battle, just crap strategic thinking (or lack of!!!) by Hitler.

*The Western front mainly dealt with german army units whereas the eastern front also had SS and Nazi militia units to fight alongside the German army, the SS were not as battle hardend, but fanatical and fought to death, as opposed to the army who would surrender if the odds were against them.

*Many thousands of Canadians, South Africans and other also took part in the 'D-day' landings too.

Im not going to downplay the US or any other countires effort, because the facts are there, but without Russia, the US would have NOT gone into Europe, even if it wanted to, coz it would have just been logistically impossible. If that was the case the US would of just fought the Pacific war and Japan, and come to some sort of deal with Germany.
why would it have been logistically impossible for the US to go to europe without russia?


By the way, this post is not all fact, a lot of it is opinion and conjecture, and highly subjective analysis.

[Edward Norton]

It would have been impossible from the point of view that, like I mentioned before had Hitler not pulled his troops away from the west to fight the Soviets, the US/UK attack on France would have been defeated and even if they managed to break through the beaches would have lost so many troops that they could not of just continued through France the way did.

Now this is one of those 'what ifs', but at least acknowledge the fact that without the USSR taking up alot of the 3rd Riechs attention and effort, the US and UK would have had to given up on the idea of freeing Europe and come to some sort of deal between Roosevelt and Hitler.

Plus NO country 'helps' another one out of pure alturism. The US was attacked by Japan, which had its own agenda seperate from that of Italy and Germany and would have attacked the US even if Europe was at peace, and the US was doing what all countries did, looking after itself, yes the US helped us coz it was in ITS interests as well as ours. The US is not a charity and does not just help others simply coz others cant help themselves.

Vietnam was only of interest to the US, coz the spread of communism into the Pacific would have threatend the US from the west coast. It was to keep its Pacific flank secure. Remeber Cambodia, of little importance to the US and when they left, they left it to endure genocide.

Please dont tell me that the US doesn't have any strategic plans when fighting wars, all the wars it fought were done with the assumption that it would be beneficial to the US.

[dark fairy]

this IS ofcourse dramatic but I sence a lot of drama between you humans i think that's funny... but this was interesting reading i guess... i just needed something to read...I live in the U$ so im not sure of how much i should say... what i will say is that i know we fucked up and we do piss a bunch of countries off and iraq is one of them. Shit we more then pissed them off and it was wrong but Goddamn it... ok ...damn
of all the little things that are fucked up here in this country they add up and that is why the country itself is fucked... the supposed "system" does not exist! if i could vote maybe i would feel a bit less powerless and even then have a couple of people murdered and theres your fucken election... there might be and investigation but by that time no one will give a fuck... it IS easier to do in other countries though
but fuck U$ imperialism!!!and i live there!

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 15 2004, 05:47 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 15 2004, 05:47 PM)
[email protected] 15 2004, 05:37 PM
So instead of letting the US deal with the consequences of their actions we should leap to their defense and make our selves targets as well.
Wow, I''m sure that there are many european nations that are glad that the USA didn't ask that question in WWI, WWII, and throughout the Cold war. Your lack of memory and appreciation is sickening.

Besides, one of many reasons is that because in the last 100 years we have backed many of your plays, and given you a lot of aid, relief, and investment, so I think that a little reciprocation is in order.

Besides, there are many nations that are in the coalition of the willing that should stay the course. They were with us from the beginning.

And the "consequences of our actions" will be a free and democratic Iraq, which has already cascaded to libya dismantling their weapons program. [/b]
You joined world war one to protect your right to trade with the allies, and completely cocked up, and had little or no bearing on the outcome of the war because your generals and tactics were inept. In world war two you were attacked by the Japaneese, if you remember.

Your ignorance is shocking.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2004, 07:39 PM

The Nazi's would have been defeated whether the USA had got involved or not.

Any, and I mean pretty much any and every, military historian, and I will even go so far as to say most on this board, will tell you that this is utter B.S.
I dont know, Russia almost certainly would have defeated Germany and the European axis powers, however Japan did pose a threat to Russia's eastern sea border, and may have made complications, though this is unlikley. However it is certainly true that the european war was largely faught by the Russians and that the western allies influence was (though important, in some respects) reletivly minor. The fact that the vast majority of the German army was located on the eastern front, the vast majority of German deaths were on the eastern front, and the Germans most major defeats were on the eastern front, is a rather obvious factor to any credible historian.

It is interesting to note that the most major western allied influence took place in 1944, after the German armies defeat. Before the war Stalin believed that Hitler would attack to the east, and the western allies would let the hated Nazi's and communists destroy each other. Not a completely inaccurate judgment, when looking at the timeline of events.

The most major Western influence, was also the British cracking the German codes, in which the the US was quite inferior, the British were leagues ahead of everyone in that field, and that allied advantage enabled many crucial opperation to go ahead. One can not over estimate the impostance of this advantage, it was a "war winner".

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 15 2004, 08:15 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 15 2004, 08:15 PM)
[email protected] 15 2004, 08:11 PM
What makes you think they aren't in their homes awaiting a resistance victory?
Because reports and polls on the street suggest that Iraqis want democracy, not a pure religious fundamentalist state. Of course, muslims will have a large portion of representation in a representative government, but not absolute power. [/b]
So what do they have some fat guy go around with a camera and micrhophone and ask people want they want. I find that very hared to believe

Hopefull either all nations leave iraq leaving USA to scamble ot hold the country with them leaving the country in turmiol while saying democracy is installed and other countries plain a new operation to destroy fundelmental religious terriost(not all terriost are the same)

[cubist]

QUOTE
The USA did very little to help europe during world war two



D-Day

The Battle of the Buldge

The "Mighty 8th" Airforce

Pattons Army liberating France.

...all while handling the pacific theater almost by ourselves

yeah, very little indeed.


What an ignorant puke. You have lost all sense of credibilty.

thats all you can refute is it.
credibility for what?

america may have done somethings but with out the rest of europe the US wouldn't have won either, the point i was making was that america wasn't the be all and end all in the war. it was just another ally working for the end result no one could say that they would have won with out any of the other allies being there, but americans love to believe this!!


so pop of back where your patriotism is appreciated

[cubist]

another point germany lost the war with russia due to hitler having to send troops to greece to cover for mussolinis incompetance, making the nazi invasion of russia delatyed untile late june in which it was too late to avoid russias real protection the cold winter, and because of that fact the war in the east was won, not becuase america joined in

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 15 2004, 05:47 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 15 2004, 05:47 PM)
[email protected] 15 2004, 05:37 PM
So instead of letting the US deal with the consequences of their actions we should leap to their defense and make our selves targets as well.
Wow, I''m sure that there are many european nations that are glad that the USA didn't ask that question in WWI, WWII, and throughout the Cold war. Your lack of memory and appreciation is sickening.

Besides, one of many reasons is that because in the last 100 years we have backed many of your plays, and given you a lot of aid, relief, and investment, so I think that a little reciprocation is in order.

Besides, there are many nations that are in the coalition of the willing that should stay the course. They were with us from the beginning.

And the "consequences of our actions" will be a free and democratic Iraq, which has already cascaded to libya dismantling their weapons program. [/b]
You forget your own history very quickly.

America didn't leap to anyones defense - they sat back and reaped the rewards of trading with both sides until the Japanese attacked them. Then and only then did they defend themselves. This was after years of the UK and France trying to persuade you to help, and having these requests fall on deaf ears. Why? Capitalism at it's best again.

As for the Cold War - that was America's fight, and we in the UK stuck OUR neck out to help YOU. How does that one work then?