Bush's speech

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by superdesk2007
Collegeboy you and I are the only sensible people around here.
Everyone else has given into the propaganda that there are ties. You ignorant people trust the government to much.
France and Russia are smart enough not to be influenced by us that much.

Well I'm using the edit button. The war in Afghanistan was justified because the Taliban let Osama-Bin-Ladin(who?) do as he pleased such as planning his actions.

Having you been following the Unocal issues. Might be worth looking into.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by superdesk2007
Collegeboy you and I are the only sensible people around here.
Everyone else has given into the propaganda that there are ties. You ignorant people trust the government to much.
France and Russia are smart enough not to be influenced by us that much.

Well I'm using the edit button. The war in Afghanistan was justified because the Taliban let Osama-Bin-Ladin(who?) do as he pleased such as planning his actions.

Funny that I am a pot smoking liberal hippee that has forgotten that the 60s are over to one side and a propaganda believing fool to the other side. France and Russia are not "smart enough" not be be influenced. They are motivated by self interest (although their long run self interest and the long run self interest of the United States are the same). I can't stand people who argue that other countries (in this case France and Russia) are noble idealists for opposing us when they are motivated by their pocket book while the U.S. is evil and vile for having interest in other countries.

Equally nauseating to me is when people claim that France and Russia are evil for having self interest but disguising it as noble intentions while the U.S. does the same thing. To me both sides are hypocritical. You can't have it both ways.

[shartley]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Funny that I am a pot smoking liberal hippee that has forgotten that the 60s are over to one side and a propaganda believing fool to the other side. France and Russia are not "smart enough" not be be influenced. They are motivated by self interest (although their long run self interest and the long run self interest of the United States are the same). I can't stand people who argue that other countries (in this case France and Russia) are noble idealists for opposing us when they are motivated by their pocket book while the U.S. is evil and vile for having interest in other countries.

Equally nauseating to me is when people claim that France and Russia are evil for having self interest but disguising it as noble intentions while the U.S. does the same thing. To me both sides are hypocritical. You can't have it both ways.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Funny that I am a pot smoking liberal hippee that has forgotten that the 60s are over to one side and a propaganda believing fool to the other side. France and Russia are not "smart enough" not be be influenced. They are motivated by self interest (although their long run self interest and the long run self interest of the United States are the same). I can't stand people who argue that other countries (in this case France and Russia) are noble idealists for opposing us when they are motivated by their pocket book while the U.S. is evil and vile for having interest in other countries.

Equally nauseating to me is when people claim that France and Russia are evil for having self interest but disguising it as noble intentions while the U.S. does the same thing. To me both sides are hypocritical. You can't have it both ways.

Well said!

PS: The French GOVERNMENT is still evil!

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by shartley

CB is actually starting to get me started now!!! I can accept that not all the U.S. does is for the good of the world (it is the real world after all) but at least hold all countries to the same standard. Instead we start hearing about the noble Russian victory in WWII with us luckily coming in at the end of the war to take all the credit (that other thread!!!). I supposed if I had actually been reading his previous posts carefully I would have seen this double standard. Maybe it is better that I didn't since no amount of reason seems to do any good. Oh well.....

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


CB is actually starting to get me started now!!! I can accept that not all the U.S. does is for the good of the world (it is the real world after all) but at least hold all countries to the same standard. Instead we start hearing about the noble Russian victory in WWII with us luckily coming in at the end of the war to take all the credit (that other thread!!!). I supposed if I had actually been reading his previous posts carefully I would have seen this double standard. Maybe it is better that I didn't since no amount of reason seems to do any good. Oh well.....

AM,
Welcome to the Darkside. Now you know why some of us get so frustrated with CB.

Maybe someone should tell CB about the Soviet enforcers who killed Soviet Soldiers that retreated! Real noble. The US would never accept a level of casualties the Soviets did, hmm I wonder how many of them were self-inflicted!

[Collegeboy]

There is no double standards to the way I look at WWII. I see Russia doing the bulk of the fighting, taking the brunt of the German army and actually pushing them back with minimal help. I see the US become a cash and carry nation with England and so (Some what to Russia, but not even close of England), who bombs Germany, which helped some but not as much as some like to think, attacks NA, land in Italy and France and takes on an already seriously drained down opponent, and still had trouble with them, but eventually pushes them back to the Rhine and lets the Soviets take Berlin.

There is no double standing to say the US was lucky to come out of WWII alive, it is the truth. If you fail to admit it, then that is your problem.

And I know that sometimes they had kill squads who sole job was to shoot soldiers who were retreating, but this was not the norm, as anyone who studied this world know.

[1stdeadeye]

Here comes CB's crap again!

The allies fought the German's best general in North Africa, Rommell and beat him. Had the entire might of Germany come down on the Soviets, The Soviets would have crumbled. Germany tried to fight a 2 front war and lost. The US fought a 2 front war and won.

Since you loves ifs and buts, what would the Soviets done if nuked by Germany? What would they have done if invaded by Japan? The US war with Japan (which we undertook almost singlehandedly) kept the Japanese from invading Russia. The Japanese were a much tougher and motivated army then any other in the war. The German's would surrender, the Japanese did not!

Think about that!

Lucky? The United States came out of WWII as the most powerful nation in the world. There are some doctrines in history that say Truman nuked Japan not to end the war, but to show Uncle Joe the true might and power of the United States, lest the Soviet Union felt like moving further west in Europe!

The great thing about history is that it lets you use 20/20 hindsight:

FACT: The US is the world's lone superpower
FACT: The US is the richest nation on Earth
FACT: Communism failed
FACT: The Soviet Union failed
FACT: CB is a goof!

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
There is no double standing to say the US was lucky to come out of WWII alive, it is the truth. If you fail to admit it, then that is your problem.

Lets keep the threads separate but I have to say that I don't have a problem.

I actually am not a Bush fan but now we are going to attack him for pledging to defend Taiwan? Our fleet has been parked there to defend them for a long time. Guess what...if Clinton was in office and China invaded Taiwan there would have been war.

[covadsucks]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
There is no double standards to the way I look at WWII. I see Russia doing the bulk of the fighting, taking the brunt of the German army and actually pushing them back with minimal help. I see the US become a cash and carry nation with England and so (Some what to Russia, but not even close of England), who bombs Germany, which helped some but not as much as some like to think, attacks NA, land in Italy and France and takes on an already seriously drained down opponent, and still had trouble with them, but eventually pushes them back to the Rhine and lets the Soviets take Berlin.

There is no double standing to say the US was lucky to come out of WWII alive, it is the truth. If you fail to admit it, then that is your problem.

And I know that sometimes they had kill squads who sole job was to shoot soldiers who were retreating, but this was not the norm, as anyone who studied this world know.

What does any of this have to do with President Bush's speech? Dude, you straight hijacked the thread and then play ignorant while spouting some garbage about the US being lucky to come out of WWII alive? Go home to your mom, Hanoi Jane.

[71 LS6]

What is this garbage about the US being lucky to get out of the war alive? Do you forget that we were fighting overseas, in two separate arenas, and we won in both of them? We had minimal help with Japan, so don't even try to give away the credit for that one. Yes, the Soviet Union did do the majority of the fighting against Germany, maybe because the Germans invaded them . However, the statement that we were lucky to get out of the war alive has no basis at all. In order for us to be defeated, Germany would have had to come overseas to us, and launch a massive attack, while fighting a two front war in their own country. For us to have been defeated completely, Germany would have had to fight a three front war, when we already know that they couldn't even fight a two front war. If by "getting out alive" you mean defeating Germany and Japan, there was no luck involved. We chose not to concentrate directly on the attack of Germany itself, because we were counting on the Soviets to take care of it. Where we did fight the Germans, we defeated them. Also, we led the allied forces in the liberation of France, which insured that Germany would keep fighting a two front war. Had the Soviets failed to defeat Germany, which is apparently the basis for this entire scenario, who had the bomb to stop the Germans in their tracks if need be? Oh yeah, that was the US again. Also, time was on our side. The longer the war went on, the weaker Germany became. We were the richest nation in the world, with the strongest military, except perhaps that of the Soviets, but in this scenario you've created they've been defeated, and the people of the country supported the war. Unlike today, people made the connection between the direct attack on the US and the need to go to war to defend ourselves. Also, the US had far more resources than Germany, and far more allies to get more resources from. We had more industrial power, more manpower, more allies, more materials, more money, and a common will of free people as opposed to those suppressed by a dictator. So, if these things are considered disadvantages in a war, then yes we were lucky to get out alive.

Sorry for my rant, as I realize that it is quite off topic. Yes I did like President Bush's speech, and I support both him and his policies.

[superdesk2007]

In WWII the germans had something like 100 divisions in Russia and 27 in France in 1943 I think
Im not sure. The Germans had little chance of winning the war, we had more industrial power, Even without Russia we could have won I think in my opinion. Lets not forget the nuke was for Germany. Nevermind if Russia never entered the war Operation Sea Lion would have taken place. We wont know the outcome. I'm not going to talk about this, you could debate this all day and still be debating. Theres so many different arguments. Ill just say the Russians and the Americans, and the RAF did a lot to help eachother out. It doesnt make sense but

[Collegeboy]

Russia had a pretty decent air force, enough to hold of German attacks. They lacked a long range bomber, but that isn't the problem. You are trying to mix two strategies together in one. The USSR doesn't rely on dropping bombs miles in the sky, then send in troops. They believe in air strikes against the target, artillery barrages, tank columns and all followed by massive troop movements. With the Soviets having a never ending source of men willing to fight, (Woman too) they can afford to do that. but the US can not afford to bring home body bags for the type of government we have.

WWII was won because of a combined effort on all sides of the board. No nation won it on their own, some did more for the effort then others, but none won it on their own.

We are talking theoretical analysis here. Could the US or Russia have defeated the Germans in WWII alone.

I will do the easy one first. There is no way the US could have defeated the Germans in WWII alone. No ifs ands or buts about. They didn't have the equipment to handle a fully equipped and fresh German army, the had troubles against a piece of a German army using green troops. Did the US actions on two fronts affect the war in the west any. Not really. The US didn't have man power shortage, they had a equipment problem. All that would have benefited the US if they was fighting a one front war would have been more troops. You have to remember that Europe received just about all the attention of the US until the fall of Germany.

Now on to Russia. Russia started pushing back the Germans before they even the US agreed to aide, not to mention before the saw the aide. The Soviets would of done their type of war, not the US type of war. Japan would not have invaded for they specifically told Hitler no, for their interest was in Indochina, not Russia. About the atomic bomb, it would not have made Russians stop fighting, it would have made them fight more. The Russians put their industries spread out far enough to where bombing them would not be a threat to Soviet Industry output, also they were further in to where the distance the Germans would of had to fly would have been too much. Maybe the war between Russia and Germany would have ended in a stalemate at the very least, at the most it would have ended in a Russian victory, for their was no way that Germany could have matched Russia in industry and will of the people after years of fighting and what not.


(This is a copy paste of my responce in another thread that we are discusssing the same thing, so if you all want to discuss it, lets move it in there, for at least it has a little more to do witht the subject (though not really) then this one does.)

Edit. What does the Germans having to come to the US having anything to do with the US abilty to defeat the Germans in Europe, or lack there off.

[WicKeD_WaYz]

Why is it every thread you join C.B., you manage to turn the thread into a debate about world war 2.

BTW...reading your posts you are so wrong on so many levels. But 1DE, shartly, and aaron have all pretty muched summed up your ideocy(sp?) on this matter so im not going to go into it.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by WicKeD_WaYz
Why is it every thread you join C.B., you manage to turn the thread into a debate about world war 2.

BTW...reading your posts you are so wrong on so many levels. But 1DE, shartly, and aaron have all pretty muched summed up your ideocy(sp?) on this matter so im not going to go into it.

Again place all the blame on me, I think there are others that should get blame too if you are going to blame anyone.

And no, if you all actually knew what you all was talking about, then maybe you could see where I am coming from, but since most of you all still think Russia and the USSR are the same thing, or that Russia was a communist nation, I can not discuss or even expect you to understand the Russian people.

It goes with the ignorance of the populace. Most Americans are ignorant of the Russians, and this thread shows it.


Please lets confine responses to the other thread.