- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,418
- 8,367
- 126
i'm not even sure we're the most inefficient, in terms of energy usage. we suck up about 25% of the world's energy, but we're also 25% of the world's economy. and california... those are some really efficient people over there.
as for kennedy... he really didn't do much. ever. 10 years in the senate and pretty much didn't do a damned thing. president for 3 and really only did the cuban missle crisis, which, looking back on it, krushchev won, and the moon challenge.
as for world image... well, dubya may not be the brightest kid on the block, but he listens well and has lots of good people to give him advice. also, i think your media and vocal leaders are mad about the missle shield thing, which wasn't bush's to start out with yet somehow is attributed solely to him. plus, theres lots of people (left-wing activists, mostly) here that don't like free trade, i'd imagine that since europe is generally further left than the US that there would be many more anti-free traders in europe.
as for picking him, well, if you know about how the US presidential election system works than you know that the popular vote isn't as valid a measure as in a direct elected system. and if you know about socially optimal choice methods you also know that democracy, especially as practised, is not socially optimal anyway.
as for kennedy... he really didn't do much. ever. 10 years in the senate and pretty much didn't do a damned thing. president for 3 and really only did the cuban missle crisis, which, looking back on it, krushchev won, and the moon challenge.
as for world image... well, dubya may not be the brightest kid on the block, but he listens well and has lots of good people to give him advice. also, i think your media and vocal leaders are mad about the missle shield thing, which wasn't bush's to start out with yet somehow is attributed solely to him. plus, theres lots of people (left-wing activists, mostly) here that don't like free trade, i'd imagine that since europe is generally further left than the US that there would be many more anti-free traders in europe.
as for picking him, well, if you know about how the US presidential election system works than you know that the popular vote isn't as valid a measure as in a direct elected system. and if you know about socially optimal choice methods you also know that democracy, especially as practised, is not socially optimal anyway.
well, well I dont know if u are the most inefficient either but certainly in the top spots, our economy isnt exactly small either yet our electricity consumption is less than half per capita. With inefficient I was also referring to bad insulation in houses, electrical heating, air as the carrier, airconditioning everywhere.... all this accounts to inefficiency thats is relativley easy to change and would aid the environment and the economy (development and deployment of better more efficient technologies) Bush says doing something for the environment is bad for economy i dont really see why besides we have to start to pay the full bill someday anyway and soon it might be to late. Probably ppl havent realized that, otherwise fuel consumption would be more of a selling argument but with the supercheap gas in the states why should it. (These things are true anywhere but the states are a good target because they are especially bad in this)
as for the election, yeah i know how it works and yeah i know that he did win the electoral votes but i also know, well knowing is relative, so i know that the media told me that things werent really as expected from a sound democratic nation. In Florida votes were appearing from some hidden stashes and the liken after the election, which tells me that the votes he got in florida might not have been enough - but uguys know much more about this than me...
But i do know that a lot of ppl here fear Bush or at least what he stands for and that was, what i was trying to express.
and yes ppl (even the right) are more left here and that is good, because i dont want to have to worry about being able to afford education for my kids or not being able to feed them or having them get shot. Things like this paint the ugly picture of america that leaves a bad taste despite all the glory and wealth
And Bush stands for exactly those things and we fear that someday we will have to adapt to this cruel and unfair system because thats what is already happening - survival of the fittest - capitalism in the pure, ungoverned, ugly form
amen
as for the election, yeah i know how it works and yeah i know that he did win the electoral votes but i also know, well knowing is relative, so i know that the media told me that things werent really as expected from a sound democratic nation. In Florida votes were appearing from some hidden stashes and the liken after the election, which tells me that the votes he got in florida might not have been enough - but uguys know much more about this than me...
But i do know that a lot of ppl here fear Bush or at least what he stands for and that was, what i was trying to express.
and yes ppl (even the right) are more left here and that is good, because i dont want to have to worry about being able to afford education for my kids or not being able to feed them or having them get shot. Things like this paint the ugly picture of america that leaves a bad taste despite all the glory and wealth
And Bush stands for exactly those things and we fear that someday we will have to adapt to this cruel and unfair system because thats what is already happening - survival of the fittest - capitalism in the pure, ungoverned, ugly form
amen
I'd first like you all to disregard the comments of the self-hating Americans in this thread. They are part of a growing movement of Americans who listen to the media's negative portrayal of the USA and try to distance themselves from the problem in a cowardly and ineffective way. Enough of that.
The United States certainly does have many problems. Foremost on my mind is our governments tendency to involve itself where other countries (or it's own citizens in most cases) don't want it to. We're sorry.
The problem with the world portrayal of the USA is that, while it covers the negatives very well, it almost NEVER covers the positives, or the reasons for the negatives. For example, has anyone pointed out to any of you that the United States is possibly the most benign world super-power (or empire, for historical comparison) that the world has ever seen? It is the NATURAL tendency for any individual, organization, or government to want to involve itself in others' matters. It just happens that the most powerful is the most able, and right now the USA is the most powerful. Food for thought: China would be at least equally, if not much more busy influencing world politics if it were in power instead of the United States.
The myth that the United States doesn't have culture amazes me. I was actually in an argument with a Canadian/Cypriat recently that blew my mind. It turns out that her defition of culture included a stipulation that it must be at least 1000 years old. The USA is 300 years old. That definition isn't very useful. The fact is that the United States has more of it's own culture than most of Europe. It's difficult for many people to see this, though, because so much of our (American) culture has made it's way into Europe. Sure, we don't have any ancient buildings in the USA, but doesn't it count for something that, in the last 300 years, we have DEVELOPED more culture than the entire rest of the world?
One more thing. Regarding the energy use in the United States. Of course we're going to use more energy. The population of the USA is 281 million people, spread thinly over half a continent. Anybody who says that public transportation in the United States hasn't been given a fair chance hasn't been here. It takes over an hour and a half to get from one major city to another here, driving at 100kph. Public tranportation requires population density. We don't have it.
Thanks for reading my thoughts.
The United States certainly does have many problems. Foremost on my mind is our governments tendency to involve itself where other countries (or it's own citizens in most cases) don't want it to. We're sorry.
The problem with the world portrayal of the USA is that, while it covers the negatives very well, it almost NEVER covers the positives, or the reasons for the negatives. For example, has anyone pointed out to any of you that the United States is possibly the most benign world super-power (or empire, for historical comparison) that the world has ever seen? It is the NATURAL tendency for any individual, organization, or government to want to involve itself in others' matters. It just happens that the most powerful is the most able, and right now the USA is the most powerful. Food for thought: China would be at least equally, if not much more busy influencing world politics if it were in power instead of the United States.
The myth that the United States doesn't have culture amazes me. I was actually in an argument with a Canadian/Cypriat recently that blew my mind. It turns out that her defition of culture included a stipulation that it must be at least 1000 years old. The USA is 300 years old. That definition isn't very useful. The fact is that the United States has more of it's own culture than most of Europe. It's difficult for many people to see this, though, because so much of our (American) culture has made it's way into Europe. Sure, we don't have any ancient buildings in the USA, but doesn't it count for something that, in the last 300 years, we have DEVELOPED more culture than the entire rest of the world?
One more thing. Regarding the energy use in the United States. Of course we're going to use more energy. The population of the USA is 281 million people, spread thinly over half a continent. Anybody who says that public transportation in the United States hasn't been given a fair chance hasn't been here. It takes over an hour and a half to get from one major city to another here, driving at 100kph. Public tranportation requires population density. We don't have it.
Thanks for reading my thoughts.
One of B00ne's coments describes my views completely
<< that is not the ppl but their politics. >>
Everyone I´v met from the US is incredible nice, they are open and its very easy to start talking to them, but soon you get to the "ignorant of other cultures" part, that is something I cant do anything about. What we Europeans dislike so much about the US is their Politics, they are so different from what Europe has. The US politics is what I would call short sighted, to think about tomorrow and not about next week, to act and not think. Long term goals do not exist in US politics. Personaly I see the US politics as a bubble, it will explode someday for one reason or another.
<< that is not the ppl but their politics. >>
Everyone I´v met from the US is incredible nice, they are open and its very easy to start talking to them, but soon you get to the "ignorant of other cultures" part, that is something I cant do anything about. What we Europeans dislike so much about the US is their Politics, they are so different from what Europe has. The US politics is what I would call short sighted, to think about tomorrow and not about next week, to act and not think. Long term goals do not exist in US politics. Personaly I see the US politics as a bubble, it will explode someday for one reason or another.
well i dont see why there would be hatred toward americans. as an american, i can see differences in politics very clearly.
the biggest issue is the environment, probably specifically kyoto. but lets think a little, kyoto is a treaty that is unworkable in its current state. it lacks conculsive evidence to indicate that the dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions would strongly decrease global warming. global warming is a topic which very few scientists can give accurate projections yet. we dont know what will be accomplished towards the environment from ratifying this treaty. we do know the economic impact (very easy to predict), and its very far reaching. there was a good thread here a while back if anyone can find it. so do we take action that STRONGLY hurts our people's wealth and security based on vague (at best) projections. america doesnt. but we're not alone, i think only some small eastern european country ratified it. its unclear what benefit kyoto could have, so we (and most of wester europe) wont ratify it.
i think the european media likes to portray America is big and evil towards the environment. now this may be somewhat accurate, but we havent seen France, Great Britain, or Germany ratify Kyoto yet.
as far as americans being ignorant to other cultures while traveling abroad, i think this is very accurate. we werent raised in a country with a long traditions or history. we dont have Beefeaters (those cool english guys in redcoats), castles, or crown jewels. we also absorb every culture that comes into our country. i have hindu friends who eat more beef than i do. so we probably do have some cultural superiority issues. but thats a generallity, i personally love history and foreign cultures.
europeans hating our presidents, sure. bush is dumb, pro-corporation, pro-energy production, and stole the election in the eyes or our OWN people. europeans have to view him even worse. and lets not even touch missile defense. but to many americans, myself included, we agree with bush. we need drill for oil in the US. if we dont, we are at the mercy of a oil cartel composed of anti-american countries. if this is wasteful, than well take waste over insecurity. we are a superpower based on the exploitation of our own country and others (immigrants, indians, and raping our own damn natural resources).
sry for long post
the biggest issue is the environment, probably specifically kyoto. but lets think a little, kyoto is a treaty that is unworkable in its current state. it lacks conculsive evidence to indicate that the dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions would strongly decrease global warming. global warming is a topic which very few scientists can give accurate projections yet. we dont know what will be accomplished towards the environment from ratifying this treaty. we do know the economic impact (very easy to predict), and its very far reaching. there was a good thread here a while back if anyone can find it. so do we take action that STRONGLY hurts our people's wealth and security based on vague (at best) projections. america doesnt. but we're not alone, i think only some small eastern european country ratified it. its unclear what benefit kyoto could have, so we (and most of wester europe) wont ratify it.
i think the european media likes to portray America is big and evil towards the environment. now this may be somewhat accurate, but we havent seen France, Great Britain, or Germany ratify Kyoto yet.
as far as americans being ignorant to other cultures while traveling abroad, i think this is very accurate. we werent raised in a country with a long traditions or history. we dont have Beefeaters (those cool english guys in redcoats), castles, or crown jewels. we also absorb every culture that comes into our country. i have hindu friends who eat more beef than i do. so we probably do have some cultural superiority issues. but thats a generallity, i personally love history and foreign cultures.
europeans hating our presidents, sure. bush is dumb, pro-corporation, pro-energy production, and stole the election in the eyes or our OWN people. europeans have to view him even worse. and lets not even touch missile defense. but to many americans, myself included, we agree with bush. we need drill for oil in the US. if we dont, we are at the mercy of a oil cartel composed of anti-american countries. if this is wasteful, than well take waste over insecurity. we are a superpower based on the exploitation of our own country and others (immigrants, indians, and raping our own damn natural resources).
sry for long post
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,886
- 14,094
- 146
<< I was just thinking, could you, Americans, explain(understand) why most europeans hate you ?
b/c you say that you keep "peace" and "freedom" in the whole world ... so everybody must like you... isn't it so ?
thanks. >>
Heh, because all the Europeans that loved us, came here
Seriously, Jealousy. And not all Europeans hate us. Only the loud, whiny minority the press focuses on.
Lehmann's post is very revealing. It's such a common notion that if you can see negatives about yourself you are self hating. Actually the greater the self hate the less the ability to be be objectively self critically introspective. You get the rah rah feel good America's great on conservative hate radio because it really is self hate radio.
Shiner, I was refering to experiencing in the sense, not of being alive in a time period, but of being there, i.e. as in the battle ground states of the Civil War or Pearl Harbor Hawaii.
Shiner, I was refering to experiencing in the sense, not of being alive in a time period, but of being there, i.e. as in the battle ground states of the Civil War or Pearl Harbor Hawaii.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,886
- 14,094
- 146
<< well, well I dont know if u are the most inefficient either but certainly in the top spots, our economy isnt exactly small either yet our electricity consumption is less than half per capita. With inefficient I was also referring to bad insulation in houses, electrical heating, air as the carrier, airconditioning everywhere.... all this accounts to inefficiency thats is relativley easy to change and would aid the environment and the economy (development and deployment of better more efficient technologies) Bush says doing something for the environment is bad for economy i dont really see why besides we have to start to pay the full bill someday anyway and soon it might be to late. Probably ppl havent realized that, otherwise fuel consumption would be more of a selling argument but with the supercheap gas in the states why should it. (These things are true anywhere but the states are a good target because they are especially bad in this)
as for the election, yeah i know how it works and yeah i know that he did win the electoral votes but i also know, well knowing is relative, so i know that the media told me that things werent really as expected from a sound democratic nation. In Florida votes were appearing from some hidden stashes and the liken after the election, which tells me that the votes he got in florida might not have been enough - but uguys know much more about this than me...
But i do know that a lot of ppl here fear Bush or at least what he stands for and that was, what i was trying to express.
and yes ppl (even the right) are more left here and that is good, because i dont want to have to worry about being able to afford education for my kids or not being able to feed them or having them get shot. Things like this paint the ugly picture of america that leaves a bad taste despite all the glory and wealth
And Bush stands for exactly those things and we fear that someday we will have to adapt to this cruel and unfair system because thats what is already happening - survival of the fittest - capitalism in the pure, ungoverned, ugly form
amen >>
Capitalism in it's "pure, ungoverned, ugly form" is what made the US the most powerful nation on earth.
the biggest issue is the environment,
The biggest issue is not the environment it is global trade. And yes Kyoto is a flop. A complete flop. 3rd world nations which are often the biggest polluters of the bunch would not have to follow the guidelines of Kyoto.
i think the european media likes to portray America is big and evil towards the environment. now this may be somewhat accurate, but we havent seen France, Great Britain, or Germany ratify Kyoto yet.
Have you been to London, France lately? I have. They aren't exactly model cities for environmental friendly policies. Regardless it is beautiful country in my opinion.
as far as americans being ignorant to other cultures while traveling abroad, i think this is very accurate. we werent raised in a country with a long traditions or history.
I'll probably get flamed for saying this but Americans are probably the least ignorant of other cultures. We are the most diverse nation on earth. Our country was founded by not one race, but many. This country was founded on diversity and continues to thrive off of it.
europeans hating our presidents, sure. bush is dumb,
Yale, mba harvard.. successful business man. Won an election against an incumbent VP during the longest stretch of economic growth in our nation's history..
pro-corporation,
*gasp* not pro corporation!?!? The same corporations which employ millions of americans!?!? The same which fuel our economy?!?! SOUND THE ALARMS
pro-energy production,
!!!!!!!!!!!! PRO ENERGY PRODUCTION?!?! you mean the stuff that is powering that PC of yours right now?!? the stuff which makes this nation go?!?! THE BRITISH ARE COMING
and stole the election in the eyes or our OWN people.
You can find just about any radical moron to support an opinion in this country.. that doesn't mean it has validity.
and lets not even touch missile defense.
Yes, heaven forbid we be interested in protecting our continent.. heaven forbid we chose this over depending on the reliable alliances with western europe.
Linflas
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2001
- 15,395
- 78
- 91
Please tell me any other country in history that has helped former foes like the US did with the Marshall Plan. Even funnier no one seems to remember all the stories from Europe regarding thier lack of respect for Clinton due to his collection of scandals and misdeads. The fact that he spent the final 2 years of his presidency on a world wide search for a legacy by telling any leader what they wanted to hear at the moment probably contributed to the euro love fest with Clinton in his final days.
I'm glad to live in Europe with its low crime-rates, no school-shootings and better politics.
Like Czar said, US politics are just too short-sighted. Oil-drillings (not even enough oil for a decade) an anti-missile shield (already obsolete with a successrate of <1%. Possible the start of a new Cold War) are good examples of this.
Like Czar said, US politics are just too short-sighted. Oil-drillings (not even enough oil for a decade) an anti-missile shield (already obsolete with a successrate of <1%. Possible the start of a new Cold War) are good examples of this.
<< The problem is usually that you're a little igonorant about things that are not american and that you seem somewhat uninterested in learning about other cultures >>
I think this is spot on. I'm from the UK, and i dont think that there is any hatred towards americans.
However, Americans do seem to be very concerned about their own country and forgetting about everywhere else. For example, take the recent foot and mouth crisis in the uk. There was a special report on the news about how other countries are reporting the facts. Americans didnt want to come to britain for fear of catching it. But if they had been watching their own news, reading papers etc., they would have known that people cant catch it. This is just one of many examples.
This ignorance may stems from education. Ok first and foremost, you'll learn about your own countries history, cultures, ways of living etc, fair enough. but over here, we were also taught a bit about other countries, giving us a broader knowledge of the world to expand on. I've met amricans who didnt even know what Big Ben is, and thought that our monarchy was comparable to their presidency.
Also, this war thing. You didnt save anyones a$$ on your own. It was the allied forces that won the war. America was part of those forces, not the only people fighting. If the other countries had stood back and let you fight on your own, then probably, most of the world would be speaking german.
Dont get me wrong here, i've nothing against america personally.
Like Czar said, US politics are just too short-sighted. Oil-drillings (not even enough oil for a decade)
a plight of the uninformed. Currently exploration is illegal in anwar, illegal on both coasts, illegal in the gulf, illegal in the rockies, illegal off the shores of florida.
And really what business of it is yours that the United States chooses to be self reliant when it comes to crude? The less reliant we are on foreign powers the less reliant we will be on alliances with countries like yours if WWIII ever erupted.
an anti-missile shield (already obsolete with a successrate of <1%. Possible the start of a new Cold War) are good examples of this.
I'm curious as to what you are basing these figures on... funding hasn't even been approved by Bush for serious development of a concrete program.. the goal of missile defense would be to offer a protective shield to north america against rogue missile attacks.
How is defending our country, or attempting to develop the technology to defend our country for that matter, a bad thing?
Threats from Putin or the PRC? Are you that naive that you think China isn't currently furthering development of ballistic missile technology regardless of what we do?
.....News flash for you ignoramuses if that is a word, we are still in an arms race and always will be. The world isn't a happy place, it probably never will be. The United States is in an arms race with Russia and China and will continue to be until Russia falls to economic depression, China's communist leadership dies out, or the US is attacked with a combined force of both nations.
So lets not be naive, please. We are already in a cold war whether you choose to believe or disbelieve it.
a plight of the uninformed. Currently exploration is illegal in anwar, illegal on both coasts, illegal in the gulf, illegal in the rockies, illegal off the shores of florida.
And really what business of it is yours that the United States chooses to be self reliant when it comes to crude? The less reliant we are on foreign powers the less reliant we will be on alliances with countries like yours if WWIII ever erupted.
an anti-missile shield (already obsolete with a successrate of <1%. Possible the start of a new Cold War) are good examples of this.
I'm curious as to what you are basing these figures on... funding hasn't even been approved by Bush for serious development of a concrete program.. the goal of missile defense would be to offer a protective shield to north america against rogue missile attacks.
How is defending our country, or attempting to develop the technology to defend our country for that matter, a bad thing?
Threats from Putin or the PRC? Are you that naive that you think China isn't currently furthering development of ballistic missile technology regardless of what we do?
.....News flash for you ignoramuses if that is a word, we are still in an arms race and always will be. The world isn't a happy place, it probably never will be. The United States is in an arms race with Russia and China and will continue to be until Russia falls to economic depression, China's communist leadership dies out, or the US is attacked with a combined force of both nations.
So lets not be naive, please. We are already in a cold war whether you choose to believe or disbelieve it.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,886
- 14,094
- 146
<< Also, this war thing. You didnt save anyones a$$ on your own. It was the allied forces that won the war. America was part of those forces, not the only people fighting. If the other countries had stood back and let you fight on your own, then probably, most of the world would be speaking german.
Dont get me wrong here, i've nothing against america personally. >>
Good gawd, what are they teaching you over there??? The US provided 90% of the raw material and arms... not to mention over 5 million fighting men to WWII.
Had the US not supplied the USSR with arms, it would have fell. Had the USSR fell, Hitler would have turned his full fury on England. You'd be speaking German now.
No other country had the material or man power to fight the war.
Could the US have fought Germany on it's own? Of course. Only the US had the ability in both numbers of men, and production ability to do that. Could the allies? Hardly.
well said AmusedOne. I believe it was churchill that had the famous quote "Give us the tools... and we'll finish the job"
that was it.
that was it.
<<
Good gawd, what are they teaching you over there??? The US provided 90% of the raw material and arms... not to mention over 5 million fighting men to WWII.
Had the US not supplied the USSR with arms, it would have fell. Had the USSR fell, Hitler would have turned his full fury on England. You'd be speaking German now.
No other country had the material or man power to fight the war.
Could the US have fought Germany on it's own? Of course. Only the US had the ability in both numbers of men, and production ability to do that. Could the allies? Hardly. >>
If you would know anything about the German army you would know that the US alone would not have had a chance against it.
<< an anti-missile shield (already obsolete with a successrate of <1%. Possible the start of a new Cold War) are good examples of this.
I'm curious as to what you are basing these figures on... funding hasn't even been approved by Bush for serious development of a concrete program.. the goal of missile defense would be to offer a protective shield to north america against rogue missile attacks. >>
Recent tests with Patriot (?) missiles showed that the number of intercepted missiles was extremely low, less than a 1% successrate. Since they used the same missiles during those tests as they're planning to use for the missile-shield, the performance of this 'shield' makes it even less safe than a missile-strainer
<< How is defending our country, or attempting to develop the technology to defend our country for that matter, a bad thing? >>
I wouldn't call this defending a country. The used technology is already obsolete and with the development of new missiles (missiles that travel in the water and will leave the water just before it reaches the coast-line. No current detection technology is capable of detecting such missiles and destroying it before it's too late) or even missiles that are capable of destroying/dodging anti-missiles missiles, the efficiency of this 'shield' will drop till just above 0%.
I think that the best way to defend a country in these times is to become allies with other countries.
<< Threats from Putin or the PRC? Are you that naive that you think China isn't currently furthering development of ballistic missile technology regardless of what we do? >>
Russia still has many nuclear missiles. If they want, they can destroy the USA. Only this single treaty keeps them from doing so. And Bush wants to get rid of this treaty which ended the Cold War.
Any country will continue to develop new technologies, but with such a missile-'shield', the USA could just as well tell all other countries that they're so scared for missile attacks that they seek refuge in the most unlikely solutions. The USA has a history of seeking the solution in violence and sophisticated technologies. Counseling is never a choice.
IMHO this is a serious mistake. There'll come a day when violence and technology will fail and only counseling will offer a way out. Again, it's good to have allies in this world.
<< .....News flash for you ignoramuses if that is a word, we are still in an arms race and always will be. The world isn't a happy place, it probably never will be. The United States is in an arms race with Russia and China and will continue to be until Russia falls to economic depression, China's communist leadership dies out, or the US is attacked with a combined force of both nations. >>
Sorry to say this, but you sound pretty paranoid. China has no intention to attack the US at the moment and Russia has no longer a communistic Government, although you sound like you still believe this.
<< So lets not be naive, please. We are already in a cold war whether you choose to believe or disbelieve it. >>
You're paranoid. There's no Cold War and no arms race.
You sound like the only time when you would be happy is during the Cold War.
And another thing:
If Russia wouldn't have been the USSR during the Second World War, even the combined forces of European and American armies might not have been sufficient.
That's right, without those 'commies' we might all have been talking German.
If Russia wouldn't have been the USSR during the Second World War, even the combined forces of European and American armies might not have been sufficient.
That's right, without those 'commies' we might all have been talking German.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,886
- 14,094
- 146
<<
<<
Good gawd, what are they teaching you over there??? The US provided 90% of the raw material and arms... not to mention over 5 million fighting men to WWII.
Had the US not supplied the USSR with arms, it would have fell. Had the USSR fell, Hitler would have turned his full fury on England. You'd be speaking German now.
No other country had the material or man power to fight the war.
Could the US have fought Germany on it's own? Of course. Only the US had the ability in both numbers of men, and production ability to do that. Could the allies? Hardly. >>
If you would know anything about the German army you would know that the US alone would not have had a chance against it. >>
Sure. If it makes you feel better believeing that, you go right on ahead doing so. :::eyeroll:::
One word for you: Dunkerque
This shows how well the British and French did without us.
Meanwhile, even if the US did not have the quality of the German troops, we would have won the war through attrition. Germany had a finite amount of raw material and men. The US had, for all intents and purposes and compared to Germany, an unlimited supply of both.
And I wont even go into Germany's gawd awful chain of command and Hitler's stupidity.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,886
- 14,094
- 146
<< And another thing:
If Russia wouldn't have been the USSR during the Second World War, even the combined forces of European and American armies might not have been sufficient.
That's right, without those 'commies' we might all have been talking German. >>
Oh BS. If it weren't for Stalin's purges, Germany would never had made it as far as Stalingrad. Stalin killed off all his best military commanders just prior to the war. The USSR's military was a complete joke. The USSR beat Germany through shear attrition, nothing more.
Stalin, and communism in general, are responsible for the millions killed in Russia by Germany.
Not to mention, Hitler, being the arrogant idiot he was, made nearly all the same mistakes Napoleon did.
Also to show how useless this missle defense is. The only way the US can build it is by breaking the START treaty. When that happens Russia will no longer have to follow the treaty so they can start to equip their Nuclear missles with MIRV. So if the US and Russia would go in a nuclear war that little missle defense shield will not be able to touch the Russian Missles.
I agree 100% with Elledan
<< I think that the best way to defend a country in these times is to become allies with other countries. >>
<< Not to mention, Hitler, being the arrogant idiot he was, made nearly all the same mistakes Napoleon did. >>
This just shows who is arrogant.
I agree 100% with Elledan
<< I think that the best way to defend a country in these times is to become allies with other countries. >>
<< Not to mention, Hitler, being the arrogant idiot he was, made nearly all the same mistakes Napoleon did. >>
This just shows who is arrogant.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter