Most Dangerous Country in the World?

[Piano Man]

Most Dangerous is easily the U.S. because we have the most power, and it seems we want to use it.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Zipp
And if it wasn't for the USA, all of Europe would be speaking German right now. How soon they forget on how to handle a tyrant.

HAH! I find it funny that so many Americans think that Europeans should kiss US ass because you helped us 60 years ago. By that logic, Americans should be kissing Europeans asses since it was Europeans who discovered and colonized America.

What I love is that everyone conveniently forgets about the Russians. They dealt a huge blow to the Nazi war machine, contributing at least as much if not more to the eventual defeat of the Germans as the US did. We can get the credit for the Pacific theater, but to think that we alone saved the European continent from the Nazis is arrogant.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: burnedout
So tell me Nemesis77, how many other political parties, aside from the NASPD, had an active role in German politics during the 1930s?

What exactly does that have to do with this?

How was public dissent and opinion towards the leadership addressed in such a "free" society as the one chaperoned by Hitler, Himmler, Bormann et al.? FYI, Göring was far from being "the master himself".

Of course, there were dissidents in Germany, just like there are dissidents in USA. It just seems to me that the people who are anti-war in USA are treated exactly like Goering described by the pro-war ultranationalists. Their patriotism is questioned and they are accused of endangering the safety of USA.

No, wrong answer. We are a product of you. We are the result of your failures as a European society.

What failures? Europe gets along just fine. And back when USA was formed, there wasn't really "European society". There were severaö independent countries. There was no multinational organisation like EU.

The USA is largely the product and result of European society which essentially failed to properly address the inherent needs of its own citizenry. Monarchy, socialism, famine, persecution, dictatorship,....... need I go on?

Lets look at those arguments shall we?

Monarchy: Yep, there were (and are monarchies) in Europe. Can't really argue about that. But they are not bad by default. And these days the monarchies are mostly ceremonial. And I find it hard to believe that people left Europe for USA because "I hate monarchy! I want to live in a country where there is no monarchy!". They left because to them USA was a possibility to start all over again. Coupled with some historic events (like the famine in Ireland), it's only natural that many went to USA.

Socialism: Ummmm, I don't think there really were any "socialism" back when USA was colonized. Socialism as we know it came along about 80 or so years ago.

Our ancestors left (read: fled) the European continent in droves and came here because the Europeans were fvcked up. Plain and simple. You, as in post-war Europe, are not the result of any of our failures, but of our success.

How exactly are we the result of your success?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Zipp
And if it wasn't for the USA, all of Europe would be speaking German right now. How soon they forget on how to handle a tyrant.

HAH! I find it funny that so many Americans think that Europeans should kiss US ass because you helped us 60 years ago. By that logic, Americans should be kissing Europeans asses since it was Europeans who discovered and colonized America.

What I love is that everyone conveniently forgets about the Russians. They dealt a huge blow to the Nazi war machine, contributing at least as much if not more to the eventual defeat of the Germans as the US did. We can get the credit for the Pacific theater, but to think that we alone saved the European continent from the Nazis is arrogant.

Dudd, that is true. The Russian forces did more to defeat Germany than the US.

The add-on to that though is that after WWII the US supplied the forces to Europe to keep the USSR at bay.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Zipp
And if it wasn't for the USA, all of Europe would be speaking German right now. How soon they forget on how to handle a tyrant.

HAH! I find it funny that so many Americans think that Europeans should kiss US ass because you helped us 60 years ago. By that logic, Americans should be kissing Europeans asses since it was Europeans who discovered and colonized America.

What I love is that everyone conveniently forgets about the Russians. They dealt a huge blow to the Nazi war machine, contributing at least as much if not more to the eventual defeat of the Germans as the US did. We can get the credit for the Pacific theater, but to think that we alone saved the European continent from the Nazis is arrogant.

Yep. Russians defeated the Germans. That is the fact. Even after D-day, about 70% of German troops were fighting the Russians. It was in the Eastern Front where the war was decided. There Germans suffered their biggest losses and there were the biggest battles fought. Western Front only accelerated the fall of Germany (by about 6 months I would guess).

In the Pacific, it was mostly American show.

 

[Parrotheader]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Zipp
And if it wasn't for the USA, all of Europe would be speaking German right now. How soon they forget on how to handle a tyrant.

HAH! I find it funny that so many Americans think that Europeans should kiss US ass because you helped us 60 years ago. By that logic, Americans should be kissing Europeans asses since it was Europeans who discovered and colonized America.

What I love is that everyone conveniently forgets about the Russians. They dealt a huge blow to the Nazi war machine, contributing at least as much if not more to the eventual defeat of the Germans as the US did. We can get the credit for the Pacific theater, but to think that we alone saved the European continent from the Nazis is arrogant.

Yep. Russians defeated the Germans. That is the fact. Even after D-day, about 70% of German troops were fighting the Russians. It was in the Eastern Front where the war was decided. There Germans suffered their biggest losses and there were the biggest battles fought. Western Front only accelerated the fall of Germany (by about 6 months I would guess).

In the Pacific, it was mostly American show.

I'd definitely give a lot of credit to the Russians too, but I'm not sure I'd say that they would have won unequivocaly had it not been for the British and US and other Western allies. The British and Americans forced the Germans to keep a significant percentage of their forces (particularly an even larger percentage of their tanks critically needed in an offensive war like Germany was fighting in Russia) allocated to the Western front which could've otherwise been directed toward Russia during the critical early years of the war when Germany was indeed taking it hard to the Russians and came very close to taking Moscow (winter or no winter.) Not to mention that American/British intelligence was much more successful against the Germans and made gains in that quietly critical area that's so often overlooked that helped both sides against Germany.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Parrotheader
I'd definitely give a lot of credit to the Russians too, but I'm not sure I'd say that they would have won unequivocaly had it not been for the British and US and other Western allies. The British and Americans forced the Germans to keep a significant percentage of their forces (particularly an even larger percentage of their tanks critically needed in an offensive war) allocated to the Western front which could've otherwise been directed toward Russia during the critical early years of the war when Germany was indeed taking it hard to the Russians and came very close to taking Moscow (winter or no winter.) Not to mention that American/British intelligence was much more successful against the Germans and made gains in that quietly critical area that's so often overlooked that helped both sides against Germany.

Like I said, about 80% of German troops were in the Eastern Front. After D-day that gradually dropped to 70%. Even with 80% of troops being in Eastern Front, they still lost. Even if Germans had taken Moscow (at the point when they almost did it, additional forces wouldn't have helped that much, because of the weather), it not sure that SU would bave fallen.

Germans were already losing big time by the time D-Day took place. As to the tanks, most of German tanks were in the East. Germans needed the tanks in the East, and that's where they were mostly used.

As to the intelligence. Soviet intelligence was extremely effective. They had a double-agent in German hi-command who informed Soviets about the upcoming "Operation Citadelle" (Battle of Kursk) ahead of time, givinf Soviet plenty of time to prepare for the attack.

 

[etech]

Parrotheader

I'd definitely give a lot of credit to the Russians too, but I'm not sure I'd say that they would have won unequivocaly had it not been for the British and US and other Western allies. The British and Americans forced the Germans to keep a significant percentage of their forces (particularly an even larger sizeable percentage of their tanks critically needed in an offensive war) allocated to the Western front which could've otherwise been directed toward Russia during the critical early years of the war when Germany was indeed taking it hard to the Russians and came very close to taking Moscow (winter or no winter.) Not to mention that American/British intelligence was much more successful against the Germans and made gains in that quietly critical area that's so often overlooked that helped both sides against Germany.

The detractors of the US also forget to mention the supplies that the US supplied to Russia which helped keep their forces in the field.

Supplying the Soviet War Machine

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Zipp
And if it wasn't for the USA, all of Europe would be speaking German right now. How soon they forget on how to handle a tyrant.

HAH! I find it funny that so many Americans think that Europeans should kiss US ass because you helped us 60 years ago. By that logic, Americans should be kissing Europeans asses since it was Europeans who discovered and colonized America.

What I love is that everyone conveniently forgets about the Russians. They dealt a huge blow to the Nazi war machine, contributing at least as much if not more to the eventual defeat of the Germans as the US did. We can get the credit for the Pacific theater, but to think that we alone saved the European continent from the Nazis is arrogant.

Dudd, that is true. The Russian forces did more to defeat Germany than the US.

The add-on to that though is that after WWII the US supplied the forces to Europe to keep the USSR at bay.

We also heavily supplied the russians during WWII. Everything from food, to raw materials, trucks, tanks, planes and equipment designs.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: etech
Parrotheader

I'd definitely give a lot of credit to the Russians too, but I'm not sure I'd say that they would have won unequivocaly had it not been for the British and US and other Western allies. The British and Americans forced the Germans to keep a significant percentage of their forces (particularly an even larger sizeable percentage of their tanks critically needed in an offensive war) allocated to the Western front which could've otherwise been directed toward Russia during the critical early years of the war when Germany was indeed taking it hard to the Russians and came very close to taking Moscow (winter or no winter.) Not to mention that American/British intelligence was much more successful against the Germans and made gains in that quietly critical area that's so often overlooked that helped both sides against Germany.

The detractors of the US also forget to mention the supplies that the US supplied to Russia which helped keep their forces in the field.

Supplying the Soviet War Machine

Of course US and others supplied the Russians. But it's also a fact that most of the equipment the Red Army used was made by the Russians, nut by the west. And of course, the russkies did the actual fighting.

Yes, the West did help. No, that help was not as important as the fact that the Russians did the fighting. Would SU lost without help from the West? I don't think so.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: burnedout
So tell me Nemesis77, how many other political parties, aside from the NASPD, had an active role in German politics during the 1930s?

What exactly does that have to do with this?

You mean to tell me there were other political parties with a substantial influence in German politics after the NASPD took power? At last count, the USA had two major parties in office. And yes, please tell me about all the visible, acknowledged negativity within pre-war, 1930s Germany and the "free" speech not under the scrutiny of the Geheimstaatspolizei.

How was public dissent and opinion towards the leadership addressed in such a "free" society as the one chaperoned by Hitler, Himmler, Bormann et al.? FYI, Göring was far from being "the master himself".

Of course, there were dissidents in Germany, just like there are dissidents in USA. It just seems to me that the people who are anti-war in USA are treated exactly like Goering described by the pro-war ultranationalists. Their patriotism is questioned and they are accused of endangering the safety of USA.

The major difference is that we don't jail or execute our dissidents in comparisson with the actions and activities of the former regime in Germany. Would you care for other differences?

No, wrong answer. We are a product of you. We are the result of your failures as a European society.

What failures? Europe gets along just fine. And back when USA was formed, there wasn't really "European society". There were severaö independent countries. There was no multinational organisation like EU.

Sure, present-day Europe is a blast. But what about the regimes that spawned the mass exodus from the European continent.

The USA is largely the product and result of European society which essentially failed to properly address the inherent needs of its own citizenry. Monarchy, socialism, famine, persecution, dictatorship,....... need I go on?

Lets look at those arguments shall we?

Yes, lets.....

Monarchy: Yep, there were (and are monarchies) in Europe. Can't really argue about that. But they are not bad by default. And these days the monarchies are mostly ceremonial. And I find it hard to believe that people left Europe for USA because "I hate monarchy! I want to live in a country where there is no monarchy!". They left because to them USA was a possibility to start all over again. Coupled with some historic events (like the famine in Ireland), it's only natural that many went to USA.

So Kaiser Willie in Germany, Ferdi in Austria and Nikki in Russia weren't bad? Tell me what was good about them? Hell, they were all assassinated or deposed. Of course the remainder are largely ceremonial in nature after they saw what happened to their brethren - Willie, Ferdi and Nikki.

Socialism: Ummmm, I don't think there really were any "socialism" back when USA was colonized. Socialism as we know it came along about 80 or so years ago.

Oh, let's see.... anti-Semetic massacres in Russia and Poland in the 1880s; staggering unemployment, food shortages and wars during the latter half of the 19th century; the Bolsheviks during the early 20th century. However, you are correct about socialism. In my zeal to point out the European flaws, I overlooked that one.

Our ancestors left (read: fled) the European continent in droves and came here because the Europeans were fvcked up. Plain and simple. You, as in post-war Europe, are not the result of any of our failures, but of our success.

How exactly are we the result of your success?

Lend-lease agreement with UK, delivery of war materials to Stalin and Russia, Marshall Plan, trade agreements, NATO, fall of communism, Europe's police force, etc. Why did we have to get involved with the persecution of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia? Why wouldn't the "sophisticated" and "high and mighty" Europeans actively do anything about this situation before 1996? The massacres were occuring long before then. Why did the USA shoulder such an inordinate financial burden in support of NATO during the cold war? To be quite frank, many (not all) European post-modernist beliefs and theories suck, that is why.

Are there reasons for their beliefs? Sure. War within one's own country tends to have a permanent influence on individual beliefs.

 

[Parrotheader]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Yes, the West did help. No, that help was not as important as the fact that the Russians did the fighting. Would SU lost without help from the West? I don't think so.

I don't think they would've necessarily lost, as in ceasing to exist, without help from the West (although they certainly needed our supplies and used Western intel to maximum benefit.) But then again, I don't think there's anyway that the Soviets could've mounted a sustained offensive either without our help, both directly and indirectly. Lest we foget that it was almost exclusively American and British airpower which crippled German industry and their ability to resupply and sustain an offensive war. Without American and British help at best I think the Soviet Union probably would've lost some of their territory, although by sheer number of forces and the fact that they were originally fighting a defensive war they might have eventually been able to reach a stalemate (which is what Germany and the Soviets had agreed upon anyway in 1939 when the made designs on splitting up Eastern Europe.)

But this is a historical debate in a political thread so I'll save it for later.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Parrotheader

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Yes, the West did help. No, that help was not as important as the fact that the Russians did the fighting. Would SU lost without help from the West? I don't think so.

I don't think they would've necessarily lost without help from the West (although they certainly needed our supplies and used Western intel to maximum benefit.) But then again, I don't think there's anyway they could've mounted a sustained offensive either without our help, both directly and indirectly, either.

How come? The Soviet war-machine was massive. As the war progressed, they broke all their previous production-records.

Lest we foget that it was almost exclusively American and British airpower which crippled German industry and their ability to resupply and sustain an offensive war.

Incorrect. Even at the height of strategic-bombing, Germans broke all production-records. The massive bombing Germany suffered had VERY LITTLE effect of their material-production.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: burnedout
You mean to tell me there were other political parties with a substantial influence in German politics after the NASPD took power?

No. Please show me where I claimed that.

At last count, the USA had two major parties in office. And yes, please tell me about all the visible, acknowledged negativity within pre-war, 1930s Germany and the "free" speech not under the scrutiny of the Geheimstaatspolizei.

Yes, USA has two major parties. Of those two, one is on control right now. And will be for several years if something dramatic doesn't happen. The US government has plenty of time to have their wars.

And of course there were dissidents in nazi-germany. NSDAP didn't have 10+% popularity in the elections. By dissidents I do not mean people who actively worked against nazis (altrough there were those as well), but people who did not agree with the policies of the nazis.

The major difference is that we don't jail or execute our dissidents in comparisson with the actions and activities of the former regime in Germany. Would you care for other differences?

No, you do not execute dissidents (thank god) but PATRIOT act and others like it are turning USA in to police-state.

Sure, present-day Europe is a blast. But what about the regimes that spawned the mass exodus from the European continent.

A brand-new continent was just discovered. Of coure alot of people moved there, for the reasons that I listed.

So Kaiser Willie in Germany, Ferdi in Austria and Nikki in Russia weren't bad? Tell me what was good about them? Hell, they were all assassinated or deposed. Of course the remainder are largely ceremonial in nature after they saw what happened to their brethren - Willie, Ferdi and Nikki.

Of course there wre bad rulers. There has been bad rulers in USA as well, does that prove that american-style democracy if evil by default? No it does not. What I said was that monarchy by default is not evil. There CAN be bad rulers (and there has been), but it doesn't mean that monarchy as a system of government is automatically bad.

Oh, let's see.... anti-Semetic massacres in Russia and Poland in the 1880s

What exactly does that have to do with socialism? Socialism is a economic system, that's all.

staggering unemployment

Again, not necessarily due to socialism.

food shortages and wars during the latter half of the 19th century

Again, what does those have to do with socialism? You took all the bad things

However, you are correct about socialism. In my zeal to point out the European flaws, I overlooked that one.

OK

Lend-lease agreement with UK, delivery of war materials to Stalin and Russia

True. Altrough Soviets would have managed without Lend-Lease IMO.

Marshall Plan

Don't know about rest of Europe, but Finland didn't get any of that money, and we are doing just fine.

trade agreements

Steel-tariffs?

NATO

Last time I checked, there are other nations there besides USA

fall of communism

US did help there, but it was not entirely because of you.

Europe's police force

Should we have said no? Some third party is more than willing to help us against communists. Nah, we better say "thanks but no thanks"

Why did we have to get involved with the persecution of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia?

You mean "why did NATO have to get involved...."? WHy? EU doesn't have an army.

Why did the USA shoulder such an inordinate financial burden in support of NATO during the cold war?

Were you forced? There's a saying in Finland: "He is not stupid who asks for money. He is stupid who gives the money". You paid for NATO (maybe other countries had better things to do with their money than build huge armies), you could have just said "no". But you didn't. You have no-one but yourself to blame there.

To be quite frank, many (not all) European post-modernist beliefs and theories suck, that is why.

Like what theories and beliefs?

Are there reasons for their beliefs? Sure. War within one's own country tends to have a permanent influence on individual beliefs.

Civil-war? When? Where? There was one in former Yugoslavia. I can't remember others recent ones right now, but I'm sure you can refresh my memory? How far in to past are you looking?

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: RyanSengara

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
My eyes have been opened. I never realized that we are so reviled and hated by the Canadian people. It must be terrible for them to carry that animosity and jealousy throughout their lives. I used to like Canadians. Now I feel nothing for them.

Us...? Jealous of you??? god some americans have big ego's

Aye, and they make up for it by with diminished cranial capacity.

It's okay, though, not all Americans are arrogant or egotistical.

Arrogance and egotism are a birthright when you are the biggest and the best.

BTW, large cranial capacity does not directly equate to intelligence.

Pride always comes before the fall.

 

[everman]

heh I just took a look at that poll, apparently you can vote as many times as you want and the numbers are going up at a rather quick pace. It would be very easy to just make a script to artificially inflate the numbers so I wouldn't count it as even worth looking at.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: everman
heh I just took a look at that poll, apparently you can vote as many times as you want and the numbers are going up at a rather quick pace. It would be very easy to just make a script to artificially inflate the numbers so I wouldn't count it as even worth looking at.

Truth is, polls like this are pretty useless anyways, even if they prevent double voting. About all they do is to stimulate discussion.